Monday, July 30, 2012

Olympics Remember moment.

The PCO Insurgency's troubling lack of transparency. So, who's writing the checks? Follow the money.

Have to wonder: why isn't the PCO Insurgency transparent as to their funding?

We've seen their rather bizarre signs all over the place.  They're not cheap... and somebody is paying for them.... a "somebody" the insurgents don't want us to know.

I mean, after all, they're only doing this for the purest of reasons, right?  The phrase "follow the money" shouldn't apply here, should it?

So, what do the insurgents have to say about it?  Well, they're not only NOT going to tell us, they're PROUD of the fact that they're not going to tell us:

Public Disclosure PCOLA is exempt from WA State Public Disclosure Commission requirements.

The PCO Liberty Alliance has discussed its operations with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission per their written protocols, and has confirmed that it is exempt from filing as a political committee and exempt from their disclosure requirements since the PCO Liberty Alliance’s main purpose is the support of PCO Candidates.
Below is the controlling RCW in this matter. Please direct any questions or concerns you may have about this matter to
RCW 42.17A.200

Application of chapter — Exceptions. (Effective January 1, 2012.)

The provisions of this chapter relating to the financing of election campaigns shall apply in all election campaigns other than (1) for precinct committee officer; (2) for a federal elective office; and (3) for an office of a political subdivision of the state that does not encompass a whole county and that contains fewer than five thousand registered voters as of the date of the most recent general election in the subdivision, unless required by RCW 42.17A.135 (2) through (5) and (7).

So, why is that?

Reading their talking points, there's nothing horrific about their efforts to take over the entirety of the GOP down here to exclude everyone who doesn't desire to further the aims of the Paulistinian effort. There's a certain element that likes a Boss Hogg approach to politics... as long as he's THEIR Boss Hogg.

Gotta wonder: why are they hiding their financier? I know who it is, of course... he's heavily involved in an election right now, come to think of it.

All of which begs the issue: Why are the PCO insurgents hiding their funding?

Oh, I know that they CAN. But does that mean that they should hide the name of the guy writing the checks?

Of course not. But what's ethics, integrity and courage have to do with any of this?

In the discussion of ideas, there's just certain core issues they... do not.... want to... talk about!

So, since these guys seem riveted to my modest little effort here, I've got to wonder:

Why are these people hiding the source of their money?

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Brandon Vick responds to the request concerning his CRC positions.

Here, unedited, is the response Brandon provided on his Facebook page to me.
I have had the unique privilege to speak about this topic at length with Lars Larson and other local radio personalities. I have also covered it in the pu...blic forums to which our campaign has been invited. I will provide you with the exact same answers that I have given in those venues.

1) CRC - I believe that the CRC as designed has far too many questions than answers. And the answers that are available are not ones that I could support. If a business were to spend $150,000,000 researching and designing their next product, and came up with a severely flawed design, that company would be out of business. We cannot continue to invest in this project as we have been for the last several years. I am also severely concerned about the amount of private property that would need to be acquired for the proposed CRC project.

2) Bridge Replacement - I do not believe that replacement of the I-5 bridge is imminent to the safety of commuters across the river. I do believe that the bridge will eventually need to be replaced, but we are putting the cart way before the horse. In my opinion, the replacement of the bridge should only be considered after the I-5 corridor has been improved. Most of those improvements are needed on Oregon side of the river, but some improvements are needed on the Washington side which would include the transitions for SR-14. We could start construction on a 20 lane bridge tomorrow, but it would all be wasted on the current corridor. Experts have said that the current bridge has anywhere from 40-60 years of useful life left in it and I believe that we should maximize our investment in that current bridge, while budgeting for its eventual replacement (many many years down the road).

3) Light Rail - Fixed-rail transit is meant for cities where large amounts of people live within a few short miles of each other. That is not the situation that we have in SW Washington. In my opinion, the MAX system is not an effective way to transport people in Portland, and would be even less effective for SW Washington. As your State Representative, I would use whatever influence that I have to try and convince the Federal Government that light rail does not need to be a part of any new bridge on the I-5 corridor. When voting in Olympia, I could not support a project with light-rail.

4) Tolling - In 2005, the voters of Washington State implemented a considerable gas tax on themselves with the promise that these funds would be used for future road and infrastructure improvements. It should be no surprise to any of us that that money has already dried up, but that does not mean that the residents of Clark County, WA should be punished for the behavior of those in Olympia. The I-5 corridor is not an optional corridor, it is not built out of convenience, it is one of the county's major traffic arteries. It is a corridor that not only connects 3 states, but 3 countries, and tolls should not be a part of any plan. I could not support a toll that would cripple the household budgets of our local families, and derail our local economy.

I trust that this fully answers any questions that you may have regarding my positions on these issues.

Thank you for your rapid and thoughtful response.

Why is "Republican" Marc Boldt taking money from Tom Mielke's opponent?

(FULL DISCLOSURE: NO candidate or campaign or anyone involved or in any way concerned with any candidate or campaign was aware of or approved or had input into this post.

Further, Marc Boldt is my brother in law, and I worked for him as his legislative assistant for 6 years while he was in the state house.)

I know that Marc Boldt has never supported Tom Mielke for election to the county commission.  After all, he endorsed Steve Stuart when Mielke ran against Stuart back in the day and they're polar opposites on the CRC scam issue: Boldt slavishly supports it, defending the downtown mafia position while Mielke has steadfastly opposed the rip off.  And Marc simply can't have that.

Both Stuart and Betty Sue Morris endorse Marc for re-election; both are democrats, both are (or were) commissioners.  Like is going to support like.

As a result, Marc seems to have taken a peculiar delight in throwing Tom under the bus on a frequent basis: the lie wherein he stated to the rag:
If he and Stuart didn’t work out compromises, he said, “We’d never get anything done.”
As if he couldn't work with Mielke, his fellow Republican.

But imagine my surprise when Marc invited Tom's opponent, Joe Tanner, to one of his fund raisers a few days ago.  And imagine my surprise when he took money from him.

Nope... it's not a lot of money.

But that's really not the point, is it?

Should Marc be funded by Tom's political enemies?

I leave that judgment up to you.

On Voting: Don't know? Do us a favor: don't vote.

{FULL DISCLOSURE: NO candidate or campaign or anyone involved or in any way concerned with any candidate or campaign was aware of or approved or had input into this post.

Further, Marc Boldt is my brother in law, and I worked for him as his legislative assistant for 6 years while he was in the State House.)

A voter making an uninformed decision is a dangerous thing, doing more harm than the alternative.

On this rare occasion, I agree with the democratian: there IS a "mountain of decisions" to make in this cycle.

I have a wide variety of blank spots on my ballots.  I haven't voted and likely won't vote for SPI, Insurance Commissioner, Supreme Court, or Commissioner of Public Lands.

I'm also not voting in my commissioner's primary: I don't support any of those candidates, and since I support none of them, most strongly opposing the three democrats (Boldt, Battan and Campbell) I'm not going to engage in the ubiquitous "settle for" vote.

This is where the "Party" aspect comes into play: the "Party" wants me to vote the straight Republican slate, particularly when I don't know anything about the candidates or their positions... just because they claim to BE Republican.

Is that the right thing to do?

You can't believe that someone is a true Republican merely on their say-so.  After all, McKenna, Dunn, Finkbeiner and Boldt all claim to be Republican, and they're as Republican  as Obama.

Well, at this point, some might argue that the thing to do is to research the candidates; visit their websites, check the newspapers, check the record.

I find much of that (but not all) to be a massive waste of time.

Take Boldt, for example.  If, as he claims, he's a true Republican, then why do so many democrats not only support him, but fund his campaign?  Why is the democratian in-kinding him to tens of thousands of dollars worth of free campaigning?  Why is he even taking money from Republican Tom Mielke's opponent in this race?

The newspaper here is worthless as a source of information.  Their coverage reeks; if they hate you, they hate you and they give a complete pass on issues, such as the rag's failure to ever even mention the Oregon Supreme Court's decision that the CRC is a gigantic scam because that doesn't jibe with their agenda, or their efforts to engage in character assassination against those who oppose them; Van Nortwick, Boger, Madore... me... their lies, distortion and bias make them as worthless as any opposition web site as a source.

The web sites of GOP candidates are equally suspect.  Boldt's is one glittering generality of favorable distortions.  He doesn't talk about the tax and fee increases he's imposed on us, his efforts to avoid a vote on the CRC scam; his rabid support of a bridge replacement, loot rail and life-long tolls that will suck $100,000,000 or more a year out of the local economy... indefinitely... with the major negative impacts on the businesses depending on that disposable income and the low-income commuting families that are going to have to pay his extortion.

He doesn't talk much about being endorsed by fellow democrats Steve Stuart and Betty Sue Morris along with the democrat mayors like the biggest political liar in SW Washington, Tim Leave-it.

In short, he isn't telling the truth.  So why bother to go to his web site?

You shouldn't bother to read the rag:  Their hate motivation against David Madore disqualifies them as any reliable source.  There is no lie of omission or co-mission they won't engage in to get their people elected; they're as partisan as the White House.

So, what CAN you do?

Well, if you don't know, you CAN ask, as I have directly asked Brandon Vick what his complete position on the CRC actually is.  His response, since he doesn't address it on his "issues" page, like it's of no importance and not worthy of mention on his issues page, will be blogged here.

But even then, you have to examine each response from each candidate through a microscope; few have the integrity to commit to rock solid positions and most want to leave enough wiggle room to drive a truck through.

Voting is all about (or at least should be all about) LEGAL voters making an INFORMED decision.

Where I'm not informed, I'm not voting.

Where you are informed and the stench makes you want to pass out (like in Boldt's commissioner race) then don't give into the hype with a "hold your nose" vote.

Just don't vote.  Vote where you know, don't where you don't.

Simple, really.

(Or not.  It's up to you.)

Political pandering in the Vick election?

(DISCLAIMER: I am not posting either on behalf of at the behest of ANY candidacy.)

 Justin Riley
Everyone should have their ballots now, so my endorsements for the 2012 Washington State Primary are as follows. We have an incredible opportunity this year to make our State a little less blue, and a lot more sane - from McKenna in the Governor's Mansion to a fiscally responsible State Legislature: let's not waste this opportunity!

Governor: Rob McKenna

Lt. Governor: Bill Finkbeiner

US Senate: Michael Baumgartner

US House: Jaime Herrera Beutler

Attorney General: Reagan Dunn

Auditor: James Watkins

Secretary of State: Kim Wyman

Washington Supreme Court, Pos. 9: Richard Sanders

State Senate, 17th: Donald Benton

State House, 17th Pos. 1: Julie Olson

State House, 17th Pos. 2: Paul Harris

State Senate, 18th: Ann Rivers

State House, 18th Pos. 1: Brandon Vick

State House, 18th Pos. 2: Liz Pike

State Senate, 49th: Eileen Qutub

State House, 49th Pos. 1: Debbie Peterson

State House, 49th Pos. 2: Carolyn Crain

County Commissioner, Pos. 1: Tom Mielke

County Commissioner, Pos. 2: Marc Boldt

Clark County Superior Judge, Dept. 2: John P. Wulle

Clark County Superior Judge, Dept. 2: Diane M. Woolard

*The race for State Representative, Pos. 1 in the 18th Legislative District is one of the most important to me. Brandon Vick is a good man, and a conservative who will represent the 18th LD and Clark County well - so join me in supporting him however you can!

View Post · July 23 at 10:05am ·
My particular position is that the election of McKenna, Dunn and Finkbeiner won't make this state any different in color at all, since they're essentially as leftist as any democrat in state government today.

But that's not the point of this post.  I highlighted the point of this post:  Riley's endorsement of Marc Boldt.

Odd, isn't it?  Riley endorses the election of every single GOP-endorsed candidate there is... except for Boldt.

Now, one might be cynical (as the resident cynic, I attest to that) and ask the following: Exactly why did Boldt make the cut?

Does that mean that Justin and his current political project, Brandon Vick, are in favor of that massive waste of billions of dollars, the CRC, like Marc Boldt? 

Could be; that issue is conspicuous by its absence on Vick's "issues page."

That's unacceptable, of course.  And I'll be emailing the campaign momentarily to nail that down.  I know Brandon reads these pages, so it's best for all concerned if Brandon has a position on this issue and that it's a position that reflects the will of the people of this district.

In fact, here's the email I sent while putting this together.
Do you support he CRC?  If so, why?

Do you support replacing the bridge?  If so, why?

Do you support light rail?  If so, why?
Do you support tolling?  If so, why?

I look forward to your response and will be blogging it on Clark County Politics.
Not sure the email went through... (Tried posting it at his campaign website... there was no indication it made it)  might be a software glitch.  So I just asked the question of Vick on his Facebook page.

That, however, doesn't address the issue: why this support of Boldt, the only elected official in the last 24 years I've lived here to be kicked out of the GOP?

It's not because Justin marches to the beat of his own drum.

It's because Boldt is going to decide who gets the upcoming appointment.

It's going to be Boldt who makes the decision by virtue of the fact that the 18th is "Charley's country," and Stuart and the two democrat commissioners in Cowlitz are likely to do what Marc wants.

Rest assured: there will be ongoing efforts by Vick and his acolytes to make nice with Boldt in a cynical ploy to get him to appoint Vick.  And I've already written about that.

Pucker factor at play here.  This could be very bad.

Saturday, July 28, 2012

So, why did NBC edit out the commemoration of the London terrorist attacks of 7 July 1985 from the opening ceremonies?

The 2012 Olympics opening ceremony included a beautiful tribute to the victims of London's 7/7 Islamic terrorist attacks. But if you were watching the opening ceremony in the United States, you probably didn't see it.

NBC chose to omit the tribute for an interview with Michael Phelps.

Cory Barnes of the PCO Alliance swings by... I respond.

I appreciate Cory coming by.  It's not easy to stick your face in someone else's fan and I give him props for doing so.  The rest of this is in response to an earlier post, here:

Cory Barnes said...
I'm sure everyone is voting for me based on my political convictions and that they know I am shamelessly willing to stand up for the idea that the Republican Party leadership should be inclusive to political activists, the shoulders of whom the future Party rests.

We must reform back to an organization that facilitates conservative political engagement, rather than one that demands submission to backroom-brokered deals with personalities representing pretty damn close to nothing.

Example: McKenna vs. Hadian
It's being borne out just how portly McKenna represents the Republican persuasion, yet our local leadership is obsequiously bound to the you-know-who liberal force of Esser-esque evil.

Your post illustrating my unlucky collection of minor traffic indiscretions is meaningless in the face of unsolved issues that have left the CCRP operating by archaic tribalism favoring top-down control over independent grassroots involvement.

Any power the PCO position affords, I will fight to have retrieved from the dying-grasp of the CCRP board and back to the activists and numerous conservative organizations that still appreciate young, new faces... The young folks who are of the persuasion that even despite personal indiscretions, it has been left to them to salvage an American standard of living and way of life that Party-induced political cronyism has threatened to destroy.

There is always the choice of voting for the continued lack of leadership represented by the numerous incestuously-approved opponents of Liberty PCOs, many opponents whom graciously had help sending their precincts postcards informing voters of absolute subservience to Party candidates. The record shows that is a falsehood proven by the forgotten conservative leaders all shunned pre-primary to make way for progressive cronies. Every time this bias happens, I blame the GOP for leaving voters without political differences to choose from.

I have filed for PCO as representative of an ideology that favors a strong bottom-up organized Party and that promotes representative candidates in a fair and transparent way. Until someone comes along to represent my stances as PCO, I'll have to keep filing to declare the contrasts of my views with the current popular insanity. PCOLA has a disclaimer posted clearly online stating our affiliation is purely position based, for the presumable purpose of changing a majority of the central committee's leadership ideals. It's up to voters to establish trust with their distinct neighborhood candidates to determine elegibility, and PCOLA sees it the same way.

It is the voters' choice: vote for me, I'll set you free. Vote for my opponent, same sucks don'it?
To which, I responded:
Just a guy said...
One of the very problems that I have with you, Cory, is your chronic disregard for the law.

Every other element aside, that you only obey the laws you want to, when you want to, shows me that you're unfit for elective office.

You've been busted so many times, I find it hard to believe you can even begin to afford car insurance.  (Added here) In fact, I find it hard to believe you're even close to having a license.

You ARE insured, aren't you?  (Added here) You DO have a license, don't you?

That said, how many times have you been popped since the word came out last year that you viewed the law as an annoyance more than something to be followed?

I see at least 7 different citations since then. And it makes me wonder: if you can't even follow the law in what you call "minor traffic indiscretions," then what other laws do you blow off when you feel like it?

So, as *I* am a strong conservative who has been fighting the establishment at ALL levels, including locally for at least a decade; feel free to explain why your group has targeted me.

We both know it's my outspoken opposition to Ron Paul.

You complain about the Party leadership. There is room for improvement, to be sure, but who are some of those who've been there the longest and who, as I understand it, are not being challenged for PCO positions?

The Millers.

Deb Peterson.

Why did they get a pass, since they've been members in good standing of the local GOP leadership for years?

Seems your group can be quite selective in targeting the "establishment." And your recitation of the talking points in no way makes them true or accurate.

"Young, new faces?" Many of those who got a pass as PCO's are even older then I am. Many of those running are, you guessed it, even older than I am.

So now that we've established that it's who you know; that youth, in reality, has not one damned thing to do with it... what about the truth.... for once.

Whatever you do, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Outcomes in politics are the only thing that matter. In the end, with the group in charge (of Clark County GOP) now, we're likely to have 12 out of 15 legislators representing this county in the GOP, and likely 2 out of 3 commissioners in the GOP.

How, exactly, do you believe you can do better?

"Glittering generalities" don't cut it. NONE of the reasons you cite show any great vision or system to come up with more Republicans, or more wins... or how to "turn around" a Party that by any measure doesn't NEED to be "turned around."

And that's because this isn't about that. It's about somebody trying to take over the entirety of the party apparatus. It's about power.

The rest of this crap is smoke and mirrors... and my contempt for the effort is that you all lack the guts to tell the truth about it, because you know that chances of voting for you if you DID tell the truth would be precisely zero.

Much like, come to think of it, chances of you getting elected to PCO if your record went out in a mailer.

But that's not up to me. It's not my precinct you're trying to scam; and frankly, I just don't care enough to make it happen.

But we both know I'm right. And if the people of your precinct elect you, Cory, well, then, they'll certainly deserve you.

When they hate you, they hate you: Redux - the democratian's campaign for Boldt takes a nasty turn.

Because their guy, Marc Boldt, has run a really terrible campaign and hasn't been raising any money, the democratian has taken it upon themselves to drag him over the finish line in spite of themselves.

How do they do that?

By attacking Boldt's biggest political threat: David Madore.

That this materially contributes to my contempt for this despicable rag isn't based on opposition to Madore; I'm not particularly thrilled with his election either; after all, his posse is doing the best they can to get rid of me.  It is, instead, based on the complete abandonment of anything approaching fairness or even-handedness or, as they like to delude themselves, non-partisanship.

Among the politicians here locally, there are, effectively, two parties.  Not democrat or Republican; those labels are long since tired and RE-tired.

No, they are, instead, those who support the scam of the CRC and those wise enough not to support it.

In an election anywhere near competitive, the default position of the rag will be "is the candidate CRC-friendly?"   Followed secondarily by "are they a democrat?"

I used to believe at the local level that being a democrat was the key to the rag's support.  But that has been supplanted by the scam of the bridge and light rail... the scam the cancer on our society won't even write about, because, well, it's a major credibility issue to be foaming at the mouth in support of what the Oregon Supreme Court referred to as a rip off, so to speak.

The democratian's solution to that little problem?

Just don't mention that particular "inconvenient truth."  No problem.

Want to see how I got there?

As of this writing, the democratian has made 13 endorsements in the primary.

Of that 13, 12 strongly support the CRC, the whole package.  And that, of course, includes Marc Boldt.

The exact same Marc Boldt from whom this very rag demanded his resignation.  That, of course, was back in the halcyon days when he was a conservative Republican instead of whatever it is he is now.

Marc, of course, continues piling up his fellow democrat endorsements:  Stuart, Leave-it, Betty Sue, Burkman, Tanner, Joe King, Brian Wolfe, democrat mayors and a wide variety of others supporting this most massive rip off.

What he's NOT doing is piling up campaign cash.... and it will take a lot... a lot more... than he's putting together to get up on TV, radio and to match the blizzard of mailers of David Madore.

So, the rag decides to pick him up and do everything they can for him... because, well, he's their guy and they hate Madore for the threat he seems to represent to their agenda.

Not because he's trying to take over the GOP.  Not because he's not a nice guy.

But because he's been militantly opposed to the CRC scam.

Marc, who has done everything he can to ram this down our throats, is militantly in support of the CRC scam.

Connect the dots.  It's not hard.

When they hate you... they hate you.  And clearly they both hate... and fear... David Madore.

What's your charity? (My apologies. I've spent most of the last two days working on the American Diabetes Association Tour de Cure out in Hillsboro.)

What's your charity?

It's been reasonably hard work for the last two days; a few hundred miles on the road, setting up signs and taking them down, using "spray chalk" (which is really rather cool, when you think about it) to reinforce the directions by spraying color codes and arrows for the 5 or so different courses...

Hundreds turned out, dozens volunteered to do road patrols looking for mechanical breakdowns and so forth, manning the rest stops and the like to make sure they had food and healthy beverages to fuel these fantastic, giving people.

I owe the ADA a lot; their research helped to discover medications that helped me cope with Type 2 diabetes until I could get my weight under control (drop around 90 pounds or so, in other words) and now, no longer required to take pills for this killer, this is my 5th or 6th year of doing first, the Mt. Hood version and then, the one run out of the Hillsboro Stadium.

Those of you who ride bikes ought to consider it for next summer; the people, facilities and scenery are beautiful, and worth the trip.

Later next month, Danielle and I will be doing the American Cancer Society Relay for Life at Battle Ground Stadium in honor of Luke Jensen, a fine young man of 9 who fought Leukemia bravely and well, but ultimately was taken from us some two and one-half years ago.

