November 13, 2006
Darcy Burner: Huge Loss for Nutroots!

Darcy Burner's 8th CD campaign is finally coming to a failed end.

This is a significant loss for the Nutroots movement which heavily backed Burner and other candidates like Peter Goldmark in the WA 5th CD and Ned Lamont for Democratic Senator for Connecticut.

It's doubtful that Nutroots activists like David Goldstein of HorsesAss.org will have the courage to admit this embarrassing defeat, but that is exactly what it most certainly was.

Darcy Burner should not have been picked as the Nutroots candidate for the 8th CD. Not only was Burner underqualified, inexperienced and lacking charisma, but she had zero political history. In an election where Democrats roundly trounced Republicans and picked up enough seats in the US House and Senate for majority control and a sweeping win of much of the WA State Legislature, there should be some real soul searching as to why Darcy Burner was picked as a candidate in the first place. Not only was Darcy Burner the wrong candidate, but she ran a terrible campaign spending very little time connecting with voters in the 8th district, particularly in sections of the 8th CD that lie in Pierce County where she lost by much larger margins than in King County.

Furthermore, Nutroots activists like David Goldstein relentlessly pounded incumbent Dave Reichert, and worked tirelessly to raise money and support for Darcy Burner. And yet even with all of the support in a banner Democrat year, Darcy Burner lost. There is no other way to view the Burner campaign but as a massive failure for the Nutroots movement.

Maybe the Nutroots movement will do some soul-searching and realize that even if American voters do want change in both Washingtons, they don't want that change to be rabid Progressivism.

Posted by JeffB. at November 13, 2006 09:52 PM | Email This
Comments
1. It's fine with me if the Dems want to run lightweights in the 8th.

Posted by: Misty on November 13, 2006 10:43 PM
2. I couldn't agree more, Jeff. I am, however, very concerned that such a light-weight still almost won this thing. I can't believe so many people in this district voted for her!!! It's scary. I wouldn't let her babysit my little brother...and he's 31.

Posted by: mark d on November 13, 2006 11:25 PM
3. Oh yes, of course.

Now, Burner got closer than any Democrat in history to winning the 8th (and there are still a lot of King County votes left to count) -- despite the Republicans spending about $6 million to defeat her, and pulling out everything they had, including the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and Karl Rove -- that should be an embarrasment to her and her supporters.

Oh wait. Maybe that's not who this should be embarrassing to...

Posted by: Spot223 on November 13, 2006 11:26 PM
4. You're right Spot. It's embarrassing to the citizens of the 8th CD that they almost elected her. I'm sure when the hang-over wears off, they'll be happy they didn't consumate their flirtation with MS. Burner.

Posted by: mark d on November 13, 2006 11:29 PM
5. Just out of curiousity, mark d and Misty, did you consider Dave Ross equally lightweight in 2004? Why or why not?

Posted by: Spot223 on November 13, 2006 11:50 PM
6. Well, you can't win them all. As for the "nutroots," I offer this:
--
Bernie Sanders: First Socialist in the Senate.

Sherrod Brown: Unapologetic liberal beats incumbent DeWine by 12 points.

Jon Tester: Populist wins Senate seat after destroying DCCC favorite, center-right John Morrison, in the primary.

Amy Klobuchar: Democratic-Farm-Labor senatorial candidate wins by 20-point margin.

Sheldon Whitehouse: Liberal Democrat beats centrist Republican Lincoln Chafee.

Jim Webb: Beats George "Macaca" Allen with a strong anti-war, pro-economic justice message.

Jerry McNerney: Beats Richard Pombo after a primary win over DCCC-backed Steve Filson.

Keith Ellison: Anti-war Muslim wins multi-candidate primary, goes on to take MN 5th district seat.

John Hall: Musician and environmental activist wins Sue Kelly's house seat in NY State after taking 48% of the vote in a 4-way primary.

Carol Shea-Porter: Wins NH house seat after beating centrist and party favorite Jim Craig in the primary 54%-34%.

