Thursday, March 22, 2012

My take on the Boldt sanctioning article.

(Full disclosure: Marc Boldt is my brother-in-law and I was his Legislative Assistant for almost 6 years.)

There are a wide variety of  reasons why Boldt was sanctioned, but the primary reason was because he has been voting much more like a democrat than he has been voting like a Republican.

Looking at the total number of disputed votes by the Board (a disputed vote here is defined as any vote that is not unanimous) since Mielke's election the question here becomes this: how many times did Boldt vote with Stuart... and how many times has he voted with Mielke?

For those wondering, the answer is simple:  Boldt votes with Stuart and against Mielke in excess of 90% of all disputed votes.

If you're going to vote democrat 90% of the time... then quit screwing around and become a democrat.

In addition, Boldt has REPEATEDLY passed on protecting us from the CRC scam, determined to be a swindle by the Oregon State Supreme Court from the beginning; by failing to provide a second to Tom Mielke's multiple motions at the CRC/CTrans committee meetings because he does not want to be on the record supporting this massive rip off... again, going with the democrats.

Let me make this clear: if the question were left up to the rank and file PCO's in the party, there would be absolutely no way.... NO WAY... that Boldt would be allowed back in.

I've heard about his letter to the Board asking for reinstatement.  It is a mishmash of confusion, an acknowledgement that he had no idea what was in the GOP platform, excuses as to why he endorsed a democrat when we were working so hard to get another Republican elected, and he didn't even bother to show to present the letter himself.

In the article in the newspaper, Boldt is quoted as saying:
“I’m disappointed with what a few of the executive board members did, but I don’t lump them in with the party,” Boldt said. “And I think there’s a difference between being elected by the party and governing for everybody.”
This is troubling... because it wasn't a "few of the executive board members."  When the issue was put to a vote. Boldt lost overwhelmingly.  And part of the problem was that in "governing for everybody," the expectation on the part of those who worked the hardest for his elections is that he will vote based on GOP principles and be bound by a platform that, in this case, he hadn't even bothered to read.

Endorsements: Boldt's endorsement of Stuart in 2010 was the SECOND time he had endorsed him over a Republican; he'd also endorsed him when Stuart ran against Tom Mielke.

Taxes and fees: Boldt increased the sales tax by voting with Stuart to pay for rehabilitation services; he pushed the latest CTran scam AND voted in support of the development of CTran's gerrymandered tax district, a scam built to shut out tens of thousands of rural voters who now find themselves having no say in these tax increases, but not being exempted from the tax increases he has REPEATEDLY supported.... in the midst of this horrific economy.  This also includes jacking up our property taxes, even as real estate values have plummeted.

Home-rule charter:  I'm hearing that Marc had not bothered to read the GOP platform and wasn't even aware that the charter issue was included in it.  He also indicated that he would have voted differently had he known.

As for the democrats to claim they don't "sanction" people...  I'd loved to have asked them what they would do if all the democrats so rabidly in favor of the CRC scam flipped and opposed it now.

When it comes to Boldt "working out compromises with Stuart" we would, in fact, be better off had we "never got anything done," since "the compromises" typically involve Boldt rolling over and doing what Stuart and the democrats want.

The fact is that Boldt has long since forgotten the principles of Republicanism.  He has lied to me personally about holding a county-wide advisory vote on the CRC, he has raised our taxes and fees, he has voted to enable CTran to gerrymander a tax-district that included every major retail outlet in the county while excluding thousands of rural voters from having a say but not from paying the tax.

Boldt has voted to force us to turn over our guns in the event of a commissioner-declared emergency: Clark County Ordinance 2.48A.090
(1)    Upon the declaration of an emergency, and during the existence of such emergency, the chair of the board of county commissioners or alternate may make and proclaim any or all of the following orders and delegate enforcement authority therefor to law enforcement officers and designated emergency personnel:
(i)    An order prohibiting the carrying or possession of firearms or any instrument which is capable of producing bodily harm and which is carried or possessed with intent to use the same to cause such harm; provided, that any such order shall not apply to peace officers or military personnel engaged in the performance of their official duties;
When I emailed Marc about that, his response?
"The legislature gave us the authority to do this, if you've got a problem with it, take it up with them."
Well, yeah, Commissioner Boldt, it just so happens I DO have a problem with your efforts to usurp the Constitution of the United States.

See, they did the same thing in New Orleans after Katrina... and how'd that work out for them?

None of this includes Boldt's obvious, illegal and multiple violations of Conflict of Interest laws concerning his wife, my sister-in-law, getting paid from a company contracting with Clark County based on contracts Boldt illegally voted for.

In short, if it walks, talks, sounds, acts and looks like a democrat.... it's a democrat.

And it's time for Boldt to go.

There are a wide variety of reasons he was sanctioned, and an even wider variety of reasons he should remain that way.

One need look no farther then the comments from the fringe-left whack jobs under the article.  Their rabid support, rank hypocrisy (Really?  They're THAT "tolerant?"  Got to wonder what people like democrat State Senator Tim Sheldon, who the democrats spent $60,000 to toss in a primary a term or two back think about the lie that democrats "don't sanction" people.)  and efforts to pass judgement on how the GOP does it's business (as if we care) all speak to Boldt's support on the left... something practically unheard of among true, leftwing aficionados.

The problem is this: if the GOP lets this political traitor back in, then there is precisely zero reason for anyone to follow any rule or tenet of Republicanism anywhere in this county.

And if the leftists swarming around Boldt in support of him don't like it, well that's just too damned bad.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I noticed you left one item off, rather conveniently, that he was asked to vote no on an issue BEFORE the public hearing. That is disgusting, and a blatant violation of the public trust. How can you condone that? There is no way that can be acceptable to you, the way that you hold people accountable for their violation of their constituency. You must hold your leaders responsible for that, don't you think?

Greg Owens

Just a guy said...

I left it off because first, it was irrelevant; second, it was not the determining factor (I told you that I was involved in it... and I planned on the way it got killed and, frankly, the GOP establishment had nothing to do with it.) and the newspaper, like you, is still pissed that they were outmaneuvered. (And no, Marc was not aware of it either.)

See, Greg, a true Republican would never have allowed it to get that far. A true Republican would have killed it from the get-go... instead of allowing it to fester and waste tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to support a group of millionaires while ripping off an entire county without asking us for a scam that we did not need or want.

This thing was dead long before the Board did, or said, a damned thing about it. It just didn't know enough to keel over.

I TOLD *YOU* that... repeatedly... after YOU came in here, repeatedly, and told ME that it was a "done deal" and "there is nothing" I "could do about it."

In short, the paper doesn't know half as much as they think they do... and neither does Marc... or you.

Since you asked.

Jack said...

There's nothing wrong with him being asked to vote "no" before the public hearing, Greaseball. The issue had been discussed well before-hand and everybody knew what the deal was. In fact, Boldt was expected to vote "for" and he just didn't do it.

The public hearing was just supposed to be a "rubber-stamp show" and it flopped for you. Big deal.

Btw, What are you trying to "prove" with this phony "Republican indignation"? You're about as "Republican" as Attila the Hun.

Anonymous said...

So, Kelly, it is okay with you that a party's leadership insists that a representative decide on their vote prior to a scheduled public hearing? Really? That is truly how the Republican leadership in Clark County feels about public input? What hypocrites you all are. You would never accept that from any other party, now, would you?

Greg Owens

Jack said...

Greaseball, since you seem to have so much hatred for Republicans and the Republican Party, why don't you do everybody a favor and switch to openly being a Democrat?

You would fit right in with those jerks, you know.

Just a guy said...

Is it OK?

Don't know. Don't care.

I recognize that you're OCD about the ballpark... But you need to recognize that, as I stated, it's irrelevant to this issue, your focus on it notwithstanding.

And, FYI, this sort of thing happens in the legislature all the time... and I mean ALL the time.

Leadership comes in and demands that you vote a certain way. Sometimes, it's before there's a hearing, because Leadership can make that demand of those on the committee.

Is it OK?

Beats me.

Is it reality?

Absolutely.

Is it relevant here?

No.

But then, I explained that.

Was it Jefferson who said "There are two things people never want to see being made: sausage and legislation?"

As for "accepting it from the other party," THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME.

Greg, you've got to pay better attention to the system and what's happening in it.

Politics is a filthy business. I fight that filth as best I can, regardless of party. My rabid opposition to the ballpark, for example, was that it was based on corruption, that it involved only a few special interests and that the people on your side of the issue were demanding that WE PAY FOR IT... and making that demand without asking us.

Had there been a vote of the people in this county scheduled before a decision was made, you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me... because then, WE could have decided if WE wanted this ballpark.

But no... you and those like you knew better. You didn't give a damn what we wanted. And I will ALWAYS fight that.

In this instance, I can only re-iterate: Boldt heard and saw absolutely nothing at the hearing that he hadn't already heard and seen. This deal got killed because the city council of Vancouver was NOT going to go along with it, and without them, there was no way this was EVER going to happen.

You and the other supporters would have cheerfully had Marc hang himself out to dry... just so Vancouver would kill this deal...although Vancouver certainly wasn't the only town that was going to trash this deal... and any one of them saying "no" would have been enough.

The CCGOP didn't know that, though. But *I* did. and that's all it took.

So, in this instance, the issue was this: if Boldt was going to be a Republican on this scam, HE NEVER SHOULD HAVE EVEN CONSIDERED IT.

PERIOD.

Which brings me back to the first response: I didn't mention the ballpark issue because it was... and is... completely and utterly irrelevant.

Marc has long since abandoned any pretense of what Republicanism is supposed to be. He's lied, he's abandoned the taxpayers of this county, he's voted with Stuart far more then he has Mielke and if he's so damned hot to be a democrat then he needs to quit screwing around and get it done.

And maybe next time, he won't scam a contract to a contractor his wife works for... an issue I am STILL investigating.

Anonymous said...

So, you support the party leadership asking a representative to commit to a vote prior to a scheduled public hearing. Got it. What a hypocrite you are, Kelly. You and Lew want people to think that you are on the side of the constituency, which is obviously a load of crap. Why are you calling out your leadership when they are not on the side of the people, Kelly? Because they are on your side? Got it, hypocrite. You are no better than Jon Russell. Nice that you can sleep at night. This is going to bite the local Republican Party right in their big fat asses. What little credibility you had (which is practically none, ask anybody) is gone, hypocrite.

Greg Owens

Oh, and by the way, hillbilly, when one preaches ethics the way Kelly does and then supports unethical behaviour, it hurts, rather than helps. Ethics crosses party boundaries; Kelly has shown that he doesn't have any, either.

Martin Hash said...

The Democratic Party doesn't sanction anyone?!

My goodness, I wish somebody would tell them that.

Just a guy said...

Greg,

I appreciate single-mindedness as much as the next guy, but you're making a couple of mistakes here.

First and foremost, don't put words in my mouth. I never said I "support" it. What I wrote was how it is, and how your faux outrage is baseless.

This is the real world in politics, Greg... something I have some familiarity with since I've made a damned good living off of it for the better part of the last 20-plus years or so.

You call me a hypocrite. I'm a hypocrite because I want a vote on your extortion, and that of anyone else's in government? I'm a hypocrite because I live in the real political world and understand how it works?

That's like you alleging I'm a hypocrite because I'm pissed off about the sun coming up in the morning. While I may not like it, I know that what *I* feel about it is as irrelevant as your rage against the GOP Machine for holding Boldt accountable on the ballpark, EVEN THOUGHT I KNOW HIS VOTE HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOP BOARD.

That you refuse to accept reality doesn't make me a hypocrite. That you refuse to understand that I AM on the side of the people and you and your gang were on the side of the scammers who did their level best to jam a multi-million dollar rip off down our throats is also not my problem.

That you're reduced to playground histrionics doesn't further your cause, stud. Name calling might make you feel better but it does nothing to change the facts of the matter:

Marc Boldt has long-since stopped acting or voting like a Republican, and he's getting spanked over it. That the local party leadership banged his ear over the ballpark scam is IRRELEVANT because THAT had ZERO PART IN ANY OF THIS.

If THAT was all this was about, his "no" vote would have immediately brought him back into the good graces of the Party and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But his failure to immediately reject your ballpark rip off was but one symptom of the liberal disease that has infected him.

Your wild-eyed protestations notwithstanding, Greg, I sleep soundly at night knowing that I do more for my community, help more people, get more done and make a much more positive impact every day before 9:00 a.m. then you have in the entirety of your life.

I've done my level best to be patient with you, explaining this stuff like you're a six year old instead of just acting like one, but you just don't get it.

And when it comes to "ethics," I would match mine to yours... and Boldt's... any damned day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Now, that said, if you intend to post here... ever again... and God Knows why you would want to given how much of a lowlife you believe me to be (And note, it would have been far easier to just delete your stuff then to respond to it) then you will do so in a civil manner.

This stuff between you and Jack, and now you and me, has gotten out of hand. The name calling stops, right fricking now, or you will never see another word of yours here, period.

And that goes for everyone else involved.

Good night, one and all.

Lew Waters said...

Greg is just doing what he tries to do best, bash Republicans with his phony "the party leaders asked Boldt to vote no" crap.

Debbie Peterson commented last evening, as one on the board who voted to sanction Boldt that the tax did not come up in the meeting.

I am sure that some sitting on the board made personal requests, just as many of the rest of us did, for Boldt to vote no.

Kelly and I both blogged against the tax and stadium as did some Democrats. Many citizens commented against it on the Columbian pages and I am sure all 3 commissioners received mail, phone calls and other correspondence B-E-F-O-R-E the final public hearing urging Boldt, Mielke and Stuart to vote NO.

That is how our system functions. We are permitted to contact any elected official with our desires as to how they vote.

Greg and his crony fail, in their effort to build a false claim against the Republicans, to show that the board met and discussed such a vote, then took it to Boldt. But, they want to give the impression they did and that was the reason he was sanctioned.

SO yes, some probably did ask him to vote No just as I am sure others from the Democrat Party urged him to vote yes, as he was expected to do by many.

Is anybody crying about the Democrats urging him how to vote before the final public hearing?

The article and comments by Greg and another are made solely to continue their incessant bashing of the Republicans.

Martin Hash said...

I actually didn't personally know any Democrats who supported the baseball scam? Most thought the idea of the public paying for private ownership exactly the kind of thing they're against. (Public paying for public is what Dems are all about.)

Jack said...

Greg is desperately hoping that his "faux outrage" will somehow "catch on". He hasn't won an argument yet and he's lost this one as well.