The weirdness of the so-called "80% rule."

So, I was looking at Lew Water's facebook page this evening, and he was going rah, rah to Sen. Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers getting some worthless award or another from some group that doesn't matter... but provides her with an excuse to tell the world how great she is.

Now, let there be no doubt: Waters supports anyone opposed to the current CCGOP regime, and that means he automatically supports the whack jobs at the CCRINO group and, of course, that means he supports their biggest funder, Sen. Gas Tax, since their avowed mission is to destroy anyone related to or supportive of the current CCGOP leadership... because he loathes it as much as they do.

When asked about his support of Rivers, who has screwed this entire county sideways with her gas tax vote betrayal while lying... for over a year... about how much money she had amassed in her campaign war chest... which I busted her for... successfully... a few weeks ago.

Lew's response is to be expected:

Lew Waters I've known Ann for a few years and like with every other politician, I don't always agree with everything they do. But like Ronald Reagan said, “That person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally; not a 20 percent traitor.”

Well, I've known Rivers since 2004.  We've been co-workers and colleagues, we've been in business together; we've been family friends.

And while I can appreciate what Reagan said back then, and I appreciate that Lew uses it to give himself cover here, the fact is that it's fundamentally untrue.

The numbers projected are simplistic and absolutes to many; as I said, Lew uses them to give his unbridled support of Rivers cover.

But let's be real here: the primary driver of Lew's support for Rivers isn't her political positions; it's her opposition to Madore and her support of Crain's psychotic CCRINO outfit that she donated $1300 of campaign funds to a few weeks back that puts the rest of this together.

You see, I loath Rivers.  I do.  Not because of her political positions; but because she lied to get elected... and refused to admit she lied and then lied about the motivations for her betrayal of us that resulted.

And my guess is that the Gipper's position on the issue did not include those who lied... like Rivers lied... to get elected.

Nor would it include those who lied for over a year to both the people of her district and the people of this state... by $175,000... about how much money she had put together in her campaign account.

For me, the question goes far beyond mere political disagreement... the 20% issue Lew is referring to.

The issue goes to honesty, to integrity and to responsiveness to constituents... particularly when they happen to disagree with you as an elected official.

And Rivers is an abysmal failure on all counts there.

Waters knows this.  And I believe that under the usual circumstances of holding politicians accountable both for what they do and what they say, the fact that Rivers is a liar might... just might... be a bit more important than the mythical, magical, 20% figure.

Because you see, the issue isn't just that of "20%."  It's also WHICH 20%.

If, for example, 20% of the time, Rivers was for crushing our constitutional rights in any way... as long as she limits her desire to crush those rights only 20% of the time... would THAT be OK?

Not likely.

Simplistic answers to complicated questions are rarely adequate.

Rivers, of course, is not Lew's senator.  She is, unfortunately, mine.  And she refuses to communicate with me as a constituent in any meaningful way... so how can I or anyone else support a legislator who refuses to communicate with her constituents?

And while I have been a supporter of Lew Waters and fought for him when he was under attack in the past... tenets of political life that go beyond a simple mathematical equation... which also do not address the political bedrock of truth, honesty and integrity in those charged with governing us... call into question his true and basic motivations for his support of a woman who has proven that her raison d'être is anything but what's best for the people she betrayed so unnecessarily last year with her gas tax vote.. a vote which hung hundreds of dollars in taxes around each of our necks for years to come... to pay for Seattle's road/tunnel/floating bridge projects and this past year by lying about the money in her campaign account.

With Rivers, she regrets having made the pledge to us on the gas tax and tab fee increases not because she broke her promises, but because she made them in the first place... blaming her actions on so called "political maturation."

With Rivers, her betrayal was a "business decision."  The trouble with that is simple: if we send these people up there to make business decisions INSTEAD of to represent us, then what's the point?

Why even bother to have a legislature, when we could, instead, just have a gathering of accountants since, in this situation, the gas tax scam was merely a business decision and what WE, her constituency thought, was utterly meaningless to her?

With Rivers, it was her lie about causing us to pay $700 million or, as she put it, $7 BILLION if she had voted "no." (Utter nonsense: they had the votes and even if she had voted no, the bill would have passed anyway and we wouldn't have had to pay one thin dime more than we are now.).

With Rivers,  it was the massive lie of her campaign funding that held her out to be the highest funded legislative candidate in the state for over a year... as if she didn't know anything about her own campaign finances.

You see, with Rivers, it's betrayal, broken promises and lies.

And there's a hell of a lot more of that than merely 20% of the time.