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 leftist tells 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.

No comments: