The momentum continues to build for Darcy Burner in WA’s 8th Congressional District, with the announcement today that she has become the newest national “Netroots Endorsed” candidate. This is a huge accomplishment that will lead to national attention, and tens of thousands of dollars pouring in from online activists throughout the nation.
A couple weeks ago the national blogs Swing State Project, MyDD, and Daily Kos asked their readers for nominations — kind of like a national, online primary — and Burner won. As Matt Stoller wrote over on MyDD:
The next netroots candidate is Darcy Burner in Washington’s eighth Congressional district. The district is trending blue, and Burner is incredibly smart and a natural camapigner going against vulnerable incumbent David Reichert. She is also young (35) and web-savvy, having worked at Microsoft, and these traits will serve her well in a House that is desperately in need of new blood. She has promised, for instance, to post on her Congressional web site a list of all meetings with lobbyists by her or any staff member, which is a fundamentally new approach to governance.
The Washington State blog community is one of the more mature blogging communities out there. They don’t fall lightly for a candidate, so seeing this kind of note on the exceptional Horse’s Ass is quite meaningful.
I personally have known Burner for nearly a year, yet I didn’t start actively promoting her campaign until February, after I became absolutely convinced that she was not only a candidate who could win, but who would well serve the interests of the 8th district and the citizens of WA state. During that time I’ve watched her grow from just another passionate Camp Wellstone classmate, into a compelling campaigner and a formidable fundraiser. And the more I learned about her personal story, the more I became convinced that she was the perfect candidate to represent the demographically diverse 8th district.
Burner regularly attends Drinking Liberally, and was at the Pacific NW Progressive Bloggers Conference. Her diaries at Kos are here. She’s got a good shot to win this district, and she is part of a new wave of internet candidates who know what it takes to win and know what democracy really can mean.
Aww, gee… Matt called HA “exceptional”. But as much as I’d like this to be about me, it’s not. This is about Burner, the entire local progressive blogosphere (Andrew at NPI should be thrilled,) and the respect we’ve earned from the national netroots. But most of all it’s about the incredible support we receive daily from our readers; if you didn’t read us, nobody else would, and in the end our strength comes from our numbers.
So go check out Burner sitting at the top of the “Netroots Endorsed” page on ActBlue, and show her some love.
Yay us! Go Burner!
Darcy Rocks!
I think Reichert thought he could treat his Congressional career like his law enforcement career. Take 22 years to accomplish one thing.
Okay let’s just beat Janet S and Pope-A-Dope (Probably the same person) to the punch.
Pope-A-Dope will try to deflect by parsing some consonant in Darcy’s resume and then try to explain to us whuy the Netroots thing is no big deal, even tho it is.
Janet S will complain that a woman’s place is in the home and Darcy should have done better than straight As in law school.
“Burner regularly attends Drinking Liberally”
That is excellent news.
First of all, “Drinking Liberally” isn’t even in her district. The more time she spends in Seattle, the better for Reichert.
Second, maybe she will drink too “liberally”. Since her driving abilities aren’t the best in the world, and most drunk drivers are caught by drawing attention through careless driving …
Congrats to Darcy and the local netroots. Y’all have done a great job. Keep it up. You’ve got all the right people worried.
Why does Pope spread the lies of Drudge and then doesn’t have the stones or the character to admit he was wrong? Pope is a liar, fraud and hypocrite and if you believe anything he says on this blog, you run the risk of being foolish!
Roger and Gang your favorite friend has something to say about Hillary. Goldy do you support Hillary like Darcy?
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
As we look toward 2008, it is obvious Republicans would like to see their GOP nominee triumph. Democrats clearly want one of their own in the White House. But there are many who want to see ABH — “anybody but Hillary” — get elected.
The former first lady’s unique brand of transparently phony moderation, heartfelt inner socialism, Nixonian disregard for the norms of civilized politics and governance, and her well-documented tin ear on ethical issues make her the most dangerous aspirant for president since George Wallace (and he never had a chance of winning).
The more John McCain runs and Rudy Giuliani tests the waters, the clearer it gets that neither of these good men can command the Republican nomination.
McCain is too independent and Rudy too liberal. Republicans will not forgive the Arizona senator for his anti-torture bill, his backing for campaign finance reform, his support of major reforms in corporate governance, his opposition to big tobacco, his antipathy toward making the tax cuts permanent and his backing for citizenship for illegal immigrants. Nor will they overlook Rudy’s support for abortion choice, gun control, affirmative action or gay rights.
Condoleezza Rice, long the object of our affections, has not moved any closer to running despite our ceaseless prodding.
That leaves no Republican who can beat Hillary. George Allen, of confederate flag/tobacco spitting fame, is not likely to win over any female votes from the Democrats. Allen can get his usual complement of gun-toting white males but the female vote is the swing one in our politics.
Governor Mitt Romney is sinking fast in the Massachusetts polls. And Senator Bill Frist can’t get out of his own way to even be an effective majority leader.
As for Governor George Pataki, fleeing your home state because you wouldn’t get re-elected is hardly a springboard to national office.
Al Gore – poor benighted Al Gore – offers the best chance to stop Hillary, albeit in the Democratic primary.
History is repeating itself. In 1960 and 2000, a popular president (Eisenhower/Clinton) prompted his vice president (Nixon/Gore) to run for president. Each lost very, very narrowly. Each was sharply attacked within his own party for not using the popular incumbent more to campaign on his behalf.
