Politics Colby Underwood’s Bad Analogy
posted by on September 27 at 9:30 AM
A substantial 8 percent (estimated) of Democratic candidate Darcy Burner’s cash comes from Microsoft employees. And (estimated) a substantial 11-15 percent of Port candidate Gael Tarleton’s cash comes from employees of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a port security company. Why is this interesting?
Stick with me.
I was interviewing local fundraiser extraordinaire Colby Underwood yesterday, and I asked him why a guy like him, who told me he works for “good Democrats,” —he works for Burner, for example, who’s challenging GOP incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert— was also working for status quo corporate candidate Port incumbent Bob Edwards against hard-nosed Democrat Tarleton.
Defending his work for Bob Edwards, Underwood said he was troubled by all the money Tarleton’s gotten from her former employer SAIC. “All that money from one company doesn’t feel right,” Underwood said. “It reminds me of Halliburton.”
But then Underwood tried to make a point by bringing up his other candidate, Burner. Underwood said it makes sense for Burner—a former Microsoft exec—to have raised a lot of money from Microsoft employees because it stands to reason her former colleagues would want to kick in. They know her work, and so those contributions speak well of the candidate.
But that’s exactly—exactly––what Tarleton says about her SAIC money. She worked for SAIC for 12 years.
When I interviewed Tarleton last summer about the controversy over her SAIC contributions (opponents had raised concerns that taking contributions from a port security company, particularly one she used to work for, might constitute a conflict of interest), she said: “When I made my list to start raising money for this Port race, a lot of my friends from SAIC— who know what I do and how well I do it—went on my list.”
So, there you have it.
I hate to play gotcha, but Underwood’s anti-Tarleton spin directly contradicts his pro-Burner spin. (And by the way, Microsoft probably has more issues in front of Congress these days than SAIC has in front of the Port of Seattle.)
As for Burner’s Microsoft money: Burner has raised $33,625 from Microsoft so far in 2007. The latest reports aren’t out yet, but with her $125,000 take last month from a major anti-Bush fundraiser, I think Burner’s hitting about $400,000. So, $33,000 is somewhere around 8 percent from Microsoft employees.
I don’t know exactly where Tarleton’s SAIC money stands now, but given that she’s raised about $150,000, I’d say her SAIC money, which was at about $16,000 when the issue blew up last summer, is probably somewhere around 15 percent now.
Underwood backed off his Burner example when I pointed out the similarities to Tarleton’s explanation of her SAIC contributions, and simply said Bob Edwards had more experience at the Port than Tarleton … which is exactly what the GOP says about Reichert over Burner.
This isn't surprising at all. This is (pretty much) how politics work.
Colby is also working for Bill Bryant, who's running against Alec Fisken. So if Colby says he supports Bob Edwards because Bob Edwards has more experience than Gael, then it is totally inconsistent to say he supports Bill, because Alec has way more experience. He's not just an incumbent commissioner, he also published a marine digest that covered the port and he helped with bond underwriting. I've gone to lots of port commission meetings over the years, including one of the meetings where they were soliciting citizen comment about qualifications of the new CEO, and I sure never saw Mr Bryant. I bet his main exposure to Port issues was in conversations with Pat Davis, as he was one of the board members of Pat's group, the Washington Council on International Trade.
So, yes, Colby is inconsistent in these two races. However, he did help Jack Jolley in his race 2 years ago against Pat Davis, and he did help Jack Block Jr in the primary against Bob.
@3,
Another inconsistency: Colby told me was working for/supporting Bryant because of Bryant's environmental credentials. But Tarleton is racking up the environmental endorsements against Edwards.
"Inconsistency" ain't the half of it, Josh. Fisken, not Bryant, is receiving the endorsements of the region's environmental organizations:
Fisken -- Washington Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, Cascade Bicycle Club
Bryant -- ummm, are the Affordable Housing Council (aka BIAW's PAC), "Builders United in Legislative Development", the Washington Realtors Association, and the Eastside Business Alliance environmental organizations?
In Bill's defense, he has a very good environmental ethic and has done a lot of work. He was just never in the political environmental circles. Alec's leadership on environmental issues in the last four years is what rightly gives Fisken the environmental endorsements.
But don't discount Colby, he is very good at spinning candidates so they make their calls. And that is where his value is added.
In Bill's defense, he has a very good environmental ethic and has done a lot of work. He was just never in the political environmental circles. Alec's leadership on environmental issues in the last four years is what rightly gives Fisken the environmental endorsements.
But don't discount Colby, he is very good at spinning candidates so they make their calls. And that is where his value is added.
It's who you know and who they know.
If you work at SAIC, a lot of contributions will come from the people who know you, and their friends and co-workers.
Same goes for Boeing or Microsoft or FTL Spacecraft Yoyodyne Industries.
I think Colby's analogy would be spot-on if he would have included one important distinction:
Microsoft is good, SAIC isn't.
It sems like Underwood just works for whomever pays him. If you want to work for "good Democrats", why work for Bob Edwards and Bill Bryant. Am I wrong here?
"I hate to play gotcha..."
Josh, you are a self delusional twerp. Your whole gig is ankle biting.
Will Christopher keep you on, or get some quality reporting?
Why is any of this interesting? Colby's a political hack, Microsoft is no better or worse than SAIC.
But Josh, if you dug a little deeper into what Mr. Underwood is eluding to with SAIC you would find that he might be on to something. Look further down the rabbit hole.
Burner was a program manager at MSFT. Not an executive. The difference is significant.
@13 Burner calls herself a Microsoft executive! Have you forgotton all the hoopla about her job title during last year's election? There is no difference. Candidates solicit friends, family, old co-workers, and complete strangers! They do whatever they can to raise money.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/63251/
Who are you to judge Colby's work? He is doing his best to get politicians elected who HE believes will make a difference in Seattle, who will positively effect policy in their respective offices. He helps candidates raise money from those who support them. It's professional, it's honest, and it's noble. Who are you to judge those who want to effect policy when you just make snide comments about it?
Who are you to judge Colby's work? He is doing his best to get politicians elected who HE believes will make a difference in Seattle, who will positively effect policy in their respective offices. He helps candidates raise money from those who support them. It's professional, it's honest, and it's noble. Who are you to judge those who want to effect policy when you just make snide comments about it?
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).