.
I'm stumped.
Russell emulates the democrat fleebaggers of Wisconsin by getting up and leaving a council meeting along with Delevar, so they wouldn't have a quorum.
It was wrong for the fleebaggers in Wisconsin, and it was wrong for the fleebaggers in Washougal. My question is this: why is Madore using his organizations, in this case, couv.com, as a platform for Russell to try and spin his way out of this violation of his elected duty?
Now, anyone paying attention to the situation surrounding Russell for any length of time can certainly see the necessity of an ethics committee or board or whathaveyou; Russell's excuse for following in the footsteps of the fleebaggers neither make sense, not is supported by the facts.
Russell uses the excuse of "process." Well, how is getting up and leaving to kill a quorum any acceptable part of a process?
It isn't. Russell, of course, knows that if he can get a majority of the city council, he can certainly undo anything the mayor is trying to do, if it's passed in the absence of two council members.
But that two other members were missing provides him with no cover; and Madore's rather cloying effort to provide Russell with a stage for his abandonment of his duty is puzzling to say the least.
Among other things, Russell says "when we realized we had no other recourse but to stop the meeting and resume it later," I almost tossed my cookies.
Recource One: Stay there and do your job. Getting up and walking out is not doing your job.
Recourse Two: If you're on the losing end, you can revisit the issue when it's done at the next meeting.
Recourse Three: engage in the great American pass time of filing suit.
You see, there were many other avenues of recourse. To claim otherwise is either ignorance, exaggeration or a lie.
Russell comes across as a statesman. But he isn't talking about, for example, his proclivity to attack political opponents on the comment sections of the democratian and the Post record using fake identities... decidedly non-statesman like activities to be sure.
Madore, for whatever the reason, refers to Russell's abandonment of his position as "reasonable."
Sorry, David. It was anything but "reasonable."
Russell bragged about cutting property taxes a whole one percent; Madore seemed unable to comprehend that the grandstand play Russell was referring to was a campaign prop for first, his abortive effort to run for Congress (The basis for my Jon Russell Watch blog) and second, his equally abortive effort to run for state representative.
Had he not been running for something else, he certainly wouldn't have cut anything... because he certainly hasn't cut any taxes since he was bounced in the primary last August.
I just noticed that whenever Madore asked Russell a question, he almost always reworded and repeated Russell's answer. Weird.
I admire Madore's sense of loyalty. He has been a political backer of Russell, even in the face of a number of questionable acts that would hardly fit into the public persona Madore projects. At this point, I can only presume that Madore is unaware of the "dark side" of Russell.
I note that he always refer to the Sellers Administration as the "prior administration" or the "former administration," instead of calling it by her name: the Sellers Administration. Why can't he even use her name?
Grandstanding, Jon, you really don't know what it means?
Here: let me help you.
Grandstanding is when you use your position as a campaign prop for some OTHER position.... like cutting property taxes so you can claim, well, that you cut property taxes on your campaign literature and in your speeches.
There's more... but you get the gist.
Very few people have watched the series of videos... for example, the second video on YouTube has about 25 or so. I guess self-aggrandizement doesn't play all that well.
Ultimately, I still believe that David Madore is a good man trying to make a difference. But his lack of political radar when it comes to people?
That could be a major problem.
Cross posted at Clark County Politics.
.
I'm stumped.
Russell emulates the democrat fleebaggers of Wisconsin by getting up and leaving a council meeting along with Delevar, so they wouldn't have a quorum.
It was wrong for the fleebaggers in Wisconsin, and it was wrong for the fleebaggers in Washougal. My question is this: why is Madore using his organizations, in this case, couv.com, as a platform for Russell to try and spin his way out of this violation of his elected duty?
Now, anyone paying attention to the situation surrounding Russell for any length of time can certainly see the necessity of an ethics committee or board or whathaveyou; Russell's excuse for following in the footsteps of the fleebaggers neither make sense, not is supported by the facts.
Russell uses the excuse of "process." Well, how is getting up and leaving to kill a quorum any acceptable part of a process?
It isn't. Russell, of course, knows that if he can get a majority of the city council, he can certainly undo anything the mayor is trying to do, if it's passed in the absence of two council members.
But that two other members were missing provides him with no cover; and Madore's rather cloying effort to provide Russell with a stage for his abandonment of his duty is puzzling to say the least.
Among other things, Russell says "when we realized we had no other recourse but to stop the meeting and resume it later," I almost tossed my cookies.
Recource One: Stay there and do your job. Getting up and walking out is not doing your job.
Recourse Two: If you're on the losing end, you can revisit the issue when it's done at the next meeting.
Recourse Three: engage in the great American pass time of filing suit.
You see, there were many other avenues of recourse. To claim otherwise is either ignorance, exaggeration or a lie.
Russell comes across as a statesman. But he isn't talking about, for example, his proclivity to attack political opponents on the comment sections of the democratian and the Post record using fake identities... decidedly non-statesman like activities to be sure.
Madore, for whatever the reason, refers to Russell's abandonment of his position as "reasonable."
Sorry, David. It was anything but "reasonable."
Russell bragged about cutting property taxes a whole one percent; Madore seemed unable to comprehend that the grandstand play Russell was referring to was a campaign prop for first, his abortive effort to run for Congress (The basis for my Jon Russell Watch blog) and second, his equally abortive effort to run for state representative.
Had he not been running for something else, he certainly wouldn't have cut anything... because he certainly hasn't cut any taxes since he was bounced in the primary last August.
I just noticed that whenever Madore asked Russell a question, he almost always reworded and repeated Russell's answer. Weird.
I admire Madore's sense of loyalty. He has been a political backer of Russell, even in the face of a number of questionable acts that would hardly fit into the public persona Madore projects. At this point, I can only presume that Madore is unaware of the "dark side" of Russell.
I note that he always refer to the Sellers Administration as the "prior administration" or the "former administration," instead of calling it by her name: the Sellers Administration. Why can't he even use her name?
Grandstanding, Jon, you really don't know what it means?
Here: let me help you.
Grandstanding is when you use your position as a campaign prop for some OTHER position.... like cutting property taxes so you can claim, well, that you cut property taxes on your campaign literature and in your speeches.
There's more... but you get the gist.
Very few people have watched the series of videos... for example, the second video on YouTube has about 25 or so. I guess self-aggrandizement doesn't play all that well.
Ultimately, I still believe that David Madore is a good man trying to make a difference. But his lack of political radar when it comes to people?
That could be a major problem.
Cross posted at Clark County Politics.
.
