Got one of the endorsements wrong.

I admit it, I was wrong.

Given the democratian's record, and how giddy they were over the GOP kicking out my brother-in-law, Marc Boldt; and how, theoretically, he would further dilute the GOP vote, I was sure they'd endorse him.

Dalesandro was the only democrat.  A fringe-left Obama-ite moron, naturally they'd endorse him.  His hatred of anyone to the right of Mao makes him the exact opposite of what the democratian described him:

He is the only Democrat in the race, and his articulate thoughtfulness demonstrates the demeanor that will be required for a smooth-running council. He opposes the fee waiver and stresses the importance of implementing the new county government as it was spelled out in the charter.

Clearly, the Lazy C was too damned lazy to talk to anyone he works with on the Battle Ground City Council, otherwise they'd have received a different view.

But as the only democrat, he could have been a rabid, obvious Leninist and they'd still have endorsed him.  Meanwhile, his complete lack of experience compared to the others makes him no choice at all, his fringe-left, only-guy-they-could-find-to-run cred, notwithstanding.

This one is a hoot:

Madore and Mielke declined to meet with The Columbian, which leaves us to assess them based upon their records in office.

This from the same crap pile that once endorsed thusly:

 “...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.”

The problem with the most recent democratian lie is their history of hatred towards Mielke and Madore, particularly as expressed by Lying Lefty Lou Brancaccio, precludes any fair assessment of anything they've done.

They don't take endorsements seriously, so why should the candidates?

Missing from the Stewart endorsement was any mention of her valiant, years-long battle against the downtown special interests who were shilling the CRC/Loot Rail scam.

That was a battle fought by all three of the councilors... and a question the democratian never asked because to ask it would be to have both Boldt and Dalesandro on record as supporting that idiocy... and supporting the additional idiocy now under consideration to resurrect the CRC Scam... just calling it another name.

The fact is that the rag has recommended one candidate who worked to cause the damage of inflicting a charter on us without knowing anything about him. 

Any of the councilors would likely be a solid choice for Chair.  And these councilors would have the ability to pick Stewart's replacement which would continue for another year until the next general election, keeping Stewart on the council for several more years.

I've been troubled by the unnecessary drama of David Madore's tenure: I've generally supported his positions but his glaring lack of political acumen which has caused unnecessary community strife has been troubling.

Tom Mielke has been a solid conservative and during the entirety of Boldt's tenure, sat as the only real Republican on the council doing battle on the CTran Board for all of us.  Back in the days when Boldt actually claimed to be a Republican, he actually endorsed fellow-democrat Steve Stuart AGAINST Tom Mielke.

I applaud Madore and Mielke's decision to blow off the editorial board.  The Board's hatred is well known, and their ripe, sickening-smelled bias make ist a complete waste of time.

As I pointed out earlier:

The reason the editorial board was worthless is obvious:

NONE of the candidates were asked what THEY would do... or what they will do... about cross-river transportation issues.

NONE of them were asked about the TriMet idiocy, rampant on the CTran Board that Boldt fought so hard to jack our taxes up for, while voting to exclude tens of thousands of us from having any say... but not on paying their idiotic taxes.

NONE of them were asked about taxes.

NONE of them, unfortunately, were asked about their vision for this county and how it would in any way differ from that of any other candidate.

NONE of them were, in fact, asked about anything that really matters to anyone but the rag.  And why weren't they asked that?

They weren't asked because the rag doesn't want us to know.

And they don't want us to know because the answer would likely result in an outcome they don't like.

Meanwhile, the "best option to begin to repair the damage, end divisiveness" would be for either the rag to close down, or a decision to get rid of the scum running it.

As the mouth organ for the fringe left, the lying sockpuppet of the butt hurt, in the end, the "damage" the scum at the rag would have us "repair" is an increasingly lower unemployment rate, exploding economic growth and councilors who actually listen to the people... and not the special interests that they are so much involved with.

Either way would go the farthest to bring this community together... unlike electing either Boldt or Dalesandro, neither of whom should be should be elected to 3rd grade hall monitor.