Congressman Dave Reichert and his Democratic opponent Darcy Burner will appear on King 5 News "Upfront with Robert Mak" tomorrow.
The half-hour debate will be broadcast at 9:30 a.m. on KING 5, 6 p.m. on KONG 6/16 and at 8 p.m. on Northwest Cable News.
The shorter format should be amenable to both candidates.
Reichert has always been comfortable in one-on-one settings and he has interviewed well with Mak in the past. The incumbent will look to get off to a faster start in this debate.
Burner's two-pronged strategy of Bush-baiting and talking about her military family members won't be particularly repetitive as there'll only be time to get in a handful of digs. The former Microsoft project manager should also benefit from the fact that an audience of supporters won't embarrass her by disrupting the proceedings.
Would you like to revise your description, or do you intend to stand by your falsehood?
Posted by: Sound Politics Lies on October 14, 2006 09:23 PM5. Lies - I don't know, and I don't care. I sure don't have any interest in "disavowing" it. Ask Don Ward for a correction if you're so upset about it, though I doubt you'll get it. I don't know if it was 1/2 the audience or not since I wasn't there, but their laughter was obviously loud (and obnoxious) enough to capture Reichert's attention and draw his response. Thus, Don's overall point probably stands.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 14, 2006 06:10 PM
6. And loud an obnoxious enough for the moderator to stop and to give Dave more time as punishment for the rudeness of the drama queens 'supporters'.
Posted by Cheryl at October 14, 2006 06:13 PM
Isn't that illegal and a waste of taxpayer money?
Posted by: monkey jr.pophalous on October 14, 2006 09:33 PMWhy is she afraid to be videotaped in public places while campaigning? Why hasn't she ever been to a School board meeting in her district? Does she support the upcoming bond? Has she contributed time or money to either the "for" or "against" side? Did she support the last one? How about Sex offender housing in Carnation? Where was she? How about the CAO? Basic property rights issue for everyone in King County, she wasn't at the meetings in her "home" town. Chamber of Commerce? Not for Darcy, the businesswoman with 12 years experience (Last 3 years unemployed).
Darcy is simply a self-centered fiction of the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Huh? on October 14, 2006 10:02 PM
Lies - I don't know, and I don't care.
Do you really not care, Eric? This is basically your credibility on the line here. I know we on the other side talk a lot about how the Republicans do nothing but lie to the American people, but we're talking here about unassailable proof, that anyone can verify for themselves, that Don intentionally lied in order to make Darcy Burner's supporters look worse than they were. Isn't there any part of that that troubles you?
I don't know if it was 1/2 the audience or not since I wasn't there, but their laughter was obviously loud (and obnoxious) enough to capture Reichert's attention and draw his response. Thus, Don's overall point probably stands.
Yes, I agree that in a theater that is designed to amplify and project sound waves, 4 people laughing quietly in the midst of 396 people sitting silently can be loud enough to be heard on stage, as well as in the seats. I heard them myself, and it sounded exactly like it sounds in the video. This is how I know that there is no way Don can honestly estimate that "nearly half" of Burner's supporters were laughing.
In fact, this is also something anyone can verify for themselves. At the beginning of the evening, Darcy Burner walked onstage and her supporters applauded, and then Dave Reichert walked onstage and his supporters applauded. The TVW video begins as both candidates are standing at their podiums; Reichert's supporters are still on their feet and cheering, and Burner's supporters have seated themselves and stopped cheering. You can see this on the video itself. This, then, is what it sounds like in this particular video when 150-200 people cheer. Compare this to the sound level from 1:03:21 to 1:03:23, when Don would have us believe that almost 100 people were jeering Dave Reichert. Draw your own conclusions: Is that 100 people, or is that 4 people?
We're not talking about a clumsy back-of-the-envelope guesstimate here--this is really a huge disconnect. Almost by definition, Don's "overall point" can't stand.
And loud an obnoxious enough for the moderator to stop and to give Dave more time as punishment for the rudeness of the drama queens 'supporters'.
This also is not true on a number of levels. Veseley said that he was going to give Reichert more time for his closing remark in response to Burner's supporters cheering at the conclusion of her closing statement. That happened at 1:01:30 in the video, before Reichert made the Green River remark in his closing statement. (Veseley's awarding more time to Reichert in return made no sense, as Reichert had not started his own closing remark yet and therefore hadn't had any time taken away from him by the cheering. Regardless, I found it interesting that Reichert didn't actually end up getting any more time! I had a good view of the person timing the debate, and I kept an eye on my watch. She flashed Reichert the "time's up" card exactly three minutes after he started speaking, which is as it should be.)
Also, what's with the scare quotes around "supporters"? I'm not sure you understand how scare quotes are supposed to be used. Here's a good resource: http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/doc/punctuation/node31.html
Posted by: Sound Politics Lies on October 14, 2006 10:23 PMRemember to watch tomorrow's debate and comment here AFTERWARDS.
Apparently there has also been some question over the veracity of one of my previous posts. As per my policy I do not respond to anonymous individuals who do not give a proper e-mail address. Suffice to say no retraction will be profered and no correction needed.
However, on behalf of the Darcy Burner campaign, the Washington State Democratic Party and Democrat voters in the Eighth Congressional District I'd like to ask "Sound Politics Lies" to stop trying your hand at damage control regarding that rather embarrassing series of events during last week's debate at Meydenbauer.
You are doing your own side no favors. Leave it to candidate Burner's competent campaign staff to come up with a spin that will be palatable to voters. They'll thank you for it in the morning.
Looking at your video from TVW, I notice at the very opening, the liberal thugs were disrupting the proceedings shouting some sort of epithet at Reichert. That is LIBERAL LIE #1.
On the followup question of "What is the Democrat Plan?", once again the Liberal Democrat thugs (referred to herein as Burner Thugs) jeer and interrupt Congressman Reichert. That is LIBERAL LIE #2.
Watch the video!
However, on behalf of the Darcy Burner campaign, the Washington State Democratic Party and Democrat voters in the Eighth Congressional District I'd like to ask "Sound Politics Lies" to stop trying your hand at damage control regarding that rather embarrassing series of events during last week's debate at Meydenbauer.
Have these organizations empowered you to speak on their behalf? Given the nature of the lie you've told, that seems unlikely. And your efforts at convincing people that the debate was "embarrassing" for anyone but Dave Reichert are better directed at others than at me--remember, I was there!
Posted by: Sound Politics Lies on October 14, 2006 10:57 PMReally? That seems a little extreme. You don't post at SP that often Don, and so it isn't so off topic to ask you to respond to the questions being asked on one of those rare posts.
The characterizations you wish to make of those in the audience neglect to consider 1) that similar mutterings and vocal responses were being made throughout the auditorium by Reichert supporters all debate long, and 2) Reichert brought on the loudest of these rebukes with his assertion that Iraq was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Even Bush has long since stopped making such statements.
Posted by: Daniel K on October 14, 2006 11:26 PMHere is what you have described as "liberal thugs ... disrupting the proceedings shouting some sort of epithet at Reichert." As Vesely began speaking at the beginning (this is at about 28 seconds into the video) a man at the extreme right edge of the theater stood up and asked in a loud voice why there was no American flag on the stage. The man kept talking as Veseley attempted to begin the proceedings, until someone close to the middle of the theater yelled at him to shut up (this is at about 35 seconds into the video). The first man then repeated his question: "Why do you not have an American flag in here?" You can hear this very clearly in the video at about 00:37, if your speakers are turned up enough. This was followed by scattered cheers, mixed with a few more siddown-and-shuddups if I remember correctly, and then Veseley continued his opening remarks.
What part of this do you believe constitutes "liberal thugs ... disrupting the proceedings shouting some sort of epithet at Reichert"? What motivated you to make this charge? Did you just assume that that's what happened? Why would you do that? Where's the "LIBERAL LIE" here?
On the followup question of "What is the Democrat Plan?", once again the Liberal Democrat thugs (referred to herein as Burner Thugs) jeer and interrupt Congressman Reichert. That is LIBERAL LIE #2.
Again, I don't understand why you would say something like this about something that's so easily checked. At about 09:55, Reichert says "First, we have to remember we were attacked! The United States of America was attacked!" This is followed by boos from the audience, as well as several cries of "Not by Iraq!", although I don't think you can hear these on the video. However, what you can hear on the video is a lot of applause that begins at the same time as the boos. Was Reichert interrupted? Yes! By his supporters as well as his opponents. Veseley then says "I'm going to ask both candidates to appeal to their constituents here, and ask both candidates to ask their friends and supporters here, to let the debate continue." (Emphasis mine.) Both candidates! Where's the "LIBERAL LIE" here?
Posted by: Sound Politics Lies on October 14, 2006 11:29 PMI also think the public behavior of her followers outside the hall displaying the mean-spirited jeers at Reichert with the masks and signs at driving-by cars was disgusting and should be apologized for. It was not becoming of a serious debate event and made Burner's side look mean-spirited and vicious and a big joke. Where's the apology for turning the event into a circus instead of a civilized public discussion? I think that stuff loses support from the general public because it reminds them of the crude and disgusting things they see at scary leftist rallies where the shreikers and spitters show up and screech even though anyone civilized would not want to be in the same room with such people.
Posted by: Michele on October 15, 2006 02:40 AMfor that reason, if i was a candidate, i'd have my supporters film the loudest for future reference and intel--sounds facist? maybe, but if one is filming one's candidate anyway, why not pan over the crowd. never know when you might need the evidence to i.d. the hooligans. both sides film i'm sure.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 15, 2006 06:04 AMThe Yakima Herald has Endorsed McGavick.(http://www.yakima-herald.com/page/dis/287267147318602)
Both articles will be hard for the Dem's to read. Not the reasons for endorsements, but the Reasons why they DIDN't endorse the Dem canidate.
Both good reads.....
Posted by: Chris on October 15, 2006 08:28 AMThe former Microsoft manager is smart and argues effectively for change -- if only she were running against President Bush. Which she is not.
Burner's public-service record pales in comparison to Reichert's, a law-enforcement officer for more than three decades.
As her only public-spirited pursuits, Burner offers youth coaching and a stint on her community club board. Perhaps more troubling is her spotty voting record. She missed either primary or general election votes in four years, starting in 2000.
Burner shifts the blame again, arguing the only voting record that matters is Reichert's. Right, his matters. But voting is a fundamental obligation of every citizen. It matters that she, as an adult, didn't take it seriously.
"
Now Monkey Butt and SPliar what do you have to say?
Posted by: Chris on October 15, 2006 09:07 AMReichert just got the Seattle Times nod of approval
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003303415_eighted15.html
Reichert gets my family's vote, hands down.
But she is! It is plain from her ads (especially her latest ones) that Reichert's association with and to the Bush administration is the central focus of her attack.
This is a silly strategy of course, and will only appeal to the lunatic fringe (you know - like SPL and the monkeypoop guy). Anyone who has been paying attention (amazingly, the slimes has been!) knows that Reichert has been a maverick freshman. His representation has been non-partisan.
durner promises a very partisan representation - so much so that the slimes is uncomfortable giving her the nod.
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 15, 2006 09:41 AMI haven't seen the debate yet... the telly was taken over by Seahawks pre-game.
Posted by: Cheryl on October 15, 2006 10:40 AMWatch it on King5.com.
I loved the Burner-Rove comment.....Priceless !!!
Posted by: Chris on October 15, 2006 10:46 AMSPL, you must be the last one that takes the PI.... did they give you a prize?
Posted by: Cheryl on October 15, 2006 11:10 AMHere is the link:http://www.king5.com/perl/common/video/wmPlayer.pl?title=www.king5.com/ki_101506upfrontrevised.wmv
You are right, I really had to dig for it. LOL
Enjoy
Well, it took her less than 10 minutes to become RUDE by talking over Dave.
And she is STILL talking in bullet points. She STILL does not answer direct questions... repeatedly.
She wants to be viewed in light of her being a 'mommy', but she stands against parental consent. Shame on her.
'Ms Burner, what's your plan...?' 'I'm against.. he does... I want.. options.. tweaks...George Bush.. blah, blah blah. but NO PLAN... for anything.
The one thing she excels at is her snotty condescending tone.
I wouldn't vote for her if she was the ONLY one on the ballot.
Go back and get some experience Darcy, raise your child like the good Mom you present yourself to be, get involved (really involved, not just photo op involved) in the 8th district (as opposed to Seattle and San Francisco) and learn to speak with humility and kindness in your voice, drop the talking points and present YOUR point of view (should you actually have one of your own)... and please make a real attempt to actually vote in elections BEFORE you ask others to vote for you.
Posted by: Cheryl on October 15, 2006 12:03 PMSPL - One only need listen to the entire vidoe and ask themselves how many times Mr Vessey gave Mr Riechert extra time because of disruption by Burner thugs vs the other way around.
Please tell Darcy Burner she is going to lose and shrill attempts at damage control are only alienating more voters in the 8th district. George Bush was not on the ballot and while public demostrations of BDS may play well in liberals Seattle, it doesn't impress moderates in the 8th district.
And when you come here and accuse SP of lying, you are automatically being uncivil. If you feel a correction is needed, then you may state such. But to accuse one of lying is an extreme demostration of incivility.
Posted by: LibsAreLiars on October 15, 2006 12:51 PMMy nomination for howler of the week. The Seattle Times. The Republican paper. When you consider the Seattle Times to be a Republican mouthpiece, you really, really need to take a look at where you stand on the political spectrum. I suspect it's just to the left of Fidel Castro.
And how 'bout them Seahawks?
Posted by: jimg on October 15, 2006 01:18 PMBurner King. No doubt where Darcy will end up after a failed campaign...
Posted by: thr33of4 on October 15, 2006 06:15 PMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on October 15, 2006 07:00 PMTougher when you're forced off of your pre-memorized talking points.
Posted by: Orrin Johnson on October 16, 2006 01:34 AMwatching Darcy with a water pistol at a real gang fight. pitifully outgunned. and when pressed, no direct point-by-point answers as to who, what, when, how, etc.--just same old pat phrases. i was listening closely for that--plans and precise responses to precise questions.
my election-time favorite always is "we need change" or "it's time for a change" what? change for its own sake? how about an astronaut's re-entry course? some guy in Houston just decides "hey--time for a change?"
i agree--she should go home, grow up & get some "age smarts & street smarts"--then come back & enter the fray. voters would respect you more.
people like parrots--but for pets, not legislators. they respect PROVEN experience and know-how. you want experienced pilots landing full passenger airplanes or student trainees landing them? same analogy with your vote.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 16, 2006 10:11 AM