The various Democrat blogs are all pretty excited about Darcy Burner, who is challenging Congressman Dave Reichert for his Eastside seat. But this seems to be more about liberal out-of-district Democrats desperate to try anything to help get a Democrat, any Democrat, elected in any district. It's less about Darcy Burner herself, who lacks any significant political experience and community involvement (she wasn't even a regular voter until recently). She is also trying to compensate for her lack of experience by inflating her resume, falsely claiming that she was a "Microsoft executive", when she was not an executive, and telling inconsistent stories about her departure from Microsoft and decision to run for Congress.
The impression I get of Darcy Burner is that she is eager and amibitious, but naive and inexperienced and doesn't have a realistic appreciation of the knowledge, experience and community engagement that it actually takes to represent a district in the United States Congress. It's almost as if the Democrats were so desperate to run somebody against the popular incumbent Congressman and former Sheriff Dave Reichert, that they set Burner up to run (to borrow a phrase) "apparently without any vetting process whatsoever" --
First, Burner is inflating her resume. Burner's campaign and supporters in the media call her a "former Microsoft executive". This is an enormous exaggeration. She was not any kind of "executive", a term customarily applied only to the most senior company officials (e.g. the Vice Presidents and group Presidents listed on Microsoft's Executive Bios page). Burner was a "Program Manager" and possibly even a "Group Program Manager". Several sources at Microsoft insist that people with Program Manager and Group Program Manager titles are not high enough in the hierarchy to be considered "executives" within the company. Burner has no more bragging rights to the label "Microsoft executive" than do any of the tens of thousands of other non-executives who have worked at the company at some point in their lives.
Second, she has almost no record of political or community involvement until fairly recently. According to King County Elections, she wasn't even a regular voter until shortly before (according to one of her accounts) she decided to run for Congress. Between 1998 (when she registered to vote after moving here) and 2002, she never bothered to vote in a September primary. In 2003 she voted in the September primary but didn't bother to vote in the November general election. She voted in one only special election during 1998-2003 (the Presidential preference primary of 2000). Thus, she didn't bother to learn about, form an opinion on or vote on many contests, such as for school board, judgeships, competitive Congressional primaries, county propositions, port races, school bond and county park levy measures that she was eligible to vote on. (Since May 2002 she lived in the Snoqualmie Valley school district #410, before that in the Lake Washington school district #414). These are the races that a person who is engaged in her local community cares about and consistently votes on. But that description doesn't apply to Darcy Burner. Compare Ms. Burner's record with Congressman Reichert's -- K.C. Elections's reports only a voter's last 10 elections before 2004, and Reichert voted in 10 elections between November 2000 and November 2003 inclusive. In the same period Burner voted in only 3 elections. She has voted in every election since September 2004 (King County tells me she did vote in the February 2006 special election, even though the February 28 Secretary of State database which I have online doesn't credit everybody who voted in that election). But it's almost as if she only became engaged enough to vote regularly in late 2004 at around the same time she decided she was sufficiently involved her community to represent it in Congress.
Third, there are the funny inconsistensies in her stories about her departure from Microsoft. On her final corporate blog post of November 2004
what I realized was that I wanted to take the kind of work I was passionate about and make it what I spend all of my time working on. To that end, I applied to, was accepted to, and am currently enrolled in law school. I intend to eventually enter the political arena. (I thought that it might be useful, if I was going to make laws, to first understand how they actually work...)On her official campaign "About Darcy" page
Darcy has been active in her community and in state politics. She left Microsoft to spend the time necessary to be elected to the United States Congress in the 8th District.Not only does it fail to mention what she did to be "active in her community and in state politics", presumably because she didn't do very much, but it also fails to mention law school. Is she still enrolled? Did she drop out? Flunk out? Is she a non-finisher or did she even enroll in the first place?
The inflated resume, the lack of political engagement until she decided she was qualified to run for Congress, hiding her aborted attempt to go to law school -- All of these things in the absence of other special qualifications and experience, reinforce the impression that Darcy Burner is far from ready to represent her district in Congress.
