October 18, 2006
Darcy Burnocchio

Darcy Burner's latest ad delivers more lies. [Video]:

Now newspaper reports prove that Reichert and his Republican friends aren't telling the truth about Darcy Burner's position on taxes. They know their attack ads are lies.
First, Reichert's ad [video] correctly cites Burner's statement on the "Equal Time" radio show ("We should let the tax cuts expire " Apr. 21, audio at 19:07 ), along with this Treasury press release explaining the consequences of letting the tax cuts expire.

Second, Burner is lying about the newspaper reports. The ad flashes the word "inaccuracies" citing the Seattle Times of 9/24. But that article said nothing about taxes.

Sheesh.

Ironicially, Burner's people recently accused Reichert of falsely citing the same article in the ad at question above. It was a substantively correct paraphrasing, erroneously braced with quotes. (The Reichert campaign acknowledged the error and said they would remove the quotes. My copy of the video linked above is the original). But the ad's allegation, that Burner's ads contained "inaccuracies" about Reichert's support for veterans' healthcare was actually an understatement, clarified by the Times editorial which said Burner's ad "shamelessly obfuscates the truth". And the only "inaccuracies" that the 9/24 article found on Reichert was that an NRCC flyer slightly overstated the number of elections that Burner failed to vote in (the flyer counted 10, when it was actually 9)

If even the Times left-of-center editorial board is calling Burner all but a liar, maybe it's time to put up a Photoshop of Burner with a Pinocchio nose and her pants on fire?

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 18, 2006 01:58 PM | Email This
Comments
1. You know, I wouldn't necessarily call her a liar. That's a word that gets thrown around waaaay too often these days. In order for one to be a liar, they must know what they're saying is the opposite of the truth.

In Burner's case, she's too ignorant to be a liar. Her campaign people? Maybe. Misleading and smear? Sure. But the problem here isn't so much lying; it's simply a candidate who hasn't clue one about what she's doing. She's an unqualified candidate who's in way too far over her head, and has no business running a serious congressional campaign in the first place.

Posted by: jimg on October 18, 2006 02:00 PM
2. It's interesting that a political novice who is characterized by some as imminently unqualified for any position is so close to the incumbent in the polls. Perhaps Washington isn't as immune to the political winds blowing through the country as one might expect. One might think that a 'throw the bums out' mood in the electorate might translate differently here than what seems to be the case, given the difficulty Republicans seem to be facing here. I would still be surprised if Ms Burner won the election.

Posted by: Frank on October 18, 2006 02:21 PM
3. It's interesting that a political novice who is characterized by some as imminently unqualified for any position is so close to the incumbent in the polls.

If Mao (D) appeared on the ballot here, he could get at least 45% of the vote.

Posted by: Palouse on October 18, 2006 02:27 PM
4. jimg--agree 100%

nothing personal or mean--she is just a lightweight. like any less-qualified candidate you are interviewing at a company. you're polite, but tell them "sorry, you do not fit our needs..thank you for applying...goodbye"

in the same vein, my only comment re: Frank 2 is that some districts had no 'R' opponents. that in itself is sad. why not? apathy? hell, if a guy like 'Goodspaceguy' can throw his hat in, someone can at least nonimate a banana slug with an R on his back!

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 18, 2006 02:33 PM
5. Jimmie-howya,

I don't know. What self respecting Republican candidate would truly want to lead a group of constituents such as that of Jim McDermott? Unfortunately there are some districts that for now are beyond saving. One day they will fail to create enough offspring to continue their horrific statist ideology, and then there will be a Republican challenger.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 18, 2006 03:33 PM
6. It seems good old darcy had no problem calling Dave a liar to his face on a televised debate.

I say, good for Dave (and Stefan) that he strikes back. Since she deserves the name LIAR, she should be called one.

Let me start.

Darcy, you are a liar.

You are a liar about Microsoft, you are a liar about law school, you are a liar about taxes, you are a liar about the reasons you didn't vote, you are a liar the fact that you are little more than a dumpy version of Nancy Pelosi, you are a liar about your "community service", you are a liar about Dave.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 18, 2006 03:37 PM
7. liar=desperate. She sees the writing on the wall.

This is just the start. The more desperate she is, the more vicious the ads will become.

Posted by: Hinton on October 18, 2006 05:32 PM
8. And the hits just keep on comin.

