Yesterday's Seattle Times reported on attack ads in the 8th District Congressional race, focusing on Darcy Burner's false accusation that Dave Reichert voted to "cut funding for veterans' health care." (he voted to increase funding). More on this later.
The article also reported that an NRCC flyer highlighting Burner's spotty voting record was inaccurate. The article is also inaccurate, as it failed to note an omission in Burner's favor. In fact, Burner voted in only 12 of at least 21 King County elections in which she was eligible, skipping at least 9.
The flyer was indeed incorrect to claim that Burner failed to vote in May 2006 and March 2003. These applied to City of Redmond residents only and Burner lives outside the City. The flyer also incorrectly claims that the November 2003 was for "City Elections". In fact, it included other races for which Burner was eligible to vote but did not vote. (The article seemed to imply that this should not have been in the flyer, because it was for city residents only). Finally, neither the flyer nor article noticed that Burner also failed to vote in the February 2003 special election in which she was eligible.
The following table list, as far as I can determine, the elections in which Burner has been eligible to vote, noting the elections in which she did/did not vote and some of the races that were on the ballot in the elections that she did not vote. (It's also possible that I might have missed other special elections that she skipped). I obtained her voting history (through May 2006) from King County (posted here). Her voter id is also listed among the returned absentee ballots for the September 2006 primary.
As it turns out, Burner has been a 100% voter for only two years, since September 2004. At the time she declared her candidacy in June 2005, she had voted in fewer than half the elections in which she had been eligible (8 out of 17), but was nevertheless convinced that she was sufficiently engaged in her community to represent it in Congress.
| 1998-October. | Bought
home outside of Redmond (Lake Washington School District); Registered to vote |
| 1998-November | voted |
| 1999-September | Didn't vote for School Board, Port of Seattle |
| 1999-November | voted |
| 2000-February | voted |
| 2000-September | Didn't vote for U.S.
Senate, Statewide
offices, State
Legislature, State Supreme Court, County Propositions |
| 2000-November | voted |
| 2001-September | Didn't vote for County Executive, Port of Seattle |
| 2001-November | Didn't vote for County
Executive, Port of Seattle, County
Council, or on any State or County Initiative |
| 2002-February | Didn't vote on School Levy Propositions |
| 2002-May | moved to Ames Lake (Snoqualmie Valley School District) |
| 2002-September | Didn't vote for State Supreme Court |
| 2002-November | voted |
| 2003-February | Didn't vote on King County Library Bond Proposal |
| 2003-May | Didn't vote on School Levy Proposition or King County Parks Levy |
| 2003-September | voted |
| 2003-November | Didn't vote for County
Assessor, Port
of Seattle, School
Board, Fire District on County Charter Amendment Proposal, or on Statewide Ballot Measures |
| 2004-September | voted |
| 2004-November | voted |
| 2005-June | declared candidacy for Congress |
| 2005-September | voted |
| 2005-November | voted |
| 2006-February | voted |
| 2006-September | voted |
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 25, 2006
12:07 PM | Email This
It very cliche to point out that Darcy Burner is simply a candidate with a (D) next to her name, but it is so true that it is hard not to notice.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 25, 2006 12:14 PMNow to find that she doesn't really care about voting for many races, but she wants people to vote for her is amazing hypocrisy.
Has her brother whose picture she used on her campaign flyer endorsed her yet? Or is it just the moonbat crews?
Posted by: Skeptic on September 25, 2006 12:28 PMWhen I am not fully paying attention, I hear the whiney drone, see the pantsuit out of the corner of my eye, and think it's another one of those "I fight" Maria Cantwell ads..
(Ever notice Maria never talks win-loss record?)
When I do pay attention, I hear a history, but not a resume. So she has family in the military and grew up an army brat? And?... She also worked at Microsoft. And?... The lady who booked my last dental appointment worked at Microsoft.
Maria was a tech exec. Patty has the whole mom in tennis shoes thing down pat. Darcy just seems like another rich white soccer mom from Sammamish that is bored with changing diapers and fantasizing about seducing the pool guy, but thinks that having her own interns might be more fun.
Posted by: johnny on September 25, 2006 01:01 PMA vote for Burner is a vote for less national security and higher taxes. The 8th District doesn't need that kind of person (and heck---I've been a perfect voter for longer than Burner by far. Maybe I should declare my candidacy....)
Posted by: Michele on September 25, 2006 02:04 PMWithout taxes we would have no national security, that is the ultimate public good and any real conservative recognizes that. Burner wants real tax relief for the middle class, rather than the lip service given by the Republicans. In return, she simply demands that people making over $200,000 pay their fair share to fund the national security that protects their property.
You expect the civilians in Congress to have a plan for national security? Look at what civilians like Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld have done to our military! Burner would push for the administration to listen to the advice of generals with actual military experience to get us out of the mess the cizilian leadership has put us in, and demand some accountability.
Posted by: Ben Diamond on September 25, 2006 02:18 PM"Burner wants real tax relief for the middle class, rather than the lip service given by the Republicans."
That's right out of the usual Democratic talking points playbook, with no real facts to back up the statement nor plan to make it happen.
Facts about the Bush tax cuts:
1. Everyone pays less taxes;
2. Fewer people pay taxes;
3. People with the highest incomes bear more of the overall tax burden than they used to.
Those are facts that can be found in the GAO's analysis of Bush's tax cuts.
Apparently, cutting taxes for every American, having more lower income people not pay taxes, and shifting the resulting overall tax burden more to the higher incomes is mere 'lip service' to Ben Diamond.
And what, praytell, is Darcy's plan? She'll 'push for the administration to listen to the advice of generals with actual military experience'. In other words - Darcy is now claiming she knows how to prosecute an active war. I'm sure she learned this from being a 'Microsoft Executive', right Ben? Or did her brother in the military tell her how to fight a war? Hah! I hope she runs on this platform. Her ideas amount to what I pick up in a plastic bag while walking my dog.
I'll take more of that 'lip service', thank you, rather than buying what Darcy and Ben Diamond are trying to blow.
Posted by: Larry on September 25, 2006 02:35 PM"You expect the civilians in Congress to have a plan for national security?"
So what is your idea? Oh....it's to elect another civilian to Congress! I get it....NOT!
Sorry, Ben. I'll stick with 'The Sheriff'. If we want to increase national security and port security and fund our military - I'll stick with Dave Reichert, who knows what it's like to serve our country.
Dave Reichert, 20 years as Sheriff, Air Force Reserve, or....what's her name, the mom at Microsoft?
Posted by: Larry on September 25, 2006 02:38 PMYou're full of spin.
"Facts" about the Bush tax cuts:
1. Everyone pays less taxes;
False- federal income taxes have been reduced, while the states have had to raise taxes to cover essential services that have been cut. This affects the middle class in Washington more than in any other state, because we have such a regressive tax code.
2. Fewer people pay taxes;
EVERYONE PAYS TAXES.
3. People with the highest incomes bear more of the overall tax burden than they used to.
-They pay a greater percentage of receipts, but their burden in terms of percentage of income has dropped, so this is misleading. The increase came from the boom in incomes for top wage earners, while tax receipts from the middle class have decreased because their real wages continue to drop under Bush.
Question- are you middle class? Are you better off under the Bush tax code? Burner will fight for working families.
Posted by: Ben Diamond on September 25, 2006 02:55 PM"I trust the President."
The guy who puts the fate of our soldiers in uniform in the hands of Donald Rumsfeld. Clearly, Reichert has more respect for his inept leadership in Congress than our experienced officers.
Posted by: Ben Diamond on September 25, 2006 03:00 PMThe ONLY president to give REAL tax cuts to the middle class has been --GEORGE W BUSH! Clinton claimed to want it during his campaigns, but quickly shoved that whole thing aside once he got in. NO Tax cuts came for ANYONE during the years Clinton and the Dems had congress. ONLY TAX INCREASES from the dems and Clinton. So who gve lipservice--Clinton and the Dems, or George Bush and the republicans? That's easy. It was obviously Clinton and the Dems. There is no arguing it.
Don't confuse the issue by pretending that I said there should be no taxes, which is the gist of your comment. We simply don't want them to be as high as they are now. We are currently paying MORE than our fair share. Burner is out of touch with hard-working families. the only president that has given real tax cuts to anyone in the last 14 years is GEORGE W BUSH. There is no arguing that.
