April 05, 2006
Darcy Burner was never a Microsoft Executive

The various Democrat blogs are all pretty excited about Darcy Burner, who is challenging Congressman Dave Reichert for his Eastside seat. But this seems to be more about liberal out-of-district Democrats desperate to try anything to help get a Democrat, any Democrat, elected in any district. It's less about Darcy Burner herself, who lacks any significant political experience and community involvement (she wasn't even a regular voter until recently). She is also trying to compensate for her lack of experience by inflating her resume, falsely claiming that she was a "Microsoft executive", when she was not an executive, and telling inconsistent stories about her departure from Microsoft and decision to run for Congress.

The impression I get of Darcy Burner is that she is eager and amibitious, but naive and inexperienced and doesn't have a realistic appreciation of the knowledge, experience and community engagement that it actually takes to represent a district in the United States Congress. It's almost as if the Democrats were so desperate to run somebody against the popular incumbent Congressman and former Sheriff Dave Reichert, that they set Burner up to run (to borrow a phrase) "apparently without any vetting process whatsoever" --

First, Burner is inflating her resume. Burner's campaign and supporters in the media call her a "former Microsoft executive". This is an enormous exaggeration. She was not any kind of "executive", a term customarily applied only to the most senior company officials (e.g. the Vice Presidents and group Presidents listed on Microsoft's Executive Bios page). Burner was a "Program Manager" and possibly even a "Group Program Manager". Several sources at Microsoft insist that people with Program Manager and Group Program Manager titles are not high enough in the hierarchy to be considered "executives" within the company. Burner has no more bragging rights to the label "Microsoft executive" than do any of the tens of thousands of other non-executives who have worked at the company at some point in their lives.

Second, she has almost no record of political or community involvement until fairly recently. According to King County Elections, she wasn't even a regular voter until shortly before (according to one of her accounts) she decided to run for Congress. Between 1998 (when she registered to vote after moving here) and 2002, she never bothered to vote in a September primary. In 2003 she voted in the September primary but didn't bother to vote in the November general election. She voted in one only special election during 1998-2003 (the Presidential preference primary of 2000). Thus, she didn't bother to learn about, form an opinion on or vote on many contests, such as for school board, judgeships, competitive Congressional primaries, county propositions, port races, school bond and county park levy measures that she was eligible to vote on. (Since May 2002 she lived in the Snoqualmie Valley school district #410, before that in the Lake Washington school district #414). These are the races that a person who is engaged in her local community cares about and consistently votes on. But that description doesn't apply to Darcy Burner. Compare Ms. Burner's record with Congressman Reichert's -- K.C. Elections's reports only a voter's last 10 elections before 2004, and Reichert voted in 10 elections between November 2000 and November 2003 inclusive. In the same period Burner voted in only 3 elections. She has voted in every election since September 2004 (King County tells me she did vote in the February 2006 special election, even though the February 28 Secretary of State database which I have online doesn't credit everybody who voted in that election). But it's almost as if she only became engaged enough to vote regularly in late 2004 at around the same time she decided she was sufficiently involved her community to represent it in Congress.

Third, there are the funny inconsistensies in her stories about her departure from Microsoft. On her final corporate blog post of November 2004

what I realized was that I wanted to take the kind of work I was passionate about and make it what I spend all of my time working on. To that end, I applied to, was accepted to, and am currently enrolled in law school. I intend to eventually enter the political arena. (I thought that it might be useful, if I was going to make laws, to first understand how they actually work...)
On her official campaign "About Darcy" page
Darcy has been active in her community and in state politics. She left Microsoft to spend the time necessary to be elected to the United States Congress in the 8th District.
Not only does it fail to mention what she did to be "active in her community and in state politics", presumably because she didn't do very much, but it also fails to mention law school. Is she still enrolled? Did she drop out? Flunk out? Is she a non-finisher or did she even enroll in the first place?

The inflated resume, the lack of political engagement until she decided she was qualified to run for Congress, hiding her aborted attempt to go to law school -- All of these things in the absence of other special qualifications and experience, reinforce the impression that Darcy Burner is far from ready to represent her district in Congress.

UPDATE: These are the elections in which Darcy Burner has voted, according to documents from (and one phone call to) King County Elections

1998-NOV
1999-NOV
2000-FEB
2000-NOV
2002-NOV
2003-SEP
2004-SEP
2004-NOV
2005-SEP
2005-NOV
2006-FEB
I note that she did not vote at all in 2001. I know that a lot of Americans become more engaged in politics and in their communities after 9/11. But Darcy Burner apparently didn't care enough in 2001 to bother to vote for, say, County Executive or on Tim Eyman's I-747 property tax reduction initiative.

Congressman Reichert voted in these elections:

2000-NOV
2001-SEP
2001-NOV
2002-FEB
2002-APR
2002-SEP
2002-NOV
2003-FEB
2003-SEP
2003-NOV
2004-SEP
2004-NOV
2005-FEB
2005-MAY
2005-SEP
2005-NOV
2006-FEB
(KC Elections doesn't report more than 10 elections for any voter prior to mid-2004. Updating the update, I now have documentation that Reichert voted in Feb. '06).

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 05, 2006 01:04 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Ouch. Meanwhile, the media will continue to call the Reichert-Burner race the most closely contested in the state, despite the fact that it's garnering nothing like, say this.

Posted by: Timothy on April 5, 2006 01:42 PM
2. Encarta Dictionary defines "executive" as a "senior manager". Under this definition a Group Program Manager is probably an executive. Keep trying though.

Posted by: wayne on April 5, 2006 01:50 PM
3. Wayne -- not senior enough, according to the several people at Microsoft that I asked about this.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on April 5, 2006 01:57 PM
4. Wow! I think we have the new "Hammer" here in Washington State. Sorry, Tom DeLay, we have the new "Hammer" in town.

Isn't a Microsoft Executive anyone who works there?

Posted by: swatter on April 5, 2006 02:04 PM
5. As an ex-MS, I can attest to everyone that no one at MS thinks a GPM as an executive. Heck, a product unit manager, who usually manages a GPM of the product unit, isn't even considered an executive.

Posted by: C. Oh on April 5, 2006 02:09 PM
6. According to her webpage, Ms. Burner was "the lead manager for an initiative to change the way software was built".

Was this related to the bureaucratic and burdensome processes discussed on the MiniMicrosoft blog?

Posted by: charlie on April 5, 2006 02:13 PM
7. I would imagine that Micr*soft is a lot like Boeing, they have very specific definitions of who is an executive and who is not. I would go by the Micr*soft company definition, not the Encarta definition.

Posted by: Michael on April 5, 2006 02:22 PM
8. Typically "executives" actually have the words "executive" or "chief" in their title (e.g. Executive Vice President, Chief Information Officer).

Alot of organizations inflate titles, especially banks (don't be impressed if you hear someone is a Vice President at any bank). But the Executive and Chief wording is rarely thrown around.

Posted by: Palouse on April 5, 2006 02:40 PM
9. RE: Doug Roulstone.
27 years in the US Navy, retiring as captain on an aircraft carrier. That is a truly impressive career and shows real management experience.
Of course tha is just IMO.
I cant see that we have that quality of person in Pierce County.

Posted by: chucks on April 5, 2006 02:41 PM
10. Here we have a side-by-side comparison of supposed and factual qualifications of a congressional candidate.

Hysterical claims of a right-wing smear campaign begin in 3, 2, 1 ...

Posted by: jimg on April 5, 2006 02:54 PM
11. That's the best you could do Stefan? You mean she never hit her mother?

Thanks for helping to build the buzz about Darcy.

Posted by: Goldy on April 5, 2006 03:03 PM
12. I dunno. Maybe if we convince the Dems that folks who only show up to vote 30% of the time are really viable candidates, we could help usher in a new generation of Dems who might hold 50% of the seats in Congress, but cast only 15% of the votes...

Posted by: TB on April 5, 2006 03:08 PM
13. This reminds me of the prenienal candidate in the district who used to run against Jennifer Dunn. This candidate was entirely the creation of Joni Balter on the basis of single letter the person wrote on gun control. Her name was Heidi Bernes-Benidict and she lost miserably at least four times.

Posted by: Dennis on April 5, 2006 03:11 PM
14. Hey, to be a real D you need a voting record of at least 125%. 30% is pathetic!

Posted by: Fred on April 5, 2006 03:17 PM
15. Alright guys.
What have you done to re-elect a Republican to the Eighth congressional district this week?
The best way to keep this district is by putting this race out of reach early.

And in case you didn't know, Dave is going to be kicking off his campaign with a breakfast at Bellevue's Meydenbauer Center on Tuesday, April 18 beginning at 7:30 a.m.
Give his campaign office a call, 425-455-3283 because they are also looking for volunteers and more contributors.

Posted by: Reporterward on April 5, 2006 03:21 PM
16. Goldy!
Come on now, if this was a Republican that did this. It would be prime spaced on your blog with bullets attached. Most of them about "what a low hanging fruit position" this was or "it was given to those who can't manage their way out of a paper bag" or some other put down.

But thank you again, for being a prime example of the hypocrisy that is the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Mike P on April 5, 2006 03:23 PM
17. It's telling that Goldy responded with nonsense, and did not refute a single point. Was she an executive? No. Does she have an interest in the community? No. What has she done? Nothing.

But she can raise lots of money. I guess that is qualification enough.

This will be fun. I bet she has a meltdown of some sort before the campaign is over.

Posted by: Janet S on April 5, 2006 03:26 PM
18. Goldy seems to spend some time reading SP. I don't read HA because there's nothing of value there, obviously he finds something of value here.

Too bad he can't contribute anything of value. Perhaps he should consider renaming his site lameass.org

Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 5, 2006 03:35 PM
19. Goldy,

Apparently lying about your credentials is okay, according to your comment. I think that says everything we need to know about the current state of your party.

But to ANYONE who thinks that the lack of a voting record actually matters to Democrats - look at John Kerry's attendance record in the Senate! He missed, what - 80-90% of his votes - and they still made him their candidate.

Liberals talk the talk, Conservatives walk the walk. Goldy is living proof of that via his comment above.

Posted by: Larry on April 5, 2006 03:38 PM
20. PS. Goldy may think that the extra attention from Stefan may help his chosen candidate, but he's wrong. I suspect there are MANY Microsoft voters in the 8th Congressional district that would be stunned and angry that she'd bend the truth in such a manner.

Posted by: Larry on April 5, 2006 03:40 PM
21. Most politicians have similar resumes. Just because she's not a career politician or a CEO doesn't mean she's not able to represent her constituents.

Conservatives seem to measure how good a candidate is based on how 'high' they are in the business world (or how rich they are).

I would rather have someone who is intelligent and who cares about the district rather than someone who has had partisan experience and a three-figure salary.

What are your priorities anyway?

Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 03:41 PM
22. Guys. Ignore the irrelevent failure and save your rebukes for his April Fools Day post. All he's trying to do is sidetrack the debate which is about a political neophyte who is just trying to be somebody and a proven congressman with 30 years of public service.
Remember, the Eighth Congressional District is more than just Bellevue and Mercer Island. Which candidate best represents the values of Duvall, North Bend, Snoqualmie, Issaquah, Eatonville, Orting, Black Diamond, Graham, Covington, Enumclaw, Buckley, South Hill, Carnation?
It's a no-brainer. The handful of "Progressive" Democrats living in Seattle can delude themselves about Darcy having a chance in this election but they do not have the grit to go out into our rural and suburban neighborhoods to get out the vote. And even if they did, their anti-military fringe rhetoric won't play too well.
If our side goes out to mobilize our voters, not only will Dave win but the additional votes could just be enough to make a difference in a close Senate race and legislative races.

Posted by: Reporterward on April 5, 2006 03:44 PM
23. There are about 52,000 commissioned officers in the US Navy. There are 12 active carriers, the Johnny Reb (John C. Stennis CVN74) is one of the newer ships. Being selected as CO of the Stennis is major accomplishment, show lots of leadership, management ability, and political acumen.

CO of a Carrier would be equivalent in the business world to be COO of a major business unit at a Fortune 500. He managed 5-6000 people 5 billion in assets and was held responsible for everything that went on in his command.

Sounds like Darcy was about equal to a Lieutenant in with responsibility for one of the work divisions on a ship.

Posted by: JCM on April 5, 2006 03:46 PM
24. So, Gerald, we should rate Darcy on her dedication to the community, not on her position in the business world.

Want to tell us what she has done in the community?

Posted by: Janet S on April 5, 2006 03:54 PM
25. Gerald,

"Conservatives seem to measure how good a candidate is based on how 'high' they are in the business world (or how rich they are)."

Actually, Conservatives care about accurately representing one's accomplishments to one's potential constituents. It seems that by calling herself a 'Microsoft Executive', Ms Burner is the one who thinks that being 'high' in the business world is good for her resume, wouldn't you say?

