Saturday, October 31, 2009

The "Odd, isn't it?" Post.

Kind of a weekly summary of posts.

Odd, isn't it; that the managing editor of the local fishwrapper would brag about keeping track of local politicians while ignoring our Cowardman's "shenanigans" with his fake death threat cover for lacking the guts to face his constituency?

Odd, isn't it; that Jon Russell tossed Stacee Sellers under the bus when he bears at least some responsibility for the Washougal City credit card debacle due to his lax oversight?

Odd, isn't it; that Newt Gingrich and the RNC have been beating Doug Hoffman like a drum, only to maneuver to support him after it became clear that Dede was done-done?

Odd, isn't it; Tim "The Liar" Leavitt whines and snivels like a little piggy about Pollard's efforts to link him to Rossi, and then, at the last minute, announces that Rossi has, you guessed it, endorsed him?

Odd, isn't it; that any so-called Republican would ever vote for Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, given that The Liar was an early endorser and supporter of the messiah, the empty-suited, anti-American racist bigot currently occupying the White House?

Odd, isn't it, that the leftists here in Washington State are so upset and whiny that Boeing has started the process of bailing out?

Odd, isn't it, that Tim "The Liar" Leavitt's hispanic vote scam hasn't really done much for him... has it?

Odd, isn't it, that after all these months, that embarrassment of a President decided he needed a photo op saluting our honored dead... an act I effortlessly found to be despicable.

Odd, isn't it, that the NFL has no trouble allowing thugs and law breakers and rap "artists" who denigrate women and advocate drug use to own part of NFL franchises, but not Rush Limbaugh because, well, he's too "divisive?"

Odd, isn't it, that some "Republicans" are complaining about where and how Pollard has been getting his independent expenditure money without a peep about the tens of thousands for Tim "The Liar" Leavitt from a New York City union PAC?

Odd, isn't it, that the positions of so-called "Mainstream Republicans" closely mirror that of democrats, such as their opposition to I-1033 and their support of R-71?

Odd, isn't it that the "No" on I-1033 folks would stop by and "thank" me for my analysis which shows how badly we NEED 1033 to be implemented BEFORE the legislature meets next session to jack our mid-recession taxes up through the roof?

Odd, isn't it, that Ann Donnelly would use her column as cover to do a campaign commercial for Tim "The Liar" Leavitt?

Odd, isn't it, that those opposing I-1033 are reduced to blatant lies and half-truths to make their points.

Odd, isn't it, that the Columbian would use lies as a basis for their endorsement of the "No" side of I-1033, PARTICULARLY since THEY got a huge tax cut from the legislature THIS year... which tends to show the double standard these clowns live by.

Odd, isn't it, that Jon Russell would want to "Restore Trust in Government" when he avoids talking about his political mercenary past.

Odd, isn't it, that Tim "The Liar" Leavitt's campaign is made up of megacasino supporters?

Brian Baird: Coward (XXIX) Brancaccio blows it again: Press talk: Who's watching these guys?

Occasionally, the blinding leftist bias guiding the editorial leadership of our local version of Pravda leaps up and bites them in the butt... and today's bizarro world column from Lou Brancaccio is no different.

In it, Lou pats himself on the back (he should have callouses on both his hand... and his back... from repeating the act in print far too often to give it any credibility) because HIS paper reported on the Washougal debacle. He even goes so far to print THIS bit of self-flaggulatory crap:
The farther away from the core of a strong local newspaper you get, the more likely you are to see shenanigans.
Of course, our community is cursed with a paper at the HEART of many of these "shenanigans," like rabidly supporting a city council who twice files suit against the people to silence them on the matter of downtown redevelopment; by using bogus polls to support the "shenanigans" of ramming an unneeded and unwanted multi-billion dollar waste of money down our throats without a vote, indebting this county over $100,000,000 a year for the next 30 or more years... and engaging in rampant efforts to rehabilitate our local Cowardman, one Brian Baird.

The problem with Brancaccio's media tripe is that when you badmouth blogs, like, now put out of business by this self-same paper (can't take the competition, you understand) and continually say crap like:
And good luck if you think bloggers are going to somehow do this work. Watch most bloggers closely. They mostly complain about the government based on stories we're doing … and throw in complaints about the media for good measure.
you whiz in your own Corn Flakes because you don't want to address the fact that in arguably the most important local political story in decades, it was a blog that vetted the crap Baird was ladling out, only to discover that Baird had made it all up, and that there wasn't any real death threat.

Now, the bogus death threats have been under investigation by the Capitol Police since shortly AFTER Bob Koski confirmed that no death threat complaints had been filed. Yet, this paper has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to hold our lying Cowardman accountable for HIS "shenanigans."

So what's happened here is that our so-called "crusading" "strong newspaper" has become an accessory after the fact.

It's this kind of bias and effort to cover up the cowardice of the Cowardman because this rag so rabidly supports him that makes this tain on journalism a danger to our community... and a far worse offender than any ol' Lou points out in his self-congratulatory screed.

Yet another reason why I'm no longer in the GOP: BREAKING: Scozzafava suspends NY 23 campaign

In NY's 23rd Congressional District, the GOP was running a neo-communist by the name of Dede Scozzafava to replace Army Secretary and token-Republican-in-the-Obama-Cabinet John McHugh, who was appointed out of the seat; in GOP hands since the Civil War.

POLITICO has the skinny on Scozzafava's last second decision to hit the silk.

Scozzafava had been endorsed by every left wing organization, including such stellar outfits as ACORN and Daily Kos, meaning that any resemblance between Republicanism and Scozzafava was purely coincidental.

So, along comes the independent, Doug Hoffman. Hoffman is a much closer version of what a Republican is SUPPOSED to be; standing for classic Republican themes that the GOP forgot all about when they had overwhelming control of all 3 branches of our government.

Hoffman has been endorsed by almost every high profile conservative around today, such as Governor Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, Darrell Issa, Dick Armey, Rick Santorum, and a wide variety of others.

This wave has been building for weeks... a blind man could see it in a minute. Had the GOP bothered to look, they would have seen it as well and dropped their dogged and doomed support of this communist after admitting they had screwed up.

Instead, we've got Newt Gingrich out there like the halt leading the lame, brow-beating everyone smart enough to dump this waste of political space along with Steele's efforts at wasting tens of thousands of NRC dollars to try and prop Scozzafava worsening numbers back to at least respectability.

Blind allegiance is a very bad thing. A brief review of history will show time and again what a sorry result we get when we let others think for us instead of using our own judgment.

I will not blindly follow anyone. I will not be a member of any group that requires, or even asks for me to blindly follow anyone. And the NY-23 debacle is a microcosm of the problem with party allegiance: it's demanded that we vote for RINO's at every level, that we put up with Republicans endorsing democrats (like our county commissioners) and that we just charge ahead, doing what we're told... precisely like the requirements the left put on their Obamatons.

And here, in a nutshell, is why I'm no longer a Republican, despite having reached the lofty heights of Executive Director of a State GOP organization.

But the closer I got to the center of power, the more radioactive it became.

Now, I will work to elect good men and women REGARDLESS of party, because there's a dearth of both in office today... men and women who can think for themselves, instead of blindly responding to what their political masters order them to do.

That is why I will do all I can to derail the political plans of people I know to be of low character, who lack integrity and who manipulate others into giving their support just to ignore honor, ignore integrity, and ignore character once they're sworn in.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Gee... I've been inundated with Russell supporters crawling out from under their rocks.

Jon Russell stopped by my blog this evening... or was it one of his surrogates? There've been an even dozen or so, but oddly, only 3 IP's identifying the perps, so to speak.

Ahhh.... no matter. This little gift was left on my doorstep, not unlike the ubiquitous burning bag of poop.

Wow I didn't know we wanted councilman to be reviewing all the cities expense reports. This is really one of the most pathetic ways to try to rope a candidate into the scandal. I guess if we are going to start this maybe we need to know why veterans administration had issues while Castillo was there with the hospitals and maybe we need to check to see if any of Castillos clients lost any money under his advice from Edward Jones.
I kinda believe this is Russell himself, but it could be any one of those with the flawed reasoning process that would allow them to support a political mercenary like Russell.

