Darcy Burner's campaign is now caught in a pretty serious lie. Her campaign's About Darcy page claims:
She left Microsoft to spend the time necessary to be elected to the United States Congress in the 8th District.Actually, no. As I mentioned yesterday, her Microsoft blog farewell post of November 2004 mentioned that she was attending law school. But now I know that she was attending law school with serious intentions and took on school-related commitments for the current school year as recently as Summer 2005, commitments that she shortly thereafter backed out of.
Burner enrolled in the University of Washington Law School in 2004-2005 and was on the board of Parents Attending Law School (hat tip: Richard Pope!) In May 2005 she was elected Student Bar Association representative to the Washington State Bar Association. In Summer 2005 she was selected as Sen. Cantwell's extern for 2005-2006.
A few weeks later, by August 15, 2005, she was running for Congress!
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 06, 2006 01:59 AM | Email Thisah..if only the paid press were doing their job in the manner Shark, Pope and others are.
I wonder what she did w/ Hoppers, sound like a fib there too.
Posted by: righton on April 6, 2006 05:01 AM"Darcy Burner, 8th CD Candidate
July 22, 2005
A funny side-effect of being the Chairman of the Fifth District Democrats is the conversations I have in the course of a normal day. A series of candidates have been phoning me lately; I wonder if my co-workers notice the names of some of the folks I'll talk to and the titles I use while on the phone. Darcy Burner, a Democrat running for the 8th Congressional District, called me this afternoon to chat for a while. Randy Gordon (the other Democratic candidate) has yet to phone me - though it's probably a matter of time.
Darcy seems to have some geek credibility as a former Microserf but has limited Legislative experience. This isn't necessarily a handicap in a District which elected a former Sheriff with no Legislative experience last year. She's young, she's ambitious, and she's focussed on what you'd expect a candidate to focus on in the early days of a campaign: fundraising.
Fundraising does have a lot to do with elections, but just having finished read Steven D. Levitt's book, "Freakonomics", it looks like it also matters that voters actually like the candidate. More than your average person would think, actually - Mr. Levitt's analysis is along the lines that an unpopular candidate could spend double their money and only move a single percentage point, while a popular candidate could have their money spent and (once again) only move a single point down. Mr. Levitt didn't mention how that money was spent in a campaign.
The type of fundraising Darcy and I spoke about today was the type that supports a campaign in the early days. Darcy showed her former geek credibility when we discussed the problems around voter identification data in Washington State. My recent trip to Georgia showed me that this is a systemic issue nationwide, which is probably cold comfort to any candidate who's looking to build relationships with voters and is faced with our scattered data systems. It looks like Darcy will be running with a variety pack of data sources - stuff from the coordinated campaign, data from Labels & Lists, and some other proprietary data. She's not really doorbelling yet, though she does spend a lot of time on the phone working with the data.
I wished her luck and expect she'll show up, along with a host of other candidates, at the Fifth DIstrict Democrats picnic this coming Sunday."
Posted by: rbb on April 6, 2006 05:04 AM"I quit to run for congress" means she can't do anything else BUT run for congress? Maybe she had it in the back of her mind maybe?
Stefan, this stuff is so ridiculous I doubt any newspaper would print this story.
She's not losing flak. You are.
Posted by: Gerald on April 6, 2006 07:23 AMBut this meaningless stuff, way below your capability. To most people, being a "manager" and an "executive" is basically interchangeable. And so she changed her mind about law school? Who cares? I guess maybe if there is anything unethical here you are going to have spell it out for simpletons like me.
And btw, I personally don't give a hoot about Burner. I have no doubt that she is basically a dull clone -- you can find them all over Seattle. Just go-along get-along Democrat zombies who make deals with go-along get-along Republican zombies. So your criticisms won't cut any ice with most people because that's what we expect.
But I have to say that I am amazed at the amount of money she has raised and so quickly. And I guess that's why you are worried? (You wouldn't post unless youy were.)
Posted by: Raw Data on April 6, 2006 08:05 AMAnd actually, Gerald, lying on a resume for office does have meaning. If you lie on something as simple as where you worked and what you did, how can we trust you to tell the truth when you are in office?
But, alas, that is the idealistic approach, isn't it? Take Wiggles, for example. Look at all the corrupt Democrats starting with the two Clintons. Then you have our own McDermott. Get my point?
They all lie, so what's the fuss?
Actually, I care. I think honesty is the most important thing. I will vote for a Democrat if I ever caught a Republican lying. And that has never happened.
Posted by: swatter on April 6, 2006 08:18 AMWhy not just lay it all out there in its unglossed truth? What is to be gained by playing these little games?
My conclusion is that she has gotten poor advice, and is less than sure of her qualifications to run for a national office.
Posted by: Janet S on April 6, 2006 08:30 AMIf that's true SW, why aren't you out posting about getting rid of Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and the rest of that crowd who have been lying on a gallactic scale, spending hundreds of billions of our childrens money, and pursuing policies that have directly resulted in the death of scores of thousands of people?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 6, 2006 09:01 AMI vote based on what I believe a candidates voting record will be (and sometimes how much power they may bring to Washington).
I see Darcy as someone who will vote moderate left, and I like that.
What other point is there to electing people? I know we would all like integrety in our system but frankly I don't expect it at the national level.
Posted by: Gerald on April 6, 2006 09:13 AMAm I speaking for Darcy? no, just pointing out the usual hypocrisy of this crowd. Do I know what the topic of the thread is? yep, it's self evident. Do I live in the 8th? nope, the 1st.
Anything else you need to know?
Is that Ko's Koolaid pretty tastey?
How about these quotes by the President.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Apparently all lies by the President. President Clinton.
Posted by: swassociates on April 6, 2006 09:18 AMYes, witless...were you dropped on your head as a child, or were you born that stupid?
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 6, 2006 09:25 AMWhy are you here? You just said that you'd vote for Darcy because you think she'll vote moderate left. Nothing about her fluffing her resume bothers you. Apparently no further information about her nor Reichert will change your decision. So why do you engage in the discussion?
However, there are many in the 8th district who won't hire someone who fluffs their resume in such a way. Don't you think these people deserve to know EVERYTHING that we can find out about her? Duh. Why do you want to prevent a FULL vetting of Darcy's record for her constituents?
Unkl Witz,
Feel free to continue your Global Jihad against President Bush into 2008. I don't know how your party is going to get someone elected in 2008 when your main campaign slogan will be 'George W Bush sucks!', while George W Bush won't even be running! Sometime in early 2008 your party will swith to 'We hate (fill in the blank)!' and even more moderates will gravitate to being Republicans as they realize the left is full of nothing but racists (McKinney) and hate-mongers (Dean). Thanks for that, by the way, you certainly help our cause. You're like that old saying - you've got a hammer ('I hate Bush') and everything looks like a nail ('Darcy lied on her resume? That means George Bush sucks!')
Let's face it, the Democrats and Liberals have no problem with lying. They'll accept little lies, defend bigger lies, and then try to put the largest ones in context - but only for fellow Democrats.
Posted by: Larry on April 6, 2006 09:27 AMShe can't figure out that a Program Manager at MSFT != "Microsoft Executive"?
And this dim bulb is the best hope for the 8th District?
Posted by: steve miller on April 6, 2006 09:30 AMIs Darcy Burner friends with James Frey?
Please post what Darcy's positions are, why you'll be voting for her based on said positions. Please also post specific votes Reichert has taken that you disagree with.
BTW - you're not allowed to flame Reichert. Post why she's a good fit for Congress.
Posted by: Steve_dog on April 6, 2006 10:23 AMOf course my standards are low. I only get 2 choices, and voting record is by far the most important thing to vote on.
If two candidates were likely to vote very similar to each other I would probably base my vote on their personal character, but that's not usually the case.
Posted by: Gerald on April 6, 2006 10:53 AMPlease post why a middle of the road voter should vote for Darcy. Do this without the usual dem talking points or flames. Post a convincing case as to why she'd do a good job.
Posted by: Steve_dog on April 6, 2006 10:54 AMUnkl Wiz, yes, republicans are going to jail. You know why? Because republicans don't tolerate corruption, period. Whether it's a republican, a democrat, or Enron, a member of the administration or DHS, or a black congresswoman, anyone, we prosecute criminals and send them to jail. If Tom DeLay turns out to be guilty of the crimes he committed, you're going to see a whole lotta republicans shaking their fist at him and demanding he be put in shackles and forgotten. No wrist-slapping in our party. You do the deed you pay the price!
(Sidenote: Innocent until proven guilty, you have a right to defend yourself, appeal to emotions, whatever, but in the end, if a jury says you dunnit, you're gonna pay.)
It makes me proud to be a republican to see these people brought to justice. Watching that one republican from California cry after he got caught and exposed made me feel good inside. Knowing that Newt Gingrich will never be a national candidate again because he cheated on his wife tells me that there is justice in this world. I hope ever dirty politician in the world ends up like them, humiliated to the point of tears or banned from politicking for life.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 6, 2006 11:00 AM"I only get 2 choices, and voting record is by far the most important thing to vote on."