After their defeats, neither seemed likely to get another presidential nomination. But then the party blew the next election by a considerably larger margin (Goldwater/Kerry) and the former VP’s defeat didn’t look so bad in retrospect. Each rode opposition to a current war into renewed popularity. And Nixon got elected.
Gore has several key advantages over Hillary. He has always strongly opposed the war, while she and the other possible Democratic candidates – Kerry, Edwards, Bayh and Biden – all voted for it. His historic warnings about the dangers of climate change seem to be coming true all around us. The major national issue – energy prices – is right up his alley. Gore has been advocating alternative fuels and major conservation for decades.
Gore would exploit a soft-core negative against Hillary that is sweeping the ranks of Democrats. Hungry for victory and suspicious of Hillary’s ability to win, they whisper to one another: “I like her but isn’t she too divisive to win?”
Gore has become personally wealthy with the appreciation of his Google stock and his equity position in his Current TV network. And he has access to much of the donor base that he used in 2000 for his run for the presidency. Hillary will take many of these supporters with her, but the truly left-wing Democrats who are turned off by her moderation and backing for the war will likely provide a sufficiently wealthy and enraged base for funding an Al Gore campaign.
John Kerry and John Edwards both lack the purism of Gore on the Iraq War. Both backed it and voted for the resolution. Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, the current fair-haired boy being touted in the Democratic Party, probably will not be able to get a word in edgewise as the two giants – Hillary and Al – square off with each other.
Any bad blood between Gore and Hillary? I once asked the vice president if there was any friction between Tipper and the first lady. “There is no friction between Tipper and Hillary” came the deadpan, earnest reply.
“Well,” I rephrased my question “at the convention how do you think Hillary would react to Tipper introducing her?”
“There is no friction between Tipper and Hillary” came the automaton answer.
“So neither one would mind?” I ventured.
At least I’m willing to give Pope credit for doing something more intelligent than JCH’s endless repetition ad nauseum of the same three or four posts. However, if he wants to talk about bent cops, how ’bout we talk a little about Dennis Falk?
Dennis Falk? I don’t see anything negative whatsoever about his conduct as a police officer — with the sole exception of some snide accusations that Goldy posted here on Horse’s Ass.
You can find a lot more evidence on the web to support the allegation that Howard Dean and the DNC secretly supported Mitch Landrieu in New Orleans, than you can find that Dennis Falk ever did anything wrong in his law enforcement career.
Go Darcy! We, of the 8th district, are going to help you win BIG!
Reichert is respected here in the Fighting 8th about as much as Bush is. Niether one of them is worth a good goddamn. The 8th CD doesn’t care for Bush-supporting neocon tools like Reichert.
Hey Klake, how is your support of the absurd racist theory that “More Blacks and Indians owned slaves than white people did” going?
Still searching the Nazi websites for more support? Don’t worry, Dick Pope has your back.
Dick Pope said “support the allegation that Howard Dean and the DNC secretly supported Mitch Landrieu in New Orleans”
Even after the assholes who made the claim have withdrawn it?
Dick Pope: Never met a Nazi or false claim he didn’t support
Bumper Stickers will be issued.
Another week , another whore begging post for darcy. Damn, this bunch is predictable.
Nutroots Endorsed isn’t doing a lot of magic for Darcy Burner.
Nutroots is recommending seven candidates (including Burner) and one PAC. They have a total of 2,018 donations for all their candidates, for a total of $157,069.32.
However, Darcy Burner has received only 7 Nutroots donations totalling a paltry $285.00. This means that Burner is only receiving about 0.3% of the Nutroots funds, while the statistical expectation would be for her to receive 12.5%.
http://actblue.com/page/netroo.....ndPolitics
ATTENTION; Richard, would you please make sure you get your timecard in promptly this month?
Richard Pope @16:
Now it’s $485. Keep it up.
Thanks for the reminder, Dick. While I have given, and will continue to give, directly, you reminder had me donate through ActBlue.
You have done your good “Darcy” deed for the day.
Now toddle off and masturbate to your Nazi magazines.
Just so no one is disappointed – I wish all the luck to Darcy’s new baby, and I hope the nanny enjoys watching him grow up, because his mother won’t be there do so.
From what I have heard, Kos has a record of zero wins for everyone he has endorsed. So this is good news to Reichert, that Kos is behind her.
Thanks for the reminder, Dick. While I have given, and will continue to give, directly, you reminder had me donate through ActBlue.
Commentby Donnageddon— 5/23/06@ 9:03 pm
Thanks for the info. Now I just have to wait until her 2nd quarter FEC report comes out, and see who gave Burner between $0 and $200 on 05/23/2006 :)
Janet S. I sincerely wish the best to your kids, and hope that you hire a nanny so they can enjoy some rational adult role model.
“From what I have heard, Kos has a record of zero wins for everyone he has endorsed.”
REALLY! Is that what you have heard!? Perhaps you should quit listening to people that lie to you all the time?
And for heaven’s sake, GET A NANNY FOR YOUR POOR KIDS! They must be dying for someone not drinking form the Kool Aid all day and night. And sucking of the NRC teet.
“Thanks for the info. Now I just have to wait until her 2nd quarter FEC report comes out, and see who gave Burner between $0 and $200 on 05/23/2006 :)”
Happy Hunting, Dick! :) Good luck!
Thanks, Janet @19 for that snide little comment. I used to find your comments unusually thoughtful for a troll, but you seem to be devolving into the Richard Pope realm lately.
I take it that because you (or at least your blog persona) is a woman you have been designated to play the gender card in this race. So I assume that between now an election day we will be seeing all sorts of variations on the above meme that Darcy is not a good mom.
I assume that you are focusing on this because your shop’s polling says that this is a potential weakness. Maybe you’re right. It does, however, strike me as rather sleazy.
Too bad YOU can’t stick to the issues instead of taking the low road.
Hopefully Janet S and her sexest 1900s views on women will be echoed in public loud and clear. I am VERY confident that she represents the smallest possible percentage of Washington voters who would love to see women stay in the home so men folk could do all the hard work like making sure Janet S’ kids never have to fight in a war that she says she supports.
Janets S why not write a letter to the editor of every major newspaper in the state explaining your support for “women should be homemakers” plank of the GOP? We’d love to see you get the word out on this. It would mean Alaska’s US Senate Candidate Mike McGavick looooooses big! I dare you. Let’s see it!
Is Janet S asking for permission from her owner before posting here? I suppose it might be one of the chores she’s given to do daily.
And sucking of the NRC teet. Donna NRC – National Rifle Club?
No, a typo, PuddyBud. But perhaps Janet S. is sucking off two teets.
She must think it is better than actually working.
Darcy has no public record, so all we have to evaluate her on is her resume (from her website):
“She is a successful business woman, community leader and mother. ”
“Darcy has been active in her community and in state politics.”
I guess three years at msft makes her a success at business, and she is a mother. The rest is totally unproven. Her claim to motherhood is biologically true, but she has yet to actually raise a child, which is usually what one thinks of when hearing someone brag about motherhood. That is the only reason I emphasize this point.
The rest is just bs. No one has ever stated what exactly she has given to the community – no boards, no activism, no fundraising, nothing. And state politics? As what? She knows Ross Hunter?
I wish her well – I just think she is unqualified to be elected to a national office.
The rest is just bs.
Comment by Janet S — 5/23/06 @ 9:41 pm
Hell, Janet why didn’t you just say that so we wouldn’t have to read the rest of your garbage?
So tell us, Janet, about your vested interest in this race. Are you connected in any way, shape or form with the Reichert campaign or affilliated Republican or business PAC?
Man we Kennedys breed quick. Hey can someone get Puddy Kennedy a rum and coke.
So, donna, just what community service has she done? You are such a fan, tell me what office she holds in state politics.
Yes?
Silence.
My challenge has never been met, because there is nothing there. What exactly has she done to earn a spot in the national spotlight? She’s a woman who is 35 years old? That is about as sex-ist as I have ever heard. What ever happened to merit?
Janet, you haven’t answered the question about your vested interest in this race. Until you do, your viewpoints are suspect.
I have no vested interest in this race, other than I am a voter who doesn’t want to see complete neophytes elected to national office.
“So, donna, just what community service has she done? You are such a fan, tell me what office she holds in state politics.
Yes?
Silence.”
Comment by Janet S — 5/23/06 @ 9:54 pm
She is running for office, you moron!
WHich cmae first, Janet? The Chicken or the egg?
Yes?
Silence.
By your logic, I have made my case.
I guess.
11/03/2004
The post-election roll call of Moulitsas’ hand-picked beneficiaries reads as a litany of woe and defeat:
# Tony Miller — Lost
# Ben Konop — Lost
# Dan Mongiardo — Lost
# Richard Romero — Lost
# Samara Barend — Lost
# Jeff Seemann — Lost
# Nancy Farmer — Lost
# Ginny Schrader — Lost
# Jan Schneider — Lost
# Lois Murphy — Lost
# Jim Newberry — Lost
# Brad Carson — Lost
# Tony Knowles — Lost
# Stan Matsunaka — Lost
# Richard Morrison — Lost
All told, that’s $547,157.97 of donated money, squandered on the basis of the mass trust placed in Moulitsas by his readers. (This is, at least, what ActBlue reports — the actual figure is doubtless higher.) What lessons can we, as internet activists, draw from this? First and foremost, the fundraising power of the internet is powerful indeed. For a half million dollars plus to be raised more or less by a solitary weblog is a remarkable feat indeed, and deserves congratulations. But in a larger sense, this is a lesson we have long since learned — from the Dean campaign, and from the Bush and Kerry campaigns, as they used the internet to raise not hundreds of thousands, but hundreds of millions of dollars in online donations. The missing element in the Kos Dozen was sound, basic political judgment, informing the decisions on whom to fund, and in whom the donors could place their trust. And therein is the second lesson to be learned: mastery of the mechanisms of netroots mobilization is a different thing from mastery of the methods. Someone in the DCCC is laughing tonight at the humiliation of a bete noir who refused to grasp the value of wisdom and experience in politics — and paid for it with a hugely expensive and very public 100% failure rate.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Hmmmm. If one’electoral track record is the measure of one’s value, Markos isn’t worth a spit in a river. He and his community are zero for sixteen when picking candidates, and 0-1 with Howard Dean.
Posted by Jeff Wegerson on Feb 7, 2006 at 9:28 AM
Big talk from leftist losers.
The organization, fund raising, polls, endorsements, conventions, talk radio, and websites mean absolutely nothing until the left learns how to win elections. Winning elections depends on putting together a coherent philosophy and programs that appeal to voters. In this vital effort the left is losing ground, and is now engaging in internecine warfare that will further damage its decrepit credibility. In fact, leftist websites and political efforts generate noise and money, but not results. Conservative websites and efforts generate results. Consider:
Kos endorsed fifteen leftist candidates in his actblue website and raised one-half million dollars for them. Every single one of the Kos candidates lost in the 2004 elections.
Explain to me donna, just what has she actually done so far? She is the one that says she HAS community service and experience in state politics. Not that she desires to learn it, but that she has already achieved it. Running for office is not community service, and it is not state politics.
Sorry I need to explain this to you. Most pols start at the local level, and gain some experience and a record before taking the next step. I just think it is unfortunate that the dems didn’t choose someone who wasn’t a blank slate to run against reichert. I find it even more depressing that it doesn’t matter to all you on this site. Or you just won’t admit it.
I find it even more depressing that it doesn’t matter to all you on this site. Or you just won’t admit it. -Commentby Janet S— 5/23/06@ 10:07 pm
AND… 95% of the H’Asses supporting her here CAN’T EVEN VOTE FOR HER!
It’s another case of liberals not FOR something/someone, but AGAINST CONSERVATIVES.
Janet, I don’t find your statement believable. Your comments are consistently in synch with the spin of various Republican PACS and their media allies.
I’ll tell you why I would vote for Darcy if she were in my district: Republican one-party rule has been an absolute disaster, and it is crucial that the Democrats take control of the House.
I suspect that a majority of voters are so fed up with inside-the-beltway insularity and corruption that they would gladly elect someone of with energy, intelligence and similar values. Hey, if you could support Arnold with a straight face what’s wrong with Darcy?
March 08, 2006
BELTWAY BLOGROLL
The Netroots Lose Another One
Hotline On Call is reporting that Rep. Henry Cuellar won enough votes in the the 28th District of Texas yesterday to secure the Democratic nod without a run-off primary against former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez. That means that yet another favorite of netroots bloggers has gone down to defeat.
All of the major Democratic blogs, including Americablog, Daily Kos, Eshcaton and MyDD, had endorsed Rodriguez’ bid to reclaim the seat and had helped raise tens of thousands of dollars for his campaign in recent weeks. Rodriguez also began posting diary entries at Daily Kos starting in early February.
Their effort was looking good as early returns were posted, with Rodriguez leading much of last night. But the project ultimately fell short thanks to Cuellar’s strong polling in precincts near his home of Laredo. With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, Cuellar had won nearly 53 percent of the vote to Rodriguez’ 41 percent. He needed only 50 percent plus one vote to avoid a Democratic run-off.
The defeat is the latest is a long string of losses for netroots-backed dating back to 2004. Republican bloggers love to gloat about the fact that none of the “Kos Dozen” (actually 16 candidates endorsed by Daily Kos in 2004) won their respective elections. They crowed again when Democrat Paul Hackett lost to now-Rep. Jean Schmidt in an Ohio special election last summer. I expect to hear more of that talk today.
I’d say, all is not well in netroot land…
May 5th, 2006
by Philo @ 12:00 am
John Aravosis poses an important question to the netroots based on requests he’s received from Democratic leadership:
Some friends on the Hill recently asked me if the liberal blogs could lay off their attacks on Democratic members of Congress until after the election. The idea being that we need to keep promoting a public image of Dems good/Republicans bad, and that any criticism of Dems hurts our image and only helps detract attention from the Republicans’ increasing number of failings.
It’s an interesting question. Is it time to sit back and shut up and hold our tongue?
I think at some point we can hurt ourselves by helping create a public perception that our party has no message and is spineless. Then again, it’s not like they need much help creating that perception – chicken and egg.
Fuck. That. Noise.
Give us something to support and we’ll shut up, but this is really the DNC asking the progressive netroots to stomach the lesser of two evils. And I say that as an ardent Democrat who cares about nothing more than watching Democrats retake our government. But it’s not going to happen by us silencing criticism of Dems who deserve criticism, while continuing to target Republicans. That’s the birthplace of hypocrisy and for all the time we spend berating the right about it, I think it’d be insane for us to suddenly stop caring about honesty, integrity and good government.
I disagree with Aravosis that this is a chicken and egg problem. It’s not. The failure of the DNC to find adequate, electable candidates cannot be blamed by criticism from the progressive netroots for that fact. We’re critical because the candidates are weak or slimy or NOT REAL DEMOCRATS (read: Lieberman, Cuellar, Nelson); when the candidates lose we can’t be blamed for the candidate being a weak DINO. It’s a circular argument, the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc – and I’m sure anyone with their head screwed on right at the DNC knows it.
Progressive Democrats were burned badly in the lead up to the Iraq war as Dem after elected Dem got in lock-step behind Rove, Rumsfeld, and Cheney’s war machine. The liberal voices weren’t listened to and look what we have as a result? Why should anyone on the liberal blogosphere have faith that these same Democrats are (a) the best we can hope for or (b) deserving of our fealty?
Now I understand the underlying political, Manichean motives for Aravosis’s question – it should be noted that he doesn’t answer it, only poses it on his site – but our individual political values whereby many of us would place Democrats as the only “good” option in American politics exist separate from the goals that run common through the blogosphere. Good government, honest politicians, accountability, and an increase in the transparency of America’s democracy are what many on the blogosphere work for. When we criticize Bush, Rove, Frist, or DeLay for their shortcomings in these areas, it’s not just because we don’t like their views on abortion and gay rights.
I raise the distinction between good government and political spectrum issues on whole because one of the most important roles the blogosphere has played in electoral politics is one of investigatory journalism and paying attention to scandals that the traditional can’t see the importance of. No doubt the blogs will play a crucial role in helping Democrats unseat Republicans in Congress, but this is not because the DNC asks us to (though I’m sure that they hope for it these days), but rather because we believe rooting out corruption will, in the end, make our government stronger and more effective.
Obviously it’s no coincidence that liberal blogs focus our energies on Republican abuses primarily and conservative blogs do the same. But the Democrats the netroots are out to get are ones cut from the same cloth as corrupt Republicans who no longer have a moral compass (see, again: Lieberman, Joe). For us to turn our back on our values because the Democrats are concerned that a modicum of dissent might disrupt the careful machinations of their knighted consultants is to undermine the very functions and strength of the netroots. Silencing my criticisms of Democrats, whatever they may be, doesn’t just make me feel intellectually inconsistent and unprincipled – it makes me feel like less of a blogger.
If the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC are already looking to blame bloggers for failures they might experience in the midterms, then my guess is they’re already in position to fail. They are misdirecting their temerity by focusing it on their strongest allies and not on their weakest candidates and shoddiest incumbents. If the Democrats find a way to lose ground in 2006, it will go down as one of the greatest failures in American political history – likely on par with the Bush presidency. In that eventuality there’s no scenario where any meaningful iota of blame should fall on the progressive netroots. Schumer, Emmanuel, Reid, and Pelosi will go down as the architects of that failure, not Atrios, Kos, Aravosis, and Stoller.
Wake up and learn how to treat your base.
Democrats, 2006, 2008, blogs, bloggers
Pity poor darcy (the sacrificial liberal) damned and doomed by a netroots!
Green thumb – at least you are honest.
We have no idea what darcy is, or what she will do once in office. She has no track record. How do you know she will be a reliable dem vote? What happens to her under pressure? If she disagreed with the party leadership, would she stand up and say so? So far her resume is bs, and her views mirror the dem party talking points. If you want an empty suit in office, you will have it with her.
If Hunter was in this race instead, I would be much more neutral. He is a dem I could support, even if I didn’t vote for him.
Explain to me donna, just what has she actually done so far?
Comment by Janet S — 5/23/06 @ 10:07 pm
Uh, no.
Man that must drive you crazy!
Proud, it’s really too early to draw conclusions about the power of the net. It’s a very young phenemenon, and its role is still evolving.
I take it from the snarkiness of your comment that you want to score a cheap partisan point than discussing in an honest way the potential role of the net in the 2006 elections. Your loss.
But she will be the next Representative for the 8th District.
That drives you even crazier than you are.
Hey, Dick… you spent a lot of time lately watching how my AlexaDex fake stock is doing?
Do you have dreams about me, Dick?
Do you?
Bumper Stickers will be issued.
Donna, besides being a dem, why exactly do you support darcy? I bet you can’t actually tell me. Yes, she isn’t a repub. And?
Yep you’re evolving KOS is a loser so far.
One makes wagers and predictions, one chooses stocks, one hires based on PAST PERFORMANCE.
And golly, you kow, those blogs I posted, weren’t my thoughts or conservative blogs … liberals eating their own…again.
Janet, you republicans rally round neophytes all the time. The main difference is they tend to be rich white males from the private sector.
There’s nothing new here: Both parties will often take risks on untested candidates. I don’t see what the big risk isfor the Democrats. We’re not elected a chief executive. If Darcy is good, she’ll have the potential for a long career. If she isn’t, she’ll wash out.
The inexperience line really doesn’t cut it when your party’s idea of experience is Doc Hastings. Come on, Congress desperately needs new blood!
“Donna, besides being a dem, why exactly do you support darcy? I bet you can’t actually tell me.”
She is a fox, Janet.
I bet that drives you crazy, don’t it?
ASS, you have provided a ton of hot air, and less than an nanogram of URLs.
Quote all the wingnut verbiage you want. But if you are too ashamed to post the source… then it just makes you a kool aid drunk tool.
Wow – she’s a woman, she’s 35 years old and she’s cute! That does it for me! I’m a convert!
Green thumb – I actually agree with you that new blood is a good idea. I realize that reichert is older than darcy, but he isn’t a washington insider, and so I still consider him in that category. Doc hastings is kind of embarrassing, but I didn’t vote for him.
mcgavick hasn’t held public office, but he has been in a highly visible position with a tremendous amount of responsibility. You may not like him, but at least you have a something on which to base your opinion.
Whoa! DonnieGETSNone… they’ve got you covered!
Do your own damned research LazyGETSNone… I don’t give welfare to lazy liberal bloggers.
To quote your lately MIA pal/alter-ego: “…If you want to see who copyrighted this story look it up yourself! I’m not your ******* research assistant…“…
“Wow – she’s a woman, she’s 35 years old and she’s cute! That does it for me! I’m a convert!”
– Janet S.
I always knew you would come around, Janet.
But also you might want to consider:
Darcy is:
* for funding the 9/11 Commission recommendations and the 2004 Intelligence Reform Law. (Reichert is against defending the USA)
* for funding the VA and extending healthcare for families of National Guard and Reserve personnel. (Reichert has voted against that)
* for a plan to secure Iraq without an indefinite commitment of US troops and families. (Reichert has voted against the plan)
* for protecting a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body and supports United Nations efforts to provide essential family planning and healthcare services to poor nations. (Reichert hates women, and thinks they should shut up, make babies, and never have dinner late)
* for stem cell research to find cures for diseases that cripple and kill millions of people. (Reichert hates people and wants them to die, but loves stem cells and wants them to die too)
* opposes allowing more nuclear waste to be stored at Hanford and opposes massive tax breaks for oil companies. (Reichert loves toxic waste and loves oil billionaires who give him money)
But… really it is just because she is a fox!
You have conveniently dodged the substantive arguments put forth. No wonder Donn has essentially blown off your questions.
The bottom line is this: Our government functions most effectively when there are checks and balances, both between parties and between the executive and legislative branches. Perhaps more so than at any point in my lifetime (a half century), I think that the Democrats MUST take at least one chamber to restore constitutional balances.
When the voters of my district elected Brian Baird a few years ago he had no greater electoral experience than Darcy. I sat in on early campaign meetings and expressed a concern that he was setting his sights too high. It turns out that he eventually won the seat and has done a pretty competent job, given the demographics of the district.
I have no vested interest in Darcy’s campaign. If she can pull off a victory, more power to her. If she can’t, then Goldy will come in for some post-election criticism.
Meanwhile, how about trying a little harder to have a substantive conversation instead of dodging the real issues here.
“#
To quote your lately MIA pal/alter-ego: “…If you want to see who copyrighted this story look it up yourself! I�m not your ******* research assistant…“…”
Comment by howcanyou be PROUDtobeanASS — 5/23/06 @ 10:55 pm
That’s OK, ASS. I knew you were making it all up anyway.
If my goal in life was to support people who were “winners” I’d be writing checks to Joe Biden, Hilllary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy. All 3 of those candidates will win their next election. All 3 of those candidates have far more money than they need to win their next election. All 3 of those candidates still have no problem getting people to line up to give them even more money for their campaigns. If there’s wasted money in campaigns that’s where it is. And, yes, I know, that those candidates tend to pass on some money to other candidates, but I’m not sure how supporting party “kingmakers” is really of much value.
–atrios @Eschaton
Supporting underdogs (read: all House challengers) is the only way we are going to change this congress into one that will actually be accountable to the people and fulfill their constitutional duties of oversight and budget management.
What Ass doesn’t understand is that this is not some kind of pooling, slushing, tax-aviodance scheme like Tom Delay cooked up with TRM PAC. People don’t have to “trust” Markos with their money, they learn about the campaigns from him and choose the ones they wish to donate to. Period.
Keep spinning your wingnut fantacies, trolls. The truth is that better funded challengers mean the RNC spreads their funds ever thinner until they can no longer rely on wheelbarrows full of cash from wealthy republicans to buy their elections. Even when democratic challengers lose, they have succeeded in drawing the republican party’s funds away from other races.
How much do you want to bet Reichert and his puppet masters at the RCCC have to spend much more money holding on to his seat than they ever did getting it in the first place?
What happened to Roger Rabbit?
Thanks, Donna. I actually appreciate your substantive comment. I’ll look at the later and see if I can come up with defences that are beyond sound bites. That will make green thumb happy.
And, yes, Brian Baird isn’t a awful rep. He’s actually a standup guy with a brain in his head.
Green Thumb, you make a great point. Why is Janet S. defending life-time politico’s?
I fucking hate those people.
Let’s clean the slate and get foxy momma’s, who get money from the people, like Darcy elected.
We could do worse. And we usually have.
But then you could always vote for Dave.
He is against everything good. But I bet he hates women and foreigners.
That should get him the male Troll vote.
And Janet’s, because she is self-loathing.
@ 62 , your welcome, Janet!
Now, get dinner ready, get me a beer, and shut the fuck up!
After all, your a woman.
Yes, Puddybud, I meant to say “you’re a woman”
Or something like that.
I’ll give you a few key words I typed in DonnieGETSNone – see if you can manage the rest on your own (although I don’t hold out much hope from a mommy government dependee such as you)… consider it alms to the liberally incompetent…
DAILY KOS CANDIDATE NEVER WIN
DAILY KOS NEVER HAD WINNING CANDIDATE
KOS CANDIDATES ALL LOSERS
NETROOTS CANDIDATES LOSE
NO CANDIDATE ENDORSED BY DAILY KOS EVER WON
NO CANDIDATE ENDORSED BY KOS EVER WON
Janet gets snarky when she’s backed into a corner. it’s kind of funny, actually.
The trolls aren’t willing to come anywhere close to the core issue: We are facing a constitutional crisis right now. The federal government isn’t working the way the our founding fathers (sic) intended it to work.
This is not rocket science. Alas, “party discipline” is so strong that even the intelligent ones can’t seem to acknowledge (at least in public) that one-party government has gone too far. Way too far.
It’s time for a change. Perhaps Darcy will be our next Brian Baird.
@ 66 WOW! uh…
OK. Really good typing.
Your parents must be proud.
Keep up the bad work.
Uh.. ok?
I think it takes one whole hellava lot of nerve for a “living constitution” liberal to suddenly start whining about the Founding Fathers and what they intended
It sure seems to me none of the Founding Fathers… or mothers… found a “RIGHT” to abortion, nor did they find a “right” to suddenly ban the God they fought to worship.
Man. Dick Pope.. if you manage to out me… Can I count on you to defend me against the unstable Trolls on HA?
Really.. you are an OK guy, for a Nazi-loving wingnut lawyer and all.
But, some of your fellow travelers are kinda creepy.
To address Janet S.’s perennial call for pollitical experience in a candidate, I would point her to a young man who ran for congress from texas at the age of 32 with zero accomplishments under his enormous belt buckle: corporate, collegiate, vollunteer, family or anything else. He outraised his seasoned oponent by a factor of three.
He lost by 2% of the vote. But fifteen years later he became the Governor of the state of Texas, still with zero pollitical background and nothing but failures and bailouts in business. How did a completely green oilman become the Gov of the Lone Star State? He rode in on a wave of history in 1994 along with the current republican majority of the House.
The point is that, to paraphrase Victor Hugo, there is no pollitical force more powerful than a candidate whose time has come. We’ve got that candidate, and her name is Darcy Burner.
Gee, Proud, that’s a really thoughtful comment. Let’s see, a Supreme Court will a pretty hefty share of Republican appointees made the key abortion-rights decision, and it has been upheld by a succession of courts for what, around 30 years. So who exactly are you criticizing here?
As for this banning of God, why don’t you come back when you have a coherent argument. Banning God? That’s wacko.
Meanwhile, why are you cherry picking. Do you or don’t you believe in our constitution’s fairly unique commitment to a balancing of powers between branches of government and political factions? If you don’t you aren’t a strict constructionist. If you do, you can’t out of principle be in favor of continued one-party government.
@ 61 “#
What happened to Roger Rabbit?”
Comment by Richard Pope — 5/23/06 @ 11:01 pm
I hope it is a vacation. I love that furry rabbit with the visious claws.
BTW I did not look up the spelling of “visious”.. I am asking my fellow people to understand that I may have mispelled it.
In fact I may have mispelled “mispelled”.
Damn.
GT “As for this banning of God”
WOW! I have been waiting for this moment all my life!
I am most certainly a Constitutionalist… and our Constitution says we have a representative government CHOSEN BY THE PEOPLE.
Who do you think chose the government we have and by what mean did they choose it? Oh, yes, the people made their choice with their vote.. as per the US Constitution.
So actually, yes, our government is working exactly like the Founding Fathers intended when they laid it all out and called it the US Constitution.
The problem is, you liberals can’t stand the thought of the American people making choices with which you ‘know better’ elitists don’t approve.
The problem is you ‘know better’ elitists never actually put forth candidates that garner enthusiasm except by other ‘know better’ elitists.
The problem is you ‘know better’ elitists want to stand on the sidelines and criticize, forment hate and divisiveness and never bother to put forth ideas.
Is the ban of God a done deal? Or is ASS going to jump out and say “May 23rd Fools!”
Actually, I defend God’s right (any God, actually) to do anything they like.
As long as it is constitutional.
@ 75 “Who do you think chose the government we have and by what mean did they choose it? ”
Explain.
The only May 23rd fool is donnieGETSNone… badda bing! You walked right in and asked for that, sucker.
@ 75 Honestly, I am lost by your sophistry.
@ 78 “The only May 23rd fool is donnieGETSNone… badda bing! You walked right in and asked for that, sucker.”
Ok, if you say so!
Hey, Proud, so if the people elected a succession of presidents who appointed a succession of Supreme Court justices who decided that abortion would be legal and that precedent has been upheld for 30 years, what’s your problem? Is this not representative government in action?
You can’t have it both ways. Please explain.
Really, Dick… I need protection. “legal” protection.
Can Ass say the stuff to me she does?
Do I have legal recourse?
Really, Dick… I need protection. “legal” protection.
Commentby Donnageddon— 5/23/06@ 11:42 pm
Make sure your boyfriend wears a condom. Then you can “get some” and have some measure of “protection”.
@ 83, Thanks. I can assure you, you have assailed my fears.
And given me more ideas for Bumper Stickers.
And given me more ideas for Bumper Stickers.
Commentby Donnageddon— 5/23/06@ 11:48 pm
Just make sure you spell my name corectly!
Bumper Sticker Idea:
Dick Pope – He will sell your fears!
Oops, I meant “assail”. I am sure we will correct that before press time.
“spell my name corectly!”
I now it is a cheap joke. But that is perfect!
now = now… damn, where is the glass house when you need it?
Better joke : Now = Know; where is the glass house when you found the perfect rock.
“She is also young (35) and web-savvy, having worked at Microsoft”
BZZZT. Sorry, non sequitur. MSFT still doesn’t get the Web, so there’s no vital connection there.
It’s odd how many self-identified “progressives” use “works/worked at Microsoft” as a shorthand for “competent in some vague way or manner that I don’t have a chance of understanding since they work for a company that makes more dollars a year than I have cells in my body, not that I know that”. Mention anything technical and their eyes roll up like their prostates are being plundered and they’re expecting to sperm their face with their ejaculate. (Yo, JCH, Roger Rabbit, and Mr Cynical, among others.)
