Burner?

[Fuzed]

Dan and Eli, so you spent a lot of ink on a pretty vapid puff piece on Burner with, I assume, the intetion of getting people to support her. But guess what, most progressives aren't Democrats. We don't vote for someone just because they are a Dem. knowing what they got for Christmas or how much money they have raised is not the stuff of political inspiration. I support and vote for people because of the stands they take on issues I care about. And unless I missed something, you didn't write one thing about what Burner stood for. I typically love The Stranger's political coverage, but this article sounded like it should be in Seattle Woman, not the Stranger. Where's the hard hitting analysis of why Reichart is so bad and why Burner is so awesome that the people outside her district should raise money for her? I really felt like I wasted 5 minutes of my life reading your feature on Burner. Nice to know she's from Alaska and her brother is a beer distributor. Wow. Neat. I am so inspired.

If you want people to raise money for the Democrats, tell the Dems to get in touch with the young progressives in King County. And no, the "young Democrats" aren't doing that (not that I am 'young'). Tell them to utilize technology, radio, and talk about issues that matter. And then tell them to grow some fucking balls and put pressure on McDermott to get active or step aside, for Cantwell to vote with us on the big visible issues or go back to the corporate world, and to get some candidates with some personality and vision to run.

I love Pelz, and wish he was on City Council, and I know he is busy watching the NCAA tournament, but the Dems need to do somethign exciting if they want to have a 'revolution'. Otherwise they are just rehashing something the Repubs did over a decade ago. GET SOME FRESH IDEAS. Duh.

[Fnarf999]

There's something to be said for paralysis, i.e., at least blocking the other side's REALLY REALLY POISONOUS ideas. While you "progressives" are waiting for Jesus to come down and deliver all those really great positions you're waiting for, the Republicans are laying waste to the earth. If you don't vote for Dems, you're not going to have an America to reform.

[Fuzed]

Originally Posted by Fnarf999

There's something to be said for paralysis, i.e., at least blocking the other side's REALLY REALLY POISONOUS ideas. While you "progressives" are waiting for Jesus to come down and deliver all those really great positions you're waiting for, the Republicans are laying waste to the earth. If you don't vote for Dems, you're not going to have an America to reform.

Oh, get over yourself. I vote more in every election at least twice, and almost always vote Dem except when there is a legitamte Green candidate or independent, and when it's not Mark Sidran, hero of local conservative Dems (of the more racially biased variety).

I fight hard to defeat Repubs all the time. I'm not waiting for Jesus, just interesting effective quality candidates (someone who can turn water into wine would qualify though). I'll tell you some Dems I think are interesting - Jim Street, running for the State House in the 43rd District this year, King County Councilmember Dow Constantine, City Councilmembers Nick Licata, Peter Steinbrueck and Richard Conlin. So there you have some support for Dems. I helped a few of those get elected. Not to mention other Dems who aren't even that progressive just good on some issues and better than their opponents.

But back to my original point. What's so interesting about Burner? Not saying there isn't anything interesting about her, just that from reading Eli's feature I have no idea what it is.

If you're a Dem, and you want to see Dems get elected, you better get a platform and some decent candidates and not expect people to vote for Dems just because they aren't R's. The Dems around here aren't reaching out to the non-mainstream communities for support, except the ones I just mentioned. Maybe get a clue about that.

[Gomezticator]

I totally agree with Fuzed. I read the article on Burner tonight and just got more and more disgusted as I went along. I saw blatant attempts to use buzzwords and left-wing-friendly cliches to try and get us behind a glorified soccer mom who, from the actual quotes derived from her, doesn't have much intellectually or platform-wise to offer. The article was a total sell job for someone that, if her run comes to full fruition, will get torn to shreds in the 2006 election because Dave Reichert, even if he is a Republican, at least has some substance of character.

The Democratic party still doesn't get it. Still. They're gonna get hosed in the Congressional elections again, and they're gonna get hosed in the '08 Presidential election, because they keep making the same stupid, simple-minded mistakes over and over again. THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX.

The repeated mention of the "hybrid SUV" drove me nuts the most. Those things get as much per gallon as the average non-hybrid auto. It's still an SUV, it's still what suburban soccer moms drive, and for many reasons beyond that, Darcy Burner is still woefully unqualified to hold Federal office.

I have never been so insulted by a cover-story selljob.

[Fnarf999]

Originally Posted by Fuzed

Oh, get over yourself. I vote more in every election at least twice

Eh? You what?

Originally Posted by Fuzed

The Dems around here aren't reaching out to the non-mainstream communities for support

What "non-mainstream communities" are we talking about here, whose support is so critical to getting elected? You're making my point for me. If you're waiting for a Nick Licata type to win a race outside of the city of Seattle, you're waiting forever. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Your dreamboats CAN'T WIN in the more conservative parts of the state -- even though it's a pretty liberal state. So you're waiting for a magic Steinbrueck or Conlin candidate -- who are much emptier suits than this Burner gal appears to be -- to appear and sweep you off your feet, the Republicans are getting their shit together and KICKING YOUR ASS.

Reichert may have "substance of character", but he's got weaknesses. While he was off being the Green River Superhero, his sheriff's department was running off the rails, with a bunch of crooks and rapists getting a free ride. His votes in Congress against stem cell research are just plain evil, and the worst kind of Christianist-pandering. Now he's vulnerable; he's been caught with Bush's dick in his mouth, and maybe, MAYBE, we can beat him.

The Dem impulse has always been to attack each other first. That's why they lose. Nobody's a good enough leftie for the purists, and the middle lets the purists drive the train. That's why they lose and lose and lose and lose. But we have a chance this time.

Is Burner the greatest candidate in the history of the world? No. Would the Eighth District and the State of Washington and the United States be better off with her instead of Reichert? Indubitably YES.

So if you have a substantive criticism of her, let's hear it. Yes, she's a neophyte. Yes, she's probably going to stumble a bit when the going gets dirty. But maybe you and Mr. Gomez could come up with something more important than the KIND OF CAR SHE DRIVES to get worked up about. She wants to represent the suburbs; she SHOULD display "suburban values".

If you want to continue to pretend that you live in a country that's just like Capitol Hill, go for it. But expect a couple more decades of Bush. He's got a brother, you know. And you really, really won't like it. And neither will I.

[Dan Savage]

Originally Posted by Fnarf999

If you're waiting for a Nick Licata type to win a race outside of the city of Seattle, you're waiting forever. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Your dreamboats CAN'T WIN in the more conservative parts of the state -- even though it's a pretty liberal state. So you're waiting for a magic Steinbrueck or Conlin candidate -- who are much emptier suits than this Burner gal appears to be -- to appear and sweep you off your feet, the Republicans are getting their shit together and KICKING YOUR ASS....

The Dem impulse has always been to attack each other first. That's why they lose. Nobody's a good enough leftie for the purists, and the middle lets the purists drive the train. That's why they lose and lose and lose and lose. But we have a chance this time.

Right fucking on, Fnarf.

[Fuzed]

What "non-mainstream communities" are we talking about here, whose support is so critical to getting elected?

Look, my comments on this started because Eli emailed me a link to his Slog post wondering why the music community (and me by implication) wasn't doing anything to raise money for this awesome candidate after the puff piece he wrote. The music community was key in getting out a record youth vote in the last national election. My reply to Eli is simple - no non Dem party sheep are going to go out of their way to support Burner because - first, the piece was totally un-inspirational. It was vapid and fluff. If Burner's staff wrote a bio and sent it to the press it would have had more substance. So we now know nothing about Burner except that she is running in the 8th against Reichart. 2nd, the Dems have to stop assuming that is enough. I am not going to get excited about a candidate just because they are a Dem. And I don't think enough other people will to win the House. We have two very progressive fire brands in the Democratic Party who should get this - Howard Dean and Dwight Pelz. I hope they change things, but in the meantime they keep sending out Dems with huge holes as candidates. While the Repubs are running candidates like Reichart, who has a ton of experience in Politics (remember, being Sherrif is more being a politician than a cop), or McGavick, who has run one of the most successful businesses in the State and is considered by many to be a moderate, the Dems are running inexperienced people with seemingly no credentials or personality.

I would never vote for McGavick or Reichart for the record, but objectively they are strong candidates. And the Dems need to respond with strong candidates.

You're making my point for me. If you're waiting for a Nick Licata type to win a race outside of the city of Seattle, you're waiting forever. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Your dreamboats CAN'T WIN in the more conservative parts of the state -- even though it's a pretty liberal state. So you're waiting for a magic Steinbrueck or Conlin candidate -- who are much emptier suits than this Burner gal appears to be -- to appear and sweep you off your feet, the Republicans are getting their shit together and KICKING YOUR ASS.

I don't want perfect. I want to know why the Repubs can run strong candidates, and even more so why the Dems in other parts of the country can but the Wash State Dems can't. I'm not waiting for anything. I have been working to keep polticians like Steinbrueck, Licata, Conlin and Constantine in office hoping the develop into candidates that will run for higher office. Wouldn't it be amazing if Dow took McDermott's office and Steinbrueck became Mayor? And then either ran for Senate?

Now he's vulnerable; he's been caught with Bush's dick in his mouth, and maybe, MAYBE, we can beat him.

Great, I agree. And if I could I would almost definitely vote for anyone running against him. But that isn't the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not Burner can inspire people outside of the 8th to raise money for her. And I have no idea because all I know about her is that her brother delivers beer. Would she vote against CAFTA? Would she vote against the Patriot Act? Where is she on gay marriage? Would she vote to legalize it? The environment? Media consolidation? Social justice reform? After what we've been seeing with Cantwell swaying on some of these issues, I won't assume that just because she's a Dem she's on the progressive side of these issues. But the Dems and the Stranger don't seem to care. They just put her out their as a Dem and that's supposed to be enough.

The Dem impulse has always been to attack each other first. That's why they lose. Nobody's a good enough leftie for the purists, and the middle lets the purists drive the train. That's why they lose and lose and lose and lose. But we have a chance this time.

The Dems controlled the House and Senate for years. And they won with some pretty liberal candidates. If they would have run a stronger candidate last year who didn't compromise his integrity by voting to give Bush ultimate power to start a war with Iraq with no checks or balances, we'd probably have a Dem as President right now. Purist? No. Someone with strong progressive beliefs who will stand by them even when the polls are against them knowing things change in the long run and principles matter? Yes. If you want moderates whose beliefs are more like Guilliani's than Pelz, I think the Dems will lose forever and become completely irrelevant in politics.

So if you have a substantive criticism of her, let's hear it. Yes, she's a neophyte. Yes, she's probably going to stumble a bit when the going gets dirty. But maybe you and Mr. Gomez could come up with something more important than the KIND OF CAR SHE DRIVES to get worked up about. She wants to represent the suburbs; she SHOULD display "suburban values".

I am not criticizing Burner, I am taking Eli and the Stranger to task for printing fluff and then criticizing activists for not being inspired.

If you want to continue to pretend that you live in a country that's just like Capitol Hill, go for it. But expect a couple more decades of Bush. He's got a brother, you know. And you really, really won't like it. And neither will I.

You have no idea about what I think. You're going way over the deep end on this. I don't live on the hill. I am a realist by any standard. While I am a progressive, or liberal or whatever, I have a history of winning in politics. My background includes rural family ignored by both parties who I think the Dems need to reach out to.

So, again, why should non Dem party members get so excited about Burner that we raise money for her? And what are you doing to raise money for her if you so agree with Eli? Or are you just spouting on a message board and not delivering anything in the real world?

[Fnarf999]

Originally Posted by Fuzed

The music community was key

The MUSIC community? Give me a break. How is the music community going to help in Buckley and Enumclaw? Part of the PROBLEM is Dems who think the "music community" is worth their energies. Most Dems, Republicans, and independents don't care about the "music community".

Originally Posted by Fuzed

a record youth vote in the last national election

Wait, tell me again how that turned out. The worst debacle ever is the standard you're aiming for?

Originally Posted by Fuzed

I would never vote for McGavick or Reichart for the record, but objectively they are strong candidates. And the Dems need to respond with strong candidates.

Look, I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you. I should be more circumspect about attacking you and your position, as should you about mine. The failure of the Dems to find the people with a clue and convince them to run is a serious problem. What it really is, is the failure of politics in general to interest anyone except cranks and One Note Harrys these days. The Republicans know how to harbor that energy, and the Dems don't. Dem one-note candidates turn everybody off, and the generalists are too mild.

What the Dems need are serious BUSINESS candidates. If they can't disarm the old "tax and spend" charge, and the "leftie" charge, before they are even made, they can't win, can't win, can't win. That's why Cantwell is in office in the first place: she's from business. Maybe, just maybe, Burner can get elected too.

You accuse people like Eli and myself of falling too quickly for candidates like Burner, who haven't proven themselves in any way. You say that all she has to offer is "not Reichert". Maybe that's so. But you too have jumped up too quickly to dismiss her. Eli's article aimed at nothing more than introducing her. You want more, and maybe you'll get it.

But if you want her to develop positions that resemble your heroes Steinbrueck, Licata, and Conlin, I hope you have to wait a long time, because none of those three could win an election in the Eighth District.

I think it's bizarre that without knowing a thing about Burner you dismiss her as a nothing, yet you champion vapid nothings like Conlin, who's never said or done anything of interest to anyone. Steinbrueck is so classically "Seattle" it's painful to watch; he sometimes finds the right position, like a blind squirrel, but mostly he just drones on and on about "the process". That's part of the problem with Seattle Dems; they're asleep. And Nick Licata, while sort of lively by Seattle standards at least, couldn't get 10% of the vote for anything outside of the city.

Originally Posted by Fuzed

Wouldn't it be amazing if Dow took McDermott's office

Well, anything would SEEM amazing after McDermott.

Originally Posted by Fuzed

and Steinbrueck became Mayor?

Yawn.

Originally Posted by Fuzed

And then either ran for Senate?

Surely you're joking? What would be amazing about a 20-point loss?

Originally Posted by Fuzed

Would she vote against CAFTA? Would she vote against the Patriot Act? Where is she on gay marriage? Would she vote to legalize it? The environment? Media consolidation? Social justice reform?

I dunno. But I do know, at face value, that these issues don't matter. That's right -- social justice doesn't matter. Why? Because that's not what she's going to be voting on. She's going to be voting on the dramatic expansion of the Christianist agenda. The social-right owns the government now, if you haven't noticed. They haven't even STARTED to get busy. If you think the Bush Years are a problem, you haven't seen anything yet.

Basically I'm looking at this seat as a Dem pickup, period. Any Dem -- a warm body -- turns the tide a little, takes the R advantage away a little. I know it's fun and popular to say "what's the difference, non-progressive Dems are indistinguishable from Republicans anyways" but the Bush regime has proven that argument to be a LIE. Cantwell is NOT AS BAD AS BUSH.

Originally Posted by Fuzed

So, again, why should non Dem party members get so excited about Burner that we raise money for her? And what are you doing to raise money for her if you so agree with Eli? Or are you just spouting on a message board and not delivering anything in the real world?

Yeah, that's pretty much right, spouting off. Normally I avoid these forums like the plague because they're just about the worst I've ever seen, full of classic Stranger-reader moronodons who think the "situation" at KEXP is the most important thing that's ever happened in the universe. I do not have a vested interest in Burner's candidacy. I just jumped in because I think your attack on Eli's article was off base. I think I understand your position pretty well; I just don't agree with it. I think leftie Dems are the problem, not the solution, splitting the party in half against a more organized opposition, who are kicking our ass over and over despite having if anything much more dramatic natural divisions in their party, which they have somehow managed to overcome.

What have I done? Hey, I'm just a citizen here, thinking about the issues, just like you are. You're spouting off on this message board too. Other than that, I'm not particularly involved, nor do I want to be. I threw $25 Burner's way, because I want her to win. I want her to win even if she's an empty suit. I went to the legal maximum with Mr. Kerry, which I couldn't afford, especially with the return I got. But mostly I want to go about my business, not go to precinct meetings or whatever.