UPDATE: These are the elections in which Darcy Burner has voted, according to documents from (and one phone call to) King County Elections
1998-NOVI note that she did not vote at all in 2001. I know that a lot of Americans become more engaged in politics and in their communities after 9/11. But Darcy Burner apparently didn't care enough in 2001 to bother to vote for, say, County Executive or on Tim Eyman's I-747 property tax reduction initiative.
1999-NOV
2000-FEB
2000-NOV
2002-NOV
2003-SEP
2004-SEP
2004-NOV
2005-SEP
2005-NOV
2006-FEB
Congressman Reichert voted in these elections:
2000-NOV(KC Elections doesn't report more than 10 elections for any voter prior to mid-2004. Updating the update, I now have documentation that Reichert voted in Feb. '06). Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 05, 2006 01:04 PM | Email This
2001-SEP
2001-NOV
2002-FEB
2002-APR
2002-SEP
2002-NOV
2003-FEB
2003-SEP
2003-NOV
2004-SEP
2004-NOV
2005-FEB
2005-MAY
2005-SEP
2005-NOV
2006-FEB
Isn't a Microsoft Executive anyone who works there?
Posted by: swatter on April 5, 2006 02:04 PMWas this related to the bureaucratic and burdensome processes discussed on the MiniMicrosoft blog?
Posted by: charlie on April 5, 2006 02:13 PMAlot of organizations inflate titles, especially banks (don't be impressed if you hear someone is a Vice President at any bank). But the Executive and Chief wording is rarely thrown around.
Posted by: Palouse on April 5, 2006 02:40 PMHysterical claims of a right-wing smear campaign begin in 3, 2, 1 ...
Posted by: jimg on April 5, 2006 02:54 PMThanks for helping to build the buzz about Darcy.
Posted by: Goldy on April 5, 2006 03:03 PMAnd in case you didn't know, Dave is going to be kicking off his campaign with a breakfast at Bellevue's Meydenbauer Center on Tuesday, April 18 beginning at 7:30 a.m.
Give his campaign office a call, 425-455-3283 because they are also looking for volunteers and more contributors.
But thank you again, for being a prime example of the hypocrisy that is the Democratic Party.
But she can raise lots of money. I guess that is qualification enough.
This will be fun. I bet she has a meltdown of some sort before the campaign is over.
Posted by: Janet S on April 5, 2006 03:26 PMToo bad he can't contribute anything of value. Perhaps he should consider renaming his site lameass.org
Apparently lying about your credentials is okay, according to your comment. I think that says everything we need to know about the current state of your party.
But to ANYONE who thinks that the lack of a voting record actually matters to Democrats - look at John Kerry's attendance record in the Senate! He missed, what - 80-90% of his votes - and they still made him their candidate.
Liberals talk the talk, Conservatives walk the walk. Goldy is living proof of that via his comment above.
Conservatives seem to measure how good a candidate is based on how 'high' they are in the business world (or how rich they are).
I would rather have someone who is intelligent and who cares about the district rather than someone who has had partisan experience and a three-figure salary.
What are your priorities anyway?
Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 03:41 PMCO of a Carrier would be equivalent in the business world to be COO of a major business unit at a Fortune 500. He managed 5-6000 people 5 billion in assets and was held responsible for everything that went on in his command.
Sounds like Darcy was about equal to a Lieutenant in with responsibility for one of the work divisions on a ship.
Posted by: JCM on April 5, 2006 03:46 PMWant to tell us what she has done in the community?
Posted by: Janet S on April 5, 2006 03:54 PM"Conservatives seem to measure how good a candidate is based on how 'high' they are in the business world (or how rich they are)."
Actually, Conservatives care about accurately representing one's accomplishments to one's potential constituents. It seems that by calling herself a 'Microsoft Executive', Ms Burner is the one who thinks that being 'high' in the business world is good for her resume, wouldn't you say?
"I would rather have someone who is intelligent and who cares about the district rather than someone who has had partisan experience and a three-figure salary."
In one corner we have Dave Reichert, former King County Sheriff and current US Representative - do you think he had a three-figure salary? Doubtful. Do you think he cares about his district? Absolutely.
In the other corner we have a former Microsoft Program Manager who calls herself a 'Microsoft Executive', who only started voting in 2003 and who has participated in only 30% of the votes in her district in the last ten years. Do you think she had a three-figure salary? Quite possibly. Do you think she cares about her district? If she rarely votes, how could you tell?
So where are your priorities? Are you going to vote for the person who served his district as Sheriff for 20 years, or the person who was a mid-level software professional and rarely bothered to vote?
Posted by: Larry on April 5, 2006 04:06 PMSo you support her based on her feelings (someone cue the syrupy Manilow please, "Feelings, nothing more than feelings...") but it doesn't trouble you that she doesn't care (there's those pesky, darn 'feelings' again) enough to actually participate on the most basic and accessible level (and especially in Corrupt King County!), oh say, like by VOTING occasionally.
Puhlease.
You libs are a hoot and a half!
Got anything to back this up, Gerald?
Tell me how rich or high in the business world Cahty McMorris is or was. Tell me the high-ranking biz positions and the loads of cash Dave Reichert has. Jack Metcalf? Doc Hastings? Linda Smith? Randy Tate?
Or, are you just using worn-out stereotypes because they fit your worldview?
Posted by: jimg on April 5, 2006 04:13 PMAs you don't like candidates with big incomes, I assume you voted Bush/Cheney. Both of their networth is small compared to both Kerry/Edwards. But I guess that just comes from the D playbook of mean nasty rich R, compared to caring, nice, one-of-the-people Ds. Never let facts get in the way, just like it appears is true for Darcy's resume.
Posted by: Fred on April 5, 2006 04:16 PMThis is the best you can do, Stefan? Well, it's lame. L-A-M-E.
Since you've made a serious attempt to be so damn technical, here's the American Heritage definition of "executive" for you:
1. A person or group having administrative or managerial authority in an organization.
Look it up on dictionary.com
As Program Manager, Burner had administrative or managerial authority in an organization. So she can in fact be called an executive. Only people who don't like Burner would want to obsess over silly technical differences like this.
As for your other criticisms, they're fairly laughable. Most U.S. citizens, Stefan, do not vote in every election. In fact, there are a lot of people who do not vote in any election! I could really care less if Ms. Burner hasn't voted in every single election. She has voted. She is an active voter.
If you have questions about her personal background why don't you just...ask.
You're not much of a blogger, Stefan, or a writer, or a researcher. Hell..you're not much of anything. Just another GOP hack. I'd hate to be on your side of the aisle right now. Bush is dragging you guys off the cliff like a heavy anvil.
Posted by: MountOlympus on April 5, 2006 04:33 PMBTW, the easiest way to see a company's exec list is to pull their SEC filings. All the company's execs are listed in the back. Odds are Darcy isn't.
Posted by: Steve_dog on April 5, 2006 04:36 PMYes, I do care about 'feelings'. I think that if a candidate doesn't care about the district it says a lot (I didn’t mean to insinuate that Reichert doesn’t care, I really have no clue what he cares about).
Yes, I do believe that Republicans value people high in business (a little too much), and of course you can name off R's that are not rich.
And as to her integrity, executive is a loose term. I googled her name and found this:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:dgggredxVgUJ:https://members.microsoft .com/partner/isv/worktog/seminars.aspx%3Fnav%3Drn+%22darcy+burner%22+executive+-campaign+-congress+-democrat+-democratic&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
(The URL wont work unless you get rid of the space between Microsoft and .com. Why is Microsoft .com "questionable content" Stefan? lol.)
It describes her has being a business manager, and places her in the same category as executives.
Furthermore, Dictionary.com describes an Executive as being: “A person or group having administrative or managerial authority in an organization.”
If you want to debate the definition of "executive" that’s fine by me, but it's really a mute point and a waste of time.
Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 04:52 PM......so you really don't want to touch it, you'll just get your hands dirty.
Posted by: ewaggin on April 5, 2006 04:59 PMYou miss the point entirely. We don't have to debate the meaning of 'executive'. We can look at Microsoft's catalogue of job descriptions, and online at Microsoft. She didn't call herself an 'executive'. She called herself a 'Microsoft Executive'. Would you like to debate the meaning of 'Microsoft Executive'? And where would you look for that definition?
You didn't answer my previous question to you:
"Are you going to vote for the person who served his district as Sheriff for 20 years {and is currently the Representative in good standing}, or the person who was a mid-level software professional and rarely bothered to vote?"