After we find out that she possibly lied about her "successful 3+ year job" at Microsoft ( 2.5 out of 5 rating - maybe ), and of course the Ames Lake debacle, I think someone should contact the YMCA and determine if the "youth sports coach" thing is a lie as well.

For all we know, she may have been fired at Microsoft. Maybe that is why she chose not to try to get another job, as surely that would be exposed to possible employers. I'm sure, a polished businesswoman, such as herself, would surely be recruited by other firms like Google, whatever.

But hey, run for Congress, who is going to question her claims about anything, especially her claims that can't legally be verified.

I'm still struck by her response during the Times Q&A that if she wins, her role as "mother" to young Henry, will be "role model"

Isn't that special.

Posted by: ameslaker on October 18, 2006 06:08 PM
9. Did anyone else notice a little bias in the letters to the editor of the Seattle Times? On Tuesday, following the debate, every letter published on the debate was in favor of Darcy. They sounded like they were written by her campaign staff, repeating all of her favorite buzz words.

I thought that maybe today's paper would have letters in support of Reichert. Nope. Not a single one.

The letters editor is hopelessly biased, and doesn't care if letters have blantant errors in them. I guess there is no requirement to fact check someone's letter.

Posted by: Janet S on October 18, 2006 06:31 PM
10. Janet, let's see if they print the letter I just sent the Times that points out that Darcy thinks her taxes are too low. (she said so on John Carlson's show last August)If they don't, they can't say it's because they didn't get any anti-Burner, pro-Reichert letters.

Posted by: Michele on October 18, 2006 07:37 PM
11. Janet S and Michelle, last week in the public blog, there was a story about letters to the editor in the Eastside Journal, I think.

For fun, I looked up some of the names of the letter writers mentioned and found that they did not exit in the voter database, either in King County nor anywhere else in the state.

If there is a letter writing campaign going on, it appears as if some of the letter writers won't be voting for Darcy any way (at least, not legally).

Take heart. Better they write letters instead of registering to vote.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 18, 2006 09:14 PM
12. Southern Roots - that's really interesting. It used to be that the KCJ would verify letters before printing them, but they don't any more. I know from personal experience. Maybe if this little trick was pointed out, they might start doing it again. But that would cost money, and they are barely making it as it is.

But I agree - glad they aren't voting in the 8th.

Posted by: Janet S on October 18, 2006 09:51 PM
13. Uh, you're complaining that the letters to the editor were biased...take a look at the ARTICLE that was written to endorse Reichert. Don't get me wrong, OBVIOSULY the point of an endorsement is to be somewhat biased, but for a "credible" paper to plaster Reichert talking points and buzz words and rip apart Darcy...what happened to good journalism? there goes my subscription to the Times. It's obvious the lazy automotons at the Times called Reichert's press guy and had him write the article. And "Southern Roots", the voter database hasn't been accurately updated in WA since 2000, ever since the Gore/ Bush debacle with hiring 16 year olds to enter data for a stipend. IM NOT in the voter database, even though I am registered to vote and have correctly and legally done so quite a few times in the 8th. And Cheryl, again you surprise me with your complete ignorance--> as a woman, you should understand Darcy better than most of us here :-(. however, with the type of people most republican women are, I wouldn't be surpised if your husband beat you in order to get you post your blogs with such vile, ignorant comments. Do me a favor, CITE me some of those "LIES" . now now now, don't cite papers or Reichert literature--> find me something credible, something REAL that isn't skewed, and I'll gladly drive you to the polls on election day and vote for Reichert with you. That is, if you can be back in time to get dinner on the table and nurse you next round of unfortunately unaborted children.

Posted by: michaelUW on October 19, 2006 12:41 AM
14. "unfortunately unaborted children"? Damn. The sad thing is that I think Darcy supporters honestly believe this kind of junk about conservatives. Sad.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
- Mark Twain

Posted by: Orrin Johnson on October 19, 2006 08:58 AM
15. MichaelUW,

Are you a journalism major?

It is automatons, not "automotons".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/automatons

Posted by: pbj on October 19, 2006 09:12 AM
16. That is, if you can be back in time to get dinner on the table and nurse you next round of unfortunately unaborted children. -Posted by michaelUW at October 19, 2006 12:41 AM

Thank you so very much for perfectly illustrating the caliber of voter that finds darcy and her ilk appealing. Your arguement devolved to so profoundly and demonstrates how void you are of ideas and answers that it should be repeated to each and every voter even considering voting democrat so they know exactly with whom they are associating.

