Look, I'm no Weber fan for the public reason the democratian utilizes:
That applies to Tim "The Liar" Leave-it, who's lies to get elected concerning his position on the CRC/Loot Rail scam were so egregious he should be put on the "no fly" list.
It applies to Scott Weber. Naturally, then that would typically mean that I might vote for Pauli-Hammond.
Let's see.
So, for the rag, then, they tell us that Weber did an OK job.
And should that... and that alone... not be the basis for endorsements?
Shift your attention, however, to leftists the rag has endorsed in the past and will endorse now: could that description apply to The Liar Leavitt? What about Jim "Molehill" Moeller?
Nothing they write about P-H justifies replacing a guy who, they admit, "...has performed the job well and has done nothing to embarrass his office."
So, no... I will not vote for either. You see, it's not so much the outcome... it's the reasoning and the bias behind it.
Here's an example of that transference:
The democrat front C2G2 hate site loves her. One of it's primary haters had this to write about her:
Not that Wollert's endorsement means anything positive, but like most of us, Wollert knows no more about the Clerk's Office than she does brain surgery.
In the end, Wollert's "support" along with that of her fellow leftists is not based on who's best... but is, instead, based on rank partisanship.
No, I am not going to vote for Weber. But I am also not going to vote for any rank partisan who's primary concern is her party affiliation instead of service to the people.
The democratian has no particular reason to recommend Pauli-Hammond, save her political affiliation. And while they may not endorse everyone using that reasoning, let's remember, they have sunk so low that they've endorsed a candidate in the past simply because he wasn't the incumbent.
Had Pauli-Hammond stuck to saying she was better for the job and then proved it (which I do not believe she has, since she knows no more about how the Clerk's Office is run than the democratian knows anything about truth or fairness.) and distanced herself from being a fringe-left nutter, then I could, possible have voted for her.
After all, for example, I am voting for Tony Golik, who's measured approach to what, like the Clerk's Office, should be a non-partisan office at most and an appointed office at best stands as an example of the right thing to do. I could have voted for her, as well. But her rabid partisanship also disqualifies her from holding that office.
Had Scott Weber even gone through the motions, this would be a non-issue. I warned him repeatedly. And repeatedly, he ignored me.
I expect that the democratian will continue their pattern of partisan hatred and situational ethics so present in their endorsements. I expect that they will apply one set of standards to the candidates they support and a different set of candidates to those they support. And, I expect that most of those will be democrats.
Sadly, this is one of those seats along with my congressional vote and the vote in the Briggs-Vick House race that will get a write-in from me. And, as always, democratian support usually stands as a major reason to do the opposite, given that the rag has a history of pettiness, situational ethics, lies and exaggeration to get what they want at the policy level.
In 2010, as a political novice, Weber ran for the office with a platform of abolishing it. For that election, he wrote in the Voters' Pamphlet, "We need to manage our public money better. One way to do that is to eliminate elected offices that have very limited functions. … If elected I will work to eliminate the office which will save the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. While I work to phase the office out, I will do everything I can to save taxpayer money."Unfortunately, he made no real effort to do that. As I have written repeatedly, I cannot and will not support someone who lied to get into office.
That applies to Tim "The Liar" Leave-it, who's lies to get elected concerning his position on the CRC/Loot Rail scam were so egregious he should be put on the "no fly" list.
It applies to Scott Weber. Naturally, then that would typically mean that I might vote for Pauli-Hammond.
Let's see.
So, for the rag, then, they tell us that Weber did an OK job.
To be fair, the argument can be made that county clerk should be an unelected position, or at least a nonpartisan one — although endorsements in this race fall mostly along party lines. And, to be fair, while Weber is a reluctant politician, he has improved online access to documents and has reduced printing in his office to "paper-on-demand." He has performed the job well and has done nothing to embarrass his office."He has performed the job well and has done nothing to embarrass his office."
And should that... and that alone... not be the basis for endorsements?
Shift your attention, however, to leftists the rag has endorsed in the past and will endorse now: could that description apply to The Liar Leavitt? What about Jim "Molehill" Moeller?
Nothing they write about P-H justifies replacing a guy who, they admit, "...has performed the job well and has done nothing to embarrass his office."
So, no... I will not vote for either. You see, it's not so much the outcome... it's the reasoning and the bias behind it.
Here's an example of that transference:
The democrat front C2G2 hate site loves her. One of it's primary haters had this to write about her:
Michele Wollert · Top Commenter
I talked with Ms. Pauli Hammond for the first time a couple of weeks ago and was so very impressed with her client-centered and compassionate approach to those who must navigate the court system, especially when they have been traumatized. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and confidentiality. I will let her own words explain:
"I am also a passionate advocate for programs to prevent against domestic violence and elder abuse as well as for lower income families to get the assistance they need in a friendly, compassionate and expedient manner. I plan to provide sufficient access to the resources needed to fill out and file the correct paperwork, such as in-house Kiosks with step by step instructions in a private secure location."
Deanna Pauli Hammond has my vote and endorsement, too.
Not that Wollert's endorsement means anything positive, but like most of us, Wollert knows no more about the Clerk's Office than she does brain surgery.
In the end, Wollert's "support" along with that of her fellow leftists is not based on who's best... but is, instead, based on rank partisanship.
No, I am not going to vote for Weber. But I am also not going to vote for any rank partisan who's primary concern is her party affiliation instead of service to the people.
The democratian has no particular reason to recommend Pauli-Hammond, save her political affiliation. And while they may not endorse everyone using that reasoning, let's remember, they have sunk so low that they've endorsed a candidate in the past simply because he wasn't the incumbent.
“...although sincere and well-intentioned, lacks even a rudimentary understanding of the important policy questions for Southwest Washington and the state. About the only attribute in his favor is the fact that he’s not Don Benton. And on that admittedly flimsy basis, we endorse Peterson.”This KIND of hatred is what drives both the democratian, which spewed that garbage on Benton's 2000 Senate race endorsement, merely because the democrat clown they ran wasn't Benton, but also the C3G2 haters and the pro-Charter scammers.
Had Pauli-Hammond stuck to saying she was better for the job and then proved it (which I do not believe she has, since she knows no more about how the Clerk's Office is run than the democratian knows anything about truth or fairness.) and distanced herself from being a fringe-left nutter, then I could, possible have voted for her.
After all, for example, I am voting for Tony Golik, who's measured approach to what, like the Clerk's Office, should be a non-partisan office at most and an appointed office at best stands as an example of the right thing to do. I could have voted for her, as well. But her rabid partisanship also disqualifies her from holding that office.
Had Scott Weber even gone through the motions, this would be a non-issue. I warned him repeatedly. And repeatedly, he ignored me.
I expect that the democratian will continue their pattern of partisan hatred and situational ethics so present in their endorsements. I expect that they will apply one set of standards to the candidates they support and a different set of candidates to those they support. And, I expect that most of those will be democrats.
Sadly, this is one of those seats along with my congressional vote and the vote in the Briggs-Vick House race that will get a write-in from me. And, as always, democratian support usually stands as a major reason to do the opposite, given that the rag has a history of pettiness, situational ethics, lies and exaggeration to get what they want at the policy level.
1 comment:
Let's not forget either that Pauli Hammond claimed her reason for running is that now that her kids are grown, she has time to do things.
I don't necessarily believe someone running to escape empty nest boredom is a good enough reason to elect them.
Scott should have made efforts on his campaign promise, but as has been said, the Clerks office is running smoothly and efficiently.
The Lazy C just wants more Democrats elected, even when they announce their token Republican endorsements they will do nothing to support.
Post a Comment