Liz Pike: This is unacceptable... it appears she supports gay marriage.

I've had a hard time accepting Liz Pike in the position of being my legislator.

Her background is leftist, with her campaign work and 5 figure incomes from democrats Betty Sue Morris, Steve Stuart and Pam Brokaw while she was on the local GOP Executive Board, all while Republicans were working their collective asses off, most for free, to get Tom Mielke elected.

Her position as the Mainstream Republican coordinator or director for Clark County has always bugged me: More adequately named "Republicans In Support of Leftist Causes," Pike's involvement in that organization and her subsequent efforts at election remind me of the disaster of a self-promoting incompetent GOP Chair from Pacific County named Nan Malin.

In 2008, Tom Mielke faced off with Pam Brokaw for the County Commissioner seat.

Brokaw had it all: slavish media support (This newspaper hates Mielke with an almost admirable passion; he and Benton are vilified on a regular basis for sins both real... and imagined) all the money (Brokaw out-raised Mielke on the order of 3 to 4 to 1) and the lockstep support of the downtown mafia.  In fact, today's campaign for the commissioner seat resembles much the same thing.

But what Brokaw didn't have was the courage of her convictions.

Brokaw "declined" to take a position on the CRC Bridge/loot rail/tolls scam.

Brokaw "declined" to take a position on the massive rip-off of the Cowlitz Mega-casino, although the Cowlitz dumping something like $78,000 on this race on Brokaw's behalf in the last 3 days of balloting served to confirm what everyone in politics knew but that Brokaw lacked the guts to say: she rabidly supported the casino rip off... she just lacked the guts to say it, because she knew it was poison county-wide.

And in the end, something like 6700 people voted for Obama... and then turned around and voted for Mielke.

And now, we get to the question of gay marriage.

On the subject of gay marriage, Shehorn agrees with recent legislation allowing same-sex couples to marry. Pike declined to disclose her personal view on the subject.

"Pike declined to disclose her personal views on the subject."

That is absolutely unacceptable.

The issue of gay marriage may well have several legislative components over the next few years.

Pike wants to be our legislator; this is legislative issue, she has precisely zero right to avoid providing a position on this issue; she gets no free pass.

I have many requirements on the part of those who represent me:  courage is foremost among them.  There can only be 2 positions on the issue; you support gay marriage or you oppose it.

There can only be so many reasons why a politician won't tell us their position on the issue:  They support gay marriage and they know it will kill them politically, or they oppose gay marriage and they know it will kill them politically.

OK, whiteboarding this, the history of the 18th District is one of staunch opposition to gay marriage.

So why would an allegedly conservative Republican be ashamed of her position on this issue?

Those running for office do not have the right to withhold their position on ANY issue we want to know about.

Declining to LET us know means that Pike's loyalty is much more to her Mainstream, gay-marriage supporting buddies then it is to the constituents of this district.

As a result, I cannot support Pike for election to anything.

I would not be happy if she had drank the kool-aid and supported gay marriage openly.  But this seems to go to why she attracted democrat money to her campaign... because she's much more leftist then she would want us to believe.

I wouldn't be nearly this angry, though, if she had the courage of her convictions and let us know what those are... what ALL of them are if we ask, because now I'm asking myself: what else has she "declined " to share with us?

When I last saw Liz, who I have had numerous problems with politically, I told her "you are not the enemy."

With her lack of courage and conviction on this, or any issue as she seeks to represent us, that's all changed.

If you lack the guts to take a position on ANYTHING; then you shouldn't be in elective office.  And I cannot stand idly by and let this go.

Why the democratian jihad against Wulle?

Look; I'm voting for Wulle.

At the end of the day, the democratian's endorsement system is much like that of the Bar Association's: if you're a leftist judge, you're much more likely to get their support.

Wulle's opponent opposes caps on liability, provided campaign contributions for Jay Inslee, Tony Golik, and Sharon Wylie, as well as a pretty fair amount to the Western Washington Trial Lawyer's PAC.

And, well, the democratian is acting like Wulle's opponent is paying them.  Perhaps he ought to file all this as an "in-kind" campaign contribution.

I was sort of ambivalent about the whole thing, really, until I discovered a moronic story where a couple of supporters of Wulle's opponent commented after the latest character assassination by the democratian... on Facebook.

Imagine.  Facebook comments become their own story.

That, combined with Wulle's opponents rather massive PDC violations, and, well, there's no alternative.

Generally, if the rag supports someone or something, the community is best served by opposing that person or thing/project/tax/special interest rip off/downtown mafia hucksterism that the democratian is so enamored of.

So, I hope you'll join with me in supporting John Wulle... because frankly, I don't give a damn that he yells in his courtroom... and I don't see that as a reason to elect yet another leftist.

Just sayin'.

After helping set up our execution, Boldt wants input on the color of the rope.

Full disclosure:  Marc Boldt is my brother-in-law and I worked for him for 6 years in the Legislature.  No candidate or campaign has influenced, impacted or is even aware of these posts before they go out.

In another in the series of campaign puff pieces the democratian will no doubt do for Marc Boldt, today's episode is the forlorn hope by Boldt that the county be allowed to form a local tolling advisory committee that WADOT can ignore as they repeatedly stick it to us with tolls and increases in tolls for the massive waste of billions that Boldt has fought so hard to implement... all without asking us, of course.

Better late than never, I would suppose: but the fact is that Boldt SHOULD have thought of this issue years ago, before he hopped on the downtown Mafia, screw-the-people train he's been on for the last 7 years or so.

Had he remained a Republican and realized that together with Mielke, he likely could have derailed this entire rip off, back when it would have made a difference.

It is heartening, however for Boldt to finally acknowledge what I've been writing for years: specifically that we will suffer "significant adverse impacts" because of his efforts, both with CTran generally and this massive CRC scam specifically.

Boldt's observation that "exemptions may be necessary to create parity" is a late election dodge designed to do nothing more than to try and save his political butt.

There cannot be any exemptions.  If anyone pays tolls for driving their car over the bridge, then everyone has to pay tolls.

After all these years, it's nice that Boldt has finally paid attention to me and others who have been increasingly strident in an effort to get those the most deaf, mainly Boldt, Stuart, Leave-it and his ilk to understand the impacts both on families AND the small businesses that rely on their disposable income to survive... income that will now disappear thanks to Boldt's efforts, among others.

The answer to any meaningful impact from a local committee is going to be a resounding "no."  Boldt long since abrogatted his ability to impact tolls by becoming a leftist years ago and failing to stand up and figght for US instead of the downtown special interests who seem to own him like the 13th Amendment was never passed.

Boldt's betrayal on the CRC scam; his failure to acknowledge that the basis for the entirety of this extortion was and is light rail, his lie to me personally that he would see to it that we had at least a county-wide advisory vote on this extortion, although we SHOULD have a county-wide binding vote on this crime.

But we won't, because the gerrymandered CTran taxing district that Boldt was so supportive of is taking that option away, and we will have roughly 100,000 voters who will have precisely zero say on any of this... except to make sure that Boldt is defeated at the polls.

Remember, kids, there's no reason to vote for a fake democrat like Boldt when you can vote for the real thing.

Bomar strikes out trying to help his baseball buddy, Stuart.

God, will we ever be free of the incessant whining of those who lost on the baseball scam?

So, today, the democratian (which was among the losers in the downtown mafia on the baseball scam) printed a campaign puff piece from Mike Bomar who wore out another pair of knee pads for Stuart, and who was, for some reason, elevated to minor league baseball god status around here during Stuart's... and the democratians... rabid efforts to give millions of our dollars to the Yakima Millionaires baseball park scam wherein the 400,000 of us who would never had set foot in such a rip off facility would be required to pay for it, so THEY could watch just barely above amateur baseball.

Both Bomar and Stuart are ex-jocks who, you guessed it, played baseball.  If I'm not mistaken, Bomar was a minor leaguer himself.  For some reason, he became the go-to guy on the subject, as if he represented anybody for anything.  He didn't speak for me, wasn't elected to anything, but all of a sudden for some reason, he became the face of the unwashed masses CRYING out to get screwed by Stuart and the Yakima millionaires.

I, frankly, disagree with everything Bomar wrote while stroking his buddy.

It's easy to focus on the outcome and it was heartbreaking not to be able to land professional baseball in Vancouver, but that loss isn't necessarily a failure. Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart worked tirelessly to put together a deal that would be a win-win for our community and in the end the right political solution just wasn't there.

Since the outcome is the only thing that matters, and the outcome here was that Bomar and his tiny special-interest group lost and the people actually won, well, yeah... it IS "easy to focus on the outcome."

And to say that "loss isn't necessarily a failure," is to say that Obama's handling of the economy "... isn't necessarily a disaster."

That Stuart and Bomar failed so abysmally is because first, there was no transparency on this issue (Crap was going on for months before anyone outside the mafia was told about it) second, because we're in a recession; third, because they wanted the people of this county to pay for a facility without asking us; fourth, because the mechanism to rape us was to take money from every movie, fair, concert, golf or any other recreational category under the bizarre guise that somehow, someone going to a $10 movie should pay 50% more to pay for the ballpark then someone actually sitting in the stands, watching a game; or that someone playing a round of golf at, say, Royal Oaks should pay twenty times the amount a $5 ticket fan paid to ACTUALLY WATCH A GAME.... and, of course, the fact that Vancouver and the downtown mafia of Vancouver would be the only people to benefit from this scam, yet Tim Leave-it demanded that the entire county be on the hook for the scam he wanted.

