Courtesy of Richard Pope, the police report on the 4-car chain collision that Darcy Burner caused on June 15, 2005, the day she filed as a Congressional candidate.
The officer who filed the report concluded:
Based on my investigation of the collision, [Burner's vehicle] started the chain reaction by failing to control speed such as to avoid a collision.Among the passengers of the other cars were four children ages 5, 6, 3 1/2 and 22 months. The 3 1/2 year old sustained a neck injury. I hope he's okay.
People have accidents. But "failure to control speed" indicates that this wasn't an accident as much as it was the consequence of carelessness. The fact that she was driving too quickly on the day she filed for her Congressional campaign neatly underscores the impression that she also moved into the big league of Congressional politics too quickly.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 17, 2006 07:06 PM | Email ThisBut for whoever the fool who wrote this please note:
Main Entry: ac•ci•dent
Pronunciation: \'ak-s&-d&nt, -\"dent; \'aks-d&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin accident-, accidens nonessential quality, chance, from present participle of accidere to happen, from ad- + cadere to fall -- more at CHANCE
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought
3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/accident
So, is this post, which is definitely an accident, by carelessness or ignorance?
And when will we see a retraction?
Posted by: JDB on April 17, 2006 08:15 PMEtymology: Democrat, from the Dave Ross School of Socialism.
1 a: An unknown candidate, without any experience in public service. See: Nothing to offer.
2 a: More money than common sense. But willing to go to Law School to learn how a bill becomes a law. See: 8th Grade Civics Curriculum at Tolt Middle School in Carnation. You know Darcy that big brick building near where you live.
3 a: Just another Democratic hack carpetbagger with poor driving habits and memory loss on recent job titles.
Posted by: Just wondering on April 17, 2006 08:34 PMNo matter.
He/she/it squawks a bit but, beyond a momentary notice, no one gives a shiite what it says.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 17, 2006 08:36 PMGiffy: Nice, try, but Darcy blew it during a campaign for office, not in her extreme youth or college days. And slick Willie didn't inhale...
Posted by: katomar on April 17, 2006 09:06 PMWhat's yer point?
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 17, 2006 09:07 PMHaving not got one of these myself the collision report makes for fascinating reading, but I honestly can't see how it has any relevance on who people should vote for.
Posted by: Sid on April 17, 2006 09:07 PMWell, what about her position statement.....from what little bit that she's posted (and not retracted) she's a "rubber-stamp" democrap. Doesn't offer a single original thought (just like any other democrap).
So what about her qualifications to hold office? It is true that she says that she once worked for Microsoft, although in what capacity isn't clear. Other than that, I guess she could go for that whole "mom in tennis-shoes" thing...after all it worked for what's her name....
Man! she's got it going on!
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 17, 2006 09:22 PMWell, let’s here what one Republican has to say:
Okla. U-S Senator Tom Coburn isn\'t naming names, but he expects six congressmen and a fellow senator will go to jail.
That\'s because he thinks they\'ll be facing corruption charges following investigations involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff and others.
http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=4773216
Wow, if a Republican Senator is saying that, imagine what the truth is?
Well, let’s here what one Republican has to say:
Okla. U-S Senator Tom Coburn isn\'t naming names, but he expects six congressmen and a fellow senator will go to jail.
That\'s because he thinks they\'ll be facing corruption charges following investigations involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff and others.
http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=4773216
Wow, if a Republican Senator is saying that, imagine what the truth is?
That she smacked the car in front of her into the car in front of it into the car in front of it, though... yikes! And they all most likely had their brakes on. She wasn't even close to being able to stop. Quick summary: cell phone. "Hi Pam? It's Darcy! Guess what? I JUST FILED FOR CONGRESS!!! [thunderous series of cruching sounds] Oh, sh*t. Let me call you back."
Posted by: TB on April 17, 2006 09:56 PMThese things happen. Who here (other than myself) hasn't had a fender bender? That Sammamish traffic at rush hour must really suck for it to be backed up due to traffic on that road going westbound.
Posted by: Sid on April 17, 2006 10:09 PMMan, it is so tempting to start unloading on Reichert... but I've got better timing than you. (Not to mention, better dirt.)
Posted by: Goldy on April 17, 2006 10:15 PMRichard Pope, why not look in to the investigative officer's report a bit more. I bet she was on a cell phone. Could come in handy if she wins and trys to pass a sweeping cell phone ban law, because Democrats know what's good for us.
My guess is that she was yacking away on the cell phone, no headset of course, rushing around, trying to get the papers filed for her candidacy. Not paying too much attention to detail, cuz that's Darcy Burner, former Microsoft Executive. And then crash. Four car pile-up.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 17, 2006 11:10 PMAnd yet, nothing in the article indicates whether or not the alleged wrongdoing is GOP or Dem. In fact, he alludes to members of both parties. Yet, that didn't stop you from jumping to conclusions, did it?
Try again. Better yet, don't. Instead, maybe you can stick to the subject at hand for a change ... Just Deflect, Baby.
Posted by: jimg on April 17, 2006 11:21 PMWhile you're passing judgement on President GW for a DUI that apparently changed his life for the better...
...Let's not forget that trailer trash president that pulled his stuff out of his pants for Paula. Let's not forget he had an affair with a 20 yr old intern & a cigar. Let's not forget he raped yet another woman, and please, let's not forget he did nothing after several terrorist attacks on Americans. But his $400 haircuts looked good.
Posted by: dan_55 on April 18, 2006 05:56 AMAs for Clinton. Good God, arn't you guys tired of talking about that.
Posted by: Giffy on April 18, 2006 06:47 AMWe teach new teenage drivers that all collisions are avoidable if they drive correctly, I expect at least a minimum level of accountability from someone who would be a congressperson.
Shark, don't even think about retracting this story, anyone who demands it doesn't understand the tenents of personal responsibility and accountability. Hey that sounds like part of the definition of a liberal.
Posted by: Dan on April 18, 2006 07:38 AMWe teach new teenage drivers that all collisions are avoidable if they drive correctly, I expect at least a minimum level of accountability from someone who would be a congressperson.
Shark, don't even think about retracting this story, anyone who demands it doesn't understand the tenents of personal responsibility and accountability. Hey that sounds like part of the definition of a liberal.
Posted by: Dan on April 18, 2006 07:45 AMWe teach new teenage drivers that all collisions are avoidable if they drive correctly, I expect at least a minimum level of accountability from someone who would be a congressperson.
Shark, don't even think about retracting this story, anyone who demands it doesn't understand the tenents of personal responsibility and accountability. Hey that sounds like part of the definition of a liberal.
Posted by: Dan on April 18, 2006 07:45 AMI guess I could care less about your driving record, its all of those other records that are missing that are the biggest concern.
Posted by: Just wondering on April 18, 2006 07:46 AMAnd to that I say, yes we are tired talking about Clinton, and the sooner you Libs admit he's a cheat/liar/rapist, we can all move on.
Posted by: dan_55 on April 18, 2006 08:16 AMNo good deed goes unpunished. V-4 left room for V-3 to make a left hand turn and paid the supreme price! Nobody leave room for nobody, got it?!
Posted by: huckleberry on April 18, 2006 08:20 AMThe dem hacks that infest this board constantly make me chuckle.
One quick question: If Bush is "none to smart" how did he get re-elected twice and also manage to build a solidly republican congress and increasingly conservative judicial branch?
If he's dumb and beat the dems that badly, what does that make your team?
Posted by: Johnny on April 18, 2006 08:26 AMThe real issue here is a “green,” “socialist,” “Dave Rossian,” Demo-Rat driving a SUV!!!
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Posted by: Hinton on April 18, 2006 09:30 AM(snort) The voters are aware of "how reichert ran the sheriff's dept." He's the one they elected, Sherlock.
Posted by: jimg on April 18, 2006 09:48 AMFormer King County Sheriff Dave Reichert causes a four-car collision by speeding and not paying attention in his SUV the day he announces his candidacy for US House of Representatives.....
Not only do 'Goldy and the Trolls' pretend that they wouldn't write about it nor revel in it - then Goldy himself says 'It's not dirty enough, I've got more dirt!'
Have you ever seen such a bunch of hypocrites? 'We don't play that game, but we play it so much better than you!'
Posted by: Larry on April 18, 2006 10:19 AMConservative: If a conservative was involved in a 4 car pile-up that injured a 3 year old on the day that they decided to run for Congress, they'd probably realize they had their priorities wrong. "Ok, God I'm sorry, I realize that I've made some bad choices"
Liberal: When a liberal does the same thing, its proof to her that she needs to get more involved in politics so she can afford to have people chaffeur her around.
Posted by: thecomputerguy on April 18, 2006 11:41 AM"Shark, don't even think about retracting this story, anyone who demands it doesn't understand the tenents of personal responsibility and accountability."
You mean kinda like when PenisCheney shot old man Whittington?
Posted by: Moose on April 18, 2006 12:59 PM"Doesn't offer a single original thought..."
Kettle meet pot
Posted by: Moose on April 18, 2006 01:03 PM(how he got into my pajamas, I'll never know!)
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 18, 2006 01:37 PMBush drove drunk. Cheney accidentally shot someone.
Kennedy is still up one - his drunken accident killed someone - and he went on to serve in the Senate 35 more years and counting......
"Mary Jo Kopekne was unavailable for comment...."
Answer one: Bush didn't. His handlers got him elected. Bush can't so much as speak or write a coherent English sentence.
Answers two and three, courtesy of the great H.L. Mencken:
"No one is this world, so far as I know and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
Answer four: Look who elected him. Those red states aren't exactly known for intellectual rigor, are they?
Posted by: Critical THINKER on April 18, 2006 02:33 PMWe'll admit that as soon as you wingnuts admit that Shrub is an incompetent, election-stealing, drunk-driving, suspect-torturing war criminal and war profiteer. He's not my president, that's for damn sure!
Posted by: Critical THINKER on April 18, 2006 02:36 PMWhere is any of your critical thinking?
You are all baseless emotional nonsense.
BTW, Good choice of authority for your hollow thesis, H.L. Mencken was a devout communist socialist curmudgeon loser.
You say, "Look who elected him [Bush]."
You helped greatly by drinking from the toilet along with those many liberals who refuse to defend our nation and believe in fairy tales as good public policy. Everyone sees right through your comments and wants nothing to do with your brand of "thinking." Thank you for that.
Prejudice and empty lies are all that you have and you just proved it.
Thanks again.
Amused by pretentious liberals scrawled with a crayon:
You helped greatly by drinking from the toilet along with those many liberals who refuse to defend our nation . . .
Defend our nation against what? Saddam was never a threat to us. Neither was Vietnam. In both wars, I sympathize with the guys who went to Canada rather than become cannon fodder. They were the smart, ambitious ones who had their heads on straight.
You helped greatly by drinking from the toilet along with those many liberals who refuse to defend our nation and believe in fairy tales as good public policy.
Oh, the fairy tale of WMDs in Iraq? No, I didn't buy that one. How about trickle-down economics? Nope, not that one either. The one about CEO pay being justified? Nope, sorry.
Just Wondering was let out of the asylum long enough to hunt-and-peck:
Gee CT just wrote the introduction of Governess Gregoire for the Chinese President HU "incompetent, election-stealing . . .
We've been over this ad nauseam, but I'll say it again. The wingnuts couldn't prove their space-invader "proportional deduction" theory in a court of law. Their handpicked judge in redder-than-red Chelan County ruled that their frivolous challenge was "dismissed with prejudice."
Posted by: Critical THINKER on April 18, 2006 06:40 PMIt wasn't a matter of proving "proportional deduction" as a theory (or anything else) you nit, it was a matter of persuading the good judge of a viable method of remedying the mess that the democraps made of the election. He declined. He was wrong. Election fraud was allowed to stand. For someone who supposedly "won" you sure seem nervous about how underhandedly your side chose to make certain of that "win".
Your simple-minded "understanding" of history proves that not only do you drink from the toilet, but you like to lick the rim. Once again you missed and slapped yourself moron...
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 18, 2006 07:18 PM25 years ago, the mantra was "Reagan is an idiot. It's his handlers that are geniuses."
Now "Critical Thinker" pulls out that old chestnut once again and just changes the name. Lefties never come up with anything new.
Posted by: Johnny on April 18, 2006 08:05 PMI am always amazed how democrats think they are so much smarter than everyone else, but somehow only win elections where they can count on a sizable vote from the poor and un-educated.
Critical Thinker has got a big brain that's true. Too bad it's so full of -- well let's just say it's something those midwestern cattle ranchers clean up a lot of.
You ask "Defend our nation against what?"
YOU
It's all words now . . . soon it will be more. You won't survive unless you run and hide, and probably even then.
Either way, you have to live with your own shallow empty silliness.
Nothing more need be said.
Thanks very sincerely for the comments.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 18, 2006 09:07 PMBurner is still calling herself a “former Microsoft executive” on her campaign website.
http://www.darcyburner.com/aboutdarcy.php
However, both the Seattle Times and Seattle P-I are calling Burner a mere “manager".
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002938984_reichert19e.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/267195_reichert19.html
In sharp contrast to the two Darcy Burner/MANAGER articles appearing in our local dailies for April 19, 2006, both the Seattle Times and Seattle P-I were calling Burner a former Microsoft EXECUTIVE as recently as April 5, 2006:
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=8thdistrict05m&date=20060405&query=burner+executive
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/265576_cheney05.html?searchpagefrom=1&searchdiff=15
GOOD WORK STEFAN!
Posted by: Richard Pope on April 19, 2006 12:35 AMHe got a C Minus from the National Taxpayers Union in regards to spending.
http://www.ntu.org/misc_items/rating/VS_2005.pdf
But far be it for us to actually hold a Congressman accountable for his votes.
Posted by: Steve on April 19, 2006 09:03 AM25 years ago, the mantra was "Reagan is an idiot. It's his handlers that are geniuses."
Reagan wasn't an idiot, he was just senile. Nancy was running the country for the last few years of his presidency. But Reagan wasn't exactly a Rhodes scholar either, and neither was Bush the elder. We won't even discuss Quayle, but Bush the younger is even stupider than he was. Bush got in solely on name recognition and because the Democrats were determined to lose by running Gore. Clinton, on the other hand, was a Rhodes scholar as I recall.
Posted by: Critical THINKER on April 19, 2006 10:56 AMI like how you defend a degenerate like him - shows what orifice your head is in....
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 19, 2006 11:22 AMAlso asked them why there was nary a mention in their paper about the FEC investigating the in kind video contribution.
Posted by: Palouse on April 19, 2006 01:29 PMLittle monkey, who can only throw feces and not stand the light of open debate. How sad. Well at least you have the Pee Wee Herman imitator gig to fall back on.
Posted by: pbj on April 19, 2006 01:32 PMI hate to take to task a young person that is obviously not so much evil as ignorant, but insulting the memory of this great man says more about you and your lack of well developed mental facilities than it would ever say about Reagan.
You probably weren't alive then, but I was, and can tell you that Reagan was very sharp and in command. I was at a few of his public appearances and can tell you that he took apart better minds than yours in public debates in a manner that was both eloquent and confident.
(Not that it would be at all hard to find a better mind than yours. I'm just making a point.)
Now, why don't you go over and play at Democratic underground or Kos, junior. It's time to let the adults here talk amongst themselves.
Posted by: Johnny on April 19, 2006 01:35 PMBZZZT! Wrong! That's called a "straw man" in logic. I'm sure you don't know what that is because the nutjobs on hate radio (Michael Medved excepted) don't use big words like that. I'm actually an ex-Republican. I used to be a die-hard Rush Limbaugh-parroting bloviator just like you, but no longer. Of course, the far right is correct on a few things (e.g., illegal immigration), but this current bunch is about nothing more than giving the country to Wal-Mart and Halliburton.
You probably weren't alive then,
I was, actually.
but I was,
Good for you.
and can tell you that Reagan was very sharp and in command.
And on what do you base this?
I was at a few of his public appearances and can tell you that he took apart better minds than yours in public debates in a manner that was both eloquent and confident.
The guy was an ACTOR, fer chrissakes! Of course he was great at making speeches that other people wrote. Let me see if I understand: Your assessment of his intellectual prowess is based on how well he, an actor, read something written by somebody else to you and a few thousand of your closest friends? You're even dumber than the average wingnut on this board.
Posted by: Critical THINKER on April 20, 2006 08:18 PMYes, right, we believe you. Cough-cough. (God, could you BE more transparent?)
You know, the real value that Rush Limbaugh, Kos and the writers of Sound Politics bring to the debate is they are not afraid to tell you where they stand and thus you can at least respect them enough to be receptive to their writings. I appreciate their perspective a bit because I know where they come from even if I think they are dead wrong. I at least know where they stand and from that can make decision when they tell me their views. There is something to be learned from the Kos's and Mike Moores of the world just because you can listen to their views with a certain amount of perspective.
On the other hand, there is nothing in this world so embarassingly dishonest as someone who seeks to express a strong opinion but hide behind sheeps clothing. You are the perfect example of this phenomeno.
So, junior, please re-read my note and realize that I was refering to a DEBATE situation above - meaning that Reagan was actively matching wits with another person who wasn't an actor. In fact, I saw many such people do battle with Reagan, ranging from newsmen and politicians to statesmen from other countries.
You see, in my past, I was lucky enough to have a profession where I witnessed a great bit of history behind the scenes. Much of it was in sports and entertainment I admit, but also more than a bit in the political arena. I saw some of the greats and not so greats in my day including real men such as John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter before he fell off the leftist bandwagon, and some very astute fellows such as Henry Kissinger and a much younger Joe Lieberman. I caught speeches from John Birch when people took him seriously and Ted Kennedy before he was corrupted and sold out to any special interest group that might provide him with dollars and votes.
I know the difference between an orchestrated event ala Clintons "townhall meetings" (or Bush's for that matter) and the honest debate and content of wills between individuals. Today there is much too little real debate and much too much posturing without knowledge or wisdom to back it up.
(For a example of this "posturing" please go up the page and read your own tortured logic in print.)
Now, since you're "old enough to remember" (which I scoff at openly since you come off as such a "full of yourself" adolescent) you'll no doubt remember that Reagan actually wasn't much of an actor, but he was a good politician. His real claim to fame in Hollywood was not as an actor where his work could be described as weak at best. His mark was as President of the Screen Actors Guild.
Now, that point made, even if you think we was a great actor, you'd have to agree that it's impossible to be both a great actor AND senile as you undeniably claim in your posting above. So was he senile? Acting? Were all of his debate opponents acting? (And if so, does this mean you believe that all of American politics is just one great big conspiracy, and if you do, can you tell me where you got that lovely tin foil hat you're wearing?)
Ronald Reagan was a man who "once was" of one political party and ended up changing his affiliation due to a disgust at those that shared his party.
You sir, are no Ronald Reagan.
Please do yourself and society a favor and put down the joint, get a job, quit the classes at Evergreen college and enroll in a school where they will actually teach you something useful.