There's a problem when you lie, Jon, that goes beyond mere opinion or positions.

I freely admit that I oppose Jon Russell's election to much of anything.

Part of that opposition is based on personal knowledge and a history that goes back to 2004, when Russell was HROC liaison here locally.

The second time I talked to Jon Russell was over the phone at my then Battle Ground house; imagine my surprise when he asked me for Pam Brokaw's social security number.

I told him that I didn't have it. but more importantly, I wouldn't give it to him if I DID have it.

That's when I began to understand what kind of political type he was/is.

Over the years, I heard rumors that Russell wanted to run for office of some sort. He seemed to get a fix from his appointment to the Washougal City Council... but he's just been using that as a campaign prop.

The current, recent history of the Washougal city government is well known. Sellers, the finance director, the disappearing $100,000. Less well known was his gig trying to get the Port Levy passed (That failed 70-30)I pointed these things out, along with pointing out that Russell seems to be much more focused on getting another political gig somewhere else then he is getting these issues squared away and put to bed.

While I get that Jon was none too happy about my efforts there, imagine my surprise when Jon Russell claimed that I was a "paid contract employee" of Ann Rivers, also running for the seat Russell has finally settled on, given his abysmal performance running for Congress... thus explaining, in his mind, my strong opposition to his election.

There has never been such a relationship; I have not ever been a "paid contract employee of Ann Rivers." Ever.

Russell uses minutes from a public meeting wherein Ann and I were both listed as part of the same company, and she was listed as "president." From that, Russell pole-vaulted to a conclusion that I am hammering him like a nail because I'm getting paid to do it and because I'm biased.

Well, the Wiki definition of bias is this:

Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology, or result, when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective.[1]. In other words, bias is generally seen as a 'one-sided' perspective. The term biased refers to a person or group who is judged to exhibit bias. It is used to describe an attitude, judgment, or behavior that is influenced by a prejudice. Bias can be unconscious or conscious in awareness. Labeling someone as biased in some regard implies that they need a greater or more flexible perspective in that area, or that they need to consider the context more deeply.

So. is the list of issues that have caused me to form my opinions about Russell based on bias? Are they based on "prejudice?" Or are they based on history... based on the information I have, and in some instances, have had for years?

When I ask these simple questions, are they driven by bias, or are they driven by unanswered concerns?

Here's the questions for Russell:

Am I telling the truth when I talk about your involvement in the campaign FOR one of the, if not THE biggest tax increases in local history for the Port, money their E.D. said they didn't even need?

Am I telling the truth when I say that you and two others were in charge of the Washougal credit card review when Sellers abused them so badly, to little or no known complaint from you until the lid blew off?

Am I telling the truth when I say that you were siting on the city council of Washougal while $100,000 vaporized?

Am I telling the truth when I say that as a city council member, YOU were involved in hiring a questionable finance director?

And am I telling the truth when I say that you, personally, are doing everything you can, which has included missing votes on city council, to get another gig and ditch the people who elected you, in the midst of your congressional campaign, to another term?

Russell can easily put this to bed. He can answer them, and freely explain where I've gotten it all wrong.

In fact, I will let him answer them HERE.... on THIS blog, unencumbered or edited in any way by me.

One of Jon's problems is an inability to focus on issues. I believe he's used his time in Washougal as a campaign prop. I believe that his tenure on the Washougal city council has been to produce a press release... like his campaign driven efforts to reduce property taxes one entire percent. He got a lot of traction out of that.

Running for re-election to the city council while in the midst of a congressional campaign just strikes me as wrong. Bailing out and looking for any other political job before the mess you were a part of is fixed just strikes me as wrong.

It may strike others differently.