"The Liar" Leavitt comes clean and admits it: "No tolls" was a lie and a campaign ploy.

.
From the start, I knew that Tim "The Liar" Leavitt was lying about his opposition to tolls.

There was never any question of this; Leavitt's campaign was run by rabid bridge-at-any-cost-or-toll democrat Steve "Easy Money" Stuart. There is no way.... NO WAY... that Stuart would have helped someone to becoming his partner in crime if that someone didn't also share his views on corruption and the Bridge.

Leavitt, who certainly lies with the best of them, showed his cards with an early endorsement of Obama. It's difficult to view anyone who took that political step as anything but a leftist moron, and Leavitt here is no exception to that rule.

So, now the reality is finally public: Mr. "I'm not an obstructionist, I oppose tolls but don't care if they're implemented" Leavitt has finally spilled the beans... the obvious lie is now front and center.

Congrats, Timmy. You've shot to the top of the "scummy and despicable lying politicians" list with a bullet.

To the kool aid drinkers of the Clark County GOP, many of whom, but not all, are drinking the same kind of kool aid as part of the Herrera Herd; I say this: I tried to tell you.

Leavitt was NO DIFFERENT from Pollard in his goals or methods. The only difference between Pollard and Leavitt, and why I supported Pollard in the last election was that Pollard, as completely wrong as he is about this moronic waste of billions for his pet project that HE won't have to pay for is this:

At least Pollard didn't lie about where he stood.

Leavitt did. Repeatedly. And that makes him pure political scum.

"Backs off" that stance?

In reality... he never had that stance. He hosed the people and the media. He lied repeatedly, over and over and over again. And now you have it in his own words.

Leavitt backs off his anti-tolling stance on I-5 bridge

Mayor adds that local traffic on both sides should also help pay
By Erik Robinson
Columbian staff writer

Friday, July 16, 2010

A new bridge across the Columbia River won’t get built without tolls, Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt acknowledged Friday.

Instead, he argued for a “more stable, more equitable financing plan” that wouldn’t rely solely on tolls collected at the bridge. Instead, Leavitt suggested spreading the burden to motorists who will benefit from five miles of freeway improvements on both sides of the Columbia without necessarily crossing the river.

“Folks could get on and off in the ‘bridge influence area’ and not get on the bridge,” Leavitt said Friday during a meeting of bridge project sponsors in Vancouver.

Leavitt is effectively reversing the anti-tolling stance that helped propel him into office last November.

Leavitt acknowledged Friday that the state Legislature authorizes tolls and the state Transportation Commission sets the rates. Even so, he had vowed during his campaign against incumbent Royce Pollard that he would fight as a voice for the estimated 60,000 Clark County residents who cross the river to work in Oregon.

“It’s becoming painfully apparent that I’m on the losing end of an effort to implement improvements in the Interstate 5 corridor without a local financing piece that will have a direct impact on the wallets of Clark County commuters,” he said in an e-mail Friday. “The tool that everybody else is locked into is tolls.”

Leavitt is now suggesting a form of point-access tolling, which would assess a fee for any single-occupant vehicle that enters the corridor. He specifically mentioned Oregonians who drive on I-5 between Marine Drive and Hayden Island, although the same burden would theoretically apply to travel between state Highway 500 and downtown Vancouver.

“By better capturing tolls from users south of the river, and thus broadening the base of collection, my hope is that tolls placed at the bridge crossing can be limited,” Leavitt said.

Leavitt noted that the Columbia River Crossing project includes plenty of interchange improvements beyond the bridge itself, including refinements intended to lessen the bridge’s hulking footprint on Hayden Island.

Project planners anticipate splitting costs among the federal government, the two states and money generated by tolling. Now estimated to cost between $2.6 billion and $3.6 billion, the project includes a replacement for the twin three-lane drawbridges across the river, an extension of Portland’s light rail transit system into downtown Vancouver, and freeway interchange improvements between state Highway 500 and Marine Drive in Portland.

On the campaign trail, Leavitt suggested boosting the federal share while paring back the project’s ambitions.

“I’ve come to the realization that the costs and parameters of this project cannot be pared enough to prevent the need for local financing,” he said Friday.

The mayor floated his alternate approach near the end of a meeting of local elected leaders and state transportation officials at the Washington State Department of Transportation offices in Vancouver.

Leavitt said afterward that he believes it’s the best way to minimize the financial burden on Clark County commuters.

“This approach to tolling represents a broader application of traffic demand management, broadens the base of financial participation, and might just pay off the bonds for the improvements more quickly, thus reducing the overall cost of the project,” he said.

Erik Robinson: 360-735-4551, or erik.robinson@columbian.com.

So, Vancouver has a mayor lied just like Portland's Sam Adams lied about having sex with a teenage boy.

Congrats, Vancouver. You really DO have the government you deserve.
.

I admit it, Tim Leavitt has me totally confused.

.
Fair enough.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A conversation with Pat Campbell, Vancouver City C...":

This is related to the Pat's comments. Here is Tim leavitt's comments on his own blog. I think people might be interested in leaving comments on the site.

link: http://tinyurl.com/3a7w9nm

For years now, I've been condemning the entire concept of replacing the I-5 Bridge without first building a third bridge to the area west of Portland, a much cheaper, more efficient alternative to relieve local pressure on the I-5 corridor.

When we remember that the only reason to replace the bridge right now is to bring light rail into Vancouver, we discover the cost of all of this likely exceeds $1 billion per mile, perhaps the most expensive transportation project in the history of Man and by far the most expensive light rail project ever done.

The local impacts on our economy will drag on for decades. Few of those cheerleading for this bridge will ever pay the easily-exceeding $100 per month tolls, with a ripple effect that will impact tens of thousands of families and local small businesses as this project blots up untold hundreds of millions of dollars in disposable income, and it will do so for untold decades to come... an issue still not discussed or researched by those advocating the most for this project.

Unfortunately, Tim Leavitt ran for mayor on a platform of fighting against tolls. This blog called Mr. Leavitt to task for that maneuver, since his "anti-toll" stance was an election campaign conversion, and until he ran for office, he was pretty much in lock step with his general election opponent. Further, everyone with functioning brain synapses knows/knew that there was no way the bridge/light rail project would ever be built without imposing tolls on those least likely to afford it... the commuters.

Leavitt made it clear that will he "opposed tolls," when it came right down to it, since he was not an "obstructionist," he would not oppose the construction of the bridge if tolls were required.

THAT was certainly confusing. In order to truly oppose something, shouldn't one's principles keep one from acquiescing to convenience? If you won't oppose something that has the principles you claim to be in opposition to... then how can you be opposing those same principles when you know they will be required on the project in question?

So, Mr. Leavitt comes out and tells us he's now ended his opposition to tolls.

He has a variety of reasons for that change in perspective. My response was to poiint out that as a prefaced, Mr. Leavitt never opposed tolls under any conditions from the start.

"Opposition" on principle should always trump "obstructionism." If one is possessed of honor and integrity, one should keep one's word regardless of any "new knowledge."

Leavitt acknowledged Friday that the state Legislature authorizes tolls and the
state Transportation Commission sets the rates. Even so, he had vowed during his
campaign against incumbent Royce Pollard that he would fight as a voice for the
estimated 60,000 Clark County residents who cross the river to work in Oregon.

I was astonished. How is it that after years of the bridge issue, Leavitt didn't seem to know this before he was elected... before he promised that he would "fight against tolls?"

Not all that many options explain it. And those that do cast Mr. Leavitt in a somehwta less favorable light.

But now my confusion has increased geometrically. We're told, from Mr. Leavitt's own blog, the following:

If We Must Have Tolls, We Must Fight to Make Them Equitable

This Bridge Must Not be Paid for on the Backs of Clark County Commuters

Citizens, colleagues and friends--

When I ran for the office of Mayor, I told you honestly and in good faith that I would fight against tolls on the CRC. Unlike others, who were determined to put tolls on the table first and foremost with no regard to the injustice they bring, I was determined to fight them.

What many voters were unaware of was that Leavitt's promise had something of a limited shelf life.

Leavitt's political betrayal of the people who supported him on this issue was complete. The only surprise of mine was it took all that long for him to toss aside his principles in ways that make me long for the days of Pollard's honesty... my many political disagreements with him aside.

Leavitt went on:

But unfortunately, not every battle can be won. It has become apparent that tolling has been widely accepted by the project partners, community advocates, business and economic leadership, and most importantly, our state legislators (who make the final decision about tolling).

The dishonesty of such a claim cannot be overstated. Has anyone suddenly embraced tolls now that were not equally enamored by that yoke around the commuter neck during the course of Leavitt's campaign for mayor?

"Our state legislators" (those with a 'd' after their names) were (and are) huge fans of tolls during the entirety of Leavitt's campaign. He knew that then as much as he suddenly seems to know it now.

You see, Leavitt knew during his campaign who was actually going to make the decision about tolling, He just never seemed to want to bring that up.

After all, to do so would tend to weaken his faux anti-toll position, wouldn't it? And we wouldn't want to let facts get in the way... would we?

In the end, that "not every battle can be won" does not mean that on principle alone, "not every battle should be fought."

Spreading the tax burden to tens of thousands of others besides those commuters forced to pay for the bridge is as unacceptable as the idea of running, and winning on a position only to abandon it out of political expediency.

All of that said, I recieved an anonymous request that the following message be provided. In the interest of fairness, I would ask the reader to click on the link provided to read Mayor Leavitt's own words, without editorial comment or analysis from me.

Fair enough.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A conversation with Pat Campbell, Vancouver City C...":

This is related to the Pat's comments. Here is Tim leavitt's comments on his own blog. I think people might be interested in leaving comments on the site.

link: http://tinyurl.com/3a7w9nm

More idiocy and lies from Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.

It is to our misfortune that Vancouver voters were taken in by such a lying sleazebag.  And the story in yesterday's Oregonian helps to illustrate what a truly lowlife scumbag he is:

He says his mission is to bring the issue to a vote in Clark County. "Let the people vote and decide," he said. "I think it's outrageous we're not allowed to vote on such an expensive project."

To which Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt asks: Who exactly should vote?

Can any one man be so disingenuously stupid?  Is it remotely possible?

Here's one group who should vote: the commuters this slimeball wants to hit in the head with $1300 per year in tolls.

Those 65,000 people and their wives/husbands Moms and Dads.  THEY should vote.

Leavitt, who became mayor on a campaign of lies, a web of deception, dishonor and the very worst in politics, asks that moronic question repeatedly, a if he doesn't know the answer.

"It's an interstate highway project that benefits the entire West Coast. Who votes? The residents of Washington, Oregon and California, or Canada and Mexico, because their trade partners benefit?" Leavitt said.

 Such idiocy from an adult not locked up in a state mental hospital, let alone, elected to something.

"Who votes?"

THE FRICKING PEOPLE WHO YOU'LL EXTORT THE MONEY TO PAY FOR THIS, YOU MORON.

Leavitt said a de facto vote on light rail already has been done. "The candidates who are supportive of the project continue to get re-elected," Leavitt said.

 Just another of the whopper lies this slimeball keeps telling:

Tom Mielke was "elected."  And what did he run on?

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt was "elected."  What was his platform again?

Steve "The Liar" Stuart was "elected."  What did he promise to get that done?
And what are chances "The Liar" will ever be elected to anything around here, ever again?

Authority to legislate is delegated.  But that delegation does not require the suspension of either disbelief or the ultimate authority of the people who DO vote.

Bridgers/looter slime like Leavitt do not want a vote.  They don't want a vote because they know what the outcome of such a vote would be.

Leavitt said it's impossible to throw a blanket over all light-rail foes. He has a good relationship with some.

And others? In nearly nine years in public office, first as a city councilman and now as Vancouver mayor, Leavitt says some light-rail opponents "have been the most aggressive and some the most disrespectful and underhanded in what I have experienced during my political tenure."

Leavitt believes light rail is beneficial to Clark County, because it ties into a multibillion-dollar investment already in place in the Portland area. Leavitt also believes the more people who take advantage of light rail, the more room it leaves on roadways for the transportation of goods.

Because of his light-rail stance, Leavitt is a lightning rod for light-rail opponents. "I think he is a wishful thinker, and he doesn't want to face reality," Madore said.

It's unfortunate the article doesn't revisit Leavitt's campaign of lies and deceit... which is, of course, the actual basis for "... the most aggressive and some the most disrespectful and underhanded[sic]" attitudes expressed towards Mayor Slimeball.

Let's remember:  Had Leavitt kept his word about his opposition to tolls.... had he not started a legal process of censorship of his opponents.... had he kept his campaign promise of quarterly town hall meetings... then he wouldn't be vilified and upheld as a textbook example of everything wrong in politics today.

But those are the choices HE made.  And if the whiny little bitch doesn't like the response to his lies, he can always resign, since he damned sure is going to BE resigned in his next election.

Is it any wonder many people are disgusted by the government we have?

Leavitt and Pollard

.
I haven't written anything about the outcome of the primary. Until now.

I have always maintained that Pollard will win.

And, I believe, he will.

The facts ultimately remain the same. While both of these guys would probably deny it, close examination bears out the fact that they are, essentially, the same, differing only in veneer. As I have posted earlier, on the issues that really matter, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Pollard and Leavitt.

On the most significant issue facing this region, the unneeded and unwanted replacement iof the I-5 Bridge, a $4 to God Knows how many BILLION dollar project being done entirely to bring loot rail into this community, they are in lock step.

Both of them want this carbuncle on the community's butt. Both of them don't care that it will suck $100,000,000 out of the local economy in a way that will result in reduced revenue to the city for other projects.

Pollard is completely, brutally honest about this. He doesn't dress it up like Leavitt; he not only says "tolls," he wants them everywhere they can be collected.

Leavitt, on the other hand, lies about his position on tolls. His rant over on his blog is a piece of disingenuous work not unlike the scam he ran to get the 3 voting hispanics in this community to vote for him.

That is, he rails against tolls... expresses indignation and anger at the idea... but does absolutely nothing to pull the trigger on what he will do when tolls are imposed... and if this pig gets built, there WILL be tolls... huge tolls that will hurt tens of thousands of people in the city he would lead.

Leavitt writes:

What he (Pollard) and his big-name, big-money backers (Like, for example, the unions endorsing Leavitt) refuse to understand, however, is that a toll that charges Vancouver's working class for the "privilege" of crossing the river because the current administration has done next to nothing to grow jobs here in the last two decades, with the added burden of paying Oregon income tax without receiving representation, is unequitable[sic], undemocratic, and discriminatory.

What Leavitt is choosing to overlook is the fact that failing to get our permission to build this garbage heap is, by far, the most "unequitable[sic], undemocratic, and discriminatory" cut of all... and Leavitt knows this.

Leavitt's blathering like this is utterly worthless. It's political snake oil because he will not pledge to do what needs to be done:

That is, he needs to make this an either/or equation.

Simply stated, his bluster about tolls is all show. Clearly, some were and are drawn to Leavitt and his faux anti-toll stance.

What Leavitt needs to do to show some balls is take a "no tolls" or else stance.

But he won't do that.

Why?

Because he wants the bridge AND loot rail, and he knows that killing tolls kills both the bridge AND loot rail, the two things he wants the most.

Were he to come out and actually declare that he will do everything he can to oppose this bridge; were he to extend all that alleged yet non-existent trust he has in the people to allowing us to have a say in this debacle... then and only then would his fake anti-toll stance make any sense.

Were Pollard to hammer him over his lie on this issue, it would drown out all of the rest of Leavitt's phony platitudes and fake outrage and envy at Pollard's downtown support and Pollard would crush Leavitt.

So, the choice is clear: you can choose between a slick con job that wants the bridge, loot rail and tolls (Leavitt) or you can pick Pollard who wants the same... but is at least honest enough to say so, no matter how despicable their positions may be.
.

Tim Leavitt announces for Mayor: but who cares?

.

(UPDATE: I have a large number of informational posts about Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, so please read them all.)

I've been watching Leavitt for awhile. I've been watching Pollard since he was running the show at Vancouver Barracks.

The only difference between them appears to be one of age. Leavitt is completely in the pocket of the special interests, like Pollard; totally supportive of the unwanted and unneeded I-5 Bridge replacement with loot rail, like Pollard; and completely opposed to asking us if we want this colossal waste of time, energy and/or money... like Pollard.

Mr. Leavitt, there is NO EXCUSE FOR NOT ASKING US WHAT WE WANT.

None. And because you refuse to put the question to a vote, that makes you the same kind of weasel you would propose to replace.

In this instance, the only question is this: do we want an old weasel or a young weasel?

Where has Leavitt publicly opposed Pollard? How often has Leavitt voted "no" on something Pollard wants?

Folks, there's not a dime's worth of difference between them and both of them stand as an example of the kind of government we deserve.

"Chief" over at Clarkblog.org has a few hundred well chosen words for Mr. Leavitt... and they're worth a read.

Leavitt to challenge Mayor Pollard

January 5, 2009 4:30 p.m.

Jeff Mize, The Columbian

Vancouver Councilman Tim Leavitt, who has talked about running for mayor for more than two years, made it official Monday.

Mayor Royce Pollard and mayoral candidate Tim Leavitt at an earlier event. (Files/The Columbian)

Leavitt, 37, sent out a brief statement Monday afternoon saying he wants to represent all city residents as Vancouver mayor.

He will face 14-year incumbent Royce Pollard, who said he will run again.

In his statement, Leavitt said "It's time to focus in on the welfare of citizens across all of Vancouver, returning to basics at City Hall."

"As mayor, I will fight for the security and quality of our neighborhoods, trim nonessential spending and taxation and improve the business climate to create more high-paying jobs for Vancouver."

Leavitt was appointed to the seven-person council in 2003 to replace Jim Moeller following the Vancouver Democrat's election to the Washington House.

More:

When Clark County Republicans get stupid: Blowback against the Benton-Pollard endorsement and the scum email making the rounds.

.
I'm fond of saying, when asked, that I'm FROM Seattle... and it's a great place to be FROM.

I used to be a Republican. I've worked very hard on partisan races... I've had some successes and some failures. Typically, the races I picked were ALL GOP, ALL the time, because being Republican meant you weren't the political version of the anti-Christ.

I've even held paid positions in the GOP up to the state level... where my true political education began in earnest, and I discovered that it wasn't really about getting Republicans elected... far from it. It was about funneling tens of thousands out the door every month for consultants and lawyers. It was about what job could be scammed through the "Plum Book," what appointment... what "consideration."

Those increasingly smaller numbers of people who call themselves Republicans do so because they feel, in part, that it's SUPPOSED to mean something. And that's the problem: It doesn't.

I became a Republican because it was SUPPOSED to mean honor... integrity... character... and inclusiveness.

Today was yet another lesson that such is not the case.

Below is a copy of Senator Don Benton's endorsement of Royce Pollard for his re-election. I support that position as much as I despise many of Pollard's policies.

As even the Columbian has pointed out, on the policy level there is little to differentiate between Pollard and Leavitt. They've been, essentially, joined at the hip legislatively since Leavitt was appointed to the city council a few years back.

Leavitt knew that he had to differentiate himself from Pollard to get this notch on his gun belt before he ran for Congress or whatever he ultimately plans to do.

So, he contrived a hair-splitting difference on tolls, manipulated the local hispanics into committing political suicide, and attacked HIS opponent for HIS OWN failure to vote; a privilege, I might add, that BOTH Pollard and myself spent many hard years INSURING that Leavitt had available to him, only for him to ignore it... again and again and again.

So, I have been hammering Leavitt like a nail. But as I pointed out below, many in the local GOP hierarchy mistakenly believe he's a Republican because Leavitt had the foresight to play both sides of the fence; apparently supporting Rossi while definitely endorsing and supporting the man who has single-handedly inflicted more damaged to our country in less time than any human being who has ever lived, Barack Hussein Obama.

Benton has endorsed Pollard. I will let that endorsement speak for itself. That the endorsement was made, however, has hurt Leavitt badly, because even though he has surrounded himself with leftists and has so far counted on $30,000 (so far) in leftist money laundered from the East Coast, he was secure in the knowledge that he had sucked most local Republicans into wrongly believing that HE, Leavitt, was one.

I also appreciate Ryan Hart's efforts to jam a shiv into Sen. Benton's back with his non-endorsement endorsement of Leavitt, below.

You know, I appreciate the passion of those in this email that is now making the rounds.

Like those circulating this filth, everyone is entitled to their opinion. And I appreciate CDR Patella's use of the axiom, of "what happens when you 'lay down with dogs'," since Pattela seems to have acquired an entire kennel.

My opinion is this:

Tim Leavitt is a democrat. His campaign has surrounded itself with democrats such as Steve Stuart, Betty Sue Morris and democrat campaign strategist Heather Mellon, who ran democrat Peter Goldmark’s successful campaign for state lands commissioner.

Leavitt claims to have supported Rossi. Well, he also endorsed and supported the blight on the land known as Obama. How come no one mentions THAT?

Does that make him any more palatable to you so-called Republicans?

While Benton obviously has a history of fighting for Republican causes and issues that extends back unbroken for the last 15 years in elective office, that does not make him blind to issues of character, integrity and courage of convictions.

The fact of the matter is that I view Leavitt as a political mercenary. He and Pollard are essentially the same on matters of policy and legislation, with very few differences over the years until Leavitt was bitten by the “mayor” bug, when he realized he had to begin to emphasize, and contrive, differences in order to separate himself from Pollard.

So, he makes up a scam about bridge tolls. He’s OPPOSED to tolls, you understand… just not enough to oppose the BRIDGE when it’s REQUIRED to have tolls. And then, we find out that he never bothered to vote. And then, we find out about his grand plan to tax EVERYONE to get the bridge replaced, a replacement that we do not need and do not want and cannot afford.

Most of you base your opposition to Pollard on what amounts to personal animus. And because Don, after much consideration, has decided what *I* consider to be, by far, the lesser of two evils, you respond like this?

For ANY of you to even REMOTELY begin to question the character and integrity of a man like Sen. Benton with a REPEATEDLY PROVEN RECORD of Republicanism is part and parcel of why I have stopped BEING a Republican… And if this is what it takes to be a part of this party, then that is why I am ashamed to call myself one.

Because if blind obedience to an unofficial party line is a requirement to be a part of your organization, then I want nothing to do with it.

Pollard has, of course, engaged in dozens of policies that I oppose…AND SO HAS LEAVITT. Why do you people seem to forget all about that? Why is there such a horrific double standard?

The difference here, at least to me, is that Pollard is HONEST about his positions, where Leavitt is a slimy weasel. EVERYONE KNOWS where Pollard stands, like it or hate it. Leavitt? Well his latest stupidity on taxing EVERYONE to pay for the bridge and light rail that HE wants says it all.

There is nothing to reconsider. I urge Benton to maintain his stance, a stance based on PRINCIPLED support, something apparently lacking in the organization that I have worked so hard, at so many levels to support… But now have come to despise because of this kind of activity on the part of its “members.”

Because someone disagrees with you, you attack him like this? You people are no different than the Obama White House. You’re no different than Axlerod, or Emanuel or Dunn.

You have BECOME the enemy because of your hatred, and your inability to understand the difference between pragmatism and selling out. You would throw a man under a bus because he may disagree with YOUR conclusion on this ONE issue.

Do you think absolutely unsupported ”talking points” will have any sway?

You express concern over how Pollard has treated Campbell. That’s DEMOCRAT Pat Campbell, who USED to be a Republican… right? The utterly INEXPLICABLE idiocy of trying to make excuses for Leavitt's non-voting record... because Pollard was an OFFICER IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY.

Are YOU telling US, "Commander," that when YOU were in the Navy in YOUR early 20's, that YOU didn't vote and then, like Leavitt, you LIED about it?

*I* voted, Commander. I bet dollars to donuts that Pollard did as well. That you didn't, and then proceed to make excuses for YOUR candidate who followed along in YOUR irresponsibility is simply beyond the pale.

I cannot and will not speak for Don. But if it were me? I would say the hell with the lot of you. I would say, “great. You don’t want to support me? THEN DON’T. Feel free to vote and provide money to whatever leftist they run against me."

And I pity you for it.

From: Local Mailing List
Date: 24 Oct 2009 09:13:11
To:
Subject: Is Don Benton a RINO?
(Mailing list information, including unsubscription instructions, is located at the end of this message.) __

Senator Benton, I have no idea what kind of a deal you made with Pollard, but what ever it was you are a great disappointment to this Conservative.

You must have forgotten what your mother said happens when you "lay down with dogs".

You may not care and you are starting to believe you own press releases, but you no longer have my support and I will do my best to convince other to no longer support you.

For all who supported Rossi and those of you who support Leavitt, Benton needs to hear from you. Please send Debbie's email to everyone on your mailing list.

L. M. Patella
CDR USN (ret

Dear Friends,

Please email to your email lists, blogs, any media outlets.

Call to Action: Please email Don Benton and let him know how disappointed you are by the Pollard endorsement. don@senatordonbenton.com .

If you need talking points, please feel free to use any or all of my letter to Don.

Dear Don,

I am stunned that you have endorsed Pollard for the following reasons:

1. Pollard is pushing the very policies that you have spoken against.

2. He is vocally rude, condescending, and often humiliating to Vancouver citizens during public comment, so much so that the city lawyer, Mr. Gathe had to come in and remind Pollard of appropriate ethics while at city council.

3. He has been degrading to both Pat Campbell and Jeanne Stewart, his own colleagues, during city council meetings.

4. After numerous requests (for removal), he still retained his campaign treasurer as chair of the Vancouver Charter. As a result of that, the review board sent us weak, useless recommendations at a time when real issues needed to be addressed, such as dispersal of public property, the purchase and rental of property, term limits, and mayoral election cycle.

After weeks of public comment as to the importance of these issues, none of them was recommended for review by the Charter Review Committee. It was disgusting,and a blatant disregard for public input.

5. He has spent this city into a position where we didn't even have enough money to pay our fire/police. If BHO hadn't had the stimulus money, we would have been down ten police positions added to the four the city lost previously. It was disheartening to see firemen begging city council to raise taxes to cover their personnel positions/expenses.

6. Have you seen the proposed developments for downtown Vancouver? Good by to all the reasons we all moved here. It will be a concrete canyon.

Tower after tower of high rises.

7. The whole Leavitt voting record thing is absurd. I'd like to see Pollard's voting record when he was in his early 20's.

8. Lastly, please see below what your own Clark County chair has to say about Pollard, after Pollard trashed yours and my 2008 gubernatorial candidate.

Dear Republicans:

The Clark County Republican party decided earlier this year to not make any endorsements in the 2009 non-partisan races. We did send out a voter information guide for the purpose of informing our members of identified Republicans running for office. Since there were many cases of Republicans running against Republicans, and Democrats running against Democrats, we have made it clear that we as a party have taken no official position in these non-partisan races.

Today I was disappointed to see a mailer sent out by the Royce Pollard campaign attacking Mayoral Candidate and City Councilman Tim Leavitt for supporting Dino Rossi in 2008, and for introducing Rossi at his final appearance in Clark County the weekend before the 2008 election. The mail piece states, “The Leavitt-Rossi agenda will move Vancouver in the wrong direction.”

As Chairman of the Clark County Republican Party, I remain proud of Mr. Rossi and the campaigns he ran in an effort to move Washington forward.

Furthermore, it was an honor to have Councilman Tim Leavitt introduce Dino Rossi.

Mayor Pollard needs to understand that tens of thousands of Vancouver residents voted for Dino Rossi, and that Rossi won Clark County in both 2004 and 2008.

Christine Gregoire, however, now has an approval rating around 30 percent.
It is her failed policies, and those of the Democratic majority, that are hindering Washington and, more specifically, Clark County from moving forward. It is doubtful that the majority of Vancouver voters approve of Governor Gregoire’s job performance today.

Tim Leavitt was right to support Dino Rossi, and I applaud him for it.

Sincerely,

Ryan Hart
Chairman, Clark County Republican Party


Don, I urge you to reconsider your endorsement of this once effective, but now misguided mayor.
Debbie Peterson.
.

More on Leavitt and the big problem for Stuart.

As the CRC cheerleaders scramble to do damage control against Tim Leavitt's arrogant, Maoist approach to governance, some problems have popped up.

Leavitt's "intentions" have been "public" from the beginning. The problem is that Leavitt's entire tenure as mayor started with a lie. What makes that a problem is that since he started with a lie, everything coming after that has been a lie. And, being real here, we know there is no lie he wouldn't tell, no effort he wouldn't ignore, no position he wouldn't twist to get this thing built; after all, his real employer wouldn't have it any other way, and what Leavitt wants trumps anything the mere people want.

Like a great many other dictators and tyrants, Leavitt sees himself as a man of vision.  That kind of arrogance is what drives him; that's he's better... and smarter... then the rest of us and like his hero Obama's (He did, after all, endorse Obama) utopian socialist society, Leavitt wants this massive rip off to stand as a testament to his "Aryan superiority."

Well, so did Hitler.  And yes, I am comparing the two, because their attitude's seem to be starkly similar on the question of public infrastructure... after all, when did the Nazi's ever ask their population if they wanted to pay for something?

Let's remember the Oregon State Supreme Court ruling that this entire thing is a scam, start to finish, to get light rail in here. And how much have CRC supporters lied about their reasoning for this rip off? That the bridge is "old," that it's "unsafe," that it WILL impact "freight mobility and congestion" and that it's "safer." Yet here, we have a state supreme court telling us that NONE of those things are anything but lies and back-fill to get the kool aid drinkers like Burkman and Leavitt to sign on to this theft and extortion... all neatly wrapped up now without even a minor vote, let alone a county wide vote... and that's because the Burkmans and the Leavitts know damned well the people of Clark County do not want this cancer on our local economy to be allowed to fester and grow... we don't want Leavitt and Burkman's crime train, we don't want the wasted billions with generational tolls blowing a hole in our local economy to continue to enrich the special interests who obviously own Leavitt and seem to own others... like Burkman.

Which brings us to Steve Stuart. Stuart, who also lied to get elected, or in this case, RE-elected, promising us a vote... for LAST November (Did you see one?)  He was lying, of course, because the one thing most CRC cheerleaders can and frequently do engage in is lying to get it built, (As a brief reminder, I pointed out repeatedly on this very blog that Leavitt was lying and Stuart as well... BEFORE they were elected) COULD have made the issue of a vote an either/or scenario, Leavitt's lies about not having any impact on this scam locally notwithstanding.

When Vancouver exercised their block veto, Stuart's reaction SHOULD have been to make it clear that any such action on Vancouver's part would kill the project, because while Vancouver's CTran ego-maniacs have a "block veto," so do the county commissioners.

Of course, both Leavitt and Stuart should have resigned in disgrace, but honor among thieves is an unknown commodity. Meanwhile, those in power, so corrupted as to be beyond belief in their Stalinesque arrogance, continue to ignore us, continue to rip us off, continue to bury us in billions of debt for a program that will accomplish absolutely nothing but to enrich their friends.

Al Capone and Bernie Madoff would be proud... and green with envy.

A new term for the upcoming election: Leavittarian double-speak

.
Tim "The Liar" Leavitt continues to lie about his position on tolls for the massive and unconscionable waste of money known as the I-5 Bridge Replacement/Loot Rail project.

The Oregonian wrongly reported that Leavitt opposes tolls, a necessary factor in both getting the bridge Leavitt so rabidly supports and keeping Sam "If you're younger than 18, in Portland, you can get an" Adams' support for this massive waste.

Cost cutting may nip and tuck at the project, but the political earthquake centers in Vancouver. The mayoral race has morphed into a referendum on tolling as challenger Tim Leavitt emerges as a surprise front runner after building a campaign on opposition to toll charges.

Leavitt said tolls would place an unfair burden on the 60,000 southwest Washington residents who commute to Oregon for jobs and already pay Oregon income tax.

Pollard has said toll charges are a political and financial reality, and he would only support a one-way toll of no more than $2.

Significantly, the area's Congressional delegation as well as Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire support tolling and have endorsed Pollard's campaign.

Baird said Thursday the project likely would not be built without tolls.

The problem with reporting that Leavitt opposes tolls is that, in reality, when Leavitt snivels that position, he's lying.

NO ONE, including Leavitt, has provided any plan or path to constructing this monstrosity WITHOUT tolls.

Leavitt has stated that even WHEN tolls are imposed, he will NOT oppose the bridge.

Well, Mr. Leavitt, if you TRULY oppose something and that thing happens ANYWAY, you had better damned well BE an obstructionist.

If you DO NOT OPPOSE A BRIDGE WITH TOLLS.... and there is NO WAY THIS BRIDGE CAN OR WILL BE BUILT WITHOUT TOLLS.... then you, in fact, SUPPORT TOLLS.

Thus, Leavitt's Lies have given birth to a new term that I must admit that I coined this morning as I was sitting here, drinking coffee and reading this garbage lie about how Leavitt "opposes tolls."

Leavittarian double-speak.

Defined as what a lying politician is saying when he's telling you one thing... but he obviously means something else.

Unfortunately, if enough people believe in that liar's double speak, he'll get elected. Besides this is but a punch on this guy's ticket, his lies and double speak that will, if implemented, cost this community $10's of millions of dollars every year that HE and the OTHER bridge scammers won't have to pay.

So, to Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, I congratulate you for giving birth to the most accurate term possible to describe the garbage you're spewing.

Leavittarian double-speak.

It's a term you'll be hearing for a while... like as long as I'm alive and as long as this scumbag tries to get elected to anything.
.

Of course the slime at the democratian endorsed that little worm, Leave-it.

It comes as no real surprise that the democratian would endorse Tim "the liar" Leavitt for mayor of the Taliban City of Vancouver.

This blog has been indicating, literally for years, that such would be their decision.

A candidate could be an ax murderer, as long as they endorse the democratian agendas... and they'd get the local Pravda Izvestia's endorsement.

For most, issues such as honesty, integrity, character and the like would actually play a major role in their decision as to who to support politically. Clearly, those types of character traits make no difference to the CRC scammers at the democratian.

We all know the history of Tim "the liar" Leavitt. The newspaper, naturally doesn't give a damn about this man's lack of integrity. They only care that their positions dovetail with his positions. That he is basically dishonest, and outright liar, likely a criminal when it comes to his conflict of interest folks on the sea transport, make no difference to those people who run our local cancer on the community.

This blog has literally hundreds of posts in it devoted to the lies of Tim "the liar" Leavitt. Locally, his arrogance is matched only by Jim "Molehill" Moeller. Nationally, his arrogance is matched only by his hero, the empty suited moron in the White House. Historically, his arrogance is matched only by the former fascist dictator of Italy, Mussolini.

Ever since Leavitt came out of the closet on the issue of tolls, which this blogger knew he was lying about throughout the entirety of his campaign, this newspaper has engaged in constant image rehabilitation. This endorsement is just the latest chapter in that effort.

Many of the worst political leaders in the history of the world have had with this newspaper refers to as, "vision".

From Stalin, to Hitler, to Mao, to… Well, you name it, the world's history has been replete with leaders who have with the democratian is referring to as "vision".

I admit that "the liar" has "vision". The problem has always been that the vision this slimeball has, doesn't mesh with the vision that the people of this community want.

