It’s not surprising, but it’s important news nonetheless: EMILY’s List has just endorsed Darcy Burner in her race for WA’s 8th Congressional District.
“Darcy Burner is an accomplished businesswoman, an active leader in her community, and a dedicated mother,” said Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY’s List. “Darcy knows how to get things done, and I am confident she will represent her district in Washington with the same vigor and integrity that she brought to the high-tech world. This is the Northwest’s most competitive Congressional race, and EMILY’s List will devote its significant energy to ensuring Darcy Burner’s victory. “
With over 100,000 members (over 4,400 in WA), EMILY’s List is the largest political action committee in the nation, with an impressive track record of helping to elect women, including 61 to the U.S. House, 11 to the U.S. Senate and eight governors.
In addition to the resources EMILY’s List can bring to bear in this campaign, the endorsement is also significant in that it demonstrates to other potential donors and endorsers how winnable Burner’s race really is. EMILY’s List is nothing if not politically savvy, and they don’t throw away money or toss out their endorsements willy-nilly. This is yet another indication that the people who know, know Burner can win.
That said, Burner is in the middle of a push to raise $75,000 in response to President Bush’s visit on behalf of Dave Reichert, and she’s only a little more than half-way to her goal just two days before Friday’s deadline. So please give now to help push Burner over the top, either directly to the campaign or through my Act Blue page.
Now watch all the inbred right wing morons start going off about how abortion is evil, etc., etc., but then they will cast their votes for all the pro-choice republicans because they are republicans, proving, that the issue is NOT abortion, it’s RAH RAH TEAM!
We are all glad she got the endorsement…now her district will be able to see off the wall liberal she is. ALways a sell point in a moderate-Republican leaning district.
Rubberstamp Reichert is a do-nothing congressman who doesn’t even know how to hug a rabbit.
2
That’s right Jacob, the 8th is a MODERATE district — and that’s why Reichert will lose. A guy who rubberstamps the extremist hard-right neocon Bush administration over 90% of the time isn’t a MODERATE — he’s an extremist hard-right neocon. That’s not what 8th district voters need or want. They will vote for the candidate who is able to think for herself, instead of being told by Karl Rove how to hold the rubber stamp.
Rabbit,
Do you not believe in an economic package which puts people back to work (last I hear unemployment is at 4.5%)? Do you believe in protecting your children from sex predators? Do you believe america’s children deserve every opportunity you were given? I am sorry, but I am as moderate as they come (voted for Kerry, Rossi, McKenna, and Ross in 2004, and Sims in 2005), but I do not believe the Democratic message of pure hatred for the president is enough for me to vote for Burner. Reichert has done an amazing job IMO of filling Jennifer Dunn’s large shoes, and he will get my vote in November.
BTW, the first three questions are all things that have been, or are being pushed through in the Congress.
jacob seems to be happy that the unemployment rate under Bush is higher than it was under Clinton. I wonder if jacob could explain just what it is that Reichert has actually done.
I don’t have the link, but I heard on NPR last night that the country’s unemployment rate is at 4.5%, and under Clinton the lowest marks were 5.35%. Like I said earlier, I voted for Dave Ross two years ago, but I do not believe Burner has, or will make the case to voters like myself. The War in Irag, as badly as it is going, is not where I place my vote. Reichert was not in congress when the vote to go to war took place, so we cannot blame him for the mess there currently.
5
“I am sorry, but I am as moderate as they come (voted for Kerry, Rossi, McKenna, and Ross in 2004, and Sims in 2005), … but I do not believe the Democratic message of pure hatred for the president is enough for me to vote for Burner.”
WTF?! First of all, you’re either a liar or you’ve been brainwashed — because if you voted for Kerry, Ross, and Sims, you did so because you believe in Democratic values — people ahead of profit — and no Democrat would ever vote for the warmongering, lawbreaking, violation of constitutional and civil rights, greed, and corruption of this administration, unless he’s just had a lobotomy.
Second, whenever a new poster comes here and says he’s a Democrat, then starts explaining why he’s gonna vote for the Republican, it’s almost always Kevin Carns … the BIAW-paid professional shill.
Third, only right wing liars assert that Democrats have no message except hatred for Bush. That’s the right-wing talking point, word for word, and no Democrat or moderate independent ever uses it.
Now let me ask you something. If you go to the “Darcy Burner for Congress” official web site, you’ll find this statement:
“I believe our federal government should serve the hardworking people of America — people who struggle to pay their bills, to get the healthcare they need, and to send their children to good schools and on to college. Our government should fight for our brave soldiers overseas who have put themselves on the line to serve our country.”
Now — what part of that statement do you disagree with — if you’re a Democrat? Does Burner criticize the Republicans and Rubberstamp Reichert? Of course she does:
“The trouble is the Republicans in Washington, D.C. have frustrated this mission through poor choices and bad management. And they are unable and unwilling to change their failed course.
My opponent is one of them. He said recently that we should just ‘trust the President,’ and has voted 93% of the time with the right-wing Republican leadership in Congress.”
If you’re honest — and it doesn’t look like you are — how can you fail to admit the GOP’s policies and leadership are abysmal failures across the board? What have they done for ordinary Americans? What have they done right? They’re bogged down in a war that shouldn’t have been fought in the first place, have instituted tax and economic policies that benefit only 5% of the population, and are working hard to unravel the social safety net for ordinary Americans that was painstakingly constructed over three generations and has served our citizens very well. Their failure to address our country’s most pressing problems — family wage jobs, energy, environment, education, and so on — is near-total. Are you better off than you were five years ago? Will your children be better off 10 or 15 years from now under the policies of this administration? Are Bush and Reichert making this a better country? If your answer to those questions is “yes,” you’re not even remotely close to being a Democrat or believing in Democratic values.
I don’t have to peg you as a winger, my friend. You’ve pegged yourself.
The war in Iraq is squarely on Bush’s shoulders and Rubber Stamp Reichert has aligned himself as a Bush brown noser so in that way we CAN blame Sheriff Davie. And no right winger (including the ones who pretended to have voted for Ross last time) has articulated WHY Sheriff Davie is such a strong candidate. Name, with specificity, each and every accomplishment of his while in Congress that you are proud of.
5
How are Republicans protecting us from sex predators? By grandstanding in the legislature? By posing as law enforcement officers and getting people upset by calling them at home and telling them lies about sex predators moving into their neighborhoods — as a veiled attack on Democratic legislators? By demanding cuts in the taxes that pay for cops, courts, and prisons? Do you not understand that the police and prosecutors OPPOSED the GOP sex predator bill, because they said it would result in fewer convictions and more sex predators loose on our streets?
5
Please explain to me how the Republicans are increasing opportunities for our children by cutting funding for Pell grants and college loans, and trying to divert tax revenues from public schools to private schools that don’t have to accept any student who wants to attend?
Jacob, you are right about opportunity. I grew up as a conservative Republican in a conservative Republican community, but became a Democrat before I turned 20 because I realized which party stood for opportunity, and which party told poor kids like me “fuck you.” I couldn’t have gone to college or law school without student loans and G.I. Bill benefits that Democrats supported and Republicans opposed. I don’t benefit under the system of Inherited Opportunity that Republicans want to strengthen; I had to work for everything. Republicans want to shift ALL taxation onto wage earners, and not tax capital gains, investment income, or inherited wealth at all — under that system, workers and middle-income professionals like me could never accumulate any capital or investments because we would be paying taxes so high there would be nothing left after subsistence, while people with far more money who don’t WORK for it would get a free ride at our expense. That’s not “opportunity,” it’s exploitation. You’re wasting your time trying to sell me the Republican lies and talking points. P.T. Barnum was right, there’s a sucker born every minute, but I’m not one of them.
5
Republicans like you (yes, you’re a Republican trying to hide in “moderate” sheep’s clothing) rant that Democrats have “no plan, no message.” Wrong-o, my friend. Democrats have a plan and a message, which I can sum up in one word:
OPPORTUNITY
Memorize that term, Jacob. “Opportunity” is what Democrats stand for — not opportunity only for the privileged, but opportunity for everyone. Republicans stand for privilege, and they especially stand for preserving and perpetuating inherited privilege. They don’t want all of us to have opportunities, they want the rest of us to be their cheap labor.
This says it all about Rubber Stamp Reichert
‘CHEAP LABOR CONSERVATIVES’ WANT CHEAP LABOR
“When you cut right through it, right-wing ideology is just ‘dime-store economics’ – intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable. You don’t really need to know much about economics to understand it. They certainly don’t. It all gets down to two simple words. ‘Cheap labor’. That’s their whole philosophy in a nutshell … cheap-labor conservatives are defenders of corporate America – whose fortunes depend on labor. The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you’ll work, and the more power those ‘corporate lords’ have over you. If you are a wealthy elite – or a ‘wannabe’ like most dittoheads – your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.
“Don’t believe me. Well, let’s apply this principle, and see how many right-wing positions become instantly understandable.
Cheap-labor conservatives don’t like social spending or our ‘safety net’. Why. Because when you’re unemployed and desperate, corporations can pay you … next to nothing … they want you ‘over a barrel’ … to ‘work cheap or starve’.
“Cheap-labor conservatives don’t like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. Why. These reforms undo all of their efforts to keep you ‘over a barrel’.
“Cheap-labor conservatives like ‘free trade’, NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why. Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are ‘over a barrel’, and will work cheap.
“Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman’s right to choose. Why. Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women ‘over a barrel’, forcing them to work cheap.
“Cheap-labor conservatives don’t like unions. Why. Because when labor ‘sticks together’, wages go up. That’s why workers unionize. Seems workers don’t like being ‘over a barrel’.
“Cheap-labor conservatives constantly bray about ‘morality’, ‘virtue’, ‘respect for authority’, ‘hard work’ and other ‘values’. Why. So they can blame your being ‘over a barrel’ on your own ‘immorality,’, lack of ‘values’ and ‘poor choices’.
“Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. Why? Bigotry among wage earners distracts them, and keeps them from recognizing their common interests as wage earners.
“THE ‘CHEAP LABOR CONSERVATIVE’ DIRTY SECRET: THEY DON’T REALLY LIKE PROSPERITY
“Maybe you don’t believe that cheap-labor conservatives like unemployment, poverty and ‘cheap labor’. Consider these facts.
“Unemployment was 23 percent when FDR took office in 1933. It dropped to 2.5 percent by time the next Republican was in the White House in 1953. It climbed back to 6.5 percent by the end of the Eisenhower administration. It dropped to 3.5 percent by the time LBJ left office. It climbed over 5 percent shortly after Nixon took office, and stayed there for 27 years, until Clinton brought it down to 4.5 percent early in his second term.
“That same period – especially from the late forties into the early seventies – was the ‘golden age’ of the United States. We sent men to the moon. We built our Interstate Highway system. We ended segregation in the South and established Medicare. In those days, a single wage earner could support an entire family on his wages. …
“These facts provide a nice background to evaluate cheap-labor conservative claims like ‘liberals are destroying America.’ In fact, cheap-labor conservatives have howled with outrage and indignation against New Deal liberalism from its inception in the 1930’s all the way to the present. … Cheap-labor conservatives opposed virtually all of the New Deal, including every improvement in wages and working conditions.
“Cheap-labor conservatives have a long and sorry history of opposing virtually every advancement in this country’s development going right back to the American revolution.
“Cheap-labor conservatives have hated Social Security and Medicare since their inception.
“Many cheap-labor conservatives are hostile to public education. They think it should be privatized. But why are we surprised. Cheap-labor conservatives opposed universal public education in its early days. …
“Cheap-labor conservatives hate the progressive income tax like the devil hates holy water.
“Cheap-labor conservatives like budget deficits and a huge national debt for two reasons. A bankrupt government has a harder time doing any ‘social spending’ – which cheap-labor conservatives oppose, and . . .
“Wealthy cheap-labor conservatives … buy the bonds and then earn tax free interest on the money they lend the government. … The deficit created by cheap-labor conservatives while they posture as being ‘fiscally conservative’ – may count as the biggest con job in American history.
“‘Free Trade’, globalization, NAFTA and especially GATT are intended to create a world-wide ‘corporate playground’ where national governments serve the interests of corporations – which means ‘cheap labor’.
“The ugly truth is that cheap-labor conservatives just don’t like working people. They don’t like ‘bottom up’ prosperity, and the reason for it is very simple. … Remember, cheap-labor conservatives believe in social hierarchy and privilege, so the only prosperity they want is limited to them. They want to see absolutely nothing that benefits the guy – or more often the woman – who works for an hourly wage.
http://www.conceptualguerilla......php?id=103
5
If you support the Bush-Reichert agenda, then you also support the cheap-labor conservatives’ agenda. Now … if you support that agenda, try to tell me with a straight face that you’re a “Democrat” or a “moderate.”
Fucking liar.
Goldy,
Does Emily’s list only help leftist women candidates or does it help all women candidaes for office?
that’s a smart Rabbit (and he knows how to use quotation marks).
Thanks to the previous left leaning posters who previously informed me on the bkgnd on Dan Savage and Jamie Pedersen and didn’t denigrate me. And thank to the toppled over to the righ posters who did.
Some candidate should give the rabbit a hug.
“Darcy Burner is an accomplished businesswoman, an active leader in her community, and a dedicated mother,” said Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY’s List. “Darcy knows how to get things done, and I am confident she will represent her district in Washington with the same vigor and integrity that she brought to the high-tech world.”
1. She worked at msft for three years, and quit. What exactly did she accomplish?
2. What has she led in the community? Her home owners association? Does that cut it for EMILY’s List? Pathetic.
3. If she is a dedicated mother, why has she chosen to pursue a 24/7 job that requires as much time to get? Mother, yes. Dedicated?
What exactly has she gotten done? I see no accomplishments in her resume that would qualify her for national office. So, either EMILY’s List didn’t research this very much, or else they are just another tool of the dem party.
If all you want is ideology, then darcy is a fine candidate. But please stop the lies that she actually has any qualifications. She is there to be a mouthpiece for the party.
In other news, Bush goes abroad to Desecrate the Flag:
http://americablog.blogspot.co.....flags.html
Apparently we only need an amendment for when liberals deface the flag.
5. Voting for Rossi just shows that you are a bad judge of character.
8
I don’t have the link, but I heard on NPR last night that the country’s unemployment rate is at 4.5%, and under Clinton the lowest marks were 5.35%.” Commentby jacob— 6/21/06@ 11:11 am
No, you didn’t hear that on NPR. The unemployment rate reached 3.9% under Clinton, then rose under Dubya and has been below 5% for only the last six months.
This link ( http://research.stlouisfed.org.....UNRATE.txt
) will take you to monthly unemployment statistics all the way back to January 1948. What you’ll see is:
Unemployment was 2.9% when Eisenhower took office, and 6.6% when he left office.
Unemployment fell steadily under the Kennedy-Johnson administrations, and was back down to 3.4% when Nixon took office, then began to rise almost immediately and was over 7% by the end of 1974, a few months after Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford became president.
Under Ford, unemployment immediately jumped into the 8% – 9% range, stayed over 7% until mid-1977, and was 7.8% when Ford lost the November 1976 election and Carter took office in January 1979.
Under Carter, the unemployment rate dropped steadily, dipping below 6% by the middle of his term, and stayed below 6% for most of 1918, but rose above 7% in 1980 and stood at 7.5% when Reagan took office in January 1981–a factor that undoubtedly contributed to Carter’s re-election defeat.
But unemployment got worse, not better, in the early years of Reagan’s administration. By December 1981, it was 8.5%, and stayed above 10% from September 1982 through June 1983 — the only period of double-digit unemployment since the Great Depression, and the period many people call “the Reagan Depression.” Except for a couple isolated months, unemployment stayed above 7% until nearly the end of 1986, and never once fell below 5% during the entire 12 years of the Reagan-Bush41 administrations, and was over 7% for all of 1992 — a key factor in Bush’s loss to Clinton in 1992, who campaigned on “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Then what happened? Unemployment was 7.3% when Clinton took office in January 1993. A year later, it was 6.6%, fell below 6% in September 1994 and was never again above 6% during Clinton’s presidency, stayed below 5% after July 1997, and was below 4% for the last half of 2000.
Then Dubya took office in January 2001, and unemployment jumped to 5.7% during his first year in office. For the next 2 1/2 years, it hovered in the 5.7% – 6.3% range. In mid-2004, it began a slow but steady decline, and for the last several months has flattened out and held steady in the 4.6% to 4.7% range. About half of the new jobs during Bush’s presidency have been created by the housing boom, which is now faltering, and Bush’s deficit spending policies are creating monetary inflation, so we can expect interest rates and unemployment to rise signficantly during the remainder of Bush’s presidency.
It should be noted that official government unemployment statistics understate real unemployment, because these figures do not count:
1. People who have exhausted their unemployment benefits but are still unemployed;
2. People working part time because they are unable to find full time work;
3. Discouraged job seekers who have quit looking for work.
In addition, during periods of high unemployment, many people who lost their jobs end up taking lower paying jobs, so even among the employed there is a degradation of income and living standards.
Now let’s look at the job creation records of modern presidents. What you see, all the way back to Harding, is that NO Republican president has created more jobs (as a precentage of the workforce) than ANY Democratic president:
Jobs Records of Presidents
(as percentage of workforce)
Democrat Roosevelt 5.3%
Democrat Johnson 3.8%
Democrat Carter 3.1%
Democrat Truman 2.5%
Democrat Clinton 2.4%
Democrat Kennedy 2.3%
Republican Nixon 2.2%
Republican Reagan 2.1%
Republican Coolidge 1.1%
Republican Ford 1.1%
Republican Eisenhower 0.9%
Republican Bush Sr. 0.6%
Republican Bush Jr. (0.7%)
Republican Hoover (9.0%)
Now let’s look at some broader measures of the economy:
From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003:
–Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
–Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs — Republicans 36,440,000.
–Per Year Average-Democrats 1,825,200—Republicans 856,400.
–Republicans had 9 presidents during the period and 6 had depression or recession.
–DOW-grew by 52% more under Democrats.
–GDP-grew by 43% more under Democrats.
Comparing Clinton to Reagan:
–JOBS-grew by 43% more under Clinton.
–GDP—grew by 57% more under Clinton.
–DOW-grew by 700% more under Clinton..
–NASDAQ-grew by 18 times as much under Clinton.
–SPENDING–grew by 28% under Clinton—80% under Reagan.
–DEBT-grew by 43% under Clinton-187% under Reagan.
–DEFICITS-Clinton got a large surplus–grew by 112% under Reagan.
–NATIONAL INCOME-grew by100% more under Clinton.
–PERSONAL INCOME-Grew by 110% more under Clinton.
SOURCES-Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.BLS.gov)
Economic Policy Institute (EPI.org)-Global & World Almanacs from 1980 to 2003 (annual issues)
In case there actually are some new persons lurking here, Janet S
continually posts “questions” for which she will accept no answer.
She is one reason, among several, that newbies here ofter get a bit roughed up.
Less loaded questions are more apt to get reasonable responses.
You can let your true colors out then.
The bottom line is this:
Republicans pay lip service to supporting a “free market economy” that “creates opportunity,” but it is actually the policies of liberal Democrats that create economic opportunities (jobs and rising living standards) for average Americans; and when the GOP is in power, our nation suffers an “opportunity retrenchment,” i.e., the working and middle class are invariably worse off economically under Republican administrations than they are under Democratic administrations.
Why? Because workers and the middle class are not a priority for Republicans. Their objective is not more jobs for workers, but more wealth for the upper class. Their policies are not designed to stimulate economic growth, but to concentrate wealth.
Republican claims that they are the party of “opportunity” are lies. The Democratic Party has adopted “Opportunity” as their official slogan, and Democrats mean what they say, when they promise to create educational, economic, and social mobility opportunities for ordinary Americans. That’s why I’m a Democrat. It’s never been any different. The record of the last 75 years is clear — the GOP has consistently been the party of corporate and moneyed interests, and their policies have consistently favored those groups at the expense of workers, consumers, and students. Why should I vote for a party that votes against opportunity for me, my children, and my grandchildren?
That makes no sense at all.
21
“Voting for Rossi just shows that you are a bad judge of character.” Commentby Particle Man— 6/21/06@ 12:24 pm
Well, there’s that, too. Rossi made his money by working for a man who literally went to prison for defrauding, literally, widows and orphans. And when that felon got out of prison, Rossi made a bee-line to his office — asking to work for him again. Do we really want a governor who seeks employment with a known criminal? Dino Rossi clearly is not a man who puts integrity above self-interest.
Rossi also lacks management experience. His only supervision experience was one part-time janitor, years ago, when he was in college. How does this qualify him to supervise 200 agencies and over 100,000 state employees?
Christine Gregoire has a spectacular resume, and an even more spectacular record of accomplishment. She is the most qualified person for the office of governor in hour state’s history. She has done a superb job so far — in just her first year in office, she got legislation through that had been stuck in legislative logjams for years or even decades. She unraveled impasses that many people had come to believe were unsolvable.
Why would any rational person want to replace her with a real estate salesman with no record of accomplishment?
Harry – thank you for your response. It just proves what I am saying. If there was an answer, you or someone here would be able to readily say it. But instead you call it a loaded question.
When you go to a job interview, and the employer asks where you got your college degree, do you respond that it is a loaded question and refuse to answer it? You could, but I suspect you aren’t going to get hired.
So far I have asked – what is the community leadership that is claimed? What is the experience in state politics? where is the bias in the questions?
“Darcy knows how to get things done, and I am confident she will represent her district in Washington with the same vigor and integrity that she brought to the high-tech world.”
Does this mean that she will resign from Congress midway through her first term, go back to the University of Washington, complete her second year of law school, and then try to get elected to some other office?