So, since I just finished my gym workout, what say I cool off by crushing this moron's little anon gesture of idiocy here and now.... OK?

Let's set the table, shall we?

The Mayor of Washougal has some problems with city credit card(s) and a little trip to Vegas. The guy running against her, who has his own issues, blew the whistle in a most timely manner to inflict maximum damage on the good mayor, all in the name of political altruism, you understand.

That, of course, is neither here nor there. What happened is that Jon Russell, loyal and good fellow that he is, tossed his mayor under the bus in RECORD time. That, of course, is his privilege.

But in his haste to avoid the splatter, he neglected to mention that he and 2 other council members for the good city of Washougal sit in DIRECT oversight of the very credit cards in question.

Now, apparently, something was said at the behest of the this little group to the good mayor to ask her to reimburse the city for the copious amounts of alcohol she apparently charged on the taxpayer dime will "conferencing" in Vegas.

Clearly, like herpes, what happens in Vegas may not, necessarily, stay in Vegas... particularly when there's a paper trail. Right, Stacee?

All of that said, Mr. Russell, best known for his abysmal failure in ramming the humongous Port Tax increase down our throats; is, along with his two compadres, DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVING THESE EXPENDITURES.

Well, it would seem that this merry little band approved them all, save for the booze.

But then, our erstwhile congress-critter wannabe, having completely FAILED to do the job he was responsible for doing, spewed thusly:

"I don't think these are cracks, they're craters," he said. "It looks like a pattern that is not being dealt with and that is not being brought to the attention of the council."

Odd, that. Since this little committee of 3 is personally responsible for reviewing EACH of these credit card expenditures and since they DID nail Sellers for drinking the booze on the taxpayer dime....


It was, of course. But the knee jerk reaction of this product of Chicago politics was and is to put as much distance as fast as possible between himself and the good mayor. So, instead of publicly admitting HE had screwed up as well, it came out deny, deny, and then, well, deny.

That leads us to these increasingly lame little comments Russell (and or his Winged Monkeys) are leaving here in blog land.

First of all, let me re-iterate: although I am a professional in politics, I have no professional relationship with any congressional candidate. I personally know both Mr. Russell and Mr. Castillo and I have had professional relationships with both of them; both while they were working for HROC.

That said... here we go.

"Wow I didn't know we wanted councilman to be reviewing all the cities expense

Is this were I point out how utterly irrelevant what "we wanted" is? Whether you WANTED it or not, THAT IS PART OF HIS JOB. That "we" may or may not "want it" matters not one wit.

This is really one of the most pathetic ways to try to rope a candidate into the
Perhaps. But his response to all of this is the most pathetic aspect of it. I guess he should have thought of it before he tried to dump all the responsibility on somebody else when he bears part of it himself.

If he had the guts to take some level of responsibility for this, then we wouldn't be having this little chat. But he lacks that kind of courage and integrity.

That, of course, is why I would support Baird over Russell. Because we already HAVE someone representing us with an unethical, gutless background. Why should we replace him with somebody else?

I guess if we are going to start this maybe we need to know why veterans administration had issues while Castillo was there with the hospitals and maybe we need to check to see if any of Castillos clients lost any money under his advice from Edward Jones.

That's the kind of stretch ol Jon is known for, but I guess the question is this:

Was Castillo elected to either a position in the VA or Edward Jones?

Was Castillo required to go over the credit card expenditures of a mayor while he was in either of those positions?

No? Then why would you so moronically bring this up?


That you don't happen to like that doesn't change it one wit. The ISSUE is that it was RUSSELL'S JOB AND HE DIDN'T DO IT.

And dude (or dudette, as the case may be) if you don't like it, that's just too damned bad.

There are hypocrites in politics... then there is Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.

My phone has been ringing off the hook from contacts around the area telling me about yet ANOTHER session of Tim "The Liar" Leavitt acting both up to the standard of his nickname AND whining and snivelling like a little punk on the playground that just discovered recess is over.

So, when a bud of mine (Carl) told me that he'd come up with a copy of the tree edition of the Columbian (since the idiots running their show decided that Leavitt's temper tantrum weren't worthy of putting up on the web) we met for coffee and he forked it over.

Reading this has convinced me that The Liar is the biggest idiot in the history of local politics, bar none.

And it takes some doing to rise up to the top of THAT heap.

The headline? "Leavitt alleges partisan politics."

This from a totally rank hypocrite who is doing nothing BUT reminding voters in the 49th that he's a Republican?

So, this whiny little worm gets Rossi to, in effect, RE-endorse him, because Rossi already had, even though this slimeball had endorsed arguably the worst president in the last century, including that other White House embarrassment, one Jimmy Carter; when The Liar endorsed Obama.

There is just something Twilight Zonish when a political moron claims "partisan tactics" on the part of his opponent at the SAME time he's shilling the endorsement of arguably THE highest profile unelected partisan politician in the state.

How can one adequately label that variety of hypocrisy? How can one find the brush to describe such a moronic play?

As for Rossi, he showed his true colors the better part of 2 years ago... and most likely lost the election... when he stupidly endorsed the idea of spending $150 MILLION in taxpayer dollars to keep that basketball team up in Seattle. That Rossi has an "R" after his name is as distasteful as Don Carlson or Sam Reed having one there as well.

This is the last weekend in this election. I don't know how Leavitt could possible get more stupid than this, as he reminds the heavily democrat voters of Vancouver that he is, in fact, primarily masquerading as a Republican.

But I have no doubt that The Liar will find a way.

Rossi endorses Leavitt? and Leavitt endorsed Obama? And Leavitt needs to remind a heavily democrat area that their political enemies LIKE him?

Still stinging from Senator Don Benton's surprising endorsement of Mayor Pollard, Tim "The Liar" Leavitt has, apparently, decided to get people to believe that both Marc Boldt (who used to be a Republican... but who now only God knows what his political affiliation is) and Dino Rossi (Who also used to be a Republican) have just now come out to endorse "The Liar."

This is yet another in a series of scams, as both Boldt and Rossi had endorsed Leavitt from essentially the beginning of his campaign. But then, given his history, Leavitt seems to think of himself as the master manipulator.

As Ryan Hart, County GOP Chair related, The Liar introduced Rossi at a late campaign stop in 2008... the same campaign where The Liar had been an early endorser of the stain on America's history known as Barack Obama. So, to me, this isn't so much about who The liar is and what he supports, as it is who Dino Rossi is and who and what HE supports.

What I've got to wonder, though, is this:

Is it politically smart to constantly remind perhaps the most democrat area in Southwest Washington that you're endorsed by two alleged Republicans?

But who knows? What my instincts tell me is that The Liar is in serious trouble, if not having managed to lose an election that he should have won going away.

Now he seems to be making additional lapses in judgment by reminding everyone in Vancouver, including the democrats who loath them, that Boldt and Rossi support The Liar as well.

That makes as much senses as The Liar reminding the GOP that he endorsed Obama.

Good luck with that, Liar.

Blame for Boeing leaving? This state's politcal leadership.

When your political leadership has but two over-arching duties; that is, to get re-elected and to placate unions, there is a tendency to lose sight of reality.

Washington State legislative leadership is a deep, dark, blue. Political leadership, particularly in the areas where Boeing is located (Primarily in the Puget Sound region) is not unlike the paint job on my Mazda pick up: a blue so dark it approaches black.

The fact of the matter is this: Governor Gregoire does not hesitate to take the credit when someone writes a piece of fiction about how great the business climate of this state actually is. Those of us actually paying attention would frequently wonder: exactly what state was Forbes talking about?

We live in a state with unbelievable taxes. My business is off over 50%, in losses directly attributable to the Obama economy. Yet, that won't reduce my requirement on me of having to carry a several hundred dollar business and occupation tax check down to the Department of Revenue Office later this afternoon (Unlike the paper, which got a 40% cut to THEIR tax this year) with no deductions of any kind because I'm not yet small enough to earn any, though Gregoire and Obama seem to be working on reducing our business income even more.

Boeing tried to tell us when they moved corporate to Chicago. Our deep, dark, blue political and union leadership didn't listen. And Boeing is a microcosm of the entire business climate of Washington State.

Boeing has begun to emulate the same kind of business evacuation that's taking place in Kalleyforrrnia. And Governor, I submit to you that your call for tax increases in the midst of this horrific Obama recession is not causing business leadership to look at each others and say "Tax increases? That's a DAMNED fine reason to stay here."

Add that to increasingly emboldened, legislatively-backed union extortion, and you have a recipe for a business evacuation plan.

So, Governor, when it comes to blame, you might want to stand in front of a mirror, and look into ever-shrinking concentric circles. There's room for Lisa and Frank in front of that same mirror as well.

You know... just like you do whenever we have good business or economic news? Like that?

STILL no lie that Tim "The Liar" Leavitt won't tell?

I dunno. I simply cannot understand why Tim "The Liar" Leavitt has to live up to his name with such intensity.

It takes a genuine scumbag who supports a bridge that must have tolls to be built by attacking someone else who supports a bridge, with, well, tolls it must have to be built.

I guess this kind of crap and desperation is spewing out from Leavitt because of the dirty little secret he doesn't want people to know:

He's losing.

Yup, that's right... The Liar has blown it.

Scamming the hispanic vote by manipulating them into an endorsement as if that mattered... whining like a little punk because he got busted for wanting YOU to do the very thing HE didn't bother to do: vote... $40,000 so far in special interest, east coast union money.... lying about his position on bridge tolls (He wants the bridge and loot rail, and he's not about to let a little thing like tolls get in the way of that, so, tolls or no, The Liar wants his bridge.) and then coming up with an utterly moronic plan to tax EVERYONE, EVEN THOSE NOT USING THE BRIDGE, to pay for HIS project.... and this simple idiot has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The rank hypocrisy of accusing someone ELSE of wanting tolls when YOU want tolls show the depths of scummery this low life will stoop to to win. He's lying and attempting to manipulate people into voting for him as if he actually had the character to OPPOSE the bridge when tolls are required... even though he's publicly stated he will NOT oppose a tolled bridge because he lacks the guts... I mean, because he doesn't want to be an "obstructionist."

Integrity is a rare commodity in politics. Like it or hate it, Pollard is the one who's got it... and Leavitt?

Well, not so much.

Vote Pollard. Of the two, he's the best choice, hands down. And if Leavitt's bogus mailer didn't convince you what a lying weasel he is, I don't know what will.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

So, what do you suppose finally caused that empty-suited moron in the White House to honor our dead?

I can't really formulate the outrage and disgust I have towards the scumbag we, to our ever-lasting agony, elected as President of the United States.

This slimeball didn't care about the troops before he was elected; shown he didn't give a damn about them when he BECAME president, starting with the day he was inaugurated when he blew off the Medal of Honor Ball; and later, becoming the first president in over 50 years to insult them that way; through his moronic effort to get veterans to pay for their own post-combat, post-enlistment war wounds by requiring the wounded to both get, and be covered by and cared for by private insurers; and now, where this scumbag is using coffins for a political backdrop to FINALLY get around to showing how much he "cares."

Not enough to miss his golf games or Wednesday White House parties every week, you understand; or to send the needed troops to Afghanistan... but enough to do his widely-publicized non-press opportunity yesterday morning in Dover.

I have a son who is, unfortunately, doing everything he can to enlist into the Marine Corps. I don't want him anywhere NEAR the military as long as the ACORN in Chief is running the show, because anyone who could use coffins for campaign props makes me sick.

If MY son gets killed over there, Mr. President, I don't want to hear from you; I don't want to see you; I don't want a letter or phone call from you. I will not want anything at all to do with you since his blood would be on your incompetent, clueless hands.

Mr. President, you've had ample opportunity to prove both your worth as our Commander and, in fact, that you actually give a damn.

And you've blown it.

If my kid gets hurt or killed fighting for YOU... stay away from him. And stay away from us, you despicable cretin.

A blog I follow states it much better than I ever could:

My own words cannot express

My words cannot express here how I feel about the administration's use of bodies returning to Dover as a photo op. Blackfive asks some poignant questions that I doubt will be answered by this administration. (Until the book deals.)

I won't republish these photos, because I am not a journalist. I have a personal code of honor that will not tolerate even one single visit by someone searching for pictures of wounded or the bodies of our dead.

I cannot express here the rage that I feel when I look at these pictures. It's too coincidental--an administration that is taking weeks to consider urgent requests, losing points daily in public opinion, foreign policy and approval polls, now arrives at Dover AFB to pay respects to the return of our heroes. In an administration whose Chief of Staff once said: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." I wonder what opportunity they are seeking here?

I don't recall the administration making any effort to visit Dover before, so why now? Why haven't the heroes returned been important enough until now? The time of the President is incredibly valuable. He is an incredibly busy person. His day is managed by the minute. Its because of the value of his time that I wonder whether the actions of the administration were altruistic or if there is an ulterior motive.

I always felt the policy of allowing photographers at Dover was ill-advised, because it would eventually lead to one side or the other using the photos for political statements. I just never thought it would be the President to do it first.

I recall my visit with President Bush when I was in the hospital. No reporters, no journalists, no cameras. Just me, the Mrs, Mom, the CiC, and the White house photographer. The pictures he took were sent to me later--signed. I asked why no reporter--his reply: "Because this visit isn't about me, or anyone else but you. I want to thank you for your sacrifice, and that's all." Sure, it'd be a great photo op (see Carren's piece about John McCain.) President Bush realized that there was more honor in a private ceremony than there ever could be in a public one.

Much, much more.

Many thanks to Rep. Steve King, (R-IA) for nailing down Goddell on NFL bigotry and double standards.

Those reading this blog for any length of time know that I am no longer watching the National Football League games, either on TV or in person; that I am no longer interested in buying any NFL merchandise or watching the NFL network.

I have made it clear on this blog that I will not support any organization of bigots or hypocrites... and the NFL qualifies on both counts.

Clicking this link will bring up all of the posts that I've done which explain, with specificity, why I am out of the NFL's sphere of influence.

Rep. King had the opportunity to nail that whitebread milquetoast running the NFL, Commissioner Roger Goodell.

Goodell is a coward with the moral ambiguity of a board fence. And here's how King dealt with him.

Below is a transcript of a portion of today's House Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) questioned NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.


KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony today. And one of the things that came out of it for me was to be in the same room with George Martin and Willie Wood and Jim Brown, see you all on the same field together. I didn't think I'd ever actually see that. And so I appreciate that, and I want to remind folks here that just as I watched on Saturday night an Iowa-Michigan State game, there were two injuries that resulted in players being carried off the field, and they were both helmet-to-helmet contact, and so it comes in a particularly timely fashion.

However, as I listened to the members of this committee discuss this and we've covered a lot of the territory, I note that Sheila Jackson Lee said that she is concerned that owners need the right image, and her opposition to who might be buying the St. Louis Rams, her reason for that is owners that might not have the right image. Now, she wasn't any more specific than that, but we know who she's talking about, and that's Rush Limbaugh. But I would ask Commissioner Goodell this question. Your position on owners have the right image, and I would direct it to your statement on the 13th of October where you said, 'I think it's divisive comments, or they are not what the NFL is all about. I would not want to see those kinds of comments from people who are in responsible positions within the NFL, no, absolutely not.' Now, I take you as a man of your word. But I would point out that you have a couple of owners that have performed lyrics in songs that are far more offensive. In fact, I don't think anything that Rush Limbaugh said was offensive, but with Fergie and with J. Lo, they have, between the two of them, alleged that the CIA are terrorists and liars, they've promoted sexual abuse of women, they've used the N-word, verbal pornography, recreational drug use, et cetera, and they are owners of the Dolphins,

And it is also ironic that Fergie was approved as an owner on the very day that you made your statement against Rush Limbaugh. And I would point out for the committee, the statement that Rush Limbaugh made is this -- that seems to be the one that survives the criticism, and that is: "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. McNabb got a lot of credit for the performance of the team that he really didn't deserve," close quote.

Now, I've scoured this quote to try to find something that can be implied as racism on the part of Rush Limbaugh, and I can't find it. There is an implication of racism on the part of the media. That's the only quote that seems to survive the scrutiny of chase-checking back original sources in at least nine quotes that were alleged to Rush Limbaugh. And, by the way, of those, eight are complete fabrications. They're not based on anything. They're not a misquote. They're not a distortion. They're complete fabrication. And the one that remains stands true and shines the light against the media, not against Rush Limbaugh. And so if you're concerned about this, Mr. Goodell, then I'd ask you, you know, are you prepared to level the same charges against Fergie and J. Lo, or are you prepared to apologize to Rush Limbaugh today?"

GOODELL: Let me try to take this in a couple of different directions. First off, my comments at the annual meeting were directed about specific comments he made about Donovan McNabb; and I made the point, and I will make it again here today, that the NFL is about bringing people together, it's about unity and that we do not -- we do not move towards divisive actions. And, in fact, our teams, I think, have demonstrated that both on and off the field. Nothing brings a team and a community together better than the NFL.

KING: But, Mr. Goodell, were you considering those other eight quotes that I referenced when you made your statement, or were you considering the one that is true, the one that I've read to you and the one that doesn't shine a negative light on Rush Limbaugh but upon the media?"

GOODELL: I'm not shining any kind of a light on Rush Limbaugh here. I am not an expert on this -- all of his quotes. And I would try to reinforce the -- something I said at the time. He was not even under active consideration as an NFL owner. This is -- I met -- stated this several times before, that we had not started a process to review ownership groups. He had -- they had not even determined to sell the St. Louis Rams, and it's something that" --

KING: Speaking directly of Rush Limbaugh, you said, "The comments that Rush made specifically about Donovan I disagree with very well strongly."


KING: You are speaking --

GOODELL: Because I think Donovan McNabb is an outstanding young man. He's an outstanding quarterback, and it has nothing to do with the color of his skin.

KING: I'll just close with this. Here are Rush Limbaugh's -- his position. And after 20 years on the radio, there's nothing there that would undermine this. He says, "My racial views? You mean my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race?' And I'll close with that, Mr. Goodell.

And I'd ask you to go back and take a look at the owners of the Dolphins and the language that's in the public venue, the songs that they recorded, review those lyrics, and I'll provide some of those lyric songs to you, and I'll ask you to come back and respond to that question after the hearing as to whether you'll put the same scrutiny on those owners who have really shined a negative light on the NFL as opposed to somebody that the NFL apparently just doesn't agree with his politics. I yield back.


ANOTHER $10,000 of East Coast, special interest money for Tim "The Liar" Leavitt?

SOMEBODY is buying Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, precisely like SOMEONE bought Steve "I'll take $100,000 in unmarked bills laundered through Progressive Majority, Mr. Barnett" Stuart.

So far, that SOMEONE has laundered $40,000 through an East Coast union with absolutely NO dog in this fight... like SOMEONE laundered $100,000 through Progressive Majority for Commissioner Steve Stuart (D-Barnett)

I WILL find out who, and hopefully get them indicted. Meanwhile that these people felt compelled to scam this cash through a union on the other side of the country must mean SOMETHING... something like they think Leavitt has managed to lose an election that was, sure enough, his TOO lose... and this expenditure means that it looks like he's pulled it off brilliantly.

You know, a lot of people are going to look like idiots here.

If Leavitt manages to pull this off then he, like Stuart, will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of whoever is buying him. And I AM going to find out who that is.

Mainstream Republicans = Fringe Left Democrats.

Have you ever noticed that there doesn't seem to be any political equivalent to the so-called "Mainstream Republicans" on the left?

Why do you suppose that is?

I, for one, believe it to be that the leftists have made the decision to avoid the costs and hassles of duplication. After all, why should they organize and pay for another group of democrats when the mainstreamers have provided that for them?

In this election... as in past elections, there's been no difference between the democrat positions and the so-called positions of the mainstreamers.

Democrats oppose I-1033 because they like things they way they are right now. Out of control spending, massive debt, enslavement of generations to pay for their programs. They offer precisely zero alternatives to 1033... no middle ground... no effort to tame the spending virus that infects them.

Oddly enough, that description also seems to fit the mainstreamers.

For once, the state GOP grew a pair and took positions... positions in favor of 1033 and in opposition to R 71. Not surprisingly, the democrats masquerading as Republicans known as mainstreamers took the democrat's positions on these... (Both R71 and I1033) positions in opposition to what is supposed to be their own party.

I despise mainstreamers. Currying favor from their fellow leftists may make them feel better, but selling out their own party ultimately winds up hurting the people of this state.

That they're really democrats is shown by their Clark County chair, democrat Liz Pike, who worked her ass off (Making some big bucks along the way) to get democrats elected while sitting on the Clark County GOP's executive board... making money off leftists she was trying to get elected. Yeah. She's a maninstreamer, and the very embodiment of everything they stand for... an almost unspeakable political hypocrisy.

When you look at mainstreamers' positions, typically, you'll find "property of the democrats" stamped all over them. And this election is no different.

Everything from their name to their positions are a lie (They are neither "main stream," nor "Republican," and their positions closely mirror their democrat masters) and typically, when they've taken a position or endorsed a candidate, we're best served by going in the opposite direction.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

The "No on I-1033" folks stopped by my blog and THANKED me for my analysis!

People here pretty much know that I'm rabidly supporting I-1033, the "Give control of our money back to us" initiative.

Oddly enough, one of the many groups vacuuming up our tax dollars swung by and left this little gem:
Thanks for this analysis of the press coverage of ... Thanks for this analysis of the press coverage of I-1033. For more info on this initiative and other races, check out the Progressive Voters Guide – a one-stop resource on who and what to vote for if you want to see real progress in Washington.

The Progressive Voters Guide can be found at; it is available via email by request at Get the guide and vote for progress.

Cheryl Murfin, (David Hirning)
Fuse Communications Director,
Publish Reject
Now, look... I've got a sense of humor as much as the other guy... but this?

I post it, along with the addresses in it, because I figure that by now, if you're gonna buy the lies of the left on this, there's nothing I can do about it anyway.

But man... to "thank" me for MY "analysis?"

What do you suppose are chances they didn't read it?

Boeing Bails Out of Washington State: 787 line to be set up in..... South Carolina!

So, Boeing pulled the rip cord after bailing out on the Soviet Socialist Republic of Washington, with our democrat and union-controlled government, putting the second 787 line in ol' South Carolina.

And who can blame them?

Given the choice between setting up a huge business expansion here in the land of regulation, permits, unions, taxes and fees and South Carolina, is their ANY possibility that anyone would stay here?

With the move of corporate HQ into the hell-hole scum pit known as Chicago, Boeing sent the governmet of this state a message... a message our leftist leaders, who've been taking the Lazy B for granted for decades, chose to ignore.

Well, democrats and unions... have you heard THIS message?

Boeing picks South Carolina for 787 line
A worker walks past one of Boeing's 787 Dreamliners at the production facility in Everett. A second production line for the airplane will be going to South Carolina. Washington State hoped to land the second line. (Joshua Trujillo/

Boeing has decided to put its second line for building the 787 in North Charleston, S.C., not Everett.

"The decision has been reached," Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon told reporters in front of the Everett Machinists Hall.

Reardon and Machinist
Joshua Trujillo / P-I
Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon talks with Boeing Machinist Charlie Grieser outside the union hall in Everett after announcing that Boeing's second 787 production line will be going to South Carolina. photographer Josh Trujillo reported that Reardon said: "We have to move forward ... there are still thousands of men and women who work for the company in this community."

Reardon said the the aerospace giant and the machinists have to continue talks to ensure that jobs stay in the region.

"We have to make a conscious decision in the state of Washington," he said. "Are we going to throw are hands up and say, 'We did the best we could?' ... the relationship between Boeing and Machinists have to be improved. We have to resolve those differences."

Boeing made the official announcement moments later. "Boeing evaluated criteria that were designed to find the final assembly location within the company that would best support the 787 business plan as the program increases production rates. In addition to serving as a location for final assembly of 787 Dreamliners, the facility also will have the capability to support the testing and delivery of the airplanes," the company said in a statement.

It said it remains committed to the Puget Sound region and that it will continue to build 787s in Everett.

The announcement ends weeks of speculation, debate and negotiation. Boeing and the Machinists union were reportedly deadlocked over a deal in which the labor group would promise not to strike should the second line be in Everett.

Boeing employees in Everett were disappointed by the decision and insisted Everett was the right place for the second line.

"We have the skill and manpower here in Everett to produce the second line, but we haven't been given that chance," said Zen Jenne, a union member who has been with Boeing for three years.

"I'm angry, I hurt for the workers, I think the company made the wrong decision," Gov. Chris Gregoire said at a news conference in Olympia.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who was rebuffed by the company after she asked them to continue talks with union workers, said "I really believed that the two sides could've come together and had a good deal for both Boeing and the Pacific Northwest, and unfortunately we can't reach that now," she told KING5 news.

"Very clearly, they were a stone's throw apart in providing some real job stability, which Boeing has been telling us a long time that's what they wanted. I thought there was make that agreement and unfortunately Boeing saw it differently."

Workers at the South Carolina plant recently voted to remove the union from the North Charleston plant.

Boeing's engineering union blasted the decision, saying it "will hurt a program already stretched to its limit."

"We are astounded that Boeing has chosen to compound the problems of the 787 program by further fragmenting the supply chain," said Ray Goforth, executive director of the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), IFPTE Local 2001. "There is no credible business case for this decision."

A number of SPEEA-represented engineers and technical workers are already in South Carolina. Goforth said the union will follow members and the work as Boeing expands operations in Charleston for the new 787 line.

State lawmakers just completed an incentive package to bring the line to South Carolina.

Meanwhile, Washington state officials, including U.S. Sen. Patty Murray and Gov. Chris Gregoire, urged Boeing and the Machinists to keep talking.

South Carolina officials reacted with glee at the announcement.

Gov. Mark Sanford called it the largest infusion of jobs and capital investment in that state's history.

He said it "represents not only enormously good news for our state's economy, but also a telling dividend from our state's continued efforts to better our business climate. For us, that means lowering taxes, easing regulatory burdens in our state's tort and workers' compensation systems, and keeping South Carolina a right-to-work state." Sanford said.

In Everett, Charlie Grieser, a 767 quality team leader and a member of the Aerospace Machinists union, said he felt betrayed by Boeing.

He noted that the company was given about $3 billion in tax breaks in 2003 to build the 787 in Washington state.

"They were given that money to build the 787 here. Not half the 787 here," Grieser said, a 32-year company veteran. "I think this is going to poison all of the state on Boeing."


You know, I wondered why Ann Donnelly's column on the mayor's race was a campaign ad for Tim "The Liar" Leavitt...

And now I know. Donnelly is helping to fund Leavitt's campaign, and she used her column to shill for this clown. Ann Donnelly and her husband gave Leavitt $150 on the 20th of October.

Now, I get that the Columbian can hardly be called the most ethical publication in existence. In fact, I have occasionally proffered that their propaganda on occasion, particularly about their agenda like the I-5 Bridge, loot rail, and initiatives they oppose would have made Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels blush.

But this is simply beyond the pail. It is one thing to take an advocacy position as a result of analysis and information.

It's another thing all together to give that candidate money after you've given him thousands in in-kind contributions under the guise of political commentary.

I'll just chalk this up as yet another reason why I've left the GOP: a former county chair engaging in questionably ethical political behavior by using her position to further her own agenda... instead of the agenda of the people.

Lies by Omission: Why did Jon Russell neglect to mention that he has direct oversight of Washougal city credit cards?

Man... you can take Jon Russell out of Chicago politics, but it seems you can't take Chicago politics out of Jon Russell.

Well, folks, it looks like things are spinning out of control when it comes to the keepers of the Washougal check book... or in this case, credit card.

Unfortunately, the voters of Washougal now seem to be faced with a choice: they can choose someone who, at best, appears incompetent or they can choose a liar for mayor. Not a choice *I* would envy.

Stacy Sellers is having a tough week. Perhaps she deserves one, since, according to the local version of Pravda, Sellars charged, among other things, a "...$57 'surf and turf' dinner. An $88 bottle of wine. A $72 bill at the Eye Candy Lounge & Bar." while on some sort of "official trip" to Vegas.... although why a trip to Vegas for the mayor of Washougal would be official is, perhaps, a subject for another post. (Take some time and run a google search on the "Eye Candy Lounge & Bar" for pictures of others engaging in some distinctly "non-mayor" like activities. I guess what happens in Vegas is reported in the Columbian.)

Apparently, the whistle blower in all this is one Sean Guard, who just happens to be running against Sellers for mayor and who just happened to drop this dime THIS week (as opposed to, say, after the election) not, because, as you might think, he was trying to engage in any kind of politics; oh no. To hear him tell it,
"Guard said he did not make the complaint to the auditor's office to win votes; he did it to put an end to the misuse of public dollars."
Right. And I'm Mayor of Munchkin City and I run the Lollipop Guild.

I don't really care one way or the other, but Guard needed to have a surrogate blow the whistle here if he wanted to maintain the high ground. Having someone on the inside as it seems he does, who tipped him off and then covered the information transfer with a FOIA so HE, PERSONALLY could shill Seller's idiocy puts the lie to his claim, quoted above.

There is no altruism in politics. Guard announced this to drive a stake through Seller's political heart; he should have been man enough to just admit it. Leave the game playing to the slimy worms in the White House.

That writ, where was Jon Russell in all of this?

Well, yesterday, we received his version of what I call "Prairie Dog" from Mr. Russell.

You've seen those little critters on TV, haven't you? When they're trying to get a handle on what's happening... on what's going on.... you get this:

Here's what Mr. Russell had to tell us: 
Council member Jon Russell said he believed the findings showed that the problems were bigger than oversights.
"I don't think these are cracks, they're craters," he said. "It looks like a pattern that is not being dealt with and that is not being brought to the attention of the council."

Russell said he wants the council to hold a special meeting to look into each problem and discipline responsible parties, even ask for resignations if necessary.

"I don't see how we can trust this administration in moving forward with anything," he said.
Well, there may be some element of truth to that last part... the part about "trust" and the lack of it.

But not, I'm sure, the way Russell meant when he spewed this "What? Who, me?" crap.

Because, as it turns out....

Here's what the Columbian buried today about Russell's little meat hooks being buried in this particular pie:
The people responsible for that oversight are members of the city council. Three council members — Russell, Lou Peterson and Paul Greenlee — make up the finance committee tasked with approving city employees' and officials' receipts and spending.
The expenditures are first submitted to the finance department, and then go to the mayor for approval, Russell said. Each week, the mayor sends the finance committee members e-mails with the accounts payable receipts and statements for their review and approval, he (Russell) said. Sometimes the statements have details of specific charges, sometimes they only include the employee's name and how much they are to be reimbursed, Russell said. Unless the committee members ask to see the details of those reimbursements, oftentimes they don't know the specifics. And many times expenditures are approved as long as they fall within the amount included in the annual budget, he said.
Russell said he does not recall whether he saw details of the Las Vegas trip expenditures.
"It's not at all a perfect system," Russell said.

The committee members do not meet to discuss the expenditures; that practice ended several years ago in favor of council workshops, he said. Instead, members are told to go to Sellers with questions, Russell said.

"We have been told by the mayor not to talk to department heads to get answers, that everything has to go through her," he said.

The use of city money to purchase alcohol was questioned by the committee and reviewed earlier this summer by the city council. Sellers was notified that the practice was prohibited by city policy and she reimbursed the city for the cost of alcohol charges, Russell said. City officials were not available to comment on the amount of the reimbursement.

"She was under the impression for some reason that it was permissible," he said.
So, Russell KNEW about the booze... but then claims he DIDN'T RECALL whether he "SAW SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE LAS VEGAS TRIP EXPENDITURES?"


OK, here are the possibilities.

Russell, who sits on the committee with DIRECT oversight over these expenditures, in fact, didn't know about them; which means that he's guilty of misfeasance;


Russell, who sits on the committee with DIRECT oversight over these expenditures, in fact, DID know about them, and then lamely engaged in the time-honored "I don't recall" lie, in which case, he's both a liar AND guilty of misfeasance.

Now, the definition of "misfeasance" is
"the unintended, accidental errors, mistakes taken place while managing the business, office or other responsibilities entrusted on a person, causing loss or damage or unfortunate situations out of such mistakes. A misfeasance become a malfeasance when the act was performed with an intention to cause loss."
Now, was Russell's incompetence intentional? I doubt it.

But does that make him any the less incompetent or incapable of performing the task of city councilman, let alone congressman?

That conclusion seems fairly straightforward to me.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Jon Russell's firm grasp of Washougal City administration.

As you may have heard, Jon Russell, political mercenary extraordinaire and Washougal City Councilman, is running to represent us in Congress, God forbid.

Well, today he got his name in print as the crusading guardian of "The People's Money." (copyright 2009)

Stacy Sellars, who will, it appears, soon become the former mayor of Washougal, finds her butt firmly affixed to a red hot grill of a hot seat in the matter of a few missing dollars from the Washougal city accounts. Like, well, something on the order of 100,000 of them.

At this point, I don't believe anyone knows what's going on with this money. There's a lot more to examine... to consider... to weigh.

On the surface, it looks pretty bad. Typically, in situations like this, the rats will scurry away at warp speed. But is throwing someone you've supported politically, or a major part of the city staff under the bus to avoid the splatter the way to do it?

Council member Jon Russell said he believed the findings showed that the problems were bigger than oversights.

"I don't think these are cracks, they're craters," he said. "It looks like a pattern that is not being dealt with and that is not being brought to the attention of the council."

Russell said he wants the council to hold a special meeting to look into each problem and discipline responsible parties, even ask for resignations if necessary.

"I don't see how we can trust this administration in moving forward with anything," he said.

In this country, including Washougal, everyone is innocent unless proven guilty.

And that everyone includes the administration of the city that Russell, is, well, tasked to administer.

Russell; who is, as a member of the city council, one of those charged with the oversight of the very administration he now works so hard to condemn, wasted no time in taking what he believed to be the "appropriate steps" to step out of the way of the poop storm.

This misfeasance/malfeasance happened on Russell's watch. Of course, he's been blowing off some meetings and so forth as a result of running for Congress, but hey, who cares about missing votes and such when your eyes are on the much-bigger prize?

Clearly, changes have to be made in the systems of accounting in Washougal. But engaging in these theatrics as part of his political soap opera doesn't speak well for him, since, like it or hate it, it is HIS city and this happened on HIS watch.

Hey, I know: maybe one of those "resignations" Russell's so hot about could be his own? Watchcha think? Would THAT be a hoot?

Imagine... actually taking responsibility for something he'd done... or in this case, failed to do.

I won't hold my breath. .

Why do leftist politicians HAVE to lie about issues they oppose? Brokaw on 1033.

Chicken Little ain't got nothin' on a leftist.

Here's Pam Brokaw's LTE on 1033:
I-1033 reduces economic recovery

On behalf of the board of Friends of Clark County, a non-profit committed to the quality of life of our community, we urge voters to vote "no" on Initiative 1033. Our great Pacific Northwest way of life is in jeopardy. Passage of this initiative would drastically reduce basic county resources and the ability to keep Clark County a place where folks want to do business, raise a family and enjoy our amazing natural resources.

We are committed to working with county government, and the leadership of our community, to ensure responsible stewardship of our environment. Initiative 1033 is irresponsible and short-sighted fiscal stewardship with far-reaching negative impacts. Keep Clark County a quality place to live and do business. Vote "no" on Initiative 1033.

Pam Brokaw

Now here, locally, Ms. Brokaw is known best for two things: Getting around $100,000 in tribal money as a result of David Barnett's efforts to buy her in two elections (state representative back in 04 and county commissioner here last fall, where she ran such a terrible campaign that even though Clark County voted for Obama, they then turned around and voted for conservative Tom Mielke in a close one (requiring a recount)) and secondly, having the "tinnest" ear in politics (did you REALLY thing partial birth abortion and gay marriage were planks to win on in the 18th?)

And now... we get a different version of that moron's statement that people will DIE when this thing passes.

Everything she wrote in her letter, in one way or another, has been used as an attempt to stop every fiscal control we've ever been given the option to vote for.

Remember I-601? I-695? I-747? These measures in one form or another reduced revenue to state and local governments.

Remember the responses from the leftists and their paper, here?

Well, let's take a look at this one.

On behalf of the board of Friends of Clark County, a non-profit committed to the quality of life of our community,
Who? I never heard of you. By the way, do you get any government funding that might be at risk when this passes?
we urge voters to vote "no" on Initiative 1033.
Because GOD knows you can't think for yourself.
Our great Pacific Northwest way of life is in jeopardy.
"We're all going to DIE!"

What a crock.

The idea that our "great Pacific Northwest way of life" is a product of the unfettered ability to tax and spend our money without our say-so is lunacy... but to a leftist, the will of the people is anathema, so they have to respond with moronic rhetoric like this.

Like most leftists, Brokaw is incapable of viewing this situation from the front end, in this case, from the perspective of those of us actually paying the bills. Her concern will NEVER be the one's paying... only the one's receiving.
Passage of this initiative would drastically reduce basic county resources and the ability to keep Clark County a place where folks want to do business, raise a family and enjoy our amazing natural resources.
"We're all going to die!"

This, of course, is an outright lie on it's face. Why leftist opponents HAVE to lie... pathologically have to lie, to oppose a measure that reduces the orgy of government spending is beyond my comprehension.

Of the pap in the paragraph above, it would be entertaining for Brokaw to note precisely HOW we would no longer be able to raise families or enjoy our amazing natural resources once this passes.

Again, she seems to believe that the ONLY reason people want to live here or "do business" here is so that we can pay... more.... taxes!

So, she spills this crap, but provides absolutely NOTHING to indicate how any of her conclusions are true.

Because they're not.

I can see it now: 1033 passes next Tuesday, and starting Wednesday, Clark County becomes a ghost town because of the mass exodus of people to that utopia to the south... Oregon... which doesn't have a 1033 in place, yet is an economic train wreck.

When people in politics start spewing this garbage, unsupported by either the initiative's language or any other fact (see the Time's analysis, below) then you know it's all about keeping any controls off government... a government so OUT of control that spending increased an ASTOUNDING 33% over the past four years at the state level.
We are committed to working with county government, and the leadership of our community, to ensure responsible stewardship of our environment.
Well, the fact is that I don't need, or want, YOU doing ANYTHING about MY environment. And my guess is that like most sniveling leftists, what you're REALLY committed to is making sure YOUR stream of money from the taxpayers remains uninterrupted or reduced.

After all, to read YOU, "we're all going to die" when this thing passes.

We have elected officials to do the very thing you claim your little group does.

So..... GO.... AWAY.
Initiative 1033 is irresponsible and short-sighted fiscal stewardship with far-reaching negative impacts.
Well, when this passes, you can always move away. Then you won't have to worry about it.

Second, I would venture to say that what we've been doing ain't been working out all that well, either, and

Third... you note how NONE of the whiny little leftists have offered ANY alternative?

Of course not. To them, it's all about the Benjamins.

Imagine how much better off we'd be if those in opposition stuck to the facts and left the hyperbole out.

1033 will do NONE of the things this whinny, snvivelly, "don't cut us off from the trough" letter claims.

The FACTS are below. Unlike a leftist, I'm not going to tell you WHAT to think... I would just ask you TO think.

Read the information below, and form your own opinion.

*I* am voting for 1033 and urging everyone I know to do the same. Because *I* know that ANY time we get the opportunity to rein in spending, the left will ALWAYS give us lies (like the one's in Brokaw's letter) and that IF this doesn't work, our courageous legislature can get rid of it on the first day of the next legislative session, in mid-January.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Two perspectives on 1033: the Columbian and The Seattle Times... the liars, and those who are actually journalists.

As we all know by now, the fringe-left rag this community is cursed with has come out against and, in fact, has actively campaigned again, I-1033, the initiative designed to rein in out-of-control government spending at every level from the state on down.

Of course our local paper's main concern is government; "people" rarely figure into their radar screen, as illustrated by the bizarre headline they used to shill their efforts against 1033:

"In our view: ‘No' on I-1033
Eyman's latest initiative might sound good, but governments would be denied recovery"
That this is a fringe-left government shilling waste of wood pulp is confirmed with this headline.

Is the focus on the fiscal blood-letting we've suffered in this state, with a 33% increase in this state's budget with more tax increases to come?

"GOVERNMENTS" would be "denied recovery."

Why is their focus on "government," and not on the PEOPLE?

Obviously, there's no accounting for self-imposed, ritual financial suicide.

That said, the endorsement of the "no" position appears to have been taken, word for word, from the scum trying to scare us into voting against this badly needed initiative by a campaign that has out spent the "Yes" side something on the order of 86 to 1 for their campaign.

Our despicable rag has run several quotes from state and local government employees that fear pay cuts and some such when 1033 passes. They've run, essentially, nothing from the tens of thousands of us who actually support this thing. In fact, they went so far as to quote some blithering idiot who said we would DIE if this thing passes.

What a surprise.

But taking it a step further, like the rest of the scum campaigning against 1033, the Columbian has re-printed the Colorado lie:

But it's the same kind of scheme that backfired in Colorado when a one-size-fits-all formula was passed by voters in 1992. In the next few years, the quality of public schools and health care plummeted. Health insurance problems also mushroomed, and numerous other public crises arose.

In 2005, Colorado voters decided to stop their suffering. They repealed the law.
Why this rag feels to engage in such lazy, leftist lying is just beyond me.

Here's the TRUTH from a frequently journalistic newspaper, unlike the crap pile we're stuck with:

Similarities don't add up in Colorado comparison

Opponents of Tim Eyman's Initiative 1033 say you only need to look at Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) to see what could happen here if the measure is approved. But I-1033 and the Colorado law have major differences, and there is no consensus on whether TABOR has been a success or a failure in Colorado.

By Andrew Garber
Seattle Times staff reporter

Opponents of Tim Eyman'sInitiative 1033 say you need only look at Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights tosee what would happen here if 1033 were approved.

Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment in 1992 with a provision requiring state and local governments to limit revenue increases to population and inflation, and send any excess money back to taxpayers. But that's about the only thing the two measures have in common.

In fact, the Colorado law, known as TABOR,and I-1033 have more differences than similarities.

And there is no apparent consensus on whether TABOR has been a success or a failure in Colorado.
Much MORE truth here:

So... who do we believe? Note the complete absence of ANY alternative from our local version of Pravda?

A newspaper like the Seattle Times that actually did the work and who's analysis puts the lie to morons squeaking about how 1033 is Colorado's TABOR in sheep's clothing?

Or a fringe-left rag that seems to have looked no farther than the "No on I-1033's" web site of lies, copied it and pasted it in their own newspaper? A newspaper with columnists who lie (Yeah, I mean YOU, Laird) and who take positions using fake polls while they do everything they can to shut the people up while they're trying to ram a horrifically expensive, unneeded and unwanted project that THEY will not have to pay for down our collective throats.

Gee. That's a toughy.

Hopefully, those from our local despicable rag reading this (and I know you do) will correct their list of lies they use to oppose this effort...because, after all, the truth is out now... and in this case, the truth is that this rag's concern only extends to feeding government so they can try and get more and BIGGER tax breaks from the government teat their collective mouth is glue to with rivets.

Brancaccio asks the question: Do they (Pollard and/or Leavitt) like the casino?

Well, do they?

I published a moronic email from right wing nuts questioning Sen. Don Benton's commitment to Republicanism because he didn't engage in their peculiar brand of communist thought control and endorse whoever these ignorant clowns wanted him to endorse.

One of the more idiotic lines out of that filth was this:

You must have forgotten what your mother said happens when you "lay down with dogs."

The moron that sent that out is apparently possessed of a double standard, because he's failed to do a "flea check" on the slimeball HE is supporting, one Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.

We all know about most of the "fleas" these right wing whack jobs are ignoring: the dreaded "endorsed Obama" flea; the horrific "lie about tolls" flea; the despised "tax everyone to build a bridge we don't want or need along with loot rail" flea, the "manipulate the politically ignorant hispanic lobby" flea, and finally, the "bought outright or otherwise owned by the casino developer" flea.

Odd, isn't it, that both the far left and the far right can be such rank hypocrites in their double standard that they blindly apply to everyone else... going so far as to THREATEN politicians that are smart enough to disagree with them.

That said, Brancaccio's column in this instance dug... it just didn't dig enough.

As The Liar has proven, he can and will SAY anything to get elected. He has, after all, been lying about tolls on the bridge since he started.

There can be no question as to Pollard's position on the matter. Initially, he was sucked in by tribal liars and seemed to support the development of that cancer on Southwest Washington.

But as time went on, he began to see the true character of the Seattle/Olympia scum trying to ram this crap pile down our throats... and came to the best conclusion possible for us all: that the organized crime effort of building this horrific economic black hole had to be stopped... so he has had his city set about to do everything it could to stop it.

Part of the reason I support Pollard is embodied in this effort. There is no question that Pollard will continue to devote a major effort to derail the scum-sucking slime who want to put their peculiar brand of cold sore on the lip of our community.

Leavitt? Not so much.

Leavitt has surrounded himself with the most highly placed casino sell outs in our community, starting with Steve "$100,000 in cold, hard, cash, Mr. Barnett" Stuart, who wouldn't BE a county commissioner if the megacasino developer hadn't laundered $100,000 into his election at the last minute.

Stuart has never forgotten that "favor," which he knew about over 2 months in advance, and he has done everything he reasonably could to repay that "favor" since... his most recent effort being to tie the county to the tribe's bogus "gambling ordinance" by language in the rescission agreement of last April... language the tribe's local lawyer called a "contract."

The other questionable member of the campaign is one Betty Sue Morris.

I don't know what got into Betty Sue. But she sold us out in a heartbeat for no discernible reason.

She gave the casino developer everything he wanted and got, essentially, nothing in return.

Each year, the Mohegan Tribe (our local megacasino financiers) has to pay Connecticut FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR. Betty Sue didn't ask for cab fare in comparison.

Both of these rabid casino supporters are in/on Leavitt's campaign.

Why? Why are they so rabid in their support?

Coincidence? They just aren't AWARE of Leavitt's so called "opposition" to the casino?

Hardly. Like everything else in Leavitt's campaign, this is the lie de jour... the "say anything" of the moment to get elected.

With Pollard, there's no question. With Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, there's nothing BUT questions... and for the morons on the right supporting this clown... nothing BUT fleas.

My self-imposed NFL Boycott: Week 2

Linked by such august publications as the "Village Voice" (Yes... THAT "Village Voice") my self-imposed boycott continued on into it's second week as I, once again, engaged in life without the NFL.

Of course, it's not that particularly difficult under any circumstances when the team you've supported so much over the past 3 decades or so is the Seahawks... it's kind of like boycotting a molar extraction... without the Novocaine.

But if the 'hawks were undefeated, that would make no difference.

Bigotry is one of those peculiar tenets of life that does not lessen over time. The NFL's bigotry in failing to support Rush Limbaugh's effort to gain a minority ownership position in the forlorn St. Louis Rams has staked it out as just another leftist outfit, where anyone with a perspective to the right of Lenin is to be shunned; where ideas and their broadcast supercedes the criminal acts of many of the thugs wearing a helmet.

The NFL's rank hypocrisy is the thing, you see. To allow players with CRIMINAL records to get MILLIONS of dollars while instituting a double standard against someone because of their words is no less excusable now than it was last week. And it will be no less acceptable next week, or next season or 100 years from now... leftist double standard notwithstanding.

I say "leftist double standard" because we don't even have to BEGIN to discuss what the left would be doing if one of their more communist icons had been kept from buying a piece of an NFL team.

So, the boycott continues. For me, today, it's up to the shop to organize my tools for starting the thrid gen drag racing project.

It's amazing how much time this has freed up... I should have, perhaps, done this years ago.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Seattle Times nails "No on 1033" ; "No" campaign has been lying scum all along.

Speaks for itself.

Originally published October 25, 2009 at 12:13 AM Page modified October 25, 2009 at 12:16 AM
Comments (85) E-mail article Print view Share
Similarities don't add up in Colorado comparison
Opponents of Tim Eyman's Initiative 1033 say you only need to look at Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) to see what would happen here if the measure is approved. But I-1033 and the Colorado law have major differences, and there is no consensus on whether TABOR has been a success or a failure in Colorado.

By Andrew Garber
Seattle Times staff reporter

Eyman's I-1033: Complex measure's impact is unclear
I-1033 could hit higher ed especially hard
Hospital execs: I-1033 hurts health plan

Initiative 1033 and TABORColorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) is far more extensive than Washington's proposed I-1033. Here are major provisions in both:

• Limits increases in revenue to inflation and population growth.

• Requires excess revenue to be sent back to taxpayers.

• Applies to the state and all local governments, including school and fire-protection districts.

• Initially created a "ratchet" effect where every time tax collections dropped during a recession, it permanently lowered the base used to calculate how much revenue could increase in the future. Voters eliminated this provision in 2005.

• Requires voter approval of all tax increases.

• Prevents changing any other limits on revenue, spending and debt without voter approval.

• Is in the state constitution and can only be changed with voter approval.

Initiative 1033
• Would limit increases in revenue to inflation and population growth.

• Would require excess revenue to be used to lower property taxes.

• Would apply only to state, city and county governments.

• Would create a "ratchet" effect, where every time tax collections drop during a recession, it would permanently lower the base used to calculate how much revenue could increase in the future.

• Could be changed by the Legislature with a two-thirds vote within the first two years, and by a simple majority vote after that.

Opponents of Tim Eyman's Initiative 1033 say you need only look at Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights to see what would happen here if 1033 were approved.

Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment in 1992 with a provision requiring state and local governments to limit revenue increases to population and inflation, and send any excess money back to taxpayers. But that's about the only thing the two measures have in common.
In fact, the Colorado law, known as TABOR, and I-1033 have more differences than similarities.

And there is no apparent consensus on whether TABOR has been a success or a failure in Colorado.

Steve Johnson, a former Republican lawmaker who spent 12 years in the Colorado General Assembly, said "TABOR has been a nightmare for the state. Fixing it is even more of a nightmare."

On the other hand, Barry Poulson, a University of Colorado economics professor affiliated with the conservative Independence Institute, said the law "has created one of the best business-tax climates in the country."

Even voters seemed mixed on TABOR.

A poll done in September by a Republican firm, and paid for by a conservative-policy group, shows two-thirds of voters support a provision in TABOR requiring voter approval of all tax increases.

However, a majority of the people polled also supported repealing the entire law.

Sean Tonner, executive director of the Colorado Policy Institute, which paid for the survey, thinks it shows people want to keep some parts of the law and dump others. "We'll be the first to admit TABOR can be tweaked," he said.

Impact on education

That seems to fit a pattern in Colorado. They tweak on a grand scale there, making fundamental changes to the state's constitution through initiative — something that can't be done in Washington state.

It's led to a budgeting process in Colorado that bears little resemblance to what happens in

Olympia, and complicates comparisons between TABOR and I-1033.

For example, Eyman's opponents argue that funding for K-12 education in Colorado has plummeted since TABOR was passed. But they don't note that Colorado voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2000 that essentially exempts state funding for public schools from the revenue limit and mandates annual increases in spending.

Colorado state funding for education has steadily increased for several years. Several national rankings put per-pupil spending in both Colorado and Washington below the national average. However, Colorado is generally shown as close to or higher than Washington in those rankings.
Deborah Fallin, a spokeswoman for the Colorado Education Association, which represents about 40,000 educators, argued that TABOR has hit schools hard.

But when pressed for details, Fallin said it's not a case of schools doing poorly — they need additional money to improve. Simply doing "OK is not good enough for the 21st century," she said.

The most recent eighth-grade math and reading scores were similar for Washington and Colorado in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and both were slightly above the national average.

That's not to say TABOR has had no effect in Colorado.

The amendment was approved during an economic boom. The revenue limit led to big tax rebates because a lot more money was coming in than the state was allowed to spend.
So much money was being sent back to taxpayers, in fact, that the General Assembly permanently lowered both the state sales tax and income tax to reduce the amount of revenue being collected.

Then the dot-com bust hit early this decade and sent revenues plunging. Lawmakers had to cut state spending.

Because much of the budget, including K-12 and Medicaid spending, was protected, the General Assembly had to cut other parts of the budget, such as higher education.

Tuition was increased to help make up the difference. Between 1997 and 2007, resident undergraduate tuition increased about 98 percent at four-year institutions in Colorado, according to the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. However, undergraduate tuition in Washington increased nearly 103 percent in the same period.

TABOR did force Colorado to apply the growth limit using the new lower, recessionary level of tax revenue during the dot-com bust. This is often called a "ratchet" effect, because every time tax collections drop during a recession, it permanently lowers the base used to calculate how much revenue can increase in the future. I-1033 shares this provision.

As a result, concern mounted in Colorado that TABOR would prevent state spending from recovering with the economy.

In 2005 voters approved Referendum C, which suspended TABOR for five years. It also removed the ratchet effect. Once the suspension expires, state revenue will be allowed to grow based on the highest amount of revenue collected in a fiscal year during the timeout, adjusted by inflation plus population growth for each subsequent year.

Effects of economic downturns

Charlie Brown, director of the Center for Colorado's Economic Future at the University of Denver, said it's difficult to separate the effects of TABOR from economic downturns. It could be argued that most of the budget cuts happened because of recessions, not because of the constitutional limit, he said.

Lawmakers probably would have been forced to make budget cuts because of TABOR in recent years, Brown said, but Referendum C helped alleviate the problem by allowing the state to keep any increase in revenue while the timeout is in effect.

Perhaps the biggest effect was when lawmakers reduced tax rates because of TABOR. That lost income would be worth about $500 million annually now, Brown said. Colorado cannot restore the taxes to their previous levels without voter approval.

Brown said TABOR could become a problem in the future, once the timeout expires, because it's expected that mandated state expenses such as K-12 education and Medicaid will increase more rapidly than the TABOR limit can handle.

There's already talk in Colorado about making more changes to the constitutional limit.
And therein lies one of the biggest differences between Eyman's proposal and what's happened in Colorado.

Voters in Colorado put TABOR in their constitution, making it very difficult to change or remove.
I-1033, if approved, would become a state law that can be changed by a two-thirds vote in the state Legislature within the first two years. After that, it would take only a simple majority vote of lawmakers.

There could certainly be pressure on the Legislature to not mess with the initiative. After all, in another two years we'll be in the middle of another big election cycle with a governor's race.
But the restraints here are nothing compared to Colorado.

Andrew Garber: 360-236-8266 or