Behold today's Seattle Times coverage of Rodney Tom's abrupt halt to his primary challenge against Darcy Burner. Here's a passage loyal readers of Sound Politics will find familiar:
Primaries bring out the party faithful, said [Democratic State Rep. Deb] Eddy, and "Darcy was more left wing than he is."However, the 8th District, which stretches from Duvall to Eatonville, is not as liberal as Burner is, Eddy said, and that could spell trouble in a race against Reichert. While Burner is popular among left-leaning bloggers, that may not translate to the average voter.
"One thing that worries me is she has not naturally gravitated to more nuanced positions," Eddy said. "Sometimes it's hard to get perspective or distance from the net roots. They can create a lot of smoke."
Burner says, "in more normal times, I would be seen as a more moderate Democrat." If that were the case, why is she bashing the 41 "more moderate" members of her own party in the House who voted for FISA reform last month (as did 16 Democrats plus Joe Lieberman in the Senate)?
Likewise, if she's a "moderate" who holds "a respect for open markets" wouldn't she come out in support of at least some of the four major trade deals pending in Congress? In this trade dependent state, the modestly left-of-center Seattle Times editorial page says they're all worthy of approval. Sounds like a pretty moderate position and a great way to establish moderate bona fides. But, does anyone think Darcy Burner, running to the left of the current Democratic Congress, would actually take such a step?
Last fall the Tacoma News Tribune described Burner as "overtly partisan" and someone who "offers straight Democratic positions." Around the same time, the Times said: "it is hard to discern where Burner differs from the Democratic Party line." It's also hard to say things have changed much...other than Darcy Burner running even farther to the left.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 06, 2007 07:25 PM | Email ThisShe also thinks her taxes are too low, which is not something the typical american is thinking. Most americans are annoyed at how high their taxes are and noticing how the high taxes keep them from getting ahead more than they have.
A big fat NO to this girl. Reichert is a much better fit for the 8th District, and Eddy (and likely others) knows it. Which is why it was written on this blog that the Dem party tried to soft-peddle her, knowing she was more radical that the district she wants to represent. I still think she'd be better off moving to Seattle and running for the 7th. People there like her brand of leftist extremism.
Posted by: Michele on September 6, 2007 07:59 PMThe question that I was asked had to do with why Rodney Tom dropped out of the Democratic primary race. My comments went largely to the impact of the CLOSED primary. Regardless of whether we're talking about Democratic or Republican candidates, closed primaries tend to favor the candidate more aligned with the party's most faithful voters (left or right). Quite a few middle-of-the-road voters are still irritated that we lost the open primary in this state and refrain from voting, if required to pick a party.
Indeed, there'd been a lot of chatter about whether Sen. Tom could win the closed primary. Darcy is a phenomenal campaigner and quite popular. But she will need to appeal to a broad range of voters in the 8th District, beyond the more resolutely left-wing.
I stand by those statements, but don't want them to be construed in any way as support for Dave Reichert. I live in the 1st District, not the 8th, so he's not my congressman. But make no mistake, my positions on certain federal issues differ markedly from Dave's, especially on social issues. We'll see what 8th District voters think next November.
Posted by: Deb Eddy on September 6, 2007 09:00 PM
have a nice day. ;)
Posted by: steve miller on September 6, 2007 09:03 PMBut hey, if she's that deluded, let her go forth with zeal and meltdown. It never ceases to amaze me how much the Nutroots are able to create a reality distortion field that generates a lot of light, but very little heat.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 6, 2007 09:56 PMSo, in my mind, Deb Eddy is a straight-talker and deserves some kudos. She's also a BRAZEN UNREPENTANT THIEF, but a still a straight-talker. :)
Posted by: AD on September 6, 2007 10:05 PMAnd you find something wrong with this? If you don't want to identify yourself as the member of a particular party, why should you have any say what-so-ever in who represents that party in the general election?
Her assessment of politics in both the Democratic Party and the 1st and 8th Congressional Districts is worth listening to and respecting because she tells it to you straight no matter the brickbats thrown back at her.
I wish more politicos on both sides of the aisle had the respect she does for her constituents and for telling the truth. She's not a poll-driven politician; she's an honorable public servant. And she's my friend!
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on September 6, 2007 11:27 PMWhat idiots care whether a label reads Dem or Publican?
Darcy is very competent.
Her views are middle of the road.
She is politically ambitious and committed.
She is running to prep. the District as a member of the ruling party.
Grow up, smell the roses, spill the kool aid and drink the diet coke!
Take Darcy in as Darcy, not some damn Rove inspired cartoon. DEBATE the issues. DEBATE her points of view.
As a moderate she seem closer to me than does the Sharif. I worry abiuyt his stand on Mr. Bush. It may have been a good idea to have the prexy here to raise campaign dollars, but any responsible American knows that we are now in a regency. Responsible Republicans have finally got some adults into the White House ... belatedly. Ifd Reichert really supports this sad sack, the Reicher is not fit to represent the 8th.
Try listing the issues they both support or oppose. I think Darcy will come out as the more rational and that ain't an issue for right vs. left.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 7, 2007 02:10 AMIsn't it funny that the first real pro-Darcy posting on this site is the only one with profanity and is chock-full of grammar errors. I'm not saying it implies anything. I'm just sayin'...
Posted by: Left Behind by the New Democratic Party on September 7, 2007 07:32 AMI don't really care about spelling - anyone can make mistakes.
Posted by: steve miller on September 7, 2007 08:31 AMWell, 'smoke' wasn't the first word to come to my mind when thinking of what the nutroots create. But it starts with the same letter.
Posted by: jimg on September 7, 2007 08:42 AMDarcy is not competent; or at least, has never demonstrated competence. She has no experience in government and has demonstrated no ability to think for herself.
Darcy's views are not middle of the road. They are far left, as demonstrated by her close ties to Kos et al. Even for King County (her part of it, anyway) she's far left. The only reason she came as close as she did is because of the war; take away the war and she loses with barely 40 percent of the vote, if that.
She is ambitious and committed, that's true. How that matters, I don't know.
As to "the ruling party," this is the biggest load of "bullshit" around. You are the one who just said only idiots care if someone is a Democrat or Republican, and then you say it's a plus that she's a Democrat. So I have no problem calling you an idiot, since you called yourself one. Although you could just be dishonest.
More to the point, however, ANY honest evaluation of the facts shows that Reichert will have MUCH more impact in Congress representing his district than Darcy would. How can any "idiot" think that Darcy would have ANY impact in DC? She would be expected to simply follow party line, and she would do so, and she would never get anything done for her district, unless some other more powerful Democrat wanted it done.
Take port security. When Reichert speaks about that in Congress, people from both parties listen, and he has an impact. If Darcy spoke on such issues (or any others), no one from either party would care. To the Democrats, she is just a warm body to vote with them.
Posted by: pudge on September 7, 2007 09:10 AMThe 8th district is not Seattle. In fact, most of us who live there kind of consider the views and beliefs there as something of a folly.
No wonder Burner still got her tail kicked in an election cycle when Democrats routed Republicans, even though she got tons of money poured into her campaign from out of state.
She's the replacement for Heidi Barrens-Benedict, who used to run (and lose) every election cycle against Dunn. We're more than happy to have her wasting democratic election contributions here.
Posted by: johnny on September 7, 2007 12:09 PMThat is, it is irrational to say some expression of presidential authority is wrong. You have to show that it is actually unconstitutional.
Also, no, I would not oppose this if it were from Hillary. The one issue I backed Clinton on was when he properly asserted executive authority, because you're right, it is not a partisan issue. Too bad a lot of Democrats forgot that so quickly. Sure, a lot of Republicans forgot it too, but they had less recent history to go by.
Posted by: pudge on September 8, 2007 12:31 AMHah! Guilt by association. Name the fallacy pudge as you're so fond of doing.
Kos also supported Stephanie Herseth. Are you saying she's also a "Seattle urban" type?
[In a mocking tone] How can you possibly expect people to accept this nonsense?
When people hear Dave Reichert talk, they clear their throats and cast their eyes down in embarrassment.
Posted by: John on September 8, 2007 12:13 PMDarcy links to her buds at Firedoglake and HA as well as Huffington Post, NPI and Daily Kos. Let's just tell every family in the 8th to sit down together and read any random five threads at say HA, or NPI will Darcy freely admit these folks think and act in a way that she values? She takes money from them, why wouldn't we assume she will do their bidding? She has never held any position of public responsibility so why would the 8th let her start as a US Congress member? We have to judge her by the company she keeps and what she apparently values. That is why she lost the last time around and will again this time.
Posted by: Huh? on September 8, 2007 01:28 PMThere you go again. Guilt by association. Darcy embraces the new media and guess what Duh? She just raised 130 grand to stay competitive with your guy who can't string two thoughts together and who gladly accepts the help of Mr. 25 percent hob nobbing in his taxpayer supported 747. I call that smart.
Is Stephanie Herseth doing the bidding of Kos, Atrios and Josh Marshall? No, she's representing the views of the people in her district. I wouldn't want her doing anything else. If she joins with her party on crucial national issues that's great but if she doesn't well that's just politics.
But you stuck on stupid McCarthyites will still cling to your shopworn talking points. I wouldn't expect nothing more from you.
Posted by: John on September 8, 2007 04:07 PMYour district is trending Dem - and people like you with your kind of positions and tactics and attitude have only yourselves to blame.
Posted by: John on September 8, 2007 06:24 PMHah! Guilt by association. Name the fallacy pudge as you're so fond of doing.
It's not guilt by association. It's not guilt, it's mere association. There's a difference. If you still prefer to call it "guilt," fine, then in this case the guilt IS the association.
It's not the same thing as guilt by association, where the guilt is distinct from the association: for example, I work with John Smith and have beers with him after work; if we find out he is a member of the KKK, that doesn't make me racist. However, if I join the KKK, or if they endorse me and I accept that endorsement enthusiastically, then yeah, that makes me a racist.
The question was simply whether she is far left. Yes, she is, and a big part of the evidence for that is her close ties to the nutroots. There's nothing fallacious about that.
Also, I have never used the term "Seattle urban," and I don't know what it means to you, so I cannot answer that question.