Leavitt the Liar: He DOES support tolls!

.
All along, Tim Leavitt has been lying.

Leavitt, best known for manipulating the few eligible-to-vote hispanics in Vancouver into endorsing him by manipulating their politically ignorant leadership, has been a militant supporter of both the unneeded, unwanted and moronically wasteful I-5 bridge replacement AND the EQUALLY unneeded, unwanted and moronically wasteful loot rail that is the entire reason behind replacing the I-5 bridge in the first place, since there IS no other reason to do so.

Well, today, it was put to him.

Leavitt, who serves on the project sponsors council with Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard, has made his opposition to bridge tolls a centerpiece of his mayoral campaign.

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.

So, if he's "not an obstructionist," then what he ABSOLUTELY IS is a LIAR. Taking the correct, principled stand against this moronic idiocy if people will have to pay an additional $1300 a year tax to work in Oregon has nothing to do with "obstructionism." What it has to do with is common sense. And this one statement by Leavitt proves that he not only supports the bridge and loot rail... but he ASLO supports tolls as well, since there is precisely NO way this pig will be built without tolls.

I know it; Pollard knows it, and Leavitt damned well knows it.

To claim you won't accept tolls ("Tolls are not on the table for me") and then refuse to oppose the bridge replacement loot rail scam if tolls are required ("I'm not an obstructionist") is to admit you ARE a lying scumbag.

And yes, Tim... that means you.

As I've said many times before, neither Pollard nor Leavitt should be in government in any capacity. But at least Pollard has the guts to unabashedly stand by what he says.

Leavitt, on the other hand, is a total weasel. He's TRYING to get people to believe he's against tolls when anyone paying attention knows that's a lie. What he's TRYING (and clearly succeeding to a degree) to do is to scam people into thinking he's principled and has integrity and that he means what he says.

But that's a lie, because if he actually MEANT what he said, then he'd pull the trigger and tell the scum ramming this garbage down our throats the fact of the matter: if this pig has to have tolls, then I will oppose it with everything I have.

FAILING to do this, as Tim has FAILED to do this just means that he's TRYING to have his cake and eat it to. Gutless little worm.

God, I am so sick of scumbag manipulators like Leavitt I just want to blow chunks. I hate them and everything they represent.

Is it any wonder that Commissioner Steve "Yeah, Barnett bought me for $100,000... what about it?" Stuart supports this scumbag?

Sickening. Absolutely sickening.
.

"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

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.
.

With the Columbian, it's perfectly OK to lie in a campaign....

.
... if it's for a good reason.

In their continuing effort to rehab Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, we get columns like this today from their editor, wherein he tells us:

OK, I’m not quite as hard on the mayor as some might be over this switcheroo. I
appreciate when someone sees the light and has the courage to change course.

I just wish it had come before the election.

Of course, if that "realization" HAD come "before the election," Leavitt would have lost, making the issue moot.

I had known, and wrote, that Leavitt was a lying scum bag the SECOND he came out "opposed to tolls." With Steve "I can be bought" Stuart on his campaign and The Liar's utterly nonsensical "I'm not an obstructionist" position, there are two irrefutable conclusions:

1. Leavitt was NEVER opposed to tolls.

2. The toll issue was the ONLY campaign issue Leavitt could gin up to separate himself from Pollard.

It was fake. It was made up out of whole cloth. Leavitt was lying about that position from the beginning.

And now, he's made the political decision to come out of the Columbian's "pro-toll" closet NOW, to reduce the massive political damage he's inflicted on himself later, when he runs for whatever other office he's got in mind.

Of course, as the Columbian has just pointed out, it's perfectly OK to lie, when the lie dovetails with THEIR lies and agenda.

The problem is Brancaccio's ignorance about this issue, and his pro-spin position.

Instead of focusing on Leavitt's lack of integrity, his record of lies, his cynical political ploy to get elected....

We're told that Leavitt "saw the light and changed course."

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, Son.

Leavitt didn't CHANGE anything.

This was Leavitt's position from the beginning (as I repeatedly stated during the election run-up) an now, like his political decision to lie to the ignorant who actually voted for him, he's made the political decision to come out of the closet so he'll get a little political cover when he starts advocating for tolls to get this thing built, because like most of the bridger/looters, they'd shoot their own mothers to get this thing built, saddling us with hundreds of millions of dollars of debt per year, and tasking 65,000 commuters with yet another massive fee to work in Oregon.

