Friday, January 25, 2019

Is Eileen Quiring the next Ann Rivers?

Regular readers are well aware of the situation concerning Sen. Ann "Gas Tax" Rivers ("R"-18).

Rivers is responsible for having a hand in literally billions of dollars in higher gas and property taxes as well as increased tab fees.

Screen capture from Rivers' 2012 campaign web site
Now, that in and of itself isn't particularly unusual except for two minor (relatively speaking) details:  first, she claims to be a Republican.  Second, she had pledged as a part of her campaign to be elected to the Senate that she would OPPOSE any such increases on gas taxes and tab fees, no among the highest in the country, thanks in large part to her.  The property tax increases came about when she sold us out to the teachers under the guise of the bogus State Supreme court decision known as McCleary.

It didn't stop there, of course.  Many school district's teachers decided last fall to engage in a little old fashioned extortion because the massive raises the legislature bent us over for just weren't enough... so they held our children hostage by going on strike.

In several of these districts, the idiots running them promised these scum SO MUCH money that now their budgets are shot to hell and the end result of that is massive layoffs... except these same districts who screwed their constituencies are now going BACK to the democrat controlled legislature to demand they jack our property taxes AGAIN.

For example, Vancouver School District just caved to support staff extortion and, already $11.4 million over budget, agreed to a contract with THOSE extortions that will likely mean even MORE millions in debt.

And who's gonna pay for that?

And the democrats, being the democrats, are wholly owned by the teachers unions so we can expect the legislature to roll over and nail us AGAIN, with even HIGHER taxes, aka "the McCleary fix."

Why am I setting the table like this?

Well, I make no bones about it.  I supported our new council chair, Eileen Quiring, wholeheartedly, but I began to notice some cracks in her "conservative" facade during the most recent council sellout on the CRC scam.

During the recent council betrayal of the citizenry of this county, it was certainly expected that the RINO's on the council and the non-Republican chair, Marc Boldt (Who was thankfully and unceremoniously thrown out on his ass when he could only manage a horrific 22% of the vote) would throw us under the light rail car by rabidly doing what their downtown mafia masters told them to do and they did not disappoint.

Two councilors stood up to the bum's rush.  They were the aforementioned Eileen Quiring and Jeanne Stewart.  Both came out strongly opposed to supporting the most recent go-round of the CRC/Loot Rail scam.

But when the time came to actually vote on that garbage resolution, how did now-Chair Quiring vote?

She was a "yes."  Stewart was the only "no."  So, Quiring went with the RINO clique and Boldt, managing to hang Stewart out to dry.

I was stunned.  I let her know that I was pissed.  And even though I'm a nobody, she asked if I could meet with her before a Republican Women's function, which I agreed to do, so we could discuss this situation.

When I asked her about it, she told me point blank that she couldn't explain why she did it. I thought that response odd; I, for one, want every elected official to know why they do EVERYTHING they do.  But I also was willing to give her a chance... and I understood she was in the middle of her campaign and political battle... the alternatives were absolutely unacceptable, so I made the decision and told her I was not going to make an issue of it on this blog that nobody reads.  And until now, I haven't.

As time went on, ultimately, we got the desired result: it was close, but as local readers know, Quiring pulled it out and won the day.  So far, so good.

But by winning, she vacated her council seat in district 4.  That meant district 4 required a replacement.

There were several candidates who put their names forward.  Ultimately, 3 were chosen for consideration by Quiring and the other 3 councilors, two RINOs (Blom and Olson) and a rabid leftist hack, (Temple Lentz.)

Those 3 chosen were John Ley (who was the GOP's first choice) followed by Brook Pell, President of the Republican Women/Co-Chair of Quiring's campaign and finally, the guy who got the gig, ultimately, Gary Medvigy.

I immediately predicted Medvigy would get the gig.  The two RINOs and the leftist whack job would control the outcome: they had the votes.

For her part, Quiring had ENDORSED Pell to get her selected as a finalist.

But when the time came, Quiring voted for Medvigy.

Pell had worked HER butt off to get Quiring elected... and this is the thanks she gets.





How does that work?  When you endorse someone and then vote for someone else, how is that NOT "voting against the woman you endorsed?"

Does "simple math" determine what's right and what's wrong?

If she would throw her endorsed candidate under a bus by failing to vote for her after endorsing her because of "simple math," how many MORE times will "simple math" determine the outcome?

