So if you've been around the journal for a while, you got this entry about ANWR and the then-attempt to authorize drilling in it. And how a group of Republican Moderates stood in the path of that attempt, and how I sited Dave Reichert in particular for being among those moderates.
So this past week ANOTHER bill comes up, a defense bill which MUST pass, to which the GOP brass attached the drilling ammendment AGAIN. Now, I would have problems connecting drilling in Alaska with the defense normally, but in this case about 60% of the oil would be going to foreign markets, so making it necessary for US Defense is a bit of stretch. And on THIS bill, Dave went the other way, supporting the right to let Big Oil drill.
Now, this is part and parcel of the difficulties of being a representative, in that you have pick your fights, and to choose between your constituents and your party (or to more precise, your party's donors). Mr Reichert gained a lot of good karma for his stand on the first bill, and similarly needs to be rapped on the knuckles for his vote on the latter one.
And, as chance (and bad timing for his office) would have it, it turns out I just got one of the mailers from Congressman Dave's office, headlining across the front "Dave Reichert - Protecting our Environment". It has one of those "mail-in and tell us what you think" cards, and question number 1 is "Do you believe that the US should drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska?"
I'll be glad to tell you, Dave, but it sounds like you made up your mind already. But thanks for asking.
What do you mean by “careful?” - Last week I saw a post from Grammarly that asked the question “Have you become more or less careful with your writing?” (That’s the gist. I don’t recall if...
20 hours ago