The natural result of jacking up minimum wage:

Stunner. After Raising Minimum Wage at US Stores, Wal-Mart Cuts Workers’ Hours

Jim Hoft Aug 31st, 2015 3:17 pm 6 Comments

In February Walmart stores announced they were increasing its minimum wage at the stores to $9 per hour.
Liberal activists cheered the news

 

  

 This month store managers announced they were cutting employee hours to pay for the pay increase.
Bloomberg reported, via Every Joe:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., in the midst of spending $1 billion to raise employees’ wages and give them extra training, has been cutting the number of hours some of them work in a bid to keep costs in check.

Regional executives told store managers at the retailer’s annual holiday planning meeting this month to rein in expenses by cutting worker hours they’ve added beyond those allocated to them based on sales projections.

The request has resulted in some stores trimming hours from their schedules, asking employees to leave shifts early or telling them to take longer lunches, according to more than three dozen employees from around the U.S. The reductions started in the past several weeks, even as many stores enter the busy back-to-school shopping period.

Chief Executive Officer Doug McMillon is trying to balance a desire to improve service — partly through increased spending on his workforce — against investors’ pressure to keep profit growing. Labor costs, which rose after Wal-Mart increased its minimum wage to $9 an hour in April, have weighed on earnings, which missed analysts’ expectations last quarter. At the same time, Wal-Mart is trying to maintain low prices to fend off rivals.

 Gee.  Who knew something like that would happen?

 Of course, in Seattle, many of these people WANT their hours cut back so they can maintain their welfare benefits.

As if.

Boldt gets the primate endorsement.

One of the more troubling aspects of Marc Boldt, who is also my brother-in-law, is that he's not particularly a detail oriented guy.

Take, for example, this screen capture of his endorsement list from his website:

When David Madore was running for Commissioner in 2012, I seem to remember that the democratian made a big deal about his endorsement list.

But that was then and this is now, and, of course, the democratian are double-standard-leftist hypocrites, so I don't expect we'll see anything about Marc's campaign "monkeying around" with HIS endorsement list... will we?  After all, while they're no longer the official paper of Clark County, they are, in fact, the official hypocrites of Clark County.

And for the record, Judy Chipman is also our respective mother-in-law.

Looks like Marc got a tad bit TOO Freudian here.  Fortunately, I don't get to explain it all too her.

Chances are, it's a typo.  But it's of the glaring, obvious variety... kind of like when Marc sent out that idiotic emailer where he managed to misspell his own name... since he has personally assured me that HE wrote said letter.... and not that fringe-leftist Jim Mains who's running his campaign.

And Marc would NEVER lie to me... would he? 

Except for when he has, I mean.

The oddness of the "will of the voter" argument applied by opponents of the write-in campaign

So, over the past few days, I've been taking note of the bruhaha by those opposed to conservatives in government hiding behind a rather peculiar notion involving something like, well, as they put it, "the will of the voter."

On the right, part of it is driven by the RINO segment who dislikes/hates the current GOP leadership and David Madore... something I call the Crain Faction.

On the left, most of that is driven by the same.

I suspect that the response to all of this is a long way from political or strategic and has long since cannon-balled into a pool of emotional upheaval and those opposed are acting accordingly.

A few are claiming the GOP's position on the write-in and humiliating defeat of Boldt's efforts to become a "born-again" Republican are, in fact, based on hatred of Boldt personally, as if he was just beamed down to the planet's surface and has no history of local governance... and that we are somehow stricken from the desire... and even the right... to draw our own conclusions as to the difference between what Boldt once was (A conservative to the bone) to what he ultimately became (A tool of the democrats and downtown special interests, based on his actual voting record as a commissioner.)

We are told, at the start of this, that the GOP's actions "handed this election to Dalesandrio."  There's absolutely nothing, politically, that supports that conclusion, but those whining that way are not doing so out of any political consideration; they're doing so because they typically support one or the other of those on the ballot and they are doing anything they can to justify the unjustifiable:  They are trying to self-justify their opposition to a perfectly legal, perfectly political solution to a GOP problem that doesn't involve their guy.

The GOP has no candidate on the ballot.  That is the natural result of the demands by both the democrats and the Republicans for closed primaries, where only party membership determined eligibility to vote for someone in the primary... which was an idiotic move that I oppose/opposed in this open primary state... and which resulted in the people coming up with the top-two solution, a version of Louisiana's system.

Does that mean the GOP should fold up it's collective tent and skulk away into the night, leaving the election of county chair in this GOP county to two democrats?

Or do they at first examine and then implement the only remaining option left to them to address the lack of a GOP candidate being on the printed ballot?

On the left, they just want one of the two leftists on the ballot to win the job, as they view this as some sort of justification for their anti-voter positions on the issues confronting us.

All the defeats of the local left notwithstanding, the election of Boldt under these circumstances becomes their political "see, I told you so!" moment... THE moment that proves those of us opposed to the CRC Scam to be "wrong."  Those of us opposed to tax increases, expansion of government and higher fees... to be "wrong."

And the write-in effort threatens that.

Those opposed to this frequently claim that the GOP has now "lost the election," or "handed it to Dalesandro" (Big whoop) or that "Boldt will win in the general," inferring, if not coming out right and saying that the GOP should have done nothing and just allowed the vote to play out.

Their thought, as flawed as it is, is that Boldt is, in fact, Republican.  Boldt made the following claim in his email to the PCO's begging for their support in an effort to stop a GOP endorsement of this write-in campaign:

I am a lifelong Republican, and I will never believe that the truths we hold dear should be used as a weapon to injure others. When the new leadership of the county party decided to throw me out because I wasn’t “Republican enough,” I’ll be honest with you: it hurt. But it didn’t change what I believe or who I am at my core.

First of all, I seriously doubt that Marc wrote any of this, having viewed his writing for 6 years as his legislative front office.

Secondly, "lifelong Republicans" would not routinely jack up our taxes year after year, not oppose the will of the people on a multi-billion dollar boondoggle like the CRC Scam, not vote to set up a CTran taxing district that cut out tens of thousands of voters from having any say, but not from having to pay for those who do.

Third... the fact is that his effort to blame the current leadership of the GOP for his own predicament... that is, blame them for the "not Republican enough" gambit is both a lie... and merely shows that the Marc Boldt that so many remember... or want to remember... has long since been replaced by a rather prevaricating political animal.  (As a reminder, Boldt was sanctioned in 2011, beforte the current GOP leadership took over.)

Fourth, while an elected PCO, Boldt merely uses that position as a place-maker, an in-your-face to the GOP who threw him out years ago for being what he is: anything but Republican.  In the years he's had that position, until this past week, Boldt had never shown up to any GOP function.

So, why is he a PCO in an organization who has thrown him out and which he refuses to participate in or with?  Petulance.

He's not doing it to be a Republican.  He's doing it because he can.

Boldt was smacked by the local GOP long before the current local GOP leadership came into being.

So, what's the point of attempting to claim otherwise?

When I worked for Marc, the man lived and died with the truth.

Now?

Not so much.

But all of that merely sets the table for this: those whining about the write-in, opposed to the write-in, are making an effort to stop (which they actually know they can't stop) this effort.  They claim the "will of the people" is somehow being ignored (As if that will ever made any difference to them in so many other issues...) by offering a 3rd choice.

The lack of logic in all of this goes to the emotional motive behind the opposition.

Offering a legitimate, well-organized write-in campaign by no means serves to silence the "will of the people," although while a commissioner, Marc Boldt certainly did all he could to accomplish that very thing.

The people, ultimately, will decide.  And no one... no where... can explain how on one hand, this effort that will result in an articulation of the will of the people simultaneously manages to ignore it.

And while desperation causes anyone to grasp at any straw floating by... this one won't keep those opposed to this effort because of their support of one of two leftists... from sinking themselves.

Write-in campaigns are the ultimate in the "will of the people" indicators.  With the built-in difficulties of such an effort, they are, when successful, the ULTIMATE expression of the Will of the People outside a successful revolution.

And that is why I support this effort.

The GOP has nothing to lose; I have nothing to lose; the options were to do this with a good chance a conservative could win, or do nothing, with a guaranteed victory to a leftist... and neither one would make any difference.

Only one side in the Boldt bruhaha are "ideologues."

"But Paul, Marc Boldt can't win."  (In response to an observation that he will win.)

Even during the GOP meeting, that theme was repeated over and over and over again.

Now, a Boldt supporter is sure that he will win.

You can say one thing about those opposed to conservatives:

They're all over the map. The thing they have in common is hatred for the current local regime in the GOP.  And that hatred is what is driving their prognostications.