We've also signed up the infamous Red Dually to hall the trailer for a local food bank on a substitute basis here beginning this upcoming week; they need to look it over for the connections and so forth to assure that it's fully compatible.

If you are fortunate and can give of your time, effort, energy and even, occasionally, money, please do so.  It's worth it, and you get much more out of it then you ever have to put in.

That said, I really do apologize for not blogging.  And that leads me to the next post, below.

Let me explain how commenting works. Again.

Rule One: unless someone has a gun to your head or that of some other hostage, no one is forcing you to read any of this.  If you don't like how, what or when I write around here, then don't read it and don't come back.

This blog isn't here for your edification and I'm not interested in writing to satisfy anyone's point of view but mine.

It's been the policy of this blog for the past several years that when a mistake is made, the individual in question may make a correction.

That is, for example, when I make a statement, or issue an opinion, and that statement is in error, the individual in question may correct that error by contacting me directly. 

Those who disagree get one... ONE bite at the apple.  But I do not have to do and will not do anonymous posts... nor will I be a piƱata for anyone, particularly anyone I don't know and who does not know me.

The fact is that I and I alone am responsible for the content of this blog of opinion.  Everyone out there knows who I am, but few of you actually know me.

Some of the comments I receive reach the level of death threats.  That's OK, that kind of blow-hard crap is why I'm always armed.

Others out there believe I can be brow-beaten or coerced... or, in the case of one elected official, undergo a serious effort to have me fired from my employment.

Typically, I will post almost anything.  Almost.

But those who believe they can threaten me, manipulate me or insult me or come after me?

Not so much.

I hold no illusions about the Paulbot's efforts to remove me as PCO: that's the system in place and they're welcome to it (Though my guess is that it's going to Boldt... after all, his other many failings notwithstanding, the people at least know his name) and frankly, as I've pointed out before, I just don't need this gig enough to fight for it.  My reason for even becoming a PCO, Jon Russell, has moved away and poses no threat to us any longer.

Those peeing their collective pants over this post are all deliberately choosing to miss the point.  Well, bully for them.

Those who have a problem with it, like always, can contact me directly.

But please understand that I really don't give a crap what any anon poster writes here.

You're not that clever, you're not that insightful, you're not that great and none of you, know me, either.

So, there you have it.  As always, if you don't like what I write, the simplest POSSIBLE solution:

Don't read it.

If I have made any kind of mistake on this blog, NO ANONYMOUS POST WILL EVER GET IT FIXED.

And a post from the source, as always, will be posted in it's entirety, unedited by me... like it ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

Feel free to ask any questions, but I leave you with this:

I actually am, "John Law;" a work of art.  But please, don't believe for a moment that I otherwise give a damn WHAT you think.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Clearly, the PCO "Alliance" doesn't vet their candidates:

Cory Barnes (Running for PCO in 913) is one of their guys: he's spending more time in court then many lawyers, starting with a juvenile record and as recently as 2 months ago:
96 Barnes, Cory J

Defendant Cowlitz District LON003000 05-05-2012

97 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Camas/washougal 58685 07-02-2010

98 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Clark County Dist 114112 09-10-2007

99 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Cowlitz District XY0451201 09-23-2010

100 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Clark County Dist 157302 11-10-2010

101 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Camas/washougal 109986 01-18-2011

102 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Clark County Dist 1Z0016612 01-25-2011

103 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Clark County Dist 9Y6298431 11-03-2009

104 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Clark County Dist 1Z0405889 07-18-2011

105 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Clark County Dist 1Z0532789 08-01-2011

106 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Clark County Dist 110364 02-25-2011

107 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Clark County Dist 673624 02-26-2007

108 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Cowlitz District 1Z0423692 06-10-2011

109 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Cowlitz District 1Z0402587 06-16-2011

110 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Camas/washougal 23569 05-10-2012

111 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Camas/washougal 59262 05-10-2012

112 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Camas/washougal 1Z0671434 10-02-2011

113 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Camas/washougal 1Z0671433 10-02-2011

114 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Clark County Dist 2Z0379960 05-31-2012

115 Barnes, Cory James

Defendant Clark County Dist 2Z0379961 05-31-2012
Respect for the law should be a big part of this, don't you think?

And, of course, the guy running against me:
3 Byers, Gary

Defendant Clark Superior 03-2-05247-1 10-09-2003

4 Byers, Gary

Defendant Clark Superior 07-2-02680-4 05-18-2007

5 Byers, Gary

Defendant Kcdc-so Div (auk) 992314 05-11-1999

6 Byers, Gary A

Defendant Clark Superior 03-2-05370-1 Available 10-17-2003

7 Byers, Gary A

Defendant Clark County Dist 310850-06 09-04-2007

8 Byers, Gary A Jr

Respondent Clark Superior 09-3-02330-9 10-06-2009

9 Byers, Gary Alan Jr

Defendant Clark County Dist 260203-04 10-14-1998

10 Byers, Gary Alan Jr

Defendant Clark County Dist 294117-03 11-18-2004

11 Byers, Gary Alan Jr

Defendant King County District 7Y5034523 12-24-2007

12 Byers, Gary Alan Jr

Defendant Kent Municipal Court K00078783 10-06-2009

13 Byers, Gary Alan Jr

RESPONDENT Clark Superior 02-2-06020-3 08-05-2002

14 Byers, Gary Alan Jr

Defendant Clark County Dist 235331 02-18-1997

15 Byers, Gary Alan Jr

Defendant Cowlitz District C00187998 03-21-2000

16 Byers, Gary Alan Jr

Defendant Skamania District L00025896 09-03-1997

17 Byers, Gary Alan Jr

Defendant Battle Ground Muni 2Z0339806 04-09-2012

18 Byers, Gary Alan Jr

Defendant Battle Ground Muni 2Z0339807 04-09-2012

19 Byers, Gary Alan Jr

Defendant Clark County Dist 6625259 04-06-2012

So, exactly what is a Republican?

In the midst of this election, exactly where does the issue of parties and labeling fall in consideration?

When is that put aside?  When does it mean something?  DOES it mean anything?

The Washington State Republican Party has endorsed Rob McKenna for governor.  At a political level, McKenna has been the disappointment I believed he would be; but he knows people.  He's been around.  He shows up.  And in politics, those are the critical elements.

At this point, it would seem that Inslee and McKenna share many more perspectives than those that seperate them... and most of those perspectives are directly out of the democrat play book and platform.

So... why do Republicans support McKenna?

Is it the "R" label, which has undergone massive rehabilitation thanks to the pathetic empty suit running the country?

Is it because democrats and their meme are so damaged by their incompetence and horrific handling of both foreign and domestic policy?

Is it maybe because, as a people, we've become hypnotized by labeling and all that it means?

The parties, of course, all want us to vote for their guy (Or woman, in the interests of PC'dom) based on, if NOTHING else, the label... the letter after their name.

But with that label comes an expectation that it's supposed to mean something.  The association is supposed to link you, as a democrat or Republican or Libertarian or what-have-you with a general set of ideals and concepts.

What if, for example, referring to McKenna, your candidate has little to no connection or resemblance to GOP ideals?

What if, for another example, referring to Reagan Dunn (Running for Attorney General), he not only doesn't resemble a Republican, his overt pandering to the gay marriage lobby is an embarrassment?

What if, your vote when you were in the Legislature to strengthened the gay lobby and, like Bill Finkbeiner, you're also a big gay marriage supporter?

Those are not core Republican ideals. 

There are other examples, but you get the gist.

