Sunday, December 5, 2010

The Post Record's take on the latest Russell debacle: What makes a qualified candidate?

The PR nails it by asking, and answering the question: What makes a qualified candidate?

Failed candidate Jon Russell's continuing hypocrisy in having ever opposed to Mike Briggs for planning commission is inexplicable in the face of his horrific, underhanded, despicable political campaigns, first for Congress and then for state representative in the 18th District as he does anything and everything he can to ditch Washougal and move up "To da BIIIG House."

This blog is replete with his bogus efforts to portray himself as some sort of Christian conservative, as he struggled to put distance between his lies concerning his education and his wife's profession, his history of getting paid to run a campaign designed to jack up takes to the stratosphere for the Vancouver Port Commission; his fake identities so he can attack others while keeping his own skirts clean, his signing off on Stacy Seller's expense account and getting his buddy hired... as an unbondable city finance director, lying to the 18th district PCO's... his asking ME for a political opponent's social security number, and a large number of other foibles... documented on this blog.

So, when Russell came out swinging against Briggs, I nearly blew chunks.

This was so obviously a political ploy... so totally and completely pay back to a political opponent, that a blind squirrel could see it in a minute.

The PR addresses those issues with their take on Russell's idiocy:

What makes a qualified candidate?

By Heather Acheson

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

What should make a candidate qualified for appointment to a position on a local government body? This question will be up for discussion during Monday night’s Washougal City Council meeting. The topic is a result of councilman Jon Russell’s opposition to the recommendation by a panel that Mike Briggs be appointed to the city’s Planning Commission. That panel included a current planning commissioner, city councilman and city department head.

As recounted in an article in today’s Post-Record, Russell said he questions the appointment because Briggs has made “disparaging remarks” and “personal attacks” against Mayor Sean Guard, the City Council, and developers on local blogs and in the media. Although no specific examples of this were mentioned that evening, the issue is expected to be part of Monday’s agenda.

An informal survey of Briggs’ public comments reveals that he has leveled strong criticism against some decisions of the Washougal City Council, and some actions of specific members, including Russell, Michael Delavar and Dave Shoemaker. However, Briggs has also voiced his support of other council actions.

It’s not a secret that Briggs does not agree with Russell’s support of issues including having red light cameras in Washougal city limits and the Arizona immigration law, among other things. In fact Briggs has accused Russell, a 2010 Primary Election candidate for the 18th Legislative District representative seat, of using these issues to “grab media attention to further his own political ambitions.”

Those kinds of comments have not portrayed the City of Washougal in a positive light. But, isn’t this kind of criticism and critical thinking about the decisions made by our leaders an essential part of the public process? Shouldn’t citizens feel free to publicly, and even vehemently, disagree with the actions, comments or opinions of its city officials without fear that it will lead to a backlash later on?

The answer to all of these questions is most definitely “yes.”

Before he shot off his mouth, if Russell had any concept of service to the people instead of using them as tools for the greater glory of Russell, he would have ran his opposition to Briggs through the filter listed in this editorial.

But he doesn't. For Russell, it's all about him. And this time, it blew up in his face.

Cross posted on Clark County Politics.