I've been in politics a loooooong time. I've been politically involved here locally since 1988, and I've made my living in one form or another off politics since 1994.
In all that time, I fought for what I believed in; fought for giving the people a voice and fought against the ugly side of politics that s many in the RINO segment here locally of the GOP practice.
A few years ago, I began to notice my ties to the label "Republican" had shattered.
Some 16 years ago, when I was holding down the seat of Executive Director of the State Republican Party, I began to pick up on the idea that the word "Republican" was just a label. And many use that label to get what they want, regardless of the politics they truly practice.
For example, none of the current county council majority, AKA the 3 Stooges, are Republican. In fact, none of them are even close.
Had they lost to their more leftist opponents in the most recent general election, you'd notice, even in hind sight, very little to no difference between how they vote and how their opponents WOULD have voted had they won.
Thus, for them, the label "Republican" is utterly meaningless and why they insist on using such a label is a mystery to me.
As I ponder the political scene these days, I see a great many who abuse the term Republican to get what they want.
From Scott Weber to John Blum to Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers to Julie Olson to Jeannie Stewart, these people are nothing approaching Republican.
They don't act like Republicans and they don't vote like Republicans; so in a very real sense, they are NOT Republicans.
What does it mean to use that label? Why would they call themselves something they're not, if they have integrity and a record to go with it?
Because of where they are.
There is no way that Ann Rivers would get elected in the 18th if she'd just do the honorable thing and switch parties to the one most closely aligned with her views.
But that kind of courage... the courage of her actual convictions... is as foreign to Rivers as writing Sanskrit.
And that's why I'm voting for Eric Holt, the democrat running against her.
I don't much agree with Holt's actual politics. But when he speaks, I believe him.
And that's the thing, you see: I will not... cannot... vote for someone I do not believe.
Rivers has lied to us. She will lie to us in the future. She cannot "UNlie," so to speak, and it gets easier as time goes by in politics... just ask her.
Review the video taken at her January 9 town hall meeting:
Lie after lie. Excuse after excuse.
And she expects me to reward her with my vote after THAT?
Not likely.
I expect those we elected to keep their word above all else. Otherwise, how are we supposed to believe them?
And it's not just that Rivers lied... it's also that the lie is costing every resident of Clark County a total of $1500 plus... or $700 million.
And that brings me to the tough question:
When you vote... should you vote for the party label regardless of a history of "moral flexibility?"
Should you vote for the candidate who has lied, harmed you directly, attempted to fool the people in every way from how much money her campaign has had on hand for over a year by $175,000 to shattering her campaign pledges because of "business" and a "fear" of being referred to as a "pansy?"
I don't think so.
You see, government at every level is a mess, in large part because of this very thing.
Those we elect lie to us, ignore us, placate us, abuse us... and we keep sending them back up there as if they are somehow going to change. They promise to do things they fail to do, telling us how busy they are (soooooo busy) and how much time it takes and so on, as if I... a 6 year legislative staffer... didn't already know.
Well, Rivers is likely to change, but not for the better, given how much her rank dishonesty has co-opted anything approaching what used to be her now nonexistent integrity.
Rivers' lie cost us 3.5 times the amount of money wasted on the CRC scam. And she not only bears no remorse for lying; her only regret, according to the video provided above, is that she ever made the promise in the first place.
And that's not the kind of mentality or moral compass I want in government anywhere, let alone in Olympia.
Which again brings me back to Holt.
I have concluded after a great deal of thought that I would rather have a senator, or a representative or a congressman or even a president I disagree with politically who actually tells us the truth than I would have any of those who lie to keep us placated... regardless of the label they use, abuse and ignore whenever the mood strikes them.
At some point, those of us victimized by those we were supposed to be able to trust, have to stand up and scream "ENOUGH!!!!"
This is me, doing that.
And at some point, I hope that this becomes you doing that as well. Because as bad as the trouble we have now actually is, it's nothing compared to what we're GOING to have if we don't put a stop to this nonsense.... and soon.
In all that time, I fought for what I believed in; fought for giving the people a voice and fought against the ugly side of politics that s many in the RINO segment here locally of the GOP practice.
A few years ago, I began to notice my ties to the label "Republican" had shattered.
Some 16 years ago, when I was holding down the seat of Executive Director of the State Republican Party, I began to pick up on the idea that the word "Republican" was just a label. And many use that label to get what they want, regardless of the politics they truly practice.
For example, none of the current county council majority, AKA the 3 Stooges, are Republican. In fact, none of them are even close.
Had they lost to their more leftist opponents in the most recent general election, you'd notice, even in hind sight, very little to no difference between how they vote and how their opponents WOULD have voted had they won.
Thus, for them, the label "Republican" is utterly meaningless and why they insist on using such a label is a mystery to me.
As I ponder the political scene these days, I see a great many who abuse the term Republican to get what they want.
From Scott Weber to John Blum to Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers to Julie Olson to Jeannie Stewart, these people are nothing approaching Republican.
They don't act like Republicans and they don't vote like Republicans; so in a very real sense, they are NOT Republicans.
What does it mean to use that label? Why would they call themselves something they're not, if they have integrity and a record to go with it?
Because of where they are.
There is no way that Ann Rivers would get elected in the 18th if she'd just do the honorable thing and switch parties to the one most closely aligned with her views.
But that kind of courage... the courage of her actual convictions... is as foreign to Rivers as writing Sanskrit.
And that's why I'm voting for Eric Holt, the democrat running against her.
I don't much agree with Holt's actual politics. But when he speaks, I believe him.
And that's the thing, you see: I will not... cannot... vote for someone I do not believe.
Rivers has lied to us. She will lie to us in the future. She cannot "UNlie," so to speak, and it gets easier as time goes by in politics... just ask her.
Review the video taken at her January 9 town hall meeting:
Lie after lie. Excuse after excuse.
And she expects me to reward her with my vote after THAT?
Not likely.
I expect those we elected to keep their word above all else. Otherwise, how are we supposed to believe them?
And it's not just that Rivers lied... it's also that the lie is costing every resident of Clark County a total of $1500 plus... or $700 million.And that brings me to the tough question:
When you vote... should you vote for the party label regardless of a history of "moral flexibility?"
Should you vote for the candidate who has lied, harmed you directly, attempted to fool the people in every way from how much money her campaign has had on hand for over a year by $175,000 to shattering her campaign pledges because of "business" and a "fear" of being referred to as a "pansy?"
I don't think so.
You see, government at every level is a mess, in large part because of this very thing.
Those we elect lie to us, ignore us, placate us, abuse us... and we keep sending them back up there as if they are somehow going to change. They promise to do things they fail to do, telling us how busy they are (soooooo busy) and how much time it takes and so on, as if I... a 6 year legislative staffer... didn't already know.
Well, Rivers is likely to change, but not for the better, given how much her rank dishonesty has co-opted anything approaching what used to be her now nonexistent integrity.
Rivers' lie cost us 3.5 times the amount of money wasted on the CRC scam. And she not only bears no remorse for lying; her only regret, according to the video provided above, is that she ever made the promise in the first place.
And that's not the kind of mentality or moral compass I want in government anywhere, let alone in Olympia.
Which again brings me back to Holt.
I have concluded after a great deal of thought that I would rather have a senator, or a representative or a congressman or even a president I disagree with politically who actually tells us the truth than I would have any of those who lie to keep us placated... regardless of the label they use, abuse and ignore whenever the mood strikes them.
At some point, those of us victimized by those we were supposed to be able to trust, have to stand up and scream "ENOUGH!!!!"
This is me, doing that.
And at some point, I hope that this becomes you doing that as well. Because as bad as the trouble we have now actually is, it's nothing compared to what we're GOING to have if we don't put a stop to this nonsense.... and soon.
1 comment:
I know young Eric, and will attest to his Character and Integrity. Our direction of inquiry differs widely, but I have no doubt he will tap his many friends for answers when he knows he doesn't know (which is a rare thing).
Post a Comment