As the only "conservative" on the council now, the math will ALWAYS be against her.  It would have been against her regardless of who she voted for.  But is that any reason to bail on your commitment?

Kalup Veneman posted a saying attributed to John Quincy Adams that seems strangely appropriate:
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” 
Precisely.

Chair Quiring had an opportunity to excel that day and she blew it. 

Rivers also had a number of excuses has to why she broke her pledge to those of us who voted for her.  Now, she's boiled it down to merely saying she's "reframed her thinking."  Her "reframed thinking" has already cost the people of this district and this county millions of dollars with tens of millions more to go.

Rivers' problem is that NONE of her excuses justified her actions.

And Quiring is going to be hard pressed to justify her failure to stand up for her choice... a woman who worked so hard for her... who was endorsed by her... but who was dumped by her when it really, really mattered.

When Rivers betrayed us on the Gas Tax/Tab Fee scam, it was, she claimed, a difficult choice. Clearly, as her betrayals mount up in number, size and scope, it's become progressively easier.

Is this our future?  "Simple math" over principle?

It's the kind of thing Rivers does to us all the time.  Is this what we can expect from Chair Quiring?

Quiring tells us NOW: 
There were three good candidates for this position. Brook had my endorsement because I know and trust her and believe she would represent the 4th district well.

After the public interview process of the candidates, my colleagues moved to appoint Mr. Medvigy and I agreed. I believe he is qualified (perhaps even overqualified) for this position and during the public interview process, he showed a very good understanding of county government and many of the issues that we face in Clark County. It was clear to me that he had done his homework.

Now that the appointment has taken place I look forward to working with my fellow council members for the betterment of Clark County.
My response?
"Brook had my endorsement because I know and trust her and believe she would represent the 4th district well."

That's matters far more... geometrically more... than ANY of the General's qualifications. In fact, it matters more than any other criteria.

Because you know what? You DON'T know that about HIM, do you? You can only GUESS because, relatively speaking, he's only been here about 60 seconds and has precisely zero political background you could use to judge how "well" he would represent this district.

What are you going to do when he DOESN'T "represent the 4th District well?"

So, instead of voting for the sure thing, you bailed because you can do "simple math."

Well, so can he.  Does that mean your "simple math" will result in always going along with the majority instead of standing up for the people?

Here's the thing; I'm sure board RINOs like Blom and Olson are all of those things as well, qualification wise, when it comes to county government.

But they have been an unmitigated disaster.

His level of understanding is not NEARLY as important as his unknown political philosophy.

Blom was elected without any of the criteria you discuss. So this guy just becomes another member of the RINO Amen chorus and, "doing the math" (which should NEVER be the basis for a vote) what does his "understanding" get us then?

Peter, sometimes your lack of political understanding frightens me.

Absolutely nothing written here justifies violating this commitment.

A genius leftist who knows every nut and bolt about county government would be a miserable addition to the other leftists on the board. Technical knowledge in a political position is nice to have. But the Number One issue is what do you do with it.

We see what a leftist like Olson has done with it.

This guy has zero breadth or width of the battle's we've fought here.  His involvement in the GOP has been essentially zero.  But he's got a "gee whiz" resume' and he sounds like a FINE casket salesman... makes you think you NEED the bronze handles.

And for all of what he knows... you have zero idea of what he will do with this knowledge.

We see what a leftist like Olson has done with it.

All of that notwithstanding, none of this justifies your failure to stick to your commitment and I'm not going to forget this.
So now, we seem to have a county chair that makes decisions, according to her, based on her ability to do simple math.  Sadly, in this case, it seems to be of the Common Core variety.

Would one of the other two candidates have won?  Nope.  Would a decision to stick with an endorsed candidate have made any difference in the outcome?

Not in the vote, it wouldn't.

But in every other way that it mattered, it absolutely would have.

Instead, we get political expediency.  And I am SO sick of the excuses of those we elect as they "reframe" their thinking in an effort to justify their betrayals.

Sadly, that is what I believe we have here, since Chair Quiring has seem to have forgotten that the pilot of an aircraft doesn't need to know how to rebuild the jet engines on his plane, but he or she DOES need to know how to take off, go in a certain direction, and land.

There's no question that the General knows how to take off and land.  But we have zero idea of the destination or how many stops he'll take along the way.  And when he fails us as Blom and Olson have failed us so many times, Chair Quiring will own part of that.

No comments: