>A conversation with Pat Campbell, Vancouver City Councilman.

>

I absolutely do give Pat Campbell credit for engaging with his political opponents, something rare in a politician anywhere and unheard of at the local level among those ramming the bridge and loot rail down our throats.

While I believe Campbell and those like him to be wrong on every level: the facts, the impacts, the costs and the outcomes, Campbell at least makes the effort.

And for that, he is to be congratulated.

He wrote in the comment section of my post: With the Columbian, it’s perfectly OK to lie in a campaign….

I know some of you were quite upset last Tuesday thinking you had elected Leavitt. I am not so sure of that. I think it had to be more that just the anti-toll folks:

1) Ogle and Turlay were anti-toll and not elected.

2) Burkman was pointed out as being “pro-toll” and was elected.

So in my mind there was more to Leavit’s election that just the tolling issue. An opinion- Pat Campbell

To which, I responded:

There may very well could have been. But isn’t all that beside the point?

The man ran on a lie. This sudden awakening was a crock. I find it highly unlikely that Leavitt magically gained knowledge on tolling after the election that he didn’t have before the election. And that’s the trouble, Pat…. even more so then his cynical and absolute decision to use the tolling issue to gain support from the anti-toll segment of the electorate.

Of course, Leavitt also got $40,000 or so from David Barnett that didn’t hurt, either.

The idea that Leavitt NOW knows what he apparently didn’t know then is absurd. His position was purely electioneering; he had no intention of being opposed to tolls. He was for tolls from the very beginning; his decision to publicly abandon that issue now and let the Columbian PR arm go to work to rehab his image was a purely political decision as well.

The ONLY way to genuinely “oppose tolls” as Leavitt campaigned on is what I told him: the simple thing to do is stand up and tell those in charge: if you toll this thing I will do everything I can to kill it.

And his cowardly response to the issue of an advisory vote: how DARE he tell the public that such a vote would be meaningless. It’s only “meaningless” because Leavitt is not about to risk a massive public repudiation of his pro-toll position. He doesn’t want a mere thing like the will of the people to get in the way of his agenda… much like, come to think of it, you.

There is no excuse for building this without asking us. None. And Tom Mielke appears to be the only one who has tried to get this project in front of the people for our input. Leavitt doesn’t want that. Stuart doesn’t want that. The governor doesn’t want that and frankly, it appears that you don’t want it either.

In the entirety of my life I never believed that any government that governed me could possibly care so little about the will of those they would govern…. until now.

Regardless of whatever else Leavitt ran on, he ran on this lie. And now, the question: when do we believe him? How do we know when he’s lying… and when he’s telling the truth?

I knew he was lying from the beginning. Said so from the beginning. Steve Stuart on his campaign? There is NO WAY Stuart would allow anyone who didn’t share his perspective to win.

Leavitt defrauded the people as much as Sam Adams in Portland. And for that, he deserves everyone’s condemnation, including yours. But I’m not holding my breath.

Because like all of the bridger/looters, none of you are going to have to pay for this unneeded and unwanted monstrosity. As a result, it’s completely unrealistic to expect you to make any effort to hold Leavitt accountable or to do the right thing in his regard.

Thanks for stopping by, Pat.

Leading to this effort by Mr. Campbell:

I am for the bridge and light rail after coming to the conclusion that we need to get started before our current transportation system collapses. (Some would argue it already has.)

I know we have a group that is opposed to CRC and tolls. We also have an even greater group of citizens and business people who feel the project has to be completed or we will stagnate economically.

Small groups can have a big effect if the cause is supported by many others. The issue of the Port tax increase without a vote was one of those. The fizzling of Patellas petition indicates that outside of a few folks, most want CRC to move forward. – Pat Campbell

To which I reply: Pat, thanks for stopping by again. But for purposes of this discussion, what the people may or may not want is secondary to the issue of Leavitt’s lies, manipulations and misrepresentations of his positions, all for a political purpose.

That Leavitt lied is irrefutable. That he received votes because he lied is also irrefutable. That such was the purpose of his lies is self-evident. That you and others similarly situated are doing nothing to hold him accountable for those lies speaks for itself.

You seem to be supporting him because, as I pointed out, it’s OK to lie when the liar supports your position. You should be holding him accountable by any number of ways available to you all, and yet you’re not. But then, Leavitt’s now in your “pro-toll” fold publicly, instead of privately, where he’s been from the very beginning.

As far as the bridger/looter project?

Pat, I will be the first to admit that I-5 here locally is a mess…. But I believe it to be a designed-in mess.

When I moved here after I got out of the Army, there were just under 200,000 people living in Clark County. Now, of course, there are over 430,000, a huge increase over the 21 plus years I’ve lived here. Next to nothing has been done to our transportation system to keep up with that growth, and now we’re faced with spending what amounts to $4 billion dollars so light rail can take the “camel’s nose under the tent flap” approach as, perhaps, THE most expensive transportation project for the number of people it will actually carry in the History of this planet… all while the true problem remains unaddressed; a lack of road miles for our increasing population.

While our transportation system is light years from “collapsing,” (after all, 65,000 commuters go over the bridge before noon, and 65,000 commuters come back after noon every business day) it is, certainly, distressed. But the distress will not be relieved by kicking the dead horse known as replacing, with the same number of through lanes, or ANY number of through lanes, a bridge in the same place.

At some point, we are going to get additional bridges. Portland, as I understand it, has 11 bridges that cross the Willamette. That we have a grand total of TWO to serve the needs of a community of a half million is absurdity wrapped in stupidity.

So, do we add a third and fourth bridge now? Or do we wait 20 or 30 years when it becomes so obvious that even a CRC supporter can believe in the need…. And it cost twice as much?

Because right now, you and your fellow travelers are talking about spending what amounts to an unlimited number of billions (Think Boston’s “Big Dig.”) on a project that will not do what you seem to think it will do; all the while disrupting life, traffic patterns, Clark College, and the budgets of tens of thousands of commuters… for a project that tends to show the net impact will be zero change by the year 2030.

You tell me:

I know we have a group that is opposed to CRC and tolls. We also have an even greater group of citizens and business people who feel the project has to be completed or we will stagnate economically.

How, precisely, do you know this to be true? And of that “group” you name, how many of them will have to pay for this?

See, Pat, it would be easy for me to make you, through force of government, pay for something that I’m not going to use… or pay for.

You have absolutely no evidence to support your contention. And when the issue was brought up, and Leavitt actually had the gall to look at his constituents and say, in effect, that such a vote wouldn’t make any difference or have any value, I almost threw up.

When Leavitt trashed the idea of an advisory vote as “meaningless,” I had to leave the school. If ever there were a display of arrogance towards the people and what they want in addition to his obvious lies about being opposed to tolls, THAT was it.

NO vote on ANYTHING should EVER be “meaningless.”

Leavitt has REPEATEDLY told people that he won’t support an advisory vote because he KNOWS the project would lose overwhelmingly. So here, you say even more people want this then don’t… but you have nothing to prove that… and you certainly have nothing that indicates support from those who would be on the hook the most to pay for it: the commuters of Clark County.

So, why don’t you people put this to bed? Find a way to hold a county wide advisory vote on this project. If you do that advisory vote and the people actually DO support this, then I will never say another word about it.

It would be cheaper and far more accurate than any poll done to date, and it would forever put this question to bed.

But Pat, we both know that you’d never make such a demand. You tell me that you support the whole package… so why would you ever risk letting a little thing like the will of the people actually get in your way? After all, it won’t be YOU paying the $1200 to $1800 per year in tolls to go to work every day, will it? And I’ve got to wonder: would you be so hot to make this thing happen if you had to pay, out of your pocket, $1500 or so a year, like you’re working to force everyone else who will have to use this bridge to pay?

“Economic stagnation?” What happens to our local economy when your project vacuums out $100,000,000 million per year out of our local economy, monies that will go to tolls instead of, for example, movies, pizza, newspapers, ice cream, park fees, the Clark County fair and the like because YOU and the others supporting this monstrosity will task 65,000 other families to pay for something THEY don’t want…. Money from which no government entity will see a dime in revenue that otherwise would have produced almost $9,000,000 or more in sales tax.

What impact is THAT going to have on our economy? Or is the economy of the unions who are going to be the direct beneficiaries of this project what concerns you the most?

Mr. Campbell went on:

Small groups can have a big effect if the cause is supported by many others. The issue of the Port tax increase without a vote was one of those. The fizzling of Patellas petition indicates that outside of a few folks, most want CRC to move forward.

Sorry…. But that’s nonsense.

That Patella’s effort failed is meaningless given the fact that he had no time and no money.

PLEASE don’t believe for one second that, for example, if Patella had paid signature gatherers, or the ability to go up on TV or radio that he wouldn’t have come back with 20,000 signatures.

Pat, you’ve been in politics long enough to know that there is much more to an issue than whether or not the campaign to address it was funded or handled properly.

You want to know for sure?

Then hold the vote. But that you can extrapolate what the people want from an unfunded campaign in too short of a time and divine what the rest of us want is absurd.

Hold the vote, Pat.

But then, as I said, we both know you won’t. But that you and the rest of the CRC seem to have deluded yourself into actually believing that the people truly want this waste of billions is, perhaps, the most dangerous thing of all.

In closing, let’s not lose site of the main issue: Leavitt ran a platform that was primarily based on telling people he was actually opposed to tolls. I knew all along that he actually favored tolls, and the whole thing was a political ploy. Rightly or wrongly, nothing in your response refutes that.

That Leavitt is a liar is irrefutable. And there’s no way this particular pig can be dressed up to change that.

Again, thanks for stopping by.

Cross posted at Tim Leavitt Watch.

.

<img style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; FLOAT: right; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none" id="SPELLING_ERROR_42" class="zemanta-pixie-img" alt="Enhanced by Zemanta” src=”http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=4a6df10d-8025-411d-bc40-32ed9dc3d20e”>

>Democrat Vancouver City Councilman Pat Campbell stops on by to defend Herrera’s SEIU sell out.

>.
Look, I get that Jaime Herrera pledged to “be a friend to organized labor” when she lied her way into her appointment to the 18th District House seat a couple of years ago. But co-sponsoring SEIU bills to provide collective bargaining to child care workers and then twice voting FOR such a moronic bill?

Well, how “Republican” is that?

I guess it boils down to who you want caring for your children and grandchildren? Folks who have some substance or folks in extreme poverty? Having been a day care licensing caseworker and a parole officer, I have an opinion on this. Herrera is consistent in wanting the unborn and born protected. You folks are also consistent…

-Pat Campbell

(Anonymous) 1/30/10

I appreciate former Republican Pat Campbell stopping by to share his vision and union cheer-leading, a view that dovetails so closely with Herrera’s.

So, let’s get this straight: both democrat Campbell and faux Republican Herrera like the idea of jacking up the cost of child care/day care so much that it will make it impossible, for any practical purpose, for low-income wage earners to be able to afford the much higher rates for day care this kind of idiocy will ultimately cause?

It is frightening that either of these two were ever elected to anything, of course, given their obvious inability to determine the long term impacts of their efforts. And, of course, Campbell’s vision includes such outright stupidity as ramming an unneeded and unwanted bridge with loot rail down our throats (An act that will ALSO hurt hundreds if not thousands of daily commuters who will have to PAY for this bridge and loot rail that we do not want… and do not need.) as well as getting rid of the sales tax exemption for Oregon shoppers; and who moronically enough has requested that “God forgive” those smart enough to oppose that tribal blight on our community, the massive Cowlitz megacasino.

At the end of the day, if child care workers don’t like the money…. well, they can certainly find some other line of work. Slamming those least able to afford his moronic view of the world along with that of our empty suited faux Republican who co-sponsored and voted for the SEIU-inspired bill?

Why would any Republican ever vote for Herrera, again?

Because with friends like fringe-leftist democrat Campbell, there’s no percentage in voting for a fake Republican when the real deal happens to still be available.

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.
.

>The idiocy of local legislators and government on the out of state sales tax issue.

>.
Deb Wallace represents the poor clowns of the 17th District, which fortunately (probably for both of us) doesn’t include where I live, although I lived and worked for the district for 6 years.

Wallace is single-handidly responsible for wasting over $100,000,000 on pre-ordained outcomes for the CRC… and she, too, has been a major cheerleader for ramming that $4 to $8 billion or more boondoggle down our throats that none of us want and that is not needed.

The irony of all of this?

Her moronic, high-profile “hurray for me” effort in getting rid of the out of state tax exemption wouldn’t be necessary if that massive waste of money was ever built.

Oregonians won’t be caught dead paying for the dubious privilege of coming over here. The numbers of out-of-state sales would drop like a Hernandez curve right over the plate.

But many of our more moronic types, like Wallace, want us to buy off on the moronic idea that ending the exemption will magically raise hundreds of millions of dollars for our coffers.

That’s a crock, of course. Along with local moron Pat Campbell, Vancouver city councilman and public employee martyr/bridge cheerleader extraordinaire, they stupidly think that ending this exemption will solve anything or accomplish anything, except to increase sales in Oregon boarder counties is as ludicrous as thinking we HAVE to replace the I-5 Bridge for BILLIONS just to get the unneeded and unwanted loot rail into Clark County.

It will not.

Those from Oregon who shop here will have less than zero incentive to do so without the exemption and if they have to pay an unnecessary toll for the privilege. As much as they developed a mind set over the years about shopping here, even the wide play of Wallace’s asinine effort will negatively impact that curve, since both this asinine paper and Wallace have announce to the entire fricking planet that we don’t WANT Oregonians spending their money here.

As Deb Wallace and Pat Campbell have shown and continue to show, intelligence isn’t a requisite part of the resume’ of those who con the electorate.

And to the commenter “PJ” who wrote this:

So of those of you who think public employee benefits are generous, how many of you are willing to go into a burning building? Or walk down a dark alley after a 6’6″ 295 parolee? How many of you are willing to sit at a table banging out a report of vandalism while a delusional, lost my job, taxes are too high crazy person is walking into the same shop with a gun and a plan?

I tell you, not one of you.

My brief response is this:

*I* would. Every damned day and twice on Sundays.

Public employees are not supermen and women. My response to you, PJ, is this:

If the damned job doesn’t pay enough? Then quit.

But stop thinking you’re so damned special (You’re not… you’re nothing special, and you’ve CHOSEN to work for us.)

Don’t like the pay? Don’t like the massive benefit package?

The get the hell out. I’m sure hundreds would have no difficulty applying for your job, you ungrateful ingrate.
.

>I guess Pat Campbell is just delusional.

>.
Earlier, I posted Campbell’s moronic observations in my post below concerning the unwanted and unneeded I-5 replacement bridge and loot rail. Well, unable to leave well enough alone, he shows his ass again with this inanity:

by Pat Campbell : 11/13/09 5:21pm – Report Abuse

Allen we are trying to take care of the immediate problem: An elderly lift bridge that doesn’t function well and may be destroyed by an earthquake. Taking care of all the problems you mention is not the main issue here.

Years ago during the Depression America stood up and built electricity generating dams and waterworks. As the time, there were people who were dead set against this. Now the same kind of people use those generated electrons to put their notes on the walls of this blog…

Pardon if I did not respond to your 9:08am post, but I have a life. I will have a life after I leave office. I only ran for office because no one else would and I was asked to. I did not ask for any campaign contributions and I promised I would act as a devils advocate on some of the major projects we are dealing with. I’ve come to the conclusion that they are reasonable projects and are worthy of support. I have 25 months or so left in office and maybe you negative folks want to run for office themselves or support someone else. Great! I don’t own Council Position #6, I am just trying to do my human flawed best for Vancouver as a whole while in it.

Well, let’s start with this lie:

Allen we are trying to take care of the immediate problem: An elderly lift bridge that doesn’t function well

No one has ever indicated that this bridge doesn’t “function well.” Since the replacement bridge will do absolutely nothing to address congestion and will suck billions of dollars out of our local economy, the only alternative to the current, perfectly safe and more than adequately functioning bridge is absolutely unacceptable.

and may be destroyed by an earthquake.

And frogs may not bump their asses if they only came equipped with wings.

ANY bridge across the river MAY “be destroyed by an earthquake,” AND THAT INCLUDES A REPLACEMENT BRIDGE.

Has the idea of retrofitting the bridges we have been explored?

Of course not.

Taking care of all the problems you mention is not the main issue here.

And it isn’t for you, either, moron… because nothing you’re advocating will do that, since you start with a lie and then ignore any other alternatives.

The ONLY acceptable outcome of the fake studies was the pre-ordained outcome we’ve been presented with: replacing the I-5 Bridge and jamming loot rail down our throats.

Of course, constructing 2 OTHER bridges in OTHER lo0cations WITHOUT loot rail would take ALL the pressure of the I-5 bridge and THAT could be done for the same money or less.

But bridgeaphile morons with blinders on won’t even consider the most viable of all alternatives, because NEITHER alternative would do what the ENTIRE point of this project is supposed to do: bring loot rail into Vancouver.

As for the rest of Campbell’s babble, cry my a river, scumbag. YOU are the one that posted up that “I need knee pads for Jacks “crap earlier; don’t even THINK about talking that shit without hanging around to defend it.

And in the face of your MAJOR lack of commitment as a reason to run for office; your BURNING desire NOT to provide the best possible representation…. do us all a favor and fricking quit, you whiny, sniveling little twit.
.

>Pat Campbell and Jim Jacks: residents of the moron zone.

>.
Perhaps the only thing worse than the sophomoric and completely biased effort by our despicable rag of a paper to rehabilitate our Cowardman Baird’s image are their incessant lies and propaganda about replacing the I-5 Bridge and bringing loot rail into Clark County.

To date, they have engaged in shameless propaganda and lies, including using bogus, unsupportable polling to support their position in their ongoing efforts to further their agenda, a campaign that puts the entire concept of “journalism” to shame.

So, today, we get another in the series of lies and bogus articles designed entirely to convince us that we actually want this crap pile, while beginning the obviously needed process of providing political cover for the morons that want this bridge, no matter how horrific the fiscal damage to our community.

Like every other article they’ve ever printed, the complete lack of an opposing view is obvious and contrived. The idiots voting for Tim “The Liar” Leavitt numbered in the thousands, and yet these scum made NO effort to find any opposition to the bridge?

Jacks can stare at a dog turd and hope it turns into a diamond, which is precisely what his exercise in flatulation accomplished with his nonsensical spewing of what 50 hand-picked businesses, the vast majority of which neither understand that a new bridge will do NOTHING for congestion OR freight mobility and the vast majority of which WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY THE TOLLS IN QUESTION, BUT WHO BELIEVE THAT BUILDING THE BRIDGE WILL TEMPORARILY INCREASE EMPLOYMENT, THUS TEMPORARILY INCREASING THEIR REVENUE as a basis to screw us, the rest of us who are FORCED to go to work on the other side of the river, something neither Jacks nor bridge sycophant Pat Campbell are forced to do.

And, of course, when people on THIS side of the river have to pay unnecessary and unwanted tolls to go to the OTHER side of the river, does it make it LESS likely, or MORE likely people will stay here and patronize THEIR businesses?

Kind of obvious, isn’t it? As for me, I will do everything I can to avoid patronizing ANY business in Jack’s district (mostly Vancouver proper) on the off chance that ANY of those idiots took part in Jacks’ scam.

So, when a rookie legislator like Jacks tries to manipulate a situation with the willing complicity of our local stain on journalism, the Columbian; he needs to be much more subtle about a self-ordained an outcome, much like the moronic politicians need to be more subtle about screwing us.

“Build a new bridge and build it now.”

That was the message from 47 of the 50 business owners interviewed by state Rep. Jim Jacks during his series of face-to-face meetings over the past couple of months.

Everyone from pizza shop owners to managers of large manufacturing operations told the Vancouver Democrat that time was money and if a new bridge would untangle interstate traffic, the price would be worth it even with tolls.

The problem, of course, is that this unneeded and unwanted bridge, which is, in it’s entirety, ONLY being built to bring loot rail into Clark County; WILL NOT DO THAT.

IF a new bridge WOULD “UNTANGLE INTERSTATE TRAFFIC,” even *I* might support it!

But IT WON’T!

So, what would be the position of these same businesses be if they knew they were being played? And note that even the new and improved (and allegedly cheaper) bridge design INCLUDES loot rail, BECAUSE THE WHOLE POINT OF THE BRIDGE IS LOOT RAIL.

And then, along comes a little worm in by the name of Pat Campbell.

Like Tim “The Liar” Leavitt, Campbell is one of the biggest cheerleaders for this monstrous waste of money. And here’s today’s STUPID remarks from yet another tax and spend politician who doesn’t care how much damage he does to the local economy of it furthers HIS agenda.

by Pat Campbell : 11/13/09 7:54am – Report Abuse

What Jim Jacks has apparently found is that when you go out there and talk to folks they generally understand the need for the bridge and other community improvements. The negative folks who haunt these blogs and show up to some of the community meetings are quick to jump on anyone who disagrees with their views and demand proofs that they themselves can’t provide for their positions. (Its a breath of fresh air when reasoned folks show up and challege[sic] us elected leaders to think outside the box for better solutions like those who are working for an East Vancouver BNSF quiet zone.)

Mr. Jacks and Mrs. Anderson are doing their respective jobs. If you want to be a representative, run for office. If you want to be a business reporter, go to journalism school and learn some ethics in the process.

Clearly, this moron wouldn’t know “ethics” if they bit him in his “spend our money without asking us” ass.

It IS perfectly OK for people smarter than a rock ape to disagree with scumbag like Campbell without being ethically challenged; if anything, Jacks’ ethics should be in question because he hand-picked people he bothered to ask, without bothering to ask ALL of us (something those affiliated with CTrans have got down to a science) if WE want this steaming crap pile, instead limiting it to people he knew would support his position…. people our local embarrassment would report about without identifying.

So, while violated ethics ARE at hand here, this despicable rag and Jacks bear the most guilt for that problem, and those idiotically blinded by their biases, like the idiotic Campbell, are the most guilty through their association with those who would ram this thing through without getting the approval of the people… kinda like, for example, Tim “The Liar” Leavitt.

You need fresh air, Campbell. The puke you spew stinks up the joint for miles, and has obviously damaged your pea-brain.
.

>So…. Jack Burkman announces a run at the city council…

>.
Interesting. Kinda.

The question for me is this, and it’s a question I couldn’t answer by looking at Burkman’s web site:

Are you for this massive and idiotic bridge replacement and loot rail? (Early betting? Yes… just too frightened to admit it.)

Which leads to the natural follow-up:

Are you just another Pollard clone? (Again, the early betting is yes.)

Burkman’s last try for elective office didn’t work out all that well.

A quick analysis of that effort:

_______________________________________________

Burkman-Campbell Analysis

Background:

Position 1 of the 17th legislative District has been named as a top-tier race by Democrats based on their perception of vulnerability.

In Republican hands since Commissioner Marc Boldt’s upset victory over then Democrat Majority Leader and 5 term incumbent, Kim Peery in 1994, Democrats made repeated serious efforts to take the seat back, running an insurance agent, a union vice president, and a marine biologist against Boldt, never understanding that a democrat inculcated and running as if they were in the 49th District could not win anywhere but the 49th District. Burkman was no exception, garnering support from ultra-fringe organizations such as Progressive Majority and Washington Conservation Voters.

The short story of this situation is that Paul Waadevig, (failed candidate for Cowlitz County Republican Chair, who then got upset and threw a tantrum, switching to the Democrats; who then falsely carpetbagged a candidacy in the 17th District Senate Race against Benton, (Waadevig never moved out of the 19th District) who mangled him with 57% or so.) announced for the Jim Dunn seat. After the announcement, Frank Chopp came down and did a dog and pony show, allegedly interviewing “seven” possible candidates for the right to run against Dunn.

“Earlier this year, Burkman won the backing of the state Democratic Party, and $10,000 was funneled into his campaign by House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle. Burkman eventually raised nearly $95,000 and ran a high-profile campaign, devoting part of every day to canvassing the fast-growing 17th District..“ Source- The Columbian, 19 Sept.

It’s fairly clear that local multi-millionaire and democrat campaign philanthropist David Nierenberg, who has provided several thousand dollars in direct and indirect contributions to the democrats in a variety of campaigns and to the House democrat caucus, was behind all this.

I base this on Nierenberg’s vitriolic response to the defeat of his “project,” as stated below (and no, I didn’t write it.):

Dazed and Confused – Democracy for Vancouver – http://www.democracyforvancouver.org –
Posted By not thinking at all On 23rd September 2006 @ 10:56 In Democrats, Local elections,

Elections No Comments
The Columbian chimes in with a [1] doozy of an opinion piece penned by local [2] Boy on the Bus, Gregg Herrington:

Dazed Clark County Democrats are trying to figure out what it was voters in the 17th Legislative District were thinking, or if they were thinking at all, in Tuesday’s primary.

53% of the Clark County Democrats are elated. Democracy prevailed!

Once they finish slogging through that bog, they and future candidates in both parties have a bigger issue on the table: Does Pat Campbell’s winning campaign, run with low effort on a next-to-nothing budget, suggest a shift in how future campaigns will be run?

One can only hope there is a shift. Campaigns need to be about much more than money and platitudes.

Democrats are not only dazed, they’re also despondent, because they’re convinced the real winner in that contested Democratic primary was neither Campbell nor Jack Burkman, but Republican incumbent Jim Dunn, the portly, low-energy-campaigner with the good-old-Louisiana-boy persona who will face Campbell in the November election.

Who are these Democrats that Herrington talked to? Again, the majority of Democrats are elated. Why not talk to the multitudes of Democrats that are excited to have Pat Campbell take down Dunn? Fighting Democrats don’t throw in the towel.

Finally, here’s the money quote requiring special attention:

“I have not seen such a mass suicide since Jim Jones fed his flock poison Kool-Aid in Guyana,” said David Nierenberg, an east county political activist, philanthropist and booster of schools and other civic causes. He said Democrats in the 17th, which is between I-205 and Camas, “tossed out a terrific candidate and a probable winner for the certainty of a loss in November.”

Well, since over half of the Democratic electorate has just been called mindless cult members, let’s get in to the mud shall we, Mr. Nierenberg?

It was you who decided that Jack Burkman would be the unofficial Democratic Party nominee prior to the primary, and you wrote the big checks to back up that decision and make others bend to your will. The HDCC, to which you’ve contributed $50,000 since 2002, had to play ball. The HDCC was warned that imposing a candidate on to the local grassroots would have serious ramifications, of which they decided to ignore.

So now that the voters have spoken in the primary, you now contend that the race is over, that the weakest Republican incumbent in all of Southwest Washington is not beatable. Mr. Nierenberg, this is the same attitude that Joe Lieberman has displayed in his senate candidacy in Connecticut. Real Democrats support their nominees, they don’t go making whiny statements to the media when their candidate loses, and they volunteer their time and money, no matter who the nominee is.

It is your check book, and you can decide to sit on your hands this race, which is your right, but don’t expect Fighting Democrats to automatically jump when you demand something.

Pat Campbell’s victory is a testament that money is not everything when it comes to electoral politics. Money is an important ingredient in the political loaf of bread; but flour without yeast just makes pancakes. You can either work in partnership with local activists, who would sincerely appreciate your input, or continue, along your current path of frustration.
_______________________________________________________

Nierenberg is not known for being particularly bombastic, and I am reasonably sure he would withdraw the comment he made if he could. That this otherwise intelligent and educated man allowed his anger and confusion to boil up to the surface in a way that has damaged his image among area democrats (who probably no longer fear him after this debacle) shows how deeply frustrated this local democrat fundraising icon (He dropped $35,000 into the Stuart race in one way or another.) appears to be.

The irony in all of this (and there IS an irony) is that none of this was necessary.

Had Burkman just come in like any other candidate and fought it out with Waadevig without interference from Chopp or big money, I have little doubt that he would have flattened Waadevig (who is an empty suit that, no matter how much he wanted to win in the 17th, since he ‘s never lived in that district.) to become the democrat nominee without interference from Campbell, and with a unified party infrastructure behind him.

In determining what happened, I think it best to start with what DIDN’T happen.

In today’s (25 Sept) article in the Columbian Campbell is quoted as claiming that his website was the deciding factor.

I don’t believe that for a minute.

In his interview, the article said, “Campbell spent $68.17 and didn’t ring a single doorbell, choosing instead to campaign on his Web site and through free media coverage.”

There are at least two reasons why this doesn’t work. First of all, I’ve been to the website, but I’m one of the very few.

I can flatly state that the web site played exactly zero role in this outcome.

First, I had to look up the name of the website. In fact, I’m having a hell of a time finding it now. I put in “Pat Campbell democrat website” and it wasn’t in the first 4 pages. Instead of something simple, it was a very forgettable name:

http://www.patservesus.com/index.html

Looking at the website, it violates almost every rule of campaign websites (But then, Campbell violated almost every rule of campaigns in this primary… and he won.) It looks like it was slammed together by a 7th grader with the assignment due tomorrow.

But that’s only a secondary issue. The question is how did anyone really know the website existed? How many people would go through the effort needed to track the name down (I, ultimately, had to go to the democrats website… aka bluedonkey.com, another idiotic choice for the Clark County d’s website name).

Because Campbell wasn’t out there… and did no signs or ads with his website address on them… very few could possibly know the site existed.

As a result, while it isn’t impossible to track the address down, it is difficult… much more difficult then it needs to be…. Resulting in a much-reduced likelihood of major web site traffic… especially to the point where the result would be just under 5000 votes in a contested primary.

And, even if you can actually navigate to Pat’s positions, they’re filled with the typical platitudes, lies and half-truths so common for left-of-center websites. Then, of course, there’s a picture of a woman just pulling in some endangered species out of what appears to be the Columbia… just what you need for the environmental vote.

So… was it Republican crossover?

An intriguing thought… let’s look at the numbers.

The combined vote for the Position One race was just over 9400 votes.

The vote for Position Two in the 17th District was 9674.

Republicans crossing over to vote for Campbell would not then turn around and vote for Wallace… yet Wallace had more votes then Burkman and Campbell combined.

If there was a substantial crossover, that should have be reflected in a correspondingly lower number for Wallace, not a number even larger.

That is not to say that there was zero crossover. But the numbers suggest that the crossover was extremely limited and, ultimately, had no impact on the final outcome.

So, what did happen?

I believe it to the Rage/Resentment Factor.

At the end of the day, the very public and ugly way this deal went down was the cause of the Burkman debacle.

People resent being dictated to, particularly in public. Chopp, as they say, ain’t from here. He’s an ultra-leftist from Seattle, representing the district that’s home of the Lenin memorial statue… much, much too far to the left for the 17th. Because Nierenberg made the decision that Waadevig couldn’t beat Dunn, he exercised his Boss Hogg-like leverage and ordered Chopp to get somebody else… a somebody else that he, Nierenberg, just happened to have in mind.

It is quite-simply astounding that the “Powers-that-be”™ decided to pound this square peg into a round hole, so badly mishandling such an easily done chore. I repeat: had they simply let Burkman come in against Waadevig or anyone else, he would have run them over like a tank to face Dunn.

And, as is all to frequent in this business, the pounding of the square peg into the round hole results in both a damaged peg… and a destroyed hole.

In this case, Nierenberg was swinging the hammer; Burkman was the peg, and the 17th District, the hole.

Without even realizing it, they doomed Burkman because they lacked any concept of subtlety.
The people of the 17th generally and the democrats particularly did a slow simmer after the coup over this issue. That resentment turned up to boil when the insult was reinforced by the stupid handling of the Campbell candidacy… and the Columbian’s asinine efforts to hammer Campbell with a bogus endorsement of Burkman only served to activate those carrying the rage from the handling of this matter to begin with.

We need to remember that the Clark County Dem Chair and treasurer both resigned in protest over this… and they took many of the party stalwarts with them. For the democrat voters of the 17th, payback was at the ballot box, and they delivered in spades.

The question is, how or will this impact the race with Dunn?

With what amounts to two “anti-campaigns” going on at the same time (Campbell so far has stuck to his guns over the idea that he won’t take “special interest money” (He has reported no income as of this writing but I have a source that indicates that HDCC will do independent expenditures on his behalf.) and in the best of years, Dunn’s campaign desire/abilities/capabilities have never been inspiring.)

I believe that the democrat anger-factor has been spent… the message from the democrat voters to the state and local leadership sent… thought perhaps not received, given the unrelenting arrogance of those in such strong political control of this state.

So, now we have two candidates, one pledging to, in effect, avoid campaigning and the other with a rather proven record of failing to achieve a meaningful campaign. Taking it a step farther, Burkman ran a campaign that followed all of the traditional steps expected of a campaign… a campaign that I believe would have been successful if the powers that be had just stayed out of it.

I have never looked at two campaigns for the same position where both candidates were an X factor; where none of the conventional measures of a successful campaign seem to apply.

The questions that will determine this outcome are these:

What does Campbell offer?

How closely does he reflect the majority views of the district?

What can he do to increase his name-familiarity to match or exceed that of a 3 out of 4 term incumbent?

What WILL he do?

Will the HDCC do what it seems HROC plans to do for Dunn… in effect, campaign “around” him?

From the democrat point of view, there is NO chance they’ll lose the House this election. My analysis shows a 2 to 3 seat pickup, in fact. Do they need to expend time, effort and energy on a race that puts a completely new meaning to the axiom “Never mud wrestle with a pig?”

Chopp wound up looking like an idiot on this thing. Does he want Campbell around to remind him of his stupidity, and to remind others within the democrat caucus of this sorry episode?

On the other hand, Richard DeBolt was confronted with those same questions as a result of his idiocy when, early in 2004, he very publicly directed Rep. Jim Buck to visibly rebuke Jim Dunn, directing him to tell the Columbian that HROC would not support a Dunn candidacy, an observation dutifully reported by our newspaper. Of course, the assignment of Jon Russell to Harris proved to be disastrous for that campaign, and even though Dunn typically, ran a nothing campaign, he “Campbelled” Harris … all of which resulted in the same situation we have now, a Dunn-Campbell race where Dunn won by 5000 votes, a crushing defeat for Campbell, particularly given the non-campaign Dunn ran.

What’s changed?

Very little… except for a slightly larger (3000+ voters) increasingly affluent, and therefore, theoretically more Republican, electorate. (Affluence is assumed by virtue of the higher real estate prices that new arrivals had to pay for their homes.) The economy of the district remains strong, another huge plus for an incumbent.

Absent a major, and I mean MAJOR effort by independent expenditure on the democrat’s part (Major as defined by something in excess of $100,000) I cannot see where the outcome this November will be any different then it was last election.

Given Burkman’s poll the week before the primary date (49, 38 undecided and 13 Campbell) one might ask what good would a poll do in this situation. The response is that Burkman’s poll was at least partially accurate (Burkman received just over 47.5% of the voter, a rather remarkable 1.5% variance) and he failed to appreciate the fact that even with all of his money, support and cash expenditure, he was under the magic 50% level, a huge oversight on the part of him and his backers. ANYTHING can happen when a candidate alleged to lead a race is under 50%. And this race proves it.

As a result, pending yet another major Dunn faux paux, even the Columbian’s endorsement of Campbell will have no real effect on the outcome… and I have to rate this race as strong lean Republican.
.

>Vancouver Keeps up the fight against the Cowlitz MegaCasino; Campbell flips out

>.
Look, there are a great many more reasons to oppose the imposition of this organized criminal enterprise than there are to support it. Most people acknowledge that; it’s why David Barnett appears to have failed in his most recent efforts of political corruption when he, again, attempted to buy Pam Brokaw in the Clark County Commissioner election; a matter of wasting $75,000 in a last minute nuke of the process.

Now, the article is here: in short, it indicates that Vancouver has notified the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of their intent to appeal the recently-thrown-out decision to kick the suit against the Cowlitz Tribe over their efforts to stuff their casino down our throats.

Phil Harju, famous for HIS sexual harassment issues (detailed here🙂 comes out with his standard clueless shlock of “hammering” Vancouver for wasting money, etc, etc, yaddah, yaddah.

“This is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money,” he said Monday.

Apparently, Mr. Harju has mistaken where he lives as somewhere within the borders of the city of Vancouver instead of Olympia; thus what he thinks of Vancouver’s actions in this regard are a worthless as boobs on a boar hog. Still, given his utterly monumental arrogance (and man, don’t we WANT an organization ran, in part, by people getting restraining orders from women and making a practice of spending tens of thousands of dollars to corrupt our elections, people who act inappropriately in matters of sexual harassment and people who, in fact, have been fired because of sexual harassment? Why, I can’t imagine why folks don’t beat down the door to BEG such an outfit to locate here in the face of such rabid opposition.) and his position as mouthpiece (since they shelved Barnett due to his “women – restraining order” problems) I suppose this sort of thing is to be expected.

“The tribe is still willing to have discussions with the city of Vancouver on a government-to-government (basis),” Harju added. “There’s no need to sue the federal government.”

Of course there’s a “…need to sue the federal government.” When the fed is getting moronic by giving any serious consideration to this horrific project and they won’t otherwise listen to reason, suing them is the only alternative left.

What’s surprising about all of this is that city councilman Pat Campbell, assuming these entries underneath the article are, in fact, by city councilman Pat Campbell) has apparently lost his ability to reason.

Here are the comments under the article:

Comment (show/hide)
by Lamont Cranston : 11/17/08 6:01pm – Report Abuse

More taxpayer money ****** on something to be determined by the federal government. $100000 could be better used to help the homeless families with dependent children instead of a group of lawyers in Seattle.Besides that why didn’t you use lawyers from Vancouver? Seattle has enough of our money through the taxes at the gas pump.

by baseball bat : 11/17/08 6:31pm – Report Abuse

the homeless with dependant children are all tweakers and freakers. give the kids to a reponible person like lamont to raise.

by M Johnson : 11/17/08 7:14pm – Report Abuse

baseball bat, you are ignorant.

by pat mugerl : 11/17/08 7:57pm – Report Abuse

what a waste of my money to fight a lost cause, the casino is going in anyway. lacenter has nothing to do with casino, its in ridgefield.

by Pat Campbell : 11/18/08 6:53am – Report Abuse

I think if you check the record we have not had an executive session for legal matters since the dismissal of the prior lawsuit. At that time I believe media was advised that the city stated something like, “It was pretty speculative so we are not surprized.” I certainly was not consulted about appealing that decision. Having our attorneys pursue this with given our financial circumstances doesn’t sit well. How do you tell good people that they have to be let go while you have time and money to legally challenge Native Americans who want their version of the Waterfront Project 10 miles north of Vancouver? It should have been brought to executive session.

by Pat Campbell : 11/18/08 7:02am – Report Abuse

So every year we hav a big celebration at the Fort with the Nez Perce while we are slamming the Cowlitz who are providing local social and health services out of new health department building at I-5 and Fourth Plain. I can see why people become bitter. God forgive us.

by Allen Hoff : 11/18/08 7:08am – Report Abuse

Is the city of Vancouver against the casino because they (da Mayor) will be unable to dip into the money? Think of the construction jobs that would be available for unemployed construction workers. That would help Clark County, wouldn’t it?

by Pat Campbell : 11/18/08 7:12am – Report Abuse

Allen, that was an argument for approving $$$ for the Waterfront Project last night.

by Rip Torn : 11/18/08 7:19am – Report Abuse

Uh, Mr. Harju… you don’t live here. What we do with our money down here is no more your business than what your tribe does with its money up there.

In short, if we want your advice, we’ll ask for it. But how we do what we do is none of your business. Besides, aren’t you busy defending your actions in that sexual harassment suit that’s cost Thurston County $1.5 million (not including legal fees) that was just upheld by the Court of Appeals?

http://www.theolympian.com/southsound/story/661350-p2.html

by Pat Campbell : 11/18/08 7:19am – Report Abuse

This is another example of why we need to have our executive sessions recorded as I advocated last night at our workshop with AWC lobbyist Mark Brown.

___________________________________________
So, I believe I’m going to take this opportunity to answer many of your questions, Mr. Campbell.

Let’s go!

Mr. Campbell asks:

Having our attorneys pursue this with given our financial circumstances doesn’t sit well.

That all depends. It doesn’t sit well with Barnett or the Cowlitz, but it “sits well” with me and tens of thousands of others. Are you on the tribal payroll?

How do you tell good people that they have to be let go while you have time and money to legally challenge Native Americans who want their version of the Waterfront Project 10 miles north of Vancouver?

Pick a method. In writing… by phone… word of mouth… anything like that will do.

The idea that any elected official could even remotely begin to equate the Waterfront Project (which I do not support) with one of the largest casinos on the face of the earth tends to show that Mr. Campbell operates under a high level of delusion.

I’m stymied here. That anyone could do the “Waterfront Project = MegaCasino” math with a straight face is frightening.

Vancouver is absolutely doing the right thing here. The megacasino project does not belong here and is not wanted here. Vancouver is attempting to make that happen.

It should have been brought to executive session.

I’m sure you’ll bring that up. But make sure the initial action on the legal challenge didn’t include permission to appeal to begin with.

So every year we hav[sic] a big celebration at the Fort with the Nez Perce while we are slamming the Cowlitz who are providing local social and health services out of new health department building at I-5 and Fourth Plain.

Well, I would venture to say that what we do with the Nez Perce has nothing to do with and is totally irrelevant to the Cowlitz situation. In fact, if the Nex Perce were trying to screw this community the way Barnett and the Cowlitz are making that effort, I’m not so sure the celebration would be taking place.

As for the Cowlitz’s efforts to suddenly act like they belong here or have a history here, I’m surprised that you’d be drinking that kind of Kool Aid, Mr. Campbell. They don’t.

So, why are you shilling so hard for them? Looking for work? Looking for another huge Barnett check like Brokaw got?

I can see why people become bitter.

So can I. That anyone could be elected to any political position with such a total lack of knowledge and such complete ignorance about the many and varied and massive damages this megacasino will cause this community is enough to embitter anyone.

The idea that an elected official would take a public position that confirms his bias to the extent that he should recuse himself from any votes on these matters goes to a particular level of ignorance about how these things work, don’t you think?

God forgive us.

So, you really think God will have a problem with any legal efforts to keep this criminal enterprise from taking place?

Actually, Mr. Campbell, if anyone should seek “God’s forgiveness” perhaps you should start. Abrogating your responsibility to the voters because of the possibility of a great buffet or something is indefensible. Having to jack up our taxes even more to put up with the massive impacts of this casino is even worse.

Meanwhile, efforts by the city to bail out the Columbian on their building debacle continue; efforts that will cost the taxpayers additional tens of millions, and Mr. Campbell seem strangely silent about that, instead, focusing on a legal fees that, if successful, would ultimately SAVE the city tens of millions down the road.

So, if you repent your idiocy, maybe God can, in fact, forgive you. I’m not so sure about those of us who vote.
.