The headline in today’s Seattle Times pretty much sums up Dave Reichert’s entire campaign strategy this election: “In Reichert-Burner rematch, questions still loom about Burner’s public-service experience.”
All in all, I suppose it’s a pretty even-handed piece (though it is past time for local journalists to reevaluate the Reichert as “moderate” meme that Daniel has so consistently and thoroughly debunked), but I just flat out reject the premise that Darcy Burner’s lack of “public-service experience” should be treated as a substantial issue in this campaign.
In a nation whose founding fathers envisioned a citizen legislature, prior public service has never been a prerequisite for higher office, and is certainly no predictor of success therein. In fact, we have a long honored mythology — particularly in the GOP — surrounding successful businessmen who leave the private sector and enter politics to “give something back,” the most recent local example being the failed US Senate campaign of former Safeco CEO Mike McGavick. McGavick was certainly a flawed candidate, but never once did I hear my friends in the legacy media question his lack of “public-service experience.” It simply wasn’t a credible issue.
Burner also achieved success in the private sector before embracing public service, and while she’s no multimillionaire, she honed managerial skills at Microsoft we could surely use more of in Congress, skills she clearly demonstrated in developing and promoting the Responsible Plan. By comparison, Reichert is a career public employee, a beat cop cum paper-pusher who was plucked out of obscurity and appointed Sheriff in what was arguably one of the worst decisions of Ron Sims’ own long career in public service, and who had absolutely zero legislative experience himself, prior to entering Congress. I don’t mean to disrespect police officers, fire fighters, paramedics and other first line responders who put their lives on the line for us every day, but their job experience leaves them no more or less qualified to serve in Congress than most any other profession.
But I take larger issue with this line of attack in that campaigns tend to focus on the job experience of the incumbent, not the challenger, and for obvious reasons. It is fair to question Burner on the issues or on her competency or on her character, but few challengers can ever claim to match the on-the-job political experience of the incumbent, and to legitimize such a direct, unfavorable comparison would amount to little more than a blind defense of incumbency. Reichert, on the other hand, has a two-term record in Congress to defend, a legacy of accomplishments, or lack thereof, that is a legitimate issue of debate. Thus the main question before voters is whether Reichert has adequately performed in office, and if not, whether Burner has the competency and values to warrant an opportunity to serve in his stead. That is the standard by which the media usually covers campaigns because you cannot fault the challenger for lacking experience in the job she seeks.
When consummate Beltway insider Robert Novak says that Reichert “has not distinguished himself during three years in Congress,” you can be sure that he is echoing the opinion of Reichert’s own Republican colleagues. Thus it is not Burner’s experience that is the primary issue in this race — she has apparently excelled at nearly everything she has attempted to achieve in life — but rather the actual experience of Reichert in the job he seeks to retain.
“she has apparently excelled at nearly everything she has attempted to achieve in life”
Like for example….what?
Got facts?
Here’s some:
In high school, Burner was a National Merit Scholar. She worked multiple jobs, both part time and full time, to earn her way through Harvard, graduating in 1996 with a B.A. in computer science and economics. Her jobs included working for Lotus Development, Asymetrix, and, starting in 2000, as a lead product manager for Microsoft .NET.[2]
I notice that this whole issue only comes up when some uppity woman is trying to get into the boy’s club.
“Burner says she spent six months on the project and counts it among her most significant accomplishments between campaigns.”
Does anyone truly believe Burner actually wrote the non-Plan “Burner Plan”. Merely an endless onslaught of Leftist talking points that aren’t really a Plan….merely GOALS.
Gimme a break.
She is merely a talking head for who the heck knows who.
I would love to see documentation of her alleged “contribution” to that non-Plan Plan.
In addition, last time she attempt to make a huge deal out of her Homeowners Association involvement and got B-U-S-T-E-D for a lack of real participation.
Her ATTEMPT to use that experience last time will haunt her again this time.
Another empty PantSuit!
Montana @1,
Add to Tlazolteotl’s comment that Burner was the youngest Civil Air Patrol cadet ever, ran a come from nowhere campaign for Congress that came within a silver hair of beating a well-known incumbent, and managed to get retired generals, national security experts and over 50 fellow challengers behind the Responsible Plan… I’d say that all adds up to support my assertion that she has apparently excelled at nearly everything she has attempted.
I’m sure there must be some failures mixed in there, but she sure as hell has accomplished a lot, coming from very modest means.
Cynical @3,
I KNOW Darcy developed the Responsible Plan, and was the primary author. This was her baby all the way, and she pursued it against the advice of her staff and the DCCC. It was typical Darcy.
Cynical said:
Merely an endless onslaught of Leftist talking points that aren’t really a Plan….merely GOALS.
I suggest you go back and read some of Goldy’s posts about the plan, especially the bits that talk about the plan being directed at things that can be done by Congress. This is an action plan, not some “bring the troops home” talking point, but actual steps that are within the control of Congress to get things moving in that direction.
It also doesn’t sound like you’ve read the plan, and maybe you should do that before you denounce it as ‘mere talking points.’
Dave Reichart no experience? Are you kidding me? Running the King County Sheriff department, far out weighs any home assoication membership.
Government isn’t business and can’t be run like a business. The first and foremost task of government is to be responsive to the people’s needs, and that’s why government has to spend significant sums of money on soliciting citizen input into decision making processes — which involves expenditures of resources that the business sector would never tolerate. Government often is called upon to be the funder of last resort, for example, by assuming responsibility for the financial risks of nuclear power plants which the private insurance industry can’t or won’t. Various business oriented “task forces” on government efficiency churn out reports that invariably are irrelevant because they don’t understand that efficiency is not government’s primary objective and in fact often conflicts with key governance objectives. The fact is, government is a different animal than business, and business people are unqualified to manage government entities. That’s one of the major reasons why the Bush administration has been such a dismal failure across the board.
Of all the misplaced assumptions some people make about public service, the idea that being a millionaire somehow qualifies a person for government leadership is the most egregious of all. As someone who majored in political science, attended graduate schools of public adminisration, and spent a career in government, I can tell you there’s no correlation at all between making money in the private sector and having the skills needed to govern effectively or lead a public agency; in fact, it’s been my almost uniform experience that people recruited from the business world to run public agencies turn out to be the worst public managers of all. The Seattle Port Authority is all the confirmation you need of that; but I could provide other examples.
RR @ 9: Agreed. And even some governmental experience isn’t relevant. I remember a comment made by President Eisenhower, to the effect that “I keep giving orders, but nothing happens!”
Reminder:
This is the point in the discussion where good Republicans should come foward with a logical and factually-based discussion of Reichart’s achievements in Congress over the past three and one-third years, which justify him retaining a job for another two years.
Usually, we just get some name-calling directed towards Burner, and then lots of attempts to change the subject. Lately there hasn’t even been any of that, leading me to wonder if even the right-wing trolls here have abandoned Reichart.
Any takers?
GOLDY- CIVIL AIR PATROL.GIVE ME A FUCKIN BREAK.I LEARNED MORE IN 12 WEEKS OF NAVY BOOT CAMP.THEN THE EMPTY SUIT DID IN HER LIFETIME.SHE IS A LOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSER
re 12: Navy Boot Camp!! WOW! Why don’t you throw your hat in the ring?
Wow – almost 21 hours, and still no defense of Reichart, only some more name-calling directed against Burner.
Riechart’s proven from his on-the-job record that he isn’t doing anything more than filling an otherwise empty seat. The failure of the Republicans to come forward and defend his record seems to prove that. At this point, might as well give somebody else a chance – they certainly couldn’t do any worse than the do-nothing record Reichart seems to maintain.
PU @ 12
Took you 12 weeks to get through Navy boot camp?
I did it in 8, like the rest of my company. However, there was this one guy who was sent back a week four times. He fell down a lot and had a tendency to drool.
That wasn’t you was it?
@14 Reichart has done nothing really, but a
Republican doing nothing is better than a
Democrat with control of anything. This is
how I feel, and Dems are all about “feelings.”
@14 Reichart has done nothing really, but a
Republican doing nothing is better than a
Democrat with control of anything. This is
how I feel, and Dems are all about “feelings.”