Megalomaniac Jim Moeller Fires A Shot Across Lou Brancaccio’s Bow

by lewwaters

The arrogance of 49th Legislative District Representative, Jim Moeller is well known amongst both supporters and opponents. In fact, he is about the most arrogant person I have ever met and I have met a lot of people over my years. His deeds and actions are classic examples of a Megalomaniac, someone “characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, or omnipotence with an inflated sense of self-esteem and overestimation of their powers and beliefs.”

But his arrogant ‘shot across the bow’ aimed at the Columbian and editor Lou Brancaccio in Lou’s Saturday, October 27, 2012 Press Talk column, I love the 49th District!!! is so blatant it initially even took me by surprise.

Considering that the Columbian has endorsed Jim Moeller in every single one of his successful bids for state office, they frequently editorialize in opposition to his stance on many issues, mostly tax increases and wage and benefit increases for public union employees, while the private sector continues to struggle and tighten our belts.

They also, from time to time poke a little fun at Jim, deservedly so in my opinion.

That is what it seems Brancaccio did in his column today when he said, “Jim isn’t your average ‘let’s move closer to the center’ kind of Democrat,” “He’d make filmmaker Michael Moore look normal” and wrote of a recent video interview where Moeller was asked the question, “If this election were only about saving taxpayers money and you had to vote, would you vote for you or Carolyn [Crain]?”

Without hesitation, Moeller answered, “I’d vote for me” leaving the impression, naturally, that Jim Moeller really doesn’t care about how much taxpayers struggle, as we all know, considering he is currently suing to invalidate our votes in the two-thirds majority tax increase.

We also must remember that in 2009, as the economic doldrums were hitting us full bore, the Columbian joined in with other newspapers in the state and successfully lobbied for a 40% reduction in their business tax to stay afloat as they maneuvered through a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy restructure, losing the brand new multi-million dollar building publisher Scott Campbell had built and they had just moved into.

Since that time, the industry has come under fire for still receiving that reduction as the economy sees little if any real improvement.

At the time, Jim Moeller voted for EHB 2122, the “Newspaper industry B & O tax” measure that granted the newspapers the 40% reduction in their business tax and has been elected Speaker Pro Tempore of the House, “the second highest leadership position” there that undoubtedly adds to his already arrogant megalomania.

Considering that elected officials are often the brunt of criticism and some good old fashioned ribbing, as Lou Brancaccio did in today’s column, seeing Jim Moeller’s comment under the article floored me.

He wrote, saying since the question was “hypothetical,” his answer also was “hypothetical,” “Kind of like me asking you ‘hypothetically’ of course, if newspapers didn’t get a B&O tax credit from the state on the cost of their newsprint, would they be able to stay in business?”

If you don’t consider that comment as a “shot across the bow,” Moeller added, “everyone knows you think public workers get too much in salary and benefits and you’ve taken it on as a personal crusade to reduce that. And it’s pretty clear that The Columbian has opposed just about every tax increase that has been proposed – the library, C-Tran, parks district, etc.”

An everyday sort of Joe saying that in the comments would be laughed at and ignored. But, the person possessing second highest leadership position in the state legislature saying that is a warning to the Columbian to reel in their criticism of him and his desired rape of taxpayers that we continually see from Jim Moeller every session.

Far from an innocent joking around comment, Jim Moeller not so subtly reminded the newspaper that their continued profitability rests with his staying in the legislature, as someone in his position could easily support a measure to end that.

His opponent, Carolyn Crain was also asked the same question and since it concerned saving taxpayers money, also answered herself, realizing Jim Moeller doesn’t want to see taxpayers being saved money and instead wanting to confiscate as much as we have to use as he sees fit.

She also left as comment addressing Brancaccio’s comment in the column on her of, “she doesn’t play well with others,” “I never consider actively pursuing the protection of residents, tax payers, and people in general rights a game. I find it an extremely serious and important act therefore often there is no way that a person cannot be rough or firm when addressing issues like these. I appreciate the fact that you understand me as a representative of the people who would hold the line in their best interest whenever possible.”

Far different than firing a shot across the Columbian’s bow or arrogantly dressing Brancaccio down, Mrs. Crain admits why liberals see her as “not playing well with others” in actually looking out for the people in the 49th district.

Jim Moeller has been in the majority ever since he was first elected 10 years ago. Far from his facetious claim of “I save the taxpayers’ money,” he has supported just about every tax increase I can recall being proposed on us and as said above, even wrote and passed the ill-fated, confusing ‘Candy Tax’ that would have cost those of you with a sweet tooth more than you should have to pay and recently saw our vehicle licensing and driving fees nearly double.

His arrogant megalomania is not conducive to our welfare as we struggle to climb out of this economic morass he would love to keep us in by taxing us to death.

And now, he’s let the local newspaper that supports him know that they better watch their words.

Brancaccio also notes, “Jim has about as much chance of losing this race as I do of having a landslide of voters writing my name in for president,” which is very true unless more of you in the 49th wake-up and throw this arrogant megalomaniac out on his well worn bum.

Never mind the shot across his bow; it is time to ‘fire for effect!’

5 Comments to “Megalomaniac Jim Moeller Fires A Shot Across Lou Brancaccio’s Bow”

  1. If Moeller would act to bankrupt the democratian and get rid of them from our community, I could support that.

    Even if he IS a narcissistic megalomaniac.

  2. Copying: Brancaccio also notes, “Jim has about as much chance of losing this race as I do of having a landslide of voters writing my name in for president,” which is very true unless more of you in the 49th wake-up and throw this arrogant megalomaniac out on his well worn bum.

    Never mind the shot across his bow; it is time to ‘fire for effect!’

    hmm… I have an idea, how about some write in Lou for state representative for the 49th? He loves it so much that he gets so much coverage, maybe he would like to be Jim’s second in command?

    No, I think after dealing with both Carolyn Crain and Jim Moeller for a number of years on various issues, I think I will be voting for Carolyn. I like how she approached me at a CRC Oversight Committee to talk to me when she didn’t know me but wanted to know more about a subject I was speaking on to another community member. It was nice to see the Head of FHWA & FTA there to discuss comments.

    I saw how she interacted with them as well in June 2012. Honestly, I find her approaches different and how approachable she was with me.

    Though I must state that Jim and Carolyn probably won’t remember me much, since I don’t attend a lot of “political” functions. But when I talked to Carolyn, either she had answers for questions I had or she would go find out or she would suggest places I could look and ask me to go dig and inform her what I found out. You know, you can’t always as some one to do the background work per se. People need to step forward, inform themselves and let their legislators know what they found?

    And one final point. I never will agree with Jim or Carolyn, one hundred percent or even higher than seventy-five. But what sets both of them apart is, I found her to challenge me to look into issues myself instead of getting a padded answer from her opponent without doing the homework himself.

  3. Lew, you forgot they endorsed Craig Riley over Jim Moeller in 2010. They did endorse Jim Jacks over Bill Cismar though.

  4. Yes Jacob, they did endorse Craig over Jim Moeller, but I wouldn’t classify it as a strong endorsement, either.

    Much of the endorsement included a description of how great Moeller has been.

    But you’re right, they did endorse Craig. I just wonder if their heart was really in it.

  5. Lew – Wasn’t this about the same time you and kelly were just pounding Lou and John about never endorsing a republican and how Lou was protecting Jim Jacks and going after a few republicans? hmm Brent Boger comes RIGHT to the tip of my tongue?

Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: