What are the impacts of the Times ignoring Herrera?

.
Up until now, the Establishment has been attempting to provide Ridgefield Barbie with an aura of invincibility.

Until now. With the Seattle Times passing her by; suddenly, things are different.

Suddenly, the fact that the Empress has no clothes is on display for all to see. The "inevitability" quotient has dropped to zero.

Marketing the empty suit like an empty cardboard box ain't gonna cut it. Speaking in generalities because you're too ignorant to intelligently address the issues might work when the fix is in like it was when she got the appointment.

But now?

Not so much.

A record of caving into democrats for massive spending in the House and co-sponsoring SEIU legislation and then lying about it is not the record people want when it comes to representation in Congress.

And now, we watch as the wheels come off and the string begins to unravel.

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.
.

So, members of the local party (Those in the Herrera Herd) are a little bit upset with me.

.
For the last few days, there's been a little kerfuffle going on in local party circles because someone in party leadership followed orders and distributed a remark of mine from both this blog and Clark County Politics that says the following:

"The despicable political cartoon that is Jaime Herrera will not mysteriously cease being the waste of skin she is. Concepts of honor and truth will remain as foreign to her if she wins as they are now.

For purposes of context, the body of the post in question is provided here:

Recently, I was asked: If Herrera wins the primary, are you going to let up on her?"

Not only no, but hell no.

Folks, I believe there is a place for partisan politics. But as individuals, we must find the line between blind obedience to a party line and the suspension of common sense.
Party allegiance isn't a death warrant. At the end of the day, if Ridgefield Barbie and her keepers manage to fool enough people into voting her in, either through to the general or, God forbid, into Congress, what exactly does that change?

Will she somehow magically become honorable? Will someone install a knowledge chip that will give her a clue about any of the major issues confronting us? Will she suddenly stop lying to us, exaggerating her background, her knowledge and suitability to actually be IN Congress? Will she suddenly cease her betrayal of Republican principles like she did while in the legislature, becoming a Guardian of the SEIU and while spending our money like a drunken sailor to help her leftist buddies? Can we be sure that she'll betray us again, representing Cathy McMorris Rogers, who built her from the ground up, instead of us?

Will the mentality that allowed her to leave the floor of the House for hours at a time to fund raise; which allowed her to ditch us during session for yet another McMorris trough session in DC suddenly return to the level where her FIRST duty becomes us... instead of her?

No.

The despicable political cartoon that is Jaime Herrera will not mysteriously cease being the waste of skin she is. Concepts of honor and truth will remain as foreign to her if she wins as they are now.

There are no circumstances where I will not do all I legally can to keep her from winning any election.

Period. Ever.

For those wondering, I hope I've made my position clear.

Cross posted at Clark County Politics.

The person who sent this out is a died-in-the-wool Herrera kool aid drinker, who at least partially blames this type of writing on their decision to help sell us out to this empty suit.

This person then goes on to write:

I was leaning toward David at one time, but this type of thing really soured me. I think David could put a stop to this today if he wanted to. If this isn't reason enough to support Jaime, I don't know what is. It is disgusting.

What that person failed to say is that they are now, and had been literally for months before this was written, a full-blown Herrera supporter; as they were when they sent out this sniveling email behind my back. Excusing their version of political treason as a reason to support a candidate based on what someone ELSE writes without that candidate's knowledge, approval or input goes a long way to explain why that email was sent in the first place and behind my back in the second place.

And if that's not a reason to dump the local GOP organization, I don't know what is.

Cross posted on Jaime Herrera Watch.
.

Shannon Barnett's startling attack against Jaime Herrera: this must be read to be believed!

.
Right from the Clark County GOP's Own Web Site!

I get that if he ever had an original thought, it long since died of loneliness; and I also get that this is a rip off of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's fine efforts.

But his attack against Herrera? Why, that's unbelievable!

"What better day to discuss out of control spending than on tax day. I’m looking forward to unveiling my support for the ten point plan and I appreciate Lars letting me do it on his show." Barnett added "The tax and spend liberals in our legislature are directly responsible for the fiscal mess we find ourselves in. They control the purse strings; they decide what gets funding and what does not. It’s time for new representation and people will agree that I’m the right one to help facilitate these changes once they learn how committed I am to reducing the size and scope of our government’s spending."

Obviously, when Barnett is demanding "new representation" it's because he didn't think all that much of the pro-SEIU, tax and spend representation which we suffer for now.

And who is providing that representation?

Why, Jaime Herrera.

So, on one hand, I can finally agree with Barnett. Herrera proved herself to be so far over her head that when it comes to representation, I'd MAYBE hire her for the only thing a review of her qualifications shows her to be capable of doing: answering the phones at the 4th floor reception desk of the O'Brien Building in Olympia.

But I disagree that Barnett, who has yet to come up with an original thought, plan or vision and who finds himself reduced to aping the efforts of others like the Evergreen Freedom Foundation; is the one to represent me in anything.

However, I applaud his belated efforts to acknowledge how ineffective and expensive Herrera's recent tenure has been; after all, voting with the democrats to strip out our last $229 million dollars out of our state emergency fund to help them waste these hundreds of millions of dollars certainly nails her as one of those tax and spend liberals Barnett claims to hate.

Combine that with her co-sponsorship and vote for the SEIU mandatory representation bill for day care workers, and, by golly, you've actually got Jim Moeller Light. And I can certainly see where that would make Barnett just the tiniest bit cranky.

But considering how he's carried her water like Gunga Din, attacking her incompetent tenure in the State House is something of a surprise, at least to me.

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.
.

The startling comparison between Castillo and Herrera

.
Lew Waters put up a great comparison piece between David Castillo and Jaime Herrera.

The piece shows the startling differences in education, public and private sector experience and very importantly, Herrera's complete and total lack of any experience or clue concerning Defense, Security or Military issues, the kind of experience that would otherwise matter to sane people.

I would love to see why, when comparing Castillo to Herrera, ANYONE could possibly support the empty suit that is Jaime Herrera.

Go on over and check it out, and thanks to Lew for doing this public service of providing this comparison.

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.
.

More evidence Mair has joined the Herrera staff.

.
As I pointed out, Mair's been writing like Herrera has been paying her directly.

More evidence of that is available here.

And my response to Liz is "so what?"

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.
.

Do we EVER see principle, integrity and Herrera in the same room?

.
As previously shown, Jaime Herrera has the political sense of a board fence. Her idiotic co- sponsorship of the now infamous SEIU bill Herrera then voted for that would force day care workers into collective bargaining; her campaign's deliberately false and misleading defense of that vote; her equally clueless support of democrat efforts to increase spending by striping out what little is left in our state emergency fund, and now her failure to, literally, stand up for an amendment to a bill that would have resulted in legislators sharing our pain.

Talk, as Herrera shows us, is cheap.

Cutting state employee in the midst of a horrific recession makes sense. But that means ALL "state employees," including state representatives, should take a hit.

So, here's the call by the Tacoma News Tribune Friday's article:

Also rejected was Williams’ amendment to lop lawmakers’ own expense reimbursements in the same proportion as the mandatory worker layoffs are expected to hit legislative staffers – costing potentially more than $1,000 next year.

The “per diem” expenses amendment failed, and Williams initially failed to win a roll call vote on it because only 13 members stood to demand one. Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera of Camas was among those who argued that lawmakers should share in the pain but did not stand to insist on the recorded vote; Hunt and Republican Rep. Gary Alexander of Thurston County did stand with Williams.

So, what we've got here is the good Representative speaking out and taking a position. But when the time came, literally, to take a stand for her views, what did Herrera do?

Nothing.

She sat it out.

Now, to me, the problem wasn't her position on the issue. To me, the problem is that when the time came to take a stand, Herrera, who had so eloquently spoke about "sharing the pain," was no where to be seen.

How can anyone speak for a bill, or an amendment to a bill, and then disappear when it might matter; in this case, to secure recorded votes on the amendment instead of a voice vote that killed it?

Why didn't she stand?

What's the point of this kind of political cowardice?

Cross-posted on Jaime Herrera Watch.

.

The "intellectual dishonesty" and cowardice of a Herrera supporter: Keath Huff fails to address the issues.

.
Yesterday, Keath Huff posted this gobbledygook in defense of Ridgefield Barbie. Why he lied about the bill and who did what is any one's guess, but he did. and I will use this space to point out each and every falsehood Huff relies on in his slavish efforts to defend the indefensible:

Memo: Jaime Herrera and SEIU

KeathHuff

Below is the memo from Casey Bowman, the campaign manager for Jaime Herrera, explaining the “Pro Union Vote” Herrera was supposed to have taken.

I certainly understand her vote, trying to get fair reimbursement for small business owners who are getting short changed by the State of Washington. It is not unlike the poor reimbursement rates that doctors receive from Medicare and other “state run” health insurance. In the end the average consumer pays more to cover the real cost of care.

So, here we have a situation with a bill that does this:

"Collective bargaining" by it's very nature means higher costs. That means that both the taxpayer, who will have to pay the higher subsidies the bill mentions and the customers who are not subsidized will have to do what?

Pay.

More.

Money.

Any time SEIU gets involved in a bill, it's never in the taxpayer's best interests. It's only in THEIR best interests, no matter how much it costs US.

And Herrera didn't know this when she co-sponsored and voted for this monstrosity? And Huff doesn't know it now?

Of course he does. But at the end of the day, it just doesn't matter to a member of the Herrera Herd, who's slavish devotion to this empty suit is simply unfathomable.

More than a few Conservatives voted for this bill in the House and Senate, they tried to right a wrong, which is more than some have
done.

This is a flat out lie. First of all, there wasn't a vote on this bill in the Senate. There was a vote on the Senate version, a bill that, among others, was amended to kill by making it a study. THAT is the bill voted on in the Senate. (Of course, we've already been through Herrera's efforts to throw Benton under the bus for voting "for this bill," which he had not done.

In the House, the vote on this bill was 62 to 35

"More than a few conservative in the House?" Let's see.

Conservatives like Jim Moeller voted for it. Another conservative, Mary Lou Dickerson voted for it. Is this part of the "few" Huff was talking about? No?

Except, those two; of the many democrats who voted for this bill, are hardly "conservative." They are, in fact, as far to the left as the political spectrum allows in the United States today.

In fact, I could only find TWO Republicans who voted for this garbage heap in the House: Herrera and Skip Priest. Herrera's seat mate, Ed Orcutt?

Why, he was a "no."

So.... where's this "more than a few" thing Huff was babbling about?

This was NOT a great bill, but that is often the case we you are trying to get something done while a bunch of liberals have the majority. We can fix that by electing more Conservatives like Jaime Herrera!

With "conservatives" like Herrera, why not just vote leftist democrat and be done with it?

Calling this "not a great bill" is like calling the Titanic a "small boating accident."

As always Jaime is a candidate with a voting record, you can see what she has done and will do for yourself. Her voting record can be found here: washingtonvotes.org

Huff babbles this one a great deal. The only trouble with this garbage is that what washingtonvotes.org records is what happened when the buttons are pushed. Unfortunately for those of us in the 18th, OUR "representative" was frequently gone, out fundraising for her congressional run and ditching us, her constituents.

So, yeah. There's a voting record. And it certainly keeps track of the votes from the button in question. Unfortunately, it's close to worthless here because Ridgefield Barbie has admitted that she's had others vote in her place while she is gone. Here's the whiny, sniveling little "Memo" in question:

From: Casey Bowman, Campaign Manager, Jaime Herrera for Congress

Memo: Jaime Herrera and SEIU

It won’t shock you to learn that there’s a false accusation being made in the race for Washington’s 3rd Congressional Seat, but you might be surprised at just how off base the claim is that Rep. Jaime Herrera is a big union supporter.

It might shock you to know that even Herrera refered to herself during the appointment process as a "friend to organized labor."

Just exactly what was that supposed to mean?

I KNOW! I KNOW! It means she'll co-sponsor and vote for SEIU-backed legislation!

In 2008 Jaime was endorsed by every major business group in Washington state, including the Association of Washington Business, NFIB, Independent Business Association of Washington, Washington Restaurant Association and others. She has never supported compulsory unionism and never will. She is a strong opponent of “card check” because she has seen the excesses of union leaders and is fully aware of the threats and intimidation that card check would inflict on workers.

HHHmmmmm..... I missed the part about any legislation in this state concerning card check, or any vote on that subject. Why mention it here, except to deflect from the issue at hand?

And had they known of Ridgefield Barbie's SEIU affiliation, as they'll know now, would they be so quick to endorse? I think not.

To prove the false claim that Jaime is a big union supporter, her detractors point to legislation, HB 1329, she supported involving child care centers. Their claim is that the legislation forced “compulsory” unionization of child care workers. That simply is not true.

So, was Herrera lying THEN when she called herself a "friend to organized labor?" Or is she lying NOW?

I dunno. That's a toughie, given her bizarre co sponsorship and support of SEIU legislation.

What to think.... what to think....

Here are the facts:

Let me help you with that. "Here are the 'facts'" SHOULD read: "Here are SOME of the 'facts.' We left out the ones we don't like."

Fact One. Jaime Herrera COSPONSORED THIS SEIU BILL.

Odd, isn't it?

Neither Huff NOR Bowman included THAT fact.

I wonder why?

· Washington state reimburses child care centers for care of kids under the state’s sponsorship. Many of these business owners believe that they should receive a better reimbursement rate from the state for caring for the most vulnerable children.

Many others exercise their right to refuse children who cannot pay whatever they charge. It's called "choice."

What "choice" did Herrera give us? You know, the ones paying the bills?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that collective bargaining WILL make child care MORE EXPENSIVE.

So, if Herrera's efforts had been successful (They weren't, thankfully) the costs of daycare, along with the subsidies for day care that WE pay, would have gone up with the wages.

That means taxpayers would have to pay more for subsidizing day care, and those using NON-subsidized day care would be out of pocket more.

If those running day care centers don't like the subsidized rate, they can always refuse the kids in question.... right?

· The bill allowed child care center owners and workers to choose to have SEIU represent the business in negotiating better reimbursement rates from the state.

Another flat out lie, since day care owners ALREADY HAD THAT ABILITY BY BECOMING UNION SHOPS.

Here's the language from the bill summary:

“Solely for purposes of collective bargaining, child care center directors and workers are ‘public employees’. The directors and workers are employees who work on-site at licensed centers that have at least ONE SLOT filled by a child for whom they receive child care subsidies. as well as owners who work on-site at these centers.”

Do you see anything about "choice" in there? I don't.

. The bill said nothing about unionizing the workforce. Child care enter workers wouldn’t pay union dues or fees and wouldn’t be forced to join a union, at any time. The bill was at the request of the small business owners of day care centers.

Which explained perfectly why so many of those day care centers were so opposed to this, right?

Those are the facts about this legislation. Again, Jaime has never supported compulsory unionism and never will. That is why she is such a fervent opponent of card check. If the facts don’t sound anything like the claims of those attacking Jaime and her voting record, then you should ask them why they are spreading these false claims.

