Keep an eye on a couple dynamics in the budding primary between Darcy Burner and Rodney Tom to take on Dave Reichert in 2008. A couple different conversations I've had in recent months with Democrats possessing particular insight on this race confirmed my thinking:
1) Darcy Burner's campaign actually did a pretty good job of hiding how liberal she actually is during the 2006 cycle. If you paid close attention to her campaign rhetoric and some interviews you could catch the fact she fits right into the netroots. But her campaign did a good job of keeping her on message, for what that was worth. What will happen now that it's to her advantage to proclaim her liberal, progressive bona fides in order to win a primary?
In 2006 Reichert ran on his own record and against her lack of experience as well as against her position on taxes (one of the few topics about which she actually spilled the liberal beans). What happens when she proudly proclaims her position on health care, foreign affairs, etc. to secure her left flank in the primary season? What kind of ammunition will that provide for November 2008?
2) Rodney Tom always struck me as overly sensitive in dealing with the Republican grassroots, uncomfortable with the how activists demand purity even as the party still exists as a relatively loose coalition.
It's not as if that dynamic will change on the other side of the aisle. In fact it gets worse running for Congress rather than state office. The oaths of fealty interest groups on both sides demand are more substantial on issues dealt with in Washington, DC than with those handled in Olympia. How is Rodney Tom, the raging moderate, going to appease the left-leaning interest groups that remain important for a Democratic primary? It's not as if such groups are thrilled with the current Democratic majority and are going to want to infuse more moderation into the mix.
Posted by Eric Earling at July 30, 2007 11:21 PM | Email ThisIt will be interesting to see how it gets played this time around. I think Darcy would be better off just waiting for McDermott to retire. Her views are in the wrong district.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 31, 2007 12:33 AMI have mentioned on another site that I think Darcy's two biggest problems are that A: she is running against Bush instead of Reichart, which is a moot point seeing as he will be out of office after election time, and B: she runs more on "He doesn't" instead of "I will."
If she (or any politicians, for that matter) would just make the simple change of telling us what they will do if they go into office instead of what their opponent won't or hasn't done, I think she would see better results.
I actually think her best chance to get elected is to not go for Reichart's district, but McDermott's. I would rather vote for her than that gasbag.
Posted by: Left Behind by the New Democratic Party on July 31, 2007 06:26 AMRodney Tom fits the Dist. better, I expect him to kick Darcy's ass. He has a much stronger shot against Dave "Rubber Stamp" Reichart. Should Darcy fall I'm sure Kos & Co will line up behind him to reclaim the Dist.
Hence, Darcy would be perfect.
Funny, I feel the same way about President Bush.
As for Darcy, the Democrats must really hate their opponents. Why else would they support such a looser for any public office.
Posted by: Paddy on July 31, 2007 11:08 AMReagan was an intelligent person could formulate a complete sentence. Bush cannot form a coherent sentence without screwing it up. Hence Bushisms.
do you call all Republican presidents monkeys and chimps?
I didn't start the Bush = Chimp thing, it's been around since 2000. I personally don't believe looking/acting like a monkey/moron is party exclusive.
I figured it was part of the far left culture.
Posted by: swatter on July 31, 2007 11:20 AM2) Yes, I know Reagan was involved with Monkeys when he was an actor. I don't think it had any effect on his mind/presidency. Can't say the same for our current President who can't seem to read/follow the Constitution.
Darcy has repeatedly shown she has absolutely nothing to offer but "Not Dave/Hate Bush" and every popular but vacuous platitude and talking point the lefty moponbats have.
Nothing.
Rinse, BLATHER, repeat... that's your Darcy.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 31, 2007 12:07 PMSeems to be working...he only won by 2.6%. That's pretty lame showing for a Dist. that has never elected a Dem. before. Expect Rodney Tom to finish him off next year.
Cheney UW dollars go to study abroad
By JARED MILLER
Star-Tribune capital bureau Tuesday, July 24, 2007
CHEYENNE -- The University of Wyoming will use a $1.8 million gift from Vice President Dick and Lynne Cheney to support student studies abroad.
The money will form a scholarship endowment available to participants in UW's international programs. The state has agreed to contribute another $1.8 million in matching funds.
The Cheneys presented the gift in 2001 in the form of stock options, and have been working with the university to decide how the money will be spent. UW announced the decision on Friday.
"This was their choice to have it designated for this purpose," UW Media Relations Manager Jim Kearns said.
The endowment will support four scholarship categories, each covering varying areas of financial need. Deadline for the first wave of scholarship applications is set for this fall.
UW's international education programs have ties to universities on every continent except Antarctica, and have grown substantially in recent years.
More than 400 students participated in programs last year, visiting China, Indian, Ghana, Tunisia, Russia and a host of European destinations, according to UW.
"From its inception, our academic plan has stressed the need to secure financing that will allow more UW students to study abroad," UW President Tom Buchanan said in a news release. "This generous scholarship program will help us accomplish that goal and put UW on the path to ensuring opportunity for all of our students to gain global agility and understanding."
Cheney earned both bachelor's and master's degrees in political science from UW, and went on to represent the state in the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as serving in other high-level government positions, before becoming vice president.
To avoid conflicts of interest, Cheney solid millions of dollars in stocks and stock options after he was nominated as President Bush's running mate in 2001. He sold more than $26 million alone in stocks related to his role as chairman of Halliburton Co.