Most of the bridger/looters won't have to PAY these fees, of course. And it's easy to make others spend THEIR money.

And now that The Liar is in the fold and has fully drank all of the Columbian's kool aid.... why, he's magically "seen the light."

What a crock of Grade A horse shit.

Cross posted at Tim Leavitt Watch.
.

This has got to be tough: Someone faking an identity on the Columbian lied that THEY were Tim "The Liar" Leavitt!

.
It's got to be tough to be a public figure these days, particularly when you're a lying scumbag like Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.

Leavitt, who has been scamming people into actually believing he opposes tolls on the massively wasteful, unwanted and unneeded I-5 Bridge replacement/loot rail project has made a HUGE deal about how he's so "opposed" to tolls.

A search of this blog or google will result in quote after quote where this slimy little worm has REPEATEDLY come out in opposition to tolls.

Of course, to THIS slimeball, he really doesn't care if tolls are imposed; he's so beholding to the special interests that own his ass that he has pledged to support this eye-popping waste of billions EVEN IF IT HAS TOLLS, because, after all, this unprincipled scumbag doesn't want to be an "obstructionist."

Well, imagine my surprise when someone scammed his identity, and engaged in some major revisionist history in the comments section of one of the series of lying propaganda pieces spewed out by our local daily stain on journalism, who's despicable efforts to ram THEIR agenda down our throats has made them a joke in the field of news.

Anywho, this fake Leavitt wrote the following:by

Tim Leavitt : 10/2/09 6:18pm - Report Abuse

There are a lot of great comments here, and I agree with many of you! But I want to be clear about something. Contrary to the statement in this piece, I have not made opposition to tolling a centerpiece of my campaign for Mayor of Vancouver. There are many other issues at stake, and I've been discussing them regularly and in much more depth than my opponent ever could.That tolling has become a primary issue of discussion is true, but that is because I have made REPRESENTING THE CITIZENS of Vancouver the centerpiece of my campaign. There is never only one alternative to solving a problem. Tolling Clark County commuters is just one option, and one that obviously I am not fond of. Unfortunately, it's the only option that has been discussed for much too long now, and incumbent officials have become complacent.The discussion about tolls would be entirely different if there were enough jobs here in our community. If current leadership had spent any effort at all on sustainable job creation. But unfortunately, that hasn't been the case---and now they are telling our commuters that this bridge will be paid for on their backs.

Where to begin?

As I've already stated, the movement AGAINST tolling IS THE ONLY CAMPAIGN CENTERPIECE THIS MORON HAS.

It's the only issue he's known for, the only thing he can lay claim to as a substantial difference between himself and Pollard.

He's making every effort to tap into the anger brightly illustrated by the vast majority of comments preceding the comment of this fake Leavitt's. Where that blew up in his face was when he lacked the guts to come out and put a point on it: he failed to come out and say:

If this bridge has tolls on it, then count me out.

In fact, he's done just the opposite: he's come out and said that requiring tolls will have NO IMPACT ON HIS SUPPORT OF THIS MASSIVE WASTE OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

And this is the main problem when you lack any integrity. You lie so much, for so long, in front of so many, that when you finally realize that people are figuring out that you're a liar, as Tim "The Liar" Leavitt is figuring it out, well, then, it's too late, and you've got to engage in a little revisionist history.

There is only one person who can be blamed for taking this bogus position on tolling. There's only one person who can be blamed for selling out the people of this entire region because he lacks the guts to oppose this unconscionable waste of billions of our dollars, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT'S TOLLED.

And that person is our own, slimy little worm, Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.

But then, this COULDN'T be the real Leavitt, could it? After all, the REAL Leavitt wouldn't ever lie.... would he?

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.
.

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.
.

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt's emails: no lie he won't tell.

.
I get the buzz every now and then from people asking me why, after hammering Pollard like a nail, I'm now blowing enough political holes into Tim "The Liar" Leavitt that he can't even drink without leaking.

Well, it's simple. Tim Leavitt is a liar. His campaign started with a cynical ploy to get an endorsement from the, relatively speaking, 15 or so voting hispanics in Clark County, and he illegally used his position as a city councilman to get that endorsement.

That did it for me.

I frequently disagree with Royce Pollard. But on policy, there's essentially no difference between the two candidates.

They both want the I-5 Bridge replaced; they both want light rail, and they both know tolls will be required to get it.

Tim "The Liar" knows this as well. So what's he doing to separate himself from being in lock step with Pollard?

He's lying about his position on tolls.

As I have frequently shown, Leavitt supports tolls; he knows tolls are required; he knows this bridge won't be replaced without tolls, and he will not oppose the bridge when tolls are required.

Of course, if he REALLY opposed tolls, he would tie his support of the bridge to that issue.

But he doesn't, because he clownishly tells us he doesn't want to be an "obstructionist."

It's not surprising that this little worm has confused principled opposition, supported by the facts, with being an "obstructionist."

Leavitt and his handlers, including Steve "Show me the $100,000, Mr. Barnett" Stuart, have signed on to the edicts of nazi propaganda minister Joesef Goebbels, that if you tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough, the more ignorant and uninformed will gradually accept it as truth.

All of his other lies notwithstanding, his latest whiny, sniveling, despicable effort involves an email the moron running his campaign sent out; where, once again, he refuses to take responsibility for HIS screw ups, and then includes the following blatant lie about Pollard:
________________________________________________________
Royce Pollard, as the candidate, has the power and ability to stop this negative campaigning. Even those attacks that are coming from independent organizations -- he has the ability to stop them and he is choosing not to.
___________________________________________________

See, this why I don't want The Liar anywhere in government.

THE CANDIDATE HAS NO CONTROL.... NONE.... OVER "INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATIONS." AND THIS LYING SCUMBAG KNOWS THAT.

That's why I support Pollard.

I oppose many of Pollard's policies. but unlike The Liar, Pollard is HONEST about his positions, where the sniveling little punk running against him is one of THE most lying scumbags I have EVER seen.

So, I'm stuck between supporting an individual with the strength of his convictions, no matter how much pressure he undergoes... or supporting a lowlife, scumbag lying weasel who blew off his voting duty and then blamed POLLARD for HIS failures.

And for me, that's a choice that a blind man could see in a minute.

And with every lie, every exaggeration, every effort to shift blame and avoid responsibility by this scum-sucking slime merchant, my conclusion is re-enforced a thousand fold.

It's bad enough that some of our elected leaders BECOME lying scum (like, for example, the empty suit in the White House.)

But should they actually start out that way?

No. And Tim "The Liar" Leavitt is so co-opted by his political need to be a pathological liar that he wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and bit him in the ass.
.

Another day, another Columbian bridge puff piece.

.
Recently, it became fairly clear that when it comes to the I-5 Bridge rip off/loot rail replacement, two groups of people fail to understand the issue with Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.

The first surprised me. The second has me wondering at the motives for that failure.

The first? Local GOP'ers who supported The Liar's campaign.

Reviewing the bidding; we find that Leavitt's campaign was run by democrats including the democrat county chair, democrat county commissioner Steve "Owned and operated by David Barnett" Stuart, democrat former county commissioner Betty Sue Morris, and democrat operative Heather Melton.

And then, of course, we re-iterate what was already known: The Liar does not, and never did, oppose tolling. He merely manufactured an issue out of whole cloth to seperate himself from Pollard; and he developed this bogus tolling issue as the vehicle to do that.

Then we find out that secret negotiations between Leavitt, "Easy Money" Stuart and Sam "If you're under 18 in Portland, you can have an" Adams have taken place to reduce the size of the bridge even more... to 3 through lanes and one loot rail lane each way, period (the babbling supporters continuing lies about 6 lanes going both ways notwithstanding; there was never more then 6 through lines on the bridge proposal, just like the 6 lanes we have, well, right now)

The issue that surprised me the most on the issue of support is that the GOP'ers would be so badly taken in and hosed by The Liar.

The second here is that our local fishwrapper, hypocritically rabid bridger/looters who won't, like most bridger/looters, have to pay for the project that will blow a $100,000,000 yearly hole in our local economy seems unable to grasp the fact that Leavitt does, in fact, support tolling; always has and always will.

When a clown like Leavitt SAYS he opposes tolls but then won't oppose the bridge when tolls are required because that lying moron isn't an "obstructionist," well, that makes both him AND his so-called "opposition" worthless.

Democrats who want to ram the project down our throats ran Leavitt's campaign. Is there anyone out there who can't make the connection?

Now, there is no doubt that the people of Clark County don't want this thing. It's a massive and unneeded waste of money that anyone paying attention to would see in a minute. Thanks to Deb Wallace and Craig Pridemore, we've wasted $100,000,000 on studies with pre-ordained outcomes (It was never in doubt that the only acceptable option to the Downtown Mafia was replacing the I-5 Bridge and bringing loot rail in using the new bridge... in fact, loot rail was the only real reason to replace the bridge from the start)

And the powers that be, including our massive waste of wood pulp known as a "paper," would rather dive into a boiling vat of hydrochloric acid then do what ethics and morality require (if not the law) and put this massive waste of money to a vote.

This project engages in massive over-promising and under-delivering and it would sentence 65,000 current commuters to paying, in addition to Oregon income tax, a $1300 per year fee just to go to work.

So, we have Kulongoski appointing yet another captain to our particular Titanic.

Well done. But then, I guess he needs someone to blame it on as well, right?
.

Ann Donnelly had a great column today in support of Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, except for one thing:

.
She blew it when she characterized Leavitt as being opposed to tolls.

When Tim "The Liar" Leavitt says, on one hand, that he allegedly opposes tolls, but then says he won't oppose the bridge iif tolls are are "must have," then what he's REALLY saying is that he DOESN'T oppose tolls.

You see, Ann, if he REALLY opposed tolls, then he would make that a binding condition of his support for the bridge. As in:

Mayoral candidate Tim Leavitt and city council candidates Jeanne Stewart (an incumbent) and Bill Turlay (running against Jack Burkman for an open seat) oppose bridge tolls, while Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, Congressman Brian Baird, Portland Mayor Sam Adams, and Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard tell us tolls are inevitable.

I must admit to some level of disappointment on Dr. Donnelly's part. As a former chair of the County Republican Party, I would have thought she would have been somewhat less gullible, and somewhat more attuned to "the Liar's" toll scam.

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt has been attempting to lull people into actually believing his garbage about opposing tolls. It is something of a disappointment that Ann Donnelly would actually fall for it.

The liar has made it clear he doesn't oppose tolls. What he's trying to do, and apparently succeeding a small amount with those not paying attention, is to get people to BELIEVE he opposes tolls.

The problem with that is more then just rhetoric.

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt does NOT oppose tolls if he will NOT oppose a bridge that has them.

And he won't do that. What he moronically calls "obstructionist," the rest of us call "standing up for principle."

Of course, to stand up for them, you have to have them. And this whiny, sniveling punk wouldn't know character and integrity if they walked up and bit him in the ass.

While I agree with much of Donnelly's analysis of the bridge tolling situation, I simply cannot believe she's allowed herself to get sucked in by The Liar's casket-salesman persona.

There are two candidates running for mayor. Only one of them is lying about tolls if this bridge is to get built.

It's unfortunate that Ms. Donnelly seems incapable of figuring out which one.
.

Leavitt CONTINUES to lie?

.
God knows it's been a decade or more since I've been a big fan of Royce Pollard. My blog has several posts where I've ginzued him like sushi.

But I would vote for him every day and twice on Sunday before I would vote for a slimy, non-voting scumbag who would lie to GOD to win an election. And I am referring directly to Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.

Thousands of people over the past few months have come here and read m y posts documenting what a manipulative, lying ass this embarrassment to elective government actually is.

His campaign is one huge, cynical ploy designed to fool people into actually believing that this lowlife scum is opposed to tolls.

Yesterday, it was the moronic idea that led Lou Brancaccio, hardly the brightest bulb in the tree of journalism, to conclude that Tim is occupying the twilight zone.

Well, if it were only the twilight zone, that would be one thing. But instead, it's the liars and thieves zone where candidates display everything that is the worst in politics.

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt is not delusional. His campaign of lies and attacks and shifting blame to others for his multiple failures isn't "twilight zone-ish." Instead, it's manipulative, cynical and dishonest... which, come to think of it, describes The Liar to a "T."

Today's summary:

Leavitt's opposition to tolling a new Interstate 5 bridge is the linchpin of his campaign, and the issue that has the race on the political radar of the entire region.

Leavitt says tolling Clark County commuters who use the bridge to get to work would be punitive. However, he hasn't offered any detailed alternative for raising a $1.3 billion local contribution to the $4.2 billion project.

And when pressed, he says he wouldn't try to block the project if tolls are part of the package, because that would be "obstructionist."

He offers no "detail alternative" because there IS no "alternative." He KNOWS that, but REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR ADMIT IT BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO SEPARATE HIM FROM POLLARD... AND TO TELL THE TRUTH WOULD DOOM HIS CANDIDACY.

It's simple, really. He offers no alternative because he KNOWS this steaming pile won't get built WITHOUT tolls. And because Tim "The Liar" Leavitt will support this bridge with or without tolls, which is the same thing as supporting it WITH tolls... there's no need for him to come up with a non-existent alternative to get this thing built.

That's what makes him a lying, lowlife scumbag. And Vancouver, if you vote this clown in... you deserve him.

The problem is that the rest of us don't.
.

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt's BIG PROBLEM: Tolls and his lies about them.

.
Here's the problem for The Liar:

We have a guy who has done everything he can to get a bridge replaced and loot rail jammed down our throats when we don't want either.

That's a problem, of course, but not a political problem, because the other candidate, Royce Pollard, has done precisely the same thing.

Both of these clowns have worked to waste tens of millions of dollars on a study to achieve an outcome that I could have provided for $20.

We do not need to get the I-5 Bridge replaced, period. But replacing it is the only way to get loot rail into downtown Vancouver, an option already rejected by the voters, 70-30, over a decade ago... and, of course, the primary reason these scum won't ask us now.... they know we'd reject it again.

So, we have precisely two candidates who want precisely the same thing in the face of the massive, overwhelming opposition to the issue in question.

The Liar's problem is this: how can he portray himself as someone who wants the bridge, but who wants to tap in to the anti-bridge, anti-toll sentiment that got Tom Mielke, Republican, elected in the midst of a blue tide? When it comes to positions and outcomes, both candidates are precisely the same. So, how does The Liar find a way to separate himself from Pollard?

I know ! I know! (Hand waving frantically) Even though Tim "The Liar" KNOWS this bridge MUST have tolls to be built, he can market himself as being AGAINST TOLLS!

Tim "The Liar" already knows there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THIS THING CAN BE BUILT WITHOUT TOLLS, but when it's built, he can go around taking credit for at least TRYING to avoid tolling of a population that can't afford it.

Well, you would think that if Tim "The Liar" was a man of principle and integrity, why, why.... why, he'd step right up and say "if this thing has tolls on it, then count me out."

That's what you'd EXPECT a man of "integrity" or "principle" to say... wouldn't you?

Well, what did Tim "The Liar" say when asked about that very thing?

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.

Nor are you a man, you slimy weasel.

Effectively, the outcome is the same. That is, if the bridge that both candidates want gets built, then there WILL be tolls, and both candidates will support those tolls.

The DIFFERENCE is that Pollard, as much as I dislike his politics, has the balls to stand by his position of tolling everything in sight without lying about it.

Tim "The Liar" on the other hand, has EXACTLY the SAME positions... but packages himself in a different way to try and fool the voter into believing he's actually opposed to tolls, when in reality, it makes no difference to him, one way or the other.

And that makes Tim "The Lair" despicable scum.

We do not need this bridge to be replaced. Those screaming the loudest to replace it are those least likely to need to cross such a bridge, and, therefore, are those least likely to PAY for such a bridge. And, as both Pollard and Leavitt and the despicable rag that is our paper have demonstrated: how easy it is to demand something that others will both pay for and MUST use, if such a demand will get what they want.

When Leavitt continues to bang his "no tolls, but I'll still support the bridge even if there ARE tolls" drum, he's a lying, lowlife scumbag every time his slimy lips move.

Personally, I agree with Tom Koenninger about as often as I win the lottery. But this time, his take on the tolling issue and the even remote possibility of building this lipstick-covered pig without tolls has a great deal of factual information contained within.

That Koenninger would still want this piece of garbage built in spite of the horrific costs, considering that the construction of such a bridge replacement would accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING save for providing the most horrifically expensive loot rail project in the history of the fricken universe, however, is a subject for another post.

Leavitt is a lying, low life scumbag, and he needs to get his political ass kicked for his lies come this November.

Of course, when you surround yourself with other lying, low life scumbags, like Steve "I'll take those 30 pieces of silver, Mr. Barnett" Stuart, I guess your conduct and outcomes are inevitable.
.

I want to apologize to Southwest Washington for Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.

.
Unfortunately for the community of Southwest Washington, politics can occasionally spawn some genuine lying lowlife weasels.

And Tim Leavitt fits that bill.

I want to apologize on behalf of the entire political process in America today for the candidacy of this slimy, underhanded, low life, asinine, whiny, sniveling candidate and the campaign he has felt he's had to run from the very beginning.

Rather than taking responsibility for his frequent violations of his civic duties and responsibilities to this community that thousands have died to give ungrateful worms like Leavitt, he's done everything he can to avoid taking responsibility for his actions, instead in his own cowardly way, attempting to shift the blame and focus for HIS failures to someone else.

Rather then stand up for those of us he's helping to hurt so badly financially by refusing to accept a bridge with tolls, the little coward says that tolls won't deter him, because he's "not an obstructionist." Of course, that he's lying through his teeth about the tolls issue is self-evident. And I am truly sorry he's such a lying weasel.

I'm also sorry he's such a coward.

And his cowardice speaks to his character.

ACTIONS REFLECT ATTITUDES, BELIEFS AND MORAL VALUES, DON'T THEY, TIM?.

AND THIS SLIMEBALL HAS SHOWN THAT HE HAS NONE.

In politics, when desperation sets in…when it is looking as though a loss is at hand, you learn the true nature of a candidate's character. And Leavitt, we are learning, when faced with the toughest challenge of his political life, goes negative and gets dirty and avoids taking responsibility for HIS actions by attempting to blame someone else.

This lack of courage, character and integrity not only disqualifies this worm from being elected mayor, it should cause him to resign from his city council seat, since his COMPLETE lack of respect for the franchise of voting shows him up for what he truly is:

A lowlife hypocrite who is a stain on the political process.

And for that, ladies and gentlemen, I apologise on behalf of Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, because he lacks the guts, integrity and character to apologize by resigning for the embarrassment he's caused himself and our community.

And for that, I am truly sorry.
.

STILL no lie that Tim "The Liar" Leavitt won't tell?

.
I dunno. I simply cannot understand why Tim "The Liar" Leavitt has to live up to his name with such intensity.

It takes a genuine scumbag who supports a bridge that must have tolls to be built by attacking someone else who supports a bridge, with, well, tolls it must have to be built.

I guess this kind of crap and desperation is spewing out from Leavitt because of the dirty little secret he doesn't want people to know:

He's losing.

Yup, that's right... The Liar has blown it.

Scamming the hispanic vote by manipulating them into an endorsement as if that mattered... whining like a little punk because he got busted for wanting YOU to do the very thing HE didn't bother to do: vote... $40,000 so far in special interest, east coast union money.... lying about his position on bridge tolls (He wants the bridge and loot rail, and he's not about to let a little thing like tolls get in the way of that, so, tolls or no, The Liar wants his bridge.) and then coming up with an utterly moronic plan to tax EVERYONE, EVEN THOSE NOT USING THE BRIDGE, to pay for HIS project.... and this simple idiot has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The rank hypocrisy of accusing someone ELSE of wanting tolls when YOU want tolls show the depths of scummery this low life will stoop to to win. He's lying and attempting to manipulate people into voting for him as if he actually had the character to OPPOSE the bridge when tolls are required... even though he's publicly stated he will NOT oppose a tolled bridge because he lacks the guts... I mean, because he doesn't want to be an "obstructionist."

Integrity is a rare commodity in politics. Like it or hate it, Pollard is the one who's got it... and Leavitt?

Well, not so much.

Vote Pollard. Of the two, he's the best choice, hands down. And if Leavitt's bogus mailer didn't convince you what a lying weasel he is, I don't know what will.
.

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.

Group dictatorship in Clark County.

There are, in my estimation, two types of government at base: inclusive and exclusive.

Odd, isn't it, that the United States has fought several wars to defend others... and ourselves, from the imposition of exclusive government... and now, we find ourselves living in a county that practices nothing BUT "exclusive government."

Ask yourselves: if the Taliban were running the city council of Vancouver... or CTrans... and they wanted to be as moronic as the rest of those who have a light rail/new bridge fetish, do you believe they would allow a vote?

How many votes did they allow when they were running, say, Kabul, Afghanistan?  The same number as Tim Leavitt wants to allow on this project.  Amazing coincidence that, what?

Perhaps it would be helpful to define terms to illustrate the fact that those governing us resemble nothing so much as those hundreds of thousands of us died to defeat in wars stretching back centuries.

I define "exclusive government" as that which we have now.  That is, what those being governed want, need, are willing to pay for?

In an "exclusive government," none of that makes any difference to those in charge.

In an INCLUSIVE government, the needs, wants and opinions are sought out.  Those governing do not cower in fear at the thought that maybe... just maybe, the people don't agree with their vision.  They just don't give a damn.

In inclusive government, they understand that, like the constitution of this state tells us, "All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed..." and as a result, the desires of the people reign supreme.

Typically, those on the left around here seem to believe that once they're in office, all political power flows from THEM.  Those, like Boldt, idiotically hide behind the moronic mantra that "this isn't a democracy and we're not going to put 'everything' to a vote."

No one, of course, is asking them or anyone else to put "everything to a vote."

But when as there is now, opposition to horrifically expensive projects or even cheap but definitely unnecessary projects like the ballpark, the idea that we shouldn't be asked?  That's the height of monumentally stupid and arrogant government.

Like others in governments throughout history and around the world; those we typically refer to as "dictators," an "exclusive government" is one where the views and permission of those governed are neither sought... nor allowed.

Let us never forget that this same city... Vancouver... sued the voters into silence... TWICE... to eliminate their voice on the rip off known as the Pollard Hilton.  And how has that worked out for us?

Dictators, tyrants and the slimeballs on CTrans who want to ram this garbage down our throats without asking us all have a great deal in common.  Who, for example, did Hitler ask before he decided to build the autobahn?

For those perhaps outraged that I would make such a comparison: tough.  Get over it.  You see, the comparison makes itself.  And like Hitler, Chavez, Leavitt and others, once these people were "elected," they believe(d) that any responsibility to the electorate, or communication from the electorate, is unnecessary and obstructionist to their vision.  And in this instance, the mean is the same... it's just a matter of degree.

For Hitler it was world domination and the 3rd Reich.  For many Muslims, it's the imposition of sharia law.

For Tim Leavitt, it's ramming a multi-billion dollar project down our throats that we do not need, want or can afford.

In an exclusive government like that practiced in Vancouver, the similarities to these scoundrels of history far outweigh the differences.

One question, though: who were the blithering idiots that set up a system that allowed the pond scum from Vancouver to call all the shots?

Meanwhile, to those on the CTran Board, you can feel free to do the right thing and walk out... and stay out... until the slime from Vancouver allow a vote.

Democrat County Commissioner and Boldt-mentor Steve Stuart PROMISED us an election as part of his re-election campaign in October 2010.  Democrat County Commissioner Marc Boldt (Again, in the interest of full disclosure, Marc is my brother in law and I worked for him as his legislative assistant for 6 years while he was a state representative.) told me to my face that he would provide a countywide advisory vote on the entirety of this project back in February, 2010 for the following November.

I must have missed those elections.

Those elected among us who believe that their political power flows entirely from their position tell us that the people HAVE voted... they provided the votes that put them into office... as if that ends any responsibility.  They typically go on to tell us that if the people don;'t like what they've done IN office, well, they can be voted out at the next election... as if that's the end of it.

The question remains unanswered, however, as to how, exactly, do we undo the damage of their arrogance that took place while they were IN office?

For example, if this crap pile loot rail/bridge scam ripoff is built, how do we undo the damage committed by Boldt, Stuart, Leave-it, Moeller and the rest?  How does just getting rid of those clowns fix any of the problems they've caused?

Clearly, it doesn't.  And with equal clarity, they know that... and just... don't... care.

The county can kill this deal.  If they don't?

Well, we'll know they never, ever planned to allow a vote in the first place, and because Leave-it is likely to never run for election to anything else, he's the "designated driver" to take all the heat... because, as he's made it clear... he doesn't give a damn, as long as he gets this crap pile built.

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.
.

The local paper STILL doesn't get it. There is NO consensus on the multi-billion dollar waste of money, except in their delusional minds.

.
For whatever the reason, our local rag has been fixated on loot rail for long over a decade.

There has been no lie they wouldn't tell, no exaggeration they wouldn't use, no attack they wouldn't make, all to the point of the absurd idea that we, The People should waste billions of dollars on THE most expensive loot rail system in the history of this, or, I'm sure, any other planet.

The thread that binds it all together is this: our absurd stain on the "science" of journalism will not have to pay for it. So, what they advocate is that WE pay for it; that we willingly blow a $100,000,000 hole, each year into perpetuity, into our local economy so they can install an outmoded, obsolete, non-transferable system with ridership subsidized to an unbelievable level as part of their agenda.... costs be damned.

And because of that kind of perspective, they print utter garbage like this:

Tenuous consensus builds for new I-5 crossing

So, essentially,a few guys got together over massive amounts of alcohol and worked double over time to sell out SW Washington for their agenda.

And who were the four guys?

We could almost call 3 of them the "usual suspects."

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, who's bogus position that he's "against tolls" was leveled when he finally fessed up and told the world that when tolls are inevitable, he won't stand in the way because principle means nothing to a lair and, well, he's not an "obstructionist;" Steve " Barnett had me at the number '$100,000'" Stuart, who stupidly is committing political suicide by demanding that we shoot ourselves in the foot economically by forcing us to divert $100,000,000 or more every year forever to build a replacement bridge that we do not need to bring in loot rail that we do not want; Sam "Sure I'm a liar" Adams, who felt no compunction in assassinating another man's character by denying his sexual activities with a kid.... and a fourth guy I've never heard of.

They decided to send a letter. And the only thing they agreed on is that they disagree.

They disagree with the plan.

As I pointed out, at some point, 3 of these people, the three I mentioned by name, will let others in on their next deal, the already agreed on "3 lanes each way with one lane each way for loot rail" system.

That's what we have to look forward to, because these people KNOW that this steaming pile would lose in an up or down vote and all of them want this thing built badly... tolls or no.... even Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.

Sigh.

So much for "will of the people."
.

Congrats to the local paper for reporting what I blogged about several days ago.

.
In yet another typically gagging, cloying puff piece on the unneeded, unwanted and unnecessary multi-billion dollar waste known the I-5 Bridge replacement, the local rag finally gets it. As I blogged back in December, the cabal deciding what bridge/loot rail combination they plan on ramming down our collective throats agreed to a 6 lane bridge weeks ago (Not including loot rail lanes). Congrats to our local stain on our community for finally figuring it out.

So, when Tim "The Liar" Leavitt babbles that such an arrangement "...wouldn’t be acceptable to our community,” he's failing to acknowledge that there is NO bridge of ANY size that would be "acceptable to our community," and he KNOWS that.

But no matter what ultimately comes our of this steaming pile, ol' Tim will be on board. Because, as well know, the little slime ball "isn't an obstructionist."

Our local excuse for a paper continues to use lies such as this:

The request comes amid fraying support for the project.

In June and July of 2008, the 12-lane “locally preferred alternative” received the
conditional support of city councils, transit agencies and metropolitan planning organizations on both sides of the river.

Support began to wane last year.

The main problem with the lie about "fraying support" is that this community NEVER supported replacing the bridge or bringing loot rail here under ANY circumstances, least of all with $1300 per year (to begin with) tolls.

Now, The Liar KNOWS that this thing can't be built WITHOUT tolls, but that didn't stop him from REPEATEDLY lying that the mayor of Vancouver could STOP tolls, while telling us all along that even WITH tolls, HE would SUPPORT the new bridge.

And if this bridge comes out with the already-agreed-to 6 lane design, he'll agree to that as well, BECAUSE HE CAN'T STOP IT.

NO bridge design here EVER had more than 6 through lanes. To that end, a 6 lane bridge was going to be the outcome REGARDLESS; a colassal, multi-billion dollar pile of money dumped down a toilet; blowing a $100,000,000 per year hole in our local economy, cheerled by hypocrites who wouldn't ever have to pay the tolls... unlike those of us in the commuting public.

As for Steve "Unmarked Bills, Mr. Barnett" Stuart, here's a clue.

We want this shut down NOW. And we do not WANT a "re-start." WE WANT A THIRD AND FOURTH BRIDGE, WITH NO FRICKING LOOT RAIL.

You've already blown $100,000,000 tax payer dollars, thanks to Tweedle Dumb (Craig Pridemore) and Tweedle Dumber (Deb Wallace) and we have absolutely nothing to show for it... money that SHOULD have been spent on locating and designing a 3rd and 4th bridge that would both relieve pressure on the I-5 Bridge AND reduce congestion WHILE increasing freight mobility, something that a new bridge in the same place would absolutely NOT do.

Get used to dealing with your massive wastes of our money, Mr. Stuart... and start polishing your resume'.

Between the bridge and getting paid to be Barnett's butt boy, this November?

You are going DOWN.
.