>.
I have my own conclusions for another post, but this is important reading for those who want to be fully informed.
Baird Healthcare Response 112009 http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=22817446&access_key=key-1hsgfg02lcrhnr6v4qvl&page=1&version=1&viewMode=list
.
>.
Far too many of us worked too hard and sacrificed for too long for you to sit this one out.
While there may be a temptation to blow this off, don’t.
We have the opportunity to send a message to the liars and manipulators of truth, those who believe us too stupid to see through the subterfuge, the litany of lie upon lie so that truth is trampled like the ideas that make this country the greatest the world has ever known.
There’s still time. Do a little research; gets the facts…. READ the bills, LOOK at the candidates… not what they say, but what they have done; because from what they HAVE done, you can tell what they WILL do.
In our idiotic haste to get rid of polling places for our elections, we’ve made it “easier” and “cheaper” by mailing our ballots. I’ve always been opposed to that because I feel it cheapens the process; makes it less important.
So, as soon as I post this, I will be jumping into my rig and heading down to the middle school to hand carry our (My wife’s and mine) ballots into the school.
It’s as close as we can get to the real thing.
Vote. Get your ballots in. Do it now.
.
>.
So: here we have one Tim “The Liar” Leavitt in the local rag:
Leavitt did not dispute the union’s account of his voting record. “Making sure to vote is very important, and I regret the instances where I did not register my opinion on the ballot,” he said in a statement.
But he added, “This isn’t really about my voting record on the ballot. It’s my opponent’s desperation on the eve of an election where he looks to be losing his longtime control over our city. How does this sleazy maneuver help our struggling communities today?”
And in the Oregonian across the river? Well, not exactly the same position.
If, as Tim “The Liar” tells us, this little issue has “…discounted… significance,” then why so many versions? Why lie about it?
The stupidity of statement’s like this:
He also disputed the union’s contention that he didn’t vote on three Vancouver School District maintenance and operations levies. Records show that Leavitt didn’t live in the district boundaries at the time. Instead, he lived in the Evergreen district — where he missed two of that district’s money measure votes.
Can’t be overstated.
It would appear that Leavitt can’t even lie properly…. and up to this point, he’s been so very good at lying.
The problem here is this:
Leavitt’s screwed on this issue. As a result, instead of standing up and taking his medicine like a man… instead of holding himself accountable for his multiple failures in civic duty and acknowledging that those failures make him unfit for ANY elective office; instead of withdrawing from this election and resigning his city council seat, instead of doing the HONORABLE thing…
…. he whines…. and snivels…. and blames others for HIS failures. He’s a complete clone of Steve “Easy Money if it’s from Barnett” Stuart.
Is that the kind of leadership Vancouver needs… a weasel who deflects, who blames others… who is incapable of manning up and holding himself accountable for being a selfish jerk who thought so little of his civic duties when uncounted thousands of others had made the supreme sacrifice to insure that he could exercise that duty?
I was talking to a friend of mine about this very thing last night. We were downing a couple of aircraft carrier sized-burritos at Peppers, and he looked around and told me, “You know, there are some illegal aliens with better voting trecords that Leavitt.”
Yes, the two faces of Tim “The Liar” Leavitt. But even combined, they amount to a squalling little piggy, unfit for the trough, let alone the most critical leadership position in Southwest Washington.
>.
As stated here, here, here and here, the sheer unadulterated idiocy of restoring voting privileges before the completion of a sentence, with it’s decreased likelihood of the payment of restitution to a criminal’s victims or government, is obvious.
The leftist moron who wrote this editorial supporting this bizarre nonsense fails to address, in his haste to restore the felon’s “rights,” that the felon violated the victim’s rights without a second thought.
We’re lied to:
First, regaining the right to vote could encourage many felons to obey laws and avoid recidivism. They were accustomed to rewards for good behavior in prison, and this would be one more reward for them to earn.
Utter nonsense. They provide not one shred of proof that recidivism is influenced in any way by voting rights. Not one. It sounds good, so they print it.
But I just can’t feature any of these clowns going, “Gee, if I rob this 7-11, I won’t be able to vote in the upcoming school bond levy.”
Second, it would encourage participation in the democratic process. After being under government’s thumb (deservedly, for they broke the law), felons could reclaim in the right to vote a way to help elect those who serve in that same government.
This non sequitur is a right they voluntarily gave up by violating the rights of their victim. And who would they vote for? A candidate more likely to get tough on crime? Or a candidate more likely to be lenient while the public gets caught in the middle and screwed?