On one point, I think you're dead wrong: Burner doesn't need to excite fundraising outside her district. She shouldn't. My $25 isn't going to do anything. The people she needs to excite live in the Eighth District. And they don't read the Stranger, and they CERTAINLY don't read the Stranger Forums.

But I do want to make you understand that whatever my tone suggests I am not attacking you and I hope you are not attacking me. I disagree with your point here but we both are after the same thing. I hope we can both remember that.

[Gomezticator]

Originally Posted by Fnarf999

Your dreamboats CAN'T WIN in the more conservative parts of the state

Because like liberals in the rest of the country, those dreamboats don't try. The democrats quit trying to build a base in Republican strongholds six years ago.

So you're waiting for a magic Steinbrueck or Conlin candidate -- who are much emptier suits than this Burner gal appears to be -- to appear and sweep you off your feet, the Republicans are getting their shit together and KICKING YOUR ASS.

We're tired of supporting half-assed candidates with no substance to them. Darcy Burner is just another John Kerry in another race with a stronger Republican candidate. It's disgusting that this is the best the Democrats can do.

Reichert may have "substance of character", but he's got weaknesses. While he was off being the Green River Superhero, his sheriff's department was running off the rails, with a bunch of crooks and rapists getting a free ride. His votes in Congress against stem cell research are just plain evil, and the worst kind of Christianist-pandering. Now he's vulnerable; he's been caught with Bush's dick in his mouth, and maybe, MAYBE, we can beat him.

And what are Darcy Burner's weaknesses? She has no experience working in government, and has a glaring lack of perspective having spent most of her working life as an executive and computer geek. Dave Reichert didn't cover all his bases as sheriff but at least he has 33 years of experience working in a government, experience that Darcy Burner doesn't have.

Your other arguments are giant plea-to-emotion embellishments. While I can see what you're getting at, you fail to make a compelling argument. Well, except for that last point, which makes you look flat out adolescent.

The Dem impulse has always been to attack each other first. That's why they lose. Nobody's a good enough leftie for the purists, and the middle lets the purists drive the train. That's why they lose and lose and lose and lose. But we have a chance this time.

Look who our choices always are: well-funded yuppie suits. Everyone tries to paint themselves as some sort of something-or-rather with (trait that plays to liberals) and (other trait that plays to liberals) with lots of (buzzword). But they're all still urban/suburban suits who are hopelessly out of touch with the citizens that do the actual voting around here. This, not infighting, is why you lose. It's like choosing the best tasting piece of shit.

The ideal candidate doesn't shoot the breeze with yuppies at a crab feed. THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX.

Is Burner the greatest candidate in the history of the world? No. Would the Eighth District and the State of Washington and the United States be better off with her instead of Reichert? Indubitably YES.

How? You didn't bother to back your point up with any valid arguments or evidence. Well, other than pointing out the Republicans' shortcomings. How does your candidate address those shortcomings?

So if you have a substantive criticism of her, let's hear it. Yes, she's a neophyte. Yes, she's probably going to stumble a bit when the going gets dirty. But maybe you and Mr. Gomez could come up with something more important than the KIND OF CAR SHE DRIVES to get worked up about. She wants to represent the suburbs; she SHOULD display "suburban values".

Oh, just you wait. I'm working on a write-up. Last night, I literally did not know where to begin, there is so much to not like about this move.

If you want to continue to pretend that you live in a country that's just like Capitol Hill, go for it. But expect a couple more decades of Bush. He's got a brother, you know. And you really, really won't like it. And neither will I.

And if you want to pretend you know how the game works, when you and the Democrats still obviously don't have a clue after six years of botched elections where the Dems have made the exact same mistakes over and over again, you go right ahead. This is why right-wingers laugh at us.

For shame, both you and Dan, for thinking this is gonna play.

[stapuft]

Just sayin'

Originally Posted by Fnarf999

The people she needs to excite live in the Eighth District. And they don't read the Stranger, and they CERTAINLY don't read the Stranger Forums.

[Gomezticator]

- First of all, there's is nothing grass roots about a suburban high-stakes fundraising crab feed.

- The fact that the Democratic Party already had placards and buttons for Darcy Burner, people who were there just to cheer her every mention, and that Howard Dean made it a point to drop her name synonymously when mentioning Washington State, indicates that The Darcy Push is a giant Democrat selljob rather than the grassroots movement Eli insists it is. The scene described at the crab feed has 'preplanned publicity stunt' written all over it. Don't shit on my face and call it a sundae.

- Even in 2004 left wingers like Eli Sanders, who live in heavily liberal urban communities, believed that the country en masse had turned against the GOP, like Eli insists the country is doing now... and yet Bush still carried most of the 50 states in November with solid numbers, losing only to states with liberal urban strongholds, i.e. the infamous Urban Archipelago. And yet, even knowing the principles of the Urban Archipelago (fuck Rural America and let's focus on building up our base in the cities... even though that's exactly what we did in 2000 and 2004 and the Dems lost because it came down to corrupted elections in two states), even after the Swing States approach failed miserably for the lefties for the second straight presidential election, Eli and the Dems think that races in Swing Districts, instead of trying to develop and win a base in Republican strongholds and, you know, stop playing games and try coming up with some solid uniting policies and platforms, will help them recover.

- You ever think this stuck-up dismissal of rural districts is the reason you guys continue to cede control to the right wing? Remember, Clinton carried a lot of these midwestern and southern states, states you consider Republican Strongholds, that you guys have left for dead. So did Jimmy Carter. Voters in both parties vote for strong candidates, period, regardless of party affiliation. Kerry was a weak candidate. Gore was a weak candidate. And to get back on topic, Darcy Burner is a weak candidate. You're gonna run a non-descript 35 year old computer geek and former executive (who's got soccer mom written all over her) against the former King County Sheriff, Dave Reichert. And you wonder why you don't have control of Congress.

-

Most of the people at the crab feed weren't residents of the district Burner wants to represent... many Washington Democrats... flew on their own dime from safely blue Washington to volunteer in contested swing states.

If the Republicans did this, you would howl and scream and holler at the hypocrisy and corruption of such an act. But when the Democrats do it, it's perfectly okay? This is another reason why the Democratic party is such a farce, a complete joke. This is what makes you guys come across as flip-flopping hypocrites.

- Says Rahm Emanuel:

A moderate Republican is someone who feels it is wrong to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge but feels it is perfectly all right to pass a budget that cuts $14 billion from college student aid, cuts health care for 6 million children, and cuts 330,000 children off child nutrition programs," he said. "Republicans give new meaning to the words, 'Women and Children First.'

Fair enough, but how does Burner propose saving that money in the budget elsewhere? It'll be years before we can formally pull out of Iraq without causing a catastrophe, so you can't just say, "Cut off the war." Does Burner even have a plan? The article never mentions one, not even a serious platform. Or is the Stranger's political staff once again operating under their M.O. of supporting the candidate or movement that has no real plan whatsoever?

- I think it's odd that Eli's article declares Maria Cantwell's presence a positive thing... while in the Slog they tear her to shreds and tatters, and readers demand we run a candidate to oppose her... while here, Fnarf says that the Democrats' biggest problem is their infighting. I wouldn't call Cantwell's place in Congress a strength of the state's D party.

- The article featured Eli and Darcy's advisors putting a lot of words in her mouth. All the actual quotes from Burner herself weren't necessarily inspiring:

"How'd that go?" I heard Burner's campaign manager ask her as she walked away from the exchange with Dean.

"Well," Burner said, beaming.

From the No Shit, Sherlock files:

"I think when people elected Dave Reichert they were hoping he would be a moderate," Burner told me recently over coffee at a Starbucks in Seattle... "There has already been a tremendous disappointment in him. He has not been a moderate. He's been voting overwhelmingly with the Republican leadership."

Their first child, born that year, was premature and died from what Burner calls "a pretty clear case of medical malpractice." The experience was heartbreaking. "It has given me a very different perspective on a lot of things in life," she says. "It's one of the only things in my life that I haven't been able to fix by sheer will of effort. It's not fixable."

Sad, tragic and a terrible loss. But sorry: a medically botched miscarriage is not a valid argument to elect someone to Congress. How does she plan to address the issue of medical malpractice? What is her stance? Or does she not have one?

This was a great opportunity to follow through and show a strong stance on something, and Eli and she backed off, confident that they made their point... even though they never really made it. Par for the course.

Words of wisdom: "He's not the solution, he's the problem," Burner says.

"We have never amended the Constitution to take away rights from people, and I don't believe we ever should"

When Burner is dialing for donations from outside her district, she says she tells people, "This is it. This is the only House race in play in this state this year."

"We're starting to see a shift," she told me as she headed back into her campaign headquarters for another round of fundraising calls. "More and more people are getting into a fighting mood."

I still have no idea what her plans are. I have a vague, general idea of her platform, a platform that mirrors the Generic Democrat Platform, and that's it. Her advisors and right hand people had plenty to say about what she stands for, which makes her look like a puppet.

She had more to say about the word processor she coded for herself, than why we should support her run for Congress. There's also much more about who she's hired and what hotspots she plans to hit... than what her platform actually is. Does she even have a solid, concrete platform? Isn't that the most important aspect of a candidate's run for office? Isn't this exactly how Kerry botched his '04 run? Bueller?

The Democrats are making the EXACT SAME MISTAKES. Style and image over substance, all over again.

And that's only some of the reasons. And Fnarf, I didn't even have to bring up the SUV.

[Sanders]

C'mon, Meinert. My article tells you about some of her positions, I've posted to the Slog about her other positions, and I've even put an audio file of her position on the Iraq War up on the Slog. Here are some links for you:

http://www.thestranger.com/blog/arch...18.php#a004904

http://www.thestranger.com/blog/arch...18.php#a004899

http://www.thestranger.com/blog/arch...18.php#a004890

http://www.thestranger.com/blog/arch...18.php#a004888

[Sanders]

Fuzed (aka Dave Meinert),

Really, I usually like what you have to say. But on this I wish I'd never asked your opinion. First off, I think you're being way too thin-skinned -- I sent you that email and posted those questions because I was wondering why there wasn't more excitement about Burner's campaign in the Seattle political community. It wasn't an attack on you personally, it was just a question. Calm down.

Second, I think we're talking past each other. You seem to believe that the Dems can/should win back Congress only if they solemnly swear to play by the rules of Seattle lefty politics. (And not just the rules of Seattle lefty politics, but the rules of Seattle City Council lefty politics.) I think that's really naive. National politics is a whole different ballgame than Seattle City Council politics.

