Currently, in Southwest Washington and the Portland (OR) metropolitan area, the City of Washougal (WA) is getting a lot of attention in the press due to what seems to be a significant scandal involving one or more of the city’s elected officials. The gist of this is that the Washington State Auditor’s Office is conducting a special investigation involving unaccounted for expenditures of over $100,000 and other alleged “mismanagement issues”, by the city’s Mayor, Stacee Sellers.

Since Congressional Candidate Jon Russell is an elected member of the Washougal City Council, his political opponents within the Republican Party are eagerly manipulating this to reflect negatively on Russell. Though this is personally disappointing to me, I can't say that it's surprising. Ironically, I believe that stepping back and looking at the facts (not the innuendos) here would lead a reasonable person to the conclusion that Jon Russell’s related conduct indicates that he is exactly the sort of person we should have in the office he is seeking – i.e., U.S. Representative from Washington’s 3^rd Congressional District.

Here are some of the facts I have in mind:

Russell has been in the Conservative minority since joining the City Council. Shortly after his initial election he began to develop concerns related to the matter currently being investigated. This included that:

•  Expenditures were signed off by whatever council members were available.
• City Department Heads were instructed not to speak directly to council members; all communication was to go through the Mayor.

Although Jon raised these concerns, due to the council’s Progressive majority and their loyalty to the Mayor, Jon was unable to rally support for his alarm. However, Jon remained vigilant. For over two years, Jon has requested P&Ls for city events that the administration had sponsored … the very events now being investigated. These requests remain unfulfilled. Just this year, Jon asked to be appointed to the finance committee and immediately upon joining that committee, he began bringing forward a motion that would require the committee to routinely scrutinize every city expenditure. Again, the council’s Progressive majority was unwillingly to join in making this commitment.

Thankfully, fairly early-on, Jon recognized the importance of being able to voice his concerns from a greater position of strength. With that in mind, he began developing a strategy to achieve a Conservative majority on the City Council. In 2008, he was joined by another Conservative. This past Summer, yet another Conservative was added. And, it’s likely that next week’s election could lead to Jon being in the Conservative majority on the City Council. From that perspective, Jon issued the following statement to supporters:

“My objective is to work through our city administration’s chaos and to bring a clearer picture to the citizens of Washougal. I am convinced that, with a newly–elected Conservative majority coming in January, we will provide a responsible path out of the disaster permitted by the current progressive administration.”

And he added:

“This experience has given me a deeper appreciation for what I am trying to do on a national level. We need sweeping government reform, which brings more accountability to government and places more scrutiny on government than on individuals. Too much control in the hands of the few will always result in disaster and corruption. As your next Congressman, I will fight for open and transparent government. The people deserve to know the truth.”

It should be noted that one of the most recent developments in this matter is that the Washougal City Council has now passed a resolution censuring Mayor Stacee Sellers, expressing “disapproval of her behavior and her lack of effective communication.” Jon Russell voted for the resolution and in doing so, expressed his belief that additional action should be taken, saying, “I don’t think censure is strong enough.”

I think the facts that I’ve outlined above speak for themselves in supporting my earlier statement that “Jon Russell’s related conduct indicates that he is exactly the sort of person we should have in the office he is seeking.” However, I’d like add a personal observation to emphasize why it adds up that way for me. I’ve been in business in a Sales role for most of the past four decades. During that time, it’s not been uncommon for me to be confronted with a situation where a prospective customer tells me that, in comparing what I’m offering to what a competitor is offering, they can’t find a decisive difference. In those cases, I’ve almost always found it to be effective to get the prospective customer to consider who they want to be shoulder-to-shoulder with when there is trouble. No matter how good your company, your product, etc., if there are human beings involved, there will be problems. I make sure my prospective customers know that when problems come, there is one thing in particular they can count on that the competitor can’t offer. That difference is me … I will be there for them. That’s what I see Jon Russell doing in this matter. He suspected problems and he voiced his concerns. He took actions to prevent the problems he suspected from occurring. He developed a strategy meant to give authority to his actions. And, when trouble came, he stood firm to do the hard work the citizens of Washougal are relying on him to do.