Third, this change would signal to felons that society is more interested in compliance with the law than in exacting revenge. Our state’s current prohibition of voting by felons after incarceration is not only malicious, it’s essentially a poll tax, denying to poor felons the right to vote that affluent felons are able to reclaim. Currently, felons cannot vote until completion of parole or probation and payment of all restitution and other court fees. The new law would allow them to vote as long as they stay current on payments.
I’m touched by the concern expressed here for the criminal. But when it comes to the victim?
Not so much. What this law “signals” to a criminal is that when you shoot someone, either killing them or crippling them, this newspaper is going to be far more concerned about your right to vote then it is your requirement to pay your restitution.
They falsely equate restitution, which is, after all, an effort to at least partially make your victim whole, with a bogus poll tax. That is a crock of pure, grade A BS.
When the “new law” fails because felons WILL NOT “stay current” on their restitution payments, how long will it be before this newspaper leads the charge to remove even THAT requirement?
And what mechanism has that waste of skin Sam Reed implemented to enforce any of these requirements?
Reed will make sure that all felons are registered as a part of their release program, and then do absolutely nothing to make sure that they ARE current. If he couldn’t set up a program that would keep track of convicted felons that haven’t had their rights restored, how can anyone expect this incompetent boob to set up a program to keep track of these felon’s payments?
This bill is sheer idiocy. I wonder when we’re going to see this rag write an editorial demanding that convicted felon’s gun rights be restored?
After all, the Second Amendment isn’t the second suggestion, and all these arguments for restoring felon voting rights can certainly be applied to restoring felon gun rights.
In fact, substitute the word “gun,” for the word “vote,” and you come up with a pretty persuasive argument… right?
First, regaining the right to possess guns could encourage many felons to obey laws and avoid recidivism. They were accustomed to rewards for good behavior in prison, and this would be one more reward for them to earn.
Second, it would encourage participation in firearms training. After being under government’s thumb unarmed for so many years (deservedly, for they broke the law), felons could reclaim in the right to own firearms to help protect others from criminals.
Third, this change would signal to felons that society is more interested in compliance with the law than in exacting revenge. Our state’s current prohibition of denying felons the right to possess or own firearms after incarceration is not only malicious, it’s essentially a requirement for felons to remain helpless and unarmed, denying to poor felons the right to self defense that affluent felons are able to reclaim. Currently, felons cannot own or possess firearms until completion of parole or probation and payment of all restitution and other court fees. The new law would allow them to own or possess firearms as long as they stay current on payments.
That, of course, is “different” somehow. Right?
But is it?
A “right” is a “right.” Voting is a “right,” and so is owning or possessing a firearm. How can anyone supporting this bill oppose the restriction of ANY “right” by these people?
The fact is that the primary driver for this bill, our utterly worthless leftist-masquerading as a Republican Secretary of State, Sam Reed, has shown a monumental level of incompetence when it comes to administering the issue of keeping felon voters of the rolls.
Of course, that incompetence is, in part, driven by his agenda which has included the elimination of the felon voter rules for years now. To that end, Reed has done absolutely nothing to set up a system to identify felon voters to keep them from voting.
Well, he HAS whined, repeatedly, about how HARD it is to do that particular task, but besides that, he’s done absolutely nothing to implement that requirement, and in the last election, he was directly responsible for sending out 10’s of thousands of ballots to felon voters disqualified from voting by their felony conviction.
And now, we expect this clown to implement a far more exacting, far more complicated and cumbersome system than a blanket prohibition?
Ohhh. I’m really confident. Aren’t you?
The leftist rag sickeningly claims racism as the basis for the opposition to this issue, contending that because of the “disproportionately” high percentage (I guess the idea that a “disproportionately” high percentage of people committing crimes just happen to be “of color” doesn’t enter in to their world) of criminals are “of color,” that could “conceivably” (“Conceivably?” Is this guy smoking crack? What was the minority vote in the last election?) favor Democrats.
I oppose this bill ONLY because those who will benefit from it are those who cheerfully and willingly violated the rights of their victims without concern to voting rights.
The ONLY question to consider is this: Will this bill make it MORE likely… or LESS likely that restitution will be paid?
The restoration of rights should ONLY be granted after the COMPLETION of ALL of a sentence. To complete incarceration… mandatory… required incarceration because YOU have VOLUNTARILY committed a crime or crimes, EARNS you nothing.
Again, I seriously doubt that any of the morons supporting this travesty face the possibility of restitution from a convicted felon. I seriously doubt that any of the women who had voted for this had been rape victims. I seriously doubt that any man who voted for this had a murdered wife or child. I seriously doubt that any of these people have had a knife held to their throat, had their house burned down or have been robbed at gun point.
Ladies and gentlemen, this isn’t about race. This is about holding those who would victimize us fully accountable for their actions… not scamming the system with $5 per month payments so we can get more criminals voting.
And this newspaper presents NOTHING… and those supporting this garbage present NOTHING that eliminates the need for accountability… and to make the victims whole.
You want to crank this up?
Then put these people on a repayment schedule and LOCK THEM BACK UP WHEN THEY FAIL TO STICK TO IT.
But don’t even think they’ll give a damn enough about this precious right to avoid recidivism just because a bunch of liberals got together and decided to remove yet another layer of accountability.
In our view April 16: Progress for Felons
Those who have completed incarceration are one step closer to regaining right to vote
Thursday, April 16 1:00 a.m.
State senators correctly voted on Wednesday to restore voting rights to tens of thousands of felons once they complete their incarceration. The decision was as decisive as it was logical. The vote was 29-19, basically along party lines, with Vancouver Democrat Craig Pridemore wisely voting for the measure and local Republican senators Joe Zarelli and Don Benton opposing it.
The bill returns to the House, where it passed last month, for a vote on an amended version. Senators on Wednesday approved an amendment that would allow voting rights to be revoked again if a felon intentionally fails to comply with legal financial obligations. We’re not sure that amendment contributes much to the bill. It would seem to place on felons who no longer are incarcerated an additional financial requirement to vote that nonfelons do not face. Even so, the imperfect bill would be an improvement over the status quo. We hope it is approved by the House, where its sponsors include Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver.
Arguments both for and against felons regaining voting rights (after incarceration) are rational and reasonable. Two opposing views are presented in capsulized forms accompanying this editorial.
If this change occurs, Washington will become the 14th state (joining Oregon) to restore voting rights to felons who complete their incarceration. Two states — Vermont and Maine — allow even incarcerated felons to vote. That’s too lenient, in our view, but once a felon comes out from behind bars, regaining the right to vote could accomplish three things.
>.
Yesterday, our local version of Pravda got cute and decided to keep their above-the-fold headline story off the web, Baird questions bridge financing plans.
There really wasn’t much of anything new in the article. As a completely owned subsidiary of the Downtown Vancouver Mafia, Inc, Baird has reveled in scamming the taxpayers for yet another downtown taxpayer ripoff, in addition to helping out Obama with his socialist income-redistribution program.
But he has been in the chorus of the “you ain’t gettin‘ much, if any, federal dollars for this massive waste” for quite some time now.
The arrogance of those behind this massive waste cannot be overstated. And in today’s political science lesson, I’m going to point out to you yet another example of when a congressman, or any other elected official, can hide behind tyranny in their guise of a “republic” when they don’t want to hear what the people have to say.
I congratulate Mize for finally mentioning the almost $1300 per year that each of the 65,000 or so commuters will have to pay to cross into the Soviet Republic of Portland from the Taliban City of Vancouver.
That is the first time I’ve ever seen ANY number that gives us the bad news as to how much the pro-bridge types; who rarely, if ever, will have to pay this obscene amount of money to go to work; want to force us to pay to commute.
That’s right, folks. In the midst of this horrific recession, jacking our unemployment through the roof, people like Commissioner Steve Stuart, Vancouver City Councilman Tim Leavitt, Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard, LaCenter Mayor Jim Irish and a host of others want to ram this massive bill down our throats.
The problem is that our local Congressman, Brian Baird, wants to do the same, if this piece of crap is ever built.
Oh, he couches it in terms of concern. He says things like:
Baird said he understands tolls would be a huge cost for commuters and he isn’t advocating higher tolls. Instead, there needs to be a public discussion based on accurate cost projections and corresponding benefits, such a s a reduction in commute times, he said.
This, of course, is an outright lie. You see, Congressman, I don’t give a rat’s ASS what you, allegedly, “understand.”
What I want to know is what you’re going to DO about it. Which, if this article is to be believed, is absolutely nothing.
“If you pay $2 and you can get to your kid’s soccer game, a lot of times I would pay those $2,” he said.”
This may be the dumbest thing any congressman has ever said.
You have to be a complete moron to couch it in these terms. This isn’t ABOUT “soccer games,” you idiot. SOCCER MOMS ARE NOT THE ONES THAT WILL HAVE TO PAY ANOTHER $1300 PER YEAR TO GO TO WORK.
This is about 65,000 people going to work in Oregon every day, and paying ANOTHER $1300 PER YEAR FOR THE PRIVILEGE.
So, does our erstwhile Congressman believe that those of us who are going to get stuffed with this bill should have any say?
Nope. He utilizes the “Republic” scam as an excuse to keep us silent and out of the discussion.
Baird, a six-term congressman, said there needs to be public input on tolling and other issues, but stopped short of embracing a public vote on the contentious crossing project. Baird says he believes in the republic form of government as envisioned by James Madison and other founding fathers instead of a pure democracy.
The problem here is that first, Baird ain’t no James Madison and second, using THAT bizarre reasoning, why should government ask us anything at all?
Using the Baird model, taxes should just be imposed. We shouldn’t have any say.
Using the Baird model, there shouldn’t be any school levies or bonds. We should just be forced to pay whatever government wants.
In fact, why have elections at all? Why go through the fake motions that we are anything approaching a democracy, and just give up any say at all to the totalitarian vision of Congressman Brian Baird?
Here’s why, Mr. Baird.
Have you ever heard of Article One, Section One of the Constitution of the State of Washington?
Here. Let me help you with that:
SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
Now, I get that Mr. Baird doesn’t give a damn about the state constitution. After all, he’s a FEDERAL representative, so minor details like the constitution of this STATE aren’t going to impact him.
But this ISN’T a FEDERAL issue. This is a STATE issue. And in THIS state, OUR CONSTITUTION SAYS WE HAVE THE SAY.
With all due respect to James Madison, who, if I’m not mistaken, never came out and said:
“When the public of a given area are faced with the largest, by cost, public works project in the history of the Northwestern United States, they should remain silent and be kept silent by a government or group of governments who do not want the people to interfere with their agenda.”
I also don’t believe he ever came out and said:
“When a group of people will be tasked to pay over $80,000,000 per year on a project, government ought not ask them if they WANT the project government is forcing them to pay for. Government SHOULD, as a matter of “republic” sentiment, just ram the project down their throats, no matter how much it will damage families, individuals or the economies of local communities.”
Of course, maybe I missed my poli sci classes when the subject came up, but I don’t think so.
Mr. Baird, you cannot hide behind the flimsy facade of “republic” as a reason to keep the people silent on this issue.
You cannot invoke Madison to support your tyranny, and expect those who know better to remain silent.
If you do not come out and demand a vote for us, you can expect to see the wrath of 60,000 plus in the next election. I’m certainly not as educated as Mr. Baird. But I think 60,000 pissed off people, furious because no one in their government listens to THEM or cares about the impacts of this project on them might be JUST enough for you to lose.
Show some guts, Mr. Baird. Defend our right to have a voice. Don’t hide, because there’s no where you can go where this issue will not confront you. And when you get tied into Obama’s abysmal performance, why, you just might need to file for unemployment come January 2011.
.
>.
Democrats have been trying for years to increase the felon vote, much like they’ve worked very hard to increase the illegal alien vote.
Is there any doubt that thousands if not millions of illegal aliens are registered to vote in the country? Is there any doubt that democrats have made serious efforts to enable and encourage that vote?
Well, here in Washington State, democrats on a party-line vote brought their dream a step closer by eliminating part of the sentence requirement before voting rights are restored to convicted felons.
That is, in the democrat world, felons that have violated our laws, damaged or stolen our property; assaulted, raped, kidnapped, or even murdered our citizens and others should not have to complete all of their sentence before democrats make them eligible to vote… democrat, of course.
So, the guy that raped and murdered your wife and daughter and then got out on probation after 8 years or so, can now vote the moment they get out… no restitution required.
That makes perfect sense in the world of the democrat politician, where all votes are welcomed and sought after… including the votes of illegals and convicted felons who have not completed their sentences.
Sam Reed, our waste-of-skin Secretary of State who sent out what… 27,000 illegal ballots to convicted felons ANYWAY in the last election, will be thrilled.
The rest of us, victimized by these people… and now by State House Democrats… including Wallace, Probst, Jacks and Moeller?
Not so much.
Why is it that I believe that none of these clowns who voted FOR this piece of garbage have ever been victimized by a felon?
I wonder… if, say, the parents of Wesley Allen Dodd’s victims… or Ted Bundy’s victims, were they in the legislature, would have voted for this despicable, moronic bill?
Wash. House approves broader felon voting rights
Felons would be able to vote before paying off their court-ordered fines under a bill approved by the Washington state House on Tuesday night.
Felons would be able to vote before paying off their court-ordered fines under a bill approved by the Washington state House on Tuesday night.
Under current law, convicted felons in Washington can’t vote until they have served their sentence and paid all restitution and other legal fees.
The bill approved on a 53-43 vote would give felons their voting rights back after they’re released from state custody, including the completion of any parole or probation.
The felon voting rights measure now heads to the state Senate for consideration.
Supporters of the bill – all Democrats – said the state’s present system amounts to a poll tax because people who have turned their lives around but can’t afford to pay court fines are kept from voting.
Rep. Sam Hunt, D-Olympia, said the measure also would help state elections officials by clearing up a gray area: Under current law, it is difficult to determine whether a felon who is no longer in state custody has legally restored his voting rights.
But Rep. Ed Orcutt, R-Carrolls, objected to Democratic pleas that Washington should move toward some 30 other states that allow quicker restoration of felon voting rights.
“We shouldn’t be making it easier for felons to vote. All those other states should be making it harder,” Orcutt said.
Copyright © 2009 The Seattle Times Company
>.
If our economy wasn’t such a wreck, a wreck now wholly-owned at both the national and state levels by democrats, it would be great hilarity to watch them pulling out and sharpening their swords as they continue to ready themselves for political hari kiri.
For years, Republicans have been warning democrats loudly and longly that they CANNOT view the state check book as their own personal play toy. Democrats, for their part, have essentially told Republicans to get stuffed. The result? Thirty percent budget growth of the last 4 years, an entirely unsustainable bow wave and a projected $8 BILLION deficit.
The governor played some dramatic politics by releasing a budget that made a strong statement with several cuts. State worker unions stupidly threw a fit, seeming to believe that huge pay raises trumped continued employment, and showing a political tonedeafness matched only by President Obama, proceeded to stupidly sue the governor.
I wondered aloud how much of the budget was eye wash, a type of political kabuki theater, where the governor was effectively cutting more footage for her next campaign, and how much of it was real.
I suggested that the governor needed to square off with the legislature and lay down the law: This is my budget, and whatever you ultimately come up with had better closely reflect this… or I’ll veto it.
Did I miss that press conference?
The result? 2010 is shapping up to be wholesale slaughter… much like the unbelieveable year of 1994. On the surface, at least, it would seem that Frank Chopp, lisa Brown, et al, have appeared to have forgotten.
As democrats insist on engaging in their time-honored political practice of seppuku, the only question is this: will Republicans take advantage of this obvious opportunity?
House Dems say they may put tax increase on ballot
House Democratic leaders say they’ll likely propose sending Washington voters a tax package this year to help deal with a staggering shortfall in the state budget.
Seattle Times Olympia bureau
Related
OLYMPIA — With another dismal state revenue forecast expected today, House Democratic leaders now say they’ll likely propose sending voters a tax package this year to help deal with a staggering shortfall in the state budget.
State Representative Kelli Linville, D-Bellingham and House Ways and Means Chair advocates a tax increase vote by the people.
“I’m assuming there will probably be something that goes on the ballot,” said House Ways and Means Committee Chairwoman Kelli Linville, D-Bellingham. House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler agreed.
Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, said Wednesday she expects to bring ballot-measure ideas to her caucus for consideration.
Lawmakers have said for weeks that a proposal to create a new tax, increase an existing tax or eliminate certain tax breaks was possible. But this is the first indication they’ve gotten serious about developing a tax measure for the ballot.
No details were available about what a ballot measure might look like, except that it likely would be targeted to pay for a specific state service, such as health-care coverage for low-income people. It’s also unclear when it might be on the ballot.
>.
Erstwhile Pollard clone Tim Leavitt continues to ignore his duty to the people he would govern by insisting, not on a vote to allow those he would govern a voice in this horrific waste of money; but instead, on wasting as much money as possible!
Leavitt has shown himself to be, well, “fiscally challenged.” Best known for referring to billions of taxpayer dollars as “measly,” he simply seems incapable of either understanding that we, the people, do not WANT this massive, unconscionable waste of money to be built; we do not want to pay tolls that should not want to be tolled… and we DO want a third bridge… and we DO want a vote!
These positions disqualify him from holding ANY elected office; but his transportation positions generally should make him subject to psychiatric examination.
This pig has 3 through lanes on it and loot rail. Loot rail is, of course, the only reason these egomaniacs are ignoring the people and ramming this colossal waste of money through. The CURRENT bridge has 3 through lanes on it and no light rail. It doesn’t require any genius to see the crux of the matter.
Let’s remember: THESE people are not going to have to pay hundreds of additional dollars to go to work every year. They intend to make US pay it. And our local government has shown it to be so easy to rip us off for their purposes.
Even SEATTLE, of all places, put the Alaskan Way Viaduct to a vote. One has to wonder: how is it that Seattle, hardly the bastion of democracy or property rights, would put the Viaduct to a vote while the Taliban City Council of Vancouver acts as if our say-so is completely unimportant?
Leavitt and Pollard are embarrassments to our community. Legislatively, you can’t tell them apart (which, of course, doom’s Leavitt’s candidacy) and if only someone could come along to get rid of BOTH of these reprobates… imagine how much better our community would be.
And, Mr. Leavitt… I’m still waiting, after 3 weeks, for you to provide an explanation of where I have engaged in “serious misintrepretation,” or where I’ve “taken you out of context.” In fact, the whole world wonders.
Vancouver council likes wider bridge
Monday, February 2 9:43 p.m.
BY JEFFREY MIZE
COLUMBIAN STAFF WRITER
A month’s delay isn’t expected to change the Vancouver City Council’s position that a new Interstate 5 bridge should have 12 lanes.
A bistate committee was scheduled to make a final recommendation Friday, but that decision has been postponed until March 6, primarily to give Oregon officials more time to sort through the issue.
Council members were united Monday for building the bridge with six lanes in each direction, three for through traffic and three for vehicles entering and exiting the freeway at interchanges.
“If I have to hold my breath and stomp my feet, I will get to that later on,” said Mayor Royce Pollard, who represents the city on the Columbia River Crossing project’s sponsors council.
City transportation managers walked the council through a four-page memo Monday that summarizes the implications of building a bridge with 12 lanes, instead of one with 10 or eight lanes.
Matt Ransom, city transportation manager, said a 12-lane bridge performs better in every aspect of traffic management.
>.
For those not paying attention, there was a leftist Republican who ran, rather badly I might add, for Clark County Commissioner during the last cycle.
His name is Craig Williams, whose positions on transportation seemed to closely mirror that of both the Downtown Mafia and vanquished democrat Pam Brokaw.
Craig supports the unneeded, unwanted massive waste of money known as the I-5 Bridge replacement/loot rail. Like Tim Leavitt, this short-sighted social engineering arrogance disqualifies Williams from any serious run at elective office.
“Arrogance” is not a character trait that tends to get people elected as much as it tends to cement you in the minds of the people as a twit who shouldn’t be allowed to run an elevator. Williams is a case in point.
In today’s Pravda Columbian, there’s yet another article of propaganda, worthless in content and lying in impact. People have expressed concerns over this colossal and inexcusable waste of money, vacuuming up billions of dollars much better spent elsewhere. And Craig’s arrogant response:
Really, Craig, do you think you’re so damned superior that you can treat the people you would, one day, hope to govern like this?
Where’s YOUR demand that we are allowed to vote on this entire waste of money?
We do not want this bridge replacement. We do not want loot rail. And no “fiscal” or “moral” conservative would support this humongous waste of money WITHOUT ASKING US FIRST.
That you do speaks far louder than your “conservative” lies. If you’re going to act, quack, walk and talk like a leftist, then just head on over to their camp and stop pretending to be a Republican.
.
>Posting has been light due to my efforts as an observer down at the elections office during the Mielke-Brokaw recount.
The results, apparently, gave Mielke an over-all increase of 2 votes so the final margin appears to be Mielke by 209 votes.
This goes to an outstanding job by the Clark County Elections Office under the management of Greg Kimsey over all, and Tim Likness specifically.
A change of 2 ballots out of over 168,000 is simply astounding. A story book ending to a story book campaign.
Congratulations to Tom and the people of Clark County who had the wisdom to return the county commission to Republican control.
E-mail article
Print view
Digg
Newsvine
PREV
Clark County Politics 