These are cornerstone issues.

Here locally, Marc Boldt votes to increase our taxes, votes to take our weapons away if the commissioners feel like it, votes to gerrymander taxing districts to exclude tens of thousands of us from having any say but not from paying their taxes, votes to support a bridge, tolls and light rail that we don't want, don't need and cannot afford... all without asking us.

At the local level, those are not core Republican ideals either.

So, when do we put aside loyalty to a label and look deeper?  When do we hold the individual accountable for what they actually are instead of hoping for a non-existent "best" by virtue of voting for a label by using our ballots?

As someone who served the state GOP in the position of Executive Director in 2000, and someone who has served in dozens of campaigns and consulted on many, I have seen just about every imaginable side.

There's a school of thought, both here locally and perhaps nationally, that those who don't act like sheep and who question how Republican someone is or if they are actually even a part of the GOP beyond their label are somehow "bad."  They're attacked.  They're censored.  Efforts are made to silence them.

I despise RINO Rob McKenna.  There are others running as Republican; I have voted for one, in fact; a fellow named Hadian.

But I also have been personally attacked because I don't support McKenna or other leftists since he's the Party's guy and that I have the temerity to speak out against him... even in a primary scenario where opposition to any one candidate used to be perfectly OK.  Why vote for a fake democrat when, if you lean left, the real thing is available?  Just for one example, notice how McKenna shares many of Inslee's and the democrat's positions but Inslee doesn't share any of McKenna's and the GOP's?

Who's in control in that race?

How McKenna can't see that is a mystery to me.  But the question here is "How is any of that Republican?"

Democrats are just as bad; they're famous for their litmus tests for their candidates.

What happened to those 3 democrat senators who joined with the GOP in their effort to rein in our state government's budget?

It's a good thing they were wearing political kevlar.

The Madore-financed effort to take over the local party here (The so-called PCO Liberty Alliance), along with the effort to get a Paulbot elected as a write-in in the 18th district are where all of this comes into play.

The fact is that regardless of if he is successful in this effort (You only have to walk upright to get Madore's and the bizarro PCO Liberty people's support ) there will be no real change in the PCO make-up around here: 80% of the legislators in Clark County are likely to be GOP (3 dem and 12 GOP)  2/3rds of the commission (1 dem and 2 GOP) WITHOUT a Paulbot take-over and the very idea that any organization by anyone at the county level could do any better is absurd.

It's outcomes that should matter.  For many here, they don't.

So, Those who claim to be Republican (Romney, Herrera, McKenna, Finkbeiner, Dunn, Boldt, Silliman, Byers for PCO (Actually, in a genuinely bizarre move, Boldt was redistricted into my precinct and HE is running against ME) who's positions or governance prove they are anything but did not and will not get my vote.

Those who claim to be Republican but have a really hidden agenda (Madore and Silliman) did not get my vote.

Those who lie about their motives (The PCO Liberty scam) will never get my support and will, in fact, only get my opposition.  Anyone connected with them or to them will have that connection forever; they will not ever be able to run from it and I will use that connection to hammer them like I hammered Russell... regardless of what label they use to lie about who they are.

Nor will they.

But that decision isn't particularly because of the labeling they use as a mere cover: Boldt has publicly admitted that he's never read the GOP platform... which seems to me to be something of an indictment of the value of the party to begin with.

More questions.  Few answers... but here's one:

I don't care if you're a member of the Drunk Orangutan Party: if you're the best candidate and you're on the ballot, you're going to get my vote.

But you'd better be a conservative who is in office for the right reasons, without a hidden agenda or corruptive influence calling your shots.

Herding cats: the 18th District House appointment process.

"There are two things that people don't want to see being made: sausage and legislation." Otto von Bismark.

To that, I would add the issue of appointments for vacant State House seats.

Here in the 18th District, we were offered 4 choices for consideration: Liz Pike, Brandon Vick, Peter Silliman and Dale Smith.

The candidate running for this seat and endorsed by the GOP, Brandon Vick, could only manage 14 votes out of 37 on the first ballot, a surprisingly weak lack of confidence in his abilities reflective of both his disastrous tenure as local party chair and his last second, spur of the moment impetuous decision to run in the first place.

Peter Silliman, the Paulbot candidate, came in second with the Paulbot block remaining in lockstep throughout.

Liz Pike came in third and Dale Smith, fourth.

Pike and Smith had the most experience, political and elective.  Vick's candidacy for state representative was as disastrous as his party chairmanship tenure.

Silliman is absolutely unqualified to be a state representative, either by experience or temperment.

It took 3 ballots for Brandon to finally achieve the 50% plus one vote he needed.  He was followed by Liz Pike, who gave an exceptional presentation and who should have been number one, and anti-public education father of 12 Paulistinian, Peter Silliman.

The meeting was in the far-too-small and apparently not air conditioned GOP headquarters, where the gathered PCO's and observers sweltered as we crawled through the process and arrived at a conclusion.

The irony of all of this is now these three have to face the combined county commissioners of Clark and Cowlitz.  Brandon Vick, who was running the local GOP at the time, has to face democrat Commissioner Marc Boldt, who was expelled from the local party as a result of his leftward bent on his votes.

Wonder how that's going to go?

It's going to be tough for Vick; although the commissioners usually go with the first name on the list: under these circumstances, it would be easy for Boldt to drop to the second place on the list and name Pike.

Silliman, who is as far right as any other Pauler, has no chance and is not likely to get a single vote due to his extreme positions... and his limited base of support.

It could go either way: Vick or Pike.  And in this instance, given Vick's history with Boldt, I wouldn't bet on Vick.

Expect some effort at rapprochement by the GOP to get Marc on board with Vick.

Just sayin.'

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

When the Columbian hates you, they hate you.

(FULL DISCLOSURE: NO candidate or campaign or anyone involved or in any way concerned with any candidate or campaign was aware of or approved or had input into this post.

Further, Marc Boldt is my brother in law, and I worked for him as his legislative assistant for 6 years while he was in the state house.)

"Hate" is a pretty strong word to throw around, even these days.  I make no bones about it; I actually do hate the Columbian and everything they stand for, since everything they stand for are lies of omission and commission, while completely obliterating any concept of fairness or integrity... while they strive to inflict tremendous damage on this community.

In this upcoming election, they hate Tom Mielke and David Madore, period.  Neither Tom nor David are "their" guys; both stand steadfastly against the fringe-left agenda of the local democrat daily and both are steadfastly opposed to the massive, almost unfathomable pile of waste and incompetence known as the CRC scam.  Thus, if you campaign against their agenda, they do all they can to flatten you; fairness be damned.

I know from first hand experience the sting of their lies, exaggerations, fabrications and outright falsehood... and I've been hammering these scum for over a decade.

Things are not going well for their boy, Marc Boldt.  Marc is, essentially, broke.  He's got a campaign manager who seems to be working for free (SOMEBODY is paying her, it just ain't Marc) and he's close to flat broke.  Marc's opponent, David Madore, is up on TV and is doing multiple mailings that Marc cannot respond to.

However, with the democrat daily in your pocket, you don't need to... since they're doing Marc's campaign for him.

Today's hit piece, along with that of their recent hatchet job on Tom Mielke, both by that waste of skin Stephanie Rice, go to the heart of the matter.

Boldt lied through his teeth on his mailing... and not a peep out of the democratian.

Why?  Because he's their guy and it's perfectly OK for THEIR guy to lie.

In fact, when was the last time they made any effort to hold any of their leftist buddies or causes accountable to the truth?

