Of course the democratian would endorse Wylie.

She's done absolutely nothing to deserve is.  But, she's a democrat.

Here's the column of lies, distortion, ignorance and hypocrisy.

In the last election, this pimple on the ass of our community endorsed Riley for election over State Rep. Jim Moeller (Communist-49), even though almost every justification these leftist slime utilized in the endorsement of appointed, "The democrats are the most transparent (Except there's no way in hell we'd ever tell the truth about Jim Jacks' alcohol fueled misconduct with female staffers)" State Rep. Sharon Wylie (Sockpuppet to the left-49) is applicable to that fringe-left nutburger.

No, they endorsed Riley as their token Vancouver GOP endorsement (They usually, almost always, endorse democrats... in 2008, for example, endorsing democrats for every open seat from the president on down to the county level, save for democrat county commissioner Marc Boldt) and in 2010, where they endorsed nothing but democrats in, for example, every county wide race save Greg Kimsey's... and face it, he ain't the most Republican fellow you're ever going to meet.

No, it's the usual column of distortion and half truth as they endorse a fellow democrat hack... even though her votes helped jam us into ANOTHER multi-billion dollar debt scenario that will require ANOTHER special session.

You could have bet the house these slime would have went this way on their endorsement.

They gave it to Riley in 2010 because they knew that Moeller has the safest seat in SW Washington.  After his Candyman debacle, which the rag repeatedly failed to mention in the run-up to the last election, Moeller getting elected again means he has as much chance of being ousted as Joesph Stalin.

Because ALL of the reasons present to endorse Riley are STILL present... except when they think the democrat might lose.

Then?

Well, then, they make it up.  Precisely like they made it up in this endorsement.

And Lou "How can you POSSIBLY think I'm a leftist?" Brancaccio wouldn't have it any other way.

MEMO to Lou:

When you write:

"What I need help with is how you -- and others -- can think I'm so liberal but many others who comment think I'm so conservative? This has always baffled me. (I always hope my columns don't turn into a discussion on this issue but it always seems to.) Thanks"

Of course, as a fringe-leftist, you're easily "baffled," or you wouldn't be one.

The answer is in things like this total bullshit endorsement of your fellow leftist, followed on with your "Wylie will answer your questions on the website "scam.  The answer is your blatant, obvious cover-up of the Jim Jacks debacle, where you KNOW he engaged in misconduct with female staff... and you not only refuse to report it, you even refused to ASK him about it when you had the chance.

The answer is in things like your pathological attacks on Van Nortwick, Boger and me.... when we've never seen ANYTHING like that from you about a democrat... purely an oversight, I'm sure.

Is she going to report that as an in-kind contribution?

You people reek.  And what reeks even worse is that you refuse to acknowledge it or admit it.