The politics and institutional hatred of the democratian's latest freeholder editorial.

Was it all that long ago that the democratian was so steadfastly opposed to the charter movement?

No.... it wasn't.

In Our View: Solutions … No Problems

County commissioners once again ponder reforming local government

Published: March 19, 2013, 6:03 AM

Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services ?

When a wild goose chase clearly defines itself before it even begins, responsible travelers will decline to embark on the journey. Such is the case before Clark County commissioners as they ponder another expedition into the well-known futility of changing county government to a home rule charter.

Another apt metaphor for this crusade is a solution in search of a problem. Voters have rejected a proposed home rule charter three times in 20 years, most recently in 2002. This micro-introspection of a macro-bureaucracy became so yawn-inducing in 2011 that county commissioners declined to even pull out the stethoscope. Seven public meetings were attended by a grand total of 113 people. (The level of interest might have been even lower than such a paltry number denotes, because there's no way of knowing how many people attended multiple meetings). In response, county commissioners correctly declined to pursue the matter further.

We'll see if the new board of county commissioners is equally perceptive. They could consider the matter this week.

Granted, all forms of government should be subject to frequent review, as a healthy method of being held accountable. But on this repair job, we're having a hard time finding what's broken.

Reforming county government could include any of a dozen or more changes, none of which have been accompanied by any measurable public demand. This lack of motivation might explain why only six of 39 counties in Washington have adopted home rule charters. As Erik Hidle explained in a Saturday Columbian story, potential changes could include giving residents referendum powers on county issues, changing some elected offices to appointed jobs, increasing the number of commissioners and making office[sic] nonpartisan.

More:

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, just 7 short months ago, the democratian referred to this effort as "a wild goose chase."

What changed?  What was the nexus?  Why did the hardcore left the paper writes for and in support of change their spots?

Hatred.  Specifically, Lefty Lou Brancaccio's unbridled hatred of, in order, Don Benton, David Madore and Tom Mielke.

The rag has done everything they possibly can to get Benton out of office.  They did everything they could to keep Madore from getting IN to office.

For the last 20 years, few have stood as firmly opposed to their agenda.  Benton's effectiveness rests in large part with his title... that of State Senator.

So, how to neutralize him?

Get him out of office.

Second only to Benton in Lefty Lou's hatred zone is David Madore.

THE number one issue on the democratian's agenda is the CRC Project.

They do not care what the people want; never have.  They've never, for example, advocated a binding public vote on this issue; instead of finding reasons to seek out and apply the will of the people to this project in a binding way, this newspaper has done all it can to not only keep that from happening, but most recently (yesterday) belittled the effort to get even a non-binding vote on the project, claiming, among other things, that such a vote represents utter nonsense such as "hyperdemocracy" as they seek to undermine Article 1, Section 1 of this state's own Constitution.

The newspaper is confused: they seem to believe that those officials appointed to some committee should reign supreme over the will of the people and that will should not even be determined.

Why?  What are they afraid of?

They fear even the possibility that the will of the people will oppose their agenda.

As a result, stupidity like yesterday's essentially last gasp effort to undermine any effort to make that determination.

This is a newspaper that has fought for this project for roughly the same amount of time I've opposed it: roughly 8 years.

Even in the face of a CRC Policy to ignore public input:

CRC Memo: Ever wonder why we've never been allowed to vote on the CRC? Because public participation has ALWAYS been a scam.

Even in the face of undeniable incompetence, acknowledged by Lefty Lou:

CRC missteps

There have been so many missteps on this Columbia River Crossing project that if it was entered on "Dancing With The Stars," it would be voted off before Mike Tyson. It's just mess after mess. The tomfoolery is epic. Even its most ardent supporters would agree with this. For me, I hold my nose and close my eyes, and say we should move forward.

The rag remains as married to this scam as those running that pig pile are married to their respective spouses.

And that's where Madore comes in.

Madore represents the biggest local threat to the "marriage" between the CRC Scammers and this project.

Add Tom Mielke to the mix... and you have the 3 biggest targets available for Lefty Lou tattoo from his bully pulpit.  And I do mean "bully."

So, what does Brancaccio do?

He contrives an issue (The Benton hiring) liberally applies his leftist double standard, and fools the people into believing that his flip-flop on the issue of the county charter, which every fringe-leftist in the county USED to oppose, is a result of that hiring.  Au contraire!

For Lefty, this is the happy convergence of 3 issues, which he hopes to use to manipulate the ignorant useful tools of the left (And face it, most leftists ARE ignorant, or they wouldn't BE leftists) to do his bidding: specifically, to reduce the power of the conservative wing (Madore and Mielke) of the county commission.

That's the entirety of his motivation: do whatever it takes to shut Madore and Mielke up.

Hatred can do that for a guy.

None of this has anything to do with what's best for the people of this county.  None of this has anything to do with anything except Brancaccio's deep-seated hatred of Benton and Madore as well as Mielke to a perhaps lesser extent.

That's what brings us to today's editorial.

The rag didn't endorse individual freeholder candidates because to do so would likely insure their defeat.  No freeholder candidate wants the wait of a democratian endorsement around their neck in the upcoming election: few candidates in any competitive campaign in SW Washington want that type of damage inflicted upon their efforts.

Having strongly condemned the charter effort in the past, no doubt as a result of the fear enumerated in the democrat newsletter at the time:

They hope to give rural interests dominance over urban values. They suppose they can make it harder for county government to raise and spend money on social problems and infrastructure capital.

We finally get down to it.  What's their number one focus?

 • Yes, Clark County should expand its board of commissioners from three members to five. Much of the support for a new county charter has derived out of some voters' frustration with what they perceive as a dominant two-person coalition among the commissioners. Expanding the board would eliminate the possibility of it being controlled by a party of two.

"Controlled by a party of two?"

Odd.  When the democrats were at least the "party of two" (Or three) as they have been for at least several decades, this rag had no problem with it.

What's the difference between now... and the entirety of our history as a county... except for their hissy-fit over losing democrat control of the commission... and viewing this as a way around that.

In fact, when this very rag condemned the last effort to vote for a county charter, the board was controlled by a "party of two," in that case, two democrats named Stuart and Boldt.

This is obviously some of the rankest hypocrisy to date by a newspaper known for its hypocrisy.

That the newspaper wants this, again, based on Brancaccio's hatred?  That's reason enough to oppose it.

The rag also wants an elected county executive... ala the ClarkBackward model.  Wonder how they'd like it if David Madore were that executive?

I'm a "no" on that question as well, primarily because they wrongly believe that they'd get RINO Greg Kimsey the gig... and this is yet another effort to reduce the power of those elected by the people, which, in reality, is what the entirety of this idiocy is all about.