Anyway, nice talking to you. You're not under attack. You and I just come at national politics from very different perspectives. Not sure what more there is to say.

[Gomezticator]

I threw in my piece earlier and stayed back from the Eli-Fuzed debate. I've calmed down a little bit. But this Darcy push, while the intentions are good, has some serious issues.

I will counter the notion that centrism is bad. The best candidates find common ground between the two parties, drawing in voters from both sides. This does not mean that the best candidate for the Democrats is a bland, over-neutral and inoffensively benign half-assed version of a liberal.

Darcy Burner seems like a genuinely nice person, a family woman (to her credit, she left her Microsoft career to fulfill her dreams of starting a family) who's heart is in the right place. Her background is varied and laden with positive accomplishments. Her views basically agree with most liberals. She's not Reichert. She's in District 8. Her suburban background plays well to a suburban district.

Beyond that, I don't see why she's a strong candidate for Congress. There are honestly thousands of women on the Eastside who are just like Darcy Burner. What is supposed to set her apart, aside from the fact that she was a Microsoft executive and has more money and connections than most, and got a cover story blowjob from Eli Sanders? I see Eli and her Democrat advisors putting a lot of words in her mouth that she echoes. Her candidacy lacks any genuine substance, and she needs to show that on her own, sans advisors and pub, sooner rather than later if she's gonna have a prayer.

Now, I grew up in Vegas amongst both a counterculture and a suburban crowd, so I developed a pretty solid understanding of both mindsets. I think the misstep by the Democratic party here is underestimating the intelligence of the average suburbanite. The 8th District voters can tell when someone's being shoved down their throats, and they probably don't appreciate your paper and the DNC talking down to them that they should vote for Darcy Burner Because She Is Good And She Is Not A Republican. They're not as stupid and gullible as you want to think. And this is as obvious a Nationalist Democratic Party selljob as there is. The biggest argument peddled out there to vote for Burner is that she's not Dave Reichert, the exact same argument that the Dems tried, and failed, to push for John Kerry and Al Gore when they ran against Dubya.

ALSO, suburbanites aren't as prissy and conservative as you want to think. Those are just the ones who show up to campaign rallies and big-plate fundraisers. Many of them are just as open minded as you and me; they just live in Bellevue or Redmond instead of Seattle. Don't be so afraid to offend their sensibilities that you cut the balls off your platform.

The point is that we want to see Darcy Burner stand up for HERSELF and show us she is a superior candidate. I don't want to see The Stranger run a cover story endorsement, I don't want to see the DNC passing out Darcy Burner paraphernalia and I don't want to see Howard Dean namedropping her at fundraisers. And neither, honestly, does anyone else in the 8th District.

The only person that can legitimize Darcy Burner's candidacy is Darcy Burner, and she isn't doing anything ON HER OWN to justify that. The big talk of the advisors and the publicity stunts aren't helping her.

The key for her, I will add, is that she needs a strong message that unites both Democrat and Republican voters in her district. Otherwise, she is dead meat against Reichert, no matter how many fluff articles The Stranger writes about her.

[Ballard Pimp]

Gomez, I think you're wrong for exactly the same reason: You underestimate Darcy Burner.

So she hasn't called you to coordinate her speeches with your ideology? I think you'll get over it. She can do well in the 8th for exactly the reasons you give: She is just like thousands of women in the 8th; she doesn't start each speech with a harangue for the workers of the world to unite and throw off their chains; and she doesn't sneer at people in the 8th for living in the 8th.

Whether she will do well depends on a lot of things, but she can. The Democrats need to pick up more than 15 seats, or you get to live another couple of years with Tom DeLay's puppets making laws for you. It's Howard Dean's job to find people who can win in swing districts. By all appearances the 8th isn't a swing district; it has never elected a Democrat, even though it usually votes for Democratic Presidential candidates. That is not a good indicator, considering what the Republicans have been running lately. I stongly commend to you a short volume, Christine Todd Whitman's It's My Party Too for some insight into what a sizeable fraction of the 8th thinks. These are not the people who will overthrow anything; they are the Republican equivalent of what were called "Reagan Democrats". They are going to vote for local Republicans long after they vote for Democrats for President and they are going to need some kind of radicalizing event to start identifying themselves as Democrats. If that radicalizing event is identifying with Darcy Burner, or comes during her campaign, she will be elected.

[pernapi]

B.P., I have to agree with Gomez. Sitting on the fence is not going to win any seats. We need to hear positions. Everything that I've read in support of Burner is about getting Reichart out. Yes, she can win, but she needs to make her presence known more, and that means we need to hear about what she will do once she is there.

Part of the reason the Republicans have taken so many seats is that they are not shy about stating their positions, on everything. Democrats should learn this lesson. Perhaps it is because we have become so fractured as a party that Dems are so reluctant to state what they believe, but it must be done. We need some strong candidates. We need people to believe in.

I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for Burner, but I'm not a swing vote. And if I were, I might be offended by all of the demographic talk and not enough issue talk.

[raymondrna]

Originally Posted by pernapi

Part of the reason the Republicans have taken so many seats is that they are not shy about stating their positions, on everything. Democrats should learn this lesson. Perhaps it is because we have become so fractured as a party that Dems are so reluctant to state what they believe, but it must be done. We need some strong candidates. We need people to believe in.

tis the truth.

[Ballard Pimp]

Originally Posted by pernapi

B.P., I have to agree with Gomez. Sitting on the fence is not going to win any seats. We need to hear positions.