Katomar: I suppose so. It is a very wide open term.
And I'm going to vote for Peter Goldmark, but that's beside the point entirely.
Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 05:09 PMLarge corporations have clear definitions about job descriptions. Typically there are managers, executives, officers and directors. An executive will head an organization of a certain size, and usually report to someone rather high in the food chain. At one local aerospace firm there are clear guidelines about which positions are management and which management positions are classified as an executive position. Encarta or American Heritage, or even the OED definitions don't have a bit of relevance. Unless Microsoft has adopted the AH dictionary as official company policy then it's the company that decides who's an executive.
Ms. Burner's claim to be an executive seems to be puffery. Whether or not it's material is up to the voters.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 5, 2006 05:13 PMCan you post some supporting evidence that she didn't vote?
Where are you getting this information? I trust you and all, but it's silly to believe its true simply because you said so.
Where did you find her statement about voting?
Thanks
Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 05:14 PMPosted by Gerald at April 5, 2006 05:09 PM
Just out of curiosity, how many times?
Posted by: dave on April 5, 2006 05:20 PMJust like 99.9% of Democrats,
and like 99.9% of Republicans.
Then again, perhaps Darcy Burner represents a new demographic the party is trying to reach. Unaccomplished, half-a$$ed boomers!
Posted by: Deadwood on April 5, 2006 05:29 PMDoesn't sound like an executive to me. Sounds like a Program Manager which is one of the tripods of the Microsoft software development model: Program Manager, Developer, and Tester.
And in marketing, too.
This is not an executive position. This is an entry level position.
The levels are Program Manager, Lead Program Manager, Group Program Manager, Group Manager/Product Manager/Product Unit Manager
Posted by: steve miller on April 5, 2006 05:41 PMThe qualifications for a Democrat are simply that they tow the progressive party line here in WA. Burner was more than willing to do that in exchange for legitimacy from news media and liberal blogs. In fact, the Dems prefer someone with less qulification so they can start early and fully indoctrinate them with the ideology of low expectations.
What's really amazing is the hypocrisy from Goldstein. All will remember, this is the guy who thoroughly "vetted" the resume of Michael Brown and broke the story of his lack of qualifications to be director of FEMA. So now that the shoe is on the other foot, all he can do is make a snide reference to David Irons.
What Stefan has done here is research Darcy Burner on the same level that Goldstein does for Republicans on a regular basis. All's fair, unless you are on the left. Then it's not OK.
Here's a helpful translator's dictionary to better understand Goldstein and co.
Left / Right
----/-----
spying/ wiretapping
research/ eavesdropping
racism/ security
diversity/ racism
vet/ mudsling
lie/ research
neocon/ rational
Progressive/ Marxist
dictator/ president
liberator/ dictator
insurgent/ terrorist
tunnel/ boondoggle
transit/ driving
library/ sex-shop
cool/ irresponsible
rave/ drugs
sex/ orgy
environment/ property
psychotic/ marksman
misunderstood/ psychotic
urgent/ optional
unsympathetic/ urgent
candidate/ parrot
wingnut/ rational
blogger/ propagandist
journalist/ shill
gulag/ prison
evil/ corporation
stealing/ earning
guilty/ indicted
whistleblower/ traitor
But Gerald, I named past and current GOP members of Congress from Washington state, which last time I checked was the subject of this thread. I specifically listed them in direct contradiction to your stereotyping of elected Republicans being rich and/or business executives.
But, please don't let actual examples conflict with your vast amount of real-world political experience.
Posted by: jimg on April 5, 2006 06:05 PMinvestment/spending
torture/loud music
fairness/lawlessness
BTW McMorris does have lots of money.
http://hera.pdc.wa.gov/wx/viewdoc_new.asp?strAppName=PDC&nDocId=806833&nQRSeq=1&nCurrentIndex=1&nPageNum=3&nZoomPercent=100&UseIrc=no (Page 3)
and Reichert
http://hera.pdc.wa.gov/wx/viewdoc_new.asp?strAppName=PDC&nDocId=806824&nQRSeq=1&nCurrentIndex=1&nPageNum=3&nZoomPercent=100&UseIrc=no
Or is 300k+ in assets not rich?
Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 06:28 PMIf you fluffed your resume like that with me, I wouldn't hire you. I suppose you'd call yourself a 'Blog Comment Executive'. But others would be free to disagree.
I suspect there will be many in her district who choose not to hire her for the same reason.
Posted by: Larry on April 5, 2006 06:29 PM$300 thousand is rich? How much is John Kerry worth? (Answer: $300 million). If you want to talk about who is rich, please answer me: Who are the richest members of Congress?
Hint: They're Democrats! Nancy Pelosi is has more assets than George W. Bush for goodness sake.
Why wouldn't you judge Reichert on his merits? As Sheriff, much of the money that the Green River Killer case cost he recouped in the end. By threatening Gary Ridgeway with the death penalty he got Ridgeway to cop to 48 murders (far more than he'd ever be convicted of at trial), saved the families from the horror of the trial, and saved the state millions of dollars that the court case would have cost.
But it's your contention that we like him because he's rich? If we liked rich people, why would the 'Microsoft Executive' be more like 'our' people?
WaTF?
Posted by: Larry on April 5, 2006 06:43 PMI said: "I would rather have someone who is intelligent and who cares about the district rather than someone who has had partisan experience and a three-figure salary. " and "Well, yes, I do dislike rich candidates. I dislike them because they have more political opportunity than I do, and I'm jealous."
Why do you think I won’t judge him on his merits? Of course I do.
I dislike rich Democrats too, so your Kerry thing doesn't fly. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richest_politicians.
300k in stocks does seem like a lot to me, but I don't have much perspective I guess.
Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 07:01 PMWingnuts on the left - Don't try and tie the huge deficit or the Iraq war to him. He did not even vote on it ! When the left puts out its hit pieces on him, turn on your bull***t detectors and realize that you will see that they tell half truths and get creative so that they register "lies" on the BS detectors.
Posted by: KS on April 5, 2006 07:21 PMWingnuts on the left - Don't try and tie the huge deficit or the Iraq war to him. He did not even vote on it ! When the left puts out its hit pieces on him, turn on your bull***t detectors and realize that you will see that they tell half truths and get creative so that they register "lies" on the BS detectors.
Posted by: KS on April 5, 2006 07:21 PMGiven that Reichart (and I'm assuming that's who you are talking about, becuase I couldn't find that figure with the links you provided) is in his 50's... that doesn't sound like he's rich, that sounds like a retirement fund.
Posted by: Mike H on April 5, 2006 07:43 PMFor that matter, what PARTY ballot did Dave Reichert vote in that primary (if he voted)?
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 5, 2006 08:17 PM"....but I don't have much perspective I guess.."
Thank you gerald, I knew you had it in you!
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 5, 2006 08:27 PMThis is not hate.
And I'm not trying to say Reichert is a rich candidate (read the posts people!). Someone suggested he was not a rich candidate, and I posted his PDC site showing the money he had prior to his election.
And Kerry was no Billionare. Nice try though.
This insult hurts the most: "Oh ya, well your party has richer candidates!" ouch. burn. sad.
Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 09:01 PMYou wrote the following in a post above a reference to "rich" politicians and then included this statement "BTW McMorris does have lots of money" and you included a link to a PDC record of her financial interest statement.
A quick review of that statement clearly shows she is anything but rich. Her statement shows outside investments, beyond the state's retirement system, are negligible in the extreme. Clearly you have no concept of either finances or how to read financial reports.
I generally disfavor making strong statements on web blogs but your willingness to make wildly inaccurate and purposefully misleading statements about someone's personal finances on a website is distasteful.
You owe everyone you sought to mislead an apology.
Posted by: barchester on April 5, 2006 09:15 PMSo he spent his time skiing. So much for a bad back.
This is the same, pick one, serial liar, or lawbreaker, who claims that parental notification laws are harmful because he once treated a 12 year old who was pregnant and afraid of her parents.
Either he's lying, or she was the victim of child abuse, and the good doctor didn't report the crime to the police. But of course we can understand, it's how he _feels_ about the subject, so the truth is subjective.
Actually, come to think of it, both traits - lying and lawbreaking - qualify one for leadership in the dumbocrap party. As does killing a woman, e.g., Kenneydrunk.
Maybe, maybe not... but while he may only have a couple hundred million in the bank instead of a few billion, his wife is a billionaire, and since what's his is hers and what's hers is his, that makes him a billionaire by default.
I can just see her screaming that to the security officer as the tow truck drives away with her car because she parked in an executive spot.
While dictionary.com may be ambiguous about the difference between a manager and an executive, the government is not. Take for example L-1 Visa Status.
What is the difference between an “executive” and a “manager”?
An “executive” is one who directs the management of the company. Usually these are executive positions such as presidents, vice-presidents and controllers. An executive is expected to have a supervisory role in the company and would not include people who are primarily performing the lower tier and menial tasks such as production or providing service to customers. A “manager” directs the organization, a department, or a function of the organization. Like executives, a qualifying manager will not be overseeing the primary performance of menial tasks.
http://www4.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/immigration/pdfs/web553.pdf
As was your English classes during school, apparently.
Posted by: Michael on April 5, 2006 09:43 PMOh, and get a life.
Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 09:45 PMCongressperson is not an executive position, so politics is more important than experience. Nonetheless, the combination of her limited experience and questionable integrity is troubling.
Posted by: Bruce on April 5, 2006 09:46 PMWhy the ___ the times thinks we are stupid....calling her an exec.
Go ask ANYBODY at microsoft what is the most common job title...
Its Program manager; the boss of 4 or 5 of them is a group program manager. She might have managed these guys and their underlings...so like 30 people MAX
Posted by: righton on April 5, 2006 09:46 PMYou cavalierly asserted that Reichert and McMorris were both rich and then later qualified that statement with regard to Reichert by providing that Reichert's modest assets seemed "rich" to you. You haven't explained, or qualified, in any post how you concluded that McMorris' assets, only a fraction of Reichert's, somehow constitute rich in your mind. Maybe, having already worked yourself around the axel with Reichert you don't want to call attention to this additional error? Or do you just like the idea of circulating fables that might rationalize pre-existing biases? Why not be a man and admit the obvious, you misread the reports?
Posted by: barchester on April 5, 2006 10:16 PMIt's a debate about who does Microsoft classify as an executive. If MS wants to classify interns as executives that's their right, then every intern has the right to claim to be a Microsoft executive.
Ms. Burner seems to be inflating her resume, and now the dumbocraps are in full retreat, re-defining the definition of executive.
Stefan did a great job, which most of the trolls didn't do, and that is researching which jobs at Microsoft qualify as an executive position.
Darcy Burner doesn't seem to fit the description as an executive.
But when did the truth get in the way of a liberals statement?
Answer: Never.
Trolls, I challenge you to rebute these facts.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 5, 2006 10:26 PMDarcy seems pretty much like a joke. But, at least I feel pretty confident I know what her voting record will be - the opposite of what I would want to see. But, like Bush said in a debate, at least you know what you are getting if you vote for him.
As illogical as it sounds, I think I might make a contribution to her campaign. I don't like Reichert, while with Darcy we get the added benefit of yet another kook Democrat to make fun of. They are both bad choices from my perspective, so why not have some fun with it?
Posted by: BananaLand on April 5, 2006 10:43 PMObi-Wan,
My guess is that Microsoft would happily call her an executive now, despite what they called her while she was employed. Is that all that matters?
If Microsoft told her she could call herself an executive would she then be able to make the claim? All this technicality is getting really old.
Banana,
That's one of the weirdest comments I've seen on SP. Why don't you just write in Michael Jackson and save your money?
Excellent point: I asked Microsoft for an official comment (by way of the P.R. firm they list as their media contact).
Microsoft declined to comment. Which doesn't exactly mean that they are happy to call her an executive.
The email exchange is posted here.
Interesting point. If MS would call her an executive now, would that make a diffence?
I don't think so. When one is employed by a company ones status determines salary, benefits, stock options, etc. An executive at MS would receive more than a non-exec.
Her job classification at MS when she was employed there is what matters, no what MS may call her after she leaves.
That's why she's running on her job description as a MS employee, not on her job description as an ex-employee.
I have no doubt that she's a nice person, well intentioned. But it speaks volumes about the dumocraps that they would support her, a person with a thin resume and no political experience, someone who didn't even bother to vote.