Lew Water's lays it all out in his own, inimitable way, right here.  Go check it out.

(UPDATE:) McKenna: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory; down 7 to Inslee. (Elway)

(UPDATE: Yesterday, I indicated that McKenna was down 5 when he was, in fact, down 7.  I regret the error.)

Earlier this year, back when he was campaigning like a competent reasonably Republican candidate, RINO Rob McKenna had as much as a 9 point lead in the polls.

So, what have his efforts to out-democrat the democrat accomplished?

The most recent Elway Poll has him down 7, 43-36.

Showing the genius of pandering to every special interest group in the state; public employee unions, gays, tribes and the like; having hammered the GOP base with his fringe-left absurdity, McKenna is getting clobbered.

And he should.

I'm not ever voting for him... for anything... and clearly, more and more people are beginning to ask the same question I've been asking for the past several months:

Why vote for the fake democrat (McKenna) when you can get the real thing? (Inslee.)

I expect that the usual suspects will win in the statewides.  My fellow Republicans see it as blaspheme that I oppose McKenna; but I see it as blaspheme that they're only concerned about a label over the substance.

But RINO Rob is reaping what he's sown, and he's got no one to blame but himself.

UPDATE: Why is Marc Boldt lying in his mailer? And who'd vote for anyone endorsed by that slimeball Tim Leave-it?

(FULL DISCLOSURE: NO candidate or campaign or anyone involved or in any way concerned with any candidate or campaign was aware of or approved or had input into this post.

Further, Marc Boldt is my brother in law, and I worked for him as his legislative assistant for 6 years while he was in the state house.)

Is it desperation?

Is it self-delusion?

Up until now, Marc at least has been reasonably honest, but this mailer is over the top.

Not only has Boldt NOT "fought for our right to vote," he has gone so far as to publicly OPPOSE a county WIDE vote on the CRC:

Photo by Troy Wayrynen

Passengers board a Tri-Met Max light rail train at the Delta Park/Vanport light rail transit station.

By Stephanie Rice

Columbian Staff Reporter

Originally published March 31, 2011 at 12:26 p.m., updated March 31, 2011 at 7:47 p.m.

On the Web:

“Advisory Vote Smackdown.”

In an exchange that played out over email on Thursday, two of three Clark County commissioners shot down a suggestion by 18th District legislators on how the county could legally craft an advisory vote on the Columbia River Crossing.

A few weeks ago, lawmakers from the 17th District asked commissioners to put an advisory vote on the November ballot, and commissioners said they could not legally have an advisory vote on a matter over which they lack the authority to decide.

This time, Commissioners Steve Stuart and Marc Boldt made it clear they did not even care if what the 18th District lawmakers were suggesting was legal. They went so far as to make fun of the idea and ask if lawmakers, facing the worst state budget crisis in decades, didn’t have better things to do with their time than to send a letter seeking a meaningless vote.
It's despicable that any elected official would call any vote "meaningless." But that Marc Boldt calls it that is just another symptom of his full left tilt.  But to claim, in the face of his efforts to silence us and exclude 100,000 of us through the gerrymandered taxing district that he voted for that HE fought for US?

Hardly.  In fact, that's actually a lie.  And who could forget this master stroke, all, of course, as he fights for us by supporting and campaigning for another tax increase...

I can't speak to anything called "the economic development alliance," because, frankly, I've never heard of it.  What I know is that the unemployment rate for Clark County has been double digit for, literally, years.

And his claim about "holding property taxes below 1%?"

Marc raised property taxes the maximum amount for years.  And in this case, the maximum amount you CAN increase property taxes is 1%, and Boldt increased them by that amount MANY times.

So... why is he claiming that he didn't?

I freely admit that I oppose Marc Boldt's re-election, just like he's opposed Tom Mielke's election.

There's a reason Steve Stuart and Betty Sue Morris have endorsed him.

And that reason is why I oppose him... like I would any other democrat running for commissioner in these perilous times.

And when I look at the list of those endorsing him now, they're the Who's Who of those scamming us on the bridge, loot rail and tolls:

Jaime Herrera, all the democrat mayors and CRC scammers jamming that crap pile down our throats  and Jerry Nutter... who is also supporting and fund raising for Tim Probst against Republican Senator Don Benton (R-17).

And, of course, who Marc Boldt has endorsed:

Note the similarities between those on the list endorsing Stuart and those endorsing Boldt.

Just the kind of endorsements I WON'T support.

Another example of faux democrat tolerance: Pro-life democrat congressional candidate barred from forum.

Was it that long ago the democratian and their local democrat masters wept crocodile tears over the local GOP kicking Marc Boldt to the curb?

What is it the made-up, unnamed democrat said?
A Clark County Democrats official said Thursday the party does not sanction elected officials.
Apparently, that doesn't apply to candidates.
Pro-life Democrat congressional candidate barred from forum, forced to leave building
Democrats in Michigan are facing criticism from pro-life advocates for silencing a pro-life candidate wanting to participate in a candidate event.
On July 16, Right to Life of Michigan PAC-endorsed candidate Bob Costello was prevented from speaking at a forum for congressional candidates in the 14th Congressional District and was forced to leave the forum after attempting to speak. The forum was supposed to be an open forum for the Democratic congressional candidates of the 14th District but Costello (who is one of the five Democratic candidates on the ballot) wasn’t invited.
As RLM indicates, “Costello, a prolife Democrat, was one of four congressional candidates who attended the event even though he was threatened with arrest if he attempted to speak at this event by the president of the Grosse Pointe Democratic Club. Costello believes his pro-life beliefs were the reason he wasn’t invited to the event and was prevented from speaking.”
“The main focus of Costello’s campaign is the protection of religious freedom which Obamacare’s HHS mandate violates by forcing religious institutions which operate schools and hospitals to violate their beliefs by providing coverage for services they object to,” RLM said. “The other candidates who attended the forum (Gary Peters, Mary Waters and Brenda Lawrence) remained shamelessly silent as their co-candidate was prevented from speaking.”

Haugen lost 3 votes here today.

Look, I admit it: Jaime Herrera is a disaster as a representative in Congress, much like she was in the legislature.

Her pro-bridge/light rail tolls shtick will hurt this area for decades, sucking $100's of millions of dollars out of our local economy in tolls for a bridge replacement, light rail and tolls that we do not want, do not need and cannot afford.  There is no way I would ever vote for her for anything except, perhaps a "guilty" verdict.

So, along comes Jon Haugen, democrat (this time) the only one with the guts to take Babs on.  His positions on the CRC scam are music to a conservatives ears.  I was going to vote for him, as was my wife and kids.

The operative word being "was." 

And then, today, I find out he's got a screw loose.

In an email unsolicited exchange between Haugen and Retired Navy Commander Larry Patella (Haugen, too, is a retired Navy Commander) he lifted the mask and showed a true, genuine, whack job:
From: Jon Haugen []

Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 8:33 PM

To: Local Mailing List

Cc: WA-03 N David Madore; WA-03 V MOAA BETH BROWN; Clark CC Tom Mielke; WA-03 N Columbian Stevie Mathieu; MOAA Shoemaker; JT Haugen;

Subject: WA-03 Larry Patella, bigot

Sunday, 22 July 2012

Hi Larry,

I know you are bigoted toward our President probably because his skin color is not white. You had a letter published in The Reflector claiming Barack Obama was a Muslim when you knew he was not, you lied.

I do not know you well but I have not attended local Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) because of your association with that group.

I hate to say that a fellow retired Navy Commander is a bigot but you have proven your self to be a bigot.