Thanks for giving me such a powerful example as to why you liberals need constant and continual exposure and defeat.

I believe I will now use that quote in every single post I make in every single blog where I participate. I heartily urge other rational people to do the same.

"That is, if you can be back in time to get dinner on the table and nurse you next round of unfortunately unaborted children."-Posted by michaelUW at October 19, 2006 12:41 AM

Posted by: Cheryl on October 19, 2006 09:50 AM
17. Time and time again, I post something, and you all take the bait. It's unfortunate that no matter what point i make, all i ever hear back is a critique on my spelling or grammar haha!!

"Thanks for giving me such a powerful example as to why you liberals need constant and continual exposure and defeat."

This was my favorite part--> I think if you watch the news, you'd see that it is currently republicans nation wide who are being exposed and defeated.

Bye Dave, and bye majority in the house.

Oh, and thank's for taking the bait on another point --> Cheryl has refered to Reichert's opponent's child as "gratefully unaborted", and no one said anything... it's ok however, it's BECAUSE of republican hypocrisy that people like me are going to be able to enjoy a democratic majority in the U.S. House of representatives.

thank you all for your failures.

Posted by: michaelUW on October 19, 2006 10:48 AM
18. With half a brain I think you could begin to imagine any child as gratefully UNaborted...I imagine even you are gratefully UNaborted.

There is a wide gulf between "gratefully unaborted" and "unfortunately unaborted" children... but an idealogue like you can't imagine it.


"That is, if you can be back in time to get dinner on the table and nurse you next round of unfortunately unaborted children."-Posted by michaelUW at October 19, 2006 12:41 AM

Posted by: Cheryl on October 19, 2006 11:02 AM
19. Cheryl? Recall when I asked you to not just CALL reichert's opponent a liar, but to prove it? I'm still waiting :-)

...That is, if you have the time to do it and still get dinner on the table and nurse your next round of unfortunately unaborted children...

I'm so ashamed of these women who have fallen prey to the gender gap and disparity in our society today :-(

Bye Dave, Bye Majority in Congress

Posted by: michaelUW on October 19, 2006 11:19 AM
20. as a woman, you should understand Darcy better than most of us here :-(. however, with the type of people most republican women are, I wouldn't be surpised if your husband beat you in order to get you post your blogs with such vile, ignorant comments.

Shows what you know. Why would 'we' Republican men beat our wives when we'd much rather drop-kick little snots such as yourself?

Posted by: jimg on October 19, 2006 12:01 PM
21. She has repeatedly told DIFFERENT stories about why she left Microsoft... they can't all be true, hence one is a LIE.

She has told multiple stories about her position at Microsoft... one is an outright LIE.

She has repeatedly called herself engaged in her community, yet she chaired one little contentious homeowners meeting... "engaged in community" is a LIE.

She has accused Dave of voting 90% with Bush, yet oversight organizations say he votes 55%R and 45%D... 90% is LIE.

She says she wants to riase taxes on Social Security and she says she doesn't want to raise taxes on Social Security.... one of those positions is a LIE based on the other position.

She claims she wants to be elected for the gratefully unaborted Henry, while she's clearly anxious to leave (ok let's say she has no qualms about leaving) the gratefully unaborted Henry behind... the two positions are mutually exclusive to any mother that takes motherhood seriously... therefore a LIE.

She claims to be a 'businesswoman', yet she was merely (and for quite a short time) employed; "businesswoman" means she owed or ran a business ...another LIE.

I stand by my position:

Darcy, you are a liar.

You are a liar about Microsoft, you are a liar about law school, you are a liar about taxes, you are a liar about the reasons you didn't vote, you are a liar the fact that you are little more than a dumpy version of Nancy Pelosi, you are a liar about your "community service", you are a liar about Dave.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 19, 2006 12:27 PM
22. "She has repeatedly told DIFFERENT stories about why she left Microsoft... they can't all be true, hence one is a LIE"
Fact or Fiction? ---> She left microsoft for multiple reasons. Just because there is more than one, doesnt mean they are contradictory. I don't know her personally, but just because someone from a political party says something you don't like, doesn't mean it's a lie. Logical Fallacy number one proven wrong.

