Tuesdays are Muppet Days
Seattle to Remain Famous for Coffee and Rain
Thanksgiving Pairing Suggestion: Dessert Isn't Just a Meal
Eight Things A Seattle Sports Fan Can Be Thankful For
Mayor-To-Be Schedules Town Halls for Input and Companionship
Sometimes, The Seattle Times has got to make you wonder. It was one thing to go ahead and endorse David Reichert for Congress over Darcy Burner despite widespread dissatisfaction with Republican leadership, but to spin his shameless partisanship as moderation? That's a new low.
In today's Times, chief political reporter David Postman tries to defend Reichert's damning comment (currently viewable in high-rotation Democratic Party attack ad) that, "[W]hen the leadership comes to me and says, 'Dave, we need you to take a vote over here because we want to protect you and keep this majority,' I do it."
For most people, that statement is pretty clear; Reichert follows his orders like a good little Republican lackey. But for Postman, it's a sign of even-handed moderation.
"When Reichert says he has to vote a certain way, he means that in the 8th Congressional District, with its moderate, independent-minded voters, he has to avoid some partisan votes — and does so with the leadership's blessing."
Actually, that still sounds damning: Here's a guy who appeases the folks back home by not voting against their interests and thus stays in office, preserving a Republican majority that, well, is constantly voting against their interests.
And Postman's coup de grâce? "This sounds like Reichert's centrism is pragmatism, not ideology. At the Mainstream Republican conference you can hear well-credentialed moderates like Dan Evans talk about why they think the way they do. And I haven't heard them say they are moderates in order to keep Republicans in power. I think Reichert was misreading his audience and wasn't thinking about how the comments would sound in a campaign context."
That's pretty lame in a day and age in which even the steadfastly centrist New Republic editorializes: "At best, moderate Republicans have been hapless dupes. At worst, they've been co-conspirators. In either case, they have done almost nothing to alleviate the radical or corrupt tendencies of Republican Washington. Extinguishing the moderates at the polls this November is not a vote for mindless partisanship. It is simply a vote for transparency."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Jeremy, what makes you think what I wrote was intended to defend Reichert? You say that after reading the column, "Actually, that still sounds damning." So maybe it wasn't supposed to be a defense?
And you think writing "Reichert's centrism is pragmatism, not ideology" is a defense of his comments? To say that Evans and others talk about centrism as a belief, and not to keep Republicans in power, is a defense of Reichert?
As a blog-like guy these days I'm getting used to being attacked. Seattlest seems to enjoy poking fun at me, which I generally take as an honor. But I think you misread my column and let your obvious hatred for The Times cloud your reasoning.
It was neither a defense nor an attack on Reichert. It was an attempt to analyze his comments, which at points were a bit rambling.
And to think I came to Seattlest just now for a little recreational reading ...
I don't know, Postman. I read the column to check on your grievance, and while I don't think it's "damning" that someone who runs as a Republican or Democrat takes into account the party's interests, your analysis is a bit fuzzy. The labels pragmatist, centrist, and moderate all point in different directions. Even from Reichert's full quote, it sounds like he's saying that he's happy to vote in line with "Republican ideals" and occasionally votes on principle. So he may be willing to moderate hardline Republican ideology. Good enough. But that doesn't make him a centrist in the local political landscape (does it?), and pragmatism is context-dependent: in the service of what goal? Here, his pragmatism seems to be that to serve the party, he sometimes has to vote against it (to keep his seat). That's still not centrism. It's the use of centrist moves as feints.
I actually have to sort of agree with both: upon re-reading Postman's article, I can see his point that he was actually offering a criticism (or perhaps he would prefer critique) of Reichert's comments. Unfortunately, I would have to say he did so in an extremely confusing manner. First, he contextualizes the quote, which apparently he agrees does not make it sound any better, nor changes or alters its meaning. In short, Reichert and the Republican leadership manage voting to ensure the party's continued dominance while tossing morsels to the voters back home. Then Postman goes on the accuse Democrats of the same thing. This too is true. But ultimately, what was the analysis then? That Reichert's not a moderate? That he is a moderate but votes conservative when he's told to? What is actually added here? Why use "pragmatism" in a negative context, rather than "pandering"? And then what's the ending bit about Schiavo? Isn't Reichert's vote in that context exactly the sort of triangulated vote meant to appease the folks back home? The entire Schiavo fiasco was politicking at its worst; it gave the right-wingers a chance to burnish their Christian conservative credentials, the "moderates" the chance to show their independence, and everyone's chance to blame Democrats for creating a culture of death. Does Postman really believe that Reichert's vote was a courageous one? It was a situation in which everyone would win on the local level no matter what they did; they only looked like idiots nationally, and strangely that's unlikely to hurt them. Finally, I brought up what I believe is a valid point about so-called moderate Republicans this election, in the New Republic quote. Postman doesn't respond to that criticism of "ideological" moderates (I guess I can see one being "ideological" about being a moderate, but that seems a little contradictory doesn't it?). In the end, if I got Postman's analysis wrong, then maybe he's the one who needs to clarify what he's actually trying to say.