Another rat leaving the sinking ship? Jeff Mize leaving the Columbian?

.
I've heard from different sources that Jeff Mize is leaving the Columbian to become of all things, PIO or PAO of Clark County Public Works.

That a county public works shop NEEDS a PIO, particularly in the midst of such a horrific economic situation is an equally horrific waste of taxpayer dollars at the worst possible time for the worst possible reasons. But that's a subject for another post. Today's question is this: why would Mize, after all these years of yellow journalism, suddenly quit the Columbian to go into the government sector?

What does such a move indicate? Is the local rag in worse financial straights then they appear? Are we in for another round of layoffs?

Presuming this move takes place, Mize won't be missed, like arch-leftist editorial page editor Mike Heywood wasn't missed after his unceremonious departure. A lack of objectivity combined with leaving out crucial quotes and other pieces of information is not a great resume' for a so-called "journalist."

Now, is this move happening?

Time will tell. Updates as they occur.
.

So, Mike Heywood stopped by.

.
Erstwhile, increasingly perennial candidate Mike Heywood swung by to mention his web site for his campaign:

I've put a lot about my positions on my web site, Mikeforvancouver.com. Given the tone and tenor of your posts, I doubt you will find much there to admire or agree with.
Mike Heywood

(Anonymous) 6/16/2009

He's right about that. But, I do admire the fact that he came here to let me know about his website.

The problem is that now I have to blow more holes in his positions than a wheel of Swiss cheese.

I've written about Mr. Heywood in the past; those so inclined can search this blog by using the "search" function in the upper left corner.

I'm struck by this phrase on his home page:

"I do not, however, take marching orders from The Columbian, and I am not in the pocket of downtown interests."

But a careful review of Mike's positions fail to show where he has any different position from either.

If he's not in their pocket... then how come he sounds precisely like they do?

Does he:

Support the massive and unconscionable waste of an unneeded and unwanted I-5 Bridge replacement that has already wasted tens of millions of dollars in planning?

Support the massive and unconscionable waste of an unneeded and unwanted loot rail system?

Support nailing the people with a massive toll every day as they commute to work?

Oppose giving the people of this county a vote?

Support massive annexations so that Vancouver may achieve the utterly worthless position of the second largest city in the state... as if that mattered?

Support the many tax and fee increases the City has rammed down the people's throats?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

Now, tell me... how does that differ from either the downtown mafia or the Columbian?

Will he continue the battle against the Barnett Mafia ramming a massive casino down our throats? He seems to have avoided a position on that.

So, what we have is an avowed leftist (Much like he was when he was running the Columbian's editiorial page... and much like John Laird is now) who wants to continue fighting for every item the downtown mafia and the Columbian want, but somehow Mike is not taking his "... marching orders from The Columbian, and I am not in the pocket of downtown interests."

It is for the reader to decide if the exact similarity between the Downtown Mafia/Columbian positions and those of Mr. Heywood are sheer coincidence.

Oddly, I seem to remember a relatively recent election where the empty suit that we elected never missed the opportunity to compare John McCain with George Bush.

Now, Mike should be aware of that. After all, he seems to exhibit a high level of pride for his support of that anti-American, anti-business, incompetent empty-suited racist bigot to the presidency. It's absolutely no reason to vote for Mike, of course, but he is apparently unaware of that.

That said, how come ol' Mike rabidly supported a candidate who never hesitated to compatre McCain with Bush; while we cannot compare Mike with the downtown interests who own him? Odd, that.

In the end, Mike is wrong in his positions, including the position that would cost every commuter over the criminally stupid I-5 Bridge/Loot Rail debacle over $1200 a year; a fee that, like 99% of the resty of the Bridge Humpers, HE will not have to pay.

And that just goes to illustrate how easy it is for Mr. Heywood to advocate the spending of other people's money, precisely the attitude we DON'T need in this or any other economy.

Mike is endorsed by every living democrat and union, particularly the union scum that will benefit from the massive waste of building an unneeded replacement bridge with loot rail.

Big whoop.

He offers no reason, compelling or otherwise, to get rid of Jeannie Stewart. So, if voting in yet another fringe leftist member of the Amen choir, determined to do the bidding of the Downtown Mafia and the newspaper is what you think needs to happen, then by all means, vote for Mike.
.

Mike Heywood stops by to comment on my post about his announced candidacy.

.
Mike Heywood, candidate for Vancouver City Council swung by and replied to a previous post written about two months ago. There's something of an irony here, so I thought I would share:

I was myself a little surprised the story about my candidacy didn't include a reminder about my sin of checking out porn sites while on the clock, but I expected it would only be a matter of time before somebody brought it up. My friends and supporters did decide to overlook my flaws, and so I continue active in the Democratic Party and theatre and such despite the presentiment of some that I should be consigned to oblivion and shame. In defense of The Columbian, the paper sat on the announcement story for a week after I filed with the PDC, perhaps to give the incumbent time to get in a dig. Mike Heywood
5:46 PM

This is an intriguing statement for a variety of reasons. To me, it speaks of the almost genetic double standard of the left.

Were Mr. Heywood known for his Republican persuasion, he would be savaged every hour on the hour by many of those self-same "friends and supporters," much like they savaged Republicans of note such as Richard Curtis, or Larry Craig or Mark Foley... while remaining essentially silent in the face of the actions of those such as William "Cold Hard Cash" Jefferson, and the oh, so prim and proper multiple adulterer Rep. Tim Mahoney, the now-ousted replacement for Foley.

Are these issues of character? Are these issues of morality? Are they issues of an inability to follow company policy? Are they issues of objectification of women?

That, of course, is for the individual to decide. With my years of experience in the political biz, though, there can be no doubt: if the show were on the other foot, the democrats at any level would exploit this for everything they could.

"Forgive" would not be in their lexicon, as the exploitation of every weakness, real... or perceived, is their campaign mantra.

That is not to say that GOP'ers; which I used to be, don't do the same to a greater or lesser extent.

What it is to say is that in the midst of campaigns of unimaginable vituperation; of campaigns where the character of a candidate's CHILDREN is up for assassination; in a campaign where the media has assumed a co-equal position with the leftist messaging organs; it is unrealistic to presume for Mr. Heywood that the issues, of which he is also completely wrong, would decide the outcome of his election.

That said, I certainly invite Mr. Heywood to stop by when the mood strikes and discuss his positions. The issue of his departure from the Columbian has been discussed all it's going to be on this blog.

But the issues are fair game. Links to those issues would be helpful, but are not required.

Thanks for stopping by, Mr. Heywood.