Being a registered Democrat, I read with great interest the Sunday guest commentary by Steve Neighbors: “Mixed report card for Reardon at mid-term.”
I have to say that I agree with everything Mr. Neighbors has to say about Mr. Reardon’s tenure as Snohomish County executive. Then it hit me … one could replace Aaron Reardon’s name with “George W. Bush” and the opinion would be equally correct. Here are a few examples:
* “Unfortunately, Mr. Reardon (Mr. Bush) hand-picked that committee and stocked it mostly with political cronies.”
* “Reardon’s (Bush’s) administration is a veritable public relations machine.” “Reardon (Bush) rarely answers difficult questions in a straightforward manner.”
* “Reardon (Bush) simply blamed his predecessor, Bob Drewel, (Bill Clinton) for the budget “crisis” … “
* “A key measure of a good executive is the ability to attract and retain top talent. Here Reardon (Bush) has failed miserably.”
Mr. Neighbors’ parting statement is especially true for both Aaron Reardon and George W. Bush: “Reardon (G. W. Bush) must learn to play well with others, and learn to communicate honestly and openly if he is to lead this county (country) to the greatness that is its potential and its citizens deserve.”
I can objectively assess Mr. Reardon’s job performance and speak out about it. I’m wondering if Mr. Neighbors can objectively assess Mr. Bush’s job performance and speak out about it.