For the past several years, the democratian has made it their policy to only endorse CRC scammers in races where the outcome is even remotely in question. No, they do not always endorse supporters of the CRC scam. But whenever the race is remotely competitive, they will in fact typically only endorse people who support the CRC ripoff.

There was never any question that the democratian would support Tim Leavitt; his lies, his arrogance, his lack of character and integrity, notwithstanding. I believe that his opponent, Bill Turley, should view it as a badge of honor that the newspaper has rejected him.  The list of those they've rejected who have been elected is both long... and distinguished. The newspaper typically rejects both winners and people who happen to put the needs and wants of the electorate ahead of the newspaper's agenda.

The filter for their endorsements naturally, includes

1.  are you a Democrat?  Leavitt arguably is that.

2. do you support the CRC scam? Leavitt arguably supports that massive ripoff.

3. do you support loot rail?  Leavitt arguably supports loot rail. After all, as the Oregon Supreme Court has pointed out, that is the entirety of the reasoning to replace our current paid for and functioning I-5 bridge.

4. Is the political race we're endorsing reasonably competitive? That's entirely possible given Leavitt's reputation as a lying scumbag.

Thus the outcome of the endorsement was preordained from the very beginning. That I wouldn't let Leavitt babysit my children or run an elevator for me makes no difference to them. As long as he supports the democratian's ripoff agenda, that he's a lying little worm makes no difference to them.

It is to our community's detriment that so many of its leaders, typically appointed by those of the special interests in a position to do so, have people like Lou Brancaccio, Tim "the liar" Leavitt, Steve "Slimeball" Stuart and their ilk; and organizations like Identity Vancouver, and the Chamber of Horrors actually in a position where they can claim to be representing the people of this community when those of us who actually live here, certainly know better.

When elected government leaders actually work for the people who elected them, it's amazing what can be accomplished when the leadership represents the will of the people.

None of these are the other organizations scamming the CRC ripoff are doing that. Few of the leadership currently elected actually give a damn what the people of this community want when it comes to this project, because they see their vision is superior to that of the little people who actually were foolish enough to elect them in the first place… Much like the people foolish enough to elect the then and now lying mayor of Vancouver.

In their effort to protect Tim Leavitt while rehabilitating his image, the newspaper blows off his campaign of lies by saying the following:

From nearly the start of his time as mayor, the CRC has been an albatross for Leavitt. He ran four years ago largely on a platform of opposing tolls on a new bridge, then quickly reversed course once in office. "The reality is I got that wrong," Leavitt said. "Those positions were too set to allow me to move forward in the project without creating some animosity."

When Brancaccio wrote this, he knew he was lying.

For the many months leading up to the election where we were unfortunate enough to gain Levitt as the Soviet's mayor, I repeatedly warned that he was lying on the issue of tolls, that he was using it as a wedge issue to separate himself from Pollard, and that he had no intention of following through.

It wasn't that the liar "got it wrong" as he put it; he was lying about it from the very beginning, and it was nothing but a political ploy. Brancaccio knows that, yet like so many others who support his agenda, he doesn't care about the lies, the deceit, the falsehoods, and the fraud.

It seems odd, in the face of the continued lack of importance of the newspaper's opinions, that Lefty Lou doesn't take a step back, review, and try to figure out why, in reality, so few people give a damn what he thinks.

In large part, the problem is that his thoughts on just about any subject are run through his "does he like you" filter. In this instance, like any other conservative, Brancaccio hates Bill Turley. He hates anyone opposed to his positions, who's in anything remotely approaching a competitive electoral race.  He hates the very idea of the people having a voice about anything where the outcome of a vote might not go his way.

That's why he's opposed the charter movement so viciously: why he supported fellow democrat Marc Boldt, why he'll try and bury anyone running against Stuart next year... and why he'll support anyone kissing his ring... which are typically his fellow leftist scum...

....like Leave-it.

Which is why, if one goes back over the past several years, one would be hard-pressed to find an endorsement by the democratian of any candidate in any competitive race, if that person opposed their agenda, particularly on the CRC scam.

Well, that and Lefty Lou's hatred.

Naturally, none of the true "liar" characteristics of "the liar" are mentioned in the endorsement. This is in large part because Brancaccio does not allow reality or facts to interfere with his positions. Which explains why, even though he knows the CRC is nothing but a giant turd, he insists on continuing to support this massive theft of dollars from the people of this community that would go on long beyond his death.

The democratian's lack of relevancy at this point can be traced directly to Lou Brancaccio's own desk. He is a self-fulfilling prophecy, where not a day goes by that he personally does not do all that he can to damage what little credibility is left of the despicable rag that represents a wart on the butt of this community. This... is yet... another example of that.

(Transcribed by Dragon NaturallySpeaking version 12.5)

Buyer's remorse against Tim "The Liar" Leavitt surges.

.
Everyone knows my position on The Liar.

I warned everyone during his campaign for mayor that he was a lying slimeball. And now, because his main squeeze tried to plant his (leavitt's) perspective and got busted for doing it all to keep The Lair's skirts clean, he's threatening to shut up his well-earned opposition.

Unfortunately, there was a large group of people who should have known better, yet drank Leavitt's kool aid and voted/supported him regardless.

It's not that I was ever a huge supporter of Royce Pollard. But Pollard has something that The Liar will never know: He has integrity.

I opposed his agenda with every fibre of my being. But I at least knew what that agenda actually was.

Pollard was a strong supporter of sticking it to us with this horrific project of a new, unwanted/unneeded/unaffordable bridge and loot rail. He didn't care about the impacts or the costs... in fact, having plans that would have driven the costs up through the ceiling.

But everyone KNEW that. What they didn't know was that Leavitt supported Pollard's vision every step of the way... until he, Steve Stuart and Dena Horton, then Clark County Democrat chair, needed to develop a wedge issue out of whole cloth. So they lied and made one up. They portrayed The Liar as being opposed to tolls... which, of course, he never was.

In my own way, I tried to warn everyone. And now... for some... the truth has sunk in.

I was sent this email with the name of the sender redacted. But the points are so strong and so obvious that I have to repost it here, in it's entirety... because every word of it is true.

Good morning or is it,

.

Are our Constitutional Rights to Free Speech in Jeopardy?

.

As one who worked his tail off to get Tim Leavitt elected, I am completely disappointed in how quickly he has not only forgotten his campaign promises, but he is now resorting to spreading mis-information about those of us who once supported him. He is also stretching the truth.

.

His comments in today’s fish wrapper have made it perfectly clear to me that he is pulling out all the stops, including stretching the truth, in his attempt to silence us.

.

Why do I say this? Because he is not the same person we helped get elected. During his campaign, a small group of us met with Candidate Leavitt on several occasions at Elmer’s at Mill Plain and Chaklov for breakfast. Candidate Leavitt was kind, reasonable, and understanding. He insisted he was opposed to Bridge Tolls. He promised transparency? He promised the era of dictatorial council behavior would end and that he would do away with the 3 minute timer. He also led us to beleive he would work hard to reduce taxes, business red tape, fees and regulations. Above all he said he would listen to us. Could it be he has forgotten his campaign promises and is now beleiving his own Press Releases?

.

Now as directed, in my opinion, by Identity Clark County, Governor Chris, Portland’s Mayor and Governor, and Senator Patty Murray he is determined to deny us our First Amendment Free Speech Rights if they disagree with his and their scheme to ram a Bridge, Light Rail, Bridge Tolls and ever increasing taxes and fees, we do not want, need or can afford. How sad.

.

As one who has been verbally abused by current and past council members, and accused by Councilman Burkman of intimidating Mayor Leavitt’s “Planted” lady friend, who referred to me and others as liars, I challenge Mayor Leavitt to produce evidence, that it is those of us who disagree
with his wasteful spending of our hard earned tax dollar that have created an unpleasant atmosphere in Council Chambers.

.

It is readily apparent, in view of the different words spoken by Candidate Leavitt and Mayor Leavitt we cannot and should not take his word or the word of his team as gospel. HIs Lady Friend should know that we are presumed innocent until proven beyond a "shadow of doubt" that we are guilty as alleged by the New Leavitt.

.

And so it goes

Here's where I could say "I told you so," so I think I will.

Cross posted at Tim Leavitt Watch.

.

Welcoming Temple Lentz to the club.

.
As a charter member, I hereby welcome Temple Lentz to the club.

We have a select membership, you understand... There was me; Peter Van Nortwick, Brent Boger (An associate member) and now, Temple Lentz.

To gain admission, you have to become a target for one Lou Brancaccio, who uses his bully pulpit to beat the hell out of you if he doesn't "like" you, or to cover your ass (See his deliberate efforts to cover for Jim Jacks over his misconduct in the legislature for an example) if he does.

So, on Saturday, he was psychotic enough to believe his column of libel was so "must read" that he postponed putting it up.  You know, so a few unfortunate souls might actually buy the waste of woodpulp to read it, as if what he said was worth paying money for?  Like that?

Brancaccio, who's reputation as a bully is cemented in local political circles, doesn't hesitate to play smash mouth politics... when those he's smashing can't smash back.  And what's that if it isn't the nature of a bully?

His latest target?  Why, it's one Temple Lentz. former campaign manager and former friend to Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, who threw her under one of those light rail cars he fantasizes about by providing Brancaccio with a well thought out and well stated analysis by Lentz over responding to a question from Brancaccio concerning the lie that was Leavitt's campaign.

She hadn’t been top-of-mind until I received a phone call this week. I was asked if I’d be interested in seeing an email that involved me.

Though why Brancaccio didn't say the call was from Leavitt is of some interest.

I said of course.

It turns out it had to do with an email I had sent to Leavitt about a year ago. Back then, Leavitt had recently reversed course on his no-tolls stand and now was in favor of tolling to get the new bridge built. So I asked him about it:

“Looking back on this entire toll issue, in retrospect, would you have done anything differently in your campaign for mayor? In other words, would you have not been such a staunch advocate for ‘no tolls?’” Leavitt sent me a pretty standard response saying he “wouldn’t change a thing” and making the distinction that he “promised the voters I would fight against tolls and fight for equity.”

Of course, that Leavitt was lying through his teeth by doing neither is of no consequence to Brancaccio now; now Leavitt carries their water like Gunga Din and that's really all that's necessary... right, Lou?

Sort of what I expected.

What I didn’t know was that before he sent me his response (dramatic pause required here), he asked his trusted political adviser — Lentz — for advice:

“Response? Thoughts...”

OK, if I had to guess what advice she would have given him, it would not have been what she dished out:

“Dear Lou, Go F* yourself.”

Imagine how much better off our community would be if EVERYONE this whack job contacted responded the same way?

(I cleaned this up for our readers.)

So this is why well-paid advisers get a paycheck. I did wonder what Leavitt thought about it all.

So I asked.

“Oh boy! That’s not how I responded to you, was it?”

I told him he had not. And in fact, Lentz eventually critiqued his note.

Then Leavitt went on to give Lentz some cover.

“Everybody has their own perspective, personality and attitudes.”

True. Some a bit saltier than others, but …

Unless it's me, of course.  Brancaccio doesn't extend that particular right to me.

And frankly, Leavitt said, he’s had an urge to say that to me, “but it’s absolutely not the best response.”

And once again, Leavitt is dead wrong.

In fact, it's the perfect response to Brancaccio, or, as far as that goes, anyone working for him.

When I spoke to Lentz — who currently is working in communications for a labor union in Portland — she was very straightforward.

“I didn’t feel it was a productive question so it didn’t deserve a productive answer.”

Asking the mayor about his “no tolls” stance wasn’t productive? Huh?

Since you've failed to condemn him... repeatedly... like you condemn so many others?

That is correct.  Amazing you figured it out.

Because I’m a pretty nice guy (see top of this column if you’ve already forgotten), I asked if I could buy her a cup of coffee.

You're a grade A asshole, Lou.  And we all know it.

But please … be gentle with me.

And this column... once again.... proves it.

As for Temple, she's got a fairly thick skin.  And while she shares the same far left spectrum as Brancaccio, she has put herself at risk of this kind of thing because of her lack of slavish devotion to the Propaganda Minister's agenda.

This column was the kind of garbage he cranks out that he believes is oh, so, clever.  After all, it's fairly clear he's a legend in his own mind.

So, welcome to the club, Temple.  Unfortunately, Lou's column just reinforces what a lying scumbag you worked so hard to get elected just so he could throw you under the nearest C-Trans bus... And given the lie that was his campaign, of course he wouldn't change a thing... because changing it would have kept him from getting elected.  And if you're a scumbag and you have to lie to get elected, well, that's just the price of doing business.

Just ask Steve "The Liar" Stuart.
.

Democratian efforts at image rehabilitation for Leavitt and Stuart.

.
To our likely generational misfortune, we are stuck with two political liars highly placed in local government, politicians who lied to get elected.

Tim Leavitt lied repeatedly about his positions on tolling for the I-5 Bridge.  He skillfully used that lie to defeat the incumbent, Royce Pollard who quite wrongly but truthfully told anyone who would listen what his position was on the necessity of tolling as he saw it to get the I-5 bridge replaced and loot rail into Vancouver.

Steve Stuart, who was an integral part of Tim Leavitt's campaign, helped to develop the lie, since there was no way he would ever support a true-anti-toll candidate.

Like Pollard, Stuart has always supported tolls.  Like Pollard and Leavitt, Stuart knows that without tolls, this project would never be built.  That building it will enslave 65,000 plus commuters is of no consequence to either Leavitt or Stuart, since they likely will not have to commute to Portland to be mayor or county commissioner; meaning that, precisely like the baseball scam, the people of Clark County are going to get stuck with the costs of something these two want, and could easily kill, but will not have to pay for.

Stuart, realizing the success of the lie in Leavitt's campaign, utilized the same strategy in his own, promising a county wide vote  on loot rail this November; using that lie to barely get re-elected against a candidate who did very little and who had every disadvantage from a lack of name-familiarity to a lack of funding.

These lies are out there.  The blogging community keeps them alive, reminding everyone of the lack of integrity of our government leaders, leaders who lied to get elected.