Sorry foax but you don’t have to be smart to work for MSFT, just willingly subservient. In fact, if anything, foax who work at MSFT seem to be on the side of those who turned human beings into batteries as in the Matrix.
…By the way, Mr Goldstein, did you see V for Vendetta?
> Every single one of the Kos candidates lost
uh oh. Looks like somebody forgot to tell Stephanie Hirseth and Ben Chandler about this…
Notiice how Janet S runs from her sexist position on women when challenged? She prefers the VAST experience of Mike McGavick. We know he’s an experienced guy. He’s got experience sucking up to Alaska’s big oil interests. He’s got experience helping big insurance companies screw the little guy. He’s got experience flip flopping on almost every issue depending on which crowd he’s trying to pander to. With that kind of “experience’ I’ll take a newbie any day. By the way, Janet’s bosses at GOP headquarters tried this approach when Sen. Murray was running for office. They attacked her as a mother, they attacked her as a newbie. And look how that turned out. Keep it up Janet. We love this lame line of attack. It means we win. You looooose. And that’s the way it should be.
> Every single one of the Kos candidates lost>/i>
uh oh. Looks like somebody forgot to tell Stephanie Hirseth and Ben Chandler about this…
Yeah, that would be something of a problem for his argument.
D’oh. Let’s try this again.
> Every single one of the Kos candidates lost
uh oh. Looks like somebody forgot to tell Stephanie Hirseth and Ben Chandler about this…
Yeah, that would be something of a problem for his argument.
Janet S @ 54, you are right, something to form an opinion on Mike McG. 1) A NeoCon, 2) Your handler’s choice, 3) Pro Big Business, 3) A true Waffler. Wow, he sounds just like your kind of man….after JCH gets through with you
61.
The proper phrase is “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”.
1. The inexperience line really doesn’t cut it when your party’s idea of experience is Doc Hastings. Come on, Congress desperately needs new blood!
Commentby Green Thumb— 5/23/06@ 10:33 pm
Green Thumb so does the state of Washington its government is the most inbreed bunch of fools ever to serve it citizens.
1. Meanwhile, how about trying a little harder to have a substantive conversation instead of dodging the real issues here.
Commentby Green Thumb— 5/23/06@ 10:59 pm
Green Thumb we could start this suggestion here in the state of Washington and throw out all the Socialist Democrats with real Democrats and Republicans.
1. What happened to Roger Rabbit?
Commentby Richard Pope— 5/23/06@ 11:01 pm
Richard he was pick up staggering threw Green Lake after some checks the found that he OD on his Medication. Further study he was visiting Rush Limbaugh doctors and filling out his prescription with more than one pharmacy.
1. This is not rocket science. Alas, “party discipline” is so strong that even the intelligent ones can’t seem to acknowledge (at least in public) that one-party government has gone too far. Way too far.
It’s time for a change. Perhaps Darcy will be our next Brian Baird.
Commentby Green Thumb— 5/23/06@ 11:13 pm
Green Thumb you are most certainly right this time, when are we going to toss out those nasty Socialist Democrats running the State of Washington?
1. As long as it is constitutional.
Commentby Donnageddon— 5/23/06@ 11:35 pm
Does that include your religion call agnosticism and your blind goal to introduce socialism into this country and destroy the Republic?
1. The problem is you ‘know better’ elitists want to stand on the sidelines and criticize, forment hate and divisiveness and never bother to put forth ideas.
Commentby howcanyoubePROUDtobeanASS— 5/23/06@ 11:35 pm
1. @ 75 Honestly, I am lost by your sophistry.
Commentby Donnageddon— 5/23/06@ 11:38 pm
Donnageddon “sophistry n. misleading but cleaver reasoning” it sure sounds very clear, not misleading, and your response is very cleaver. I like your use of words, you do appear to be very cleaver in your reasoning, misleading on the subject matter, which means you lose everyone by your sophistry.
“Does that include your religion call agnosticism and your blind goal to introduce socialism into this country and destroy the Republic?”
I am not an agnostic, I am an atheist.
And which Republic do you accuse me of blindly introducing socialism into, for the purpose of destroying it? Your comments are confused and lack any credible evidence to support them.
Darcy Burner may not have the years of public service like Reichert did in his former job, but she does have an excellent education and executive experience at Microsoft. Microsoft didn’t become successful by hiring idiots. However, the reason we need to remove Reichert from office is his voting record. Dave Reichert has voted with Tom DeLay and the other Culture of Corruption Republicans over 90% of the time.
The significant problems we face today cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.
Reichert votes against the troops medical needs, votes against defending America, votes to borrow trillions of dollars from the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans. He delivers on the Bush Republican agenda as evidenced by the fact Bush has NEVER used his veto power. Bush asks for legislation and cronies like DeLay, Duke Cunningham and Reichert deliver.
That’s why we need a Democrat from WA’s 8th CD.
GBS YOUR A PISS ANT AND AN IDIOT TO BOOT.THE DEMS NEVER DID A THING FOR THE MILITARY AND IF THEY HAD NOT BOOTED YOU OF THE NAVY YOU WOULD KNOW THAT LOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSER