In case the post I just did on Dino Rossi—right below Dan’s post on Gay Porn Jesus— makes you think I’m a lap dog for the Democratic Party, please turn your attention to this recent Slog-loving press release from the GOP below the jump ….

WASHINGTON STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY
Luke Esser, Chairman
www.wsrp.org


For Immediate Release
Contact: Luke Esser
September 27, 2007

BURNER REFUSES TO ANSWER QUESTION ON HER TOP ISSUE

Darcy Burner, Who Has Based Her Entire Campaign On Iraq, Refuses Answer Questions on… Iraq

Tukwila, WA… Democratic Congressional candidate Darcy Burner, who has made an immediate retreat from Iraq her signature campaign issue, is refusing to answer questions about a Congressional vote on… Iraq. She is refusing to condemn her allies’ attacks on General David Petraeus and when asked how she would have voted on a resolution on the issue that overwhelmingly passed Congress yesterday, Burner hid behind her campaign spokesman.

“Darcy Burner is showing once again why she just isn’t ready to represent Washington in Congress,” said Washington State Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser. “She won’t even answer questions about her own signature issue. Presumably, she’s spent a lot of time thinking about Iraq, so why is she refusing to answer questions on it? Darcy Burner is quickly destroying any credibility she has left.”

Slog - The Stranger
Darcy Burner on Petraeus. Kind of.
Posted by Josh Feit 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.

--30--