The Two Faces of Jim Moeller

by lewwaters

Moeller FacesBombastic, Arrogant, Narcissist, Megalomaniac, all adjectives that have been used and well fit 49th Legislative District Representative Jim Moeller, the Democratic easily reelected to a 5th term in what may be one of the most liberal districts in the state and definitely in Clark County. Moeller is well known as a ‘tax & spender’ always seeking ways to increase taxes and throwing money around, our money, not his own, as if a clown in parade.

From his ‘candy tax’ that was quickly nullified by voter initiative to his joining a lawsuit to invalidate voters votes on another citizen initiative calling on the legislature to require a 2/3 majority vote to increase taxes, Jim Moeller sits in his legislative office ignoring those he is elected to represent unless they are in agreement with his special interest agenda’s.

He is unable to accept any blame for failed policies, like most other liberals and will easily affix blame for his many failures on Republicans, even though they have been the minority party for over a decade. Nope, not Jim, he never does anything wrong. Just ask him, he’ll gladly give you example after example.

He also gladly grabs credit for what others have accomplished as if he were responsible, also much like other liberals.

A prime example is a recent bill put together in the State Senate to see our county receive a little more of our sales taxes returned from the state, Tax bill brings lawmakers together where the two parties set aside political differences when lone Democrat, newly elected Annette Cleveland joined 3 Republicans, Ann Rivers, Don Benton and Curtis King in sponsoring the bill. Our local pro-Democrat newspaper initially gave credit to Cleveland for the bill, but did correct it several hours later.

But is a good example of how we have wanted the parties to work together and what we had hoped to see more of with the formation of the ‘philosophical majority’ after last year’s election.

Enter Jim Moeller who left the comment under the Columbians article,

“It’s always important to work together when we can. I’m the prime sponsor of the companion bill in the House along with Rep.’s Pike, Harris, Orcutt, Vick, Johnson, Wylie and Stonier. Bi-partisanship is not just a slogan, but the way the vast majority of governing in this state is done. There are really only a handfull of issues that partisanship rules which is why we have a two-party system – so everyones voice is heard. Eventually however, the majority rules.”

On the surface, a reasonable comment we expect to see coming from our elected officials. But, let me direct your attention to,

“Bi-partisanship is not just a slogan, but the way the vast majority of governing in this state is done.”

The reason I direct your attention to that sentence is due to another comment left by Jim Moeller under a December 3, 2012 editorial, In Our View: Wrestling in Olympia addressing the ‘philosophical majority.’

“The Columbian Editorial Board gets all goose-bumpy with the possibility of a ‘bi-partisan power arrangement’ in the senate. It really only shows their ignorance in the how governing works. The quest for a ‘philosophical center’ is a recipe for disaster. It is best the one party or another (we are a two party system after all) have the majority and the other operate as the ‘loyal opposition’. Although the R’s in the Senate would like to believe they will determine what will happen. In the end, the Democrats will hold the cards and will either be blamed and/or praised for the result.”

In December as the ‘philosophical majority’ was becoming a reality, a bipartisan leaning legislature was a “recipe for disaster.”

But when such a bipartisan bill is put together and praised, it’s “but the way the vast majority of governing in this state is done” and no longer “just a slogan.”

Challenged on this blatant contradiction by another commenter, Jacob Anthony Smith, Moeller dances with,

“Jacob: Bravo! But what I said was that The Columbian’s idea of a bi-partisan power-sharing senate was ‘ignorant of how governing works’ as we are a two party system not a parliamentary one. Two Democrats (and 23 Republicans) does not a ‘centrist’ Senate make. ;-)”

First it’s a recipe for disaster. Then it is the way things get done, but does not make the Senate centrist, leaving the newspaper “ignorant of how governing works.”

And isn’t the whole idea of bipartisanship for the two parties to compromise when possible towards the center to fairly govern for all, not just one side or the other?

MoellerI have long maintained that liberals have incrementally shifted the center well onto their side, pushing conservative views and values aside and Jim Moeller shows just that attitude. To him, apparently “centrist” means whatever he wants and Republicans just caving in agreement or stepping aside.

As long as Jim Moeller gets what Jim Moeller wants everything is fine. When he doesn’t we see his hissy fits.

And then he’ll just keep prancing down the street, oblivious to the plight of constituents he continues to lift his middle finger towards.

6 Comments to “The Two Faces of Jim Moeller”

  1. Perhaps the biggest narcissist since B-HO. Moeller’s corruption is the worst politics has to offer in the legislature, outdone only by the slime oozing from every pore of Tim “The Liar” Leave-it.

    Like

  2. Lew is Jim wearing panty hose in that picture?
    Just wondering…

    Like

  3. Well people. Let us just be determined to make sure that this is his last term. Anchor him to his votes and spread the word every time to every one you know whether they are in the 49th or not they will talk to some one who is. I am running against him still and will have my campaign kickoff event next month. We will unseat him and we will work for the better government in Olympia with representation that is the voice of the people. We cannot just step aside, we cannot. People even those that are democrats deserve a better government with fiscal control.

    Like

  4. Thank you Lew. This is the Jacob who challenged Moeller’s claim. I was ecstatic to be in your blog and more than honored. I knew there was going to be a blog entry about Jim Moeller about last night. What I challenged was him praising bi partisanship by using a quotation from December (I did say November accidentally,we all say in-factual things every now and then) where he calls the senate working together a disaster. I also pointed out that same sex marriage had to pass with Bi-partisan votes because 3 democrats voted against it but a good question I asked Jim was, in the event we have to override a veto and all of the Republican house caucus says yes to override (43 votes) and 23 democrats join them and override the veto, who gets praised for the result of the override? Another scenario involved the same sex marriage but it failing in the senate. What if that had happened? Would Lou or John Laird criticize the republicans for not breaking party lines? would the 3 democrats that voted against it be subjected to the same criticism.

    Like

  5. I always try to give credit where credit is due, Jacob and you did a great job challenging Moeller on his words 🙂

    As for Brancaccio, Laird or any of the rest criticizing Republicans for ‘breaking ranks,’ it’s as I often say, if it wasn’t for double standards, they would have no standards at all 😉

    Like

%d bloggers like this: