Sound Politics: Darcy Burner needs to disclose her performance reviews from Microsoft

October 18, 2006

Darcy Burner needs to disclose her performance reviews from Microsoft

Darcy Burner is turning her job performance at Microsoft into a campaign issue.

Seattle Times online Q&A:

I have more than a dozen years of experience in the business world where I managed multi-million dollar budgets and was responsible for delivering global projects on time and under budget.

The P-I quotes from the Meydenbauer debate:

"In my experience as a businesswoman, which I was for a dozen years, you deliver results or you get fired... If this Congress and this president worked for Microsoft, they would have been fired."

She's clearly making her Microsoft experience a campaign issue, implying that she performed well. When McGavick made his DUI a campaign issue, the media sought proof that his story was accurate.

Burner should be held to the same standard and disclose her Microsoft performance reviews. How successful of a businesswoman was she, really?

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 18, 2006 12:40 PM | Email This

Comments

1. A successful businessperson means one who has run their own business, not an employee of another business, and especially not a mid-level employee in a very large corporation.

Darcy Burner does not qualify as a successful businesswoman or even an unsuccessful businesswoman.

Posted by: Jeff B. on October 18, 2006 12:42 PM

2. Does any one think the peoples republic of King county mainstream press care about the truth?. All they can think of is how to amass power for socialist causes.

Posted by: Allan Rothlisberg on October 18, 2006 12:46 PM

3. Well, considering the kind of crap Micro$oft produces, I'm not sure getting fired from the place would necessarily be considered a negative. . . .

For me, "I was a successful Micro$oft employee" translates into "I lie, cheat, and steal".

Posted by: Frank Black on October 18, 2006 12:51 PM

4. The media doesn't have a standard that treats Democrats and Republicans equally. By avoiding validation of Democrats' claims and charges, the media is responsible for the misinformed, frustrated and confused electorate we have today. But that is okay with the left, because if the truth was ever revealed to the electorate, such as the policies and laws in store for Americans if Demcorats regain the Congress, the Democrat Party would never be taken seriously again.

Darcy Burner is your typical Democrat candidate. She takes credit for what she shouldn't, blames Republicans for the weaknesses of Democrats, she offers no solutions, and like Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, is "counting on" voters being too ignorant or misinformed to see her and her party as offering nothing but negativism and anti-Bushism.

Posted by: MJC on October 18, 2006 12:56 PM

5. They've raked Riechert over the coals for every little thing that has happened in the Sherrifs department for 33 years, and also blamed him personally for everything that congress has done wrong since he joined.

Do you think that Darcy will get any questions about the security holes in Windows? I only ask because I spent 40 minutes today loading yet another bunch of new security updates?

Someone should be held accountable!

Posted by: johnny on October 18, 2006 01:05 PM

6. Somebody here has the dirt on it - in a previous commentary someone said she got a 2.5 out of 5 or something. Don't know how reliable that is...

But if McGavick's record at Safeco is fair game, so is her record at MS.

Posted by: Palouse on October 18, 2006 01:06 PM

7. Actually, Frank Black, her comment probably translates more accurately into "I am easy prey for every virus that comes along, and I need to be booted up frequently."

C'mere Darcy. We'll give you a boot. (For viruses, you'll need a Democrat.)

Posted by: Rey Smith on October 18, 2006 01:12 PM

8. Congress originates policy (legislative), the President and his branch carry it out (executive).

In the business world, managers originate policy and project managers (such as Darcy) carry it out.

Maybe she should wait until 2008 and run for President... or Governor... or Mayor... or dogcatcher...

Posted by: sro on October 18, 2006 01:12 PM

9. What? Stefan I ask you again. Why, if its ok to ask, do you care so much about Bruner v Riechert race? The campaign should be about the issues that matter to the people in their district. Sure its ok to want to maintain control of Congress if that's what you want, but then let it be for greater reasons she would not be good besides silly crap like what the media says about her vs. Riehert. Come on, no offense, but this kind of salting is a bit high-school-ish

Posted by: Once At City on October 18, 2006 01:23 PM

10. Lets face it, the only thing that matters is where they count the votes.

Posted by: Diogenes on October 18, 2006 01:45 PM

11. No it is not "just about the issues", its also about the person. If candidate A is more right on the issues then candidate B, but candidate A is a convicted pedophile with a crack addiction, should we vote for that person because they are right on the issues?

Dacy's problem is she is simply not qualified to be in congress. Here resume is padded and still as thin as they come. As I have said here:

http://andrews-dad.blogspot.com/2006/10/darcy-burner-pads-her-resume-in.html

I am more qualified to be in congress than she is and there is no way I would vote for myself over Dave Reichart.

Posted by: Steve on October 18, 2006 01:55 PM

12. RE: Post #9
Perhaps Stefan and most of us on this board believe that the MSM is promoting one candidate over the other by ignoring one candidate's errors versus the other. That is called bias and we conservatives think it has no place in the election- The Times and P-I CAN be upfront about their leanings and just re-name themselves. Pravda and Red Star come to mind as alternatives.

Posted by: John425 on October 18, 2006 01:58 PM

13. 3. Well, considering the kind of crap Micro$oft produces, I'm not sure getting fired from the place would necessarily be considered a negative. . . .
For me, "I was a successful Micro$oft employee" translates into "I lie, cheat, and steal".

Hahahahahaha, this one cracked me up as it was coming from a guy that has a (Microsoft) hotmail account. Way to stand by your principles... :)

Posted by: trickydick on October 18, 2006 02:15 PM

14. The performance reviews will be withheld under personal privacy and corporate legal "concerns." (Translation: stonewalled.)

Right, Stefan--if Darcy uses her "business experience" to prove her senatorial qualifications, it's fair game too. Let's check.

I too have been in business and "managed" (many more years than her) and have seen capable people fired on a whim and incompetents kept & parked where they do no harm; so what? Where was she on that continuum?

If so successful, why did she leave? Where's HER startup company? Her industry awards? Not even a Kiwanis or Toastmaster's trophy?

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 18, 2006 02:23 PM

15. John425@12, what are you talking about? The Seattle Times has endorsed Reichert.

Posted by: Bruce on October 18, 2006 02:28 PM

16. Yeah, when the Times endorses a Republican, it means the Democrat challenger is REALLY bad.

Posted by: Palouse on October 18, 2006 02:32 PM

17. Who needs performance evals to see what kind of employee Darcy was at Microsoft? She quit to have a child (or was it to go to law school?). Then she quit law school. She quit the anti-war group she started. She quit being a mother to run for Congress. Anyone see a pattern here? Let's stay on message though - it's about Darcy, not Microsoft. If you don't like Microsoft, don't buy, use, or steal their products. If you don't like Burner, vote for Reichert. (No, I don't work for Microsoft either, but I do believe in free enterprise)

Posted by: Kevin on October 18, 2006 09:43 PM

18. Did Microsoft pay her millions via a 'non-compete' like what McGavick got from Safeco?

Apparently she wasn't so essential afterall.

Posted by: Brent in Ferndale on October 18, 2006 10:45 PM

19. Darcy:

You were a level ~62 PM . You DID NOT MANAGE ANY BUDGET IN A PM POSITION, Darcy. Only GM's have budget management --- you may have worked within a budget set by your boss's boss's boss; but that's likely becasue you didn't have spend authority beying your cursory $1,500 SAFE level .

If you want to know where DB ranked consult www.directionsonmicrosoft.com and buy an Org Chart from her period at the company. That chart lists the top 750 execs at MS. If Darcy had a multi-million $ budget, she was 1. a GM and 2. on that chart.

Posted by: Todd H on October 19, 2006 04:13 PM

20. Darcy didn't even graduate from college until 2006, so at best her 'dozen' years is a stretch. Else, it's just a lie unless part time college jobs count. There are some huge gaps in the resume. It appears it took her about 7 years to get through college.

I talked to one of her co-workers who said Darcy was mostly known for long absences, absenteeism, and....taking credit...she said her 'executive' claim is a well-known water-cooler joke, sponsoring thousands of "I'm an executive too" claims.

What a rookie...

Posted by: jm on October 19, 2006 06:15 PM

21. Hey Jim,
Darcy started law school in 2004 so she had to have graduated prior to then. Did you mean 1996? Also, it did take her longer to graduate because she actually suffered a tragic loss while in school. Again, I am not a supporter, just a former law school classmate that knows more about her educational background than most people posting on this board. It's fine not to like her or her politics, but please keep your facts straight

Posted by: Modmilq on October 19, 2006 08:56 PM

22. ModMilq,

I presume you are talking about her Bachelors Degree. She did finish so I will give her credit for that. But she quit law school. She failed to vote regularly or even semi-regularly. She was dishonest about her title at Microsoft. This is a pattern. Why should anyone in their right mind beleive for a microsecond she won't just blow off congressional votes the way she did her citizen votes? Given her past history of quitting things, why shouldn't we have suspicion that she might just up and quit if she gets elected and finds something better or doesn't like the position?

Posted by: pbj on October 20, 2006 01:39 AM