"She has told multiple stories about her position at Microsoft... one is an outright LIE"
Fact or Fiction? - Darcy maintains she was a product manager at microsoft. Since the beginning. If the papers distorted her as "executive", that's only because some people think a manager IS an executive. Again, she has always maintained that she was a product manager. Fallacy 2, proven wrong.
"She has repeatedly called herself engaged in her community, yet she chaired one little contentious homeowners meeting... "engaged in community" is a LIE"
Fact or Fiction? Darcy coached sports, was engaged in her non-municiple community, and as a BUSINESSWOMAN, she contributed to her community by helping to create jobs and help things run more efficiently. Fallacy three, false!
"She has accused Dave of voting 90% with Bush, yet oversight organizations say he votes 55%R and 45%D... 90% is LIE"
Well, it's actually closer to 88%. But then again, all ads and literature say "NEARLY 90%" of the time. Fallacy four, false (Cheryl, you're disapointing me!)
"She says she wants to riase taxes on Social Security and she says she doesn't want to raise taxes on Social Security.... one of those positions is a LIE based on the other position"
Um, she has ALWAYS said that the cap on SS taxes needs to be raised. JUST those taxes. No more, no less. That has never changed. Ever. Ever. Ever. EVER. Fallacy 5, WRONG, Wrong again Cheryl. Also, and interesting note, Reichert tried to privatize SS with Bush, but then lied about it on TV. Reichert's own words show he has NO solution to SS, actually, if it was true that he changed his mind about privatizing social security. So, Reichert either wants to privatize, or has NO solution at all. You pick, because I don't think he has yet.
"She claims she wants to be elected for the gratefully unaborted Henry, while she's clearly anxious to leave (ok let's say she has no qualms about leaving) the gratefully unaborted Henry behind... the two positions are mutually exclusive to any mother that takes motherhood seriously... therefore a LIE." this is my favorite, Cheryl, because it strengthens my previous statements about your "barefoot, knocked up, and knocked-out-by-my-well-fed husband point of view on women. most of the congresswomen have children. So do the men actually. Are those Congressmen bad for leaving their childrens behind to try and make the country a better place? What about soldiers in Iraq with new children? Are they awful parents too? again, I don't know their family, but i would assume that that is a private family discussion that they have processed, and are likely developing a plan for her to be a mother and a congresswoman. Fallacy 6...WRONG. Dang Cheryl...ouch
"businesswoman" means she owed or ran a business ...another LIE." ...Are you serious? a businessOWNER is someone who owns a business. A businessWOMAN is someone who WORKS IN BUSINESS. That was the stupidest thing I have heard all day. And, even if 12 years is considered to be a short amount of time...it's still almost 33% of her entire life, so that's a pretty good chunk of her time spent in business. As a business WOMAN. Again, you have failed miserably Cheryl.
I stand by my position. Cheryl doesn't know anything.

Bye Dave, Bye republican Majority in Congress


Posted by: michaelUW on October 19, 2006 04:31 PM
23. Tell us all about all those jobs she created at her ONE meeting of the HOA, in her "coaching". SHE didn't create jobs at Microsoft, MICROSOFT created jobs during her very short tenure there.

NEWSFLASH raising the SS CAP is raising taxes.

Actually WE DO have a family owned business, so yes I know the difference between BUSINESSWOMAN and EMPLOYEE.

Gosh Michael, you certainly are defensive about little darcy that wants to... are you the unfortunate guy going to be left behind caring for her even more unfortunate, abandoned but gratefully unaborted Henry?

Children need BOTH parents.. at some stages of their lives, they need and identify with one more than the other. When a child is an infant or a toddler, such as the unfortunate, abandoned but gratefully unaborted Henry, that child NEEDS HIS MOTHER. He benefits from daddy, he will enjoy the attention of the nanny, but HE NEEDS HIS MOTHER.

When unfortunate, abandoned but gratefully unaborted Henry begins school he will begin his steps of independence from his mother; as he proceeds into adolescence and his teen years, he will be closer to his dad.

How do I know? We have 3 sons: 26, 24 and 17. I'd consider that makes me somewhat an expert of what infant boys need, what toddler boys need, what adolescent boys need, what teenage boys need and what adult boys need from each of their parents.