What these guys were doing was subsidizing a private entity, much like Obama has wasted billions subsidizing GM.

All of this in the midst of double digit unemployment in this county, the closing of a fire station due to budget constraints, and the absence of any effort to put this to a vote.

The right political solution WAS "there."  Those shilling the baseball scam just didn't want to hear it.

The outcome is that those hicks over in Hillsboro got it done, while our law-school graduated big city slicker Stuart didn't.

The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.  This was doomed from the start because screwing the people is never really a solid campaign platform.

While others gave the false impression that they are working toward a solution, Stuart actually put in the work with the stakeholders that was needed for this size of opportunity. He also kept to his word on protecting the general fund and core services against potential risk. In the end, we had a proposal that nobody thought was ideal, but that those involved felt would provide significantly more value to the community than the cost.

Really?  And what "others" might those be?  And what "stakeholders" were worked with who weren't rabid supporters of this scam?

That's right up there with trying to tell us before the scum who've wasted $150 million to replace a bridge we don't want or need to BE replaced "worked with the stakeholders" when the only people who they've asked has been rabid supporters... going so far as to cook up an absolutely fictional, absolutely absurd economic impact report from CRUDEC.

What "those involved" felt was, ultimately, irrelevant.  Because "those involved" were the ones who were going to be stealing from me and the rest of the people to get what they wanted, and not what we needed.  That Bomar and the rest of the scammers apparently, even now, can't see that is genuinely frightening... and goes to the arrogance of government that kept this deal from happening here.

Most importantly, Stuart didn't give up. I still see Stuart working hard to bring economic development and community enriching investments into our community. This kind of perseverance is refreshing in an age of sound bites and spin.

As Lew Waters once wrote when disassembling Paulbots, "The only thing dumber then kicking a dead horse is betting on one."

And, as far as bringing "economic development" into our community, could you, perhaps, provide a few examples?  You know, something that isn't completely moronic... something besides the ballpark?

"Community enriching investments."

Like the CRC rip off?

Spare us from that kind of "perseverance."

I am a Republican, and Stuart and I often differ on policy, but I can tell you that I am proud to have a commissioner who works so hard and cares so much about this community.

A Republican who ran for the legislature as an Independent, you mean?  A Republican who endorsed another buddy by the name of Leave-it?

Look, why don't you and Marc Boldt get together, quit screwing around, and just announce you're democrats and be done with it?

Because right now, this letter indicates that you're as much a "Republican" as Michelle Obama, with this example that "jockism" and "buddyism" clearly crosses party lines.

This deal died a painful, long, drawn out death that should never have happened.  Boldt SHOULD have joined with Mielke and killed this ripoff from the getgo, instead of wasting tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of staff time for the inevitable outcome.  A Republican would have done that.

There is NEVER any excuse for this kind of waste of money to enrich a private interest with taxpayer dollars, particularly without asking us.

Clearly, those who were beaten here have yet to learn that lesson.

Herrera confirms her bridge scam: she wants the bridge, wants loot rail and wants us to pay tolls forever; the smoke and mirrors are blown away.

For months now, our cowardly Congresswoman, Jaime Herrera, has scammed people over her faux concerns on the CRC Bridge scam.

As I have been saying, she has wanted the bridge all along; she has wanted loot rail all along, and wants us to pay tolls for the rest of our lives... and as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the downtown mafia, that's been her plan from the beginning.

The democratian confirmed that today:

Herrera Beutler said she supports replacing the Interstate 5 Bridge over the Columbia River and she was happy to see that most Clark County residents will be able to vote on whether the sales tax should be raised to cover light rail costs. If voters reject a sales tax increase, Herrera Beutler said she would support a bridge replacement project that either doesn't include light rail, or one that at least includes the infrastructure to support light rail in the future.

She said the bridge project is "going to impact our ability to grow and thrive and prosper," and she would like to see the federal government pay its fair share of the bridge. When it comes to tolls, she said that's a discussion that needs to be made at the state level.

You're not going to find courage and Herrera ever occupying the same space at the same time, and now we find ourselves in the interesting position of having a democrat who's positions are more Republican then our fake Republican congresswoman's.

Clealry, her position, like that of every other CRC shill, is to ignore the entire basis for the CRC ripoff of stuffing loot rail down our throats and to drink the kool aid of those bent on our fiscal rape without even giving us the courtesy of our sayso.  But then, I guess you can when they're paying for your campaign, heh?