"I would rather have someone who is intelligent and who cares about the district rather than someone who has had partisan experience and a three-figure salary."

In one corner we have Dave Reichert, former King County Sheriff and current US Representative - do you think he had a three-figure salary? Doubtful. Do you think he cares about his district? Absolutely.

In the other corner we have a former Microsoft Program Manager who calls herself a 'Microsoft Executive', who only started voting in 2003 and who has participated in only 30% of the votes in her district in the last ten years. Do you think she had a three-figure salary? Quite possibly. Do you think she cares about her district? If she rarely votes, how could you tell?

So where are your priorities? Are you going to vote for the person who served his district as Sheriff for 20 years, or the person who was a mid-level software professional and rarely bothered to vote?

Posted by: Larry on April 5, 2006 04:06 PM
26. I would rather have someone who is intelligent and who cares about the district rather than someone who has had partisan experience and a three-figure salary.
What are your priorities anyway? -Posted by Gerald at April 5, 2006 03:41 PM

So you support her based on her feelings (someone cue the syrupy Manilow please, "Feelings, nothing more than feelings...") but it doesn't trouble you that she doesn't care (there's those pesky, darn 'feelings' again) enough to actually participate on the most basic and accessible level (and especially in Corrupt King County!), oh say, like by VOTING occasionally.

Puhlease.

You libs are a hoot and a half!

Posted by: Cheryl on April 5, 2006 04:10 PM
27. Conservatives seem to measure how good a candidate is based on how 'high' they are in the business world (or how rich they are).

Got anything to back this up, Gerald?

Tell me how rich or high in the business world Cahty McMorris is or was. Tell me the high-ranking biz positions and the loads of cash Dave Reichert has. Jack Metcalf? Doc Hastings? Linda Smith? Randy Tate?

Or, are you just using worn-out stereotypes because they fit your worldview?

Posted by: jimg on April 5, 2006 04:13 PM
28. Gerald,

As you don't like candidates with big incomes, I assume you voted Bush/Cheney. Both of their networth is small compared to both Kerry/Edwards. But I guess that just comes from the D playbook of mean nasty rich R, compared to caring, nice, one-of-the-people Ds. Never let facts get in the way, just like it appears is true for Darcy's resume.

Posted by: Fred on April 5, 2006 04:16 PM
29. Hah!

This is the best you can do, Stefan? Well, it's lame. L-A-M-E.

Since you've made a serious attempt to be so damn technical, here's the American Heritage definition of "executive" for you:

1. A person or group having administrative or managerial authority in an organization.

Look it up on dictionary.com

As Program Manager, Burner had administrative or managerial authority in an organization. So she can in fact be called an executive. Only people who don't like Burner would want to obsess over silly technical differences like this.

As for your other criticisms, they're fairly laughable. Most U.S. citizens, Stefan, do not vote in every election. In fact, there are a lot of people who do not vote in any election! I could really care less if Ms. Burner hasn't voted in every single election. She has voted. She is an active voter.

If you have questions about her personal background why don't you just...ask.

You're not much of a blogger, Stefan, or a writer, or a researcher. Hell..you're not much of anything. Just another GOP hack. I'd hate to be on your side of the aisle right now. Bush is dragging you guys off the cliff like a heavy anvil.

Posted by: MountOlympus on April 5, 2006 04:33 PM
30. Another lib fibber. Did anyone expect anything different?

BTW, the easiest way to see a company's exec list is to pull their SEC filings. All the company's execs are listed in the back. Odds are Darcy isn't.

Posted by: Steve_dog on April 5, 2006 04:36 PM
31. she would not be the first Democrat candidate who exaggerated an MSFT position title. I heard that a very recent statewide candidate for office claimed for quite some time to hold an important job for MSFT managing big 'budgets' etc., but turns out she was a secretary, from what I'm told.

Posted by: Misty on April 5, 2006 04:45 PM
32. Well, yes, I do dislike rich candidates. I dislike them because they have more political opportunity than I do, and I'm jealous. Currently I'm working on becoming rich to circumvent this problem.

Yes, I do care about 'feelings'. I think that if a candidate doesn't care about the district it says a lot (I didn’t mean to insinuate that Reichert doesn’t care, I really have no clue what he cares about).

Yes, I do believe that Republicans value people high in business (a little too much), and of course you can name off R's that are not rich.

And as to her integrity, executive is a loose term. I googled her name and found this:
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:dgggredxVgUJ:https://members.microsoft .com/partner/isv/worktog/seminars.aspx%3Fnav%3Drn+%22darcy+burner%22+executive+-campaign+-congress+-democrat+-democratic&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
(The URL wont work unless you get rid of the space between Microsoft and .com. Why is Microsoft .com "questionable content" Stefan? lol.)

It describes her has being a business manager, and places her in the same category as executives.

Furthermore, Dictionary.com describes an Executive as being: “A person or group having administrative or managerial authority in an organization.”

If you want to debate the definition of "executive" that’s fine by me, but it's really a mute point and a waste of time.

Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 04:52 PM
33. moot. ;)

Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 04:55 PM
34. MountOlympus = 10 lb of manure in a 5 lb sack....

......so you really don't want to touch it, you'll just get your hands dirty.

Posted by: ewaggin on April 5, 2006 04:59 PM
35. Gerald,

You miss the point entirely. We don't have to debate the meaning of 'executive'. We can look at Microsoft's catalogue of job descriptions, and online at Microsoft. She didn't call herself an 'executive'. She called herself a 'Microsoft Executive'. Would you like to debate the meaning of 'Microsoft Executive'? And where would you look for that definition?

You didn't answer my previous question to you:
"Are you going to vote for the person who served his district as Sheriff for 20 years {and is currently the Representative in good standing}, or the person who was a mid-level software professional and rarely bothered to vote?"

Posted by: Larry on April 5, 2006 05:01 PM
36. Gerald:
By your own cited definition, you could say a manager of a Burger King is an "executive".

Posted by: katomar on April 5, 2006 05:03 PM
37. Well... Microsoft is a Software Company that she worked for and an executive is "A person or group having administrative or managerial authority in an organization" so... yes.

Katomar: I suppose so. It is a very wide open term.

And I'm going to vote for Peter Goldmark, but that's beside the point entirely.

Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 05:09 PM
38. SEC filings must list the company officers, which means they are authorized to act and negotiate on behalf of the company, and a contract that they sign legally binds the company (at least that's how I understand it).

Large corporations have clear definitions about job descriptions. Typically there are managers, executives, officers and directors. An executive will head an organization of a certain size, and usually report to someone rather high in the food chain. At one local aerospace firm there are clear guidelines about which positions are management and which management positions are classified as an executive position. Encarta or American Heritage, or even the OED definitions don't have a bit of relevance. Unless Microsoft has adopted the AH dictionary as official company policy then it's the company that decides who's an executive.

Ms. Burner's claim to be an executive seems to be puffery. Whether or not it's material is up to the voters.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 5, 2006 05:13 PM
39. Stefan,

Can you post some supporting evidence that she didn't vote?

Where are you getting this information? I trust you and all, but it's silly to believe its true simply because you said so.

Where did you find her statement about voting?

Thanks

Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 05:14 PM
40. I don't know if I would raise this to the level of a scandal, but I have contracted at Microsoft for 4 years, and PM's are a dime a dozen, it is misleading to refer to one as an "executive".

Posted by: James on April 5, 2006 05:19 PM
41. And I'm going to vote for Peter Goldmark, but that's beside the point entirely.

Posted by Gerald at April 5, 2006 05:09 PM

Just out of curiosity, how many times?

Posted by: dave on April 5, 2006 05:20 PM
42. Once.

Just like 99.9% of Democrats,
and like 99.9% of Republicans.

Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 05:26 PM
43. I find it very surprising that after a such a close race in 2004 the Dems would run so lame a candidate. Perhaps they read the polls and decided to spend their money where it might count.

Then again, perhaps Darcy Burner represents a new demographic the party is trying to reach. Unaccomplished, half-a$$ed boomers!

Posted by: Deadwood on April 5, 2006 05:29 PM
44. From her blog:
"I have some theories, but I suppose it might help to introduce myself. I'm a program manager at Microsoft, currently working on ISV (”independent software vendor”) programs (as in “offerings“, not as in “software programs“). I've been at Microsoft for almost four years, mostly doing marketing (Wait! Don't leave yet! I'm not doing marketing these days - please don't hold it against me!); before that I worked as a programmer and in other technical roles at a number of independent software vendors, including Asymetrix (now Click2learn), CenterLine, and Lotus. My early career was competing with Microsoft when I was working at Lotus, and spent a whole bunch of time working on Unix (Centerline made Unix C and C++ compilers and interpreters). So I hope I have, at the very least, some empathy for our ISV community, and all of the reasons they might love and fear Microsoft simultaneously."

Doesn't sound like an executive to me. Sounds like a Program Manager which is one of the tripods of the Microsoft software development model: Program Manager, Developer, and Tester.

And in marketing, too.

This is not an executive position. This is an entry level position.

The levels are Program Manager, Lead Program Manager, Group Program Manager, Group Manager/Product Manager/Product Unit Manager

Posted by: steve miller on April 5, 2006 05:41 PM
45. One advantage of having Darcy run is that she will qualify to take money from the national dems, or so HA brags that she qualifies. This takes money away from other races that might truly be competitive.

Posted by: Janet S on April 5, 2006 05:41 PM
46. Nice work Stefan! I knew something was strange when suddenly the Goldstein drum started beating extra loud for Burner.

The qualifications for a Democrat are simply that they tow the progressive party line here in WA. Burner was more than willing to do that in exchange for legitimacy from news media and liberal blogs. In fact, the Dems prefer someone with less qulification so they can start early and fully indoctrinate them with the ideology of low expectations.

What's really amazing is the hypocrisy from Goldstein. All will remember, this is the guy who thoroughly "vetted" the resume of Michael Brown and broke the story of his lack of qualifications to be director of FEMA. So now that the shoe is on the other foot, all he can do is make a snide reference to David Irons.

What Stefan has done here is research Darcy Burner on the same level that Goldstein does for Republicans on a regular basis. All's fair, unless you are on the left. Then it's not OK.

Here's a helpful translator's dictionary to better understand Goldstein and co.

Left / Right
----/-----
spying/ wiretapping
research/ eavesdropping
racism/ security
diversity/ racism
vet/ mudsling
lie/ research
neocon/ rational
Progressive/ Marxist
dictator/ president
liberator/ dictator
insurgent/ terrorist
tunnel/ boondoggle
transit/ driving
library/ sex-shop
cool/ irresponsible
rave/ drugs
sex/ orgy
environment/ property
psychotic/ marksman
misunderstood/ psychotic
urgent/ optional
unsympathetic/ urgent
candidate/ parrot
wingnut/ rational
blogger/ propagandist
journalist/ shill
gulag/ prison
evil/ corporation
stealing/ earning
guilty/ indicted
whistleblower/ traitor

Posted by: Jeff B. on April 5, 2006 05:47 PM
47. and of course you can name off R's that are not rich. Gerald

But Gerald, I named past and current GOP members of Congress from Washington state, which last time I checked was the subject of this thread. I specifically listed them in direct contradiction to your stereotyping of elected Republicans being rich and/or business executives.

But, please don't let actual examples conflict with your vast amount of real-world political experience.

Posted by: jimg on April 5, 2006 06:05 PM
48. Jeff B., good job, but you forgot:

investment/spending
torture/loud music
fairness/lawlessness

Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 5, 2006 06:20 PM
49. You mentioned six Washington Politians that are not "rich". Six is nothing.

BTW McMorris does have lots of money.
http://hera.pdc.wa.gov/wx/viewdoc_new.asp?strAppName=PDC&nDocId=806833&nQRSeq=1&nCurrentIndex=1&nPageNum=3&nZoomPercent=100&UseIrc=no (Page 3)

and Reichert
http://hera.pdc.wa.gov/wx/viewdoc_new.asp?strAppName=PDC&nDocId=806824&nQRSeq=1&nCurrentIndex=1&nPageNum=3&nZoomPercent=100&UseIrc=no

Or is 300k+ in assets not rich?

Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 06:28 PM
50. Gerald,

If you fluffed your resume like that with me, I wouldn't hire you. I suppose you'd call yourself a 'Blog Comment Executive'. But others would be free to disagree.

I suspect there will be many in her district who choose not to hire her for the same reason.

Posted by: Larry on April 5, 2006 06:29 PM
51. Hey Gerald, 300k + in assets will not get you a 3 bedroom 2 bath house in the 8th district. Unless you are a condo kinda guy.

Posted by: smokie on April 5, 2006 06:36 PM
52. Gerald,

$300 thousand is rich? How much is John Kerry worth? (Answer: $300 million). If you want to talk about who is rich, please answer me: Who are the richest members of Congress?

Hint: They're Democrats! Nancy Pelosi is has more assets than George W. Bush for goodness sake.

Why wouldn't you judge Reichert on his merits? As Sheriff, much of the money that the Green River Killer case cost he recouped in the end. By threatening Gary Ridgeway with the death penalty he got Ridgeway to cop to 48 murders (far more than he'd ever be convicted of at trial), saved the families from the horror of the trial, and saved the state millions of dollars that the court case would have cost.

But it's your contention that we like him because he's rich? If we liked rich people, why would the 'Microsoft Executive' be more like 'our' people?

WaTF?

Posted by: Larry on April 5, 2006 06:43 PM
53. You're good at twisting my words.

I said: "I would rather have someone who is intelligent and who cares about the district rather than someone who has had partisan experience and a three-figure salary. " and "Well, yes, I do dislike rich candidates. I dislike them because they have more political opportunity than I do, and I'm jealous."

Why do you think I won’t judge him on his merits? Of course I do.

I dislike rich Democrats too, so your Kerry thing doesn't fly. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richest_politicians.

300k in stocks does seem like a lot to me, but I don't have much perspective I guess.

Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 07:01 PM
54. OK, I just don't understand how you can get rich on a "three figure salary" [sic]. If you're talking per annum that's between $100 and $999 per year.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 5, 2006 07:11 PM
55. Isn't it illegal now to embellish on a resume?

Posted by: Jason Woodruff on April 5, 2006 07:12 PM
56. Executive is a loose title - non-specific. Probably getting too petty on some these posts - there's enough substance of outrage that can be brought of the dark shadows. While this topic is at hand - Reichert has done well, so anyone except the wingnuts on the left should be able to see it would be beneficial to reelect.

Wingnuts on the left - Don't try and tie the huge deficit or the Iraq war to him. He did not even vote on it ! When the left puts out its hit pieces on him, turn on your bull***t detectors and realize that you will see that they tell half truths and get creative so that they register "lies" on the BS detectors.

Posted by: KS on April 5, 2006 07:21 PM
57. Executive is a loose title - non-specific. Probably getting too petty on some these posts - there's enough substance of outrage that can be brought out of the dark shadows. While this topic is at hand - Reichert has done well, so anyone except the wingnuts on the left should be able to see it would be beneficial to reelect.

Wingnuts on the left - Don't try and tie the huge deficit or the Iraq war to him. He did not even vote on it ! When the left puts out its hit pieces on him, turn on your bull***t detectors and realize that you will see that they tell half truths and get creative so that they register "lies" on the BS detectors.

Posted by: KS on April 5, 2006 07:21 PM
58. 300k in stocks does seem like a lot to me, but I don't have much perspective I guess.

Given that Reichart (and I'm assuming that's who you are talking about, becuase I couldn't find that figure with the links you provided) is in his 50's... that doesn't sound like he's rich, that sounds like a retirement fund.

Posted by: Mike H on April 5, 2006 07:43 PM
59. What PARTY ballot did Darcy Burner vote in the February 28, 2000 Presidential primary? In that election, you had to choose Democrat, Republican or Non-Partisan (candidates of both parties) ballot. And your choice in that primary was PUBLIC.

For that matter, what PARTY ballot did Dave Reichert vote in that primary (if he voted)?

Posted by: Richard Pope on April 5, 2006 08:17 PM
60. Sooner or later even fools speak the truth:

"....but I don't have much perspective I guess.."

Thank you gerald, I knew you had it in you!

Posted by: alphabet soup on April 5, 2006 08:27 PM
61. reporterward, I appreciate your efforts to shore up the Reichert candidacy (esp since he's MY congressman), but I have to say I've been very disappointed in his representation--in that he's sided with liberals on so much stuff, that I feel like I didn't get what I voted for. Especially after hearing him assure us all before the primary that he was Mr. Conservative (my words,not his, but you get the drift). I would happily contribute, but he needs to understand that his base (that's me and a bunch of other conservatives) is ticked off and expecting more from him than we've gotten. I HOPE HE OR HIS STAFF PEOPLE READ THIS!

Posted by: Me on April 5, 2006 08:47 PM
62. Nice "...out of context..." quote.

Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 08:50 PM
63. Gerald, don't look now, but not only was a billionaire your party's candidate for pres., but your party is currently headed up by a very wealthy blue-blood type old-money east coast rich guy with the last name "Dean", as in Dean Witter. No small potatoes there. His family had "live-in help" when he was growing up. We didn't have that at my house when I was a kid. Still don't. I'll bet Reichert didn't and doesn't,either. And if Reichert only has $300,000 saved up at his age, then he's really not wealthy, considering he's likely approaching retirement in the next decade. And you should stop hating rich people. You'll live longer.

Posted by: Misty on April 5, 2006 08:53 PM
64. Again, "Well, yes, I do dislike rich candidates. I dislike them because they have more political opportunity than I do, and I'm jealous."

This is not hate.

And I'm not trying to say Reichert is a rich candidate (read the posts people!). Someone suggested he was not a rich candidate, and I posted his PDC site showing the money he had prior to his election.

And Kerry was no Billionare. Nice try though.

This insult hurts the most: "Oh ya, well your party has richer candidates!" ouch. burn. sad.

Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 09:01 PM
65. Gerald:

You wrote the following in a post above a reference to "rich" politicians and then included this statement "BTW McMorris does have lots of money" and you included a link to a PDC record of her financial interest statement.

A quick review of that statement clearly shows she is anything but rich. Her statement shows outside investments, beyond the state's retirement system, are negligible in the extreme. Clearly you have no concept of either finances or how to read financial reports.

I generally disfavor making strong statements on web blogs but your willingness to make wildly inaccurate and purposefully misleading statements about someone's personal finances on a website is distasteful.

You owe everyone you sought to mislead an apology.

Posted by: barchester on April 5, 2006 09:15 PM
66. Not to mention, but I will, that Dr. Dean got out of military service during the Vietnam war due to a medical disability; he had a bad back.

So he spent his time skiing. So much for a bad back.

This is the same, pick one, serial liar, or lawbreaker, who claims that parental notification laws are harmful because he once treated a 12 year old who was pregnant and afraid of her parents.

Either he's lying, or she was the victim of child abuse, and the good doctor didn't report the crime to the police. But of course we can understand, it's how he _feels_ about the subject, so the truth is subjective.

Actually, come to think of it, both traits - lying and lawbreaking - qualify one for leadership in the dumbocrap party. As does killing a woman, e.g., Kenneydrunk.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 5, 2006 09:18 PM
67. Kerry was no Billionaire? Oh thats right, he just sleeps with one to get ahead. Was that John Kerry-Heinz or Heinz-Kerry? Dump the old family, jump the widow. No wonder she won't let him near her assets.

Posted by: Smokie on April 5, 2006 09:35 PM
68. And Kerry was no Billionare. Nice try though.

Maybe, maybe not... but while he may only have a couple hundred million in the bank instead of a few billion, his wife is a billionaire, and since what's his is hers and what's hers is his, that makes him a billionaire by default.

Posted by: Mike H on April 5, 2006 09:35 PM
69. As Program Manager, Burner had administrative or managerial authority in an organization. So she can in fact be called an executive.

I can just see her screaming that to the security officer as the tow truck drives away with her car because she parked in an executive spot.

While dictionary.com may be ambiguous about the difference between a manager and an executive, the government is not. Take for example L-1 Visa Status.

What is the difference between an “executive” and a “manager”?
An “executive” is one who directs the management of the company. Usually these are executive positions such as presidents, vice-presidents and controllers. An executive is expected to have a supervisory role in the company and would not include people who are primarily performing the lower tier and menial tasks such as production or providing service to customers. A “manager” directs the organization, a department, or a function of the organization. Like executives, a qualifying manager will not be overseeing the primary performance of menial tasks.
http://www4.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/immigration/pdfs/web553.pdf

Posted by: Michael on April 5, 2006 09:42 PM
70. If you want to debate the definition of "executive" that’s fine by me, but it's really a mute point and a waste of time.

As was your English classes during school, apparently.

Posted by: Michael on April 5, 2006 09:43 PM
71. Were, not was. :)

Posted by: Michael on April 5, 2006 09:44 PM
72. Read the post after it.

Oh, and get a life.

Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 09:45 PM
73. Stefan-- Good reporting job. From what I've read here I don't think most people at Microsoft (or at other companies where I've worked) would call her an executive. You haven't uncovered any outright lies, but she has exaggerated enough that I would hesitate to hire her if, say, she submitted that resume to my company.

Congressperson is not an executive position, so politics is more important than experience. Nonetheless, the combination of her limited experience and questionable integrity is troubling.

Posted by: Bruce on April 5, 2006 09:46 PM
74. back on topic...

Why the ___ the times thinks we are stupid....calling her an exec.

Go ask ANYBODY at microsoft what is the most common job title...

Its Program manager; the boss of 4 or 5 of them is a group program manager. She might have managed these guys and their underlings...so like 30 people MAX

Posted by: righton on April 5, 2006 09:46 PM
75. What does Darcy Burnouts lack of Kerry bucks have to do with her lack of qualifications to be a Congresswoman? I've lived within 10 miles of her present location for the last 15 years and I have never heard of this person. Not involved with the School Bond Issues, Senior Centers, Sex Offender Housing rallys in Carnation or North Bend. Did she speak out about he injustice to her neighbors in the CAO process? Has she been to any Chamber of Commerce meetings? Maybe she just doesn't like hanging out with the little people that make the community work. Kinda like Dave Ross was.

Posted by: Just wondering on April 5, 2006 09:52 PM
76. Gerald,

You cavalierly asserted that Reichert and McMorris were both rich and then later qualified that statement with regard to Reichert by providing that Reichert's modest assets seemed "rich" to you. You haven't explained, or qualified, in any post how you concluded that McMorris' assets, only a fraction of Reichert's, somehow constitute rich in your mind. Maybe, having already worked yourself around the axel with Reichert you don't want to call attention to this additional error? Or do you just like the idea of circulating fables that might rationalize pre-existing biases? Why not be a man and admit the obvious, you misread the reports?

Posted by: barchester on April 5, 2006 10:16 PM
77. This is not a debate about a dictionary definition of executive.

It's a debate about who does Microsoft classify as an executive. If MS wants to classify interns as executives that's their right, then every intern has the right to claim to be a Microsoft executive.

Ms. Burner seems to be inflating her resume, and now the dumbocraps are in full retreat, re-defining the definition of executive.

Stefan did a great job, which most of the trolls didn't do, and that is researching which jobs at Microsoft qualify as an executive position.

Darcy Burner doesn't seem to fit the description as an executive.

But when did the truth get in the way of a liberals statement?

Answer: Never.

Trolls, I challenge you to rebute these facts.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 5, 2006 10:26 PM
78. Me - good points you raise. Reichert has sold the fathers he counts on to vote for him down the river. On many other issues, it's hard to figure out where he is coming from, but its definitely not from the Republican base.

Darcy seems pretty much like a joke. But, at least I feel pretty confident I know what her voting record will be - the opposite of what I would want to see. But, like Bush said in a debate, at least you know what you are getting if you vote for him.

As illogical as it sounds, I think I might make a contribution to her campaign. I don't like Reichert, while with Darcy we get the added benefit of yet another kook Democrat to make fun of. They are both bad choices from my perspective, so why not have some fun with it?

Posted by: BananaLand on April 5, 2006 10:43 PM
79. Barchester, being an expert on PDC reporting (I am not), can you tell me exactly what kind of funds she has? Thanks!

Obi-Wan,

My guess is that Microsoft would happily call her an executive now, despite what they called her while she was employed. Is that all that matters?

If Microsoft told her she could call herself an executive would she then be able to make the claim? All this technicality is getting really old.

Banana,
That's one of the weirdest comments I've seen on SP. Why don't you just write in Michael Jackson and save your money?

Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 10:52 PM
80. Gerald: My guess is that Microsoft would happily call her an executive now, despite what they called her while she was employed. Is that all that matters?

Excellent point: I asked Microsoft for an official comment (by way of the P.R. firm they list as their media contact).
Microsoft declined to comment. Which doesn't exactly mean that they are happy to call her an executive.

The email exchange is posted here.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on April 5, 2006 11:06 PM
81. They probably need to talk about it, but I bet you they'll eventually back her and make her "and executive". It's in their benefit to do so.

Posted by: Gerald on April 5, 2006 11:14 PM
82. Gerald,

Interesting point. If MS would call her an executive now, would that make a diffence?

I don't think so. When one is employed by a company ones status determines salary, benefits, stock options, etc. An executive at MS would receive more than a non-exec.

Her job classification at MS when she was employed there is what matters, no what MS may call her after she leaves.

That's why she's running on her job description as a MS employee, not on her job description as an ex-employee.

I have no doubt that she's a nice person, well intentioned. But it speaks volumes about the dumocraps that they would support her, a person with a thin resume and no political experience, someone who didn't even bother to vote.

The dumbocraps beat the drum that the 8th district seat is in play. Look at their choice for a challenger. A lightweight,resume inflating no-name. She may be a nice lady, but she's a sacrifical lamb.

If the dumbocraps thought they had a chance they would pick a candidate with some gravitas. The election will be close, 56% to 44%

If they thought they could win the dumbocraps would find a more qualified candidate.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 5, 2006 11:24 PM
83. You can't declare someone an executive after the fact. She would have needed to be declared on SEC filings during that time period.

Posted by: Michael on April 5, 2006 11:49 PM
84. According to Microsoft's SEC filing, their average salary+bonus for executives was $3.4 million. Maybe there is a slight difference between executives and managers.

Posted by: Michael on April 6, 2006 12:02 AM
85. Golly...

Stefan seens REALLY interested in Darcy Burner's voting record, in a sort of, shall, we say..

CREEPY, STALKERISH way?

(To put things in context, how would you like Stefan tracking your girlfriend's voting records?)

Golly, just a thought.

Is it just me that thinks his proclivities are JUST A TAD, HM, SHALL WE SAY, invasive and WEIRD?

Posted by: bartelby on April 6, 2006 12:16 AM
86. Every executive at Microsoft has the word "President" or "Vice President" in their title, with the exception of Chief Executive Officer (Ballmer), Chairman of the Board and Chief Software Architect (Gates), Chief Financial Officer (Liddell), Chief Technical Officer, Advanced Strategies and Policy (Mundie), Chief Technical Officer (Ozzie), and Chief Operating Officer (Turner).

https://www.microsoft.co.ke/presspass/exec/default.mspx?group=A-D

Posted by: Michael on April 6, 2006 12:18 AM
87. Man, you folks are totally whistling past the graveyard.

Bottom Line, Dave Reichert is a COMPLETE GOP WHORE.

What part of of TOM DeLAY'S LAPDOG do you fail to understand?

Dave has DeLay's dick so deep in his mouth that he has a hard time telling Sue Rahr how to cover her ass re all the police misconduct garbage he left in his wake as KC Sheriff.

I can't tell you the depths of my sorrow about your situation...

Posted by: bartelby on April 6, 2006 12:30 AM
88. ok, that is hilarious! Gerald saying Kerry is no billionaire is pretty much like when Kerry said when asked if he had an SUV, "No, it belongs to the family."
Baahaahaaaa
Gerald, you are entertaining when you are dodging. And way too obsessed with what others have and you don't. Stop the envy and jealousy or you'll have musculoskeletal problems if you don't already!

Posted by: Misty on April 6, 2006 01:18 AM
89. Let's try to forget about Gerald trying to figure out what the meaning of is is for a bit.

Bottom line is that this is going to hurt Burner by the Gold(stein) standard of holding people accountable to their resumes. She was not an executive! Period! And if Microsoft declares her one now, that will only hurt her more as it will appear that they are trying to help her out by moving the goal posts. She's a liar. And if she's not a liar, then she's very creative with the truth.

If I were Reichert I'd already be drafting the ads. What we have here is an inexperienced opportunist that has just enough youthful appearance and vigor to get the Progressive mindshare behind her. They think she's electable and they are going to throw a lot of money at her, but in the end, there are going to be more and more inconsistencies coming out.

Lying about your previous position is no way to start out a campaign.

Posted by: Jeff B. on April 6, 2006 01:23 AM
90. WHY DID DARCY BURNER DROP OUT OF LAW SCHOOL?

Darcy Burner’s WebLog

Wandering aloud

The astute among you may have noticed that I haven’t posted in awhile. The short explanation is that I left Microsoft. The slightly longer explanation is this: while I was doing my day job at Microsoft, I was also spending my so-called free time as the chair of Microsoft’s women’s organization ("Hoppers", named for Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, who pioneered much of modern software). What I discovered was that while I liked my day job pretty well, I loved working on bigger sociopolitical issues. Microsoft, like all human institutions, has significant imperfections in how well it lives up to its values. I spent a lot of time looking at the difference between Microsoft’s ideal of itself as a true meritocracy for employees and the reality where talented, dedicated, ambitious women have more difficulty advancing than comparable men. This is not (in my experience) generally due to intentional discrimination; it is the result of much more subtle factors than that.

At any rate, what I realized was that I wanted to take the kind of work I was passionate about and make it what I spend all of my time working on. To that end, I applied to, was accepted to, and am currently enrolled in law school. I intend to eventually enter the political arena. (I thought that it might be useful, if I was going to make laws, to first understand how they actually work…)

posted Sunday, November 28, 2004 1:29 AM by DarcyBurner | 0 Comments

http://blogs.msdn.com/darcyburner/default.aspx

Posted by: Richard Pope on April 6, 2006 02:02 AM
91. Look at the Google cache webpage for “Contact” for PALS – Parents Attending Law School at the University of Washington for March 12, 2006:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:8gExK5KcURUJ:students.washington.edu/lawpals/contact.shtml+%22darcy+burner%22+%22law+school%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&ie=UTF-8

Now compare it with the current webpage for PALS contact information:

http://students.washington.edu/lawpals/contact.shtml

PALS has “sanitized” its webpage so that folks won’t be able to tell that Darcy Burner attended the University of Washington law school and dropped out!

Posted by: Richard Pope on April 6, 2006 02:03 AM
92. A friend of Darcy Burner’s posted this entry on her own blog on August 15, 2005, stating that Burner quit working at Microsoft to go to law school, then dropped out of law school to run for Congress:

http://spaces.msn.com/greasergrrl/blog/cns!989D470165883D80!1098.entry

However, Burner’s campaign biography on her candidate website says absolutely nothing about law school, and instead claims that Burner left Microsoft in order to run for Congress:

“After Darcy got her degree, she and Mike moved to California to work in the high tech sector. She focused on changing companies’ products and services to better respond to the customers’ real problems.

In the summer of 1998, Mike was offered a job at Microsoft. Darcy and he moved to Washington.

Darcy went to work for Microsoft in 2000 and became the lead manager for an initiative to change the way software was built. It was very successful and enhanced Darcy’s reputation as a successful executive.

Eager to start a family, Darcy became pregnant and took maternity leave from Microsoft. Henry Burner was born in January of 2003.

Darcy has been active in her community and in state politics. She left Microsoft to spend the time necessary to be elected to the United States Congress in the 8th District.”

http://www.darcyburner.com/aboutdarcy.php

WHY IS DARCY BURNER SO ASHAMED OF THE ONE YEAR SHE SPENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON LAW SCHOOL IN 2004-05? WHAT IS SHE HIDING HERE?

Posted by: Richard Pope on April 6, 2006 02:04 AM
93. DARCY BURNER’S POOR TRACK RECORD WITH ELECTIVE OFFICE – SHE RESIGNED WITHOUT EVER SERVING!

Look at Page 7 of this PDF, which is the May 2, 2005 edition of The Crier, a weekly newsletter put out by the University of Washington Law School:

http://www.law.washington.edu/Students/StudentNews/04-05/27MAY2.pdf

Darcy Burner was elected to serve on the Executive Board of the Student Bar Association, which is the student government at the law school, for the coming 2005-06 academic year. In fact, Burner was elected to be the law student representative to the Washington State Bar Association.

However, Burner dropped out of law school after the spring quarter of 2005 and decided to run for U.S. House instead (and not mention the fact that she ever attended law school). As a result, Burner never served a day in the position that she had been elected to, and the SBA had to appoint another law student to fill the vacant position:

http://www.students.washington.edu/uwsba/sba/officers.shtml

If we elect Darcy Burner to Congress, will she actually serve?

Posted by: Richard Pope on April 6, 2006 02:05 AM
94. The only "CREEPY, STALKERISH" (sic) thing that pokes about on this site is you bartleboob. FOAD......

Posted by: alphabet soup on April 6, 2006 04:01 AM
95. "Nice "...out of context..." quote."

Thank you gerald. Within or without of your notion of context, it fits you to a "T"

You argue banalities, shadings, and parsings, and act as if any of it mattered. In the end, even if you manage to make a point, it is worthless.

Sort of like your kamrade~in~arms bartleboob.

Thank you for being the voice of liberalism!

Posted by: alphabet soup on April 6, 2006 04:12 AM
96. Of course, the person who posted on the Microsoft titles made some errors. Burner was a group program manager and before that apparently a lead product manager. So if product manager is at the top, the lead product manager must be even higher, right?

I'm not sure this is goiong to get traction, since it doesn't appear she has actually lied about anything. What else is there to go after her with?

Posted by: Lex on April 6, 2006 08:20 AM
97. Of course, the person who posted on the Microsoft titles made some errors. Burner was a group program manager and before that apparently a lead product manager. So if product manager is at the top, the lead product manager must be even higher, right?

I'm not sure this is goiong to get traction, since it doesn't appear she has actually lied about anything. What else is there to go after her with?

Posted by: Lex on April 6, 2006 08:29 AM
98. Exactly Lex, Darcy is a fiction, she has no experience at participating in her community whatsoever. Other than her desire to be in Congress and the ability to raise money from a bunch of software sycophants, she is totally unqualified to hold this office. Again just like Dave Ross.

Posted by: Just wondering on April 6, 2006 08:32 AM
99. So if product manager is at the top, the lead product manager must be even higher, right?

I'm not sure this is goiong to get traction, since it doesn't appear she has actually lied about anything.
It doesn't matter what is higher than what. Microsoft is required to declare the names of their executives to the SEC. Since Microsoft never listed her name, either Microsoft is guilty of securities fraud, or she lied and was never an executive.

Posted by: Michael on April 6, 2006 09:08 AM
100. Damn, by some of these definitions of what an "executive" is at Microsoft, there most be over 50K executives there! Wait, that's every employee at Microsoft. I want a job as a Microsoft Executive!

Posted by: Mikey on April 6, 2006 10:26 AM
101. Wayne...a Group Program Manager is not an executive position. An executive brings in donuts, and the program manager eats them.

Posted by: dan_55 on April 6, 2006 12:36 PM
102. Along with the absurdity of the other bartleby comments, it appears that everything a D says needs to be taken as gospel. If you question or look into it you are stalking.

I wonder if he thinks that about Bush's National Guard 'story' that got everyone looking at it when he ran for gov, then re-hashed in 2000, and then re-hashed again in 2004. But I guess that is alright, especially as he didn't say much about his service, he let his released record speak for itself.

Posted by: Fred on April 6, 2006 02:33 PM
103. Where did she say she was a "Group Program Manager"? and for what group?

I would think it would be pretty easy to find out what group she managed if she was a GPM.

Maybe Darcy can point out some current "Executives" at MS who can vouch for her work? I mean, it's not like she didn't have friends who will speak up for her, right?

Posted by: steve miller on April 6, 2006 06:54 PM
104. And how does being a Program Manager in the ISV program equate to being able to stand up in Congress?

If she was an effective PM, she'd have made friends and contacts who'd be able to vouch for her or her work.

Here are some questions:
If she was a PM in the ISV group, does that group still exist?
What has it shipped lately?
What were its products and releases?
How often did it ship on time?
What were her review scores?

If she wants to go into public life, she'd better have her facts straight. She may think she can skate into Congress with a padded resume, but she's going to go after a federal elective position, and she's going to have to answer to federal requirements.

Posted by: steve miller on April 6, 2006 06:58 PM
105. The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has a definition of "Executive" too. Ms. Burner doesn't meet that definition. Which do you think Microsoft cares more about, the SEC's definition or the Encarta dictionary's definition?

Burner's failure to participate in all available elections is more telling than her resume fib. Thanks for publishing the info.

Posted by: Elliott Johnson on April 7, 2006 03:11 PM
106. Gerald and Bartelby,

Are you going to let Soup tell the truth about you that way?
Come on boys . . . make your case -snerk- show us your stuff.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 8, 2006 12:23 PM
107. I don't think so Amused. Bartleboob once again reveals just how degenerate he is with such clever commentary as "Dave has DeLay's d*ck so deep in his mouth...." and gerald only seems to get it up whenever bartleboob is around.

Maybe they got a motel room together.....

Posted by: alphabet soup on April 8, 2006 04:55 PM
108. Soup,

I didn't know bartleboob's first name was Dave.

Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 9, 2006 05:40 PM
109. Program Managers here at Msft are a dime a dozen. Hell, when i worked on the .NET Framework SDK Team, I had a weekly meeting with about 6 of them. Biggest waste of time each week.

Executives? Ha. The term "Manager" in that title is misleading. Very few, if any, PMs that I've seen over the years have people that they supervise. For that task, Msft has Lead Developers and Dev Managers, etc...

Posted by: CSantaw on April 11, 2006 02:47 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?