October 15, 2006
Re: Seattle Times Endorses Reichert

Stefan provides coverage of the news of the day below, though I'll pile on with a couple additional points worth bearing in mind.

First, the news of the Seattle Times endorsing Dave Reichert is important not just because they did it on a Sunday when readership is highest (when the Times is distributed to PI subscribers as well), and it's also not just because they took the full allotment of their editorial space for this one endorsement. It's important because the Times took the time to totally deconstruct Darcy Burner's campaign.

This writer has postulated such endorsements are especially helpful to Republicans in competitive races because it helps validate the Republican candidate to suburban swing voters after the disastrous impacts of the successive candidacies of Ellen Craswell, Linda Smith, and John Carlson. Given the composition of the 8th Congressional District, such validation becomes especially relevant.

Thus, the Times saying good things about Reichert is an undeniable boost to his campaign, though certainly far from promise of victory. Especially when the editorial begins noting, "while there is a compelling reason for change in Congress, the case to replace Congressman Dave Reichert in the 8th District has not been made." This is no band of Republican sympathizers backing Reichert here, rather a centrist editorial board, which probably tilts slightly left-of-center (though some conservatives would put them farther to the left).

Moreover, this represents an endorsement flop.

Two years ago, The Times endorsed his opponent in a race to fill the open seat created by Rep. Jennifer Dunn's retirement. But Reichert has earned our endorsement this time.

If ever a change-leaning editorial page is going to endorse giving the Republican the "heave ho" it's now. But they didn't. Why is that?

By chance, it would be for some reasons that are rather familiar to loyal readers of Sound Politics. Such as, "it is hard to discern where Burner differs from the Democratic Party line." Or that, "Burner's public-service record pales in comparison to Reichert's." Or even further on issue of personal voting history, "voting is a fundamental obligation of every citizen. It matters that she, as an adult, didn't take it seriously."

Perhaps most striking about the Reichert endorsement is its direct language chastising Burner's campaign tactics, including how she "shamelessly obfuscates the truth about Reichert's support of veterans funding." One might guess the controversy about the Times giving a quote on that issue might dissipate rather quickly. Especially since the editorial follows on it's critique of Burner on the issue, "she continues to push the deceptive party line."

Though the Times does lean slightly to the left, it does not shy from endorsing Republicans in major contested races, such as Dino Rossi and Joe Marine. Nor of course does it shy away from endorsing Democrats, and at this juncture I expect a closely divided editorial board will endorse Maria Cantwell, while saying many nice things about Mike McGavick.

That overall level of centrism appears lost on some critics on the left. Andrew Villeneuve, called "the resident naif of the local blogosphere" farther down at this post, turns his title into "petulant resident naif" with this riff decrying the endorsement thus:

This editorial is, without a doubt, not worth the paper it's printed on. The Seattle Times has disgraced itself and its reputation with a nonsensical, shoddy piece of writing that does its readers no service.

Moreover, evidently it "reads like it was ghostwritten by the cabal at unSoundPolitics." Might that be because the points we've raised about Darcy Burner might have some validity? Uh oh.

UPDATE: Oh, dear. I missed Goldy's rambling rant on the Times endorsement of Reichert as well, puncutated by this classy line: "To this there is only one reasonable response: (Bleep) YOU!" [Hint: original text doesn't have a "bleep."]

Let me offer a contrast in how to deal with editorials one doesn't like. Today, the Tacoma News Tribune endorsed Maria Cantwell. I don't like it and I don't agree. But their editorial is thoughtful and serious. No need to have a hissy fit.

Posted by Eric Earling at October 15, 2006 02:02 PM | Email This
1. So I clicked on the Darcy Burner for Congress link and I came upon THIS little gem...



Congressman Dave Reichert argues he only votes with President 86% of the time
Bellevue, WA - In the first election season debate against Republican Congressman Dave Reichert, Darcy Burner, congressional candidate in Washington's 8th district, made it clear what the choice before voters in the November election will be.

"If we want to change the course, the way we do that is by changing this Congress one Congress person at a time," Burner said. "George Bush is taking this country in the wrong direction, and this Congress and this Congressman will never stand up to him - but I will."

The 400-seat auditorium was full, more than half the crowd clearly there to support Burner.

From the Iraq war to taxes to health care reform, Burner discussed her vision for Washington state families while Reichert struggled to defend a voting record that has him voting for President Bush's failed agenda almost 90% of the time. Reichert has failed to be a consistent and principled voice on issues such as drilling in ANWR, raising the federal minimum wage, supporting services for our troops and veterans, and more.

"Congressman Dave Reichert votes with George Bush 90% of the time," said Darcy. "He recently told the Mainstream Republicans that he votes the way the leadership tells him."
Reichert's response? "I only vote with the President 86% of the time" He concluded his closing statement by saying "At one point, Ms. Burner, you're going to have to come out from behind the bushes and recognize that I'm your opponent.

While Burner focused on Reichert's record, the need for change and the positive direction we can take, Reichert fumbled through notes, tried to explain his many flip-flops, declined to respond to questions about media conglomeration that he didn't know the response to, and then finished the debate by angrily describing his experience as Sheriff.

But in discussing Reichert's record, there was no disputing that the need for change is great and Reichert is anything but an independent thinker. Examples from the debate include:

On veterans, Reichert tried to explain that he actually increased funding for health care benefits, though his votes tell a different story.
On raising the federal minimum wage, Reichert tried to assert that he has voted to raise the minimum wage, though he's voted five times against it.
On the war in Iraq, Reichert tried to argue that we shouldn't stay the course, that we need to be flexible. But his past statements are simply that he puts his trust in the President on this issue.
On tax cuts for middle class families, Reichert tried to argue that Bush's tax cuts have helped our economy and created jobs. While he cited Florida's unemployment rate at 3.1%, he couldn't cite Washington's unemployment rate which sits significantly higher at 4.9%. Reichert also failed to acknowledge that Congress failed to extend the sales tax deductions for Washington families and other tax cuts targeted to working families.

"We feel great about Darcy's performance," said Zach Silk, campaign manager. "Reichert failed to present an accurate picture of his record, he failed to prove himself the moderate independent he promised voters he'd be, and he failed to show voters why he deserves another two years. Darcy has a firm understanding of the values and priorities of the families and workers in her district. She made a compelling case for changing the direction of the country and serving the voters as a trusted, principled representative they can count on."

# # #
posted by Administrator at 3:26 pm PST on October 11, 2006

My God, the arrogance and hubris!

Posted by: Cheryl on October 15, 2006 03:47 PM
2. The journalistic integrity of the Seattle Times needs to be questioned. In the endorsement, they just regurgitated Reichert's press spin of the debate. They never bothered to check on whether Reichert actually said that he voted what the leadership told him to. They never bothered to actually check his voting record.

His statement of "So when the leadership comes to me and says Dave we need you take a vote over here because we want to protect you and keep this majority, I do it." is available on TVW's website at http://www.tvw.org/search/sitesearch.cfm?Keywords=Mainstream%20Republicans%20of%20Washington

Reichert is a puppet of the Republican leadership. He admitted it on camera. Show everyone in the county that clip and expose him for the fraud he is.

Posted by: Michael Caine on October 15, 2006 03:56 PM
3. Michael Caine - How many different blogs are you going to cut and paste the same post on? This is the third I have counted - you are just being lazy now.

Posted by: Aussie Rob on October 15, 2006 04:01 PM
4. I spent this afternoon doing research on Reicharts Voting Record

Every Vote he has voted since he has been in office. I have it in word file, in a table format if anyone want's to tear it apart better than I.

But some casual cut and paste to Excel reveals this.

There has been 1182 votes so far.

Reichart has not voted in 30 of them.

Reichart(1152) = 769 yes 383 No -67% Yes 33% NO

GOP(1182 votes) = 785 yes 397 No -66% Yes 34% No

Dems(1182votes) = 751 yes 431 No -64% Yes 36% No

Looks like to me, Reichart Sits damn near in the Middle.

If anyone wants the file, email me, and I can get it to you.

Posted by: Chris on October 15, 2006 04:06 PM
5. Chris.... how DARE you let the facts interfere with your conclusions? You'll NEVER get to blog on HA if you keep doing that!

Posted by: Hinton on October 15, 2006 04:30 PM
6. I just saw a Burner TV ad. It ties Reichert to Bush. Once again there was the big lie, "Reichert and Bush want to privatize Social Security". These people truly are without shame.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 15, 2006 04:35 PM
7. In reading the endorsement from the Seattle Times of all papers, I can imagine the reaction of the liberals will be something like this

Posted by: pbj on October 15, 2006 04:52 PM
8. LOL Love it Hinton

Lil bit more info

of Reicharts votes, he voted 639 of his 1152 votes with the Dem's...............

OMG that is like 55% with the Opposing party. Now how can he vote 55% with the Dems when he is voting 90% straight party GOP line......

Funny how you can play with numbers to represent just about anything you want to.

But it is not a false statement he voted 55% of the time with the Democrats....

Posted by: Chris on October 15, 2006 04:54 PM
9. 2.

Darcy is a puppet of the Democratic leadership. She admits it on camera every time she speaks Hate Bush. Show everyone in the county those clips and expose here for the fraud she is.

Your point is?

Darcy is running against the wrong candidate, she is two years early, and her runnoff will be against Hillary and any other democrat in the fray.

Posted by: gs on October 15, 2006 04:59 PM
10. The American Conservative Union doesn't think Reichert is a "heavy" conservative.


Washington Member 2005 2004 YOS Life
Murray 0 8 13 3
Cantwell 8 8 5 11

1 Inslee 0 4 9 10
2 Larsen 16 8 5 19
3 Baird 9 17 7 12
4 HASTINGS Doc 92 100 11 95
5 McMORRIS 100 NA 1 100
6 Dicks 0 13 29 11
7 McDermott 0 0 17 2
8 REICHERT 64 NA 1 64
9 Smith Adam 12 17 9 19

Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 15, 2006 05:32 PM
11. I am somewhat amazed that common sense prevails. Hat tip to the Seattle Times. Watch the moonbats like Michael Caine(sic), Unkl Witz and danw come out grasping at straws. I don't agree with Reichert's stands about 30% of the time, but at least he has substance.

His opponent has alot of hot air and blind ambition and has to resort to lieing in a desperate attempt to undermine the incumbent, and am more surprised that the Times took the effort to deconstruct her campaign - they actually did some objective reporting !

Posted by: KS on October 15, 2006 05:46 PM
12. Thanks Eric for mentioning Goldy's hissy fit over at HA. Not as enjoyable as watching the Hawks victory, but entertaining nonetheless.

Despite the Times endorsement of Reichert you'd think lefties like Goldy would be happy, since they believe they have the election in the bag. Instead they throw a profane tantrum like the vulgar spoiled children they are the moment things don't go exactly their way. For those on the political fence it is instructional to observe how the two sides act. There's a world of difference.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 15, 2006 06:05 PM
13. Goldy just showed his lack of class with his ranting. He like the other leftists need to grow up.

All they have done is succeeded to intensify the culture war.

Posted by: KS on October 15, 2006 07:20 PM
14. Burner and her enablers are shameless.

Of course the delusional press release of Darcy beating Reichert in the debate does show the type brains working in her campaign.

Watching her behavior with Reichert and Robert Mak shows that she isn't ready for ANY elective office.

In her current TV tag-line "One of Us" the elitist, condescending, arrogant, snob shows that she is nothing like most of "Us". She lies about her experience, inflates her resume, has an excuse why she can't bother to vote in elections (although she apparently exceeded the record for mammalian gestation in her difficult pregnancy, the asiatic elephant only has a 22 month gestation).

Her experience as a mommy and coaching youth sports does not equate to community service.

Darcy needs to go get some more relevant experience before she tries for the big time. Perhaps she could take a course in ethics to start, just being a Democrat shouldn't be license for lying.

Posted by: Skeptic on October 15, 2006 07:25 PM
15. In my job, I occasionally have to be part of a hiring committee to hire new people into our group. The process means that we get resumes form all applicants and then screen them so when we have the job interviews with the applicants we can ask pertinent questions about their abilities for the particular job. I reviewed Darcy's website this evening as a resume (which it is) and made comments to each paragraph. If I were to interview Darcy I would ask questions about each of the paragraphs in question. One must realize that in a job interview there are restrictions about what can be asked about the applicant's personal past but in this case since Darcy does not have that many 'professional' attributes for the job, she is using her 'personal' past to support our votes for her. Because of that she leaves herself open for questions on any part of her life (as any politician is subject to.). The web site is at:


I have quoted her paragraphs and put my comments in parenthesis'

"The daughter of an Air force veteran and a public school teacher, Darcy Burner learned early that in America with hard work and commitment - anything was possible." (No Mother?)

"Darcy grew up in military towns and attended public schools. Like many Americans today, her parents struggled to make ends meet." (Typical Democrat Speak - Poor Darcy had to live in military towns and attend public schools. What was their family income? Define "struggle to make ends meet"?)

"She worked hard in school, put herself through college, and went onto a successful career at Microsoft." (What was Darcy's GPA and what college did she attend? Define career and how long it should be to be considered a career vs a job?)

"A successful businesswoman, community leader and mother, Darcy will fight for our priorities." (Provide pertinent examples of successful businesswomen. Why is Darcy a businesswomen as opposed to a business person? Being a community leader is more than being involved in social clubs and the PTA. How old are Darcy's children? It is easy to be successful parent when your children are young. What will her success look like when her children are 18?)

"She, her husband and their young son live outside Carnation, Washington." (Ok!)

More about Darcy

"Darcy's roots in Washington stretch back to her childhood, when she spent part of every summer in Thurston and Lewis counties visiting her uncles, aunts, cousins, and grandmother. These summers were complemented by school years in military towns in Alaska, Montana, and Nebraska." (Why is the emphasis on 'Military' towns as if that was a terrible hardship..This is almost like a putdown of the military!!)

"Darcy comes from a hard working family. Her dad spent a career in the Air Force and after his retirement worked as a public school teacher. Her oldest brother is a janitor in Olympia. Her other brother serves in the Army's 101st Airborne and has served one tour of duty in Iraq. Her sister just got her nursing degree. And her youngest brother delivers beer for the Miller Brewing Company." (What did her mother do? There is absolutely no mention of her! My wife mentions her mother all of the time and the influence she provided in raising her. Her Father apparently had his degrees in order to become a teacher which is good; however, what rank was he while in the Air Force that caused her family to have such a struggle to get by? I won't comment on her brother's careers as I am sure they are happy. Her sister should be congratulated for obtaining her degree.)

"Darcy worked hard in school, got a National Merit Scholarship and went to Harvard. She majored in computer science and economics. She put herself through school by working for high-tech firms in the Boston area." (Good Show!!!)

"Darcy met her husband, Mike Burner, while at college. They wed in 1993." (Congratulations!!!)

"After Darcy got her degree, she and Mike moved to California to work in the high tech sector. She focused on changing companies' products and services to better respond to the customers' real problems." (Which Companies and what were her detailed accomplishments?)

"In the summer of 1998, Mike was offered a job at Microsoft. Darcy and he moved to Washington." (Wooo Hooo!! Home again!!)

"Darcy went to work for Microsoft in 2000 and became the lead manager for an initiative to change the way software was built. It was very successful and enhanced Darcy's reputation as a successful businesswoman." (Now she is a manager...I thought I read somewhere that she was an executive ... She is pandering to the ladies by announcing she is a successful business 'businesswomen' instead of a business person. What was the initiative that she sponsored that 'changed' the way Microsoft builds software? How much money did it save? How many errors did it prevent? More details are needed.)

"Eager to start a family, Darcy became pregnant and took maternity leave from Microsoft. Henry Burner was born in January of 2003." (So Darcy started her family without consulting with her husband. .Hopefully her husband was the responsible other party required for this accomplishment but it appears that Darcy had an 'immaculate child' in this case.)

"Darcy has been active in her community and in state politics. She left Microsoft to spend the time necessary to be elected to the United States Congress in the 8th District." (This paragraph needs an enormous correction. She has been active in her community - Details are needed! She has been active in State Politics...How? She left Microsoft to spend the time necessary to be elected to Congress but the paragraph above states she left Microsoft to be a Mother. What a discrepancy!!)

Posted by: sillyguy on October 15, 2006 07:39 PM
16. Silli guy...

You go on & on.... boring!

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 15, 2006 07:52 PM
17. 16 Army Medic

It is good to note that you think Darcy's resume is boring which it is. As you say my comments only bring that point out. Thanks!

Posted by: sillyguy on October 15, 2006 07:58 PM
18. She mentions her Dads Air Force career and all the military towns as she's trying to appear "hawkish" and tough on defense, lot's of the Democrats are pandering right now to attract the voters who support the military & the war in Irag.
They "loath the military" except around election time.....
They can't be who they really are, nobody would elect them if they were honest about what they really think & believe...they have to "plans", no real reason why you "should" vote for them..just bashing Bush, smears and "october surprises".
The few good Democrats left that would be worthy opponents are drummed out of their party, look what happens to women, minorities and etc..if they aren't "progressive" enough for what passes for mainstream liberalism these days.
They always move to the right, sound conservative and so on around election time.

Posted by: Cara on October 15, 2006 09:45 PM
19. sillyguy - thanks for the insight. It has actually been a lot of fun watching Darcy's "resume" evolve as time passes and folks start looking into her claims. First she was a Microsoft "execuitive" - until it was pointed out that she was really only a program manager, pretty much a first level manager - hmmm, about the same as a Sergeant in the KCSO though Reichart went on to become a Leiutenant, a Captain, a Major and the Sherriff. Then Darcy left Microsoft because she wanted to go to law school - that was her stated reason when she left not that she wanted to become a mom. Of course when she left law school a year later she said that it was she wanted to enter politics and that she only went to law school in order to learn how to make laws. Uh - seems as though 3 hours on the internet would tell you more about how to MAKE laws than a year of law school but then again ... But now the whole law school year is missing and she really left her successful career as Microsoft (both years of it) so she could enter politics! Stay tuned for what her "resume" says next week ....

Posted by: Jay on October 16, 2006 08:33 AM
20. Well her resume is certainly a fine resume to get a job as a program manager or other low level middle management position at another tech company, but I just don't see any reason to believe she would be qualified to be a congressman. I think she is not.

Posted by: JustSumGuy on October 16, 2006 09:05 AM
21. I have seen it with my own eyes. Freudian slip? The Times says: "She continues to push the deceptive party line." If that isn't an indictment (unintended I'm sure) of the Demorats nationally, than I'm not sure what is.

Posted by: G Jiggy on October 16, 2006 11:07 AM
22. Darcy on Robert Mak: Did anyone catch her glare at Reichert when she said that to fix Social Security she would tax 90K+ earners more (which really isn't a fix anyway). Dave then calmly inserted "Which is raising taxes." Man, her head whipped around and she glared at him for about four or five long seconds as Mak ended the program. Kind of blew her position that she won't raise taxes. Funny stuff.

Posted by: G Jiggy on October 16, 2006 11:20 AM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?