Reviewing the bidding in the 18th: Who's viable and who isn't?

.
There are a wide variety of definitions for the two word phrase, "political viability." In reviewing the candidates announced so far in the 18th District, "viability" refers to even a possible likelihood that the candidate will ultimately be successful in their bid to become elected.

There are a number of indicators of viability. Money is a critical element; typically the one with the most money USUALLY wins (The only thing I've learned in this business for sure is that there's no such thing as a sure thing) and of course, name familiarity goes a long way to help.

Having a clue, a plan, a vision and knowledge as to how to achieve those ends is a pretty good indicator.

Understanding how government works, how to build coalitions, how to work across the aisle, how to compromise on goals but never on principle.

How to understand reality.

It's fairly clear that all the candidates in the 18th are having a difficult time raising money, save for one.

It's a fair question to ask what that means. Here's today's figures:

Name Office Pos Pty Contributions Expenditures Ind Sup Ind Opp BARNETT SHANNON (details) State Representative 01 R $12,077.39 $7,291.72 $00.00 $00.00 BITTNER ANTHONY (details) State Representative 01 R $00.00 $00.00 $00.00 $00.00 CARSON RICHARD (details) State Representative 01 I $477.50 $366.60 $00.00 $00.00 DEAN ROBERT (details) State Representative 01 R $3,150.19 $818.69 $00.00 $00.00 KAMPE DENNIS (details) State Representative 01 D $7,630.00 $1,375.11 $00.00 $00.00 RIVERS ANNA (details) State Representative 01 R $26,945.36 $15,695.96 $00.00 $00.00 RUSSELL JON (details) State Representative 01 R $00.00 $00.00 $00.00 $00.00 VICK BRANDON (details) State Representative 01 R $5,195.00 $2,986.08 $00.00 $00.00 Page 1 of 1 (10 items)

Some of these numbers are, well, curious. Did Jon Russell, best known for screwing up his congressional campaign while helping to turn Washougal into a train wreck (can we soon forget Stacee Sellers partying on city money... tens of thousands of dollars vaporizing... hiring the somewhat lacking city finance director... the thousands of dollars Russell personally made in running a campaign to implement a HUGE Port Levy increase? ) REALLY not raise or expend any money in his campaign?

I guess not. Otherwise, he would have reported it.... right?

Brandon Vick has brought in 15 donations in the 14 days between the 12th and the 26th for a total of $2450.

Rich Carson went short form, limiting himself to $5000 or less for the whole campaign, which means he can't raise money and he knows it; Anthony Bittner is an outstanding young man in every way, but apparently hasn't raised any money.

Shannon Barnett has put together $9,655. That's a VERY curious figure, given his past contacts as former Cowlitz GOP Chair, and his involvement with a contractors association along with his school board membership... why, you'd think that all these people would be falling all over themselves to donate to his campaign.

They're not.

Ann Rivers, on the other hand, has raised over twice that amount, at $20,655. A review of her PDC's show that she's getting a lot of support from both individuals and businesses in the district and in the area.

Some have whined about her money coming from out of the area, but those same people support Herrera, and they had no trouble with HER out of area money, and they had no problem with Herrera's decision to ditch us to go to an ENTIRELY special-interest fund raiser during session in Washington, DC.

The ability to raise money is an indicator of viability. The INability to raise money when you would think that past contacts and history with the community would lead to a groundswell of support is a truer indicator of a LACK of viability.

The ability to rise beyond rank partisanship is an indicator of viability, because it shows an understanding of the system and the practical reality that no man (or woman) is an island.

The ability to understand that while not everyone is going to share your view, they deserve representation as well and that means listening while you let the conversation continue.

Who among these candidates has those abilities?

I make no recommendation here. Draw your own conclusions.

Cross posted at Jon Russell Watch.
.

Thanks to Lew Waters: Someone wants to marry Gregoire?

.

From Washington State Wire

.

Marriage Proposal for Gregoire?

By Erik Smith
Staff Writer/ Washington State Wire

OLYMPIA, April 11.--Senate Republicans were guffawing over this one Saturday. As they often do, they started their back-room caucus meeting by reading emails from constituents.

.

Here’s what one anonymous correspondent had to say:

.

“Gov. Gregoire, I wish you were single so I could marry you and then divorce you. It would be cheaper having you as my ex-wife than as my governor.”

http://www.washingtonstatewire.com/home/2224-marriage_proposal_for_gregoire.htm

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, gasp, choke, sputter, WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
.

The stupidity of Steve "Easy Money, Mr. Barnett" Stuart never ceases to amaze: A "scientific survey?"

.
Followers of my meager effort here in blog land know that I hold Clark County Commissioner Steve "cold hard cash, Mr. Barnett" Stuart in utter contempt.

the reasons for that are many, but at the bed rock of it is his confirmed corruption with David Barnett buying him his position as a county commissioner, and his monumental arrogance in working double overtime to slam us with a multi-billion dollar waste of union pay offs and economic heart ache for Clark County by scamming us with a bridge replacement with the cursed, unwanted and unneeded loot rail that is the basis for the bridge replacement in the first place.

So, what's the basis for his inanity today?

This:

Fellow county Commissioner Steve Stuart, a Democrat who represents the regional transportation council on a crossing advisory committee formed by Gov. Chris Gregoire and Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski, has been pushing for a scientifically valid survey to probe residents’ willingness to support the project.

Stuart envisions the survey will probe residents’ support based upon the costs in terms of tolling rates and benefits in terms of time saved in commuting. Officials with the bistate crossing office have pledged to conduct a survey, probably before the federal government publishes a formal record of decision by the end of this year.

So, let's get this straight.

We have the way to get THE most accurate, scientific survey available for the least amount of money.

It's called a VOTE. It costs an estimated $3000.

There is NO OTHER SURVEY MORE ACCURATE OR CHEAPER THAN A VOTE. NONE.

This is a lame effort on Stuart's part to try and attempt to make people believe he actually gives a damn about what the people of this county want.

When a ballot comes back overwhelmingly rejecting this hemorrhoid on the butt of the people of this county, that can't be controlled or spun. Also, Stuart and every other candidate would have to take public positions on this horrific cancer.

But another in the series of private polls, spun by those paying for it?

Not nearly as good as what the voters would say.

Do not be fooled, folks. Neither Stuart nor Boldt want to hear what we have to say in any meaningful way, because what we have to say does not fit with their agenda of wasted billions on tolls and bridge/light rail construction that we don't need or want.

And Stuart apparently thinks we're stupid and that we'll buy into his nonsensical crap. Much like his moronic whine about his idiotic plan for a never-gonna-happen Oregon tax break for commuters, Stuart wants to fool the voters like Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, (Let's remember, Stuart worked on Leavitt's campaign. Is it any wonder that he would lie and mislead the people the same way Leavitt did to get elected?) who actually scammed GOP'ers into believing he didn't want tolls, Stuart wants us to THINK he actually cares that the people of Clark County don't want this garbage.

You want to know what we want, Stuart?

Put it on the ballot. I double-dog dare you.
.

Ready for a huge new sales tax? leftists to hammer our recovery further with a Value Added Tax.

.
AKA the "VAT," it's a charming little economy crippling number that will top each of the ACORN-in-Chief's myriad lies about those of us earning below $250,000 will not seeing our taxes go up "one dime," since they'd go up, perhaps, thousands of dimes in a given year.

I spent 6 years and 3 months in a charming locale possessed of this kind of nonsense known as "Germany." Social programs of all types, post-war guilt in spades. But a model for THIS country?

I think not.

So, here we have it. A crippled economy; massive (Being an understatement) debt, a business sector staggering under the horrific impacts of the clueless moron running the show, and now a crippling, regressive lie of a tax on top of everything else.

Killing this nation's economy. Enslaving untold generations.

Is this the "Hope" and "Change" you were looking for?
.

Well, I guess I was mistaken when Marc Boldt told me he would do an advisory vote.

On March 20, while at the GOP Convention, I discussed the bridge situation with Marc Boldt, my brother-in-law and county commissioner.

As a result of that discussion, I posted the following: Saturday, March 20, 2010

Boldt/Mielke to support Bridge/Loot Rail advisory vote.

As our local government clowns have wasted 10's of millions of dollars; as our despicable rag of a paper has attempted to jam this thing down our throats as those who've lied to us (Tim "The Liar" Leavitt) and those corrupted (Steve "Cold hard cash, Mr. Barnett" Stuart) have taken it upon themselves to ram all of this down our throats without our say.

Well, this November, we will get out chance.

I directly discussed this situation with Clark County Commissioner Marc Boldt and he agreed to put a non-binding, county-wide advisory vote on the ballot this November as part of the general election.

This is great for two huge reasons: first and foremost is that the people... the people who will actually pay the bills, will FINALLY get a say.

But second: every candidate and incumbent running this November (You listening, Steve "Unmarked bills, Mr. Barnett" Stuart?) will have to take and defend a position that so far, they haven't had to take or defend.

I look forward to the reaction from the various people who, while not having to pay the tolls this project will bring, want to ram this down our throats and the throats of the 65,000 commuters who WILL have to pay this price. I'm sure it will be classic.

Well, this IS classic, just not as I expected.

I got a call from my wife at work, warning me that things weren't going exactly the way I had been led to believe.

And, so, what's the story?

County Commissioner Marc Boldt, a fellow Republican who previously served with Mielke in the state Legislature, said he’s not inclined to support an advisory vote now.

“Once you go down that path, your ballot could be full of advisory votes,” Boldt said.

Exclusive of the absurdity of such an observation (It really doesn't matter if their are 50 advisory votes on the ballot or none, I would submit that any time there is a multi-billion dollar project that will cost 65,000 or more Clark County commuters $100,000,000 a year, blowing a hole in both family AND county budgets, there should, at a minimum, be an advisory vote) Marc looked me in the eye and promised me that such a vote, a non-binding advisory vote, would take place.

Apparently, it isn't.

I, of course, felt just the tiniest bit slighted considering what Marc had told me.

To my face.

So, I asked a couple of questions via email:

Marc,

The up or down vote on light rail will only apply to operation of light rail, not if either the bridge or light rail will be built. If the bridge is to be built, it must have light rail infrastructure on it. Since the only reason to replace a 6 lane bridge with a 6 lane bridge is to bring light rail into Vancouver, there is absolutely zero chance to build it without light rail.

If there is an advisory vote on the bridge there will be no light rail vote because when the people vote this down, and they will, any chance of one dime of federal money will vaporize.

The light rail/CTrans people don’t need to make a sub district, they can just use the one they have now. Meanwhile, the people of this county will pay the bill, even though, once again, no one will ask us. Further, when the light rail operations vote goes against them, they could just make their sub district THEN, using THOSE results. In short, an advisory vote that will likely kill this deal cannot stand as an excuse to not hold this vote because CTrans might use the outcome as some sort of template for a sub district.

Clearly, they will do that ANYWAY, since that’s what they did with the CTrans vote where 10’s of thousands of us were excluded from the vote, but not excluded from paying the tax. No matter what the outcome of such a vote would be, CTrans will keep trying until they get what they want.

Kill this bridge through an advisory vote, and there won’t be any light rail operations vote.

Failing to do this will result in a minimum of 65,000 commuters and their families being highly upset because one, the toll is going to vacuum $1300 or so per year out of each of their pockets (of which the county will not get one dime of revenue) and two, you will be held responsible for not allowing them any say.

As for an advisory vote, the assistant director of elections for the secretary of state said in the article that

State law does not explicitly prohibit advisory votes, according to state elections officials.

“There’s nothing that says they couldn’t,” said Katie Blinn, assistant director of elections for Secretary of State Sam Reed. “This whole animal of advisory votes is simply advisory. The process is not spelled out in state law, so there aren’t black and white parameters around it.”

Thus, there are no legal reasons not to hold such a vote, Potter’s babble notwithstanding; and anyone telling you different is lying.

The directive to Potter shouldn’t be “find a way to keep us from doing this.” Instead, it should be, “Find a way to make this happen or we will replace you with someone who will.”

Potter is, of course, dead wrong on his positions concerning advisory votes. Advisory votes by their very nature have precisely zero effect or authority or legal requirement to make any alteration of any kind on any issue.

Unless he can find a LAW that EXPLICITLY makes such advisory votes illegal (And the secretary of state’s office has indicated that he cannot) then he is flat wrong. And Stuart’s moronic idea of a “scientifically valid survey” will cost a hell of a lot more than $3000 and supersede the BEST survey: the results at the ballot box, which transcends any other type of survey in its inclusion and accuracy.

Marc, I get that you don’t want to take flack over allowing the people to have a say. But in this instance, giving the people a voice is the right thing to do for two reasons:

First, on a project of this magnitude with the horrific impacts that will result on family budgets across this county, the people deserve a say.

Second, you promised me that an advisory vote would be held.

I recognize that I’m a nobody relative to Steve Stuart or the unions. But someone, somewhere, has to care about what the PEOPLE want.

An advisory vote will provide that opportunity.

The comments on the article in question were generally supportive of such a vote, save for the usual fringe-leftist scum and union hacks who think we owe them a job and who certainly don't want a little thing like the will of the people to get in their way.

One particularly moronic slimeball commented that those of us who want to determine the will of the people on this issue should move to Somalia.

Well, it's a lesson learned. About politics, about what's important, and about my brother-in-law.

He had the opportunity to do something for the people of this county; to provide them with a voice... to make up for his support of Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, who, as I warned, scammed people into actually believing he was opposed to tolls.

And he did nothing.

I will remember. 2012 isn't that far away.