I can't find anything on the media sites, but I've seen a few emails and comments to the effect that Barack Obama called her "Marcy Burner".
Anybody have more specifics?
UPDATE: See the comments. If Obama runs for President, he'll need a good nomenclator. Marcy Burner should be available.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 27, 2006 08:55 PM | Email ThisDarcy, Farcy, Larcy, Marcy -- she is going to win by two points.
Rave, Lave, Mave Crave, Dave -- the looser.
Did anyone hear what the AARP said to our elderly voters?
Most are republicans you know!
Maybe we can tell the liberals the same thing?
DON'T BOTHER VOTING!
If you're going to insult us, at least learn to use the right words when you insult us. It's hard to take you seriously when you keep calling us the "loosers" when you look like you didn't even pass 9th grade English. It makes you look like a "loser".
Posted by: Mike H on October 28, 2006 05:11 AMLet's call the whole thing off.
Posted by: Mumblix Grumph on October 28, 2006 07:00 AMi don't care what they call each other. just not calling them my REAL legislator(s). as for Obama, why should i care about him? he's like a Jesse, Sharpton or Cindy Sheehan flying in & poking their noses in local issues; a passing flattus--only momemtarily unpleasant then gone.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 28, 2006 07:17 AMShe's run a very poor campaign, allowing herself to be caught trying to appear more substantive than her qualifications and experience allow. And she's consistently made it clear that her base is those in Seattle, not the people in her district who she would represent if elected. Darcy Burner did not run a serious campaign. If she had been serious, it would have been much more thought out, from even before she filed for her candidacy. Only someone in delusion would bring such minimal and incomplete qualifications to a national congressional race, without any advance mitigation. And then on top of that, run a negative attack style campaign.
Anyone on the left that actually believes that Darcy Burner is going to get elected is in for a rude awakening.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 28, 2006 07:22 AMAudio: http://www.all-encompassingly.com/audio-memories-ted-kennedy-on-barack-obama/
(And they mock Dubya for his Texan pronunciation of "nucular.")
Posted by: TB on October 28, 2006 07:25 AMBarack Hussein Obama, Jr.
However, having Hussein as his middle name as in Saddam Hussein is only slightly better than Osama. And then having a name that Ted Kennedy screwed up and called him Osama Obama - truly not good.
I'm trying to verify that that the name Obama is in fact another Islamic spelling of Osama, Usama, etc. Like Mohammed, Muhammed, Mehmet, etc. are all the same name depending on the specific Islamic culture. So far it appears that it is the same as there are no other Islamic names that I can find that come close.
Now that he claims that he converted to Christianity, it would be nice if he changed his name like Muslims do when they convert to Islam. By the way, Sharia law calls for the killing Muslims who convert, but so far we I haven't heard of a fatwa on his life.
It will be interesting as he becomes more public heading to '08.
Posted by: John McDonald on October 28, 2006 07:48 AMYipes, she looks like a mini Patty Murray...
What's in the water in this state anyhow?
Posted by: righton on October 28, 2006 09:00 AMthe mao collars hide her IEEE 300 info port. She downloads the latest DNC points, and is good to go another day.
Posted by: righton on October 28, 2006 09:46 AMDitsy Burnout
But I guess I was mistaken...
Posted by: Matt on October 28, 2006 10:03 AMA Liberal's Definition of Liberalism
EXCERPTS:
"Moreover, the central theological goal of classical socialism, as well as today's American liberalism, is egalitarianism, and state ownership is no more than one possible means of effecting equal distribution of property. Political liberalism, especially since the 1960s, is focused squarely on egalitarianism (e. g., emphasis on "fairness" in taxation, denunciation of "tax breaks for the rich," fixation on poverty, multi-cultural education, and affirmative action)."
"Liberalism is moving rapidly toward nihilism, the "anything goes" doctrine of Mikhail Bakunin aimed at freedom in the sense of removing all restrictions on thought and action. The measures for that purpose, some of which are now being employed by liberals, are obliteration of God and religion, along with destruction of private property, marriage, and moral codes, all aimed at letting personal sensual gratification be the only guide to conduct and thought."
Posted by: ragnardanneskold on October 28, 2006 10:45 AMMore telling is the fact that her arguably centrist opponent is anathema to her supporters.
Remember how the left mocked Bush for lacking "gravitas?" Their scorn is situational.
Posted by: scott158 on October 28, 2006 11:21 AMPretty much limited to inbred mouth-breathers. Why do you ask?
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 28, 2006 11:50 AMWould be more appropropriate!
Posted by: GS on October 28, 2006 12:08 PMThe democrats are limited! We know this! Heh, heh!
Calling the kettle black democrap 27!?
27 works with the AARP group! (AARP have no reason to vote!)
Just what is the plan to pay off all those all so gross Bush deficits? Is there some other system than taxes - on the working folks?
I missed something I guess, and when you all rant about some Dems, Darch for example, that might raise taxes, etc, look out the window. ALL IN DEBT TO THE MAX, most of all the fed. Govt with big spenders Bush and Chendy in charge.
Or did I miss the all ok idea to you righties of the coming annexation to mainland China?
Posted by: Jack on October 28, 2006 02:31 PMFederal budget deficit: Bush delivers on a promise - ahead of schedule
In Defense of Deficits
They're not so bad, and at times they're necessary.
"Republicans should think twice about voting Democratic to reduce government spending. And both parties should simply think a little harder about budget deficits: Had we hung onto the surpluses of the late 1990s, we'd be in a world of economic hurt today. If that prognosis seems counterintuitive, take a look at what happened to the economy right after the big budget surpluses of the 1920s."
Let's go down to an art gallery in Seattle's Pioneer Square and hand out GOP literature to everyone going in to the place!
Better yet every corner would be good! Show the community that republicans are out there! We need you now more then ever!
Oh and the latest rage is invasion of privacy from the liberals. So let's take pictures of the art gallery in Pioneer Square and put it on line! I got a tip that a liberal owns and runs an art gallery there!
It is time to take the City back!
If you're going to insult us, at least learn to use the right words when you insult us. It's hard to take you seriously when you keep calling us the "loosers" when you look like you didn't even pass 9th grade English. It makes you look like a "loser"."
I think Jack's response was typing his rebuttal to our discussion on Maria Cantwell sleeping with a lobbyist.
Posted by: pbj on October 28, 2006 03:32 PMMaybe you could invest your allowance in a spell check...that would be most appreciated by the posters on this web.
Regards.
Maggie
Posted by: maggie on October 28, 2006 05:45 PMHer campaign volunteers represent her, and they are NOT nice people. I have one friend that was called every night last week.
Two times he was hung up on. The one time he asked the person what years Darcy Burner was a manager at Microsoft. When the pat answer was "She worked there from this year to that year", he said "What years was she a manager, her campaign materials say she was a manager. Please call me back and let me know what years she was a manager." Vulgar comments and a hang up followed the question.
Marcy Burner can have Osama, Obama Hussein on her side. He is a media made distraction for this election.
Posted by: Skeptic on October 28, 2006 08:41 PMThe only employment growth has come from the healthcare sector when measured from the time Bush came into office verses now. High Tech, Manufacturering, even Services have had virtually zero or negative growth.
The economy has been cooling despite the massive deficits. The housing bubble has aided the economy massive, but is now cooling as well.
The deficit is forecasted to rocket up again next year by the Republican controlled CBO.
Bush and Congressional Republicans have increased spending faster than anyone since LBJ even when the Iraq War and Homeland security are taken out of the budget.
The dollar has dropped in value by more ~40% against most major currencies since Bush took office. The price of gold and other commodities has skyrocketed.
2/3rds of the total growth recorded since Bush took office is directly attributable to deficit spending. In other words without the deficit, the growth would be amoung the worst the US has ever experienced in any period.
Government deficit spending sucks money out of the private sector via taxes or a low valuation of the dollar and inhibits real growth.
A list smaller this this is why I became a Republican and opposed the Carter economics of deficit spending, poor growth, high commodity prices etc. Bush has managed to make Carter look good.
We need a stronger two party system, having the Republicans in control of everything is killing their credibility, they can't handle the power, and they clearly need a counter balance. Voting for Marcy Burner will be a nice start on getting the balance back.
Posted by: John McDonald on October 29, 2006 06:54 AMDoes Darcy do the household budgeting? Or does her husband.
You could apply pretty much the same verbiage to dems being in control of Washington state...so vote GOP to balance out the Evergreen state.
Posted by: MB on October 29, 2006 10:31 AMGood point, competition does wonders for good government. I worked hard for Dino Rossi and still think he is a good guy. Dave Schmidt (R) is a former Reagan Republican and Rush Limbaugh listener, but sold out after two or three terms, when he started supporting tax increases and I really can't think of any accomplishments of his.
Posted by: John McDonald on October 29, 2006 01:33 PMRational adults know that it's far better to get half, 3/4's, even a 1/4 of what you want and work to improve that portion than to settle for absolutely nothing.
You seem to vociferously advocate settling for nothing by handing the election to the liberals rather than improving the party we have.
I don't believe you or your losing attitude is good for the GOP. We believe you have to be IN the game to win it. When you pout, take your ball and QUIT, as you advocate, you immediately lose.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on October 29, 2006 02:29 PMI totally understand your point and this is exactly what I believed from 1979 to 2004. Now at the peak of Republican power, we have the worst governance possible. It has become clear to me that the current Republican Party does not respect pro-lifers, fiscal conservatives, christians or really anything - for example Mark Rosenburg calls us "cheap dates". I don't even recognize the party anymore, it just trys to bash democrats and doesn't stand for anything but power, burning money, and trying to convince me that Islam is the world's greatest religion.
Posted by: John McDonald on October 29, 2006 08:20 PMWhat good are protest votes on Adam Smith, Norm Dicks, Jay Inslee, Cantwell etc.? They are going to win anyways. The only protest vote that could matter in Western Washington is in the Reichert v. Burner race. I'm not in the 8th, but I've got life long Republican family members and friends in the 8th and they will be voting for Darcy in protest of Reichert and the Republicans.
To me Reichert is an especially bad representation of a Republican. I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for Republicans so I encourage those in the 8th to vote for a Democrat instead.
Posted by: John McDonald on October 30, 2006 07:23 AM