I honestly haven't figured it out yet. Her 2006 effort was all about George W. Bush. Yet, her campaign never sealed the deal, failing to establish her as a reasonable alternative to the experienced and moderate record of Dave Reichert.
Now Burner's first ad really doesn't say what this year's run is all about, other than earnestly trying to reintroduce a new persona for her.
It seems increasingly impossible to continue down the path of "Reichert is a crazy conservative!" The WEA's endorsement seemed like the nail in that coffin. Now Working Mother Magazine has named Reichert to a bipartisan list of 24 "Best of Congress" awardees (Reichert is on page 8 and continues on to page 9). What a right-wing nutjob.
So despite the vigorous protestations of some on the left, the public image of Reichert as a moderate Republican is not only established, but it's also increasingly firm.
So what is Darcy Burner's agenda and new-experience that makes her a more worthy candidate in 2008?
UPDATE: link fixed.
Cross-posted at the Examiner.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 12, 2008 09:59 PM | Email ThisDon't forget that her brother is in Iraq. And she wrote, or signed onto, a term paper on the subject of Iraq.
Oh, you meant what issues she is running on? No idea.
Posted by: janet s on August 12, 2008 10:21 PMWhine?
Delusions?
An unearned sense of entitlement?
Per her ad referring to her house... pity?
Ouch!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 12, 2008 11:37 PMhope & "a moment of diverse silent reflection" in a specially-built "non-religious-pandering" room in a taxpyer-funded building;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on August 13, 2008 06:19 AMIn either caricature, an extremely underqualified, inexperienced leftist ideologue...with a vague and questionable background...who is suffering from delusions of grandeur. Sound familiar? Barak Hussein Obama, anyone?
Posted by: Saltherring on August 13, 2008 06:50 AMA lot of candidates on both sides of the aisle who win have years of serving their community- either through volunteer work or something.
Why does Darcy feel she's different and doesn't do a few terms on the school board/ city council to demonstrate she can drive.
I'm sure she had some sharp elbows in a corporate climate that does everything it can to bring its women up through the ranks (don't take offense, but it's true) but public service is different than that- you seldom win by being a bully and escalating to some other manager.
Posted by: Andy on August 13, 2008 07:45 AMThe headline and first 3 paragraphs of the article spread the Burner campaign's bogus charge implying, flatteringly, that "some sleuthing" discovered it. But then later on provides the details to highlight the fact that the charge was baseless. Maybe the headline should have read, "Burner misfires in faulty charge against Reichert"? Maybe the implied "sleuthing" praise should have read "faulty sleuthing"? But no, news is made out of this unfair allegation and Burner gets her picture in the paper and a reminder that she's challenging Reichert. Of course, the only way she can get news with little else to offer.
Is this what we have to look forward to from the Times? Another couple months of bolstering a liberal candidate who brings literally nothing to the campaign except unfair attacks on Republicans and a rabid desire for power?
Posted by: Reality on August 13, 2008 08:50 AM1) Why are U.S. Generals taking time to speak - much less talk indepth strategy which would entail providing confidential information - to someone who has never held any kind of public office of any depth?
I mean, are these same generals talking nuclear first strike capabilities with dog catchers? NATO defense plans with the local health care worker working at the STD clinic? Comparing strategic armaments with an accounts payable clerk in the Seattle Department of Recreation?
Does this make any sense to you?
2) What ever happened to that plan if the generals did take the time? I mean if they took the time to tap the intelligence of all those secretaries, dog catchers, vd nurses and Darcy, why didn't they enact that plan since it was so safe and sensible?
Something here isn't adding up.!
Posted by: johnny on August 13, 2008 08:58 AM(Sorry Jackson)
Posted by: G Jiggy on August 13, 2008 09:53 AMAll the McCain ad's should say in post-script "I'm John McCain and your hard earned tax dollars paid for this message".
Haha, usually no drilling means = no corporate welfare handouts for oil companies.
Even if they could drill gas prices are based on speculative oil markets that can rise and fall on a whim (which is one of many reasons young Dubya's oil company went belly up). Since there is no law saying that oil drilled domestically has to be sold/processed domestically there is no benefit for the average US customer.
The only real winner is the oil companies bottom line (who seem to be doing quite well without expanded drilling).
By the way When will your buddy Al Bore drop his oil stocks.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 13, 2008 01:39 PMArmy says:
Hey bud who paid what 30 billion in fuel taxes to the goverment.
The oil companies did, they seem to be doing just fine minus that 30 Billion dollars, that's just a drop in the bucket for the companies who are making that in a single day.
I'm sure they spend equally as much on lobbyists and favors to members of Congress and State Legislatures. In fact Alaskan Sen. Ted Stevens (indited on bribery) own son was convicted of taking bribes from these very same companies. I don't think we should open up any public land to companies who can't follow the laws of the land.
It's like Enron/Bear Stearns all over again, reckless deregulation with little or no oversight. Top that off with the fact that there is no guarantee the US will ever get to use a single drop of the oil drilled off it's coasts or on it's public lands. Looks like a loose-loose deal for the US taxpayer.
Please see ExxonMobil's 2007 Annual Report. And when you're done with that, explain how ExxonMobil - making $1 in profit for every $2.50 it gives to the US Government, and $1 in profit for every $10 in sales - is "evil".
Then explain how you don't say the same thing of Al Gore's favorite company, Apple, which makes $1.50 in profit for every $10 in sales, and only pays $0.40 in taxes for every dollar it makes.
Yes, that darling of the Left, Apple, makes 150% more profit margin than ExxonMobil, and has 1/4 the taxation rate of ExxonMobil.
Enron - that failed company of the CLINTON years. Thankfully we had George W. Bush who refused to use any political influence to "help out" the company - let it die like it should. If only CLINTON paid attention.
But he had other things to worry about, like hummers and building a legacy...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 13, 2008 04:50 PMWhat I do advocate is a continued ban on offshore drilling/ANWAR. I fail to see the economic benefit to the average American except in taxes paid since there is no guarantee that the oil will guarantee us any economic/energy security. Needless to say the oil companies are doing just fine with their existing resources, so well in fact they feel the need to bribe members of the Alaska legislature and members of Congress.
Enron - that failed company of the CLINTON years.
It failed because of excess speculation, deregulation (courtesy of Jesse Helms, it was one of his final acts in Congress), poor accounting, greedy executives, and the fact that the reality didn't match the hype they created. Clinton's Presidency had little to do with it beyond signing a bill containing deregulation into law at the behest of the GOP controlled Congress.
You drill for oil here, it goes to the world market. That brings down the world price. There is no "US" price - it's a global commodity. More supply will drop the price.
Better yet, how about no offshore and now ANWR, but we tap the proven 2 TRILLION barrel reserve we have on land. It can all be recovered at $40 per barrel. Let the "greedy oil companies" charge $60 a barrel for it - a nice 33 point margin. We'll still have oil at half the price, and gas under $2 a gallon.
And that amount of oil? That's 100% of the entire US daily consumption (20 million barrels a day) for nearly 280 YEARS. We'd not import a single barrel. In fact, we could export the 7 million barrels a day we already pump, bringing an $800 billion swing in our trade deficit (it would become a big trade surplus).
Think about it - gas under $2 a gallon, never have to import another drop, ever again. And we could achieve that within 10 years. And it's more environmentally sensitive than ethanol (both in water consumption and scarring/use of the ground).
Why aren't we developing it? One word: DEMOCRATS. The people living where this resource exists overwhelmingly support tapping it. Their congressional representatives support it. But Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barack Obama want us dependent on other nations and dependent on our own Government. So we sit and stew.
What is this resource? The oil shale residing in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado.
Democrats, and those who rail against the oil companies, simply have no basis in reality. They are economic destroyers.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on August 13, 2008 06:30 PMAn "ideal solution" would be items like the Chevy Volt or the TESLA car powered by wind/tide/solar energy. Granted it's going to take a long time to accomplish this but we're certainly taking the right steps forward technologically. Small steps lead to great leaps over time.
Not always the case, OPEC has increased oil production several times and price per barrel are still at all time highs. Oil is a speculative market and the price rises and falls at the whims of investors. There is no guarantee that more supply = lower price, if so we are not likely see it make much difference at the pump.
Dan says:
We'll still have oil at half the price, and gas under $2 a gallon.
I disagree, whatever oil is produced goes on sale to the world. With countries like India/China becoming more industrialized their demand is increases. The increased supply is much more likely to be met with increased demand and therefore cancels out any benefit at the pump. This just prolongs the original problem rather than finding a long-term solution.
That's 100% of the entire US daily consumption (20 million barrels a day) for nearly 280 YEARS.
Sure if you pumped it out all at once and sold it exclusively to the US market. That scenario is extremely unlikely.
The people living where this resource exists overwhelmingly support tapping it.
I wouldn't mind getting a $2500 check every year + whatever $$$ the Alaska State legislature decides to give me as a hand out...that would make anyone support it. The Governors of California and Florida (at the time Jeb Bush) when it was originally suggested did NOT support it. Gov. Schwarzenegger (R) still opposes it.
Not only did she say that she hopes to be in Congress for 30-40 years, but she also said that the people are Microsoft are tech-savvy (true) and that other people in her (HER?) district, especially in the south end are really behind the times in regards to technology. The way in which she said it made my eyes pop--basically stating that those in the south end were knuckle-draggers.
She also needed a notecard to tell her what to say in regards to the economy.
She also relished in the title of being a partisan geek. Extra partisan, extra geek.
She also was thankful for the microsoft employees who are helping the Eastside economy hum along (no big deal) but she then said "work harder" the rest of us (who benefit from your hard work) need the social benefits from your labor.
All in all, she looked down her nose at anyone outside of computers, acted as if the world revolves around her and yet her answers were just democrat talking points. She can't actually point to how she did this or that when confronted with specific problems, because she hasn't.
Two years ago she was unqualified for the job. Two years later and she is even less-qualified.
Posted by: bothell latina on August 14, 2008 03:06 PMOr maybe she was stating the amount of disposable income that is spent of personal electronics in the South End is considerably lower that those of their Redmond/Sammamish counterparts. Those who live in the south end may not be able to send their children to school with laptops or even have a personal computer running at home for their child to use. The income disparity is clear, but I doubt that would qualify anyone as "knuckle-dragger".
She also needed a notecard to tell her what to say in regards to the economy.
When Reichert debated Dave Ross back in 2004 he could not come up with a single quality rebuttal to the facts/stats that Ross quoted off the top of his head, yet the majority still felt Reichert "qualified" enough to represent the 8th Dist. Turned out he was just another misguided neo-con who in four years never said "No" to the the President on anything other than stem cell research.