OK... I'll bite. Why ARE you spreading these "false claims?"

Under the bill in question day care centers with ONE CHILD getting state subsidies HAD to be represented by the SEIU.

Look. I'm always willing to be corrected... so feel free.

Just provide me with the language allowing day care centers with subsidized kids in them to opt out of this bill, and we can take the mandatory unionization off the table.

For a much more technical and complete recitation of all the lies this "memo" contains, I invite the reader to head on over to Lew Waters' blog. He nails it.

In closing, what neither the "memo" OR Huff do is mention that Herrera COSPONSORED THE BILL. An oversight?

Hardly. Nor do they mention any of the carefully researched aspects covered by Lew on his blog.

There's a reason these people don't want you to know the WHOLE truth.

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.

.

Herrera's support of SEIU begins to bite: Kool Aid drinking supporters are running scared.

.
Jamie Herrera is a tool for the SEIU. In her "defense," there's a blog post that has a copy of some sort of nonsensical wimpy attempt to excuse or justify this quite indicative sell out that Ridgefield Barbie, the fake Republican running in the 3rd Congressional District, actually did something that made sense.

It didn't.

Herrera cosponsored and voted for a bill that will unionize child care workers. For reasons I've already set forth, that is one of the worst imaginable ideas concerning the issue of day care, period. Further, she also VOTED AGAINST HER CAUCUS (The vote was 62 to 35 and most of those 35 were, well Republican... much like almost all of the 62 were, well, democrats)

But there is no excuse for cosponsoring a SEIU bill if you are to refer to yourself as a "conservative."

That any conservative would even consider voting for this cardboard cutout in the face of her support of SEIU... the same group supported by such luminaries as Barack Obama; Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Patty Murray, Barney Frank and the like supports... is admittedly a mystery to me.

Those people have something in common with our fake Republican. And what that "thing" is stands as a reason for her to never gain election to even the position of dog catcher.

Calling someone who would co-sponsor the SEIU bill a "conservative" is moronic. Deliberately failing to mention that little factoid as a part of your efforts to defend the indefensible?

That's something else. That's sordid. That's cowardly. That's fraud. And that's what Herrera supporters who either agree with her actions or support them while THEY masquerade as "conservatives" could fairly be labeled.

As a conservative, just ask yourself this:

Would YOU co-sponsor and vote for a SEIU bill?

If you haven't eaten yet, feel free to head on over to this bogus effort to defend this clueless empty suit's support of SEIU.

Don't do it if you have eaten, though. Because you won't be able to keep it down.

As far as that goes, the one thing that amazes me the most is how many leftists votes Herrera takes that the Herrera Herd just goes along with.

The lie then, is in referring to this fake Republican as a "conservative."

What both Huff and this Bowman guy deliberately left out is that not only did Herrera VOTE for this what you admit to be "not a GREAT bill;" the simple idiot co-sponsored it.

Co-sponsored, Huff. She co-sponsored the SEIU bill, and then voted for it.

Much like she voted for stripping out the $229,000,000 from the state's emergency fund to help the democrats with their massive spending increases this session, "conservatives" would neither COSPONSOR A SEIU BILL, VOTE FOR A SEIU BILL, NOR VOTE AGAINST HER CAUCUS TO EMPTY OUT THE STATE RAINY DAY FUND.

I have to wonder: what leftist cause, bill or series of causes or bills would it take for the Herrera Herd to get that she's as conservative as my cocker spaniel?

And by the way, Huff? Your constant whine about checking "her voting record" is even more proof that there is nothing this woman can do to get you to wake up:

What washingtonvotes.org HAS is a record of how her voting buttons were pushed. It doesn't have a record of WHO PUSHED THEM the dozens of votes she MISSED VOTES so she could go out and fund raise.

I get that the SEIU thing is causing her problems. No true conservative would consider voting for a so-called Republican who not only voted for SEIU legislation, but COSPONSORED THE BILL.

And no amount of spin from you, or Bowman, or anyone else can make up for the fact that she sold us out to the SEIU here, just like she ditched us to go to a DC special interest fund raiser during session; and just like she voted to help the democrats rape us financially just a few short days ago.

NO other GOP candidate in this district would CONSIDER carrying the water for the SEIU. Her vote there makes her unfit to hold the office she has now, let alone go to congress to do anything but answer phones at a receptionist desk.

I'm just astounded that you people have, apparently, drank enough Kool Aid to fill an Olympic Swimming pool.

Unbelievable. If you people believe her to be a conservative, then I'm ashamed to call myself one.

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.
.

In honor of the GOP expense in LA: What do Jaime Herrera and the money reimbursed by the GOP for the strip club reimbursement have in common?

.
How about a massive reimbursement for a total waste of money?

We already know about Herrera's SEIU hi-jinks. We know about her efforts to help the democrats blow $229 million to help them with their new spending. But do we remember her managing to burn her way through almost $500 in meals in 3 days?

No?

Well, here's s brief reminder.

Who here isn't familiar with the Sellers debacle?

Sellers, who, at the time was mayor of Washougal, felt compelled to go to Vegas on "official business." While she was there, she decided that the taxpayers of the city of Washougal should pay for her alcohol, and some high priced meals.

