by Lew Waters
Viet Nam Veteran
I remember that day long ago when I decided to join the Military. I know you can’t remember that day, but I do. I hoped I might not have to travel half way around the world to fight in that war long ago.
You looked proud of me then, but I could see the fear in your eyes. I could feel the apprehension inside of me, fear of the unknown, Basic Training, maybe fighting. But I went because it was the right thing to do.
I remember feeling so proud to put on the uniform and having my photo taken during Basic Training and how in your letter you said I looked all grown up and how proud you were of me.
I remember completing Basic and being sent off for more training in the skill the Military would assign me and the day towards the end when my orders came, telling me that I was being sent off to that far away land. I was going to war to help preserve someone else’s freedom and stand against those who would oppress others.
Last evening, May 26 saw the Southwest Washington Campaign for Liberty hosting a ‘question and answer’ forum of candidates vying to replace outgoing legislator, Jaime Herrera in her 18th Legislative District seat at Battle Ground High School.
A series of questions were asked of all candidates by C4L then a series of spontaneous questions from the audience were asked of the 3 Republicans, 1 Democrat and 1 Independent candidates.
Knowing that one candidate has received the endorsement of some of the organizers of this Campaign for Liberty group, I was pleasantly surprised to see the questions were hard hitting, if not somewhat complicated at times and none were given any softball questions that might give a candidate any advantage.
Also surprising was hearing how often the candidates seemed to agree for the most part in their answers. The Columbian’s Kathie Durbin calls it, Candidates find common ground at forum, 18th District hopefuls share disdain for power of federal government.
Each candidate gave a short introductory statement outlining why they are in the race. Dennis Kampe, the lone Democrat running described his life of working and living in the 18th and dealings with the union, specifically the Machinists and Aerospace Workers Union that I once belonged to.
Brandon Vick followed with a quote from the state constitution as his reason, citing all power is from the people and how Olympia has moved away from that.
Jon Russell described himself as a “city councilman (Washougal), Christian, conservative, constitutionalist & Republican,” adding that we must control the behavior of our politicians.
Ann Rivers, the current leader in funds raised by a significant margin, stated she is running because the state government is off track and asking for all of us to be part of the solution to put it back on track.
Richard Carson, the Independent, described himself as a “fiscal & constitutional conservative” refusing to accept any special interest money or endorsements.
Asked if they would introduce legislation to counter possible legislation contrary to the United States Constitution, all answered yes in one form or another, Jon Russell reminding that he voted against accepting any stimulus funds as a city council member, Ann Rivers citing she fought against unfunded mandates in her work and Brandon Vick saying how he supports Attorney General Rob McKenna’s suit against Obamacare.
Asked about cities contracting with private companies for red light cameras, Vick admitted that is one subject he hasn’t given a lot of thought to, but joined in with others in saying he opposes such a move, all saying that it would be a matter better left up to local municipalities instead of the state.
Asked about a voter approved income tax, answers fell on opposition to such a tax, but if voters approved it, it should be allowed. The subject of the inheritance drew universal opposition from the candidates.
Kathie Durbin gives a good account of other answers to questions at the link above and is well worth a read.
I was struck too by closing comments from the candidates. All outlined why they feel they would be the best one to represent the district, relying on their values and belief in the constitution. Jon Russell falls back on his record on the city council, saying not to heed “distortions” by some. However, he glosses over last years scandal involving mayor Sellers and his part in that which is part of the public record as well as many news articles outlining his own efforts with it.
Jon, if you plan on running on your record, you have to include all of it, not just the parts you feel make you look good.
Each candidate made a good case for themselves and admittedly I was surprised at how much they agreed in answering. Dennis Kampe often sounded as conservative as the rest. Ann Rivers, in my personal estimation, seemed to have the best grasp of the issues. Brandon Vick apparently has been doing his homework too as he performed better last evening than I have seen before. Richard Carson showed his views well.
In all, the forum was very informative and I believe the 50 or 60 people I estimate attended came away with a better understanding of each candidate.
I congratulate Katja Delavar and others involved in organizing the event and hosting it.
Dino Rossi ended his long silence on whether or not he will enter the race against Patty Murray this morning by announcing his entry into the race with a video message placed on his website, DinoRossi.com
Rasmussen polls place Rossi nearly neck and neck with Senator Murray, but many comments from voters around the state aren’t as supportive as the polls indicate.
Some speculation has been expressed that others who have been campaigning would drop out and get in behind Rossi, if he announced.
State Senator Don Benton last evening stated he welcomes Rossi’s entry and looks forward to debating today’s issues with him.
Previously, Clint Didier has stated he is in the race to win and will remain in to the end.
Rossi is a Washington State Republican Party favorite, but to date, Didier seems to have raised the most funds and gained the most support. PAul Akers is second with Benton is third over all.
Democrats began slinging mud towards Rossi earlier in May, earning her the new nickname of the Mom in Muddy Tennis Shoes, a play off of her successful Mom in Tennis Shoes meme when she ran for the US Senate.
There is little doubt, though, that Murray is a formidable opponent with a campaign war chest totally some $5 Million and you can rest assured the Democrats plan on fighting hard to keep this little tax happy lady in office.
Whether or not Rossi is the one to unseat her remains to be seen.
You can sign up for updates to Rossi’s bid at DinoRossi.com
Tell us, Jaime, what was so good about Democrats seizing total control of government? What have they improved? Union bail outs? Forced health insurance? Tripling the national debt? Just what was so good about the GOP, the party you wish to represent, being ousted in 2007 and 2009 and granting the Democrats a strangle hold on America?
Or, is this yet another example of your view of, “My husband and I rent. We both drive used cars. We’re not your typical Republican conservative.”
Or, yet another expression of how you feel “There are a lot of things that I think Republicans drop the ball on?”
So please, Jaime, let us in on just what was such a “good thing,” we’d like to know.
It’s difficult to grasp that any Democrat, after 8 years of opportunism and exploitation of every thing imaginable while George W. Bush was president, would now cry about “opportunism or exploitation,” but that is exactly what Georgia State Senator Jason Carter, grandson of our now second worst president ever, Jimmy Carter, has done.
To not recall how the Democratic Party lined up to denigrate President Bush in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the War on Terror that they voted for, shortcomings at Walter Reed Hospital, the economy and housing bubble that burst, that they blocked efforts to reign in back in 2003 and so many more examples would truly require a “willing suspension of disbelief.”
Not a day went by that we did not read of some Democrat somewhere expressing outrage over matters they could have been helping in, but instead chose to exploit in their all out effort to seize complete control of the government.
Now, in the aftermath of the tragic accident in the Gulf of Mexico at the Deep Water Horizon Oil Platform and over a month of the damaged well leaking hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf and Obama’s inaction and inattention to the crisis, along comes Georgia State Senator Jason Carter complaining that pointing out the ineptness of the Obama’s administration’s meager efforts in helping curtail the leak is somehow “exploitation and opportunism.”
And of course, the junior Carter couldn’t help himself but to take a swipe at the Bush Administration in doing so. In a recent ABC News interview, the young Carter brayed,
“I think the Republicans who took so much heat when the Bush administration failed to respond appropriately to Katrina have decided to make this issue Obama’s Katrina, and I don’t think that the comparisons are apt, at all. I think that it’s looking like a political opportunity for the Republicans, and they’re jumping on it.”
Perhaps the junior Carter, claiming to be an attorney, doesn’t realize or know that thee is little more Bush could have legally done in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Completely ignoring that It is ludicrous to blame Bush for the fiasco that ensued, Carter followed the ever present Democrat Party platform of place blame on Bush, even though it has been proven over and over that Bush could have done little more than what he did.
So now, according to the junior Carter, its “political opportunity” to point out that in spite of this going on for over a month, the Obama administration should remain blameless.
Young Jason Carter continued,
“I don’t think that President Obama can go plug the leak. I think that that’s what has to happen first, and if BP, as they’ve said, can’t do it on their own, then absolutely — we have to step in and bring all of the resources that we can marshal to bear on the problem.”
But, Bush was supposed to prevent a hurricane?
Jason, it has been over a month. This is an unprecedented tragedy, nothing like this has happened before. Thousands of oil platforms drill and pump oil out of the Gulf of Mexico daily and no accident of this magnitude has happened before.
BP is doing what they can and paying as they go. What is the Obama administration and Democrats doing, besides whining it has nothing to do with you?
How about taking advantage of the accident now to quadruple oil taxes by his party? Does he not see real “political opportunism” in such a move in the aftermath of the accident?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says, “Taxpayers will not pick up the tab.”
Then we are told, Democrats “want to increase the current 8-cent-a-barrel tax on oil to make sure there is enough money available to respond to oil spills,” citing, “the government needs upfront money to respond to spills, as well as money to pay for cleanups when the responsible party is unable to pay, or is unknown.”
But, we were just told by Reid that we would not pick up the tab, were we not?
And, should they succeed in increasing the oil tax, who is it that will “pick up the tab” anyway? That’s right, you and I in the form of higher prices at the gas pump.
In an already severely repressed economy with unemployment soaring to record levels not seen in decades, along comes the Democrats, claiming to be there to “help the little guy,” prepared to stick it to the “little guy” once again.
But, Georgia State Senator Jason Carter, grandson of the now second worst president ever, can only see an opportunity to bash Republicans and add to his own political hypocrisy by ignoring the ineptness and inability of the current Democrat regime in every area other than bankrupting the taxpaying citizens of America.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat!
I have to admit, this press release put out by the Ann Rivers campaign is one of the classiest moves I’ve ever seen a candidate do.
RIVERS CAMPAIGN ANNOUNCES PROGRAM TO END CAMPAIGN SIGN VANDALISM; CHALLENGES ALL CAMPAIGNS TO JOIN.
Ann Rivers announced today that her sign crews have been directed to repair all campaign signs of either party out in the campaign area.
“It sickens me to see vandalized signs of any campaign. As a candidate, I know how hard everyone has worked to get the funds necessary to pay for these signs, and how much work campaign volunteers go through to get the signs up,” she said.
“We’ve been repairing and rebuilding everyone’s signs in our district when possible since we started putting signs up in April,” she added. “but that’s not enough. I’m convinced that the way to end the destruction of everyone’s campaign signs is to activate all sign crews to repair and restore downed and damaged signs whenever they can.”
Each campaign has spent a lot of money getting their signs up for name recognition. The largest signs can cost as much as $80 each. “Vandalism and sign theft will cost all campaigns in Southwest Washington thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of volunteer time that can be put to much better use,” Ann said.
Ann, who is running for the House seat in position one of the 18th District, is calling on all campaigns in both parties to follow her lead. “Sign destruction has been a bipartisan effort. There appears to have been a concerted effort to knock down all campaign signs regardless of party in the same locations, and that has to stop,” she went on.
“I call on all campaigns and both parties to follow the example of our campaign and ask their sign crews to repair signs whenever possible, report signs damaged beyond repair to their respective party headquarters or campaigns, and to lend a hand to help end this nonsense,” said Ann.
For more information, contact the Rivers Campaign at (360)771-8133, or go to the Rivers Campaign website located at http://electannrivers.com.
I live alongside a fairly busy street and over the years have had more than my fair share of campaign signs stolen, defaced and vandalized. They not only cost campaigns money, but supporters most usually make a contribution to the candidates campaign to receive one.
I hope that all of the other candidates running in the 18th Legislative District race, Jon Russell, Brandon Vick, Anthony Bittner, Independent Richard Carson and Democrat Dennis Kampe will follow suit.
With so many saying they wish to see politics cleaned up, now is your chance to follow suit and begin.
Good going, Ann.
David Castillo, Republican candidate for Washington’s 3rd Congressional District hoping to retake the seat held for 6 terms by outgoing Democrat, Brian Baird, was interviewed recently by John McCaslin on America’s Morning News, Talk Radio Network.
Amongst the questions David was asked was to comment on a claim made by Maryland Democrat, Chris Van Hollen that the GOP is being moved to far right by Tea Party candidates.
David also commented on Obamacare and the Wall Street reform.
You can hear the interview HERE
To learn more about this candidate, please visit David Castillo for Congress
Breaking news alert from Politico and mentioned in today’s Seattle Times, the long awaited decision by Dino Rossi as to whether or not he intends to run against Senator Patty Murray will be made Wednesday, May 26, 2010.
According to Politico’s news alert,
“Dino Rossi will announce Wednesday that he will seek the Republican Senate nomination in Washington state…, Rossi also recently hired a consultant, Pat Shortridge, to help him with his bid.”
I don’t know what good such a late entry will make or if he will add a third failed bid to his resume’, but at least now we know.
He has already lost the endorsement of Sarah Palin, who gave hers to Clint Didier earlier, who currently leads in funds raised.
Are we seeing another case of a party favored candidate like we see with Jaime Herrera in her rapid entry into the race for the Third Congressional District, less than 2 hours after Brian Baird announced retirement?
Only time will tell how voters decide, but I also know several people have not been happy with Rossi’s withholding announcing while others worked hard to get their campaigns going and drawing donations.
For me, I cannot honestly say I’m prepared to jump in behind Rossi just yet.
I first met Chris Boyd at the March 2010 Clark County GOP convention at Prairie High School, shortly after he decided to enter the race to replace retiring Democrat Brian Baird, joining David Castillo, David Hedrick and Jaime Herrera in hopes of changing the seat long held by Baird to the Republican side of the aisle.
From that first meeting, I liked Chris. Clean cut and very personable, down to earth were traits that I noticed as we talked and discovered similarities he and I had in serving in the U.S. Army, although decades apart.
Having sat down with him for coffee Thursday, I discovered we shared even more than I previously thought, both of us being Veterans of unpopular wars, assigned to the same stateside post and realizing just how precious and fragile our freedoms and liberties are during our tours, he in Afghanistan and me in Viet Nam decades earlier.
That realization of how easily we could lose those freedoms is what prompted Chris, married and father of 3, to continue the fight to protect our freedoms and liberties off of the battlefield of Afghanistan by taking his stand now by running for office.
Chris is the dark horse in this race, not having the name recognition of 18th Legislative District Representative Jaime Herrera or David Hedrick, known for his confrontation of Brian Baird at last years Town Hall in Clark County. Nor does he have the extensive experience of David Castillo, a former official of the Department of Homeland Security and Veterans Administration.
What he does have is a love of America and a desire to see the freedoms and opportunities many take for granted today remain intact for his 3 children when they reach adulthood and he has a grasp on ideas as how to protect them. He has a drive to place Washington D.C. back in touch with the citizens of Washington’s 3rd Congressional District.
Shortly after entering the race, he experienced family matters that drew his attention, inhibiting his campaigning. But, as I said when 18th L.D. candidate Shannon Barnett dropped his bid weeks ago over family issues, any one that places family first always deserves and gains my respect.
Chris is now getting his campaign back on track, as has been seen at various candidates forums held throughout the 3rd Congressional District where he articulates his views and takes spontaneous questions with ease, leaving none to wonder just where he stands.
Chris grew up in Portland, Oregon and witnessing the horrific effects of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks knew he could not sit idly by and do nothing. He enlisted in the United States Army, earning Airborne Jump Wings and served as a combat medic with the 82nd Airborne Division in Afghanistan near the border with Pakistan, achieving non-commissioned officer rank in short time, as well as receiving multiple Army Commendation Medals, Army Achievement Medals, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal w/Bronze Service Star, Letters of Commendation and other awards including Expert Field Medical Badge, Emergency Medical Tech-Tactical, and attending the US Army Weapons Unit Armor School.
Like many other Veterans, Chris experienced moments that made him feel proud while other moments left him feeling the sorrow and loss of seeing buddies cut down while trying to help those less fortunate. It was due to such moments that Chris developed his sense of serving others that he hopes to inject into this campaign.
Chris learned “strong and effective leadership” skills by serving under Brigadier General Sheila Baxter, Commander of the Western Regional Medical Command, Commanding General of Madigan Army Medical Center, and Chief of the Medical Service Corps.
He views himself as a “career citizen” rather than a “career politician.” Seeing the condition the country has slid in, Chris says,
“Our political system has been derailed and we need to get it back on track. It’s time for us — you and me — to stand up and do something about it. ‘We the People’ are the ones who created the American government, and ‘We the People’ are the ones who need to fix it.”
As a Disabled Veteran, Chris sees the need of improvement within the Veteran’s Administration to help our deserving Veteran’s receive the care they need and to ease the transition from the Military to civilian life, including hiring preferences for Veteran’s. Should he win the election, he would seek a seat on the House Committee on Veteran’s Affairs.
Likewise, on healthcare reform he makes a point I have seen none of the rest raise, “Requiring the Food Stamp Program to purchase a percentage of healthy products to encourage the reduction of obesity and future medical costs,” focusing on well care equally with healthcare.
Being considered a dark horse candidate, Chris doesn’t receive the media attention, endorsements or donations some of the others currently do. This places him at a disadvantage as he could be easily overlooked. But one thing is certain, other candidates are taking notice of his views and he is making a difference in the race by injecting his views and keeping others on their toes, knowing the current anti-incumbent attitude sweeping the nation could very quickly propel him from the dark horse to a candidate to be reckoned with.
Still, Chris’s demeanor, infectious smile and determination easily make him the one candidate the others all seem to like the most. His dedication of serving others and desire to work for “the person in mechanics shop as much as the person in the bank tower” merits your attention.
Should he not make it through the August primaries, Chris plans to focus on family first then on continuing his education at Clark College where is currently studying business. There is also mention of a possible run for state office in 2012 should he not win the primary, seeing some of our state elected officials as out of touch with voters and taxpayers and not giving Washington State citizens the representation we deserve.
But, I wouldn’t count Chris out just yet, seeing how party favored candidates did not fare so well in primaries in other states recently. And, like I said earlier, his campaign is just getting going and he is making a positive impact on the race.
The August 17 primary is still a long way off and in politics, anything can and will happen. If you have been unable to really connect with another candidate, give Chris Boyd for Congress a look. He just might be who you do connect with.
Mosquito borne diseases once thought eradicated seem to be returning since the ban on the use of DDT was imposed in 1972.
ABC News tells us,
“More than two dozen cases of locally-acquired dengue fever have hit the resort town of Key West, Fla., in the past nine months, officials from the U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.”
“The re-emergence of dengue in Florida as well as the threat posed to the U.S. from other emerging mosquito-borne arboviruses (e.g., chikungunya) emphasizes the necessity for strong vector-borne surveillance and mosquito control infrastructure to rapidly identify and control outbreaks of dengue or other mosquito-borne diseases,” MMWR’s editors wrote in a commentary accompanying the report.
It is endemic in the Western Hemisphere from Mexico southward. Most cases seen by U.S. physicians have involved travelers to such regions.
Due to the resurgence of such disease, primarily in Africa, many advocate lifting the restrictions placed on DDT use.
See also the NPR article Dengue Fever In Florida Portends A Growing Problem
Growing up in South Florida, I recall the trucks going up and down streets spraying insecticide. To us, they were fog trucks that we ran behind, hiding in the fog.
Nearing 62 years old I have no ill effects nor does anyone else I am in touch with that I grew up with.
DDT was the most effective weapon combating this and many other mosquito borne diseases, which are worse than possible ill effects of DDT.
I just got off of the telephone where I was listening in on Patty Murray’s latest unannounced tele-conference call, lasting shortly over a half-hour.
As usual, the call come, unannounced and those who answer are given a chance to participate if they choose. This is about the fourth such call I have received from Murray and for once, I was able to participate.
I was not able to ask my question due to time constraints. Although I pressed the necessary numbers and was acknowledged as waiting to ask a question, the screener never asked my name or location.
But, the real question is, why doesn’t Patty Murray actually schedule town halls or give voters in Washington State prior notice of a pending call to ask pertinent questions of her?
If she fears face to face meets around the state, why the unannounced calls and such a short time where only 3 or 4 people receive the privilege of asking her questions instead of scheduled conferences where more people can participate?
Is it really representing voters to claim such out of the blue acts is communicating with us?
I don’t believe so.
Progressive signature gatherers will be hitting the streets en masse soon, if not already, to gain your signature on a petition to place I-1098, a voter approved Income Tax on November’s ballot. The Olympians Brad Shannon covers some at I-1098’s income tax proposal ready for signatures.
Training sessions have been scheduled by the SEIU, who strongly support this initiative, to train signature gatherers and other training for the “Yes on I-1098” campaign. As usual, this is a very well organized effort by unions and progressives desiring to follow with the left-wing “redistribution of wealth” scheme that is slowly killing America.
You can expect signature gatherers to mislead by claiming it is a measure to “keep taxes low” or even to “lower taxes” when in actuality, it will raise everybody’s taxes, not just the wealthy as supporters and backers claim as they have until July 2 to gather over 325,000 signatures.
From a supporters site we read this initiative will:
• Reduces the state property tax by 20 percent, saving the average homeowner about $180 per year.
• Increases the small business tax credit from $420 to $4,800 annually, eliminating the state business and occupation tax for more than 80 percent of businesses, and reducing taxes for another 10 percent.
• Adds an income tax which will only be paid by couples with incomes over $400,000 and individuals with incomes over $200,000 – about 3 percent of households.
• Any changes in income tax levels by elected officials would require approval by voters
Please take note of the last claim, “Any changes in income tax levels by elected officials would require approval by voters.” Did we not just witness Democrats in Olympia gutting such a requirement for raising taxes when they “suspended” I-960?
Don’t forget too, these other taxes they claim will be lowered, many were supposedly just raised and we are told they are “temporary” raises.
The provision to prevent this income tax from being broadened to include the 97% supporters wish to convince won’t have to pay it contains no provision to keep it from being gutted, just as I-960 provisions were. Any one with an ounce of sense should know that eventually, we all will be paying it, along with sales tax and you can bet those “temporary taxes” will become a bit more permanent as our states spending habits remain unchanged.
Cutting property tax by 20% is laughable too as the states portion of our property tax now is only 21% of the property taxes we pay, resulting in what amounts to no more than a 4% reduction at most.
This latest slew of tax increases just kicked the burgeoning budget deficit down the road as the only actual spending cuts amount to little more than reductions in proposed spending increases. In other words, spending still increases every year and as long as Democrats retain control, so will taxes.
Washington voters approved an income tax back in the 1930’s that was overturned by the State Supreme Court as “unconstitutional” since Washington States Constitution Article VII, Section I states
“All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only. The word ‘property’ as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible, subject to ownership.”
Should this make it to the ballot and be approved by voters, it is sure to bring another court challenge on the constitutionality of it. The progressive website Publicola isn’t too confident it would withstand such a court challenge again.
Amber Gunn at the Heartland Institute addresses the constitutional aspect and brings out more problematic areas of the bill.
The initiative is not only being supported by Microsoft’s Bill Gates, but by the Service Employee’s International Union (SEIU) who already have scheduled “training classes” in Seattle for signature gatherers and supporters.
Also supporting this tax increase is the Washington Association of Churches, a “progressive” group claiming,
“A tax system that increasingly shifts payment for state services onto low and middle income families is inconsistent with our religious commitment to serve the common good.”
Somehow, WAC seems to miss how historically, such taxes end up passed onto “low and middle income families” as undoubtedly the tax will eventually include lower incomes, since income taxes are the least stable of all taxes, being dependent upon ever changing economic conditions each year.
WAC, sounding as socialistic as any left-wing group I’ve heard of, also says,
“We need clergy and religious leaders willing to sign up and speak out in favor of fairness in our tax system and for reducing the disparity of wealth in our state.”
I guess Separation of Church and State remains only if pertaining to a conservative cause.
WAC rounds out their plea with, Luke 12:48 “From everyone who has been given much, more will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.”
I am left wondering if they truly believe what they say, are they and their member churches ready to give up their tax exempt status and stop passing collection plates at services out of concern over lower income people attending their services?
With the SEIU involved in “training” on this, you can expect deception at every turn. One of the most deceptive efforts will be to convince you this is really “middle class tax relief,” with claims of lowering many other taxes and “keeping taxes low.”
Should this initiative fool enough voters to actually make it to law and survive an expected court challenge, don’t be surprised to find out that you too will soon be paying it and rest assured, you will be told “it’s for the children” too.
To what we owe this announced visit from the Westboro cretins, I don’t know. But they have announced their plans to be here to stage one of their hate-mongering protests outside of Heritage High School on June 1, approximately 2:15 PM to 2:45 PM.
They may call themselves a “church” and “Baptists,” but they are anything but. They have no known affiliation with any Baptist Association or Convention. Calling themselves “Independent Baptist,” following Primitive Baptist and Calvinist principles, not one mainstream Primitive Baptist group agrees with them, all rejecting their perversion of scripture. This small band of followers of Fred Phelps, comprised mostly of his family members, is no doubt the most hateful cult I can recall.
From his initial “God Hates Fags” to spread hate to Gays to his protesting at funerals of our fallen Troops, there is not an ounce of biblical love coming from these cold hearted hate mongers.
Besides dishonoring others in the community across America, they seem to desire to provoke angry responses so they can file lawsuits against people, some family members being attorneys.
As much as they pervert scripture to justify their hate, they pervert laws to protect their hate, as was seen when Albert Snyder, whose son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in action in Iraq in 2006 was ordered to pay the hate group’s legal fees for an appeal they filed to reverse a multi-million dollar award stemming from their protesting outside Matthews funeral.
I’ll reserve comment on the judge.
From the Columbian article we read,
May 28, the group plans to picket five Jewish synagogues and centers; a Catholic church; a Bible church; and the large New Hope Community Church near Clackamas, Ore.
Early June 1, the group will picket Portland’s Grant High School before the first bell, the website shows.
That same day, it will gather at Heritage from 2:15 to 2:45 p.m., chiefly “to picket the rebellious brats and lying teachers,”
The group’s attorney, Rebekah Phelps Davis, has faxed an announcement to Sheriff Garry Lucas and Cmdr. Chuck Atkins stating they plan to protest “peaceful and law-abiding manner” and requesting “police provide a safe environment, including a ‘dead zone’ to buffer the group from possible threats.”
Atkins says, “ it is our responsibility to let them do what they’re legally allowed to do. We take a neutral stance. As long as they don’t impede traffic, driveways, foot traffic, etc.”
If it were up to me, their “safe environment” would be supplied next to the sewage treatment facility down by the river.
It is unknown to me if there will be any organized opposition to their protest. Patriot Guard Riders, who have long placed themselves between the hate-group and families at funerals, must be invited by a family member or an official.
Such despicable hate as this group spreads must be stood up to somewhere in our legal system. They target not only Gays and funerals of our fallen Heroes, but Jews, Catholics and just about everybody outside of their hate filled group.
The very Bible they pervert says,
Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
They too will one day stand before their maker and be judged for their actions.
The country must stop cowering from these hateful people, for as much as other hate-groups were largely marginalized for their hateful actions during the Civil Rights era; whatever legal measures are available must be taken to drown out this message of hate today.
I first began hearing about Republican, David Castillo in May 2009 and was privileged to finally meet him face to face at the June 13, 2009 GOP Central Committee Meeting. From the start I was impressed with his stand on issues and his reasons for running for office. To me, David was a rebirth of the conservative movement that swept into power in 1994, before they abandoned their base and shifted left, presumably to hold power as did the Democrats for nearly 40 years.
My initial impressions are recorded at Castillo For Congress, 3rd District, Washington State
Castillo has been campaigning the old fashioned way for nearly a year now, traveling the width and breadth of the 3rd Congressional District, building his support base and gathering donations from private citizens. He has maintained a consistent message of conservatism and answered pertinent questions based upon his long-held values, not what sounds expedient before a certain group.
He entered the race prepared for a tough campaign against a powerfully entrenched Democratic opponent, Brian Baird, who was in his sixth term as 3rd CD Representative, unlike another who jumped in only after Baird announced retirement and assuming “chosen one” status as GOP machine insiders gathered behind with the same old flawed policy that continues to lose elections for the GOP.
Some noise was made in national media over Jaime Herrera’s sudden entrance into the race, less than 2 hours after Baird’s announcement as an article appeared in congressional media outlet, The Hill, telling us, “Herrera fills out GOP lineup card in retiree districts” as if none were running already and had been building support within our District.
Since Herrera’s sudden entrance in December, we have been treated to media claims of her conservative bona fides, Democrats false comparison to Sarah Palin and even local liberal reporter, Kathy Durbin, suddenly finding a Republican she could fawn over.
Castillo was pushed aside by GOP insiders who falsely seem to think that who they promote is who the voters will go for as 2 county parties prematurely endorsed “the chosen one” over all others.
Castillo kept his head down and continued campaigning as he had, not flying back to Washington D.C. to court special interest money.
At least 2 local bloggers saw through the façade and through many documented public sources, revealed inconsistencies in her legislative record. Besides Clark County Conservative doing so, Clark County Politics, along with the mirror site, Jaime Herrera Watch have steadily maintained a consistent effort to get the truth out about these candidates hoping to win the nomination for the 3rd Congressional District seat in the House of Representatives.
Bucking party insiders of these counties has brought cries of “hate speech,” “rabid Herrera haters” and “liars,” from some party leaders in at least 2 counties, who never documented a single claim.
Their efforts seem to be failing as conservatives are noticing who articulates a strong, consistent and conservative message and it isn’t Jaime Herrera, who is most often vague and general outside of prepared remarks.
Earlier in May, Swing State Project informed us,
“You keep hearing from Beltway media that state Rep. Jaime Herrera is the person to beat in the GOP primary for this open seat, but other than ex-Sen. Slade Gorton and her ex-boss, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers, I’m hard-pressed to think of any endorsements of consequence for her. David Castillo has lined up most of the local support within the 3rd, and now he got endorsements from a variety of local leaders in the evangelical community, including Joe Fuiten (probably the most prominent Christian right leader in Washington) and ex-Rep. Randy Tate (who briefly led the national Christian Coalition after getting bounced out of office).”
In late April, Seattle P.I.’s Joel Connelly, covering the first candidate’s forum held in Longview, told us about Castillo,
“He is considered an underdog to State Rep. Jaime Herrera on the Republican side of the fence. But he was by far the most articulate and engaging of GOP candidates on stage Thursday night.”
Also from the Seattle P.I. in May, we are told that although
“The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) immediately began touting State Rep. Jaime Herrera, and virtually ignored Castillo, Castillo bagged Tea Party activists and now he has captured Christian conservatives” and “Castillo has proven a fighter. He stood out among four Republican hopefuls at a recent debate in Longview…”
Today, May 17, 2010, Roll Call, covering congressional races tells us,
“After Baird’s announcement, national Republicans appeared to be most excited about state Rep. Jaime Herrera, although now it appears there will be a competitive race for the GOP nomination. Former Bush administration official David Castillo got into the race before Baird said he was leaving, and he appears to have a great deal of support from conservative activists in the area.”
My friend and fellow blogger at Jaime Herrera Watch states, “The problem is the scrutiny and Herrera’s inability to withstand it.”
How true. As I witnessed myself last Thursday evening, Herrera has trouble in taking a strong consistent stand on matter of national importance without cue cards in front of her. Some questions she didn’t even answer directly, but skirted around trying to sound as if she were addressing them.
Conservatives are tired of the same old, same old. They don’t want imitation conservatives who walk across the aisle and are unable to draw the other side to our side. It needs to be a two way crossing all of the time, not only one way.
Our country is in deep trouble and we can no longer afford anointed party groomed insiders with a record of sponsoring and voting for bills that cost taxpayers more in taxes while touting they are working for us.
David Castillo is the candidate we have been searching for over the years. Although he doesn’t have a legislative voting record or wads of special interest money funding him, he does have conservative support and a consistent stand on issues that matter to us.
The party can continue to front Herrera, but they are missing that people are beginning to pay more attention to candidates themselves and less to party recommendations.
One Clark County GOP official, upset over a truthful call about Herrera’s record, stated,
“we would all have supported David had he been successful rather than Jaime in the primary election. But that offer is no longer on the table.”
This same official has been continually ignoring the whisper campaign against David and it appears, ignoring what voters prefer as well.
David Castillo is the true conservative running for this seat. He gives us the best chance we have had in a very long time to turn our government back to actually representing the people, not special interests.
His experience, ability and consistent conservative stand on the relevant issues is what has won elections in the past for conservatives.
He is getting the notice he deserves and we conservatives in the 3rd Congressional District deserve to finally have a strong conservative candidate running to represent us.
I invite you to give David Castillo a serious look. I am sure you will not be disappointed.
A quick note to those Herrera worshippers who give me grief when they meet me out and about over my revealing things Jaime would rather not be shown; perhaps you should not read this. You’ve been warned as I have no intent of sitting idly by as the GOP again fronts a vacuous candidate destined to lose to the Democrats.
In several of my posts concerning Ms. Herrera I have brought up her many anti-conservative stands and votes since being appointed to the 18th Legislative District seat she is to soon abandon. Not one person has ever actually countered any, just excused them as hate mongering, hate speech, mere mistakes and what have you. It’s as if this young lady can do no wrong and those who worship the ground she walks on could care less about her voting record of opposing Republican leadership to join forces with the Democrats on legislation that has brought the state to the brink of bankruptcy and ruin.
I have even heard Ms. Herrera boast of doing so, labeling herself as “independent,” as she did in a February 25, 2010 article, Herrera Plays Insider, Outsider Cards where she said, “Quite frankly, the Republicans let me down, too,” referring to her time as an aid to Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), who now fronts her candidacy.
The articles author tells us right from the start, “WA state Rep. Jaime Herrera (R) is casting herself as an independent as she seeks one of the more centrist districts in the country.”
With the condition the country has been put in by Democrats and those who cross the aisle to join them, is that what we want to send back to D.C. to represent us?
In her boasts of opposing her party’s leaders and supporting Democrats legislation, does she ever mention any of them crossing the aisle to support conservative legislation? If she has I’ve failed to hear it.
Troubling to me is her claim of, “My perspectives were shaped by my region.” Just what “perspectives” is that, Liberal nanny state ideology that seems to have ruled this region for many years now?
Yet, she claims to be a “commonsense conservative” with no real explanation of just what that is in her world, but maintains more than anything, she is “independent.”
Equally troubling is her statement concerning conservative voters, “Sure, we’re not afraid of a young person, or a woman, or someone who is a minority.” Conservatives never have been. Is she indicating that we conservatives really are a group of “old white men” as maintained by Democrats?
She might have inherited such an attitude from Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who in March was asking, Where are the Women GOP House Candidates?
Are we now following the Liberal Democrat policy of quotas regarding gender and presumptive ethnicity, regardless of ability or conservative values?
And, Herrera is a “minority?” How so? When she popped up to seize the appointment to replace Richard Curtis in 2007, she stated her “mother is white and her father is a third-generation Mexican-American whose family immigrated to America legally.”
Does she think merely having a Hispanic sounding surname will endear other Hispanics to flee the Democrats and embrace her? But, they would not do so for her main opponent, David Castillo, who is not claiming “minority” status?
When first appointed to the 18th L.D. seat, Ms. Herrera stated that she “wants to tackle the drug problem by increasing education and rehabilitation programs,” prompting Cowlitz County Commissioner Axel Swanson, a Democrat, to express his pleasure with her by saying, “With Republicans, most of the time what I hear is: ‘More law enforcement, more law enforcement, more law enforcement’.”
A noble goal, for sure, but what has she done in regards to the problem? Perhaps I have just missed it, but looking over her legislative web sites My Bills page, I do not see a single piece of legislation sponsored or co-sponsored by her for dealing with the drug issue.
And now, she is ready to abandon the seat she once said there is nothing more she’d rather do and flitter back to Washington D.C. with a fat government paycheck, benefits for life and rejoin the Washington D.C. party circuit she undoubtedly was part of before?
This past Thursday evening, I was in attendance at a forum for GOP candidates running for the 3rd Congressional District seat. I was amazed at her excellent ability to stand up in reply to questions from the audience on specifics and speak for the full time allotted and not say a thing actually concerning the question.
Questions that were posed to all 4 candidates, David Castillo, David Hedrick and Chris Boyd as well as Ms. Herrera, were answered in detail and with specifics by Castillo, Boyd and Hedrick. Herrera instead rambled on diverting her words away from the question and at times, speaking of totally unrelated subjects.
Asked what in their background prepared them to vote on matters of National Security and asked about their view of the recent announcement on cutting back on nuclear weapons and what would be the best number to maintain, she was unable to give a comprehensive answer, but rambled on eloquently, showing she has little understanding of some important matters a House Representative will have to deal with.
I looked around the room and watched as her supporters sat with bewildered looks on their faces, I presume guessing what she was talking about, instead of stating an actual position. Afterwards, they flocked right over to her and in Saturday’s Hazel Dell parade, turned out to walk with her on her second round through the parade route, her first round going through as the 18th Legislative District Representative and her second, as candidate for the 3rd Congressional District.
There are many troubling aspects about Jaime Herrera that remain unanswered. Seeking answers on important issues draws attacks and accusations of hate speech and such, as if she is somehow “the chosen one” or “anointed” to hold this position. It’s not unlike what we saw in 2008 as a completely unqualified man was hoisted into the presidency with similar tactics and we all know how well that is turning out for conservatives.
From her acceptance of campaign funds from unions, co-sponsoring and twice voting for a bill that would have forced childcare centers into public unions, joining with Democrats on gutting our rainy day fund, snubbing of constituents, vague and general positions on matters of national importance, boasts of abandoning her party to be “independent,” and many other unanswered questions, are we preparing to front another Arlen Specter (before he converted back to the Democrats), Olympia Snowe or a Susan Collins, better known to conservatives as RINO’s who often go against the best interests of Conservative America?
With her inability to express definite strong stands on many issues of importance to conservatives, are we falling for the liberal trick of supporting someone solely based upon gender or presumed ethnicity, instead of someone who will actually represent our values and fight to turn the country back to greatness?
Do we need someone who displayed political cowardice by not wanting to run a hard race against an entrenched incumbent, but couldn’t even wait for the ink to dry on the press release announcing that incumbent’s retirement to jump in?
I’d rather elect someone who is unafraid to stick their neck out and let voters know exactly where he stands on such important issues.
I’d rather send someone to D.C. who articulates definite stands on issues and doesn’t dance around important matters, claiming to be independent, free to join in with Democrats who are ruining the nation and boasting of doing so at Republican events.
I’d rather elect someone who will place the good of the nation and the American people over their desire to buy votes with earmarks and pork barrel spending.
I desire someone who has been willing to do the hard work in running for office instead of seeking an easy slide into office only after a powerful incumbent announces he is retiring.
We don’t need another official with the attitude that they are “the chosen one.”
That is why I wholly support David Castillo, a candidate who inspires audiences with his excellent command of the issues and doesn’t leave you to guess where he actually stands.
You won’t find articles saying how ‘HOT’ he is, but you will find articles saying he is by far the most articulate and engaging of GOP candidates on stage.
Let’s stop losing elections and get behind a real conservative this time.
No more liberals, RINO’s or chameleon conservatives who roll out the bona fides only when it is convenient.
A vandal by any other name is still a vandal!
Vandals claiming to be who took it upon themselves to defy a recent United States Supreme Court ruling and remove the Mojave Veterans Memorial, erected in 1934, have sent an anonymous letter to the Barstow Desert Dispatch outlining their reasoning for committing the crime.
The validity of the claim is unknown, but there are indicators that this may indeed be the scumbags who planned and executed this desecration of a long-standing Veterans Memorial.
The vandals supply 15 points in their justification of this dishonorable act and I will reply to some below. You may see all 15 at the link above.
1. The cross in question was not vandalized. It was simply moved. This was done lovingly and with great care.
Removal is vandalizing, plain and simple. You do not have permission or the right to decide what Battle Weary Veterans from World War One may or may not erect to honor their fallen comrades. If, as you claim, you are a Veteran, shame on you for this egregious desecration of a Veterans Memorial and denial of others rights to remember fallen comrades as they see fit.
We fought for the rights of those we disagree with as well as those we agree with. That you decided to take it in your hands to deem what rights others may have violates everything we all fought for.
5. The cross was erected illegally on public land in 1998 by a private individual named Henry Sandoz. Since then the government has actively worked to promote the continued existence of the cross, even as it excluded other monuments from differing religions. This favoritism and exclusion clearly violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution.
The Memorial was first erected in 1934 by a group of World War One Veterans led by Riley Bembry and who wanted to honor soldiers who had perished in the ‘war to end all wars.’ He and his fellow‘doughboys’chose a simple Latin cross that was typical of many Veteran Memorials at that time. Riley asked Henry Sandoz to watch over the Memorial some time before he died in 1984. Sandoz replaced the original wooden Memorial in the 1970’s and after it was vandalized, replaced it with one constructed out of 3 inch metal pipe filled with cement, the one you decided to steal, in 1996. The land in question was not a Federal Preserve when the Memorial was first erected.
A Memorial in the form of a Cross is not necessarily religious in nature or intended only for fallen of the Christian faith.
Would this vandal take it upon himself next to enter Arlington Cemetery and remove all of the crosses on the graves of other fallen Veterans because of inserted “establishment clause?”
No other monuments from differing religions have been excluded. That was a bogus trumped up claim made to justify the view of one man, Frank Buono, to have the Memorial destroyed.
6. Anthony Kennedy desecrated and marginalized the memory and sacrifice of all those non-Christians that died in WWI when he wrote: ‘Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles — battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.’ The irony and tragedy of that statement is unique.
No, Justice Kennedy’s word might have angered you, but the symbol of the cross in Memorials has transcended religious meaning long ago. As my friend and former ACLU attorney Rees Lloyd puts it,
“Symbols have meaning in collective life. People die for them. For instance, the Flag. The Cross manifestly has a religious aspect. But, equally manifestly, it conveys a secular meaning — the meaning of selfless service and sacrifice for others, and is so understood. Universally, Beyond language barriers. In fact, there is not other symbol so universally recognized as representing selfless service and sacrifice for others, including the ultimate sacrifice of one’s life. That is how it is understood at veterans memorials, and why it is the symbol so often chosen to honor the war dead.”
Missed, by the miscreant that took it upon himself to initiate this criminal act is that Supreme Court ruling was not about the cross itself, but was over the trade of the land the cross sits on for a larger parcel of land within the Preserve passed by congress earlier. Of that, Justice Kennedy said,
“The land transfer-statute embodies Congress’s legislative judgment that this dispute is best resolved through a framework and policy of accommodation for a symbol that, while challenged under the Establishment Clause has complex meaning beyond the expression of religious views.”
With that, these vandals did not enter public land to remove a symbol, but trespassed upon private land held by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to steal a symbol belonging to and revered by Veterans.
7. Justice Kennedy’s words in particular and others like them from the other Justices caused me to act.
No, your selfish, narrow-minded bigotry is what caused you to take it upon yourself to decide for upwards of 50 million Veterans what they may hold in honor.
9. Discrimination in any form is intolerable, as is hatred.
Except for your hatred of what others honor in memory of their fallen comrades as you decided to discriminate against them?
11. Despite what many people are saying, this act was definitively not anti-Christian. It was instead anti-discrimination. If this act was anti-Christian, the cross would not have been cared for so reverently. An anti-Christian response would have been to simply destroy the cross and leave the pieces in the desert.
No, it might not be “anti-Christian,” but your criminal act is definitely “anti-Veteran” and a dishonor to the very uniform you claim to have once worn and to the memory of those in whose memory the Memorial was erected.
13. If an appropriate and permanent non-sectarian memorial is placed at the site the cross will be immediately returned to Mr. Sandoz.
Your shameful crime will not go unpunished. You have taken it upon yourself to decide what others may do. You have set yourself up as the sole harbinger of what is right in defiance of the United States Supreme Court, Congress and more Veterans than you care to know about.
You quote a great man, Abraham Lincoln to justify your crime against Patriotic Americans when you say, “To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men.”
Your crime is not justifiable in any sense. You are not a Patriot or honorable person. You are the very coward you mention, a coward who sneaks onto private land traded by Veterans to honor a Memorial erected by our Grandfathers under the cover of darkness.
You have not stood up and spoken your view; you stole the rights of others to their views from the middle of the desert.
Your crime is unredeemable. It is cowardly. It is despicable.
You should surrender yourself to the appropriate authorities and return the Memorial to where it has stood for 76 years.
Then, thank God that your penalty will be at the hands of the very judicial system you decided you have the right to defy and dishonor and not at the hands of so many pissed off Veterans.
Who can take a sunrise, sprinkle it with dew
Cover it with choc’late and a miracle or two
The Candy Man, oh the Candy Man can
Oh, who can take tomorrow, dip it in a dream
Separate the sorrow and collect up all the cream
The Candy Man, oh the Candy Man can
How we all loved the fantasy movie, Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory from 1971 and Sammy Davis Jr’s singing of the theme. It was a magical fantasy and escaping day to day life for a short time just to enjoy and let our minds wrap around that magic seen on the silver screen.
Maybe that was what was in Representative Jim Moeller’s head when he proposed and fought to pass in his all too confusing and regressive tax bill, known as the “Candy Tax.”
Moeller, as we already know, has never met a tax he didn’t like, hence one of his nick names, “Da Taxman.” We can add “Candy Man” now for his efforts in promoting and passing what will undoubtedly add much confusion to our tax system and produce little return for the effort.
The first bit of confusion sets in when you see that not everything you might consider candy is to be taxed. Candy is defined in state law as, “a preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners combined with chocolate, fruits, nuts, or other ingredients or flavorings and formed into bars, drops, or pieces.”
As explained in the Seattle Times, the Department of Revenue adds, “Candy does not require refrigeration. Candy does not include any preparation containing flour.” They explain, “flour is made from grain such as wheat, rice, corn, rye, oats, and barley. Flour does not include flour substitutes, such as starch. Any product that lists flour as an ingredient on the nutritional facts label is not taxable as candy.”
But, isn’t it still fattening and unhealthy?
Moeller, in January, said to the Columbian’s Kathie Durbin on his Candy Tax, “adequate funding for the state’s public health departments is languishing due to the state’s budget crisis,” what he describes as one of his “Top Priorities.”
In an even earlier article, Candy Man said, “I don’t think that candy and gum are foods. I think (the tax) gives us an opportunity to kind of change some of the cultural thinking about it, and at the same time raise some money.”
Hence, following suit like many other states have done over the years, candy and gum needed to be taxed, he felt. But, only some candy, not all.
On paper, it is expected to raise some $30 Million in additional revenue. I say “on paper” because as we all know, when you tax something, less of it is sold and used. Add to that the confusing and complicated nature of this and we seem headed for buyers backlash, resulting in even less funding to the state, more unemployment as candy makers lay off employees due to their product not selling and eventual repeal of the bill, as did many of those other states that felt such a tax appropriate in the past.
June 1, Candy Man’s tax takes affect and once again, the poorer people will pay the tax as this ridiculous regressive tax on some candy will hit them directly, but not the wealthy we are always told must be taxed more to “pay their fair share.”
If you don’t understand how this will be on the backs of the poorer folks, as California was repealing their version of it, one of their congresscritters said, “The elite eat untaxed baked Alaska for dessert. The poor have Oreo cookies and they are taxed.”
Albert Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Candy Man Moeller shows us such as he continues to fight to tax us all and take more of our paychecks so he can say he attracted more revenue to “balance the budget.” The problem is, as I said above, it is only on paper and already we are hear of yet another multi-billion dollar budget shortfall facing the next legislative session.
We can finally actually turn this ‘passing the buck’ attitude around and save our state. Fortunately, we have a man running to unseat Candy Man who, as a business man, has had to actually balance budgets, for real not only on paper.
We can end this ongoing charade of spending cuts, which to Democratic legislators means only a reduction in proposed increase, and put the state back on sound financial footing.
The time has come to rid ourselves of the Candy Man and replace him with a businessman, Craig Riley.
It’s time to be real and visions of a fantasy movie and endless taxation of whatever Democrats like Jim ‘Candy Man’ Moeller envision continue to hurt all of us, especially those they claim need the most help.
Well, our 49th Legislative District Senator and long shot to replace retiring Brian Baird in the 3rd Congressional District has done it again. Not content at just putting his foot in his mouth, he shoots himself in the foot while it’s in there.
Pridemore, no stranger to embarrassing himself and sticking it to the poor while claiming he is for them, decided to stop in at the office of Seattle based Progressive publication and boast a little about being ahead in the polls of presumed Democratic nominee for the 3rd C.D. race. What he did not expect is that the publication would run a full story instead of simply mentioning his claim in passing or that the claim would remain up around Seattle instead of appearing down here so fast.
Thanks to my friend at Clark County Politics, we heard of this boastful claim and were reminded of other actions the 49th’s “Progressive” state senator has taken that has yet to help us in these repressed economic times.
Publicola, the Progressive publication Pridemore boasted to stated,
We have done one poll,” Pridemore says, “and we’re encouraged by the results. We are definitely ahead in name recognition, in votes, in favorability.”
Asked if we could see the poll, Pridemore was sheepish, saying he was going to get in trouble with his campaign for talking about it. He did say that it was a robopoll.
As embarrassing as it is to be caught making such a bogus claim, Pridemore compounded that when he discussed it with the Columbian’s Kathie Durbin as she wrote Pridemore: It was all off the record on the papers Political Beat blog.
“Pridemore, clearly peeved, told The Columbian the disclosure of the poll in his interview with Feit was supposed to be off the record.”
Note to Craig: Nothing said to a reporter is ever “off the record,” even to a sympathetic reporter.
Kathie quotes Pridemore as now claiming,
“The poll is not very scientific. In my opinion, it’s not newsworthy. It’s purely thumbnail.”
Sorry Craig, but it is “newsworthy” in that after embarrassing yourself, you make such a lame claim as this to cover it, embarrassing yourself even more.
Pridemore is running far behind Denny Heck and well behind the presumed top Republican candidates, David Castillo and Jaime Herrera in funds raised.
Such a stunt as this, even in a Political Circus, will not help Pridemore’s fund raising and might even hurt him as even Progressives will have a hard time getting past such an embarrassing attempt as this.
Pridemore shouldn’t feel too bad with this inept lameness, though. We also have one running that is almost as big a joke as he is.