Please remove my name from your mailing list. I do not wish to be associated with you.

Jon Haugen

Commander, Naval Reserve, Retired.
As a former commissioner Army officer, I am embarrassed that this kind of political bigotry can be expressed by some one who makes such a big deal, not only about his service but the service of others not even running.

That said, one may have the opinion that Obama is a muslim without being a bigot in any way.  One can have the opinion that Obama and his policies have been a disaster that will take generations to recover from without care or concern over Obama's half-white heritage... and one can feel free to oppose him entirely for political and philosophical reasons, much like I've opposed democrat morons of the past like the previous worst president in the history of this country,. the lily-white Jimmy Carter.

But one can't do and keep MY vote is attempt to brand someone and label someone for an opinion that wasn't apparently, expressed directly to Haugen but instead, through a newspaper (I can't find the article in question) as if the First Amendment was the First Suggestion.

If opposition to the sheer, unadulterated idiocy of that empty-suited, anti-American racist bigot occupying the White House just nowmakes me a "bigot", then I guess I'll have to live with it.  But in this instance, that opposition is not because of the color of the source of that idiocy but because of the idiocy and incompetence itself.

That Haugen is so twisted that he either doesn't know or cannot differentiate the difference disqualifies him for consideration for election to anything... including dog catcher.

Monday, July 23, 2012

Pike stakes out her social issues positions. CCP endorses.

I've been hammering away at Liz Pike because of a variety of things... including a misunderstanding on the part of the paper vis the issue of Pike's positions on gay marriage and the Life issue.

Liz has made her poisitions clear on that, and I offer them up here for you:
Faith Based Issues

“Growing up in a conservative and very religious Catholic family as one of 13 children was a real blessing for me. Because of my faith, I believe marriage is a sacrament and reserved as a holy union between one man and one woman. I have also been pro life at all times in my adult life. When I was 13 years old, my mother took me out of school for the day to march on the steps of the capitol in Olympia to protest Roe vs. Wade. That event had a profound effect on my political life.”
My concerns were primarilly that the Columbian had reported that Liz had "declined" to state her positions on these issues.
And now, we get to the question of gay marriage.

On the subject of gay marriage, Shehorn agrees with recent legislation allowing same-sex couples to marry. Pike declined to disclose her personal view on the subject.
"Pike declined to disclose her personal views on the subject."
Obviously, she's clarified that situation and here they are.

This is the last piece of the puzzle for me and under the broad heading of FWIW, I now endorse Liz Pike for State Representative.

Predictions for the primary.

Bold face likely General election winners.

Senate: Cantwell and Baumgartner

Congress: Herrera and Haugen

Governor:  Two democrats: The Bobbsey Twins... unfortunately Hadian won't have the cash.

AG: Two democrats, Dunn and Ferguson.

Lt. Governor:  Two unfortunates: Owen and Finkbiener

Treasurer: McIntyre and whoever the write-in is.

Auditor: Miloscia and Watkins

OSPI: Dorn and no clue.

Public Lands: Goldsmith

Insurance Commissioner:  Kreidler and Reilly.

Secretary of State:  Wyman and the democrat.

17th all the GOP.

18th all the GOP

49th all the democrats.

Commissioners:  Mielke and Tanner  (Too close to call)

Battan and Madore.  (If Madore makes it into the general, he wins.  If Boldt, then Boldt wins.)

Judges Wulle and Woolard.

Could have been better... and even with a remarkably weak local GOP candidate slate, save for the incumbents, it still appears that at the end, Clark County will be represented by 12 Republicans and 3 democrats in the legislature.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

The WSRP fights back against the Paulbot insurgency.

Regular readers are well aware that the local GOP is under assault by Paulistinian insurgents.

The cult of Paulbots are well known for their psychotic politics.  Their enablers, who claim not to be Paulistinians in many instances are, nevertheless, being fooled into doing the Paulbot's bidding through messaging and the use of patriotic words.

Paul's positions are not what the GOP stands for or wants; Paul has never won a primary in either his independent runs or his fake GOP efforts.

While he does have a few decent ideas, those are overshadowed by his suicidal pro-Iranian nukes foreign policy and his penchant for drug legalization... not to mention his support of gender-based abortion.

The cultists slavishly following him, of course, don't care.  Few can, for example, tell you the difference between the Straights of Hormuz and the Straights of Juan de Fuca.

Those enabling the Paulbots are unaware of this suicidal view of the world or his gender-based abortion support.  They, instead, ascribe to his followers flowery phrases concerning "liberty" while they lie, directly, about getting "conservatives" in charge of the party again.

The result is a concerted, organized and planned effort to take over the GOP... run by Paulbots.

Of course, those involved disavow any knowledge of the fact that the Paulbots are behind this; they don't mention him and go so far as to try and convince the casual observer that this effort was "spontaneous," here locally in part because of the debacle of Brandon Vick's abysmal convention performance.

Except... we would have seen this exact same thing if the convention had gone off like clockwork and the Paulbots had gotten everything they wanted... much like, come to think of it, they DID get everything they wanted here locally.

Yeah.  It's "spontaneous."  It's sheer coincidence that it's happening here... AND Spokane... AND Seattle.

Finally recognizing the threat to sanity, the WSRP is doing something about it; something the Paulbots desperately tried to stop... and failed to stop.

They're fighting back.

Washington GOP creates controvery[sic] over mailer endorsement
Candidate for Precinct Committee Officer Joel Bowen, from the 45th district of Washington State, was surprised to learn that the Washington Republican Party was sending out mailers asking voters to choose his opponent Ed Brown, for the position.
"I have been doing this for over 20 years and I have never seen something so blatant before! From what I understand the state or county GOP never should be endorsing anyone during the primary," said Bowen.
Bowen believes the Washington Republican party is doing all they can to exclude him because he is a Ron Paul supporter. This would not be the first time the Washington Republican Party attempted to exclude Ron Paul supporters from engaging in the democratic process. Video of King County Republican Party Chairwoman Lori Sotelo, attempting to end the 37th districts caucus because of an overwhelming Ron Paul delegate majority, went viral on Youtube and was even picked up by Fox 19 News in Cincinnati.
According to some, this is not an isolated incident but a growing trend to push away the growing liberty movement within the Republican Party.
"I went door knocking the other day for a PCO in the precinct next to me. A guy said that the King County Republican Party had distributed flyer's for a candidate there too. Somebody who was opposing the liberty option," said Emilie Rensink, a political activist out of Seattle.
Many feel that the GOP's endorsement is unethical as well as a conflict of interest. At this time the GOP has yet to make a response over the controversy but Bowen intends to keep on moving forward with gaining support until the elections. Bowen chose to leave his thoughts over the incident on the Washington State Republican Party's Facebook page

Many others don't feel that way, so, tough noogies.

I'm not delusional enough to anticipate any kind of endorsement from the WSRP; I've been beating them and the rest of the establishment up longer than many of the Paulbots have been eligible to vote.

But it's good to see that somebody is awake at the switch.

And Paulistinian heads are exploding all over the state today....

Saturday, July 21, 2012

So, if you think the Paulbot's local PCO insurgency is "spontaneous," take a look at this:

There's nothing spontaneous about it.  The thing that pisses me off the most about it is they keep lying about their motivation and the causes.  Just check out this scam going on in Spokane County.
Story  Comments 07
July 21, 2012 in City
Squabble splits local GOP

Fight over precinct officers could impact commissioner race

By Mike Prager The Spokesman-Review

An internal battle between mainstream Republicans and a conservative insurgency has divided the Spokane County Republican Party and may influence the primary election race for District 2 county commissioner.

