I think I've got it figured out: Brancaccio is self-deluding.

.
Whenever Lou jots down a column, like as not, soon afterwards, he'll break one of his own arms patting himself on his back for his efforts.

That's fine, of course. It's his column and he can actually believe anything he wants... but then, given his situation, I suppose he has to be delusional in his thinking.

The 800 pound gorilla in our little community is, of course, the moronic idea that has so far vaporized $100 to $130 million or so for a stack of paper. Brancaccio has done essentially everything he can to violate every journalistic tenet on the subject because he, personally, supports this extortion; he supports holding 65,000 commuting families hostage to his fantasy, he supports everything the CRC has done, are doing and will do.

There is no cost too high, no effort to silence the voters, no amount of OUR money (Brancaccio doesn't commute across the river to go to work, so, like 99% of the other bridger/looters, he won't have to pay the $1300+ yearly to go to work every day) that Brancaccio won't support.

Establishing that baseline, I suppose he actually means it when he writes:

This might have come as a surprise to many readers. But is that really new information? Not so much.

I went back and looked at an interview I did with bridge project co-director Don Wagner in May 2009. Then-reporter Jeff Mize wrote the story. Here’s what that story said:

“Even if voters were to reject a tax increase to help pay for light rail operations, Wagner said there are other options to help pay for the light rail bill — ‘None of which I’m supporting,’ he added — including using excess revenue from bridge tolls.”

I say all of this because I know there are folks out there who believe that somehow we aren’t reporting news about this bridge that would go against those who want this bridge built.

But it just ain’t so.

I’m not saying we’ve done every story on every angle of this thing, but we’ve done plenty. And as we get more ideas for stories, we’ll continue to do them.

He actually believes it.

But then, people living across the street from the ancestral estates of the Count of Dachau had NO IDEA it was a concentration camp, if the post war interviews are to be believed.

We get article after article of every facet of this painful process. Any traveling fireman passing through who has an opinion Lou agrees with gets a headline. Of course, those people won't have to pay for it, either.

No calls for accountability. No calls for an audit. No calls for a public vote on the whole project... no reining in of his editorial page snake when he attacks the majority by insulting and belittling the massive opposition to this crap pile... and nothing condemning those who apparently don't know what it means when the voters say "no."

I remember watching one of those political panels they hold every year or two a few years back, where people in politics get to expound on the process... kind of a "how to run" seminar.

A long-departed reporter for the rag was one of the panelists, and he discussed a few of the ways a newspaper could screw someone... all above board, of course.

One way was to review the body of work. Since people continue to believe, to greater or lesser degrees that papers report fairly, when this paper prints article after article after article without mention of opposition or without mentioning the horrific costs or without mentioning the perpetual cost overruns and permanent, ever-increasing tolls we'll have to bear for this project like most have had to bear for their horrifically expensive projects, or without mentioning that even when the crap pile is completed, it will do absolutely nothing to address congestion or freight mobility, or by putting up self-serving polling with pre-ordained outcomes and then slavishly reporting them while anyone knowing anything about polling laughs hysterically... they will tend to believe, over a period of days, weeks, or years that there is no real opposition (Because, after all, to mention or quote the opposition is to give the opposition standing) it won't cost much of anything to most people (although the soon to be rabidly supported sales tax increase will, of course, cost EVERYONE something) and that it actually WILL do something to fix traffic.

It won't of course. But then, the ONLY reason for this project... from the beginning... has been to find a way to ignore the voters to ram loot rail down our throats.

And that, of course, is the crux of the matter.

At any time in this process, the "it just ain't so" kid could have joined the cacophony of the people demanding a vote on this entire project. But he has not done so, nor will he. Brancaccio is one of those hypocrites who's all about the "will of the people" when that will meshes with his agenda... but not so much when we, as we so frequently do, oppose his utopian view.

What we have here is a situation where the local rag, comparatively speaking, whispers about the opposition, while using amplified screams in support.

Lou would never admit that, of course... just like he would never condemn or campaign against any funding that the voters had rejected.

Because at base, he doesn't care how much or where the money is coming from to get this thing built. And for him, paying for it by raping commuters even more with higher tolls is the best outcome, because then, he literally wouldn't have to pay a penny. His bizarre reliance on a "user-fee" method to pay for this steaming pile?

Out the window.

And it's so much easier to spend other people's money (Or OPM) to get the project YOU want than it is to spend your own.... right, Lou?

Cross posted at Lou Brancaccio Watch.
.