David Loebsack: Strong anti-war, pro-universal healthcare Dem beats centrist Jim Leach in Iowa's 2nd.

John Yarmuth: Progressive, independent newspaper publisher beats three moderates in the KY 3rd district primary, then beats Anne Northup with zero financial support from the DCCC.

Larry Kissell: Former Social Studies teacher wins a 4-way primary despite DCCC opposition. General against Robin Hayes still too close to call.

Zack Space: Wins Bob Ney's seat after beating three primary opponents including (wait for it...) DCCC-backed centrist Joe Sulzer.

Deval Patrick: Far-left Lefty McLefterman wins MA gubernatorial race after taking 50% in the primary against two center-right opponents.

Missouri Stem Cell Bill: Passed.

South Dakota Abortion Ban: Crushed.

Minimum Wage Increases: Passed by six states.

Parental Notification Laws: Defeated in two states.
--
So whistle past the graveyard all you want. It's hardly a "failure to the nutroots movement" that we had the highest Democratic performance in the history of a District that has never elected a Democrat.

Dave Ross found the door, Darcy Burner knocked on it, and the 2008 candidate is going to kick it in! Don't get splinters on your pretty little faces.

Posted by: ivan on November 14, 2006 03:58 AM
7. It will not take long for the Democrats in this State and on the National level to finally overplay their hand. Locally they will overspend again, propose an Income Tax, hike fee's,run with RTID and bust the 601 limits again. Nationally they will investigate themselves into a frenzy, embarass us internationally and tear each other apart under the mismanagenment of Pelosi on the floor of the House and the Senate.

Posted by: Huh? on November 14, 2006 08:03 AM
8. I thought Dave Ross was more of a heavyweight than Burner. He had a much better-known name and his job had him disussing issues every day. But he was so liberal and kept trying to pretend not to be.

This now seems to be a district where you now have to run a star to win, regardless of what side you're on.

Posted by: Misty on November 14, 2006 10:54 AM
9. I agree with Mark in #2 above. It is scary that someone this under qualified, running against a great candidate could come this close. What this means is that the R's nationwide need to find quality candidates that are pro business, fiscal conservatives (we have none of those right now), pro military and leave people's personal lives alone. Only then will we win.

Does that help the anti choice, homophobic, eurocentric nutcases? No, but who the hell cares. Let them join the foley/west I hate all gays until I is one party.

Posted by: the duke on November 14, 2006 01:05 PM
10. Burner was not a huge loss! Her loss was a frighteningly close win for a nothing candidate that was little more than a "Hail Mary" pass from the start.

Only the "D" after her name and a media that portrayed her as a serious candidate made it close. With the same campaign and media coverage, virtually anyone off the street would have done no better or worse.

Burner was almost literally just picked out of the blue by the Democrats to run.

Her amazing success in such a close race should strike fear in every Republican, because if the media can come that close to getting a nobody elected in the 8th CD, then we're in real trouble (as opposed to the grossly distorted perception invented by the MSM of our problems.)

Posted by: MJC on November 14, 2006 03:49 PM
11. If it has a D on it or a $ sign beside it they will vote for it.

Posted by: gs on November 14, 2006 04:41 PM
12. Obviously you guys don't get it. First of all, your rap on Democrats is always that they have "no experience in the private sector." Darcy has private sector experience. If she is so uncharismatic, why was her office filled with young energetic volunteers. How many of you could have done her job at Microsoft.
Why did Reichert have to bring George Bush in to help raise money in a dinner in Medina? Darcy nickled and dimed her way to 3 million dollars.
Dave Reichert has yet to run a campaign where he does not smear his opponant.
Just because she does not look like one of your Republican women with 3 cans of hair spray.
Darcy brought business experience, you guys never mention that her husband served honorably in Iraq. Something Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld would not understand.
Don't blame our candidates for a congress that forgot why it was elected. They were to serve people who felt neglected by the Democratic party, but instead represented private interest groups.
Why do you have so much hatred for Darcy?
P. S. I have retrieved every single Darcy Burner sign that I put up and disposed of them within a week after the election.

Posted by: Mike Barer on November 14, 2006 06:18 PM
13. I think the biggest thing that turned people off of Darcy was her supporters. Goldstein's constant foul mouth rants left people feeling that if Darcy surrounds herself with people like this, what is the true quality of her character?. Then there was the lack of consistant voting, the lack of volunteering, the lack of concern over local issues which impacted her neighbors, her resume padding and her lack of visibility in the community.

She came across to working people as smug and self-centered. Now to the nanny state loving Ron Sims crowd that isn't a problem, they are used to giving up their personal liberties and rights to someone who claims to "know more " than they do. She should have taken on all comers in a primary fight to establish herself, instead she chose to manipulate the other potential rivals with the help of Dwight Pelz to clear the way for herself to be unopposed.

I have friends in Ciy Governments all up and down the Snoqualmie Valley and none of them had seen or heard of Darcy as being an active participant. Well 3 million Illinois, California and New York Democratic dollars later she has the name recognition, will she do the work? Will she volunteer to help the locals when there is absolutely nothing in it for her other than the satisfaction and reward of serving others, we will see. Flood relief? School bonds? CAO repeal? I am guessing the answer is no, it's more likely she will get a political handout from the County or the State maybe even the Fed's will stick her on a commisson to keep her "Out there".

Posted by: Huh? on November 14, 2006 06:55 PM
14. Darcy = Clueless


B......Bye

Posted by: GS on November 14, 2006 07:33 PM
15. Mike Barer: Did Darcy ever sign the FRONT of a paycheck, as some of us have??

Posted by: Michele on November 14, 2006 10:06 PM
16. ..and Mike, why did newspapers accuse Burner of running such a mean-spirited, ethically challenged campaign? Why were her supporters so mean and crass as to laugh about the green river Killer? Have you seen how rude her supporters like Goldstein were?
How come she didn't bother to vote on far too many occasions in the last 6 years? Heck, I'm not even a candidate but I'm a perfect voter for the last decade plus.

Posted by: Misty on November 14, 2006 10:11 PM
17. Well as far as laughing at the Green Lake killer, I guess there are renegade supporters. As far as not voting, I heard that it was she was registered in a different district.
Signed the front of a paycheck? She is a mother, I am sure she has had to do that. Where is evidense she hasn't. I don't have children, but consider myself a good husband.

As far as Goldy, he is a character. He can be mean, but usually it is satirical. I don't condone him using bad language, but agree with many of his views.
My Cousin Tod uses the F word on his blog, but writes some funny stuff.

Posted by: Mike Barer on November 14, 2006 11:04 PM
18. In regards to mean spirited campaign, I would posted on my blog, a very nasty ad that Dave Reichert put out.
Darcy Burner, International Terrorist. Check it out in my October Archives.
What about the job interview sketch. She does not giggle like that.

Posted by: Mike Barer on November 14, 2006 11:07 PM
19. I know there aren't a lot of independents here, and I am sure the vast majority of you were turned off by Darcy Burner solely because of her politics...but was I the only one who found here public speaking grating? It's not that she seemed like a bad person, or like she wasn't saying what she believed, but was I the only one irked by her saying the same lines over and over?

Not the only politician guilty of this by any means, but every public statement she made was "Washington wants change" or "Dave Reichert votes with Bush 90 percent of the time." If this wasn't such of a Democratic year, I can only imagine that crap would have got her slaughtered.

Posted by: Alcon Nighthawk on November 15, 2006 02:02 AM
20. Hey we lost, I'm out of here. If we had to lose, i'm glad it was to an appointee of Ron Sims who seemed like a decent sheriff.

Posted by: Mike Barer on November 15, 2006 08:08 AM
21. Mike barer, When someone asks if someone has signed the front of a check, they mean, has that person ever owned a business and written checks to employees?

Posted by: Moondoggie on November 15, 2006 09:03 AM
22. Alcon,

She talks just as slowly in person as she does on tv. Its not an act - she really does behave that way.

And as for her 'husband served in Iraq'...? Not a chance. Mike works as a middling techie at Microsoft - and yes, any one of us could have done Darcy's job at Microsoft. She was on a team, not a star. Never was an 'executive' ...

My husband worked with her for years and she never signed a paycheck and never held any position of authority.

As someone posted on another thread here, her son now maybe gets his mother back, which is far more important than Darcy deepening her socialistic tendencies in Baghdad Jim's office.

Posted by: Ann on November 15, 2006 09:12 AM
23. Mike Barer, I followed you link. I have seen funnier parody ads, you need higher production values. Hint: A real ad would say he is a member of congress, not the house of reps.

Posted by: Moondoggie on November 15, 2006 09:16 AM
24. OK OK but I don't know if I can generalize all of us or all of you in a blanket statement. My feeling is that if the same Darcy Burner was a Pro-Life Republican etc, you would all be kissin' her little butt.

Posted by: Mike Barer on November 15, 2006 10:38 AM
25. which by the way, is little. If she was fat, it would be "turn out the lights!" on this page. Trust me. I've been on right-wing chat pages.

Posted by: Mike Barer on November 15, 2006 10:41 AM
26. I understand where I am, so we can agree to disagree on this. I am sure not everything that I judge W on is fair either. I am just happy that you let me be part of the debate. I wrote to Mike Webb one time disagreeing with an issue and he ripped me a new one.

Posted by: Mike Barer on November 15, 2006 10:48 AM
27. Mike Barer, i don't think you're getting it. Signed the front of a paycheck means one has been an employer who actually has the responsibility of paying employees from his/her own checking account, which is what thousands of people do here in WA everyday as small-business owners.

No, I've seen NO evidence that Burner has ever done that. We know what that's like because we've done it and continue to do so. She has no idea what that is like. She has no idea what it's like to be on the hook for every expense of the business coming out of her pocket. Vendors, taxes state and local, business loans, employee paychecks, etc. She does not begin to have the amount of true business experience that many of us have gone through in our families. I'm sensing that you don't, either.

Posted by: Michele on November 15, 2006 11:39 AM
28. I appreciate it, Michelle but I think I have moved on. If Darcy would have won, maybe I could go another few rounds on this. I've gotten your point. Being in the work force, I probably have done things that you have not done.
My father has owned a three generation family business in Walla Walla (sold and retired, 6 years ago) My Father-in-law owns the UPS franchise that I manage here in Bellevue, so I have a little bit of an idea of what it is about.
Like I said, I appreciate being part of the debate but, just like when we would debate President Bush, there will be no winner.

Posted by: Mike Barer on November 15, 2006 12:02 PM
29. I may also add My Father and Father-in-law have had businesses that have failed in addition to the successes. Some of my more Conservative votes on initiitives are because of that.
I don't always agree with either of them on some things. Sm. Business owners tend to oppose min. wage and also worker safety. I think if you own a business, it should be worker friendly as well as customer friendly. It can be a balancing act but it should be done.

Posted by: Mike Barer on November 15, 2006 12:18 PM
30. I think if you don't own a business, you don't have nearly as much right to dictate to those who do as to how said business should be run. As long as there are no overt safety hazards, the way it's run is none of your business. If a business chooses to not be customer friendly, they won't stay in business long. If they're not worker-friendly, they won't have employees for long. The free market doth wonderfully work this all out. Sorry you can't see that.
The day that you sign the front of those paychecks, you will get the full sense of what heroes small business owners are here in America. They should be thanked for all they do to run this great american engine, not taxed and punished. Hope you can see that someday. Hope you start your own business someday, instead of judging others who are taking this heroic step.

Posted by: Michele on November 15, 2006 08:16 PM
31. I see you don't think American workers are heroes. I think some business owners are heroe. I think that business owners also are workers and I'm aware that while there is a minimum wage there is no minimum profit.
Can you tell me how Wal Mart is a friend of American small business?
What kind of business do you have?

Posted by: Mike Barer on November 15, 2006 10:06 PM
32. I've been following along here and wasn't going to bother to comment, but I see that Mike is pretty lost, so I'll add my two cents.

Mike I don't think Michele was saying that a worker can't be a hero, but the reality is that working a job is much less of a risk, and not a direct part of wealth creation. There are some key employees in any business that might be responsible for a patent or a key product idea that really generates the wealth of that business. Those employees should be well compensated. But the real engines of our capitalist society are the risk takers who put up capital and start and run businesses.

And that included Wal-Mart in a BIG way. Wal-Mart is one of the largest engines powering our economy. You should be down on your knees thanking Wal-Mart every day. Not only is Wal-Mart a huge part of our economy, creating many jobs, etc. but it is Wal-Mart that is reducing the economies of scale for small businesses and lower income consumers. Wal-Mart makes it possible for everyone to do more with what they have because they have a business model that allows them to sell for less.

You are probably anti-Wal-Mart because you have been indoctrinated with pro-union rhetoric, or just general left leaning anti-capitalist rhetoric. The fact is that Wal-Mart does more for the little guy than almost any other entity in the US, including the government. Wal-Mart provides jobs at a pay scale that fits even the most entry level position. Go look at the job board at a typical new Wal-Mart as it opens. You'll find that there are thousands of applicants for relatively few jobs. People want to work a Wal-Mart. Maybe it's a second income, or maybe they are entry level workers or high school worker or just unskilled workers, but Wal-Mart provides a great job at that level, and they can do so because they are non-union, and because of their business model.

There are many other heroic American business success stories, and all of them make the engines that fuel our GNP and GDP. Our economy is easily the largest in the world, and is easily one of the most productive economies per capita. It takes an entire year or more for some countries to reach the output of one day in the US.

If you feel guilty about our productivity, or you feel that we owe the rest of the world for our success, you should really ask yourself why. It's quite possible that you've always believed what you've been sold by the left and never stopped to question the supreme morality and goodness of our system based on individual incentive.

Lastly, I would say that it's an utter myth that small business is opposed to worker safety. A small business depends on every single one of its employees to survive. When an employee in a small business gets sick, everyone feels the extra load. I don't know any small businesses who treat their employees poorly. They simply can't afford to do so.

BTW, I run a small business.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 15, 2006 11:47 PM
33. I used Wal-Mart as an example of big business in general, although some of my posts are phased awkardly, I think they are grossly taken out of context. I voted for a couple of bills that you would have cheered for. Because the majority of this board wants to put the horns on me. If you read my earlier posts I said I come from a family of small business owners. I raised some concerns that I had. That part of my assessment was totally ignored. Oh Well. I unwittingly poisoned the waters of the love fest.
First of all, I think there is more to life than creating wealth. That does not mean I have anything against creating wealth.
It reminds of a line comedian and commentator Mort Sahl used. I know it's a little dated, but I think that you may enjoy it.
President John F. Kenney came befor a group of Wall Street Businessmen, obviously a very hostile group. Kennedy came up to the podium amid polite silence and said, "I'm like you, a wealth capitalist. If I wasn't president I'd be buying stock!" One of the execs stood up and said "Mr President, if you were not the president, I would be buying stock"

Posted by: Mike Barer on November 16, 2006 09:43 AM
34. I want to also add, that many of my posts were done in an abbrievated time. As a worker and a husband, I don't have all the time to plan and write, the way that I would like to. I would be happy to compare my responses to the dissenting opinions of some of the right-wingers on Goldstein's blog.