Herrera, who is legendary for lacking the guts to hold open town hall meetings, simply doesn't have the integrity to do anything but what her handlers tell her.  And frankly, I find that sickening.

For months, I've been writing that Herrera's lack of response to the public humiliation that Tim Leave-it smacked her with was a genuine sign that her "concerns" were bogus, totally fake... play-acting to get people to actually believe she gives a damn.

Her support of the bogus CTran vote in the carefully gerrymandered tax district, a district that will exclude 100,000 voters (That the newspaper laughing believes means "most Clark County residents") from having a say but not from having to pay the tax, proves her democrat cred is still intact and shows she's been in the tank for this scam all along.

Her cowardice is further proven by her failure to have the guts to take a position on tolling.

Yes, Herrera is living up to the total disgrace I knew she would be.  And frankly, her desertion of Republican principles, while not surprising, is no different then that of Marc Boldt.

And we all know how Republican he is.

As a result, I will be looking at voting for Jon Haugen.  He, at least, is a true reflection of the people of this area and speaks the absolute truth about this utterly absurd rip off that Herrera has supported so strongly for so long... the people of Clark County be damned.

Frankly, Haugen is less of a democrat than Herrera.  And that's why he's likely getting my support in this election.

I will never vote for Herrera.

Yes, Jaime has lived up to each and every expectation I've had for her... to our ever-lasting shame.

As expected, the rankly hypocritical endorsement of the democrats in Mielke's commissioner race.

When, as the democratian does, you hate Republicans generally and certain people specifically, when you control the keyboard, it's easy to make up reasons to endorse someone who isn't Republican.

Yesterday's equally predictable endorsement of Boldt, for example. 

Wherein this garbage was a reason to endorse Boldt:

Boldt served 10 years in the Legislature (1994-2004) as a state representative and now has built a reputation as a reliable consensus builder through two terms as county commissioner. 

That Mielke is by far the most experienced candidate running, with 8 years in the legislature (96-04) and one term of being the only Republican on the county commission is meaningless.... because when they hate you, they hate you, and there's no getting around the fact that these clowns want Mielke out because he's opposed to their agenda and Joe Tanner and Barca are for it.  And for the democratian, "reliable consensus builder" means "doiing it the way they, and the democrats, want."

But I repeat myself.

Mielke, wisely enough, declined to go down to the Bastille to aid in the efforts to separate his head from his shoulders, and they were just the tiniest bit miffed that Mielke continues to refuse to kiss their ring... or any other part of their collective anatomy.

But here's the deal.  Tom knows that this endorsement was as pre-ordained as the CRC scam, a rip off that bears no resemblance as to what the people want.

And they hate Mielke so much that in their endorsement of Tanner, they failed to mention that Tanner has also come out in opposition to their scam CRC program.  And the democratian's statement that:

if you're looking for a "No!" guy, Mielke's your man. And, although being conservative in tough economic times usually is an attribute, Mielke provides obstructionism almost mindlessly.

Is actually the perfect reason TO keep Mielke in office, since, as the only Republican elected (Boldt having long since lost any ties to either the Republican party or Republican ideology) what this despicable rag is complaining about is that Mielke doesn't go along with the democrat agenda... and any real Republican would ALWAYS say "no" to that.

Of course, they don't provide any examples of Mielke's "mindless obstructionism," but then lying scum are rarely constrained to back up what they say.

The question is this: who reflects the conservative north county region the best?

They characterize the democrats as being "mildly supportive of the CRC, knowing damned well that there is no such position; that you support it or you don't... much like pregnancy.  And if these two support the CRC in ANY way, then neither is reflective of this commissioner district.  So they soft-peddle the generations-long fiscal rape they so long for.

The rag knows this: that's why they failed to mention that Barca is rabidly in support of the CRC; of replacing a bridge that doesn't need replacing, of jamming light rail down our throats and enslaving 65,000 commuting families with ever-increasing tolls forever as a result.

Odd that they took such great pains to lay out Boldt's pro-CRC, light rail, toll position yesterday... and barely even mention it today.

This is just another indication that they have long-since abrogated their mission to serve the people in favor of their mission of serving the special interests and their respective agendas.  The candidate this paper SHOULD support is one who is the best reflection of this district, not someone who will kow-tow to their whim.

Mielke hasn't been perfect as a commissioner.  But neither has Boldt, and whereas this rag has done all they can to cover for democrat Boldt, they do all they can to sensationalize Mielke's mistakes.

To suggest that North County should be represented by democrats is sheer, unadulterated idiocy and partisan hackery.  But then, we ARE talking about the democratian here... and when they hate you... they hate you.  And Mielke's lack of respect for these slime combined with his opposition to the fiscal rape they propose, an added cost that will devastate families and small businesses already just barely hanging on... well, that guarantees these kinds of outcomes.

For the commissioner races, there are 4 democrats running... and so the rag endorses all 4.  What a stunning outcome.

Fortunately, they were just as rabid and insulting and belittling in their opposition to Mielke last time.

And how'd that work out for them?

  

Obama insanity: 'If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen'

Memo to Barack Obama, President of the United States:

Dear Sir,

I've got a business.  Had one for a little over 8 years now.

No one built it but me.

I can say that because I am it.  Period.  I am a one man band.  I'm self-employed.  No one works for me.  I make all the decisions, pay all the bills, struggle with the impacts of your economic misfeasance and incompetence, and manage to muddle through on roughly 54% less then I was making in income on your inauguration.

For YOU to tell ME that SOMEONE ELSE built this?  That someone else works until 3:00 a.m. some nights, that SOMEONE ELSE is paying my quarterlies, my business and occupation taxes... and that someone isn't me?

Besides being a liar, you're an idiot. 

There's no justification for ripping me off to distribute my money and assets to your union slime base...to whom I owe absolutely nothing.  I've done a stretch of being poor.  I'm a product of the welfare state.  I've been homeless.  And now that I am no longer (No thanks to you or any of your fringe left buddies), you seek to take away from me to give to YOUR friends?

I'm always available for questions.  Feel free to email or call... I'm sure Homeland Security has my number.

K.J. Hinton
Clark County Politics

Gee. The democratian endorses Boldt. The same Boldt that years back they DEMANDED resign from the Legislature.

(Full disclosure: Marc Boldt is my brother-in-law and I was his Legislative Assistant for almost 6 years; I am not a part of or in support of ANY campaign for this position.)

It's not surprising that the local democrat newspaper would endorse both their fellow democrats for election in Commissioner District 2 ; both are in lock step on every major issue confronting the people of this county.

Both are, apparently, quite clueless idiots in the area of innovation when it comes to solving the issues related to the CRC scam; both want to toll the 65000 commuters they would fiscally rape for the remainder of our lives, both are uncaring that they're getting hosed by not only the downtown special interests of BOTH Vancouver and Portland who particularly seem to own Marc Boldt like the 13th Amendment never existed.

When you carry the Columbian's water like Gunga Din, it's to be expected that they'll cover for you... lie for you... be quite selective in their revisionist history of you.  And, as we know, there really is no lie they won't tell if they "like" you.

They don't mention the tens of thousands of dollars of free Amphitheater tickets Boldt's received over the years in clear violation of the law.  No mention of his complete and utter violation of the ethics laws of this state because Boldt had REPEATEDLY voted on contracts that resulted in his wife getting paid.  Nope.  Nothing about that.

But it was this very same newspaper, in the guise of Tom Koenninger, Chief Democrat Propagandist and Columbian Editor, who DEMANDED that Boldt resign from the House of Representatives... this very newspaper who REPEATEDLY endorsed Boldt's opponents in most of his legislative races.... and who now, all of a sudden, spew this garbage:

Boldt served 10 years in the Legislature (1994-2004) as a state representative and now has built a reputation as a reliable consensus builder through two terms as county commissioner

In the stilted view of the democratian, voting democrat is "building consensus."

Ignoring the GOP platform and doing it their way  is "building consensus."

Raping the people of Clark County with the largest rip off in the history of the Northwestern United States is "building consensus."

In the bizarro world of the Columbian, ignoring ostensibly-fellow Republican Tom Mielke, going so far as to lie by saying that if he, Boldt, "didn't compromise with Stuart, nothing would get done."

What about "compromising" with your allegedly fellow Republican, Mielke?

And Tom Melke, of course, served 8 years in the legislature as opposed to Pam Brokaw, his opponent in 2008 who had never served a day in elective office. That meant nothing to these slime, who rabidly endorsed Brokaw and who were absolutely stunned when Mielke won, swimming against the rabid Obama tide with realtive ease, given the amount he was outspent by...  and it's just one of the reasons why it's a waste of time for Republicans to even bother with the editorial board.


The situational application of nebulous criteria with different standards for different candidates is what makes this process and their conclusions so utterly worthless, partisan and leftist.

Well, this very newspaper called Marc Boldt "...an embarrassment to Clark County."

.
"THREE NUTS AND A BOLDT"? THE REAL ISSUE IS COMPETENCE

The Columbian (Vancouver, WA)See all results for this publicationBrowse back issues of this publication by dateJune 22, 1997 | TOM KOENNINGER | Copyright

• Permalink

Marc Boldt is an embarrassment to Clark County. The Republican state representative from the 17th District has abused his office, using it as a club for personal causes. 

