The Byrne campaign weighs in (Lowell - 5/19/2008 6:06:00 PM)
Elections shouldn't be media circuses, nor should they be auctions where a candidate sells himself to the highest bidder. They should be moral contracts between those who wish to lead and those who are consenting to be led.
Our challenges lie in improving the way we've been selecting our leaders. To the American voters, I offer this advice: Be as shrewd and ruthless in your demands on our leaders as the wizards running campaigns are in their strategies to get your vote. Do your part to send to Washington people who truly want to solve the problems of this country from the bottom up. - Jim Webb
I did some thinking over the weekend about the Gerry Connolly/SAIC article in the Washington Post on Friday. I also thought about the words from Jim Webb italicized above. In the context of those words, I believe it's time to explain just why the Connolly/SAIC story is so important for the voters in Virginia's 11th district.
Here's the bottom line of it all: Gerry Connolly has not stepped up and handled this situation like a leader ought to do. Instead, Connolly's response to perfectly reasonable questions about POSSIBLE conflict of interest, as well as his employment with SAIC -- and in this case what appears to be a total disconnect between his position on the Iraq war and his private employment -- has not been to answer the questions. Instead, it's always been to complain, deflect, attack the messenger, or insist that the questions are irrelevant.
Some of Connolly's favorite arguments (followed my my comments in italics) include:
1. It's not wrong to work for a defense contractor. Ergo, if you ask about potential conflicts of interest you're really just attacking hard-working SAIC employees. Red herring(s) alert! Red herring(s) alert!
2. It's unimportant and not worthy of a discussion. As Steve Martin used to say, "Well, excuuuuuuuuse me!"
3. Questions about his employment are unfair negative attacks to which he should not have to be subjected. Well, you were the one who decided to run for Congress, Mr. Connolly, not us.
4. (By way of Connolly cheer-leader-in-chief Tom Davis): "Gee, everybody has conflicts like these, especially in politics." We're not talking about "everybody," we're talking about you!
Now, reasonable and thinking people understand that the above arguments are logical fallacies of various sorts. Still, there are a fair number of people (Washington Post reporter Amy Gardner, sadly, being among them) who seem to find these arguments at least marginally persuasive. For that reason, I think it's fair to treat them with some level of seriousness.
That said, let's begin with the absurd notion that questioning Gerry Connolly about the obvious disconnect between his claim to having been "against the war from the beginning" and working for a company like SAIC is somehow an insult to every employee at SAIC. Plain and simple, that's just attempting to use SAIC's prominent place in northern Virginia's economy as a shield against perfectly reasonable questions of someone running for Congress. It says absolutely nothing about the rest of the employees at SAIC. The bottom line is that Gerry Connolly and his campaign need to stop hiding behind the hard-working employees at SAIC in order to avoid answering serious, if uncomfortable, questions.
Actually, per Jim Webb's quote that began this diary, I would argue that it's our duty as active and engaged citizens to ask tough questions of people who want to represent us. And the role of the media -- the Washington Post, first and foremost -- SHOULD BE to educate the public so they can make informed decisions about the politicians we elect to serve our interests in Congress.
Now, Gerry Connolly may think it's perfectly reasonable to claim to have been against the war from the beginning while holding a fairly senior position within an organization that helped make the case for war in Iraq. Fine and dandy. But it's not up to him, it's up to the voters, to decide whether they agree with him.
Finally, with regard to Tom Davis' ridiculous defense of his friend Gerry Connolly: no, not everyone running for public office has these kinds of conflicts or questions raised. I haven't heard them, for instance, about Leslie Byrne. I haven't heard them about Doug Denneny or Lori Alexander. I haven't heard them about candidates in the 10th CD. I haven't heard them about Tom Perriello or Glenn Nye or...well, you get the picture. So how is it that Gerry Connolly thinks he can play by a completely different set of rules?
Now, let's see how long it takes for the Connolly minions to attack the messenger, throw up smokescreens, and all the while not answer the questions raised. And let's see how long the voters of the 11th CD put up with this song and dance.
Not good.
If we want Leslie, we will have to work for it, really hard.
Starting yesterday.
He claims to be a Democrat but his votes are bought by his corporate sponsors. So how is he different from the Republicans?
His main supporter in the press is Republican Tom Davis.
How do we vote in this Democratic Primary?
For the candidate that the Republican incumbent, Tom Davis, supports: Gerry Connolly?
Or for the true Democrat Leslie Byrne.
A more relevant, timely, and important ad would be how the candidate plans to reform the national security agencies to reflect the changing security environment. Such as reforming the Foreign Assistance Act to enable State to be more responsive, providing more resources to USAID, or reforming the military to do emerging missions such as humanitarian assistance/disaster relief, Information Operations, and training foreign militaries.
It is a tough, hard-hitting ad, but the points it brings up are fair. Gerry has proven in the past to make policy that has favored his benefactors. Why wouldn't we expect him to do the same in this case if he's elected to Congress?
And I doubt the mailer is going out to the whole district. The fact that Leslie is taking chances with offending some portions of the public with these mailers shows me she is serious about seeking to shine a light in the dark corners of our democracy if she's elected, that she's not afraid to ruffle some feathers.
Are employees responsible for everything their employers do? No, but nobody is claiming they should be.
The problem here isn't the employer, it's that Gerry's public statements are so blatantly at odds with his choice of employment.
Gerry claims to have been against the war from the beginning yet he works for a company that is tasked, in some cases, with making an argument for war.
It would be the same as if you-- as an employee of a company who mistreated prisoners at abu ghraib-- decided to run on a platform of jail time for CEOs of companies who mistreat prisoners in Iraq.
So, there's nothing wrong with you being employed where you're employed. But if you decided to run for Congress and wanted to send out a mailer decrying how you've "been against the maltreatment of Iraqi detainees your whole life," I think you might have a bit of a problem. Someone, inevitably, would ask you why you accept a paycheck from a company that mistreats detainees if you've been against it your whole life. And rightly so...it's an odd discrepancy.
Do you really not see the distinction?
True, not all people should be held responsible for the actions of their employers but then again, not everyone should run for Congress. If Connolly saw bad things going on in at his office, he should have quit.
Example: my father works for a defense contractor. As far as I know, they've never broken the law (the government nor anyone else has never brought a suit against them like SAIC has seen). The corporation builds rockets, missiles, satellites, etc. They contribute a lot to the United States, its military, and its economy. I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR A CURRENT EMPLOYEE OF THAT COMPANY FOR CONGRESS. The company is good "corporate citizens" and all - but that's a massive conflict of interest - a revolving door that our government does not need.
It's bad enough having people like Dave Albo making people pay him to defend themselves from laws he wrote, getting defense contractors into high positions of government is iffy, at best.
This is not a typical negative ad. A typical negative ad is irrelevant and ineffective (see what Dave Hunt did to Margi Vanderhye in 07). This ad is true, relevant, and should be considered by the voters in the 11th CD.