Democrat Darcy Burner, running for the party’s nomination to oppose first-term incumbent Dave Reichert, has a post up on Daily Kos attacking Reichert and the GOP leadership for failing to act on homeland security:
One of the critical issues that all Democrats will face in the 2006 elections is the assertion that they are too soft on national security issues. It will certainly be an issue in my race, where I am running for Washington’s 8th Congressional District against an incumbent, Dave Reichert, who is a former sheriff, and whose entire message last cycle consisted of “I will protect you.”
I think that we spend a lot of time allowing the Republicans to ask the wrong questions, and then we attack their answers when we shouldn’t cede them the questions in the first place.
They are asking the question: “Are we tough enough to finish what we’ve started in Iraq?”
The question that needs to be asked is: “Are we safer than we were on September 11, 2001?”
Don’t cede them the question. Ask the right one, and then answer it.
In light of last week’s blistering report card from the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, criticizing the Bush administration and Congress’s failure to act on many of their most crucial recommendations, Burner’s post is not only relevant to voters in her district, but to voters nationally. Please read the whole thing, and then recommend it so that it can get some national attention.
Before those damn trolls arrive….
GREAT POST!!!! Hits Reichert right on the head on his signature issue! Way to go Darcy!
yea that bastard….he’s been there a whole year now, and he still hasn’t made the country safe…
Rolling eyes…
I agree that *congress* (all of it) needs to deal with homeland security and border security.
But making this into a campaign issue, and blaming only 1 of those 535 representatives seems opportunistic.
The real enemy in congress is partisan politicing and gridlock.
To be fair, I am looking through her actual bio and qualifications on her website, not just her blog on KOS.
She has a fairly impressive bio, one that I could support.
I look forward to hearing something more substantive from her then “our country is in serious trouble” however.
I always find it somewhat funny that Republicans trot out the idea that Democrats do not have any ideas. They control all branches of government at the moment and it is not as if the Bush and the Republicans in Congress would allow best idea in the world to pass if it came from the Democrats.
Politcally speaking, I hope the Reppublicans continue to push the idea that Democrats do not have ideas into the next election as it is rather easy to knock down as Darcy has shown.
I’ve wondered why we needed a Department of Homeland Security in the first place. After all, isn’t that the role of the Department of Defense?
Creating a new department just expanded government, and that’s something we Libertarians aren’t keen on.
Democrats: will do or say anything to help the terrorists to regain power. Fuck the commie lib Democrat “progressives”!!
4,
I wouldn’t mind if the department created was actually effectively doing something.
But it isn’t, or at least not nearly enough.
Sven @2 But how can you blame the Democrats for a Republican Congress? And either Reichart is part of the solution or he is part of the problem so it is fair to ask what he is doing or those he puts in power are doing.
The vote for change and reform is a vote for Democrats next election.
the point is, Sven, Reichert isn’t just one of 435. the guy sits on the homeland security committee and chairs the subcommittee that is supposed to make sure we are prepared in an emergency. Reichert is not some backbencher on this issue — he’s supposed to be a leader.
he is the guy who is suppose to be moving bills that deal with preparedness. yet there are a dozen bills that would make a real difference to our security that he can’t seem to move.
sure the real enemy is partisan gridlock and politicking. but Reichert isn’t a victim of that, he is a perpetrator.
i think he owes us an explanation.
Change? I haven’t seen any substantive change regardless who controls what.
And before you pooh pooh the republican congress, remember that Clinton worked with one for 6 years and did quite well.
Maybe *this* congress is ineffective, but its not simply a republican issue.
Sven @8 The congress worked under Clinton because Clinton vetoed all of their extreme ideas (i.e. tax cuts that put the country into bankruptcy) and then negotiated more real solutions.
I’ll agree that government works best if there are checks and balances but the only possible way to achieve that right now is for the Democrats to take either the Senate or the House.
If not, we can just expect more Republican corruption.
7,
Before I comment on the bills she points out, I would want to see a list of the total number of bills in the committee and see what percentage are stalled. Context Eagle, context.
And there is also a presumption that all the bills she references are good ones. I havent read any of them and dont know if there are valid reasons they are in comittee.
Just like a lot of ads, there has to be proper context. I am not willing to assume anything without it.
And again, I think her bio shows some admirable traits. I just want to see something better then politics as usual
if you insist on making this a party line issue, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.
That partisan us/them mentality is the problem. If more politicians ignored party lines and worked for actual good, we might get somewhere.
occasionally you see tiny glimpses of cross line coooperation. then both sides cirlce their wagons and away we go.
Thats why I refuse to join either party.
He should go blow up some tents in the Sahara..
That’s the Dem plan…
It is really a matter of the right question isn’t it? Just think, the GOP controls the White House, The Senate and Congress. Who are they going to blame? In the past, all they had to do was blame Bill Clinton. Well he’s been gone for a long time now. So who will they blame? If we ask the question, are you better off, are you safer, etc. the voters will probably answer in a way that gives the blame to those who have earned it-The GOP and their lapdogs like the ex-Sheriff. And this is a partisan issue because the GOP made it a partisan issue. Time to give them some of their own medicine. I will support Democratic candidates that don’t mess around with playing nice nice. The GOP won seats by being ruthless. We have to do the same.
Left Turn, The Republicans can now take all the credit, as the Democrats are now nothing but well paid “guvment hack” parasites. [Hillary/”Tookie” 2008!!]
Righton @ 12: Seriously, the Republican’s plan is to TELL you they are tough on Homeland Security then fiscally stave the effort. I work as a consultant in the airport design industry, and the creation, then underfunding of the TSA (Transportation Safety Agency, the guys that take your toenail clippers before you board a flight) is one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated on the American public. If the Republicans in Congress were really serious about protecting the air transportation industry of this country, they would provide a) adequate funding for TSA staffing (TSA understaffing is a chronic problem nationwide) b) adequate funding for improvements to both passenger hold baggage and cargo screening (very little money is currently available for this MANDATED effort, and airlines and airports are all struggling to comply) and c) adequate funding for staffing the TSA HQ staff that oversees b) above (TSA recently let go ALL consultants involved in this effort, and the remaining staff is completely overwhelmed). Airlines and airports are ready, willing and able to move forward and create a secure, reliable and cost effective way to accomplish the mandated security screening, but the gov’t is being penny wise and pound foolish, and is consequently driving the airlines out of business! Kind of counterproductive.
Check out the report card heading “Transportation Security”, and then try to tell me that the Republican lead Admin, House and Senate since 9/11 has done a satisfactory job.
While this may not be percieved as a partisan issue, I think it’s pretty hypocritical of the Republicans to claim they are “tough on security” since they have controlled the gov’t post 9/11. They are lying to the American public.
(Oh and another thing: The assessment of risk that is an integral part of most forward looking plans for funding allocation has been “in the works” for well over a year now, and absolutely nothing has changed for the better. As a matter of fact, the allocation of gov’t controlled equipment such as explosive detection devices has been slowed pending the issuance of the report!. Grrrrr.)
Dear Korean Shopkeepers in South Central LA, Use 12 gauge Mossbergs with magnum shells to stop the Democrat roiting black shoplifters. “Tookie” will be just another excuse for black Democrats to show their social skills!!
Well, voters were asked that question in 2004, and the answer wasnt what you say.
Look, I had a lot of criticism for Clinton when he had the Democratic congress in 1992. He should have been able to drive anythign he wanted, after 12 years of a Republican president. He couldnt get that much done, and the contract for American happened in 1994. for the next 6 years there had to be negotiations and comprimise, and somehow things got better.
Bush came in and I have the same criticism. he has done somethings i am happy about, but for the most part, ignoring the war and its related items, the Reblican trinity has spent like drunken sailors.
Even allowing for the war I am not happy about it.
But that cannot absolve the Democrats for a) going along with some of it. b) not showing any better vision. Particularly in the last few years, the grandstanding by the dems is fairly slick. They are playing to fears more then ideas.
Kerry came in with a lot of fear mongering, and criticism. you know why he lost? he had all the complaints but no answers. He had a plan for Iraq, but nev er bothered to share it with everyone. And then when his record was criticised, he hid behind information shields instead of answering the questions.
So I want to see more then Bush lied, and its the republicans fault. There have been enough times in history when people of vision have stepped out and reach across the aisle to get things done.
I want to see that. I want to see Vision. I want to see purpose for the better of America, not for the better of the Democratic National Committee.
And i want a pony.
Dear President Bush,
Please please please come to Bellevue and campaign for Dave Reichert. Bring Tom Delay along too!
Sarcastically yours,
Dave Reichert Supporter
look…i never liked Reichert…because he’s a rino….ALAS that is the only type of republican you have in washington.
but how can darcy burner be using daily kos to “get her message out”….legally?
Darce the Farce..
Righton Troll,
Wow that is just sooo clever.
Careful, he might call you bob the slob….
Hey Goldysteinburg, If Roger Rabbit can have 30 to 40 posts per thread, why can’t I have one or two? Your filter is designed like Boward County [GORE 2000]. Let the unregistered blck voters voter a dozen times, but kick out those SOB military votes. Typical Democrat BS.
“Hillary/”Tookie” 2008. If the Democrat dead can vote, why can’t a dead “Tookie” run with Hillary??? [hehe]
bob
Rolls off your tongue easier than Tax to the Max Ron Sims…
or even governor fraudoire
I just wanna get the right zingers going early.
ps, just noticed Alexa.com offers site rankings
sp at 90,000
big fat horses rear at 180,000
Goldy, time to runs some Abortion/gay/christian whatever to gin up your ratings….
How about Bush is a member of the Saudi family? His Dad flew in the SR71?
Like the leftists know anything about Homeland, let alone security, What’s her plan?- probably wants to send the Hyannisport police to arrest all the terrorists.
I live in the 8th District- she doesn’t stand a chance. So she posted on the Daily Kos- what’s that? The online version of the Daily Worker?
I’ll give Reichert credit for not always goose stepping in lockstep with the GOP Taliban. That said, the goopers have a miserable record on homeland security:
Nov. 14, 2001: Senate Democrats propose $15 billion for homeland security; the White House warns against “permanent spending on other projects that have nothing to do with stimulus and that will only expand the size of government.”
Dec. 4, 2001: Senate Appropriations Committee votes 29-0 in favor of $13.1 billion for homeland security; the next day, Bush threatens to veto it.
Dec. 6, 2001: Senate Republicans reduce homeland security funding by $4.6 billion.
Dec. 19, 2001: Under pressure from White House, House-Senate conferees eliminate another $200 million of funding for airport security, port security, nuclear facility security, and postal security.
June 7, 2002: Senate votes 71-22 for $8.3 billion of homeland security funding; the next day, Bush’s advisors recommend a veto.
July 19, 2002: Under White House pressure, homeland security funding is further reduced by cutting money for food security, cyber security, nuclear security, airport security, port security, drinking water security, coordination of police and fire radios, and lab testing to detect chem-bio weapons.
Aug. 13, 2002: Bush decides not to spend $2.5 billion appropriated for homeland security on the grounds of “fiscal responsibility.”
Jan. 16, 2003: White House reacts to Democratic efforts to increase homeland security funding by stating, “The Administration strongly opposes amendments to add new extraneous spending.” Later that day, Senate Republicans vote against funds for smallpox vaccine.
Jan. 23, 2003: Senate Republicans cut security funding for the FBI, FEMA, INS, TSA, Coast Guard, and National Nuclear Security Administration.
Feb. 3, 2003: Bush submits a 2004 budget cutting homeland security funding by nearly 2 percent.
Feb. 14, 2003: Senate Democrats request money for smallpox vaccine, police and fire radios, and public transportation security; no Republicans support it.
March 21-25, 2003: Republicans defeat 7 amendments to bolster homeland security.
April 2, 2003: Senate Republicans reject Democratic amendment to provide $1 billion for port security.
April 3, 2003: Republicans reject protection of commercial airliners from shoulder-fired missiles and four other pro-homeland security amendments.
June 2003: House Republicans reject Democratic proposal to raise $1 billion for homeland security by reducing tax cuts for 200,000 millionaires by an average of $5,000 each (from $88,000 to $83,000).
Roger,
Again with the context of each of those ammendments, its impossible to say if all of them were ineptitude or if there were supstantive records as to why they were defeated.
I learned that, by the way, during the 2004 campaign when Spinsanity dissected the complaints on John Kerry’s voting records.
Since then, I take a more measured approach
By the way, what is the source for this info?
4, 6
The main reason Bush created the Department of Homeland Security was so he could get rid of federal unions. The White House and Republican Congress held up the legislation creating DHS for more than a year over the collective bargaining issue.
16
One result of Bush’s no-union-zone in the Department of Homeland Security is that TSA is one of America’s worst employers. They’ve achieved an annual turnover rate over 200%. Here’s why:
“On any given day, federal workers who screen passengers and luggage at the nation’s airports stand a good chance of being berated by bosses, harassed on the job, injured while lugging heavy bags, ordered to work extra hours or cheated on their pay.
“In Seattle, a screener received a letter of admonishment for this offense: ‘Hands in uniform pants pockets.’ A Denver screener says a supervisor repeatedly called him ‘boy’ — and explained it away by saying that where he is from, that’s what blacks are called. A Los Angeles screener injured his arm lifting a passenger’s bag that held not clothes or toiletries but a small engine block.
…
“Some screeners … get distracted by managers prowling for petty infractions. Some have been fired by mistake, victims of bureaucratic bungling.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....tsa12.html
You get what you pay for.
Reply to 30
James Carville, “Had Enough?” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003), pp. 41-43.
The main reason Bush created the Department of Homeland Security was so he could get rid of federal unions. The White House and Republican Congress held up the legislation creating DHS for more than a year over the collective bargaining issue.
Comment by Roger Rabbit— 12/13/05 @ 6:29 pm
That would be great if we could get rid of the all governmental unions. They are leaches on society… the biggest in our State being the WEA. I just don’t buy that Bush created the Homeland security act to get rid of them.
If Bush ever did come up with a way to get rid of the federal unions I would be the first to support him. We sure are not going to get rid of the state government unions anytime soon. At least with what we currently have in Olympia.
Roger,
Part of the problem with Homeland Security funding is the way the money gets distributed to States. They may have fixed it, but the cities with the biggest threats weren’t getting money to counter the threats, and cities who didn’t need it were getting it. Also, a lot of the money in the first go-around was wasted on unrelated things.
The main beneficiaries if we got rid of the state unions would be children. Just imagine schools system that put children first. It would put a stop on teachers hiding behind the teachers union whenever they abuse children.
what?!? Homeland security was just a ply to get rid of unions?
LMAO
Thats a riot, seriously best one I’ve heard today.