Blue America's Darcy Burner
By John Amato Friday Aug 24, 2007 2:14pmDarcy Burner was one of the first new Blue America candidates we endorsed for 2008. John, Jane and I think really highly of her, not only as an effective and extraordinarily intelligent leader but also as someone who speaks her mind in plain English. Darcy Burner says what she means-- in a way that anyone can understand it clearly. Her opponent, who she nearly beat in 2006, is a rubber stamp Republican named Dave Reichert and he's in big trouble with voters in their suburban Seattle district, mostly because of his lock-step support of the whole Bush-Cheney agenda in Iraq.
Bush is visiting Seattle Monday to do a fundraiser for Reichert and in response Darcy's campaign is holding a week-long Town Hall meeting with the online community. Her goal is unprecedented-- to raise the same $100,000 online that Bush will raise for Reichert from GOP fat cats who want to get their pictures taken with him. You can do your part here at Act Blue, where even $5.00 and $10.00 donations mount up smartly. You can also sign up for Darcy's Town Hall here and enjoy the video of our pal Ambassador Joe Wilson explaining what's at stake:
(Blogged by Howie Klein)
Login or Register to post comments.
I gave what I could yesterday. I think she's a good netroots candidate.
Great, great idea.
But only for the right kinda dems and independs. Hope it's not applied to DINOs when W helps their opponents.
Go Darcy!
All I ask is that we really make sure she is a progressive, and not a DINO, before we support her. I'm tired of being burned.
The Vietnam war was absolutely unwinnable. Despite massive and sustained attempts at interdiction at no time during that conflict was the U.S ever able to degrade the north Vietnamese logistical train to the point where the insurgency could not continue. With China and the Soviet Union feeding the necessary support to the North (at little cost to themselves) there was no possibility of a local victory without an escalation into a global conflict. Possibly a nuclear one. This is exactly the same technique that was used to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. This is the same technique that is being used in Iraq.It is true, as Petraeus has said, that the average insurgency lasts ten years. What he didn't say is who won. A review of the history of insurgencies is not encouraging.
At the risk of raising a dissenting voice, the candidate, whom Crooks and Liars believes "speaks her mind in plain English" does no such thing, neither on this post nor on her web site. On the issue of Iraq, Ms. Burner says on her web site that she favors benchmarks which can bring the troops home. Pray tell, what are these elusive benchmarks that Ms. Burner is so much in favor of? Darcy Burner, whom Crooks and Liars is so enthralled, apparently feels that certain requirements must be met before those troops are finally removed from that slaughterhouse in Iraq. I had a conversation with one of her campaign staff who had called me when she last ran against Dave Reichert and I told him that I could not in good conscience support his candidate since Ms. Burner does not advocate the immediate withdrawal of those troops from Iraq. Amazingly, her staffer was not even aware that his candidate had made her views known concerning withdrawal in that morning's Seattle paper. This shows that nothing has changed since she last ran for office. It apparently does not matter one iota to Ms. Burner that American military personnel are returning to this country maimed and crippled, many of them severely burned, blinded, brain damaged, missing arms and legs, paralyzed, suffering from the effects of PTSD, all for no justifiable reason whatsoever. More Americans returning to the U.S. in flag draped coffins and more of them returning disabled, both physically and psychologically, apparently has no effect on this new darling of the [alleged] anti-war Democrats.
The Democrats, like the Republicans, will use any excuse they can think of in order to keep the troops in Iraq. Perhaps both parties have received the message: the reason why the U.S. is building those fourteen military bases along with that very large embassy in Iraq is because the United States cannot leave Iraq, at least not so long as as there is one drop of oil for the U.S. to control. At least the Republicans are somewhat honest about their intentions, however invalid they are, while Democrats like Darcy Burner want to claim that the U.S. troops, who are getting blown up and ripped apart for no legitimate reason ["into the valley of death" rode the 170,000], want them to remain in that quagmire until those ambiguous "benchmarks" are somehow attained.
If this is the best that Washington state can come up with to run against the Bush-sponsored Reichert, then it should be not be too surprising that I and other Washingtonians will be abstaining from voting for this faux liberal.
I wrote Sheriff Dave regarding Bush administration abuses and here was his rubber-stamped response to me:
Dear Mr. xxxx,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding President George W. Bush and the Executive Branch. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
As a nation, we must all work together to make sure we are safe, that our economy continues to thrive, and that our children grow up with the opportunity to get a good education. I respect the President and while there are decisions of his that I may not agree with, he still is the President of the United States of America and therefore holds a temporary office that we should all respect for the good of the nation.
However, I want to make clear that I represent the people of the Eighth District. I have and will continue to stand up to the President when necessary to ensure your interests are represented. I established myself as an independent thinker in March 2005, three months after I entered Congress, when I voted against my party and the President in opposing Congressional intervention in the private tragedy of Terri Schiavo. I have also routinely voted against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and voted to reverse the Presidents veto of legislation to fund stem cell research.
During the 109th Congress, when debating the federal budget for FY 2007, I co-sponsored the Castle-Reichert amendment to secure an additional $7 billion for health care and education, while staying within the overall budget ceiling. I stood up for the interests of the 8th District, even against my own leadership in co-sponsoring this amendment because I am concerned about the choices we are making. Continued under-funding of critical research and public health programs imperils our nation's long term health and growth. This is a reasonable answer; it keeps the overall budget within the proposed ceiling, while securing additional funding for programs that are important to our country's growth.
My votes and actions have proven that I am an independent thinker and representative of the people in Washington's Eighth District and my priorities will always lie with you. I was recently recognized by National Journal, a weekly magazine on politics and government, as "boldly defying Bush" and was also the only member of the Washington Delegation to be named as a Centrist for my votes in 2005. I promise that I will continue to fight for the best interests of the Eighth District throughout the 110th Congress.
I appreciate hearing from you. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any other concerns or questions. I encourage you to contact me via my website at http://www.house.gov/reichert/ to expedite your thoughts and I apologize for any inconvenience.
Sincerely,
David G. Reichert
Member of Congress
Darcy is a true patriot. She will be a great congresswoman for a long time. I hope everyone that reads C and L will donate what they can to her campaign
On Iraq:
It is long past time we had a realistic plan for returning control of Iraq to the Iraqis and bringing our troops home. 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.
This is from Darcy Burner's website...sounds Republican to me...blame Iraqis for our clusterf*ck
Oh, give it a rest. Darcy is a true progressive, who would do Progressives proud and the people of Washington state proud. I don't live in her district (I am in Jim McDermott's), but I would be very happy if she was my Rep. in the House. I'm not looking for ideological perfection here. And she will be much, much better than the telegenic Sherrif for whom it took many years to get the Green River killer, and who took such obvious glee in clubbing WTO protesters in 1999.
Let me just add that previous to Reichert, the office-holder was Jennifer Dunn. This is very much a swing district. It's close to 50-50. It includes the bedroom Seattle suburb of Bellevue, and the east side of Lake Washington is home to Microsoft (though much of the big money there goes to Dems) and Nintendo. It also includes the meth lab rural areas of Pierce county. So cut some slack here. An agressive campaign is needed, but holier than thou criticisms wont help.
SeattleDan @ 10:
It's not a holier than thou criticism Dan. It's a "why vote for the status quo?" Darcy could be someone worth voting for, true. Until you see her website showing where she stands on the issues. Much the same as everyone else. She isn't progressive, at least not on her website. She publicizes the same views as everybody running for taxpayer's dollars. Maybe she would be a breathe of fresh air, but when your website states you have the same views on some issues as the people you want to replace, well......
bob @ 6:
Login or Register to post comments.