Friday, July 30, 2010

Out all day doing Route Support for the American Diabetes Association Tour

What an amazingly beautiful day! Traffic co-operated today, so getting the signs located and up was easy to do... Here's some pics from the set up of the route.

Welcome to "Spray Chalk." Never heard of it before today. We used 4 different colors (forgot the green) with each of four routes getting their own color, so in case the signs were stolen or damaged (they do that for some reason) the riders can follow the colors and the directions even if the signs are gone.

More pictures from the actual run tomorrow.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Do I detect a trend? The Longview Daily News endorses Heck... and Castillo!

In yet ANOTHER stunning blow against the Card Board cutout from Ridgefield, the Longview Daily News gives Castillo a 1.000 batting average by becoming the third out of three daily papers in the area to endorse David Castillo!

The Daily News joins with the Columbian and the Seattle Times in pointing out that Castillo should make it through to the general election. Castillo is the only candidate endorsed by all three daily newspapers. Heck has been endorsed twice, and the clueless one has been endorsed once by the Columbian for reasons that defy description.

Clearly, a pattern is emerging: David Castillo is undeniably the best Republican... who also happens to have more endorsements then any of his competitors, even for a top two primary.

Previously the Establishment Queen of Inevitability, Babs has been reduced to Court Jester in a field where at least two candidates overwhelm the field in background, education and experience.

Here's how The Daily News Put it:

Advance Heck, Castillo in 3rd District race

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Related Stories

July 29 Daily News editorial

Color the 3rd Congressional District purple. District voters backed George W.
Bush in the 2000 and 2004 presidential races and Barack Obama in 2008. Republican Linda Smith represented the district from 1995 until she stepped down
at the end of her second term. Democrat Brian Baird claimed the open seat after
advancing from the primary to defeat Republican Don Benton in November 1998.

The 3rd District seat is again open. Baird announced last December that six terms were enough, setting off a stampede of hopefuls and instantly grabbing the attention of national Democratic and Republican party officials.

There are six candidates vying for this hotly contested swing-district seat on the Aug. 17 primary ballot — three Republicans, two Democrats and one Independent. Based on fundraising, name identification and endorsements, Democrat Denny Heck of Olympia, and Republicans David Castillo of Olympia and Jaime Herrera of Camas are the clear frontrunners.

The Daily News editorial board recommends that voters advance Denny Heck and David Castillo to the November general election. Heck and Castillo impressed us as the most capable candidates in this crowded field, and they would offer voters in a district that trends both red and blue an excellent choice come November. Both hold fast to the principles of their respective parties, but they have the maturity and experience required to understand the practical value of moderation and cooperation.

Heck has been successful in both the public and private sectors. He entered the public sector at an early age, winning election to the state House of Representatives at 24. Heck represented Clark County's 17th District for 10 years, rising to House majority leader. He later served as Gov. Booth Gardner's chief of staff. After leaving politics, Heck co-founded TVW, a statewide public affairs television network similar to C-SPAN. He's also helped start up several successful businesses, including the digital entertainment company RealNetworks and a business that provides electronic medical records to health care providers.

Castillo, who declared his candidacy for the 3rd District seat well before Baird announced that he wouldn't stand for re-election, also has worked in both the public and private sectors. Following service in the Navy and earning a bachelor's degree at the University of Washington and master's from Gonzaga University, Castillo went to work in George W. Bush's administration, where he served as deputy assistant secretary in the Department of Veterans Affairs. He later worked in the Administration's Office of Operations Coordination, helping to organize the Department of Homeland Security. In Washington state, Heck has served as chief of staff for the House Republican Caucus. Castillo currently works in the private sector as a financial advisor for Edward Jones.

Both Heck and Castillo recognize job creation and economic growth as the district's top priorities. And they — more than any of the other candidates in this race — appear to possess the knowledge, skills and temperament needed to help advance those priorities.

So... what does these papers see in Castillo that they don't see in the Empty Suit from Ridgefield? Perhaps what they see is... well... the Empty Suit from Ridgefield has, well, an empty suit.

Well done to David.

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

I understand there's going to be a new event at the Clark County Fair this year:

I rarely go to the fair, but in this case, I'll make an exception.

For the humor impaired... byte me.

Mike Nolan's Memorial on Friday

Memorial will be Friday for sheriff’s commander
By John Branton
Columbian staff writer

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

A memorial service for Mike Nolan, a sheriff’s commander, La Center city councilman, community volunteer, husband and father of four, is scheduled for Friday morning.

Nolan, 49, died June 30 at the Ray Hickey Hospice House from a fast-moving form of brain cancer diagnosed in late May.

The service will begin at 10 a.m. Friday at New Heights Church, 7913 N.E. 58th Ave.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Monday, July 26, 2010

A conversation with Pat Campbell, Vancouver City Councilman.

I absolutely do give Pat Campbell credit for engaging with his political opponents, something rare in a politician anywhere and unheard of at the local level among those ramming the bridge and loot rail down our throats.

While I believe Campbell and those like him to be wrong on every level: the facts, the impacts, the costs and the outcomes, Campbell at least makes the effort.

And for that, he is to be congratulated.

He wrote in the comment section of my post: With the Columbian, it's perfectly OK to lie in a campaign....

I know some of you were quite upset last Tuesday thinking you had elected Leavitt. I am not so sure of that. I think it had to be more that just the anti-toll folks:

1) Ogle and Turlay were anti-toll and not elected.

2) Burkman was pointed out as being "pro-toll" and was elected.

So in my mind there was more to Leavit's election that just the tolling issue. An opinion- Pat Campbell

To which, I responded:

There may very well could have been. But isn't all that beside the point?

The man ran on a lie. This sudden awakening was a crock. I find it highly unlikely that Leavitt magically gained knowledge on tolling after the election that he didn't have before the election. And that's the trouble, Pat.... even more so then his cynical and absolute decision to use the tolling issue to gain support from the anti-toll segment of the electorate.

Of course, Leavitt also got $40,000 or so from David Barnett that didn't hurt, either.

The idea that Leavitt NOW knows what he apparently didn't know then is absurd. His position was purely electioneering; he had no intention of being opposed to tolls. He was for tolls from the very beginning; his decision to publicly abandon that issue now and let the Columbian PR arm go to work to rehab his image was a purely political decision as well.

The ONLY way to genuinely "oppose tolls" as Leavitt campaigned on is what I told him: the simple thing to do is stand up and tell those in charge: if you toll this thing I will do everything I can to kill it.

And his cowardly response to the issue of an advisory vote: how DARE he tell the public that such a vote would be meaningless. It's only "meaningless" because Leavitt is not about to risk a massive public repudiation of his pro-toll position. He doesn't want a mere thing like the will of the people to get in the way of his agenda... much like, come to think of it, you.

There is no excuse for building this without asking us. None. And Tom Mielke appears to be the only one who has tried to get this project in front of the people for our input. Leavitt doesn't want that. Stuart doesn't want that. The governor doesn't want that and frankly, it appears that you don't want it either.

In the entirety of my life I never believed that any government that governed me could possibly care so little about the will of those they would govern.... until now.

Regardless of whatever else Leavitt ran on, he ran on this lie. And now, the question: when do we believe him? How do we know when he's lying... and when he's telling the truth?

I knew he was lying from the beginning. Said so from the beginning. Steve Stuart on his campaign? There is NO WAY Stuart would allow anyone who didn't share his perspective to win.
Leavitt defrauded the people as much as Sam Adams in Portland. And for that, he deserves everyone's condemnation, including yours. But I'm not holding my breath.

Because like all of the bridger/looters, none of you are going to have to pay for this unneeded and unwanted monstrosity. As a result, it's completely unrealistic to expect you to make any effort to hold Leavitt accountable or to do the right thing in his regard.

Thanks for stopping by, Pat.

Leading to this effort by Mr. Campbell:

I am for the bridge and light rail after coming to the conclusion that we need to get started before our current transportation system collapses. (Some would argue it already has.)

I know we have a group that is opposed to CRC and tolls. We also have an even greater group of citizens and business people who feel the project has to be completed or we will stagnate economically.

Small groups can have a big effect if the cause is supported by many others. The issue of the Port tax increase without a vote was one of those. The fizzling of Patellas petition indicates that outside of a few folks, most want CRC to move forward. - Pat Campbell

To which I reply: Pat, thanks for stopping by again. But for purposes of this discussion, what the people may or may not want is secondary to the issue of Leavitt's lies, manipulations and misrepresentations of his positions, all for a political purpose.

That Leavitt lied is irrefutable. That he received votes because he lied is also irrefutable. That such was the purpose of his lies is self-evident. That you and others similarly situated are doing nothing to hold him accountable for those lies speaks for itself.

You seem to be supporting him because, as I pointed out, it's OK to lie when the liar supports your position. You should be holding him accountable by any number of ways available to you all, and yet you're not. But then, Leavitt's now in your "pro-toll" fold publicly, instead of privately, where he's been from the very beginning.

As far as the bridger/looter project?

Pat, I will be the first to admit that I-5 here locally is a mess…. But I believe it to be a designed-in mess.

When I moved here after I got out of the Army, there were just under 200,000 people living in Clark County. Now, of course, there are over 430,000, a huge increase over the 21 plus years I’ve lived here. Next to nothing has been done to our transportation system to keep up with that growth, and now we’re faced with spending what amounts to $4 billion dollars so light rail can take the “camel’s nose under the tent flap” approach as, perhaps, THE most expensive transportation project for the number of people it will actually carry in the History of this planet… all while the true problem remains unaddressed; a lack of road miles for our increasing population.

While our transportation system is light years from “collapsing,” (after all, 65,000 commuters go over the bridge before noon, and 65,000 commuters come back after noon every business day) it is, certainly, distressed. But the distress will not be relieved by kicking the dead horse known as replacing, with the same number of through lanes, or ANY number of through lanes, a bridge in the same place.

At some point, we are going to get additional bridges. Portland, as I understand it, has 11 bridges that cross the Willamette. That we have a grand total of TWO to serve the needs of a community of a half million is absurdity wrapped in stupidity.

So, do we add a third and fourth bridge now? Or do we wait 20 or 30 years when it becomes so obvious that even a CRC supporter can believe in the need…. And it cost twice as much?

Because right now, you and your fellow travelers are talking about spending what amounts to an unlimited number of billions (Think Boston’s “Big Dig.”) on a project that will not do what you seem to think it will do; all the while disrupting life, traffic patterns, Clark College, and the budgets of tens of thousands of commuters… for a project that tends to show the net impact will be zero change by the year 2030.

You tell me:

I know we have a group that is opposed to CRC and tolls. We also have an even greater group of citizens and business people who feel the project has to be completed or we will stagnate economically.

How, precisely, do you know this to be true? And of that “group” you name, how many of them will have to pay for this?

See, Pat, it would be easy for me to make you, through force of government, pay for something that I’m not going to use… or pay for.

You have absolutely no evidence to support your contention. And when the issue was brought up, and Leavitt actually had the gall to look at his constituents and say, in effect, that such a vote wouldn’t make any difference or have any value, I almost threw up.

When Leavitt trashed the idea of an advisory vote as “meaningless,” I had to leave the school. If ever there were a display of arrogance towards the people and what they want in addition to his obvious lies about being opposed to tolls, THAT was it.

NO vote on ANYTHING should EVER be “meaningless.”

Leavitt has REPEATEDLY told people that he won’t support an advisory vote because he KNOWS the project would lose overwhelmingly. So here, you say even more people want this then don’t… but you have nothing to prove that… and you certainly have nothing that indicates support from those who would be on the hook the most to pay for it: the commuters of Clark County.

So, why don’t you people put this to bed? Find a way to hold a county wide advisory vote on this project. If you do that advisory vote and the people actually DO support this, then I will never say another word about it.

It would be cheaper and far more accurate than any poll done to date, and it would forever put this question to bed.

But Pat, we both know that you’d never make such a demand. You tell me that you support the whole package… so why would you ever risk letting a little thing like the will of the people actually get in your way? After all, it won’t be YOU paying the $1200 to $1800 per year in tolls to go to work every day, will it? And I’ve got to wonder: would you be so hot to make this thing happen if you had to pay, out of your pocket, $1500 or so a year, like you’re working to force everyone else who will have to use this bridge to pay?

"Economic stagnation?” What happens to our local economy when your project vacuums out $100,000,000 million per year out of our local economy, monies that will go to tolls instead of, for example, movies, pizza, newspapers, ice cream, park fees, the Clark County fair and the like because YOU and the others supporting this monstrosity will task 65,000 other families to pay for something THEY don’t want…. Money from which no government entity will see a dime in revenue that otherwise would have produced almost $9,000,000 or more in sales tax.