Posted by: Mike Barer on November 16, 2006 09:54 AM
35. Mike,

Saying that you've poisoned the waters of a love fest is a fallacy. That's an appeal to emotion. There is no obiligation for complete agreement here at SP, but there is mostly and should be an obligation to rational argumentation. By any measure, there's a lot less of that on Goldstein's blog. His blog is mostly interjection and profanity, and points for both sides are rarely based on rational argumentation.

The point being that response to your civil and rational disagreement is a compliment. I would not bother, nor do I ever bother to post at HA, if there's not a willingness to debate in a rational, civil manner. And I read your mention of being from a family of small business owners, and again, that's an important point, and why I am even bothering to respond. Good for you and your family.

Productive work is the central purpose of a rational person's life. That's not to say that we all don't have emotions, and loved ones, and free time, and hobbies, etc. but if you show me a person who has not found a creative outlet in their capacity for production as a means of sustenance and intellectual self fulfillment, I will show you an unhappy person. Productive work, and better yet, wealth creation is the central aspect of personal achievement, which leads to pride, and then to happiness. I'm certainly happy that my wonderful wife shares my values of productivity and achievement, but it would not be possible for her to achieve that in me, it is something I have to do myself, and so it is for all people. Those who sit on the sidelines waiting for a handout, seek hedonistic distractions and view there jobs only as a means to an end will never achieve true happiness.

But the key takeaway here is that the fundamental difference between those on the left, and those on the right is their view of man. Forget about the arguments of religion, abortion, etc. for a minute and focus in on freedom in an economic sense. With those on the left, and particlularly Progressives, there is an innate distrust of man, and the belief that the only way to provide for the negatives of the human condition is to forcibly take from the productive. On the right, there's the understanding that the best way to handle the problems of the incapacitated or incapable is through both the expectation that they pull as much of their weight as possible, and through voluntary contribution. In other words, the left sees humans and fundamentally incapable and in need of a government mandated support structure and the right sees humans as fundamentally successful and capable of fending for themselves if expected to do so. And I'm not really speaking of parties, because for the most part, Republicans have abandoned these concepts, also in favor of a welfare state, just not to the degree of Democrats.

No one would argue that when there are those who have missed the boat, there should not be a means for their help, but the worst possible way to effect that is to take money away from individuals and give it to a bureaucracy to distribute without the same care that an individual would use in the spending of their own monies.

And that cuts to the core of why Wal-Mart is a good thing, and why businesses, and particularly those who do not support unions, which means most small businesses, are the key to the US economic viability. Ultimately, we can no be competitive at the artificially forced and high salary rates imposed by unions and minimum wage laws. Wal-Mart is at least one large employer that bucks the trend and makes it possible for many entry level positions to exist. And moreover, makes it possible for free people to make decisions about their own employment, absent union coercion.

There is perhaps no greater eloquence or understanding of the true economic motivators than that of Milton Friedman who died today at age 94. If you truly want to understand why the economic ideas of the left are wrong and un-American, go view this Google Video. You seem to have somewhat of an open mind, it will be interesting to see if your opinion changes as you know more.

Posted by: Jeff B. on November 16, 2006 12:15 PM
36. RIP Milton Friedman. I am not as familiar with his work as I should be, but I know that he is worthy of recognition, as where Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and some other of that stripe to whom I can disagree respectfully with.

Posted by: Mike Barer on November 16, 2006 01:08 PM
37. Burner will NEVER get any closer to winning the 8th District than she did here. Not saying that a Democrat won't win it - it would have to be a conservative or maybe moderate Democrat though; it's just that she will NEVER win in the 8th. Marcy/Darcy has a bad case of hoof and mouth disease.

She might be able to run for McDimwitt's seat in the 7th District once he decides to retire and get hauled off to the insane asylum, where he belongs right now.

Posted by: KS on November 18, 2006 09:48 AM
38. It's kind of amusing to think of all the ways she offended 8th District residents. But I'm not mentioning any of them here, cuz I don't want to help the burner campaign.

Posted by: Misty on November 19, 2006 05:08 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?