... if it's for a good reason.
In their continuing effort to rehab Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, we get columns like this today from their editor, wherein he tells us:
OK, I’m not quite as hard on the mayor as some might be over this switcheroo. IOf course, if that "realization" HAD come "before the election," Leavitt would have lost, making the issue moot.
appreciate when someone sees the light and has the courage to change course.
I just wish it had come before the election.
I had known, and wrote, that Leavitt was a lying scum bag the SECOND he came out "opposed to tolls." With Steve "I can be bought" Stuart on his campaign and The Liar's utterly nonsensical "I'm not an obstructionist" position, there are two irrefutable conclusions:
1. Leavitt was NEVER opposed to tolls.
2. The toll issue was the ONLY campaign issue Leavitt could gin up to separate himself from Pollard.
It was fake. It was made up out of whole cloth. Leavitt was lying about that position from the beginning.
And now, he's made the political decision to come out of the Columbian's "pro-toll" closet NOW, to reduce the massive political damage he's inflicted on himself later, when he runs for whatever other office he's got in mind.
Of course, as the Columbian has just pointed out, it's perfectly OK to lie, when the lie dovetails with THEIR lies and agenda.
The problem is Brancaccio's ignorance about this issue, and his pro-spin position.
Instead of focusing on Leavitt's lack of integrity, his record of lies, his cynical political ploy to get elected....
We're told that Leavitt "saw the light and changed course."
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, Son.
Leavitt didn't CHANGE anything.
This was Leavitt's position from the beginning (as I repeatedly stated during the election run-up) an now, like his political decision to lie to the ignorant who actually voted for him, he's made the political decision to come out of the closet so he'll get a little political cover when he starts advocating for tolls to get this thing built, because like most of the bridger/looters, they'd shoot their own mothers to get this thing built, saddling us with hundreds of millions of dollars of debt per year, and tasking 65,000 commuters with yet another massive fee to work in Oregon.
Most of the bridger/looters won't have to PAY these fees, of course. And it's easy to make others spend THEIR money.
And now that The Liar is in the fold and has fully drank all of the Columbian's kool aid.... why, he's magically "seen the light."
What a crock of Grade A horse shit.
Cross posted at Tim Leavitt Watch.
.
I know some of you were quite upset last Tuesday thinking you had elected Leavitt. I am not so sure of that. I think it had to be more that just the anti-toll folks:
ReplyDelete1) Ogle and Turlay were anti-toll and not elected.
2) Burkman was pointed out as being "pro-toll" and was elected.
So in my mind there was more to Leavit's election that just the tolling issue. An opinion- Pat Campbell
There may very well could have been. But isn't all that beside the point?
ReplyDeleteThe man ran on a lie. This sudden awakening was a crock. I find it highly unlikely that Leavitt magically gained knowledge on tolling after the election that he didn't have before the election. And that's the trouble, Pat.... even more so then his cynical and absolute decision to use the tolling issue to gain support from the anti-toll segment of the electorate.
Of course, Leavitt also got $40,000or so from David Barnett that didn't hurt, either.
The idea that Leavitt NOW knows what he apparently didn't know then is absurd. His position was purely electioneering; he had no intention of being opposed to tolls. He was for tolls from the very beginning; his decision to publicly abandon that issue now and let the Columbian PR arm go to work to rehab his image was a purely political decision as well.
The ONLY way to genuinely "oppose tolls" as Leavitt campaigned on is what I told him: the simple thing to do is stand up and tell those in charge: if you toll this thing I will do everything I can to kill it.
And his cowardly response to the issue of an advisory vote: how DARE he tell the public that such a vote would be meaningless. It's only "meaningless" because Leavitt is not about to risk a massive public repudiation of his pro-toll position. He doesn't want a mere thing like the will of the people to get in the way of his agenda... much like, come to think of it, you.
There is no excuse for building this without asking us. None. And Tom Mielke appears to be the only one who has tried to get this project in front of the people for our input. Leavitt doesn't want that. Stuart doesn't want that. The governor doesn't want that and frankly, it appears that you don't want it either.
In the entirety of my life I never believed that any government that governed me could possibly care so little about the will of those they would govern.... until now.
Regardless of whatever else Leavitt ran on, he ran on this lie. And now, the question: when do we believe him? How do we know when he's lying... and when he's telling the truth?
I knew he was lying from the beginning. Said so from the beginning. Steve Stuart on his campaign? There is NO WAY Stuart would allow anyone who didn't share his perspective to win.
Leavitt defrauded the people as much as Sam Adams in Portland. And for that, he deserves everyone's condemnation, including yours. But I'm not holding my breath.
Because like all of the bridger/looters, none of you are going to have to pay for this unneeded and unwanted monstrosity. As a result, it's completely unrealistic to expect you to make any effort to hold Leavitt accountable or to do the right thing in his regard.
Thanks for stopping by, Pat.
I am for the bridge and light rail after coming to the conclusion that we need to get started before our current transportation system collapses. (Some would argue it already has.)
ReplyDeleteI know we have a group that is opposed to CRC and tolls. We also have an even greater group of citizens and business people who feel the project has to be completed or we will stagnate economically.
Small groups can have a big effect if the cause is supported by many others. The issue of the Port tax increase without a vote was one of those. The fizzling of Patellas petition indicates that outside of a few folks, most want CRC to move forward. - Pat Campbell