"Insider" vs. Experienced?

One of the major distinctions Carnahan seeks to make between herself and her opponent for U.S. Senate, Roy Blunt, is that Blunt is a "Washington Insider" and Carnahan is working for the people. In an ad she sent out to gain fund-raising support during the summer, Carnahan makes this distinction very clear.

Her advertisement is pretty great if you ask me in terms of straight facts. In fact, she posts direct charts from Opensecrets.org, the website we use to check about campaign contributions, and all her information about Blunt is quoted almost entirely from news sources such as NPR and news sources such as the Kansas City Star.

We are confused by this negative image of a "Washington Insider" however. Yeah, we get that the large amount of lobbying money Blunt has received means that if he follows most politicians, he'll be more loyal to the companies that finance his campaigns, than he will be to his people. Carnahan does make a good point there since Blunt received over double the amount of funding for his campaign from PACs (Political Action Committees) than Carnahan did.

But when did the idea of having "too much" experience in Washington come about? One of the first things that her advertisement mentions is that Blunt is a 7-term representative and a former majority leader of the House! Isn't being experienced something that voters look for? Wasn't Obama heavily criticized for not having enough experience? It seems to us that there is a huge contradiction between voters wanting someone with experience in getting things done in politics and someone who appears more close to home. Some want their candidate to have (Washington) experience, while others want their candidate not to have any (Washington) experience, so the candidate can change the things the people do not like about Washington. And, won't Carnahan start becoming an "Insider" once she's whisked away to D.C. to act as Senator? While some people may dislike political experience, the listing of Blunt's credentials near the beginning of her advertisement may impress people more than it turns them off from Blunt.

Besides that dilemma, the biggest issue with this ad as far as facts go is the implication that Blunt was one of the causes of the spending increasing from a $128 billion surplus to a $1.2 trillion deficit. This is not to argue that Blunt did not support the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, but that bill passed with bipartisan support and Blunt did not support the bailout of the auto industries. (See the 110th Congress voting records) Would Carnahan have voted differently and will she act any differently toward government spending if she does become Senator? Republicans typically stress fiscal restraint while Democrats tend to support government involvement in the economy assistance to those in need. It is hard to say that Carnhan's implication that Blunt helped cause the large deficit is really legitimate as we cannot look at what she would have done differently. The problem though, is that people are judged on their past actions.