The state Legislature in 2001 created a $30 million fund to match private donations to UW of $50,000 or more. A portion of the money will be used to match the Cheney donation dollar-for-dollar.
Posted by: Rey Smith on July 31, 2007 02:10 PMhttp://www.davereichertforcongress.com/file/news.asp
Yep, that's who we have to send back to the House. He has nothing there that Burner can refute!
Yeah, it seems that all I ever hear from Dems is "Vote for me, because Bush, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah" or "This Administration, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." The same old tired nonsense. It's nothing but hate for the sake of hating, but it seems to work with Liberals.
Posted by: NW Denizen on July 31, 2007 02:32 PMTrue, makes it easier to prove he's a rubber stamp do nothing politician. I think the only time he thought for himself was on the Stem Cells vote. Like Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like.
Rodney has a record and as a moderate can likely pull from all areas of the Dist. not just the south end. It's not like Reichert has a huge fan base or seniority like Dunn did.
Not that I'm a Reichert fan, but you lose credibility (and sometimes, rarely, I actually agree with you) when you say the only time he thought for himself was on the stem cell vote (obviously something you agree with). Gimme a break man, everyone thinks that about anybody who disagrees with them; they can't think for themselves. It would be better to save comments like that since first off it's a real duh comment, and second it makes you look like a Democrat (you keep calling yourself an Indie don't you?)
I think that rabid support for stem cell research is misguided. People seem to think that it is the fountain of youth or something. Science also shows that adult stem cells have as much or more promise than embryonic stem cells. Geez why are you lefty's always getting so worked up. Is it just knee jerk, gotta go the opposite way as the conservatives. Have you lost the ability to listen, reason, and eliminate the B.S.?
Posted by: REBEL on July 31, 2007 06:18 PMBesides, someone has to step into Cynthia McKinney's big fat clown shoes. Why not a halfwit white girl with a fake resume and a trophy kid?
Posted by: Rey Smith on July 31, 2007 06:35 PMAs I've said before cato, evertime you open your mouth. Someone on this board slams it's shut.
You should really quit while your a tad bit ahead.
LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 31, 2007 09:21 PMSeattle does deserve Darcy.... and they can HAVE her!
We in the 8th deserve far better.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 31, 2007 09:36 PM
Somebody already did...Keith Ellison.
I have no idea what your talking about...I'm going to keep posting whether you agree with me or not. If you want to disagree with my opinion I'm willing to listen.
As for Reichart and his voting record, I disagree with him on a a lot of votes including these important ones:
Vote 15: H R 1:
This bill would implement many of the remaining recommendations proposed by the 9/11 Commission in 2004.
Reichart Votes: No
Vote 446: H R 6061: Secure Fence Act of 2006 (aka immigrants get a taller ladder bill)
Reichart Votes: Yes
Vote 630: H R 2863: Supported a ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees held by U.S. forces and to requires the military to follow the Army field manual for interrogations.
Reichart Votes: No
Vote 90: S 686: Gave federal courts jurisdiction in the Terri Schiavo dispute.
Reichart Votes: Yes
Now that Bush is coming to stump for him I think the Dem's have an even better chance of winning next year.
You seem to represent yourself as a libertarian / independent but you give your proclivities away when you express support for FEDERAL funding of embryonic stem cell research...
Bush didn't stop the research - only the FEDERAL funding of same. Since so many think it is the meta-panacea for all that ails then I would think that there would be massive capital available from the private sector cos...
So Cato self describes as an independent / libertarian - but then reflexively jumps anti-Bush / anti-republican...
Something is not quite right Cato...
Posted by: Stan on August 1, 2007 12:59 PMThe Govt. funds research for all sorts of other things, I see nothing wrong Govt. with funding science. Beats a lot of other stupid things the US funds.
Also, I never claimed to be a Libertarian. I said I was an independent.
You mean dead babies, don't you? Let's drop the semantics. Here's what you really mean: "I see nothing wrong with federal funding for research on discarded dead babies."
Thank you Dr. Frankenstein. Independent my a$$.
Posted by: NW Denizen on August 2, 2007 07:29 AMNo, babies would imply that they were on their way to becoming people. Dead embryo's means just that, they've stopped dividing and therefore have no chance of developing into a full term person.
You need to cut up a dead body to pass through medical school. I don't see you objecting to that.
That should read:
have no chance of developing into an actual human.
Maybe I was like you at one time or I was just deadened to abortion, but the new photos and videos of human embryos in the womb are mind numbing on how quickly they develop arms, legs, faces and, also, experience pain. So, I don't think NW is too far off base, if at all.
Posted by: swatter on August 2, 2007 11:24 AMWell, you be sure to let me know when medical schools start killing people for the purposes of training future doctors. Trust me, I will start objecting.
Embryos ARE on their way to becoming "actual humans" until something or someone stops the process of embryogenesis. If the something happens to be a vacuum cleaner or other such abortion tool, and if the someone happens to be a ghoul who makes his living killing unborn children then I believe what we are referring to is unnatural death. If researchers are able to come up with sufficient "dead embryos", which ceased to develop because of natural causes, to fuel their studies then that's a different discussion. Regardless, trafficking in human body parts should not, in my opinion, be something in which the government should be involved.
The liberal position on abortion never ceases to amaze. What do you call someone who advocates the wholesale slaughter of his/her own species? Fool might be one word.
Sorry for the thread hijack.