Stacy Sellers is having a tough week. Perhaps she deserves one, since, according to the local version of Pravda, Sellars charged, among other things, a "...$57 'surf and turf' dinner. An $88 bottle of wine. A $72 bill at the Eye Candy Lounge & Bar." while on some sort of "official trip" to Vegas.... although why a trip to Vegas for the mayor of Washougal would be official is, perhaps, a subject for another post. (Take some time and run a google search on the "Eye Candy Lounge & Bar" for pictures of others engaging in some distinctly "non-mayor" like activities. I guess what happens in Vegas is reported in the Columbian.)

Just yesterday, KOIN 6 reported on Brian Baird's abuse of the travel system where he decided he needed to spend a fortune to go on vacations masquerading as a "fact finding trip," a trip that a local travel agent booked for roughly one half the cost charged by Baird.

Erstwhile political opportunist Jamie Herrera seems to share the traits of both Baird and Sellers.

In August of 05, Herrera went on one of these "fact finding trips" to Spokane, where Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-WA05) maintains a district office.

Instead of sending one of her own staffers already in Spokane for this "fact finding," McMorris-Rogers instead seems to have sent Herrera. That sending Herrera was apparently a complete waste of money is a subject for another post. That issue aside, here is the rather disturbing travel voucher, filled out by Herrera and signed off on by her boss and mentor, Congresswoman McMorris-Rogers.



Now, the questionable aspect of this trip aside, where the main issue of concern for me comes to the fore is here:

Somehow, Herrera managed to spend $475.48 for meals on a 3 day trip to Spokane... and her boss, McMorris-Rogers, approved that cost!

Are you kidding me?

I used to LIVE in Spokane. That much money would feed a family of four for three weeks, and Herrera went through that BY HERSELF, in THREE DAYS?

Shades of Stacy Sellers.

And, just like Jon Russell, who approved Seller's charges since he was in overwatch of the credit cards for Washougal, McMorris Rogers approved this outrageous charge paid for by the taxpayers of the United States.

It seems to me that Sellers and Baird and Herrera are all the same... and Russell and McMorris-Rogers blow off this kind of stuff all the time.

As for me, I don't want any of them either in my government... or in elective office.

Because if any of them gave a damn about us... we wouldn't have heard about any of this.

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.
.

The lie and the truth of the latest Herrera fund raiser invite.

.
This is a cut from the most recent swindle sheet Herrera has sent out to vacuum up the cash for her run for Congress.

Part of it is right on.... the part where it says she "will bring a rare combination of experience and energy to the U.S. Congress..."

And thank God for that.

Her complete lack of any appreciable experience either in Congress or as a legislator speaks for itself, as does her support of SEIU bills and emptying the state reserve to help democrats rip us off for their massive spending bills here in Washington State.

The lie part?

Once again, Herrera lies about her position as a low-level staffer effectively pouring coffee for McMorris.

As an "elected legislator," she has accomplished absolutely nothing except to help the fringe leftists spend our money.

And people support her.

And people will give her money.

And that makes no sense at all.

Cross posted on Jaime Herrera Watch.
.

Convention speech review highlights - Jamie Herrera.

.
Well, I don't know if "highlights" is the right word.

She has, she tells us, for the "...last 3 years... represented" us.

Like the rest of her exaggerations, that is false as well. While this will be her third SESSION, she is several months short of "3 years." But then, Herrera has been factually challenged from the moment she came back here after her 10 year absence.

"It has been the most tremendous honor, it really is."

Much like the lie she blithely told the commissioners already scammed into appointing her long before the actual meeting, when Herrera lied to them by telling them that there was "not being a job she'd rather have" (since she's running for congress)" it hasn't been an honor. How she got this gig and her actions since have been something less than "honorable."

Did she talk about the issues confronting us?

No.

Did she talk about security? Jobs? The economy? Did she have any specific proposals?

No, no and.... no.

Did she talk about any qualifications she might have to be elected to Congress?

No.

There was a massive amount of verbiage where she attempted to explain to US "what America is about."

As if we already didn't know.

As our representative, she "fought against tax increases. and she's signed the taxpayer protection pledge."

Oddly, she didn't speak about her sponsorship and vote for an SEIU bill that would force daycare workers into collective bargaining, a horrific bill that will hurt those who needed her help the most. She remained silent in the face of her plans to empty out the state reserve fund to the tune of $229,000,000, which she did a few days ago.

No. Nothing about that.

She closed with the unfortunate news that Linda Smith had endorsed her, while again lying about her involvement in Smith's campaign in 94... "we remember the fight to get her there" Really? "WE" remember that fight?

YOU weren't there.

I was. But you weren't.

And then that nonsense about her non-existent "independent, hard-working spirit."

"Independent?" If Cathy McMorris stopped suddenly, your entire head would disappear up to your shoulders.

"Hard-working?" There, I have to agree. Few have worked harder in their fund-raising efforts, to include screwing us by ditching us to go to DC during session, or having your seat mate vote for you in your absence so you could make those fund raising calls.

"Hard work" indeed.

And, of course, she will "stand with the people of Southwest Washington."

All while taking her orders from the congresswoman representing Spokane.

"It's going to be our year, folks."

True enough. But it ain't going to be yours.

The speech was, essentially, worthless. It was one huge generality filled with platitudes, and it provided exactly zero justification to support Ridgefield Barbie.

Herrera has no experience in any element that makes up what most sane people would consider to be a solid foundation to serve in congress.

She hasn't lived here for 11 of the past 13 years, which is reason enough to oppose her. She has no private sector experience. She has never owned a home. She has no experience in the military or defense. She has never owned a business.

She has done nothing in any of the areas where she CLAIMS she wants to help US.

And while that makes sense to the fringe right Cowlitz Kool Aid drinkers, it's not going to make sense to the rest of us.

All and all a pathetic, worthless effort that provided no one with anything along the lines of a justification to support this empty suited, vacuous cheerleader to do anything but be a secretary in a congressional office.

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.
.

The Kool Aid drinkers supporting Herrera.

.
The rank hypocrisy of the self-flagellating Herrera supporter is beyond belief.

As those paying attention know, FreedomWorks rightfully endorsed someone who wasn't Jaime Herrera, thank God.

Well, all the local Herrera Herd immediately ran off the cliff like the lemmings they are, whining that they allegedly hadn't bothered to talk to Herrera.

Exclusive of the fact that it wouldn't have made any difference if they had, given what a train wreck Herrera is as a candidate, I have to ask: where were these moronic hypocrites when Slade endorsed Herrera?

That answer?

Easy. They were nowhere.

Rank hypocrisy is easily overlooked when it's your candidate. Not ONE of these clowns complained when Slade did Vander Stoep and McMorris Rogers' bidding and endorsed Ridgefield Barbie who he otherwise wouldn't have known if she had bit him.

That's the curse of having a non-existent resume' like Herrera, who is no more qualified to be a member of Congress then she is to pilot an F-22.

So now, we get whining and sniveling not unlike the dog barf they spewed after Castillo's accurate robo-call went out reminding everyone what an SEIU sellout Herrera is, or that she was ditching us, her constituents, to do a special interest fund raiser in DC during session, HERE.

Otherwise sane people have lost their collective minds over this empty suit. Otherwise smart people who would demand depth, experience, vision and a mind of her own in a normal candidate can't seem to get beyond.... well.... something.... because it isn't her dismal legislative record (made worse today by her efforts to help the unions blow another $229 million of our money against her caucus... again...) and it isn't her record in the private sector: being a career intern shouldn't be that impressive.

And whining about how any organization chooses to endorse someone when others made THEIR endorsement decision the SAME WAY... well, that shows a series of thought processes that are frightening in their stupidity.

You can tell a lot about a candidate by the type of people they attract. And the typical Herrera supporter seems to view her as some kind of cult leader, someone they follow and fall on their swords for her not because she rates it or deserves it, but because, well, she is who she is, as if that's a reason to vote for anyone.

These cults of personality have resulted in other stellar political leaders. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Obama come immediately to mind. And you'd think these alleged Republicans would know better, since we just got done electing the worst president this country has ever seen; a president much like the candidate they so slavishly support.

And it leads to crybaby whining like I have NEVER seen before. And otherwise honorable people engaging in rank hypocrisy like crybaby three year olds.

Double standards are what leftists engage in. One has to wonder: why are these people acting this way?

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.
.

Impressions of a County Convention-Clark County GOP 20 March.

.
"I don't belong to any organized political party... I'm a Republican."

That could have easily summed up today's effort by the Clark County GOP.

They live in terror of the Ron Paul types who, apparently, "took over" the 49th District in '08. As a result, they slipped in a change to the rules that served to silence the delegates at the convention from running any resolutions from the floor.

"Time" was the excuse given. But at the end of the day, "time" is no excuse for silencing the bedrock of the local GOP.

The convention "HAD" to close at 5:00 PM sharp, we were told. So, therefore, in the interest of "time," we had to silence the delegates. That wasn't the main excuse, of course, but it was the excuse given.

I pointed out that one way to fix that would be to find a facility that DIDN'T have to close at 5:00 pm, because doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome is, well, you know.

So, I made an effort to amend the rules. I made a motion to strip out the language limiting resolutions to those submitted in writing prior to March 13... and I was hammered.

Later, I was told by the chief tool of the hammering that it was because I had, they thought, thrown my lot in with the Paulinista's. That was wrong on so many levels, but because of their fear, I was turned into collateral damage by people who could not and would not tolerate any agenda that did not closely dovetail with their own.

Then, the candidate speeches started.

Herrera got up and did a Barbie cheerleader speech typical of someone with cardboard depth and a vacuous grasp of the issues. Here's clue, Jaime: we don't care that you used to be able to play basketball. The president can do that, and look at what a total moron he is.

Doug Simpson, speaking for Clint Didier, got up and went off script, losing Didier the few votes he had in the room. Benton did his usual fine job, polished by years of experience and a deep passion for the job; David Castillo got up and actually made sense; the newest candidate (who's name escaped me) got up and talked about the things important to him, but didn't do to well due to his lack of experience. A large group of candidates spoke to a surprisingly small number of delegates, considering.

When I've had the chance to review the speeches, I'll critique them here, and folks can draw their own conclusion.

I then went in search of Herrera supporters who, could explain to me what they could possibly see in Ridgefield Barbie to support her.

I couldn't find one who could articulate it.

We split off into districts to elect delegates to the state convention.

I have actually run a state convention (Spokane in 2000) and attended a National Convention (Philadelphia in 2000) and I, personally, would rather dive into a pool of burning hydrochloric acid then do either again.

But others wanted to. We were, as I recall, supposed to elect 30 delegates and 30 alternates. I only knew 8 people on the list I could support, and I added 2 who said they were veterans. So, I voted for 10. I didn't know or care who was elected for either the rest or the the alternates.

For the 18th District, it took about 3 hours to get the delegates and the alternates voted in. So, we started on the platform and resolutions two hours late.

My resolution from the caucuses, to require a county wide vote on the horrific waste of money known as the I-5 Bridge/Loot rail project, was adopted.

I discussed the issue with Marc Boldt. Boldt pledged to me that he would support putting the question onto the November ballot this year.

I will hold him to his word, because I already know that Tom Mielke will support putting the question to the people in an advisory vote scenario, which is what Marc agreed to as well.

So, we should hopefully see that coming up soon.

Anyway, it ended. The Benton Bars (Chocolate and maple bars, a Benton tradition) vacuumed up, the various cookies and gallons of coffee, the every-two-year fix for folks to hear themselves speak; the announcement by Jim Dunn that he was going to run again... the massive and unrelenting egos and the typical lack of competence.

What I've come to expect every county convention.
.

Herrera throws a hissy fit in the Olympian: stomps her widdle footsie.

.
Gee, Ridgefield Barbie REALLY got stung by lying about having others vote in her place. SO stung, in fact, that she throws a genuine hissy-fit in today's letters to the editor in The Olympian, who rightly popped her upside her vacuous little head for ditching her job and having others vote for her while she was out making fund-raising calls. In fact, here's her whining little hair pulling screech of a letter, hot off the web site:

Not off the House floor for hours

I am disappointed that this paper chose to restate untrue allegations to single out my voting record in the editorial “Voting for others in the House is unacceptable. The source this paper quoted is not exactly a nonpartisan source — until recently Rep. Deb Wallace was my opponent in the 3rd Congressional District election.

I don’t disagree with the editorial’s call for procedural reform. I would like House leadership to better organize vote timing so that the procedure of voting for others can be changed, and legislators won’t have to miss any votes at all.

What I take issue with is the restated claim by Rep. Wallace that I have been away from the House floor “for hours at a time” during votes this year. That is false. I have one of the best voting attendance records in Olympia. In three years, I’ve missed only 10 out of 1,863 possible floor votes, and all were before this year.

When I am not on the floor, it is typically because I am honoring a constituent’s request for a meeting. As an assistant floor manager, I must also move around the floor to work with legislators about to speak, or attend leadership meetings in the wings. Involvement in the legislative process does not equal hours away from the floor during votes.

I stand behind my voting record, available at washingtonvotes.org, and I stand behind my hard work and service to the people of my legislative district.

REP. JAIME HERRERA, 18th Legislative District

YOU were "disappointed?" Imagine how "disappointed" we, your constituents were, to find out that you had others voting for you... and then have you deny it? Imagine how "disappointed" we were to find out you were too STUPID to stay here and do OUR business, instead of waiting until after session was over to go slurp at the special interest trough your puppet-master McMorris and lobbyist Slade put together for you. As you may have guessed, that disappointed the HELL out of me.

And then this lie about your "voting record" at washingtonvotes.org.

Your voting record, which includes your co-cponsorship and vote for an SEIU backed bill requiring collective bargaining for day care workers, is nothing to brag about in the BEST of circumstances.

But in THIS case, what washingtonvotes.org has isn't YOUR voting record. What it's got is the voting record of YOUR voting BUTTON. And what it DOESN'T tell us is who was PUSHING THAT BUTTON.

Man, it wasn't that long ago. You remember the stupidity of the Kool Aid drinkers supporting her; the screeching, whining, moaning and wailing at the very THOUGHT that Ridgefield Barbie would allow someone to vote for her... in her absence... so she would actually appear to be there and voting... was simply, in their minds, untrue.

What was it she said to The Columbian?

Herrera, R-Camas, angrily denied that she was absent in order to campaign.

“Deb has no credibility, she has no proof,” Herrera said.

She said that as deputy floor leader for the House Republican caucus, she was busy
last week organizing testimony in opposition to suspending Initiative 960, a voter-approved measure that requires a two-thirds vote of each chamber to raise taxes.

“I have missed 10 votes in my entire time as a legislator here,” she said. “I haven’t missed any votes (by being) off the floor this session. I’ve been on the House floor fighting for I-960. As a floor leader, part of my responsibility is to manage the floor debate.”

