From a Politico story on improving Republican Congressional prospects this year:
Elsewhere, Cook Political Report House analyst David Wasserman said that the rapid ascent of energy as the leading issue across the country has caught off-guard some leading Democratic candidates who began their campaigns running on anti-war platforms. He cited the campaigns of Darcy Burner, running against Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), and Jim Himes, running against Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), as examples.
No joke.
Burner made a name for herself running against George W. Bush Dave Reichert on a firmly anti-war platform in 2006. It's safe to presume she has those same fervent anti-war voters locked-up in 2008 too.
But what of energy, the economy, and the like?
Darcy Burner's website is currently headlined by a call for action to "Help Stop the War on Birth Control." Her first ad, a 60 second spot that received a heavy buy before the primary, doesn't touch those pressing issues. Not exactly feeling your pain.
Contrast that with Reichert. His website highlights "Energy" and "the Economy" as two of his top three issues. The "Energy" section of his site provides some substance on the issue, including one of the innovative web ads his campaign launched over the summer.
Consider that in 2006, Burner did best in the anti-war havens of affluent Bellevue, but faltered in the exurbs and rural environs of the 8th Congressional District. Her anti-Bush message didn't sell as well in less economically prosperous communities. Will a campaign devoid of a message on kitchen table issues overcome the stature gap that held Burner back amidst the Democratic tide of 2006?
It doesn't seem likely, especially as Burner's signature issue continues to dissipate as a top tier election issue.
That's the difference between a netroots candidate and a public servant who listens to their constituents.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 17, 2008 09:22 PM | Email ThisLOL. Wow, how ominous! As if anyone has any trouble getting condoms, the pill, or even the morning after pill, let alone an abortion. Birth Control is certainly in no way at risk, certainly not in the league of even the other ridiculous "wars" as labeled by the media. Why wouldn't any woman serious about birth control who was refused a pill at a given pharmacy not just go down the street? What if a pharmacy was out of a given prescription? What would you do? Just go down the street? Yep, that's what I thought.
Darcy Burner has to get out of the Nutroots echo chamber a bit if she even entertains a hope of keeping the vote close in the 8th.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 17, 2008 09:32 PMDR sold us all out with that vote... and it may cost him in the end.
Posted by: Hinton on September 17, 2008 09:38 PMMany non-partisan (such as myself) people I know are asking these questions � many non partisan people who voted for change in 2006 and are now discovering that the only change they got was a turn for the worse in the economy and the national budget.
The evil George Bush and Iraq war mantra is old and used up.
Personally I would love to see more non-partisan politicians elected who are fiscally conservative and move back to the founding Constitutional principles of this country.
Darcy Burner is a fraud and a hack. She is not a true feminist, but a sexist that does not believe in equal rights, but special exclusive rights. I have seen her work at Microsoft first hand, and it was anything but good. She instead spent more time in the hoppers group finding ways to force sexist agendas within Microsoft. Not only does she not have the skills to take on the job, but in that role she will only cater to the minority of her constituents instead of the majority. What does she even bring to the table that we don�t already have from the current democrats in office?
The Partisan excuse to elect someone else is not a good excuse IMHO. Reichert does his job and does it well. I see no reason to vote him out. Of course if he were a democrat I am sure you would agree.
Darcy has looked surprisingly amateurish at times this election cycle with this latest "war on birth control" and her bigtime gaffe with the tax plan she was trying to present, when she thought you could deduct sales tax AND take the standard deduction. She thinks her taxes are too high. Just all the wrong instincts on taxes, and some just plain wrong information.
Posted by: Michele on September 17, 2008 11:09 PMum darcy, can you please tell us your success story?
Really, sweetie, I feel soooooo much better that you "searched for solutions (did you find them?), that you "helped write a responsible plan" (did anyone read it, adopt it?), that you'll "never stop working" for me (can you tell me when exactly you did work for me, what exactly you accomplished and most importantly, how I benefitted?).
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 17, 2008 11:46 PMLOL! Thanks for the laugh. It is Obama that is crashing and burning. Heck, McCain may carry Washington.
Posted by: AP on September 18, 2008 06:45 AMAmericans are sick of cronyism, pork, welfare, etc. That is why the GOP has done poorly of late; they lost their base. The selection of Palin, who took on the corrupt porker old boys club is a sign of a change. The Dems. meanwhile still are in love with corruption, cronyism, welfare, and pork, and Americans are sick and tired of it. The Democrat Congress is the least popular in American history. Reichert wins easily.
Posted by: AP on September 18, 2008 06:49 AM"sweetie"? "sweetie"? Rags, are you in satire mode, ala the DalaiBama's "sweetie" comment to a reporter last summer? Cool, if so.
Posted by: swatter on September 18, 2008 07:13 AMWell if it happens after the first Tuesday in November, just call Darcy Burner and ask for a ride. She'll have plenty of free time on her hands.
Posted by: Smoley on September 18, 2008 08:42 AMThere's a little thing called "mail order". You know that guy that comes by in the little truck each day and drops off your welfare check in the box? That's called "mail". Believe it or not, for the last 10 years you can call up a pharmacy and they will MAIL your drugs to you!
I know, this modern era with its computers and Internet and mail and all...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 18, 2008 08:50 AMWell, I have an ugly confession to make: I don't support the troops - at least not unconditionally. When somebody tells me they serve in the military, my first impulse isn't to say, "Thank you for your service!" like those insufferable chickenhawks on talk radio.
My first impulse is to say, "I'm sorry to hear that." Because I am. I'm sorry to know that the person I'm talking to might someday be maimed or killed on the job, or might someday kill someone else. Or refuel a plane that drops bombs on buildings.
I can't see how anyone who calls himself or herself Christian - or human, for that matter - wouldn't be sorry.
The fact that we have an army, that we need an army, is inherently tragic. It's an admission that our species is still ruled by fear and aggression.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 18, 2008 08:59 AMIf you take experience into account the Democrat ticket is exactly upside-down with the Veep the guy who should be on top (and he's kind of a goof besides). I think you've got the same thing going on, you see the Demorats losing in everywhere they were supposed be winning by a landslide and you see the opposite. You have to stop walking around on your hands.
Well, well. thanks fool.
Duff and me disagree on many things. But this point we were talking about had NOTHING to do with you. Just gov waste we both saw.
If you had noticed Duff was 'training' as I did all over the US. Part of being in the armed services, which I guess you have not done.
Or you would have understood what we were talking about.
OK... back to fighting Duff. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 18, 2008 10:16 AM