There's a certain level of irony when it comes to Jon Russell's doomed-to-failure congressional campaign theme.
I've known Mr. Russell for five years now; I've worked with him on the campaign trail.
I have to admit: actions DO speak louder than words.
For example, when Russell called me to try and get Pam Brokaw's social security number (that was actually his second call to me... ever) while I was working on the Curtis campaign.
I, of course, didn't HAVE her social security number, and wouldn't have given it to him if I had.
But the question here is this: what does that "action" have to say about Mr. Russell?
Actions DO speak "louder than words." So imagine my surprise when I discovered that Mr. Russell was the campaign manager/consultant for the recently smashed Vancouver Port Levy... the largest local tax increase, had it ultimately been successful, in the history of the region... a tax increase which, ultimately, was not needed and was utterly rejected at the polls.
What, precisely, does THAT action speak to?
Look at the results. Look at the results of Russell's efforts to get Roy Rhine and Paul Harris elected. Look at his short tenure as both an HROC staffer and a legislative staffer.
And then, according to Lew the PCO's were regaled with Russell's experience on the Washougal City Council... and then...
Uncalled for in his (Russell's) speech was a subtle but obvious slap towards David Castillo when he said words to the effect of any candidate can speak of work in the government that(sic) may have done.So, as far as that goes one has to wonder: if "any candidate can speak of work in the government" does that "any candidate" include Mr. Russell?
Castillo is the guy. He has COMPETENT experience and professional credentials and accomplishments that put Russell's to shame.
And that's in addition to trying to portray yourself as a fiscal conservative after you've run the campaign for the biggest tax increase in our region's history.
H/T to Clark County Conservative
.
Somehow, I think the author is playing fast and loose with the facts. If I understand correctly, Jon was not a campaign manager for the tax increase people. Instead, I believe his advertising firm was hired to develop their mailer. It was business, just as a printer may print Democrat pieces just as easily as Republican pieces.
ReplyDeleteAs for the relative qualifications of Jon versus David, let's ask ourselves the question: who has recorded votes proving a history of consistent principles? Only Jon. The difference between their government work is that Jon has been elected and has had recorded votes, while David was hired and was a bureaucrat.
I urge anyone who has questions about Jon to ask him directly about it. That seems honest to me.
Somehow, I think you're flat out wrong.
ReplyDeletehttp://clarkcountypolitics.blogspot.com/2009/06/todays-political-yuk-jon-russell-to-run.html
This entry speaks for itself. That "befel ist befel" crap didn't work in Nuremberg at the war crimes trials and it doesn't work here. Russell was paid thousands of dollars in consulting fees in an effort to scam one of the biggest tax increases in local history, and no amount of lipstick on that pig changes the basic fact: it was and is a pig.
Russell got paid and voluntarily did everything he could to help ram a huge tax increase... an unneeded tax increase.... down our throats.
That's not fiscal conservatism. That's political mercenary-ism. Russell is in no position to run on integrity, trust, or conservatism with the social security number issue AND the Port Levy issue lurking in the background of someone NOW telling us that "actions speak louder than words."
Those were HIS actions. HIS. Russell's. No one FORCED him to make thousands off an effort to nail us with a massive tax increase. That was HIS decision... and he shouldn't run from that now.
That he would even consider using that as some sort of theme while failing to disclose this history is rank hypocrisy.
I can't speak for Jon's vote history and what it means. CHARACTER is about what happens when no one is looking. And when Russell thought no one was looking, he was an entirely different character than the one he's trying to portray now.
Further, in response to your observation about his record, I would give you Mr. Russell's own words, paraphrased:
"Uncalled for in his (Russell's) speech was a subtle but obvious slap towards David Castillo when he said words to the effect of any candidate can speak of work in the government they may have done."