Okay, fair enough. I second steve_dog's challenge:
1. Please explain what you dislike about Reichert's voting record;
2. Please explain what you admire about Darcy's voting record.
While you're at it, could you tell us WHERE you found out about Darcy's voting record? Because as far as I can tell, she has no voting record in any governmental nor legislative body - and she rarely bothered to vote in elections!
How can you favor NO voting record over a known voting record? You're favoring what you HOPE Darcy's voting record WILL BE, even though she's given little or no indication as to how she will vote.
Your logic falls apart like a house of cards.
Posted by: Larry on April 6, 2006 11:10 AMWhen I greatly dislike a voting record. Duh.
Darcy has mentioned her differences here http://www.darcyburner.com/differences.php?page_id=27
Should I assume that she's a closet conservative?
Posted by: Gerald on April 6, 2006 11:21 AMI don't like Darcy Burner's exaggerations and lack of experience. If given a choice (and if I lived in her district), I would probably choose another Democrat over her in the primary. But a representative's main job is to represent my positions, and she represents them much better than Reichert. I suspect most voters will feel that way; absent outright lies, beating up on a young mom's lack of experience may actually backfire politically.
Posted by: Bruce on April 6, 2006 11:26 AMI disagree.
As illustrated by gerald, leftists have devolved so far that they would willingly vote for a three day old ham sammich before they would actually use their brain.
Thanks gerald, you crack me up!
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 6, 2006 11:26 AMGerald and Bruce, I can follow the logic that you might choose her over somebody whose voting record you don't like, or that you think would be closer to your positions when voting, but how do you KNOW? If the only information you have on her is has untruthes in it (poor judgement or bad advice at best, outright lying at worst), then how do you know she'll fit any of your criteria for choosing better than the existing official?
That's my issue with the incorrect information (see, I'm not even going to peg her as a 'liar', innocent until proven guilty), and I would and do apply the same standard to anybody with an 'R' also.
Posted by: disgruntled IT guy on April 6, 2006 11:34 AMTell me again who is lying, GWB or the perpetuators of the National Guard non-story?
Posted by: Fred on April 6, 2006 11:37 AMAs is the hapless and dumbest senator in US history, Patty Murray, who'd break her nose if Teddy the swimmer ever stopped suddenly and our own Ms-stay-under-the-radar-so-folks-don't-know-you-haven't-a-clue Cantwell: 2 more vacuous, non-entities taking up chair space on our dime.
Posted by: Cheryl on April 6, 2006 11:40 AMFirst off, maybe it's just because bartleby and Unkl Witz have been posting that you seem reasonable and intelligent in comparison, but you seem like you're making a reasonably honest effort, which is appreciated. Not perfect, but reasonable. Thank you.
But let me bounce an idea off of you. You wrote: "I know we would all like integrety in our system but frankly I don't expect it at the national level." We have different approaches on this, and I wish we didn't.
The last time I specifically voted D because the R had ethics problems was when KC Assessor ran for the first time against then-incumbent Norward Brooks. My vote would have been a slam-dunk for Norward, except that he sent out a friendly little reminder to all of the taxpayers -- on the taxpayer dime -- that the Assessor's office was there to serve them (and, oh, by the way, he was the Assessor). I dislike these pointless reminders from government that government exists. I despise government promoting itself with my money. And three weeks before the election -- as was the case -- I call it de facto campaigning with taxpayer money, and flatly unethical. I didn't think I'd like Scott Noble, and I haven't, but at least the scum in office doesn't stain the reputation of my party.
Sam Reed and Norm Maleng, for their willful refusal to do their jobs, will never get my vote again, either. Hopefully, we can replace them with good, honest Republicans, but if not, at least they will no longer be a stain on our reputation.
I don't take it much farther than that; you can't go to war with everyone in your party and actually expect to win. But if you give blanket approval to everyone with the right letter after their name, and never pop any zits, you wind up with serious dirtbags in office, and it hurts everyone.
Just something to think about.
Posted by: TB on April 6, 2006 11:49 AMFair enough. Step up to the plate and tell us what those positions of hers that you admire are. It shouldn't be that hard.
Posted by: Steve_dog on April 6, 2006 01:15 PMDave Reichert will probably win, just because people know that Burner is nothing more than a flaming liar.
Posted by: Sailor Republica on April 6, 2006 08:13 PMman, what a empty suit she appears to be.
No doubt smart, but shoot, go sit in a council for a couple years before inflating your resume and running for congress
farcifal
Posted by: righton on April 6, 2006 09:56 PM