Okay, let me offer you three positions:

1) Reform health care so that every American has health care available;

2) Reduce deficits and move toward a balanced budget and debt reduction by revising the federal income tax so that those most able to pay, pay the most;

3) Acknowledge that the people of Iraq are responsible adults capable of managing their own affairs and support this effort by reducing the number of American troops there by 10% every month for ten months.

Not sexy, not jazzy, not a headline-grabber; but 1 & 2 are in the platform she's agreed to support if elected, and 3 is where we will be with a Democratic Congress and President.

As modest and inadequate as those positions may sound, are we going to get them with a Republican Congress and President?

And all those "moral issues"? They are, at most, issues of state law.

Part of the reason the Republicans have taken so many seats is that they are not shy about stating their positions, on everything. Democrats should learn this lesson. Perhaps it is because we have become so fractured as a party that Dems are so reluctant to state what they believe, but it must be done. We need some strong candidates. We need people to believe in.

I disagree. Republicans have taken so many seats because they have effectively concealed their substantive positions (like tax cuts for the wealthy, support for offshoring, and restructuring America's class system to the severe disadvantage of the bottom 99% of citizens) and creating no-substance "issues" tailored to each state and each district -- You think Dave Reichert talks about the same "issues" as Tom DeLay?

[Gomezticator]

Originally Posted by Ballard Pimp

Gomez, I think you're wrong for exactly the same reason: You underestimate Darcy Burner.

So she hasn't called you to coordinate her speeches with your ideology? I think you'll get over it. She can do well in the 8th for exactly the reasons you give: She is just like thousands of women in the 8th; she doesn't start each speech with a harangue for the workers of the world to unite and throw off their chains; and she doesn't sneer at people in the 8th for living in the 8th.

I personally don't care if her ideology doesn't match my own. The important thing is to see a candidate WITH an ideology and a strong point of view. She's nothing special, unless you have hard evidence to the contrary. Very little that's come from the Burner Camp has come from Darcy Burner herself. The fact that she isn't doing half the talking on her campaign, or even a third, indicates to me that she isn't a strong candidate.

And what's with all the revolution talk in your post? I thought we were talking about a Democrat candidate's viability in a Republican district, not Howard Dean's March To Overthrow The Republican Regime.

Whether she will do well depends on a lot of things, but she can. The Democrats need to pick up more than 15 seats, or you get to live another couple of years with Tom DeLay's puppets making laws for you.

The doomsday talk is completely irrelevant to Darcy Burner's strength as a candidate. "Vote for our candidate or you get four more years of Dubya," didn't exactly help John Kerry, did it?

It's Howard Dean's job to find people who can win in swing districts. By all appearances the 8th isn't a swing district; it has never elected a Democrat, even though it usually votes for Democratic Presidential candidates. That is not a good indicator, considering what the Republicans have been running lately. I stongly commend to you a short volume, Christine Todd Whitman's It's My Party Too for some insight into what a sizeable fraction of the 8th thinks.

Is the novel about the opinions of Washington's 8th District, or is it about what Christine Todd Whitman, who lives all the way across the continent, thinks? You're still missing the point completely. The mainstream left wing dogma is not what's gonna win Darcy Burner the election, it's Darcy Burner's ability to stand up on her own. Her campaign managers and the party should augment her campaign, not prop it up.

And it's Howard Dean's job to strengthen the party, not to gerryrig candidates in districts he thinks he can steal. He is a nationwide director of the Democratic party and should try to develop strong bases across the nation in places where the base is weak, not just in districts where he thinks he can pull off a win. Remember, Clinton and Jimmy Carter carried those midwestern states that the party at this point considers hopeless and left for dead. The current approach is not gonna build a Democrat base in those states. This approach has 'plotting and scheming and manipulating voters' written all over it and trust me, voters don't appreciate that and they'll show it on election day.

These are not the people who will overthrow anything; they are the Republican equivalent of what were called "Reagan Democrats". They are going to vote for local Republicans long after they vote for Democrats for President and they are going to need some kind of radicalizing event to start identifying themselves as Democrats. If that radicalizing event is identifying with Darcy Burner, or comes during her campaign, she will be elected.

A radical event that is about as likely as the Mariners winning the World Series. It's a lot simpler than that. You're not gonna change citizen's ideologies, especially not with Darcy Burner. What you need to do is develop an engaging candidate that can find common ground with voters throughout the district. This isn't about your perceived Party Civil War or a Democratic Revolution. It's about winning a seat in a district. Republican voters don't like being a part of a Democrat agenda, but they do like voting for strong candidates they can connect with.

Darcy Burner has shown me nothing. The local mainstream press is unimpressed. She's done nor said nothing to warrant people's attention.

[pernapi]

The shorter version of a bunch of blither blather I almost posted. Lucky you!

Connectedness:
The bottom line is this, Dems keep trying to campaign without stepping on anyone's toes. It makes me want to vomit, and it makes swing voters distrustful. If we want to win elections we need candidates who aren't afraid to be something other than bland. Burner might be a powerhouse, and she's being held back.

Moral issues:
I'm not a swing voter, and I'm also not voting for anyone, Democrat or otherwise, who is not going to protect my reproductive rights, whether we are talking state level or federal level. Never. Luckily, Burner "does support a woman's right to make choices regarding her body" (I'm assuming that means pro-choice.)

That sums it up.

Oh, one more thing...maybe she's just getting bad press. All the press seems to focus on is her soccer mom status and ex-microsoft career. She could be talking to reporters, and they're just not reporting on it.

No offense Mr. Sanders but this is all you really gave us in you recent article:

When she was finished discussing energy policy in Kirkland, Burner and I climbed back into her hybrid SUV. I sat in the back seat, in a spot usually reserved for her son's Buzz Lightyear doll. She sat in the passenger seat, eating a sandwich. Her brother-in-law drove. We talked briefly about religion (she was raised Catholic but now attends a Unitarian church in Bellevue); about her recent endorsement by NARAL (she was pleased); about how she would vote on the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage ("We have never amended the Constitution to take away rights from people, and I don't believe we ever should"); and about the potential cost of her race ($2 million plus).


Not enough.

This was somewhat helpful:
http://darcyburner.com/differences.php?page_id=27

ttfn

[pernapi]

Great pick-up about the Cheney letter Mr. Sanders. I'm liking her more already. Addressed some important, local issues and revealed a sense of humor. Good for her.

[Shady_B_206]

Originally Posted by pernapi

Great pick-up about the Cheney letter Mr. Sanders. I'm liking her more already. Addressed some important, local issues and revealed a sense of humor. Good for her.

So if Tracy, who is a friend of my moms unfortunately but my mom also worked with Cant-Do-Well. Wait I want to stop right here, you know what’s funny? My grandmother-in-law who is pretty good friends with Patty Murry, too many fucking Democrats on both sides of my family! What is a Republican to do?!?! Now back to my points, what she would have to do for my vote is first and foremost SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!

The way she could do that would be to first state that we CAN and WILL win in Iraq. The way to go about accomplishing this task is by showing the troops we care! Instead of having silly demonstration against the war, we need massive movements showing our support of the troops and their mission. This war will not be won in the streets of Iraq, it will be won at home. The stakes are high, so let us not fail. Remember the enemy is watching our every move.

Also she needs to publicly state is that the cowardly Anti-American group “College not Combat” and groups like that are hurting our troops greatly by attempting to censor our military recruiters, who have one of the hardest jobs in this country, and need to disband.

Other things she could do to muster my support:

End capitol gain taxes, support the dismantling of the Department of Education, support of school vouchers, abolishing welfare, abolishing food stamps, abolishing school lunch programs, abolishing the prescription drug plan, supporting SS reform, and getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with a fair tax AKA a national sales tax!

[Brodeo]

Originally Posted by Shady_B_206

The way to go about accomplishing this task is by showing the troops we care! Instead of having silly demonstration against the war, we need massive movements showing our support of the troops and their mission. This war will not be won in the streets of Iraq, it will be won at home. The stakes are high, so let us not fail. Remember the enemy is watching our every move.

Nothing like a little blind patriotism to ignore the fact that Rummy helped send troops into harms way without proper troop levels or proper body armor. Just as long as we all wave the red, white and blue flags and sport "I Support the Troops" magnets *(made in China). The war will not be won in Iraq? Are you smoking meth again? If that's the case let's get them troops back to the streets of Washington state! "Mission Accomplished" much?

Originally Posted by Shady_B_206

Also she needs to publicly state is that the cowardly Anti-American group “College not Combat” and groups like that are hurting our troops greatly by attempting to censor our military recruiters, who have one of the hardest jobs in this country, and need to disband.

Again, let's forget that thing about troop levels and body armor. The most important thing our troops need is a lttle dog and pony show. That kind of blind allegience stops bullets, right?

Shady, don't give up on your dreams: www.blazinhazen.com

[Shady_B_206]

Originally Posted by Brodeo

Nothing like a little blind patriotism to ignore the fact that Rummy helped send troops into harms way without proper troop levels or proper body armor. Just as long as we all wave the red, white and blue flags and sport "I Support the Troops" magnets *(made in China). The war will not be won in Iraq? Are you smoking meth again? If that's the case let's get them troops back to the streets of Washington state! "Mission Accomplished" much?



Again, let's forget that thing about troop levels and body armor. The most important thing our troops need is a lttle dog and pony show. That kind of blind allegience stops bullets, right?

Shady, don't give up on your dreams: www.blazinhazen.com

You have this rare gift of not only taking what I say out of context, but also not really understanding what point I was putting out. Anyway, I agree that the Honorable Mr. Rumsfeld needs to resign.

Unlike you, though, I believe in our troops, I support them, and I am smart enough to realize what a major mistake it would be to surrender in Iraq!

[Shady_B_206]

Originally Posted by Brodeo

Nothing like a little blind patriotism to ignore the fact that Rummy helped send troops into harms way without proper troop levels or proper body armor.

Let me counter this lie real quick. Brodeo, you were never in the military so I cannot blame you for being so fucking ignorant about this subject, you are dumb enough to believe anything that the news media tells you. I was actually there in 2003 at Hood, and not one fucking troop, NOT ONE, left that facility without Kevlar body armor with ceramic plates. I had my own fucking set. We received them in December fool! December of 2002!! I cannot speak on behalf of NG, but Task Force Iron Horse was ready to fucking rock, and they did. THEY WERE THE ONES WHO GOT SADDAM BITCH!

Another thing, have any of you ever seen any pics in the news, tv, paper where there are troops in Iraq without armor? If so post them!! If you cannot post them here, then you full of shit!


Brodeo I dare you to back up your lie!