Was it four months ago the cancer on our local society began their Jim Jacks cover up?

The little clock widget continues the countdown from the day political journalism finally died at the democratian.

It was 120 days ago that then State Representative Jim Jacks was unceremoniously ejected in a web of lies, drunkenness and misconduct with female staffers, all while our local rag stood there, paralyzed like it had just been visited by a Tarantula Wasp, stung, and had the egg laid on it's abdomen to be eaten alive later after the egg hatched.

Given the last election cycle and Lou Brancaccio's despicable columns crucifying candidates and others smart enough to oppose his twisted world view, it's hard to deny his efforts to protect a fellow leftist, particularly one who had carried the rag's agenda like Gunga Din bringing Slurpees to the troops out in the field.

There's precisely no excuse for this floor-flusher's failure to have gone after Jacks with all the enthusiasm he displayed in going after, say, me... or Peter Van Nortwick... or as he was winding up to punch Brent Boger before others with some decency knocked him into next week.

Let's set the stage.  Then Rep. Jacks (D-49) was a drunk.  He engaged in misconduct with his own legislative assistant and with a female staffer from OPR.  He was o0berved by another legislator engaging in that misconduct on St. Patrick's Day this year in Olympia.  As a result, he was gone before the week was out.

I know this.  Brancaccio knew off it, and when he had his bogus interview with Jacks, he had a journalistic duty to ASK Jacks about it... but instead, all we got was this garbage:

Being an alcoholic is a difficult thing in and of itself. But oftentimes, having one too many also results in bad behavior.

So I asked Jacks if his drinking resulted in his doing anything inappropriate. At first he wasn’t exactly sure what I meant.

“I have no criminal record. I’ve gotten no DUIs. I’m sure I’ve driven when I should not have been driving. But I resigned because I had to fix my problem. I resigned because I’m an alcoholic.”

Still, I pressed him further. Notwithstanding the drinking while driving, is it possible that someone might show up later and say you did something inappropriate to them while you were drinking?

He said no.

The interview moved forward.

"The interview moved forward."

Codespeak for "I let him off the hook and didn't ask the questions that needed to be asked."

Questions like this: 

Did you, in any way, engage in conduct that could be construed as sexual harassment of anyone?

Did you engage in “drunk calls” to anyone?

Did you engage in unwanted advances to anyone at any time generally, but legislative staffers particularly?

That Jacks never got popped for anything criminally as a result of his alcoholism doesn't mean that he did not engage in the kind of conduct that would result in his caucus wanting to get rid of him in a hurry, as quickly and as quietly as possible.  And those are not the actions on the part of a caucus that result from mere alcoholism alone.  Brancaccio knows that as well as I do.

These are the kinds of questions, based on the information readily available to Lou or any other journalist, that SHOULD have been asked.

But when you're in full democrat protection mode, and you already know the answers and you don't want those answers published... why even ask the questions?

I've been right all along.

Brancaccio doesn't know... because he doesn't want to know.

Any other genuine journalist would have asked the same questions or similar.  But not someone with a reeking left wing bias.

And you know damned well that if Jacks had been an "R", the entire interview would have centered around those questions and those questions alone.

Just another day in the Lazy C's twisted world. And imagine how much better off we'd be without them... and him.