Sunday, October 30, 2005

Why would what amounts to a democrat communist group from D.C. be interfering in our local commissioner race for Stuart?

That's the question. Why would Steve Stuart be embracing the interference of a communist group like Progressive Majority? Much like he's refused to condemn the vicious push-polling going on on his behalf, Stuart says nothing about a national group supported by scum like Jane Fonda and Babs Striesand interfering in a HUGE way in our local county commissioner race.

What's up with that?

National group spends $55,000 to oppose Mielke

Saturday, October 29, 2005
By ERIN MIDDLEWOOD, Columbian staff writer

Progressive Majority has spent $55,219 on mailers and phone calls to oppose Republican Tom Mielke's bid for Clark County commissioner, according to reports filed with the state Public Disclosure Commission as of Friday.

Mielke said he's surprised to have captured the attention and animosity of the national organization.

"Why is this Washington, D.C., group, which is so far off base, interested in Clark County?" Mielke said. "They feel so threatened by me, it's amazing."

Mielke, 63, hopes to unseat Stuart, a 34-year-old Democrat, from the county commissioner spot he has held since his appointment in December.

Progressive Majority is working to create a farm team of left-wing politicians who can work their way up the ladder of elected office, much as GOPAC has done for the right wing, said Dean Nielsen, director of the group's Washington state office in Seattle.

GOPAC is credited for the Republican tide that swept the nation in 1994.

Nonetheless, Progressive Majority's involvement in the county commissioner race disturbs Clark County Republican Party Chairman Brent Boger.

"We should keep local elections local and not simply be the pawn in the strategy of a national political action committee," Boger said. "We need a commissioner who will devote his energies to Clark County and (who is) not simply someone in the pipeline for higher office."

Stuart said he has his sights set solely on keeping the office he holds.

"My only desire is to do my best to serve the community in this job. Everything that I've done in my education and in my professional life, including being a commissioner, has been because I care about Clark County," said Stuart. He has degrees in law and planning, and formerly worked for the environmental groups 1000 Friends of Washington (now known as Futurewise) and Friends of Clark County.

Progressive Majority donated $1,267 worth of training and staff assistance directly to Stuart's campaign last summer. But the group spent its big money as a so-called "independent expenditure," separate from Stuart's campaign.

"I have no control over it," Stuart said, adding that he hasn't talked with anyone from Progressive Majority since August.

The group's spending adds to what's already a high-dollar countywide race. Stuart had raised $184,039, while Mielke had $189,035 as of Friday.

Progressive Majority's Web site lists 20 candidates the group is supporting around the state this year. But the only independent expenditures it has reported so far were to oppose Mielke, a former legislator. The group targeted Mielke because his stance on growth management, Nielsen said. Progressive Majority has sent out two anti-Mielke mailers on the topic so far.

Mielke has said planners should assume the rapid growth of the past 15 years the county's population has surged by 65 percent since 1990 will continue, and should expand urban areas accordingly.

"This is a huge race to decide what Clark County will look like whether voters want managed growth or to blow the doors open for development," Stuart said.

"I'm for planning for growth," Mielke countered. "I'm not saying just throw the door open."

He called the Progressive Majority's mailers "hit pieces."

Boger, the county's Republican party chairman, speculated that the Progressive Majority is behind push poll calls some voters have reported receiving. Push polling is a telemarketing technique in which damaging information about an opponent is couched in the form of questions. Mielke says that voters have received such calls about him.

Nielsen said Progressive Majority played no part in those calls or any push polling.

"Not only do I think it's disgusting, but I don't think it works," Nielsen said.

Progressive Majority paid Winning Connections of Washington, D.C., $13,176 for phone calls, according to public disclosure reports. But those calls were not to conduct polls, and followed a script that addressed Mielke's stand on growth and development issues, Nielsen said.

Erin Middlewood can be reached at 360-759-8031, or by e-mail at erin.middlewood@

There are lies, damned lies and now, the Progressive Majority, who admits to "addressing Mielke's stand on growth and development issues" but not to "push-polling," which is, of course, precisely what they were paying for. And if they didn't think it "worked," then one must wonder why they do it.

Odd that the Progressive Majority is so willing to engage in that which they allegedly find "disgusting."

But more importantly, one must wonder why they're so concerned about THIS race... and why Stuart is so important to them.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

From the Right Corner: There are lies, damned lies and the Clark County Democrap website.

Whoever runs that website for the Clark County democrats is the prototypical, lying weasel of the variety.

Reduced to begging for help from a Dean offshoot known as “progressive majority” out of Washington, DC, the despicable actions of the losers of the left speak for themselves.

Just a few snippets of their ripe, reeking hypocrisy:

First of all, the ludicrous claim that Mielke is “running behind.”

The true test of perception about who is “running behind” is in the pudding of the mailings and other media a campaign relies on. While obviously ignorant, the idiot running the website for the Clark County democraps should know that the farther behind you are, the more negative you must go if you are to have any hope of catching up.

Thus, Stuart’s mailings have become uniformly negative.

He cannot talk about himself, so all his mailings puke out are lies and innuendo about Tom. Clearly, Stuart is taking full advantage of the Appeals Court decision allowing the opening of the flood gates of lies and invective to ratchet the wide open flow of filth coming from the Stuart campaign (If you want to call it a “campaign”) and his ally, the progressive majority.

If you haven’t noticed already. Stuart is, essentially, broke. He hasn’t done any radio, because first, he can’t find a viable station to run any ads and second, he couldn’t afford any ads even if any station worth a damn would run them.

So now, he’s reduced to begging from his masters in Washington, D.C., an ultra-leftist group made up of the Jane Fonda-Streisand types infesting the American political scene. PM is picking up the slack because Stuart is a part of their deep bench. He’s a fringe leftists with a far-left background and agenda, so they’re dumping a ton of money into this race to protect their investment.

Lie number two.

Responding to the lies and filth of scumbags like the one who wrote the democraps article on their trash site is something that unfortunately must be done.

I believe Tom wanted this to remain a race on the issues. Stuart, knowing he was falling farther and farther behind, resorted to the first round of vicious, unprincipled and false push-polling calls in mid-September. That’s when the gloves came off.

Engaging in push-polling is the FIRST symptom that you know you’re behind. Stuart has at least TWICE resorted to that despicable tactic.

Hypocrisy number 3

Democraps are whining about Tom getting late developer money. Where was their sniveling about the around $110,000 in developer cash Stuart has raked in?

This hypocrite condemns Tom for taking developer money but gives Stuart a pass FOR DOING PRECISELY THE SAME THING?

Hypocrisy/Lie Number 4

Democraps are whining that Tom is caving Stuart’s ass in over his push polling…. THEN THEY FEEL COMPELLED TO LIE ABOUT TOM DOING THE SAME.

Push-polling by and or for Stuart is an establish, absolute fact. YET THESE CLOWNS ARE NOW REDUCED TO CLAIMING THAT TOM IS DOING THE SAME THING?

Stuart denies it, of course. But that he lies like most people breath is a fact. Because the one thing we CAN be sure of is that he’s done NOTHING to stop the push-polls on his behalf. He’s done NOTHING to condemn the process.

That’s all I need to know. You ain’t push-polling, Stuart? Then why haven’t you condemned the practice? Well, we all know the answer to that, don’t we?

Hypocrisy number 5

Democraps are whining about Tom’s plans for developers… yet they say nothing about Stuart, bought and paid for by a select few developers himself. Why aren’t they as concerned about HIS plans?

Hypocrisy number 6

Democraps act like the hiring of a single consultant determines everything about a campaign, yet this clown cites exactly ZERO instances of any mailing with specific inaccuracies.

Lie number 6.

Democraps claim Stuart opposes the Megacasino because he SAYS so.

But the FACTS tell a different story.

The ONLY question here is this:

What has Stuart DONE to oppose the megacasino?

It’s easy to SAY you “oppose” something. But what has he DONE?

Nothing. No letter to the BIA condemning or protesting the development. No action to get rid of the MOU. No public condemnation of the idea. Nothing.

The FACTS speak far louder then his words. In this case, since Stuart has done NOTHING to oppose it, clearly, he supports it.

Hypocrisy/Lie number 7

Democraps give Stuart a pass on his push-polling. Stuart has engaged in push-polling… in mid September. Tom has NEVER engaged in push-polling during the entirety of his political life.

Tom has specific instances with actual questions, such as:

“Would you vote for a former state representative if you knew he had voted to allow women to throw their babies into dumpsters?”

Stuart and the democraps? Nothing.

Hypocrisy/Lie number 8

Democraps claim that “: Tom Mielke has no plan to take our community into the future or how to pay for it.”

A simple visit to Tom’s website shows that for the lie it is. But what does a trip to Stuart’s website reveal?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

If you go over to Stuart’s site… you’ll find:

image galleries

But… where’s his platform? Where’s HIS vision? What’s HIS plan for Clark County?

I can’t tell. He doesn’t have a PAGE for it, like Tom does. Why not? What does he want to keep us from knowing?

Stuart has been endorsed by every left-wing whack job outfit in existence. He’s getting a ton of money from a huge leftist-fringe outfit out of Washington, D.C.. He’s fallen behind in the contribution race, as the public has voted with their checkbooks. He’s owned by a select few developers and a nationwide Deaniac outfit that’s trying (badly, as it turns out) to save him from himself, a fact this idiot completely ignores in his rampant hypocrisy.

But that is the level of delusion we’ve come to expect… both from Stuart, and the Clark County democrap website.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Clark County Television: Violating PDC rules.

The following is the schedule for commissioner appearences on CVTV from the evening of the 24th through the evening of the 28th:

October 24 : 10:30 PM Clark County Focus (10-14-05)
Clark County Focus: Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart is interviewed by local reporters. Recorded October 14, 2005.

October 25: 1:05 PM Clark County Focus (10-14-05)
Clark County Focus: Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart is interviewed by local reporters. Recorded October 14, 2005.

11:30 PM Clark County Focus (10-14-05)
Clark County Focus: Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart is interviewed by local reporters. Recorded October 14, 2005.

October 26: 6:30 PM Clark County Focus (10-14-05)
Clark County Focus: Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart is interviewed by local reporters. Recorded October 14, 2005.

October 28: 6:30 PM Clark County Focus (10-14-05)
Clark County Focus: Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart is interviewed by local reporters. Recorded October 14, 2005.

Now then... is this a pattern? is there some PARTICULAR reason that the only commissioner they show all week is Stuart... while ballots are coming in?

This is a violation of the law. It needs to stop immediately. They know better then this and they're doing it anyway.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

The worst endorsement ever: In our view: Edge to Harris

I was mildly amused by the antics of today's Columbian endorsement. I've watched Jeannie Harris from afar, particularly since she idiotically supported the idea of adding a 5% tax to movie theater tickets as a way to raise revenue for an arts center... without a vote of the people and to get it in before I-695 took effect. That may or may not have been a good idea, but that she would support such an idea between the day where I-695 passed and the day it was to be implemented (Before, of course, the courts threw it out.... sigh) by loudly proclaiming that she wasn't going to "allow I-695 to color" her "thinking" provides an insight into her monumental arrogance and her self-superiority

That said, both candidates in this race would have been better off had the Columbian just kept their mouths shut.

This effort provided absolutely no reason to vote for either candidate. In fact, it wasn't much different then coming out to tell us to skip this election... it doesn't matter.

Now, I wouldn't vote for Jeannie Harris. She shows the monumental arrogance of a Steve Stuart or a Jim Moeller... and there's no place for that kind of "superiority over the masses" in our elected government. Few can be that arrogant, and on that level alone, I believe that Gaynor deserves a shot.

Of course, the unspoken/unmentioned issue for Harris was her two consecutive defeats against Jim Dunn for state representative in 2000, and Marc Boldt for county commissioner last year. The Columbian doesn't think all that highly of losers... and, well, Harris fits the bill. Also, of course, is the obvious fact that Harris's primary reason for running for city council was to use that position as a springboard for something else.

The upshot of the endorsement appears to be that Harris is a known quantity, a sort of benign presence on the council that isn't all that bright, doesn't cause much harm and has reliably supported those things the Columbian cherishes; such as twice suing the people of Vancouver to keep them quiet on the Pollard Hilton... granting Arch Miller's daughters free rent for a year at the Grant House, because, after all, they ARE Arch Miller's daughters; and supporting the steps necessary to achieve the goals of the Columbian, including massive increases in their property values.

I'd post a link to the endorsement... but why bother? Reading it would just put you to sleep anyway.

Monday, October 17, 2005

A tale of two endorsements: The Columbian blows the call – In our opinion – Keep Steve Stuart.

Yesterday, The Columbian endorsed Edri Gieger for the Vancouver School Board.

I have no problem with that. Wouldn't know Edri Geiger if she bit me. I’m not in the Vancouver School District, and, up until this endorsement, I’d never heard of her.
Today, the Columbian endorsed Steve Stuart. I’ve come to know a great deal about Steve Stuart… his background, his experience, and his education.

That’s really not the point of this essay. The point is to illustrate how the criteria the Columbian uses for their endorsements is, well, extremely flexible.

Yesterday, in granting Ms. Geiger their endorsement, The Columbian told us that it was a matter of experience:

“Geiger's opponent in the Nov. 8 general election is Mark Stoker, an attorney with a business background who has prepared well for the campaign. But he clearly lacks the experience in education that Geiger brings to this race.”
Now… I fully grant the idea that experience should play the most important part of the endorsement process. In this instance, Ms. Geiger’s experience clearly trumped her opponent’s education and status as a practicing attorney “…with a business background who has prepared well for the campaign.”

Now, in reviewing the Columbian’s pre-ordained endorsement of Stuart, it’s pretty clear that Tom Mielke’s ten years of government service, 8 of which involved serving as an elected state representative, had no impact on the Columbian’s endorsement process.

Instead, we’re told,

“It has been said that the recipe for good government begins with a diversity of opinions.”
Yet… one wonders: was that philosophy at play when the Columbian endorsed either Craig Pridemore or Judie Stanton for Commissioner? They were pretty much in lock step for their perspectives.

Odd, isn’t it, that “diversity of opinion” rates as some sort of reason to endorse someone THIS year… but it's had so little impact in the past.

Of course, it’s also odd when the person being endorsed is being paid off for special consideration by “progressive developers” who stuffed $88,000 into Stuart’s campaign…. $88,000 that his buddy, Craig Pridemore, arranged for him to keep. It’s VERY odd, given all that blather about a bus tour, that the shiny image of Steve Stuart, so carefully polished and enhanced by confirmed Mielke-haters of the Columbian editorial board (In 6 elections… guess how many times they’ve endorsed Mielke?) has yet to be tarnished by these self-righteous, “unbiased” scribes. The information is out there… why didn’t it make any difference to the Columbian, hhhmmmm? Maybe that “diversity of opinion” doesn’t include the opinion of honesty and character, eh?

Be that as it may, when it comes to elected office, Tom Mielke has more then 10 times the experience of Stuart. When it comes to “diversity of opinion,” it’s pretty clear to anyone who bothered to look that the part of the developer community that dropped almost $90,000 into Stuart’s campaign are hoping for something entirely different then the Columbian appears to believe Stuart will produce.

Odd also that the Columbian felt compelled to comment on Tom’s campaign manager’s former connection to Storedahl, without commenting that Stuart’s campaign manager stands to benefit directly if the megacasino is built at the 319th and La Center exit of I-5.

Yup… you guessed it. Salvador Madrigal, who has come out in writing SUPPORTING the megacasino, is Steve Stuart’s campaign manager’s father. Why would he do that? Because of the proximity of land that he owns next to the proposed megacasino site on NW 44th Ave in Ridgefield… that would be a prime, target for expansion… huge dollars to the Madrigals. Why is it that Steve Stuart has done nothing to keep the megacasino from being built? Why is it the Madrigals want Stuart to win so badly?

Gee… I dunno. Sounds kinda tough to me. Why is it the Columbian remains silent about all of this? Do you think, for one minute, they’d keep their traps shut if Stuart was a Republican?

The Columbian refers to Mielke’s rating by the Washington Conservation Voters, a group of extreme character… used by David Barnett of the Cowlitz Tribe to launder money for a Richard Curtis hit piece in the last election, as “scary.”

Given the fact that the WCV can be bought so easily, the Columbian’s reliance on their judgment for anything is the scariest part of all of this. Certainly, the Koenninger influence shows both his continuing gullibility of believing anything a leftists tell him while simultaneously cementing the "neo-comm stooge" role the Columbian loves to play.

And, of course, the most laughable crap of the endorsement of all was their characterization of Stuart as “…not a political bomb-thrower.” Since almost anyone with political awareness knows Stuart is behind, including Stuart himself, he’s done little else BUT “throw bombs.”

During the debate, Stuart’s fake hurt at Tom’s inoculation piece, which was a direct result of some of the most vicious push-polling I’ve ever heard of, was just the start. He continued by distorting Tom’s population projections, when he lied about “getting legislation passed,” and the crap about Tom’s campaign manager. That was “bomb-throwing” of the highest order.

In the end, for the Columbian, experience is meaningless. They like you… or they don’t. I wonder what BS Morris's endorsement looked like when she, you guessed it, ran for county commissioner while a state representative? I will bet you cash money that the Columbian was very big on her legislative experience as a reason to vote for HER.... just not for Tom. Just ask Don Benton, where, in the last election, they endorsed a clown that didn't even live here, or Marc Boldt, who's managed to be endorsed precisely once in the entire time he ran for office (since 1994) and even then, just against another Republican. And you can bet here that when Boldt runs for re-election, the Columbian will have forgotten ALL about “diversity of opinion” as a reason to endorse anyone.

Friday, October 14, 2005

The Columbian nails it: In Our View-Weak Solutions

When they're right... they're right

The democrats will flip out, of course, because they tend to view the fraud vote as their exclusive property. And, while they're right on that, it's hardly reason to label a bogus attempt at reform as something substantial.

In Our View: Weak Solutions
Friday, October 14, 2005
Columbian editorial writers

Proving you're eligible to vote by producing a utility bill is like proving you graduated from college by wearing a college ring.