Leaving that child to pursue the latest checkmark on her to-do list is viciously selfish of her.

Furthermore, military personel may have no CHOICE to leave their children, The mommy of the unfortunate, abandoned but gratefully unaborted Henry made a conscious choice to leave him.


Posted by: Cheryl on October 19, 2006 06:05 PM
24. NEWSFLASH moron--> you said she lied about taxes because she said she wanted to raise them, THEN said she didnt. She has stayed firm on the fact that stance of raising SS caps as a possible fix to the SS "problem".

NEWSFLASH "BUSINESSOWNER" --> the word Businesswoman is combined from two smaller words, Business and woman. A Woman, who is in Business. Business-Woman. How can I break that down for you anymore?. You have a family owned business? FANTASTIC! You are NOT ONLY A BUSINESSWOMAN, you are a BUSINESS OWNER. A woman who is involved in BUSINESS is a BUSINESSWOMAN. A BUSINESS WOMAN can ALSO be an employee.

you have children? GREAT! Well, Darcy ALSO plans to REMAIN her child's mother, she isn't giving him up. ALL OTHER PARENTS in congress are still parents. Are you SERIOUSLY a woman saying that a woman can't do the same thing as a man? or was your husband twisting your wrist as you typed that?

You are an expert on Ultra-traditional, patriarchal veiws of what it means to be a mother, and it does not fit with normal-minded people of the 21st century.

NEWSFLASH, military personell SIGN UP for the military. Why don't those men and women wait for their children to grow up then, eh?

NEWSFLASH, you're ignorant.

Bye Dave, Bye majority in Congress

Posted by: michaelUW on October 19, 2006 07:44 PM
25. Newsflash: predictably, it didn't take you long to devolve to typical insults... I wonder how soon you'll be provoked to even more predictable profanity?

A low level employee is not a 'business woman'... little darcy is playing to her NOW and NARAL pocketbooks, and we all know it.

I am an expert on raising CHILDREN.. and being a mother TO them, as opposed to birthing them then passing them off to someone else when selfishness and a lust for power overtakes.

Any female can 'birth'... a mother nurtures.

A nurturing mother sacrifices FOR her children rather than sacrificing precious time WITH her child for her own ego.

I have nurtured mine successfully into productive adulthood, and done so without bastard babies, tatoo's, piercings, addictions, alcoholism, arrest records ,and/or all the other aberrations you 'new century' left wing Seattle kiddies seem to think is "normal".

2 of my 3 sons have graduated college with duel degrees (and NO student loans, I might add), 1 has FINISHED law school (unlike Darcy), 1 is in graduate school, soon to finish (unlike Darcy and one is still in high school with his collegiate and post-graduate education yet ahead of him.


When you, or darcy, have the track record and success I have had with my children, you can judge me.

From my experience I can most certainly stand in judgement of her.

I judge her a selfish woman doing a horrible dis-service to an innocent child unfortunate enough to have been born to her.

Till then, you both have zero parent credibility.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 19, 2006 08:21 PM
26. And I haven't heard Darcy say dear old mr darcy is going to quit his job, follow her and set up house as Mr Mom.

She knowingly, willingly and purposefully is abandoning her child.

She would have gotten a bigger political payout from the NARAL crowd had she just aborted him.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 19, 2006 08:28 PM
27. Hm. Leaving a very high paying job as a BUSINESSWOMAN ( I'm not going to argue with you about that anymore because obviously giving birth to all of those kids has drained your mental faculties enough for you to not understand that a "businesswoman" is just a woman in business. Darcy DOESNT build up the word businesswoman to mean anything more or less than that) to change the direction of the country IS a sacrifice. What makes you think her kid and husband are not going with her to DC? or that they are going to have a bi-coastal living arrangement. the fact is, you DONT know, and since you are stuck in 1950 with your husband's fist in your mouth, you don't seem to realize that this ISNT the good ol' days of the old testament. These things, private family matters, work themselves out.

And really, A degree in computer science and economics is a PRETTY BIG DEAL when it comes from harvard, many of our Reps in teh house have much less than that, like, hm, an associates degree from a chrisitan college like Reichert?

Posted by: michaelUW on October 19, 2006 08:30 PM
28. "NEWSFLASH, you're ignorant."

There's that pesky pot/kettle thing rearing up again...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 19, 2006 08:32 PM
29. Michael has proven himself to be a immature foul mouthed punk once again in the grand tradition of the Horses Ass. Do us all a favor and don't breed, the shallow end of the gene pool is already full of your clones.

Posted by: Huh? on October 19, 2006 08:32 PM
30. I think what her rank in the polls show is that a Republican candidate has to be exceptionally well qualified to get past the rabid blue hoards.

Posted by: mark on October 19, 2006 08:55 PM
31. "bi-coastal living arrangement"...

How sweet and considerate for little Henry... plopped on a plane and ferried about like afterthought freight.

"bi-coastal living arrangement"... that falls into the category of 'why bother?'... with marriage or motherhood.

But the upside for darcy is at least she won't have the opportunity to birth and abandon any other inconvenient freight.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 19, 2006 08:56 PM
32. Anyone who is gullable enough to believe in or vote for Darcy really needs a reality check. She's caught in a lie, so she tries to misdirect the voter by saying her opponent lied. She's led the most deceptive campaign I've seen in all my life.

Posted by: Mikey on October 19, 2006 11:36 PM
33. again, how has she lied? All I have is an overweight, overbeaten housewife spouting GOP nonsense and saying that a woman can't have a career AND a kid. Let me crystal clear and perfectly honest--> if you can truly TRULY find me one indisputable fact that she has lied, I will drive you to the polls and we can vote for reichert together, and I will buy your drinks all night at his victory party. To make it more interesting, I'll give myself a 5 minute limit to falsify your statements, no more than that.

Posted by: michaelUW on October 20, 2006 12:28 AM
34. You give truth to the axiom that a horse (an ass) can be led to water but it can't be forced to drink.

I stand by my assertion, the Times assertion, Reicherts assertion, the Tribune's assertion, Stefan's assertion, the Ames Lake neighbor's assertion, Jim for Microsoft's assertion that she is a lightweight, that she is a LIAR.

Bending the truth is a LIE.
Misrepresenting oneself is a LIE.
Mischaracterizing your opponent is a LIE.
A wink and a nod to nut supporters who do it for her is still a LIE.

The problem with you lefty Seattle kiddies is that you think TRUTH can be nuanced, that it can be based on the convenience or inconvenience of perception and the moment.

Skip on back to Philosophy 101: A=A. The most simple, non-negative definition of Truth is: that which is consistent with reality. And when determining reality, there is no such thing as gray. A thing is itself, nothing else. A=A. It is not, contrary to popular belief, that which is the culmination of our perceptions or our emotions. There is no such thing as gray. (In the interest of TRUTH and full disclosure, the link leads to a site created by our eldest son back when he was a college sophomore.)

And again, how very typical that you resort to personal attacks to preface your objections.

A woman CAN most certainly have a career and a "kid" (and maybe Darcy should have adopted a "KID" instead of birthing a human CHILD).. however one of them, no matter her intentions, will suffer. You can scream your enlightened boy feminism, but multitudes of studies prove you wrong.

In this instance, it is the toddler child that will suffer. Darcy has made the CONSCIOUS choice to abandon her child for her "career"... and really, since she only has a record of short stints, I don't believe it can be called a "career" so much as a pinball series of interests followed.

Does Maternal Employment Have a Negative Effect on Child Development?

Early childhood from age two through six is a crucial developmental time in a child's life. Many distinctive developmental features take place during early childhood. It is during early childhood where children begin to vastly acquire language and communication skills. Children are more socially and emotionally conscious through this period in their development. Since, early childhood is a critical developmental period does maternal employment caused any significant negative or positive effects on development?

Non-maternal Caregivers And Preschoolers
The number of employed mothers of preschoolers has drastically risen since the end of World War II (Webb, N.B. 1982). Between 1950 and 1876 the rate of employment among mothers of preschoolers nearly tripled growing from eleven percent to 37 percent (Webb, N.B. 1982). This growth in employment has caused major changes in the lives of countless preschool aged children. This shift from home to the work force has brought a shift in children's caretakers. Where, the mother used to be the primary caretaker of her children now it has shifted to a non-maternal caretaker. The primary caretakers of preschool children have are longer their mothers and in many cases the caretakers are not directly related to the child.