I prefer to try and stick with the political, practical realities.  And the practical political reality is this: with Boldt and Dalesandro on the ballot, there is zero possibility of a conservative winning.

The democrats endorsed Dalesandro, and the even more fringe-left Young Democrats endorsed the supposedly conservative, supposedly Republican, Marc Boldt; an endorsement he sought out and accepted.

None of this means a thing to Boldt supporters and CCGOP haters.

Leftists are whining about the CCGOP "ignoring the will of the people," as if the left ever cared about that... and as if the people, ultimately, won't have the final say in all of this.

Boldt fears a discussion of the issues because he knows he's taken incredibly unpopular stances on those issues in the past... and those stances have, in fact, cost him his seat on the county commission.

Instead of learning from those mistakes, he's doubled-down on them.  And because it was politically expedient, he dumped the GOP altogether to get on the ballot... until they became a threat.

Then, all of a sudden, he declares himself through his surrogates as being more GOP than Goldwater.

An obvious ploy, this GOP organization... and those running it, who, I might add, were not in charge when the GOP threw Marc out in 2011, rejected it for what it was:  An obvious attempt by Marc to protect his right flank.

Boldt put himself through that humiliation... and it was a humiliation for him, but one of his own doing (The speech snippets Gillespie tweeted out showed a stunning cluelessness on Boldt's part: here's a clue, Marc - don't get in front of one of the two most partisan groups in Clark County and tell them, in effect, that you don't want to be one of them.) because he knows what I know:

A properly ran, properly financed, properly messaged campaign will beat him to a pulp... and he's got no where to run to, given the anchor of his history of kowtowing to the left as a county commissioner.

He sees the threat.  He had to try it... but it was also a sign of desperation as he finds himself in roughly the same position as Madore found himself in the primary... and that's not particularly a place where anyone in politics wants to be.

Those sniveling about this outcome here, continuing to hold Boldt blameless in all of this, have already determined that the GOP has "handed the election to Dalesandro."  Many said so at the time. Many have said so since.  Now, they're claiming that Marc will win.

Can't have it both ways, folks.

Much of this current state of affairs is due to reliance on labeling... Boldt SAYS he's a "Republican," now, when he needs to be one... therefore he is... even though as a PCO, he has shown up at exactly one GOP function... the last one... in the last 3 years and even though he refused to even acknowledge his involvement in the GOP... or lack thereof... repeatedly until it became a direct threat to him.

Then, all of a sudden, Crain has to lead the charge for him, because she isn't driven by her personal hatred against the local party for dumping her in the last election cycle... no... that has nothing to do with it.

The issue, of course, is his record. Had his record been Republican, had he listened to us... the people of this county... listened to us instead of having been a rabid CRC supporter and repeatedly voted to raise our taxes... and acted on our wants and desires instead of those of the Downtown Mafia... he would still be a commissioner... and none of the rest of this would be happening.

It's easy to point to his political opponents and shout "ideologues," but in the end, labeling is what got us into this mess... and labeling won't get us out.

Those opposed to Boldt, who know his record as a commissioner, and are repelled at the thought of his on again/off again dependence on the GOP are no more "ideologues" than those who support him.

Ultimately, the worst that could happen is that Pike loses.  Had no effort at a write-in been made, well, there would be no chance that any conservative would win, so it's a risk well worth taking. As for either of the other two, there's essentially no difference, so it really doesn't matter if either of them wins.

That so many seem so terrified at the thought that ultimately, the people will decide?

Well. How.... democrat of you.

Meanwhile, I support Pike. I would have supported almost any conservative. For a time, until she bailed, I supported Ann Rivers as well.

I could be wrong, because I'm assured by the Crain faction that I don't know anything about Boldt and that I am "lying" about him. In their eyes, it's like I never heard of the man... the fact that I know him much more than any of you could ever hope to know him notwithstanding.

Nothing I say about Marc, none of my concerns or issues with his governance are worthy of consideration because my views don't dovetail with yours.

Yet those opposed to him are "ideologues?"

Indeed.

So, the top two GOP'ers in national polling have never held office.... why is that?

I was struck by a saying that surfaced a few years ago, that went something like this:

"The Ark was built by amateurs... the Titanic by professionals," or words to that effect.

So.... why are those who've never held office doing so well against the "experienced" field?

Right now, the anger against the establishment... on both sides of the spectrum... is so great as to be close to incalculable.

