Of ‘Self Inflicted Wounds’ and ‘Fairly Horrible Experiences’

by lewwaters

Once again, we see the bias in favor of the Democrats that the Columbian says doesn’t exist, displayed so brightly it nearly blinds. We saw it early last year as Democrat Jim Jacks abruptly abandoned and walked out on constituents in mid-session as editor Lou Brancaccio maintained there “was no paper trail” to follow to get to any story on his quitting the position he had just been elected to.

I contrasted that to the Richard Curtis saga just a couple years before in a blatant display of bias.

We once again can see it displayed as just a few months ago, the Clark County Republican Party was taken to task over sanctions set in place against County Commissioner Marc Boldt who frequently went against his stated position in campaigning as a Republican to be elected to the County Commission.

Of course, the Columbian did not bother to say anything until months after the sanctioning that I know they had to be well aware of as they were mentioned on this blog in November 2011 and Columbian follows both this blog and Clark County Politics to see what we are up to.

We saw first the article “David Madore to challenge Commissioner Boldt” in the Columbian on Mar 18, 2012. It is well known that Mr. Madore is not a favored person and is often the subject of critical articles due to his speaking against the CRC and light rail.

Shortly after the article announcing his candidacy against Mr. Boldt, we saw a slate of articles condemning the CCGOP and defending Commissioner Boldt for having an “Independent streak” on the council, meaning he voted with Democrat Commissioner Steve Stuart in favor of the CRC and light rail.

We saw “Why was Boldt sanctioned by GOP?” on Mar 22, 2012, “In Our View: GOP Wounds Self-Inflicted” on Mar 25, 2012, “Boldt not allowed to speak at convention on Mar 27, 2012, “Boldt flap prompts two to quit GOP board” on Mar 28, 2012, “County GOP convenes at Hilton,” on Mar 31, 2012 that made sure to mention Boldt being sanctioned, followed by “Herrera Beutler supports Boldt, Mielke” in their All politics is local blog on May 4, 2012 and finally a John Laird editorial, “Banishing Boldt, distrusting drones and pushing peace” on May 6, 2012.

We also saw in the Letters to the Editor, “Boldt’s principles on Mar 27, 2012 by Don Jacobs, “Commissioner Boldt earns respect” on Mar 29, 2012 by Frank Brown, “Allow independence in politicians” on Mar 31, 2012 by Joe and Gayle Beaudoin with the claim, “For the Republican Party to reprimand Boldt for his outstanding work and logical thinking is shameful.”

That was followed by “Fed up with partisan posturing” on Apr 2, 2012 by Marjorie Casswell with, “Kudos to Boldt for breaking the mold,” “Local GOP obsessed with orthodoxy” on Apr 10, 2012 by Alan Rossi with “It’s time that “reasonable” voters begin to rethink voting for a Republican Party that puts party purity over the interests of compromise that will benefit all of us,“Democracy dimming” on Apr 16, 2012 by Wilfred J. Hudson and “A balance chronicles state of nation on May 13, 2012 by Al Fischer.

The sanctions placed against Commissioner Boldt amounted to being removed from the Clark County GOP’s website and not being able to use the party’s resources, such as financial support and mailing lists.

The Columbian and several Democrat poured in to defend so called Republican Commissioner Marc Boldt, condemning the Republicans and boasting of how they do no such a thing to members of their party.

Clark County Democrat Party Vice Chairman Nick Ande said of the Boldt sanctions,

“The Clark County Democrats are a ‘big tent’ organization. We don’t assume that all Democrats are going to have exactly the same views, and we appreciate that diversity in viewpoint within our party rather than admonishing it. No county Democrat has been blacklisted because they have what are perceived as more moderate viewpoints.”

49th Legislative District Jim Moeller said,

“I can understand your frustration with some of Mark’s positions,… but to sanction him and to expect him to heel to the party platform is political lunacy!”

Just last Saturday, June 2, 2012 to be exact at the Washington State Democrat Convention, they did just that. They expected one of their own to “heel to the platform” as perceived by Jim Moeller.

After all of his rhetoric against Republicans over Marc Boldt, when Democrat Jon Haugen was proposed to be nominated and endorsed to oppose Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler for her 3rd Congressional District seat, it was Jim Moeller rising up to speak against the nomination, in essence, “sanctioning” Jon Haugen. He will be “cut off from campaign funding that the party doles out to the Democratic candidates,” just as Marc Boldt is cut off from Party resources by the Republicans.

After introducing himself, when called upon for discussion of Jon Haugen’s nomination, Jim Moeller said,

“I don’t usually stand in opposition to nominations; it’s just not my style. And I believe that Jon Haugen is a good and decent man, I want that to be said right out front. But I do not support this nomination and I don’t do so (pauses), I don’t do so, um, in other words, let’s just say this, I’m not aware that Jon is truly a Democrat, in many ways. He has ran as a Democrat and he also ran as an Independent. But when push comes to shove, he does not represent the values that I want to see in a Democrat, in a Congressional Democrat in the 3rd Congressional District, particularly regarding the Columbia River Crossing.

Now, in Spokane we have the North / South Freeway. In King County we have the Alaska Way Viaduct and the 520 Bridge. (Speaker interrupts with you’ve got a limit to 2 minute speech so you’re close to the end of it) Thank you Mr. Chair. In my district it is the Columbia River Crossing This candidate stands against funding of the Columbia River Crossing, he stands against our current governor, he stands against our gubernatorial nominee Jay Inslee, he also stands against our senior senator from this state, Patty Murray. (Speaker: Thank You) Moeller: No!

I quick look at Jon Haugen’s webpage concerning issues shows how he lines up with Democrats on every issue, except Moeller’s desire to ram Portland’s light rail down our throats in Clark County with the CRC.

The comments made by Moeller drew quick anger from Mr. Haugen’s daughter Allison through Twitter.

Another daughter, Jessica, responded to a rather insensitive comment left at the Columbia’s single mention of this “fairly horrible experience” at the Democrats convention with,

“I encourage you to do research prior to making statements on public platforms. My father did canvass for Obama, he has doorbelled and phone banked for democratic candidates since our family moved to WA in 2001. He has always been a strong supporter of Patty Murray and Governor Gregoire.”

“My father was the only private citizen to testify before before the state legislature on the issue of simple majority for passing school bonds – which was passed and is now law. Numbers of public schools, both in the 3rd district and others, have benefitted from the passage of simple majority.”

“You are entitled to your opinion – but what I take issue with – is when people use public forums to spread rumors, mistruths, and try to smear other people, which is what Jim Moeller did at the convention and what you are trying to do here.”

In another reply, Jessica Haugen said in part,

“His comments were hurtful and made me ashamed of my own party for the first time in my life. When my mother confronted Jim after he made these comments, he agreed that democrats will stab each other in the back – which is exactly what happened.”

But, Jim Moeller and several others denied that Democrats would “stab each other in the back” when they had to chance, thanks to the Columbian’s several articles and mentions of the sanctioning against Commissioner Boldt while those of us claiming they do were ridiculed and labeled liars, as usual.

Of particular note, concerning the glaring bias from the pages of the Columbian, several articles and letters above condemning Republicans sprang up and sporadically continued over 2 months. Early on, an editorial labeled the action a “Self-Inflicted Wound.”

Even Jim Moeller at the time commented, “Why would you hand us (the D’s) such an obvious political win? Do you think voters vote for your platform or for the candidate?” and labeled it “political lunacy.”

So where are the editorials describing the Democrats “self-inflicted wound” over not endorsing the only Democrat to run against the Republican in the 3rd Congressional District? She is a very weak incumbent, her main advantage being the redistricting that made the 3rd Congressional District more favorable to Republicans. But still, her vague words and weak position have upset many conservatives which could leave her vulnerable to well backed candidate.

But the Columbian sees what was done to Haugen as merely a “fairly horrible experience” while doing virtually the same thing to Marc Boldt was a “Self-inflicted wound.”

It doesn’t even merit mention in the weekly “Cheers & Jeers” column. As I said, the bias is so glaring it is blinding. The publishers and editors down at the Columbian must wear some very dark glasses throughout the day to be able to not see it.

Jim Moeller’s arrogance and hypocrisy have now bled over to his party where his personal view is of more importance that the very “diversity” they recently boasted of as he demands lock-step with his views, or be shown the door. He is dividing his own party into  “circular firing squad.”

It is doubtful the Columbian’s bias in favor of the Democrats will ever subside, but voters can oust Jim Moeller and we can begin rebuilding a sense of compromise and cooperation sorely lacking for so many years in our legislature.

But as long as Jim Moeller occupies the legislative seat, his arrogance will not permit it.

4 Comments to “Of ‘Self Inflicted Wounds’ and ‘Fairly Horrible Experiences’”

  1. For the Columbian to plead that they lack bias makes as much sense as Obama blabbering that the “private economy is doing just fine.”

    Their bias is legendary and easily documented. Their savage attacks against those preceived to have an “R” after their name (Myself, Peter Van Nortwick and Brent Boger immediately come to mind) while letting those they support completely off the hook (Jim Jacks and 49th District democrat Chair Mike Heywood (another “unbiased” former Columbian editorial page editor, sacked for indulging in his computerized porn fetish at work) as a matter of course.

    Moeller and the Columbian are rabid supporters of Boldt, (My brothjer-in-law, by the way) because Boldt has long since ceased voting in any way comparable to a Republican; in short, Moeller’s babble and the Columbian’s interference in matters that are, frankly, none of their business, was caused, in part, by Brandon Vick’s mishandling of the Boldt matter and his inability to shut up about it.

    Their hypocrisy in issues like these are legend.

    Their removal from Clark County’s political scene would be a major, positive, achievement.

    Until then, lies, hypocrisy and exaggeration combined with an institutional leftist double standard will be the order of the day.

    Like

  2. Apologies for posting in an inappropriate location; I wish you had a “contact” blurb such that I could submit this, but here goes:

    1. Facebook (when linking to David Madore) references a Columbian story which I cannot paste. I’m using Internet Explorer 8 Private Mode, and suspect that is part of the problem. I see the link, but cannot copy/paste it.

    Searching for Jeanne Stewart on Columbian’s website is amusing – they do not return results by date. Instead, it almost appears as if they’ve tried to make the search results as negative as possible. Please try to reproduce my results (by searching on Jeanne Stewart) and see what happens.

    Looking at Madore’s site, *something* appears to have happened wrt Stewart, but I can’t figure out what. Maybe it is time for the Vancouver council members to have their own website? The relevant link appears to be:
    http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/jun/05/stewart-yanked-from-transport-board/

    IMO she is the only adult on the Vancouver council. Like you, I’m outside of the Vancouver city limits, but am affected by their decisions. I’d vote for her in a heartbeat, as she appears to be the only adult on the board.

    PS – You and I have certainly disagreed (and I strongly suspect we would continue to do so) however kudos for allowing the community to weigh in. Columbian requires Facebook registration, which I will not allow. Thanks for allowing anonymous contribution. The authors of the Federalist Papers would certainly agree with your decision!

    Like

  3. Jeanne Stewart was removed from the RTC because she does not agree with the current desire for Bus Rapid Transit on Fourth Plain as designed. She announced she would not vote for it on the RTC, so to keep with the council policy of all council representatives voting the same, she was removed.

    Much like with CRC, it’s Leavitt and his cabals way or the highway.

    Like

  4. I hope this website address helps.

    http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/jun/05/stewart-yanked-from-transport-board/

    My Thoughts: Judging from the 6(?+) to 3 RTC vote – It looks to me that Vancouver City Council Members: Jack Burkman, Bart Hansen, Larry Smith, and Jeanne Harris truly do not have a grasp of the poorly developed financials surrounding this C-Tran project. RTC is the second committee/council to reject the BRT’s moving forward, until better financials are presented. There are absolutely legitimate reasons why both committees/councils, could not, in good conscience, vote for this project to move forward. What is stunning to me, is that these four named council members did not recognize that. Mrs. Stewart was up front and was were very candid in bringing up the topic of her concerns re: C-Tran’s inability to supply hard, verifiable numbers. Bill Turlay supported Mrs. Stewart in her decision to follow her conscience and good fiscal policies and reject C-Tran’s Fourth Plain BRT proposal until real, true numbers were presented. Jack Burkman, Larry Smith, Bart Hansen, Jeanne Harris then removed her from sitting on the the next day’s RTC board meeting.

    RTC confirmed her assessment and voted to reject C-Tran’s BRT proposal for the very same reasons as Jeanne Stewart and Bill Turlay. It is concerning when, with the exception of two, the Vancouver City Council is so far off in its understanding of sound fiscal policy and procedures as it pertains to these big projects. We all should be concerned that five City Council members didn’t care how this project was going to be paid for.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: