I was asked the question: what's my heartburn with Liz Pike?

Here was/is my response.

What I see is a pattern. I'm hamstrung by Liz's history; she's made a lot of money (5 figure money) working for democrats while I was trying my hardest.... for free... to get Tom Mielke elected... she was getting paid to KEEP him from getting elected. In fact, she has taken credit for running Betty Sue Morris's campaign against Mielke back in, I want to say, 04. I've got the email from her to prove it.

Accepting money and, subsequently, endorsements from democrats is the exact same thing that got Boldt into trouble; is Liz living in such a political vacuum that she fails to show the awareness of events going on around her? Why would she do some of the same stuff that Boldt did that got him into so much trouble?

And I, of course, appreciate the "light bulb" (Liz was the inevitable winner) gambit as much as the next guy, EXCEPT... as you see, for example, the "light bulb" go off for the dems in a House seat where they're not even running someone (There was, apparently, a screw up that led to Liz getting 2 opponents when at least one of them was supposed to run against Ann... instead, they aren't running anyone) these same "light bulb" people won't provide a DIME if the person in question opposes their perspectives.

(By the way?  Those giving her money were quite wrong to see her as invincible.  Many thought Pam Brokaw was equally invincible... they gave her all the money... and I beat her anyway, much like I imagine I could have defeated Liz... in the sense that a candidate I was running could have defeated her like Brokaw)

The list of people donating to Liz is a Who's Who of the downtown mafia, CRC types. And Liz, apparently, lacks the political understanding needed to differentiate, instead not being able to see beyond the dollars without understanding that each one of those dollars comes with a name.

In this case, far too many of the names come with MASSIVE CRC support and betrayal, and major support for the Megacasino.

To that end, with these people, this money is just the beginning. Money from, for example, Arch Miller, or the Horensteins, and many of the others shows the support they have for her. And this support has nothing to do with "light bulb money."

"Difficult situation?" How is turning down democrat money in a partisan race supposed to be "difficult?" And if she can't turn down THEIR money... at THIS level... then how can she turn down bigger money at a much bigger level down the road?

"Difficult?" Hardly. She should ALWAYS turn down money from those with an ulterior motive, and she should do that effortlessly. She should understand that turning down money from the members of the Downtown Mafia/Chamber/CREDEC types who for some reason want HER to win while they want, say, Mielke to lose, and who have ALREADY donated substantial money to other democrats is something she should do without a second thought.

Let me make an absurd example to illustrate the point: Would Liz take money from Nazis or Communists or any Racist organization?

Likely not.

Would it be "difficult" for her to refuse such money?

Likely not.

So, why would it have been difficult to refuse money from people who should be, but apparently, are not; her political opponents?

She SHOULD do that (Refuse democrat/CRC supporting money) , and she she should have KNOWN to do that, and she should have asked herself the question: what is it about me that makes these people want to give me money when most of the time they only fund PRO-Bridge/light rail/tolls and mega casino supporter-candidates?

Because that's what I have to ask myself.

They are not giving her a dime because she's conservative: they're giving her money BECAUSE SHE IS LIKE THEY ARE. It's why, for example, the democrats want Marc Boldt to remain in the county commission: because he votes the way THEY want: so why get rid of him since, to him, "Republican" has proven to be just another worthless label?

So, at best, this shows the political awareness of a rock ape; at worst, it represents the continuation of an ongoing pattern that has stretched back years... that the source of funds is meaningless to her, (Thus the money she made working for democrats in the past) as much as the funds themselves.

And when you write: " So early on she wasn't hearing from much of anyone except for a small group of us -- now a whole lot of people suddenly want to talk to her -- but that doesn't mean she has changed." I respond that she had damned well BETTER have changed... changed from working for democrats... changed from being a so-called "Mainstream Republican" (They've already endorsed her: http://washingtonmainstream.org/?page_id=11 who refuse to endorse "conservatives" in the old school sense... and the 18th is a conservative district.) and changed from someone guided by dollars over principles.

I see far too many politicians engaging in election year conversions. Far too many of them become chameleons because of their political circumstance and literally become whatever they need to become to get elected. Liz, for example, had to ask to be endorsed by the Mainstreamers to get that endorsement if their web site is to be believed, and the Mainstream image of the 18th is NOT the reality of Bellevue or anywhere else in King County where they are centered) and that kind of thing screams "sell out" to non-conservative principles.

Mainstreamers opposed I-1033, I-912, support Gay Marriage, endorsed an admitted sex offender over Pam Roach in the last cycle... because they can't stand Republican Roach... and so on.

That's the basis for my opposition to Romney, to Reagan Dunn (who became pro-gay marriage this year... an election year) to McKenna... it was the basis for my opposition to Russell, to Herrera, and now, with the disturbing source of funding from these downtown interests and democrats, to Pike.

There's a beauty in my perspective as well; it is my right to be a principled Republican although it would seem that my breed is old and dying, and that the "political pragmatists" are becoming more prevalent. But I would rather lose with principles and know we've got a true democrat then win with a fake, product of circumstances, somewhat cowardly "conservative" engaging in political opportunism.

While I had my doubts, I was prepared to keep my mouth shut... told Liz as much, in fact. But this campaign kick-off nonsense where she showed a willingness to take a check from anyone waving one... Tim Leavitt, Steve Stuart, Arch Miller, etc... was the last straw.

The beauty of our system includes both my ability to oppose those with what I consider to be situational ethics and my pre-paid ability to speak out about it when I do.

I hope this answer, which I've spent quite some time formulating, shows that my concerns are neither off-the-cuff nor politically motivated, especially now that no other Republican is running.

Liz will likely win. But I wish a true conservative of proven principles and quality had decided to run. Unfortunately, that's not what I believe Liz represents and I will not support her or vote for her as a result.

Thanks for asking the question... stop by any time.