For the last two weeks, Seattle's lunatic fringe liberals have been congratulating themselves on their "netroots" fundraising drive which they claimed had pushed Darcy Burner into the first tier of Democrat challenger candidates from across the country. But today The Hill reports that the Democrats have (re)deprecated the Burner campaign: "DCCC neglects six for now "
Democrats are raising money for 16 candidates, according to fundraising packets obtained by The Hill, not the 22 previously touted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).The Nutroots might not understand this, but grown-up campaign operatives apparently do: The most promising place to invest scarce resources is not with a candidate who has no relevant accomplishments and whose only selling point is that she's not a Republican. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 09, 2006 09:28 AM | Email ThisThe neglected six are Darcy Burner, challenger to Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.); ...
I put my money where my mouth is and wrote her a check. Come November 8, we'll all be singing "I Shot the Sherriff" while you wingnuts strangle on your own bile.
Posted by: ivan on May 9, 2006 10:04 AMAnd ivan, Stefan is right. She is off the front burner (yes, sadly, pun intended) and they put her in second tier till she shows gravitas. That means she makes up some accomplishments that can't be challenged.
But, ivan, that doesn't mean she can't win without the big bucks- read Linda Smith and Patty Murray (first time) who won on grassroots support.
Posted by: swatter on May 9, 2006 10:12 AMHardly.
Posted by: Daniel K on May 9, 2006 10:37 AMNot much love, tolerance and compassion in your posts. Are you sure you're a Democrat?
Posted by: libertarianobserver on May 9, 2006 10:39 AMBurner has almost nothing going for her other than being the epitomizing vision of the great Progressive Savior. Burner is exactly the kind of candidate that Progressive Marxists like Goldy dream about each night. She's cute, but not so much as to be offensive to feminists. She says all the right progressive keywords, but without the irrationality usually reserved for the unhinged left. She went to Harvard. She dabbled in law. She's a career mom that is suppposedly walking the perfect balance between her ambition and the needs of her children, etc. She's totally programmable having no voting record on which to be defined. She's young, etc.
But, what the Progressives fail to note, is that all of her dream qualities are also all of her weaknesses. Do 8th district voters really want an inexperienced parrot who's willing to abandon her young child to head to Washington? Do 8th district voters really want someone who abandoned law school for an expedient run at Congress? Do 8th district voters really want someone who abandonded her past and is willing to inflate her resume? And more importantly, are 8th district voters willing to abandon such a strong incumbent like Reichert? Doubtful. And doubly doubtful when the DCCC is willing to abandon their gal.
But hey Nutrooters, please keep dumping resources into Darcy Burner instead of focusing on more serious races. Greatly appreciated.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 9, 2006 10:45 AMWay to go iban!
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 9, 2006 10:55 AMCare to make it interesting?
Posted by: jimg on May 9, 2006 11:32 AMYou may be right... Ms. Burners campaign has a grassroots element to it...the handi-capable, sobriety-deprived, achieve a deficiency, Turtle Island, cerebrally challenged, sexually dysfunctional, the acceptional, chemically inconvenienced, consensual nonmonogamy, culturally dispossessed, economically marginalizes, ecowarriors, efemciplated, emotionally different, misorientated, morally different, involuntarily undomiciled, knowledge-base nonpossessors, mineral companion possessors, window lickers, pro-choice, psychotic, PC, advanced readiness seminar attendees, cosmetically different, overexploited, indefinitely idled, ethically disoriented, nonspecifically destinationed individuals, anti-social and terminally inconvenienced...!!!
Ivan, I thought liberals were against all forms of gun violence, even spoken versions of it. Shouldn't you be talking your own leftist dogma talk??
Posted by: Me on May 9, 2006 11:41 AMWhat's more, she was never the C.E.O. of Microsoft like she said and she's a woman who's not changing the diapers of her kid. These are reasons why the people of Auburn and Maple Valley will not vote for her. It's Obvious!
Posted by: Hummer War on May 9, 2006 12:31 PMWHO CARES?
Reichert has proven in his short time in office to be a RINO. He isn't worth the effort of true conservatives.
So, I am staying home this year and not voting for either Reichert or Burner even though I live in the 8th.
If I do vote my policy is ALWAYS to vote AGAINST THE RINO. There are many good reasons for this, but I really don't want to go into it now. Suffice to say that the GOP must not think that they can take the votes of conservatives for granted for if they do then conservatives will have absolutely NO INFLUENCE over what they do in office.
A little rebellion in politics is a good thing as absolute loyality allows the politicians to constantly vote against you without consequence. Without consequence for voting against you they never have any reason to vote in your favor.
Posted by: CnR on May 9, 2006 12:34 PMI doubt that Darcy's Seattle netroot supporters will have the gumption to campaign in parts of the district where there's a 360 area code or where the CAO comes into play. Their message probably wouldn't play too well anyway and would only serve to energize our side.
Posted by: Reporterward on May 9, 2006 12:49 PMIf you don't care enough to tell the government your opinion (by voting), why do you insist on telling US?
If you want to be an idiot - fine. If you want to spout your idiocy in public, just be prepared for the public to call you what you are - an idiot.
Fair enough?
How does that make any sense? It shows totally irrationality.
Now, the minority population voting dem at over 90% is different. They are taken for granted by their party. But the difference is, their vote for dems is also irrational, since the dems don't share their values, as shown in many polls.
It would be nice if people disengaged their emotion, and used their heads when voting. But that is asking way too much.
Posted by: Janet S on May 9, 2006 01:19 PMYo, ChetBoob If yous want I could give yous a Pre-mortem exam.
Forgetaboutit
Ummmm... you can't strangle on bile. You can drown in it, you can choke on it, and you can suffocate while immersed in it, but you can't stangle on it. Strangling is the act of wrapping something around someone's neck. Doing that with a liquid is physically impossible.
I know, obvious little details. But thanks for showing us the love of that liberal tolerance anyways.
Posted by: Mike H on May 9, 2006 05:00 PMAnd if the donations don't roll in?
Burn-her-bridges is second tier. If she were first tier, she would be getting the money now.
Stefan was right.
Posted by: swatter on May 9, 2006 05:09 PM