The dumbocraps beat the drum that the 8th district seat is in play. Look at their choice for a challenger. A lightweight,resume inflating no-name. She may be a nice lady, but she's a sacrifical lamb.
If the dumbocraps thought they had a chance they would pick a candidate with some gravitas. The election will be close, 56% to 44%
If they thought they could win the dumbocraps would find a more qualified candidate.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 5, 2006 11:24 PMStefan seens REALLY interested in Darcy Burner's voting record, in a sort of, shall, we say..
CREEPY, STALKERISH way?
(To put things in context, how would you like Stefan tracking your girlfriend's voting records?)
Golly, just a thought.
Is it just me that thinks his proclivities are JUST A TAD, HM, SHALL WE SAY, invasive and WEIRD?
Posted by: bartelby on April 6, 2006 12:16 AMhttps://www.microsoft.co.ke/presspass/exec/default.mspx?group=A-D
Posted by: Michael on April 6, 2006 12:18 AMBottom Line, Dave Reichert is a COMPLETE GOP WHORE.
What part of of TOM DeLAY'S LAPDOG do you fail to understand?
Dave has DeLay's dick so deep in his mouth that he has a hard time telling Sue Rahr how to cover her ass re all the police misconduct garbage he left in his wake as KC Sheriff.
I can't tell you the depths of my sorrow about your situation...
Bottom line is that this is going to hurt Burner by the Gold(stein) standard of holding people accountable to their resumes. She was not an executive! Period! And if Microsoft declares her one now, that will only hurt her more as it will appear that they are trying to help her out by moving the goal posts. She's a liar. And if she's not a liar, then she's very creative with the truth.
If I were Reichert I'd already be drafting the ads. What we have here is an inexperienced opportunist that has just enough youthful appearance and vigor to get the Progressive mindshare behind her. They think she's electable and they are going to throw a lot of money at her, but in the end, there are going to be more and more inconsistencies coming out.
Lying about your previous position is no way to start out a campaign.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 6, 2006 01:23 AMDarcy Burner’s WebLog
Wandering aloud
The astute among you may have noticed that I haven’t posted in awhile. The short explanation is that I left Microsoft. The slightly longer explanation is this: while I was doing my day job at Microsoft, I was also spending my so-called free time as the chair of Microsoft’s women’s organization ("Hoppers", named for Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, who pioneered much of modern software). What I discovered was that while I liked my day job pretty well, I loved working on bigger sociopolitical issues. Microsoft, like all human institutions, has significant imperfections in how well it lives up to its values. I spent a lot of time looking at the difference between Microsoft’s ideal of itself as a true meritocracy for employees and the reality where talented, dedicated, ambitious women have more difficulty advancing than comparable men. This is not (in my experience) generally due to intentional discrimination; it is the result of much more subtle factors than that.
At any rate, what I realized was that I wanted to take the kind of work I was passionate about and make it what I spend all of my time working on. To that end, I applied to, was accepted to, and am currently enrolled in law school. I intend to eventually enter the political arena. (I thought that it might be useful, if I was going to make laws, to first understand how they actually work…)
posted Sunday, November 28, 2004 1:29 AM by DarcyBurner | 0 Comments
http://blogs.msdn.com/darcyburner/default.aspx
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 6, 2006 02:02 AMhttp://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:8gExK5KcURUJ:students.washington.edu/lawpals/contact.shtml+%22darcy+burner%22+%22law+school%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&ie=UTF-8
Now compare it with the current webpage for PALS contact information:
http://students.washington.edu/lawpals/contact.shtml
PALS has “sanitized” its webpage so that folks won’t be able to tell that Darcy Burner attended the University of Washington law school and dropped out!
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 6, 2006 02:03 AMhttp://spaces.msn.com/greasergrrl/blog/cns!989D470165883D80!1098.entry
However, Burner’s campaign biography on her candidate website says absolutely nothing about law school, and instead claims that Burner left Microsoft in order to run for Congress:
“After Darcy got her degree, she and Mike moved to California to work in the high tech sector. She focused on changing companies’ products and services to better respond to the customers’ real problems.
In the summer of 1998, Mike was offered a job at Microsoft. Darcy and he moved to Washington.
Darcy went to work for Microsoft in 2000 and became the lead manager for an initiative to change the way software was built. It was very successful and enhanced Darcy’s reputation as a successful executive.
Eager to start a family, Darcy became pregnant and took maternity leave from Microsoft. Henry Burner was born in January of 2003.
Darcy has been active in her community and in state politics. She left Microsoft to spend the time necessary to be elected to the United States Congress in the 8th District.”
http://www.darcyburner.com/aboutdarcy.php
WHY IS DARCY BURNER SO ASHAMED OF THE ONE YEAR SHE SPENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON LAW SCHOOL IN 2004-05? WHAT IS SHE HIDING HERE?
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 6, 2006 02:04 AMLook at Page 7 of this PDF, which is the May 2, 2005 edition of The Crier, a weekly newsletter put out by the University of Washington Law School:
http://www.law.washington.edu/Students/StudentNews/04-05/27MAY2.pdf
Darcy Burner was elected to serve on the Executive Board of the Student Bar Association, which is the student government at the law school, for the coming 2005-06 academic year. In fact, Burner was elected to be the law student representative to the Washington State Bar Association.
However, Burner dropped out of law school after the spring quarter of 2005 and decided to run for U.S. House instead (and not mention the fact that she ever attended law school). As a result, Burner never served a day in the position that she had been elected to, and the SBA had to appoint another law student to fill the vacant position:
http://www.students.washington.edu/uwsba/sba/officers.shtml
If we elect Darcy Burner to Congress, will she actually serve?
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 6, 2006 02:05 AMThank you gerald. Within or without of your notion of context, it fits you to a "T"
You argue banalities, shadings, and parsings, and act as if any of it mattered. In the end, even if you manage to make a point, it is worthless.
Sort of like your kamrade~in~arms bartleboob.
Thank you for being the voice of liberalism!
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 6, 2006 04:12 AMI'm not sure this is goiong to get traction, since it doesn't appear she has actually lied about anything. What else is there to go after her with?
Posted by: Lex on April 6, 2006 08:20 AMI'm not sure this is goiong to get traction, since it doesn't appear she has actually lied about anything. What else is there to go after her with?
Posted by: Lex on April 6, 2006 08:29 AMI'm not sure this is goiong to get traction, since it doesn't appear she has actually lied about anything.
It doesn't matter what is higher than what. Microsoft is required to declare the names of their executives to the SEC. Since Microsoft never listed her name, either Microsoft is guilty of securities fraud, or she lied and was never an executive.
I wonder if he thinks that about Bush's National Guard 'story' that got everyone looking at it when he ran for gov, then re-hashed in 2000, and then re-hashed again in 2004. But I guess that is alright, especially as he didn't say much about his service, he let his released record speak for itself.
Posted by: Fred on April 6, 2006 02:33 PMI would think it would be pretty easy to find out what group she managed if she was a GPM.
Maybe Darcy can point out some current "Executives" at MS who can vouch for her work? I mean, it's not like she didn't have friends who will speak up for her, right?
Posted by: steve miller on April 6, 2006 06:54 PMIf she was an effective PM, she'd have made friends and contacts who'd be able to vouch for her or her work.
Here are some questions:
If she was a PM in the ISV group, does that group still exist?
What has it shipped lately?
What were its products and releases?
How often did it ship on time?
What were her review scores?
If she wants to go into public life, she'd better have her facts straight. She may think she can skate into Congress with a padded resume, but she's going to go after a federal elective position, and she's going to have to answer to federal requirements.
Posted by: steve miller on April 6, 2006 06:58 PMBurner's failure to participate in all available elections is more telling than her resume fib. Thanks for publishing the info.
Posted by: Elliott Johnson on April 7, 2006 03:11 PMAre you going to let Soup tell the truth about you that way?
Come on boys . . . make your case -snerk- show us your stuff.
Maybe they got a motel room together.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 8, 2006 04:55 PMI didn't know bartleboob's first name was Dave.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 9, 2006 05:40 PMExecutives? Ha. The term "Manager" in that title is misleading. Very few, if any, PMs that I've seen over the years have people that they supervise. For that task, Msft has Lead Developers and Dev Managers, etc...
Posted by: CSantaw on April 11, 2006 02:47 PM