The democratian is well aware of this.  So, once again, when the politician carried their water, even to the obvious detriment of our community, they do everything they can to rehabilitate their image, including crap like this from the democrat blog:

White Mayors Can't Jump

Blog: All politics is local

Subscribe

By Stephanie Rice (Columbian Staff)

May 27, 2011

A May 12 celebrity basketball game raised $20,000 for Clark County Family YMCA, said executive director Eddie White.

The game featured players from the Vancouver Volcanoes and Dan Dickau and Derek Raivio, who were standouts at Prairie High School and Mountain View High School, respectively, before each starred for Gonzaga University and played pro ball.

Then there were people not known for being ballers, including Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt.



And Clark County Commissioner Steve Stuart.


Who, with his double knee braces, reminded us of a certain former Portland Trail Blazer.


Stuart said Leavitt's team won, but only because Leavitt cheated. After a practice, Leavitt complained that Stuart's team had an unfair height advantage. But instead of asking for the 6-foot-5ish Stuart, Leavitt got Jake Carlisle, a 6'8" player for the Volcanoes.

More:

One of the commenters on the blog wrote this: "Leavitt cheated? Imagine that."

Strangely appropriate.
.

Tim "The Liar" Leave-it plays the Columbian.

While he is a lying scuzball who's political career is over, the rag's desperate efforts to rehabilitate his image have just gone over the top.

There's only one of two things going on here.

Mayor Scumbag McFly actually believes the garbage he's spewing... Or he's playing the morons at the rag like a fiddle.

Leave-it, while a confirmed lying scuz who should do the political world a favor and resign, knows in his heart that he's through.  He is not believable in any stretch of the imagination... and his lies will dog him as much as Zarelli's bogus unemployment claim will ever keep him from higher elected office.

So, when crap like this gets layered in the fishwrapper, they're either blithering idiots, or they see this as yet another in their many efforts to rehabilitate this lying punk's image.

If he was the democrat's candidate (and his bullshit, faux GOP efforts notwithstanding, he IS a democrat,) we'd have to make a choice between two liars, one more of a moron than the other.

So, save it, Tim.  We all know you're not going to run any more then your buddy Steve "The Liar" Stuart, the architect of your lie of a mayoral campaign is going to run.

Scum is as scum does, and you don't have the testicles for it.

.

Leavitt eyes pros, cons of taking on Herrera Beutler

Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt and Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler

By Andrea Damewood
Columbian Staff Reporter

Saturday, November 19, 2011

submit 0digg

More like this

What’s next for Vancouver city council?
Leaders trade bridge barbs
Letter: Can we really trust elected officials?
Be gentle on my ears … please!
‘Gavel down’ ads condemned by several politicians

What’s next for Vancouver city council?

2013 could be pivotal for Smith, Stewart, Burkman

It’s come down to decision time.
Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt — in an Aug. 11 tweet from his account floated a single question: “Leavitt for Congress?”
There’s since been little from him on the topic, but that hasn’t kept down a flood of questions about a race featuring Leavitt and freshman Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler of Camas.
What party would Leavitt run with? Does he have enough experience? Can he raise the money? Will he find enough support?
Either way, Leavitt — or whoever else may want to challenge Herrera Beutler — will likely need to step forward soon to get started trying to unseat her in 2012. Leavitt’s said he’s likely to make an announcement this week.
A rumor is floating in Democratic circles that the party has someone else in mind: someone new, someone female.
But if or until that person steps forward, Leavitt, 40, remains the most visible and well-known person to take on Herrera Beutler, 33. Another candidate, Jon Haugen, has also announced he’ll run as a conservative Democrat in the race.
It’s not a certainty that Leavitt would have a smooth time ascending the political ranks. The mayor, only two years into his first four-year term (following five years on city council), may alienate some by trying to move on too quickly.
“He was really charged to become mayor of Vancouver,” noted former Mayor Royce Pollard, whom Leavitt defeated in 2009 a
hard-fought race. That rift hasn’t healed. “People wonder here about his dedication to city of Vancouver.”

More of his babble, if you can stomach it.

Leave-it and Barbie: two politicians made for each other.

We all know the deal about Tim "The Liar" Leave-it and Ridgefield Barbie.

The Liar was elected because he, well, lied deliberately and repeatedly about his stance on ripping all of Southwest Washington with his toll scam.

Ridgefield Barbie was elected because she was parachuted in here after an 11 year absence to scam the establishment nod to run for Congress.

She was utterly worthless in the Legislature, and has lived up to that accomplishment in Congress.  She's proven herself gutless with her ongoing refusal to face her constituency unless they bring their checkbooks.

The Liar kicked her face in after a worthless letter asking for an equally worthless gerrymandered CTran tax district vote on loot rail.

The Camas Manikin has the ability to kill the entirety of this project... by herself... if her demands aren't meant.

She can end the funding for all of this at the federal level.  She has the ability to make sure this entire project is put to a countywide vote, and her worthless letter to The Liar was designed to fool people into believing she actually wants a vote.

She doesn't.

Barbie supports the entirety of the CRC project; much like, come to think of it, Marc Boldt, who was the reason Babs got the appointment in the first place to the legislature.. since he made a deal with two male democrat county commissioners from Cowlitz... one of whom, Axel Swanson, now works for Boldt at an absurd $80,000 or so a year.

She doesn't WANT her constituency to BELIEVE that, so she sent a couple of letters asking for a vote.

The Liar, who mistakenly believes himself to be all that politically, caved her ass in... publicly.

She, had she been possessed of even an idea of what testosterone is for, could have beaten him around the head and shoulder reason with a loot rail bridge piling.

Instead, she did her nails... or something.

So, today, these two, neither possessed of an ounce of integrity or courage, "met."  Now its all sweetness and light... and we, the people, are going to get screwed because of it... and her... and him.

Yup... they're made for each other, because they're exactly, precisely alike.

Worthless and a danger to our community for generations to come.

Herrera Beutler, Leavitt meet face to face

After sparring publicly, congresswoman, mayor try to bury hatchet

Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt and Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler

By Andrea Damewood
Columbian Staff Reporter

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

submit 0diggsdigg

More like this

Leavitt, Stuart urge Herrera Beutler to back bridge

Leaders trade bridge barbs

Leavitt for Congress?

Vancouver Mayor Leavitt eyes re-election bid, nixes run for Congress

Leavitt eyes pros, cons of taking on Herrera Beutler

Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler and Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt met last week to bury the hatchet — but signs say there may still be some of the blade sticking up.

The pair met Thursday in Vancouver for a one-on-one talk, Leavitt said.

“I felt it was time and it was appropriate to sit down face to face with our congresswoman and discuss details of the Columbia River Crossing, look for common ground and work to bury the hatchet on previous public interactions and correspondence,” Leavitt, 41, said.

Leavitt and Herrera Beutler, 33, have sparred publicly over the CRC, exchanging letters calling each other’s motivations into question. Herrera Beutler has called for an immediate vote in the entire service district on a C-Tran sales tax increase for light rail and bus rapid transit. Leavitt has urged the board to take its time to ensure members have all the information they need before going to voters.

Demanding a vote from such a small number of people... people who can force tens of thousands of us who weren't allowed to vote to pay their tax shows how worthless she is.

This entire project SHOULD have had a county wide vote $140 million or so.  Babs COULD have made that happen, and hasn't.

Figure that out.

Cross posted at Jaime Herrera Watch.