Rasmussen: “Cantwell Slide Continues”
Rasmussen reports today that Republican challenger Mike McGavick continues to close the gap, calling the Washington Senate race a toss-up
In the latest Rasmussen Reports poll of an increasingly competitive U.S. Senate race, Senator Cantwell now leads former Safeco CEO Mike McGavick (R) 44% to 40%, a toss-up. She led by five points in May, eight in April, thirteen in March, fifteen in January.
Meanwhile, this week’s SurveyUSA report ranks Cantwell as tied for 80th most popular U.S. Senator.
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/006380.html
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000962.php
Looks like the republicans hate free speech.
Rasmussen is a republican polling firm!
I still haven’t seen anyone offer a decent reason to vote for Reichert or McGavick.
Notice that Janet S – Pope-A-Dope and their ilk have never once been able to articulate why anyone sould vote for RubberStampReichert? If all you want is republican and Roveian ideology, thenRubberStampReichert is a fine candidate. But please stop the lies that he actually has any qualifications. He is there to be a mouthpiece for the party.
Come November, McGavick will probably do about the same as the last great GOP hope to take a WA Senate seat, George Nethercutt.
Richard:
While we are trumpeting a Republican pollster (one that says that Bush has a 40% support in Washington, just to show how biased he is), strange that you and the minnow are ignoring this interesting point in Rasmussen’s poll:
Fifty-three percent (53%) of likely voters approve of the job Christine Gregoire, the Democratic Governor, is doing; 45% disapprove.
RE. #20…what the hell, how much desecration is a little “X”, anyway?
Don’t expect Pope to tell the truth. He has two strikes against him in that regard. He’s an attorney and a republican.
Re: #19: Janet, in a way, you have a point. On the other hand, I don’t know that Reichert has had much of a chance at leveraging his prior experience in his new job as a member of Congress. I’ve seen precious little of the forthrightness, determination and stubborn independent streak that made him effective as a cop, and which some of us would have hoped make him a voice for the needs and desires of his consituents here in Washington instead of acting like a sock puppet for Bush/Cheney/DeLay.
What did Darcy accomplish in three years at Microsoft? Well, survive, for one thing. It doesn’t exactly have a reputation as a low-stress place to work, especially for people in middle management. If she (or anyone, for that matter) at least has the guts to go to Washington and hold their ground against the neocon juggernaut, that’s fine by me. I’m not at all happy with where we’re going.
The resident Darcy burners are actually bringing up the major factor in favor of Mrs. Burner, she is new to politics and she HASN’T BEEN BOUGHT.
Darcy is a grass roots candidate. She went out and got individual people, like me, to write her a check.
I don’t know exactly who bought Dave Reichert, but his 93% voting record with the Bush policies leads me to believe it was by, at least, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big War (euphemistically named defense). Lately, there was some sign of Big Microsoft, but that was probably them hedging their bets. (I know MS goes both ways.)
So. If you want somebody who will vote to stay in Iraq until 2030. Vote Reichert. If you want somebody who will praise a tree museum then vote to drill in ANWR. Vote Reichert! If you want a RUBBER STAMP FOR BUSH. Vote for Dave.
If you don’t want any of those things. VOTE FOR DARCY!!!!
If you want better health care for you and me. VOTE FOR DARCY!!!
If you want to create incentives for our local heavy-truck industry to design more-efficient vehicles. VOTE FOR DARCY !!!!
If you want to guarantee local biofuels entrepreneurs access to existing fuel-distribution channels. VOTE FOR DARCY !!!!
If you want more security from terrorist attack here in the Puget Sound area. VOTE FOR DARCY !!!!!
If you want to hold the Bush administration accountable and reign in its excesses. VOTE FOR DARCY !!!!
Still not one right winger who will tell us why we should vote for Rubber Stamp Reichert. You righties aren’t very strong advocates for Sheriff Davie are you? I bet secretly some of you will vote for Darcy since you seem to be ashamed of RSR!
6
“BTW, the first three questions are all things that have been, or are being pushed through in the Congress.” Commentby jacob— 6/21/06@ 10:55 am
If you believe that, you’re a rightwing kool-aid drinker.
Modestly lower unemployment is being temporarily purchased with deficit-spending-fueled stimulus that will lead to high inflation, high interest rates, and high unemployment later on.
Uh huh… so emily’s list endorses burner. So other than having a vagina, what are her qualifications?
Didn’t think so…
Other than having a cock (and really nice hair) what has Reichert got to offer? Other than sucking Bush’s cock for two years?
Didn’t think so.
“a dedicated mother” excuse me, running for an office like this with a toddler at home. This is a time in a childs life that a child needs it’s mother most.
47.
Gooolee! What happened to that attitude when my wife had to go back to work with an 18 month at home.
Give me a break, families have been dealing with working mothers for more than thirty-five years (Darcy’s age). You dinosaurs became
extinct 65 million years ago (for you Christian fundamentalists, when God got lonely and decided to make a friend.)
I would expect that Darcy will procure excellent day-care.
I bet darcy will procure excellent child care. That makes her a working mother, not a dedicated mother. A dedicated mother considers being a mother to be the most important job, and to spend the most time possible with that child. Sometimes economics makes that difficult. But Darcy is choosing to leave her child, not being forced through circumstances.
Reichert has been in public life for many years, and was the first elected sheriff of King County. He was instrumental in finally catching the Green River Killer. Yes, it is controversial that GRK was given life instead of the death penalty. This saved the taxpayers many millions and brought closure to 40-50 families that otherwise would never have known the fate of their daughters.
He has gotten more prestigious committee assignments in congress than other freshmen reps, and was even given a chairmanship of a subcommittee. And, surprise, he votes like a republican. Imagine. Maybe it means that is where his ideas and philosophy are, not that he is bought by anyone.
So, what are Darcy’s qualifications? She bailed after three years in a high pressure environment? She will be toast in congress if that’s all the better she can do.
NO, Janet, what is controversial about the GRK case is that Sheriff Davie sat on his dead ass for twenty years before Ridgeway was caught. In that time, he was such a bone head that he ignored an eye witness and went after a Tacoma cab driver while twenty, or so, other women were killed.
Harry – when the tough gets going, will Darcy bail? She hasn’t stayed at a job longer than three years (at least that is what is discernable from her vague resume), she quit law school after a year, she got bored with motherhood rather quickly, the high tech environment overwhelmed her and washed her out.
So, let’s put her in the national spot light in an intense job, with absolutely no expectation that she can handle it. Great plan.
Having a (as in ONE and only ONE… a la Hitlary) baby is simply another tick off the ‘to-do’ list for … (hell, I don’t even know what to call her… feminuts?) like the sacrificial donkette and her quickly/easily sacrificed child
Kiddo, it’s over before it starts. Darcy Burner is not going to win this seat. But have fun trying.
and I think Darcy should wait until her baby is much older, because there’s too much cool stuff with her kid that Darcy would miss by trying to be a congressperson. But the kid is in luck, cuz she won’t win anyway. That will be better for baby. He/she deserves to have his mommy available.
Mommy (in name only) won’t be available even when she doesn’t win… mommy (in name only) has checked that off her list and she’ll be moving on to the next item further tilting at new windmills… wanna bet it involves a sabbatical, keyboard, publisher, a big fat cash advance and crappy sales?
and I’m sorry that Burner is supported by this abortion group. Kind of makes a mockery out of her photo with the baby. If I were her, I’d keep quiet about the Em’s List thing or take the baby photo out (obvious conflict).
Why Democrats Should Not Be Elected
=============================================
1) No one wants a party in control of our national defense whose members block critical protective equipment at the Port of Olympia.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/.....7574c.html
“What began May 22 as a quiet vigil to oppose the brigade’s 300 Stryker vehicles as they rolled through town escalated this week to a near riot with law enforcement officers deploying pepper spray on demonstrators they say were damaging the port’s security fencing.
Dozens have been arrested for investigation of charges ranging from pedestrian interference to malicious mischief. Most were immediately released after being booked into jail.”
Port officials say demonstrators did more than $5,000 damage to port property during the protest.”
2) Who would want people whose members are traitors and cowards such as Democrat Lt Watada, to run national security?
Democrats hail his treasonous action:
http://www.democrats.com/node/9157
3) Since 911, there have been no attacks on US soil. This is a longer sustained period without attacks on our ships or soil than ever under th disasterous years of Bill Clinton. Clearly the Bush strategy is working. No amount of liberal spin can deny that. They of course like to change the subject to London and Madrid. But last time I checked, the President of the United States doesn’t run those countries.
4) Democrats are eager to pronounce our troops guilty of attrocities at such places as haditha without so much as a trial. Yet they sue the governmet through their ACLU allies to get terrorists who have murdered our troops a jury trial. Why do democrats grant terrorist, the like of which have mutliated the two troops in Iraq and clist CIA agent Johnn Span’s throat, a jury tial yet no such presumption of innocence for our troops?
