Sound Politics Public Blog: More on Darcy Burner

August 22, 2006

More on Darcy Burner

The final word from the Burner campaign regarding their deceptive campaign video is....

NOTHING

Disappointing really, I would have expected at least another standard denial, but despite repeated requests, they have elected to make no further response.

I have no choice but to assume it was deliberate.

So today on Goldy's blog I saw a video displayed proudly that featured Ms Burner speaking at the DNC convention in Chicago.

Stefan at Sound Politics called it hysterical rantings.

See for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R81j3LjrTJc

Well that may be a little overboard, but I found little that was new or interesting in it. At best she sounds like a typical democratic shill that has decided that all the problems of the world are:

George Bush's fault
The Republican controlled Congress's fault.

George Bush and the Republican controlled Congress's fault

Oh. And she needs money.

At worst she is a politician who is playing to her chosen base.

She invokes images of our war victories and national accomplishments, then characterizes the war as a potential defeat.

She carefully drops her credentials (honestly this time) as a military child.and the brother of a military guy (and a beer truck driver which likely thrills the drinking liberally crowd at Goldy's...).

She lists the things we asked the military to do in Iraq:

*Overthrow the regime- DONE
*Search and make us safe from WMDs- DONE

*Protect Iraq while the Iraqis vote on a constitution.- DONE

All that done, now, according to her, the troops are

"...sitting over there getting shot at because the Republican Congress and administration in Washington, DC cannot figure out what their plan is to give Iraq back to the Iraqis and get our troops home and that has got to stop. "

Oh please. This is Howard Dean channeling at its finest. If she truly believes that, really believes that we have no plans, and that we are just dropping her brother and the other troops in Iraq to be shot at needlessly because "duh what do we do now...", it shows she understands nothing about the military she has so carefully connected herself to. The very fact there is someone shooting is proof the situation may not be stable enough to cut and run.

She is name dropping the military with every gasp of air when she is apparently clueless about military matters.

And as Stefan notes, she conveniently failed to mention any plans to fix the problem as she sees it.

Her initial ad that I posted about was disappointing to me because it made claims and deceptions. Her leftist fans however were upset it did not blast harder against the neocons and Bush. This speech was for them, lest she be Lieberman-ed.

This is their campaign strategy and agenda. Typical anti Bush-evil Republicans-bring the troops home rhetoric. That is what pushed Lamont (another wealthy democrat to represent the party of the poor Americans) over Lieberman and what she hopes will lift her over Reichert.

Last term, when Dave Ross squared off against Reichert, I thought that would be a tough battle, because Ross is savvy and smart. Reichert handily won. So I wonder how realistic her chances are when she offers nothing but nice suit and a nice haircut.

As is her continued illusions about her middle class roots and sensibility, she doesn't seem middle class to me. A former Microsoft Executive (her words not mine) married to what appears to be a senior Microsoft architect, a position that must surely be lucrative, (and if she was an executive, she likely has options of her own) so how middle class is she? She may have started there, but has she retained it with her rise to prominence and wealth?

And another concern I have is how dependable is she? She quit Microsoft to have a baby right? Yet in an earlier story she quit to go to law school. Then she quit law school to run for congress. Then she only entered law school to get ready to run for congress

Tell can Darcy finish what she starts? Will she get elected then jump to another elected position? Is the bid for congress just a stepping stone in her restless quest for advancement? Is she Dilbert's Job Hopper?

http://leaningstraightup.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/dt060801.gif

Only time will tell, but as I see it right now, Ms Burner has risen (more of a slide to the left really) from mediocre to typical. And that's not going to cut it.

Also posted to Leaning Straight Up

http://leaningstraightup.com/2006/08/23/more-on-darcy-burner/

Posted by guitarplayr at August 22, 2006 10:48 PM | Email This

Comments

1. I concur! Burner is not only a job hopper, she's a political opportunist. For her, 2006 is all about trying to capitalize on the perceived failings of national Republicans...so what does that have to do with The Sheriff?

My bet is that incumbency alone will be enought to protect Reichert, and that doesn't even take into consideration his LONG CAREER OF PUBLIC SERVICE!!! Or the fact that he enjoys alomst nearly universal name recognition in the district!

