The minions for Clark Durant, one of the Repubs running for the U.S. Senate, have been banging pretty hard on front-runner Pete Hoekstra for having too much experience in Congress.

  The West Michigan candidate has 18 years under his belt in the U.S. House and the Durant crowd argues that disqualifies him from going into the senate.  This is under the heading, no experience is better than any Washington experience.

   Durant crony Saul Anuzis sums it up, Pete "has become a part of Washington.  Washington is part of the problem." Apparently the only time Mr. Durant has been there is to visit the joint, not work there.  And what the Detroit charter school operator Durant brings to the table is his private sector experience his defenders go on.

   Mr. Hoekstra made a lap around the state this week announcing that he for sure was in the race and touting his Washington and private sector business background in the same sound bite.

    "I think having someone in Washington that actually has experience there, along with private sector experience, is a real benefit."

     But here is the revealing twist in this story.  Normally you would assume that Mr. Hoekstra would return the fire aimed at Mr. Clark when given an opening to question HIS lack of experience.

     The question was pointed:  Is a candidate disqualfied if he or she lacks a Washington resume?

     Hoekstra, who has pledged to run a positive campaign and stay out of the mud, did just that.  "I wouldn't say you can't have someone with no experience."  Which is another way of saying, Durant's lack of experience is not a problem.

     Unfortunately for Mr. H, Mr. D. will not return the favor.