This is what Eli Sanders wrote in his profile about Darcy Burner for the March 16 The Stranger
18 months ago, she decided it was time to pursue her interest in politics and retired from Microsoft in order to focus on a run for Congress.The story on Burner's "About Darcy" campaign page is more specific
She left Microsoft to spend the time necessary to be elected to the United States Congress in the 8th District.This is simply implausible. 18 months before The Stranger's article appeared was September 2004, which is when Burner did resign from Microsoft -- to enroll in UW Law School, not to run for Congress. At the time school was starting there was a competitive primary for both major parties to see who would succeed the retiring Jennifer Dunn in the 8th District. It would have made no sense for someone then to "focus on a run" at least two years out without even knowing who would win the 2004 race. But of course, Burner didn't just go to law school on a lark either. She had to apply well in advance, starting with taking the LSAT no later than December 2003 and returning her application by January 2004. Burner also tells us that her son was born in January 2003. Sorry, but nobody in their right mind focuses on a run for Congress by going to law school, especially when they are also a parent of an infant. The only sensible interpretation is that law school was her main goal (and an entirely laudable one) from at least 2003 through at least May 2005, but that she changed her plans by June 15, 2005 and only then decided to "focus on a run for Congress". I e-mailed Sanders to ask whether Burner told him when he interviewed her for the profile that she was on a leave after one year of law school. He replied on The Stranger blog
the truth, Stefan, is that law school never came up when I was talking to Burner and her campaign staff for my story.In other words she lied about her recent career moves and the timing of her decision to run for Congress. Sanders responds somewhat defensively that it is no big deal that she attended law school for only a year.
No, it wouldn't be a big deal if she told the truth. But she didn't. I wouldn't be posting this if she had accurately represented herself as "a former Microsoft manager who was taking a leave from law school to run for Congress". But that's not nearly as compelling a bio as the false representation that she is a "former Microsoft executive" who "retired from Microsoft in order to focus on a run for Congress". Leaving law school after only one year in order to run for Congress, and abandoning the Congressional externship she had just been awarded makes her seem, well, naively overreaching and not very reliable at finishing what she starts. Not the best position from which to be challenging a well-regarded veteran public servant like Dave Reichert. The Burner campaign responded to Sanders' request for a comment on her attempt to bury her aborted fling with law school. But we'll see if, when and how the campaign responds to this more inquisitive e-mail I sent earlier today --
To the Darcy Burner campaign spokesperson:Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 06, 2006 04:33 PM | Email ThisAs you probably know I've posted some items on soundpolitics.com about Ms. Burner's background. I want to give Ms. Burner an opportunity to respond to all of these issues and I will post her answers in their entirety.
King County Election records indicate that Ms. Burner was eligible to vote in the following elections, that she did NOT vote in the 9 elections marked with an asterisk, and did vote in the 11 other elections.
1998-NOV
1999-SEP *
1999-NOV
2000-FEB
2000-SEP *
2000-NOV
2001-SEP *
2001-NOV *
2002-FEB *
2002-SEP *
2002-NOV
2003-FEB *
2003-MAY *
2003-SEP
2003-NOV *
2004-SEP
2004-NOV
2005-SEP
2005-NOV
2006-FEBCan you confirm or refute that Ms. Burner did or did not vote in the above elections? David Goldstein wrote on his blog that "she missed one of these elections because she was confined to bed due to life-threatening complications during pregnancy". Which election was this? What explains her failure to vote in the other elections? When did Ms. Burner become a Permanent Absentee Voter?
What were Ms. Burner's specific dates of employment at Microsoft and her title and general duties? (please note any extended leaves
On what basis do you claim that Ms. Burner was an "executive" at Microsoft. Can you provide any company documents in which she is described as an executive?
In which program did she enter UW Law School (e.g. J.D. LM, non-degree student)? Is she still officially a student at UW Law School? During which academic quarters has she taken classes? was/is she enrolled full-time or part-time during these quarters? Will she release her transcripts?This release from the Shidler Center states that "Darcy Burner and Jeremy Lazowska have been chosen as externs for the 2005-2006 Academic year. "
http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Pubs/News/Su05/cantwell.html
When did Ms. Burner accept the offer to serve as an extern for Sen. Cantwell? Is she currently serving as an extern for Sen. Cantwell? If not, when did she inform Sen. Cantwell that she would not serve (or continue to serve) as an extern this Academic Year?Thank you very much
To be fair to her, law school is very tough, especially while working full time (I know, I did it) and with a young child it would be nearly impossible. So I can understand quitting work to go to law school.
But she wasn't an executive, didn't retire (sounds like she quit), and lies about the whole thing. Sounds to me like she made a reasonable decision to quit work to attend law school. Had she just told the truth no one would care, but she chose to lie about her reasons. Had she told the truth her experience have been in question, but not her veracity.
Resume inflation, quitting law school, lying about her past; is she channeling Al Gore?
Did she think nobody would check, or notice the embellishments?
What a mook.
Posted by: Shaun on April 6, 2006 05:16 PMYou went digging for dirt, as was to be expected, but you've found so little you're having to concoct something out of nothing.
The next thing we know you're going to tell us that you've dug up her grade school English papers and found that, scandalously, she failed to dot her i's and cross her t's.
Posted by: Daniel K on April 6, 2006 05:29 PMIt is becoming beyond clear that "Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder."
Gee, why dont we run Ted Bundy for Congress?? Oops, he is DEAD!!!! But he has potential....
Posted by: THS on April 6, 2006 05:42 PMCertainlyTed Bundy would make a great democrat voter.
Posted by: dave on April 6, 2006 05:49 PMPshaw!
Posted by: Daniel K on April 6, 2006 05:55 PMJust idle curiosity though. Did anything ever come of that issue a couple of months ago about employees having to pay penalties for lying on their resume to potential employers.
Not sure if you were heading down this street Stefan.
Posted by: Reporterward on April 6, 2006 05:55 PMOur society certainly has way too many lawyers and not nearly enough computer specialists. So perhaps Burner made a wise career choice to abandon law school, even though her academic performance at least showed a lot of potential.
Still, all of this is very puzzling. Why?
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 6, 2006 06:08 PMThe state of Washington is considering a bill that would impose a $1,000 fine on those claiming, in writing, to have an academic degree they didn’t possess.
Rep. Phyllis Kenney (D-Seattle) told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “It adds the expectation of accountability and honesty from both the institution and the individual.” The legislation would make it illegal for people to lie on their resumes. If passed, this bill will become effective in July.
Getting into law school is no mean feat, but given Ms. Burner's penchant for glossing over minor details, it sounds like she was not in the JD program. I am now curious to know if she was in the Graduate Certrificate Program.
Also, there is no way she could have "retired" from Microsoft after four years. Quit or resigned would be better words. I know several Microsofties and they all laughed. And before Goldy and his pals get their shorts in a knot, some of these M-softies are going to vote Democratic no matter who the candidate is.
Posted by: Burdabee on April 6, 2006 06:41 PMShe is not the brightest bulb in the 8th District if she thinks that the home of MS won't have people to point out her resume-inflation.
At MS, if she would have stated this as a fact (that she was an "executive"), she would have (a) been laughed at to her face and then (b) fired for lying on her resume.
Posted by: steve miller on April 6, 2006 06:45 PMDarcy is counting on the local rags to give her a pass when it comes to reinventing her past. Sure, we are aware of it here, but if she can keep it from the great unwashed until the campaign begins, any mention of it then will get lost in the fog of negative politics.
Posted by: Organization Man on April 6, 2006 06:47 PMShe could respond with her MS "Level": was she a level 62 LPM? A level 63?
She still wasn't an executive, and she wouldn't be considered an executive.
* Her wikipedia entry is a press release, but it does give her presumed title as "Lead Program Manager."
Posted by: steve miller on April 6, 2006 07:07 PM"Holding our government accountable by requiring that it be open and honest with the American people it serves;" (emphasis added)
"Eager to start a family, Darcy became pregnant and took maternity leave from Microsoft. Henry Burner was born in January of 2003."
"She left Microsoft to spend the time necessary to be elected to the United States Congress in the 8th District."
"She quit the Redmond firm three years ago to raise a son, Henry, with her husband. Her lack of political experience is an attribute, she said."
"I have left my job at Microsoft in order to focus full-time on this battle,.."
She is endorsed by (and blogs about their endorsements):
Gary Locke
Jim McDermott
Howard Dean
Daily Kos
Horsesass
What more needs to be said?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 6, 2006 07:49 PMHA is prominently listed under her Northwest Blogs section. Gee, she left out SP......
Posted by: SouthernRoots on April 6, 2006 08:00 PMDarcy Burner - zero to oblivion in 60 seconds...
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 6, 2006 08:03 PMShe claimed to be a Microsoft executive; she had responsibility for a multi-million dollar budget and major company programs, which certainly meets the plain English definition of the word. She did not lie about her title, the scope of her responsibilities, the dates of her employment, or anything else -- so what supposed lie?
She claimed to have left Microsoft to pursue a career in politics (and this is substantiated on a blog entry from 2004), and apparently spent a year at the UW Law School first in order to better understand the law -- as that 2004 blog entry also said was her plan. What lie has she supposedly told there?
I have yet to see a single substantiated untruth emerge. It's all speculation and innuendo, and so far all of the proof comes down on Burner's side.
Or does that not matter?
If the goal is to retain the seat, you're going to have to do better than that.
Great question: why exactly is all of this puzzling to you people?
Darcy enrolled in law school, got great grades but decided she could make a bigger difference for working people by running for Congress. I mean, there are big mysteries in this world to unravel, but this is not one of them folks!
Posted by: Daniel K on April 6, 2006 08:59 PMMy guess is that she is Pro-CAO, Pro-Ron Sims and judging from her endorsements as left as they come. I hope she doorbells her neighbors in Carnation and Enumclaw and North Bend. Shes in for a rude awakening.
Posted by: Smokie on April 6, 2006 09:16 PMThat is several years, and many competencies away from 'lead program manager'. Note that the 'lead' denotion infers she managed people, not just 'programs' or projects.
Her intelligence and abilities appear strong, its a pity she chose to distort her MS experience with something that she and every other MS employee would know is a flat out a lie.
Posted by: Highpoint on April 6, 2006 09:32 PMShe did not lie about her title
Yes, she did lie. Microsoft Executive is a very specific job title, and one she was never granted. If she were an executive, Micorsoft would have to claim her as one with the SEC, which they never have. This is akin, as Elaine wonderfully illustrates, as a McDonald's assistant night shift manager (some Microsofty please correct me if I'm wrong, but that is the rough equivalent of her job) claiming to be a McDonald's Exec.
There is nothing wrong with putting on her resume that she was a lead program manager... but she puffed it up into a position that helps run the entire company. That is the issue. She not only lied, but she told a huge, and easily discredited, whopper of a lie about a very important fact about herself.
Posted by: Mike H on April 6, 2006 10:08 PMWrong. Unless things have changed recently, "Project Manager" is not a standard title at Microsoft. Projects are generally managed by Program Managers.
Burdabee writes: Also, there is no way she could have "retired" from Microsoft after four years. Quit or resigned would be better words.
What on earth is the difference between retired, quit, or resigned? They all mean she voluntarily left.
Posted by: Bruce on April 6, 2006 11:30 PMIt's not that hard, Fred, once you realize that there are TWO definitions of the word "executive." One is apparently the broad dictionary definition, which seems to be nuanced in her favor. (However, I don't know if it is accurate to say that "she had responsibility for a multi-million dollar budget and major company programs"--can this be verified?)
The other is Microsoft's specific, narrow definition of executive, as verified by the SEC. Look how nicely Burner has spun this into a definition that is not true on one hand, but is true, to people who want the nuance to favor her.
So, when the rubber hits the road (or the pen hits the ballot), was she an EXECUTIVE, or was she a MICROSOFT EXECUTIVE? The answers are apparently yes...and no... Which one does Burner want you to believe?
"I have yet to see a single substantiated untruth emerge. It's all speculation and innuendo, and so far all of the proof comes down on Burner's side."
Which innuendo do you prefer--that she was actually a Microsoft Executive (which sure sounds snazzy on your resume, but isn't true unless the SEC has you on the list), or that she did work that executives generally do, but wasn't really and truly an Executive (note the capital E) for a certain Redmond software company?
As an analogy, can a part time teacher of English who does the work of a professor at college X call him or herself a Professor?
"That is the issue. She not only lied, but she told a huge, and easily discredited, whopper of a lie about a very important fact about herself."
How huge is it Mike? Is it really, really huge? Is it as big a whopper as lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction so that you can start a war and kill tens of thousands of people, bankrupt the country, and call yourself a Christian while you are doing it?
Is it as big a whopper as Reichert trying to paint himself as a "moderate" while he rubber-stamps everything Bush does and takes money from DeLay?
Because it's really, really important what the meaning of "executive" is. Be sure you concentrate on that, right through November, and we'll be laughing at your whole cult of crazies at Darcy's victory party.
Posted by: ivan on April 6, 2006 11:43 PMI think it's a lie to say that Reichert "rubber-stamps everything Bush does".
