Unable to Defeat Madore, the Columbian Seems Now to Hope on his Failing

by lewwaters

This blog no longer supports David Madore and calls upon him to resign immediately!

The one thing we know we can expect in the pages of the Columbian, better known as the unofficial daily newsletter for the Democrat Party & CRC is slanted coverage supporting their favorite taxpayer rip-off, the Columbian River Crossing. Along with that will be the negative coverage of any who speak out against it.

Such has been the case with Vancouver Businessman David Madore ever since he stepped into the public eye criticizing the massive boondoggle that has so far sucked up some $160 Million, hired a forensic accountant to decipher a massive document dump of CRC’s finances, supported political candidates and running for office himself as County Commissioner, successfully unseating current Commissioner Marc Boldt, who was once himself in the crosshairs of the Columbian, until he turned his back on constituents and came out supporting the CRC and other Democrat Party issues.

The Columbian endorsed Boldt, who just a few years earlier were seen ostracizing him in an article “Three Nuts and a Boldt” and ran several articles promoting him, sympathetic to him, portraying him as a “victim” of the local GOP, who sanctioned him for his abandoning nearly ever campaign stand he took and turning his back on those who voted for him and spared no ink marginalizing Madore, criticizing his funding his own campaign and seeking every piece of dirt they could dig up to print, masquerading it as “fair coverage,” but not looking so deep at Boldt.

Madore won the election by nearly 14,000 votes that received little mention in successive articles on the outcome of the election, most of their attention being focused on the Tom Mielke Joe Tanner race, another they tried hard to influence, but failed, incumbent Mielke retaining his seat by over 6,000 votes.

In spite of their efforts, the public chose who they wanted sitting on the County Commission, not who the Columbian and Democrat Party wanted, indicating as we did in the 2008 election, we want a more conservative County Commission.

Since winning the election, mavens at the Columbian have seen the need to remind us of how much Madore spent in this election, leaving the impression he bought the seat beginning with,

“Madore, an outspoken critic of the Columbia River Crossing and owner of U.S. Digital, spent more than four times as much money as Boldt, $294,126 to $63,762.”

“Madore contributed a total of $314,267 to his campaign, Boldt raised $90,183 and did not use any of his own money, according to the Public Disclosure Commission.”

Unwittingly, they undid their effort in the same article with,

“[Joe] Tanner spent $167,345, approximately eight times as much money as Mielke. Tanner’s finances include $31,000 of his own money and a $10,000 loan. Mielke spent $21,054 and loaned his campaign $2,750.”

To be honest, even though I supported Mielke, when election came I felt Tanner was easily going to win, considering the campaigning he did, the plethora of signs he put out and frequent appearances throughout the county compared to Tom Mielke’s somewhat silent campaigning.

But it also shows that money is not what determines elections.

The Columbian also tried to taint Madore’s victory with mention of undervotes, claiming he only garnered the third highest number of votes in the 2 races. What they neglected to mention is that both Madore and Boldt ran as Republicans, even though we know Boldt has become more of a Democrat and Democrat voters chose not to vote for either, even though in not endorsing in that race, Clark County Democrats strongly hinted Boldt was their boy.

Days after the November 6 election, once again the Columbian’s newest maven, Erik Hidle ran a post in the All Politics is Local online blog, Madore enters the inner sanctum where Madore began attending meetings of the Commissioners.

But, instead of being an appreciative article applauding Madore for working to get up to speed on the inner workings of the County Commission, the post leans more towards reminding that he is not yet the Commissioner, he can legally attend Executive Sessions as the Commissioner Elect and he already as Commissioners Mielke and Stuart agreeing to scheduling workshops on matters he campaigned on.

Not as strong of a negative article as they have been writing about him, but more of soft article indicating he is sticking his nose in where it does yet belong.

Fast forward to Sunday, November 25, 2012 and Hidle is seen with two articles out on Madore, Madore’s to-do list much longer than just CRC with David Madore’s game change being given front page headlines.

The headline itself reads as if Madore is already reneging on campaign promises even before assuming office, but reading the sub-title indicates Hidle is on a fishing expedition trying again to taint Madore’s victory with, “Commissioner-elect David Madore has ambitious ideas, but will he change the system, or will it change him?”

He makes sure to mention past candidates who won with ideas of changing how business is done, only to find out they couldn’t go as far as they promised, ignoring that they still made changes to improve government answering to the people.

But let’s face it, newcomers to office frequently find out they cannot do as much as they had hoped for, especially given the opposition they face from fellow officials comfortable with the status quo and the assured opposition from the Columbian for even trying.

But that doesn’t stop them from doing what they can to effect much needed change.

Many are already critical of Madore’s stance on the CRC as well as the bloodsuckers at C-TRAN being reined in, pondering if there isn’t a way to just bypass the County Commission on CRC, C-TRAN related matters now that two of the three members are critics.

He is also meeting a little opposition from Public Unions who desire to keep contract negotiations with the county out of the public’s eye.

But the articles main intent seems to be trying to taint Madore’s win and seed plant into reader minds that Madore will shortly come on board with CRC, C-TRAN and other County matters, comparing him to Vancouver’s Mayor, ‘Teflon’ Tim ‘the liar’ Leavitt who campaigned heavily against tolling the project and switched almost immediately after winning in 2009.

The difference is, Leavitt was lying on his stance and fooled many, yours truly included.

Madore, on the other hand, even if unable to effect every single campaign issue he ran on is expected to remain more true to his word, saying back to the Columbian and supporters of the status quo, “They say that (I) will learn real quick about the nature of government and how it works. I say that they don’t yet know how I work.”

Let’s hope David Madore has learned how the Columbian works and the pressure they will be placing on him often in their pages and editorials, as they frequently have against 17th Legislative District Senator Don Benton and County Commissioner Tim Mielke.

He can also ask Vancouver City Council Member Bill Turlay who had reason to go against his campaign promise of not raising taxes when he voted recently to go along with a property tax increase, quickly quoted his words of, “I want to tell you that on this side of the table, it looks different,” “We need money to provide police and fire” and “I’m dead set against it, but I’ve got no other choice.”

Rest assured, the Columbian will scrutinize every County Commission meeting, looking for any word uttered by Madore or vote by him to build a record, a “paper trail” as editor Lou Brancaccio says, to use against him 4 years from now.

Unless of course, the highly unlikely event of him getting on board with them in raping taxpayers for furthering of the CRC.

I don’t expect a 100% accomplishment from Madore, but we do expect efforts from both him and Tom Mielke now that they are the majority on the County Commission.

I also hope to see the Columbian crying a lot over the next 4 years.

5 Comments to “Unable to Defeat Madore, the Columbian Seems Now to Hope on his Failing”

  1. County staff will not be able to pull the wool over David’s eyes. He will go back to first principles and make them justify everything. First principles are outlined in the Washington Constitution Article 1 Section 1 – Governments exist to protect and maintain individual rights. Section 32 “A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government.” David is about to give them all a lesson in constitutional governance.

    Like

  2. This is going to be good. Gotta love it.

    Like

  3. The Columbian is proving to not be any kind of opinion powerhouse anymore. Let them pin ribbons on themselves, and award meaningless honors for lock-step articles. Some facts speak volumes. They are relegating themselves into obscurity. Not good for an advertising based enterprise. Communities need an ink and paper chronicle riding herd on the seedy things that the human comedy generates. One would expect a fire sale soon, but then the forces at work in this economy have deep pockets when it comes to propaganda.

    Like

  4. Leavitt’s betrayal of the trust voters placed in him surprised me because I didn’t know anything about the man. On the other hand, in observing his actions in the past few months, I kind of expected Turlay to turn – in that he had a hidden agenda. Apparently the main reason he entered the race for councilman was to champion his wife’s cause of banning fireworks in the city. People with hidden agendas often tend to betray their so-called ‘root’ values.

    I don’t expect to see the same kind of turncoat action with David Madore. He doesn’t appear to have a hidden agenda – he’s been straightforward and plain spoken in what his goals for the county are.

    Clearly The Columbian is hoping he will do exactly what Turlay has done so they can eliminate him in the next election – but then The Columbian very clearly has a not-so-hidden agenda to protect. Naturally Lou Brancaccio tries to deny that there is an agenda, but any observant reader can discern it. Remember who owns land in downtown Vancouver and who would benefit from a gigantic bridge and light rail project, and remember who editorializes so vociferously for the project while trying to destroy anyone who opposes it.

    Like

  5. I’m surprised to read that Jeanne Stewart supported the property tax increase:

    “Councilor Jeanne Stewart said the city will continue prioritizing and streamlining services. Councilors have an obligation to provide those services, even though they don’t like raising taxes.

    “We pay taxes, too,” she said”

    http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/nov/19/city-will-increase-property-tax-rate/

    Am I misreading this quote? Did she actually vote against the property tax increase? Until now, I’ve thought she was the only adult on the board. I cannot believe additional fat could not be cut from the city budget. As always, I’m extremely happy I live outside the city boundary.

    Vancouver’s budget is here:
    http://www.cityofvancouver.us/budget.asp?menuID=10462&submenuID=10476&itemid=139272

    and here:

    Click to access 2013-02FinancialSummaryReports.pdf

    I look at this budget and find it interesting that the revenue side has nice fund numbers, but oddly the expenditure side does not. Look at page 11 – general govt 56M, police 30M, recreation services 6.7M. I don’t live in the city (thank God) but is it unreasonable to expect more of a breakdown on expenses? What is the deal with the pension? What are the projections? Like Oregon, are they assuming 8% annual ROI?

    I’m also amused by the pathetic public turnout to the council meeting as written up in the article. “Three people testified Monday against the tax increase. None of them, Councilor Jack Burkman noted, live within city limits.”

    You Vancouver idiots deserve what you get. Again, as someone living in the county, I watch with amazement at the fiscal irresponsibility and hope to prevent the City from ever taking over my property.

    A must-read article recently about Portland fire department waste – such as sending ladder trucks out to routine medical emergencies (and one can ask why fire dept goes out instead of just ambulance):
    http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-19705-burning_money.html

    Has Vancouver Council asked the same questions? I see 20+% goes to fire, and 28% (largest) goes to police. I’d love to see a breakdown of pension payments. I wonder how much of the police payment is lawsuit payout related. I see pensions on page 13, but wonder what their projections are.

    My sincere hope is that Madore & Mielke can put a halt to the county spending.

    Robert Dean – I loved your comment/question about Vancouver’s pay raise to the City Manager. Odd how no one appeared to actually answer your comment. All I saw was a bunch of ad hominem crap.

    Again, though, why did Jeanne Stewart agree to the property tax increase?

    Like

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:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: