Perhaps it should come as little surprise that a candidate who is a darling of the netroots is running a campaign that puts little emphasis on the economic issues that are dominating the headlines and top the concerns of voters this year. Yet, that's exactly what Darcy Burner is doing in her re-match against Dave Recihert.
Behold, Burner's latest ad:
This amounts to getting into a resume contest with Reichert, he of King County Sheriff and Green River Killer fame (official bio here). Sure, the Reichert campaign can easily compile a list of accomplishments to counter the ad itself, but resume wars were a loser for Burner in 2006. Recall the ad that sent the left into a tizzy for its supposed sexism:
For now the oddity remains that Burner, having already lost in a lean-Democrat district in the best Democratic year in recent memory, isn't spending much time talking about the most important issues to voters. The Politico noted she's but one of several Democratic Congressional candidates who have been caught with their pants down on this topic:
Elsewhere, Cook Political Report House analyst David Wasserman said that the rapid ascent of energy as the leading issue across the country has caught off-guard some leading Democratic candidates who began their campaigns running on anti-war platforms. He cited the campaigns of Darcy Burner, running against Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), and Jim Himes, running against Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), as examples.
While Burner has been shying away from such issues, Reichert has had them front and center, including via some innovate web-only ads featuring his campaign themes on the economy and energy.
The separation between the candidates is even all the more relevant given that in 2006, Burner ran strongest in affluent - and anti-war - communities such as Bellevue along Lake Washington in Seattle's suburbs (district map here). She faded, however, in less prosperous locales to the east and south. Given the economic angst being felt in many exurbs and small towns, one would think Burner would want to speak more to the issues that matter to those voters she lost in 2006.
While she's talking little about core pocketbook issues troubling voters, she's also neglecting top tier economic issues in the Seattle area too. Washington is the most trade dependent state in the nation. Yet, Burner refuses to commit to supporting trade deals with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea that Reichert supports. That topic may prove a weakness in the editorial board endorsement process where Reichert bruised Burner in 2006, with both the Seattle Times and Tacoma News Tribune chiding the credentials of her challenge to Reichert.
For now, Reichert's race symbolizes a test for many GOP Representatives. With the NRCC weakened and with Democratic spending vigorous, individual candidates will have to prove their worth, especially in swing districts. Odd campaigning by their opponents won't hurt.
Cross-posted at The Next Right.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 28, 2008 09:47 PM | Email ThisFora conservative you are almost sane.
I also think DB is missing the target on Reichert. She should hit him with:
1. the Palin albatross, given the history of Cantewll-Stephens, Maria could help here a lot.
2. the immigration albatross
3, the budget albatross tie him to Blount.
The war card is good, bit it should now be played because the cost of the war is bigger than the
cost pf the bailout.
Amazingly, he is right.
Posted by: Michele on September 28, 2008 09:57 PMAnother Republican Election Setup I am sure....
Hell most of them can't affored to drive their cars to a polling place because of these insane democrats stupid energy policies.
Posted by: gs on September 28, 2008 10:28 PMDo you think the folks over at HA/Slog/netroots will:
a. Take a hard look at Burner, her qualifications, and campaign, and decide that *maybe* she wasn't the best candidate for the 8th.
or
b. Blame the voters in the 8th (who will vote for Obama by a decent margin) as being stupid suburban/rural idiots.
Posted by: kb on September 28, 2008 10:39 PMIt won't be the end of the world, Neo-cons. The Dems are gonna kick butt pretty heavily in just about anotther month. What you folks should be doing is figuring out how to make the Dmes look bad for the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on September 28, 2008 10:47 PMShe also stands a chance of levitating. Clearly, reality is a stranger in your world.
You mean like Sarah Palin?
I hear she has laryngitis so Cindy McCain is coming to the debate to translate for her.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 28, 2008 11:08 PMAlso, this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
The implication is that Ameriacn Samo and Guam are 3rd world countries and that Darcy's opponent is less influencial than even the representatives of these "hick" places.
Someone of Samoan heritage should complain to the press about the racist advertising that this Dem is running.
Posted by: Robert on September 29, 2008 07:54 AMAlthough we all know how this is going to turn out.
The Congressional leaders are going to count noses to make sure they have enough votes.
Then,
Those in tight races they are going to be ALLOWED to vote against it.
That is why I so often compare what goes on in Congress with a wrestling match. It is so choreographed.
In our state, since Reichert is in a close race, the Congressional leaders are going to say (most likely) to him, okay, you are off the hook. We have enough votes without you so go rail against it and pretend to be a hero.
Should we judge him favorably if he votes no? Or should we just consider it so much gameplaying as if his vote was needed I am pretty sure he would have voted with the leadership.
I don't trust any more. Even when they do the right thing they only do it as a political calculation when their vote doesn't change things one way or the other.
Posted by: Gus on September 29, 2008 08:21 AMNow that Nancy has shut up. DB doesn't have much to say and appears to be struggling (a lot).
I've written a touch of ad and collateral copy in my day and I have to say, the poor schloob tasked with Burner's account was really digging. He better get a bigger shovel. Reichert is not "independent" because he didn't pass a bill? Come on.
The only thing I can figure is that this ad was only a vehicle to show Reichert shaking hands with Bush. Why he was doesn't matter as much as the visual (the stated tactic of hanging Bush around every Republican neck) and throwing around some questionably sourced (invented?) numbers that don't mean much to the average person.
Reichart just voted no.
Adam Smith just voted yes.
Go Dave go!
I may have not have much of a retirement left, but at least this problem won't be dumped at the feet of my kids.
Posted by: Ed on September 29, 2008 07:08 PM