In summary, I’d like to touch on a couple of aspects related to my disappointment with the actions of Jon’s political opponents within the Republican Party who have so eagerly manipulated this to reflect negatively on Jon. In one instance, the question was raised, “If Jon is unable to stand up to the mayor of a small town of some 9,000, how would he ever stand up to the likes of Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Washington D.C.?” Of course, this question is a bit short-sighted, since I expect Nancy Pelosi to be an ex-Member of Congress and for her party to be the minority party after the elections of 2010. However, it does raise an interesting hypothetical question: “What would Jon Russell be doing about a similar situation in the current U.S. Congress … oh say regarding Charlie Rangel … if he was the Representative from Washington’s 3^rd Congressional District, instead of Brian Baird?” Well, I know what we’ve heard from Baird on this … nothing! And, based on what I’ve outlined above, I’m pretty confident Ms. Pelosi would be hearing from Jon Russell regularly.

Finally, I want to offer some advice to Jon’s political opponents within the Republican Party who have so eagerly manipulated this to reflect negatively on Jon. Take a look at all the Comments left by readers of what you’ve published on this. No doubt, I haven’t found all that has been written along these lines but of the ones I’ve found, I haven’t found one single Comment that supported the author’s position. With that in mind, I would encourage you to consider what I have termed the “Hoffman v Scozzafava … Wake-Up-Call …”. As the old folk song says, “The times, they are a changing” and you should be giving more sober thought to how your words and especially your actions, fit in with the current political landscape.

Once again, Jon Russell, Republican Candidate for U.S. Congress in Washington’s 3^rd Congressional District, has hit the nail on the head. He’s provided one answer for several related questions that most Americans seem to be asking. According to a Fox News Opinion Dynamics Poll, conducted at the end of September, the top issues Americans are worried about are: 

1.      The federal government spending too much = 79%

2.      The increasing size of the federal deficit = 77%

The only issue that’s on a par with this, in terms of causing Americans to worry, is Iran developing a nuclear weapons program. With this in mind, I have to imagine that most Americans have the same questions on this as I do: 

How in the world could those who are supposed to represent us have allowed themselves to spend such a phenomenal amount in less than one year?! 

AND 

Why have they continued to do this and make plans to spend even more, against our clearly communicated wishes that we want them to stop?! 

Congressional Candidate Russell has provided one answer for both questions: 

It’s BDD … BUDGET DEFICIT DISORDER! 

Be sure to check out Russell’s current YouTube Video on this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7MTJWK5Xvk

More than just an answer, it’s a diagnosis of a classic addiction of Career Politicians.

Voters Find A Career Politician Still Not Listening To Their Message

This past Tuesday, over midway through the current Congressional August Recess, Brian Baird, the current Member of Congress from Washington’s 3^rd District, came out to face constituents for the first time during this season. As you may know, this was a reversal of Baird’s earlier decision, refusing to meet with voters up to this point. Of course, I can only speculate about what led to Baird reversing course on this but the political pressure to do so was obvious. The fact that Baird’s Republican opponent, Jon Russell, had scheduled a series of Town Halls throughout the district, in order to give the people opportunities to be heard, had to be a key factor in this. And, in light of the bad press Baird was getting on this, it was just as obvious that this was a case of a seasoned Career Politician producing lemons and trying to turn them into lemonade.

In other accounts of this event, you can read about Baird humbling himself in apologizing for “some statements I regret”, in referring to protestors at Town Hall meetings as “Brownshirts” and likening them to Timothy McVeigh. You can, also, read the specifics of discussions at this event, touted as a “Healthcare Town Hall”. However, for me, the most interesting aspect of the entire Town Hall event was just observing Brian Baird’s behavior, as our Congressional Representative. His reaction to many of the questions coming from those he is sworn to represent was most telling. Out of the 38 questions posed at this event, the one I saw as being most poignant came out of a statement from a Vancouver woman who first quoted the Patriot, Patrick Henry and then said,

“It seems to me that most of the time lately our Congressmen and Representatives have been representing the President to the people instead of representing the people to the President." 

