I had the chance to hear Rodney Tom speak before the 48th District Democrats last week, and while he touched on education and the Iraq war, he led off his nascent stump speech by arguing that the primary race was mostly about beating Dave Reichert. One of his main critiques of Darcy Burner’s 2006 campaign was her relatively poor showing in Pierce County, where she garnered only 42.6 percent of the vote. Tom argues that he is a better fit to this more conservative, blue collar part of the 8th Congressional District. (Apparently because these voters strongly identify with wealthy, Lexus-driving, Medina realtors, I guess.)
The Tacoma News Tribune picked up on this theme yesterday with an article titled “Pierce vote important to Reichert challengers.”
Last year, as she prepared to challenge Republican Dave Reichert for the U.S. House, Darcy Burner said it would take significant Pierce County support for her to win.
She was right. Burner received only 304 fewer votes than Reichert out of over 200,000 cast in King County. But the Pierce County part of the congressional district remained loyal to the Republican, giving Reichert some 7,000 more votes than his Democratic challenger.
Hmm. I know this may sound counterintuitive, but the fact is, Burner lost the race in King County, not Pierce, where despite losing by more than 7,000 votes, she came pretty damn close to meeting or beating expectations. It was the King County results that proved disappointing, and a look back at previous elections explains why.
In 2006 Burner captured 42.6 percent of the vote in Pierce County, more than any other 8th CD Democrat since 1990. In 2004 by comparison, Dave Ross received only 39.1 of the Pierce vote, less than a half-percent better than the best effort by the much maligned Heidi Behrens-Benedict. Burner knew that to beat Reichert she had to do substantially better than previous Democrats in Pierce County. And she did.
In fact according to campaign insiders, Burner’s 3.5 point improvement over Ross (and nearly 7 point improvement over the ten-year average,) was right on target. All it would have taken to win the race was a very attainable 51.8 percent of the vote in the more Democratic King County portion of the district. But it didn’t happen. Late absentees broke decidedly towards Reichert, and Burner ended up losing King County by a few hundred votes out of over 200,000 cast.
Clearly, Tom is more conservative than Darcy, but then so was Ross, and to argue that this somehow makes Tom more electable simply isn’t supported by the facts. Burner did relatively well in Pierce County, a Republican stronghold, and with high name ID, increased turnout and presidential coattails, she’ll likely do even better. Unless, of course, I’m totally underestimating Pierce County’s Lexus-driving Medina realtor vote.
And one more balloon to burst before I go:
Tom supporters note the anti-Republican wave that swept the nation last year and say Burner had her chance to ride it to victory.
What a load of crap. Republicans held 232 House seats going into the 2006 election, and only 22 incumbents lost. Only 22. The GOP poured everything it had into defending Reichert; Karl Rove made WA-08 his number one target. And yet a total unknown with no prior campaign experience came within a silver hair of defeating “the Sheriff.”
Underestimate Burner at your own risk.
It was the job interview ad. Some of this stuff is pretty simple. Define your opponent better than they define you, and you win.
More you like WAY overestimate is the proper term. Why anyone, regardless of party, would want that unqualified, dimwitted, and incompetent moron in office is beyond me. God help you all.
I found this paragraph in that article interesting:
Whether intended or not, there is an insinuation there that because Rodney Tom was a Republican before switching parties last year he will do well in Pierce County.
So, in essence, Tom seems to be running on his recent Republican credentials. That’s an odd way to try to win the Democratic nomination.
Pierce doesn’t matter, it is so few of the votes of the whole CD, and is frankly dominated by voters more in line with the other party. The winner needs to do well in King County. Darcy didn’t, and really should have. Tom will, he is the most experienced Dem ever to run in this race. The only thing the Dems have never run in this race is experience, and finally we have that.
re 1: We’re trying to get him out by supporting Darcy Burner.
re 3: A whore has experience, but not the kind I’d want to marry. Tom’s moving over to the Dem. side seems a little too self-serving to me.
Love for sale — as it were.
A vacancy would be preferable to Darcy Burner. No experience and no ideas of her own. 100% empty suit.
How many of these sock puppets screaming about Burner’s lack of experience were yammering about term limits when Tom Foley was Speaker of the House?
Goldy, a fuzzy rabbit running as a Democrat would have gotten at least 45% last year. Now that the shoe is on the other foot in Congress, and approval ratings lower than Bush, what exactly is Burner going to run on in either the primary or general? Change will not be the mantra for Congress in 2008, obviously, so how can Burner’s experience (or lack thereof) not play a bigger role next year against Tom?
2008 will be an extremely good year for the Democratic presidential nominee (whoever that is), but if Congress’ approval rating is still in the toilet, I don’t see how that will help any candidate, unlike 2006. You know the Republicans will pour money into the 8th as before, so just because Burner will be a better known quantity, that will make the difference?
Whoever the runs in the 8th, they will need to better in all areas.
DARCY BURNER WILL BEAT RODNEY TOM HANDS DOWN IN THE PRIMARY.
THE KING COUNTY VOTERS OF THE 8TH WILL CHOOSE DARCY IF THEY KNOW WHAT’S GOOD FOR THEM. IF THEY CHOOSE GOODHAIR AND MUSCLES IN AN EMPTY SUIT, THEN THEY’LL GET A SEAT WARMER WHO DOES WHAT HE’S TOLD BY THE CORRUPT AND BANKRUPT REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP.
DARCY BURNER WILL DO AN EXCELLENT JOB REPRESENTING THE 8TH DISTRICT. REJECT THE HATE OF LOSERS LIKE MARK1. THAT’S THE DYING POLITICS OF THE PAST.
VOTE FOR THE FUTURE. VOTE DARCY BURNER.
If the empty suit couldn’t get elected in 2006 – the blue wave year of the Democrat, then she sure as hell has no chance in 2008. If you can’t win in a gifthorse year like 2006, how about you start with a City Council seat somewhere or state legislature to build a plausible resume! Its like a 2007 college graduate with no experience applying for an upper management position. It just doesn’t work that way!!!
@9
“DARCY BURNER WILL DO AN EXCELLENT JOB REPRESENTING THE 8TH DISTRICT
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this will be the case.
In fact, her 2006 bid was so overtly anti-Bush, that she failed to establish her positions effectively with the voters. IMHO
She seemed to simply parrot the national party line.
Let’s try something….
THE KING COUNTY VOTERS OF THE 8TH WILL CHOOSE
DARCYReichert IF THEY KNOW WHAT’S GOOD FOR THEM. IF THEY CHOOSEGOODHAIR AND MUSCLESno resume or experience IN AN EMPTY SUIT, THEN THEY’LL GET A SEAT WARMER WHO DOES WHATHE’Sshe’s TOLD BY THE CORRUPT AND BANKRUPTREPUBLICANDemocrat LEADERSHIP.The way I see it, you don’t need to be in politics all that long to know the difference between wrong and right. The fact that she hasn’t been involved in politics for years means her lips aren’t blistered by kissing all the wrong asses, and pretending to be something you are not.
The fact that Tom switched parties to keep from being eliminated makes him a shrewd politician, but not necessarily a good congressman.
Anyone ever ask him if he believes in evolution? Global Warming? A woman’s right to choose? The fact that he called himself a Republicon, until it was political suicide makes Darcy a better choice automatically.
Go Darcy!
By the way, Reichert has done nothing but support the Bush Crime Family since the last election, and that is pretty much political suicide these days. Of course he is probably too stupid to realize it….
THAT ARGUMENT IS BANKRUPT. IT WAS NOT A BLUE WAVE YEAR. IT WAS THE VERY START OF A BLUE WAVE GENERATION. AND I’M SURE THE PEOPLE OF THE 8TH WILL START TO REALIZE THAT IN 2008.
THE PEOPLE OF THE EIGHTH ARE LEARNING MORE ABOUT RUBBERSTAMP DAVE EVERY DAY. HE HAS NOT GROWN AN INCH IN OFFICE. IN FACT HE SINKS WITH EVERY RUBBERSTAMP VOTE HE MAKES.
HE SPENDS MORE TIME ON HIS MUSCLES AND HAIR THAN HE DOES SERVING THE EIGHT DISTRICT. THAT FACT ALONE SHOULD GIVE DARCY THE EDGE OVER THIS EMPTY SUIT.
DARCY BURNER IS MORE THAN QUALIFIED TO SERVE THE PEOPLE OF THE EIGHTH DISTRICT. EVER HEAR OF A QUICK STUDY? THAT IS DARCY. DOES THAT DESCRIBE DAVE? NO WAY.
THE PEOPLE OF THE 8TH CANNOT AFFORD TO WAIT 20 YEARS FOR RUBBERSTAMP DAVE TO GROW IN OFFICE LIKE THEY WAITED FOR HIM TO CATCH GARY RIDGEWAY. I’M CONFIDENT THEY’LL CHOOSE SOMEONE WHO WILL HIT THE GROUND RUNNING.
AND THAT PERSON IS DARCY BURNER.
If Tom Rodney wins the Democratic nomination, he will do one of two devious things:
1. Throw the general election to Sheriff Rovedrone Mindcontrol, or
2. Win the election and switch back to being a Republican.
I wonder why the ex sheriff isn’t complaining about Bush breaking law, after law, after law. Felony, after felony, after felony.
Not a peep out of Reichert.
I guess Reichert respects the law about as much as I respect the average Bush Supporter.
NOTHING LIKE A DARCY BURNER THREAD TO BRING OUT PEOPLE SUFFUSED WITH HATE AND RESENTMENT LIKE MARK1 AND WRONG STUFF.
VOTE REICHERT IF YOU’RE DRIVEN BY HATE.
VOTE DARCY BURNER IF YOU WANT THE BEST.
[Off-topic Comment Deleted]
HMMMM. DOOFUS @ 17 HASN’T GOT THE MEMO YET.
GO FOR IT GOLDY. LONG OVERDUE.
“DARCY BURNER IS MORE THAN QUALIFIED TO SERVE THE PEOPLE OF THE EIGHTH DISTRICT”
Well as one of those people I find her resume wanting…
I am trying to be objective here, IMHO she would be far better suited to prove herself in public office in a local or state position before tackling a national seat. Again, IMHO it was moderates that won Reichert re-election, and moderates see her complete lack of expertience, or any substantive professional record.
She is passionate, energetic, intelligent, and ambitous. But you don’t promote a low level manager directly to Vice President, EVP, or President of a company. Why do it here?
OK Fire away.
You’re right, Goldy: What a load of crap.
Both Burner and Tom will lose to Reichert.
But spend all the money you want in the 8th. Flush it down the toilet, suckers!
WRONG STUFF – THANK YOU FOR LISTING DARCY’S EXCELLENT ATTRIBUTES. THIS IS A BIG IMPROVEMENT OVER YOUR LAST COMMENT.
NOW LOOK AT DAVE REICHERT. HE WAS A POOR ADMINISTRATOR AS SHERRIF AND A MEDIOCRE DETECTIVE AT BEST. SURE GARY RIDGEWAY WAS CAUGHT – AFTER 20 YEARS. YET REICHERT TIME AND TIME AGAIN HARPS ON IT LIKE IT’S SOME GREAT ACHIEVEMENT TO CATCH A SERIAL KILLER AFTER HE’S BEEN ON THE LOOSE KILLING WOMEN FOR TWENTY YEARS.
