Monday, August 31, 2009

HATERS DENIED! Referendum 71, The "end special rights for gays" initiative, makes the ballot!

Earlier, I talked about the left's and the gay's abhorrence of democracy and fear of the will of the people.

A few hours ago, Referendum 71, a referendum to roll back the special rights granted people merely because of their lifestyle choices by a socially leftist legislature, qualified for the ballot.

Gays and their supporters put all of their faith into working hard to deny the people of this state the RIGHT to determine this issue.

That is much like the local politicians and bureaucrats who insist on keeping the people from having a direct say in the monstrosity that is the I-5 Bridge and Loot Rail waste of billions. It's that same arrogance, that same"our judgement is superior to yours" crap pushed by our local paper.

The fear of the will of the people is palpable among the leftists. They long for a Stalinist model with that empty-suited, anti-American racist bigot and his cult of personality in charge.

Now, we'll stand back and watch the leftists and gays hurl accusations of bigotry, precisely like they hurl accusations of racism against anyone smart enough to object to Obama's socialist policies.

I have no idea how this is going to turn out. But the more gays and their allies hurl these allegations of "Nazi" and "Brown Shirt," the more likely the outcome will be the same for them as it is the scumbag representing the 3rd District in Congress.

And they won't like that at all.

Today's quiz question.

So, as we're getting screwed over the unneeded and unwanted I-5 Bridge Replacement/loot rail scam, a few thoughts to remember.


These are the issues confronting us today. Those in government, enamored with their own arrogance and complete failure to be held accountable by the tens of thousands they would damage, are well-aware of all; of these things.


But they don't give a damn what we need, or what we want.


These despicable scum who demand this steaming pile be built do so with the certain knowledge that THEY won't have to pay for it... but WE will.


How's THAT for a "rant," Lou?


Portland Considers Buying A McMansion-style Highway Bridge

We’re all smarting from the economic recession that’s hurt our incomes and job prospects, from the decline in housing values that’s dented our wealth, and the collapse in financial markets that’s dealt a big setback to our retirement plans. We’re smarting, but, we tell ourselves, we’re smarter, too.

We’ve learned key lessons. We won’t be fooled by the Bernie Madoffs, or by claims that house prices can only go up, or that some form of complex mortgage-backed security can eliminate financial risk, or that stated-income “liar loans” were ever a good idea. At a high price, we’ve bought ourselves some very valuable lessons.

Next time, we tell ourselves, we’ll be smarter. We’ll ask the hard questions — before we sign on the dotted line. We won’t be conned by overly optimistic estimates or take some self-interested experts’ assurances at face value.

But are we really smarter? I live in the area of Portland, Oregon, and here we face the biggest public investment decision in decades. And it’s a reprise of the oldest con-game in the nation: “Hey, buddy, do you want to buy that bridge?”

In this case, the bridge is the proposed Columbia River Crossing. With an estimated price tag of $4 billion, this proposed five-mile, 12-lane freeway would be the most expensive public works project in the region’s history. The cost works out to more than $8,000 for each four-person household in the region or roughly the equivalent of 80 OHSU trams.

So far, like frenzied homebuyers a few years back, many bridge advocates seem chiefly concerned with superficial questions, such as whether the bridge will be pretty. But before we sign on the dotted line, we–and cities across the country that are considering similar investments–ought to be asking the kind of questions that will keep us from repeating the worst mistakes of those caught up in the housing bubble.

First and foremost, who will pay for this bridge?

Project proponents have vaguely promised that funding will come from a mix of federal and state sources, but there is little indication of any of this will materialize. Congressional leaders, including Washington’s Brian Baird and Oregon’s Peter DeFazio, have warned against expecting federal earmarks that would cover more than 10 percent of the cost of the bridge. The Oregon Legislature, meanwhile, approved gas tax and vehicle registration fee increases and earmarked nearly $1 billion for highway projects, but allocated not one dollar to the Columbia River Crossing.

There is no special pot of money for the Columbia River Crossing — it will take away dollars that we could use for other regional projects. Every penny we spend tearing down the existing I-5 bridges and building a new 12-lane freeway bridge is money we can’t spend somewhere else in the region.

To paraphrase John Donne, ask not for whom the bridge is tolled, it is tolled for thee. Any new Columbia River Crossing will require a substantial toll, not just on I-5, but on the I-205 bridge as well — otherwise traffic would divert from I-5 to avoid tolls there.

In the height of the housing boom, lots of buyers rationalized mortgages they couldn’t afford for houses bigger than they needed based on the belief that housing prices could only go up.

Highway advocates have a similar delusion — that traffic levels can only increase. But that’s not true. Driving has been going down in Portland, a trend that started even before the run-up in gas prices and the recession. Traffic counts have been going down on the Interstate bridges for the past three years. And according to Inrix, the nation’s leading providing of real-time traffic information, afternoon peak-hour congestion on I-5 northbound has declined more than 10 percent in the past year. If traffic levels flat-line, or grow much more slowly than in the past — as now seems certain to be the case, thanks to higher gas prices — we simply don’t need 12 lanes of capacity, plus light rail.

Projections of continually increasing traffic are not simply a justification for a bigger bridge, they are essential to paying for it. Because any new bridge will require tolls, the amount of toll revenue hinges directly on the number of people who cross the bridge. If fewer people use the bridge than predicted, then the bridge will need a bailout.
Not only are toll revenue forecasts notoriously over-optimistic — like rating agency estimates of likely default rates on subprime loans–but across the country, toll revenues are declining in the face of the recession and changing driving habits.

Historically, for the most part, we’ve relied on a “pay as you go” model for transportation finance. But the Columbia River Crossing turns that model on its head, and would likely require borrowing three-quarters or more of the cost of the bridge. Borrowing $3 billion for the project would necessitate annual interest payments of $180 million in the initial years of the project — money that would not be available for other transportation projects. And like the sales pitch for that sub-prime mortgage, the $4 billion price tag doesn’t include the cost of these interest payments.

And finally, no one should trust that this megaproject can be completed under budget. ODOT’s current largest highway project, the widening of a five-mile stretch of U.S. 20 between Corvallis and Newport, is 33 percent over budget. The OHSU Tram ended up costing triple its original estimated price. Even a 25 percent overrun on the Columbia River Crossing would end up adding a billion dollars to the price.

If we’ve learned any hard lessons from the past year about borrowing money, now is the time to put that learning to work. We need to demand a financial plan for this bridge that spells out who pays, and how much. We need independent accurate estimates — based on a world of $3 or $4 per gallon gas, global warming, and declining vehicle travel –and of how much traffic will use the bridge, especially with a toll of as much as $5.

And we should really ask whether, if we really have $4 billion to spend on the region’s transportation infrastructure, we ought to spend so much of it in one place, to facilitate more peak-hour commuting and suburban sprawl.

The current I-5 bridges are like a homely 1920s bungalow: Timeworn and out of fashion, yes, but sturdy and paid for. Rather than take out a huge mortgage to tear them down to build a glitzy new McMansion of a bridge, we ought to look at fixing them up at a fraction of the price.

The work of the project’s consultants is too reminiscent of the glossy real estate brochure providing only the most cursory examination of these risks, making implausibly optimistic assumptions, and doing nothing to quantify the consequences of error. The region’s elected officials and citizens should insist on real due diligence on these risks — preferably from parties completely independent of the project — before mortgaging our region’s future for a bridge we don’t need and can’t afford.

Joe Cortright is president and principal economist with Impresa, a Portland consulting firm, and chair of the Oregon Governor’s Council of Economic Advisors. He is also the chief economic analyst for CEOs for Cities, a national organization of urban leaders.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Brian Baird: Coward (XXII) John Laird will need kneepads before this is over.

John Laird, editorial page editor of Clark County's other democrat newsletter, HAS to be the most ignorant person employed (Gee... DO they pay him? And why would they rip themselves off that way?) in the paper business today.

Just last week, he stupidly called, not only for a 3rd political party... but a fourth, as well.

The stupidity of such an observation goes to the fact that there are already at least DOZENS of political parties already. That just goes to show that his limited powers of observation go beyond an inability to see 3 wheeled vehicles on the road.

But in today's revisionist history lesson, Laird addresses the later-day phenomena of the application of the word "Nazi."

Our bumbling leftist idiot writes:
First, August is shaping up as a real good month for the Nazis. I don't know when that bunch ever received more free publicity. Liberals/conservatives have repeatedly expressed vehement indignation at being called Nazis — wondering how any sane person could stoop so low as to invoke this horrifying reference — and then, often in the same breath, they turn right around and accuse conservatives/liberals of being, um, Nazis. Rush Limbaugh says President Obama's plan is like Hitler's, Nancy Pelosi mentions swastikas on the sleeves of town hall attendees, and the accusatory carousel whirls wildly.
Nothing like a little moral relativism to buttress your arguments, eh?

What say you run a google search on " Bush Hitler " (Remove the quotes) and bask in the glory that is 7,000,000 plus hits.

Certainly, scum like you didn't disagree with the Cowardman's contention that those of us smart enough to disagree with him (and most likely you) were, in fact, Nazis and Brown Shirt types.

Because you agree with him, you and your fellow scum have no choice but to defend him as part of your image rehabilitation program, referenced in Brancaccio's spew concerning Hedrick.

Let me remind you, idiot, that no one MADE our Cowardman get stuck on stupid. That was his doing and his alone.

No amount of your insipid efforts to defend this clown can change that... much like no amount of common sense can ever change YOU.

Then, you stupidly go on and act as if "shouting" is a latter day phenomena... when your fellow leftist scum have become legendary in their efforts to, say, shout down speakers on college campuses when they have the temerity to disagree with them.

You moronically write: "My second conclusion is that shouting out of turn is really catching on these days."

You scum have been shouting down those YOU disagree with for YEARS. Where's your whine about THAT?

The double-standard that inculcates you has so blinded you that you weren't even aware that many, many other political parties already exist.

Now, you write as if your fellow fringe-left scum haven't been trampling on our rights to hear others FOR YEARS, all without peep one from you.

But then, as for all on the fringe left... it's "different" when your side does it, right? You remained quiet throughout, KNOWING your side did this... and they did it unchallenged by you, moron.

Good God, but you are despicable.

Brian Baird: Coward (XXI) Words have meaning, Lou, and failing to provide context for mine is just part of your problem.

This has been a very tough month for Brian Baird, our resident Cowardman. It's been a month that our local waste of wood pulp has done everything it can to save this idiot from himself.

I've pointed this out, repeatedly. I've shown many, many examples where this stain on journalism has failed this community, again and again, by writing as if Baird's campaign pays them.

Oddly, that claim has not been disputed, to my knowledge. But then, it's hard to deny the facts of the matter.

So, when the Columbian portrayed David Hedrick as some sort of a nut, *I* wrote

That said, words have meaning. For example, when I characterize this worthless rag as a stain on journalism, that means something. So when this scumbag waste of pulp characterizes David Hedrick's lecture to the Cowardman during the Dog and Pony show at the Amphitheater as a "rant," that is a deliberate act, done to belittle Hedrick as these clowns continue to take a dump on the science of journalism in their quest to rehabilitate the Cowardman's destroyed image.

So, of all that, what did Lou Brancaccio mention in his latest Baird rehab effort?
They zeroed in on our description of what Hedrick said, as a "rant."

After reading our story and headline, one conservative blogger said it was done "to rehabilitate (Baird's) destroyed image."

Go figure.

So, in mentioning this blog without having the guts to link to it or name it, Brancaccio, in his own cowardly way, failed to provide the context for what I wrote AND failed to use ALL of the quote. But then, referring to Baird as "Cowardman" simply goes against the Baird Rehabilitation program this rag is now almost constantly engaging in.

Go figure.

Brancaccion blows off accurate criticism of his use of the word "rant" to describe Hedrick's accurate criticism of our Cowardman. As usual, Brancaccio misses the point.

When that moronic coward characterized those of us who are wise enough to oppose Obama's efforts, efforts that he and this rag support as fellow fringe left whack jobs, This newspaper failed to apply that same word to Baird.

Now if, as Brancaccio is trying to sell us, the word "rant"

simply means "a loud rhetorical delivery expressed with strong emotion." How could you argue with that? OK, OK, we love arguing.

Then why didn't this despicable waste of space fail to use it when Baird actually did engage in a "rant?"

How come it only became a "rant" when someone confronted Baird, but wasn't a rant when the Cowardman stupidly confronted us?

The word "rant" also has negative connotations. Again, these so-called "journalists" know damned well that it's a negative label.

THAT'S the point, Brancaccio. But then, you knew that. Your disingenuous, out of context bullshit doesn't change that.

And, of note, is your double standard on referencing sources so the reader, if so inclined, could judge for themselves if you were right or wrong.

There is much more at stake here then your limited, biased perspective when it comes to the facts of the matter. You continually fail to source those of us smart enough to disagree with you by our efforts to provide alternative perspectives to the leftist crap you typically write... much like your column today.

There's no excuse for that, of course. So, here's a clue: Everything I write is copyrighted. If you're going to use my product, you have to ask me first.

See, Lou, I don't make a dime off of what I write, so quoting, sourcing and linking you and that rag all come under "Fair Use." Doing the same to my product?

Not so much.

So, feel free to swing on by when the mood strikes. I'll be more than happy to HELP you "figure," since you seem incapable of the act yourself.

And who knows, Lou. Maybe you'll grow some balls and actually source our words.

But then, I doubt it. Because as insecure and academically bereft as leftists typically are, they certainly don't want to expose anyone to a perspective that disagrees with theirs... and certainly not while giving the writer in question an opportunity to clarify positions to a level simple enough that even YOU can understand it.

Since you asked.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Are you as sick of the whaling and gnashing of teeth about Kennedy as I am?

The lowest ranking soldier, sailor, airman or Marine that died defending this country has accomplished a THOUSAND times more than this clown did during the entirety of his whole, sorry, life.

Where's the coverage of THEIR funerals?

A brief on Ted Kennedy:

1. He was caught cheating at Harvard. He was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying a classmate to cheat for him.

2. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. Oops! The man can't count to four! His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England (a step up from bootlegging liquor into the US from Canada during prohibition), pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea, where a war was raging. No preferential treatment for him! (like he charged that President Bush received).

3. Kennedy was assigned to duty in Paris, never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged. Imagine a person of his "education" NEVER advancing past the rank of Private!

4. While attending law school at the University of Virginia, he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after dark. Yet his Virginia driver's license was never revoked. Coincidentally, he passed the bar exam in 1959. Amazing!

5. In 1964, he was seriously injured in a plane crash and hospitalized for several months. Test results done by the hospital at the time he was admitted had shown he was legally intoxicated. The results of those tests remained a "state secret" until in the 1980's when the report was unsealed. Didn't hear about that from the unbiased media, did we?

6. On July 19, 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts. At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur's keys to his Oldsmobile limousine and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond.

7. He swam to shore and walked back to the party passing several houses and a fire station. Two friends then returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew - that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep. Kennedy called the police the next morning and by then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car. The Kennedy family began "calling in favors", ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family before an autopsy could be conducted.

Further details are uncertain, but after the accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water trying to rescue Kopechne and he didn't call police because he was in a state of shock. It is widely assumed Kennedy was drunk, and he held off calling police in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight. Since the accident Kennedy's "political enemies" have referred to him as the distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick.

He pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and was given a SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF TWO MONTHS. Kopechne's family received a small payout from the Kennedy's insurance policy and never sued. There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this in court, and Kennedy's family paid their attorney's bills.... a "token of friendship?"

8. Kennedy has held his Senate seat for more than forty years, but considering his longevity, his accomplishments seem scant. He authored or argued for legislation that ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the indigent, funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors, and is widely held as the "standard-bearer for liberalism." In his very first Senate roll he was the floor manager for the bill that turned U.S. immigration policy upside down and opened the floodgate for immigrants from third world countries.

9. Since that time, he has been the prime instigator and author of every expansion of an increase in immigration up to and including the latest attempt to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Not to mention the pious grilling he gave the last two Supreme Court nominees, as if he was the standard bearer for the nation. What a pompous ass!

10. He is known around Washington as a public drunk, loud, boisterous, and very disrespectful to ladies. JERK is a better description than "great American." "A blonde in every pond" is his motto.

11. In anticipation of his demise, his latest antic is to give the governor of Massachusetts the power to appoint his replacement to the Senate. Ironically, it was he who lead the successful movement to deny the Govenor that power five years ago when Senator John Kerry was a presidential candidate and Mitt Romney was Governor....Yep, he's all about fair play!

Let's not allow the spin doctors to make this jerk a hero -- how quickly the American public forgets what his real legacy is.

Send this on, as a LOT of the younger people don't have a clue about all of this, and us older ones tend to forget things that happened so many years ago. I HAVEN'T!

More leftist deflection from our local fishwrapper: Oh goody! WE made them say "inartful."

Politics, as a business, sucks.

The observance of politics is frequently toxic to the extent that the anger and frustration one feels when those who have a public position that is, allegedly, requiring of some level of trust, fairness, and journalistic tenets deposit those elements of their profession into the toilet with their respective processed lunches.

Recently, the democrat newsletter known as the local paper, for example, felt it "newsworthy" to publish the sniveling whines of someone who didn't like a fundraising letter.

Do I even have to mention the party that sent the letter out?

Of course not. Anyone reading the tripe this rag publishes knows automatically which party provided the letter.

The abandonment of journalistic fairness took place throughout the entirety of what we can laughingly call "the story."

Even the moron writing this article had to admit that ALL political parties engage in what some will call "objectionable" verbiage in their fundraisers:

Democrats have been just as guilty, according to Portland pollster Mike Riley, quoted in Tuesday's Columbian: "Both parties do that. They are using some of the hot-button issues to see what activates the voters. It's politics as usual within the party faithful. No one that I know puts any credibility in thesetypes of polls."

The idiots publishing this slop knew that before they published it.

So... why did they publish it? What was the point?

It was, of course, part of their ongoing effort to rehab our Cowardman's image.

It failed, of course, because nothing this waste of pulp has, is, or will do can achieve that.

And where these scum failed... again... was when they failed to get a fund-raiser from the leftists at the same time... say, any one of those demonizing President Bush (who, compared to the Empty suited, anti-American racist bigot currently running the country is starting to look more and more like Abe Lincoln) and stopping just short of demanding his assassination; and doing the same thing to the authors of THOSE efforts.

Since these leftists agreed with that kind of nonsense, and since an institutional double-standard for leftists is just company policy around there; well, fat chance that would ever happen.

All of which begs the issue: Why didn't it happen? Why didn't these morons go out and get a leftist fund raiser to compare this with?

IF you're going to do such a moronic story, the ONLY way it works, in the interest of fairness, even-handedness and JOURNALISM is to do it for BOTH parties, PARTICULARLY when your own source TELLS you that BOTH PARTIES DO IT.

But that would be yet another instance of this rag allowing facts to interfere with it's agenda.

And they can't have that... can they?

Their bogus editorial goes on to spew:

Much like the definition of "journalist," the true meaning of "survey" often can be a little blurred. Our advice: Check the source, make sure it's genuinely identified and decide if it's got an agenda.
Given the trainwreck that is your paper, and given your obvious hatred of anything to the right of Lenin, why don't you take your advice and jam it where the sun don't shine?

The definition of journalist is sunk in stone. There's nothing blurry about it, except to those who've abandoned the definition... the science... and the principles of what a journalist is SUPPOSED to be.

You know... like this paper?

Friday, August 28, 2009

Meanwhile, why is it that Leavitt is surrounded by Megacasino supporters... and what is his position on that?

So, as I look at the Pollard-Leavitt issue, and I have to ask myself: Why are the Barmett/Paskenta/Mohegan/Cowlitz megacasino slime coalescing around Leavitt?

We all know Clark County Commissioner Steve "I can be bought for $100,000 from David Barnett" Stuart's take on the megacasino: he has always been a supporter, and almost got away with scamming us on that bogus "recision" agreement that the criminal types found so exciting.

We're all familiar with former Clark County Commissioner Betty Sue Morris, a commissioner who sold us out to Barnett and screwed us with an MOU that she should be ashamed of.

And Heather Melton, Commissioner Steve "Yeah, Barnett Owns Me" Stuart's fiance'.

These three seem to be working double overtime to get Leavitt elected. Why?

Neither Pollard nor Leavitt should be in elective office. But Pollard, after initially getting hosed by the Barnetts, at least has taken the right position to fight this monstrosity that Stuart, Morris and Melton are doing their best to sell us out over.

What's Leavitt's position? Are these 3 supporting this casket salesman because he'll do what he can to get the megacasino in here?

The whole world's watching, Tim. Where are you on the megacasino?

Why are gays and the left so terrified about the will of the people?

Democracy is a precious thing. Millions of us served in the military to defend the will and the ability to express that will at the polls.

Typically leftist scum do all they can to silence that will, such as the cities of Everett and Vancouver when they sued the voters into silence over downtown redevelopment; here, locally, while our despicable waste of wood pulp cheered them on.

Arrogant governments and newspapers; again, like that stain on the science of journalism and the morons running for Mayor of Vancouver, don't WANT to know what the people they would govern want, because of a deep-seated and accurate fear that they are out of touch and that their agenda's bear no resemblance to the agendas of the people.

Now the people are demanding the opportunity to roll back the gay marriage dreams of Seattle liberal Sen Ed Murray and Vancouver fringe-leftist Rep. Jim Moeller.

So, we go through a cumbersome, time consuming and technical referendum process, in this case, Referendum 71, to allow THE PEOPLE to vote on this issue.

It LOOKS like the necessary signatures were gathered to make this happen, leftist slime efforts notwithstanding.

So, what do these scum do?

Instead of fighting it out in the court of public opinion... instead of allowing THE PEOPLE to speak to the issue, These scum file suit.

And, for you more bigoted leftists out there, I don't call them "scum" because they're gay or support the gay agenda... I don't really give a damn about that.

What I DO give a damn about is having our ability to speak to these issues... ANY issues, restricted by special interests scumbags that don't care about OUR rights.

And that is precisely what's happening here.

Hopefully, the courts will share my view, and the scum attempting to thwart our right to speak to these issues will be tossed out on their fringe-left asses.

But in this state... it's hard to say. Sometimes, there is a vast difference between doing the legal thing and doing what the courts demand.

We will see.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Brian Baird: Coward (XX) So... disagree with the Cowardman on video, and you're relegated to a "rant."

Leave it to that despicable roll of toilet paper to denigrate a Baird constituent... or anyone disagreeing with their leftist bent.

The Columbian continues to take credit for a video now all over YouTube as if they produced, directed and uploaded it. They did not.

That said, words have meaning. For example, when I characterize this worthless rag as a stain on journalism, that means something. So when this scumbag waste of pulp characterizes David Hedrick's lecture to the Cowardman during the Dog and Pony show at the Amphitheater as a "rant," that is a deliberate act, done to belittle Hedrick as these clowns continue to take a dump on the science of journalism in their quest to rehabilitate the Cowardman's destroyed image.

For most of the leftist scum, their leaders, including our Cowardman, our two US Senators, and that waste of skin destroying this country from the White House have never set foot in uniform. Their failure to serve speaks to a commonality of cowardice shared by most leftists who think far too little of their country to ever engage in the inconvenience of actually serving it.

This newspaper continues to mislead, and continues to counter the facts of the matter with their ongoing effort to get us all past the Cowardman's cowardly failure to face us by mischaracterizing Cowardman's efforts at damage control.

They wrote:
Kelly Love, Baird's district office manager, said Tuesday that more than 14,000 of Baird's constituents have either attended town hall meetings or participated in telephone town halls on health care reform so far, and about 200 have had the opportunity to comment. Baird has three more town halls and two more telephone town halls scheduled next week, she said. "It's why we have town halls, so people do have an opportunity to have their say."
This is, of course, a crock. When a few numbers are picked out of a bin at random; when 16 people out of 6000 on a phone conference are chosen to ask a question... that is nothing approaching "an opportunity to have their say."

I have written, called, stopped by the local office... and rarely have I ever heard back from the Cowardman's people.

If we can't "comment" in such a way that these morons can't hear us, then no, we HAVE NOT been "given the opportunity to have our say."

This garbage can liner knows that.

Yes, words do have meaning. And we can expect this despicable rag to both continue in their efforts to rehabilitate the Cowardman, and do additional hit pieces on David Hedrick.

In their efforts to resurrect Baird's destroyed political career and to support the fringe left policies that have had this rag circling the drain for so long; now, there is no effort to demonize they won't do... no "Joe the Plumber" effort beyond them.

So now, we can expect an in-depth investigation into every aspect of Hedrick's life as they desperately try to destroy him in their effort to lift up the Cowardman.

It's all a matter of time.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

So... Ted Kennedy is dead.


Ever the partisan, Kennedy leaves this mortal coil hypocritically attempting to change BACK the law that he was so instrumental in changing in the first place: so when he died, the Governor of Massachusetts, now a democrat; then a Republican, COULD appoint a replacement so the fringe leftists could keep their filibuster-proof majority intact.

Others I respect want us now to play by the rules. They want us to do the what the fringe-left nutbergers could not do upon the death of any mainstream or conservative icon: have some respect for Kennedy.

I'm sorry. But who I'm sorry for is Mary Jo Kopechne, who this drunk killed, either directly or indirectly, so many years ago.

Few members of the Senate have damaged this country more, though scum like Durbin or Reid are a close second.

He's dead. But he got away with killing someone. And NOW, FINALLY, he's going to pay the price and experience the justice that he avoided for so very long.

I do sympathize for his family, however. This is a yet another in the tough times they have had to endure.

But while I am sad for them, I rejoice for my country. And for this Nation... he will not, ultimately, be missed.

Leavitt and Pollard

I haven't written anything about the outcome of the primary. Until now.

I have always maintained that Pollard will win.

And, I believe, he will.

The facts ultimately remain the same. While both of these guys would probably deny it, close examination bears out the fact that they are, essentially, the same, differing only in veneer. As I have posted earlier, on the issues that really matter, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Pollard and Leavitt.

On the most significant issue facing this region, the unneeded and unwanted replacement iof the I-5 Bridge, a $4 to God Knows how many BILLION dollar project being done entirely to bring loot rail into this community, they are in lock step.

Both of them want this carbuncle on the community's butt. Both of them don't care that it will suck $100,000,000 out of the local economy in a way that will result in reduced revenue to the city for other projects.

Pollard is completely, brutally honest about this. He doesn't dress it up like Leavitt; he not only says "tolls," he wants them everywhere they can be collected.

Leavitt, on the other hand, lies about his position on tolls. His rant over on his blog is a piece of disingenuous work not unlike the scam he ran to get the 3 voting hispanics in this community to vote for him.

That is, he rails against tolls... expresses indignation and anger at the idea... but does absolutely nothing to pull the trigger on what he will do when tolls are imposed... and if this pig gets built, there WILL be tolls... huge tolls that will hurt tens of thousands of people in the city he would lead.

Leavitt writes:

What he (Pollard) and his big-name, big-money backers (Like, for example, the unions endorsing Leavitt) refuse to understand, however, is that a toll that charges Vancouver's working class for the "privilege" of crossing the river because the current administration has done next to nothing to grow jobs here in the last two decades, with the added burden of paying Oregon income tax without receiving representation, is unequitable[sic], undemocratic, and discriminatory.

What Leavitt is choosing to overlook is the fact that failing to get our permission to build this garbage heap is, by far, the most "unequitable[sic], undemocratic, and discriminatory" cut of all... and Leavitt knows this.

Leavitt's blathering like this is utterly worthless. It's political snake oil because he will not pledge to do what needs to be done:

That is, he needs to make this an either/or equation.

Simply stated, his bluster about tolls is all show. Clearly, some were and are drawn to Leavitt and his faux anti-toll stance.

What Leavitt needs to do to show some balls is take a "no tolls" or else stance.

But he won't do that.


Because he wants the bridge AND loot rail, and he knows that killing tolls kills both the bridge AND loot rail, the two things he wants the most.

Were he to come out and actually declare that he will do everything he can to oppose this bridge; were he to extend all that alleged yet non-existent trust he has in the people to allowing us to have a say in this debacle... then and only then would his fake anti-toll stance make any sense.

Were Pollard to hammer him over his lie on this issue, it would drown out all of the rest of Leavitt's phony platitudes and fake outrage and envy at Pollard's downtown support and Pollard would crush Leavitt.

So, the choice is clear: you can choose between a slick con job that wants the bridge, loot rail and tolls (Leavitt) or you can pick Pollard who wants the same... but is at least honest enough to say so, no matter how despicable their positions may be.

Brian Baird: Coward (XIX) The Columbian blasts the GOP, hoping to change the subject.

Would you believe it?

Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee (aka The RNC) sent out a partisan fund-raising letter, apparently entitled "2009 Future of America Health Survey."

The most stunning thing of all? That letter was "blatantly lopsided!"

Kinda like the rag's efforts to rehab Baird's sucky image.

Leftists sent out fund-raising letters that stopped just short of calling for Bush's assassination, blaming him for every ill known to man.

And this despicable waste of pulp writes an article mouthing the words of someone (who, in fact, is no one in particular, certainly no more worthy of having their political views published as if they have some meaning other than the typically anti-GOP bent of this stain on journalism, then, say, a street panhandler on a freeway off ramp.) upset by a highly and deliberately partisan fund raising letter.

But the rank hypocrisy of this article? Right here:

It's standard practice to use such faux "surveys" to raise money for a variety of causes, said Portland pollster Mike Riley. "It's common, trying to stir the pot to see what kinds of issues get attention."

If this is the case (and, of course, it is) then why was this anti-GOP diatribe worth printing?

And why did this SAME despicable waste of pulp use faux "surveys" to shill its completely bogus polls on replacing the I-5 Bridge to get loot rail in here?

And why haven't they published legitimate, scientific polls to find out what WE want when it comes to that?

They have done polls. They just haven't wanted to publish the findings because, well, how would it look to print something proving that the people want nothing to do with this rag's positions?

You can certainly bet that the polling they've done SHOWS that overwhelming opposition, or else these scum would print it every day, front page, above the fold.

Yet this massive pile of crap prints an article like this?

So tell us: why are you trying to change the subject?

Monday, August 24, 2009

Brian Baird: Coward (XVIII) My take on Brancaccio's idiocy of today.

I could not have POSSIBLY said it better than this:

Brian Baird: Coward (XVII) So, who's Lying? The Columbian as they continue to front for Baird? Or Chief?

My, my. Aren't we in a conundrum.

We have the local rag; a despicable waste of wood pulp with a history of lies, distortions and exaggerations.

Then we have Bob Koski, with arguably the most popular Clark County political web site who has never been known to lie, distort or exaggerate... a website that seems to have a much broader readership than the rag.

As noted below, Koski has indicated that the completely worthless waste of skin representing us in Congress has, up to COB Friday, failed to notify the Capital Police of any of these so-called death threats.

Koski, of course, ultimately did the job of the leftist leg-humpers infesting the local paper by actually taking the time to engage in that quaint custom of actually VERIFYING a source's claim, even if that source is the fringe leftist nutberger you support.

And what he found out, as mentioned below, is this:
When I called Records and Reports, I spoke with the very polite and helpful lady there who is responsible for typing and submitting any kind of a report like Brian Baird is claiming was filed. I asked her specifically if she had a report of a telephoned threat that stated "You think Timothy McVeigh was bad, there is a Ryder Truck out there with your name on it," or anything remotely similar to a statement like that.

She said that if anything like that had happened to any member of Congress, she would know about it. She has heard nothing, repeat NOTHING like what Brian Baird claims to have reported to the Capitol Hill Police, or from any other member of Congress.
So, along comes the Columbian. Their managing editor, finally seeing what the rest of have seen in a heartbeat; namely that Baird is in political trouble of Titanic proportions, immediately does what the Columbian will always do in situations like this:

Write something to cover Baird.

If chief's allegation is accurate; namely that no death threat was reported, then he is done. He is over.

Brancaccio knows this. The scum at the Daily Kos knows this.

So, Brancaccio FINALLY gets around to looking into this situation... which he SHOULD have done BEFORE word ONE of this "threat" bullshit ever was printed.

And what does he have to print?

Absolutely nothing that refute's Koski's claim.


Oh, as usual, Brancaccio attack's Koski's veracity. He asks some totally moronic questions with self-evident answers that even a fringe left not job like himself should be able to answer, such as:
But a few things puzzled me:

-- There was no name attached to the info the blogger said he had from the Capitol Police. I asked the blogger if he had a name. He said I was bothering him. I should do my own legwork.
And you should have. These things are also completely irrelevant.

What IS relevant is that YOU didn't ask the damned question BEFORE Koski did.
-- The Capitol Police had been quite uncooperative with us but was willing to give out info to someone else?
So, idiot, did you actually talk to someone in records? Or did you talk to their PIO?

Maybe they were so "uncooperative" with YOU because they know what a worthless, biased rag you work for.
-- And why would Baird lie about something like this? Eventually you would be certain to get caught.
No one has EVER said that Baird has been the brightest bulb on the tree. But then, maybe he was counting on your legendary journalistic incompetence. I know *I* do.

Why would he lie?

Are you fricking KIDDING me?

He would lie because he's a liar.

He would lie because he got stuck on stupid.

He would lie because he called people something that, were he to do it to their faces, might wind up with him getting punched in the mouth.

He would lie because there is NEVER, ANY excuse for failing to face your constituents. And he needed one... and you've done all you can to get him one.

EVER. No matter how much YOU spin for him like he was giving you a briefcase full of cash.

Brancaccio ends with this:
"Look, we hold all politicians accountable. I'm sure Baird has been none too pleased with much of our coverage. But we won't jump into a story without vetting it first. We'll still make mistakes. But we'll work hard at not making mistakes. And don't blame the bloggers here. Users simply have to manage the information they get. from wherever they get it. And the best bet for good info still is newspapers."
And here, in a nutshell, is precisely why I don't believe Brancaccio and I DO believe Bob:

When the rag's editor writes: "But we won't jump into a story without vetting it first," then how come they didn't vet THIS story "first?" How come they took Baird's word for it?

"Vetted" my ass. There was no vetting done here by this rag. Koski did the vetting.

And Brancaccio's column, while rife with innuendo and snide remarks, provides absolutely NOTHING to show that Koski is wrong.

This is yet another of the despicable, inexcusable efforts by this rag to provide cover for Baird; cover that he's desperate for.

But it's too late. Baird is done, and this massive, colossal waste of wood pulp with him.

Who to believe? Who to believe?

Gee. That's a toughy.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

The continuing rank hypocrisy of the Columbian.

I'm not sure what I was thinking. After all, the vote by even the leftist crowd of my birthplace, Seattle, was so overwhelming in crushing the idiotic "20 cent's per plastic bag" tax, I just never expected anyone save a blithering idiot to whine about the voice of the people in print.

But while thinking about that, I completely forgot about our local disgrace to journalism. If they were hung, they'd bitch about a new rope.

When people vote to oppose moronic policies, the morons at the Columbian inevitably whine that we're so stupid, the only reason we vote to oppose their perspective is because of "special interests." For example:

But the impression is not altogether accurate. A good idea, poorly packaged, is no longer a good idea. Referendum 1 proposed assessing a 20-cent fee for each plastic and paper shopping bag in supermarkets, drugstores and convenience stores. Such a fee was approved last year by the Seattle City Council, but special-interest groups from the plastics industry got the issue on the ballot.

These leftist throw away lines are the hallmark of fringe publications.

Subtle, with that je ne se qua of the brush strokes of the avowed leftist.

First of all, it doesn't matter WHO put this on the ballot. Let's remember, it's a moronic policy in moronic economic times. Would it have killed the Seattle City Council to put it on the ballot themselves and ASK those they would govern if THEY want this tax imposed?

Secondly, why is it OK when the right KIND of "special interests" put something on the ballot? Does this rag refer to THEM with the pejorative "special interest" label?

For example, the multiple "special interests" behind that charming bit of majority tyranny known as the "Smoking Ban?"

Who, and how many, special interest groups were behind getting THAT "on the ballot?"

But this is just the appetizer to one of the most horrifically hypocritical thoughts ever written in a paper:
"Still, voters know the difference between being asked and being told."
"Still, voters know the difference between being asked and being told?" Still, voters know the difference between being asked and being told?




This stain on the profession of journalism has done absolutely everything it can to silence voters and KEEP them silenced on CTrans and Loot Rail by gerrymandering the lines so that we're silenced... but get the privilege of paying ANYWAY; on both downtown redevelopment AND the largest, most massive waste of billions to take place since we gave that idiot Obama the checkbook... yet WE are being TOLD, and NOT asked.

We're being TOLD we have to dump at least $1300 a year down the paper's sewer because Pollard and Leavitt and similar worms WANT us to... no other reason being available.

Yes, this paper engages in hypocrisy and double standards as a matter of editorial policy.

While I'm not surprised, I am sickened. And calling these despicable clowns out is part of why I'm here.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Brian Baird: Coward (XVI) Did Baird make it all up? Capital Hill Police apparently don't know anything about threats to Baird.

It' looking more and more like our resident Cowardman made it all up.

Locally, we have a discussion blog at The guy running the blog had the following post:

Capitol Hill Police have no report of threats from Brian Baird

I just got off of the telephone with the Capitol Hill Police Department, Records and Reports. That office is responsible for initiating any and all incident and complaint reports for the Capitol Hill Police Department.

I first called the Watch Commander's Office and explained what I was looking for. That person assured me that they have very strict procedures for dealing something like this and transferred me to the "Threats" Office.

The Agent in the Threats Office would not discuss this with me. He could not confirm or deny any active and/or ongoing investigations. He did tell me that he cannot investigate anything without a report being filed by the Records and Reports Office. He gave me their number and tried to transfer me.

When I called Records and Reports, I spoke with the very polite and helpful lady there who is responsible for typing and submitting any kind of a report like Brian Baird is claiming was filed. I asked her specifically if she had a report of a telephoned threat that stated "You think Timothy McVeigh was bad, there is a Ryder Truck out there with your name on it," or anything remotely similar to a statement like that.

She said that if anything like that had happened to any member of Congress, she would know about it. She has heard nothing, repeat NOTHING like what Brian Baird claims to have reported to the Capitol Hill Police, or from any other member of Congress.

What's more, she also has no record whatsoever of any complaints filed from any Congress Critter about a faxed "threat" like Baird also says he filed on or around August 10. This lady was adamant that if any report like that had been filed, it would have to come through her personally. There are only 2 people who work in her office and she is certain there is no such report.

I thanked that lady profusely, and asked her to continue looking into this, and if she found anything else to call me. I gave her my name and home telephone number.

Don't take my word for any of this. Do what the columbian refuses to do and call the Capitol Hill Police Department Records and Reports Office yourself at 202-593-4099 and ask them yourself.

Last edited by Chief; 9 Hours Ago at 06:42 AM.
Reply With Quote


Re: Capitol Hill Police have no report of threats from Brian Baird

The reason this is so important my friends, is that there are also reports out there of recent Townhall meetings in other areas of the Country, where other DemocRat Congress Critters are citing Brian Baird's "threats" at their own Townhall meetings!

This is an outrageous lie that has assumed a life of it's own, and people like the columbian's Kathy Dustbin are committing nothing less than Journalistic Malpractice in order to give Brian Baird all the cover he needs to hide from criticism on his many different stands on the issues.

Lying liars in the State-run Media helping their lying liar Congress Critter friends...

Reply With Quote

If this is true... and after reading Chief for at least a couple of years now, I have no reason not to believe it, then both our Cowardman and this disgrace of a newspaper is done.

It is frightening that a blogger had to engage in basic journalism to verify the Cowardman's crock.

Read the entire thread.

I supposed that Baird made this up.

God help him if he's lying... and based on how he's acted... what do you think the odds of that are?

H/T to Orbusmax

Brian Baird: Coward (XV) The Slimy One and his political handlers at the Columbian justify his despicable Ryder comments.

Our local disgrace of a Cowardman doesn't know when to shut up.

That is not to say that I WANT him to shut up; after all, it's a political axiom of uncounted decade's standing that when the moron you're running against is bound and determined to commit political suicide, then you have to stand out of his way and let him.

The Columbian, however, continues to do everything they can to rehabilitate this worm's image, including giving him a platform to attack the local GOP.

You see, Cowardman, we are condemning you because we think you made it all up. You're such a minor-league back-bencher that there's no percentage in threatening you: you're not worth the effort.

So, what we're objecting to is your use of these bogus threats to excuse your despicable, unconscionable conduct wherein you called me and millions of others "Nazis" and "Brown Shirts."

When you say you've " provid(ed) an opportunity for more than 4,000 constituents to participate in the health care debate," you're a liar.

At the amphatheater, did 2800 people talk to you? Or was it closer to, say, 30? Those THIRTY got to participate... the rest of us got to listen.

Please don't tell us you don't know the difference.

Here, instead of apologizing for yet ANOTHER fringe-left whack job remark... "If there is a Ryder truck parked out front, it has my name on it," you're actually such a moron that you DEFEND it.

Well, here's one for you, Cowardman. Because of you, if the Congressional Gestapo show up, they're probably looking for me.

There is precisely ZERO excuse for your cowardly remarks and reaction to your "Great Leaders" scumbag plan to socialize medicine, much like there's no excuse for constantly lying about the fact that you HAVE made up your mind and you WILL support this despicable plan... you fake protestations notwithstanding.

You reference to McVeigh was yet ANOTHER effort to provide cover AND to make political hay out of these so-called "threats."

The only question is this: Did the Cowardman actually say this despicable thing? Yes or no?

Clearly he did. And after that, nothing he says is worth listening to... and this paper's constant effort to give this guy a platform is really sickening.

Brian Baird: Coward (XIV) Now this clown wants to engage in behavioral modification?

No matter how vigilant in the consultant's world, some things manage to fly under the radar.

This is one of those things. Read this. Understand that when the slimy worm representing us made no mistake when he called us "Nazis" and "Brown Shirts." It takes a stunning level of arrogance to even begin to address constituents that way... and that this scumbag now wants to engage in behavior modification is, perhaps the most sickening element of this slimeball's make up.

Brian Baird and the politics of behavioral change

Posted by Jeff Mapes, The Oregonian July 31, 2009 16:52PM

As a once-practicing psychologist, you might say it's hard-wired into Congressman Brian Baird to figure out how to get people to change their behavior for the better.

Rep. Brian Baird

As it turns out, that tendency led to quite a kerfuffle in the House this week as the Vancouver Democrat won committee passage of a bill authorizing the spending of $10 million a year to figure out how best to help and persuade people to reduce their energy use.

Republicans charged that Baird was trying to move the government into what some called mind control. The story quickly jumped out of Capitol Hill and is now hitting the conservative blogosphere and talk-show circuit.

Just the other night, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck - no stranger to hyperbole - devoted a lengthy segment to Baird's bill, warning: "They're going to study us and find ways to essentially trick us into driving crappy hybrids, and I bet that's just the beginning."

Baird's taking the hits with some humor - "The first thing we need to do is send aluminum hats to people to protect them from mind rays," he told me Friday - but you can sense the frustration in his voice (hey, I can do my own psychoanalyzing).

In one sense, Baird's legislation, H.R. 3247, is pretty unremarkable. It would establish a social and behavioral research program in the Department of Energy.

Businesses do this kind of research when they are trying to figure out how to make their products more user friendly, like when they're designing the dashboard of a car. And so does the military when it's trying to entice new recruits. You could even argue that abstinence-only sex education, a favorite of conservatives, is aimed at "tricking" teens into not having sex.

But the idea of behavioral research on energy seemed to get under the skin of many Republicans who have complained that the Democratic regime in Washington is inserting itself into too many areas of American life - whether it's bailing out the auto companies or revamping the health-care system.

"At some point, controlling peoples' behavior and social engineering becomes a threat to peoples' freedom," complained Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., during the debate over the bill Thursday before the House Committee on Science and Technology.

Baird, who has also applied his interest in behavioral science to such issues as health care, countered that he's simply talking about using this research to communicate more effectively with consumers.

For example, he noted that utilities have found that people are much more likely to follow energy-savings tips if they are shown right on their bill how their consumption compares to homes of similar sizes.

"We don't have to develop any of these new technologies" to produce immediate, major reductions in energy use, Baird said. "We just need to change our behavior. Depressingly, we don't. We aren't very smart about getting people to change their behavior."

When I talked to Baird, he went on at length about how people don't always make rational choices, and about how social research can help show how to nudge them in a certain direction.

In fact, "Nudge" is the title of a popular book on the subject co-written by Cass Sunstein, who is now a top White House aide in an administration that has shown quite a bit of interest in the subject. (One well-reported example from the book: Workers tend to set aside more in their 401(k) if they have to opt out of contributing instead of opting in.)

Still, Baird said, this kind of talk "feeds into the paranoia that is so prevalent right now." His measure now heads to the full House and Baird said it is clear he has a floor fight on his hands.


The stupidity of our state's political parties knows no bounds.

While no longer a Republican (I can hear the snickering already, but it's true) I have a history with them that goes back a long way.

While I have a degree in Government (the rest of the world would call it political science) my first political involvement was when I actually put up a Carlson sign back in the halcyon days when I lived in the 49th... back when a guy named Fishback (I think that's how it's spelled) was the city manager of Sodom on the Columbia... and, of course, before I discovered that any resemblance between Carlson and Republicanism was purely coincidental.

That was around 20 years or so ago... maybe a little more... maybe a little less.

I began to volunteer. I had no political plans... I had no idea that volunteerism would lead me to where I am today.

I volunteered for Bob Smith and Linda Smith's congressional campaigns. Ultimately, I became a 6 year staffer in the legislature... and ultimately, worked in the position of Executive Director for the State GOP.

The things I saw there began to sour me on political parties generally. The agendas of individuals... what jobs they could get... what appointments in the Administration... the turf wars, the manipulation... all of those things being much more important then the stated purpose of the party: to elect Republicans.

State party board members filled with hate, violating every political rule in the book when bent on revenge. Many with complaints... but none... NONE with the courage to face me.

The idiotic lawsuit to get rid of the blanket primary was the pinnacle of their stupidity. In the beginning, this was driven by the state democrats. Then a moronic GOP county chair PUBLICLY threatened to fund the democrat's lawsuit if we didn't join it.

There were other, equally asinine issues... we are, for example, one of two states in this country that doesn't have their headquarters in the state capital. But the conclusion was clear: these clowns were much more interested in the various ways they could feather their own nest... or which appointment they could scam... which convention.

Others... the consultants and the lawyers... they're in it for the billables.

At the local level, I set about to throw a cancerous state executive board member out, and that went precisely to plan... and we were better off for her exit from the scene.

Local party politics were no better. A county executive board member who was paid by democrats while we were attempting to elect Republicans; a moronic Republican PCO who endorsed every democrat he could, now, thankfully, gone from our ranks... but no action taken when I brought the information to my fellow board members.

These types of things, and more, have caused me to leave party politics.

Now, I work for the person. Now, I support someone based not only on what they say, but what they've done and who they are.

That's why I can support a democrat like Brian Sonntag, while I can oppose a Republican like Jamie Herrera or Jon Russell... because frankly, I know far too much about them to ever be able to support them.

Part of that is, well, that frequently, political parties can be astoundingly stupid in their dealings with the people. And this whiny, idiotic lawsuit is a case in point.

What the main party hierarchies don't get is that we have it the way we want it. We arrived here through the initiative process, and clearly, the idiots running the parties failed to grasp this situation and they quite apparently lack the vision or the capabilities to embrace this new system and to take advantage of the opportunities the new system presents.

Instead, they are determined to alienate the people by jamming a stick in our eye by ratcheting us back to the day of yester-year, and ignoring the expressed will of the people... people who will not take kindly to party interference in our political system.

Yes, yes... I know the arguments. But I warned everyone that the people view this franchise as a cherished institution and that the people would not brook this assault on our system.

No one listened. And here we are.

But what the idiots in charge don't get is this: If they keep pushing this, the parties WILL see the first non-partisan legislature in the United States. In fact, they will see that every office that CAN become non-partisan, WILL become non-partisan.

Do the parties believe that the people supporting the top-two primary are just going to stay home and twiddle their thumbs while they screw that up?

Keep it up, guys. You'll find yourself having to pick up the tab for the kind of primary YOU want, and thousands who have donated in the past will keep their wallets in their pockets when YOU need funding for your campaigns.

Why the hell should we give money to an organization who's design is to attack the will of the people of this state?

Stupidity. Idiocy. You think you hate what we have now... you have no idea how bad it can get.

Parties continue to challenge Washington primary


OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A federal judge in Seattle has refused to dismiss a legal challenge to Washington's top-two primary system.

Secretary of State Sam Reed had asked the court to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties.

Even though the state's top-two primary was upheld last year by the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge John Coughenour (COON'-our) ruled Thursday the parties can continue to challenge how the primary is conducted.

The secretary of state's office says the ruling means a new round of litigation that could change how candidates are listed on the ballot or in the voters' pamphlet.

State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz said the ruling means the state will have to amend the current law.

Civility in writing? Or writing with rage?

I have to admit it.

I am furious at our government and our leaders. I believe we ALL have reason to be.

And, frequently, I write that way.

But it is a fury born out of frustration. It's a fury resulting from a political and community leadership that turns a deaf ear to the people they would lead.

We are cursed with a newspaper that has abandoned any pretense of civility... much like they've abandoned any pretense of journalistic integrity, impartiality or fairness.

Locally, we have politicos that engage in such horrific, rank hypocrisy and arrogance that following them is a sickening task.

Unfortunately, it's part of my job. So I watch very closely what's going on and who's making it happen.

And when I see rank hypocrisy, lies and manipulation; like, for example, Tim Leavitt or Jon Russell's campaigns, my blood pressure seems to hit 4 digits.

When I see yet another episode of our local embarrassment of a newspaper where they lie, misquote, misinterpret, confuse opinion with news and act like they're paid agents for politicians like Brian Baird; or use a double-standard for endorsements, or making every possible effort to hurt the families in this region by ramming an unneeded, unwanted and monumentally wasteful project THEY want, but THEY won't have to pay for down our collective throats... well, my quad pace maker has to kick in.

I write with such anger because there is so much to be angry about.

I hammer and hammer and hammer, because these things truly do matter to most of us paying attention.

Thus, when I see the complete embarrassment we have as a president screwing up our economy, embarrassing us overseas, failing to flex any of America's massive muscle to stop injustice like the release of that murdering scumbag to Libya, or continue on in his efforts to socialize this country.... I have to peel myself off the ceiling.

Where is there room for civility in the midst of that tyranny?

When those in power don't listen, we get the kind of arrogance that causes an idiotic excuse for a congressman to refer to me as a “Nazi,” and a “Brown Shirt,” and then slink away like the coward he is to avoid facing me... and us... a colossal political mistake that will cost him his job like it's cost him our respect.

And then, we get our local excuse for a paper who immediately sets about to rehabilitate this scumbag so he can get re-elected.

So yes... that kind of thing angers me. And it angers me because it doesn't have to be this way... but the arrogance of those involved is the primary cause for the situation we have.

And if those running our government or our media; and correspondingly (at least to some extent) running our lives, are going to insist on their arrogance... where is the place for civility in all that?

When our local politicians and our local paper, who scammed a huge B&O tax cut from all those democrats they support, are doing everything they can to tax commuters an additional $1300 per year... each.... STEALING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF OUR DOLLARS... for a project that THEY won't have to pay for... while THEY make us pay.... I punch figurative holes in figurative walls.

Why be civil?

The editorial page editor of our local rag is as far left as Karl Marx. He name-calls, insults, hammers and beats on those to his political right... meaning almost everyone alive.

HE doesn't engage in anything close to civility, instead, abusing his position while those he answers to just look on and smile.

And we should be civil in return?

Writing with rage as a result of this abuse has a cathartic effect. Doing something is almost always better than doing nothing, and if I can alert just one person to the perfidy of our leaders... if I can get just ONE of these clowns to understand that, no, when you're bought by a tribal developer like Commissioner Steve Stuart was bought for $100,000 by David Barnett... why, no... that AIN'T gonna go away.


Just writing this makes me feel a little better. If it makes those who hold the public they allegedly serve in such contempt feel just the tiniest bit uncomfortable in return... then it has accomplished its goal in a way that polite “teas” in the face of their rampant irresponsibility, non-responsiveness and abuse of the public could never do.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Brian Baird: Coward (XIII) A prescient comment; evidence of the Columbian's leftist positions and spin predictions come true.

This on Brancaccio's pathetic column last Saturday (15 August).

by Pants On Fire : 8/16/09 5:50pm - Report Abuse

Gee, Lou... I was right. You weren't amused. Nor did you respond. Apparently, self-delusion is a big part of becoming a leftist.

Your failure to respond, of course, blows more holes in your "I guess it's just a little confusing to those who want to so badly proove[sic] that we're liberal, they still have to somehow make that case even when we're holding a Democrat accountable" position, particularly when a reasonable person reading the list of reasons I provided would conclude your paper to be to the left of Pravda.

But facts can be sobering things... even those you don't want to hear.

Baird's actions were despicable and unconscionable. The only way he can make amends is to resign.

You know... like you would be demanding a Republican resign if he had done this? You'd be talking about the disgrace, his or her reduced effectiveness, how our representation has been sullied and so on. Kinda like your paper demanded a Republican state representative resign because your paper threw a fit over a budget cut?

Here, Baird has offended tens of thousands of veterans and regular people in his district and millions across the country. There is no way to unring the bigotry bell... and his phony, politically driven apology shouldn't cut it.

The man is a Ph.D. in Psychology and a six term incumbent. That he actually acted this way shows an ugly, fringe-left political side that is unneeded and unwanted in a congressman for this district. It's not like he didn't know better.

It will be good enough for this paper, however, because as we ramp up to the next election, you people will do everything you can to engage in damage control and the rebuilding of his image... much like you did by publishing that nonsensical "I want a 72 hour rule that I'm going to ignore when I'm told to vote for bills I haven't read" article.

We have 15 more months of that sort of nonsense to look forward to. Hopefully Castillo can get through all that and go to the people even in the face of your future somewhat reluctant endorsement of your water carrier... bigotry and all. Your ultimate endorsement might even reference this sorry episode... and then you'll print this huge "but," and then tell us all about all the wonderful things Baird has done and how this massive insult shouldn't be the deciding factor, etc, etc, and then you'll endorse him.


Because that's how a liberal, leftist paper rolls.

He's your guy. You to him is like NBC to Obama.

Your predictably leftist actions and editorial policy, in large part, makes you irrelevant to the process. We really don't need to read you because like your Obamaton editorial page editor (see today's clueless sale job on the unneeded, unwanted and massively wasteful multi-billion dollar train wreck of a bridge/loot rail project; a project you want us to pay for because you and Laird won't have to, as yet another example of leftist propaganda. No demand for a vote, because you people could care less what we want when it might go against your agenda, and a delusional comparison, blown to pieces long ago, between this waste of a new bridge and the salmon creek freeway. It's much like comparing a REAL newspaper with the product you produce.) we already know what you're going to do... the only question is "how?"

Baird is a disgrace to our community. Yet, you have easily hammered Mielke for his positions more since he took office then you have Baird in the entirety of his now almost 11 year tenure.

No bias there, eh?

Baird needs to go. Hopefully, to quote Koenninger, he'll resign before the voters throw him out. I look forward to Koenninger's column making that demand, but since Baird is a democrat and carries your water like Gunga Din, I'm not holding my breath. There are, after all, so many sins you're willing to overlook when it benefits your paper or your agenda directly... and this disgraceful conduct is, I'm sure, one of the set.

"... we already know what you're going to do... the only question is 'how?'"

Well, we already have found the answer to that, haven't we?