Darcy "America is under attack by both terrorists and Republicans" Burner will be on the John Carlson Show at 4pm. KVI 570. Liveblog your reactions in the comments.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 25, 2006 03:08 PM | Email ThisNow he is entertaining Darcy Burner.
Soon he will be teaming up with Ken Schram for the commentators (both from the left it seems).
I'll be busy searching the dial for Brian and the Judge.
I once admired John, but he is heading quickly into the dark side of Washington liberal tax happy politics.
Posted by: GS on August 25, 2006 04:11 PMThis woman is a moron.
So what is the plan? How's it working out?
Sure looks like a hell of a mess to me.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on August 25, 2006 05:30 PMShe still is not qualified for the position, period.
Posted by: Huh? on August 25, 2006 05:46 PMTell me, what democrat in the last 10-15 years has ever cut taxes on the middle class or lower income groups? Answer: NONE. The ONLY people who have succeeded in cutting taxes for the middle and lower income earners are GEORGE W BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS. Bill Clinton campaigned on it and fooled everyone with the same rhetoric Burner tried to put out there, and he turned around and spit in everyone's face on that right after he got in. "Well, we tried and tried our hardest to come up with a middle class tax cut and just couldn't do it, but we did come up with a plan to raise taxes." And he did. Raise them, that is.
And I would like to ask Darcy, since she believes her federal income tax rates were too low, why she didn't send extra money in to the govt. with her tax return? She claimed she tried to make it up with charitable donations. Well big deal. We all did that over here--give LOTS to church and non-profits in spite of the high tax rates that we pay at this house. But why couldn't Burner send more to the govt., since she thought she should have sent more to government?
BS alert!
I lied on it of course and said it didn\'t bother me, but it really does.
Drunk driving has killed some friends that I knew and I would never, ever think about driving drunk myself.
Yeah, I know, other Senators have been known to do so, but I don\'t live in Massachusetts and if I did I wouldn\'t be voting for that guy either.
This is another case of a liberal with no personal ethics. Call him a Democrat or Call him a Republican, if he is a liberal, chances are he has done something immoral that will come out in the end.
Cantwell has now won. And the Republicans only have themselves to blame.
Posted by: Steve on August 25, 2006 06:23 PM"This is another case of a liberal with no personal ethics"
Hilarious.
And getting a DUI isn't about ethics. It's about drinking so damn much that you forget about your ethics and make stupid, stupid choices.
Posted by: Slatch on August 25, 2006 06:50 PMYou have to be willing to use such tactics if you want to have a chance of winning.
I was really pro-McGavick on the survey. They asked me if me finding out if he had a DWI makes me more or less likely to vote for him.
I said more, but really what kind of question was that.
Posted by: Steve on August 25, 2006 07:24 PMBut since he is an Evanite it doesn't surprise me.
Posted by: Steve on August 25, 2006 07:26 PMThe Kiro "host" around 5:30 had McGavick on and was amazingly rude during the five minutes I was listening.
There is no appreciable difference between saying "social security is in trouble and that it's going broke.". Both are relative terms, and entirely subjective. When you add in the non sequitur about deficits, you only show that you're an idiot.
You can just as easily "save" SS by refusing to let liberals feed at the trough. By golly, I've just fixed Social Secuirty!
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 25, 2006 08:08 PMMaybe it was the influence of his wife, Laura, a former librarian, or his mother, Barbara, a longtime promoter of literacy. Or perhaps he was just eager to dispel his image as an intellectual lightweight. But President Bush now wants it known that he is a man of letters. In fact, Bush has entered a book-reading competition with Karl Rove, his political adviser. White House aides say the president has read 60 books so far this year (while the brainy Rove, to Bush's competitive delight, has racked up only 50). The commander in chief delved into three volumes in August alone-two on Abraham Lincoln and, more surprising for a man of unambiguous convictions, The Stranger, Albert Camus's existential tale of murder and alienation.
Yet, at almost the exact same moment we receive this report, also from US News & World Report, purporting to document what can only be described as a presidential obsession with flatulence:
He loves to cuss, gets a jolly when a mountain biker wipes out trying to keep up with him, and now we're learning that the first frat boy loves flatulence jokes. A top insider let that slip when explaining why President Bush is paranoid around women, always worried about his behavior. But he's still a funny, earthy guy who, for example, can't get enough of fart jokes. He's also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides, but forget about getting people to gas about that.
So there you have it, our own modern day Renaissance man -- The Farting Voltaire!
That is actually a sad commentary on the State of politics and the shameless locusts known as the mainstream media.
Posted by: KS on August 25, 2006 10:13 PMwhat's her 'get tough on crime' platform? ticket me for watering on my 'off' day?
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 25, 2006 10:57 PMI also laughed when the military guy called in and called her on her claim to military experience. He said her father could claim it, her brother could claim it, her husband could claim it. But she does not have military experience, and needs to stop saying she does.
Posted by: Janet S on August 25, 2006 11:06 PMI'd rather do so than make the hyperbolic claim that SS is going broke. There is a big difference between raising the income cutoff slightly (which would only affect a small portion of income earners, unlike Reagan's big payroll tax hike on the lower and middle class) to restore solvency vs. undermining and privatizing it to prevent the so-called bankruptcy of the system.
Darcy was correct to point out the more immediate problems with Medicare, which the Republicans are completely ignoring because of its popularity- they want it gone. Saving Medicare will be a huge victory for the Dems.
Posted by: Ben Diamond on August 25, 2006 11:53 PMI'm glad she's an ex-employee, we need fewer like her.
Posted by: John on August 26, 2006 01:52 AMI didn't get to hear this on the radio, but I just had to chime into this conversation with this little tidbit:
'Steve' is a jackass.
Thank you . You may now carry on.
Posted by: Left Behind by the New Democratic Party on August 26, 2006 03:56 AMDid you work at Harvard?
Posted by: Sorry Charlie on August 26, 2006 07:58 AMHe just kept going and getting irate and Darcy wouldn't budge an inch. The caller was posturing and sputtering so much I thought I could hear Carlson cringing in shame for his conservative bretheren.
That is the type of strength we can expect from "iron-clad" Darcy!
Posted by: Sorry Charlie on August 26, 2006 08:05 AMIt should be "iron-curtain" Darcy
Posted by: TrueSoldier on August 26, 2006 08:10 AMGet this from the former Sno County Dem offical Mike Whitney.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are FOX employee's innocent bystanders or an integral part of the American war machine? That may turn out to be an important question now that 2 FOX workers have been captured by a group of Palestinian militants.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 26, 2006 08:21 AMGreetings Kool aid drinkers;
Now Carlson a Lib?
Jeez maybe he is just starting to see through all the BS a little bit. Oh well, If he questions anything, he must be a commie.
You all need to see in more shades than Black and White.
Whitney is a truly scary commie nutcase. He was mentioned on another thread below, "The Seattle Times Catches up with Sound Politics", and I googled him. Read a little of his stuff and you'll see that I'm not exaggerating a bit.
I wonder if he was so whacked out that even the Snohomish County Dems were embarrased?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 26, 2006 08:54 AMNone of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.
In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.
What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html
Sorry Charlie, The best:
I was laughing so hard, I had to pull over.
Burner wants us to believe that she doesn't know whether she would've voted for Lamont or Lieberman.
She claims not to know enough about the race. And then she goes on to tell us why Joe L lost.
When the caller tried to hold her feet to the fire, she refused to answer, Lamont or Lieberman?
If she can't honestly answer such a simple question then she doesn't deserve my support.
Reichert wins this one easily.
Posted by: Brent in Ferndale on August 26, 2006 09:05 AMThe second best part of the afterBurner interview was when Darcy, answered a question regarding Iraq by saying...
"...With my military experience..."
Superbly, one of our veterans called in and called her on it.
Darcy was so busted!
She makes Patty Murray look like an intellectual.
Posted by: Brent in Ferndale on August 26, 2006 09:36 AM"Cantwell campaign spokeswoman Amanda Mahnke said the senator had no reaction and would not be commenting on McGavick's admissions"
"The Cantwell campaign then, however, alerted the state Democratic party about the P-I query. Party spokesman Kelly Steele telephoned to say, "From privatizing Social Security to drunk driving, it becomes clearer every day that Mike McGavick and George Bush are cut from the same cloth".
Very classy. And there's the big lie again about "privatizing" Social Security. That's what we're up against folks, the "by any means necessary" left.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 26, 2006 09:57 AMthen again--we can hit the replay button over & over again and have a chuckle & 'wow' like on every good super-action film;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 26, 2006 12:33 PMMaybe we should hope she keeps 'pontificating' to us little folk.
Posted by: Cheryl on August 26, 2006 12:43 PMOf course, none of those skills helped her answer simple questions like Lamont or Lieberman - Which?
My high school kids know more about the Lamont/Lieberman race that this supposed professional candidate.
What a maroon.
Posted by: steve miller on August 26, 2006 02:05 PMWell at least THEY know how to fight.
Being a lady, being a gentleman, gets you nowhere in politics. What you have to be is a FIGHTER!!!
Posted by: Steve on August 26, 2006 07:51 PMThe Repubs have lost their way, but they at least try to use integrity and back off when their hands are caught in the cookie jar. With that said, I am underwhelmed at the candidates, especially this candidate running against Dave Reichert.
Posted by: KS on August 26, 2006 10:20 PMThere is no other course of action.
Place your bets - Bush Fascists. Terri Schiavo will be just a GOP wet dream for you guys. The Bedroom Gestapo Bit will just remind people of your Islamo fascist cousins.
Posted by: shrike on August 27, 2006 07:44 AMI have it on good authority that 15 decent liberals read your post and, having seen enough, converted to the Republican Party on the spot. Nice work!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 27, 2006 08:43 AMAs a fellow partisan I'm sure you'll agree that you want your guy (or in this case gal) to win.
what they'll represent of your interests is pretty important, but let's face it; as long as they have a (D) after their name, you're gonna vote for them (I'll gladly stipulate to my willingness to do the same for (R)'s).
So here's our dilemma: How do "our" candidates comport themselves? Are they able (and willing) to provide the answers that constituents (voters) ask? Do they show a basic competence of the subject matter? Can they explain their POV?
Your candidate has shown that she can provide answers, but her responses were canned and skin deep. When asked for clarification she simply repeated the well-rehearsed phrases as though that represented an explanation. What I heard from her was a careful script with a razor-thin margin. This is troubling to me because, as another has pointed out, patty murray can do this, and she's an idiot!
There is a difference between a reasonable tone and a reasonable argument.
You could be correct in your assertion that she may be able to draw in some random votes - driftnet style - but it poses no significant differentiation from her opponent, who is also a very personable and articulate guy.
Advantage: Incumbent
Let's move on to credentials:
Your candidate set an imposing hurtle for herself. Every politician has to start somewhere. She has grand ambitions as her launch pad. Elemental to making her case is proving who she is. She shot herself in the foot right at the starting gate with a grossly embellished resume. That in & of itself hasn't killed her campaign, but it has hobbled it. She has taken a grand effort to correct those claims (a good thing), but she doesn't hasten her case when she presupposes a perspective that isn't factual or accurate. Other posters have pointed out the gaffes she made, and to that I would say "no biggie" except for the fact that she starts from a point of necessity - she must establish why anyone would abandon the present, established course for an unknown one. When she utters "...With my military experience..." it rankles because she has none! When she claims "...With my business background..." it's the same thing. She has no more "business background" than I do (actually I have run a sole proprietor business, so my business background is superior to hers!)
What does this mean? Once again, to you or me - nothing. We're already committed. But how does it play to "Joe Six-pack"? Has she established her bona fides? What with the whole "Microsoft Executive" fiasco and the subsequent "military experience" campaign ad gaffe, I believe she has damaged herself more than helped herself.
