My fears have come true, we have a Congressional campaign trying to run full steam ahead the summer before an election year. Lord help us.
Goldy covers the news of Darcy Burner's new ad:
Now, partisan differences aside I actually like the Jon Tester ad from the same firm. Burner's, however, is painfully hokey. Maybe that's just a stylistic complaint others wouldn't share, plus it appears to be made more for Internet use than serious ad buys so the standard isn't the same. But hokey should rarely be considered good.
On a substantive basis it's even worse. Out of the gate they're trying to re-fight the last campaign and the Reichert ad that liberals hate, but which helped seal the race for the incumbent. Wouldn't it be better to focus on the future rather than re-fight the battles of the past? Show how you're a new breed of public servant rather than just another bitter partisan to throw into the current DC quagmire?
Along the same lines, why spend one's time rehashing the George Bush is evil theme? Reichert is widely viewed as a moderate (see here and here for typical confirmation). It's an obvious theme covered by the press last fall. Voters seemed to agree, re-electing Reichert by a comfortable margin in a competitive race, even as Republicans lost their Congressional majorities, Maria Cantwell cruised to victory, and Democrats won major victories in state legislative contests in the 8th District.
This ad, whatever its intended audience, shows Darcy Burner and/or her campaign team don't understand a critical fact. Voters don't think Dave Reichert is the villain they portray him to be. Unless Burner's campaign can present a compelling case for what she would actually do in Congress - other than complain about George Bush after he's already out of office - she's likely to meet the same fate in next year's election as she did in the last.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 28, 2007 08:25 PM | Email ThisI also found it somewhat creepy that it portrays a large group of people clamoring at her door already for her to run. Reichert's term isn't even six months old... some how I doubt there is a large group of folks (beyond whatever serves as an echo chamber for her social circle) telling her to run. If she really believes there is already a large group of people clamoring for her to run again, she really needs to get out more. Actually, the fact that it comes across as she believes there was a large group of people clamoring for an unknown mediocre former middle manager from Microsoft with no public service at all (except for the civil air patrol when she was a kid) who's own Iraq war vet brother said she doesn't know what she is talking about when she stumps on her biggest issue (the Iraq war) means she has some pretty big delusions of grandeur.
While I don't call 3% a comfortable margin, if she couldn't win before with everything stacked in her favor in '06... where simply having a "D" by her name on the ballot gave her a huge advantage... what makes her think that she can win in '08? The fact that she will basically be running for three years straight for an office with a two year term kinda makes me think she's in it for all the wrong reasons (namely herself)... especially with what passes as her resume and it's, ahem, shall we say, many "embellishments". It makes me want to vote for her even less (not that I wanted to vote for her in the first place).
Posted by: Mike H on June 28, 2007 09:07 PMPudge has a good video for comic relief, and to answer the George Bush is Hitler crowd. Watch it here.
Posted by: Patrick on June 28, 2007 09:40 PMlike that bad boy mega burrito you enjoyed last night coupled with today's 2-hr dept. staff meeting...pass the Tums.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on June 28, 2007 09:46 PMSince the last election, that she embarassingly lost, what has she done? Has she volunteered in her community? Has she led some iniative to benefit her would-be constituents? Has she attended a school board meeting? Joined the PTA?
Of course not. The only reason to vote for her, by her own admission, is that she isn't a Republican. Neither is Rodney Tom, and he has at least held public office.
I say, let her attract all the campaign funds she can, and lead on all the nutroots in Seattle! Go Darcy!
Posted by: janet s on June 28, 2007 10:59 PM"Darcy who?"
Good luck, Burner. Oh and BTW, how about you campaign for public school vouchers since you realize the value of being able to send your children to the school of your choice?
Stefan is good. What he is doing with the elections is election reform. Some of the posters hear think he is reliving '04 but they just don't understand.
Let her have some fun, though. She doesn't have a chance to get the nod from the Ds. There are a couple of teenagers (compared to preteen Burner) on the D side who have more gravitas who will take the nomination.
Posted by: swatter on June 29, 2007 05:42 AMShe seems a loser all the way around.
Posted by: swatter on June 29, 2007 07:00 AMMurdered????
Who cold have done this? Given the attention Mike attracted in the bloggs, are we headed for a Blogscandal?
BTW, about the same time the news came out that this likley was MW, HorsesAss went down. Wingnut attack? Mike Webb's spirit???
And so it goes ...
Posted by: SeattleJew on June 29, 2007 08:11 AMDems need to ask themselves a question before allowing anyone to be a candidate. Does this person seem like a crass, whiny Nutroots fool like David Godlstein? If the answer is yes, then find another candidate that at least appears to be a grown-up and can get by without hatred, profanity or dismissal when speaking in public.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 29, 2007 12:11 PMIt appears that Goldstein's daughter is the girl at the conference table in the Burner Ad. Man, that's pathetic. What youth deserves to be told to shrug and play up emotion for the camera long before they are old enough to understand the economic, social and other implications of healthcare and other political issues?
But this comes as no surprise, Goldstein was also impressed by the YouTube video that made the rounds with the little girl dressed as a flapper spewing profanity and Bush hatred and the rest of the left talking points.
Darcy's own son is featured in the ad as well, but in a much more appropriate way. Still, you have to wonder about these people and their shameless political philosophy that constantly exploits children to get what they want. And yes, there is a big difference between doing something on behalf of a child, and coercing and indoctrinating a child with a viewpoint and telling them how to act for a video or ad that will be seen by many. This is like the Michael J. Fox stem cell pandering, only worse, because it plays on the emotions using a child. Goldstein will probably say that his daughter was enthusiastic about the role, but I wonder where she got her ideas? I don't go around the house telling my daughter that my Rep is taking food out of her mouth, but apparently that's acceptable at the Goldstein residence. You'd think one would want to let a child have their youth free of this kind of burden and allow them to grown up and make their own decisions about the world.
Goldstein claims that everything he does is for the sake of his daughter. This video proves otherwise. She might object to this portrayal when she's older. I know I don't agree with views that my parents hold and I'd be pretty upset now if my Dad had placed me in a supporting role in a political ad when I was a kid.
One more reason to be disgusted with Darcy Burner and her antics.
Lame.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 29, 2007 12:31 PMGo to http://www.berenforcongress.com/picture.html
Posted by: Steve Beren on June 29, 2007 04:10 PM