Posted by: Patrick on August 22, 2006 11:38 PM

2. guitarplayr, to clarify several of your statements. Darcy Burner is neither prominent or wealthy. She worked at Microsoft for around three and a half years between 2000 and 2004 (she took an extended pregnancy leave due to a severely difficult pregnancy) but after giving birth returned to work for a while. Her husband has only worked there since 1999. The big misconception is that the 27000 people currently working at Microsoft are getting rich, like folks did in the past. This is no longer the case, unless you are indeed "an executive", which she was not. She left Microsoft "to focus on issues that she cared about", which I guess led her to enroll in law school to "learn how laws are made", as she did have aspirations of someday pursuing political office. As we all now know, she left law school and immediately started running for Congress. You are correct that she is an unfocused job hopper. As someone who lives in her community, I can also tell you that she is a total idiot and an extreme bitch, and of course, can't open her mouth without lying.

Posted by: ameslaker on August 23, 2006 01:24 PM

3. The "opportunist" charge is ridiculous. Of course a seat in Congress is an advancement over law school. It's also an opportunity to serve society. Assuming she has a decent shot at winning, she'd be foolish, and odd, to pass it up.

Speaking of school, didn't you ever take Econ 101? Even if she had stock options (which Microsoft no longer issues), Microsoft stock has been basically flat for the past 8 years, so most options issued during that time are worthless.

Posted by: Bruce on August 24, 2006 02:29 PM

4. it is not ridiculous. if you disagree, fine, but the mere method of her changes in direction and her stories along the way changing, makes it appear that she is just siezing opportunitues as she sees them.

Which is not illegal, nor even necessarily unethical.

It is not however the same as her stated devotion to service.

Stock options....first of all, yes I do know, I used to be a Microsoft employee. I dont know how many she had, how many splits she was part of, what price they were issued at and any of the other factors. Likely you are right, but stock options is not the only way to make money.

For that matter, I dont even know what they did in Silicon Valley, and whether they arrived her well heeled or not.

You also forget, her husband is still an employee, and his position is a fairly lucrative one, so I really doubt they are struggling middle class.

One might also be concerned about her proximity to a person who is involved in Microsoft Political Action Committee, as her husband is.

Posted by: LSU on August 24, 2006 02:56 PM

5. By the way, to be clear, I am not accusing or suggesting any impropriaty by her or her husband.

To my best knowledge, the MSPAC has not donated a dime to her, and has actually donated to Reichert. Additionally the PAC has donated more to republicans then democrats based on a quick search.

But the proximity is part of what could be seen as a conflict of interest, if she is elected.

I don't think concern is uncalled for.

Posted by: LSU on August 24, 2006 03:19 PM

6. "At worst she is a politician who is playing to her chosen base"

lol

If that's the worst she is, then fine. She was speaking to the DNC, correct? I would hope she would tailor the speech to the audience, and she does it a bit better than Dave "I've had guns pointed at me" Reichert.

Posted by: Ben Diamond on August 24, 2006 08:27 PM

7. Darcy is an extremely unqualified candidate. It's not rocket science, there is no gray area, she simply is not prepared to be a Congress person from the 8th District. Could she hide there in the halls of Congress? Sure. Would she do the distict any good? I doubt it. What if she was elected, but not into the majority? Would she refuse to negotiate with the majority like Cantwell? Would she simply become a joke like her buddy Jim McDermott?

Darcy doesn't have any original thoughts, she is the ultimate start at the top Democrat. She has no foundation in the district, no service, no charitable work, no volunteering, not activism on local issues...she just wants to run things. Just take a good look at her pimp buddies in the media and see who she counts as political friends, Goldstien, Dave Ross the Socialist, Dwight "gimmie your land" Pelz and Bagdad Jim McDermott. She is strickly "Back Burner".

Posted by: huh? on August 25, 2006 09:14 PM

8. Let's see...business background, Harvard degree. Perhaps she should run for Governor of Texas.

Posted by: Ben Diamond on August 26, 2006 12:01 AM

9. Maybe she should in Seattle where her only self admitted disagreement with Jim McDermott is his stance on Israel. She is much closer to Capital Hill than Novelty Hill politically.

Posted by: Huh? on August 28, 2006 11:05 AM