One of Darcy Burner's fans is trying to explain that the year she spent in law school and doesn't mention on her campaign bio was a "methodical" attempt to learn more about the law while she focused on her race for Congress. Is she methodical? Or is she a non-finisher who wasn't vetted very well?
Here are some more precise dates on her possibly methodical trajectory into national politics --
During the week of April 18th - April 25th, 2005 she ran for and was elected to a law school student office for the next school year -- student representative to the Washington State Bar Association.
A week later, she was awarded an externship with Sen. Cantwell's office. The Shidler Center, which coordinates the externship program, informed me that the award would have been made at the same time as the Nelson Award on April 26th.
So by the end of April, Burner had sought and accepted two positions for the 2005-06 school year -- a significant and prestigious full-time externship in Washington, DC (that gives academic credit); and a minor student office that presumably expects the holder to be present in Washington State to interact with the state bar association. Either way, both positions would demand that Burner be enrolled in school in 2005-2006, and why would she apply for them if she didn't expect to be enrolled?
Then, on June 15th, 2005 only days after finishing her final exams, Burner formally files as a candidate for Congress. And she had a professional campaign committee treasurer lined up, so she must have been working on this for a little while. Sources at the UW told me that that Burner is still officially a student, but deferred the externship and isn't taking classes this year. The SBA had to find another WSBA rep.
Are these the actions of a methodical person, or of a naive and immature person who keeps trading up and can't finish what she starts? I suspect it's somewhere between those extremes, but for some reason, the Burner campaign is uncomfortable talking about her year in law school.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 07, 2006 11:16 AM | Email ThisI'm stunned that, after such a hard primary fight in 2004, and with so much money for the taking, this is all the Democrats could come up with for the 8th. Crazy.
Posted by: Timothy on April 7, 2006 12:01 PMDid she give no-bid contracts to her rich buddies?
Did she appoint raging religious imbeciles to monitor scientists?
No. She didn't. But Bush did. And the guy Darcy is running against rubber-stamped every bit of it.
Yeah, Darcy is "all we could come up with in the 8th." If enough people are disgusted enough with the Bush/DeLay/Reichert way of running the government, she will win.
You keep grabbing at those straws, Stefan. Keep stirring up your ever-dwindling cult of crazies. We'll be raising money and banging the doors. Oh, yeah, we will.
Leak classified information.
Will give no-bid contracts to her rich buddies.
(what else do congress people do?)
Did she appoint raging imbecile scientists to monitor the weather. And then declare that all americans must become Amish (horse and buggy)?
By taking non-issues and pretending, over and over again, that they are signficant, you are only serving to further reduce your credibility with all but the extreme right.
Normally, I'd say -- continue...since you are marginalizing yourself.
But I cannot stand by and watch a smart (but misguided) person self-destruct without saying something -- for your own well being and future, if nothing else.
Posted by: LovinUSA on April 7, 2006 01:04 PMFirst of all USA, the above is a tactic that the left uses on an hourly basis. Second, anybody that uses the term "non-issue" means that they are afraid of the issue. And thirdly, the people that use this site are NOT extreme right, most of us are MOR's who are fed up with the Totalitarian politics practiced in W.Wa. Shouldn't your name be HatinUSA like the rest of the lunatic left? Face the facts - she lied, a real lie, not like the lies the left say Bush made.
I guess there's something wrong with the ages-old American political process of fully vetting a candidate.
Personally, I couldn't care less about Darcy Burner - I only think it's unfortunate that her party has offered her up as a sacrificial lamb. If she wants to get into politics, she should win a local elections before trying the national stage. She's going to get pummeled, and that will set back her political career a decade, at least.
I admire Dave Reichert, for serving his country in the Air Force Reserve, for his service to King County as a Detective and as the Sheriff, and for his service so far in the House of Representatives. He's on the Homeland Security Committee and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for goodness sake! What two issues are most important to this region - security and transportation!! Our 8th Conressional District has an advocate in two of the most important committees for their needs.
He has an incredible background of public service without having to exaggerate. I hope they debate. I can only imagine Reichert's experience going up against Burner's platitudes, it gives me warm fuzzies just thinking about it.
Posted by: Larry on April 7, 2006 01:21 PMI see little David Goldstin has worked himself up into his typical tinfoil hat lather and now The Stranger is jumping on board with their input, regrettably, 95% of the readership of both of those mediums is not even going to reach the voters in Reicherts district.
These clowns represent the Libtards in The Seattle Area.
Reichert has 20 years + experience in interviewing criminals.
The debate between Darcy Burner and Reichert should make for some must see TV. She has inflated her bio so much and has so many question decisions in her life that the best description of her would be the Junior Varsity athlete making an ill-informed challenge to a vasity athlete.
Posted by: Someguy on April 7, 2006 02:07 PMIvan, you hate Bush. You think he's an idiot. You believe he is McChimpyHitlerCokeheadHalliburton and a schtoopid, religious zealot hell-bent on destroying your worthless, miserable life.
We get it already.
Now, if you've got something to offer with relation to this debate - doubtful, I know - please offer it. Otherwise, give it a rest or go hang out in one of your liberal echo-chambers.
Posted by: jimg on April 7, 2006 02:22 PMOh, and if you ever drag your sorry carcass off the island, don't bother banging on my door with your tripe.
Posted by: jimg on April 7, 2006 02:26 PMLooks like Ms. Burner is learning from the wrong politician.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 7, 2006 02:40 PMAs for Darcy, I suspect she hooked up with some dem party big wig and got to talking. The dem party big wig, knowing he blew his best chance with Dave "Disingenuous" Ross last time, figures he has nothing to lose by putting up a relative newcomer against Reichert. After all, who else is there?
She probably sold the dem big on her career at MS, and he figured, what the heck, she might get some Microsoftie voters to jump ship.
The Stranger and Goldstein's pack o' losers don't cost the dem party any money, so why not whip them into a useless activist frenzy and see what they can accomplish?
Anyhoo, the fact that none of the wingers have even *tried* to respond to numerous requests for her positions on issues goes to show you that when the hive mind issues an order, Seattle libs leap to obey.
Posted by: Steve_dog on April 7, 2006 02:54 PM(Check out the long hard Slog at thestranger.com, where every she-rat & HorsesAss in this town is piling on Sharkansky because he dares to question St. Darcy's report-card report that she pulled nothing lower than an A- for her first, i.e. last, year of law school. 60 is famously the new 40, and A- is infamously the new C, but The Stranger gets F for spelling, deportment, and respect for intellectual diversity. Send those underachieving whiners to their rooms without their $16 scallops.)
Posted by: sandalista on April 7, 2006 03:19 PMIt was deceptive to say she left Microsoft to run for Congress when in fact a year of law school was in between. I guess a year of law school carries 2 connotations -- lawyering and studenthood -- that she didn't view as campaign assets. Good luck trying to get traction with this issue.
Posted by: Bruce on April 7, 2006 03:34 PMThis whole campaign of hers just looks badly planned. Obviously, MS wasn't working out for whatever reason. Otherwise she wouldn't have quit to go to law school. Did it take too much time with an infant? Why would congress be less of a time commitment?
What was wrong with law school? She had reasonable grades (inflated, like everyone's) and a couple of good resume-building opportunities.
Someone talked her into this, or convinced her that it was a good idea. I wonder who.
Posted by: Janet S on April 7, 2006 03:59 PMBTW - anyone hear his interview with the guy from Daily Kos? I ratcheted down my estimate of Dave's IQ when he disagreed with the 2 bloggers about what Americans vote for (winners, not slightly less losers).
Posted by: Steve_dog on April 7, 2006 04:33 PMBut she's just another candidate that the left has decided to stack their deck behind. That's all. She's got no special credentials or experience. She really doesn't hold a candle to Reichert. She's way too green.
It's amusing to watch Goldy go in guns-a-blazin' as usual, just like he did with Sims, etc. He's a politician's dream and nightmare at the same time. He costs nothing, is willing to take the heat, say all of the things nobody else will say, etc. But he's so transparent and disingenous as to be humorous. And more often than not, he opens his mouth just a little too wide and sticks his foot in at the wrong moment.
It's just so appropriate that he chose the name HorsesAss, he never seems to realize it's become far more an identity and reflection of him than it ever was of Eyman.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 7, 2006 05:09 PMI know, I've got two small children and I see just how much of my wife it takes to give them everything they need. And that's with as much of my own attention as possible too. Kids simply require at least one parent present at all times. That's the minimum. Daycare does not cut it. It's a poor substitute for the real attention of a parent. And that should be all the more present for the supposedly "civic minded" on the left regarding the quality of future citizens we are raising.
It's a real shame that Darcy is putting herself and her candidacy before her child, precisely when he needs her the most. She might have a nanny, but unless her husband has quit his job altogether that's still barely a substitute for mom. This is the kind of me-first behavior that I expect from Baby-Boomer liberals, and not from Generation X. But then again, it appears the rest of the 60s political mindset appeals to Burner as well.
For the sake of her young son, I sure hope she loses.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 7, 2006 05:34 PMOr is it OK if it's a man, because a woman's place is in the home?
The answer, of course, is that every family is different, and that some can cope and some can't. Whatever the case is with Darcy Burner's family, it's their business, and not mine or yours.
I can put up with certain conservatives, but I have a low tolerance for hypocrites of any political persuasion.
Posted by: ivan on April 7, 2006 05:43 PMCould you explain to me how someone with the power to declassify information can "leak" classified information? If the president authorizes the publication or release of information to the public or to the news media, that information is by definition no longer classified.
So your first charge that "Bush leaked classified information" is totally bogus.
You're very good with the left wing talking points, but they've all been discredited a long time ago.
Posted by: Perri Nelson on April 7, 2006 06:17 PMWrong. I'd feel the same way no matter what the candidate's party. If that excludes woman from running for office or doing a lot of things during the time their children are young, then so be it. It's a fact of life that women have the babies and are the primary caregivers particulalry in the early years. I've personally sacrificed a lot in my own family by having one parent at home. I'm entitield to my opinion and that's something I deeply disrespect in Burner or in anyone else who tries to have it all, and have kids. It's difficult to raise kids. It requires a huge amount of time and selflessness like nothing else in life. Anyone who thinks that they can do a great job of raising kids under ten, truly imparting their own love, values, time, knowledge while also managing a career is fooling themselves.
But go ahead and rationalize it for yourself that I'm just a wingnut hypocrite, because I know that makes you feel better.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 7, 2006 06:59 PMjimg was correct - you are consistent! Consistently a di*kless wonder.....
I appreciate Dave Reichert's service in the U.S. Air Force Reserve.
I admire Dave Reichert for his 20 years of public service in the King County Sheriff's Office.
I am humbled by the fact that Dave Reichert was assigned his first murder in the Green River Killer case at age 32.
I am in debt to Dave Reichert for solving the Green River Killer case. I'm in debt to him for helping put away Gary Ridgeway for 48 murders. I'm in debt to Reichert for not putting the families of those 48 victims through the horror and gruesome details of a trial, while at the same time saving the taxpayers of the state tens of millions of dollars. I'm in debt to Dave Reichert for putting the worst serial killer in U.S. history behind bars.
I am proud that Dave Reichert is a U.S. Representative. I'm proud of his voting record, and the fact that he's on the Homeland Security and Transportation & Infrastructure Committees.
Darcy Burner? Never heard of her.
Posted by: Larry on April 7, 2006 09:16 PMThis morning on KUOW you said you were not a Republican partisan, but rather an "independent thinker" who happens to find himself more often in agreement with Republicans. For much of your writing, I think that's a fair characterization. But I have to admit that your harping on this particular issue looks a lot like the work of a partisan trying hard to dig up dirt on the opposition.
Don't misunderstand me; I'm sure its entirely true that DB has inflated her job title and spun her biography. While such behavior isn't admirable, it's also pretty typical for both Democrat and Rebpulican politicians. And I notice a conspicuous absence of such careful scrutiny and high ethical standards applied to Republican candidates on your blog.
Of course, digging up dirt on the opposition is also a common political tactic, so by my own standards I can't get all that worked up over your nit-picking, even while I don't find it admirable. But it does call into question your characterization of yourself as an independent thinker and not a political hack.
Posted by: David Wright on April 7, 2006 10:12 PMOf course not.
Only idiot socialists like you would claim that raising a child in day care is the same as raising a child by a full time parent.
Only idiot socialists like you would buy into the Hillary "it take as village to raise a child" load of crap.
My wife gave up over 15 years from her career to raise our children. We sacrificed financially, but what we received in return - excellent children who are now well adjusted adults - is worth far more.
Perhaps Ms. Burner's child will grow up to be a contributing member of society. Or, to put it in your terms, a taxpayer. I certainly hope so.
Raising children requires sacrifice. Ms. Burner and her ilk are living examples of putting themselves first, their children second.
I thought that us baby boomers were selfish. It appears that we have nothing on Gen X.
You're both so silly. I'm telling you it's not your business or mine how someone chooses to balance family and career. One of you is calling me a socialist, and the other one is just saying my position is wrong based on his own experience.
I'm not denying anyone's experience. But mine is the libertarian position here, and yours is the authoritarian position: Stay home and raise your kids, dammit. Good luck with that one.
Perri Nelson:
Bush had the classified information leaked to Scooter Libby, who was told to leak it to Judy Miller, so that Judy Miller could use it to discredit Joe Wilson, who had concluded that Saddam Hussein was not acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
Now. Even if Bush has the authority under law to declassify classified information in this manner (which is certainly debatable, and certainly unresolved), look at what he's doing it for. He's doing it to help cover up the fact that Saddam Hussein in fact is *not* seeking weapons of mass destruction, by discrediting Joe Wilson.
No national security here. Just political coverup for a criminal act. Call it "left-wing talking points" if you wish. Continue to delude yourself and Stefan's little right wing cult that these points have "been discredited" if you wish.
But remember one thing. Your vote is counted. Nobody cares about you, because we know we won't change *your* mind or *your* vote.
But there are tens of millions of people out there who have not grasped what happened yet. Many of them might have relatives or friends or neighbors who have died or been maimed in Iraq.
I'm guessing that once it sinks in to them what happened and why, they won't treat Bush very kindly. They won't treat Dave Reichert very kindly. And they won't give their defenders and their apologists a whole lot of credibility.
Good luck trying to rationalize your way out of that.
Posted by: ivan on April 7, 2006 11:46 PMMabye you don't know anything about US History or classified security procedures.
But yes, the president can order items or documents declassified ahead of the 50 year, nominal time frame. for declassification
Examples:
FDR released information on Nazi buildup in his Saturday radio addresses prior to Dec 7, 1941.
FDR also refered to possible Nazi atrocities in 1939, well before the liberation of Triblinka and Auchwitz in 1945.
JFK administration leaked photos of possible missle sites in Cuba during the Cuban Missle Crisis. Exposing the enhanced photo capabilities of a recently launched photo reconnaissence
satellite.
The Clinton administration leaked the "top secret" OP orders of our US Special Forces actions. Which is why CNN news crews were on the beach waiting as the SEAL's arrived in Somalia.
The last one was fifty times more dangerous and potentailly deadly than leaking the name of a CIA agent in Langley VA.
Posted by: Mike P on April 8, 2006 07:56 AMThe amusing thing about silly crap like this is when you realize all the energy witless fools like ivan and putz, er witz are expending. They shriek like banshees about "illegal criminal acts". Yea right.
Just sit back and watch their heads explode when no indictments are returned, no charges filed, and no convictions are rendered! Sorry folks. Nothing illegal here. Please move along!
Oh, and ivan? The owners of the B&O store called and they said that, despite the fact that you keep sh!tting into your hand and flinging it at the customers, they want you back for their new display!
Either you agree with Burner or Reichert's positions and you vote for them. Unfortunuately, it's not always so clear cut. I actually agree with some of the positions of both candidates. But I agree with more of Reicherts. And I think what Stefan has uncovered shows me two things I need to know about Burner. 1) She's inexperienced 2) She's basically more on a platform of the Democratic party than a platform of Darcy Burner. She's a candidate put forth by someone who convinced her to run.
That combined with the fact that she's willing to possibly take a job that will require her to spend vast amounts of time traveling to betweeen coasts, away from her young child is enough for me to know, she's not the right pick.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 8, 2006 09:16 AMMore yet, recent past history has taught us that right wingers only use "experience" as an excuse when it suits their partisan purposes. Why would anyone have voted for Nethercutt over Tom Foley if they valued experience? But they did.
And don't try to fool us that you would ever vote for a Democrat. You're a partisan and so am I. At least I state it proudly.
Posted by: ivan on April 8, 2006 09:57 AMMyopic and going to stay that way, super. You vote for Darcy, oh wait you can't. You leave that to those of us who will review the candidates on the merits of their campaign, experience and integrity. Not which letter follow their name in the voters guide. Darcy says she has been working hard in the district for months now...hmmm. Never heard of this person, she hasn't served in any capacity in the community. She apparently is content to follow the Dave Ross strategy of staying on the Democrat donor list in urban areas and not even attempting to address people who are not in her "comfort zone". Carnation or Fall City the towns closest to her residence, people in local positions of reponsiblity in those towns have never heard of her.
Posted by: Smokie on April 8, 2006 10:21 AMAll in all Reichert seems to be doing a pretty good job. Unless he really screws up, or the D's present a serious alternative, they haven't a chance.
Posted by: Deadwood on April 8, 2006 10:26 AMLike all die hard democrats (no, you are not a libertarian) , you live in a deluded fantasy world where your side does no wrong.
Like I said in other posts, if Darcy was a republican; you and HA Goldy would have been all over this. By now, demanding that she withdraw from the contest because of how this wanton act shows her apparent lack of ethics and honesty.
PS: Bush did nothing wrong except beat your candidates twice.
Posted by: Mike P on April 8, 2006 10:55 AMI couldn't find any information to corroborate this; it's possible I wasn't searching the right places.
However, I do remember we invaded Somalia during the last December of the Bush Administration. Maybe that was why.
Posted by: CandrewB on April 8, 2006 10:57 AMAs for "paleolithic" views on women. I'm laughing. So just because our attitudes towards women have evolved in terms of what's allowed to them by our society, does that change the fact that they physically bear children and provide a level of nurture that only a mother can provide during the first few years of life? No it does not. Take a trip to the zoo, observe the other mammals. Some things are a part of our physical nature whether you want to acknowledge them or not. I'm all for the kind of enlightenment and freedom that has allowed us to make women equal with men in the workplace, unlike in Islamic culture where woman are oppressed. And as an aside, Burner's stance on how we interact with fanatical Islamic culture would only continue the mistreatment of women and run counter to the very things that she supposedly values. But, just because a women has every opportunity to fully participate in the workplace in the US, does not change the fact that childrearing takes an inordinate amount of time.
Regardless of what anyone wants to say about each family doing it different, etc. the fact remains that separating a small child from it's mother for long periods of time is completely counter to the natural behavior of our species. I think it's cruel, and I wouldn't do it even if I voted all Democrat.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 8, 2006 11:02 AMBurner is getting a lot of attention because big Democrat money thinks that this is one of the "winable" seats in the grand strategy to shift the balance of congress.
But the reality is that the 8th district is quite conservative, despite what meaningless polls are proffered. Burner has got long odds. And whether any lefty here acknowledges it, there are a lot of stay-at-home moms in the 8th district that are looking, and will be voting askance at Burner's run for a national office with a small child at home.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 8, 2006 11:14 AMToo funny ivan! That's like the lardass calling the fat obese ;'} You are correct about one thing though - you are a partisan (just not a very good one).
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 8, 2006 11:25 AMIn the 2004 primary Reichert ran against a conservative and won within the party. I think this shows that the party and its voters in 8th are centerist rtaher than conservative.
The d's in the 2006 election understood that the 8th was centerist and picked a candidate that had some a chance.
By picking a candidate such as Burner I think they have given up on the 8th, at least for this cycle. They will go through the motions, but I think Darcy was picked to give her some experience in campaigning, not because they think she can win.
I expect the D's will give her less of challenge next time if she shows she's not a complete git this time. A state office perhaps? Or maybe some KingCo slot (Dunn seat maybe)?
Posted by: Deadwood on April 8, 2006 11:38 AM"But the reality is that the 8th district is quite conservative, despite what meaningless polls are proffered."
Let's see, Jeff:
Laura Ruderman won a House seat in the 45th from Bill (Spanky) Backlund, a fundamentalist wackaloon, and Larry Springer has kept the seat in Democratic hands.
Ross Hunter won a House seat in the 48th and has kept it in Democratic hands, and Rodney Tom has switched parties.
Judy Clibborn won a House seat in the 41st from the nondescript Mike Wensman and has retained it, and Brian Weinstein won a Senate seat from Transportation Chairman Jim Horn.
These are elections. Are they "meaningless polls?" Do they or do they not show a Democratic trend on the Eastside?
We'll stick to the facts, Jeff. You righties stick to what you feeeeeeeel or what you belieeeeeeve.
Posted by: ivan on April 8, 2006 01:26 PMSo you dont think I am using a biased site:
See: http://www.ou.edu/deptcomm/dodjcc/groups/02D2/method.html
Operation Restore Hope, DEC 1992.
(Operation Restore Hope). The December 9 beach scene in Somalia represented the heart of every commander’s fears over the disturbance of operational security (Ricks, 1993).
Many of the soldiers coming over the beach had these night vision goggles that magnify whatever little light is out there and all of a sudden, boom, they have these Klieg lights and it could have been a dangerous situation.
Good enough for you and Ivan.
Posted by: Mike P on April 8, 2006 01:36 PMSo for Clinton, leaked CIA intel on possible chemical weapons manufacturing to support bombing of asprirn factory in Sudan.
Better?
We live here in the 8th, you don't. Darcy will not be elected here. How is that Teachers Strike in your district coming Ivan?
On a lighter note, wasn't it Les Aspen, Clinton's Secretary of Defense that didn't authorize the use of heavy armor to rescue the RANGERS in the Blackhawk Down Incident? Same guy who was banging the Steel Industry Lobbyist gal on the side?
Posted by: Smokie on April 8, 2006 01:56 PMNow really what is more dangerous?
Posted by: Mike P on April 8, 2006 01:58 PMNuk nuk!
Iban The Gullible practicing classic liberal projection!
Go iban go!
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 8, 2006 02:37 PMIf the District, as you contend, is so conservative, please explain the trend, at least as represented by the Legislative election results.
Posted by: ivan on April 8, 2006 02:49 PMBecause moderate Democrats are moving there to flee the moonbats in Seattle and all of their nutty taxes, regulations, and other hoohah.
Posted by: Mike H on April 8, 2006 03:01 PMDelusional as usual...
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 8, 2006 03:27 PMAs the lone conservative blogger in Blue Seattle with any mojo, you're quickly losing your credibility when open minded folks like me are starting to tune you out.
Seattle needs your voice, I 'd hate to see it lost on meaningless topics like this. Next subject, please!
Posted by: pablo on April 8, 2006 04:00 PMHey pablo, If you gotta go, you gotta go...adios
Posted by: Smokie on April 8, 2006 06:29 PMIt's about Darcy's inability to just come out straight. If she would have said, "I was a PM at MS doing blah," then most people would simply say, "that's nice" and move on.
It's the fact that she had to puff up in the small things that points out that she's likely a creation of a committee that assembled these "life details" and decide to puff up her experience as a PM at MS into a "Microsoft Executive."
Posted by: steve miller on April 8, 2006 07:32 PMI just wanted to show obvious instances in the past that this was done by democrat president's.
But by having Bush (41) own fuax pas, it really makes it better example, doesn't it.