Rodney Tom announced this morning that he is withdrawing from the race for the Democratic nomination in Washington’s 8th Congressional District, leaving Darcy Burner as the sole declared Democrat.
“Our fundraising was going great, but Darcy Burner’s campaign has been phenomenal”, Tom said. “Darcy has over 3,200 contributors, an incredible statement to her broad base of support. Reichert’s idea of campaign finance reform is having $10,000 dinners. Democracy was never intended to be limited strictly to millionaires. Clearly, he’s out of touch with the common voter.”
“My purpose from the start was to replace the current Congressman with someone whoactually represents the values of the 8th district. Dave Reichert is completely out of step with the values shared in this district. Darcy Burner’s campaign has proven they have the leadership, strength and momentum to win next November.”
Tom will pay off campaign costs from his own pocket, refund all contributors and urge them to contribute to Burner. In Yiddish, we call that being a mensch.
I don’t mean to gloat, especially considering how gracious Tom has been in withdrawing and backing Burner, but you gotta think that our unprecedented $125,000 netroots fundraiser played a significant role in pushing Tom out of the race. And honestly, that was one of our primary objectives.
As I told Tom shortly after he announced, one can make legitimate arguments for why both he and Burner are a good fit for the district, but I didn’t really see his path toward winning a Democrat primary. I also told him that my aggressive support of Burner was nothing personal, and that we would make up after he got out of the race. I guess that reconciliation starts today.
More thoughts and observations later….
UPDATE:
I talked with Tom earlier this afternoon, and thanked him for his graciousness. He is fully behind Burner, and quite impressed with her grassroots appeal. I think there is no question that Burner’s campaign is stronger for Tom having challenged her.
the 8th district news is hopping today. no disrespect intended, but could some esteemed commenter fill in some family history on jennifer dunn prior to her marriage in 2004 (?) to keith thomson?
Wow. Busy times. People dying, people resigning and then not, withdrawing.
Great news on the front Burner, at least!
This ought to give the party poobahs a hissy fit, and give the trolls aneurysms! Darcy rocks! And hugs rabbits, too. Do-nothing Congressman Blowdry has never hugged a rabbit, and apparently has no plans to. Why do Republicans hate animals?
Goldy, you should’ve tried harder to get a wager going with Stefan.
i bet sen. craig would hug a rabbit:)
Just then Rodney Tom showed some real class. Not for dropping out but for what he said and how he harmed no one in announcing his decision.
For those who doubted his right to be counted amoung the democrats, I say take note.
Senator Tim Johnson returned to work today. http://johnson.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=281601
I actually wish Rodney Tom had hung on longer. He has been, and still is, a shoe leather campaigner. He rings doorbells and makes connections with voters.
Darcy does an excellent job ringing doorbells as well, but individually, either one can only ring so many. With both walking the beat, showing people how Reichert is not representing them and is actively avoiding personal contact with them, the eventual winner ( which I always hoped for and believed would be Darcy ) would have more people feeling good about voting for them.
@5 Are you kidding? The only thing Craig hugs is other guys, the NRA, and the butt of a 12 gauge as he draws a bid on my Idaho cousin!
Wow. I mean, wow.
Tom lives in Medina, so presumably a few months worth of early campaign expenses won’t be a ton of money, but it’s not peanuts either. This is above and beyond the call of duty.
And who can forget the stellar prognostications from our friend Stefan?
http://effinunsound.com/?p=478
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Rodney Tom campaigning on Darcy’s behalf. Kudos to him on his decision.
I think I saw ditzy Darcy the other day. She was standing in awe, totally mesmerized, gazing curiously at what appeared to be a discarded beer can. Ahhhh, those shiny things!
@13 I think I remember that scene. It was thrown out of President Bush’s Limo by Dave Reichert who was driving the Limo in his role as Bush’s lackey. Only it wasn’t awe that was in her eyes. It was stunned sorrow that Reichert was not just drinking and driving drunk with the President but that he callously trashed his own district while doing so.
@13
I think I saw ditzy Darcy the other day. She was standing in awe, totally mesmerized, gazing curiously at what appeared to be a discarded beer can. Ahhhh, those shiny things!
Nah, that was Puddybud.
A PROPOSAL:
Howsa about inviting this great guy to DL? A round of applause and a few free beers are well merited!
We could even give Mr. Tom the first “Free Beer Award!”
This is a great example of GOOD government!
@16
I’d actually love to have him come by. And I’ll definitely be contacting him once we get things started down in Kent as well.
Congrats to Burner and her campaign, and well done to Rodney Tom.
6 Particle Man
Rodney Tom quailed before the mighty Darcy Machine, and pout the best face on it he could.
Watch Darcy eat lightning and crap Dave Reichert!
This is not great news for the 8th district. Some of us who dislike Reichert are not too thrilled with Darcy. Tom fit right in with the district politically and could take down Reichert with EXPERIENCE and class. I suspect most of the dollars Darcy has taken in came from outside of the 8th from the impeach Bush crowd of too far-left liberals. Even if she wins, she will be challenged down the road by Jennifer Dunn’s son or Dino Rossi. I will have a tough time deciding my vote. Us independents/moderates always get short changed.
MK, What is it specifically that you feel Darcy is wrong about? If its experience how will being a Representative for 2 years still be a barrier for her re-election?
@20
It would be great to hear what issues you oppose Darcy on.
Now that she is the sole candidate, it is a great time to define issues!
Okay, here are some issues:
Darcy says: “My plan is simple: no more secret meetings, no gifts, no lobbyist funded travel, no exceptions.” Does that mean she is against candidates taking donations from felons who have no source of income but donate over a million dollars to Dem candidates? I doubt we will hear a word of her ethics on that one.
Darcy says: “I support reality-based intelligence, and I will oppose taking actions that will make us less secure.”
I have no idea what this means. Is she suggesting we return to the old days of the CIA where covert agents made deals with the other side to get real information? Dems call that out of the question.
Darcy says: “In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I support a two-state solution in which an independent, democratic, and economically-viable Palestine lives side-by-side with a secure, democratic, and Jewish Israel, with both countries receiving the international support necessary to maintain peace and stability.” Has she denounced bombing of an Israeli child-care center? Curious which one of those Middle East leadership organizations that she wants us to be friends with has actually denounced violence against Israel. Easy words, but empty.
I could go on. What Darcy stands for is a bunch of empty rhetoric. I’ll be happy to hear her say something of substance one of these days.
23:
Let’s assume you are correct (you are not, but lets play). How is her rhetoric any different from Reichert’s.
I wish that I could so easily see through people like you do. You are so quick to judge and condemn. Never realizing how wrong, how foolish, how pig headed and how utterly ignorant you appear to be.
And you know, Janet, appearance is everything.
Thank you too, for participating.
@23 what happens next?
I think there is something t what you say although as MLF saya this is same old same old. The game of politics seems to revolve around making your opponet take a stand so you can chip away at them.
So, how about thinking of some sunstance to ask form Darcy vs. The Sharif?
My own questions would be:
1. Should we plan a staged withdrawl from Iraq?
2. How do we create real security? A fence on our southern border? national ID cards? money for the coast Guard? container inspections?
3. How do we prevent the healthcare beanrupcy problem?
etc. Many of these are not really partisan issues but they should be debated.
It is very clear what she said. The Tom DeLay way of doing business is over. How much clearer should she be?
This means reality based intelligence. You know, pictures, intercepted communications. Not the lies and made up fantasy that got us into Iraq. WMD, terrorists in training there, you know, the sort of stuff like Collin Powell lying at the U.N.
Funny how you can take a quote and twist it. She was talking about the end plan. She was not talking about the horror of the conflict. Just what she would like to see as the end game. I am sure if you asked her she would denounce violence of all kinds.
I don’t see you crying about he violence and day care centers we are destroying in Iraq “by accident”.
Fuck you. Janet. You come here and word everything to suit your point of view. I bet you are the one who had Craig slip the word “intent” into his fake “resignation”.
Dumb, ignorant, frigid bitch.
Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.
I’m just responding to requests to argue Darcy on the issues, rather than her complete lack of credentials. Speaking of which, any idea what she has been doing lately? Fundraising doesn’t count. I mean something that is meaningful, and gives back to the community. At least Reichert served for 20 years in public service, whether you agree with his track record or not.
SJ: Your questions are rational.
1. How do we get out of Iraq? Too bad Brian Baird answered this realistically and is now being skewered by the nutroots. So far all he said is exactly what everyone running for President has said, except for Kucinich. Don’t know what Darcy’s views are, but she seems to be beholden to the nutroots.
2. Security at the border? Can’t really tell what Darcy thinks. Border control without some realistic plan for guest workers won’t solve anything. Also, we need a plan to naturalize all those who are currently here illegally, but are embedded in their commmunities. Fine them and move on?
3. Health care: a little worried that Darcy thinks big govt is the solution. That just leads to long lines and early deaths. Doctors are already running from Medicare patients, so why do we want to put everyone in that situation?
Janet S Troll @ 24,
I’ll add to My Left Foot’s answer to your third question:
Yes, in fact, she has. It is implicit in her statement:
In this case it appears you selected a quote from Darcy that isn’t responsive to the question you then asked. That suggests that you are either being entirely disingenuous or that you really are an idiot. What is it, girl?
Janet S,
Darcy is doing what candidates do. She is campaigning to win her job.
When Reichert loses why don’t you come back at that time and tell us how the vote count was fixed or the people just don’t know the facts or how he was misunderstood.
As for DeLay, if there was nothing to the charges, which are still pending, why did he choose not to run for reelection? He did the travel on the lobbyist dime, he took gifts and gained a lot of weight eating their food. He illegally redrew district lines to keep seats. How can you justify supporting him? Larry Craig just gave in to his true self, tried to have a little sex and your party ran from him. But take money and gifts and that is fine, sell your vote (Duke Cunningham) that is acceptable, sell your stock early (Bill Frist) and you have no problem with that.
In a few words you are intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt and just plain ignorant.
Once again, thank you for playing along.
@20 “from the impeach Bush crowd of too far-left liberals”
What’s wrong with impeaching Bush? That seems pretty mainstream to me. The radicals are those who want to keep him in office.
@25 “2. How do we create real security? A fence on our southern border? national ID cards? money for the coast Guard? container inspections?”
That’s actually a good question, because it’s clear from the GOP voting record that they don’t give a hoot about real 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).
Source: James Carville, “Had Enough?” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003), pp. 41-43.
Also, let’s not forget that the Department of Homeland Security was a Democratic idea, and the Bush administration delayed its implementation for over a year in order to keep DHS employees from having the right to join a union. They cared more about their anti-labor agenda than the security of our borders.
@27 “Speaking of which, any idea what she has been doing lately? Fundraising doesn’t count. I mean something that is meaningful, and gives back to the community. At least Reichert served for 20 years in public service, whether you agree with his track record or not.”
Geezus Wholly Christmas, do you actually expect anyone to believe Reichert doesn’t spend most of his time raising money and kissing babies? What public service? You mean taking 20 years to catch a serial killer right under his nose who managed to kill over 50 people because Reichert couldn’t nab him?
Once again Roger, you’re my hero. When I’m up in Settle in October, you’ll have to come out of your burrow so I can buy you a beer.
And, gee whiz, I made a commitment in the 1970’s to my father, never to drink and drive. It was not hard to keep. Why is this council member JUST NOW getting around to realizing that this is unacceptable behavior?
She has displayed poor judgment and no longer deserves to hold public office. Period.
Richard Pope For County Council.
(This is my official endorsement as My Left Foot. Richard is free to use this endorsement as My Left Foot in any way that he sees fit.)
35
Wrong thread. Oops.