The democrat lie of a state income tax: Saying it's a "millionaires tax" was like the Germans claiming Auschwitz was a "work camp."

The comparison is clear. "Arbeit Macht Frei" is a lie here in the Washington Soviet as well
Anyone who so much as drives past the state Capitol in Olympia knows the left has issues.

Their main problem?

They lie. A lot.

Any sentient being is aware of the reality of leftist politics in 2026. Lies, exaggerations, violence, hatred, fringe-left communist policies and insane tax increases to pay for asinine programs and projects that are lie stacked on lie (The I-5 loot rail project, billions waiting to be wasted on a light rail scam that the people of Clark County have REPEATEDLY made clear we do not want, do not need and cannot afford, as just one example) are the order of the day.

The leftist wet-dream for the Washington Soviet has always been a state income tax (which has really worked SOOO well in the train wreck of a state called "Oregon") to facilitate income redistribution to buy votes from their base to remain in power through Soviet-style politics. Ramming their latest extortion down our throats with no concern for the repeatedly (TEN TIME) rejection of public opposition in the past and overwhelming opposition today..

It is the later-day implementation of Soviet-type "democratic centralism," the communist model writ large.

It was easy to conclude that the underlying plan was what's called "the camel's nose under the tent-flap" approach to politics where the so-called "millionaire tax" scam was merely to ease what they knew would be overwhelming opposition. Until now, however, there was no proof and beyond the usual democrat claims of conspiracy theory, scant attention paid to such claims.

After all, they hold a majority in the Soviet that makes them dictatorial in nature.

In short, they presumed the people of this state are morons (and it's difficult to argue that, considering the lying scum the leftist sheep insist on electing in this state) and have acted accordingly concerning this and other legislation they've lied about with a perfectly straight face.

Senate democrat Majority Leader, Jaime Pedersen (best known for his declaration that kids can/should become sexually active WITHOUT PARENTAL INTERFERENCE:

Pedersen’s full response: “When you’re talking about a young person’s health care, it’s a lot more complicated, right? Young women, if they’re old enough to get pregnant, they’re old enough to make their own decisions about what happens with their bodies, and parents do not have the right to change that or make a different decision or be notified in advance.”

(The kinda increasingly islamacist-type thinking where adult men routinely marry and impregnate prepubescent children in the guise of their religion) the moment they become capable of bearing children, let the cat out of the bag with this short email, sourced from Clark County Today:

It lays out the truth of the matter, a truth any knowledgeable observer knew intuitively but could not prove... until this moment.

The email is lie stacked upon lie.

There would be no reduction in taxes anywhere.

And even if there were, such a reduction would have the life span of a gnat in duration. (Which is one week. I looked it up)

The income tax isn't about fairness. It isn't about the will of the people. And, as this email from the Senate leader proves, it isn't about millionaires.

If this passes, ALL of us will feel the pain of yet another testicle revenue squeezing moment, all done without asking (Not surprising, given the ten times voters in this state have rejected this extortion in the past) for the singular purpose of extorting MORE money for MORE programs for another massive  expansion of an already out of control government.

In short, the fringe-left scum running the government of this state have proven, ONCE AGAIN, that they don't care what the people want, think or believe.

And they'll be reelected this November.

Because as Obamacare architect, MIT professor Jonathan Gruber once said: voters are stupid.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

Just like the state's latest effort at imposing slavery.
And far too many Washington State voters provide proof of it every November in election years.

Folks:

Take polling in the presidential race not with a grain of salt, but with a brick of it. Any of those developed for cattle or deer will do.

Only two polls I can find (the Investor's Business Daily / TechnoMetrica poll (IBD/TIPP) and University of Southern California Dornslife / Los Angeles Times poll. - Bizarrely, the LA Times ignored their own polling and suggested a Hillary victory with 352 electoral votes.) Actually made the right call.

Story here: https://clarkcountypolitics.blogspot.com/2016/11/no-media-bias-youre-kidding-right-la.html

I point this out because much of recent polling is showing that Trump is winning and in some instances, that it could be something of a landslide.

You know, the same way they claimed Hillary was going to bury Trump.

Early on, several months ago, I suggested that you ignore 100% of what you "hear," and half of what you see for yourself.

That warning is now more important than ever.

Regardless of who you're supporting at any level, from local to federal, do the work.

Do not be an ignorant voter. Do not rely on what you've been told.
Incumbents leave fingerprints that you can easily find and identify. They're called a "voting record."

NONE of these people take credit for any of their failures.

While, for example, Sideshow Bobby Ferguson has a hair-trigger on his press release gun when he wins in Court, he remains strangely silent in the face of the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars he's lost in court in various cases... and he was involved in the cabal of billionaires who tried to strip the initiatives they hate off the ballot, behind closed, court room doors… and there are other cases that were equally disastrous for him politically. I haven't seen or heard of any of his glowingly self-flagellating efforts on the behalf of those loses.

You won't see his failures in campaign literature any more than you saw Sen. Ann Rivers taking credit for betraying us and ramming an unneeded, unwanted gas tax and tab fee increase down our collective throats after pledging, as a major part of her campaign to become a Senator to oppose both, claiming we "have to live within our means."

Candidates on both sides of the aisle generally do all they can to avoid specifics. Instead, we get what we call in the biz "glittering generalities" or "bright, shiny object" pledges.

"I support the 2nd Amendment" SOUNDS great. But the questions are both "how," and "what?"

HOW do you support the 2nd Amendment? What have you done in the past? What bills have you had signed into law, or stopped from being signed? What bills will YOU introduce to expand our rights?
And what happens when you try to nail candidates down on this issue and those related to it?

Most ignore you. At best they tell you as little as possible or, as in the case of both Perez and Harris, they outright lie to you.
The issue of abortion is one they routinely use to beat the hell out of the GOP.

What they claim is to put them back into office because THEY will return us to “nationwide abortion availability.”

They can no more do that than Kevin McCarthy, who was Speaker for a few minutes, pledged to get rid of the 87,000 IRS agent scam they ran.

No federal legislation can supersede a Supreme Court decision.
Dobbs made it clear abortion was a 10th Amendment issue. Any effort made by the Fed to remove that authority and assume it for themselves is DOA in the same court that got rid of abortion before.

Perez knows it. Harris knows it. But they can’t admit it. Neither have made any effort TO make abortion a “right” nationwide by a Constitutional Amendment… which both can be done and, in fact, is the ONLY way to arrive at the Narnia these two claim is RIGHT THERE, if you JUST KEEP US IN OFFICE!!!!

Which begs the issue: why haven’t they?

And when those reading this vote for either or both of those two, they have to do so KNOWING they are being lied to, to their faces. I did say we have the government we deserve or something, didn’t I?