The sides are battling for control of the local party through elections of precinct committee officers, a scenario mirroring those playing out across the country, some with tea party overtones.

The primary race for commissioner involving two Republicans – Shelly O’Quinn and Rob Chase – and Democrat Daryl Romeyn may be in the balance.

Only two of those candidates can advance to a general election showdown in Washington’s “top-two” primary system, in which the top vote-getters advance regardless of party affiliation.

O’Quinn expects that a core Democrat vote of about 39 percent will allow Romeyn to earn a spot on the November ballot.

If that prediction holds true, O’Quinn and Chase would be vying for the second ballot spot. A strong turnout by Republicans looking to back precinct committee officer candidates could be the deciding factor.

One longtime Republican Party official, however, said neighborhood precinct committee candidates working to get their supporters to cast votes could lead to O’Quinn and Chase advancing to a general election showdown.

“It will energize people to vote,” said Diana Wilhite, a supporter of O’Quinn.

Said Chase, “If it’s a close race, it could make a difference.”

Contested precinct committee officer races are on the ballot during the primary. There are 44 contested GOP precinct races in commissioner District 2 out of 101 contested GOP races countywide.

District 2 includes southeast Spokane and Spokane Valley, where libertarian and tea party forces are more concentrated.

Competition for control of the local Republican Party dates to 2008 when libertarian Texas congressman Ron Paul ran for president as a Republican and brought new faces to the party organization, said Chase, who is in his second year as county treasurer and is among Paul’s supporters.

Look familiar?

Nope... nothing "spontaneous."  Yup, Ron Paulian planned, driven and executed.

But then, I may have been saying that all along.

So, Brandon Vick, where are you on the CRC?

Brandon's finally got a web site up that says more than "donate."  But while the "issues" section contains a lot of words, it really doesn't say anything.

Its got a lot of verbiage with no specifics that both sides use.  But what's missing?

Not one word about the CRC scam or transportation.  Not one word about the Cowlitz Megacasino scam (You know, the one his buddy Rob McKenna supports?  That one?)


Nothing about the bridge rip off.  Nothing about tolls.  Nothing about loot rail.

Now.... why is that?

Readers know what I think of candidates who run away from the big issues.  And from the perspective of local representation, there is no bigger issue confronting the people of this district then the biggest scam in the history of the United States (Well, with the exception of Obama getting elected) and our Republican candidate doesn't have a position staked out on it?  Doesn't even MENTION it?

The number one character trait of my representation must be courage.

The courage of your convictions.

That's followed by competence: you've got to at least have common sense.

So, the question goes back to this:  Why doesn't Brandon Vick talk about his position on the CRC scam?

Is it because he's afraid to?

Or is it because he forgot to?

Either way...

Right or wrong, up or down, anyone running for office in this area owes his or her constituents a snap shot of their positions on ALL of the issues confronting us... and not just the ones he or she is comfortable with.

Just sayin'.

Friday, July 20, 2012

A troubling connection: Brandon Vick and RINO Rob McKenna.

Even casual readers of this blog have noticed by now that Rob McKenna has moved to the left of Lenin as he sells out the GOP and avoids even a minor pretext of conservatism in his all-out pursuit of office.

RINO Rob has sold us out on Gov. Scott Walker, referring to what Walker did in his take-down of the democrats and the public employee unions as "terrorism," sold us out on the Cowlitz/Paskenta/Mohegan/Barnett mega-casino; sold us out on Obama care; called collective bargaining for state employees a "right," he opposed the initiative that would have saved us hundreds of millions and our local economy by restricting tolls...

And most recently, RINO Rob went all fringe-left democrat on us and came out swinging against the Boy Scouts. over their homosexual policy... when it's none of his fricking business.

So, why is Brandon Vick doing this?  After all, Vick was an Eagle Scout... so why does he support someone who just got done attacking the Boy Scouts for political points on an issue that's none of his concern?

No way should this be happening.

Eagle Scout indeed.

Thoughts on Aurora, Colorado.

"An armed society is a polite society.  Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. "  - Robert A Heinlein Beyond This Horizon (1942)
I was working in my office at about 1:30 this morning when news came about the massacre in Aurora, Colorado.

My first thought was "... is this a terrorist, ala that Hasan slimeball and Ft. Hood?"

And then I became riveted to the coverage as facts began leaking out.... there were two shooters; no.... one.  There were 10 dead, then 14, then 13, then now, apparently, 12.  There were 20 wounded, then 30 then 50.

I began to wonder: what would I have done in that theater?

Well, if he hadn't got me first, I'd have shot him.  And I'd have shot him because I don't go anywhere without my .45.

That used to be a problem in my family.  After all, when I was going to church, or to the store... or to the movies... who needs to be armed in those places?

Clearly, the answer is now "we all do."

I'd been carrying since Koenninger's moronic, yet somehow prescient piece demanding the resignation of now Democrat County Commissioner Marc Boldt  resulted in some death threats back when Marc had been a legislator and I'd been his Legislative Assistant.  I was my own security in the district office.

But this post isn't to proffer an argument on the 2nd Amendment or gun control or any of that.  It's not even to point out that Commissioner Boldt voted for an ordinance that would have enabled the county to confiscate our weapons if they were so inclined.

No, this post is to point out the obvious: had at least one armed individual been in that movie crowd, there is an increased chance that the likelihood of this vast amount of death and destruction would not have been as great.

I'm not going to get on the Tea Party-style high horse and make the absurd claim that NO one would have been killed. 

But now, we're going to be faced with absurd demands to make ever-more restrictive gun laws... as if any of those would have stopped this from happening.

What I am suggesting here is the same thing I suggested as a result of the Virginia Tech massacre given the response to those, like me, who suggest that no place should be off limits to firearms merely because it's a school:
 "In situations like these, I tend to think of those writing these editorials in terms of "what would THEY want if their life was on the line?"

If these writers were at risk in a classroom. If there was a Columbine-style shooting going on in a school where they happened to be; would they pissed that I was carrying a .357 magnum? Would they be so outraged when I pulled my weapon and ended the threat?

It's not hard to imagine these sanctimonious hypocrites in a Virginia Tech classroom, whimpering on the floor in little liberal, whinny puddles, howling with outrage that some student or faculty member; or even worse, say, a college-student military-veteran had actually come to class with a firearm and was ready to use it to SAVE THEIR INCREASINGLY WORTHLESS LIVES had actually done so.
Within the past year, my wife has started shooting.  Got a nice little Walther PPK that gets it done.  Now, however, is the time for her to get her permit and begin to carry it, like I do, everywhere.

Because if we had been in that theater, maybe we'd have made it.  If SHE had been in that theater unarmed?

Likely not.

Unfortunately, this is likely to become a political football, where both sides quickly lose sight of the issue: government cannot keep us safe; we have to do that ourselves.  And in this day and age, those most strident in their demands that we be disarmed should really stop and ask themselves this question first:

"What if I had been in that theater?"

Because your efforts to disarm us will only embolden those who are not really likely to follow the law in the first place.

Then what?

It's a sad commentary that our society has reached this point.  But it has.  So, what to do?

Get a weapon and stand a post in your own security.  If you know how to use a weapon, then you should be armed.  If you don't, then get trained and THEN get armed.

Unfortunately, there are two classes of people in 2012: the sheep.... and the wolves.

Which one are you?

The people in the theater? 

Which one were they?