Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Robert Dean: "Grossly unfair" to catagorize Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers as a "RINO." Au contraire, mon frere.

Yesterday's post regarding what the RINO's will do in response to a Trump or Cruz nomination apparently lit the oil spilled over our troubled political waters.  Some on the list of those I'd dive into a vat of boiling expended uranium before I would vote for them seemed a bit piqued at that sort of labeling.  Rank hypocrisy on their part and all that.

Robert Dean, one of many far more articulate and informed political commentators than my own meager effort here, expresses his dismay at including my state senator, Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers, on such a list.

He writes:
It is grossly unfair to call Ann a Rino based only on her gas tax vote. She explained how much that pained her but the system (and the Governor) is corrupt. If she had taken a principled stand and sacrificed her career in politics for conservative principles it would have hurt us - we would not get the earmarks and we would be paying for even more infrastructure projects in Seattle
That's a great deal of misinformation in such a short paragraph.

It's exactly what Gas Tax wants everyone to think, of course.  She wants her constituency to believe she did us a favor by screwing each family of 4 in Clark County with, say, a $6000 in a tax/fee hit over the next 10 years or so.  But to that I say the following:

1.  No one alive around here outside her immediate family knows her on a political level better than I.

2.  There is far more to it than just a gas tax/tab fee increase that she voted for which the last election shows a paltry 70% or so of her district opposed.

3.  She lied.

I have worked with and had a business relationship with Rivers since the 2004 campaign.  I know things about her, including her recent efforts to damage me professionally because I hold her accountable for her actions, that have served to reinforce the RINO characterization in many ways... some, not yet public.

The "Gas Tax" labeling is but a part of the reasoning she completely qualifies for the title "RINO."

I get how she lied about her reasons, such as they were, for voting for this idiocy.  I get how she was the only Republican to vote for the gas tax increase in the 17th and 18th Districts.  I get how all the democrats around here, who she voted with, voted FOR the gas tax and tab fee increases. I get that she opposed a referendum clause, because, God Forbid, we should have a say in this when it's very likely the "say" would have been "no."

How "democrat" of them.  Why even bother to elect Republicans who ignore republican tenets when it suits them?

I get that she supported applying an emergency clause to make it practically impossible for an effort to rise up, put the signatures together and allow us to decide the question of providing $700 million to Seattle... generally, and the people of this state particularly... a vote on the largest gas tax increase in our history.

Like this... was an emergency?

I get all of that.  But most of all, I get how she lied to get elected and then abused the emergency clause and THEN... voted like a democrat... in short, earning the RINO sobriquet.

But I also get where she supported allowing those shilling initiatives to lie to us to get them passed, only to let those millionaires involved off the hook by cutting the promised tax revenue requirement on pot... that we voted into place... in half... reaffirming the message that it's perfectly OK for anyone, be they a government or private entity, to come along and lie to us to get their project built, their law passed... or in her case, getting elected to office.

The system that you characterize as "corrupt?"

That's the system she was/is a part of.

How did going along with this rape improve that system?  How did rewarding that system for being corrupt accomplish anything?  And what does the governor, save providing cover to the GOP Senate with his bogus and obviously false claim that he would, through executive order, do what he's now working to have the Department of Ecology do... namely, implement a carbon tax... have to do with Rivers deciding to ignore and betray her district?

It's not like she didn't know the gas tax would be hated here: and she has ONE JOB.  and THAT job is to VOTE HER DISTRICT.  This district demanded her vote would be in opposition to the extortion she supported... and she KNEW it... and voted for it anyway.

And the result is a $700 million debt to Clark County; of which we get roughly $200 million back; of which $100 million is wasted on rebuilding a perfectly functional and working freeway intersection at Mill Plain and I-5, one of the CRC Scam projects.

Meanwhile, perhaps the worst freeway intersection in the country... going northbound on I-5 from SR 500, goes unaddressed...

And, of course, she lied to get elected.

This is from her campaign web site, which was up for the entire time she was doing this to us until, finally, she took it down in shame at the lies she told to get elected:


The "money quotes" out of all of that are these:


"I will not support an increase in the gas tax."

