Sunday, January 10, 2016

Sen. Ann Rivers: Keeping your word makes you a "pansy."

Rivers:  "I wasn't sent to Olympia to be a pansy."

Hinton:  "No... you were sent up there to keep your word."

(NOTE:  These videos of Sen. Rivers will not play on Firefox.  Please use some other browser.)

I heard a new term yesterday at the town hall meeting held by Sen. Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers.

She wasn't exactly "lying" when she promised not to vote for a gas tax or tab fee increase and then proceed to do so: she was "politically maturing."

Pure bullshit, of course.

You see, Rivers' only regret in this matter isn't that she lied to get elected.  She admits it, in a matter of speaking.

No, her regret is that she made the pledge in the first place.  And, I'm sure in the face of her failure to uphold her promise to us, she DOES "regret" it because her explanation has no teeth... no justification.

I refer to it as the "when rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it" defense.

Her excuse as she explained it at the town hall meeting was that she didn't "intend" to lie, but that she wrongly believed that she could "do anything" in Olympia.  And, of course, "they had the votes."

Be forewarned about Rivers: any time "they have the votes," she will cave, no matter the pledge, no matter the promise.  Because she has "politically matured."

The problem with that garbage is simple: Rivers wasn't a political neophyte.  She had served 2 years as a state representative before she ran to keep her appointed senate seat.

Further, she had worked as a political consultant in legislative races for the better part of 10 years before she ran for the state House... also having served on legislative staff in Alaska, if memory serves.

Yet, we're supposed to believe she went into this with the innocence of some sort of wide-eyed child?

So, her explanation simply doesn't pass the smell test.

When I finished asking her the question, which went something like this:

Having congratulated Rep. Vick for voting against the gas tax (I guess, under Rivers' definition, every other Republican in the core districts; all of whom voted "no," including Rep. Vick, who was holding the town hall meeting with her, were all "politically immature" as opposed to her) I then said,

"Words cannot adequately express my disappointment in Sen. Rivers, who ran on a platform of opposing a gas tax or tab fee increase... only to ignore her promise when the time came to vote on it.

So now, the question is simple: when do we believe you?

You stand up there and you say you're going to do a and b and c and d... but how do we know?"

Rivers, obviously pissed at me, replied by asking me if I had finished my "soliloquy."  (Others had spoken for far longer... far, far longer... on many other subjects.)

She then launched into a series of excuses, which included "regretting" that she had actually put that up on her campaign web site, but that she had "politically matured."

"Politically matured" being code speak for "caving and ignoring her promise."

She never did say how we were supposed to ferret out the truth from the lies, but she asked the rhetorical question of those present: of those of you I've made a deal with, how many times have I reneged?

I responded by telling her "but you made a deal with us, and it helped to get you elected."

She also mentioned that her choice was to vote "yes" and get the district "a $100 million worth of something" or vote no and cost us the money ANYWAY, with nothing to show for it.

Except the $700 million bill of $1500+ per man, woman and child in Clark County.

I was reminded of the alleged Churchillian joke:

“Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"

Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course..."

Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"

Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"

Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”

How much is Rivers' word worth to her?  In those representing me, I want it to be priceless.

Meanwhile, as I pointed out, roughly 70% of the voters in this district thought it was such a great idea that they voted against the gas tax increase in the advisory vote last November.  Clearly, they did not share her view.

She told us "They had the votes."  And the choice was to hang a $700 million bill on Clark County or a $7 BILLION dollar bill if she had voted "no."  I was reminded of the infamous MACV briefer in Vietnam, now known for the utterance that morphed into "In order to save the village, we had to destroy it."

And, of course, there's the "pansy" allegation she so wanted to avoid:

Rivers' response is an outright lie, of course.  If they "had the votes," the same bill would have passed WITHOUT her "yes" vote and the $7 billion claim, as fallacious and bizarre as that is, would STILL be in place... as if that bill is going to keep Inslee from doing anything, since she knows, I know and INSLEE knows that there's a million ways to skin that cat and none of them have anything to do with a fictitious executive order that he could never legally sign or enforce.

As a constituent... but not one with the deep pockets of those who will finance her political career... The special interests who will make bank off of her distribution of OUR largess, I would rather not reap the benefit of her betrayal.

And if it had been Sen. Hinton, the ONLY way I would have voted for this is if it had a referendum clause attached.  Period.

Rivers had that option and refused it, instead, cementing her betrayal by doing nothing to enable our voice to be the loudest in this sad scenario.

Meanwhile, her fellow gun-grabbing leftists in the crowd were thrilled with her response (And their bogus preaching about refugees and guns did tend to set them aside as a group)

Clearly, then, every time Rivers makes any kind of political pledge or promise, it needs to have a "politically maturing" clause attached to it, so she can feel free to ignore her district and vote precisely like every legislative democrat in the 49th District did... for tax increases, for a bogus, nonsensical "emergency clause," and against a referendum clause to allow those of us paying the bills to actually make the call.

Isn't it nice to be "represented?"

Look.  I hope that whoever runs against Rivers wins.  I don't really give a damn what party they are.  I would rather have the furthest-to-the-left, Bernie Sanders socialist have the job if they told the truth, then someone who's every utterance has to be vetted for authenticity and veracity.

This past session proved that left or right in control of the state senate it all too frequently doesn't matter, as this $15 BILLION package shows.... as the Dream Act nonsense shows... as so much in politics shows.

No comments: