It's not surprising that a local newspaper that's empathy begins and ends with the Downtown Mafia of Vancouver and who reflects their community about as much as the despicable bridge replacement/loot rail project reflects Clark County's citizenry would actually conclude that the paper he works for, a paper that, for example, endorsed ONLY democrats in EVERY open seat in the last election isn't a leftist rag.
Since it is a leftist rag with a leftist editorial staff and editor, it's also not surprising (and dead wrong) when this leftist democrat writes "But I would not conclude -- as you have -- that he 'doesn't appear to be voting the preferences of his constituency.'"
This constituency did not support Baird's voting for ANY bill he hasn't read. Even a delusional leftist like Brancaccio should know that.
This constituency did not support his votes on the Porkulous or Cap and Trade.
That Baird has scammed the people of this district for so long does not mean that his re-election amounts to a reflection of this district. After all, look at the empty-suited moron running this country... I'm sure, in the midst of his delusion, Brancaccio actually believes THAT idiot is reflecting the "preferences of his constituency."
Whatever it is you "try" to do, you're failing. In short, you DON'T do it. Every day that goes by where you don't demand a vote of the people on this unbelievable waste of billions, this paper fails.
Every time Laird pukes out another column hammering everyone to his political right... which means almost everyone alive... this paper fails.
When it comes to Baird, you've printed these stories because you have absolutely no choice. Had you not done so, others would have picked it up, and you'd have looked even more foolish then you typically do.
Even now, Lou is doing his best to make excuses for Baird. While there is no doubt that the Obamatons approve of Baird's failures as a congressman (cowardman) most people to the right of Lenin are incensed and offended by his cavalier, all-too-typical leftist tactic of referring to those wise enough to oppose them as Nazi's and Brown Shirts.
This represents another reason why this paper is circling the drain. Rank, situational ethics when it comes to their leftist pets that carry their water.
by Lou Brancaccio : 8/8/09 4:13pm - Report AbuseDick,
As you know I have disagreed with the congressman on his approach to town hall meetings. But I would not conclude -- as you have -- that he "doesn't appear to be voting the preferences of his constituency."
I would respectfully suggest that if that were the case he would not have been re-elected so many times.
What I try to do -- and what I feel The Columbian tries to do -- is respect the decisions that are made by elected officials -- regardless if they are a R or a D, if we believe they are good decisions. And disagree with decisions that we fell are not good.
But my sense is too many people look at an individual decision or a few decisons[sic] and then try to draw wide ranging conclusions from them.
Most newspaper find themselves in this situation as well. Some conservatives are a little confused by our stance against Baird on this issue. Many won't say "hey I agree with you on this one Columbian" because they only want to continue pushing the idea that we are a liberal newspaper. And this doesn't fit the box we have been painted in.
But I just go back to my earlier point. None of us should expect any elected official to always agree with us. And we should be able to see that some residents out there must approve of what he is doing. He keeps getting re-elected. So not everyone will agree with me -- or you -- on lots of things. That's OK. Let's just respect each other even if we happen to disagree.
No comments:
Post a Comment