As always, you can find my regular blog posts over at my website, The Political Junkie.

I keep hearing this narrative from supporters of the Dan Pike campaign: Why would you fire Dan Pike? What has he done that he deserves firing? It was most prominently used in this, pardon the pun, fiery letter to the editor by Chuck Robinson. The key phrase that sticks out is this line:

As a business person, I don't believe it would ever be right to fire someone who was doing a good job, just to give the job to a friend.

I have heard variations on this in conversations with Pike supporters over the last month. As a campaign narrative, it is pretty persuasive. In Whatcom County, we have a real aversion to being mean, and this drives right at that sentiment. Why would you fire Dan Pike? He hasn't kicked any puppies, flown over any flood zones, or invaded Skagit County looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction. He did put up some really tacky art downtown (Remember these?) but most people who do not follow politics closely would be hard-pressed to identify something off the top of their head that he has done wrong. I'm not saying he hasn't screwed up, I'm just saying a majority of people are not aware of anything dramatic. So it makes sense his campaign would push the rhetoric that not reelecting him would be firing him.

It couldn't be further from the truth. We live in a democracy, not an aristocracy (in theory.) Every two to four years, our elected officials are done. Their terms are up. They must justify that they did a good job and need to be rehired for a new term. The burden of proof is always on those seeking election, incumbents are never exempt. Imagine you hired a contractor to build a house. He finishes building the house, and when you give him his last paycheck he says, "Wait! Why are you firing me?!" You would laugh in his face. His job is done. Now if you needed another house built, you might rehire him, but you would want to inspect his work, and shop around for a better deal first.

It is the same thing with elections. If you are the incumbent, you tell people you have done a good job in the past and therefore, you hope they choose you for the next four years. Dan Pike, at the Whatcom Democrats Soapbox in May, at one point defended his work on the port with this quote, "We have tried things, and they didn't work. That's how the process works. Now we know what doesn't work and we can implement what does work in the future." While not quite as bad, it does have an almost Donald Rumsfield-ian feel to it. I hope this Thursday, he brings his accomplishments to the table when seeking the Whatcom Democrats endorsement.

Speaking of which, I will be blogging about the Dems Endorsement Meeting. I will be taking notes, quotes, and pictures. Unfortunately, there is no internet connection in Norway Hall, so I will not be live-blogging, but it will be up when I get home after the meeting. But back to this hire/fire thing.

To see Dan Pike's supporters pushing this blatantly false narrative is deeply disappointing. He should run on his record, not the assumption of an endless term. The mayor of Bellingham makes $126,396.00 a year before taxes. That is a lot of public money. Multiply it out by a four year term and you get over $500,000.00. Dan Pike must justify that he is worth REHIRING to the tune of half a million dollars of public money. Kelli Linville is making the case that she can do a good job as mayor.  Dan Pike should make the case that he would do a good job as well . . . not be touting that he hasn't screwed up yet.