You have many rights. But with rights comes responsibilities. And your responsibility is to get past voting merely because of a label of convenience. If an elected official has been a "fakir" in the past, they'll continue to do so in the future. Claiming to be either a democrat or a Republican is truly meaningless in the end.

Do not ignore their record. And do not buy into the "I'll do better next time" excuse.

When a pol promises the moon plus two dollars to get your vote, keep one hand on your wallet and the other covering your nether regions.

Politics is an outcome-based business. None of this "Well, I tried" nonsense like Herrera's miserable failure to get a bill passed that would have stopped tolling on paid for, completed structures; like the I-205 bridge.

In short, do the work. You still have time to make your decisions based on actual facts. Know what you're doing and why. Our obvious failure to hold politicians accountable for their actions... and lack of actions... is a major part of why we're as screwed up as a country as we are.

We do have the government we deserve. And what we have are the people you not only put there, they're the people we keep sending back.

And look what we, as a nation, have to show for it.

A quick reminder: Politicians frequently make promises they cannot keep... on both sides

A quick reminder: Politicians frequently make promises they cannot keep.

Two examples are Kevin McCarthy, who became Speaker of the House, who promised he would eliminate the 87,000 IRS agent scam the Biden Regime was running... which, of course, he could not do, since any such effort was DOA not only in the Senate, but also would have been subject to veto by Biden.

Anyone who knew even the least of politics knew he couldn't accomplish that, and to date, as expected, it STILL hasn't been accomplished and won't be unless the GOP has control of all 3 branches of government, i.e., until at least next year.

The second lie is from Kamala:

There is nothing she can do to codify nationwide abortion.

Nothing.

That she claims she can... that she believes or claims she believes getting rid of the filibuster would, in any way, make that happen is simply a lie.

The nature of the Supreme Court decision to overturn RvW is clear: the Court has determined that the abortion issue is to be decided by the several states.

In short, they have made it clear that abortion is a state's rights issue.

Period.

They left no door open that would enable federal legislation to overturn their decision: even if any such bill passed and was signed into law, it would immediately be tossed out by the same Court that tossed it in the first place.

Why she lied is obvious: she wants to be the Great Female Hope.

But she knows, as I do, that she is lying. Just like I knew McCarthy was lying and for the same reason.

If the democrats control all three branches of government, it will make exactly zero difference.

Vote for who you like. But it's not just that the Pole Dancer is lying... it's that she's so bad at it and her supporters are gullible enough to believe her. Know up front that she is lying to you about this and lying to you about lowering grocery (or any other) prices (for which she has zero plan; if she DID have a plan, why is she hiding it?) and other issues no doubt.

This is very much a case of her REQUIRING to be burdened by what has been.

She would say or do anything, legal or illegal, to get elected.

Including lie to the faces of her supporters.

What you do is up to you.

Willie would approve.

The 800 pound gorilla remains in the room.

For years now, Joe Biden's competence, mental acuity and abilities have been called into question by most honest observers.

And literally, for years now, leftists lied to our faces about his condition. Leftists including Kamala Harris.

Why did they lie to us?

Days ago, every leftist talking head in America lied to our faces. NONE of them questioned his condition, competence, abilities or awareness.

Joe Scarborough assured us not long ago:

"BUT COMPARING THAT GUY'S MENTAL STATE -- I'VE SAID IT FOR YEARS NOW, HE'S COGENT, BUT I UNDERSOLD HIM WHEN I SAID HE WAS COGENT. HE'S FAR BEYOND COGENT.

IN FACT, I THINK HE'S BETTER THAN HE'S EVER BEEN INTELLECTUALLY, ANALYTICALLY, BECAUSE HE'S BEEN AROUND FOR 50 YEARS AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE KNOW THIS OR NOT, BIDEN USED TO BE A HOT HEAD.

SOMETIMES THAT IRISHMAN WOULD GET IN FRONT OF THE REASONING, SOMETIMES HE WOULD SAY THINGS HE DIDN'T WANT TO SAY. THIS IS -- AND I DON'T -- YOU KNOW WHAT I DON'T REALLY --

START YOUR TAPE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I'M ABOUT TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH.

AND EFF YOU IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. THIS VERSION OF BIDEN INTELLECTUALLY, ANALYTICALLY, IS THE BEST BIDEN EVER.

NOT A CLOSE SECOND.

AND I HAVE KNOWN HIM FOR YEARS. THE BRZEZINSKIS HAVE KNOWN HIM FOR 50 YEARS.

IF IT WEREN'T THE TRUTH I WOULDN'T SAY IT.

Indeed. He wouldn’t say it. Yet, he knew he was lying when he DID say it. One wonders: why did Joe Scarborough lie?

Why did they put power ahead of the needs and security of this country?

Who, exactly, has been acting as president since it's clear the one we’ve got has morphed from Chief Executive to Chief Mushroom?

There's so many things democrats have lied to us about. Biden's condition is merely the most recent.

So now, we're expected to shove all of that aside and vote for the liars? The PROVEN liars?

Why?

Democrats, including Harris, have called voters stupid. Jonathan Grubber, architect of the horrific Obamacare plan (If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.) outright made the claim voters are stupid.

Are we?

Voters support candidates for a variety of reasons. Likeability plays a role. Getting that emotional connection. Overt manipulation. Taking the voters for granted, particularly the party of the self-admitted stupid, plays a role. Most importantly, as the democrats have shown, time after time, lying to the voters plays a role.

And as we ramp up to this November, I have to ask:

They lied to us for years. Repeatedly. They're ramming a candidate who never received a single primary vote, ever, down the democrat's throats... and we're now expected to believe them? 

Kamala Harris is a younger version of Joe Biden. She has the mental acuity of a guppy. She used her body in large part to achieve her goals. She is to the left of Bernie Sanders and Karl Marx.

She has lied repeatedly. She has sold herself out repeatedly. She has embarrassed this country repeatedly.

Why?

Why would anyone believe anything they say? Why would anyone believe anything Harris says?

Harris earning her political position the hard way with married California Speaker Willie Brown

Do they have a record of honesty and transparency?

Really?

Where's the Biden-Hur tape? Why do they still refuse to turn it over?

Harris is the candidate of crime, open borders, defunding police, homelessness and drug overdose deaths. She shilled for donations to free terrorist scum arrested as part of the riots which resulted in murders, rapes, assaults, burning, looting and destruction.

Voting for that lends credence to the claim that American voters are, in fact, stupid. We're lazy, we don't dig down, we don’t do the work, and we don't look at the record of what has actually happened on her watch and what will get even worse in the future should we suffer the misfortune of her election.

We have the government we deserve. But no one deserves the horror show about to be unveiled with Kamala's coronation.

Columbian starts their democrat endorsement slate.

.
In the 2008 election, The Columbian endorsed democrats, and nothing but democrats, for every open seat on the ballot from president on down to state representative.

As mentioned, president? Obama (And man, THAT'S worked out well, hasn't it?)

State Treasurer? McIntire (Never mind that 33 of this state's county treasurers and the Republican's democrat boss had endorsed him, or that he had worked in the office for several years... he wasn't a democrat.)

State Representative 17th? Probst

State Representative 49th? Jacks

County Commissioner? Brokaw

These were the only open seats available for the local democrat newsletter to endorse.

Now, ideally, endorsements would be based on mundane issues such as experience, education, vision, ideas, a record of success. And the same standard would be applied to everyone, equally.

Ideally.

The problem here is that our local rag only plays the "experience" card when it suits them.

When they want a democrat to win (always, as far as that goes) and the democrat has no experience that qualifies them for election, then their lack of experience is ignored.

For example, McIntire had precisely zero experience in the state treasurers office, so his complete lack of experience had no impact on the rag's decision to endorse him. In endorsing McIntire, they ignored the 33 county endorsements of his Republican opponent, as well as his opponent's democrat boss... and they certainly ignored the fact that the Republican was the Deputy State Treasurer.

But what McIntire DID have going for him was this:

1. Open seat.
2. Democrat.
3. Very big on a state income tax.

The first two, of course, were the clincher for the rag. The third was just icing on the cake.

So, the rag plays the "experience" card whenever it suits them, and fails to play it whenever it suits them.

Their endorsement of Pam Brokaw, for example.

Brokaw had zero elective experience. Brokaw was the direct recipient of David Barnett's corruptive largess in the form of thousands and thousands of dollars. She cowardly "failed" to take positions on the bridger/looter situation OR the Barnett casino.

Her opponent, Commissioner Mielke, had been elected to state representative for 4 terms, had served on a variety of committees covering a variety of areas of concern to a commissioner at the county level.... and none of that meant anything.

They carried Brokaw's water like Gunga Din. She lost, of course: cowardice in positions is rarely an attractive characteristic to the voter.

That, of course, brings us to the pre-endorsement endorsement of Golik for county prosecutor.

The selective application of facts is one of the more despicable aspects of the Columbian's editorial decisions.

For example, this little tidbit:

Indeed, it’s difficult to overstate the value of Golik’s endorsements. Not only have his fellow deputy prosecutors tabbed him as their top choice, he’s been endorsed by Vancouver police officers, Clark County sheriff’s officers and police officers in five other cities in Clark County.

I missed any mention in this tripe of an endorsement of the fact that Golik is the president of the prosecutor's union.

Naturally, all of the other unions involved will endorse both a fellow unionist AND a union president.

That's obvious. SO obvious, in fact, that the local stain on our community neglected to mention that minor little detail.

Because, of course, if they HAD mentioned that little fact, then the lack of value.... the worthlessness of these endorsements would have been obvious.

But because it's an open seat, and because this paper's agenda is to only elect democrats whenever possible, and because including the facts behind these endorsements would guarantee the Republican's elections, these low lifes left that out.

I'm stunned.

Are you stunned?

It's this selective applications of facts that make the local rag dangerous. They have a duty to present ALL of the facts... not just the ones they like.

Did they do that here?

Of course not.

It's not like they didn't know (from the Columbian article "Prosecutor's Union backs Tony Golik"):

Golik is the president of the prosecutors union but was excluded from participating in the vetting process.

So, ladies and gentlemen, it's not like these scum DIDN'T know. It's just that they didn't believe YOU should know.

Makes me all warm and fuzzy just thinking about the rag's selective self-censorship.
.

Both the Columbian and Thomas Edison verify it: Russell's claim of a college degree is fake.

.
Keep in mind the fact that my interview with the Columbian, DONE IN WRITING, did NOT say some of what is printed here.

But here is the entire entry, unfortunately limited to the not-well-read political blog on the website as opposed to being printed in the newspaper... like it should have been.

Jon Russell's degree

Blog: Political Beat

Subscribe

By Columbian Politics (Columbian Staff)

July 6, 2010

Did Jon Russell, the Washougal city councilor who’s running for an open seat in the 18th Legislative District, misrepresent his academic credentials to precinct committee officers?

Yes, says Kelly Hinton, who leveled the accusation at Russell last week on his Clark County Politics blog.

No, insists Russell. So we checked it out.

Russell allegedly told 18th District precinct committee officers that he had a two-year associate degree from Thomas Edison State College in New Jersey. The college offers degrees through correspondence courses as well as at its bricks-and-mortar campus.

The college confirms that Russell enrolled in courses there, but says it has not granted him a degree.

Russell says he has earned more than the 60 credit hours required for an AA degree. He told The Columbian he has sent for his transcript to prove it.

But he concedes that he never got around to doing the paperwork required to get the actual degree.

When he looked into it last week, he said, he learned he would have to reenroll as a fulltime student in order to apply.

Joe Guzzardo, spokesman for Thomas Edison, confirmed the policy. Not only that, he said, it would cost Russell $630 to apply for the AA degree under the college’s “reenrollment to graduate” policy. Until last March, he said, the cost would have been $2,332 for former students living out of state.

“In order for someone like Mr. Russell to finish, they would have to take advantage of the ‘reenrollment to graduate’ policy,” Guzzardo said.

Russell maintains that he never said he actually had the degree. “I’ve always said I’ve earned my degree,” he told The Columbian. “I’ve never said I obtained my degree.”

Nevertheless, he said Tuesday, “I have submitted a ‘request for graduation’ form with Thomas Edison to have my diploma sent to me.”

Russell says Hinton’s blog “is designed to do nothing more than to tear down my credibility” because Hinton, a former legislative staffer, backs one of Russell’s opponents, Ann Rivers, in the 18th District race. “He is trying to turn over every rock,” Russell said.

Both Hinton and Rivers confirmed that they are business associates in a political consulting firm. Rivers called Hinton “a friend.”

But she said she’s not behind Hinton’s blog attacks. “I don’t need to tear down someone else’s building to make myself look taller,” she said.

Hinton confirmed in an e-mail that he supports Rivers’ candidacy, but he said he began criticizing Russell when he was still a candidate for the 3rd Congressional District seat. Russell dropped out of that race in February and joined a crowded field for the open 18th District position.

Kathie Durbin

Unfortunately for the reader not in the know, this article is factually incorrect in ways that just mystify me.

In my blog or in my email to Durbin, I never alleged that Russell had told the PCO's of the 18th District that he had a degree. I made no note of that whatsoever.

What I told Durbin was this:

The evidence I have provided; that Russell has indicated his wife is a “physician” to the 18^th District PCO’s, that he called her a ”doctor” in the Vancouver Business Journal and then changed the story to “family nurse practitioner” after I blogged about it and that Sarah Russell has advertised herself as a doctor at the Columbia River Gorge Medical Clinic in a newspaper owned by the Columbian, if I’m not mistaken, is not something I fabricated.

For whatever the reason, there was no mention of these allegations, which are as much a lie as Russell's fake degree.

And let's review the verbiage Russell was using on his website:

Jon’s experience in politics started as he was working on his degree in political science first at Vincennes University and finished his degree at Thomas Edison State College in Trenton, NJ.

CLEARLY this was meant to deliberately infer that he had completed a BACHELOR'S DEGREE, and NOT an AA.

How Durbin could confuse Russell lying to the PCO's about his degree and lying to the PCO's about his wife is just beyond me.

For those of us actually possessed of 4 year degrees, we recognize the major difference, parsed by Russell, between having more then the number of credits required for an AA degree and actually completing... and receiving... a bachelor's degree.

Russell knows that. Thus his Clintonesque, "it all depends on what the definition of "is," is response:

Russell maintains that he never said he actually had the degree. “I’ve always said I’ve earned my degree,” he told The Columbian. “I’ve never said I obtained my degree.”

Really?

So, this is the kind of representation Russell has to offer? One where we have to parse everything he says to figure it out?

Russell whines that my blog: "... is designed to do nothing more than to tear down my credibility” because Hinton, a former legislative staffer, backs one of Russell’s opponents, Ann Rivers, in the 18th District race. “He is trying to turn over every rock,” Russell said.

Well, the thing about credibility is this: If you don't lie, fabricate or exaggerate, then I've got nothing to write about... do I?

Unfortunately, the paper deliberately left out the FACT that I began nailing Russell's "credibility" as soon as he announced for Congress; instead of verifying that truth, relying alternately on the "I said I began criticizing Russell" when he announced for Congress, thereby deliberately failing to destroy Russell's position that my primary motivation for Jon Russell Watch wasn't my support of Ann Rivers, but instead, my opposition to Russell.

Typical.

And by the way, Jon.... I'm given to understand that you brought your own lies to the attention of the paper (Not that, since they read my blogs several times a day, they didn't know about them anyway) so I wanted to give you a hearty "Well done!"

So, while whoever wrote this has a fact check problem with a narrow-focused view with blinders, leaving out much of the other allegations which directly impact on Russell's increasingly non-existent credibility, this is, I suppose, better than nothing.

Barely. But this is, I suppose, what passes for "journalism" at the lazy C.

Cross posted at Jon Russell Watch.
.

Brandon Vick and the truth.

.
On May 22, I was an onlooker at the 18th District PCO meeting at the GOP headquarters in Hazel Dell.

It was a meeting that initially was planned to be part of the "winnowing process." Best known for the place where Jon Russell lied about his wife's job (He told us all she was a "physician." She is, in fact, a "physician's assistant.") an allegation I had been hearing about Russell as far back as his abortive congressional campaign, but had never heard myself... until that meeting.

But one of the questions asked of all the candidates present (Ann Rivers, Jon Russell and Brandon Vick) was this: how much money has your campaign put together?

Rivers, now showing over $37,000, indicated that she'd put together $33,000 or so at the time.

Vick indicated $8,100. Russell, "about $10,000."

The problem is this:

Vick lied.

At the time he was standing in front of us, according to his just filed PDC report, he had raised $6,055. He overstated the amount he'd raised by 25%. (As of this writing, he shows a total from all sources of $6,730.)

Now, I can see fudging the figure a little. But 25%? Why would he lie to all of the PCO's about how much money he had raised?

In fact, after the meeting was over, I even asked him: Brandon, you raised $8,100? After you only raised $300 in all of April?

He told me that things were looking up, or had picked up... or some such. Well, given that at the moment in question, he had only raised $440 to the 22nd of May, that was something of an increase over all of April.

But it wasn't $8,100.

I recently took him to task for some of his campaign language. He hasn't responded.

I like Brandon. Always have. But in reality, he has only raised $3,865 in cash. And you have to do better than that. If you can't do better than that, then you really ought to get out, because anything else is a delusion... especially when you have to lie about it.
.

Pridemore and the lie.

.
Look, I get that the fringe left have put their faith in the neo-communist nutter representing the Soviet Socialist Republic of Vancouver in the senate.

I get that they overlook his history of corruption, his selling out the "poor and the powerless" to vote for a budget he seems to have hated. I get that they don't care that he sold out the 3rd District by crapping on us when he tossed our votes into the garbage by eliminating I-960. I get that they support his gerrymandering to screw us with a loot rail tax. I get all of that.

But to come right out and lie on your website?

The working men and women of Washingon[sic] decided - by a huge nearly 70% vote - that my vision of principled, progressive leadership in Congress is the one to support. I'm honored by their endorsement, and thankful for their recognition that I've always fought for hard-working families and I'm committed to genuine, straightforward leadership in Congress.

How sad is it that you can't even spell "Washington?"

It WASN'T "The working men and women of Washingon[sic]." The vast majority of the "working men and women of Washington" HAVE never heard of you, and WILL never hear of you, as your abortive congressional aspiration dies here directly, either after you report another horrifically abysmal fund raising quarter or after you get destroyed in the primary.

Now, if you're referring to the UNIONS.. well, that's a different matter.

But unions make up such a tiny percentage (thank God) of the people actually working here, that the union endorsements are particularly worthless.

Don't exaggerate, Craig. Your neo-communist political view won't get you elected to dog catcher outside the USSV.

You're a democrat, Craig. Your failure to take a principled stand and vote AGAINST a budget you opposed is the exact kind of thing we DON'T need representing us in Congress.

This isn't Pravda. Stop acting like it is.
.

Craig Pridemore: Senator Slime.

.
Look, I admit it. I've got problems with Pridemore.

I've got problems with someone who would condemn a budget as being "balanced on the backs of the poor and the powerless," right before voting "yes" for that same budget.

I've got problems with someone who would pass a bill to gerrymander the CTrans district lines to exclude 10's of thousands of "no" votes on his loot rail tax increase.

I've got problems with someone ethically challenged enough to amend his own campaign finance bill to allow Steve "Easy Money" Stuart to keep 10's of thousands in campaign donations for his commissioner election.

I've got problems wit someone so out of touch that he told the people of the 3rd Congressional District, who voted in favor of I-960 to get stuffed when he voted to get rid of it.

Those things trouble me.

Pridemore has as much trouble raising money as he does being ethical. But this kind of crap is close to the top of the list of reasons why he's unfit for elective office:

Underdog Democrat Pridemore Says Polling Has Him Ahead of Party Rival Heck

But Pridemore, a liberal who supports a carbon fee to fight global warming, a constitutional amendment that says corporations do not have First Amendment rights, a single-payer health care system—and who marched against the Iraq War—says he has polling that shows he’s ahead of Heck.

“We have done one poll,” Pridemore says, “and we’re encouraged by the results. We are definitely ahead in name recognition, in votes, in favorability.”

Asked if we could see the poll, Pridemore was sheepish, saying he was going to get in trouble with his campaign for talking about it. He did say that it was a robopoll.

Now, you've got to be delusional to be a fringe leftist like Pridemore under any circumstances. He has absolutely zero chance of getting elected to Congress from this district: moronic positions on global warming like cap and swindle; pro socialist Obama care... No chance. None.

But to put out this crap?

Desperation. There is no such poll, save for that ruminating around Pridemore's head. The cutesy way he shilled it tells anyone that.

Senator Slime strikes again. Well done, CP.
.

Can someone help with this? When is it OK to lie in a campaign?

.
Seriously.

I'm watching coverage of labor throwing a fit over the taxing of health care benefits that Obama complained McCain wanted to tax during the campaign, and I've got to ask: how come Obama gets to lie?

Was it that long ago that the left was flipping out over Bush's alleged "lies" that were used to justify our invasion of Iraq?

Why is it that Bush's "lies" were to be condemned so loudly and long.... but Obama's lies are, essentially, given a complete pass.

Did that man and his lackeys not stand there in front of all of us and tell us that if you earned less than $250,000, you wouldn't pay "one dime more" in taxes if we elected him?

So.... what's the deal? Were we to take that literally, as in, "I ain't paying ONE dime more in taxes... I'm paying THOUSANDS of more dimes in taxes?"

I mean, if we're supposed to take it literally, then the man isn't lying.

But if we have to take what he said about THAT literally, then weren't we supposed to take his claim that if we'd only allow him to bury us in debt, why, well, unemployment wouldn't climb over 8%.

And if we take that literally, don't we have to take the promise to not hire lobbyists literally? How about the promise to end earmarks or other pork in budgets?

At precisely what point is this man supposed to be held accountable for what he promised during his election?

We are told to "give him a chance."

Well, he's had a chance, and things continue to be worse now than ever under Bush.

But why is it OK for him to lie? And when, if ever, are we SUPPOSED to believe him?

Doesn't our failure to hold HIM accountable mean that NO politician should be held accountable?

And if we're willing to hold, say, a state representative or commissioner accountable...

...then why don't we hold Obama accountable?

Can someone help me with that?

I wanna know.
.

Redux:The trouble with "Restoring Trust In Government" when you're not honest about who you are: Russell continues to blow off his tax and spend past.

.
A reminder about fake "trust in government."

It's all well and good for Jon Russell (R-Chicago) to come out and take shots at our local Cowardman, Brian Baird.

In fact, I've taken a few (as in dozens) of shots at the slimy worm representing us in Congress that seems to have gone so far as to make up death threats as an excuse for lacking the testicles required to face his constituency over his upcoming sell out on the empty suits socialized health care plan... in keeping with his cowardly, hypocritical votes on the porkulus and cap and swindle bills that he voted for... without ever reading.

That, however, does NOT "Restore Trust In Government."

It does not restore trust in government ("Trust" being the entire underpinning of one's campaign) when you, yourself, made money in an incompetent effort to ram the largest single property tax increase in our local history down our throats when you, Mr. Russell, ran the Port of Vancouver's abortive campaign to do that very thing.

YOU were in charge of the Port getting massacred at the polls. YOU made thousands of dollars off that effort. YOU have attacked others wrongfully an in the most underhanded ways when they're wise enough to oppose your positions.

YOU are the one fired from the House Republican Caucus in Olympia; YOU are the one who portrays yourself as some sort of expert on health care... and YOU are the one who keeps telling us "actions speak louder than words."

YOUR actions are right out of the Axlerod playbook. And we really don't need that kind of representation around here.
.

My reaction to today's Lou Brancaccio's media flatulence.

.
We are cursed with an utterly clueless daily paper for our region of the woods; the Columbian.

From time to time, their managing editor makes ragged and frequent attempts to justify that cluelessness, including today's effort. There is, perhaps, no one more critical of our local paper then I. I can, without doubt, claim that this paper wherein he writes about yet another in the long series of so-called advisory boards where, as he puts it, "We'd regularly gather readers to ask them how we're doing," either, as in this case, hand picks the participants or ignores the results if those results might tend to derail this rag from it's agenda.

I can modestly claim that there is, perhaps, no one more critical of this paper than I. I can also claim that no amount of criticism; no amount of fact-based correction; no appeal to something unheard of in our local despicable rag (aka "ethics") will make any difference of any kind to those in charge.

In short, the dog and pony show Brancaccio writes about today will change absolutely nothing. It will make no difference in their bias. It will not get them to write ALL of the facts, not just the ones they like. It will not stop Brancaccio in particular, and others within the Columbian from writing about Brian Baird as if the check was in the mail. It will not get them off their moronic I-5 Bridge/loot rail kick, or cause them to do what common decency demands: require that we, as a community, get to vote this crap pile up or down. It will, in no way, end the editorial double standard of wanting the will of the people to be heard on some things, but not heard on others when that will is likely to conflict with their agenda. It will in no way result in a course correction (just check out today's idiocy from John Laird, where's he's all about how great the passage of R-71 is statewide, while forgetting (or, per usual, not caring) that it failed here by a substantial margin) and it will NEVER result in the one thing vital to this, or any other paper's survival:

That the paper in question reflect and speak to the politics and philosophies of the vast majority of its possible readership, and not just the tiny, far left fringe it emulates.

How is the Columbian "doing?" Well, gee.... I don't know.

One would think that facing bankruptcy could be a clue. One might even ponder the meaning of occupying and then abandoning a brand new, state of the art temple of leftist journalism within the same few month time frame as a result of economic necessity might send a message. One would point out the utter stupidity of reducing features and amounts of news and then increasing the price for even less of a paper might be an indicator.

But one would be wrong, for to admit that this paper's course is so completely to the fringe left that no one to the political right of Mao would ever want to spend money on it would be to require some introspection that those running this disgrace to journalism appear to be genetically incapable of engaging in.

Brancaccio's idiocy is best summed up in his own words:

I have not said that. I simply stated a fact that you have the opportunity to see more fringe -- however it is defined -- on the Internet.

When your paper ONLY endorsed democrats for open seats in the last election... when your paper took positions closely mirrored by the fringe left concerning R 71 and I-1033, including quoting a moron in a story who lied when he said that PEOPLE WOULD DIE if 1033 was voted in (as it was here in Clark County) when your paper lies, exaggerates, prints pap garbage like these articles and then demands that billions of taxpayer dollars be spent on an unneeded and unwanted bridge replacement with loot rail, it's fairly clear that the biggest fringe element around here isn't on the internet, except where you post your articles.

By almost any measure; from horrific subscription numbers to abysmal ad revenue, this community has sent you message after message. And as long as you refuse to listen?

Well, expect CONTINUED horrific subscriptions and ad revenue.

Because your pathetic effort deserves no less.
.

So, what's it all mean now at the national level?

.
First, I appreciate the victories of both (and especially) Gov. (Elect) Bill Christie (R-NJ) and Gov. (Elect) Bob McDonnell (R-VA).

We are met with a White House, once again engaging in self-delusion mode, wherein they try and tell us that "they" didn't have anything to do with those elections since they were "local."

Visions of then White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers standing outside the White House that freezing November morning back in 1994 until at least 4 a.m. local time, giving the following answer to EVERY question asked of her:

"The president does not view the results of this election as a referendum on his leadership."

... dance in my head.

Both New Jersey and Virginia went with the Empty Suit in 2008, New Jersey by 14.7 % and Virginia by 6.3%. Obama invested in both states; heavily in New Jersey; less so in Virginia where Deeds knew that the VA voters were in a mood to reject the messiah's programs.

So, we're confronted with a White House that is "Bart Simpsoning" this result.

And what would the White House be babbling if the left had ran the table?

The exact opposite.

This represents an almost diametric scenario from that typically reserved for the GOP: I've frequently posited that the GOP knows how to achieve power, but has no real clue as to how to keep it.

A tin-eared White House, seeing the same polls we do, plus their own internals, knows that their policies and vision sucks in the eyes of the American people. They also know that somehow, magically, the empty suit's personal popularity remains above 50%, even though his policies don't.

They made the calculation that we're still not paying close enough attention... that we're still awed by the man of "Hope and Change," but it seems they forgot to ask: "How's that 'Hopey-Changy' thingy working out for you?"

While the president has undeniable, but increasingly smaller personal popularity, that doesn't translate to stiffs like Deeds or crooks like Corzine.

There's been a certain "Nero-esque" quality to the president: More golf in 10 months than Mr. Bush in 3 years; weekly Wednesday parties at the White House that have rung up a bill in the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars while homeless people are, literally, just down the street.

The bizarre lies put out there for the President, for example, that "he wouldn't be watching the election results" show an inability to grasp reality and a knee-jerk position that lies are the order of the day no matter how short the term, since we have a limited memory and after all, one lie can be replaced by another as needed. (Doesn't this "saved or created jobs" thing just make you want to blow chunks?)

Yesterday's result represents a message. The bleeding for the democrats is arterial. Do they become responsive and actually begin to listen? Or, as I have repeatedly prophesied, undergo 1994 all over again?

The choice is up to them. And if they make the wrong one, then the choice will be up to us.
.

More of Laird's moroic idiocy on 1033.

.
We get that John Laird, who claims that he "hate(s) to sound like a cranky old coot here" while still managing to pull it off so frequently and painfully for the rest of this community, came out with more of his fringe-left quvatch on I-1033.

He blathers:

Westneat's conclusion: "Forget all the caterwauling about spending cuts. At its heart (I-1033) is a massive giveaway to the rich that does little to nothing for the poor" except, of course, deprive them of vital programs and services. According to six-year projections of the state Office of Fiscal Management, I-1033, if passed, would slash state revenue by $5.9 billion, revenue to cities by $2.1 billion and revenue to counties by $694 million.

Westneat added: "To their credit, both Gates and Allen appear to know this. They are trying to defeat Eyman's initiative … even though it would mean huge tax windfalls to them if it passes. I have a feeling it's because they actually believe that quote Gates repeats so much: 'To whom much is given, much is expected.' "

As I have frequently pointed out before, leftist tards are incapable of viewing these things in terms of what the people will save; they can only see it in terms of what it will "cost government," as if OUR government is not supposed to be "by, of and for the people."

The rank absurdity of his observation about Gates and Allen fighting 1033 is just that: rank and absurd.

Westnet tells us, according to this moron, that Gates would see a tax break of $571,000 while Allen would see a mere pittance in comparison: a break of $150,000.

Gates is worth a paltry $50 BILLION (That's BILLION, with a "b")

Allen is worth much less, and has to settle for scrambling to get by on $10 BILLION (also with a "b")

Allen goes through that much money in a week just to fuel his basketball team's jet.

In short, while clowns like Laird want us to be impressed with how much these stalwarts of altruism (Allen has made tens of millions off the taxpayers of this state and controls the Seahawks Stadium that we got suckered into sinking $400 million taxpayer dollars into) stand to lose if their fight is successful, because the two numbers sound SO BIG... the fact is that to these guys, it's the equivalent of pennies.

It's easy for them to give up what they would gain because relative to all of their massive wealth, the numbers are essentially meaningless.

Gate's wealth exceeds my own by a factor of, say, 100,000. That is, he is worth something on the order of 100,000 times more money than I am.

With my worth at, say, around $500,000, I have to provide roughly 1 percent of that worth in property taxes every year to a grateful state of Washington.

Were Gates required to do that... that is, were gates required to fork that kind of cash over, the equivalent percentage of his wealth would be.... $500,000,000 per year (1 percent of $50 billion) as opposed to my 1 percent of $500,000 or so.

In short, Gate's PROPERTY TAX BILL for ONE YEAR is roughly twice my net worth.

Taking it a step further, that HUGE, $571,000 tax break he's working to get rid of represents, well, let's see:

If he's worth $50 billion.... then $571,000 would represent .0001 or so of his wealth per year; or, as a percentage of all the money he's worth, something on the order of 10,000 times LESS than I will have to pay.

Relatively speaking, Gates is giving up the equivalent, perhaps, of the cost of a latte' every year by fighting this... if that.

So, I am not impressed by either Laird's Lies OR Westnet's Words. Compared to the rest of us... compared to those of us actually paying the lion's share of our state's budget... and particularly when viewed through the prism of the rank hypocrisy Laird exhibits with each of his whines and snivels about tax breaks given the massive tax break HIS employer got from a grateful leftist legislature, these lies are meaningless.

Why Laird insists on repeating them as if they made some difference... much like the "sky is falling" left sniveled about I-601, 695 and 747... is beyond me.

Frankly, that Laird opposes 1033 is reason enough for everyone else to vote for it.... because our courageous legislature would NEVER let these big cuts go through.... would they?

Because it's not like they can't throw it out as fast as we put it in.

Why do leftist politicians HAVE to lie about issues they oppose? Brokaw on 1033.

.
Chicken Little ain't got nothin' on a leftist.

Here's Pam Brokaw's LTE on 1033:

I-1033 reduces economic recovery

On behalf of the board of Friends of Clark County, a non-profit committed to the quality of life of our community, we urge voters to vote "no" on Initiative 1033. Our great Pacific Northwest way of life is in jeopardy. Passage of this initiative would drastically reduce basic county resources and the ability to keep Clark County a place where folks want to do business, raise a family and enjoy our amazing natural resources.

