The money shot?
"I know there are at least a few people who don't think it needs to be replaced at all, and I'm still trying to understand that," he told the Rotary Club of Vancouver on Wednesday at the Red Lion Hotel Vancouver at the Quay. "That corridor is too vital to allow it to fall into the river, so we have to figure out what the right replacement looks like, what we can afford, when it needs to be done — all of that."Words almost fail me at what an ignorant moron this RINO clown is.
Is he being handled? Lied to? Manipulated?
I could explain it to him in a minute... if he fricken cared to listen.
But like the rest of the downtown mafia, he doesn't give a damn. And frankly, this is another in the series of reasons not to vote for this slimeball.
What an ignorant putz.
I'd dive into a volcanic crater without a face mask before I'd vote for this waste of skin.
4 comments:
Peter Van Nortwick, who has been a strong supporter of McKenna's said on facebook, "Lew, I got it right from Rob right now in a text. He does not support a new bridge with light rail on it. He sees the bridge is old and will need to be replaced."
That does not explain McKenna's words or that he said he can't "understand conflict over project."
Well, he could solve it with a clarification:
"I want to clarify a statement I made obviously misunderstood by the local media.
While I support the ultimate replacement of the I-5 Bridge, I only support the replacement of that bridge with first, a county wide vote and second, the completion of the construction of a 3rd and 4th bridge, and third, without light rail."
Otherwise, RINO Rob's words, as whacked as they are, stand by themselves.
Lew,
Rob didn't say he can't understand conflict over the project. He said he is trying to understand the people that say the bridge doesn't need to be replaced at all and he is trying to understand that. He never said he didn't understand the conflict. Quit letting the Columbian drive you. It is clear in the article that he didn't answer any of their questions.
We are waiting on Rob's clarification, Pete. Sorry, but you saying what is in the article "indicates" something different to you just isn't a clarification.
As I keep saying, he is owed nothing. If he wants our support, he is going to have to get it the old fashioned way. He'll have to earn it.
We deserve to know exactly where he stands on this, not what is indicated to you.
Post a Comment