Tim "The Liar" Leavitt doesn't seem to understand the Constitution either.

.
In the wake of City Councilor Jeannie Harris' high speed come-apart and the inaction of the testicular fortitude in handling the situation, matching that of his lack of testicular fortitude in handling the toll issue, our local daily swindle sheet tells us that the Council is now going to "discuss revamping guidelines about content and decorum in the way citizens address elected officials."

The stupidity in such a moronic plan is obvious. The troubling elements of this response from "The Lair" are at least these:

1. The problem at the meeting wasn't the public addressing elected officials. The problem, of course, was the elected official (In this case, Princess Jeannie) was addressing the public.

2. That the council and particularly it's mayor wants to shut up the opposition to their horrific plan is obvious. Leavitt, who's lies about opposing tolls, both detailed in this blog and well known by all political followers, wants everyone to stop talking about his campaign lies. He wants top stop hearing about it. He wants to stop being reminded about it. He wants it to go away.

3. The First Amendment can be an annoyance to those in power... particularly when, like Leavitt, they're lying scum that make me ashamed of the Taliban city council of Vancouver.

Part of the problem is this nonsense concerning "City Policy." City policy, of course, justifies absolutely nothing.

To the Germans during World War 2, everything they did was "legal" in the sense that their laws covered pretty much everything from slaughtering Jews to confiscating property to forced sterilization.

What's being "clarified" is a policy, a one-sided policy, of stifling opposition and dissent to the council's agenda.

What's being clarified here is a one-sided policy that particularly overlooks the fact that the issue of the horrific, nonsensical, unwanted and unneeded bridge replacement CONTINUES to be "city business" and, as a result, the scum claiming, as Leavitt claims,

"....that the council has already voted on a locally preferred alternative on the Columbia River Crossing that includes light rail in 2008, and that tolling is a State Legislature issue.

“When folks come in and testify on things that aren’t within our realm or control, I’ll be more verbal in my questioning of, ‘What do you want the city council to do about this matter?” Leavitt said. “We’ll still allow people their three minutes.”

The huge, gaping hole in that "reasoning" is that the city continues to be members of the C-Trans council. So, these issues, such as the lack of Leavitt's testicles when it comes to holding an advisory vote on this steaming crap pile, IS "city business."

So, the only "clarification" these clowns want is yet ANOTHER "regulation" or "policy" that will shut up the massive opposition to their efforts to screw us.

We had reason enough to be ashamed of the slimeball who is mayor of Vancouver, even before this nonsense happened. Now, he just plain makes me sick.

As for "decorum," the more you continue to ignore us, the less "decourus" the people are going to be. The French Revolution comes to mind. After you people educate yourselves on the Constitution, read about that and its causes.

Clearly, like Jeannie Harris admitted yesterday, he doesn't understand that the Constitution isn't a series of suggestions.

And, on a more personal note to The Liar, this issue is NEVER going away. And as long as you get up and roll over at C-Trans while you screw the people of Southwest Washington, we not only have the right, but the duty to tell you what a sniveling, lying little coward you are.
.

The Liar, wild about loot rail, ought to check out Sound Transit.

From the Washington Policy Blog:

Sound Transit officials missed their ridership target by almost 1000 percent!

During this one year anniversary of light rail, Sound Transit officials keep bragging about how they have carried six million riders since it opened. That is about 16,000 trips per day.

In 1996, Sound Transit officials promised voters the line would be complete by 2006 and carry about 107,000 trips per day. That means Sound Transit should be celebrating its four year anniversary, carrying over 100 million trips by today.

Sound Transit officials missed their ridership target by almost 1000 percent!

Like the massive waste of money The Liar had advocated for all along while lying during his campaign, BILLIONS of dollars have been and will be wasted for loot rail by Sound Transit.

The Liar, who has been and will continue to hose us all along, should get a clue and see what's happened in real life.

.

The Columbian launches their "Save Tim 'The Liar' Leavitt from himself" campaign.

As I mentioned below, I went to that bizarro world or Tim "The Liar" leavitt last night to watch him try and squirm out of his lies and deceit.

It didn't work.

Predictably, much of the response to his cowardice didn't make the cut in our local cancer of a paper.

Following along in their efforts to rehab "Cowardman" Brian Baird and Jim "Candy Man" Moeller, the rag deliberately left out telling and ardent specific responses to The Liar's incompetence.

No mention in he article of the articulate and well supported plea for an advisory vote... a vote that The Liar said "wouldn't serve any purpose."

Leavitt town hall turns rambunctious on tolling protests

Attendees vent anger on many issues; some say it crossed
the line

By Andrea Damewood
Columbian staff writer

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Anger, worry and concern were the common threads during the third town hall meeting with Mayor Tim Leavitt and the Vancouver City Council and constituents
Tuesday evening.

The quarterly town halls, instituted by Leavitt when he took office, have changed since the first one in January. That one was a well-attended exchange of ideas. The next had a sparse crowd. The third, held at Fort Vancouver High School, had about 60 people with a litany of concerns.

Anti-tolling and anti-light-rail contingencies continued their active protest of Leavitt’s announcement that he had changed his position on tolling on any new Interstate 5 bridge.

Members of the crowd — many of whom attended Monday night’s city council meeting — booed, applauded and shouted questions over the speakers or politicians trying to answer questions.

Anti-tolling advocates tried to boo Councilor Jeanne Harris away from the podium as she outlined different tolling options bridge stakeholders have researched. They called for her to sit down, and that they had enough of her.

“People needed to be civil, that’s all I ask for,” Harris said after the two-hour session. “I’m used to it, but it does scare other people who are here to speak.”

Janet Postma, 32, and Stacie Walczyk, 35, both of Vancouver, showed up out of curiosity and concern after reading about the city’s budget woes. They were taken aback by the crowd.

They described what they saw as “emotionally overheated” and “disrespectful,” although they also recognized how passionate some protesters are.

“I had a ton of questions, but I’d rather do it in a smaller setting,” said Postma, as Walczyk continued, “You even said, ‘Why would you wanna say something and have people jump down your throat?’”

Sharon Thompson of Camas, however, came to protest bridge tolling, and said the meetings are a good opportunity for people to speak out.

“I would describe it as adamant, even angry, that this project is being forced down our throats,” she said. “It’s a sign of frustration at more than just the city’s mayor. It’s frustration at what happening to citizens of this country, a feeling of helplessness.”

Others issues that came up were the city budget and the potential cuts to public safety. The east Vancouver train horn quiet zone was another hot topic.

People also spoke out against the lack of police response to burglaries and about road issues and layoffs of other city employees.

Though the tone was ardent, most of those left in the audience at the end of the town hall raised their hands to say they thought it had been a productive session.

“I think that it’s important for these types of communication to be open,” Thompson said.

Andrea Damewood: 360-735-4542 or andrea.damewood@columbian.com.

This worthless article focused on the heat aimed at The Liar, but not the light.

Nothing about the specific concerns. Just a focus on the anger without using the word "betrayed."

The whining about civility. How civil was The Liar's betrayal of those who believed in him?

Of COURSE the crowd was angry. They just discovered what I knew all along: that The Liar had swindeled many of them out of their vote.

But the fact is that, for one example, the concern and suggestions about an advisory vote so we could all have a voice?

This article didn't even write a syllable about that. Why, other than being angry, this waste of ink would lead someone who hadn't been there to believe that no one even asked. And, in keeping with their "Save Leavitt" campaign, there wasn't a scintilla of The Liar's response: that such a vote "wouldn't make any difference."

That, of course, was an inadvertant oversight on the part of this cancer on our local society.... wasn't it? It couldn't have had anything to do with the rag failing to talk to opposition to this massive waste, or not wanting anything like the "Will of the people" to get in the way of their agenda.... would it?

Cross posted at Tim Leavitt Watch.

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.

I almost had a stroke this morning: the leftist Columbian comes out AGAINST the library levy?

.
I almost vapor locked. The critical phrase here is this:

But the shroud of the Great Recession leads The Columbian — for the first time
in memory — to editorially oppose a local ballot measure.

How impossibly out of touch this rag is to actually have to write something like this.

What this means is that this paper has approved... of EVERY TAX BALLOT MEASURE THEY CAN REMEMBER.

How sad and pathetic is that?

No critical review: you roll in and want the money, be it a tax increase or a continuation of a tax?

The Columbian will become your PR arm.

Actually, "out of touch" doesn't begin to describe it. And the people running this rag don't even realize it.

But then, that explains how they could possibly support this scummy waste of billions of dollars called the bridge replacement/loot rail plan.

Hell, if these idjits will roll over for every bond and levy, is it any wonder they've stupidly drank the kool aid on the massive, unneeded and unwanted bridge replacement?

You know, the one that Tim "The Liar" Leavitt not only lied about to get elected, but has now become a rabid tolling fan of sticking it to the 65,000 commuters AND ANYONE WHO GOES WITHIN 5 MILES of that crap pile to build?

Good for the rag to finally say "no." Shame on them for not doing it frequently before now.
.

Is the stupidity of the bridge cheerleaders genetic?

.
So, another "have to build it the way the paper wants it" article in the Cancer on the Community (aka, The Columbian) website.

We actually HAVE 6 through lanes; they WANT 6 thru lanes... but they feel compelled to dress it up with 4 wasted lanes... all to bring loot rail into Vancouver (which is, of course, the only reason to replace an otherwise perfectly functional, safe, serviceable bridge) so we go out and pay consultants to tell the CRC what they want to hear (The very idea that they're not doing any one of a half dozen better, cheaper, more realistic ideas is proof of that) an voila'! Any smaller, cheaper version of the bridge isn't good enough.

Well, the moron writing this article tells us:

“The conclusion that jumped out to us was a capacity issue,” said Ted Rutledge, URS transportation manager based in Denver. “Both northbound and outhbound[sic] were really at or over capacity. So based on that alone, it’s not going to meet the need.”

Well, the "experts" have already shown that a new bridge with their fantasy 12 lanes won't do any better, and we've known that for years:

Congestion on new I-5 bridge back to today's level by 2030, study finds

Planners and elected officials who back the project are aware of the shortcomings, but say it's better than doing nothing

FACTBOX • I-5 bridge:

Monday, July 07, 2008

DYLAN RIVERA

The Oregonian Staff

A $4.2 billion project designed to relieve the Interstate 5 bridge bottleneck will -- in two decades -- return congestion to about the same level drivers experience today.

Less than 30 mph traffic at the new Columbia River bridge will thwart trucks and commuters alike for 3.5 hours each morning by 2030, up from about two hours today. And thousands driving south into Portland every day will stack up for miles behind the already difficult Rose Quarter bottleneck -- a separate problem altogether.

Much more:

So, here, we have an outcome anyone with 2 firing brain synapses could arrive at for free, unlike the tens of millions that have been wasted for the billions they WANT to waste that has vaporized already:

NO bridge, of ANY size, will do ANYTHING to decrease congestion or increase freight mobility; which, along with safety (which, according to Don Wagner, doesn't apply here) stand as the only justifications to spend transportation dollars in the first place.

But the fact is that no other solution was EVER acceptable to the downtown mafia, who want to blow a $100,000,000 per year hole in our local economy for tolls to pay for a horrific, multi-billion dollar waste of money because THEY want loot rail in downtown Vancouver while WE have to pay for it.

