For years now, I've been looking for that critical clue that explains how, week after week, year after year, they could, with a presumably straight face, believe they are anything but a fringe left, democrat propaganda machine.
Year after year, the vast majority of the time, Brancaccio and his henchman attack conservatives, conservative issues, conservative causes and the like; typically lying, exaggerating, twisting, and living on a bias that is aimed exclusively at anyone to the right of Lenin.
So what's the clue I stumbled upon?
This self-serving, moronic, completely unrealistic self-assessment by someone who cannot be serious, by someone who actually is so far out of touch with reality that he could actually word process the following:
Truth is, I don’t consider myself a conservative or a liberal. I also don’t think The Columbian is conservative or liberal.The only "truth" in the above self-flagellating pap is this:
Brancaccio DOESN'T think.
On that, most of us agree.
When, for example, was the last time The Delusional One took any democrat to task... for anything? When was the last time Brancaccio treated any democrat the way he's gone after me?
We have a raving lunatic as president. We have two far left kooks in the senate. We have a bunch of fringe-left nutjobs in the legislature. What we don't have?
Brancaccio or Laird columns condemning any of them.
On the other hand, when was the last time the rag attacked anyone to the right of Mao?
Seriously? Like there is ANY comparison?
The underhanded nature of Lou's blasts is obvious to a blind man. *I* am the one who refers to his rag as the (small d) democratian. Does he mention me or this web site by name to prove his assertion?
Brancaccio allegedly despises what I do here, yet his newspaper has visited this web site almost 800 times since he worked so hard to publicly destroy me professionally... make me radioactive... try and make it so no one in politics would have anything to do with me based on his moronic "guilt by association" ploy.
Only when he uses his bully pulpit to beat the hell out of me with his typically twisted, one sided, lying perspectives that he has ONLY reserved to anyone to his right, and that means about any sentient being that can walk upright.
One has to wonder: if I am such a terrible writer, if I am the lowlife that Brancaccio portrays me as... then why does he go to such great pains to read what I write?
Just for one example of his reeking bias, Lou and his rag have, in the recent past, PERSONALLY beat David Madore senseless.
Because Madore opposes their nonsensical agenda that will painfully impact tens of thousands of families across this region. Because the rag doesn't give a damn about the people when the people oppose their positions. We are, after all, too stupid. We lack the knowledge this self-righteous prick believes he has. We cannot think for ourselves, so he believes he can do our thinking for us... and that HE knows best.
I have been subjected to his efforts to destroy me professionally. Brent Boger was GOING to be slammed the same way until Brancaccio was bitchslapped from so many directions he couldn't even see straight.
When was the last time he treated ANY democrat like that?
Lou points to a FEW endorsements when the vast majority were and are to democrats, including his moronic continuing endorsement of a democrat running for Assessor WHO HAD NOT VOTED IN HER ENTIRE LIFE... his personal efforts to destroy Peter Van Nortwick in every imaginable way notwithstanding.
After Lou writes about, say, David Nierenberg, a multi-millionaire philanthropist who has spent hundreds of thousands supporting democrats the way he has written about Madore... after he has his bitch write one of his pit-yorkie columns about those SUPPORTING this massive abortion of replacing the I-5 Bridge and ramming loot rail down our throats... after he writes about Steve Stuart, Tim Leavitt, Jon Devore, Temple Lenz (Who writes The Daily Couv) or any other fringe left nutter blogger the way he writes about me?
Only then he can he possibly be accurate when he tries to convince us that he doesn't consider himself to be "conservative or liberal." Because right now, it seems he's trying to convince himself.
Only after he begins to demand the same level of accountability from those who share his ultra-leftist views, like stopping his efforts to protect Jim Jacks and his failure to actually REPORT on the issues... only then might he try and pass himself off as a non-partisan.
This all reminds me of those fine folks that lived across the street from the ancestral estates of the Count of Dachau.
Not a single one of them, according to the immediate post-war Fragebogen, knew that Dachau was a concentration camp or of any of the horrible things that went on there.
I would venture to say like the horrific lack of actual reporting on the Jacks debacle, if the rag doesn't know?
It's because they don't WANT to know... just like the people of Dachau, right outside of Munchen "didn't know."
Can you people even begin to grasp what Brancaccio and the rest over there would be writing if this had been, say, Don Benton?
No lie would have been too awful to publish. No rumor. No made up story. No insult, no dredging up of anything, real or imagined would have been too much for these slime to print. And it would have went on for days.
All in the name of journalism, of course.
Another example of the rag's bias?
Jeers: To the Woodland City Council, which voted 4-1 against a symbolic resolution supporting the Columbia River Crossing project. The council took its short-sighted vote in a fit of pique, angry that state Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver, won’t support its pet project to spend state money to improve Scott Avenue.The delusion continues if whoever wrote this trash didn't know there WAS a quid-pro-quo. But that's not the point.
The POINT is that these people exercised THEIR right and THEIR voice to take a position.
Jeers: to the rag for having the monumental arrogance in THEIR "fit of pique," to attack a city council because they were smart enough to disagree with the rag's agenda. The rank hypocrisy of such a sentiment should have been obvious enough that even a moron like Brancaccio should have spotted it.
Because if the vote had went the OTHER way?
They'd have been cheered for falling into line like the rest of the sheep supporting this horse hockey.
It wasn't the vote that pissed off Brancaccio... it was the outcome.
And it WAS a quid-pro-quo.
The strangest aspect of this "I'm non-partisan" crap is this: that he keeps writing this kind of thing, explaining how much of a middle-of-the-road guy he is proves that he's not. Otherwise, he wouldn't have to mention it.
So, in that regard, perhaps Brancaccio is right. Perhaps he is neither conservative or liberal.
Because when you're a slimeball, political labels don't really matter.