The state Voters' Pamphlet for the Nov. 8 election calls the new requirement to present identification at polling sites "a critical improvement" that holds "election administrators and voters more accountable." That's a sham. Legislators who wanted to look tough on voter fraud but had no desire to enact real change came up with the so-called improvement. That's frustrating given last year's close governor's race when we learned that every vote really does count but that some are cast fraudulently and shouldn't be.

The new ID requirement will not stop people in this country illegally from voting. Nor will it block others from voting more than once or voting for a dead relative.

The anything-goes-list of what counts as valid ID includes: a driver's license and state ID, etc., but also utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check or government document.How does a bank statement prove a person's legal voting status?

The new ID requirement is a joke, but one that, thank goodness, will play out in only nine counties. The state's 30 other counties, including Clark, will conduct vote-by-mail elections. Still, the Legislature should pass real ID reform when it reconvenes in 2006.

Resistance comes from some Democrats and the ACLU. They contend that requiring a state ID or driver's license would be discriminatory. But no one has said how requiring real proof of ID is undemocratic. That's because it isn't. But allowing people to vote fraudulently and jeopardize close elections is.

The Columbian blows the call: In Our View-Check These Numbers

I’m a “no” on the library bond. I’m sure that will stun the average reader, but it’s true.

The Columbian is a yes… an equally stunning pronouncement. Now, let’s take a look at the why’s of it.

In “checking these numbers,” the Columbian goes farther out of their way then Steve Stuart to prove that figures don’t lie… but liars figure. And, of course, my concern is over the numbers they don’t WANT you to check. They tell us:

“63 cents That's how much additional property tax per week the owner of a $166,000 home will pay for these overdue improvements over 20 years if 60 percent of the voters agree. That's 20 cents per $1,000 of assessed value or $33 a year on a $166,000 house. For the owner of a house worth twice as much $332,000 it would be $1.26 a week, about the cost of a cup of coffee.”

So… is there some reason they don’t tell us how much that cost will be… over the 20 years of the bond?

Let me help you with that: In my case, the total cost will be something on the order of 20x52x$1.51. That totals… 1040x$1.51=$1574.40… in today’s dollars.

What’s the lie? What are they leaving out?

Well, let’s assume you own the median home, and it was one year ago. Had this issue come up then, the amount of money we all would have paid would have gone up 29.3%… in one year.

So… while I would have been paying $1.51 a year ago, THIS year, I would be paying 43.79 cents MORE. Whoops! So, all of a sudden, the cost goes to $1.9479 cents per week.

Now, the value of my own little patch of heaven here was increased $70,000… THIS year. Were that to happen the year after this tax went into effect, I would be paying an additional 70 times that $1.51 in a given year. And, because of area development and skyrocketing taxes, when it goes up another $70,000 NEXT year, that will be ANOTHER 70 times that $1.51. So, at the end of the day, I find myself forced to pay a tax that I was not allowed to vote on; an already huge increase in my property tax, and these people want me to approve a tax that could easily triple over it’s 20 year life?

Do I want to spend around $4500 on the library system…. Not including all of the OTHER taxes they’ll ask for over the years? For a library system that would rather dive into a pool of warm vomit then adequately filter porn?

No. Hell no.

The Columbian has no problem telling us that jacking our taxes further up into the stratosphere is cool. After all, they say “no” to a tax increase with the frequency of Royce Pollard refusing a tax break to his downtown taxpayer-financed redevelopment buddies.

But by now, you’re read a somewhat different perspective then the fine folks at the Columbian want you to read.

But… why doesn’t that surprise me?

In Our View: Check These Numbers
Friday, October 14, 2005

Columbian editorial writers

Here are some numbers Vancouver residents might consider before voting on the library-improvement measures on their Nov. 8 ballots, which they will be getting in the mail late next week:

42 The number of years ago the downtown Vancouver library was built at its present size. John F. Kennedy was president. Westfield Vancouver mall, Cascade Park and Interstate 205 didn't exist and the city limits didn't go as far east as the fields where they later were built.

34,000 Vancouver's population in 1963. (The county had 102,000.)

155,000 Today's Vancouver population (County: 380,000-plus). Today, the city's corporate limits include the mall and extend beyond I-205 to encompass Cascade Park.


Tuesday, October 11, 2005

The psychology of the Columbian: they got it right, but would rather choke than admit that Eyman did something they agree with.

How bizarre is it that the Columbian endorses an initiative championed by none other than Tim Eyman, and they couldn’t even mention his name!

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the deep-rooted hatred of the left at play.

Even when Eyman accomplishes something that the Columbian can agree with, they would rather dive into a pool of warm spit then to acknowledge his hard work and effort on I-900.

There’s something sick about that. These clowns are so used to Eyman-bashing that they simply cannot bring themselves to give credit where it’s due.

That’s right… read the entire editorial… and not ONE WORD about Eyman is in it.

This is a proof that these idiots cannot be unbiased. They cannot be fair. It simply isn’t possible for them to deal with reality.


That’s not a sign of fairness. Instead, it’s a sign of weakness and a lack of character. But then, considering the source… what else is new?

In Our View - 'Yes' on I-900
Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Columbian editorial writers

Initiative 900 would complete a crucial task that the Legislature left unfinished. The Columbian endorses I-900 as an excellent method of making state and local agencies more efficient and accountable.

If passed, I-900 would direct the state auditor to conduct performance audits of state and local governments. A minute part (0.16 percent) of the state portion of sales and use tax revenue would fund the audits.

Sound familiar? It's the same issue upon which the Legislature "acted" earlier this year. But instead of granting the state auditor full authority, lawmakers shackled him with a citizens advisory board. That restraint is even more ominous than it sounds; not only would such a board inhibit or obstruct the state auditor's work, its members would be appointed by politicians and thus subject to highly political influences. Better to let the state auditor audit the state, without interference from other people's political cronies.

