«   |   »

Even Democrats Not Safe From Jim Moeller’s “Garbage”

by lewwaters

I’ve already given a couple examples of Jim Moeller (D 49) own “garbage” he has expressed over time towards Republicans. But his “garbage” has not been reserved solely for the Republicans. Anybody that is not in lock-step with Moeller is subjected to such “garbage.”

For a refresher over this 2012 incident, please see Of “Self Inflicted Wounds” and “Fairly Horrible Experiences” and Why Was Jon Haugen ‘Sanctioned’ By the Democrats?

At the time of this comment from Moeller, Jon Haugen was the only Democrat to step forward to challenge incumbent Republican 3rd Congressional District Representative, Jaime Herrera Beutler. No other Democrat was willing to run that year.

Clearly, Jim Moeller has taken it upon himself that his view and his view only is what everybody else must adopt and live by.

Jim Moeller has called upon “moderate” Republicans to take back the GOP. I wonder when “moderate” Democrats will wrest their party from far leftists like Jim Moeller? He is a prime example of the “fringe” that has taken over both parties and holds us hostage to their political views.

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Posted on July 3, 2014 at 10:22 AM in 49th Legislative District, Clark County Issues   |  RSS feed

Tags: , , , , , , ,

6 Comments to “Even Democrats Not Safe From Jim Moeller’s “Garbage””

    
  1. duane
    July 6, 2014 at 12:28 AM

    i would vote for moeller right after i’d been declared brain dead. WE THE PEOPLE are looking for candidates that hold the Constitution in the same hallowed place as we do. as for the ‘living document’ garbage…that is the open door to declaring the Constitution of the United States no stronger than some list of suggestions. once they succeed in breaching the force of the original document, there’s no longer ANY protection of law for the citizens. open season on freedom.

    Like

  2. David
    July 7, 2014 at 9:47 AM

    So Moeller would not support a fellow Democrat running against Herrera-B., because #1 he was not strongly supporting the dead light-rail new I-5 bridge they want to build? What is in it for him, and those others? Somebody must be getting a promise of fame and/or personal profits for it to be that important. Usually if a person is not for all forms of abortion, they still can get supporters. Usually if they are for gun rights, they can still get supporters. Usually if they vote against some things the party line wants done, they still can get supporters. Why would CRC be so critical that Moeller can’t accept a nomination?

    Like

  3. lewwaters
    July 7, 2014 at 10:02 AM

    Unfortunately, it is not just Moeller that took such a strong position. Many of us have wondered why the strong push and opposition against voters, even adopting the “no light rail, no bridge” call we heard from so many. Even now the CRC is considered dead, Moeller still whines and cries about it.

    Somebody stood to make a lot of money somewhere along the line and how much would filter down is unknown.

    Like

  4. Jacob
    July 8, 2014 at 9:23 PM

    I look back at this incident regarding someone who took Moeller’s side saying he doesn’t have enough money to win this race (Bill Phillips). I actually seem to recall a Dave Brat unseating Eric Cantor despite being outspent 25:1 and Dave blew out Eric Cantor so I laugh at him for that. Even if Jon had raised 40k and gotten some PAC’s, it would had been 53-47 which would had been good for him (in my opinion). Also David, It was Moeller who admitted to Lew that he does not agree with the party platform and that sanctioning Boldt was pure political lunacy. I wonder if Moeller thinks Rodney Tom,Tim Sheldon and Brian Sontagg being censured by Dwight Pelz is “political lunacy”. The sad thing was the paper wailed on Boldt being sanctioned but were completely silent in regards to Rodney Tom,Tim Sheldon,Jim Katsama and Brian Sontagg.

    Like

  5. David
    July 8, 2014 at 9:39 PM

    Indeed. So, if I recall correctly the I-5 corridor runs up to Canada and down to Mexico, straight through 3 west coast states, including our city. Okay, so if I remember right, after one earth quake our Governor Gregoire suddenly said all our bridges need to be rebuilt as she was scared of the water on the floating bridge? Then, I read all of these bridges were to get Federal tax dollars, and have lightrail.

    One assumption of mine is they really really need NAFTA to go through smoothly with faster shipments from and for those nations. I have been told by Mexicans that NAFTA did not help the People just the corrupt government, at least at that time I spoke to them. I am unsure what sort of profitable shipment from Mexico’s businesses then would go to the Democrats here?

    The other thing was the light rail push, why all of them bridges?? I could understand one, but all of them? Is it the same manufacturer? Same contractors? Something must be the same…

    The other thing that bothered me was that we had paid a lot in tax money to fix our bridge under 2 decades ago, and that de-rusting, painting, and securing of it to the river floor was told to last us maybe 100 years if I recall right. I do not recall us having huge earthquakes here, even though we have had little ones and could one day in 100 years have a bad one. I believe they did not fear it being unsound when they fixed it though. Why is it now?

    I know historically that things like the New Deal gave lots of jobs for building things, and were assumed to help the economy, which is debatable. So I can get why they could argue it will help the economy, but the workers are not all Americans, and not all from our city and state, so it could not help as much as in the 20th century anyways, right? But in such an economy where they cut foodstamps, they limited years you get a Pell Grant to get a degree, and are looking for other things to cut back on that are causing poorer citizens to fear, why would we ask for billions from their mouths to rebuild a perfectly fine bridge? That seems to go against the notion they are trying to help the poor…oh wait, it is the middle class recently, never mind.

    I think if someone had the time and gumption, they could find the real reason why they won’t let this die…I think there is waiting for us something big, but the payoff would go from the citizens rich and poor to the elites who run the government and get to boast about when they got a bridge built. That is how I see it anyways.

    Like

  6. lewwaters
    July 8, 2014 at 10:40 PM

    The bridge itself was just the carrot on the end of a stick to get us to accept light rail from Portland, as was exposed by an Oregon Supreme Court ruling on an unrelated matter

    Oregon Supreme Court Blows the Whistle on CRC and Metro

    That is why we often heard, “no light rail, no bridge.”

    The earthquake claims of falling into the river was overblown, again to entice us into accepting the plan primarily to push light rail into Clark County from Portland. Early on the in the process, light rail from Portland became the driving factor as Portland saw a bridge offer as the means to get us to accept their light rail after we voted it down in 1995 by a 2 to 1 margin.

    Like

    
%d bloggers like this: