News Darcy Burner on Petraeus. Kind of.
posted by on September 26 at 14:31 PM
The GOP sent out a press release today pressuring Democratic congressional candidate Darcy Burner to say how she would have voted on the resolutions that have come before Congress condemning MoveOn.org’s “Betray Us” ad in the NYT about General Petraeus.
I’ve linked the whole release below, but here’s state GOP chair Luke Esser’s quote:
“Darcy Burner has a responsibility to condemn her allies for bringing the politics of personal destruction to our military personnel,” said Washington State Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser. “Voters deserve to know whether she’d stand with the majority of her party or extremists like Jim McDermott. Darcy Burner would rather avoid offending her far-left allies than keep her promise to respect the men and women of our military.”
Given that most of our delegation has voted on this (Sen. Murray ‘Nay,’ Sen. Cantwell didn’t vote, Reps. Inslee and McDermott ‘Nay’ and everyone else, including Rep. Dave Reichert, whom Burner is challenging, in favor), I think it’s a fair question to throw Burner’s way. How would she have voted? Gotta take votes if you’re in Congress.
I put the question to her campaign spokesman, Sandeep Kaushik, and here’s what he said:
“Look, her dad is a veteran. Her husband is a veteran. And her brother just got back from Iraq. No one has more respect for the military than Darcy does. Obviously she has a lot of respect for General Petraeus. But there are two things going on here. The Bush Administration has put him in an untenable situation, asking him to find a military solution to a situation that doesn’t have a military solution. And second, the GOP is manufacturing a kind of situational outrage over what really is just an ad in a newspaper to distract people from the question at hand: How do we end this war?”
I asked again: How would Burner have voted?
Kaushik said: “Darcy has a lot of respect for General Petraeus and the difficult job he’s trying to do. And she’s not a fan of name-calling on either side.”
Not an answer. So I asked if I could ask Burner directly. Kaushik said Burner is out of town and “I think we’ll just leave it at that.”
I also talked to GOP spokesperson Josh Kahn about the issue. He said the left shouldn’t politicize military personnel like Gen. Petraeus. That seems hypocritical to me, given that Bush politicized Petraeus all summer—dodging anti-war criticism by hiding behind the pending Petraeus report.
FOUR WA DEMS CONDEMN MOVEON, BURNER STILL SILENT
Tukwila, WA… Four of Washington’s Democratic congressional delegation members, Representatives Baird, Dicks, Larsen and Smith, voted to condemn MoveOn.org today but Congressional candidate Darcy Burner has remained silent. Burner is a favorite of the extremist left-wing bloggers who have largely applauded MoveOn.org’s actions.
The House passed the resolution, which praised General Petraeus and condemned MoveOn.org’s “Betray Us” ad, with an overwhelmingly bipartisan 341-79 vote. Representatives Jay Inslee and Jim McDermott opposed the bill and neither of Washington’s two Senators supported the companion resolution in the Senate.
One of the House’s most liberal members, Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI), voted in favor of the resolution and said that members of Congress are obligated to criticize their allies when they go too far. ''I've got an obligation to be equally upset when that kind of juvenile debate emanates from the left.” (via AP, link)
“Darcy Burner has a responsibility to condemn her allies for brining the politics of personal destruction to our military personnel,” said Washington State Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser. “Voters deserve to know whether she’d stand with the majority of her party or extremists like Jim McDermott. Darcy Burner would rather avoid offending her far-left allies than keep her promise to respect the men and women of our military.”
Sad that a former journalist would puss out like that and not let you speak with a candidate seeking PUBLIC office.
What, now questions from the public?
Too bad.
This whole pathetic situation is a great example of why we have the worst government in the Western world. I mean we're seriously giving the Italians a run for their money. These pusillanimous morons are debating an ad for fuck's sake instead of the war which has killed countless innocent people and will cost us over a trillion dollars.
Next year, Democrats will be twisting in the wind as Republicans demand to know: Do you support the terrorists or are you against the troops?!
This is one issue where I just don't care who voted which way. I'm bothered there was a vote on this crap at all. It was a stunt and it worked. GOP made lemonaide out of a lemon and instead of tossing it back in their face the Dems just drank it.
This game is already getting old. Can I just vote NOW and not have to listen to this crap for the next 13 months?
Stupid response. She should have had them say that she'll issue a condemnation as soon as the WA State republican party issues one condemning the disgraceful treatment John Kerry and Max Clelland received from their veteran hating, swift-boating party.
Cantwell Voted against the resolution, if im not mistaken.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349#position
What the fuck does that mean, that we can't criticize the military or one of its members? Bullshit. That's an argument you'll find under a military junta, not in an alleged democracy. Go piss up a rope, Kahn.
wait, im wrong, this is a different roll call, sorry!
Darcy Burner played this same pro military support the troops stuff last election. She was anointed by Rahm Emanuel and the rest of the corporate dems partially because of the military family ties, that has left us with those weenies in DC.
Sandeep is your friend but he is pretty much just a tool.
@4 - word!
tom tomorrow said it all:
http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/09/an_enduring_relationship.html
What do you expect Darcy to do? It was a no win vote for Democrats. Vote yes and lose the base, vote no, and Reichert has a ready-made campaign ad capitalizing on all that faux-righteous indignation. Goppers are good at generating storms of faux righteous indignation. Democrats, not-so-good.
Sandeep is playing it as well as he can--stupid questions deserve stupid answers. It's a stupid game, and you shouldn't be playing it.
@11,
Wrong. Congress voted on this. Burner's running for Congress.
If the indignation over the ad is b.s., than Burner should be willing to say she wouldn't have voted to condemn the ad.
Josh, if you want to play the game entirely on the Gopper's turf, then go right ahead, patsy.
I think the best vote on this was no vote at all, with the rationale that this is a waste of time when Americans are dying in Iraq. But that only works if the Congress is willing to follow up with real legislative action to end the war. They could start by only approving Iraq funding to withdraw the troops, and holding firm even after Bush vetoes. They could pass legislation that funds the military but explicitly bans funding for private contractors. That would cut the effective occupation in half and force Bush to choose between a military draft and a withdrawal. More likely, Bush would just veto it. OK, so then it's up to him to make the occupation work by shifting money from elsewhere in the budget.
But coming down on either side of a resolution condemning a group for exercising its First Amendment rights? That's a waste of time.
WA State republican party issues one condemning the disgraceful treatment John Kerry and Max Clelland received from their veteran hating, swift-boating party.
Ah, so you leftist admit that you see no difference between a General in a battlefield, and a politician trying to be elected to something.
Well if that's the case, why didn't you just say so? Why don't you publish that, say it loudly, and make sure the vast majority of Americans know this is what you believe?
Darcy burner is a sniveling twit. Why is she hiding behind her spokes-tool? This whole affair makes Darcy look even more amateurish. WHY is she the D candidate again? Oh right, money and connections.
11: Reichert now has a ready-made campaign ad.
Fuckin.
Ey.
Cliff!
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).