Another example of why it's wrong to confuse The Columbian with "journalism."

.
In what must be their fourth story of the issue, the idiots at the bridger/looter Pravda Columbian paper have, once again, whined and snivel about the moronic "what is and what isn't" candy tax.

They've done it before, and they'll most like do it again.

What did they leave out?

The moron who is behind this law. The simple idiot bent on jacking up our taxes in the midst of a horrific recession. The fringe-leftist whack job that this rag has supported since he first climbed out of his "screw the people" hole.

Jim "The Candy Man" Moelller, (Socialist 49th District).

If these morons were true "journalists," isn't it obvious they would have pinned the "credit" for this complete stupidity where it most properly belong? They obviously know he's behind it: why are they protecting him?

This tax didn't develop in a test tube. Saying

"Others say Washington is not the first state to separate candy from baked goods for sales tax purposes, using the pivotal ingredient of flour. The language, drafted by the multistate Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board, aims to makes sales-tax rules more uniform across the nation.

“At least 24 other states have this definition,” said Mike Gowrylow, a spokesman for the Washington State Department of Revenue.

If EVERY other state adopted this stupidity, that wouldn't justify ANYTHING. It's pretty clear these leftists are making a concerted effort to spin this for their fellow travelers so it isn't used as yet another in the series of excuses to bludgeon these morons at the polls in November.

But the quiz question today is this: why are the scum at the Columbian so bent on protecting Moeller? Why aren't they telling the whole world who is directly responsible for this garbage?

Well, I think we know why, don't we?

For more on the background, check out Lew Waters on the Candy Man.

The Columbian fails to master cause and effect: They endorsed Moeller, condemn his idiotic candy bill...

... fail to understand that it was THEIR guy that pushed this idiocy...

... and then failed to mention idiotic stick in their rant:

Jeers: To the state’s new candy tax, which takes effect June 1. Even someone without a sweet tooth can find something to hate in this new tax, recently enacted by the state Legislature as part of a package of budget-balancing gimmicks. One of the biggest problems is defining “candy,” which, according to the state, is made with “sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners combined with chocolate, fruit, nuts or other ingredients or flavorings and formed into bars, drops or pieces. …”
Clear on that? Three Musketeers chocolate bars are taxed. Starburst fruit chews, too. But, wait. Nestle’s Crunch is exempt, along with Milky Way bars and Twizzlers. They all contain flour, so they aren’t candy. To figure out which sweets are taxed, the Department of Revenue has examined the ingredients of 3,000 food items, placing some on the tax rolls and others on the exempt list. We wonder how much that cost, even as we wish lawmakers remembered what our mom always said: Candy isn’t very nutritious.

Lew Waters has the low down.

How weird is this? How unethical? How much of a tank job is it when this paper condemns legislation without mentioning the one responsible for it?

THIS PAPER ENDORSED THIS CLOWN.

They not only fail to mention that MOELLER SPONSORED AND PUSHED THIS BILL THEY HATE SO MUCH, they naturally fail to mention that he's a democrat, representing the district where this paper is located... or that they've endorsed him for every election he's run.

These chickens are coming home to roost, and this kind of pap is the best this cancer on our community can do?.