National Journal ranks him pretty close to the center of the House, which means he must have voted against the leadership and the administration more than a few times.
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/pdf/Centrists.pdf
I gather a lot of Congressmen received donations from DeLay. And Centrist Dave Reichert is having the last laugh at Tom DeLay's expense.
"Go look at Reichert's own bio which does a vague sweep of his years in the Sheriff's office. Where are the details? How long did he hold each of the positions he states he held?"
His years in the Sheriff's office were, as if you didn't know, a public and later elected position. We all know the positions he held and the details therein, as well as the salary he earned during that time. It's all on the public record. Can you say the same for Darcy? Do we know exactly what she earned each year?
Fred:
"She claimed to be a Microsoft executive; she had responsibility for a multi-million dollar budget and major company programs, which certainly meets the plain English definition of the word."
Really? How do you know this? Where can we find this information? Where can we locate detail of her 'multi-million dollar budgets'? Are you privy to information that is not publicly available, or are you just making this up?
Ivan,
As I've said before, I welcome your continued Global Jihad Against President Bush. I also welcome you to bang your head against a really hard wall, as it'll have more effect.
If you'd vote for Darcy rather than the man who demasculated the Green River Killer, well, that's your right as an American. Dave Reichert was assigned as the lead homicide detective in the Green River Killer case when he was 32 years old. Holy crap! Can you imagine? Only 32 years old, with that weight upon his shoulders.
Darcy will vote the lefty party line. That's why you'll vote for her.
But I'll wager that 65% of the voters of the 8th Congressional District know that Dave Reichert knew more about being a humble public servant 20 years ago than Darcy Burner will ever know. Word to your mother.
She's going to get pummeled in the general election. And that's an understatement.
Posted by: Larry on April 7, 2006 12:33 AMAs far as Ms. Burner being a MS executive. Intereting how the troll are trotting out every definition of executive that they can find. The only definition of Microsoft Executive that matters is how Microsoft defines an executive.
Pay attention children.
If MS says she was an executive then it should be good enough for everyone.
I await their response.
Ya'll trolls forget that Stefan did his research. If you look back into the archives you will find that Stefan sought out Microsoft employees to get a definition of an executive.
Other that by the kool-aid drinkers Ms. Burner was not considered an executive
What's sorry is that she thought that she needed to inflate her resume.
I was worried about Rep Reicher until I heard about Ms. Burner.
Bottom line? The dumbocraps can't find someone of substance to challenge Reichert, so the find this "deer in the headlights."
Welcome to politics, Ms. Burner.
You need to be careful when using the phrase "Ivan the Terrible Liar". The word "terrible" in Russian, as in "Ivan Grozniy", has only the meaning related to "terror".
So "Ivan the Terrible Liar" means that Ivan's lies are menacing, threatening, and formidable, as opposed to being weak, ineffective, and easily seen through.
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 7, 2006 02:29 AMHow Clintonesque...telling a lie when the truth would serve just as well.
Posted by: South County on April 7, 2006 05:35 AMWrong. Unless things have changed recently, "Project Manager" is not a standard title at Microsoft. Projects are generally managed by Program Managers.
Actually, not wrong at all. "Project Manager" is not a standard title at MS. "Program Manager" is. But a "Program Manager" is not a "Project Manager at Microsoft." And a PM is not a prestigious title at MS. There are about as many PMs as there are VPs. (This is an inside joke, btw, about the VPs.)
Her online resume states that she was a Lead Program Manager at MS, which is a higher position than a PM - if indeed her official title was LPM. And she claims she was an LPM for .NET, but we don't know for what aspect of .NET. She also claims to be a PM for the ISV channel - but was she a PM after being an LPM? If so, then she was *demoted*. It's just not very clear what her career path was - but - and let's state it again - she was NOT a "Microsoft Executive," and if she tried that line at MS, she would be (a) laughed at to her face, and then (b) fired for lying on her resume.
Quod Erat Demonstratum
Posted by: steve miller on April 7, 2006 05:47 AMStep back and examine what you are doing and how you are coming across. It's obvious that you are very very fearful of Darcy Burner.
Posted by: Seattle Man on April 7, 2006 07:33 AMReichert's no moderate, and wishing doesn't make it so. By November, he'll be as popular as David Irons on Mother's Day.
Larry:
Unlike some SP regulars, who at least try to make some sense, you're just a buffoon -- in the "amused by cynical soup" class. Neither candidate in this race is getting any 65 percent of the vote.
Posted by: ivan on April 7, 2006 07:37 AMWhy run for office Darcy? Stay in law school sit at the right hand of Cantwell and use the law to regulate and legislate away peoples rights and freedoms, its the Democratic way.
Posted by: Smokie on April 7, 2006 08:14 AMAren't you busy plotting more meetings and rallies for your Continued Global Jihad Against President Bush? Why are you wasting your time here? There's a President to try to impeach!! Get to work!
Reichert won't get 65% of the vote, but I stand by what I said - the sweet, wonderful, tall-tale-teller Darcy Burner is going to get pummeled by the former Sheriff in the general election. I'm still waiting for details of her multi-million dollar budgets and her future voting record.
Your comment 'By November, he'll be as popular as David Irons on Mother's Day.' is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I can't count all the logical fallacies in this one sentence. You really do have contempt for every Republican, don't you?
Look in the mirror, Ivan - you're the reason the Democratic Party sucks ass. And the sooner you identify the problem (your hate- and contempt-spewing wing of the party), the sooner you can remedy it. But that would require completely changing you hate-filled persona, so I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Larry on April 7, 2006 08:39 AMWhy are you voting *for* Burner (I don't want to hear about why you're voting against Reichert)?
C'mon, Goldy - let's see that big lib brain list us out her positions, issue by issue.
Posted by: Steve_dog on April 7, 2006 08:47 AMI'll stick with the guy who was in the Air Force and then served 20 years with the Sheriff's Department, eventually convicting and incarcerating the worst serial killer in U.S. history.
Go Reichert!!!
Posted by: Larry on April 7, 2006 09:01 AMI can tell you that having worked at MS for 12 years myself, that no PM, Lead PM, or even Group PM would be considered an "executive" of the company. That's just laughable and along the lines of the trash man claiming to be a sanitation engineer.
-EMG-
"Look in the mirror, Ivan - you're the reason the Democratic Party sucks ass. And the sooner you identify the problem (your hate- and contempt-spewing wing of the party), the sooner you can remedy it. But that would require completely changing you hate-filled persona, so I'm not holding my breath."
The Democrats are doing pretty good in this state, and in King County, and I look for that trend to continue. Reichert must be considered the favorite, but only because he is the incumbent. His voting record will be examined closely, and my best educated guess is that the voters in the 8th District will determine that he is voting opposite from what they want, and will unseat him.
As for me, I laugh in your face, that you would say I have a "hate-filled persona." I don't hate all Republicans, and I certainly don't have contempt for all of them. Some, however, certainly including you, have earned my undying ridicule.
Posted by: ivan on April 7, 2006 09:09 AMFirst of all, it is correct that there is no standard "project manager" title. Those folks are called program managers, and program managers are nowhere near the executive level. When you take project management courses at Microsoft, they always make a point of mentioning that everywhere else in the world, the title is "project manager," but at Microsoft it's a "program manager." This is a level 59/60 position--in other words, this is about as junior as you can get in the non-coding/testing positions. When I was an entry-level here, I was a 59.
A "group program manager" is a title that works with program managers to improve project management processes. This is generally a higher level position than a "lead program manager," however, as a "lead" generally implies just a senior person at a given level while a "group" modifier tends to be a step up.
In her former organization (I work close enough to them that it's easy to see the titles and how they report), the program manager is the lowest man on the totem pole (no one directly reporting, which makes sense since a "program manager" is what the rest of the world calls a "project manager"), reporting to a group program manager that reports into a group manager, who then reports into a GM, who then reports into a CVP, who finally reports up to Kevin Johnson, co-President of the Platforms and Servers team.
In other words, she probably started out as a 59 or 60 level, and at her promotion may have gotten as high as a 63 or 64. Generally, a group manager is a "manager of managers" and tends to run in the 65-68 range, and she definitely was not at that level. She was also, even if she somehow got promoted to a group manager and hasn't claimed it, nowhere near an executive level any more than a field account executive is near an executive level. Executives at MS are generally VP level and above, although if someone were a General Manager and called themselves an "executive" in a bio it would be close enough that I wouldn't complain (a number of VPs were subordinated during the last reorg as GMs). Anyone with "program" in their title, however, is at best a line manager, which is at the lower end of middle management.
Posted by: Marc on April 7, 2006 09:17 AMhttp://cantwell.senate.gov/maria/
Congress also has an on-line biographical directory of its members. Cantwell's biographical entry says absolutely nothing about her private sector work between finishing college in 1980 and being elected to the Washington legislature in 1986. Nor anything from leaving the U.S. House in 1994 and being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2000:
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000127
By contrast, the entries for Patty Murray and Slade Gorton paint fairly complete pictures of what they have done during their adult lives.
Cantwell's campaign biography isn't much better on actual details:
http://www.cantwell.com/about.php
On the other hand, Mike McGavick's campaign biography paints a fairly complete picture of what he has done during his adult life.
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 7, 2006 09:23 AMThis is big. She has not come out and apoligized or corrected her error. And it's particularly signifiant given that she has no previous political experience and indeed only mid-level work experience and an undergraduate degree.
There's no fear here. Just check out Goldstein's site, this kind of thing happens all the time. If you get into politics, you can expect to have your life scrutinized publicly.
Darcy wants to skip the minor leagues and go straight to the bigs. So here's what it's like in the big league. Welcome to the show.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 7, 2006 09:37 AMI think Burner views herself as an up-and-coming Cantwell. Ideologically, that's probably accurate, but politically, even Cantwell had more political experience than Burner. And financially, there's no comparison.
The local money Dems think that they can buy Burner this seat with a large war chest. But money can't buy experience, name recognition, and decades of time. And we only need look to all of the failed races in 2004, most notably Kerry's to see that even the biggest of big Democrat money is not enough.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 7, 2006 09:58 AMFortunately the people of Washington State have more prescience than most. They knew better than to elect a half-assed real estate salesman to the post of governor. Of course some people would like to disenfranchise these voters but we won't allow that.
Finally, I would like to point out that there is a difference between an "executive" in lower case and an "Executive" capitalized.
Posted by: David on April 7, 2006 10:00 AMFortunately the people of Washington State have more prescience than most. They knew better than to elect a half-assed real estate salesman to the post of governor. Of course some people would like to disenfranchise these voters but we won't allow that.
Finally, I would like to point out that there is a difference between an "executive" in lower case and an "Executive" capitalized.
Posted by: David on April 7, 2006 10:00 AMTo further your analogy, she's like some guy showing up to the Yankees' training camp and demanding a job...despite not having played the game at any level.
The best she can say is that she kept score once or twice.
Posted by: Steve_dog on April 7, 2006 10:00 AMBut she stays silent. I don't get the strategy.
Posted by: Janet S on April 7, 2006 10:07 AMBig E or little e make abso-friggin-lutely no difference in this sentence.
Posted by: Palouse on April 7, 2006 10:13 AMObviously, they couldn't get a really solid candidate -- like Ross Hunter or Rodney Tom (among many other Democrat elected officials) to run for this seat. So if they want to blow their money on someone who took 7 years to get a BA at Harvard, can't hold the same job for more than about two years in a row, and bizarrely dropped out of law school to spend 18 months running full-time for a two year term in Congress --
I SAY "BRING THEM ON"!
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 7, 2006 10:19 AMI would rather be a part of the "amused by cynical soup" crowd than the empty-brained, bed-wetter ivan" type!
Thanks ivan for illustrating why the democrap party is on the endangered species list ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 7, 2006 11:15 AMThank you for drawing the lines, David. I'm very happy to know you are clearly positioned on one side and I am on the other. With any luck, we'll meet in the streets someday.
Posted by: jimg on April 7, 2006 11:35 AMI love watching all (Ivan, Dave, Unkl witless,etc) you liberal democrats defending actions, that they would be all over if this situation was reversed.
Must be an unpleasant realization that you have no choice. But then again, most realizations are that way.
Posted by: Mike P on April 7, 2006 11:59 AMNon-issues are positioned as significant.
Embarassing, Stefan, really.
Posted by: LovinUSA on April 7, 2006 01:14 PMCan you please show any public involvement (letters to the editor, public comments on civic issues, membership in PTA, etc) that Darcy has done or been actively involved in as a comparision to any other candidate in the 8th district?
So before you go off on your usual delusional rants, answer that issue first.
Posted by: Mike P on April 7, 2006 04:31 PMIf Darcy had earned any of the medals in first place, she would at least be entitled to throw them over the fence. No service no medals.
Candidate Sunk.
Posted by: Smokie on April 7, 2006 07:11 PMbon appétit!
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 7, 2006 08:50 PMWas ivan referring to me?
And gee, I thought he didn't like me.
Posted by: Amused by ivan the mook on April 8, 2006 04:18 PM