“a type of political organization. It typically seeks to influence, direct, or entirely perform government policy; usually by nominating their own candidates and trying to seat them in political office.[1] Parties participate in electoral campaigns, awareness outreach, or protest actions. Parties often espouse an ideology or vision, expressed in a party program, bolstered by a written platform with specific goals, forming a coalition among disparate interests.”In short, they act in such a way to separate themselves from competing ideologies in a marketing and organizational sense. When, as in this case, one party allows themselves to be co-opted by the other, it effectively eliminates reasons to vote for the party in question.
 |
| Obama's use of a Wounded Warrior as a political prop. No mention of restoring the GOP cuts to his disability pension. |
Wasn't too far off.Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Steve Stuart: depression poster boy?
Now that the people have finally been heard, what does that mean for odd man out, Steve Stuart?
Well, if I'm Stuart, and I saw such a dramatic role-reversal, I'd start looking for a new rope, because here's the options... and none of them are pretty.
If Stuart thought the people were angry at Boldt, he ain't seen nothing yet.
First of all, the fact is that now, with his ascension into the actual minority (as opposed to the faux minority he was in with a fake Republican) will Stuart become that which the fishwrapper claimed was Mielke's biggest problem?
Tanner is challenging lackluster incumbent Tom Mielke, perhaps best known for the great glee with which he repeatedly announces "No!" on critical issues and creative solutions facing the county.The endorsement of the CRC lackies included the usual sheer, unadulterated idiocy the rag is known for:
...
In clear contrast, Mielke and Madore are entrenched in party doctrine, inflexible and unreceptive to suggestions from outside their partisan camps. When the prospect of a local professional baseball team surfaced (the proposal later failed), Mielke opposed even discussing the issue.
For the record, Boldt is a Republican and Tanner is a Democrat, but that really doesn't seem to matter, especially in Boldt's case. He remains ensconced in the local GOP doghouse, banished there by party kingpins (to their own detriment) who believe he's not conservative enough. Meanwhile, Boldt has increased his appeal to voters who understand that smart decisions about growth, the environment and the budget are not the province of either political party.For the record, Boldt had been acting politically in every imaginable way like a democrat; he spoke like one, exaggerated like one, lied like one and ignored the people like one.
The partisan bias that blinded Brancaccio when he wrote this garbage was clearly that: the vote totals show that literally thousands of democrats refused to vote for Boldt because of that very party affiliation this moron claimed "doesn't seem to matter."
In fact, this is the worst... and perhaps the ONLY defeat of an incumbent commissioner I can find since that idiot Bussy Nutley was tossed because of the stupidity of her Growth Management hijinks.
That said, there are two things I CAN guarantee: Steve Stuart will no doubt, say "no" just as often, if not more often, than Tom Mielke, and there is no way in hell the rag would diss him like they did Mielke for doing absolutely and precisely the same thing AS Mielke for the next two years.
You will note that the moronic description of Boldt's actions, that he "understand(s) that smart decisions about growth, the environment and the budget are not the province of either political party," is applied to someone who ONLY adopted democrat positions, inferring that all tenets of Republicanism that Boldt were SUPPOSED to follow are, in fact, just the opposite of "smart," yet another symptom of the bias of this rag.
So, Stuart has a decision to make. He's actually caught between something of a rock and hard place here, a location no one in their right mind would ever knowingly assume.
He can move to the right and present a unified front against the incursion of the unwanted, unneeded and unaffordable CRC scam that he has been stupidly advocating for years.... or he can become the next Marc Boldt, ending his political career and any chance he may believe he has to either continue on as a commissioner or to run for, say, Congress.
Anger is the critical element in getting rid of an incumbent. Stuart's insistence on supporting the continued waste and extortion of the CRC will certainly achieve that. The problem is that if he reverse "Leave-it's" this thing, if he flips, the same outcome will happen to him from the D-side as what happened to Boldt from the R side.
A well-financed Republican running in Stuart's commissioner district could make it to the general. And if one did under these circumstances, then it would likely be all over for Stuart county-wide.
Just watching Jim "My middle name is Hussein" Moeller's head explode would be enough by itself to make it worth it.
If he sticks to his guns and just votes "no" all the time (Remember, the rag only admires right to left compromise... and abhors left to right compromise) while continuing his support of the biggest scam, outside that moron in the White House, that this region has ever seen... well, come November 2014, the electorate will tee off on him the same way they tee'd off on Boldt.... and that's not an enviable position to be in.
What's a commissioner to do?
it is reasonable to expect an immediate charter vote, for example. It's reasonable to expect a county-wide advisory vote so weasels like Leave-it can stop acting like he believes his lies about the outcomes of this past election.
And it's reasonable to expect further lay offs and, perhaps, other pay roll reductions and retirement/benefit reductions for county employees... like, for example, every PAO.
And it's reasonable to expect that Steve Stuart will require medication very soon.
In Our View: Washington, Revive CRCFirst and foremost, anything that these clowns demand concerning the CRC Scam, has, at the end of their tunnel, light rail. This entire project has been about nothing but light rail. There are numerous and multiple frontal attacks, exaggerations, outright lies, threats, the endless lists of fallacious reasoning as to why we shouldn’t that this entire County from the next 45 years of ever-increasing tolls, starting with the hundred million dollars a year being sucked out of our local economy having failed… They now shift target slightly, and suggests that a bridge should be built that’s light rail capable.
State Legislature must help fund new I-5 Bridge without light rail -- for now
Now, it seems, no less than the Supreme Court of Oregon agrees... with me.The democratian’s idiotic editorial this morning changes nothing in that regard. Furthermore, it puts to light the hypocrisy of our local newspaper, which has repeatedly claimed that the Washington legislature’s input is not needed in this “Oregon go it alone” program.
The Oregon Supreme Court has succeeded in doing what scores of public meetings, thousands of pages of reports, and endless public relations spin could not: Give us the original rationale behind the proposed $3.5 billion Columbia River Crossing.
.
The answer, according to the court: The massive Interstate 5 bridge and freeway project is a “political necessity” to persuade Clark County residents to accept something they previously didn’t want—a MAX light-rail line from Portland to Vancouver. (To read the Feb. 16, 2012 Oregon Supreme Court decision regarding the Columbia River Crossing Project, click here (PDF, 18 pages))
.
Project opponents filed a legal challenge to the way Metro, the regional planning agency, granted sweeping land-use approval to the project. The Oregon Supreme Court sided mostly with Metro.
.
But Chief Justice Paul De Muniz, writing for the majority, highlighted an inconvenient set of facts for CRC backers.
.
He wrote in the Feb. 16 opinion that most of the project—namely the 10-lane freeway bridge and new interchanges—was put forward to get Clark County to agree to the light-rail line.
.
De Muniz cited statements that Metro made in the land-use process and Metro’s lawyer repeated before his court.
.
“It was politically impossible for the light rail project to proceed without also building new interstate bridges across the Columbia River,” De Muniz wrote.
.
“Or as Metro later summarized it: ‘There is no light rail without the freeway bridge[s] being replaced.’”
.
Backers have cited traffic and safety issues as the top reasons to build the CRC. But the court ruling means those and other justifications were created after officials decided to give a sop to Clark County, now worth $2.5 billion.
RCW 39.34.080
Contracts to perform governmental activities which each contracting agency is authorized to perform.
Any one or more public agencies may contract with any one or more other public agencies to perform any governmental service, activity, or undertaking which each public agency entering into the contract is authorized by law to perform: PROVIDED, that such contract shall be authorized by the governing body of each party to the contract. Such contract shall set forth fully the purposes, powers, rights, objectives, and responsibilities of the contracting parties.And who is one to believe the governing body of each party in such a contract actually is?
N.Y. Rep. Grimm Threatens Reporter on Camera
Rep. Michael Grimm of New York, under investigation for alleged campaign finance improprieties, threatened to throw a reporter off a balcony during an interview following President Obama’s State of the Union speech Tuesday night.
After being asked by NY1 reporter Michael Scotto about the investigation, Grimm replied, "That’s off-topic. This is only about president’s speech,” and walked off camera.
