October 31, 2006
Darcy Burner's Job Interview

The Reichert campaign's latest ad.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 31, 2006 05:01 PM | Email This
1. that's it? that's the best they can do? LAME!

Posted by: libbertine on October 31, 2006 05:24 PM
2. I thought it was kind of clever. And not to over the top like some others I have seen!

Posted by: Andrew Roberts on October 31, 2006 05:29 PM
3. Look, Dave can't help it if Burner sucks as a candidate... after all, there really isn't that much there to work with.

Posted by: Hinton on October 31, 2006 05:48 PM
4. Hillarious!

Posted by: deadwood on October 31, 2006 06:06 PM
5. I loved the little "Darcy signature" hand clapping!

Posted by: Deborah on October 31, 2006 06:13 PM
6. That is a very well made ad and terribly effective -- uses humor to skewer Burner (love the tax-hiking happy hand shot) at the same time as getting a serious and likeable feeling about Reichert.

Posted by: Whiskey Dick on October 31, 2006 06:14 PM
7. YOU THINK?i think it makes someone who runs on the "gentlemanly" platform look like a child. Bye Dave

Posted by: michaelUW on October 31, 2006 06:48 PM
8. Good one!! Love it

Posted by: Michele on October 31, 2006 07:05 PM
9. I think that they have Marcy's (as Sen. Obama referred to her as) mannerisms down. Her lies about Rep. Reichert and lame talking points brought this kind of ad campaign on - fairly clever.

I'd say that her candidacy is flushed down the popper, with all due respect, #7. Couldn't happen to a sweeter airhead !

Posted by: KS on October 31, 2006 07:06 PM
10. Love it! As a matter of fact, humorous ads are the only thing that will change minds and grab attention at this last minute. I hope Mike McGavick and Steve Johnson can come up with some funny ones too. People really are put off by the negative ones. Humor will work.

Posted by: Ann in Issaquah on October 31, 2006 07:40 PM
11. distasteful humor at someone elses expense ISNT humor. It's another verion of an attack ad.

Posted by: michaelUW on October 31, 2006 07:46 PM
12. As if Burner never did an attack ad at Dave Reichert's expense, dude. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Posted by: KS on October 31, 2006 07:53 PM
13. distasteful humor...

Please explain how this is distasteful. An attack ad? Yes, but nothing in the same vein as Burner's ads that all but call Reichert and Bush evil. Is it that funny? Not really... but it is lighthearted, and makes the point without being over the top or mean (unlike Burner's ads).

Posted by: Mike H on October 31, 2006 07:58 PM
14. This is just classic partisanship. If Reichert was a (D) and Burner was a (R) SP would be lauding Darcy for being an "outsider", "someone with new ideas", "a fresh face". Whatever. The TV stations are the ones laughing all the way to the bank - (D) or (R) - heck I Tivo past all this crap anyway. Does anyone actually know someone who truly hasn't made up their mind yet?

Posted by: Robert on October 31, 2006 09:00 PM
15. Ann in Issaquah is right. The humor ads knocking your opponent are THE most effective. i remember Doc Hastings ran a great one 2-4 yrs ago that John Carlson played on his show (back when we had the privilege of hearing John without Shram) for us all. It was hilarious and perfect.

Posted by: Michele on October 31, 2006 09:03 PM
16. Funny... it reminds me of the Steele commercials in Maryland.

Posted by: Marc on October 31, 2006 09:07 PM
17. Interesting notion robert. Could you please cite an example of this partianship in action in our local elections (other than a hypothetical)?

As to your other comment, yea, I do know some who haven't decided. They haven't decided because they mostly don't care. Fortunately, they mostly don't actually get around to voting, either.

I would agree that the LSM is the only true winners...

Posted by: alphabet soup on October 31, 2006 09:58 PM
18. Yeah, that ad wont do anything.

Posted by: me on October 31, 2006 11:09 PM
19. Robert @14, you libs need to understand that conservatives aren't your mirror image, nor are Republicans mirror images of Democrats. We wouldn't laud a never-was like Burner for nonexistent qualities for the simple reason that we wouldn't field someone who was as complete a nothing as she is. The only way you would get somebody like that running as a Republican would be without party support.

We're not the other side of your coin. Which is just as well, since your coin is counterfeit.

Posted by: sro on October 31, 2006 11:18 PM
20. michaelUW @11: "distasteful humor at someone elses expense ISN'T humor"? Like the pitiful attempts at humor that you've been spewing all over this blog site for as long as I've been reading it?

Sour grapes, bud. Reichert scored. And the best you can do is go into denial.

Posted by: sro on October 31, 2006 11:22 PM
21. That is a classic! It is a witty classy ad. Well done Sheriff Dave!

Posted by: pbj on November 1, 2006 01:17 AM
22. "YOU THINK?i think it makes someone who runs on the "gentlemanly" platform look like a child. Bye Dave"

"distasteful humor at someone elses expense ISNT humor. It's another verion of an attack ad. "

Two wonderful examples of the left! Accusing Rs of dirty tactics and negative ads, then saying being a gentleman is childish! Then using distasteful humor (but Kerry used sophisticated humor which red-necks are nuanced enough to understand).

Good one MichaelUW!

Posted by: Right said Fred on November 1, 2006 07:41 AM
23. THat was the best. I laugh everytime I see it.

Posted by: Jan on November 1, 2006 07:41 AM
24. Is that a serious ad? How stupid does Dave Reichert think his constituents are?

Posted by: thehim on November 1, 2006 11:07 AM



Posted by: right-where-I-want-to-be on November 1, 2006 11:31 AM
26. I love this ad. It's cheesy to be sure, but it's funny as well and gets the point across well. The woman is just not qualified. End of story.

Posted by: ferrous on November 1, 2006 11:59 AM
27. Cute Ad, leads me to question how a King County Sheriff got foreign policy experience before coming into office? Truth is, he didn't. Now he can trash his opponent for the same thing he lacked two short years ago. This ad is a joke.

Posted by: Cato on November 1, 2006 12:28 PM
28. Even more condescending than the ad itself, was the press release from the campaign BEFORE it was released already defending it as "humor". Just in in case we wouldn't get it. How dumb do they think we are?

Posted by: so what? on November 1, 2006 03:02 PM
29. Invites a comparison between a career of being sheriff (HOW long did it take catch the GR Killer? How long was that series in the PI mismanagement of the sheriff's dept.?)and a career in high-tech business. hmmm.

Posted by: watcher on November 1, 2006 03:05 PM
30. Well, in the case of Cantwell, I'd argue experience isn't such a plus. But if your experience is as a former King County Sheriff and first term congressman - I'd say that's a pretty good resume. The real issue here is do you want Burner, a liberal taxer, or a conservative who will renew the tax cuts that have given us a roaring economy and record stock market?

Posted by: Scott on November 1, 2006 04:00 PM
31. That might be AN issue, but it's not the issue HERE at all. The issue that we are discussion here is about Reichert's ad that says that being an elected hack is better credentials to represent the 8th than Darcy's business exec experience. Besides, what you say is patently untrue. But you're right - Burner's against back-breaking national deficits.

Posted by: watcher on November 1, 2006 04:56 PM
32. I think what the people of the 8th will say on election day is that Darcy Burner is unqualifed to be a member of Congress representing the 8th District. She aligns herself with the likes of David Goldstein, takes his money and associates herself with his foul mouthed rhetoric, indeed she links to his website from her offical campaign site.

She has never made an effort to participate in her community at any appreciable level. Overall she is better suited to the 7th district than the 8th. Maybe if Jim McDermott, her mentor loses his appeals she could move to Capital Hill and run. She is not wanted or needed here in the 8th.

Posted by: Huh? on November 1, 2006 06:08 PM
33. "Burner's against back-breaking national deficits."

Maybe, and then maybe not. Durner is against whatever she is told to be against.

Posted by: alphabet soup on November 1, 2006 08:15 PM
34. Chicken soup @ 33;
I believe you are quoting Sheriff hairdo there.
He's the one who says he votes what he is told to, just go look at the TVW tape.

Posted by: danw on November 2, 2006 08:34 AM
35. Guess again dipwad...

Posted by: alphabet soup on November 2, 2006 10:45 AM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?