It's strange. In person, Boldt projects a boyish innocence with his mild-mannered, low-key, friendly approach. He glows in the aura of a blueberry farmer turned legislator, just your average Joe. 

Boldt's actions, however, are anything but blueberries and cream. They are at times rude, crude, mean and nasty. They display an abuse of authority and a readiness to use a baseball bat where a feather would do. The problem is a rube reputation that spins off inside and outside Clark County. In Olympia …

To read the full text of this article and others like it, try us out for 7 days, FREE!. 

 In fact, the entire article is on Youtube, of all places:



And now?

Now Boldt is all that and a bag of chips... because he's bending us over for the democrat and Columbian agendas.

But I repeat myself.

So, what's the difference between the Marc Boldt of THEN, and the Marc Boldt of NOW?

Well, back then, he was a Republican.  Back then, he was a conservative.  Back then, he was totally unconcerned about the downtown mafia and the Columbian's special interests.

He even withstood an onslaught by then Congresswoman Linda Smith, who called Boldt and demanded that he vote for a gas tax increase.  Boldt, back then, had the courage of his convictions and refused to cave.

And THAT Marc Boldt has long since vaporized; disappearing in the ether of ownership by those who write the checks at our expense.  No, the Marc Boldt that evoked this despicable rag's rage has long since disappeared.  Instead, we're left with the shell of the firebrand who stood by principles of conservationism at all costs, and against all-comers.

So, no.... no surprises here.  Another day, another two democrats. And, of course, what the rag either doesn't know, or doesn't realize that again, highlighting Boldt's propensity to jack up our taxes, enslave us with life-long tolls, and to portray him in lock step with the left REALLY doesn't help him all that much.

So, I really appreciate the rag's arrogance.  They likely guaranteed Boldt's defeat in the primary.

Why are the Paulian PCO Scammers leaving Paul out of their PR?

Caught the puff piece the lazy C did to help rupture the local GOP a little more.

This insurgent Paulistinian effort to take over the local party apparatus is a pattern followed in various other places around the country.  Paulbot idiocy ensued.

Restating the lies of the web site doesn't help; failing to ask anyone in the GOP for comment or their position, while typical of the lazy variety of so-called "journalism" this rag is known for doesn't particularly present a balanced, fully informative piece.

I'm stunned.

The web site snippet in question?

Since then, a group made primarily of Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum supporters from the county convention have formed the PCO Liberty Alliance in an effort to reform the party at the county level and defend against an "establishment mentality" in which "principles and philosophies" become "secondary to winning" an election, according to the group's website.

It's a bald-faced lie that this is their motivation; what makes them so despicable is their deliberate failure to provide their true motivation. 

I can say this because, having the honor of being one of those targeted by these morons, there is no PCO around here who has fought against the "establishment mentality" longer than I.

But there are also few PCO's anywhere who've more stridently denounced the idiocy of Ron Paul and his kool aid drinking cultists.

So, even though I am conservative and anti-establishment, I'm targeted by these morons.

Go figure.

As a rule, lying isn't a particularly good campaign platform.  Neither is hypocrisy... like the kind that blatantly tells us they are upset over  "principles and philosophies" becoming "secondary to winning" an election, which is precisely and absolutely what these slime are doing.

Romney incompetence in messaging.

By now, you've seen it, of course.  This garbage about when Romney was, or was not, employed at Bain... as if that mattered one wit.

Romney has lost complete control of his message.  He fails to understand that the economy is all he needs, so he does precisely and exactly what Obama wants him to do, fearful of being Swiftboated like that moron John Kerry.

It's long since past time for Romney to get into a fist fight with this clown.  Instead if calling him out and smacking him, ("Mr. President... with all due respect, you are a liar.  You're a desperate, despicable human being who is driving us off a fiscal cliff and who has turned us into the laughing stock in both foreign and domestic policy under an abysmal tenure that makes many Americans long for the days of Jimmy Carter.  This is YOUR economy, and you have failed over and over again to end your recession, put America back to work, and restore our place in the world as the Superpower.  You.  Not President Bush.  You.") he plays that nice, white bread Mormon boy shtick that is getting him off message and keeping him there.

Messaging is the thing, you see... at every level.

In 2010, I went after Jon Russell for all the reasons set forth in the Jon Russell Watch blog.  I saw him as a menace to our society and a blight on government.  He made it easy, since he lived up to that expectation by lying about his education, his wife's title, his campaign funds, by making up and getting caught using fake facebook identities... those truths forced him completely off message and every time he talked about it, every time he answered questions about it, both formally and informally, he was doing precisely what I wanted him to do.

It was easy to manipulate Russell.  It was easy to change the conversation from his weak positioning to attempting to defend his bizarre actions and lies and deliberate mischaracterizatons of himself as campaign tools.

The irony of all of that was this: the truth wasn't that bad.  If he had just stuck to it, he would have been much more competitive.  I'd have beaten him anyway, but he would have been able to do what Romney cannot: stay on message.

Romney's failure to double-down and come back over the top sends a message of weakness.  Obama has already shown himself an incompetent liar; there's a target-rich environment for Romney based entirely on arguably the tenure of the most pitiful president in our history.

But what's Romney talking about?

Well, it ain't the economy.  It's not a foreign policy that would make Groucho Marx wince.  It's not about Obamacare. (Course, with Romneycare as the titular model, maybe he shouldn't.) It's not about Obama gutting Welfare Reform and enslaving an entire class of people to social programs.

Nope.  It's not about any of that.

It's about paperwork, the SEC and a "felony."

This is perfect guerrilla politics.

Obama sent out a lower level campaign staffer that no one ever heard of to be the possible sacrificial lamb with a certain level of deniability by sending her out to take one for the team and float this garbage.

Romney becomes fixated on that scam like a kitten on a laser pointer... and that's precisely how Obama is playing him.

And it's part of the reason why I cannot and will not support a man like Romney as president.

Romney seems easily distracted and easy to manipulate.  Because both of those things are happening right now, and that he can't seem to figure that out is hardly a reason to want him to be in the Oval Office.

UPDATED: Why I will not support Julie Olson for State Representative.

Originally posted July 10, 2012.

I was kinda hoping that Julie Olson would win in the 17th; after all, I'm not interested in electing a fringe-left Obama super-delegate teacher to, well, much of anything.

Until tonite.

First, I admit that I'm a Republican Precinct Committee Officer... Precinct 620 to be precise.

My default vote is always going to be Republican.  But it goes to a conservative only.

Olson has already shown a lack of political awareness when she threw Sen. Don Benton under the bus a few weeks back.  Then tonite... I read this nonsense in the democratian:

Columbia River Crossing

Stonier and Olson agree that the Interstate 5 River needs to be replaced, but they disagree about whether the Columbia River Crossing project should include a Portland light rail extension into Vancouver.

"I would be in support of a new bridge," Olson said. "I drive that bridge a lot and it's a mess, and it really is a choke point" for traffic.

Eliminate the light rail component of the bridge, and project planners might "not need exorbitant tolls," Olson said.

Stonier said she will support what voters decide about the light rail component of the project, although she thinks it would be smarter to pay for light rail on the bridge now than have to pay for a separate light rail project later. She also said if Clark County residents have to pay tolls to cross the bridge while on their way to work in Portland, then they should pay less in tolls, perhaps through a tax credit.

"I think tolls would be unfair for Clark County residents," Stonier said.

Homola did not return multiple calls and an email request to be interviewed for this story. In a previous interview with The Columbian for a story announcing his candidacy, Homola said he worried that using tolls to pay for the CRC would raise the prices of goods and services for consumers in Clark County.

Olson's position is based on multiple sets of ignorance.

First, the bridge is not a choke point.  Delta Park is a choke point; the bridge replacement, besides screwing us out of $10 Billion, will accomplish nothing to relieve congestion or increase freight mobility.

Second, we all know, and Olson should know, that this whole thing is a scam to ram loot rail down our throats.

Third, this means that Olson supports tolling 65,000 residents of this area $1300 each, their families and their children with an ever-increasing burden on them and on the small businesses depending on that $100,000,000 per year she wants to permanently vaporize.

Forth, there will be no bridge without loot rail: support the bridge and you support light rail... because you ain't getting one without the other.

Fifth, she didn't say anything about putting this to a vote of the people of this county.

I will not ever support someone who assumes democrat positions to get elected when they claim to be a Republican... not her... not anyone.

Just sayin'.

As a result, I'm supporting Matt Homola.  He doesn't say much, but that's a virtue compared to someone so politically inept and tin-eared ignorant.

UPDATE:  Olson called me after this originally appeared and indicated to me that there was some confusion about her position on the part of the newspaper.  I offered her the opportunity to send me a statement, which I would have posted unedited (as is my policy) or to set up a meeting to hash this out... but I had an engagement and couldn't discuss it further.

Additionally, I called Olson back yesterday to set up the meeting or whathave you, and she has not replied.

The option for Olson to restate her position is always available here: but when someone attempting or in public office is wrong, I'm going to call them on it.

UPDATE 2:  At the latest LWV Forum, when asked:


Question Number 2 concerns the CRC project.

It involves the states of Oregon and Washington along with the Federal Government... as a new state legislator, how would you represent the interests of your district?

Olson replied:

"Uh, yeah, as a representative, certainly we're looking to represent the interests of our district, and so I'm looking forward to seeing this vote this fall, but the problem with the vote this fall is it's not binding... it's just really are we gonna... there's a certain portion of Clark County coping to approve a percentage sales tax increase to help fund light rail maintenance and operations.... but that's not going to be a binding vote.

So if they (The voters) say "no, we're not going to support that," they're going to try to find another way to raise taxes to manage that, so I think we need to find a way to have the citizens of Clark County's voice heard on this project, but also understanding that it is a federal highway system; it is one of the few, actual, interstate bridges where you're literally going across the bridge to get from one state to the other, there's only a couple of those in the country so it's a critical project and it impacts freight mobility, it impacts commerce, it impacts our local commuters.... So there's opportunities that we have to have to look at this.... this particular project though is difficult to support.... um.... so, in terms of representing the district, I, uh, we have to reach out and make this process transparent and at this point, I don't think it has been, so it will be interesting to see how this goes... my concern is that it will not be binding and it will be difficult to represent our constituents when we're not involved in the process.

What's left out? Everything.

Parsed words, no position, nothing about tolls, nothing about a county-wide vote, nothing about what she would do to put a stop to it... just a lot of words that do nothing to stop the impression that she's Jaime Herrera-ing this thing.

Condi Rice? Bad idea.

Romney's other weaknesses aside, the question becomes, who should he get for his VP choice?

Well, over the last 72 hours or so, it's been Condoleezza Rice, former Bush 2 Secretary of State.

Bad idea.

Dr. Rice is an exceptional woman, and would, no doubt, be an exceptional vice president.  But not here, and not now.

There are three concerns I have that overshadow the advantages of Rice getting the nod; first and foremost, ideally the VP pick would aid in the ticket winning a state.... ideally an important battle ground state; She is yet another "moderate" (pro-choice) and Rice on the ticket gives Obama a hammer by the name of Bush to beat Romney to death with.

Rice is from Alabama but is now working at Stanford on the faculty of the Graduate School of Business.

Issue one: delivering a state.

Alabama is solidly R: Rice's ascension to the VP slot wouldn't do any more there then it would do if he picked Rubio.

California is as close to state communism (Outside Vncouver) as we can get in this country; there is no possible way it would vote GOP.

Further, nationally, the black racist motivation to vote for Obama would not be dramatically impacted here; Black support for Obama is the highest of about any group even though he has failed them miserably in about every measurable way.  Nonetheless, their loyalty to him, although somewhat weaker, would not be weakened further in any dramatic way by Rice's candidacy for VP.

That means that when it comes to the issue of numbers, Rice simply doesn't bring it.

Romney is a liberal.  He governed like a liberal.  He's a political chameleon who'll say anything to get elected... not unlike Tim Leavitt and his "no tolls" scam.  Rice's lack of conservative cred doesn't balance that of Romney.  If a Sanatorium had been nominated (just as an example) then Rice as an addition would be an undeniable advantage.

I've always believed in the ying and the yang of it. In this case, Rice is ying without yang in political philosophy.  As a result, there's no real advantage in the balance equation.

And, of course, Obama's smear machine would immediately replay the Iraq War and blame her for most of it... the 3rd reason to avoid her on the ticket.

I, for one, wish she was a little more conservative.  I wish politics was about issues.  But neither of these things are true, so we go with the reality.  And in this case, the reality is that Rice is not the best pick for Romney.  She just doesn't get it done.

Local Robot Republicans and the Nazi mindset.

I've made no secret of my opposition to Romney for reasons that to most conservatives are obvious.

I will not be voting for the man for two primary reasons exclusive of his specific lack of conservatism:

First, he's the settle for candidate.

Second, this state is going blue, again, so my vote will not matter.

So, a while back I got an invite to a Facebook group "South West Washington Opinions."

What I didn't know and what would have kept me  from joining is that all opinions apparently have to agree with Bill Cismar.

Bill is, well, Bill.  What he demands, I guess, from all and sundry who post there is lock-step agreement with his perspective and his alone.

This Nazi-like tendency, including the use and portrayal of those terms favored by the Thrid Reich for those who didn't believe in the "ultimate victory" should have been a clue.

Censorship of thought and demanding obedience to his will is, allegedly, much more a fringe-left trait then that of someone allegedly a Republican, but in this instance, it could just be a matter of ego.  It's also strangely reminiscent of Hitler.

But I don't respond to being bullied.  And no one alive can tell me what to say or think.

Here's how it all went down:

Failing to follow the party line, I am summarily dismissed.

In Germany, if you were labeled a "defeatist," they'd just shoot you.

In keeping with the totalitarian, "yeah, it's an opinion page, but it has to be MY opinion," if you go there now, you see where my last 2 posts were deleted while his were left.

So much for "honesty" being the best policy.