Performance audits are more extensive than fiscal audits. They examine practices, procedures, staffing, and other areas. They've produced tremendous savings in other states:

Texas has saved more than $13 billion in the past 14 years as a result of performance audits. School districts alone have found ways to save $600 million. California expects to save $32 billion in five years after implementing 1,200 recommendations. Colorado, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and New Mexico have saved millions after auditing the performance of state and local agencies.

Opponents of I-900 have mounted arguments that are almost laughable. They think the $10 million that will be spent each year on performance audits is a waste of money. But when you consider that in Washington, state and local agencies spend $40 billion a year, an objective performance-audit program is easily worth $10 million.

Opponents also don't like the idea of state watchdogs hovering over local agencies, but consider two points: Performance audits yield recommendations not requirements and local officials should welcome an outside, independent review (unless they're hiding something).

As for state agencies, performance audits make perfect sense considering the multibillion-dollar shortfalls that budget writers have faced in recent years. When such a challenge arises, why not make sure every tax dollar is spent wisely?

And don't forget the unmeasured impact of I-900: its deterrent effect. How many agencies would become more efficient just knowing I-900 has passed?

When one of the few I-900 opponents argues that legislators already solved the problem and the initiative is unnecessary, refer them to state Rep. Mark Miloscia, D-Federal Way. He helped write the performance-audit bill that was passed by the Legislature, but he believes the audits should be independent, so he supports I-900.

Holding government fully accountable for wisely spending precious tax dollars is only logical. Vote for accountability and efficiency. Vote for Initiative 900.

Monday, October 10, 2005

The Columbian blows it: Our View: 'Yes' on Initiative 901

Few people have a better reason to be opposed to smoking. It killed my parents and stepparent. My mother had a radical mastectomy (Removal of a breast) due to cancer. Yet, I am completely against this initiative.

Anyone ever having read the Columbian would know they’d be in favor of this effort to ban smoking indoors in most public places (Except tribal venues, who will reap a huge benefit from this idiotic law). They frequently have believed they have a duty to save us from ourselves, that their perspective and intelligence far exceeds that of our own.

It doesn’t, of course. As a matter of fact, the Columbian’s falling circulation combined with the refutation of most of their editorial stances and endorsements shows the exact opposite. This editorial, however, goes along with the mindset of most people… most unthinking people… who will pass this initiative.

I will address their statements individually, hopefully so those reading might see the error of the Columbian’s ways and vote no on I-901.

In Our View: 'Yes' on Initiative 901
Monday, October 10, 2005

Columbian editorial writers

Forget for a moment the flaming passions surrounding Initiative 901, the Nov. 8 ballot measure that would ban public indoor smoking. Focus instead on these objective facts, and it will become obvious that Initiative 901 is a common-sense public-health initiative that warrants slam-dunk approval:

More than 225,000 workers in Washington state are subjected to secondhand smoke.

More than 225,000 workers in Washington State DO NOT HAVE TO WORK IN A SECONDHAND SMOKE ENVIRONMENT.


What are these people going to do as a result of losing their jobs? We won’t have to worry about 225,000 people somehow… apparently forced to work in these unhealthy environments… somehow unable to find ANY OTHER JOB… what’s going to happen when thousands of theose jobs disappear when hundreds of places are forced to close down due to smoker migration to tribal facilities or, here locally, for example, drive across the river?

Will the taxpayers of this state be forced to foot the huge bill for the massive retraining program that will inevitably occur as a result of the passage of this initiative?

More than four dozen cancer-causing agents are found in secondhand smoke, including arsenic, formaldehyde and cyanide. Secondhand smoke causes asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, lung cancer, and heart disease and kills 38,000 people annually in America.

And not ONE person is REQUIRED to inhale ANY of them.

God, it sickens me that these clowns believe we can’t think for ourselves.

Don’t like cigarette smoke? Then don’t work or patronize businesses that might expose you to it. How hard can that be?

Going smokeless makes good business sense. More sick days by employees means less productivity and lost money for the employer. Thus, it's easy to see why 80 percent of Clark County restaurants are now smoke-free, up from 69 percent two years ago.


Clearly, there is a trend developing. Is there some particular reason we can’t let it run it’s course? If it’s so “easy to see,” then why don’t we just let it continue on it’s own without Big Brother regulating this conduct?

Washington state likes to pride itself in showing the way. For example, we're the first state to mandate "green" policies in constructing new public-agency buildings. On the smoking-ban issue, though, we have some catching up to do. Nine states already ban public indoor smoking. More than 1,000 towns and cities have enacted such bans. Several entire countries including Ireland, Italy, India, Norway and Sweden have banned public indoor smoking.

This, of course, isn’t a reason to do anything.

If whoever wrote this trash feels that Italy, India, Norway and Sweden represent some sort of utopia… then feel free to leave to these areas where governments have no problem thinking for you and regulating your conduct to such an extreme.

And here's the cold, hard fact that I-901 opponents don't want to discuss: If the measure passes, smokers would remain perfectly free to puff themselves to death at any time, as often as they like, as long as it's not indoors in public. Their right is not being taken away, and even if it's being infringed upon, public health supercedes smokers' rights.

Swell. I’ll discuss it.

You want Big Brother government to interfere with the choices I make as a business owner, regulating conduct that is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS… NOR GOVERNMENT’S, EITHER.

Your observation that “public health supercedes smokers' rights," is positively frightening.

Where do you draw the line?

We have seat belt laws and now interference with business laws… all using the same, bizarre line of reasoning.

What’s the next law going to be? Are we going to end the legal consumption of alcohol? Easy to use that bizarre, same type of “reasoning” for an excuse, as tens of thousands die directly or indirectly from using alcohol. Are we going to lower the legal limit to .00 for drivers? Are we going to cite the same type of evidence as a justification for ending the use of alcohol all together?

I mean, after all, the reasoning to eliminate alcohol is EXACTLY the same. How long will it be before that “reasoning” provides the impetus for yet ANOTHER "save us from ourselves" law?

And what about the obesity epidemic? How long until we force all fast food restaurants to close? Put fat limits on restaurant meals? Eliminate the sales of junk foods?


There. Satisfied?

Some may argue that Washington state already has its 1985 Clean Air Act, which bans smoking in most public places. That's true, but exempted are restaurants, bars, skating rinks, bingo halls and bowling alleys. In those places, the health of employees and the rest of the public is at risk.

NO ONE IS AT RISK UNLESS THEY WANT TO BE. MY health isn’t at risk in those places, because I don’t GO to those places. At the end of the day, I repeat: no one forces ANYONE to work in such an environment and no one certainly requires anyone to patronize such an establishment. This initiative will cost thousands of jobs and millions of dollars. Of course, it won’t cost the Columbian a dime, so that makes this an easy position to take.

As I-901 opponents present their flimsy arguments,

And yours aren’t?

they should answer this question: When the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association of Washington and the American Heart Association are trying to tell the public something, don't you think we ought to listen?

As soon as these organizations are given the power to control my life. As soon as these organizations stand to lose thousands of jobs and millions of dollars as a result of this law. And as soon as these organizations admit they’re being financed by smoking cessation pharmaceutical companies.

When those things happen… then I’ll listen.

When nonpolitical groups such as those and others including AARP Washington, Washington State PTA, Washington State Hospital Association, Washington State Medical Association and many other nursing, dental, firefighters and labor groups support a public-health measure, don't you think we ought to agree?

It all depends. Those of us who can actually think for ourselves instead of having others do their thinking for us might have a different view.

We do, and that's why The Columbian enthusiastically supports Initiative 901. Yes, we have not been overly fond of initiatives as a general rule. We believe a better way is for elected officials to enact necessary laws; that's why we elected them. But when legislators lack the courage to act, as has been the case on a public indoor smoking ban, then an initiative becomes necessary.

Oh. So you people DO support I-912?


Protect public health by authorizing a long-overdue ban on public indoor smoking. Vote "Yes" on Initiative 901.

Nope. I’m a firm “no.” I see the slope… and it’s very slippery, indeed.

Sunday, October 09, 2005

The Columbian blows it: ‘No’ on Initiative 912

Like many of the more big time, well, “adult” papers of the area used to supporting any effort of expanding government and raising our taxes (Gee… is it time to start a newsprint tax?) the Columbian has dutifully followed suit with most of the media sheep in this state and come out in opposition to I-912, the gas tax repeal.

Like their larger brethren up north, the Columbian marginalizes opposition to this usurious tax increase by their all-too-typical name calling and belittlement.

They start by stupidly referring to opposition to this initiative as “reflexive,” people who engage in “pathological hatred” of tax increases, (Much like, I assume, the “reflexive, pathological love” for tax increases typical of the editorial board?) They foolishly tell us that this tax was “thoroughly vetted.”

The fact is that the Columbian editorialists, whoever they are, live in a huge fantasy.

A “thoroughly vetted” tax increase would not have resulted in the 2nd largest number of signatures ever collected for an initiative and the most ever collected in such a short period of time.

A “thoroughly vetted” gas tax would not have ignored the myriad problems this tax presents. A “thoroughly vetted” gas tax increase would have done away with the sales tax money laundering, the art requirement, the bogus emergency clause, the multi-billion dollar reapportionment to unknown projects, the dollars to ferries, light rail, county and city governments.

In fact, that tax increase was no more “thoroughly vetted” then the idiocy contained within this editorial slavishly supporting yet another tax increase, this time in addition to the highest gas prices we’ve ever known.

Congratulations to the Columbian for once again confirming how out of touch they are from the people of Clark County.

In Our View - 'No' on Initiative 912
Sunday, October 9, 2005
Columbian editorial writers

Reflexively shouting down viable solutions brought by people we elected will not fix transportation infrastructure problems in Washington state. That's essentially what has happened, though, with the emergence of Initiative 912 on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Its passage would be disastrous for Clark County, where 13 transportation projects valued at $244 million would be lost. That's why The Columbian strongly recommends a "No" vote on Initiative 912. (Ballots will be mailed on Wednesday, Oct. 19.)

Initiative 912 was drummed up in response to a 9.5-cent gas tax increase (phased in over four years) that will generate about $2 billion for statewide projects. Who made that costly decision? The people we elected to make tough calls: legislators. So often they are criticized for ignoring critical needs. But on this crucial issue, the lawmakers made the courageous call.


The Times blows it: The Times endorses - A region on the move should vote no on I-912

Actually, the Times blew an opportunity here. What should have been the title and the substance of this editorial was this: An opportunity to send a message: vote yes on I-912.

The reasons to kill this pig are far more numerous and compelling then those that might let it live. The Seattle Times, of course, has a vested interest in the outcome, in that King County generally and those in the area of the viaduct and 520 specifically that are destined to receive the benefit of the entire state’s largess will whine and complain the most if that money is, well, stalled.

I get that. But the Times has a responsibility to put themselves beyond playground politics and to make editorial decisions based on what truly is best for the people.

So, instead of taking the opportunity to focus the rage of the people where it properly belongs, specifically, the governor and the legislative leadership, the Times put that aside and proceeded to endorse a tax increase that ignores the people, ignores reality and serves to do nothing but buttress the status quo.

The campaign those so in love with jacking our taxes up SHOULD have run was a campaign of re-examination and self-critique. They should be looking for compromise. They should take the rejection of this massive increase, examine the reasons for that rejection, address them, and then re-submit this tax for voter approval.

Instead, gas-tax proponents are all about their “all-or-nothing” approach. With neo-comms, there is no compromise. It’s the proverbial “my way or the highway” approach. And I believe that the people of this state are choosing, literally, the highway.

The reasons to reject this tax are well known: the bogus emergency clause (There is no emergency. If the viaduct is in such bad shape, close it down now. That it isn’t closed puts the lie to their so-called “emergency,” a purely political label that was designed to forestall the reaction this tax engendered by doubling the signature requirement. The leftists in charge of this state badly misread the rage they’ve caused… and I-912 is the result.)

The sales tax shift, a criminal enterprise of taking gas tax dollars and shifting them to the general fund and away from transportation projects by the hundreds of millions; the county and city payoffs of transportation dollars to be spent however they like; the $2 billion to be re-designated for whatever projects WADOT may feel are necessary if the people of King County don’t vote a tax increase on themselves in addition to this gas tax; the prevailing wage issue; the ½% for art requirement; the dollars for ferries and mass transit/light rail… well hell, who DIDN’T get paid off by this robbery?

No, the Times and others who see this massive tax increase on top of the highest gas prices we’ve ever known have blown a golden opportunity. They SHOULD have called for legislative action to address these fatal shortcomings with a re-referral to the people of this state. Instead, we’ve found ourselves in a time warp. It’s I-695 all over again.

The leaders of this state sit on their thumbs with the inevitable about to happen and they do nothing. They are incapable of admitting they were wrong, so they risk everything because of their vanity.

Instead of looking for common ground…. Addressing the obvious shortcomings… allowing, even welcoming public determination of these outcomes… we find ourselves embroiled in a divisive, insulting and cynical campaign for gas-tax proponents to call us stupid and save us from ourselves.

Will this teach them a lesson? Will they ever learn?

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
The Times endorses
A region on the move should vote no on I-912

E-mail article Print view Search
Most e-mailed Most read RSS

Initiative 912, which torpedoes badly needed road, bridge-safety and mobility improvements across the state, requires voters to think carefully and then vote "no."

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, voters ought to consider the long-term interest and turn down a shortsighted proposal, which irresponsibly rolls back a 9.5-cent gas-tax increase approved by the Legislature. I-912 is classic instant gratification for a community given plenty of warning about roads, bridges and earthquake preparedness.

Putting off until tomorrow what should be done today on the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Highway 520 bridge is akin to what New Orleans did by not shoring up levees.


Saturday, October 08, 2005

The PI blows it: Gas-tax Repeal - Time to speak up

So, the neo-communists of the PI are demanding Republican leadership on the gas tax. HHhhmmmm…. Didn’t the state committee SHOW leadership when they endorsed I-912?

Oh yeah… I forgot. It’s only “leadership” when you do it the way the leftists want.

It never ceases to amaze me how they're so cute with their labels.

To the left, anyone on the right who does something or assumes a political position THEY want shows “leadership.”

SCREW what the people want. FORGET the Washington State Constitution.

In this case, they’re sniveling about the fact that Republicans who voted for this abortion are remaining silent on the initiative.

How very easy it is for the PI to make those demands. The PI is, of course, all about King County, which stands to realize BILLIONS of dollars from the gas tax. Naturally, they WANT unnecessary expenditures on art; prevailing wage, county and city pay-offs and the sales tax shuffle to the general fund… hundreds of millions of dollars that will be spent on anything BUT concrete and the like. They are TOTALLY unconcerned about the objections to this tax; COMPLETELY on board with the waste of this tax and the idea of adding yet MORE tax to the highest gas prices we’ve ever known doesn’t faze them.

Some Republicans voted for this gas tax. I disagree with them, though I’m familiar with the democrat strong-arm tactics that came into play. Unfortunately for those who voted for this, as well as for the PI, the arguments in favor of increasing THIS tax, under THESE circumstances, pail in comparison to the reasons to get rid of it.

This was poor legislation at best. The failure to address the obvious problems, combined with the apply-anywhere bogus “emergency clause” rightfully doomed this thing to failure. The responsibility rests entirely on the governor, who campaigned on a platform of NOT implementing a tax increase without a vote; Speaker Frank Chopp, Rep. Ed Murray, House Transportation Chair; Majority Leader Sen. Lisa Brown and Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, Senate Transportation Chair.

The time to look for “leadership” was when this tax was in front of them. Now… no amount of “leadership” (defined as “doing whatever the left wants”) will put the lipstick on this pig.

And, did the PI file this as an "in-kind" contribution?

Sunday, October 9, 2005
Gas-tax Repeal: Time to speak up

For members of the state's political class, the effort to repeal the four-year 9.5-cent gas tax increase is all about politics. Initiative 912 is variously described as a referendum on the liberal politics of Olympia or a revote of the governor's race.

To regular folks, however, the issue is mobility and safety -- 274 new highway projects, including helping to replace the crumbling Alaskan Way Viaduct.

To the state's business community, it's about getting employees to work and products to market.

According to Washington Roundtable President Steve Mullin, failing to fund transportation infrastructure in the state by repealing the gas tax increase, "says that we are not prepared to compete....We're not Iowa."

But if politics must trump safety and economic security, let's hear from the politicians -- especially Republican politicians.


Thursday, October 06, 2005

C-Trans admits it! Rural areas were cut out due to their known "NO" vote!

As I've previously stated here, here and here, C-Trans bruised democracy by exacto-knife gerrymandering to get their tax increase passed.

As despicable as that act is, and as much as we're going to see it in the future (And, due to it's success, we WILL see it in the future... repeatedly...) I was stunned that they would actually admit it!

We were all told by the campaign that the whole point of the exercise was to only allow those areas that had C-Trans service to vote on it. That was, of course, an outright lie. And this article, from the Oregonian, of course, (How does that little saying go? "If it's important to the people of Clark County, they'll read about it in the Oregonian?") spells that out in graphic detail.

Cities deliver the votes to increase taxes for C-Tran Restoring routes

Thursday, October 06, 2005

VANCOUVER -- C-Tran took two gambles on Sept. 20.
The question had been whether to let residents of Clark County's smaller cities and rural areas vote on increasing a transit tax when they hadn't had full bus service in years.

So C-Tran officials decided to let small cities vote, and they decided that 51,393 residents of the county's rural areas would not get to vote again -- they were cut from the district in June because they had voted overwhelmingly against the bus tax in a similar election in November.

According to a computer analysis developed Wednesday by the county elections office, the strategy worked. In the primary election every city delivered: C-Tran received its strongest support from Washougal, where 73 percent of those voting endorsed the tax increase.

The "yes" vote topped 62 percent in LaCenter, Ridgefield, Battle Ground and Camas. The lowest "yes" vote was 59.6 percent in Yacolt, where community leaders debated remaining in the transit district earlier this year. Yacolt, with 52 percent turnout, topped all cities for participation.


This "vote" represents government at its absolute worst. Under the guise of democracy, according to the article, the vote of 51,393 was disregarded and not allowed.

That isn't what I wore the uniform of the US Army for over 10 years to accomplish.

Those proud of this bastardization of the process shouldn't be. And every time they see one of the legion... one of the myriad of empty buses drive by, they should feel just a little ashamed of themselves... because I know I'm ashamed of them.

When democrats run the place #15: Kulongoski's appointments are blindingly white

Kulongoski's appointments are blindingly white

October 6, 2005

And this is the point at which my friends in the Department of Human Services drive by and shoot out my porch light.

In September, Gov. Ted Kulongoski appointed Dr. Bruce Goldberg to be the director of the department, known as DHS. And everyone I've talked to -- people in the department as well as the most jaded government watchers -- are doing headstands. Goldberg, whom I've never met, is universally hailed as a brilliant choice to run the state's biggest agency.

I don't disagree. I'm sure he's all that and a bag of chips. I'm just concerned that he's yet another white guy. In a long, long list of white guys appointed to the top-dog positions by this governor.

Before my friends in DHS start lobbing produce at me, let me stipulate to the following:

Goldberg is the medical director of CareOregon, the managed-care plan that serves about 100,000 people. He taught family medicine at Oregon Health & Science University. His work there included improving care for migrant and seasonal farmworkers. He once was a medical director for the Zuni tribe in New Mexico. For all I know, he's close to solving that whole cold-fusion thing.

He's a trip to the moon on gossamer wings. I get that. I'm not really writing about Goldberg.

Before he was named to lead DHS, white guy Bryan Johnston had the gig. Before him, it was white guy Gary Weeks. All Kulongoski appointees.


When democrats run the place #14: Missed ballots raise questions - Gee... ya think?

By Keith Ervin
Seattle Times staff reporter
E-mail article Print view Search
Most e-mailed Most read RSS

King County election workers' discovery that 18 ballots weren't counted in the September primary has set back efforts to restore confidence in the election process and could hurt County Executive Ron Sims in his re-election bid.

That's what some political observers were saying yesterday, just two days after auditors found security problems but said officials had significantly improved the election office.

Election workers Tuesday found 16 ballots that had been left in a box and weren't counted before election results were certified last Friday. The county canvassing board had ordered that the ballots be counted that day.

Workers also found two absentee ballots that weren't counted because voters mailed them in the wrong kind of envelope, so election workers didn't realize they contained completed ballots.
The county canvassing board late Tuesday told staff to count all 18 ballots in a recount of the sheriff's race. The ballots were not counted in other races.

"I can't believe it," County Councilman David Irons, R-Sammamish, said yesterday. "They are still losing ballots inside the election office — that's the bottom line."


Wednesday, October 05, 2005

So now we get the second in the series of Columbian campaign pieces for Stuart

As I pointed out yesterday, the Columbian has joined with Steve Stuart's floundering campaign to get him elected as a county commissioner.

In this case, it was Tom Koenninger coming out of the closet for Stuart in a huge way. To anyone that doesn't share Ol' Tommy the K's world view, they are immediately classified as the enemy. Of course, ol' TK already HAS his, so it's easy for him to complain about others trying to get theirs.

That's why he demands strict restrictions on those who live in the Gorge while he, unencumbered by those same laws or regulations, beats hell out of those who want to live like he does. Of course, if HE actually lived there, he wouldn't come across like quite the hypocrite he is.

In today's blather, he makes Tom Mielke out to be the anti-Christ, continuing to puff up ol' Stevie Stuart's bus tour morality play.

TK tells us:

"Builders and developers are gaining the upper hand, with
ample help from the Clark County Commissioners, especially Chairwoman Betty Sue Morris."

Apparently, the simple idiot hasn't looked at Stuart's PDC's, where a Who's Who of the very people ol' TK loathes are financing his boy, big time.





07/29/2005 $8,018.00 HOLT HOMES INC. VANCOUVER WA 98687 REAL ESTATE

09/06/2005 $5,000.00 BREMERTON LLC VANCOUVER WA 98682





04/20/2005 $5,000.00 ZEPHYR COMMUNITIES LLC VANCOUVER WA 98684



04/20/2005 $2,000.00 PACIFIC FIRST REALTY LLC PORTLAND OR 97223






So, there you have it. About 2/3d's of ol' Steve's money, something over $88,000, comes from the forces of the Dark Side that ol' TK whines about. Doesn't this cretin understand that when this so-called "environmentalist" is bought and paid for by the very developer interests that Koenninger condemns, they're going to want SOMETHING in return?

So,where's ol' TK's condemnation of Stuart for being a wholly owned subsidiary of many of the Clark County developers he routinely condemns? What does ol' TK think they coughed up $88,000+ for, anyway?

Was it some sort of extortion? Hard to say. But what I do know is this: Tom Koenninger is a rank hypocrite. His double-standard is legendary. His failure to hold Stuart to the same standards, to question Stuart's involvement in getting Pridemore to yank a bill that would have put state limits on local races while costing Stuart $40,000 or so in campaign funds (as detailed here:), his failure to condemn Stuart's obvious reliance on developer dollars for his campaign while blasting everyone else... all condemn Koenninger for the hypocrite he is.

He has become an embarrassment to the community, to the Columbian and to journalism. He ought to be ashamed of himself... and that's in addition to being stupidly giddy about Karpinski chasing hundreds of jobs away because of Koenninger's idiotic desire to keep this place economically retarded, like it was when he was a kid.

Clearly, there is no level Koenninger will not stoop to to get his boy elected... including his incessant caterwall about a bus tour. It's almost as if he's got it confused with the governor of this state taking 50 people with her to China or some such. What a maroon.

Opinion - Livability of county in jeopardy

Wednesday, October 5, 2005

editor emeritus of The Columbian

Be aware if you care: Clark County land is being gobbled up in smothering, sprawling subdivisions and endless acres of strip malls.

Longtime environmental attorney John Karpinski is aware, does care, and is in deep distress over the county commissioners' actions.

The building boom and development craze, while not a new phenomenon, is becoming a growing menace to future livability here. It's all about politics.

Builders and developers are gaining the upper hand, with ample help from the Clark County commissioners, especially Chairwoman Betty Sue Morris.

The land use balance on the commission has swung toward development over the past year.