Burner flat out admitted on John Carlson's show that the Dems don't have a plan to combat terror. She is badly out of touch on economic freedom issues (taxes) and the problem of Islamofacist terror. She will be rejected by voters in the 8th.
Posted by: Michele on September 25, 2006 03:06 PMGive me a break. I have yet to meet a single person, Democrat, Republican, Green or Socialist, that is not disgusted by the brutality of our barbaric enemy.
But the GOP answer is to abandon the principals of a civilized society and begin acting like the barbarians we are fighting?
How is it that we faced down Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and a totalitarian cold war Russia, all of whom brutalized their enemies, prisoners and own citizens... yet our leadership did not sacrifice our civilized western principals.
Sorry, but I would rather cut and run with my principals intact, than display the kind of cowardice demonstrated by this Administration.
But a better idea would be to fire the civilians that have been so grossly incompetant on the execution of military planning, and replace them with some people with a fresh plan for victory. It's not too late... but it's close.
Posted by: Splinter on September 25, 2006 04:32 PMSince I usually vote against schools and parks, I don't consider Darcy's failure to vote for these things a major problem.
The $1,000 child tax credits are what reduced the middle class taxpayers' share of taxes, and thus are what increased the share of taxes paid by the rich.
$2,000 in child tax credits for the average middle class family does a lot more to reduce their share of the tax burden than $2,000 in child tax credits does for a rich family.
Childless non-rich taxpayers didn't do as well.
Posted by: Terry on September 25, 2006 04:49 PMSo our enemy not wearing military uniforms, and using human shields, is what it takes for you to give up the principals of a civilized democratic society.
Good to know.
Posted by: Splinter on September 25, 2006 05:12 PMThe concept is not even remotely related.
When a covert (ununiformed) group of Americans are caught at some point in the future, taking photographs in China, or Russia, North Korea (or take your pick from many others) and their Government holds them indefinitely, using "coercive interrogation techniques" on them for months on end, I suppose you won't have a problem with that either.
Good night.
Posted by: Splinter on September 25, 2006 05:37 PMOur Future Leader-Wannabe. Protecting us against terror and providing sound fiscal policy. All those years of wisdom. eeeessshh! (sound of stiff bourbon pouring)
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 25, 2006 05:43 PMAlso of note, that mug shot the NRCC used in an official Burner campaign photo. Why her own campaign uses a photo that makes her look cold and condescending is beyond me. I bet we'll see that photo, and this issue, again in the next few weeks.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 25, 2006 06:54 PM1. She doesn't support Public Education (as evidenced by her voting record)
2. She would support Private Education.(by her lack of support for Public Education,and CAN ALL of the 8th afford Private Schools?)
3. She doesn't support local issues.(Lack of Voting)
4. As a voter, I would think twice about voting for representation she would bring to my district. She can't even support her local school bond/M&O levy.
5. Last but not least, she DIDN'T take the TIME to exercise a Sacred choice we Americans have, the Right to Vote. (She calls herself fit for Congress, I question that)
Posted by: Chris on September 25, 2006 07:38 PM"When a covert (ununiformed) group of Americans are caught at some point in the future, taking photographs in China, or Russia, North Korea ... and their Government holds them indefinitely, using 'coercive interrogation techniques' on them for months on end"
I've got news for you: for as long as this country has employed spies, that is exactly the risk they are taking. For example, when Gary Powers was shot down, we didn't browbeat the Soviets until they "did the right thing" and released him, we swapped him for one of theirs.
Posted by: Kirk Parker on September 25, 2006 09:09 PMBurner is no more electable than Bill Gates is, and for the same reasons. By trying, however, she benefits the economy by transferring wealth (campaign donations and expenditures) without government coercion (taxes).
So we should all applaud Burner's efforts, since she will soon be reduced from "boil" to "simmer" status anyway.
Posted by: platypus on September 26, 2006 06:49 AMShe wants so badly to be an adult. Everyone around her is so grown up. And WHY DON'T WE PAY ATTENTION TO HER?
Feh. Someone who can't find the time to vote in a local election is a "local community activist"?
Who knew?
Posted by: steve miller on September 26, 2006 07:14 AMI didn't ask if it (torture) had ever happened to our spies, I asked if Chuck would be ok with Americans being tortured (errrr, I mean, "coercively interrogated") when they were caught, since he seems fine with our Government doing it to our captives. Obviously our soldiers, both in and out of uniform, have been tortured. The point is America does not sink to that level, or at least we do not condone and encourage it from the very highest levels of our Government. Not until this Administration at least.
Michele: "I'm sorry if you are one of those who actually tries to claim that the U.S. is barbaric just like the terrorists"
Bravo on your memorization of the Cheney/Rumsfeld talking points, but I never said we were. YOU are the one encouraging us to head down that road to barbarism though, not me. Coward.
Posted by: Splinter on September 26, 2006 07:50 AMBut this election is for Representative. That is the person who best represents the voters' opinions in the House of Representatives. While character, experience, intelligence, etc. are relevant, they are secondary to how well the person represents his/her constituents. To the extent voters feel that way, Burner will win, because her opinions are more in line with the majority of the voters'.
Posted by: Bruce on September 26, 2006 12:01 PMWhile burner might try to meliorate her liberal constituents, Reichert has proven that, while he's never going to please everyone, he at least tries to support all of his constituents.
Nothing else matters.
Posted by: alphabet soup on September 26, 2006 02:19 PMPosted by Bruce at September 26, 2006 12:01 PM
Bruce, I think she needs to learn TO VOTE on a Ballot for her LOCAL Issues before she can REPRESENT those same folks.....
LOL- I thought it was an Eisenhower collar.
Posted by: Ben Diamond on September 26, 2006 05:24 PMthat's lost on your type--fact ignorers--the type who don't want to physically dissect the lab frog, but still want the "A" in Biology for being on the "team." Critics are numerous. "Do-ers" are few.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 26, 2006 05:32 PMCase and point: She is an empty skirt. Those who want to convert to Islam should vote for her.
Posted by: KS on September 26, 2006 08:27 PMno slam against her, just common sense. don't send a teen babysitter to a gangland turf fight. heck--maybe she knows about the best cellphone deal or latest i-pod music, but that's not what i want as a heavily-taxed landowner.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 27, 2006 03:44 PMPostman must be proud, it's a good thing he's keeping content on his website up to his own standards.
Posted by: Huh? on September 27, 2006 04:39 PMYou obviously have not studied history. Let's look back on WWII for a moment for those cherished western ideas of yours. Does the word internment ring a bell with you? How about atomic weapons? Both ideas leveled on the world by liberal Democrats (well, liberal for their time anyway). The one thing **everyone** agreed upon, liberal and conservative, was that any means necessary were needed to defeat the enemy. This meant any means necessary. There are plenty of historical references of our troops doing whatever was needed to ensure victory, not standing around wondering if some idiot from the UN was going to think they were a bad person. At the same time, we did not do these kinds of things wantonly - there is also plenty of evidence that we took prisoners when the enemy wouldn't have. Does Bataan or Corregidor ring a bell with you?
Another point to bolster the fact that we do everything we can to keep these ideals - name a conflict in the last 50 years where the US hasn't been the only side to uphold the Geneva Conventions. Hmm, here's a short list to get you started - Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Iraq I, Kosovo, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq II. We are the ones who do everything possible NOT to blow up a mosque when the enemy is shooting from it, or even to give terrorists the right to our courtrooms and legal system. The other side? Beheading and REAL torture. I'm sorry, but sleep deprivation, listening to the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and threatening or slapping isn't torture. There are whole websites and a trial dedicated to real torture, committed by Hussein and Co, Iran's dictators, Sudanese, Castro, etc. Read up on that info before you make stupid statements about what our intelligence groups do. Contrary to your idiotic statement @23, that's exactly what happens. Ask folks in China who weren't spies what happened to them when they were accused. Here in the U.S., you get diplomatic immunity.
And before you go on again like you did @32, read the actual reports of what is presented to Congress before commenting. The interrogation of terrorists using less or more coercive techniques did bag us folks like KSM, and in turn, he set us onto a whole host of people, also captured. I guess when your family is threatened by a terrorist, you figure that asking nicely and telling them how sad you would be if anything happened to them would be enough to get them to spill. As if they didn't think you were an infidel and deserved to die. Yes, yes, strawman, I know, but I couldn't resist.
Posted by: splinter's an idiot on September 28, 2006 01:36 PM