Baird’s only response was to say that his kids’ middle names are Washington and Franklin.

For me, there couldn’t have been a better underscore to the fact that, while Brian Baird has acquired some skills allowing him to function with some aplomb, as a Career Politician, he lacks one major quality necessary to truly be a Representative of the people … the heart of a servant. 

Not long ago, I heard Victoria Taft, KPAM 860AM Radio’s evening drive-time Talk Show Host, interview Baird. Although she disagrees with Baird on many issues, after the interview, she said that she thought Baird “seems to be a nice guy.” I agree. And he looks the role of a yuppie middle-manager who would be up to the duties of Congressman. Likewise, he seems to be intelligent and well educated. But Washington’s 3^rd Congressional District is not wonting for people with these qualities who are willing to go to Washington D.C. What we are sorely lacking, as evidenced by Brian Baird’s non-response to that Vancouver woman’s passionate plea is a person whose heart is to seek to truly understand all that underlies her question in order to be able to fully represent her in the U.S. Congress. With this in mind, if I get to ask Brian Baird a question during the current Congressional August Recess, it will be: 

In a radio interview this past Thursday evening, Jon Russell, Republican Candidate for Congress in Washington’s 3^rd District (WA-03), said that he has taken the initiative to arrange a series of Town Halls “from Olympia to Vancouver” during the current Congressional August Recess “so the people can speak”. Russell’s interview was on a Victoria Taft Show (KPAM 860AM Radio) that focused on WA-03’s current Member of Congress, Brian Baird, disparaging Constituents and refusing to face them. When asked for his explanation of Baird’s behavior, Russell offered that it seems like “a symptom of a Career Politician” whose “focus is him, not us”.

Meanwhile, where was Brian Baird? Well, he wasn’t on that Victoria Taft Show. On the same day as that show, he was in Toronto, Canada, giving the Keynote Address to the American Psychological Association Annual Convention. Now there’s a fancy way to duck confronting the electorate! And, what plans did Baird have for engaging with the electorate? When Victoria Taft asked about this, during her last interview with Baird, he said that he had changed to Telephone Town Halls. Here’s how those work, as reported in The Columbian:

• If you happen to be sitting near a publicly listed Clark County telephone line on the right day at the right time, your phone will ring.
• In order to avoid software problems, Baird’s office says, the exact date and time will be kept secret from the public.
• If you answer your landline, an automated message will ask whether you have a question for your Congressman.
• Press *3, and you’ll be asked your location and the subject of your question.
• Sitting at his own telephone at an as-yet-undisclosed location, Baird then will choose a name based on its location and the topic.
• There will be no further pre-screening, Baird said. After the call is over, the recording will be posted on his Web site. 

As of this morning, the article that included the above description had received 184 Comments. The majority of them reflect the following Comment, from Larch Mountain’s Pam Benson, that was included in the article: 

She said she realizes Baird disagrees with her on health care reform. But the lack of town hall meetings makes her feel angrier and more helpless, she said. “He’s supposed to be our representative,” said Benson, a purchasing manager for Portland Cascade Architecture and Engineering in Portland. “He’s supposed to listen to us, whether he’s on our side or not.” Benson said she doesn’t understand why health care reform is moving forward when everyone she talks to seems to oppose it. “We are not nut cases that disagree with this issue,” she said. “There are a lot of very well-informed people that are against this health care thing.” It’s enough to make a Republican like her paranoid, she said. “It makes me feel that there is a conspiracy here to screw up the whole entire United States,” she said with a laugh. “It’s just too much, too fast.”

Although I agree with Jon Russell, that Baird’s behavior on this seems like “a symptom of a Career Politician” whose “focus is him, not us”, he has been a crafty enough Career Politician to get reelected several times so its not surprising that he was, at least, aware of the tumult he had instigated back home. In what seems to have been a move aimed at stemming the tide against him on this matter, Baird hastily scheduled a Telephone Town Hall on Friday. And, today, Baird’s Website trumpets this, saying:

Brian Holds Telephone Town Hall Meeting with 6,000 Constituents

In this article, Baird refers to himself as “The King of Town Halls”. And he says, “Today was an incredible opportunity to talk with thousands of people in Clark County about what is on their mind, and how government can serve them better.”

You may be interested to know that when I came home yesterday, after my workday in Portland, I learned that I had missed out on this “incredible opportunity”. I found a voice mail letting me know that I had been invited to join in this Telephone Town Hall … at 1:01pm on a Friday afternoon. This morning, a 30 minute recording of the Telephone Town Hall was made available on Baird’s Website so, at least, I got to listen to that. For me, it served as another reminder that The Emperor (“The King of Town Halls”) has no clothes and it’s well past time for his Subjects (AKA the Constituents of WA-03) to point that out to him. Here are some of the “highlights” from the recording that you probably won’t get on Baird’s Website:

§BAIRD SPOKE WITH 7 PEOPLE! At the outset of the recording, he says there are 400 people on the call. Just before the next-to-last caller, he says there are 3,500 people on the call. And, as mentioned, on his Website he says there were 6,000 people on the call. BAIRD SPOKE WITH 7 PEOPLE!

§The key issues raised by callers and their frequency was:

o      Health Care – 4

o      Debt-burden being created by government deficit spending – 1

o      Government programs not helping the mainstream – 1

o      Request for Baird to have face-to-face Town Halls – 3

§This was a classic example of “Baird marketing Baird”. In starting the Telephone Town Hall, Baird touted the fact that he is a clinical psychologist. And, with almost every question, he first responded by giving his resume-points on the related topic … “I sit on X committee”, “I introduced Y bill”, etc.

§Likewise, this was another excellent illustration of what Jon Russell pointed out … that Baird’s “focus is him, not us”. A Career Politician, who has been in the same job for over 10 years, should be able to speak coherently on the issues. However, as our REPRESENTATIVE, especially after this long in office, he should have some interest and skill in extracting what the voters want. Here again, you heard a lot about Brian Baird’s views but NOT ONCE DID YOU HEAR BAIRD ASK WHAT THE CONSTITUENTS WANT!

Needless to say, it should be quite interesting to watch the continuing metamorphosis of this situation. One specific I’ll be watching for is Baird’s follow through on an offer made by one caller he did talk to. Nan Malin, Chair of the Pacific County (WA) Republican Party, was one of the 7 who got to speak with Baird. She told Baird it was a disappointment that he was not listening to both sides. Then, in response to his claims of anarchy and threats, she said “Come here to Seaview. I will host a Town Hall in my living room. We can disagree and still have a conversation. I will be your bodyguard.” Baird’s response was “I will take you up on that.” We’ll see. This is the same Brian Baird who told Victoria Taft that having the media participate in his Telephone Town Halls “would take some arranging” but that “it could be done.” So far, nothing has come from that implied promise.

The one part of this that I do have confidence in, as these circumstances continue to unfold, is the brave role that Jon Russell is playing. Of course, he recognizes that no matter what he learns from voters at the series of Town Halls he is hosting “from Olympia to Vancouver”, he is not yet charged with representing that in Congress. However, he is an elected official. Taking this action in response to the tumult instigated by Baird shows that he has the experience and maturity to do what is called for. Beyond that, this clearly demonstrates the leadership of one who has a heart to serve. With that in mind, my hope and prayer is that attendance at Jon Russell’s Town Halls will be overwhelming, both to clearly demonstrate that we appreciate the opportunity Jon is making possible “so the people can speak” and that this courageous “leadership of one who has a heart to serve” is precisely what we want and what we desperately need.

SEP 11, 2001. A day of great loss for our nation. But, at the time, out of that loss, there was the prospect of great gain. For me, that was symbolized by seeing President Bush and Senator Daschle hug, as the President arrived to address a joint session of Congress, shortly after the 9/11 tragedy. Sadly, our nation has let that prospective gain slip through our fingers.

Like most Americans who remember 9/11, there are specifics that stand out in my memory.

- We were still living in Orange County, CA and we were just waking up when the news started to come in. When I saw the 2nd plane go into the twin towers, I told my Wife, "This is no accident. You're gonna see that replayed over and over and over."

- Since I've had the experience of dining at Windows, the restaurant at the top of one of the WTC towers, I thought to check their Website. It was strange to see "views" on that Website ... "views" that no longer existed.

- It wasn't long before I went out to put up Old Glory on our Fountain Valley townhouse and during the day, we went to join others in prayer in the Sanctuary at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa (CCCM).

- I recall worrying about my Wife going to work in a high-rise in the City of Orange and I remember the eeriness of seeing one of the first planes on approach to John Wayne, after air travel resumed.

But, I also recall that sense of potential gain, resulting from the loss. In addition to the Bush/Dascle hug, I remember:

- The pews being even fuller at CCCM.

- Drivers going out of their way to be courteous on the Southern California freeways.

- EVERYONE standing, with a hand over their heart and singing "The Star Spangled Banner" and "God Bless America", at Angels games.

- A sense that, as a nation, we were making a conscious effort to gain strength through our differences, instead of letting our differences divide us.

I truly thought that we were exhibiting what we said we were ... One Nation, Under God. God's Word teaches us - "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." - Romans 8:28. It appeared to me that this was exactly what was going on but, maybe even more tragically than 9/11 itself, we failed to nurture our newfound gain.

Currently, we see little, if any, evidence of that prospective gain. Looking at the current presidential race provides proof of just the opposite. Once again, its just one candidate pitted against the other, based on their differences. I think that's pretty sad. With that said, I'm not endorsing a "Can't we all just get along, lets all get together and sing Kum Ba Yah" approach. Staying with the musical theme, I do believe that "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." But that doesn't necessarily mean that because others see things differently than I do, that makes them wrong or bad. It just makes them different and I think the synergy of the best of our differences was a key element, leading to America's greatness in the first place. Although we didn't nurture the opportunity that the tragedy of 9/11 gave us to regain that quality, it doesn't have to mean the opportunity is completely missed. One of the qualities that all of the current presidential candidates like to tout is their ability to lead. My prayer is that at least one of them will show the courage of their convictions and from this point forward, choose to lead by example in this regard.

“Bush-McCain!” … the Democrat’s one consistent mantra, since John McCain became the Republican’s apparent nominee for the 2008 presidential race. Although McCain is obviously his own man and his presidency would be significantly different from that of President Bush, you can understand why they want McCain to be saddled with Bush’s unpopularity … currently ranging from 25% to 33%.

Since, according to the National Journal, Barack Obama (D) has the Senate’s most liberal voting record and Joe Biden (D) has the Senate’s 3rd most liberal voting record, isn’t it more appropriate to link Obama/Biden with the current liberal (D) congressional leadership … Reid/Pelosi? In 2006, the Democrats became the majority party in both houses of Congress, establishing the Reid/Pelosi administration. The Democrat’s winning campaign strategy was summed up, at that time, by the new Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, when he said, “The days of the do-nothing Congress are over,” adding that Americans spoke “clearly and decisively in favor of Democrats leading this country in a new direction.” Considering that the current unpopularity of Congress ranges from 14% to 18%, it appears that the “new direction” Reid/Pelosi had in mind was a level of “do-nothing” where no man has gone before. Now, aside from “Bush-McCain!”, the central Obama/Biden theme has been “Change!” It boggles the mind to consider the depths of “New Direction”/“Change” an Obama/Biden-Reid/Pelosi term will mean.