Wednesday, July 21, 2010

So, I was at "The Liar" Leavitt's dog and pony show last night.

Remember, folks.... it's not that Tim "The Liar" Leavitt lied to those of you who couldn't see it... Anyone reading this blog about Leavitt since he announced knew that he was lying the whole time. It's that he took this long to admit it.

The sooner he came out of the closet on this, the sooner he could put it behind him and begin to REALLY concentrate on screwing us in ways Pollard hadn't dreamed of.

The Liar's performance last night's was so unbelievably pathetic... so absolutely cynical, that his decision to come out of the closet on his genuine stance on tolls (Which, of course, is that he supported tolls all along, supported tolls even thought he sold himself to the less informed as opposing tolls) was yet another of his political ploys, designed to get it out of the way now, while cynically sure that with the Columbian's help (You can bet, given the fact that the local rag does everything they can to help bridger/looters, that like their Moeller debacle, they will stop mentioning this worm's political treason as soon as possible so we all forget about it as soon as possible) that this issue will rapidly disappear to do less political damage to The Liar in the future.

Leavitt, of course, is a coward and a liar. Many politicians share those tenets. But this "Oh my, I lied to you all like a rug... but holding on to my position that I used TO GET ELECTED is just too hard... and being honorable and keeping my word is just too difficult, and then, as I lie to you about 'no one else opposes tolls' (Commissioner Tom Mielke does) the very idea that I COULD take a stand based on principle no matter how many people beat on me is just.... welllll..... far too difficult for me to contemplate."

The Liar actually stood there and told someone that he "didn't see where holding an advisory vote would serve any purpose." Oddly, the paper, which would rather burn itself to the ground then get into the issue of an advisory vote, failed to mention that effort by someone else in the crowd.

Here. Let me help you with that, Liar:

For scum like you who used people, lied to people, mislead people.... who only NOW tell us that there's really "nothing you can do about it... you have no impact on tolls... they're set at the legislature" and so on and so on.... I've got to ask: how come you didn't say any of that tripe during your campaign, Weasel?

As I told you last night, the moment I heard that Steve "Easy Money" Stuart was running your campaign, I KNEW you were lying. I KNEW you were pro-toll.

And see, that's why I supported Pollard: Pollard was all of those things as well, but he was much more honest about it.

Pollard made no bones about his positions. You, on the other hand, are a stone cold lying scum bag. If you told me it was daylight out, I'd have to check it for myself.

And I STILL haven't received an answer to my question, you little worm: because you we're such a lying scumbag during your campaign.... when, exactly, are we supposed to believe you?

Clearly, principles like honor and ethics are completely foreign to you and the scum like you.

You whined and sniveled like no other politician I've EVER seen, and I've been doing this a long time.

Here's what you COULD do: you COULD spike the whole project.

You little fricking coward; you COULD take a stand and tell the world that you will oppose the project if it has tolls. You COULD do that, but because you're such a sniveling, whiny little coward, you won't. After all, you little worm, you wouldn't want to be an "obstructionist," right?

You see, Liar, you took a stand. People believed in you because of that stand. And what YOUR job is, is this: to do every thing you can to fight for the principles that got you elected. That *I* knew you were a lying turd makes no difference. People were so politically ignorant they BELIEVED in you. THATS what matters. Of course, I knew you would betray them, because that's what you are.

And I got news for you.

I'm going to be out here as long as I live telling them.

And now, you make a political calculation to crawl away from your honor NOW, to minimize political damage to you LATER, a project the Columbian has ALREADY started on.

That's what a foreign concept like "courage" could do for you. But you wouldn't know anything about that, either.... would you?

After all, you wouldn't want to disappoint Steve "Unmarked Bills" Stuart.... would you?

No wonder people hate politicians. No wonder Vancouver is such a fiscal train wreck. With "leadership" like yours... it's surprising that the city still stands.


Lew Waters said...

You missed Jeanne Harris little hissy fit as she "scolded" the audience and talked down to us as if we were 3rd graders interrupting a class.

Too many act as if we are supposed to listen to them, while they don't have to listen to us.

The Columbian's depiction of event was a bit biased, as usual. While there were catcalls and audible groans, it was nowhere near what we saw in protests and college campus riots of the 1960's, many participants who now control government.

Just a guy said...

Gee. I wonder if the Columbian reporter had left by then, or just didn't think that an elected official trashing a group opposed to her position was newsworthy?

Martin Hash said...

People who run for office based on irresponsible, cynical commitments (i.e. “No new taxes,” or “No tolls”) are reprehensible BUT once those promises are made they MUST be lived up to. My position on tolls is that they are just another way for Oregon to tax Washingtonians, however, I am not a “no tolls” guy.

Just a guy said...

Thanks for stopping by, Mr. Hash.

The problem with the toll issues are at least two-fold:

1. With 65,000 or so commuters going to and from Oregon every day, and a toll described as being from $7.00 down to $5.00 per day, each commuter family may have to bear the additional burden of these tolls at the rate of as much as $150 per month.... times 12... or $1800 or so per year.

2. Each one of those dollars will be vacuumed out of the local economy.

They won't buy newspapers, pizza, movie tickets, park entry fees, golf rounds, CD's or DVD's or a great many other things they buy now. Those dollars won't produce a dime in revenue to any city, county or state, except to pay for a bridge we do not need and that no one has asked us, or will ask us, apparently, if we want.

Everything government does... particularly when government is doing it at a cost of billions, will have a ripple effect. At the end of the day, there is no way replacing this bridge could possibly nullify the negative impacts of that decision, particularly when there are other options available.

The fix was in for this option and this option only. The whole thing is being done ONLY to bring light rail into Clark County, which will make it the most expensive transportation project per foot in the history of this planet.

If not "No Tolls," then no deal. It's easy for the bridge/light rail cheerleaders to demand this bridge when they will not have to pay the tolls on it, and oddly, very, very few of the bridge proponents will ever have to use it to get to work.

The taxpayers have already vaporized $100 million and all we've got to show for it is a tall stack of paper. But compared to the billions they WANT to spend, I would cheerfully write that entire amount off to get rid of this unneeded, unwanted, divisive and worthless project.

Again, thank you for stopping by.

Anonymous said...

CCP, if you watch: (direct link: ) you'll see that Steve horenstein suggests that the side is at the end of the tunnel for the columbia river crossing project sponsorship council and that their last meeting may be August 9th? And that they are working to have an overall vote on the bridge to everywhere but one's pocket book.

You might want to watch along with me as I'm becoming more fascinated by the indocrination and supporting material on what is being consituted "the Plan."

Why do I have a feeling that this will not get recorded just like every one Portland sponsorship council meetings for the past year?

Might I suggest that you and Lew might want to attend?

Just a guy said...

You may and I will.

I am SOOOOO there.

And thanks for the info!

Martin Hash said...

This was my editorial on tolls:

Anonymous said...

Why your welcome! :)

And from my link above, the Tim leavitt stuff is the last twenty minutes of the video, so you can skip ahead. In fact the Traffic Demand Management - tolls part is in the every last 30+ minutes.

No need to watch almost three hours of different scenarios of the bridge affecting Hayden Island or other stuff.

Leave that to people who have no life. :)

Oh, if you want to watch Moeller squirm with having the CVTV camera on him for twenty minutes, I'll leave it to you to do a "where's Moeller" (where's waldo search) through the video.

Anonymous said...

One more comment. I watched what Tim had to say on the columbia river crossing project sponsorship council meeting. CCP, I suggest you watch it for yourself because I think the snooze media mischaracterized his commments like so many other things that they do.

I watched that video four times this evening to make sure I didn't hear it wrong from Tim's own mouth.

Now if you REALLY want to hear some thing fun, listen to Paula Hammond's comments just before Tim's about the Puget Sound and how much she would love to take these ideas and use them up north.

Just a guy said...

Martin succinctly sums up my position. Read it if you've got a minute.

Anonymous said...

Martin, I think you make a good point for the commuters of the Clark County region.

But wasn't the bridge's original platform or the MAIN reason it was even started to be discussed four or five years ago was the ability of freight to move in and out of the Portland Metropolitan region?

Not Light Rail, Not tolls, Not if the newest bridge needs to have environmental twirley (helix generators) birds on it to generate power, get rid of Pearson Airpark to make some Portland doohickey look better for the bridge or major mass transit improvements.

All of this and more is just added gravy train that is being added through this and other related procesess instead of making this bridge attractive to freight shippers, bulk hauklers and other big transportation that provide a significant job and employment centers in our region?

Just a guy said...

What an excellent discussion!