The obvious solution to addressing bridge capacity is to build additional bridges... and screw loot rail.

We don't want it, we don't need it, we've crushed it at the polls, and if my brother in law had any guts, we'd be crushing it at the polls AGAIN this November to put an end to this turd.

So, The Steaming Crap Pile again ignores the massive opposition to ANY bridge replacement idea as formulated, and they do so under the guise of their self-serving brand of agenda-furthering "journalism."

What do Jon "My wife's a physician" Russell and Tim "The Liar" Leavitt have in common?

.
They both want the bridge, neither care about tolls, and they want light rail.

The Liar made his position clear: No bridge tolls.

Except, of course, unless the bridge has to have tolls... then they're OK, because, as The Liar tells us, he's "not an obstructionist."

Of course, anyone paying attention knows that the bridge will not be built WITHOUT tolls... so what that means is that Leavitt wants the bridge, which won't be built without loot rail... and as a result, in reality, he wants tolls, since there ain't gonna be a bridge without them.

That brings us to Jon Russell, who has been known to pander on occasion.

Russell told the Columbian editorial board that he wants the bridge... but that he doesn't want tolls, either.

Were have we heard that before?

And, of course, Russell is not above pandering to the editorial board. After all, they support the massive waste of billions of dollars as much as he does; they don't care that the unnecessary replacement of the bridge will blow a $100,000,000 per year hole in our local economy by vacuuming out moneys that would otherwise be spent here; and they supported the massive tax increase of the Port Levy that Russell was paid thousands of dollars to try and ram down our throats.

Given his lies to date, there is no doubt he would say or do anything to abandon the voters of Washougal. But keeping this little secret under the table?

Well, that's why *I'M* here... isn't it?

So, 18th District there you have it. Jon Russell doesn't give a damn if you have to pay $1300 per year in addition to the horrific taxes you already pay just to go to work.

Remember that when you're filling out your ballot, won't you? I know *I* will.

Crossposted at Jon Russell Watch.
.

Frequently, the local fishwrapper is so painfully dense...

.
...it's the only paper I know that clanks when you drop it.

As most people who drive anywhere in this area know, replacing a 3 lane bridge with a 3 lane bridge, entirely for the purpose of bringing loot rail into Vancouver/Clark County is a colossal waste of money.

Any expenditure that has no real impact on freight mobility and congestion is a waste of money, and those behind this thuggery are well aware of that fact.

The local cancer on our community knows this; they are eager to task the 65,000 commuters with additional thousands of dollars in tolls while they, themselves, won't have to pay... and so they finally admit as much with the publication of the findings of a study... as if a study somehow supplants common sense:

Would Rose Quarter stifle benefit from new bridge?

Study finds that there is congestion where I-5 and I-84 meet

Erik Robinson
Columbian staff writer
Saturday, June 5, 2010

Critics of a new Interstate 5 Bridge argue that the multibillion-dollar project may well ease congestion at the river, only to shift the morning traffic jam a few miles south.

They contend it doesn’t make sense to spend as much as $3.6 billion to widen the
freeway in one location, especially if it compounds a notorious traffic chokepoint farther south in the center of Portland.

“Are you creating system failure elsewhere?” Metro council President David Bragdon asked this year.

Sure enough, a new study of 100 “freight significant highway locations” nationwide identifies the confluence of I-5 and Interstate 84 near the Rose Garden arena among America’s most notorious traffic bottlenecks. The American Transportation Research Institute, which compiled the ratings, did not evaluate the I-5 bridge.

The Rose Quarter, at No. 30 on the list, was the only location studied in Oregon. It fared worse than three spots monitored in and around Seattle.

Yet Oregon transportation officials have no immediate plans to fix that stretch.

Instead, the overwhelming focus of money, time and attention has been on replacing the I-5 bridge between Vancouver and Portland. The project also would improve four miles of freeway and extend Portland’s light rail transit system into downtown Vancouver.

More:

Why do we need a study to state the obvious? How many more millions will we have to waste before those shoving this crap sandwich down our throats finally get it?

Or is it that those pushing this the hardest really don't give a damn about us?
.

This morning's comedy skit "Mallory!"

.
I really do enjoy it (well, for the most part) when re-re's come by and dump a pile of feces on my doorstep in a burning bag, and "Mallory" was no exception:

We realize that you probably have about 5 or 6 readers ... it happens that this piece of crap blog came to me via GOOGLE ALERTS. Why don't you change your shorts, put your pants on and come out of your basement. A 'strong mayor' change would eliminate the high paid jobs of city manager...and, other dept. managers, saving tax payers $$$. Further, Leavitt has stated that he would FIGHT TOLLS - "...no tolls..." How does that make him a "liar" goofy? I'd bet that you are either an unemployed union electrician; or, an easy life Vancouver fireman union thug.

I seek out disagreement here so I can school the ignorant, as Mallory so finely illustrates. So, never one to pass up an opportunity, let's get this show on the road, shall we?

"We?" Odd the use of the pluralis majestatis term "we," one typically used by royalty. You know, the "royal 'We?'"

Since royalty has been out of vogue here locally, one can only presume that this person (these people?) speak for some group.

And that's OK. Just a little weird.

Number of readers I have?

Rather irrelevant, isn't it? I've come to discover that it's not the size of the dog in the fight... it's much more the size of the fight in the dog... though in this instance, your number is rather off.

How this "piece of crap" came to you is equally irrelevant. Like the flame to the moth, you'll be back because, well, you'll be so impressed by how I defend my positions (which at some point, you finally got around to addressing) that you won't be able to help yourself.

As much as I appreciate your advice in all things underwear, I would suggest that this is no place for sewer humor. And a 4 bedroom split level has no basement.

Now then, having successfully cleared your moronic vitriol aside, we get to the issue at hand.

"A 'strong mayor' change would eliminate the high paid jobs of city manager...and other dept. managers, saving tax payers $$$."

Bull.

Replacing one city manager with another doesn't save anyone a thing.

With a "strong mayor" form of government, there would be re-organization; but no one, least of all Tim "The Liar" Leavitt mentioned this to "save money."

The role of the "city manager" would immediately be assumed by the creation of an ADDITIONAL high dollar position of "Chief of Staff," a position Leavitt has ALREADY tried to create IN ADDITION to the city manager we already have. (He wanted that gig for his campaign manager... nice bit of incest, that.)

Contrary to "saving" money, Leavitt's plan would COST money, and a LOT of it.

Thus proving a., your ignorance generally and b., your ignorance about government specifically.

"Further. Leavitt has stated he would FIGHT TOLLS - "... no tolls..." How does that make him a "liar" goofy?"

"FIGHT TOLLS?" Here, let me explain it to you so simply that even you can understand it:

In an interview afterward, Leavitt said he intends to press the federal government to pick up the cost of the $3.2 billion project. "Tolls are still not on the table for me," he said.

When pressed to say whether he’d rule out supporting a new bridge if a toll became unavoidable, Leavitt indicated he wouldn’t go that far.

"I’m not an obstructionist," he said.

In the vernacular, this is known as attempting to have your cake and eat it as well.

There is no way... NO WAY, this thing will be built without tolls.

The Liar knows this.

And so, when tolls WILL BE IMPOSED, does that mean he will oppose the bridge?

Of course not. He's not, you see, an "obstructionist." This way, he can impress the uninformed (Like you, Mal) that at least he "tried," when, in fact, he did no such thing.

So, there you have it. He CLAIMS he opposes tolls, but won't do a damned thing about it when tolls are required.

There. Simple enough for you? Maybe a little less vodka in your kool aid?

As for how that makes him a "'liar' goofy," I'll leave that up to the individual reader.

As for "who I am," that's simple. Maybe you can find someone to read it to you over on the top of the left column of this blog?

Or, let me know. I can always draw you a picture.
.

When the Columbian starts with a lie, then everything after that is also a lie.

.
In the unending, unceasing propaganda campaign that is the lie the Columbian propagates, namely, the unneeded, unwanted and unnecessary I-5 Bridge replacement/Loot rail project is a "drastic" need and "...action is long overdue," today's moronic, more of the same pap on that subject has lessened to the level of background noise.

One of the very biggest of the many holes in our local cancer on our community's position is the very issue of how badly, or not, this bridge replacement is needed.

That so many disagree; that no consensus has been or will be achieved; that this issue has not been put to a vote of the people stands as a proof that, well, the conclusion that their is a "drastic" need to replace the I-5 Bridge is false, and the local paper's following of the Goebbelian Philosophy; to wit: If you tell a lie often enough, loud enough and long enough, it becomes the truth, has done nothing to change that.

The paper knows this. Their failed agenda for loot rail is the only reason these clowns are demanding that this county indebt itself to the tune of $100,000,000 per year for the rest of my life... monies these charlatans will rarely if ever have to pay (And yes, I always notice that those wailing the loudest are the ones who will have to pay the least to nothing in this multi-billion dollar waste) but moneys that the commuting public WILL have to pay, to the tune of $1300 or so EACH, for EACH year they're commuting.

So, visiting consultants (which means, come to think of it, THEY won't have to pay anything for this bridge/loot rail project either) came by and said this? So what? You could get a group of visiting orangutans to say that. What about it?

There has never been an argument made, compelling or otherwise, that justifies replacing the I-5 Bridge and adding the hated waste of money known as loot rail to it.

Since replacing the bridge will do absolutely nothing to increase freight mobility or decrease congestion, than it pretty much looks like we're screwed. And dumping billions of dollars on top of that will not unscrew us any the better.

The undeniable idiocy of the paper is that for the same money for this bridge and loot rail, we could build two additional bridges that would do a great deal to relieve congestion while enhancing freight mobility over the current I-5 bridge by relieving pressure on that bridge.

The paper knows that as well, but their obsession with getting loot rail in here keeps them from acknowledging that, and keeps them from demanding this issue be put to a county wide vote.

Because like the rest of the downtown mafia, they will be damned if they'll allow a little thing like the will of the people to stand in their way.

And when it comes to the unintelligibly stupid idea that we should "keep listening to out-of-towners" who won't have to pay for this steaming pile... and only because they agree with this trash heaps agenda, well... that speaks for itself.

Because there are two things absolutely guaranteed in this editorial:

If these people had come in and disagree with this despicable rag, you'd have never heard a peep from them or about them.

Wasting billions on a project that will not do what these morons want it to do speaks for itself. Remembering the loot rail and the fact that the biggest cheer leaders for this rubbish won't have to pay for it is the crowning factor in all of this.

And the Chinese water torture of unsupportable propaganda by this rag won't ever change that.
.

Why do CTrans and the Columbian insist on lying about Light Rail?

.
While it has been awhile since the Columbian ran one of their many fictional articles concerning what the people here want when it comes to the massive waste and corruption surrounding the unnecessary replacement of the I-5 Bridge so we can have loot rail stuffed down our throat, they apparently haven't forgotten how it's done.

There is, of course, only one way to determine what the people of Clark County want, and that is to ask us. Oddly, this cancer on our community has yet to begin pursuing that effort as they continue to beat the drum in their Goebbelian campaign to get this multi-billion dollar waste of our money built.

Their most recent embarrassment, "C-Tran survey suggests voter support for light rail" is not the exception that proves the rule.

There is, as you might expect, absolutely nothing in the study that suggests any such thing; the questions were utter nonsense, failing to address the costs or impacts of the $100,000,000 a year the people of Clark County will have to suffer every year to pay for the Columbian's pet project, failing to ask any in the opposition what their positions might be on their babble... all par for their course for the embarrassment to journalism that this paper represents.

Clearly, their financial bankruptcy did nothing to address their intellectual and ethical bankruptcy.
.

An open letter to my Brother In Law, Commissioner Marc Boldt.

.
You told me that you would make sure there was an advisory vote on the bridge and light rail this November. You looked me in the eye and told me that during the GOP Convention at Prairie High School on the 20th of February.

Well? Where is it?

I get why Steve Stuart doesn't want a vote. He's a leftist democrat, owned by the unions. HE doesn't want anything to stand in the way of the billions of dollars of our taxes to go to his union buds. He doesn't care about blowing a $100,000,000 hole in our local economy every year to pay for tolls.

But you should. And you promised me.

To my face.

So, instead of finding all the reasons why you CAN'T, I think you'd better start focusing on ways that you CAN.

Here's Marvin Case's take on it.

Answers would be nice. But the vote would be even better.

Why not?

Clark County commissioner Tom Mielke has suggested that an advisory ballot be
presented to county residents to gauge public opinion on a multi-billion dollar
plan to replace the I-5 bridge. What could it hurt?

Mielke floated his idea in recent weeks during public meetings. He said an “advisory vote” would help elected officials and project planners better determine what the public thinks about a new bridge. Mielke and others support the idea of a third bridge and corridor connecting Washington and Oregon, and believe the public would get
behind that idea rather than a new I-5 bridge located more or less in the same place as the existing bridge.

On the one hand, such an advisory vote would cost money. The county auditor estimated the cost of such a ballot measure, in conjunction with a primary or general election, would cost about $3,000. Mielke says he can raise that money from private sources so that taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill. He points out that, even if taxpayers paid for the election, the cost would pale in comparison to the $80 million in planning money spent so far on the Columbia River Crossing project.

The cost of such an advisory vote would seem to be the only downside.

On the upside, such a vote would give planners a much better idea of what the public
thinks. They wouldn’t have to rely on computer models and sampling to collect
public opinion. One would think planners would welcome the idea of an advisory
vote because they would be able to collect opinions virtually without any cost.
Of course the exact wording of a ballot title would be important. Maybe two or
three ballots titles wouldn’t cost any more than one.

While an advisory vote on the new bridge plan is not likely, some area residents will be able to vote on a tax increase to fund light rail. That vote, offered by C-TRAN, will
probably appear on a ballot next year.

The C-TRAN vote to pay for the operation of light rail will be combined as one ballot measure with other C-TRAN needs. Voters will need to carefully examine the ballot issue when it is put before them to identify the light rail element and then vote as they see fit.

Politicians dating back several years have affirmed that voters will have a say in the bridge and light rail topic. The current commissioners have said the same thing, that a vote will be needed to make the new bridge and light rail a reality.

Too often elected officials are reluctant to ask the public to decide important issues. Why is that? What is wrong with asking voters to approve important matters such as tax increases? True, the public elects representatives to study and act on an array of matters without constant referral to the public. But the public should weigh in on important and/or highly controversial matters. Replacing the I-5 bridge is one of those important matters.

Mielke only wants an advisory vote, meaning that planners and elected officials would not be bound by the result and could still do whatever they want whether that coincides with public opinion or not. A lopsided vote against a replacement bridge, however, would likely slow the planning process.

This writer supports the bridge replacement idea although light rail seems like a colossal waste of money. A dedicated bus lane would be much less costly and would get travelers to and from downtown Portland much faster.

This writer also believes that the time has not yet come for a new I-5 bridge. While the area is congested during rush hours, that is not the case for most hours of the day. Some level of congestion is a fact of life in larger metropolitan areas. A truly independent analysis might show that a third corridor and bridge would prove to be a better short-term action, followed some years later with an I-5 bridge replacement project.

Despite all that, Mielke’s idea of an advisory vote should not be so easily dismissed by other elected officials and transportation planners. It would apparently cost nothing
to the taxpayer. It would provide useful information. It would keep the public involved and engaged during what would likely be a spirited educational campaign.

So, why not?

Marvin F. Case

Publisher

Why not indeed, especially after YOU promised ME?

I need to know. And so will everyone else.
.

The stupidity of Steve "Easy Money, Mr. Barnett" Stuart never ceases to amaze: A "scientific survey?"

.
Followers of my meager effort here in blog land know that I hold Clark County Commissioner Steve "cold hard cash, Mr. Barnett" Stuart in utter contempt.

the reasons for that are many, but at the bed rock of it is his confirmed corruption with David Barnett buying him his position as a county commissioner, and his monumental arrogance in working double overtime to slam us with a multi-billion dollar waste of union pay offs and economic heart ache for Clark County by scamming us with a bridge replacement with the cursed, unwanted and unneeded loot rail that is the basis for the bridge replacement in the first place.

So, what's the basis for his inanity today?

This:

Fellow county Commissioner Steve Stuart, a Democrat who represents the regional transportation council on a crossing advisory committee formed by Gov. Chris Gregoire and Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski, has been pushing for a scientifically valid survey to probe residents’ willingness to support the project.

Stuart envisions the survey will probe residents’ support based upon the costs in terms of tolling rates and benefits in terms of time saved in commuting. Officials with the bistate crossing office have pledged to conduct a survey, probably before the federal government publishes a formal record of decision by the end of this year.

So, let's get this straight.

We have the way to get THE most accurate, scientific survey available for the least amount of money.

It's called a VOTE. It costs an estimated $3000.

There is NO OTHER SURVEY MORE ACCURATE OR CHEAPER THAN A VOTE. NONE.

This is a lame effort on Stuart's part to try and attempt to make people believe he actually gives a damn about what the people of this county want.

When a ballot comes back overwhelmingly rejecting this hemorrhoid on the butt of the people of this county, that can't be controlled or spun. Also, Stuart and every other candidate would have to take public positions on this horrific cancer.

But another in the series of private polls, spun by those paying for it?

Not nearly as good as what the voters would say.

Do not be fooled, folks. Neither Stuart nor Boldt want to hear what we have to say in any meaningful way, because what we have to say does not fit with their agenda of wasted billions on tolls and bridge/light rail construction that we don't need or want.

And Stuart apparently thinks we're stupid and that we'll buy into his nonsensical crap. Much like his moronic whine about his idiotic plan for a never-gonna-happen Oregon tax break for commuters, Stuart wants to fool the voters like Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, (Let's remember, Stuart worked on Leavitt's campaign. Is it any wonder that he would lie and mislead the people the same way Leavitt did to get elected?) who actually scammed GOP'ers into believing he didn't want tolls, Stuart wants us to THINK he actually cares that the people of Clark County don't want this garbage.

You want to know what we want, Stuart?

Put it on the ballot. I double-dog dare you.
.

Well, I guess I was mistaken when Marc Boldt told me he would do an advisory vote.

On March 20, while at the GOP Convention, I discussed the bridge situation with Marc Boldt, my brother-in-law and county commissioner.

As a result of that discussion, I posted the following: Saturday, March 20, 2010

Boldt/Mielke to support Bridge/Loot Rail advisory vote.

As our local government clowns have wasted 10's of millions of dollars; as our despicable rag of a paper has attempted to jam this thing down our throats as those who've lied to us (Tim "The Liar" Leavitt) and those corrupted (Steve "Cold hard cash, Mr. Barnett" Stuart) have taken it upon themselves to ram all of this down our throats without our say.

Well, this November, we will get out chance.

I directly discussed this situation with Clark County Commissioner Marc Boldt and he agreed to put a non-binding, county-wide advisory vote on the ballot this November as part of the general election.

This is great for two huge reasons: first and foremost is that the people... the people who will actually pay the bills, will FINALLY get a say.

But second: every candidate and incumbent running this November (You listening, Steve "Unmarked bills, Mr. Barnett" Stuart?) will have to take and defend a position that so far, they haven't had to take or defend.

I look forward to the reaction from the various people who, while not having to pay the tolls this project will bring, want to ram this down our throats and the throats of the 65,000 commuters who WILL have to pay this price. I'm sure it will be classic.

Well, this IS classic, just not as I expected.

I got a call from my wife at work, warning me that things weren't going exactly the way I had been led to believe.

And, so, what's the story?

County Commissioner Marc Boldt, a fellow Republican who previously served with Mielke in the state Legislature, said he’s not inclined to support an advisory vote now.

“Once you go down that path, your ballot could be full of advisory votes,” Boldt said.

Exclusive of the absurdity of such an observation (It really doesn't matter if their are 50 advisory votes on the ballot or none, I would submit that any time there is a multi-billion dollar project that will cost 65,000 or more Clark County commuters $100,000,000 a year, blowing a hole in both family AND county budgets, there should, at a minimum, be an advisory vote) Marc looked me in the eye and promised me that such a vote, a non-binding advisory vote, would take place.

Apparently, it isn't.

I, of course, felt just the tiniest bit slighted considering what Marc had told me.

To my face.

So, I asked a couple of questions via email:

Marc,

The up or down vote on light rail will only apply to operation of light rail, not if either the bridge or light rail will be built. If the bridge is to be built, it must have light rail infrastructure on it. Since the only reason to replace a 6 lane bridge with a 6 lane bridge is to bring light rail into Vancouver, there is absolutely zero chance to build it without light rail.

If there is an advisory vote on the bridge there will be no light rail vote because when the people vote this down, and they will, any chance of one dime of federal money will vaporize.

The light rail/CTrans people don’t need to make a sub district, they can just use the one they have now. Meanwhile, the people of this county will pay the bill, even though, once again, no one will ask us. Further, when the light rail operations vote goes against them, they could just make their sub district THEN, using THOSE results. In short, an advisory vote that will likely kill this deal cannot stand as an excuse to not hold this vote because CTrans might use the outcome as some sort of template for a sub district.

Clearly, they will do that ANYWAY, since that’s what they did with the CTrans vote where 10’s of thousands of us were excluded from the vote, but not excluded from paying the tax. No matter what the outcome of such a vote would be, CTrans will keep trying until they get what they want.

Kill this bridge through an advisory vote, and there won’t be any light rail operations vote.

Failing to do this will result in a minimum of 65,000 commuters and their families being highly upset because one, the toll is going to vacuum $1300 or so per year out of each of their pockets (of which the county will not get one dime of revenue) and two, you will be held responsible for not allowing them any say.

As for an advisory vote, the assistant director of elections for the secretary of state said in the article that

State law does not explicitly prohibit advisory votes, according to state elections officials.

“There’s nothing that says they couldn’t,” said Katie Blinn, assistant director of elections for Secretary of State Sam Reed. “This whole animal of advisory votes is simply advisory. The process is not spelled out in state law, so there aren’t black and white parameters around it.”

Thus, there are no legal reasons not to hold such a vote, Potter’s babble notwithstanding; and anyone telling you different is lying.

The directive to Potter shouldn’t be “find a way to keep us from doing this.” Instead, it should be, “Find a way to make this happen or we will replace you with someone who will.”

Potter is, of course, dead wrong on his positions concerning advisory votes. Advisory votes by their very nature have precisely zero effect or authority or legal requirement to make any alteration of any kind on any issue.

Unless he can find a LAW that EXPLICITLY makes such advisory votes illegal (And the secretary of state’s office has indicated that he cannot) then he is flat wrong. And Stuart’s moronic idea of a “scientifically valid survey” will cost a hell of a lot more than $3000 and supersede the BEST survey: the results at the ballot box, which transcends any other type of survey in its inclusion and accuracy.

Marc, I get that you don’t want to take flack over allowing the people to have a say. But in this instance, giving the people a voice is the right thing to do for two reasons:

First, on a project of this magnitude with the horrific impacts that will result on family budgets across this county, the people deserve a say.

Second, you promised me that an advisory vote would be held.

I recognize that I’m a nobody relative to Steve Stuart or the unions. But someone, somewhere, has to care about what the PEOPLE want.

An advisory vote will provide that opportunity.

The comments on the article in question were generally supportive of such a vote, save for the usual fringe-leftist scum and union hacks who think we owe them a job and who certainly don't want a little thing like the will of the people to get in their way.

One particularly moronic slimeball commented that those of us who want to determine the will of the people on this issue should move to Somalia.

Well, it's a lesson learned. About politics, about what's important, and about my brother-in-law.

He had the opportunity to do something for the people of this county; to provide them with a voice... to make up for his support of Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, who, as I warned, scammed people into actually believing he was opposed to tolls.

And he did nothing.

I will remember. 2012 isn't that far away.

Boldt/Mielke to support Bridge/Loot Rail advisory vote.

.
As our local government clowns have wasted 10's of millions of dollars; as our despicable rag of a paper has attempted to jam this thing down our throats as those who've lied to us (Tim "The Liar" Leavitt) and those corrupted (Steve "Cold hard cash, Mr. Barnett" Stuart) have taken it upon themselves to ram all of this down our throats without our say.

Well, this November, we will get out chance. I directly discussed this situation with Clark County Commissioner Marc Boldt and he agreed to put a non-binding, county-wide advisory vote on the ballot this November as part of the general election.

This is great for two huge reasons: first and foremost is that the people... the people who will actually pay the bills, will FINALLY get a say.

But second: every candidate and incumbent running this November (You listening, Steve "Unmarked bills, Mr. Barnett" Stuart?) will have to take and defend a position that so far, they haven't had to take or defend.

I look forward to the reaction from the various people who, while not having to pay the tolls this project will bring, want to ram this down our throats and the throats of the 65,000 commuters who WILL have to pay this price. I'm sure it will be classic.
.

One down, one to go: Deb Wallace calling it a day in the 3rd CD?

.
Apparently, Deb Wallace has figured it out.

Clark County Democrat Congressional Candidate FAQ: why none of them will win.
.
It's fairly obvious that, in the unlikely event a democrat can win this thing, he or she won't be someone living in Clark County. It's bad enough to be a democrat in this day and age anyway, doing everything they can to assist in the GOP resurgence and all; but the leftists of Clark County are particularly hamstrung by more than their political affiliation... though that's certainly bad enough.

For those elected to office already, a record of lacking integrity, gerrymandering or unbelievably wasteful spending would be too much to overcome in the best of times, even attempting to take advantage of the opportunism resulting from Baird bailing.

Both Pridemore and Wallace have been instrumental in spending this state into massive deficits. They both have a years-long paper trail that will make it easy to show that if either were elected, they'd just continue to be rubber stamps for the Belle of Botox, Nancy Pelosi.

More:

So, here's what Politics is a Bloodsport reports:

Deb Wallace out of 3rd CD race?

Special note here: I am unable to get multiple sourcing on this story that first appeared on the Vancouver For Peace mail list, but in doing some background checking, this appears plausible:

Deb Wallace just announced her withdrawal from not only the 3rd congressional race, but also her seat in the state legislature when it expires in January. She has not yet announced her endorsement for the 3rd race, but she is endorsing somebody named Monica Stonier (the last name I'm not sure) for her state spot.

I attended our neighborhood clubhouse where Deb had reserved for this. (She's lives in Pinebrook as I do.) I thought she'd talk about her race against Baird. Instead she said she was withdrawing so that the best Democrat would win. She said Jaime Herrera, R, looks like the candidate for the Repugs and Deb said Jaimie is often absent at the legislature and others press her vote.

Deb did not have an answer when I asked what she'll do. She supports Monica S, a pro-choice woman for the 17th District.

More:

Now, Pridemore, an unabashed fringe leftist, tainted by scandal and his lame gerrymandering bill, along with his moronic vote FOR a budget that he "feared was balanced on the backs of the poor and the powerless" will be next up to get the word.

Of course, with Herrera having someone else vote for her instead of being on the floor doing her job..... she must resign.... immediately.
.

The paper gets it half right: Stuart IS an idiot, but only another idiot like Koenninger opposes ending the compact.

.
I've twice posted how moronic Stuart's babble for political cover was during his brainless State of the County speech.

The very idea of even uttering the words "Oregon" and "tax break" for the people of Clark County..... I mean, that's even more asinine than the $100,000,000 we've wasted, in large part because of Steve "Unmarked bills, Mr. Barnett" Stuart's demand to ram a $1300 per year fee down the throats of the 65,000 or so people who commute to work on the other side of the river... when Oregon has precisely zero record of concern or care about those of us filling their coffers at our expense.

Democrat State Representative Van De Wege's well timed and rightful call to stop funding the waste of money that is the Columbia River Gorge Commission is, of course, right on target.

That our local disgrace to journalism would get all huffy about it just serves as yet another reason to get rid of it.

For far too long, this despicable rag has advocated that the Constitution of the United States stop at the borders of the scenic area, and that the people living there should do so under restrictions these rank hypocrites wouldn't dream of allowing to be applied to themselves.

In this case, ignoring this cancer on our community is precisely the way to go. Well done, Rep. Van De Wege.
.

The State of Oregon to Steve "Owned by Barnett" Stuart: "Drop Dead."

.
The idiocy of even asking if Oregon would cut the commuters a break on the bridge tolls was just that. Embarrassingly idiotic... almost the product of a delusional drug-like state.

Steve "Cold, Hard Cash" Stuart is a frightened man. He's terrified that someone will actually man up and take him on. So far, no one has the guts, which is quite amazing: Anyone running against Stuart could splatter him like a bug on the windshield of a car crossing that moronic, unneeded and unwanted waste of billions known as the I-5 Bridge/loot rail project.

If ANYONE ran against this clown, he could not survive his own demise, brought about by the hatred the people of this county have for the monstrosity he shills so much to build... all the while knowing HE won't have to pay for it.

Here was my take at the time:

4. The state of Oregon will NEVER cut the people of this region a break on taxes. Whether they should or not is besides the point. The point is that YOU and that moron Leavitt are largely responsible for popping the people who live here with an additional $1300 per year tax for the rest of our lives for a bridge that YOU won't have to pay for.

Even the local paper, which has lied and exaggerated for years over this issue, has noted the embarrassment of Stuart's nonsensical attempt to get a little political cover for selling us out.

That Oregon rejected Stuart's dismal effort relieves him of precisely zero responsibility for his efforts to screw the people of Clark County.

Over the first ten years of tolling, Stuart and the slime he's riding with will charge each commuter $13,000.

Each.

And there is no political cover for that.
.

The man with the political deathwish: Steve "Cold, hard cash, Mr. Barnett" Stuart and his moronic bridge.

.
Steve, look. The people of Clark County aren't nearly as stupid as you seem to think.

This isn't 2005 when you were able to get away with riding a wave of David Barnett's last minute laundered cash into a commissioner's seat.

So, here's your sign:

1. We do NOT need, want, can afford or remotely desire a replacement bridge with your idiotic loot rail.

2. It is not government's job to pay off your union buddies by wasting billions of OUR dollars to give THEM work. Government's function is to govern, not to pay off unions the way David Barnett paid off you.

3. When you said: "I can only support a toll if it is low enough for Clark County working families to afford and creates a benefit that's worth it," you lied. Like that clown Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, there is NO toll level you won't support, because, after all, the unions own you almost as much as Barnett.

So do us a favor and stop wasting our time. It doesn't matter how high the toll is, you would find some excuse to support that monstrosity.

4. The state of Oregon will NEVER cut the people of this region a break on taxes. Whether they should or not is besides the point. The point is that YOU and that moron Leavitt are largely responsible for popping the people who live here with an additional $1300 per year tax for the rest of our lives for a bridge that YOU won't have to pay for.

It is NOT important to "replace the existing bridge." It doesn't matter how many times you repeat that lie, it is not true. That you keep saying it doesn't make it true, since a completed bridge will do absolutely NOTHING to address congestion OR freight mobility.

You know that, of course, but how can you pay off your union buddies unless this steaming pile of crap is built?

I repeat: providing employment for the unions jerking your chains is not the job of government. I don't CARE about the "16,000" jobs that will put us into debt indefinitely. "Jobs" are NOT an argument for ANY of this... particularly since you lack the balls to ASK US FIRST.

To get that pig pile built and pay off your union lackey supporters, you are doing everything you can to sell out the 65,000 commuters perfectly happy with the paid for bridge we have now.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
.

Memo to Tim "The Liar" Leavitt: It was the bridge tolls, stupid.

.
As any follower of my blog knows, I dispise Tim "The Liar" Leavitt. Leavitt and his democrat brain trust, including Steve "Cash only, Mr. Barnett" Stuart, Dena Horton (Clark County democrat chair) Betty Sue Morris and other democrat luminaries who ran Leavitt's campaign found the issue that allowed Leavitt to scam an entire election.

And what was that one issue, the clincher... the lie that got Leavitt elected?

That he was opposed to tolls on the new bridge/loot rail scam he and his buddies are ramming down this community's throat.

That it IS a lie was made clear.... repeatedly... by The Liar's inability to oppose a tolled bridge because he lacked the testicles to oppose such a project, being that he's not an obstructionist and all.

As I indicated all along, that position was a lie, a crock, a manipulative scam to get the more politically ignorant to support him and oppose Royce Pollard.

I was never thrilled by Pollard but I make no bones about the fact that I supported his re-election.

Why?

Because unlike Leavitt, like him or hate him, Pollard at least told the truth.

Every fricking article mentioning The Liar during the campaign noted that Leavitt "opposed tolls," obstructionism notwithstanding.

The toll issue and the toll issue alone is what got this Obama-endorsing liar elected.

Well, guess what?

Leavitt NOW has claimed that the toll issue was a minor part of his campaign and had little or nothing to do with his election!

EEEEHHHHHHHH!!!!! Wrong answer!

You lived by the toll issue you lying little putz. Now, get ready to politically die from it.

The people are not going to allow you to engage in revisionist history.

When it suited your lying ass, you were all about this. As I repeatedly pointed out, there was NO WAY this bridge could get built WITHOUT tolls, your insanely moronic efforts to charge EVERYONE higher property taxes to pay for YOUR scam aside.

So now, to quote one of your hero's closest buds, the chickens are coming home to roost. And no amount of bluster or denial from you will change it... and their are many around like me who won't let you or the people forget it.
.