Ultimately, I believe that on the GOP side, it's anger against those who are associated with government, even when they've done good... the tinge of government involvement covers them like a blanking, blinding many to their good qualities... and magnifying their possible weaknesses.

I freely admit, out of most of these guys, I was a big Walker fan.  Then I found out he was willing to throw $250 million of his Wisconsin taxpayer's dollars... without asking them... at the Milwaukee Bucks to keep that NBA franchise in that state.

I don't want the kind of thinking that can throw money at millionaires in government anywhere.  So when I found that out, it made me a free agent again.

I'm not committed to any of these guys.  The list of those I won't vote for remains fairly static, however... and it's the usual suspects, establishment types that are so beholdin' to the insiders that you can't tell much of a difference between those claiming to be R's and those claiming to be D's.

At this point, I admit it.  I admire Dr. Carson, Fiorina and Trump.  Cruz is worth some consideration; anyone with the balls to call their senior leader a "liar," true or not, has to be kept in mind in this day and age.

But the idea that the GOP will put someone up who doesn't share at least some of the views of these four is highly unlikely, indeed.

Anger is what's putting them there.  Anger will keep them there, since the rest of them are simply terrified to actually speak to the issues we care about.

Will the establishment just fume?  Or will they understand that their collective failure to keep their promises to the electorate who put them there has resulted in this anomaly? 

Do they understand that political expediency and fear are not the way?

Do they get that we're here in large part because of their many failures?

We'll see.  But it ain't looking like it.

The yellow journalism of Katie Gillespie and her employer?

Isn't it nice when a "reporter" feels compelled to write about someone... anyone... without contacting them for comment, first?

But when you bring the level of bias and hatred to the table of a democratian reporter, I guess half-assed "journalism" is the best you can do.  The problem here is simple: were I to be fighting as hard for the democratian's leftist agenda as I am against it, I'd be a community hero.

This sort of thing is the price you pay to fight the power.  And I can live with it.

I'll leave it to Lew Waters' capable and talented keyboard to respond:

Gillespie’s Smear Effort Falls Flat

BY LEWWATERS

Disclaimer: The following should not be construed as in support of or in opposition to any campaign currently underway. It is merely a “setting the record straight” effort on my part.

We recently saw a new junior reporter show up at the Lazy C, Katie Gillespie to replace or take over where über leftist Stephanie Rice left off.

In a brief exchange with Ms. Gillespie shortly after she was seen participating in the C3G2 hate site on facebook, she assured me of how “proud she is of her objectivity.”

Apparently she and I have all together different definitions of the word “objectivity.”

Be that as it may, being the county political reporter for the Lazy C, she is center in the current fiasco in the campaign for County Council Chair and has apparently stumbled across a 5 year old post written by fellow blogger, Kelly Hinton who now supports the write-in effort for Liz Pike over electing his brother-in-law, former Commissioner Marc Boldt.

The 5-year old post called into question Ms. Pike’s conservative credentials, something both conservative and liberal bloggers are known to do concerning their respective candidates.

Gillespie’s post, Pike and Boldt share political sin in common seems more designed to give the local RPCCGOP a black eye, not that they need much help there, being fully capable of being asses on their own.

Getting back to Hinton, Gillespie states,

“In a 2010 blog post, Hinton claims that because Pike’s business, Pike Advertising Agency, had sold political ads to Democratic candidates, that she too may be a Democrat.”

“Now, I don’t know how much sway Hinton actually has within the general Republican party. Futhermore, I don’t think that Pike selling a service to those she may may disagree politically is necessarily reason to question her leanings.”

“But Hinton has certainly made a 180-degree turn where Pike is concerned…”

As are repeatedly reminded when pointing out switcheroo’s from liberal politicians, opinions are not carved in stone and are subject to reversal as people gain more information.

I don’t know how Gillespie managed to just stumble upon that 2010 post, though, and miss a later post written by Hinton on January 24, 2012, Rough start: Liz Pike announces for the 18 where Hinton clearly states,

“In the past, I have hammered Pike. But to her credit, she has contacted me directly to discuss my concerns and past political issues.”

“She is the only candidate in 6 years to directly address the concerns I have expressed in this blog.”

“Wasn’t easy for her to do, and she did it.”

What strikes me here is just back in June, merely weeks ago, when the subject came up of Mayor Leavitt being the one that originally made a claim on tolls for the now comatose CRC being a high as $8 and he popped in on her facebook page to justify and explain, she replied to Leavitt,

“And regardless, what you said six years ago does not necessarily pertain to the claims Councilor Madore is making today. If I were to fact-check every claim every politician has made ever–including the ones that predate me by years–I’d get nothing done.”

Apparently, in the world of yellow journalism the Lazy C is known for, being “objective” does not include doing your homework before slapping someone.

So, if you oppose Boldt, you must hate him?

When commenting on his overwhelming rejection of the local GOP that he had rejected to get on the ballot, my rather clueless brother-in-law is quoted as saying this:

"There's a little hatred in the 40 or 45 people that follow Madore's thoughts," Boldt said. "It goes along with the course. I know they're against me."

No leftist pandering there, eh, Marc?

Here's the thing: I do not hate Marc Boldt.  I don't hate anything about him, except for one thing: his politics.

Marc wants to be liked.  I get that... who doesn't?  Certainly those in politics need a likability quotient to be successful... just ask Hillary. But some in politics rely on that entirely too much,  And those, like Marc, that live on that sort of thing are easy to manipulate... easy to be "guided."

After all, Steve Stuart owned Marc like he had a receipt for him and the 13th Amendment hadn't been passed.  Democrats became a huge part of Marc's circle... and they took ownership of him like he had no mind of his own... which led this formerly arch conservative Republican to slowly but surely begin to sell out... to the extent that in this cycle, Marc sought out and received the endorsement of the Young Democrats, a local group of the fringe of the fringe left... and how could he do that if he didn't agree with their aims... which I don't believe were/are particularly conservative?

In the end, what's going to do Marc in politically isn't his hatred.  What's going to do him in is his record.  What's going to do him in are his poor decisions and his failure to learn from those decisions. What's going to do him in is his OWN peculiar brand of hatred.  And what's going to do him in is choices he's made such as running away from the GOP, only to come back and try and use them to get elected in the face of a likely political threat from his right.

What's going to do him in is a years long record of ignoring the people he allegedly served (look up "Servant leader" and "Boldt" for a little taste.) and doggedly pursuing the interests and expenditures of the downtown mafia generally and democrats particularly.

Lew Waters said it best:

"Boldt comes out whining like a little titty baby."

What Marc SHOULD have done... and BE doing... is to stop whining and treat the write-in as just another campaign.

What Boldt SHOULD have said was simply this:

"I look forward to a discussion of the issues and allowing the people of Clark County to react to that.  I know Liz Pike personally, she has been a friend and has worked on some of my campaigns.  This is going to be a hard fought battle and I look forward to the challenge."

Instead, we get Marc whining about "hate" and the guy running his campaign, Jim Mains, whining about, well, campaigns, as if Marc's record is somehow off limits.

Tsk, tsk.

Meanwhile, I find it hard to believe that the 73% or so of those who voted for other candidates in the last primary actually "hate" Marc, just like it's hard to believe that those who overwhelmingly voted to oppose Marc because of what he's done... and failed to do... in the local GOP "hate" him.

But I'm sure that for Marc to feel that way gives him some small level of comfort.

Introspection can be very painful when you've been wrong... but just refuse to admit it to yourself.

Jim Mains, blowing it again for Marc Boldt - When Mains babbles, why isn't he telling people he works for Boldt?

Jim Mains, who is one of the leftist partners of something called "High Five Media," was a name I hadn't heard of that I can recall before the 2012 cycle.

That was the fateful year that saw my brother-in-law, Marc Boldt, get blown out of office by David Madore.

Several things were made clear with that campaign.  When it comes to Jim Mains, the number one item made clear is the man is a liar and a hypocrite.

I opposed Marc's re-election to county commissioner in 2012.   I oppose his election to council chair in 2015.  I did not vote for David Madore, either.  (I actually wrote in Mickey Mouse or something, if memory serves.)

I will oppose any election where Boldt is ever involved as a candidate. No one knows him better outside of his immediate family, because I worked for him as his legislative assistant for 6 sessions in Olympia and as his office down here when we were not in session.

In 2012, my opposition to Marc was public and loud.  This year, it's going to be even MORE public and much louder.

There's a wide variety of reasons for that; but the biggest of those is the simplest: Boldt learned nothing from his defeat last time, nor has he learned anything from his complete rejection by the GOP THIS time.  And those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it... and if he was elected here, we would be repeating his disastrous, tin-eared, "ignore the people for his agenda" shtick that we were cursed with 8 years of experiencing before.

That said, Mains first jumped on to my radar screen when word reached me from multiple sources that he was out there lying in an effort to explain my opposition to Marc.  And that's when he sank to the bottom of my local political scum list.

The explanation the Boldt campaign generally, and Jim Mains particularly, was using was this:

I opposed Boldt because Madore was paying me.

As if.

David Madore has never paid me a cent.

But Mains could no more tell the truth then than he can now: I oppose Marc Boldt because he's almost everything I despise in politics.

Mains, who is getting PAID by Boldt, goes out in public and whines and snivels like the punk he is over the issues impacting his candidate.

He was outed by Lew Waters a few days back for making people believe that when responses were happening on Boldt's campaign facebook page, those responses were coming from Marc... when instead, they were coming from Mains.

Boldt desperately tried to stave off the impending write-in effort against him, going so far as to have the RINO faction of the PCO's run a laughable effort to have the CCGOP endorse HIM over a Republican in the write-in campaign.  His effort, much like his tenure in office as a commissioner, failed miserably.

The local GOP not only voted to endorse the write in campaign, they voted to oppose Boldt and Dalsesandro in the upcoming election.  And what follows here is Jim Mains' (And remember, Mains is getting PAID by Boldt) take on the GOP effort from under the article in the democratian detailing these decisions:

Jim Mains · Partner and Director of Strategy and Campaigns at High Five MediaIt just means they can go dirty, play dirty and defame both of the top two canidates[sic] character. Nothing new, this wing of the GOP are good at that with their signs, mailers, commercials, radio ads and robo calls. Nothing new. Truly sad to see this kind of hatred. Thank you Mike and Marc for taking the pledge to have a postive[sic] campaign toward each other.Like · Reply · 8 · 11 hrs

How hypocritical.

That Boldt has lost in the past with this clown is not surprising: I wouldn't let Mains run an elevator for me, let alone my campaign strategy.

And while Mains is certainly entitled to an opinion, this comment is because he knows what's coming.

This decision, which, like mine, was based on Boldt's RECORD (None of those opposed to Boldt hate him; we just don't want him in our government)  as if, somehow, talking about his actual, factual, record is off limits.

But as Marc's fellow leftist, that Mains' would engage in hypocrisy like this is not surprising.

Also not surprising is what motivated this post:

As I said, Mains is working directly for the Young Democrat endorsed Boldt.

But when you read his comments out there where he sounds like a sniveling 4 year old preschooler that just skinned his knees, he never mentions that he is getting a check from Boldt.

You know... the same thing he said about me and Madore... even though it was a lie?

Because to actually refer people who have questions about my opposition to Boldt to ME, so *I* can explain it... well, they certainly don't want to do THAT.

But when Mains babbles about Marc... where does he mention that he's working for him?

No where.

Why doesn't he?

Because to make sure that people know he's working for Boldt tends to result in a somewhat different perspective regarding those comments, since most out there DON'T know that Mains drove Boldt's 2012 campaign off a cliff, and he's gearing up to do the same here.

Ultimately, we can begin the process of renaming Boldt's current campaign as the "2015 Whining and Sniveling Tour."

And while most of the responsibility for that rests with Boldt, it won't be because Mains came through for him with anything better.

OK... so what does the "Now Boldt is going to lose" faction do?

OK, we're hearing it.  Particularly from a certain faction of the party who made the rather fallacious claim at the PCO meeting last night that it's not up to her to "... decide who is a Republican or not."

I say it's fallacious because she infers that such a decision doesn't matter... or that she's incapable of making it... and that flies in the face of her multiple assurances on facebook, repeated over and over, that Boldt somehow is, in fact, a Republican.

Odd, that.

Boldt, apparently, lied to these people, forgetting that, in this instance, we kept a copy of his infamous, "raise taxes for CTran" robo call.

We are told by that faction that:

Third: that Robo call. Marc claims he made a strictly neutral statement, which only urged people to get out and vote, and did not indicate a preference for their vote. 

Which, of course, was a total crock.

My response, which I knew would make zero difference with these people who hate conservatives, was this:

"that Robo call. Marc claims he made a strictly neutral statement, which only urged people to get out and vote, and did not indicate a preference for their vote." 

OK, since he lied to you about that... does it matter that he lied? Are you too deep into your support of this leftist to recognize it?

BOTH you and Carolyn were already supporting Marc. So since you'd already made the decision, why does any of what you have to say here matter?

Marc's record speaks for itself. He ignored the people of this county in rabidly supporting the CRC/Loot Rail/Toll scam, he raised our property taxes 6 out of the 8 years he was a commissioner, he dumped the GOP to run for this gig, he voted for an unconstitutional gun-grab and he sought out and accepted the endorsement of the pro-abortion young democrats... and you are going to tell ME he's a CONSERVATIVE?

There is NOTHING he wouldn't say or do to get your support.

Even lie... as he did here.

God, but you people are gullible.

https://youtu.be/QKix_rqRKpg

As I expected, it made zero difference.  When Crain's crew was crushed in the vote to endorse Boldt, by 2 to 1 opposed, they did what these types always do under the circumstances:

They left.

As I understand it, in addition to endorsing the write-in campaign, the GOP went on to vote to actively oppose the candidacies of former Republican Boldt and democrat Dalesandro.

The nay-sayers are wandering around claiming that the election is now handed over to the democrat.

Since, on most issues of policy, including the CRC Scam and raising taxes and fees... as well as ignoring the voters once they get into office and doing all they can to avoid voter input in matters of policy and tax/fee increases, there's little to no discernible difference between these two, it really doesn't matter; save for the label of "democrat," which if either of these two get elected... that position... and argument... is weak to non-existent.

A chair with Boldt in it would be no different than one with Dalesandro in it.  And that makes the write-in an easy choice to both make and support.

A properly ran, strategized and executed write-in campaign IS possible.  Neither the local GOP nor the people of this county have anything to lose, here.  There is no Republican on the ballot, no matter how much the RINO faction claims that Boldt is one, so, therefore, this whole thing became easy.

Which brings us to the question at hand: if, as we've been told repeatedly, Boldt can no longer win... then what is the point in supporting him?

The numbers and percentages in the primary speak for themselves.  Had it been David Madore by himself in the primary instead of with 2 other Republicans, the overwhelming likelihood is that he would have advanced to the general and Boldt, who ultimately got fewer votes than Dalesandro, would have been eliminated.

In this instance, the write-in candidate does not need a majority: in this three way race, all that's required is a plurality.  Given the closeness of Dalesandro/Boldt in the vote, 35% could win this race.

So, the Boldt supporters have a choice: if they truly believe he's going to lose... if they truly believe that a Republican should get the Chair position... then the choice for them seems to be fairly straightforward:

Peel off Boldt and move to Pike and the write-in.

The numbers support a victory here.  The right messaging and appeal to the conservative base can be enough to make this happen.

To Boldt supporters... I urge you to think carefully.  And know you do have options.

The Young Democrats, who are even to the left of the normal, radical fringe-leftists of the democrat party endorsed Boldt: let them carry his water.

You can continue to support and vote for Boldt, "knowing" that he is now going to lose...

Or...

You can join the write-in campaign and provide a vote that matters... a vote that will make a difference.

The choice is up to you, party notwithstanding.  And the party organization has made it clear: Boldt is not the guy.

Review of last night's Boldt skewer.

Two Disclaimers for housekeeping purposes:

1.  I am Marc Boldt's brother-in-law and I oppose his election.

2.  I did not attend the PCO meeting once I found out that a democratian reporter was going to be there to live tweet this thing.

Last night, Marc Boldt discovered, perhaps, that his two biggest enemies are, first, Marc Boldt and second, Carolyn Crain.

Crain, best known for endorsing fringe-left democrat and a CTran tool, Chief C3G2 hater Chuckie Green, running for District 2 county council, was a rabid Boldt supporter from the get-go... democrat voting record notwithstanding.

Whenever there's a PCO meeting, she does her best to take it over.  If you're not with her agenda, she objects, obfuscates and effectively attempts to become the shadow chair of the party.

Last night was no exception, and Boldt's ploy to use her to front for him was even more moronic than the speech he gave to try and get the GOP endorsement.

Boldt, who remains sanctioned from 2011 when the party under the chairmanship of Brandon Vick kicked his butt out for being Steve Stuart's lackey on, among other things, the CRC/Light Rail/Tolling scam in the face of massive opposition generally and GOP opposition specifically; knows that he can easily lose this race to a write-in candidate coming in from his right and is terrified of the prospect.

How else can he explain this poorly thought out and incompetently executed effort to scam the GOP endorsement?

Boldt's pathetic speech came across this way:

11h11 hours ago

Katie Gillespie ‏@newsladykatie

Boldt says he served as much and as well as he could as a councilor.

11h11 hours ago

Katie Gillespie ‏@newsladykatie

Boldt said it would be easier to serve as a chair if he serves as a non-partisan.

11h11 hours ago

Katie Gillespie ‏@newsladykatie

Boldt says it is easier not to have a letter behind your name.

11h11 hours ago

Katie Gillespie ‏@newsladykatie

"As you know, I was a freeholder," Boldt says. Says he suggested as a freeholder that the county council be a non-partisan race.

1 hour

One of the things I always tell my candidates is this: tailor your message to your audience.  Reminding the Party opposed to the Charter that you helped write that stupidity?

Not smart.

Focusing on the reasons the Party shouldn't, apparently, exist when you're standing in front of one of the two most partisan groups in the county?

Down right stupid.

See, you may WANT it both ways, but you can rarely have it both ways.

Thus, we see the influence of fringe-leftist Jim Mains, who is running his SECOND Boldt campaign (Getting clobbered by Madore in 2012 was the first) off a cliff... unless Marc didn't even discuss this political effort to pour gasoline on himself and light it with Mains... who, presumably, would have set Boldt straight.

Marc, of course, also failed to present any goals, policies or plans that would show a GOP bent.  He effectively gave the local GOP exactly zero reason to support him, given his abandonment of his job as PCO (Failing to show up for any GOP function for 3 years until now... when he needs GOP support... is pretty pathetic when you look at it.) and his equally pathetic voting record as a commissioner when he was in the pocket of democrat Steve Stuart and the downtown mafia while he was busily ignoring the people of this county.

Yes, I heard from Boldt's supporters who have/had precisely zero reason the GOP should support this guy, save for the claim that to take the step of endorsing a write-in is to "give the race to the democrat."

Let me say at the outset that a properly focused, properly financed write-in campaign can win this.  Relatively easily.

Those claiming otherwise simply don't know what the hell they're talking about.

To Boldt's credit (He is a rabid reader of my little effort here) he recognizes the threat: this is a GOP county and he is not and has not been a part of the GOP for a decade now.  But last night was the first GOP function he has attended in something like 4 years.  So how does THAT work?

And secondary to that, in real terms, BOTH of the clowns actually on the ballot ARE democrats.

So, here is what the GOP was faced with until last night:

There is no Republican or conservative on the ballot.

Both of the candidates on the ballot are democrats.

If they did nothing, there was zero chance of a Republican winning... and a democrat would win.

If they do this, there is at least a good chance of a Republican winning... whereas doing nothing results in the worst possible outcome:  a democrat chair.

With no discernible difference in policy between Boldt and Dalesandro... who cares if a real democrat wins or a fake democrat wins both are just as bad as each other?

The write-in is the only logical step to take.  And if the GOPer's like Carolyn Crain and the other leftists coalesce behind Pike... then she WILL win since Boldt and Dalesandro will split the leftist vote...

This entire debacle was Boldt's doing.  When Boldt first announced, he claimed he was running as a conservative Republican to the democratian; and then he morphed into what he called a "moderate Republican" to the Reflector, finally kicking the GOP label altogether.

RINO's like Crain all declared that Boldt was a "Republican," when Boldt himself did everything he could to abandon the label in a fit of political expedience.  When Marc looks in a mirror today and ponders how any of this could have happened, all he has to do is point in ever-shrinking concentric circles that end up with him.

He had 3+ years to work on repairing the damage he caused along with working on repairing his relationship with the party.  As a PCO, he is uniquely positioned to achieve that.

But since his election to PCO is based on nothing more than petulance, he failed to lift a finger to make that happen... and last night was the result.

Marc's fellow leftists, gathering under the article, including the aforementioned Jim Mains, who has carefully avoided broadcasting the fact that he's running Boldt's campaign, swing around on Lying Lefty Lou's playground swing set, babbling about a great deal they know nothing about and have no say over, spewing their usual C3G2-style partisan hatred.

And that's the kind of thing the rag so loves to see.

Meanwhile, I was going to write in Pike regardless.  Now, the choice is between a conservative Republican and what amounts to a pair of democrats.

When the outcome before the write-in was limited to two democrats regardless... the cause for the upset of the Boldt camp and the left is entirely based on the threat this effort poses to their campaigns.

Otherwise... why would they care?