Scotto briefly concluded his report, and Grimm -- assuming the broadcast was over -- returned to admonish the reporter. The camera remained on, however. “Let me be clear to you: You ever do that to me again, I’ll throw you off this f------ balcony,” Grimm threatened.
After a brief back-and-forth about the validity of the question, Grimm concluded, “No, no, you’re not man enough, you’re not man enough. I’ll break you in half. Like a boy.”
Both NY1 and Grimm’s office released statements following the incident.
“I was extremely annoyed because I was doing NY1 a favor by rushing to do their interview first in lieu of several other requests,” New York City’s lone Republican congressman said in a statement. “The reporter knew that I was in a hurry and was only there to comment on the State of the Union, but insisted on taking a disrespectful and cheap shot at the end of the interview, because I did not have time to speak off-topic.”
Grimm continued, “I verbally took the reporter to task and told him off, because I expect a certain level of professionalism and respect, especially when I go out of my way to do that reporter a favor. I doubt that I am the first Member of Congress to tell off a reporter, and I am sure I won’t be the last.”
In his own statement, NY1 Political Director Bob Hardt called for Grimm to apologize, describing the congressman’s comments as “extremely disturbing.”
“The NY1 family is certainly alarmed and disappointed by the behavior of Representative Grimm and demands a full apology from him. This behavior is unacceptable,” Hardt asserted.
Two of Grimm’s donors, including a former girlfriend, have been arrested in connection with the investigation. Grimm has not been charged, and he has denied any misconduct.
Let me say on the outset that I’m not a constituent. I did, however, spend 6 years on staff as Marc Boldt’s LA in the House so I have at least a vague clue as to how things work up there. Thus, an “SNR” (Sincere Non-Response) is not necessary.
I am also an Army Veteran (Enlisted/commissioned – Infantry/Armor/Administration – 14 years) and was involved in the American Legion up to my eyeballs (Including 5th District Commander of Washington) a while back so I also have some vague knowledge of weaponry. Further, I hold a CWP since I received death threats working for then Rep. Boldt, some 17 years or so ago. I am rarely unarmed in public.
I cannot adequately express my disappointment in your actions regarding this bill, but one of the joys of the First Amendment and the other Rights I prepaid through my service to this country is the ability to both speak my mind AND to speak it to you.
During my time up there, I was privileged to see both the best and the worst of this body of people.
Your actions here are among the worst, because this effort will accomplish absolutely nothing of what you want it to.
This bill is a classic case of confusing “motion” with “action.” As both a legislator and a police officer, you feel compelled to do SOMETHING in the face of Sandy Hook, presumably. You obviously believe in this effort, unintended consequences notwithstanding, or you wouldn’t be doing it. Unfortunately, except for punishing those of us who obey the law f you are likely to describe it will in and or the actions of those who do not, this bill accomplishes absolutely nothing positive.
Sandy Hook is yet another name that will live in infamy. The question I have is this: what in this bill would have stopped it?That is the crux of the matter. And no amount of testimony from Gabrielle Giffords will change it.
That this bill, had it been fully implemented, would have made no difference in Sandy Hook is the thing.
That this bill would do nothing to improve the security of soft targets like schools is the thing.
That this bill punishes those of us who follow the law for the actions of those who break the law is the thing.
That this bill will make no impact on street sales, where guns are sold to those who are not supposed to have them (Felons, for example) is the thing.
That this bill will do nothing to stop anyone from, say, buying a gun in Oregon or Idaho without undergoing this nonsense is the thing.
In fact, I offer you one word that sums up the ultimate aim of the democrats you are joining with: Chicago.
This bill accomplishes absolutely nothing except to increase the bureaucracy (always a democrat goal) and provide revenue to the state (always a democrat goal) while making it more difficult for those who obey the law to purchase weapons.
It's difficult to see where THAT isn't the real goal of this idiocy: and why would government want it to be more difficult for the law-abiding to buy weapons?
We have a Constitution. It sets limits on government. This bill appears to cavalierly violate those limits.
Those who obey the law will suffer. Those who break the law won't even notice... or care. And it seems to me that government's priorities are just the tiniest bit screwed up here.
I don’t doubt your sincerity. But I would wish that in this instance, like all others where legislation is proposed or supported, those doing the proposing or supporting would stand back and see what the outcome would be BEFORE this (or any other bill) is passed into law.
This bill will not do what it appears that you want it to do. But it will harm those of us who obey the law. And I find it hard to believe you seem unaware of that… so I thought I’d take this opportunity to write to a legislator not in my district (18th) to let them know what *I* see.
A few amendments won’t help this fundamentally flawed bill. There are many other options available that would not be offensive to my rights… such as mandatory life sentences for anyone using a weapon during the course of committing a crime.
After all, if you want to stop the use of a weapon for an illegal purpose, what better way to do that then actually holding the perpetrator accountable instead of further restricting those of us who follow the law because of the actions of others?
What a novel concept.
Your web site is replete with all the pats on the back from the left. There doesn’t seem to be much discussion there of the opposing point of view. I would suggest that perhaps you give that opposing view a little more thought.
Thank you for your time.
Kitzhaber reiterated that the revised CRC is financially and legally possible based on recent reviews. But the project still needs key intergovernmental agreements — which don’t require legislative approval — between the two states to work. Kitzhaber said he wants “appropriate action” from Washington by March 15.Why they keep repeating the lie that this won't "require legislative approval?"
"If we start with the most volatile issue from the start, it may tank the whole process," Herrera Beutler said. With an estimated 11 million immigrants in the United States illegally, the country can't afford for the process to be tanked again.When the alternative is horrific, of course it can. This is one of those rare instances when, in fact, it IS better to do nothing than sell out in yet another attempt to out-democrat the democrats.
Immigration will be a major topic for Congress this year, and it will be important to the Northwest — especially in the agriculture-dominated eastern portions of Washington and Oregon. Many industries rely upon undocumented workers, even as the country is ramping up efforts to keep such workers out. As the (Spokane) Spokesman-Review wrote last year: "Our nation needs to resolve the contradictory 'Help Wanted' and 'Keep Out' messages we send across our borders."Odd, isn't it? We have millions more illegals here than ever before, and farmers can't get workers.
I'm mystified by the responses here.
The left screams about money and Madore having "bought" this seat... but they remain remarkably silent when a democrat spends millions of her own money to get elected to the Senate (Cantwell in 2000) or Congress (DelBene in 2012).
The rank hypocrisy of it is the problem I have.
Madore's money makes HIM bad, but the rock-solid support of these two democrats... democrats who make Madore's spending look like a drop in the bucket?
Situational ethics doesn't become anyone, left or right.
Further, Joe Tanner outspent Tom Mielke 8 to 1, including spending almost $50,000 of HIS own money... and that's just swell. Tanner was crushed, by the way. And that's another thing the left never mentions around here.
There is one reason and one reason only that Stuart won't run: he knows he would lose.
Tom Mielke faced the same "negativity" for FOUR YEARS and still ran for reelection, even though he was the only Republican on the council.
Stuart saw all this. He watched as Boldt got hammered. He knew that he was likely to go the same way, and then he saw the precinct maps that showed a deep-seated hatred of his pet project... and he knows down to the cellular level that he... cannot... win.
Better to leave on your own terms than to get thrown out like Marc.
And finally, in Stuart's OWN WORDS during a council meeting just a few short weeks ago:
"And I've said it before: I don't speak for the people... I will NEVER speak for "the people," I speak for Steve and some of you are going to agree with me and some of you aren't."
Betty Sue, as a democrat, you might like, admire and respect this kind of arrogance.
But I didn't bolt on the Army uniform for 14 years to support that kind of attitude.
The people of this county have spoken. Your hatred of their decision does not become you. But that you don't like it is rather meaningless.
Steve Stuart is a disgrace. He sold us out to TriMet, he admits he never listened... and you are oh, so enamored with that kind of thing.
Stuart is going to be gone. He's likely got his next high dollar gig lined up and it's likely to be quite the payoff for his vote raping the people of this county.