Advantage: Incumbent
The rhetoric:
The most striking thing about the answers she gave was that there was absolutely nothing new or different offered. She has pretty successfully avoided the Dhimmicrat version of "Hoof in Mouth disease": Bush Derangement Syndrome. That is definitely in her favor! She must demonstrate that she has specific solutions to problems however, and admitting that "There is no plan" doesn't get it done. I'm bett!ng that Mr. and Mrs. Six-pack aren't going to be especially impressed by empty clichés and the constant reliance on the use of "buzz phrases".
One other thing; The infamous DNC speech. It is expected that a candidate tailor their presentation to a particular audience, but we all know that our opponents are watching our every move (and taping it in the case of Dhimmicrats!) so it is revealing when those presentations are displayed to a broader audience. I believe that speech shows your candidate best; shrill, whiney, and prevaricating. Or did we just catch her on a bad day?!
Advantage: Incumbent
No one, especially your candidate herself, has offered a compelling reason for jumping ship.
My prediction: Reichert by 5...
A few responses.
I am not so inclined to vote for the "D" candidate as you suggest. I voted for Bush I and Ross Perot twice, so I do not necessarily vote Democrat. Darcy Burner had to convince me that she was worth my vote, and that didn't happen right away.
The statement she made regarding military experience was probably not meant to infer she herself had served, although she has lived with the military mentality her whole life, and that seeps into ones own being, and she was in the Civil Air Patrol as a teenager (and top of her class). Her turn of phrase was awkward to be sure and she was called on it, but she does think from a military view point nevertheless - it is a deep empathy.
The executive issue was not a "fiasco" - that word is better reserved for an appropriately named best seller now in the bookstores about the handling of the Iraq war. Her campaign only ever used the small "e" version of the word. It was others that converted that to a big "E". When it comes to Reichert we can definitely talk about inflating one's resume simply by looking at how much credit he took for himself for the Green River killer capture. Do you really want me go there?
As for the DNC speech, there was nothing infamous about it. I did not view the speech the same way you did. She was not shrill - in fact her paced tone was definitely purposeful. Although you may not agree with some of her comments, I did not hear her lie.
My observation here is that in general the SP response overblows her tone and expresses more a predisposition to not like the candidate, than it does the candidate. That doesn't surprise me.
At the end of the day what will matter most is how well either candidate will be able to package their image and their positions in the eyes of the casual voter, i.e. the voters, unlike you or I, who will pay little attention to this race beyond the TV ads they see or the yard signs they drive by. They make up the majority of the voters and will be the ones that decide this race.
I wish it weren't so, as I'd like everyone to be as politically aware as you or I, for better or for worse, but that's just the world we live in.
Posted by: Daniel K on August 27, 2006 12:45 PMGood Luck!
What I do care is her smug attitude and avoiding responsibility for her resume padding, which was going on during this interview, as in "my military experience." If she claims to have experience with the military because her family was in it, she'd know enought that merely being a family member doesn't qualify as "military experience." And she's disingenuous to presume that "oh, well, I thought people would understand that I wasn't claiming to actually BE in the armed forces." She's trying to make naive people believe she was enlisted. She was not.
And she continually touts her very small role at MS as somehow the entry point into the Big Kids world. What turned me off was her puffing up her role as an LPM to be an "executive."
And her claim NOT to know about Lamont & Lieberman was the lie of someone who didn't want to offend her core constiuency. If she's a Lamontian, she should just say so.
I'm wondering at what point we can just call her "White Flag Burner" and wish her well in her 2007 career as the former, failed Democratic candidate.
Posted by: steve miller on August 27, 2006 05:12 PMIt's not that I don't like the answers - I love them! The reason why I love them is that they show that her knowledge & understanding of the issues is paper-thin and totally reliant upon talking points.
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 27, 2006 10:29 PMHow ignorant must she be that she can't even find the time to read up on the issue that was at the forefront of just about every political report for this primary season?
She's a weasel. If that floats your boat, then vote for her.
Posted by: steve miller on August 28, 2006 10:01 PM