5) Democrats always SAY they supported the Afghanistan invasion. But that isn’t really true. Three short days after the planes struck the twin towers, while they still smoldered with the smell of burnt stinking flesh, Democrat Barbara Lee voted against the Afghanistan effort:
H J RES 64 YEA-AND-NAY 14-Sep-2001 11:17 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
The final vote results can be found here:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml
And as you can see, the only dissenter is Democrat Barbara Lee.
Here vote was hailed as “courageous” by other liberals.
6) If it were up to Democrats, there wouldn’t even be a Dept of Homeland Security. They tried to block its creation because they wanted to turn it into a makework project for their union buddies. Instead of the thinking about the victims lost on 911 and protecting the nation, Democrats first thought was to rewards their union buddies.
7) One of the deficiencies identified by the 911 commission was in fact created by one of the commisioners herself a Democrat. Democrat Jamie Gorelick served as Assistant Attorney General under Bill Clinton. In her famous memo, she created a wall of seperation between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. That wall hindered out effort to detect the 911 plot., Mohammad Atta was arrested prior to 911 but his computer could not be examined because of the wall that Gorelick created disallowing the information gathered by law enforcement to be handed over to our intelligence agencies. Given liberal rhetoric, if they had the chance, they would once again reestablish this wall and hinder any future efforts to foil terrorist plots.
8) The miltary under BIll Clinton was the sacrificial lamb for Clinton’s economic numbers. The result was that the day after 911, when the US needed several AWACS planes to fly patrol over the skies of America, it had to go begging for NATO pilots and planes. How ironic that the greatest power on earth didn’t even have enough of the very planes created in America due to the drastic cuts of the Clinton years. If given power again, Democrats would again cut our military to the bone. Such as strategy is only prudent if the nation intends to surrender its sovereignty to our enemies. Perhaps that is the Democrat plan.
9) Democrats opposed the Patriot Act and it was only under intense pressure from their constituents that they allowed its passage. They continue to villify the Patriot Act, yet successes such as the discovery of the plot by Iyman Faris and his plot to attack the Brooklyn bridge. If elected to a majority, Democrats will roll back the Patriot Act and terorrist will succeed in their plots against Americans.
10) Democrats’ liberal media allies revealed our intelligence gathering technique of tapping overseas calls by Al Qaeda to their operatives in the US. Who in their right mind would want people in charge of national security who publicly reveal our intelligence gathering strategies to terrorists? Only liberals could be that dumb. Or do they really hate America that much?
11) Liberals make the false claim that their freedom of speech is being curtailed. Yet if one looks around, one can see that Goldstein still freely posts vitriol in his blog, Goldstein still spews vitriole over the airwaves and no government agency has curtaied his free speech and that of his looney sycophants. However there is an effort to restrict freedom of speech but it isn’t Republicans that are perpetrating it.
Democrat New Jersey Assemblywomen Joan Quigley and Linda Stender have introduced legislation to ban the sale of Ann Coutler’s “Godless” in New Jersey.
See: http://www.assemblydems.com/pr.....oulter.htm
Do we really want such a party holding the reigns of power during such a critical period as the War on Terror? What are the free speech implications should such a paty in favor of censorship ever gain the reigns of national government?
12) Democrats do not truly even believe we are in a war. Many rationalize that 911 was either a just response to a supposed US shortcoming or that 911 was a plot by Republicans to gain favor and retain power (aka “Inside Job”). Do we really want people who canot even recognise the essential truths of 911 to ave the power to shut down the war on terror and leave the nation defenseless?
13) If elected, Democrats would pull the troops out of Iraq and immediately cut and run. Iraq would become another haven for Al Qaeda where they can roam without any worry of apprehension. Surely we would suffer another 911 style attack from terorrists trained in a terrorist controlled Iraq. We learned on 911 that strategy was a failure and did not ensure our safety from hijackers bent on killing Americans.
So nice to read. However, how many EMILY members are in the 8th District? With all mail ballots, the number should increase.
Hi Janet,
I just love conservatives who suddenly care about tax payer dollars when it comes to putting to death the worst mass murderer in American History, but can’t bring themselves to say 1.074 Trillion dollars of debt since Bush took office is bad. With the a real death penalty trial of Gary Ridgway it could have been 1.07401 instead. What is it, you care about tax payers dollars or you don’t or is this Republican situational ethics.