Like we're really going to hear any solutions of substance from Darcy Burner today... If there's anything we've learned from the Washington, D.C. politicians' response to rising gas prices, it's that Democrats are just as clueless and shameless as Republicans.

I recommend people search The Seattle Times' archive for a guest column by Darcy Burner from a few months ago: "Innovation, not lip service, will cure our oil addiction." In this column, first she takes President Bush to task for his hypocrisy in saying "America is addicted to oil." Then she hypocritically proceeds to offer the same toothless panaceas the president does.

Burner's message is "let's innovate" our way to energy independence. And why? Because it's painless and that's what voters, especially in her suburban district, want to hear. Even if innovation alone were the answer -- and obviously it's not even half the answer -- no innovation can take hold without real incentives. Nor is government efficient in investing in and identifying successful technologies. See: tariffs and subsidies to protect Iowa corn farmers.

The real solution is simple: impose a substantial fossil fuel tax the way European countries do, and let the marketplace work things out the way only the marketplace can. The proceeds from such a tax can be used to pay down the federal debt, fund mass transit, or pay for a tax cut elsewhere. New York Times op-ed columnists Tom Friedman and John Tierney (a conservative) have written some compelling columns recently advocating for a gas tax increase, even in the face of today's high gas prices.

Of course, the difference between these guys and Darcy Burner is that she's running for office and they're not. And I'm under no illusion that a gas tax increase has any prayer of happening. Addicts have to go through a painful withdrawal process, and Americans are not yet willing to collectively endure any real pain to reduce their dependence on oil. Darcy Burner is not the person who's going to speak the truth to the very addicts she's trying to woo.

her foreign policy ideas lack specifics and are mainly about blaming republicans. fine move for spin. but boring. i expect little else today but empty promises and accurate but nakedly self-serving attacks on her opponent.

wf wrote, "i expect little else today but empty promises".

Tough crowd. At this time she's only a candidate for an election in November and wouldn't have a legislative vote until next January were she to win. What exactly would you expect other than pledges and promises at this point?

As for blaming Republicans, I've rarely heard her blame Republicans regarding this issue (if at all). While one cannot talk about this mess without referring to how we got into it, Darcy is about dealing with the reality of it, a reality that has included her own brother having served a tour of duty in Iraq. That's a specific that so many politicians fail to grasp.

Daniel K wrote: "Tough crowd. At this time she's only a candidate for an election in November and wouldn't have a legislative vote until next January were she to win. What exactly would you expect other than pledges and promises at this point?"

Actually, what we're looking for are positions and proposals of substance. If someone needs to have a legislative record to take a real stand on something, let's just elect our leaders based on how personably they are. (Actually, I think that's what we already do.)

Daniel K wrote: "As for blaming Republicans, I've rarely heard her blame Republicans regarding this issue (if at all). While one cannot talk about this mess without referring to how we got into it, Darcy is about dealing with the reality of it, a reality that has included her own brother having served a tour of duty in Iraq. That's a specific that so many politicians fail to grasp."

Again, read Burner's column in the Seattle Times: "Innovation, not lip service, will cure our oil addiction." If that's not blaming Republicans, I don't know what is. Are they deserving of blame? Yes. The problem is that she does plenty of blaming and yet doesn't offer any alternatives of substance.

As for her brother serving in Iraq, I don't know -- does this mean John Kerry never had to go to Vietnam? He could have just sent a sibling and gotten credit for it.

Fact: no candidate for office can come out in favor of an increase in the gas tax, no matter how good an idea it is. Burner would get SLAUGHTERED if she said such a thing.

Reality is harsh, huh?

More reality: nobody gives a shit what Burner's stances on the issues is. As a freshman Congresscritter, if she gets elected, she will be expected to sit down and do what she's told. This would be true if she was Jesus Christ or Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The most important thing she can do to help the US is have a "D" next to her name. Maybe she's even get to push the button to censure the Prez. All this harping on Burner's lack of a magic wand to make Bush and Iraq and the deficit and everything else disappear just plays to Reichert's hand.

Well, I'm glad we can all agree that it's all well and good that Darcy Burner doesn't stand for anything, doesn't need to stand for anything, and doesn't have to say anything that might actually take some courage. She simply has to seem like a nice person and have the D next to her name.

I know if I lived in that district, I would be voting for her over Reichert. Well, I would never live in that district, but you get my point.

I completely understand why Burner has to peddle in panaceas. Just forgive me for not being a good, little boy and playing along.

I'm curious to hear if she has a plan for addressing what is now becoming a fuel crisis. If she does, that alone could propel her to the head of the line and bury Reichert. COULD.

Fuel crisis? What fuel crisis? Oh, you mean the one where gas is still too cheap? Some crisis. I know the media is playing it like a Stradivarius, but I find it hard to get too weepy over the fact that gas is about as expensive as it was in 1981, or 1918. Boo hoo. Where's the scare stories on the price of milk? Or cocktails?

If you want a fuel crisis, pass a bill to "ease the pain at the pump". Then watch as the gluttons immediately drain the pumps dry, and we all get to wait in line again, like we did way back when.

Fuel crisis my ass.

substance blah blah blah

what's Burner's position on blah blah blah

Look, if you live in the 8th, you can vote this fall to enable Bush to keep royally screwing everyone and everything, or you can vote to start cleaning things up.

It isn't rocket science.

I guess we have two objectives here as thoughtful progressives ("progressive progressives"?). And these two objectives aren't necessarily at odds:

• Get the innocuous Darcy Burners of the world elected over the destructive (or complicitous with destruction) Dave Reicherts of the world.
• Raise the rhetoric toward real solutions rather than just panaceas.

Well, I guess first things first. First you have to throw out conservatives Republicans and then you can start seriously considering real solutions. For now, though, you still have to sow the seeds.

I sense the only candidate that would appease some here is a red meat type.

He's a suggestion: if you have a passion for the positions that you'll judge these candidates on, then get in contact with both candidates and engage with them on your ideas, and how you can help work with them to make them a reality.

Here's what you will find: Darcy will listen and she will try her hardest to find a way to represent your views in Congress if she is elected. Reichert will hear what you have to say, perhaps, but don't expect him to do anything.

While I wouldn't reduce this race to a D vs. an R, as D Huygens puts it, that also has to be a big consideration. The fact of the matter is we cannot create change in Congress if we cannot get enough votes to legislate that change, and Reichert perhaps only votes against his party, and for progressive issues about 10% of the time.

I want a congressman or congresswoman that represents my views 90% of the time, and Reichert is going to have a shock when he discovers that my district, which he hardly spends much time in, unless it is at events on Mercer Island, has greatly changed from supporting a Jennifer Dunn conservative in days gone by, and eager to vote for a progressive like Darcy Burner.

Daniel K wrote: "my district... has greatly changed from supporting a Jennifer Dunn conservative in days gone by, and eager to vote for a progressive like Darcy Burner."

Instead of just tossing labels around, can we establish what positions make Darcy Burner a progressive?

"Instead of just tossing labels around, can we establish what positions make Darcy Burner a progressive?"

- Someone who believes in effective government, and that government is necessary to support fundamentals like good and affordable education for all, good and affordable health care for all, good and affordable public transportation for all, and understands the need for taxes to pay for these things.

- Someone who believes in the separation of church and state and is against the blurring of the line.

- Someone who fights for the regular guy, the working families, rather than the millionaires and lobbyists.

- Someone who believes in science and the benefits of scientific progress.

- Someone who unholds high ethical standards and will condemn, censure and legislate against abuses.

- Someone who would not have supported a war in Iraq based on lies.

- Someone who understands that global warming is an issue we have to accept and deal with, and that energy and water issues require laws that support conservation, and encourage innovative solutions.

- Someone who will protect our privacy rights and our free access to unfiltered news, and the internet.

- Someone who supports a woman's right to choose.

- Someone who believes that America can be a shining beacon of good in the world - not one that is hated - not through wars, but through peaceful coexistence and mutual respect with the other nations in the global community.

- Someone who rejects bigotry, racism and hate.

- Someone who protects the equal rights and freedoms of minorities, gays an lesbians.

I believe that those are progressive positions, and that Darcy is such a "someone".

Thanks, Daniel! You've pretty much made my case.

cressona said, "You've pretty much made my case."

You asked what positions make her a progressive. Now it's your turn. Instead of just making snide comments like that tell us what about these positions doesn't make her a progressive?

cressona said, "You've pretty much made my case."

You asked what positions make her a progressive. Now it's your turn. Instead of just making snide comments like that tell us what about these positions doesn't make her a progressive?

Daniel, it's not that these positions don't make her a progressive. It's that these positions are not actually positions.

Your/her one so-called position is patently laughable: "- Someone who would not have supported a war in Iraq based on lies."

I'm sure if Darcy Burner had been in Congress back when all the Congressmembers were running scared about appearing soft and unpatriotic on the Iraq invasion (Karl Rove is a friggin' genius), Darcy would have been swimming with the other pro-war lemmings. I'm sure of this just as I'm sure that if Mike McGavick were the Senate incumbent and Maria Cantwell -- Ms. "Tough on Iraq" Democrat -- were the challenger, Maria's press office would be listing as one of her positions: "- Someone who would not have supported a war in Iraq based on lies."

But please, prove me wrong on this. Perhaps she does have a paper trail on this; perhaps the Iraq invasion came up in her work as a PM at Microsoft.

cressona said, "It's that these positions are not actually positions."

Oh, but they are. They form a foundation for legislation that would be very different from that of her Republican opponent. You can quibble about details all you like and I can easily find more details to trump whatever you come up with. That doesn't change the fact.

Besides that, I find your mocking tone one that belies your intentions here. It is not up to me to disprove what you project on a candidate you don't seem to have much interest in interacting with directly, but rather prefer to undermine with insinuations and unsubstantiated claims.

Daniel, these are not positions you've outlined; they're marketing points. They're not a foundation for legislation; they're a foundation for projecting an image. While you're at it, you should throw in, "My candidate supports truth, justice, and the American way."

Anyway, so what was Darcy Burner's position on the Iraq invasion in early 2003? For? Against? Where can we find this documented?

How would you go about documenting her position on the Iraq invasion? She wasn't in congress at the time. I was against the invasion - what documentation do I have for that?

She's never held elective office, so of course it is all platitudes at this point.

This kind of nitpicking and hand-wringing is just the thing if your goal is to allow Reichert to slide back into this seat. While a warm bucket of spit would be preferable to Reichert, we have a candidate that most of us will agree with the vast majority of the time.

How about pitching in and getting her elected - after that we can worry about whether she should call for an immediate or phased pullout of troops!

D huygens sounds like you just voting for her because she's cute. We can not agree to go to war on lies in Iraq. But we can if it was based on truths. Yay or Nay. Would she be willing to stand up to her positions once she's inside the halls and risk losing her job because of it. Now thats what it takes to get voted these days. People want risk takers who stand for the common man. Not because of the fat paycheck they getting. Does she have that?That was the question at hand from cressona I believe.

I'm voting for Burner first and foremost because she's not a Republican and therefore will not be an enabler of the most destructive and incompetent administration in our nation's history.

The fact that I agree with her on almost every issue of public policy is pure gravy.