DID YOU SEE REICHERT IN THE DEBATE WITH BURNER? THE MAN CAN BARELY STRING TWO COHERENT SENTENCES TOGETHER. THIS WORKOUT FANATIC WITH EVERY HAIR IN PLACE WAS ALSO A TOTAL WASHOUT IN FRONT OF HIS FELLOW REPUBLICANS WHEN THEY AUDITIONED HIM FOR GOVERNOR. ONE INCOHERENT RAMBLING PERFORMANCE AND THEY SHOWED HIM THE DOOR IN EMBARRASSMENT.
YOU SAY THIS IS A NATIONAL OFFICE – NOT REALLY. THE JOB IS TO REPRESENT THE DISTRICT IN CONGRESS. SHE HAS TO KNOW THE DISTRICT AND SHE HAS TO KNOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SHE’S LEARNED A LOT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL ABOUT THE FORMER AND SHE’LL DO A BETTER JOB NAVIGATING THE LATTER BY BEING IN THE POLITICAL MAJORITY.
SHE WILL HAVE HER PRIORITIES STRAIGHT. SHE CAME FROM A MILITARY FAMILY. THE NEW CONGRESS WILL SADLY HAVE TO CLEAN UP THE MESS THE REPUBLICANS MADE. THE FIRST PRIORITY WILL BE TO TAKE CARE OF THE NEEDS OF THE RETURNING VETERANS FROM THE WAR IN IRAQ. SHE PROMISED TO DO THAT IN 2006, SHE WILL DO THAT IN 2008.
And 17 is NOT OFF TOPIC because: ?????
CONTENT DELETED: OFF-TOPIC
— Goldy
And 23 is ON TOPIC because: ?????
HEY GOLDY – THE BET WELSHER DIDN’T GET THE MEMO EITHER. I LOVE THIS NEW POLICY!
YOS LIB BRO says:
VOTE DARCY BURNER IF YOU WANT THE BEST.
LOL!!!!!!!! I damn near pissed all over myself from laughing so hard. That is the funniest damn thing I’ve heard in a LONG time!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!
26 – SO WHO’S THE BEST? REICHERT?
YOU MEAN THE GUY WHO LET GARY RIDGEWAY RUN FREE FOR TWENTY YEARS?
YOU MEAN THE GUY WHO CAN’T STRING TWO COHERENT SENTENCES TOGETHER?
YOU MEAN THE GUY WHO PRIORITIZES HIS MUSCLES AND HAIR OVER THE INTERESTS OF THE DISTRICT HE’S SUPPOSED TO SERVE?
YOU MEAN THE SAME GUY WHO IS STUCK RUBBERSTAMPING THE DECISIONS OF A MEAN-SPIRITED, OBSTRUCTIONIST YET TOOTHLESS MINORITY?
I’M SADLY SHAKING MY HEAD. NOTHING FUNNY ABOUT ANY OF THAT AT ALL.
The left is pissed off because the 8th wont vote a dumb bitch into office like Patty Murray. Newsflash…. just because you liberals love dumbass broads doesn’t mean the rest of should follow.
RS @ 19
I’m not sure what you mean by a “low-level” manager.” I’m a “low-level” manager at Microsoft, and so is my boss. I don’t know anyone at Microsoft who would consider a Group Program Manager a “low-level” position. You’re throwing a label at her that doesn’t reflect reality.
Worse yet, by invoking VP, EVP or President in the context of Microsoft, you skew the analogy even worse. Microsoft has a fairly tall management pyramid, but mid-level managers tend to have much more autonomy than mid-level managers elsewhere.
To put this into perspective, suppose Microsoft decided to spin the .NET business off into a separate company. The .NET Business Unit Manager would then be the President and CEO of this new company, at which point Darcy’s GPM position is a Vice-President level. GPM’s report directly to business/product unit managers.
You’re talking semantics over substance, and all because Microsoft happens to be a large corporation.
What did Darcy have to do in that job? Well, she had to build consensus on a variety of issues. She had to work with people from a number of disciplines. She had to manage some very large development projects with all the inherent scheduling difficulties that come with shipping software. Are you saying that none of those skills are transferable to the public sector?
So the question, really, is what skills would you think Darcy would have demonstrated while serving in an elected position at the local or state level that she hasn’t already demonstrated in the job she held at Microsoft? If you’re going to knock Darcy’s resume, then you need to answer that question.
DOOFUS @ 28
KEEP HATING DOOFUS. WITH EACH BLEAT OF HATE SPEECH YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS KEEP SINKING. BY NOV 8 YOU’LL BE BURIED 6 FT UNDER YOUR OWN RIGHT-WING BULLSHIT.
YOS LIB BRO:
Can you stop with the All-caps? It is obnoxious and very hard to read – even though I agree with your basic values.
@29
Group Program Manager is not just below a VP level. To label her position as mid-manager is fairly generous.
I understand the Microsoft Management layers are quite diverse. I have family there.
Her skills, and 4 years management experience while a good start, does not demostrate the ability to serve the public needs of the 8th.
I think that it is completely logical and appropriate to expect that whomever represents the 8th have appropriate experience to support their position.
“What did Darcy have to do in that job? Well, she had to build consensus on a variety of issues. She had to work with people from a number of disciplines. She had to manage some very large development projects with all the inherent scheduling difficulties that come with shipping software.”
Well I actually work with a number of PM’s that do just that. So? Not that impressive.
“what skills would you think Darcy would have demonstrated while serving in an elected position at the local or state level that she hasn’t already demonstrated in the job she held at Microsoft? If you’re going to knock Darcy’s resume, then you need to answer that question.”
Well by taking her “limited” experience to a local position, she could “cut her teeth” in a real way.
Don Joe @ 29:
Shhhh. You’re making sense.
One should also note that Dino Rossi’s business experience was touted all over the place a few years back.
This thread is about Darcy, not Dino, but how many people were working full-time under Rossi’s umbrella? You can own and manage a lot of property with no permanent employees whatsoever.
Nobody on either side accused Rossi of being an “empty suit”.
wouldn’t Darcy Burner be more effective if she could say
” while serving the people of King County as a councilmember, I tackled the issues of poverty, homelessness, education and public safety. I put forth initiatives that ……………. and those experiences have taught me……………..”
I think so. And I think that’s why congressman Reichert has the advantage. He can speak to real experiences and that reaches voters..
@33
Dino Rossi was a 8 year state senator.
Goldy,
I think you’ve got it about right.
If you want a “more conservative” person than Darcy to vote for you vote for the person with the (R) next to their name.
@19
Darcy is far more qualified than Norm Dicks and Steve Largent were when they first ran for Congress (vote for me, I played football!). Lot’s ‘O people haven’t held office before running for Congress.
The PI’s talking about Tom.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....tom18.html
Democratic hopeful must overcome Republican past
Tom announces 8th District candidacy
By NEIL MODIE
P-I REPORTER
If he wants to be the Democratic nominee to take on U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert in the 2008 election, state Sen. Rodney Tom might have to convince his party’s rank and file that his past sins as a Republican are behind him.
Darcy Burner (Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooser)has announced that she has retained Lou Guzzo as her spokesperson and issues advisor. “He is just so chalk full of ideas…just like me” Burner told a crowd of one at a newsconference in Bellevue Square.
“Lou has a number of qualities I lack, voting, experience, and a whole lot of smarts.”
Darcy will looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooose again.
She is a younger, dumber, less attractive, Heidi Behrens Benedict.
Goldy get help you Darcy stalker.
She doesn’t need experience.
She’s loyal. Democrats value loyalty over competency and experience — kind of like the Bush climate science team.
@ 39, ” Lou Guzzo”
Huh? It’s late but I thought I heard the name before, Guzzo is (I thought the name before) mentioned in Connelly’s column. He sure seems to move in mysterious circles and sounded to me like he’s missing a couple of screws. Isn’t Darcy a Dem?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....oel23.html
“The Forward Washington Foundation, Rossi’s vehicle for raising citizen awareness — and his own profile — has as a lead figure one Lou Guzzo. Three decades ago, Guzzo played Henry Higgins to Gov. Dixy Lee Ray’s Eliza Doolittle. Ray was the last Democratic governor to get booted out by the voters.
Guzzo was Ray’s biographer, and the two co-wrote a pair of books denouncing the environmental movement.”
It seems to me that Burner’s position within Microsoft could be cleared up with a simple question:
What was her Bill number?
For those not in the know, the Bill number is the number of steps in the organizational ladder one has to traverse to get from Bill Gates (a Bill number of 0, obviously) to the employee in question. I don’t remember exactly, but in my Microsoft contracting days my Bill number was something like 9 or 10. Microsoft has a rather deep organizational structure indeed.
So, if Darcy Burner’s Bill number was 8, she wouldn’t have been that big a fish. If her Bill number was more like 4, she was pretty high up in the company and probably had a lot of people reporting to her, directly and indirectly.
I sat and talked with Darcy for an hour early in her campaign last time around. Several things became clear to me.
1) Her positions are her own and not borne out of any particular ideology.
2) She’s very smart and very passionate and very quick on her feet.
3) She doesn’t need to consult with a handler (as Rubber Stamp Reichert does) in order to answer a policy question.
4) She’s not afraid of any Publican asshole – not the least of which is the likes of Sherrif Dave – who wasted much of his career hiding from the Green River killer.
RS @ 29
You claim you have family who work at Microsoft, but are not impressed by someone reaching the level of Group Program Manager? Ask your family if they know who Antoine Leblond is, and ask them if they know what his position was before he was promoted to VP of Office.
And, you haven’t answered my question. What skills would Darcy have exhibited in a local or state government position that she hasn’t already demonstrated? If you can’t identify specific skills, then your objection is based entirely on style and has no substance. The objection, itself, is the empty suit.
I’ve read Burner’s changing positions on Iraq, and they are the same as the DLC party line. Last time she was talking about winning, now she’s blaming the Iraqis for not having a stable government in a country that’s been bombed and invaded and had the entire physical and social structure destroyed by Dems and Repubs over the last 3 US presidental administrations. Why isn’t Burner smart enough to say No to the war in Iraq and No to more US imperialism?
YKM
The Bill number can be misleading. My Bill number is 6, but I’m a front-level manager (none of my direct reports are managers), and you can be a vice-president and still have a Bill number of 4. The Bill number depends both on your level of responsibility and on the structure of your particular division. Bill numbers accross different divisions aren’t comparable.
A better indicator would be ladder level, which is somewhat independant of management level. In my group, for example, we have four Principal Software Design Engineers, and only one of them is a manager (a front-level manager at that). In terms of level numbers (which are somewhat arbitrary), the Principle SDE starts at level 65. Entry-level developers tend to come in at level 59 or 60.
The thing is, you don’t climb the management ladder without, also, climbing the other ladder, and I’d be very surprised to hear that Darcy was a Group Program Manager while her ladder level was anything below a 65.
@11
If you think 2006 was as bad as it can get for Republicans, you’re not mentally prepared for 2008 yet.
Kirk @ 46
Please cite your sources. Your claims sound like a steaming pile of bullshit.
Facts @ 13: Rodney is pro-choice, and very good on the environment/global warming. He was basically a Republican for business reasons, and their party’s opposition to the gas tax was the final straw that made him change sides. He’s a perfect example of the suburban politician (think Fred Jarrett or Larry Springer) who can garner bipartisan support regardless of party label.
Phil @ 15: Don’t be ridiculous, he was a strong supporter of Darcy in 06. Rodney may have switched teams, but he’s always been a team player.
I suspect Goldy is correct in that King County is where Darcy should have won it and our nominee this time HAS to win it. Having a Dem candidate in the 5th LD would have helped Darcy last time.
But the key selling point Rodney will have is his experience – there was a running theme from the voter contacts I made for Darcy and the coordinated campaign of voters who voted Dem except for Darcy specifically because of experience. Some of those votes won’t be available to her no matter how much name ID or $$ in the bank she has, but Rodney can get them.
“Experience”??? How would being a Sheriff for twenty years be the needed experience for becoming a congressman? How would being a state legislator be preparation for taking positions on national issues?
One tack would be to find out how many present day congressmen are former sheriffs or state legislators and what kind of legislation they’ve successfully sponsored.
Maybe these guys have too much political experience and they are jaded.
headless lucy says:
“Experience”??? How would being a Sheriff for twenty years be the needed experience for becoming a congressman? How would being a state legislator be preparation for taking positions on national issues?
One tack would be to find out how many present day congressmen are former sheriffs or state legislators and what kind of legislation they’ve successfully sponsored.
Maybe these guys have too much political experience and they are jaded.
Because politics is the art of compromise, the art of the possible. Serving in a legislative body at a state and local level gives one invaluable experience in forging coalitions, operating within a caucus, studying legislation in detail, dealing with people that do not agree with you, etc. Darcy Burner has ZERO experience with ANY of these traits, hence why she should first try the Bellevue City Council or state legislature first. The only thing she has demonstrated is the ability to parrot whatever talking points are handed to her. In Congress, she would be nothing more than a hack that did whatever Pelosi told her to do.
49 Darryl…I don’t have the archive copy of her old website. The source for her position on the bench marks werer one of the ads posted on this site. This is her position as stated on Darcyburner.com:
I support enforced benchmarks for the Iraqi government to step up to its responsibilities to its people and to us, including benchmarks for bringing our troops home.
The sources for the claims about the destruction of the Iraqi infrustructure are any of the numerous articles about Iraq santions, bombing of power plants and so on. I’d suggest old Harper’s magazines.
Is that enough source information for you Darryl or should I footnote all my comments on this site from now on?
Here’s some more idiocy from Darcy Burner that I found while searching the archives of the Seattle Times to satisfy Darryl:
Darcy, in light of recent developments in North Korea and their development of long-range missiles, would you vote to defend the strategic missile initiative?
— Ingrid Fuhriman, Bellevue
D.B.: I support ensuring that our military has the tools it needs to keep the American people safe. That includes support for a national missile defense system that has been tested and actually works. President Bush’s foreign policy failures have made us less safe, allowing Iran to make progress toward nuclear capabilities and North Korea to actually test nuclear weapons. It is time for a new direction.
Kirk @ 53
Still smells like bullshit to me. How is her statement about benchmarks in any way inconsistent with her past statements????
Kirk @ 54
Darcy’s statement is absolutely correct.
Kirk…lay off the Wingnut talk radio–you are starting to believe that crap.
Mark,
Serving in a legislative body at a state and local level gives one invaluable experience in forging coalitions, operating within a caucus, studying legislation in detail, dealing with people that do not agree with you, etc. Darcy Burner has ZERO experience with ANY of these traits
Except that if you change “legilsation” to “software specifications,” you’ve just given a pretty darn good job description for a Microsoft Program Manager, at which point, you then have to argue that studying legislation in detail requires some kind of special knowledge and skill that’s not available to any citizen of the United States. If that’s true, then we really do have a screwed up country, because one basic tenet of the rule of law is the idea that people need to have ample opportunity to know, before hand, whether or not what they intend to do will break the law.
re 52: “The art of the possible”? It seems that last election cycle all those who thought they understood what was “possible” decided not to run in the eighth.
They received a wake-up call from Darcy Burner, a newcomer with pluck and energy.
NOW, all the “MASTERS OF THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE” want to run Rodney Tom as a Democrat in the eighth.
Mr. Tom can go fuck himself, if possible.
Darryl et al
Don’t listen to right wing radio. Not a right winger. Just don’t drink the kool aid for Darcy.
Once upon a time Darcy was talking about victory in Iraq and the mismanged war, just like the other DLC style dems. Now she’s talking about benchmarks, same as they are. How is the Iraqi government supposed to meet any sort of ‘benchmarks’ when they control nothing in the country?
on post 54
There might be such a thing as a ‘missle defense system’ just as there might be a perpetual motion machine. The fact that unless such a missle defense is 100% perfect terrible distruction, climate change, famine etc is the result seems to me to lead to the idea that getting rid of nukes is the only real defense.
The other problem with Burner’s quote at 54 is that so far Iran has not violated the Non Proliferation Act. Demonizing countries doesn’t make a sane foreign policy, and that’s what Burner’s doing in that quote.
Sounds like you and the other true Darcy believers are just as much a bunch of faith based braindead sheep as the folks who believe Fox, Limbaugh et al.
re 58: Maybe as regards Iraq Burner’s a realist, on to the “art of the possible”.
If YOU are, I think you know where she’s really coming from.
Kirk @ 58
“Once upon a time Darcy was talking about victory in Iraq and the mismanged war, just like the other DLC style dems.”
I don’t believe you. I first met Darcy in late 2005, and have followed her position and campaign closely through the 2006 election. I’ve read (or listened to) all of the interviews of her, and I even interviewed her once for publication. I have no recollection of her ever talking about achieving a “victory in Iraq” in that time.
I do recall Bush’s “Strategy for Victory in Iraq” PR blitz in late 2005.
“Now she’s talking about benchmarks, same as they are.”
So?
“How is the Iraqi government supposed to meet any sort of ‘benchmarks’ when they control nothing in the country?”
It is possible (likely?) that they cannot. But, you misunderstand the purpose of benchmarks. They are used to make decisions about continued U.S. occupation in Iraq.
“There might be such a thing as a ‘missle defense system’ just as there might be a perpetual motion machine.”
Nope. A missile defense system doesn’t defy the fundamental principles of thermodynamics–it is an engineering feat. Perpetual motion defies thermodynamics.
“The fact that unless such a missle defense is 100% perfect terrible distruction, climate change, famine etc is the result seems to me to lead to the idea that getting rid of nukes is the only real defense.”
Right (approximately)…but then you are in agreement with Darcy Burner. Your argument is about a particular set of criteria for what defines “actually works.” Darcy was saying she would support a system that that “has been tested and actually works.” I suspect Darcy’s criteria for “actually works” is very much in line with your criteria.
“The other problem with Burner’s quote at 54 is that so far Iran has not violated the Non Proliferation Act.”
I suspect she agrees about non-violation of the NPA…the Iran “nuclear threat” is largely bullshit propaganda put forth by the neocons. But, what Darcy was getting at is that Bush’s policy of using threat and economic warfare to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear energy technology has backfired. It has resulted in a shut-down of some IAEA inspections. Treating Iran with respectful negotiation would lead to (1) resumption of full IAEA monitoring as should be done for all countries that process nuclear fuel, and (2) the possibility of agreements to provide Iran with fuel for energy production. Clearly, it is to everyone’s advantage that nuclear energy programs be monitored—even if Iran is developing peaceful technology now, their government will undergo changes…. Furthermore, IAEA inspections could result in security enhancements that prevent theft, loss, or accidents with nuclear materials. Strong inspections are win-win.
“Demonizing countries doesn’t make a sane foreign policy, and that’s what Burner’s doing in that quote.”
No…I don’t believe she was. She was criticizing Bush’s failure at diplomacy, which had real, and negative, consequences in N. Korea, and potentially bad consequences in Iran.
“Sounds like you and the other true Darcy believers are just as much a bunch of faith based braindead sheep as the folks who believe Fox, Limbaugh et al.”
Maybe…but I am pragmatic. Assuming you are a voter in the 8th (and not, say, a staffer working for a Republican in D.C.), your choices (realistically) in Nov 2008 will almost certainly be Darcy Burner or Dave Reichert. If you truly believe that Darcy is not left of the DLC, I’d suggest you haven’t done your homework very well.