I'm not sure whether it's a knock against Darcy Burner or not that's she's refusing to take a clear position on MoveOn.org's "Betray Us" ad.
In a sense it's recognition of reality. Local Democratic Members of Congress Baird, Dicks, Larsen, and Smith voted against MoveOn in a vote that inspired the Wrath of Kos. Add to that fact that the public really didn't like the ad either and it becomes a pretty logical step for someone trying to unseat a successfully re-elected incumbent in a swing-district.
That being said, it really betrays (sorry, couldn't resist) the Darcy Burner, darling of the netroots, theme we've come to know and love. The dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge display from her spokesman, as linked above, in avoiding the question was very inside-the-Beltway in its obtuseness. Hardly the speak-truth-to-power approach we've come to expect.
Disappointing.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 27, 2007 08:22 PM | Email ThisBut not surprising.
Darcy and courage have never been in the same room together.
Posted by: Hinton on September 27, 2007 09:48 PMIt's a LOT easier to be viciously anti-war and then sell the lie that you support the troops if she were to make a big deal out of, not even supporting the General, but just saying the ad was out of line.
She still thinks she's running in McDermott's district. Maybe she should move there and run against him in the primary.
Posted by: cliff on September 27, 2007 10:04 PMNo, she's obviously not that bright. If elected, she'd make a real tag-team with Remedial Patty, our senior senator.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 28, 2007 05:14 AMDave?...how about raising your presence....criminal this dimbulb can get more notice than our sitting Congressman.
Posted by: righton on September 28, 2007 06:31 AMAnd you know what the result is? He has to ask for public funding of his campaign and he trails in the polls!
What does this tell you about all the Libspeak about people wanting "change" -- they don't -- they like it the way it is. They want suburban houses, nice cars and some coin in their pockets. Even the most downtrodden wants to be Hollywood.
Often, the response from many Democrats, many liberals, and many antiwar activists was something along these lines: "No, not at all! We're not against the troops! We won't cut off funds or force a precipitate withdrawal! That charge is a false accusation - just Republican hyperbole!"
Such denials became more and more common during the campaign, especially as November approached.
Despite their sincere lack of interest in a victory strategy, the Democrats knew that they could not win the elections if the voters thought that in power, they would cut off the funds and enforce a timeline for retreat.
That, by the way, says volumes about where the American people actually stand with regard to the war against terrorism, support of our troops, and the desire for success and victory in Iraq.
Almost immediately after the November elections, the Democratic Party leaders started claiming a mandate for withdrawal timelines, defunding, "ending" the war, etc. Although this was not really the position of the American people, it was the sincere goal of the Democrats.
Turn to 2007. In the early stages of the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, the leading (and even the non-leading) candidates tried to trump each other's antiwar credentials.
Recently, especially since encouraging progress in the military situation and the backfiring of the ultraleft Moveon.org attack on General Petraeus, and reflected (for example) in the most recent Democratic candidates debate, the Democrats (especially Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) have started to verbally distance themselves from timelines and funding cutoffs.
In fact, just as Kerry in 2004 at the Boston Demcoratic convention sought to portray himself as a military hero who would do a better job of fighting and killing the terrorists, we can expect the 2008 Democratic nominee to similarly claim they would not retreat, not surrender, not cut off funds, etc.
The Democrats have already begun to slightly distance themselves, and as November 2008 approaches, they will continue to incrementally distance themselves from the far left. The better to get elected, you see.
Some Democrats, some liberals, and some antiwar activists falsely claim that the 2006 elections represent a "mandate" to "end" the war. However, if it were really true that the American people agreed with retreat from Iraq, there would be no break on the Democratic candidates in pursuing their misguided, but sincere, "exit strategy." (Besides, even retreat from Iraq would not "end" the Islamic fascist war against us.)
As in 2004, they will fail, I believe. But in order to make sure that their disingenuous effort fails, Republicans and convservatives and others who support victory must hold the Democrats' feet to the fire. We must constantly point out that the Democrats' sincere desire and sincere goal is to force retreat from Iraq, and to go back on the defensive with regard to the threat of Islamic terrorism.
Posted by: Steve Beren on September 28, 2007 10:54 AMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LRcY5K7in4
Did you see the ad in question re: Max Cleland? I did. Attacked his voting record on Homeland security issues. Sure it was hyperbolic with regards to the "threat", but scary images to evoke a visceral reaction with the voters is part and parcel of any political campaign. It's used all the time. The theme was that Cleland will not be tough at defending our security based on his voting record, and then it used images of the threat we face to reinforce it. It did not challenge his patriotism or his courage, just his congressional record. Again, a political candidate. Different animal.
Bill's attempt to try and make the issues the same do not pass any real scrutiny. Since no analysis was done to compare the situations, the viewers were left to believe that they were, in fact, just the same thing and Republicans were the hypocrits that the media constantly tells the people they are.
The thing is, though, this time people did not buy it.
Posted by: eyago on September 28, 2007 12:39 PMI think you're becoming obsessed with MoveOn.org. It was an ad for 1 day in one newspaper.
While soldiers are dying and Joe Liberman is trying to market another war in Iran, do you not get that spending time on a worthless resolution against a grassroots citizens group is a monumental waste of time? Is the General so weak that he can't stand up to a newspaper ad? Or perhaps it's the Republicans who are all hat and no cattle that truly have nothing of value to offer other than talking about other people who oppose the war. Do you have ANY solutions yourself to end this war?
And if you don't want to end it, perhaps you should help out. They need more people. You can see the world, meet lots of new people.
http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on September 28, 2007 12:42 PMWhy can't you just disavow the ad? I am obsessed, but I don't think Eric is. I don't think you can be so duplicitous as not to see the need to condemn that ad. When and if you do, we can talk.
Posted by: swatter on September 28, 2007 01:10 PMBut I agree with the ad's criticism of Petraeus for letting politics get the better of his military judgment. More importantly, I agree with MoveOn's criticism of the administration for killing and maiming thousands of American soldiers and devastating our country's finances and power.
Posted by: Bruce on September 28, 2007 01:31 PMMoveOn.org blew it, plain and simple. They attacked the main guy as a traitor, and the American people responded with a political raspberry.
First rule of digging holes: when in one, stop digging.
Posted by: steve miller on September 28, 2007 01:32 PMMoveOn.org blew it, plain and simple. They attacked the main guy as a traitor, and the American people responded with a political raspberry.
First rule of digging holes: when in one, stop digging.
Posted by: steve miller on September 28, 2007 01:33 PMWhen I say I support the troops, it means I appreciate the risk they are taking for our country and I want them well taken care of and not exposed to risk that isn't worth it.
When I say I don't support Petraeus, it means I disagree with his political actions.
As I've said before, Petraeus is the least of the problem. He's probably a decent and competent man. Which, of course, is why Republicans are desperately trying to focus on his character instead of the debacle they have charged him with leading.
Posted by: Bruce on September 28, 2007 01:41 PMThat, my good fellow, is my definition of a good soldier, not just a good man.
And you can't seem to understand the difference between the soldier and politician. It seems easy to understand for me, but while I didn't do war, I was honorably discharged. Soldier was drilled into us. And I can't think of a good analogy to help explain the difference.
Petraeus came back and gave a report on what he saw- both good and bad. How can you criticize the soldier for that? Bruce, I don't think you would have been happy with anything but an attitude that he says the troops are losing so let's head home.
Oh, why do I waste the time? Well, because Bruce, while you are the same as the kos and du crowd, you needle the rest of us in a polite manner and sometimes I think you begin to understand.
Posted by: swatter on September 28, 2007 02:35 PM*****Burner Refuses to Answer Question On Her Top Issue Darcy Burner, Who Has Based Her Entire Campaign On Iraq,Refuses To Answer Questions On...Iraq*****
Democratic Congressional candidate Darcy Burner, who has made an immediate retreat from Iraq her signature campaign issue, is refusing to answer questions about a Congressional vote on... Iraq. She is refusing to condemn her allies' attacks on General David Petraeus and when asked how she would have voted on a resolution on the issue that overwhelmingly passed Congress yesterday, Burner hid behind her campaign spokesman.
Darcy Burner is showing once again why she just isn't ready to represent Washington in Congress. She won't even answer questions about her own signature issue. Presumably, she's spent a lot of time thinking about Iraq, so why is she refusing to answer questions on it? She's quickly destroying any credibility she has left.
Burner has a responsibility to condemn her allies for bringing the politics of personal destruction to our military personnel. Voters deserve to know whether she'd stand with the majority of her party or extremists like Jim McDermott. Darcy Burner would rather avoid offending her far-left allies than keep her promise to respect the men and women of our military.
*****...While Rep. Reichert Condemns MoveOn's Attack on Gen. Petraeus*****
In stark contrast to Darcy Burner's silence, Rep. Dave Reichert strongly condemned MoveOn.org's attack on General Petraeus:
"The New York Times ad by MoveOn.org is just despicable," said Reichert. "Every man and woman in uniform deserves our utmost respect and to impugn an Army General's motives with personal attacks is an outrage and an affront to everyone serving the Armed Forces. Whether or not you agree or disagree with the war, it is beyond the pale to attack the members of our military for carrying out the orders they have been given.
"The ad was a clear attempt to undermine his Congressional testimony for political gain and that is an outrage. General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate with the full understanding that he had a plan to win in Iraq and that he was to come before Congress and report on that plan. We have sunk to a new low if we do not condemn in the strongest terms groups that would then attack him for doing what we have asked him to do.
"We are currently at war. Young men and women are risking their lives everyday and some are paying the ultimate sacrifice because we have asked them to do so. We should support them, we should give them what they need to succeed, and we should show them respect. I am pleased that the House sent them a bipartisan message today that we do respect them and we will not allow attacks on them to go unanswered."
Posted by: Steve Beren on September 28, 2007 02:45 PMDammed by her party if she does take a stand pro/con, dammed already by the GOP folks regardless of her stance. Seems to me this would be the 'play it safe' move. Smart.
WIN huh? That's not a proposal, that's a slogan. You don't WIN an occupation of another country.
Why don't I want us to win this war? Because it's not our war to win. You don't win an occupation. I find the whole slogan of 'winning' this war as utterly stupid and naive. This isn't a football game.
Countless military people have weighed in on this matter. There is no military solution to Iraq. Only a political one. So let's just cut the crap like we're going to 'win' over there. Anyone who thinks that is simply out of touch.
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on September 28, 2007 07:54 PMa 16-year-old, just tossed Daddy's (voting & political power) Escalade "car keys" and now telling us how to drive...look out! don't even need a cell-phone-driver option to add to THIS mix! yeeesh!
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 28, 2007 11:15 PMNot me.
She'll be using her snide annoying voice to lecture me on transfats.
Nope.
I think we'll be better served when she puts on her janitor hat and wields her broom a bit more effectively.
BTW... question for good ol' Darcy the Civil Air Patrol teenybopper: How's that search for Steve Fossett going? Did ya find him yet? Better get a move on, CAP gal.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 28, 2007 11:23 PM