We are committed to working with county government, and the leadership of our community, to ensure responsible stewardship of our environment. Initiative 1033 is irresponsible and short-sighted fiscal stewardship with far-reaching negative impacts. Keep Clark County a quality place to live and do business. Vote "no" on Initiative 1033.

Pam Brokaw

Vancouver

Now here, locally, Ms. Brokaw is known best for two things: Getting around $100,000 in tribal money as a result of David Barnett's efforts to buy her in two elections (state representative back in 04 and county commissioner here last fall, where she ran such a terrible campaign that even though Clark County voted for Obama, they then turned around and voted for conservative Tom Mielke in a close one (requiring a recount)) and secondly, having the "tinnest" ear in politics (did you REALLY thing partial birth abortion and gay marriage were planks to win on in the 18th?)

And now... we get a different version of that moron's statement that people will DIE when this thing passes.

Everything she wrote in her letter, in one way or another, has been used as an attempt to stop every fiscal control we've ever been given the option to vote for.

Remember I-601? I-695? I-747? These measures in one form or another reduced revenue to state and local governments.

Remember the responses from the leftists and their paper, here?

Well, let's take a look at this one.

On behalf of the board of Friends of Clark County, a non-profit committed to the quality of life of our community,

Who? I never heard of you. By the way, do you get any government funding that might be at risk when this passes?

we urge voters to vote "no" on Initiative 1033.

Because GOD knows you can't think for yourself.

Our great Pacific Northwest way of life is in jeopardy.

"We're all going to DIE!"

What a crock.

The idea that our "great Pacific Northwest way of life" is a product of the unfettered ability to tax and spend our money without our say-so is lunacy... but to a leftist, the will of the people is anathema, so they have to respond with moronic rhetoric like this.

Like most leftists, Brokaw is incapable of viewing this situation from the front end, in this case, from the perspective of those of us actually paying the bills. Her concern will NEVER be the one's paying... only the one's receiving.

Passage of this initiative would drastically reduce basic county resources and the ability to keep Clark County a place where folks want to do business, raise a family and enjoy our amazing natural resources.

"We're all going to die!"

This, of course, is an outright lie on it's face. Why leftist opponents HAVE to lie... pathologically have to lie, to oppose a measure that reduces the orgy of government spending is beyond my comprehension.

Of the pap in the paragraph above, it would be entertaining for Brokaw to note precisely HOW we would no longer be able to raise families or enjoy our amazing natural resources once this passes.

Again, she seems to believe that the ONLY reason people want to live here or "do business" here is so that we can pay... more.... taxes!

So, she spills this crap, but provides absolutely NOTHING to indicate how any of her conclusions are true.

Because they're not.

I can see it now: 1033 passes next Tuesday, and starting Wednesday, Clark County becomes a ghost town because of the mass exodus of people to that utopia to the south... Oregon... which doesn't have a 1033 in place, yet is an economic train wreck.

When people in politics start spewing this garbage, unsupported by either the initiative's language or any other fact (see the Time's analysis, below) then you know it's all about keeping any controls off government... a government so OUT of control that spending increased an ASTOUNDING 33% over the past four years at the state level.

We are committed to working with county government, and the leadership of our community, to ensure responsible stewardship of our environment.

Well, the fact is that I don't need, or want, YOU doing ANYTHING about MY environment. And my guess is that like most sniveling leftists, what you're REALLY committed to is making sure YOUR stream of money from the taxpayers remains uninterrupted or reduced.

After all, to read YOU, "we're all going to die" when this thing passes.

We have elected officials to do the very thing you claim your little group does.

So..... GO.... AWAY.

Initiative 1033 is irresponsible and short-sighted fiscal stewardship with far-reaching negative impacts.

Well, when this passes, you can always move away. Then you won't have to worry about it.

Second, I would venture to say that what we've been doing ain't been working out all that well, either, and

Third... you note how NONE of the whiny little leftists have offered ANY alternative?

Of course not. To them, it's all about the Benjamins.

Imagine how much better off we'd be if those in opposition stuck to the facts and left the hyperbole out.

1033 will do NONE of the things this whinny, snvivelly, "don't cut us off from the trough" letter claims.

The FACTS are below. Unlike a leftist, I'm not going to tell you WHAT to think... I would just ask you TO think.

Read the information below, and form your own opinion.

*I* am voting for 1033 and urging everyone I know to do the same. Because *I* know that ANY time we get the opportunity to rein in spending, the left will ALWAYS give us lies (like the one's in Brokaw's letter) and that IF this doesn't work, our courageous legislature can get rid of it on the first day of the next legislative session, in mid-January.
.

More Laird idiocy on his specialty: leftist bigotry.

.
The editorial page editor of our local paper is a fringe leftist nutjob.

This clown is both incapable of original thought, fairness or objectivity. He has been fully immersed in shilling for the agenda of that empty-suited, Anti-American racist bigot in the White House, lying, along with him, about everything having anything to do with Obama's destruction of this country.

I have blown so many holes through this moron's lies that it's got to be hard for him to drink coffee because of all the leaks.

His latest spew is completely in keeping with the nazi bigotry exhibited by the left and the leading lights of the minority victims such as Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton and other multi-millionaires who made a fortune on their victimhood.

Our local utter leftist moron squeals like a piggy when he says "Limbaugh 'victimized' by capitalism." That's just one of his many lies.

Here, clearly, is an example where Limbaugh was, in fact, 'victimized' by lying, fringe left scum both within and without the media... many of whom now, after the deed was done, are "apologizing" for failing to do what this despicable rag fails to do whenever it suits them: and that is, verify the information they've recieved by checking out the source.

"Capitalism's" roll WILL be central to this issue when, hopefully, Rush takes each and every one of these lying scum, including the entirety of the NFL, to court and sues their collective asses off.

But that's the only place where capitalism is involvedf in this matter. The issue here is the crushing of an individual's financial plans in the form of a desire to become a minority ownership position in arguably the worst team in professional football, the St. Louis Rams.

The issue here is the "why" of it.

The lying scumbag running the NFL, Roger Goodell, claims that the NFL has "high standards."

The owner for the "Leaving Baltimore in the middle of the night because we're cowards" Indianapolis Colts says that, in effect, Rush is a racist and divisive.

So... Rush is, pardon the expression, blackballed not because he's killed someone; not because he's beaten his girlfriend; not because he's assaulted anyone; not because he refuses to follow the NFL's "substance abuse policies". It's not for running a dog fighting ring. It's not for stealing another teams signals. No... it's not for any of those reasons... reasons that failed to cause any of the recently passed practitioners of these activities to be kicked out of football.

Instead, it's for engaging in the very thing THIS idiot does every time his column of bovine feces is printed.

It's because Rush says words and has ideas that these people don't "like."

