.
Temple, Temple, Temple....
Temple Lentz has a cute little blog called The Daily Couv. It's a well-written, frequently humorous look at politics around here... through the leftist bent, of course.
Yesterday, she took a shot at David Madore for his effort, in her words, to buy politicians.
Read it here
Now, Temple is, of course, entitled to her opinion, just like I'm entitled to mine.
But the question is this: is she going to apply the same test to her own good buddies and fellow democrats, Steve "Easy Money" Stuart and Tim "The Liar" Leavitt?
Stuart, as regular readers of this blog know, is a wholly-owned tribal subsidiary, bought and paid for by David Barnett through $100,000 laundered via Progressive Majority.
"The Liar" Leavitt, best known for scamming gullible GOP'ers into voting based on an entirely false "anti-toll" position that he flipped on as soon as he could... received the gift of $40,000 in bogus independent expenditures so he could get elected... and where did THAT money come from? (Yes, I know where it came from. No, I'm not the only one. And no, I ain't saying.)
Of course, we won't be hearing about any of that from Ms. Lentz, because, well, after all, Lentz was The Liar's campaign manager and Tim is working double overtime to have her installed as his "Chief of Staff." Further, since I believe the bridge toll scam was hatched by Steve "Unmarked Bills" Stuart, an integral part of Leavitt's campaign who is doing everything he can to stuff a $100,000,000 yearly hole in our local economy, slamming 65,000 commuters with hundreds of dollars in additional costs just to go to work in Oregon; well, Temple sure isn't going to hold Stuart up to the same disinfecting light...
And, of course, I can't wait to see her express those same concerns over the efforts of one David Nierenberg, who has similarly bought mostly democrat campaigns for years, including, well, $34000 to Steve "Bank Transfer" Stuart since 2005 and even some money for Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.
But that's different... right? Or is it that Temple's concern over buying politicians isn't the actual sale, but instead, limiting that concern to who's doing the buying?
Is she?
So, Temple, you go, girl.
But in the future, try applying the same standard to EVERYONE you examine... and not just the non-leftists.
You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, now, would you?
(Disclaimer: I don't work for Madore or anyone connected to him. This is just how I see it.)
Temple, Temple, Temple....
Temple Lentz has a cute little blog called The Daily Couv. It's a well-written, frequently humorous look at politics around here... through the leftist bent, of course.
Yesterday, she took a shot at David Madore for his effort, in her words, to buy politicians.
Read it here
More:Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Man Who Funds Notolls.com Looks Forward to "Playing My Elected Officials Like a Theremin"
David Madore, Camas rich guy and CEO of US Digital, issued a statement today through Notolls.com, the Washington state PAC he chairs and for which he is the primary funder.
"Yes," Madore said, "No two ways about it, I'm doing everything I can to buy these politicians. Jenkins, Cismar, Svehaug, Riley ... Man, who am I leaving out? Oh, right -- Appel, Boger, Harris, Peck, Rossi, and of course the failure that was Russell. Well, you can't win 'em all."
Madore went on, "But even though you can't win 'em all, you can sure try to stack the deck. Once I get my candidates in office, many of whom wouldn't have been able to raise even five bucks without my backing, I look forward to seeing the return on my investment."
Asked what's in it for him, Madore shrugged and said, "You know, the usual. Tax breaks that I can turn around and make into my own investments instead of creating jobs, mainly. However, I do have to admit that what I'm most looking forward to? Playing these suckers like a theremin."
Now, Temple is, of course, entitled to her opinion, just like I'm entitled to mine.
But the question is this: is she going to apply the same test to her own good buddies and fellow democrats, Steve "Easy Money" Stuart and Tim "The Liar" Leavitt?
Stuart, as regular readers of this blog know, is a wholly-owned tribal subsidiary, bought and paid for by David Barnett through $100,000 laundered via Progressive Majority.
"The Liar" Leavitt, best known for scamming gullible GOP'ers into voting based on an entirely false "anti-toll" position that he flipped on as soon as he could... received the gift of $40,000 in bogus independent expenditures so he could get elected... and where did THAT money come from? (Yes, I know where it came from. No, I'm not the only one. And no, I ain't saying.)
Of course, we won't be hearing about any of that from Ms. Lentz, because, well, after all, Lentz was The Liar's campaign manager and Tim is working double overtime to have her installed as his "Chief of Staff." Further, since I believe the bridge toll scam was hatched by Steve "Unmarked Bills" Stuart, an integral part of Leavitt's campaign who is doing everything he can to stuff a $100,000,000 yearly hole in our local economy, slamming 65,000 commuters with hundreds of dollars in additional costs just to go to work in Oregon; well, Temple sure isn't going to hold Stuart up to the same disinfecting light...
And, of course, I can't wait to see her express those same concerns over the efforts of one David Nierenberg, who has similarly bought mostly democrat campaigns for years, including, well, $34000 to Steve "Bank Transfer" Stuart since 2005 and even some money for Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.
But that's different... right? Or is it that Temple's concern over buying politicians isn't the actual sale, but instead, limiting that concern to who's doing the buying?
Is she?
So, Temple, you go, girl.
But in the future, try applying the same standard to EVERYONE you examine... and not just the non-leftists.
You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, now, would you?
(Disclaimer: I don't work for Madore or anyone connected to him. This is just how I see it.)
5 comments:
Anonymous does a face palm.
Now I thought it was Martin who was writing up all of that funnier, finery on that blog. But No, its Temple?
If you really want to see a woman on a mad-woman mission, go find her on the cvtv archives when she was a a part of the city of Vancouver charter review committee.
Well, I better get back to the real reality than worry over her attempt at humors scribblings.
If the concern is that Madore might have an effect on politicians, why no worries about the SEIU and other public unions that actually do buy and control elected officials?
Temple huh? That certainly explains a lot about the pack mentality of some of the regulars there.
I could tell Alexander was tied in to the Daily C, and I knew that Temple was his wife, so I suspected she might be a part of the game somehow. Ad in the nude bicyclist activist Marcus and you have quite the threesome pretending to be a whole chorus of people.
Sad really when you think of it. They had to be anonymous so they could avoid being responsible for the things they said.
Now we know.
Hey look at me Temple!! I'm anonymous too!! Should I call you names and talk trasha nd lie about you now?
Eh, I guess not. Sucks to have higher standards sometimes.
It almost seems like the real concern isn't the purchase as much as it is who's signing the checks.
It's perfectly OK on the left to have unions and the Soros types buy politicians. After all, they do it all the time.
But in order to attack the other side for engaging in the tried and true leftist tactic of buying politicians (after all, the phrase "Chicago politics" doesn't really involve Republicans, now does it?) they have to engage in this kind of crap.
They posted up my pdc.wa.gov page
I know they thought they were hurting me, but what they actually did is put people right where they needed to be to go and look at who is buying Jacks and Moller *and* to see where and on what they are spending that money.
That didn't hurt a bit. In fact, I've been trying to get people to go look there all the time.
Thanks Temple!
Now I just need to deal with the character that posted a map to my house and made a thin veiled threat to my home.
Any law savvy readers want to give some advice on this matter?
Post a Comment