Archive for October, 2009

October 29, 2009

Russell Shows Lack of Experience on City Council

by lewwaters

Any who have been following the Columbian the past few days have seen the problems unearthed in the city of Washougal, Washington where their mayor, Stacee Sellers is accused of some improper use of tax dollars on personal trips pertaining to charges on her city credit card resulting from an accountability audit.

Audit critical of Washougal spending

Sellers’ Las Vegas expenses questioned

Whether or not Washougal’s mayor is guilty of anything remains to be seen and I am not here to judge her. That will all be settled soon I hope for the citizens of Washougal.

However, this matter has brought something more important to light that must be addressed and placed in front of Washington State voters within the 3rd Congressional District. That being, city councilman Jon Russell who is campaigning for the nomination to run against 6 term Democrat congressman Brian Baird in next years election.

Washougal is a small town with a population of less than 9,000 people, just east of Vancouver, Washington. Jon Russell occupies a seat on the city council comprised of 7 citizens. As in any city council, their duties are to provide oversight of the mayor and to ensure matters pertaining to the city are not just rubber stamped through, but openly discussed and whatever is done is for the benefit of the city’s residents, not individuals.

With the revelation of possible improprieties by the mayor, Stacee Sellers, Jon unwittingly has shown his immaturity or lack of experience for such a seat in his effort to distance himself from the mayor and the accusations against her.

From the first article linked above we read,

“Council member Jon Russell said he believed the findings showed that the problems were bigger than oversights.

“I don’t think these are cracks, they’re craters,” he said. “It looks like a pattern that is not being dealt with and that is not being brought to the attention of the council.”

Russell said he wants the council to hold a special meeting to look into each problem and discipline responsible parties, even ask for resignations if necessary.

“I don’t see how we can trust this administration in moving forward with anything,” he said.”

Does Jon not realize the city council IS part of the administration?

Further eroding confidence in Jon is the second article linked where we see,

“The people responsible for that oversight are members of the city council. Three council members — [Jon] Russell, Lou Peterson and Paul Greenlee — make up the finance committee tasked with approving city employees’ and officials’ receipts and spending.”

Jon appears to be the head of the oversight committee charged with overseeing city expenditures. But he also says he doesn’t recall whether he saw details of the Las Vegas trip expenditures claiming,

“It’s not at all a perfect system.”

The real rub comes in the explanation,

“The committee members do not meet to discuss the expenditures; that practice ended several years ago in favor of council workshops. Instead, members are told to go to Sellers with questions, Russell said.

We have been told by the mayor not to talk to department heads to get answers, that everything has to go through her.”

Jon has been on the council for at least a couple years now and surely must know his duties were to provide oversight alongside the other council members. If what he says is accurate, why has he sat back until now and tolerated such orders from the mayor?

If Jon is unable to stand up to the mayor of a small town of some 9,000, how would he ever stand up to the likes of Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Washington D.C.?

I take no pleasure in bringing this out and in fact, from meeting Jon in person, I like him. But, we in the 3rd District that see congressman Baird has lost sight of who he is supposed to represent want a strong candidate to run against him and someone who will stand up for us and take on the established power base back in Washington D.C. We do not want someone who will go there, collect their salary and perks and just do as they’re told.

I still think Jon is a good guy and has a future with government if he continues. But, at this time, he simply is not ready to tackle the likes of Brian Baird or Nancy Pelosi in campaigning. He just doesn’t have the experience yet.

On the other hand, we also have a candidate that has experience in Washington D.C. with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security, David Castillo of Olympia.

Jon, you look almost as bad as the mayor in this. If she is exonerated of all charges, you remain looking bad in not standing up to her or seeing the excessive expenditures. It is either your naiveté or inexperience.

There is no shame in deciding to wait and gain some valuable experience for a future run at higher office.

Join us Jon. Get behind David Castillo and let’s get Baird out of office this time and get an experienced conservative in office to represent the 3rd Congressional District.

David Castillo

Remember Jon, if you couldn’t stand up to a small town mayor, how would you ever stand up to Nancy Pelosi?

October 28, 2009

Royce Pollard’s ‘Concrete Canyon.’

by lewwaters

The following video was shown to the City of Vancouver planning meeting in regards to mayor Pollard’s dream for Vancouver’s Columbia River Waterfront development.

Sort of reminds me of waterfronts along Chicago, New York, Miami and other such overgrown cities plagued with high unemployment, ultra high taxes, out of control crime and street pan handlers.

Waterfront Chicago

Waterfront New York

Waterfront Miami

Is this what “Boss” Pollard wants for our community, to out Portland Portland?

Add to this his other dream “cap” over I-5, most likely destined to be a haven for the homeless or drug dealers to hide out.

I-5 Cap Design

Should “Boss” Pollard’s “dream” for the community come to fruition, how long before we are more like sections of Detroit?

Vote Tim Leavitt for Mayor.

October 25, 2009

U.N. Rapporteur To Probe Affordable Housing In U.S.

by lewwaters

Raquel Rolnik, a professor of urban planning at the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil will be touring first New York then 6 other cities and will “report” back to the U.N. about housing rights violations and advances within the U.S.

Rolnik plans to “hear the voices of those who are suffering on the ground,” in the U.S.

Shouldn’t Ms. Rolnik be more concerned about the poor housing and poverty within her native Brazil, before she attempts to “teach” us?

Brazil Housing

Has Obama begun ceding our sovereignty to the United Nations now?

October 24, 2009

Baird Snubs Columbian, Accused of Grandstanding By Castillo

by lewwaters

Brian Baird 7 Castillo

I found it somewhat peculiar to sign on to the Columbian’s web site Tuesday, October 20 and see Kathie Durbin had written yet another fawning article on congressman Baird pertaining to some new proposals he has recently dreamed up on health care, Baird suggests sweeping reforms.

Although some of the thoughts Baird presents may hold a certain degree of merit, I found it most peculiar that his op-ed outlining these ideas turns out to be a “Special” to The Seattle Times, located well outside of his district, Washington State’s 3rd Congressional District and in fellow Democrat Jim McDermott’s 7th Congressional District. McDermott’s name appears nowhere within the op-ed appearing in the Seattle Times nor in the articles from papers located within the 3rd District that cover his new found ideas, leaving me believing he had nothing to do with any part of these new ideas of Baird’s.

Wouldn’t you think these ‘grand new ideas’ should be presented to Baird’s constituents, not McDermott’s? That is what I find odd in his presenting this op-ed only to the Seattle Times and not to the Columbian or even the Olympian, 2 of the largest newspapers within his district.

Could there be a specific reason constituents were not easily made privy to his ideas? Surely the Columbian, very supportive of him over the years, would run any op-ed he submitted.

Unconfirmed rumors heard around town claim some at the Columbian are a wee bit irked over it, but you cannot tell from Durbin’s fawning article above.

Out of the 3 challengers vying to replace Baird in the House next year, only one is calling him on this “newly unveiled proposal to overhaul the federal tax code, merge all government health plans, and adopt a means test for Medicare recipients,” David Castillo of Olympia.

Kathie Durbin covers David on his accusation in her Thursday October 22 article, Republican accuses Baird of grandstanding.

In spite of the less that appropriate headline, she seems to actually give David fair coverage interviewing him on his accusations.

David said, “Baird offers no explanation why he made no such call for tax reform when Republicans controlled Congress and many of their members were pushing for the same agenda. He is making this call for change only when Democrats are in charge and his own leadership has shown absolutely no indication this is policy they are willing to address.”

Coverage of the op-ed from the Daily News Online, also within Baird’s district, credits him with explaining, when asked why the silence up until now, “I thought it was fair to let President Obama and the leadership of the House and Senate take their best shot.”

Isn’t that big of the congressman, allowing the president and congressional leaders months to “take their best shot.”

Truth be known, these ideas are DOA, dead on arrival, should they actually be brought before congress, after all the months they have invested and all the backroom deals made in secrecy. Any novice can see that. Member of his own party will not agree to just scrap everything they have done in favor of a whole new approach as suggested by Baird.

I have every reason to believe that he knows that, which would somewhat explain why his ideas appeared in the Seattle Times and neither the Columbian nor the Olympian.

This is also why Castillo accuses him of another grandstanding play saying, “Baird gives no rational reason why Congress and the American people will turn to his solutions when President Obama — with a built-in bully pulpit — has been unable to convince a majority of Americans that his ideas are viable.”

As can be expected, Baird accused Castillo of “a personal attack,” adding, “That cheap shot doesn’t contribute to solving our problems. How else is one supposed to discuss policy initiatives other than by publicizing them?”

Uh, congressman Baird, did it occur to you to “publicize them” within your district to your constituents, not the Jim McDermott’s constituents?

The last time Baird was caught ‘with his pants down,’ so to speak, he dreamed up his Ryder Truck death threat claim, which remains unresolved.

Castillo is correct in calling Baird on these grandstanding plays of his lately.

Baird is trying to appear relevant in the debates currently ongoing and takes the easy road, publishing new ideas, but outside of his district where most of his constituents will not even read about them until he comes back later to show his ideas that didn’t make it.

Southwest Washingtonians, we can do better, we deserve better. We need to call Baird on his grandstanding and his claim of limiting his terms to 12 years, as he stated the election before his defeat of Republican Linda Smith.

2010 is year 12 for Baird. 2010 should be Brian Baird’s last year in Congress. We deserve and need strong representation with new conservative ideas.

We need a man who isn’t afraid to call matters as he sees them, David Castillo.

October 24, 2009

What Happened To The Death Threats, Congressman Baird?

by lewwaters

Brian Baird 7
There was a lot of noise made back in August of this year over Congressman Brian Baird, (D. Wa.) canceling out on all of his town halls over alleged death threats he claims he received.

Baird was under fire from both sides for not holding face to face meetings with constituents and was strongly criticized for incendiary comments made comparing town hall attendees to “Nazi’s,” “Brown Shirts,” “Timothy McVeigh” and the like, which he eventually apologized for and agreed to hold some town halls.

The day after the first town hall, Baird again came under heavy criticism for what was perceived to be yet another incendiary comment at a local Rotary Club luncheon where he said, “If there is a Ryder truck parked out front, it has my name on it.”

The comment drew strong criticism from the Clark County Republican Party as Clark County Conservative previously noted at Brian Baird Steps On His Tongue Again.

The Columbian, the paper of record for Clark County strongly condemned the criticism. Staff writer Kathie Durbin, who was present at the luncheon and must have missed the “threat disclosure” herself as she saw fit not to mention it in her first article on the luncheon, wrote the condemnation of the GOP criticism in her piece, Death threat disclosure by Baird draws criticism.

Previously we had only heard about the faxed image of Barack Obama as the joker and now we heard about a phone message left at his office allegedly saying, “You think Timothy McVeigh was bad, there is a Ryder truck out there with your name on it.”

Naturally, such a comment must be taken seriously and Baird’s office staff claimed to have reported the comment and fax to the Secret Service and to the Capitol Police in Washington D.C.

A local blogger called the Capitol Police to inquire about a police report and said he was told no such police report existed. The Columbian’s managing editor, Lou Brancaccio also placed calls to the Capitol Police and wrote he was told that there was an ongoing investigation of an unspecified nature.

Kathie Durbin wrote a more specific account claiming the Columbian was told, “A matter was brought to the attention of Capitol Police from Congressman Brian Baird’s office. But we cannot comment on any details of any ongoing investigation.”

A comment left on a September 6 Brancaccio column, There He Goes Again asked about whether or not any additional information had come about from the investigation into the death threats allegedly received and Lou replied, “I’ve spoken with law enforcement several times since we reported that the matter was brought to their attention. (Which, as you recall was the large issue at hand at the time.) No additional info was given.”

It seems that since that comment by Lou Brancaccio in September a very strange thing has happened in regards to this death threat and the investigation.

NOTHING! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Wondering why we have not heard anything more about this in nearly 2 months, I emailed Lou Brancaccio Thursday October 22 asking about the status of any updates on the investigation, whether settled or still ongoing and received in reply, “No update Lew.”

No curiosity on what we were told was “the large issue at hand at the time?” No follow up from the media? No questioning whether or not we have some loon in our community who feels death threats to elected officials is okay?

I didn’t bother emailing Kathie Durbin because she never replies to me anyways. But, still curious I did call Congressman Baird’s office in Washington D.C. to ask about the status of any investigation.

Almost as soon as I asked I was placed on hold for a few moments and the young man on the other end came back on saying he “was not privy to any such information” and that there was no one in the office who had such information.

A little later the same day I called Baird’s Vancouver office with the same question and again was told no one was present who had any such information. I was invited to leave a message with Kelly Love, Baird’s District Manager asking her, which as of this writing has not been returned.

In both phone calls I envisioned from the answerers tone of deer caught in a cars headlights, shocked surprised and not knowing what to do.

After this length of time shouldn’t constituents have heard some sort of update on such a serious matter?

I have to wonder why, since even Lou Brancaccio stated it was a “large issue,” that our local journalists lost interest and have not followed up on the charge in 2 months, especially since in early September Brancaccio stated he had called the Capitol Police “several times?”

If a serious threat was received and the investigation showed that, shouldn’t we have an arrest of a suspect?

If it was a ploy by Baird to draw heat away from his initial refusal to hold town halls, aren’t we also entitled to hear that as well?

Candidate running against Baird for Washington’s Third Congressional District, David Castillo, has been calling out Baird for his hypocritical grandstanding in trying to appear as if he isn’t a liberal and that he has been diligently representing constituents, when in fact, he hasn’t.

Has Baird sold us a bill of goods on these death threats that was supposed to just go away and be forgotten by now?

I would hate to think that Baird’s claims of death threats was little more than a sympathy play back in August, but given the lack of curiosity seen in a supportive press and his lack of straight forwardness with us on the investigation, what are we left to think?

October 22, 2009

V.P.Cheney: Obama, Keep Your Commitment

by lewwaters

Cheney Scowl

August 17, 2009 Barack Obama, current occupant of the Oval Office, made a speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Phoenix, Arizona.

In that speech, the glib Obama stated,

“I will only send you into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary. And when I do, it will be based on good intelligence and guided by a sound strategy. I will give you a clear mission, defined goals, and the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That’s my commitment to you.”

Two months after receiving a request for that “equipment and support you need to get the job done,” Obama is only close to deciding when he might decide on what to do.

Wednesday evening, October 21, 2009, V. P. Dick Cheney, after receiving the Center For Security Policy’s Keeper of the Flame Award made a speech in which he said of the Obama regime,

“It’s time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger.”

It’s time to wage war on the terrorists instead of warring with Fox News.

UPDATE: As expected, the Obama regime adamantly denies they are dragging their feet saying, “What Vice President Cheney calls dithering, President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform and to the American public.”

Left unexplained is how he was so decisive in rapidly dispatching his goons against Fox News.

October 21, 2009

IMPOSTER CANVASSERS MISREPRESENTING LEAVITT CAMPAIGN

by lewwaters

I can just imagine who is behind this dirty trick.

HARASSING RESIDENTS

Vancouver, Wash. –The Leavitt for Mayor campaign has received numerous reports from citizens about canvassers posing as Leavitt campaigners. Some of these canvassers are fully misrepresenting the candidate’s positions, while others are menacing and harassing those who answer the door, attempting to enter the home and take or fill out the ballots of voters who state support for Tim Leavitt.

Such behaviors are unacceptable and are in no way endorsed or sanctioned by the Leavitt for Mayor campaign. Any and all canvassing by Leavitt for Mayor or authorized supporters is done by readily identifiable volunteers from the campaign or endorsing organizations like Unite Here!, who have been trained to be polite, efficient, and respectful.

The Leavitt campaign is concerned about the false canvassers who are misrepresenting the candidate’s positions, but is highly alarmed by any conduct that potentially threatens any resident’s safety.

Any resident who is approached by a canvasser who misrepresents Tim Leavitt’s positions is encouraged to call the campaign immediately, at 360.609.4846. However, any resident who feels that their safety or security as a voter is threatened should call 911 and then, only once you feel you are safe, call the Leavitt campaign to inform them.

The 2009 mayoral race is the most contentious in the last quarter-century, and the Leavitt campaign finds it unconscionable that the opposition has resorted to these dirty tactics to undermine the political process. Whether or not the offenders are affiliated with the Pollard campaign, or are simply acting on opportunity, this behavior is unacceptable.

Commenting on the reports, Tim Leavitt responds: “We do not know who is responsible for this, nor are we making any accusations. But the partisan, negative climate that has surrounded my opponent’s campaign has absolutely fostered this sort of behavior. I certainly hope that this is not the Pollard campaign’s doing – though we also, unfortunately, can’t rule it out. Vancouver residents should not be made to feel harassed or intimidated, and we will do everything in our power to help bring this behavior to an end. Please contact the campaign if you feel misled, or 911 if you feel endangered.”

###
www.leavitt4mayor.com
Facebook Group: Elect Tim Leavitt for Vancouver’s Mayor
Facebook Page: Leavitt4Mayor

LEAVITT for MAYOR
PO Box 1325
Vancouver, WA 98666
360.609.4846

I wonder who it was that said, “I intend to take this very seriously, and if you really want to know, I plan on kicking his ass.”

Let’s hope “Boss” Pollard isn’t behind this and that it is just a few overzealous crazies supporting him.

October 21, 2009

VANCOUVER COUNCIL CANDIDATE BURKMAN’S ERRONEOUS PUBLIC STATEMENTS

by lewwaters

Received in email and posted by request,

Candidate Burkman has made several erroneous public statements as judged by his voting record when he was previously on council. Burkman’s voting record demonstrates an inability to break with the council majority.

Sure he kept the city safe and secure when he voted for a contract to have city police assigned to patroling the condos across the street from Esther Short Park at taxpayers expense.

Burkman voted to sell two city blocks to a former mayor’s family member for $75,000 per block, in order to build these condos. Was this truly a great fiscal decision by candidate Burkman?

On the subject of creating better and more jobs, candidate Burkman needs to answer how many “actual” prevailing wage jobs materialized out of the wheeling and dealing that is going on in the downtown Vancouver area now and during his previous time on council.

Burkman was and still is in lockstep agreement with the mentality that permeates a vision of turning downtown Vancouver into a 7-day, 24-hour play center to profit whom? Taxpayers have been requesting an answer to this question and thus far the majority of council members refuse to respond. Isn’t it time for candidate Burkman to step up to the plate?

In addition, if candidate Burkman really managed funds well during his years in office why were/are the police and firefighter departments being used as pawns in an attempt to create fear among taxpayers to extract more tax money from their pockets??

Public representatives must be held accountable for their “public statements, actions and votes.”

Your vote is powerful. Send a message to candidates who say one thing on the political platform then when elected do the opposite. In this case, Burkman’s voting record is clearly visible and that should speak to the voter louder than his soundbites.

Frances E. Rutherford
Vancouver, WA

Mr. Burkman is free to respond if he so chooses.

October 20, 2009

“Boss” Pollard Stoops Even Lower

by lewwaters

boss_hogg

UPDATE: LEAVITT LIED, he is as bad as Pollard was.

Resorting to known Democrat dirty politicking, Mayor of Vancouver, Washington, Royce “Boss” Pollard, apparently worried about his bid for another term, has sent out a flyer trying to paint opponent Tim Leavitt as “unqualified” because he “introduced gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi” last year.

Has “Boss” Pollard gotten so desperate that he now campaigns on whom his opponent endorsed and introduced at a campaign event?

Clark County GOP Chair Ryan Hart sent out the following this evening,

Dear Republicans:

The Clark County Republican party decided earlier this year to not make any endorsements in the 2009 non-partisan races. We did send out a voter information guide for the purpose of informing our members of identified Republicans running for office. Since there were many cases of Republicans running against Republicans, and Democrats running against Democrats, we have made it clear that we as a party have taken no official position in these non-partisan races.

Today I was disappointed to see a mailer sent out by the Royce Pollard campaign attacking Mayoral Candidate and City Councilman Tim Leavitt for supporting Dino Rossi in 2008, and for introducing Rossi at his final appearance in Clark County the weekend before the 2008 election. The mail piece states, “The Leavitt-Rossi agenda will move Vancouver in the wrong direction.”

As Chairman of the Clark County Republican Party, I remain proud of Mr. Rossi and the campaigns he ran in an effort to move Washington forward. Furthermore, it was an honor to have Councilman Tim Leavitt introduce Dino Rossi.

Mayor Pollard needs to understand that tens of thousands of Vancouver residents voted for Dino Rossi, and that Rossi won Clark County in both 2004 and 2008.

Christine Gregoire, however, now has an approval rating around 30 percent. It is her failed policies, and those of the Democratic majority, that are hindering Washington and, more specifically, Clark County from moving forward. It is doubtful that the majority of Vancouver voters approve of Governor Gregoire’s job performance today.

Tim Leavitt was right to support Dino Rossi, and I applaud him for it.

Sincerely,

Ryan Hart
Chairman, Clark County Republican Party

“Leavitt/Rossi Agenda?” With the dire situation the city is in, under “Boss” Pollard, could we not say how the “Pollard/Gregoire Agenda” has drug our city down? Can we not say the debt Vancouver currently has and the strong possibility of doubling that debt should “Boss” Pollard succeed in bailing out the Columbian by having the city purchase their empty and over priced building is in “the wrong direction?”

Looking over the endorsements on Tim’s site, Leavitt4Mayor I am unable to find Mr. Rossi’s name or endorsement listed. I have not seen or heard of Dino Rossi in town campaigning for Tim.

And what if he were? Does supporting a candidate “Boss” Pollard doesn’t make you an unworthy person in his eyes? If so then “Boss” Pollard is in big trouble with 51%, 91,301 Clark County voters having voted for Mr. Rossi in 2008.

Are we to believe than in his entire tenure as Vancouver’s Mayor, “Boss” Pollard has never had a cordial exchange with Dino Rossi or a Republican?

Could we not also claim “Boss” Pollard is unqualified due to his endorsements? After all, he proudly displays endorsements from Portland and even a former Oregon Governor.

Is this supportive of citizen charges of his “Portland envy?”

If endorsements are to be held against Vancouver voters, will he harbor grudges against Tim’s supporters, including the Latino Leaders of Clark County and Vancouver?

As desperate as he now seems, I doubt that will be a problem as Vancouver’s voters are seeing the actual harm brought by “Boss” Pollard and his heavy handed misguiding of Vancouver.

It’s time to put an end to the “smoke filled back room” style of “Boss” Pollard and turn the reins over to a younger and more open mayor, Tim Leavitt.

October 20, 2009

Why?

by lewwaters

Obama Paper Dolls 1 Why are abortion doctors more important to the Obama administration than our Troops in Afghanistan?

When Dr. Tiller was murdered, Federal Marshals were dispatched immediately to protect abortion clinics.

Since General McChrystal requested reinforcements for our Troops in Afghanistan in late August, over 50 have lost their lives and nearly 2 months later, Obama simply ponders what to do, announcing no decision for weeks.

The same day Dr. Tiller was brutally murdered Obama released a statement saying,

“I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.”

October 6, 2009 a statement from the White House said,

“Given the importance of the policy to our security — and to our troops — the president said that he will be rigorous and deliberate, while moving forward with a sense of urgency.”

By October 13 we hear, Obama: Afghanistan Decision within Weeks

Weeks? That’s what Obama considers as “moving forward with a sense of urgency?”

Is it “with a sense of urgency” that failed presidential candidate John ‘F’in Kerry states it would be irresponsible to send more troops to Afghanistan?

It appeared to be “with a sense of urgency” that Kerry co-sponsored a bill condemning violence against abortion doctors, but reinforcing our Troops in Afghanistan is “irresponsible?”

As much as I hate to quote such a person, Osama bin Laden said long ago,

“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

Obama and the Democrats are providing such a “weak horse” attitude.

How can we expect the Afghani people to stand alongside of us when they see this administration cares more for abortion doctors than our own Troops in harms way?

If only Obama would wage war against terrorists as much as he is Fox News.

October 17, 2009

Pat Campbell, Take A Vacation

by lewwaters

Pat Campbell Fortunately for Vancouver’s City Councilman, Pat Campbell, he is not up for reelection this term. Given some of his outbursts towards citizens, if he were he might find himself ousted easily.

I give Pat credit for being one of the few, if not only, council member who reads citizens blogs and letters to the editor and comments on occasion. In the past he has shown me that he cares what citizens are saying.

Something has happened to his demeanor, though as I have noticed his comments towards citizens have been getting derogatory if he disagrees with them.

I first came aware of Pat’s attitude last year from an email a friend received from Pat concerning I-409, the failed initiative on curbing Illegal Immigration in Washington. Pat assured me on my blog that it was just a joke and as happens to me, jokes are often taken serious.

Giving him the benefit of doubt, I accepted the reply knowing how my own dry sense of humor gets me in trouble from time to time.

However, some time later and completely out of the blue, he launched into another commenter with a totally unrelated comment to the subject.

Again, in an October 11 Columbian article, In our view: Pollard for Mayor, Pat came at me for speaking against the mayor and the budget deficit the city faces, telling me, “If you have paid off your mortgage then you might have a pebble or two to throw at city council Mr. Waters.”

That quip elicited the response from me of, “And no, I haven’t paid off my mortgage, but last I heard, voters still have the right to question the acts and conducts of our elected officials.”

He said nothing more to me on that.

However, the Saturday October 17 edition of the Columbian contains a letter to the editor from an 88 year-old Veteran who says he has not had his concerns on how the American Flag is flown at our Veterans Memorial against Army Regulations, in spite of asking Mayor Pollard about it for over a decade.

A decade mind you!

Pat’s outburst towards him is unbelievably rude and uncalled for. It is no doubt beneath the dignity of an elected official. It is a crude and disrespectful manner in which to address a citizen, especially an aging Veteran.

Why haven’t the concerns of Mr. Tharp been addressed in the 10 years he’s been asking? Has anyone sat down or even written Mr. Tharp a letter explaining the flag is proper or the reason it may not be?

Instead, Pat Campbell, a sitting member of the Vancouver City Council and who claims to also be a Veteran, blasts an aging Veteran for his comment against the mayor during a campaign!

Disturbing on how he blasted Mr. Tharp is Pat’s own words left at the Columbian on February 17, 2009, “I expect some strong emotions in letters and emails directed towards me. People have a right to their feelings and an expectation they will be heard and treated as fellow human beings by those who endeavor to serve them.”

Why isn’t a Veteran as Mr. Tharp entitled to that sentiment?

What is most disrespectful is Pat’s words of, “It is only recently that some of us veterans have even been thanked for following the orders of your generation’s leaders… even though we weren’t so keen on a lot of Army regulations at that time or even now.”

I wonder how Pat would react to a returning Veteran from Iraq or Afghanistan coming before him at a council meeting or even on the street and blasting him with the same words, since the leaders of the Military today is our generation?

As a Viet Nam Veteran I am all too familiar with the reception we received coming back to “the world,” and since. I am also too familiar just which political party micro-managed that war from the Oval Office and how elements of the left undermined us and even cheered for our deaths.

I also know that our thanks actually began when President Ronald Reagan dedicated the Viet Nam Veterans Memorial and issued a public thank you to all of us.

I am also aware of crude, rude and obnoxious conduct by elected officials, Veterans or not, towards citizens.

Is Pat worried that Royce Pollard is going to lose? Is he fearful of Tim Leavitt winning for some reason?

Since Pat and Tim served together on the council and Pat once said of the council, “The Vancouver Council’s decisions are group decisions, not Leavitt’s nor Pollard’s.” I fail to see or understand why Pat chooses to attack commenters in disagreement with Pollard as he did Mr. Tharp, instead of addressing their concerns.

This is very unlike the Pat Campbell I first began exchanging words with.

Pat, take a vacation. Get away for a while. Get outside and breathe some fresh air.

Don’t worry about when you get back. You will still have your seat on the council under Mayor Leavitt.

But mostly, learn a little respect for the voters.

October 17, 2009

A Message For Clark County From The Clark County GOP

by lewwaters
October 16, 2009

Columbian Misleading Voters On R-71

by lewwaters

Kerry ClintonDripping of left-winged bias, Thursdays In Our View column in the Columbian, In our view: Approve R-71 also tries to mislead voters about the measure.

They are right in saying, “Voters are being asked if they support Senate Bill 5688, which passed this year in the Legislature and expanded domestic partnerships,” but little else.

Where they actually begin misleading is when they say, “It’s also key to know that R-71 is not about gay marriage, despite dire warnings from those who advocate rejecting the measure.”

Technically, although SB 5688 says nothing about same-sex marriage and is called “everything but marriage,” that is the ultimate intent, as admitted to by Senator Ed Murray, the author of SB 5688 who has repeatedly stated SB 5688 is but one more incremental step to same-sex marriage.

Therefore, this particular measure will not make same-sex marriage legal, at this time, but it is just another step closer to it according to the author of the bill. So, it does have everything to do with same-sex marriage in Washington State, just not at this time.

A parable capturing wild pigs applies here. Although about losing freedoms to socialism, it also applies in how small steps eventually lead to a societal change society does not want. They just aren’t aware of it being changed due to deception.

You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again.

You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught.

Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

This is the second “domestic partnership” bill we’ve had in two years with more planned until we have the fence of same-sex marriage around us and the gate is slammed shut. Our constitution will be changed. Where we now have a Defense of Marriage Act in place, that will be gone and what will we have in its place?

Maybe nothing because once we throw away the definition of marriage being “one man to one woman,” the Pandora’s box is opened. Once opened, how can it be closed again when others who “lifestyle” is not fully accepted today decide they are discriminated against?

Could we see Pederasty, Bigamy and Polygamy accepted and become the norm?

Not by this bill, no. But what about the future moves to approve of same-sex marriage?

How can the Columbian split hairs saying, “The truth is, R-71 will have no impact whatsoever on your marriage or anyone else’s?” What about the institution of marriage itself?

A Long-Term Strategy To Legalize Gay Marriage

This is the strategy for winning gay marriage in Washington. Pursue incremental change but talk frankly and frequently about the ultimate goal.

State Senator Ed Murray, an openly gay Seattle Democrat, is a key architect of this approach. He says gay rights advocates are borrowing a page from the civil rights movement.

****

With Democrats in control, the expanded domestic partnership bills in Washington are likely to pass this session. It will be another step in Senator Ed Murray’s plan to legalize gay marriage within a decade.

Lawmakers announce everything but marriage bill

A measure legalizing same-sex marriage measure also has been introduced to the Legislature, but is unlikely to go anywhere this year, and supporters have made no secret of their desire in that effort.

Washington expands domestic partnership law

Senator Ed Murray, one of six gay lawmakers in the Legislature and the author of SB 5688 said, “We needed to have a multiyear discussion with the state on gay and lesbian families. I believe DOMA won’t long be the law of the state because those conversations are changing hearts and minds around the state.”

In classic liberal “attack the messenger, not the message” tactic, the Columbian’s editors demean and denigrate Larry Stickney and Gary Randall, the men who authored R-71 and worked to have it placed on the November 3 ballot, giving voters in Washington State the choice of whether they support SB 5688 or not.

And for a second time, to emphasize their canard I suppose, they again state the misleading, “But again, as the ballot states, this is not about marriage at all. It’s about domestic partnerships.”

The Columbian ends with, “Voters should reject such narrow views and mark ‘Approve’ on Referendum 71.” The “NARROW VIEW” is really in their masking the true intent of SB 5688.

When you look at your ballot, it’s actually very simple. If you desire to see same-sex marriage legalized in Washington’s future, approve R-71.

If you wish to stop same-sex marriage from eventually becoming legal in Washington, reject R-71.

It’s really that simple.

I’m voting to reject R-71.

October 15, 2009

Dalesandro Showing Desperation

by lewwaters

Michael Dalesandro, 28 year-old challenger against Lisa Walters for Battle Ground City Council position 4, appears to be getting desperate in bid. After personally contacting me over my posting in support of Mrs. Walters, including misrepresenting and misquoting what I said, I see that he has updated his campaign site to engage some mud slinging.

In his email to me, Michael made note of, “My campaign has been positive and issue based,” and “the commitment she has made for the last 8 years is honorable.”

I guess that is why he has decided to begin attacking his opponent over her 7-year performance on the council.

Of particular interest to me was he begins his home page with, “I want to keep Battle Ground a great place to raise a family,” and then condemns Lisa by saying, “My opponent pushed for an ordinance to limit urban chickens. More big government.”

What he neglects to mention is that this effort by Mrs. Walters was in the best interest of Battle Ground residents health as the incident was over a complaint received where a resident had 50 chickens on a 5,000 sq. ft. residential lot.

I live on a similar sized lot, slightly larger and have very little room around a small house in the yard. So, doesn’t 50 chickens pose a health hazard in such a small area?

Hailing from Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, maybe Michael has never been exposed to a chicken ranch and the unbelievable odor from the chickens waste, not to mention the hazard to others peoples health from the waste of 50 chickens confined in such a small area.

But he obviously didn’t do his homework before deciding to slam Mrs. Walters for trying to look out for Battle Ground citizen’s health. Had he done his homework he would join Lisa on this one instead of trying to paint her as unsuitable for her seat.

I refer back to his own words of, “I want to keep Battle Ground a great place to raise a family.” With the rapid growth of Battle Ground in the past few years and building lots shrinking to fit more homes in, do you wish your neighbor to have 50 chickens next door to you?

Any sane person knows that chickens can be raised in an urban area but let’s face it, 50 chickens is excessive. That is why other urban areas placed restrictions on having them.

I also find it curious that Michael would state “More big government” as if he feels that is a bad thing.

As acknowledged in the September 2009 Democratic Party Newsletter, Michael is considered a “Democratic activist.” Nothing wrong with that, it is legal and I’m sure many consider me a “Republican activist.”

But, a Democrat complaining about “Big Government?”

The party that wants a government takeover of the Healthcare Industry? The party that recently took over the Auto Industry, Wall Street, Banks and wishes to impose government regulations on food, insurance, vehicles, schools and several other aspects of our lives?

Curiously enough, Michael is featured in both the September and October newsletter from the Clark County Democratic Party. Doesn’t it make you wonder why such heavy biased support from them over a “non-partisan” seat?

Could it be as said in the October newsletter, “County Democratic officers think Dalesandro would be a dandy candidate for the state Legislature in some future cycle?”

Mike has never ran for office or held any elected position, other than precinct committee officer and in his email to me said, “I don’t have plans to run for another office.”

Could it be as Mike mentions on his web page that Mrs. Walters raised issues with the mayor and like many other mayors, he doesn’t like being confronted by council members, so those that do must go?

Of note is Mike’s “revelation” that Mrs. Walters raised a question about the mayor and his relationship with the Cultural Task Force were shared by other council members, not only Lisa, as mentioned in an August 25, 2009 article in the Reflector.

I also find it odd that this “investigation” he mentions is not linked to or shown in his claim, just a condemnation of Mrs. Walters.

I would say Mike should really stick to the issues and his record, but being his first run at office he has no real record to run on, relying on his involvement in the family business instead. No problem there, everybody starts somewhere.

Still, I wonder if he never came under question during his time managing a small pizza shop? If so, he may be the only person alive do have escaped scrutiny.

Michael, since you seem to show such a “High Interest” in my blog, allow me to say to you that this isn’t a “High Interest” in your campaign. It is a “High Interest” in seeing local governments remaining as diverse with council members as they claim and they not be stacked with yes-men in favor of any mayor.

Be mature, Mike. Stand on your own merits instead of trying to sling mud. That isn’t a “positive and issue based” campaign.

October 13, 2009

A Message From Mike Dalesandro

by lewwaters

I am always flattered to be contacted directly by candidates for public office, even when I support their opponent. To think that they take time out of their busy day campaigning, working and caring for their families to compose a letter or email to me, a simple lone citizen in Clark County out of all others is flattering.

I was no less flattered to receive the following email from Mike Dalesandro, running for Battle Ground City Council Position 4 against incumbent Lisa Walters. I wish his comments were a little more accurate, though.

I assume my posting one supportive and unsolicited post for Lisa, one letter to the editor in the Reflector and my one comment in support of Lisa at the Columbian drew his attention to me.

I will post the email in its entirety after this post.

Let’s look at what Mike has to say to me.

1. I have noticed your high interest in my City Council race.

High interest? One post, one letter to the editor and one comment on the Columbian? Puhleeze!

2. I understand and appreciate your conservative viewpoint and the fact you feel that you are advocating fair and balanced local government.

So, according to Mike, I only “feel” like I advocate a fair and balanced government. I wonder what he thinks those who support his candidacy “feel?” A little judgmental, Mike?

3. I feel as though I need to clear up a few things. My choice to run for Council was my own. I was NEVER approached by Democratic Party officers or Mayor Ciraulo about running for any elected office and I don’t have plans to run for another office.

Good to hear, Mike, but who ever said they did approach you? I said the heavily biased support for you over Lisa appears like a “stacking the deck” on the council in the mayor’s favor. I also know that parties “groom” candidates and even if they begin with no desire for higher office, they are later “encouraged” to by their parties.

And don’t forget, Mike, you are running for a “non-partisan” seat.

Lisa is not seeking endorsements from either party in retaining her “non-partisan” seat.

You do not explain why such a heavily biased support for your candidacy for a “non-partisan” seat is warranted or accepted, in light of Lisa’s stance.

4. My experience managing a small-family business (pizza shop), working 80 hours a week, making very little pay, was a valuable life experience that taught me many important fiscal and work ethic lessons that I plan to bring with me to Council.

I’m pleased that someone of your young age knows the value of hard work, Mike. Do you not think that Lisa also knows of hard work, raising and caring for a family and many years involvement in community activities and programs?

I applaud you for putting in “80 hour weeks,” but ought to tell you that at about the same age, the guys I served with in Viet Nam and myself were putting in 126-hour weeks and you don’t really wish to know the pay we received for the conditions we were in.

5. As for being a “lowly assistant manager”, that’s just not fair, Lew.

I agree, mike. Who said it? I didn’t. I said you were a “lower level assistant manager,” a far cry from a “lowly assistant manager.” In an effort to “clear things up,” couldn’t you at least be accurate in what you claim I say?

I realize you desire to discredit my words, Mike, but misrepresenting what I say will not accomplish that.

6. My campaign has been positive and issue based. Whether or not I agree with Lisa’s performance on City Council, the commitment she has made for the last 8 years is honorable. Please don’t make personal judgments on me and my family.

Thin skinned a little, Mike? Where did I judge either you or your family? Questioning how working in a pizza shop years ago and being a “lower level assistant manager” is hardly judging anyone.

On the campaign news section on your page, you have a headline of “Bringing Credibility.” Are you claiming the council has no credibility without you? Is that an insinuation that Lisa has no credibility? Is that an example of your view of a “positive and issue based” campaign?

7. You don’t know me and you have made no effort to contact me. You admit that you don’t even know my opponent. I suggest you get to know us before endorsing either of us or making accusations and ill-conceived conspiracy theories.

Grow up, Michael. Your words, idealistic as they are, show a level of immaturity I see often on the left. Can you stand out there and tell us that you have personally met every single candidate you supported or voted for?

I’m going to assume you supported and endorsed Barack Obama for president. Tell us how you personally met and got to know him before endorsing him with your vote.

Playing victim doesn’t play well here, Mike. Crying “ill-conceived conspiracy theories” because I notice and point out the excessively biased support you accept from the Democratic Party is hardly a “conspiracy theory.”

I assume you think you are performing your own “fight the smears” campaign with this email, but you are only making yourself look foolish, immature and unsuitable to hold the seat you seek.

8. I do encourage you to contact me with any questions about me or the campaign, in the future. This country is made up of both Democrats and Republicans and there are a few of us out there on both sides that can see beyond political party; not everything is partisan.

Thank you for your encouragement, Mike. But, as a 61 year old addressing a young 28 year-old, allow me encourage you to do some homework and learn some comprehension.

I’m glad you remembered that the country is made up of both Democrats and Republicans. Listening to the news these past 8 years and Democrat candidates, I would have thought Republicans were on the brink of being outlawed.

I just have to ask you a simple question, Mike.

Do you go after all of those who express support for the one you are trying to unseat? Or, did you single me out for some reason?

Grow up, Mike. You chose to run for a political office and if you cannot tolerate a lone blogger commenting in support of your opponent, how will you ever question any of the mayor’s proposals?

That you even felt the need to personally contact me about this and then misrepresent what I said shows me your level of immaturity and yes, not ready to occupy a seat on the council.

You see, Mike, there are many of us out here, on both sides of the political spectrum that wonder why such heavily partisan support for a non-partisan seat is warranted.

There are many of us who feel we still have free speech and may freely support or oppose a candidate for any public position.

Get some more experience, Mike. You are clearly not ready to hold a seat on the council just yet in my estimation.

Full email received in comments section.

UPDATE: Dalesandro Showing Desperation

October 13, 2009

Swastika Vandalism: Ignorance or Hate?

by lewwaters

Spreading across the news is a story out of Lakeville Massachusetts where overnight, vandals carved into a golf course’s green “I Swastika Obama.”

obama_swastika_golf_course

Inexcusable and indefensible, whoever did it, but look closer. It isn’t the Nazi Swastika but the symbol still used by Buddhist’s and Hindu’s in their religion today throughout Asia as a good luck sign.

Swastika

As can be expected, knee-jerk reactions, with no knowledge of whom or why, blame Republicans as “Nazi’s,” “Rednecks,” “Supremacists” and any other derogatory term one can find to throw at only Republicans.

I am sure any neo-Nazi would know how to draw their hate symbol, but what else could such vandalism represent?

An ignorant uneducated liberal trying to make conservatives look bad?

A supporter of the Dalai Lama giving Obama their symbol of good luck? Doubtful.

My guess is the former.

Are we witnessing steps to America’s Reichstag Fire?

October 11, 2009

Good News For Tim Leavitt: Columbian Endorses Pollard

by lewwaters

CONGRATULATIONS TO MAYOR ELECT LEAVITT

 

Tim Leavitt Vancouver Washington’s mayoral candidate Tim Leavitt received some good news, along with more endorsements today. The financially troubled Columbian has endorsed the aging incumbent, Royce Pollard, showing just how out of touch with the community our local ‘paper of record’ currently is.

Pollard for Mayor

I am astonished that they could print, “Incumbent has solid record of achievement; Leavitt fails leadership test on voting record,” with a straight face.

Pollard’s achievements include, but are not limited to plunging the city $48 Million into debt, threatening council members who may not vote his way, desiring more taxes and bridge tolls on an already struggling community in the county with the highest unemployment in the state, resisted attempts at forming a Business Advisory Council, utility taxes, sales taxes, electricity taxes, business license fees and employee head taxes and pretty much ignored much of the community outside of the downtown area.

Pollard will not listen to Vancouver citizens who say they do not want Portland’s max Line light rail extended to Vancouver and insists it will be part of a new I-5 bridge, or no bridge at all.

Who does that benefit monetarily? Portland, Oregon of course, not Vancouver, Washington.

Tim Leavitt says he

“will form a Mayoral Business Advisory Council, comprised of a diversity of employers within our community. Meetings will be held in public, with all residents encouraged to attend. Further, Tim will empower City Council to better know and understand the businesses and workers within the city, so that they all may act more responsively to the needs of this economic driver.”

He is opposed to imposing tolls on Vancouver citizens who must cross the river twice daily to work in Portland. He understands that the real need to bring good paying jobs to Vancouver, not ship our citizens over there, where they still must pay Oregon Income taxes and receive no representation nor a voice in Oregon at all.

5 things that WILL happen when Tim is Mayor, and 5 things that WON’T happen

Vancouver needs to be more attractive to businesses and instead of shipping our citizens over there, how about we attract their businesses, and jobs, over here?

Showing their bias towards Pollard, the Columbian states,

“The Vancouver Firefighters Union announced that Leavitt missed voting in 16 elections in 10 years. A statesmanlike leader would acknowledge the statistics, express regret and vow to correct the flaw. But Leavitt, after voicing regret, launched into an attack on Pollard. “How does this sleazy maneuver help our struggling communities today?” he asked. The answer: It exposes as delinquent the voting habits of a man who is courting Vancouver’s voters, and reasonable voters don’t see truth-telling as a sleazy maneuver at all.”

Ignored by the Columbian is Pollard’s sleazy attacks on Leavitt after finishing second in the August primary election.

What also cannot be ignored is that the financially failing Columbian built a new building they could not afford and now need bailed out. The city of Vancouver has “expressed an interest” in paying the $41.5 million asking price for the building that county assessor Linda Franklin assesses at $24.52 million.

Mayor Pollard was a very outspoken advocate of the “deal,” but as election season grew closer, stopped commenting on it.

Tim Leavitt, along with fellow council member Jeanne Stewart, were the only two from the council that came forward questioning the “deal.”

No conflict of interest there, right?

I can’t honestly say Tim’s slogan, “A Better Idea” is one I’d choose, but reading through Tim’s website, he does give us something more than Pollard has, representation and choice.

In what I take as an attempt to taint Tim’s candidacy a little, they take a swipe at his endorsements with

“Yes, he received a few more votes than Pollard in the Aug. 18 primary, but Vancouver’s political landscape is littered with wannabe mayors who tried and failed to topple Pollard. Yes, Leavitt is endorsed by the police officers union, but Pollard is endorsed by the firefighters union. Yes, Leavitt is endorsed by all three county commissioners, but Pollard is endorsed by a broad array of state politicians who have worked with him on many projects. His relationship with federal agencies is sturdy and productive.”

Are we to believe that state politicians and federal agencies will only work with Pollard?

And, “wannabe mayors who tried to topple Pollard?” Is he a king or dictator?

Perhaps the Columbian editorial staff should think about those “few more votes than Pollard in the Aug. 18 primary.” Also running was Charlie Stemper at the time whose ideas reflected many of Tim’s and Charlie has endorsed Tim Leavitt and encouraged all who supported him to support Tim Leavitt.

If the November 3 election will be like the August 18 primary, with many of Stemper’s supporters jumping in behind Tim, Pollard is in trouble.

While Pollard might have added some nice looking areas to downtown, Vancouver is much larger than downtown. Areas of downtown still look depressed and not where I like to take my family.

A vote for mayor Royce Pollard, who doesn’t seem to realize he is no longer an Army Officer ordering around enlisted men, is just more of the same. More taxes, more ignoring citizens wants and needs and less money in your paycheck.

A vote for Tim Leavitt is a vote for change, a vote for fresh ideas and vote for someone willing to listen to you and be accountable to you.

It’s time for a change, Vancouver. It’s time for Tim Leavitt, Mayor of America’s Vancouver.

October 10, 2009

Foul Mouthed Punk Gets Punked

by lewwaters

35 year-old British Gulf War Vet Jason Smith has no idea why 23 year-old Les Andrews came to his door and began verbally and physically assaulting him. As you can see, Andrews ended up with the worst of it.

Andrews was arrested for “yobbery,” a yob being British slang for an “aggressive and surly youth, especially a teenager.”

The main lesson Andrews should have learned is, don’t bully people, you never know what the other guy knows.

Smith it turns out, is a 15st master in karate and jiu-jitsu, holding two black belts. How he displayed the restriant he did is beyond me.

Of the incident Smith said, “People sick of yob culture enjoy seeing someone turn the tables,” and “He deserved it.”

If only more people in America would adopt Smith’s attitude now.

Source: UK Sun

October 10, 2009

Lou Brancaccio Shows Bias In Crying Non-Bias

by lewwaters

Lou Brancaccio, embattled managing editor of the Columbian newspaper, is still trying to create the appearance of ‘fair and balanced’ paper. This time, he is doing it over the papers coverage of both the Republican and Democrat conventions coming to Vancouver in 2010.

He does it in his October 10 weekly column, Press Talk: Of fairness and this column.

Always following the normal liberal venue of “victim,” as he opens the column with,

“When it was announced the state Democrats were bringing their convention to Vancouver, it was a big — and good — story for the area.

We put it on the front page.

Then I waited for my phone to ring and my e-mail box to fill up. I wasn’t disappointed.

Why? Because some would think we’re favoring the Democrats.”

He then goes on to list one critical email received and his reply.

I’ll take him at his word that the announcement for the GOP convention was also front page because I no longer buy the Columbian But I will ask, was that only email received? Are we to believe he only received critical emails from conservatives and none from the liberals?

He then goes to lament on a complimentary email received from one I have to assume is a liberal on his October 2 column addressing the recent loss of the Olympics in Chicago, Press Talk: Too bad how we make decisions.

We see “fair” coverage of political conventions for both parties criticized by a Republican and “fair” coverage of the Olympics denial praised by a Democrat.

No Democrats were critical of the coverage of the conventions and no conservatives were praising the coverage of the Olympics loss, right? We don’t know about other emails or calls received, but that is what we are led to believe.

Yeah, no bias there, uh huh.

Let’s look at the “fair” coverage of the conventions and see if the coverage really was fair.

On June 23, the Columbian ran an article announcing the Clark GOP securing the 2010 convention for Clark County. It consisted of 173 words about the convention being held in Clark County and another 94 words of filler addressing the elections this year.

October 5, the same Columbian reporter, Kathie Durbin, ran the article announcing the Democrat convention coming which consisted of 273 words on the party and convention itself and some 62 filler words on general matters and acknowledging the GOP convention.

Both conventions are mentioned within days in the weekly Cheers & Jeers Column. However, the October 10 Cheers & Jeers states,

“Cheers: To Clark County’s growing stature as a place for meetings and conventions. This week the Democrats announced they’ll hold their 2010 state convention here next June. The Republicans likewise have picked us for their convention.”

“Republicans likewise?” Shouldn’t that be “Democrats likewise,” indicating the GOP first secured a convention months ago?

Likewise, to be fair, the June 25 Cheers & Jeers column was several times larger than the Oct 10 column mentioning the Democrat convention. Of course, then there was no idea that the Democrats were to follow suit in bringing their convention here too.

Lou mentions receiving emails and phone calls, as noted. One thing he leaves out though, is comments from readers online. The June 23 column announcing the GOP convention has some 11 comments critical of or complaining about the Republicans.

The June 25 Cheers & Jeers has 3 such comments. I have to assume those critical are Democrats.

The June 23 article, in the comments section has 2 critical of the Democrat convention with 1 liberal seemingly expecting an onslaught from us. There none either way on the October 10 Cheers & Jeers column.

That doesn’t show any bias on the Columbian’s part. They have no control over what citizens leave in comments, other then the ability to delete if need be.

But it says something more about those within our community, to me.

This post may seem nit picking, what with word counts and such, but is it any less than Brancaccio having a slow news day and turning to selected emails for his column?

Where is his column on Brian Baird now taking a stand on voting against measures he hasn’t had time to read, after voting for the two largest spending bills in recent history and not having tome to read them?

Where is the column on his two challengers criticizing him for such a “stunt?”

Why do we have to turn to the Lewis County Chronicle or the Olympian to read such news on our congressman and not find it in our own local paper?

Where are the investigative articles on all the charges of corruption in Mayor Pollard’s City Hall?

Lou Brancaccio claims to receive complaints of right winged bias from liberals, but I fail to see just where, other than those fringe leftist who think any coverage of Republicans is bad.

Does this post show any bias? I’ll leave that up to you, the reader to decide. Of course, having more than just one conservative column running every other week compared to weekly columns by Lou, John Laird and Tom Koenninger might forestall many claims of left-winged.

Then again, liberals are said to already be crying about bias due to that one column every other week and we must keep them happy, right?

I’ll end by saying to Lou Brancaccio; “there are none so blind as they who will not see.”

October 10, 2009

Vancouver School Board Needs Nelson Holmberg

by lewwaters

Nelson HolmbergAnyone who has raised children or is currently raising their own knows how important it is for them to gain a quality education. The education they receive will form a base for their entire life.

Although education begins at home, our schools play a massive part in giving our children many of the tools needed to not only become successful adults, but starts them on a path of productivity to better our society and communities.

Every community has a School Board comprised of educators and citizens who desire our schools to be the best. When those School Boards aren’t performing at their best our schools and children suffer because of it.

That is why Nelson Holmberg should be sitting on the Vancouver School Board.

Holmberg is running against Kathy Gillespie for the seat being vacated by Dr. Ed Rankin.

My own daughters, now grown, are products of the Vancouver School District, just like Nelson’s own children. My grandsons are currently enrolled in the Vancouver School District. While we have some pretty good schools, they could be better.

Nelson has gained the support of teachers and school administrators, past and present, from the Vancouver School District, the Evergreen School District and from the Washougal School District who live (and vote) in the Vancouver district.

His list of bi-partisan endorsements is impressive and growing. They include Port Commissioner Nancy Baker, former city councilman Jack Burkman, PUD Commissioner Carol Curtis, City Councilmember Phil Haberthur, City Councilmember Jeanne Harris, PUD Commissioner Byron Hanke, Clark County GOP Chairman Ryan Hart, Representative Jim Jacks, City Councilmember Pat Jollota, Clark County Auditor Greg Kimsey, City Council Candidate Anne McEnerny-Ogle, Representative Jim Moeller, Former Representative Val Ogden, Port Commissioner Jerry Oliver, Senator Craig Pridemore, City Councilmember Larry Smith, City Councilmember Jeanne Stewart, County Commissioner Steve Stuart, City Councilmember Troy VanDinter and Port Commissioner Brian Wolfe as well a host of private citizens who see his visions for improving Vancouver School District is much needed.

Nelson says, “We need to make sure that our students have the resources they need to reach their full potential. That begins with teachers and school staff – building blocks to preparing students for life after high school,” mirroring my own thoughts above.

Nelson Holmberg is a native of Vancouver, growing up and remaining in our community. He has seen our community grow and what must be done with our schools to keep them on pace with our growth.

Nelson Holmberg “advocates full state funding for public education, thoughtful and realistic learning standards, replacement of the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL), embracing transparency and accountability of the school board and responsible and reasonable district spending.”

I am proud to add my name to the growing list of citizens, elected officials and organizations that feel Nelson Holmberg to not only be uniquely qualified to sit on the Vancouver School Board, but who is also much needed.

You may hear and meet Nelson at an upcoming League of Women Voters Candidate’s Forum for School Board and Fire District Commissioner candidates on Monday, October 12, beginning at 7 p.m., at the Clark Public Utilities Community Room (1200 Fort Vancouver Way). The forum will also be shown, on a tape-delayed basis, on CVTV Channels 21 and 23, or online at www.cvtv.org, in case you can’t be there.

Vote for our children’s future, Vancouver. Vote for Nelson Holmberg. Help him lead Vancouver Public Schools into the 21st Century.

6th Grade

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 222 other followers