Gee. Whoda thunk that an elected official rarely bothered to vote?
Damn... talk about disrespecting and dishonoring his country... and disrespecting the military that enables jerks like this TO vote, only to have this mamby pamby blow it off.
Actually, it takes a genuine scumbag to avoid voting like this and then run for ANY public office.
Tim "The Liar" Leavitt ought to be ashamed... and he ought to withdraw because of it.
It's bad enough that the man lies about tolling 65,000 people on a bridge with loot rail that we neither want or need.
But to blow off voting? And have so many total morons come here and post because of a whiny email?
Despicable.
Yet, the oddest thing about all this is the bizarre response by The Liar's supporters. That this scumbag doesn't bother to vote is met with yawning indifference by those stupid enough to want this clown to get elected.
Here's what many of those morons have to say:
if pollard actually had a history of telling the truth, this'd be different. But since he says whatever it takes to get elected, this is just another distraction. Don't forget his blatant lies about an endorsement from muchas gracias, or his ridiculous statement after the cops endorsed his opponent, that the police just want to take over the city. this guy is a joke, and needs to be replaced.I'm a strong supporter of Leavitt. If he hasn't voted in the past, he sure will be as mayor!! No reason to vote Pollard that I can see, whatsoever.Barack H. Obama missed 314 of 1300 roll call votes (24%) since Jan 6, 2005 and he is President of the United States!
by JR G : 10/6/09 10:44am - Report AbuseSeriously?
This is what they came up with for an attack? Who cares if he voted? Whether someone votes or not in elections has nothing to with his ability to lead a city. I would say the same thing if it were Pollard that had missed these elections. A person's ability or desire to vote does not mean he cannot lead.
by Icare Alot : 10/6/09 11:10am - Report AbusePersonally, I do not see anything wrong with Leavitt not having voted in those elections. He is a qualified and savvy politician with a deep-rooted interest in serving Vancouver. The swift-boat tactic is what is dirty about this 'revelation' and not the message itself. We need to be a more educated population and not fall for such games.
by bruce hall : 10/6/09 11:33am - Report AbuseOK- so Mr. Levitt missed some votes. He is not dispuiting that. But, if Mr. Pollard is
so intent on votes, then why, as mayor, did he not ALLOW citizen votes regarding the allocation of huge amounts of tax monies. Under the Pollard's leadership, the citizens paid, via taxes, on huge giveaways to developement. He still wants to continue that under the redevelopment of the Boise site by a ten year deal where the developers don't have to pay property taxes. The city, under Pollards leadership, gave away monies to build parking garages that were attached to private developement. Yes, the city gets some parking revenue, but, to my knowledge, they never have made a profit and have actually been in the red for millions of dollars. Same thing on subsidizing the restaurants on officers row. How many million has that cost the taxpayers of the city? No, I'll try Mr. Levitt as mayor and see if there is a change for the positive. I know how "well" Pollard leads. Let us get some positive force and a positive change by changing mayors. All of that hard earned tax money could have gone to better roads, water systems, and other infrastructure repair that still needs to be done after 14 long Pollard years.
by A. Mazed : 10/6/09 11:35am - Report AbuseSounds like Pollard is getting a bit nervous about losing his comfy position. I've been
a very active participant in the political process since the mid sixties, but I've never felt an obligation to vote in every election. Many, particularly during the primaries, aren't issues I have a strong opinion about. Why should my vote possibly cancel out that of someone who really cares about the issues at stake? We should be more concerned about which candidate will be best for the city.
by I M Aletheia : 10/6/09 11:51am - Report AbuseIf Mark Johnston cares so much about our community - why did he mislead the public by failing to disclose what the fire union got in return when they agreed to a 1
year contract with no COLA raise? Oh - I guess that's different. What a crock!!!!by Bob Smith : 10/6/09 1:06pm - Report AbuseJohnston - what is the quid pro quo Royce offered you and the Fire guys to be his political henchmen? You should know better than to make deals with Royce and the City. Didn't you learn when you negotiated a zero pay raise and the City agreed to staff the new fire station - oh wait, they aren't going to staff it. Shrewd negotiations Mark. I'm sure whatever Rocye offered you to take a cheap shot at Leavitt will never come to fruition either - but you'll continue drinking the Kool Aid.
Although I voted in every election since I turned 18, except the past Washington primaries which required me to pick a party. I refused. Many times people have reasons for doing what they do or don't do and it may have nothing to do with apathy - which is what you are implying with Leavitt's voting record.
I can't wait until one of the candidates is asked, "Do you still beat your wife." When did politics revert back to such an ugly endeavor? But since it has, here are my two cents: You can wrap Royce in a flag and tout his voting record all you want; it doesn't make him any less of an ass. Royce is wrong for Vancouver - wrong on so many levels.I didn't vote in the Feb-08 presidential preference ballot either -- because I was attending the Democratic caucus, and the ballot wasn't going to count towards anything. I would rather have voted: the caucus was a very weird event, and not a private vote at all.Democracy is not only about one's right TO vote, it is also about a person's right to ABSTAIN from voting. We don't know Mr Leavitt's reasons for not voting, and none of us have a right to know. He exercised his rights as he saw fit, and that is all we need to know.
