Hey, Dave Reichert: Look at All of These Town Halls Where No One Is Getting Hurt


Just out of curiosity, why would someone show up to be yelled at by people who didn't vote for him?
@1: it's their job to meet with constituents. they represent all the people in their district, not just the ones who voted for them.

but you knew that. because you are so curious.
@3, it's their job to represent their district - not to show up to meetings hosted by people who didn't vote for them. If you don't like that they didn't show up, you are free to vote against them (again) at the next election.

The Tea Party began as people angry at the people they voted for. This is people angry at people they didn't vote for anyway, so kind of the exact opposite.

@1 & @4 It's called representative democracy. (Judging by your posts, you picked a perfect first name.)
@5, you seem to not understand how that works. Representative democracy involves having a person who receives the majority of votes for a district represent you in a house/senate/council/etc. They cast votes for the district. If the majority of the constituents of their district deem them to have not performed adequately, they may not be reelected. That is literally it. It does not require showing up to private parties. That is not how it works.
Why would he want to show up for a meeting with people who *did* vote for him, then? He already has their votes. So, its just for the attaboys? Your argument proves too much, Sawant.

I think Reichart is correct in his assessment that showing up to these things would not advantage him. If he wants to stay out of public view for the next couple years, that's his call.
Because it's likely to be filled with people who didn't vote for him pretending that they did? Who knows, some politicians would welcome the yelling matches, so may not. The election will determine whether it was a smart decision or not.
"I'm a cop, I've been stabbed, I was in the middle of WTO, but I'm afraid of a soccer mom from the Sammamish Plateau."
@8 is correct. This country, an arbitrary piece of land I reside in, is indeed a total piece of shit. That's mainly due to the whiny little bitches it's filled with --more than due to the style of government -- but the result is the same.
@4, In 2009 Democrats had a majority in the house, then the tea people thing happened, then the Democrats lost their majority because they were voted out under the exact same circumstances you are currently pretending really hard to be really, really confused about.

Technically, representatives do not have to meet face to face with the people they represent; it is just expected of them because it's, like, what they get paid to do, and how they get to keep their job. Fleeing from accountability might be a prudent choice in the near term because no one likes to be yelled at, but if representatives are afraid to stand up and defend their positions they're going to have a tough slog in the long term, because people are more apt to vote for representatives who are not afraid to stand for something.
@10, not sure being retarded enough to show up to hear a screeching soccer mom makes one brave.
I wonder if this is how revolutions begin. Probably not...
@12, a proper analogy on the Left to the Tea Party would be them showing up and yelling at other Democrats for doing X, Y, or Z. That leads to a movement to overthrow the DWS-style control of the DNC, and the D's winning the mid-terms.

Yelling across party aisles is the exact opposite.
@15, Nnnnnnooooooo, a proper analogy would be constituents showing up at their representative's town hall to express their concern over a pressing political issue of the moment, because representatives represent everyone in their district. It's right there in the job title. Also did you miss the part in your example where democratic representatives were voted out by people in their districts who were terrified of health care reform, after people who didn't vote for the democrats -- **who ran on health care reform in 2008** -- showed up at their town halls, which is the exact opposite of the point you think you're making?

Now let's see how many more whiny comments you can wedge into this thread pretending to not understand really simple concepts every American citizen is required to learn in high school.
@1 @4 @6 @9 @11 @13 @15 This is what losing the popular vote looks like folks. Argumentative and stupid. Reichart is a coward who lacks the convictions of his indefensible beliefs. GOP means toady to money and power.
@16, people who voted against you threatening to again vote against you =/= internal Tea Party-style intra-party revolution.

I'm pretty sure if the DNC wants to win more elections they should look within, and see how they blew elections across the board in November. Methinks the DWS-style corruption needs to be vanquished sooner than later.
111th Congress, House of Representatives (2009): 255 Democrats + 179 Republicans

112th Congress, House of Representatives (2009): 193 Democrats + 242 Republicans

The tea party wasn't an "intra-party revolution," it was a repackaging of the Republican brand after Bush destroyed it, and its success was measured in part by the unseating of over 60 Democratic representatives in just 2 years. It's almost like districts are motivated to vote differently from one election to the next based on the constituents' feelings around contemporary political issues, resulting in different representatives being sent to Congress, because everyone (except you, apparently) understand that their representatives are supposed to represent them, and if their representative is failing to represent them appropriately they vote for someone who will.
*112th Congress (2011)
How is it unreasonable to expect to have access to a representative that represents you? Other than the rights obsession with teaching a lesson to us whiny little bitches on the left?

@21, go to their office and write them a letter? If they don't respond or don't let you in, I suggest you vote against them.
Rich Smith gets mad props for knowing the difference between a violin and a viola.
"400 people"

Looking at the photo, I would say there were half that many. And this is backed up by the fact that the Cashmere Riverside Center, a place where I've covered events once upon a time, only offers 250 chairs for these sort of events.

And some of the chairs are even empty in the photo.
@22 I suggest you sodomize yourself with a flagpole.
I find it very amusing that the Right how decided that the appropriate excuse for everything is "being scared". Shoot an unarmed black person? Well it's OK because they're scary. Avoid meeting your constituents? Well they might be angry and that's scary. Refuse to help the most desperate refugees from a war we caused? Well, terrorism!

Bunch of fucking cowards.

You're really into this whole counting thing aren't you? (The OCD is strong with this one.) Regardless, does it ever occur to you that a cell phone camera doesn't capture every single person, like, for example, those who may be outside of its field-of-view (e.g. roughly the half of the room off the left side of the frame)? Also, ever hear of a thing called "standing"?
@27, I doubt he thinks being screeched at by a pack of yahoos is scary. Likely pointless, though.
@27, Fear has been the singular emotion animating right-wing politics for as long as I’ve been alive. The gays, the mexicans, the muslims, the trans – someone is always seeking to destroy everything you’ve ever cared about, and only Republicans can save you. They're quite good at it.

You forgot also: the browns, the blacks, feminists (well, really, any female who has the temerity to aspire to be more than a sperm receptacle), Democrats, scientists, the yellows, city dwellers, foreigners...
@31, LOL and you talk about fearing bullshit. How the fuck do you get out of bed with that much psychopathic fear running through your fear riddled pea brain?

What the fuck are you talking about?