Need more proof the democratian doesn't get it? Read today's editorial.

This absolutely looks like a case of the tail trying to wag the dog.

Hopefully, Reps. Pike, Harris and Vick learned a lesson on Friday: do not waste your time with the democratian editorial board.

In all my years in the political realm, I have rarely seen such a hatchet job done to three apparently trusting individuals who believed that Brancaccio wasn't so far over the edge that he'd engage in textbook yellow journalism.

They were wrong.

For example, THIS lie:

Pike, who joined representatives Paul Harris, R-Vancouver, and Brandon Vick, R-Vancouver, in meeting with The Columbian’s editorial board, said she is working with state Sen. Ann Rivers, R-La Center, and others to bring together a coalition of Washington and Oregon lawmakers to discuss the bridge. “Any bridge isn’t going to get built without both legislatures coming together,” Pike said. “Let’s start at the beginning.”

The "coalition" is not to discuss THE bridge.  The coalition is to discuss MULTIPLE bridges in a VARIETY of locations. The I-5 span is but ONE of the options available and under discussion.  And no amount of delusion, bias, slanting or outright lies on the part of the newspaper can change ANY of that.

Rep. Pike herself said:

• I want to re-visit a "West Side By-pass" (yes, this would be a third bridge). A bridge that would connect Felida/Salmon Creek/Ridgefield area with Oregon. My Senator, Ann Rivers, and I are actively arranging for a meeting between OR and WA legislators.

Her position on Columbia River bridges is shared by the RTC as far back as 2008:

1. Rebuild rail bridge west of current 1-5 bridge to line up swing span with high point of 1-5 bridge to eliminate 90% of all I-5 bridge lifts (approx. $200 million)

2. Build west side bypass as shown in RTC study - 2008 (approx. $400 million)

3. Build east side bridge as shown in RTC study - 2008 (approx. $400 million)

4. Eventually replace I-5 bridge after 1, 2 & 3 crossings are complete and need exists. For approximately $1 billion, we could have four crossings between Clark County and the state of Oregon, less than one third of the cost of the now defunct CRC at $3.7 billion. OR and WA could jointly fund 1, 2 and 3. WA would pay for interchanges on WA side, OR would pay for interchanges on OR side. Senator Rivers and I have met with BNSF officials to discuss public/private partnership to rebuild rail crossing. Cost to taxpayers could be less if BNSF agrees to share some of the financial burden.

Why does the rag have to lie about this?  Why?

Then, this long disproven lie:

The insistence upon light rail on the part of the federal government — and the governors of both states — became a rallying point for critics of the project, and it served to obfuscate the primary issue in the discussion — the bridge itself.

The bridge was never the "primary issue."  Why Lou or Greg has to keep lying about this is honestly beyond me.

As previously shown:

The Oregon Supreme Court said it best:

But Chief Justice Paul De Muniz, writing for the majority, highlighted an inconvenient set of facts for CRC backers.

He wrote in the Feb. 16 opinion that most of the project—namely the 10-lane freeway bridge and new interchanges—was put forward to get Clark County to agree to the light-rail line.

De Muniz cited statements that Metro made in the land-use process and Metro’s lawyer repeated before his court.

“It was politically impossible for the light rail project to proceed without also building new interstate bridges across the Columbia River,” De Muniz wrote.

“Or as Metro later summarized it: ‘There is no light rail without the freeway bridge[s] being replaced.’”

Backers have cited traffic and safety issues as the top reasons to build the CRC. But the court ruling means those and other justifications were created after officials decided to give a sop to Clark County, now worth $2.5 billion.

The focus has ALWAYS been loot rail.  It's what drove the CRC Scam from the beginning.  It's why they cheerfully sacrificed the bridge when loot rail was taken off the table.

Why they keep lying in the face of overwhelming evidence to the truth is beyond comprehension.

That Lou keeps insisting that any other alternative is a "diversion" is his fantasy speak... his obsession... his compulsion.  Because except for the CRC Scammers, no one is saying that it's either a diversion OR a miracle.

That Vick may have used that word just serves to show how out of touch and ignorant he is.

As I said earlier, hopefully, those involved have learned a lesson: avoid talking to Brancaccio.

He is not your friend and he no more writes the truth than he can levitate.