There are many questions concerning non-maternal caretakers. Such as what effects to non-maternal caretakers have on children? What types of attachment bonds with their non-maternal caretakers do children create? Does the relationship between mother and child change because of attachments to other non-maternal caretakers?

An attachment is an affectional bond, enduring in nature, and specific in its focus (Webb, N.B. 1986). A young child's instinct is to create attachment one or two key people (Bowlby, J. 1969). These attachments are most likely created toward their parents and more specifically their mother. When a young child is separated from its mother on a daily basis the caretakers substitute for the mother. In 1986 John Bowlby wrote that a mother's role was crucially significant for the healthy development of the young child. Based on this it can be argued that a child needs to establish a form of attachment to its mother in order to develop in a healthy manner. For example Selma Fraiherg warned that children of working mothers cared for by numerous caretakers might fail to from the attachment bonds necessary for healthy emotional and cognitive development.

The primary caretaker is considered to hold a very special place in the child's affections, distinct from his attachments to others (Bowlby, J 1969). Therefore if the mother is not the primary caretaker of the child, the relationship between mother and child may become distorted. Creating attachments is very critical for young children. Children need to create healthy attachments toward their parents. Intervention by non-maternal caretakers could cause these attachments to never be created. The results could be damaging to both child and parent.

Sex Role Concepts
Growing up with a mother who works outside of the home a child is exposed to different sex role concepts. Sex roles are largely created due to the environment children experience through their development. Few studies have actually proven a link between working mothers and children's attitudes to sex roles. There are a few studies that have found that maternal employment is associated with less stereotyped sex role concepts for both boys and girls.

While many studies have found no relationship between working mothers and sex roles one study did reveal that, sons of working mothers had less sex-typed rooms than sons of non-employed mothers (MacKinnon, Brody, & Stoneman, 1982). This could possibly show that sons of working mothers have less stereotypes about the roles men and women should follow. Only one study by Hensely and Borges found hat middle class second and third grades of working mothers had greater sex typing.

Some studies show that there is a correlation between maternal employment and the percent of subjects (daughters) who had been treated or diagnosed as depressed at some time in their lives (Sugar, 1994) The percentage of subjects who had been treated or diagnosed as depressed was at 8% for those with stay-at-home-moms, 18% for those with part-time working mothers, and 23% for those with full-time working mothers. Although there is no guarantee that a child of a working mother will be treated or diagnosed as depressed at some time in their life, based on this information, it maybe safe to say that there seems to be a higher chance of depression in children with working mothers. Children with full-time working mothers "apparently missed out on important aspects of psychosocial development" (Sugar, 1994, p.85) which may be the cause of higher rates of depression.

Perhaps it is more proper to say that infants may benefit more from mothers who stay at home than from mothers who work part- or full-time rather than saying that there is a negative effect on children with working mothers. An infant's "cognitive development may benefit from the mother taking more time off from work after giving childbirth" (Baum, 2003), rather than returning to her career right away. In most cases, it can be assumed that maternal care can be more nurturing and loving than even qualified childcare. After all, those infants are receiving care from their own mothers.

Study: Working moms cause poorer development

Study Says Children of Working Moms Have Poorer Verbal and Mental Development

Study Links Working Mothers To Children's Slower Learning

Mom's Odd Hours Hurt Learning... Children Whose Mothers Work Odd Hours Lag Behind In Development

Posted by: Cheryl on October 20, 2006 09:17 AM
35. (Webb, N.B. 1982).
(Webb, N.B. 1986)
(Bowlby, J 1969).
(MacKinnon, Brody, & Stoneman, 1982)
(Sugar, 1994)
(Baum, 2003)

Take a look at your sources. Are you kidding me? C'mon, give me something that's WORTH consideration please.

We don't live in the 60's or the 80's or even the 90's. there haas even been massive developement since 2003. Cheryl, you need to take your husband's fist out of your mouth and realize that times are changing. Gender rolls do not apply anymore. Women can do the same thing as men, if not better. You are an embarrassment to women everywhere. People like you are the reason that women have to work so hard to be seen as equals in our society.

Posted by: michaelUW on October 20, 2006 01:29 PM
36. Cheryl, you need to take your husband's fist out of your mouth and realize that times are changing.

Why do I suspect michaelUW had a mommy that abandoned him for her "career'? How often did you lose your latchkey, michaelUW?


Maybe, michaelUW , you need to take your head out from darcy's ample backside and realize that while "times are changing" in society at large, the needs of a child have always remained/will always remain EXACTLY the same: a nurturing mother, a devoted father and an intact family sharing their life together, not 3000 miles apart or when the nanny goes home.


BTW... Go Cougs!

Posted by: Cheryl on October 20, 2006 04:29 PM
37. Again, I demolish all of the foundation of your arguments, and you have nothing but simplicity and ignorance to feed back. Happy days, what a way to relieve stress- showing ignorant people their own asses. Not republicans- Cheryl is NOT a republican (my mother however, was, and stillcis a pretty damn good one)- but those extremist punks like cheryl need to be removed from the voting system. There should be an IQ test administered to all who vote, then we can knock off the hillbillies and uneducated stay at home mothers like Cheryl, and ensure that only people who UNDERSTAND the candidates and what is going on are the ones making decisions about who will lead our country.

Go Darcy, I'd rather have a soccer-mom businesswoman run Congress anyday over a mindless rubber stamp for the Bush Administration. Wow. Soccer mom business woman running for Congress. What an unbelievable rolemodel she will be for her son, just like the OTHER hundreds of moms AND DADS there are in Congress.

Posted by: michaelUW on October 20, 2006 07:14 PM
38. "Role model" from afar... kinda like Tiger Woods or Sally Ride, eh?

Yippee for gratefully unaborted but inconvenient Henry, he can throw kisses at her tight-lipped picture.

I expect the gratefully unaborted but inconvenient Henry would rather have Mom hugs than Mom "role model" at this stage in his life. I know the gratefully unaborted but inconvenient Henry would rather have mom tuck him in at night, sing to him when he's sick, read to him every day and kiss his owies when he falls. I suspect he'd rather bring her dandelions and pictures he scribbled and raisins he finds under the sofa. Poor little gratefully unaborted but inconvenient Henry, it's tough to get a hug with a "role model" mommy 3000 miles away..

Refute that, little one.

Furthermore, a mom that lies to get ahead, a mom with a pinball "career", a mom that's a quitter, a mom that abandons, a mom that associates herself with the likes of vile Goldstein and his foul-mouthed friends, is a pretty lousy "role model".

Refute that, little one.

Maybe nanny will be a good role model when mommy heads off to her next big adventure and/or item on her to-do list... at least she'll be a warm body for those hugs, even if the hugs have been purchased at his expense.

Come back when you grow up Michael. Come back when your mom stays home to raise you. Come back when you have children, when you've raised children, when you've given them their wings for the adult world. Until then, you are naive, simplistic, downright silly and stupid about what any child, including the grateully unaborted but inconvenient Henry, needs.

I'm in the 8th (you know that congressional district darcy has avoided thus far) and the answer to "what do you think of darcy"? is STILL "darcy who?".

You're right Michael, "Go Darcy...go back where you came from: back to your child, back to get some experience, back to stick with something, back to your community, back to develop your own voice and opinions, back to learning how to directly answer a direct question."

By the way michael... what kind of "IQ" does it take to recite talking points? What kind does it take to drink the koolaid? To follow the crowd? To accept platitudes as ideas? What kind of "IQ" does it take to devolve into insults? I'd venture to say, a pretty dammned small one.

You might take a moment to look up the accepted definition of "soccer mom"... darcy is not one, has never been one... and when she abandons her child, she will never BE one. I guess if you want to ascribe a 'mom' label to her it would have to be LOUSY MOM.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 20, 2006 08:19 PM
39. What's this about people with jobs abandoning their children? I thought we liked it when people worked. If a lust for power leads anyone to be a US rep, I would imagine they'd be horribly disappointed.

Posted by: Frank on October 21, 2006 01:37 AM
40. Cheryl,

I appreciate your desire to be a great mom or that you have been a great mom. Just keep in mind that you are "cheap date" Republican according to the Matt Rosenberg,
Sound Politics.

Also keep in mind what Reichert did to one Mom's desire to keep her permanently brain damaged child alive. He voted to void the process to keep her from starving and/or dehydrating to death. Their is a huge difference between voting to kill an innocent person and taking a job that maybe less than ideal.

Posted by: John McDonald on October 29, 2006 05:07 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?