Once again, we see the bias in favor of the Democrats that the Columbian says doesn’t exist, displayed so brightly it nearly blinds. We saw it early last year as Democrat Jim Jacks abruptly abandoned and walked out on constituents in mid-session as editor Lou Brancaccio maintained there “was no paper trail” to follow to get to any story on his quitting the position he had just been elected to.
I contrasted that to the Richard Curtis saga just a couple years before in a blatant display of bias.
We once again can see it displayed as just a few months ago, the Clark County Republican Party was taken to task over sanctions set in place against County Commissioner Marc Boldt who frequently went against his stated position in campaigning as a Republican to be elected to the County Commission.
Of course, the Columbian did not bother to say anything until months after the sanctioning that I know they had to be well aware of as they were mentioned on this blog in November 2011 and Columbian follows both this blog and Clark County Politics to see what we are up to.
We saw first the article “David Madore to challenge Commissioner Boldt” in the Columbian on Mar 18, 2012. It is well known that Mr. Madore is not a favored person and is often the subject of critical articles due to his speaking against the CRC and light rail.
Shortly after the article announcing his candidacy against Mr. Boldt, we saw a slate of articles condemning the CCGOP and defending Commissioner Boldt for having an “Independent streak” on the council, meaning he voted with Democrat Commissioner Steve Stuart in favor of the CRC and light rail.
We saw “Why was Boldt sanctioned by GOP?” on Mar 22, 2012, “In Our View: GOP Wounds Self-Inflicted” on Mar 25, 2012, “Boldt not allowed to speak at convention on Mar 27, 2012, “Boldt flap prompts two to quit GOP board” on Mar 28, 2012, “County GOP convenes at Hilton,” on Mar 31, 2012 that made sure to mention Boldt being sanctioned, followed by “Herrera Beutler supports Boldt, Mielke” in their All politics is local blog on May 4, 2012 and finally a John Laird editorial, “Banishing Boldt, distrusting drones and pushing peace” on May 6, 2012.
We also saw in the Letters to the Editor, “Boldt’s principles on Mar 27, 2012 by Don Jacobs, “Commissioner Boldt earns respect” on Mar 29, 2012 by Frank Brown, “Allow independence in politicians” on Mar 31, 2012 by Joe and Gayle Beaudoin with the claim, “For the Republican Party to reprimand Boldt for his outstanding work and logical thinking is shameful.”
That was followed by “Fed up with partisan posturing” on Apr 2, 2012 by Marjorie Casswell with, “Kudos to Boldt for breaking the mold,” “Local GOP obsessed with orthodoxy” on Apr 10, 2012 by Alan Rossi with “It’s time that “reasonable” voters begin to rethink voting for a Republican Party that puts party purity over the interests of compromise that will benefit all of us,” “Democracy dimming” on Apr 16, 2012 by Wilfred J. Hudson and “A balance chronicles state of nation” on May 13, 2012 by Al Fischer.
The sanctions placed against Commissioner Boldt amounted to being removed from the Clark County GOP’s website and not being able to use the party’s resources, such as financial support and mailing lists.
The Columbian and several Democrat poured in to defend so called Republican Commissioner Marc Boldt, condemning the Republicans and boasting of how they do no such a thing to members of their party.
Clark County Democrat Party Vice Chairman Nick Ande said of the Boldt sanctions,
“The Clark County Democrats are a ‘big tent’ organization. We don’t assume that all Democrats are going to have exactly the same views, and we appreciate that diversity in viewpoint within our party rather than admonishing it. No county Democrat has been blacklisted because they have what are perceived as more moderate viewpoints.”
49th Legislative District Jim Moeller said,
“I can understand your frustration with some of Mark’s positions,… but to sanction him and to expect him to heel to the party platform is political lunacy!”
After all of his rhetoric against Republicans over Marc Boldt, when Democrat Jon Haugen was proposed to be nominated and endorsed to oppose Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler for her 3rd Congressional District seat, it was Jim Moeller rising up to speak against the nomination, in essence, “sanctioning” Jon Haugen. He will be “cut off from campaign funding that the party doles out to the Democratic candidates,” just as Marc Boldt is cut off from Party resources by the Republicans.
After introducing himself, when called upon for discussion of Jon Haugen’s nomination, Jim Moeller said,
“I don’t usually stand in opposition to nominations; it’s just not my style. And I believe that Jon Haugen is a good and decent man, I want that to be said right out front. But I do not support this nomination and I don’t do so (pauses), I don’t do so, um, in other words, let’s just say this, I’m not aware that Jon is truly a Democrat, in many ways. He has ran as a Democrat and he also ran as an Independent. But when push comes to shove, he does not represent the values that I want to see in a Democrat, in a Congressional Democrat in the 3rd Congressional District, particularly regarding the Columbia River Crossing.
Now, in Spokane we have the North / South Freeway. In King County we have the Alaska Way Viaduct and the 520 Bridge. (Speaker interrupts with you’ve got a limit to 2 minute speech so you’re close to the end of it) Thank you Mr. Chair. In my district it is the Columbia River Crossing This candidate stands against funding of the Columbia River Crossing, he stands against our current governor, he stands against our gubernatorial nominee Jay Inslee, he also stands against our senior senator from this state, Patty Murray. (Speaker: Thank You) Moeller: No!
I quick look at Jon Haugen’s webpage concerning issues shows how he lines up with Democrats on every issue, except Moeller’s desire to ram Portland’s light rail down our throats in Clark County with the CRC.
The comments made by Moeller drew quick anger from Mr. Haugen’s daughter Allison through Twitter.
Another daughter, Jessica, responded to a rather insensitive comment left at the Columbia’s single mention of this “fairly horrible experience” at the Democrats convention with,
“I encourage you to do research prior to making statements on public platforms. My father did canvass for Obama, he has doorbelled and phone banked for democratic candidates since our family moved to WA in 2001. He has always been a strong supporter of Patty Murray and Governor Gregoire.”
“My father was the only private citizen to testify before before the state legislature on the issue of simple majority for passing school bonds – which was passed and is now law. Numbers of public schools, both in the 3rd district and others, have benefitted from the passage of simple majority.”
“You are entitled to your opinion – but what I take issue with – is when people use public forums to spread rumors, mistruths, and try to smear other people, which is what Jim Moeller did at the convention and what you are trying to do here.”
In another reply, Jessica Haugen said in part,
“His comments were hurtful and made me ashamed of my own party for the first time in my life. When my mother confronted Jim after he made these comments, he agreed that democrats will stab each other in the back – which is exactly what happened.”
But, Jim Moeller and several others denied that Democrats would “stab each other in the back” when they had to chance, thanks to the Columbian’s several articles and mentions of the sanctioning against Commissioner Boldt while those of us claiming they do were ridiculed and labeled liars, as usual.
Of particular note, concerning the glaring bias from the pages of the Columbian, several articles and letters above condemning Republicans sprang up and sporadically continued over 2 months. Early on, an editorial labeled the action a “Self-Inflicted Wound.”
Even Jim Moeller at the time commented, “Why would you hand us (the D’s) such an obvious political win? Do you think voters vote for your platform or for the candidate?” and labeled it “political lunacy.”
So where are the editorials describing the Democrats “self-inflicted wound” over not endorsing the only Democrat to run against the Republican in the 3rd Congressional District? She is a very weak incumbent, her main advantage being the redistricting that made the 3rd Congressional District more favorable to Republicans. But still, her vague words and weak position have upset many conservatives which could leave her vulnerable to well backed candidate.
But the Columbian sees what was done to Haugen as merely a “fairly horrible experience” while doing virtually the same thing to Marc Boldt was a “Self-inflicted wound.”
It doesn’t even merit mention in the weekly “Cheers & Jeers” column. As I said, the bias is so glaring it is blinding. The publishers and editors down at the Columbian must wear some very dark glasses throughout the day to be able to not see it.
Jim Moeller’s arrogance and hypocrisy have now bled over to his party where his personal view is of more importance that the very “diversity” they recently boasted of as he demands lock-step with his views, or be shown the door. He is dividing his own party into “circular firing squad.”
It is doubtful the Columbian’s bias in favor of the Democrats will ever subside, but voters can oust Jim Moeller and we can begin rebuilding a sense of compromise and cooperation sorely lacking for so many years in our legislature.
But as long as Jim Moeller occupies the legislative seat, his arrogance will not permit it.