Darcy Burner with State Democratic Party Chairman "Cuba" Dwight Pelz, at an anti-Bush rally at Westlake Center.
If Darcy Burner wants to represent the 8th District, why is she campaigning in Seattle?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 16, 2006 06:41 PM | Email ThisWhy is Mike McGavick is campaigning and fundraising in ALASKA?
Both questions probably have the same answer.
Posted by: Mike P. on June 16, 2006 07:08 PMNormal people would be proud to be seen with our President.
You, of course, are excused...
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 16, 2006 08:39 PMIf Darcy Burner wants to rally in downtown Seattle with the likes of Dwight Pelz, let her. Give 'em all megaphohes to voice what they really think.
to PMarie ... autograph? Nicely done. Musta been a thrill to be that close to the POTUS.
Posted by: jimg on June 16, 2006 09:15 PMGlad you had such a great time! Posted by: Michele on June 16, 2006 09:39 PM
I hope they all lose their jobs!
Posted by: dcat on June 16, 2006 10:03 PMI am so envious. Congratulations. You just met the best president of the 21st century. Your grandchildren will be asking you what it was like to meet such a great man. Posted by: pbj on June 16, 2006 10:37 PM
Just a thought, but don't great presidents usually accomplish things or I don't know, have approval rates of more then 1/3.
Posted by: Giffy on June 16, 2006 11:13 PMI am also envious! This guy kicks ass on terrorists, most are dead and every one of them dreads his name.
As do many uninformed libs!
Just keeps Pissing off Libs because they don't have a clue on how to protect this country.
Kennedy and his clan are too busy drinking, partying, and throwing crap to make a difference.
Even Hillary understands that we must stay in Iraq and she gets boo'd by the very lib's that are suppose to support her. Go figure!
And where the Hell was Queen Christine today? She could meet with the President of mexico, and declare this state as it's own country, at the same time she made it "Optional" for our National gaurd to protect it from terriorist intrusion. She was nowhere in site when the President of this great country was in town. Probably to busy dreaming up new taxes!
WOW, such leadershit we have here in this state!
Abe Lincoln was catching so much heat towards the end of his first term, he didn't expect to get reelected.
Leaders lead. Approval seekers triangulate.
Posted by: ewaggin on June 16, 2006 11:34 PMLook at the picture, moonbat posters, trolls on stage wearing jeans, etc. It's the same tired leftists that turn out for every pro-Marxist cause.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 17, 2006 12:04 AM"And where the Hell was Queen Christine today? She could meet with the President of mexico, and declare this state as it's own country"
GS: I thought that was the Libertarian / Far Right approach? You're trying to say the lefties are trying to copy your side, now?
"And enjoyed a morning with like-minded people! Scratch another item off the list for things that one needs to do before leaving this earth! There were chuckles as we past a bunch of moonbats in our shuttles!"
Peaches Marie: Like minded? I would be fascinated to know what common ground you found with the others - aside from all agreeing that you're the "elite have mores." I mean, the country club CEO on his 3rd marriage can't possibly have much in common with the poor rural people with a rusty Datsun pick-up truck plastered with Jesus stickers. Oh, sorry. The American Taliban set doesn't attend these things.
And since you seem proud of the fact you mingled with a guy who has a lot of power (and lower approval ratings than Nixon at the end of his Presidency), when you're on your way to attend the next snooty $2k per head cocktail party, here's a hint: it's "passed the moonbats" not "past the moonbats."
Proper grammar and a command of the English language matters a lot in this era of bashing immigrants and "fereigers."
Posted by: Benjamin on June 17, 2006 02:16 AMMisty: do you REALLY think there aren't any voters from Bellevue, Mercer Island, Kirkland, Newcastle, (Carnation), Duvall, Sammamish, Issaquah, etc who commute into Seattle each day to go to work? If that's the case, how's come I-90 is a parking lot each morning coming into the city - and each evening on the way out? Are those 200,000 people just going for a little drive each day?
When you guys have your occasional anti-Sims, anti-Logan, anti-Murray, anti-Cantwell, anti-Gregoire, anti-Hillary, pro-(plenty more losing GOP candidates to come) rallies...does it really matter what dirt you're on to make your point?
I mean, I've seen Stefan gathering signatures for a couple doomed right wing causes at Green Lake. By Misty logic, shouldn't he be doing that at BellSquare?
Posted by: Benjamin on June 17, 2006 02:29 AMMarxist distribution of wealth in full play.
Posted by: MB on June 17, 2006 08:23 AM"Because the light is better over here"
I didn't think that the trolls would actually be stupid enough to respond so eagerly to a rhetorical question, but it seems that I should never underestimate the ability of leftists to rise to the challenge of demonstrating their inanity!
Most of the mouth-breathers like jdb/biteme/bedwetter or giffy resort to asking simple-minded off-topic questions, but brave brave benjamin wades in with the punch line to my admittedly corny joke - "Because that's where the people are?!" Benjamin, you nit, are you really so daft? Do you even recognize what you are saying? Of course you do, otherwise you wouldn't have attempted to insult Misty with your knuckle-dragger dodge about the "Seattle commute" (I'll ignore the obvious misspelling unlike your jab at Peaches Marie ;'}. You sputter: "...does it really matter what dirt you're on to make your point?" Yes, dumbass it does!
If darcy is gonna campaign for office in the 8th, she should do her campaigning in the 8th! Why she isn't is as obvious as the ignorant look on your face - because the only support she's likely to get is from the Seattlunatics outside the district she hopes to fool er, win!
Try again when you have something substantive to say...
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 17, 2006 08:51 AMWhen you met with President Bush and Dave Reichert, were you have to ask them why are Marines are being threaten with Death, put in shackles, and treated in a way that we don't even treat terrorist?
As for why Darcy is campaigning in Seattle, it's probably because she is raising money there.
Posted by: John McDonald on June 17, 2006 09:05 AMWhat an honor it was to be in the presence of the President of the United States. A moment I will never forget.
As for the protests, we saw none while we were there. Even if we had, nothing could have ruined what was an absolutely amazing day!
Posted by: mimi on June 17, 2006 10:02 AMWhy not?
Normal people would be proud to be seen with our President.
Thanks for making my point. But can you answer, why was Reichert afraid to show up in public with the president?
Posted by: JDB on June 17, 2006 10:10 AMYou DO understand the DIFFERENCE between a PRIVATE FUNDRAISER for specific guests at a specific place and a PUBLIC "rally" for a marginal candidate very far from and totally unrelated to the district she's running in... don't you... "dumbass"?
Point 1. Do you even fathom the difference between the circumstances of those politicians and the hapless darcy? I'll give you a hint: all those female shrews have political interests in the WHOLE state... darcy barely has one in her little district...
Point 2 - why do you suppose the smarmy leftys are so busy posting in the middle of the night??
So what's your point, Cheryl? Oh, that's right, you don't have one. You're just trying to make excuses for Stefan.
So Dave Reichert is a marginal candidate campaigning with Dick Cheney in a hotel "very far from and totally unrelated to the district he's running in"
Game over, Cheryl. You lose.
Posted by: mountolympus on June 17, 2006 02:09 PMAs a resident of the 8th that works downtown I was please to be able to attend a rally in Seattle that featured my next congresswoman.
As for the idea holding a rally in Seattle is somehow odd for a candidate in the 8th, I seem to recall Dave Reichert holding a fundraising benefit in Seattle last year attended by Dick Cheney (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002297725_webcheneyvisit03.html), and Reichert also went up to Snohomish county a couple of months ago to benefit from that Cheney "glow" when he was last here.
Meanwhile, you really need to work on your blog titles, as they really lack originality. If you really want to see a picture worth a thousand words you can find one here: http://www.kirkdorffer.com/ontheroadto2008/2006/06/picture-is-worth-thousand-words.shtml
Posted by: Daniel K on June 17, 2006 02:37 PMuh, let's see...to raise CASH and get EXPOSURE?
get a clue!
Posted by: libber-tine on June 17, 2006 04:15 PM"Peaches Marie: Like minded? I would be fascinated to know what common ground you found with the others - aside from all agreeing that you're the "elite have mores."
Response: Thanks for putting me in a class I'll never experience, "Benjimaaan". Sacrifices, and in this case financial ones, were made to fulfill a dream that I had for myself and my 15 year old. Common ground: Love, faith and respect in our great Country and our leaders.
"Benjimaaan" says: "I mean, the country club CEO on his 3rd marriage can't possibly have much in common with the poor rural people with a rusty Datsun pick-up truck plastered with Jesus stickers.". ***"BENJIMAAAN", I THINK YOU HAVE A GRAMMAR ERROR HERE, OH SMART ONE.
Response: Perhaps one of your ex-wives left you for the country club CEO, leaving you as a poor rural person driving a rusty Datsun pick-up. Are you sure you'ld plaster Jesus stickers on it?
"Benjimaaan" says: "Oh, sorry. The American Taliban set doesn't attend these things.".
Response: Are you a member of the home grown sleeper cells that we need to be concerned with?
"Benjimaaan" says: "And since you seem proud of the fact you mingled with a guy who has a lot of power (and lower approval ratings than Nixon at the end of his Presidency), when you're on your way to attend the next snooty $2k per head cocktail party, here's a hint: it's "passed the moonbats" not "past the moonbats."
Response: Benjimaaan, since you are sooooo smart, perhaps you should educate yourself a little better. Shaking a hand, getting an autograph and listening to a speech are far from being considered as activities conducted while mingling. If I get a chance again, "Benjimaaaan", I will go to that "snooty" cocktail party and pay for it on credit.
"Benjimaaan" says: "Proper grammar and a command of the English language matters a lot in this era of bashing immigrants and "fereigers."
Response: But I'd bet you've never made a typographical error in your life. Stay on your toes, "Benjimaaan", you should never cast the first stone... By the way "Benjimaaan", no one is bashing immigrants. You and your moonbat buddies enjoy clouding the issue. It's not and has never been about immigrants, you conveniently omit the "illegal" adjective.
By the way, you aren't the "Benjamin Doe" I arrested last week....are you?
For GS, pbj, jimg, thanks, I'll be paying for the President's autograph for a while, but it was worth it. Michele, if POTUS comes again we'll have to figure out how to throw the money together so that we can both or all attend. And be careful "Benjimaaans" monitoring our grammar and spelling, so be vewy vewy caful.
Posted by: Peaches Marie on June 17, 2006 05:40 PMAlphabet Soup - since when did people who preach moral values start using invectives and ad hominim attacks to make their points?
If all Darcy Burner did was attend Seattle rallies, then you would have a point. But, this appears to be the one and only rally she's attended on Seattle dirt.
I find it pretty funny that you think it's ok for GOP candidates to raise money at large events in Seattle, when there are plenty of big venues on the eastside. Why do these Republican candidates come to Seattle to raise money? Because that's where the PEOPLE are. And why did Darcy Burner come to downtown Seattle for a noon rally (to coincide with the Bush rally)? Because that's where the PEOPLE are.
This idea that geographic location for an anti-Bush rally (you know, the guy who governs over all the dirt) is a key factor is just silly.
Posted by: Benjamin on June 17, 2006 09:02 PMPosted by Benjamin at June 17, 2006 02:29 AM"
Hey "Benjamin" aka "Benjimaaan" shouldn't this read, "Well, I mean, I've seen Stefan gathering signatures for a couple (OF) doomed right wing causes at Green Lake. By Misty('S) logic, shouldn't he be doing that at Bell()Square?
YOUR ERRORS "BENJIMAAAAN" ARE IN PARENTHESIS, MORON or in German "eine gross Arschloch".
Posted by: Peaches Marie on June 17, 2006 09:13 PMHey "Benjimaan" is the spelling and grammar okay here?! Jerk!
Posted by: Peaches Marie on June 17, 2006 09:21 PM"Benjamin aka "Benjimaaan"" says: Yeah, Peaches Marie. That was me who got arrested for being a terrorist. I'm writing this from Gitmo. Takes a sharp mind to come up with this stuff.
Response: Unlikely. You are not that smart.
"Benjamin aka "Benjimaaan"" says: I find it pretty funny that you think it's ok for GOP candidates to raise money at large events in Seattle, when there are plenty of big venues on the eastside. Why do these Republican candidates come to Seattle to raise money? Because that's where the PEOPLE are. And why did Darcy Burner come to downtown Seattle for a noon rally (to coincide with the Bush rally)? Because that's where the PEOPLE are."
Response: BECAUSE MEDINA IS IN THE 8TH DISTRICT!
STEFAN WHY DO YOU LET MOONBAT'S IN HERE?!?! WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THESE CLOWNS ON THE MSM DAILY, COME ON!
I live (and vote) in the 8th District, and Burner has not, to my knowledge, held any rallies in the District.
I don't understand why she would choose to campaign at a forum where attendees from outside the 8th will greatly outnumber those from within the 8th. There are undoubtedly a large number of people who live in the 8th and work in Seattle, but a much larger number who live north or south of, or in, Seattle.
The point of a rally is to ask those in attendance to vote for you. While Burner's comments may have been well-received by those attending the downtown rally, it seems most likely that the vast majority of those attendees do not reside in the 8th, and thus cannot vote for her.
It would be much more sensible to campaign within the 8th, where most of those attending a rally would reside in the District.
I would attend a rally for Burner if it was held in the 8th. I would love to find out if she comes across any better in person than she does on paper, and if she has any message other than, "I'm not Dave Reichert".
In the meantime, I'm sure many of us 8th District voters will be wondering why Burner prefers a rally in Seattle to campaigning within the District she claims to want to represent.
Posted by: ewaggin on June 17, 2006 10:21 PMIt's pretty laughable to call Seattle unrelated to and "very far from" the eighth district. Congressman Reichert's office is on Mercer Island, a 10-minute drive from Westlake Center . Plenty of commuters even ride their bicycles to work in Seattle from the eighth district. Seattle is not only where the people are, it is where the TV cameras are, which get Darcy's message out to more of the the people of Enumclaw and Bonney Lake than a Medina fundraiser behind closed doors.
Posted by: kurisu on June 18, 2006 12:35 AMI've tried hard to improve my understanding since I began reading and posting at SP following the 2004 election, but I never seem to be able keep up.
What's your secret?
Posted by: ewaggin on June 18, 2006 12:48 AMAgain, compared to the 8th, there are precious few votes to be found in Seattle.
And in this day and age, the tv cameras are wherever the tv reporters choose to be.
Is it your position that the tv reporters will cover Burner only if she appears in Seattle?
Posted by: ewaggin on June 18, 2006 01:02 AMHorses patoot must have been (extra) lame-brained to draw all the mouth-breathers over here. Beyond the curious absence of rationale behind their support of Reichert's opponent, they are all atwitter to explain away why she doesn't campaign where she should.
I tell you what - Barcy Durner (or whatever your name is) by all means continue to campaign for an eastern King County district position in western King County! Just tell yourself: "It's where the people are!" (even though none of those people can legitimately vote for you).
Don't actually go out into the communities you would ostensibly be representing and attempt to rally support, and if you get brave enough to do so, continue to bark your harsh urban hard-left liberal crap - I'm sure that they'll really appreciate it!
Continue to pander to the deanron machine...oops! what happened there?! Do you suppose "tax to the max" can reconstitute another logan clone in time to "affect" the election?
And, by all means, vote early and vote often!
Posted by: alphabet soup on June 18, 2006 08:24 AMhttp://www.darcyburner.com/events.php
The only events she has planned is a doorbelling venture on June 24th in the afternoon.
I snooped around her website, and found that the Last Blog Entry was in Feb 2006.
She has raised 33K of the 75K the lil barometer on her front page, and the deadline is ONE DAY BEFORE her big Doorbelling event.
If you are an 8th Distric Voter, I wouldn't open my door on June 24th.
This lady is too busy being a Wife and Mother to even update her Webpage......Something she could do when the babies are napping and hubby at work....
Posted by: Chris on June 18, 2006 09:35 AMI couldnt help but laugh at your post: "don't great presidents usually accomplish things or I don't know, have approval rates of more then 1/3"
actually giffy, you have it completely backwards. great presidents almost always suffer low approval ratings, BECAUSE they are leading, BECAUSE they are accomplishing things. Leading, by definition, means making choices. And no matter what choices you make, some will be unhappy.
Ronald Reagan was extremely unpopular with the left, and with Europe, for insisting we fight the cold war to win. Democrats, like John Kerry, favored nuclear freezes and detente. They were wrong then, theyre wrong now. Yet Reagan, even now, just two decades later is already widely considered one of the greatest presidents ever, for defeating the soviet union and pulling America out of the economic, foreign policy and national emotional disaster inflicted by Jimmy Carter (one of the worst presidents ever), and instituting the longest period of economic growth in American history.
Abraham Lincoln suffered some of the lowest ratings of any president in American history--yet he is now highly regarded as the second greatest president of all time.
Harry Truman was terribly unpopular at the end of his term, yet he is considered by most to be near great.
Conversely, Warren Harding was very popular at the end of his presidency, but is now considered one of the worst, if not the very worst, and most corrupt, presidents ever.
Like him or hate him, President Bush has made more bold choices in leadership than perhaps any president in recent history.
If there is one overarching theme to the Bush presidency, I think it would be to ADDRESS every problem facing America rather than "kicking them down the road" for the next president to deal with.
Not only has Bush chosen an aggressive national defense, highly unpopular with the left, but he has also chosen to confront both Iran and North Korea as well. He has chosen to implement across the board tax cuts in a time of war. All of which have been highly unpopular among Democrats. Much to the disdain of the left, he refused to enter America into "feel-good" treaties (Kyoto and the World Court) that would in reality do America great harm, and he reshaped the Supreme court to be more in line with the majority of Americans. And in the face of Democrats and the press' demonization he refused to surrender Constitutionally mandated presidential powers to an over-reaching and power hungry congressional minority.
But he didnt stop there. He also chose to address the highly-volatile issues of immigration and social security reform, upsetting many in the middle and on the right.
Far from being unpopular for not doing anything, Bush is unpopular for angering both the left, (and with his immigration proposal, and spending) the right.
But the success of his tax cuts is already unquestionable. He pulled us quickly out of a recession caused by the dot.com-bubble burst, and a second round of aggressive tax cuts prevented a second recession immediately following the attacks of 9/11. And contrary to liberals complaints, Bush's tax cuts have caused the greatest INCREASE in tax revenue in American history and are already on track to reducing the deficit by half by the end of his term.
Iraq is already a democracy. Now the question remains will America stand by and defend our new friend Iraq while they learn to defend themselves?
If we stay the course, and Iraq becomes capable of defending itself, it would indeed transform the middle east, the greatest source of instability left in the world. And Bush will be counted among the greatest presidents of all time.
If Democrats are successful, and we pull out of Iraq, dooming them to failure and a resurgence of tyranny, then Bush will be remembered not among the worst preidents, but he would fall to rank among the average--for our worst presidents are not those who attempted boldness and failed, but those who never tried at all.
Jimmy Carter is already ranked among the worst presidents in history. He famously ignored the energy crisis and told america to put on a sweater, ignored the economic crisis as interest rates, unemployment and inflation were all in the double digits, ignored the turmoil in Iran and allowed the mullahs to come to power (for which the world is still suffering to this day), and cowered in the face of America's enemies.
Likewise, President Clinton is already ranked below average, and every year his rating falls even more.
And yet he was very popular at the end of hist term. why? because he did nothing. He wasnt making choices or leading, he was ignoring al qaeda, (his national secuirty adviser was caught stealing and destroying top-secret documents to cover it up) and ignoring north korea, ignoring his own policy of regime change in Iraq, and ignoring iran while they all sought the most dangerous weapons known to man. The economy was booming, but that was despite his economic policies, not because of them. Sure the budget was balanced, but that was because Republicans in congress, who won the majority based on their promises for a balanced budget forced Clinton to sign a balanced budget. (He originally vetoed it) And there are many who think the dot.com bubble burst was hastened by the Clinton Justice Departments antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft.
No, like Warren Harding, Bill Clinton, who left office extremely popular, will in time be remembered by history as one of the worst, and most corrupt presidents ever.
Posted by: will on June 18, 2006 06:55 PM
Will, well done. I suggest that Bush will in time be compared to Winston Churchill. I also suggest that the positions taken today in the middle east will garner a future settlement in the Israel/Palestinian debacle.
Regarding presidential rankings, one may argue that FDR was perhaps the worst president of the 20th century because of the socialist movements he espoused. Although the list is very long: Social Security and Federal Tax Withholding tops the list.
Jimmy Carter was and continues to be a buffoon. Clinton screwed everything up. The handling of Slovakia and Somalia created the image that America was a paper tiger which in turn fueled the middle east agenda resulting in present day engagements. And can one forget the North Korean and China acts of appeasements. Allbright appeasements continues to this day.
In terms of harming the country: FDR is number 1; Clinton is 2; Carter is 3.
One may suggest that Nixon belongs on the list. Aside from articles of impeachment, Nixon lead an excellect foreign policy. However his leadership in the homefront left much to be desired. Nixon was not a capable leader and hopefully, future presidents learn from his mistakes.