Sound Politics Public Blog: Darcy's Selective Use of her Brother

October 16, 2006

Darcy's Selective Use of her Brother

Darcy Burner claims ad nauseum that her military family - and specifically her brother who was in the initial OIF invasion force - is somehow a national security qualification that trumps Dave Reichert's actual qualifications and veteran status.

So why does she completely ignore her brother's experiences and counsel regarding that conflict?

I don't think that military service necessarily correlates with good governance or strategic wisdom - John Murtha and John Kerry are proof of that. But service (or that of your family) can certainly offer an important perspective that should be carefully considered. And if indeed her military family is something we should consider when looking at her national security bona fides, as she asserts in every ad and in every campaign appearance, isn't it fair to consider what those family members have to say about it? Shouldn't we be troubled that she seemingly ignores them?

If Darcy was serious about the Iraq issue, she would build on her brother's experiences to build a better plan for victory in Iraq. No one would argue there's not room for improvement. But she is not a serious person. Once again, she conveniently ignores facts that don't mesh neatly with her memorized talking points provided to her by her Party handlers. How sad for someone purportedly incensed that a Republican Congressman more often than not caucuses with his party leadership.

Posted by orrinjohnson at October 16, 2006 12:18 PM | Email This

Comments

1. Good post. What I love about the PI story is that it quickly points out that Darcy didn't even stick with being an anti-war activist during the first gulf war. That she dropped out after one march. Seems to be some consistency in her inability to finish anything she starts.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on October 16, 2006 12:48 PM

2. If she is pro-military, than she has a completely different understanding of the word than I do. The group she claims to be a part of is the most anti military group I've seen in 60+
years. I think she is as anti-military as the
rest of the Democrats.

Posted by: Pagar on October 16, 2006 02:44 PM

3. To be fair about her dropping out of the war protest group years ago, she left after more radical "anti-war" types took over. It seems like any rational person would do that. I went to college in the late eighties and I remember the U-district was full of what we used to call UW Klingons - they were 30+ year olds that were handing out the socialist rags and screaming about this injustice or that. They hadn't been in college in over a decade, if ever but they just couldn't grow up and stop raging against the man, the machine or whatever the expression is. Even if I were the most stalwart antiwar activist, having to work along side those goons would be enough to drive me out as.

Please note, I am not a Democrat or Republican nor am I in the eight so I cannot vote. I am not a Darcy Burner apologist, but I do think a lot of the criticism hurled at her for being a flake isn't fair. If you don't like her stands, think she comes accross as condescending, don't like her commercials, think she's naive, fair enough, but some of the critiques on this site are just getting to be ridiculous. That said, I really think Reichart has better hair!

Posted by: Modmilq on October 16, 2006 07:37 PM

4. I wouldn't say she's anti-military, or even flakey. I think she's just profoundly, completely, and insurmountably selfish.

When her family's military history plays well with voters, she uses them. When that same military history should inform her that her talking points are incorrect, she ignores it because she doesn't want to hear it. When she can use that same background as a sob story about living in military towns to elicit sympathy, she will. When she doesn't want to be faced with the true nature of anti-war protesters, she walks away - it's not like it took any risk to do that.

It takes a great degree of selflessness and self confidence to say, "I'm honored, but I'm only 36. Let me run for state office first so I can build a real record, while still impacting the community. Let me finish law school first. Let my son get a little older. There's other people who can do this job in the meantime, probably better than me. Dave Reichert is vulnerable this year - you should run a pro who can take him to the matt and knows the district better." But she doesn't have that selflessness. She's enamored with the attention and has come to believe her own hype.

She quit the anti-war protests because she wanted to. She quit law school because it was immediate gratification for her. In Congress, she would slavishly do as she was told, because selfish people are easy to control with a little praise and a sub-sub-committee assignment. She would quit the War on Terror in Iraq and elsewhere, even after seeing the intel reports, because she loves seeing her name praised in the lefty blogs, and because she loves her brother and doesn't understand that some things are worth sacrificing for.

She spits out the far left pablum because she refuses to even talk to anyone who disagrees with her, and so the crowd she surrounds herself with gives lavish praise to all she says - that's pretty intoxicating.

Unfortunatly, selfishness and the accompanying intellectual isolation is exaclty what a leader can't afford to have. All politicians are arrogant (you need to be!), but there's a fine and crucial line between arrogance and selfishness. Most of them are mature enough not to try to scream down their opponents when they disagree with them.

Posted by: Orrin Johnson on October 17, 2006 04:56 PM