Wait . . .

"So far we know she won’t vote against a constitutional ban on Gay Marriage"?

That means she is not against a constitutional ban on gay marriage? I.e., she is OK with amending the constitution to ban gay marriage? Can this be right?

Seriously Levislade, that caught my attention too, what gives? I hope it's a typo because this person also wrote, "I am hope Burner has some".

Well, I am hope Burner has more sense than to support adding bigotted ammendments to the constituion!

Where is she on No Child Left Behind, Iran, Immigration Reform, Health Care, Drilling in Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, Media Consolidation, Radio Payola, The Microsoft Anti-Trust case, minimum wage, whate’s her energy policy, etc, etc, etc.

seems like plenty to go on...

YEAH! The hell with Darcy. All good Democrats should vote Republican until the Dems offer the perfect candidate. Until then, we should just revel in the Republican wonderland!

I want to know how well she did in law school.

Dental records! Have we seen her dental records?

Come on people, she's a D trying to unseat an R in a historically R district. She is not going to come out as a fire breathing lefty and get elected. We're talking progress, perhaps incremental, but progress.

Awesome. This is progress and I applaud this move.

I'll hammer out my best ones and post them this weekend.

Well, she is a woman, after all. I demand to see her bedsheets!

That was a typo. What I should have written is that according to Eli's article, Burner will not vote FOR a constitutional amendment baning gay marriage.

But here's what would be great to know:

1. Will Burner support the legal right for Same Sex couples to marry and oppose any legislation that would deny that right?

2. Does Burner support bringing the troops hom from Iraq immediately or within some short time frame?

3. Where is Burner on efforts to protect Puget Sound from oil spills, protect ANWR, protect the national forests, etc?

4. Legislation is being crafted to require broadcast radio stations pay a royalty to the copyright owners of sound recordings and the musicians that played on the recordings, much like what is already required for internet radio play. Will Burner support this?

5. Where does Burner stand on media consolidation?

6. What are Burner's thoughts on the No Child Left Behind program?

7. How will she address the budget defeceit, national debt and trade defeceits?

8. What is her position on CAFTA?

9. What are her thoughts on Global Warming and what proposals does she have to halt it?

10. Any thoughts on fixing health care and insurance issues.

11. How would Burner address the occupation of Palestine by Isreal and what specific ideas does she have to help bring peace to this area?

12. Would Burner have voted for the Patriot Act Renewl as is? Would she have supported changes to it?

These are just a few simple, obvious questions. I have many more, but it would be great to know where she stands on these issues.

Also, to all of you who keep harping about others wanting a perfect candidate, I don't see your point. My original comment on Burner was concerning a criticism of why certain communities aren't out raising money for her. My reply was simply that most people will not get excited about her until we know where she stands on the issues. I can't vote for her either way. I can donate money. But I won't donate money to someone just because they are a Dem. Mark Sidran is a Dem, I would not support him. Zell Miller is Dem, and I would never give him money.

What kind of candidate is she if she can't magically read my mind and respond to my concerns?

I don't understand why so many people keep complaining that she's not talking about issues. I don't live in her district, but b/c I'm interested in the race, I've gone out to Bellevue and Mercer Island to hear her speak at two different events.

Having heard her give her stump speech -- and answer questions from the audience -- I can tell you that she definitely has some very specific ideas and positions on the issues.

I encourage everyone to check her website regularly for upcoming meet & greets and other public events.

Remember, the election is still many months away. Most voters aren’t paying attention yet. She’s got to make sure she raises enough money to communicate her message and ideas to voters when it counts. And make no mistake, at the end of the day Dave Reichert will be awash in campaign contributions from the special interests and DC lobbyists.

She's a hottie!

Who here is eligible to vote for Darcy Burner? Anyone? No one? Raise your hands.

Where is she on tax cuts for billionaires?

And can we get the middle class to pay for them?

Washington citizens bear a huge tax burden that should be lessened. Do you agree or do you think taxes should be increased?

There are federal taxes that were reduced temporarily - should they be permanently reduced?

The alternative minimum tax is starting to hit middle class American families - should the law be changed to stop that or should those taxes be allowed to hurt working families too?

If elected, do you pledge to not vote in favor of higher taxes?

Eager to hear your responses.

How does she plan on improving transportation options for her district? Is she simply going to beg for more dollars to pave over the entire Eastside, or is she willing to work with other members of Congress and local officials to support regional mass transit? What ideas does she have to raise money for transportation alternatives in the current political environment? I'd like to see a gas tax combined with a median usage rebate for each taxpayer. That is, everyone gets a check for the amount of taxes paid on the median amount of gas used. The mean average amount of gas would be higher, so that there'd be revenue left over for transportation projects. Gas-guzzling fuckheads would have to pay for the privilege, everyone would have an incentive to use less gas, and the tax wouldn't be regressive. What does she think of that idea, and if she doesn't like it, what would she do instead?

Would she work to repeal Bush's tax giveaways for the super rich? How about a national minimum wage higher than the poverty level? What about single-payer national health care? Is she going to proudly pursue these sensible and popular pocketbook issues so that she can lead a wave of Democrats pushing a positive agenda instead of merely trading on the evil and incompetence of the GOP?

Though I can't agree with Mr. Eyman's knee-jerk opposition to taxes, I do think he's right about the burden of taxes on the middle class. It's also important to lower the national deficit. It should be possible to change the tax structure without adding to the debt and without hurting the middle class. How would Darcy Burner address the issue of tax fairness without bankrupting the country? Along with reversing the Bush tax giveaways to the wealthy, would she consider raising the standard deduction to match the median personal income, and then creating a single marginal tax rate above that point to achieve a balanced budget? Would she consider eliminating the regressive Social Security payroll tax, and making up the difference by eliminating the income cap on the corporate portion of that same tax? Would she consider exempting the median value of homes from property taxes while raising the rates on other homes to make up the difference? Why are we taxing Americans at the low end of the economic spectrum while lowering taxes on the people most able to pay? The Bush tax policy shifts the burden to the middle class and the lower class, both in relative rate of taxation and in the deferred costs of our national debt. Every time we pay interest on debt that could have been used for progressive social programs, we ask middle-income Americans to subsidize the greed of the wealthy. Every time we suppress economic growth rates to buy fraudulent wars on credit, the benefits of that lost growth impact the poor and middle class worse.

It's time for this to end. We should end taxation on those on the lower half of the scale, and put the costs on the people who have benefited from regressive tax policies since the 1980s.

The problem is, the deficits are now so astronomical that everyone is going to suffer for them sooner or later. Yes, the well off are going to have to pay more, but the plain truth is, the mass of the middle is where the money is, and they're going to have to pay. It doesn't matter what Tim Eyman thinks. At some point VERY SOON our Chinese banking masters, who now own the government (through the debt) are going to require us to start paying down the debt, and that means EVERYBODY.

I would ask Burner if she has any ideas about health care costs that have gone up 78% over the past five years, and are increasing every year at a rate higher than that.

Dear Mrs. Burner,

Right now there's a national debate going on over one of the hottest cultural issues --how should we teach evolution? I'd like to know if you think students should learn both the evidence for and against Darwin's theory? Not intelligent design or anything else, just the evidence for, but also against, Darwin's theory.

Also, what about issues where there is evidence for dissenting views, i.e. global warming, bioethics, eugenics, etc.

There's evidence for dissenting views on eugenics? Sure thing, Mr. Goebbels.

I'd like to know why Ms. Burner feels she's got the experience and qualifications to run for the US House. She has no other political experience and very limited applicable work experience. I would like her to see her spend more time with her potential constituents before a campaign. I believe she is an unknown quantity and liability to the overall Democratic party goals.

I'd also like to know why Ms. Burner lists herself as a former Microsoft Executive. Please clarify as there is a very distinct meaning to a high ranking title in such a major company.

Patrick, you can only wish the teaching of science was a hotly debated issue. Or that anyone had an issue of challenging science with new evidence. Scientists, and science teachers, evolve their theories constantly in light of new evidence. But religious folks don't. When religious folks are faced with dissenting facts, they tend to ban them, burn them and keep people who believe them from holding office or teaching at all. But I hope Burner answers your question as most Americans would never vote for a candidate who wanted to teach the fake science of the discovery institute.

it's all about the middle east:

1) will she push for full us withdrawl from iraq in the near future (including ALL US military bases)? if not, what kinds of US involvement in iraq does she think would deescalate the civil war rather than aggravate it?

2) will she support full israeli withdrawl from the west bank and if not what kind of end to the occupation should the us promote in order to bring peace to the middle east? what specific concessions should israel make if it does not withdraw from west bank settlements?

3) will she oppose any and all attempts at us-sponsored "regime change" in iran? if not, exactly what kinds of us military action would she support against iran and under what conditions?

Will Darcy support the anhiliation of Israel by Iran, the Palestinians, or other islamists?

How will she propose to deal with Iran? How about terrorists?

Should we establish diplomatic ties with a known terrorist organization, even if it is elected (Hamas)? Even if it refuses to renounce violence against Israel?

Should schools be controlled locally by school boards or nationally, by the dept of education? What in your experience or research has had the best results?

How would you propose to control the borders? Should we? What do you propose we do with the millions that are here?

Yo, Josh: "executive" doesn't take a capital E.

Janet: nice set of leading questions. "Should we?" indeed. One immediately wonders why it's Congress's job to "do" something about the "millions that are here" (of what, not specified). The other questions have more meat on them but are largely irrelevant to the job of a frosh Congressman (what to do about Iran).

In the eighth, as elsewhere, it's mostly NOT about the middle east. It's mostly about health care, taxes, the deficit, and the environment, as far as issues go; and overall what it's really about is simple accountability.

And that's what Reichert has the biggest deficit in.

It's definitely not about experience. She's running against a one-termer; he's got nothing on her there. And experience as WHAT? He sucks Bush cock. He votes with Bush 97% of the time. What else do you need to know?

What sets you apart from other possible Democratic Congressional candidates in the 8th District? What do you bring to the table that others cannot? What advantages will you have over Dave Reichert that the average Democrat candidate does not?

Aside, obviously, from getting comfortable... what is your first major goal as WA District 8's Congressional representative? Name your highest priorities.

What issues do you find are most important to the 8th District?

More to come as I think of them...

Why should we believe your statements on anything when you lie about your title and job position at Microsoft?

Please avoid the answer that "all politicians lie." That may be true - so how do we tell when YOU are not lying?

I am a compulsive liar. I'm telling you the truth right now.

And I'm Steve Miller.