Local elections. Who to oppose?

.
The list is easy.  The way to determine if a candidate should be supported or opposed is simple: ask them this:

1.  Do you support either the bridge replacement, or the bridge replacement and loot rail, or this moronic ballpark scam?
2.  Will you demand a countywide vote on these issues?
3.  Will you oppose these issues unless there is a county wide vote?

I am personally opposed to all three of these issues, obviously.  Anyone currently in office running for re-election, therefore, should be opposed because no incumbent has made the commitment to oppose any of these without a county wide vote.

They know these issues would fail county wide.  That's why they don't want to hear it.  And that's the problem: they don't want to hear it... and as elected officials... they SHOULD want to hear it.

Fearing the will of the people is no way to govern unless you're interested in a 4th Reich.

Further, all incumbents have been rabidly supportive of the rip off known as the CRC.  While that's their privilege, their rabid fear of a vote and their efforts to make sure we can't HAVE a vote on this issue disqualifies them from holding office.

These positions equate to an arrogance-driven tenure where they turn a blind eye  to wards the demands of their constituents, placing their judgment at a level self-delusionally greater then their own.

Their fear of a vote is based entirely on the strong likelihood of voter disapproval of their positions, and they don't want to allow the mere will of the people to interfere with their vision.  Can't have that, can we?

So, the list of who to vote for is easy.  As is the list of who to vote against.

Anyone currently in office who has failed to lead a jihad against the CRC, against the bridge, against light rail or against the rape of the ballpark (which means all incumbents in every position) should be voted out.

The people we want in their are those responsive to the needs of the entirety of their constituency, not just those with offices in downtown Vancouver or those with offices that will stand to benefit directly from the rip offs confronting us.

That is not to say that all incumbents support the ballpark ripoff... most of them, apparently, do not.  But where they fall down on their job is they ignore their constituency about just voting to kill it right now, and they have done nothing to end the slow-motion trainwreck that is the Columbia River Crossing.

In the 49th, vote for Riley.

While Riley hasn't come out swinging against these projects, Wylie has made no bones about her blind support of the CRC, a crippling waste of time, money and effort.  That support represents a danger to our community and on that basis alone, she should be replaced.

In Vancouver, vote for Bill Turley who has a well-known track record of opposition to the moronic CRC; Joesephine Wentzel because her election would make heads explode in Vancouver, starting with Tim "The Liar" Leavitt's; and Cory Barnes, because Smith has done nothing to get in the way of the CRC and nothing to require a county wide, or even a district wide vote... nor has any other incumbent.

That is not to say that I don't appreciate the efforts of many incumbents on the issue of the anathema to democracy admissions tax, where the monies will be used to further enrich the Yakima Millionaires; but my fear is, that in the end, just like they did for the CRC, those strongly opposed to that idiotic ballpark and its even more idiotic admissions tax will cave to the same special interests such as the downtown mafia and identity Vancouver that own them outright on the CRC.

Thus, their opposition to one while completely ignoring the demands of the people on the other tends to serve as the reason that they, too, should be replaced.
.