"I will not support increases in tab fees."

"The people have spoken and I have listened."

Looks fairly straight forward to me.

"I will not," fill-in-the-blank.

"The people have spoken and I have listened."  Well, maybe not.

I knew the language.  I wrote it, if memory serves.

I, for one, am heartily sick of our politicians lying to us to get elected, only to forget their promises whenever it's convenient for them to do so.

Rivers, you see, was supposed to be "different."  She was supposed to be the one who actually listened.  Who actually voted her district.  Who actually was incorruptible.  My assigned job was to keep her "grounded," to make sure she wasn't corrupted and to make sure that first, last and always... her district came first.

Where's the disclaimer?  Where's the "except for this" part of her promises?  Do you see that anywhere?

Would she even BE a senator if she had written what she was TRULY going to do on this?  Can you see her back in 2010, running for the state House, writing a platform that included other things she's done nothing about? 

Where would she have been today if she had written on either her 2010 or 2012 platform, "oh yeah, by the way, when the time comes and under certain circumstances, I AM going to vote for the biggest gas tax and tab fee increases (remember the $30 tab fee limits we, the people, voted in?  I do) in our state's history without giving you voters any say..."

Would she have even survived the primary?

Of course not.  And in your book and the book of so many others politically inclined, her dishonesty is a thing she should be rewarded for.  Brent Boger and Philip Johnson in Battle Ground have been wearing out kneepads in front of her ever since she screwed us, for example.

She used to be rather contemptuous of Boger.  Not so much any more, eh?  Politics sure makes strange bedfellows.

Swell.  But that begs the issue: what else is she lying to us about?  What other promises is she going to make that "circumstances" will somehow "force" her to fail to do what she pledged, or to do what she pledged she would NOT do?

Because if she gets away with this... what lie is off the table?  How does not addressing this here and now send the message that lying to your constituency is not tolerated around here... as opposed to embraced and encouraged... like you are here, Robert?

And Robert, the very idea that taking a "principled stand," in this case, failing to vote the way the last election indicated 70% of her district WANTED her to vote... somehow would result in the "sacrifice (of) her career in politics?"  How do you get THAT?

How does voting the way the overwhelming majority of your district wants you to vote result in "sacrificing" anything?

Does her vote on the gas tax and tab fee increases make it MORE likely or LESS likely that she voluntarily impaled her career when she lied to get elected and abandoned her district in the process, saddling each person in Clark County with a $1500+ gas tax/tab fee increase charge ($700 million divided by the current population) that we are responsible for paying... and all without asking us?

The fact is that a properly handled primary challenge would destroy Rivers.  And if that happens, she has no one to blame but herself.

And the idea that it's perfectly acceptable to lie under the right circumstances... that it's better to get something out of it then noting... the old "when rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it" dodge... and then wonder what else she's going to be lying about next when circumstances permit... THAT is what's going to be the crux of the sacrifice of her career.

You see, she may very well have achieved that which you feared... the sacrifice of her career by lying and betraying her district... just not in the way you want.

*I* have to live here.  I have to live with the knowledge that I spent hundreds... if not thousands of hours into the effort to get her into office and keep her there.

And, of course, *I* have to pay the taxes and fees she helped to jack up when she SHOULD have been doing all she could to get us a vote on this.

But no... she voted with... and like... the democrats... supporting a bogus emergency clause and supporting the effort to keep a referendum clause out of it.

THAT was her job.  And her claims about the "why" she screwed us are no more valid than her promises not to do precisely and absolutely what she did: vote to increase our gas taxes and tab fees... an effort on her part that will hurt us for years and years to come.

So, for me, the choice is simple: do I turn a blind eye to this perfidy?  Do I simply nod like the rest of the sheep and just open my wallet a little wider?  Do I just go along with the program and applaud her rank dishonesty?

Hell, no, I don't.  And, as I recall, you don't live here, so you have the luxury of telling us how to vote and what will "hurt us."

Because I would venture to say that she has hurt us quite enough as it is by voting like, thinking like and acting like a democrat... which, come to think of it, is the very definition of the thing you claim she is not.

Thanks for stopping by.

No comments: