David Postman had two posts this past week related to the 8th Congressional District race in 2008, one about potential Democratic primary challenges to Darcy Burner, the other about Burner's own activities on the trail.
It's natural for a primary challenge to occur in this race. If ever there was a year where a Democrat could - and perhaps should - have knocked off a freshman Republican incumbent in an increasingly blue district, 2006 was it. Based on the Democratic wave in legislative races within the district alone it's probably a testament to Dave Reichert's campaign that he was able to win by a 3% margin; a comfortable gap in a highly competitive race.
In some respects Burner fit the perfect profile of what Democrats would want to run against a well-known, public figure like Reichert: a younger, professional women. Except, a moderate would have been preferable to the liberal Burner (though of course one of Darcy's more fervent supporters who rejects the idea of moderates at all and who believes progressive are inherently good and conservatives are by default evil does not agree). If one paid attention to Burner's rhetoric on the campaign trail, lurking beneath the anti-Bush messaging was an avowed liberal, not a suburban moderate.
That last point might well be one reason why Burner's campaign never sealed the deal. She clearly got the message out that Reichert = Bush = bad. But she never laid out a convincing case to 8th District voters of what she should do in office, thus why Reichert should have been voted out and she should have been voted in. That's why there were a significant number of voters casting ballots for Maria Cantwell, Dave Reichert, and Democratic legislative candidates.
Just one more dynamic that could make a Democratic primary in the 8th fun to watch.
UPDATE: Giffy's comment at #2 reminds me that Burner won't be able to run against Bush the same way in 2008 as she did in 2006. Doesn't that put even more pressure on her to have a proactive agenda that will describe what she'll vote for in Congress, not just what she'll vote against? In addition, will she break with any votes taken by the Democratic majority in Congress? If so, will that make her run a more liberal or more moderate campaign?
Posted by Eric Earling at June 23, 2007 11:35 AM | Email ThisThough a big part of Riecherts appeal was that he was the same party as the majority and the president so he could get things for the district. given that that is no longer the case for congress and likely won't be for the presidency after 08 the dems might have a better shot.
Not to mention that in power rankings the sheriff is somewhere below the pretend congressman from Guam.
Posted by: Giffy on June 23, 2007 01:04 PMThe term itself is nothing more than propaganda...
Posted by: H Moul on June 23, 2007 01:53 PMDarcy Burner -- I wouldn't blame her campaign, or that she was too liberal, I think it was more too inexperienced. She looked too young. She didn't come across as ever having managed anything. Why the big step up to Congress? She didn't lead a division at MS or anything she just worked there.
In 2008 the other two Democratic contenders who are two state legislators (one is the guy who switched from R to D I think) also will have a tough row to hoe, because (a) primaries battles are bruising, (b) Reichert continues to have select "moderate" votes that distinguish him from the core of right wingers in the Republican Party. On the other hand, either of these two may do better than Darcy because they have experience and already have won several times in part of the 8th CD.
Overwashing all this 8th CD level stuff is the national trend on Iraq and the GOP. The Republican President continues to tank and piss off everyone in all parties. 2008 could be a re-do of 2006 -- get out of Iraw now -- vote D -- only stronger.
If we are still in Iraq the tide may be too strong for Reichert to withstand unless he starts voting to get out of Iraq, which he very well may do come September. So far he's played it just right to keep representing this moderate swing district.
Posted by: Seattle Democrat on June 23, 2007 02:52 PMHe has? Methinks you're out of step with the 8th. Reichert has supported Bush's Iraq war despite the wishes of his district.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 23, 2007 03:03 PMHmm. LEt me explain.
Reichert was not out of step enough to lose in 2006. This does not mean I agree with his positions, this is just reality.
Anyway, I believe I basically dealt with your point that he is getting out of step as I said he probably has to vote against the war in Iraq -- turning against the prez in his own party -- in September and even that may not save him.
When I said he's played it "right" I only meant he played the game well enough to keep his seat, not his position on Iraq was right or that I shared his position. I don't. I really wasn't discusing the pros and cons of Iraq at all, I was addressing the topic in the post, to wit, handicapping the Dems who are running against Reichert.
Posted by: Seattle Democrat on June 23, 2007 03:35 PMOnce again we find ourselves facing an unqualified, never done anything in the community Darcy. And while she is more than willing to start at the top of the political ladder (because she is obviously better than the majority of those rubes in the 8th), she still lacks any meaningful works by which the district can judge her behavior in a position of public responsibilty. Which is why nobody trusts her.
Posted by: Huh? on June 23, 2007 03:55 PMEven DEMOCRATS in Congress care a lot more what Reichert has to say about issues than they would about Burner. Burner would be good for Democrats in DC, because she would be a guaranteed vote on various national issues, but she would be bad for Democrats in her district, because her fellow Democrats in DC would not care about anything she had to say about any issue. She has no experience, no clout, no special knowledge, and nothing interesting to say. She would be, to her fellow Democrats in DC, nothing more than someone who sits in a chair and votes the way they tell her to.
Posted by: pudge on June 23, 2007 03:59 PMH Moul, it is more accurate then conservative as that implies a desire to keep the status quo. Most conservatives hardly want that. Progressives favor social change which we believe to be in the pursuit of progress.
Posted by: Giffy on June 23, 2007 09:09 PMProgressives favor control of all things by the elite, preferably unelected judges who don't have to go through the messy ordeal of democracy.
Progressives want the govt to provide all health care, which it can only do through rationing. And the rationing would be controlled by the few who are smarter than the rest of us.
Progressives favor social change that they deem to be in all our interest. Even if we disagree.
Fortunately, Darcy is smart enough to be a good progressive. But she is smart enough to sit in a seat and be told what to do. By the progressives.
Progressives favor control of all things by the elite, preferably unelected judges who don't have to go through the messy ordeal of democracy.
Progressives want the govt to provide all health care, which it can only do through rationing. And the rationing would be controlled by the few who are smarter than the rest of us.
Progressives favor social change that they deem to be in all our interest. Even if we disagree.
Fortunately, Darcy isn't smart enough to be a good progressive. But she is smart enough to sit in a seat and be told what to do. By the progressives.
His pathetic record as Sheriff, his high spending habits, and his anti-life votes - led to lower % win in '06 than '04. And I think we have a great opportunity to kick him out of office this year. '06 was a great year for conservatives as so many RINOs got booted - one of the sweetest wins was Webb in VA. A conservative elected in the Democratic party over a RINO republican was AWESOME. Since conservatives are the biggest voting block in the country we need both parties fighting for our votes.
'08 is going to be a great year again as Bush continues to expose what non-conservative Republicans are all about - which is rigging the system in favor of getting you money, and setting the rules to perserve your money and governing like you are 3rd generation rich idiots living off your grandparents accomplishments.
For example, We need H1 visas because we don't have enough tech workers, we need Z visas because American won't take low paying jobs. So if Americans won't high or low paying jobs - what jobs will we take?
Posted by: John McDonald on June 23, 2007 11:41 PMIt's the whole "conservatives are evil" portrayal that she could not let go of. She spent all her time in Seattle and Bellevue catering to moonbats.
And that lead to a very unauthentic appearance. It was clearly more about Darcy wanting to be a US Rep, and not that she wanted to serve a constituency.
That's why most of our Reps and Senators are older. There's simply a maturity required. And often that comes with the financial resources, and political and community stature that remove the "need to prove oneself" element that is the essence of Darcy Burner and her failed candidacy. And frankly a hallmark of much of her hasty costume changes from MS program manager, to law school dropout, to johnny-come-lately, and very cliche left-leaning house candidate.
I think the Dems would have a good shot at the 8th if they fielded a serious challenger in the future.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 24, 2007 12:41 AMI highly disagree. While I certainly don't agree with Patty Murray's politics, she deserves WAY more respect than Darcy Burner as a multi-term senator. She may have been an amateur candidate at one point, but that was long ago. And she's never conducted herself with that haughty, progressive, vitriolic Camp Wellstone attitude of Darcy Burner.
Burner is simply overshadowed by her own arrogance. She has not yet earned the stature necessary for national public office.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 24, 2007 12:01 PMWe get to pick 2 senators and we send the 2 who achieve the Senate Dumb and Dumber awards.
And Patty is not arrogant? HAH! You seem to have forgotten her 1st term when she admitted to the Times that most of her constituents let her know they were against the Clinton tax increse but that she voted for it because WE THE PEOPLE just "didn't understand" all the facts.
I despise her.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 24, 2007 02:16 PMI would have to agree about Cantwell being an "up and comer" Just ask Ron Dotzauer, he verified that "comer" part just before his last wedding and I believe they mention that in his last divorce proceedings. That was before they sealed the records for the illegal, unrecorded contributions he made and salary he recieved from Maria while stiffing his wife and kid on support payments. And Maria is bound to be proud of Dal LaMange (sp) who thought soo much of her ability he decided to run for President instead of promoting her. Darcy is a wannabe representative with NOTHING to offer but attitude.
Posted by: Huh? on June 24, 2007 07:45 PMWith the stronger possibility that the next President is a D, isn't it better to have a split Congress and making it more necessary to have Reichert in the 8th?
Posted by: swatter on June 25, 2007 07:07 AM