More and more, when I hear Ms. Herrera speak, I feel she should follow the example of Barack Obama and use a tele-prompter to avoid embarrassing herself with contradictions and questionable justifications for part of her controversial voting record, that she tells us to look at and judge her by, but is labeled an attack against her should you mention it.
Her support of and votes for HB 1329, the controversial pro-union bill that would have resulted in forced unionization of childcare centers that accepted state funds for low-income families, had it not been for the efforts of Senate Republicans, remains an embarrassing vote for her and she has tried various defenses of it, all falling flat.
After months of defending and justifying her actions in regards to this bill, in a recent Vancouver Business Journal interview, she now says her support and vote was an “outlier vote and not indicative of her three-year record in state government.”
First off, she doesn’t have quite 3 years yet, but why get wrapped up in minor technicalities.
But, “outlier?” A curious word referring to a statistical difference in sampling which brings up a question as to her using it.
Jaime maintains she supported and voted for the bill as a “result of concerns voiced by members of the day care industry in her district.” She also has maintained she will vote the concerns of her constituents over party interests any time. Yet, she tells the Vancouver Business Journal such support amounts to “an outlier vote.”
Does that mean her support of pro-unions legislation is “outlier?” Or, voting for the best interests of constituents is an “outlier?”
If it really was an “outlier vote,” as stated, why did Jaime’s campaign manager send out a memo defending and justifying her vote and not once mentioning it was an “outlier vote?”
I suspect another “outlier vote” for Jaime would be her crossing the aisle to help Democrats strip the last $229,000,000.00 out of our rainy day fund. Of that, Herrera said, “In my mind, it was raise taxes or take money from the rainy day fund. And I’ll choose taking money from the fund over taxes every time.”
Did she somehow miss the recent slate of newly implemented and raised taxes and the new push to fool voters into accepting an income tax?
Was it just another “outlier vote” that now leaves us with no safety cushion and a looming $3 Billion budget deficit the next legislature will be dealing with, up from the previous $2.6 Billion deficit allegedly just balanced?
In another recent article appearing in the Columbian, Jaime told Kathie Durbin, “Not once have you heard me criticize Brian Baird’s performance in Southwest Washington.”
Yet, several times now, Jaime readily criticizes the very party she seeks support and votes from, lastly at the Leadership Clark County forum where she expressed admiration for Barack Obama in that he made health care a “priority” while the Republicans completely failed on any health care issue.
At previous forums I attended she criticized Republicans for issues ranging from border control to poor congressional performance, once stating Republicans losing control of both houses of congress in 2006 “was a good thing.”
Yet, she readily boasts of “not once criticizing Democrat Brian Baird’s performance in Southwest Washington.” Is the ongoing criticism of the GOP just another “outlier” moment too?
Just how many “outlier moments” does it take before you realize that her main Republican opponent, David Castillo is correct as he states, “Her pro-business rhetoric does not match her record?”
Perhaps it’s a case of Jaime Herrera’s “Outlier Moments” are more common than many are willing to admit.
Little wonder that seeing her place a campaign sign directly under a pro-union sign on 78th Street just seemed the most appropriate place to place one.