Today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer endorses Darcy Burner over Dave Reichert. The endorsement itself is no surprise. What's worth noting is its intellectual dishonesty. Note how the editors lowered their past standards for the same seat in order to portray Darcy Burner as a plausible candidate.
In the 2004 Republican primary, the P-I endorsed Diane Tebelius for her "impressive public service background" and "credentials, preparation and skills". In the general election it endorsed Dave Ross for his "independence, knowledge and fiscal restraint", and "remarkable understanding of issues for the Eastside, the state and beyond". But it fretted that "neither brings particularly impressive qualifications" and that "It's less clear how well Ross will do in going from media fame to an arena where effectiveness depends on working with others."
Today's endorsement ignores Burner's dearth of relevant qualifications, lack of public service, indeed lack of any civic engagement that would display her knowledge of Eastside, state or national issues or ability to work with others. Nevertheless they argue that Burner is "even more substantial" than Ross was. Substantial how?
The P-I editors would be more credible if they simply acknowledged that Burner isn't particularly qualified for the job, and that the endorsement is solely motivated by a desire to swing the House from Republican to Democrat control.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 22, 2006 10:01 AM | Email ThisHonesty is not a liberal value.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 22, 2006 10:30 AM"WHATEVER IT TAKES!"
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 22, 2006 11:40 AMAllocating a greater value to Darcy Burner over Dave Ross is a craven and arrogant lie that insults the intelligence of even the least common denominator that is the typical P-I reader.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 22, 2006 11:48 AMSomething tells me this is irrelevant to everyone except the moonbat idealogues.
Posted by: Cheryl on October 22, 2006 11:58 AMDarcy Burner should be elected solely on the fact that she is not Dave Reichert. She doesn't have any experience in letting mass murderers off, no experience in "creating" 47,500 for every billion spent, no experience is bragging about massive pork-bloated spending bills, no experience in endorsing soft of crime judges, no experience in saying she is pro-life but votes to withold food and water from a helpless women, no experience in doing creepy things with Pelosi's shoe, and no experience in being an angry overbearing guy with a $500 hair cut.
Yes the 8th need to Burn a little brighter as Dave's a 20 Watt lightbulb in a 100W job.
Posted by: John McDonald on October 22, 2006 12:18 PMThe only socially redeeming quality of any of the Seattle/King County newspapers is the advertising and coupon section. Oh, and the comic strips.
Posted by: Joe Waldron on October 22, 2006 01:37 PMIf not for the fact that they have my three favorite comic strips and the NYT crossword, I don't think I would ever even pick up the P-I these days.
Posted by: Marc on October 22, 2006 02:39 PMBTW, I'm an independent who tends to lean Republican, and while I'm not sold on Burner, I am not impressed with Reichert at all.
Posted by: Marc on October 22, 2006 03:08 PMCome on, Marc. It's about the children. By sacrificing your four trivial jollies along with your PI subscription, you will be joining many of us in sending a strong message to the MSM. Do it today. Your grandchildren will thank you.
Posted by: huckleberry on October 22, 2006 03:13 PM
Thanks for letting the cat out of the bag. You are explaining the real reason the PI is endorsing her. I wish they would be as honest.
But as we all know, that isn't really a value of the far left.
You really should think about being unbiased. Bias is a preference or inclination that inhibits impartial judgement. Being impartial in judgement is a very important principle. You should and probably do have a set of beliefs you live your life by, one of those beliefs is probably to be judged impartially by others. It's big of you to admit you are a hypocritcially warped, but it would be better if you were more honest.
For example: No amount of bias should warp your understanding the spending has gone up dramatically under the Republican controlled House, Senate, and White House. No amount of bias should allow you to not recognize that Republicans claim Democrats are "tax and spenders". No amount of bias should allow you to think that massive increases in spending will lead to either higher taxes, a devalued dollar, or massive debt or a combination one or more of those. These things are facts, and this is why I've turned so anti-Republican and especially Dave Reichert as he has bragged about how much he can spend (and factually he has ... go read his web site) - not because I'm biased. I still believe in limited government.
Posted by: John McDonald on October 22, 2006 04:02 PMOn the other hand if you really are a conservative you are clueless about what is necessary for a Republican to win in a blue state.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 22, 2006 04:49 PMThe only moral superiority this blog has is in its own imagination.
Posted by: Michael Caine on October 22, 2006 07:28 PMWhile I think that SP needs to rise above even the infrequent use of potty words here on this blog, clearly the vocabulary of the posters here is not nearly as dependent upon synonyms for intercourse, feces or a female dog, as the data below demonstrates:
Potty word count - source GOOGLE
Word SP HA
------------------------------
F-BOMB 14 37,200
S-word (feces) 98 3,040
a-word (anus) 28 1,410
b-word (femdog) 118 1,250
F-BOMB
SP 14
HA 37,200
S-word (feces)
SP 98
HA 3,040
a-word (anus)
SP 28
HA 1,410
b-word (femdog)
SP 118
HA 1,250
John: The bias I was referencing has a few synonyms:
partiality, partisanship, disposition, leaning, partiality, penchant, prediliction, proclivity, propensity, tendency, trend, etc. Anyone human is biased. I am biased toward Republican, conservative views, and away from liberal views. You are biased against Dave Reichert. Is it so hard for you to admit you're biased?
F-BOMB
SP 14
Note: Of the 14 time the word appeared on SP, 1 was spam, 11 were liberals positng anti-sp messages and 2 were actual SP regulars.
HA 37,200
If you google the f-bomb and PBJ for SP, you only get one entry and the F-bomb was used by the article author in a quote of HA.
Sorry liberal trolls. :(
Posted by: pbj on October 22, 2006 08:01 PMFrom Ms. Burner's own web site:
* Darcy will hold the Bush Administration accountable on Iraq
What does this mean? I read the description and frankly I have NO IDEA what she will do, specifically. Basically all she did was tell us a bunch of stuff we already know. Being a former Microsofty myself, I learned how to set goals that were SMART (as a manager Mr. Burner knows what this means). This is not a SMART goal as it is not measurable. Please, tell me what she will DO, specifically.
* Darcy supports our troops and veterans
Even more vagueness. Who doesn't support the troops? Is Ms. Burner suggesting there are some in her party that don't? By supporting the troops, does that mean she supports the missions they are engaged in in Iraq? Does she support them in being successful in tracking down terrorists and bringing peace and stability to Iraq, as long as it takes? And isn't the body armor argument a bit old and not all that forward looking? I'm glad to know, however, she seems to support keeping the troops in Iraq by giving them the equipment they need. Is that the case?
* Darcy will protect our retirement
Surely Ms. Burner is smart enough to know anyone relying on SS to fund their retirement is doomed. As a former MS employee I wonder if Ms. Burner has all of her retirement plans tied to SS? Given the opportunities and rewards she likely received while at MS are we to believe Ms. Burner is not relying on private investments to fund her retirement? Is Ms. Burner willing to put all of her future retirement plans in the hand of SS? Okay, so Burner will fight against "risky schemes" (gotta love that Gore rhetoric). That doesn't tell me what she will DO to ensure SS will be viable when people her age retire. What is her plan to keep SS solvent? Maintain the status quo? Please! Tell me what she will DO!!
*Darcy will stand up to big oil companies
Does Ms. Burner know that there are already penalties for price gouging? But, this is really not relevant, unless Ms. Burner has evidence of known price gouging by oil companies. This is simply sound bite material with no substance. HOW does Ms Burner plan to implement her alternative energy source goals? Does she have any specifics? Again, she needs to put into practice SMART goals.
* Darcy will fight to make healthcare more affordable
Can Ms. Burner please cite for me from The Constitution where the FEDERAL Government has the authority to be involved in health care issues and funding? HOW does Ms. Burner plan to implement her healthcare plans ? What are the specifics? Higher taxes?
* Darcy will fight to improve our education system
When Ms. Burner says" "I will invest...." Is this with her own millions she earned while at MS or will this be with MY tax dollars? And as with healthcare, please cite for me where the Fed Govt has the authority to be involved in education. Isn't this a local issue? If Ms. Burner plans to make this a local issue, I will vote for her tomorrow. I am passionate about our education system and will vote for any candidate that has a workable plan to improve it...as long as it doesn't involve more federal govt involvement. Seriously, if Ms Burner can make this a local issue, then she will have my vote. But, like everything else so far, I see no concrete,actionable goals or plans from Burner. A dissapointment given her background.
Please, somebody tell me what Mr. Burner plans to DO. Because all I've heard her say is that we should vote for her because Reichart sometimes chooses to vote for things the President wants to implement.
Posted by: Dave on October 22, 2006 08:49 PMBut then that is how it works on this blog, make up lies about those that you don't like and never bother to substantiate it. After all, its not like the news media or the target audience of this blog actually bothers to fact check.
Posted by: Michael Caine on October 23, 2006 01:01 AM1. Iraq: The president sets the policy, congress decides if they want to fund the policy. Darcy is saying no we don't want to fund the current - the Bush "stay and get shot" policy. So the measureable goal is to defund the Iraq War effort. I supported the invasion of Iraq, couldn't give a rip about WMD, but I'm very unhappy with the conduct of the war including disrespecting our troops, tying their hands, charging them with the death penalty. As the state department just called the conduct of the iraq war "stupid" and "arrogant" ... so on this the Bush Administration and I agree.
2. Supporting the troops for a liberal means that she does not disrespect them like a lot of the nutcase radical left does. She will honor them in all the venues of a congresswomen.
3. Social Security. Bush tried for 2-3 weeks to reform social security and gave up. Democrats are trying to win votes on this by scaring old people. Nothing is going to happen on social security no matter how one votes.
4. Big Oil. What can I say on this? Both parties are so screwed up on energy and both have part of the solution. We need a free market for oil, but we also need regulation to increase the MPG, to help with new technology and free our dependence. Attacking an American Industry is dumb on the part of the Democrats, but refusing to raise the MPG requirements is dumb too.
5. Healthcare: It's hard to fault Darcy on this, when my former team is the one putting the $400 billion perscription drug benefit in place, at a time of massive deficits.
6. Education: I don't believe any party on education. The dems want to have the teachers a little better paid, great. The reps want the NEA out of education, great. While those are both good goals, they don't fix what is wrong. The test scores coming out of the minority schools in Seattle are a crime against humanity, basically they say the kids can't read, write, or do math at all. I continue to be stunned every time they are published - how we accept generation after generation of these kids to be educationally handicapped is beyond me. We need radical change in these schools, like kids who score below X being sent to boarding school. Making Mercer Island, Woodinville, and Redmond better is not going to change the over all scores much. Neither party has the stomach, courage, integrity, or moral value system to do what is right for the black and poor white kids in Seattle as it won't help them get re-elected. We take better care of the salmon at Mud Mountain Dam then these children.
Thanks for the reply and the reasoned dialog.
1. I'm not quite clear on how defunding makes our troops any safer or gets us closer to peace in Iraq. But, more to the point, is this Ms. Burner's position or yours? You're not suggesting that Ms. Burner will not think for herself will she?
2. I have no idea what "honor them in all the venues of a congresswoman" means. My question was pretty straightforward: Does Ms. Burner support or troops on their assigned missions?
3. So, are you saying Ms. Burner really doesn't have a SS plan? If so, wouldn't it be the credible thing to do to simply remove it from her platform. Afterall, we wouldn't want anyone "lying", would we?
4. Can't argue that. But that doesn't explain Ms. Burner's position. Do you think it is her position to spend our tax dollars chasing after non-existent price gouging claims?
5. You'll get no argument from me on the current administration's plans on perscrption drug funding. However, that doesn't tell me what Ms. Burner's plans are. Do think her plan is to raise taxes to provide "free" healthcare?
6. I cannot disagree with anything you said there. My only disagreement is with those that think this is a federal issue to solve.
Posted by: Dave on October 23, 2006 09:00 AMHaving been to to the local Canidate Forums, Darcy Burner has been quite articulate on each of your questions.
1. Darcy Burner has no intention of cutting funding of the Iraq troops or the military in general. What she proposes is to force greater transparency of the Bush Administration's plans for winning Iraq. Other than ambiguous statements like "Stay the Course" and "As they stand up, we will stand down" there are no indications that Bush has had any plans other than flying by the seat of his pants. Her goal is to politically force Bush to actually develop and articulate a clear plan on how to solve the Iraq War.
2. It means that she will actually show up at the funerals of soldiers from her district, to thank the family for their sacrifice and mourn their loss. It means that she will fight to provide funding for them to be properly equipped and hold the Pentagon responsible for making sure the equipment arrives. It means that Reserve and National Guard families who have have members called up to serve will have the same access to benefits that regular military members do. It means that she will fight for fully funding the VA system so that there isn't a 10,000 man waiting list to be seen.
3. First, she wants to remove SS from being included in the budget to falsely reduce the image of deficit spending. Second, she wants to discuss options that the Republicans have refused to even consider (such as removing or increasing the cap of 90,000, which Ronald Reagan did.) Third, she wants the Federal Government to start paying back the money that it borrowed from the SS pool now.
4. She wants to reduce current Big Oil subsidies and put that money directly into R&D for other sources for our energy needs. She wants to demand that the oil drills off the Gulf Coast to pay the contractually obligated royalties when oil exceeded $40 a barrel (she would prefer renegotiating the contracts so that they pay full royalties on the oil from here on out.) And yes, she wants to make sure that Big Oil didn't do the same with oil prices that Enron did with electricity and natural gas prices.
5. Her position is simple, preventive care is cheaper than catestrophic care. It is far cheaper, for instance, to pay for teeth cleaning over the course of 20 years than it is to extract one tooth. As we catch and eradicate diseases earlier rather than later, healthcare costs will go down and individual's productivity will go up as they aren't removed from the workforce for extended periods of time.
6. She agrees with you there, that k-12 schools are more of a local issue. However, there are many current programs such as "No Child Left Behind" that mandate school operations from the federal level, yet provide no funding for the mandated operations. She wants to either end those programs or have them funded so that the local schools do not have divert funds from teaching the kids to comply with administrative costs of the federal mandates. On the colegiate level, she wants lower the interest rates for the Student Loan programs and increase Pell Grant funding so that middle class families can afford to have their children go to college and get the degrees that are necessary to compete in today's economy.
Posted by: Michael Caine on October 23, 2006 09:59 AMthank you for the further clarification..
1) So, she doesn't have a plan of her own. She wants someone else to come up with one. Got it.
2) Why doesn't she say that? That sounds pretty much like what we are doing now? Am I then to assume we won't see any Burner supporters protesting the deployment of supply ships any time soon? But, my question still remains unanswered: Does she support the troops on their currently assigned missions?
3)Fair enough. Why is that not outlined on her web site?
4). What evidence do we have that "Big Oil" (whatever the hell that means) has done anything with oil prices beyond what the market demands? Please define "Big Oil". What dollar amount qualifies to be in this exclusive club? Ms. Burner does understand basic microeconomics, right? Who will reap the profits of said "alternative energy"? Would Ms Burner be opposed to tax breaks to insent the private sector to invest in alternative fuels? (How does Ms. Burner feel about "Big Software", btw?)
5. But the question remains unanswered. Who will pay? Like PJ O'Rourke said: "If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until you see how much it costs when it's free". So, are we to assume Ms. Burner will RAISE taxes to fund said programs? And can Ms. Burner explain where the fed govt has the Constitutional authority to insert itself in this area (hint: it's not the "general welfare" clause. Of course, being Harvard educated, she would know that)
6. So, pick one. End the program or increase our taxes to provide the funding. Which would she prefer? I have no disagreement with here on the secondary education issues. Everyone one that wants to go to college should be afforded the means to do so. So, which programs would Ms. Burner cut (excluding the military, since that is constitutionally mandated) to fund such programs (which the fed govt has no authority to be involved in, btw)
1. So what is Reichert's plan? Trust the President. Sounds like Reichert doesn't have a plan either, that he wants someone else to come up with it. In this case, a person that has failed miserably so far.
2. She has on numerous times. If you are Reichert ever bothered to show up to the Community Forums, you would have heard her say it. BTW, Reichert hasn't shown up to one funeral, has not made any public complaints about the lack of equipment for Iraqi's, Voted against Reserve and National Guard families recieving regular military benefits when they are called up, and has yet to vote for a budget that fully funds the VA, attempted to call for/support amendments to do so and only voted to give more money to the VA after the press found out that the VA ran out of money in the middle of the year. None of the actions, that she has stated as things she would be fighting for have been even talked about by Reichert and the Republicans.
3. She has it on her website. Obviously you haven't been there either. Just listening to Reichert's talking points and buying his lies.
4. You asked why she supported putting money into investigating allegations of price gouging. If she had proof, she would call for the CEO and Boardmembers to be arrested immediately.
An investigation is called for, the recent sudden drop in prices even though none of the refineries are back on line and oil production has actually dropped alone is suspicious. The doubling of gas prices created a demand from the public themselves, so much that the current Republican Congress even felt that they needed to look into the allegations (Reichert marching lockstep with the Republican Leadership also voted to open an investigation.)
As to your other "energy" questions, again if you had attended any of Community Forums, listened to her interviews or read her web blog, you would know the answer. She supports Jay Inslee's 'Apollo Project' which is a mixture of grants to Research Universities, tax credits and start up loans to industries working on new ways of getting energy.
She has an easy definition as to whether a company should get tax breaks. Is it investing in new technologies and research. Big Oil's tax breaks that it recieves for 'alternative energy' research would be safe.
BTW "Big Oil" is the term the Beltway press gives the oil lobby and the oil companies that support them. Generally it includes ExxonMobil, (Royal Dutch) Shell, BP (British Petroleum) and Citgo (locally known as Union 76)
5. It would pay for itself. We already pay for health care for everyone. The difference would be that we would pay for the preventive care that prevents the catastrophic care from being as frequent. If you don't believe that you already pay for it, go to Overlake and Evergreen Hospitol and ask the administrative staff if they are allowed to refuse patients based on their ability to pay. Then ask them how they get re-embersed for those that can't pay.
6. She already answered how she would pay for it, she would allow Bush's tax cuts to the top 10% expire and not just keep but expand the tax cuts on the middle class. Prior to those temporary tax cuts, the Federal Budget was in surplus. As to "No Child Left Behind" she has called for it to be ended. Reichert on the other hand wants to continue "No Child Left Behind" even though it has been a dismal failure and voted to increase student loan interest rates while reducing its availablity and slashing Pell Grants.
Posted by: Michael Caine on October 23, 2006 11:25 PM2) Again, not talking about Reichart. Again, try to stay focused. If she has updated her website to reflect such, good for her. I stand corrected
3) So, is she next going to investigate the possibility of meteors destroying the earth? Why waste tax dollars on a fishing expidedtion? She'd have a point if there were evidence. Market forces do not equate to price gouging. Thanks for the clarification on her postition. Makes sense..for a Democrat.
4). So with my tax dollars. Got it! Thanks for clarifying
5) you do realize that because of the current tax cuts the govt is taking in MORE revenue than they were before the tax cuts, right? Why are Democrats opposed to people keeping as much of THEIR money as they can, no matter how much they make?
Posted by: Dave on October 25, 2006 08:27 PM