Odd, isn't it, how one of our most cherished freedoms only applies to leftists... and not to anyone else.

This is not and never has been about "having sympathy" for Rush. Instead, it's about having contempt for leftist scumbags like Laird who are so blinded by their own peculiar bias that when the rights of one are crushed, they fail to grasp that the crushing, in this instance, happened to be someone else.

So, Laird... how would you feel if your job was ended because of the crap in your columns?

Obviously, that'll never happen, since you've been taking a dump on this community since you arrived here, with apparent impunity.

But what if it did, moron? You've regaled us with bigotry, lies, distortion and exaggeration for years.

What if it cost YOU a job, a purchase, a club membership?

Would that be all hunky dory with you, idiot?

Would you want us to have "sympathy" for someone who makes Rush look like a Cub Scout when it comes to bigotry and divisiveness?

Would YOU whine and snivel?

Of course you would.

It's you and toilet scum like you that have caused me to boycott the NFL for the rest of my life. So, the one thing that the National Football League HAS done, with the help of leftist scuzballs like you, is to show their true colors. And that made the decision easy.

I sincerely hope and pray that you will be faced with the same situation. I sincerely hope that you will be humiliated and either lose a job or be disqualified from one... not because of anything you've DONE, but because of what you've said and what you think.

I really, really, REALLY hope that happens to you, and soon.
.

Steve Stuart's bachelor party? I'm surprised it wasn't sponsored by David Barnett and the Paskenta/Mohegan/Cowlitz Mob.

.
So, two of Tim the Liar Leavitt's biggest supporters are going to merge their operations.

Steve "$100,000 in cold hard cash" Stuart is getting married. And in keeping with their position as the local democrat newsletter, the local rag has to tell us about it.

Steve's a bright guy. Like that empty-suited, anti-American racist bigot in the White House, ol' Steve graduated from law school. Course, he never passed the Bar... but at least he graduated from a school.

Steve is a Clark County Commissioner. Now, the ONLY reason he's a Clark County Commissioner is because one David Barnett illegally laundered $100,000 through a fringe democrat front group, one Progressive Majority, who then illegally spent almost $90,000 of it getting Stuart elected back on 2005.

Now, I'm given to understand that Stuart knew that Barnett was going to be bundling this illegal cash for what is SUPPOSED to be an "independent expenditure" in August of that year. Barnett cheerfully gave up that, to him, minor amount of cash; because he, Barnett, knew that Stuart's then opponent, now Clark County Commissioner Tom Mielke, would do everything he could to keep the organized crime project then known as the Barnett/Mohegan/Cowlitz megacasino from being built and injuring our economy, overloading our infrastructure and screwing up our community.

Stuart, on the other hand.... not so much.

Now, Barnett has a history of attempting to buy politicians. In his ignorance (and for a guy with so much money, his political ignorance is frightening) Barnett gets hosed by consultants, has no sense of timing, and is dramatically unconcerned about a few mundane issues like election laws.

The first effort Barnett made to buy an election was with our own, inimitable, Pam Brokaw, back in the 2004 cycle.

Richard Curtis was running against Brokaw in the 18th District. Brokaw had no experience or qualification to be a state representative... just like she had none to be a county commissioner... but she was running for an open seat and the local newspaper only endorses democrats in open seats.

It's their history and an editorial policy or something.

Curtis was, at the time, strongly opposed to the criminal enterprise on the drawing board for the LaCenter exit of I-5. Brokaw never stood a chance, since in addition to her myriad of other talents, she supported gay marriage and partial birth abortion, two non-starters in the heavily conservative 18th.

Towards the end of her inevitable political demise, David Barnett swoopes in and dumps a cool $25,000 or so into an "independent expenditure" through Washington Conservation Voters, of all people, who then did a rather pathetic mailer accusing Curtis of supporting I-892, an initiative that would have started the process of ending the tribal gambling monopoly had it passed.

Washington Conservation Voters, like Progressive Majority, is a leftist front group that can be bought when the price is right... like Barnett bought them here.

Barnett has a LOT of money... so, he likes to "buy" things... "things" like politicians and groups, typically portrayed by media (How many times as our local stain on journalism relied on the WCV for quotes, positions and bulletins?) as having some level of worth or stature that they are wholly undeserving of.

Barnett's political ignorance showed. This time, he left an easily discovered paper trail, and his efforts to buy Brokaw blew up in his face, and Brokaw was blown out in the general.

But for Barnett, it was a teaching moment. He knew he had compromised his effectiveness in buying a candidate by doing it in such a way that his paper trail could be discovered and used both as proof of his efforts to corrupt OUR election, and that a politician had been bought.

So, in 2005, Stuart was up in a special election. Stuart had been appointed to replace Craig Pridemore who, in a stunningly moronic move, gave up his commissioner's seat to become a state senator... a position that earned half the money and ten times the frustration.

Stuart, the democrat, ran against Mielke, the Republican. Tom ran a solid campaign, and was ahead on points... when Barnett's $100,000 hit... $100,000 that Stuart KNEW was going to hit, months before.

Barnett knew that Mielke was a threat to his plan to screw our community, so $100,000 was chump change to buy a commissioner and eliminate an enemy. And it worked like a charm, THIS time, because he laundered his money through an out of state organization, with completely different reporting requirements. In fact, it wasn't until December of that year that it could be proved that Barnett had bought and paid for Stuart by laundering tens of thousands through Progressive Majority.

The $100,000 bought Stuart a series of mailers full of lies, half truths and exaggerations... and Stuart barely won.

Had Barnett not corrupted our election, Stuart would be pumping gas in Oregon, or something, instead of raping us on the unneeded and unwanted I-5 Bridge replacement/loot rail scam.

He also wouldn't be doing all he could to get that casino in here, like he did with that bogus rescission resolution that made the Cowlitz thug squad so positively giddy.

Barnett, not having learned his lesson the first time, tried to stop the bleeding again with Brokaw; a candidate who went around saying that she would kick Mielke's ass since she had it all her way.

She had a HUGE fund raising edge (something like 4 to 1) and a leftist tide sweeping the land as Obama easily won Clark County.

What she DIDN'T have was an anti-bridge/tolls/loot rail/casino position. She was owned by the unions and by the casino.

Fortunately for our community, Mielke had all of those things, so thousands who voted for Obama then turned around and voted for Mielke.

And they voted for Mileke in spite of Brokaw arranging to have Barnett dump almost $80,000 into the last 72 hours or so of the election.

You would have thought Barnett would have known better.

But then, it had worked with Stuart... so why wouldn't it work with Brokaw?

So, congratulations to Steve Stuart and what's her face. May Stuart's corrupt political career end as soon as possible, and may you both find happiness in whatever Stuart's next career is going to be... pumping gas in Oregon, or whatever.
.