Democratian endorses ANOTHER democrat: McKenna; and even MORE Democratian situational ethics..

(FULL DISCLOSURE: I have not and likely will not be endorsing in this race. I freely admit that I am totally opposed to Marc Boldt's re-election since he's completely sold out to the left, forgotten/ignored GOP principles, supports the CRC scam in it's entirety and wants to hang tolls around our neck for the next several decades that will destroy a great deal of small business in Clark County as a result.

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.)

So, in endorsing Obama Superdelegate and union hack Monica Stonier (This time... they trashed her last time, and she's the same person she was then) the democratian wrote this:

Julie Olson of Ridgefield has an edge in elected experience as a seven-year school board member. She understands the synergy between private and public sectors and would make a fine state representative. Stonier came out ahead in the primary, and we give her the nod as the better of two good candidates.

So... even though Olson has 7 years of elective experience... they endorsed her opponent, who hasn't been elected dog-catcher.

Yet, when the time comes to endorse for governor, what's the lede?

Washington governor: McKenna

His record as attorney general is stronger than Inslee's work as congressman

So, for GOVERNOR, RINO Rob's record is the deciding factor.

But for the legislature, a 7 year record of elected service is meaningless.

Much like, apparently, Columbian endorsements.

So, that said, the rag endorses RINO Rob McKenna for governor... their token, alleged Republican endorsement in a race he will likely lose.

Yeah, I know that RINO Rob CLAIMS he's a Republican, but so does Marc Boldt.  It's fairly clear that for the both of them, claims to membership of the GOP is just a scam... a prop used to get elected, since neither adhere to anything approaching GOP tenets in their elective life.

The democrats and RINO Rob hate Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. (Unmentioned in the endorsement)

The democrats and RINO Rob will not do anything to rein in out of control spending on public employee unions, the democratian's pet peeve.  (Unmentioned in the endorsement)

The democrats and RINO Rob support the massive Cowlitz/Mohegan/Paskenta/Barnett casino rip off.  (Unmentioned in the endorsement)

The democrats and RINO Rob support replacing a paid-for bridge so that loot rail and life-long tolls can be rammed down our throats... without a vote.

The democrats and RINO Rob support gay marriage.  (Unmentioned in the endorsement)

The democrats and RINO Rob trashed the Boy Scouts over their continuing stand on homosexuals.  (Unmentioned in the endorsement)

See a pattern here?

It's easy for the local rag to endorse a Republican... when he's a fake.

Just like Boldt.

Just like McKenna.

One of the things that make democratian endorsements so completely worthless and damaging is their situational ethics.

What is a positive point in their endorsements for one they support, is meaningless and ignored in one they oppose:

Their endorsement of Jim "My middle name is Hussein - Candy Man" Moeller, for example.

State rep, Pos. 2: We have often criticized Jim Moeller for his ultra-liberal stances on taxes, public-employee unions and other issues. But there is no doubting his passion, commitment to hard work, eagerness to learn about multiple issues and willingness to be held accountable in contentious public arenas. Nor is there any doubt that Moeller knows how to appeal to his district's voters, previously as a Vancouver city councilor and since 2003 as a legislator.

Let's take part of that endorsement and apply it to someone the Democratian loves to trash:

Nor is there any doubt that Benton knows how to appeal to his district's voters, previously as a state representative and since 1996 as a state senator.

Odd, isn't it, what happens when a rag allows their personal hatred to leak over into the political realm?

Because all of this begs the question:

If Moeller's longevity in office is a reason to keep him... then why isn't Benton's?

That's the fundamental flaw in their process.  The rag insists on changing the playing field to fit their agenda, and as a result, what's good for one (longevity in office) is ignored in those they despise.

Which is just a part of the reasons why I despise the Columbian.

There.  See how it works?