Interesting. Our lying little cardboard cutout DENIES she was "absent in order to campaign," but mere days later, she ditches her constituents and her job, to, you guessed it, be absent from the House so she could campaign.

Of course, she didn't manage spit when it came to the floor fight, but that's for another post; and it's in keeping with her flair of being a drama queen and someone bent on exaggeration to puff up her paper-thin resume'.

That said, Barbs was not, as it would seem, denying that others had voted for her in her absence... au contraire, mon ami.

No, what Barbs was doing was quibbling about just how long she was off the floor, and what she was doing while she was gone.

Now, using the Liz Mair dodge, unnamed sources have verified to me that democrat State Representative Deb Wallace's allegations that Herrera both allowed others to vote in her place AND was making campaign fund raising calls while she was absent from the floor is true.

Of course, the way to solve this problem is to FOIA Herrera's phone records from her office... and ask her to produce her cell phone records... while looking to see the number of times she, say, called McMorris during session to nail down the arrangements for her DC special interest fundraiser... or check to see if those calls were to, say, one of the 8 people who provided the large bulk of her money for the December 31 FEC reporting cutoff... you know, to make arrangements for yet another fund raiser she bailed on us for, this one in Seattle that had lobbyist Slade's fingerprints all over it.

If only Ridgefield Barbie was an adult.

Remembering that old saw about Winston Churchill and the Madam at the party:

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, naturally.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.

So, when it comes to the matter of others voting in Herrera's place, we've established who and what she is.

Now we're just haggling over how much time she was spending off the floor.

And frankly, knowing what I know?

My money's on Wallace.

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.
.

Herrera supporters confuse me; Castillo calls nailing Barbie bad, bad; RNCC calls nailing Pridemore good, good.

.
Lately, there's been a massive brouhaha by Herrera's Kool Aid drinkers over the word-for-word accurate robo-call used by David Castillo to tell the 3rd Congressional District about our session-ditching, SEIU supporting, someone-else-voting-for her-while-shes-gone, slurping-at-the-DC-special-interest-trough-during-session-HERE, Ridgefield Barbie.

Man, the outrage, the over-the-top responses, the out and out lies and exaggerations Barbie supporters engaged in as a result of these calls... unbelievable.

As I pointed out with a word-by-word analysis, everything the calls said is true. Of major interest to me is the approach to their commentary.

Where this site, who opposes this cardboard cut out of a representative, questions the zombie-like response of the Herrera Herd, I did so actually posting the "offending" call in question.

Where the Herd bleated its faux anger, I was unable to find any of them who posted the call, and then disputed its contents. There's something quite sickening about that.

And here's where my confusion comes into play.

Apparently, Craig Pridemore's local political deathwish is to be an Obamaton.

That, of course, is his privilege.

Between his corrupt politics, his support of the horrific project known as the I-5 Bridge/Loot rail, his vote to trash I-960, and apparently being a complete Obama tool for health care, including the communistic public option, Pridemore has no chance. None.

To date, he hasn't been able to raise money, and the local fringe whack jobs supporting him, like the fringe whack jobs on the right supporting Herrera, tend to show proof of doom in the primary.

I get that he wants to lock down the fringe left. But to the 80% of the voters to Pridemore's right, positions like these:

"Let me be clear: I believe that Democrats in Congress should pass the bill, include a public option, and if necessary, use the reconciliation process to get it done," he said.

are simply out of the main stream. This sentiment serves to bury Pridemore and his fellow fringers even farther behind any chance of winning the seat.

Of course, if the GOP still had control of Congress and this was on a bill Pridemore didn't like, he'd be bitching like a cut cat if the Republicans were planning to do the same thing... and we can be sure his opposition to such a maneuver would be EVER so principled.

But not even THAT is the point. Pridemore's campaign will collapse soon enough without any particular help from me.

The point is that the Herrera Herd was positively GIDDY over the RNCC calls blasting the positions of the two leading democrats. Major tweeting, re-tweeting, etc.

And that's where I'm confused.

As I said, I posted the "offending" Castillo robo-call, in its entirety. I did that to show that everything in the call was completely factual. I pointed out where members of the Herrera Herd have lied and exaggerated about it's contents, and even have gone so far as attack those wise enough to agree with the contents of the call... which are, after all, completely factual.

So, Castillo does a robo-call, factual in every way. The Herrera Herd wants to draw and quarter him as a result.

The RNCC does a robo-call, apparently not so factual, having rightly indicated that Heck is, apparently, "undecided" (which is a euphemism for being too cowardly to take a position on the issue, given its level of radioactivity in this area and his party's moronic support of the bill) while wrongly indicating the Pridemore was "undecided" in the face of his left-of-Lenin position on the matter.

The result?

The Herrera Herd dances around a rhetorical bonfire the size of Pittsburgh.

So, let me get this straight:

Castillo is savaged for doing a factual call accurately attacking Ridgefield Barbie.

The RNCC is applauded, cheered and generally worshiped for attacking Barbie's presumed democrat competition?

So, it's bad when some people do it, but good when others engage in the process?

So, I admit it. The Herrera Herd confuses me.

Crossposted at Jaime Herrera Watch.
.