What impact is THAT going to have on our economy? Or is the economy of the unions who are going to be the direct beneficiaries of this project what concerns you the most?

Mr. Campbell went on:

Small groups can have a big effect if the cause is supported by many others. The issue of the Port tax increase without a vote was one of those. The fizzling of Patellas petition indicates that outside of a few folks, most want CRC to move forward.

Sorry…. But that’s nonsense.

That Patella’s effort failed is meaningless given the fact that he had no time and no money.

PLEASE don’t believe for one second that, for example, if Patella had paid signature gatherers, or the ability to go up on TV or radio that he wouldn’t have come back with 20,000 signatures.
Pat, you’ve been in politics long enough to know that there is much more to an issue than whether or not the campaign to address it was funded or handled properly.

You want to know for sure?

Then hold the vote. But that you can extrapolate what the people want from an unfunded campaign in too short of a time and divine what the rest of us want is absurd.

Hold the vote, Pat.

But then, as I said, we both know you won’t. But that you and the rest of the CRC seem to have deluded yourself into actually believing that the people truly want this waste of billions is, perhaps, the most dangerous thing of all.

In closing, let’s not lose site of the main issue: Leavitt ran a platform that was primarily based on telling people he was actually opposed to tolls. I knew all along that he actually favored tolls, and the whole thing was a political ploy. Rightly or wrongly, nothing in your response refutes that.

That Leavitt is a liar is irrefutable. And there’s no way this particular pig can be dressed up to change that.

Again, thanks for stopping by.

Cross posted at Tim Leavitt Watch.


Sunday, July 25, 2010

A matter of safety at the Camas parade.

I've driven/walked the Camas parade many times over the past 2 decades. It's a great parade with great people.

It would be better, of course, if everyone followed the rules limiting the number of participants to 15 (Hedrick) but that said, the paper noted occasional "long gaps." The Rivers' campaign was one of them.

When driving a vehicle in a parade, particularly where candy is tossed out, one of the biggest concerns is that children, particularly of the tiny variety, will jump out into the street directly in front of your vehicle for candy. This is particularly difficult when driving a dually Ford F350 (one that seems to drive certain GOPer's and Russell whackos insane, I might add.) and during the later part of the route which goes through the downtown area of Camas, children from toddler age on up were literally within inches of my vehicle. The result?

I had to drive at a crawl, far slower then a walking pace. Thus, the "gaps."

Safety is always first. And as a result, re-routing the parade must be considered by those in charge.

It's only a matter of time until some inattentive parent is looking the wrong way, and one of these precious little types gets severely injured.... or worse... because of the unbelievably close proximity to the vehicles in this parade. Tighter, more stringent steps must be taken to protect the people by forcing them to move much farther back from the parade itself.

Otherwise, someone is GOING to get hurt or killed. It's just a matter of when and how.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Well, the Columbian gets it half right: they endorse Castillo...

... and then leave out Heck.

The also endorse Ridgefield Barbie... which is a decision totally without merit, given her utter vacuous positions, lack of knowledge, experience and vision.

For the primary, the top two candidates, by far, are Castillo and Heck. Babs has nothing to offer except to be a mouthpiece for McMorris... and do we need east side representation here on the west side?

The Columbian accurately wrote:

Castillo entered the race early, months before Baird retired, and wasted no time attacking both the incumbent and the Obama administration. His cut-spending, promote-the-private-sector platform is imbued with bedrock GOP principles, but he also proffers innovative ideas. For example, as reported in a recent Columbian story, he wants to replace the federal income tax with a flat tax and ultimately a national sales tax. His residence in Olympia will not diminish his eagerness to represent Clark County, he insists.
In writing about about Castillo's positions, the paper left out his experience: a Veteran, a sub cabinet official with the Bush Administration, a former chief of staff to state House Republican Leader (and Castillo endorser) Richard DeBolt who worked with both Castillo and Herrera, a businessman and a financial advisor who holds a Master's Degree.

And in writing about McMorris's positions (ooops, I mean Herrera's positions) They left out her INexperience: not a Veteran, poured coffee as a low-level staffer for McMorris, spent a few weeks as an intern for a couple of people; lied about her few-week job raising money for Bush as if she had anything of substance to do with it, and no mention of her sell out to the democrats with her vote to strip out the last $229 million from the state emergency fund.

Wow. Leaving that out is kind of bizarre in an endorsement where they write:
We’re concerned with whether Heck would be able to rein in spending, especially on the salaries, pensions and benefits of governmental workers.
So. The Columbian is "concerned" about Heck's ability (or, presumably, desire) to "rein in spending."

Then they ignore Bab's record of wasteful spending, combined with her comment that she couldn't find any reason to criticize Brian Baird, who voted for hundreds of billions in wasteful spending?

How.... bizarre. She has already shown herself capable of wasting hundreds of millions; and can't find fault with the guy she wants to replace, who voted to waste hundreds of BILLIONS, and they believe Herrera CAN or WILL "rein in spending?"

Utterly bizarre.

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, July 24, 2010

A question for David Hedrick.

I haven't said much about Hedrick, in part because I can't figure him out, yet.

I'm in the process of having some experts review his military record, however, so we can put the question of heroics to bed, one way or the other. I should have that around the end of next week.
That said, I'm curious as to how this works:
(Regarding his interview in the SLOG) He states that he would not be there doing the interview in person, but it would be by phone, had they barred his carrying a gun into the interview.
Does this mean he won't go to a school or a court house?

But more importantly, how would a Congressman Hedrick function in DC, where they don't allow weapons on the House floor or in any of the House Office Buildings?

If Mr. Hedrick is basing his actions in this regard on principle, how far is he willing to go?

Because if he were really doing this on principle, then he would be disqualifying himself from Congress... since none of their facilities allow anyone but security types to carry weapons.

Just wondering.

This is a very tough situation. Principle? Then he can't serve in Congress. Hype? Then of course he can.

With the Columbian, it's perfectly OK to lie in a campaign....

... if it's for a good reason.

In their continuing effort to rehab Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, we get columns like this today from their editor, wherein he tells us:

OK, I’m not quite as hard on the mayor as some might be over this switcheroo. I
appreciate when someone sees the light and has the courage to change course.

I just wish it had come before the election.
Of course, if that "realization" HAD come "before the election," Leavitt would have lost, making the issue moot.

I had known, and wrote, that Leavitt was a lying scum bag the SECOND he came out "opposed to tolls." With Steve "I can be bought" Stuart on his campaign and The Liar's utterly nonsensical "I'm not an obstructionist" position, there are two irrefutable conclusions:

1. Leavitt was NEVER opposed to tolls.

2. The toll issue was the ONLY campaign issue Leavitt could gin up to separate himself from Pollard.

It was fake. It was made up out of whole cloth. Leavitt was lying about that position from the beginning.

And now, he's made the political decision to come out of the Columbian's "pro-toll" closet NOW, to reduce the massive political damage he's inflicted on himself later, when he runs for whatever other office he's got in mind.

Of course, as the Columbian has just pointed out, it's perfectly OK to lie, when the lie dovetails with THEIR lies and agenda.

The problem is Brancaccio's ignorance about this issue, and his pro-spin position.

Instead of focusing on Leavitt's lack of integrity, his record of lies, his cynical political ploy to get elected....

We're told that Leavitt "saw the light and changed course."

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, Son.

Leavitt didn't CHANGE anything.

This was Leavitt's position from the beginning (as I repeatedly stated during the election run-up) an now, like his political decision to lie to the ignorant who actually voted for him, he's made the political decision to come out of the closet so he'll get a little political cover when he starts advocating for tolls to get this thing built, because like most of the bridger/looters, they'd shoot their own mothers to get this thing built, saddling us with hundreds of millions of dollars of debt per year, and tasking 65,000 commuters with yet another massive fee to work in Oregon.

Most of the bridger/looters won't have to PAY these fees, of course. And it's easy to make others spend THEIR money.

And now that The Liar is in the fold and has fully drank all of the Columbian's kool aid.... why, he's magically "seen the light."

What a crock of Grade A horse shit.

Cross posted at Tim Leavitt Watch.

Friday, July 23, 2010

What are the impacts of the Times ignoring Herrera?

Up until now, the Establishment has been attempting to provide Ridgefield Barbie with an aura of invincibility.

Until now. With the Seattle Times passing her by; suddenly, things are different.

Suddenly, the fact that the Empress has no clothes is on display for all to see. The "inevitability" quotient has dropped to zero.

Marketing the empty suit like an empty cardboard box ain't gonna cut it. Speaking in generalities because you're too ignorant to intelligently address the issues might work when the fix is in like it was when she got the appointment.

But now?

Not so much.

A record of caving into democrats for massive spending in the House and co-sponsoring SEIU legislation and then lying about it is not the record people want when it comes to representation in Congress.

And now, we watch as the wheels come off and the string begins to unravel.

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.

Seattle Times endorses Heck.... and Castillo!!!!

The true test of anyone's intelligence is typically that degree to which they agree with you.

The Seattle Times passed over Ridgefield Barbie and endorsed Denny Heck.... and David Castillo!

This is a STUNNING blow to Babs, who seemed to think that Cathy McMorris's effort to make her the "Anointed One" by bringing her corruptive influence to the other side of the state from her own district doesn't, in fact, mean anything CONstructive as much as it has been DEstructive.

Running the empty suit like Obama doesn't mean that people won't see through that.

We've been there. We've done that. And we've got the t shirt, a horrific mountain of debt, Obamacare and a foreign policy that looks like an early Keystone Cops movie... all voted for by Baird, and none of which Herrera found fault with.

ONE incontrovertible truth about Washington's 3rd Congressional District is it is a swing district in the fullest sense of the term. President Obama won there, as did President George W. Bush.

Whoever represents Southwest Washington in Congress must be an independent thinker willing to buck his or her political party. With that in mind, The Seattle Times endorses Denny Heck, Democrat, and David Castillo, Republican, to advance to the general election.

Both have worked in the public and private sectors and have a strong grasp of the challenges facing the district, most notably its unacceptably high unemployment rate. Both appear creative enough to tackle tough issues from an independent vantage point.

The need for jobs and an improved economy overshadow most other issues. Heck touts the need to proceed with a new Columbia River crossing as an economic stimulator and the need to keep Washington ports humming. Castillo emphasizes the needs to improve infrastructure, including flood areas along Interstate 5, and create enterprise zones to help economically distressed counties.

Heck began his political career at age 24, and was elected to five terms in the state House of Representatives. He served as House Majority Leader, and later, as chief of staff to Gov. Booth Gardner.

Castillo, too, showed early interest in public service and worked for George W. Bush, including a stint as a senior official at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Castillo is currently a financial adviser, and was the first challenger in the race, before the incumbent, Brian Baird, decided not to seek re-election.

Heck is an innovator as evidenced by the fact that he was an early investor in RealNetworks, a digital-entertainment company, and co-founded TVW, the C-SPAN of Washington state — a triumph of achievement for transparency in state proceedings.

Both men are levelheaded about wars America can no longer afford. Both realize the U.S. may not know what success looks like in Afghanistan, and if the vision remains too foggy, are willing to move to the end game.

On numerous issues ranging from financial reform to federal spending, Heck elevates the discussion with his vast knowledge and solution-oriented approach. Castillo wraps no-nonsense earnestness into conservative principles, which have room for compassion for people living in poverty. Childhood poverty is part of his own story.

This contest will be close. Voters would be wise to pick Heck and Castillo to clarify their strengths and weaknesses in the general election.

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.

Kerry and his yacht tax issue.

Sen. John Kerry skips town on sails[sic] tax

By Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa
Friday, July 23, 2010 -

Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.

Isabel - Kerry’s luxe, 76-foot New Zealand-built Friendship sloop with an Edwardian-style, glossy varnished teak interior, two VIP main cabins and a pilothouse fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage - was designed by Rhode
Island boat designer Ted Fontaine.

But instead of berthing the vessel in Nantucket, where the senator summers with the missus, Teresa Heinz, Isabel’s hailing port is listed as “Newport” on her stern.

Could the reason be that the Ocean State repealed its Boat Sales and Use Tax back in 1993, making the tiny state to the south a haven - like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Nassau - for tax-skirting luxury yacht owners?

Cash-strapped Massachusetts still collects a 6.25 percent sales tax and an annual excise tax on yachts. Sources say Isabel sold for something in the neighborhood of $7 million, meaning Kerry saved approximately $437,500 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.

The senior senator’s chief of staff David Wade denied the old salt was berthing his boat out of state to avoid ponying up to the commonwealth. The boat was designed by and purchased from a company in Rhode Island, and it’s based in Newport at the Newport Shipyard for long-term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes, not tax reasons,” Wade told the Track.

And state Department of Revenue spokesguy Bob Bliss confirmed the senator “is under no obligation to pay the commonwealth sales tax.”

But back in 2006, then-gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos took some flack for avoiding some $23,000 in Bay State sales tax and $1,320 in local excise taxes by berthing his motor yacht in Rhode Island. But Mihos paid just $475,000 for his 36-foot vessel Ashley and readily admitted that he used the boat at his West Yarmouth summer home.


Didn't we see something like this before back in 1994? Tim Moyer's yacht?

Well, the memory dims as you get older. Moyer, of course, was crucified in the press for his license tab and yacht tax issues as I recall.

Let's see if the lamestream media amps it up for John Kerry. (Did you know he served in Vietnam?)

Man, does the Columbian hate Benton, or what?

So today, The paper did it's endorsements in the Assessor's race. Again, experience, the card they play when it suits them, was left off the table.

The paper, to it's credit(?) did only endorse two Republicans in that race, for reasons that may or may not have merit. That, however, is grist for another mill.

Of note was this parting shot:
Other candidates include Janet Seekins, a Democrat with almost 30 years in the county assessor’s office but who has no management experience, and Republican Peter Van Nortwick, a certified appraiser who has been running a negative, attack-dog campaign. Among Van Nortwick’s strongest supporters is state Sen. Don Benton, who ran for county assessor against Franklin in 2002 and lost.
Could anyone explain the relevance of Benton's support vis the fact that he lost for this job in 2002?

Of course not. Gratuitous face shots seem to be a hallmark of the Columbian. One has to ask them: "Why?"

Benton supports Van Nortwick. Therefore, Van Nortwick's experience and qualifications have no role or impact in the deliberations as to who is the best candidate.

As I understand it, Van Nortwick is the only candidate running who has attained "Certified General Appraiser" status. The paper fails to mention this.


Even I, occasionally, give credit to political opponents for their achievements (Not often, but it DOES happen) so how is it that, once again, actual qualifications have no impact in the paper's endorsements?

Support by Benton seems to be the kiss of death to candidates if this paper's constantly shifting playing field for endorsements is any gauge.

Benton has also supported Lucas, Kimsey, Zarelli, Orcutt, Rivers, Peck, Harris and a host of others. Will this paper beat them up as well?

Thursday, July 22, 2010

American Diabetes Association "Tour de Cure Oregon" bike ride route prep last night. It was amazing!

For the fourth year, I'm helping out my buds with the Portland Chapter of the American Diabetes Association Tour De Cure Oregon.

Hundreds of bicyclists will ride through some of the most gorgeous countryside on earth, some of the finest winery country around.
While I am giving serious thought about trying this out next year, this year is all about support staff, repairs and keeping people on the course.
But before we can run the course, there's a requirement to post it for a week, so we went around the course at various strategic points and put up warning signs.
Those interested should check out their Facebook page at the link above. It's for a worthy cause and some really great stuff is going on there... so please, come on by!

We all know what the deal is. This is a fund raiser at a very tough time.

The PDC on the Russell electronic filing complaint.


The Russell campaign has acknowledged they were out of compliance and have taken the necessary steps to get into compliance by retro-filing electronically.

As a result, there will be no formal investigation. That's just as well, because the whole point of that aspect of the exercise was to get Russell into compliance with the rules which govern every other candidate for state representative.

While other allegations remain outstanding, this one has been put to bed. Thanks go to the Public Disclosure Commission for acting on this issue, and thanks go to the Russell Campaign for taking the needed steps to follow the law.

Cross posted at Jon Russell Watch.

Columbian starts their democrat endorsement slate.

In the 2008 election, The Columbian endorsed democrats, and nothing but democrats, for every open seat on the ballot from president on down to state representative.

As mentioned, president? Obama (And man, THAT'S worked out well, hasn't it?)

State Treasurer? McIntire (Never mind that 33 of this state's county treasurers and the Republican's democrat boss had endorsed him, or that he had worked in the office for several years... he wasn't a democrat.)

State Representative 17th? Probst

State Representative 49th? Jacks

County Commissioner? Brokaw

These were the only open seats available for the local democrat newsletter to endorse.

Now, ideally, endorsements would be based on mundane issues such as experience, education, vision, ideas, a record of success. And the same standard would be applied to everyone, equally.


The problem here is that our local rag only plays the "experience" card when it suits them.

When they want a democrat to win (always, as far as that goes) and the democrat has no experience that qualifies them for election, then their lack of experience is ignored.

For example, McIntire had precisely zero experience in the state treasurers office, so his complete lack of experience had no impact on the rag's decision to endorse him. In endorsing McIntire, they ignored the 33 county endorsements of his Republican opponent, as well as his opponent's democrat boss... and they certainly ignored the fact that the Republican was the Deputy State Treasurer.

But what McIntire DID have going for him was this:

1. Open seat.
2. Democrat.
3. Very big on a state income tax.

The first two, of course, were the clincher for the rag. The third was just icing on the cake.

So, the rag plays the "experience" card whenever it suits them, and fails to play it whenever it suits them.

Their endorsement of Pam Brokaw, for example.

Brokaw had zero elective experience. Brokaw was the direct recipient of David Barnett's corruptive largess in the form of thousands and thousands of dollars. She cowardly "failed" to take positions on the bridger/looter situation OR the Barnett casino.

Her opponent, Commissioner Mielke, had been elected to state representative for 4 terms, had served on a variety of committees covering a variety of areas of concern to a commissioner at the county level.... and none of that meant anything.

They carried Brokaw's water like Gunga Din. She lost, of course: cowardice in positions is rarely an attractive characteristic to the voter.

That, of course, brings us to the pre-endorsement endorsement of Golik for county prosecutor.

The selective application of facts is one of the more despicable aspects of the Columbian's editorial decisions.

For example, this little tidbit:
Indeed, it’s difficult to overstate the value of Golik’s endorsements. Not only have his fellow deputy prosecutors tabbed him as their top choice, he’s been endorsed by Vancouver police officers, Clark County sheriff’s officers and police officers in five other cities in Clark County.

I missed any mention in this tripe of an endorsement of the fact that Golik is the president of the prosecutor's union.

Naturally, all of the other unions involved will endorse both a fellow unionist AND a union president.

That's obvious. SO obvious, in fact, that the local stain on our community neglected to mention that minor little detail.

Because, of course, if they HAD mentioned that little fact, then the lack of value.... the worthlessness of these endorsements would have been obvious.

But because it's an open seat, and because this paper's agenda is to only elect democrats whenever possible, and because including the facts behind these endorsements would guarantee the Republican's elections, these low lifes left that out.

I'm stunned.

Are you stunned?

It's this selective applications of facts that make the local rag dangerous. They have a duty to present ALL of the facts... not just the ones they like.

Did they do that here?

Of course not.

It's not like they didn't know (from the Columbian article "Prosecutor's Union backs Tony Golik"):
Golik is the president of the prosecutors union but was excluded from participating in the vetting process.

So, ladies and gentlemen, it's not like these scum DIDN'T know. It's just that they didn't believe YOU should know.

Makes me all warm and fuzzy just thinking about the rag's selective self-censorship.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

The Liar, wild about loot rail, ought to check out Sound Transit.

From the Washington Policy Blog:

Sound Transit officials missed their ridership target by almost 1000 percent!

During this one year anniversary of light rail, Sound Transit officials keep bragging about how they have carried six million riders since it opened. That is about 16,000 trips per day.

In 1996, Sound Transit officials promised voters the line would be complete by 2006 and carry about 107,000 trips per day. That means Sound Transit should be celebrating its four year anniversary, carrying over 100 million trips by today.

Sound Transit officials missed their ridership target by almost 1000 percent!

Like the massive waste of money The Liar had advocated for all along while lying during his campaign, BILLIONS of dollars have been and will be wasted for loot rail by Sound Transit.

The Liar, who has been and will continue to hose us all along, should get a clue and see what's happened in real life.


The Columbian launches their "Save Tim 'The Liar' Leavitt from himself" campaign.

As I mentioned below, I went to that bizarro world or Tim "The Liar" leavitt last night to watch him try and squirm out of his lies and deceit.

It didn't work.

Predictably, much of the response to his cowardice didn't make the cut in our local cancer of a paper.

Following along in their efforts to rehab "Cowardman" Brian Baird and Jim "Candy Man" Moeller, the rag deliberately left out telling and ardent specific responses to The Liar's incompetence.

No mention in he article of the articulate and well supported plea for an advisory vote... a vote that The Liar said "wouldn't serve any purpose."

Leavitt town hall turns rambunctious on tolling protests

Attendees vent anger on many issues; some say it crossed
the line

This worthless article focused on the heat aimed at The Liar, but not the light.

Nothing about the specific concerns. Just a focus on the anger without using the word "betrayed."

The whining about civility. How civil was The Liar's betrayal of those who believed in him?

Of COURSE the crowd was angry. They just discovered what I knew all along: that The Liar had swindeled many of them out of their vote.

But the fact is that, for one example, the concern and suggestions about an advisory vote so we could all have a voice?

This article didn't even write a syllable about that. Why, other than being angry, this waste of ink would lead someone who hadn't been there to believe that no one even asked. And, in keeping with their "Save Leavitt" campaign, there wasn't a scintilla of The Liar's response: that such a vote "wouldn't make any difference."

That, of course, was an inadvertant oversight on the part of this cancer on our local society.... wasn't it? It couldn't have had anything to do with the rag failing to talk to opposition to this massive waste, or not wanting anything like the "Will of the people" to get in the way of their agenda.... would it?

Cross posted at Tim Leavitt Watch.

So, I was at "The Liar" Leavitt's dog and pony show last night.

Remember, folks.... it's not that Tim "The Liar" Leavitt lied to those of you who couldn't see it... Anyone reading this blog about Leavitt since he announced knew that he was lying the whole time. It's that he took this long to admit it.

The sooner he came out of the closet on this, the sooner he could put it behind him and begin to REALLY concentrate on screwing us in ways Pollard hadn't dreamed of.

The Liar's performance last night's was so unbelievably pathetic... so absolutely cynical, that his decision to come out of the closet on his genuine stance on tolls (Which, of course, is that he supported tolls all along, supported tolls even thought he sold himself to the less informed as opposing tolls) was yet another of his political ploys, designed to get it out of the way now, while cynically sure that with the Columbian's help (You can bet, given the fact that the local rag does everything they can to help bridger/looters, that like their Moeller debacle, they will stop mentioning this worm's political treason as soon as possible so we all forget about it as soon as possible) that this issue will rapidly disappear to do less political damage to The Liar in the future.

Leavitt, of course, is a coward and a liar. Many politicians share those tenets. But this "Oh my, I lied to you all like a rug... but holding on to my position that I used TO GET ELECTED is just too hard... and being honorable and keeping my word is just too difficult, and then, as I lie to you about 'no one else opposes tolls' (Commissioner Tom Mielke does) the very idea that I COULD take a stand based on principle no matter how many people beat on me is just.... welllll..... far too difficult for me to contemplate."

The Liar actually stood there and told someone that he "didn't see where holding an advisory vote would serve any purpose." Oddly, the paper, which would rather burn itself to the ground then get into the issue of an advisory vote, failed to mention that effort by someone else in the crowd.

Here. Let me help you with that, Liar:

For scum like you who used people, lied to people, mislead people.... who only NOW tell us that there's really "nothing you can do about it... you have no impact on tolls... they're set at the legislature" and so on and so on.... I've got to ask: how come you didn't say any of that tripe during your campaign, Weasel?

As I told you last night, the moment I heard that Steve "Easy Money" Stuart was running your campaign, I KNEW you were lying. I KNEW you were pro-toll.

And see, that's why I supported Pollard: Pollard was all of those things as well, but he was much more honest about it.

Pollard made no bones about his positions. You, on the other hand, are a stone cold lying scum bag. If you told me it was daylight out, I'd have to check it for myself.

And I STILL haven't received an answer to my question, you little worm: because you we're such a lying scumbag during your campaign.... when, exactly, are we supposed to believe you?

Clearly, principles like honor and ethics are completely foreign to you and the scum like you.

You whined and sniveled like no other politician I've EVER seen, and I've been doing this a long time.

Here's what you COULD do: you COULD spike the whole project.

You little fricking coward; you COULD take a stand and tell the world that you will oppose the project if it has tolls. You COULD do that, but because you're such a sniveling, whiny little coward, you won't. After all, you little worm, you wouldn't want to be an "obstructionist," right?

You see, Liar, you took a stand. People believed in you because of that stand. And what YOUR job is, is this: to do every thing you can to fight for the principles that got you elected. That *I* knew you were a lying turd makes no difference. People were so politically ignorant they BELIEVED in you. THATS what matters. Of course, I knew you would betray them, because that's what you are.

And I got news for you.

I'm going to be out here as long as I live telling them.

And now, you make a political calculation to crawl away from your honor NOW, to minimize political damage to you LATER, a project the Columbian has ALREADY started on.

That's what a foreign concept like "courage" could do for you. But you wouldn't know anything about that, either.... would you?

After all, you wouldn't want to disappoint Steve "Unmarked Bills" Stuart.... would you?

No wonder people hate politicians. No wonder Vancouver is such a fiscal train wreck. With "leadership" like yours... it's surprising that the city still stands.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

The Army Suicide problem.


It has a more immediate meaning when you've been touched by it or seen others touched by it or thought of it yourself.

It's not the way.

This should be called the "military" suicide problem, as opposed to Army, but the fact is that it's a growing problem, one I view as understandable... one that I believe stems from the tremendous feeling of worthlessness that many will get for fighting a war that has caused a large portion of our society to condemn them, both individually... and as a group.

Would so many be killing themselves if they were truly supported by our government and all the people? If they had not been used as political pawns? If the "baby-killer" crap wasn't re-emerging?

I don't know. No one does. But I was in the Army during the "baby-killer" era. And while that was never directed at me, I know how I felt when it was directed at others.

Imagine how the recipients felt.

Watch this video. Sixteen minutes long, it's from the Legion web site, The Burn Pit. It's a US Army video they picked up.

Watch it. Feel it. For God's sake, if you are serving or have served, don't give up. Don't give in.

If you have feelings like this, regardless of what you believe may be causing those feelings, GET HELP.

Don't give up. Don't give in. Ever.

I almost had a stroke this morning: the leftist Columbian comes out AGAINST the library levy?

I almost vapor locked. The critical phrase here is this:
But the shroud of the Great Recession leads The Columbian — for the first time
in memory — to editorially oppose a local ballot measure.

How impossibly out of touch this rag is to actually have to write something like this.

What this means is that this paper has approved... of EVERY TAX BALLOT MEASURE THEY CAN REMEMBER.

How sad and pathetic is that?

No critical review: you roll in and want the money, be it a tax increase or a continuation of a tax?

The Columbian will become your PR arm.

Actually, "out of touch" doesn't begin to describe it. And the people running this rag don't even realize it.

But then, that explains how they could possibly support this scummy waste of billions of dollars called the bridge replacement/loot rail plan.

Hell, if these idjits will roll over for every bond and levy, is it any wonder they've stupidly drank the kool aid on the massive, unneeded and unwanted bridge replacement?

You know, the one that Tim "The Liar" Leavitt not only lied about to get elected, but has now become a rabid tolling fan of sticking it to the 65,000 commuters AND ANYONE WHO GOES WITHIN 5 MILES of that crap pile to build?

Good for the rag to finally say "no." Shame on them for not doing it frequently before now.

Monday, July 19, 2010

The Columbian's Moeller problem.

Lately our local cancer on our community, the paper, has done a series of articles on the moronic candy tax that just went into effect.

They've editorialized about it, shown the stupidity of it and the hardship of it.

What they've also done for the last several months is deliberately fail to mention the sponsor of that bill, one State Representative Jim Moeller, (Socialist 49).

I've mentioned that on a few occasions; it goes to the pattern of their leftist bias and their efforts to help their political allies by lying through omission at all levels, like their despicable efforts to rehabilitate Brian Baird's self-shattered image.

Compare and contrast that failure on the local rag's part with this effort in an article today concerning the re-implementation of the license scofflaw squad and efforts to identify those who live here while licensing their vehicles in Oregon to avoid the sales tax and other fees; a laudable goal to be sure.

But said story also included this little tidbit:
Early this year, state Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, persuaded lawmakers to restore the program, which brought in far more money than it cost. Rep. Jim Jacks, D-Vancouver, was a co-sponsor.
It's not particularly rocket science to figure out why the scum at the Columbian cover for Moeller when his stupidity is on display and people would actually hold him accountable for his moronic "candy is not food" garbage.

It's because these leftists want to protect him.

It's just the tiniest bit odd, don't you think, that they not only mention Moeller as the prime sponsor of this bill, but Jacks as a co-sponsor? Obviously, when it comes to a bill most people would like while they REPEATEDLY fail to mention that it was Moeller's ability to "persuade lawmakers" that taxing candy and providing yet ANOTHER reason for us to shop in Oregon actually made sense, this rag will stop at nothing to keep the light of day from shining on these types of bills.

Why do you suppose that is?

Despicable scum.

Not Moeller. As a socialist, he can't help taxing everything in sight to help pay for his union thug buddies.

No... I'm referring to the paper, where they shamelessly huckster for fringe leftists at the expense of telling the truth... ALL the truth... and doing what they can to make sure they make it harder to hold the fringe leftists they like accountable. But then, I'm sure that Moeller was also one of the bigger cheerleaders for the B&O tax break these slime arranged for while the rest of saw our B&O taxes went up.

I'd say at this point that these slimeballs ought to be ashamed of themselves... but it's fairly clear that they're incapable of that ability.

Iraq Veterans For Congress

Please take a moment and watch this.

Here in the WA 03, of course, the GOP establishment candidate, Jaime Herrera, never served a thing but coffee.

Hat tip to This Ain't Hell.

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Luke Jensen's life continues to impact us.

On the upper left of this blog is a link to a memorial blog I put together to forever keep the memory of this exceptional young man in the forefront of the hearts of those who knew him.

Last night, after a full day of other activities, we went up to the Columbia River Relay for Life for the 11:00 PM Luminaria.

A massive turnout of those srviving Cancer, the families and friends of those who'd fought the battle and lost... and others who just wanted to help.

And Luke's presense was there... as these pictures will attest.

Luke will always be missed. Luke's "Lego cy" will never be forgotten.
God bless Luke, Steve, Vikki, Tory and Jake.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

"The Liar" Leavitt comes clean and admits it: "No tolls" was a lie and a campaign ploy.

From the start, I knew that Tim "The Liar" Leavitt was lying about his opposition to tolls.

There was never any question of this; Leavitt's campaign was run by rabid bridge-at-any-cost-or-toll democrat Steve "Easy Money" Stuart. There is no way.... NO WAY... that Stuart would have helped someone to becoming his partner in crime if that someone didn't also share his views on corruption and the Bridge.

Leavitt, who certainly lies with the best of them, showed his cards with an early endorsement of Obama. It's difficult to view anyone who took that political step as anything but a leftist moron, and Leavitt here is no exception to that rule.

So, now the reality is finally public: Mr. "I'm not an obstructionist, I oppose tolls but don't care if they're implemented" Leavitt has finally spilled the beans... the obvious lie is now front and center.

Congrats, Timmy. You've shot to the top of the "scummy and despicable lying politicians" list with a bullet.

To the kool aid drinkers of the Clark County GOP, many of whom, but not all, are drinking the same kind of kool aid as part of the Herrera Herd; I say this: I tried to tell you.

Leavitt was NO DIFFERENT from Pollard in his goals or methods. The only difference between Pollard and Leavitt, and why I supported Pollard in the last election was that Pollard, as completely wrong as he is about this moronic waste of billions for his pet project that HE won't have to pay for is this:

At least Pollard didn't lie about where he stood.

Leavitt did. Repeatedly. And that makes him pure political scum.

"Backs off" that stance?

In reality... he never had that stance. He hosed the people and the media. He lied repeatedly, over and over and over again. And now you have it in his own words.

Leavitt backs off his anti-tolling stance on I-5 bridge

Mayor adds that local traffic on both sides should also help pay
By Erik Robinson
Columbian staff writer

Friday, July 16, 2010

A new bridge across the Columbia River won’t get built without tolls, Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt acknowledged Friday.

Instead, he argued for a “more stable, more equitable financing plan” that wouldn’t rely solely on tolls collected at the bridge. Instead, Leavitt suggested spreading the burden to motorists who will benefit from five miles of freeway improvements on both sides of the Columbia without necessarily crossing the river.

“Folks could get on and off in the ‘bridge influence area’ and not get on the bridge,” Leavitt said Friday during a meeting of bridge project sponsors in Vancouver.

Leavitt is effectively reversing the anti-tolling stance that helped propel him into office last November.

Leavitt acknowledged Friday that the state Legislature authorizes tolls and the state Transportation Commission sets the rates. Even so, he had vowed during his campaign against incumbent Royce Pollard that he would fight as a voice for the estimated 60,000 Clark County residents who cross the river to work in Oregon.

“It’s becoming painfully apparent that I’m on the losing end of an effort to implement improvements in the Interstate 5 corridor without a local financing piece that will have a direct impact on the wallets of Clark County commuters,” he said in an e-mail Friday. “The tool that everybody else is locked into is tolls.”

Leavitt is now suggesting a form of point-access tolling, which would assess a fee for any single-occupant vehicle that enters the corridor. He specifically mentioned Oregonians who drive on I-5 between Marine Drive and Hayden Island, although the same burden would theoretically apply to travel between state Highway 500 and downtown Vancouver.

“By better capturing tolls from users south of the river, and thus broadening the base of collection, my hope is that tolls placed at the bridge crossing can be limited,” Leavitt said.

Leavitt noted that the Columbia River Crossing project includes plenty of interchange improvements beyond the bridge itself, including refinements intended to lessen the bridge’s hulking footprint on Hayden Island.

Project planners anticipate splitting costs among the federal government, the two states and money generated by tolling. Now estimated to cost between $2.6 billion and $3.6 billion, the project includes a replacement for the twin three-lane drawbridges across the river, an extension of Portland’s light rail transit system into downtown Vancouver, and freeway interchange improvements between state Highway 500 and Marine Drive in Portland.

On the campaign trail, Leavitt suggested boosting the federal share while paring back the project’s ambitions.

“I’ve come to the realization that the costs and parameters of this project cannot be pared enough to prevent the need for local financing,” he said Friday.

The mayor floated his alternate approach near the end of a meeting of local elected leaders and state transportation officials at the Washington State Department of Transportation offices in Vancouver.

Leavitt said afterward that he believes it’s the best way to minimize the financial burden on Clark County commuters.

“This approach to tolling represents a broader application of traffic demand management, broadens the base of financial participation, and might just pay off the bonds for the improvements more quickly, thus reducing the overall cost of the project,” he said.

Erik Robinson: 360-735-4551, or

So, Vancouver has a mayor lied just like Portland's Sam Adams lied about having sex with a teenage boy.

Congrats, Vancouver. You really DO have the government you deserve.

Friday, July 16, 2010

Impressions from this morning's candidate forum: Jim Moeller - "Candy isn't food."

I've got to admit, I've frequently wondered how it is that the fringe left can do what they do.

Well, I sure got a lesson this morning.

State Representative Jom Moeller (D-Vancouver) solemnly informed us of two different facts that I had never considered: the first "Candy is not food." The second: We have undergone $12 billion in budget CUTS over the last 4 years.

Utter nonsense, of course. When an item goes from not being taxed to being taxed, that's an increase.

No spin. No BS. Moeller's take was that, in fact, the candy tax that HE was entirely responsibe for introducing, wasn't an increase because according to Moeller, they had removed the tax from candy several years ago, and they were just "buying it back."


As for the fictional $12 billion, that one wasn't really addressed. What I know is that when I went to work in Olympia on Leg staff in January of 95, our biennial budget was around $13 billion.

Right now, it's arorund $35 billion.

It took us a mere 108 years to get to the point of having a $13 billion dollar budget. It has taken 15 years or so to triple that figure.

There can be no doubt because no other democrat from the 49th or the 17th had the guts to show up, that Moeller's presense was designed entirely to jam a stick in the eye of the Christian Chamber putting the meeting on... and he was doing it with a smile.

But his claims were so wildly inaccurate as to be worthless. His vituperative partisanship was a sickening display.

But the Christian Chamber is just learning. This was their first candidate forum. Maybe next time, they keep the d's in their own forum until at least after the primary.

With big government, massive spending democrats like Moeller, is it any wonder we are where we are?

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Tucker Carlson gets in a good one on Keith Olbermann.

Gee. Shades of local politics.