I still support Mr Leavitt in his bid for mayor. Vancouver needs a fresh perspective and new leadership. For the last decade Pollard and his cronies have driven this town into the mud and created a sea of half empty strip malls, crumbling schools, endless cookie cutter housing developments and hardly a decent job in sight. If he wins re-election, we can add a budget breaking, and highly unjust, toll bridge to the mix, which Pollard's support of over the objection of the citizenry is far more un-democratic than Leavitt's voting habits.Union President Mark Johnston continues to be Pollards do nut whoopee cushion when it comes to the mayors nasty case of (political)hemorrhoids that won't seem go away. No wonder the other unions don't want anything to do with continuing embarrassment and have bailed on their support of Pollard. Stop playing junior politician and quit embarrassing the city.by K Gero : 10/6/09 1:41pm - Report AbuseGee ****. If we made our decisions based solely on whether or not someone has voted, then most of our politicians wouldn't be sitting in office right now. Just check their history of voting on issues in the house and senate. Also, with the city council votes, maybe there was no need for Mr. Leavitt to make his opinion count because the decision was made before he cast his ballot. I'd highly doubt he would refrain from voting while sitting in office as our mayor.
Has there been any check in regards to the history of our current mayor beyond this
"period in question?" Just thought I'd ask because when you are mayor, you have a sworn duty oand it doesn't look good for you to miss too many votes. What about when Pollard wasn't mayor? Oh yes, most likely those are in archives not retrievable to the public.
I think the Vancouver Firefighters Union Officials need to find something more substantial than this to sway voters to choose a man with only one fiscal agenda on his mind, the same man who has limited his improvements to Vancouver on a narrow scale.That was Gee w.h.i.z! I hate automated word censors!
Billy O, I was posting and missed your post until afterwards. You make some good points, but maybe it is the fact that Leavitt has new ideas for Vancouver that may improve it rather than the stagnant situation our town is in right now. What is the vision through Mayor Pollard? The bridge? You know how I feel about that one! The Waterfront? Okay, I like the Waterfront idea, but that isn't entirely because of Mayor Pollard. I believe the landowner has a lot to say about that. They worked in
conjunction with the City of Vancouver as well as BNSF to improve the accessibility of the waterfront and it includes improving city streets and create a friendly public access. just my humble thought!Whenever the union endorses a candidate, I make sure and vote for the other guy. Talk about sleaze and corruption. Firefighters USED to be someone we could look up to.Vancouvercitizen, if you are referring the one time Pollard refused to choose a party. I am talking about before he was mayor. I would like to know his voting habits, not by word of mouth, but by record. Maybe you need to read my post more closely. I am not condoning someone who didn't vote on issues which he regrets he didn't, but his own cohort stated he has moderately improved if you read the article. Vanc., have you seen the records of voting on important issues by our politicians in DC? It just might interest you. I'd bet if you checked the history of our current president, you would be amazed as to how often this happens.I could care less about Leavitt's voting record. Pollard needs to go. He's a good old boy who only tries to please his buddies and build his "legacy". If he has such a problem with people not voting then why not let Vancouver residents vote on the tolls?
Pollard is one of those politicians that thinks HE knows what's best for the city and could care less what the citizens think.I agree Spencer. I find it humorous that this is all they can come up. Anyone who has
ever met Pollard knows how arrogant he is.I'd be more concerned about any votes he missed behind the dais as a councilmember than his voting record as a citizen. It's frankly no one's business, and if that is the benchmark we're going to use for the qualification of public officials to hold office, then Pres. Obama needs to be impeached pronto.
I suspect Leavitt missed a bunch of elections for the same reason Obama constantly voted "present" in the IL state legislature and had more NV's in the U.S. Senate than yeas or nays. It's because they don't want to leave a trail for their opponents to exploit. Some politicians see a greater benefit in taking no position over taking apparently contradictory positions that can be spun out of a voting record."Jeff, Since when is Pollard a commissioner?"
Billy, since when did I say he was? If you believe that only commissioners have sway over the course of the city, then perhaps you need to take a civics class yourself. While our commissioners are also guilty of selling out our town to developers, Pollard
is the issue here, and he exemplifies the notion of cronyism and selling out. If we'd had a different mayor for the lest ten years, I have no doubt that Vancouver would be in a much healthier state.Dear Firefighters Union:
Big Friggin' Deal! I believe Mr. Leavitt was in his late 20s, early 30s for most of the votes indicated. How many of us were really tuned into local politics at that age?
The key is that Tim has a good grasp of the community and all of it's members - NOW. Which I can't say about Mr. Pollard. C'mon Mark Johnson - if that is all you can come up with against Mr. Leavitt I think you are basically saying he is a damn good candidate!
No comments:
Post a Comment