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.
.

Brancaccio asks the question: Do they (Pollard and/or Leavitt) like the casino?

.
Well, do they?

I published a moronic email from right wing nuts questioning Sen. Don Benton's commitment to Republicanism because he didn't engage in their peculiar brand of communist thought control and endorse whoever these ignorant clowns wanted him to endorse.

One of the more idiotic lines out of that filth was this:

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

The moron that sent that out is apparently possessed of a double standard, because he's failed to do a "flea check" on the slimeball HE is supporting, one Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.

We all know about most of the "fleas" these right wing whack jobs are ignoring: the dreaded "endorsed Obama" flea; the horrific "lie about tolls" flea; the despised "tax everyone to build a bridge we don't want or need along with loot rail" flea, the "manipulate the politically ignorant hispanic lobby" flea, and finally, the "bought outright or otherwise owned by the casino developer" flea.

Odd, isn't it, that both the far left and the far right can be such rank hypocrites in their double standard that they blindly apply to everyone else... going so far as to THREATEN politicians that are smart enough to disagree with them.

That said, Brancaccio's column in this instance dug... it just didn't dig enough.

As The Liar has proven, he can and will SAY anything to get elected. He has, after all, been lying about tolls on the bridge since he started.

There can be no question as to Pollard's position on the matter. Initially, he was sucked in by tribal liars and seemed to support the development of that cancer on Southwest Washington.

But as time went on, he began to see the true character of the Seattle/Olympia scum trying to ram this crap pile down our throats... and came to the best conclusion possible for us all: that the organized crime effort of building this horrific economic black hole had to be stopped... so he has had his city set about to do everything it could to stop it.

Part of the reason I support Pollard is embodied in this effort. There is no question that Pollard will continue to devote a major effort to derail the scum-sucking slime who want to put their peculiar brand of cold sore on the lip of our community.

Leavitt? Not so much.

Leavitt has surrounded himself with the most highly placed casino sell outs in our community, starting with Steve "$100,000 in cold, hard, cash, Mr. Barnett" Stuart, who wouldn't BE a county commissioner if the megacasino developer hadn't laundered $100,000 into his election at the last minute.

Stuart has never forgotten that "favor," which he knew about over 2 months in advance, and he has done everything he reasonably could to repay that "favor" since... his most recent effort being to tie the county to the tribe's bogus "gambling ordinance" by language in the rescission agreement of last April... language the tribe's local lawyer called a "contract."

The other questionable member of the campaign is one Betty Sue Morris.

I don't know what got into Betty Sue. But she sold us out in a heartbeat for no discernible reason.

She gave the casino developer everything he wanted and got, essentially, nothing in return.

Each year, the Mohegan Tribe (our local megacasino financiers) has to pay Connecticut FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR. Betty Sue didn't ask for cab fare in comparison.

Both of these rabid casino supporters are in/on Leavitt's campaign.

Why? Why are they so rabid in their support?

Coincidence? They just aren't AWARE of Leavitt's so called "opposition" to the casino?

Hardly. Like everything else in Leavitt's campaign, this is the lie de jour... the "say anything" of the moment to get elected.

With Pollard, there's no question. With Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, there's nothing BUT questions... and for the morons on the right supporting this clown... nothing BUT fleas.

.

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.
.

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt WANTS to be mayor of Whinerville.

.
It's bad enough that "The Liar" has his blog ghost written (Right, T?). It's bad enough that he's a total and complete lying scumbag about the issue of tolls. But this guy squeals like a little piggy when it comes to taking responsibility for his own action whenever he's held to account.

There's "false canvassers," all right... but they are LEAVITT'S.

On that $30,000 "laundry bill" from that union in New York on the PDC's is for.... wait for it.... CANVASSERS.

It's a shame this little worm can't control his own people.... just like it's a shame that he's continuing to try and deflect the attention of the people away from the truth of the matter, which is that Tim "the Liar" leavitt SUPPORTS TOLLS, has he has said time and time again when he reuses to oppose the bridge WITH tolls.

So, while there ARE dirty, scummy, lowlife tactics going on, their primary source is from Tim "The Liar" Leavitt himself!

So, this slimeball hires these scum to canvass for him, then complains about "irty tactics" and blames the other gut for HIS screw ups?

Can this little weasel accept responsibility for ANYTHING?
.

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.
.

"I know of illegal aliens with better voting records than Leavitt"

.
I'm just sayin'.

I wish I could take credit for this, but it all goes to one of my best buds, who shall remain nameless.
.

Hhhhmmm...... Two Faces of Tim "The Liar" Leavitt? Or is it just basic incompetence?

.
So: here we have one Tim "The Liar" Leavitt in the local rag:

Leavitt did not dispute the union's account of his voting record. "Making sure to vote is very important, and I regret the instances where I did not register my opinion on the ballot," he said in a statement.

But he added, "This isn't really about my voting record on the ballot. It's my opponent's desperation on the eve of an election where he looks to be losing his longtime control over our city. How does this sleazy maneuver help our struggling communities today?"

And in the Oregonian across the river? Well, not exactly the same position.

Leavitt at first challenged the accuracy of the report, saying that his campaign supporters had done their own research showing "in the past 10 years I've only missed three voting opportunities."

If, as Tim "The Liar" tells us, this little issue has "...discounted... significance," then why so many versions? Why lie about it?

The stupidity of statement's like this:

He also disputed the union's contention that he didn't vote on three Vancouver School District maintenance and operations levies. Records show that Leavitt didn't live in the district boundaries at the time. Instead, he lived in the Evergreen district -- where he missed two of that district's money measure votes.

Can't be overstated.

It would appear that Leavitt can't even lie properly.... and up to this point, he's been so very good at lying.

The problem here is this:

Leavitt's screwed on this issue. As a result, instead of standing up and taking his medicine like a man... instead of holding himself accountable for his multiple failures in civic duty and acknowledging that those failures make him unfit for ANY elective office; instead of withdrawing from this election and resigning his city council seat, instead of doing the HONORABLE thing...

.... he whines.... and snivels.... and blames others for HIS failures. He's a complete clone of Steve "Easy Money if it's from Barnett" Stuart.

Is that the kind of leadership Vancouver needs... a weasel who deflects, who blames others... who is incapable of manning up and holding himself accountable for being a selfish jerk who thought so little of his civic duties when uncounted thousands of others had made the supreme sacrifice to insure that he could exercise that duty?

I was talking to a friend of mine about this very thing last night. We were downing a couple of aircraft carrier sized-burritos at Peppers, and he looked around and told me, "You know, there are some illegal aliens with better voting trecords that Leavitt."

Yes, the two faces of Tim "The Liar" Leavitt. But even combined, they amount to a squalling little piggy, unfit for the trough, let alone the most critical leadership position in Southwest Washington.

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt's failure to vote: Nothing to see here.... move along.

.
You know, you can see the Steve "I'll take $100,000 in unmarked bills, Mr. Barnett" Stuart influence in Tim's scummy little response:

Leavitt did not dispute the union's account of his voting record. "Making sure to vote is very important, and I regret the instances where I did not register my opinion on the ballot," he said in a statement.

But he added, "This isn't really about my voting record on the ballot. It's my opponent's desperation on the eve of an election where he looks to be losing his longtime control over our city. How does this sleazy maneuver help our struggling communities today?"

So, instead of taking full responsibility for his actions, Tim "The Liar" can only attack his opponent, who had nothing to do with this revelation?

So, no Tim. It really IS about your multiple, repeated failures to vote.

It really IS about YOUR failure to exercise the franchise that tens of thousands have DIED to give you.

It REALLY IS about the FACT that YOU DON'T CARE enough to vote.

Don't try and squirm your way out of it, you little worm. This IS about you.

And no amount of your whining and sniveling will change that.

Gee, Vancouver... is this whiny, snivelly little bitch the kind of leader you want for the city of Vancouver?

Doesn't vote, breaks the law, and then whines when he gets called out over it?
.

So.... Tim "The Liar" Leavitt has a voting problem.

.
Gee. Whoda thunk that an elected official rarely bothered to vote?

Damn... talk about disrespecting and dishonoring his country... and disrespecting the military that enables jerks like this TO vote, only to have this mamby pamby blow it off.

Actually, it takes a genuine scumbag to avoid voting like this and then run for ANY public office.

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt ought to be ashamed... and he ought to withdraw because of it.

It's bad enough that the man lies about tolling 65,000 people on a bridge with loot rail that we neither want or need.

But to blow off voting? And have so many total morons come here and post because of a whiny email?

Despicable.

Yet, the oddest thing about all this is the bizarre response by The Liar's supporters. That this scumbag doesn't bother to vote is met with yawning indifference by those stupid enough to want this clown to get elected.

Here's what many of those morons have to say:

by Vantucky Holler : 10/6/09 9:47am - Report
Abuse

if pollard actually had a history of telling the truth, this'd be different. But since he says whatever it takes to get elected, this is just another distraction. Don't forget his blatant lies about an endorsement from muchas gracias, or his ridiculous statement after the cops endorsed his opponent, that the police just want to take over the city. this guy is a joke, and needs to be replaced.

by citizen 2008 : 10/6/09 10:02am - Report
Abuse

I'm a strong supporter of Leavitt. If he hasn't voted in the past, he sure will be as mayor!! No reason to vote Pollard that I can see, whatsoever.

by Mallory Vanhouser : 10/6/09 10:09am - Report
Abuse

Barack H. Obama missed 314 of 1300 roll call votes (24%) since Jan 6, 2005 and he is President of the United States!

by JR G : 10/6/09 10:44am - Report Abuse

Seriously?

This is what they came up with for an attack? Who cares if he voted? Whether someone votes or not in elections has nothing to with his ability to lead a city. I would say the same thing if it were Pollard that had missed these elections. A person's ability or desire to vote does not mean he cannot lead.

by Icare Alot : 10/6/09 11:10am - Report Abuse

Personally, I do not see anything wrong with Leavitt not having voted in those elections. He is a qualified and savvy politician with a deep-rooted interest in serving Vancouver. The swift-boat tactic is what is dirty about this 'revelation' and not the message itself. We need to be a more educated population and not fall for such games.

by bruce hall : 10/6/09 11:33am - Report Abuse

OK- so Mr. Levitt missed some votes. He is not dispuiting that. But, if Mr. Pollard is
so intent on votes, then why, as mayor, did he not ALLOW citizen votes regarding the allocation of huge amounts of tax monies. Under the Pollard's leadership, the citizens paid, via taxes, on huge giveaways to developement. He still wants to continue that under the redevelopment of the Boise site by a ten year deal where the developers don't have to pay property taxes. The city, under Pollards leadership, gave away monies to build parking garages that were attached to private developement. Yes, the city gets some parking revenue, but, to my knowledge, they never have made a profit and have actually been in the red for millions of dollars. Same thing on subsidizing the restaurants on officers row. How many million has that cost the taxpayers of the city? No, I'll try Mr. Levitt as mayor and see if there is a change for the positive. I know how "well" Pollard leads. Let us get some positive force and a positive change by changing mayors. All of that hard earned tax money could have gone to better roads, water systems, and other infrastructure repair that still needs to be done after 14 long Pollard years.

by A. Mazed : 10/6/09 11:35am - Report Abuse

Sounds like Pollard is getting a bit nervous about losing his comfy position. I've been
a very active participant in the political process since the mid sixties, but I've never felt an obligation to vote in every election. Many, particularly during the primaries, aren't issues I have a strong opinion about. Why should my vote possibly cancel out that of someone who really cares about the issues at stake? We should be more concerned about which candidate will be best for the city.

by I M Aletheia : 10/6/09 11:51am - Report Abuse

If Mark Johnston cares so much about our community - why did he mislead the public by failing to disclose what the fire union got in return when they agreed to a 1
year contract with no COLA raise? Oh - I guess that's different. What a crock!!!!

by Bob Smith : 10/6/09 1:06pm - Report Abuse

Johnston - what is the quid pro quo Royce offered you and the Fire guys to be his political henchmen? You should know better than to make deals with Royce and the City. Didn't you learn when you negotiated a zero pay raise and the City agreed to staff the new fire station - oh wait, they aren't going to staff it. Shrewd negotiations Mark. I'm sure whatever Rocye offered you to take a cheap shot at Leavitt will never come to fruition either - but you'll continue drinking the Kool Aid.

Although I voted in every election since I turned 18, except the past Washington primaries which required me to pick a party. I refused. Many times people have reasons for doing what they do or don't do and it may have nothing to do with apathy - which is what you are implying with Leavitt's voting record.

I can't wait until one of the candidates is asked, "Do you still beat your wife." When did politics revert back to such an ugly endeavor? But since it has, here are my two cents: You can wrap Royce in a flag and tout his voting record all you want; it doesn't make him any less of an ass. Royce is wrong for Vancouver - wrong on so many levels.

by jaudor : 10/6/09 1:14pm - Report Abuse

I didn't vote in the Feb-08 presidential preference ballot either -- because I was attending the Democratic caucus, and the ballot wasn't going to count towards anything. I would rather have voted: the caucus was a very weird event, and not a private vote at all.

by Jeff Johnson : 10/6/09 1:15pm - Report
Abuse

Democracy is not only about one's right TO vote, it is also about a person's right to ABSTAIN from voting. We don't know Mr Leavitt's reasons for not voting, and none of us have a right to know. He exercised his rights as he saw fit, and that is all we need to know.

I still support Mr Leavitt in his bid for mayor. Vancouver needs a fresh perspective and new leadership. For the last decade Pollard and his cronies have driven this town into the mud and created a sea of half empty strip malls, crumbling schools, endless cookie cutter housing developments and hardly a decent job in sight. If he wins re-election, we can add a budget breaking, and highly unjust, toll bridge to the mix, which Pollard's support of over the objection of the citizenry is far more un-democratic than Leavitt's voting habits.

by Jim Scott : 10/6/09 1:25pm - Report
Abuse

Union President Mark Johnston continues to be Pollards do nut whoopee cushion when it comes to the mayors nasty case of (political)hemorrhoids that won't seem go away. No wonder the other unions don't want anything to do with continuing embarrassment and have bailed on their support of Pollard. Stop playing junior politician and quit embarrassing the city.

by K Gero : 10/6/09 1:41pm - Report Abuse

Gee ****. If we made our decisions based solely on whether or not someone has voted, then most of our politicians wouldn't be sitting in office right now. Just check their history of voting on issues in the house and senate. Also, with the city council votes, maybe there was no need for Mr. Leavitt to make his opinion count because the decision was made before he cast his ballot. I'd highly doubt he would refrain from voting while sitting in office as our mayor.

Has there been any check in regards to the history of our current mayor beyond this
"period in question?" Just thought I'd ask because when you are mayor, you have a sworn duty oand it doesn't look good for you to miss too many votes. What about when Pollard wasn't mayor? Oh yes, most likely those are in archives not retrievable to the public.

I think the Vancouver Firefighters Union Officials need to find something more substantial than this to sway voters to choose a man with only one fiscal agenda on his mind, the same man who has limited his improvements to Vancouver on a narrow scale.

by K Gero : 10/6/09 1:48pm - Report Abuse

That was Gee w.h.i.z! I hate automated word censors!

Billy O, I was posting and missed your post until afterwards. You make some good points, but maybe it is the fact that Leavitt has new ideas for Vancouver that may improve it rather than the stagnant situation our town is in right now. What is the vision through Mayor Pollard? The bridge? You know how I feel about that one! The Waterfront? Okay, I like the Waterfront idea, but that isn't entirely because of Mayor Pollard. I believe the landowner has a lot to say about that. They worked in
conjunction with the City of Vancouver as well as BNSF to improve the accessibility of the waterfront and it includes improving city streets and create a friendly public access. just my humble thought!

by bl mcl : 10/6/09 1:59pm - Report
Abuse

Whenever the union endorses a candidate, I make sure and vote for the other guy. Talk about sleaze and corruption. Firefighters USED to be someone we could look up to.

by K Gero : 10/6/09 2:09pm - Report
Abuse

Vancouvercitizen, if you are referring the one time Pollard refused to choose a party. I am talking about before he was mayor. I would like to know his voting habits, not by word of mouth, but by record. Maybe you need to read my post more closely. I am not condoning someone who didn't vote on issues which he regrets he didn't, but his own cohort stated he has moderately improved if you read the article. Vanc., have you seen the records of voting on important issues by our politicians in DC? It just might interest you. I'd bet if you checked the history of our current president, you would be amazed as to how often this happens.

by Spencer H : 10/6/09 2:16pm - Report Abuse

I could care less about Leavitt's voting record. Pollard needs to go. He's a good old boy who only tries to please his buddies and build his "legacy". If he has such a problem with people not voting then why not let Vancouver residents vote on the tolls?

Pollard is one of those politicians that thinks HE knows what's best for the city and could care less what the citizens think.

by M H : 10/6/09 2:44pm - Report Abuse

I agree Spencer. I find it humorous that this is all they can come up. Anyone who has
ever met Pollard knows how arrogant he is.

by Brian Effinger : 10/6/09 2:49pm - Report
Abuse

I'd be more concerned about any votes he missed behind the dais as a councilmember than his voting record as a citizen. It's frankly no one's business, and if that is the benchmark we're going to use for the qualification of public officials to hold office, then Pres. Obama needs to be impeached pronto.

I suspect Leavitt missed a bunch of elections for the same reason Obama constantly voted "present" in the IL state legislature and had more NV's in the U.S. Senate than yeas or nays. It's because they don't want to leave a trail for their opponents to exploit. Some politicians see a greater benefit in taking no position over taking apparently contradictory positions that can be spun out of a voting record.

by Jeff Johnson : 10/6/09 2:59pm - Report
Abuse

"Jeff, Since when is Pollard a commissioner?"

Billy, since when did I say he was? If you believe that only commissioners have sway over the course of the city, then perhaps you need to take a civics class yourself. While our commissioners are also guilty of selling out our town to developers, Pollard
is the issue here, and he exemplifies the notion of cronyism and selling out. If we'd had a different mayor for the lest ten years, I have no doubt that Vancouver would be in a much healthier state.

by Scott Burckhard : 10/6/09 3:03pm - Report
Abuse

Dear Firefighters Union:

Big Friggin' Deal! I believe Mr. Leavitt was in his late 20s, early 30s for most of the votes indicated. How many of us were really tuned into local politics at that age?

The key is that Tim has a good grasp of the community and all of it's members - NOW. Which I can't say about Mr. Pollard. C'mon Mark Johnson - if that is all you can come up with against Mr. Leavitt I think you are basically saying he is a damn good candidate!

Today's quiz question:Why aren't we allowed to vote on the multi-billion dollar boondoggle that is the I-5 Bridge/loot rail project?

.
I stumbled across an interesting law this morning. it's RCW 42.30.010, the pre-amble to the Open Public Meetings Act:

RCW 42.30.010 Legislative declaration. The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

So... can somebody tell me why we have "surrendered our sovereignty" to the CRC... to CTrans... to Portland.... to Vancouver.... to WADOT?

We have a law in this state that plainly says:

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.

So, the question: why have we surrendered our sovereignty about this project? Why is it that our elected officials have taken no steps to allow us to exercise the sovereignty that, by state law, we do NOT surrender?

No elected official who does not advocate for a vote on this massive waste of money that will impact generations is fit for election, regardless of party.

And that means those running for mayor of Vancouver.

H/T to clarkblog.org.
.

Tough endorsement decision for the Columbian on the mayor's race.

.
Yup, it's gonna be a toughy.

Do they go with the guy that's carried their water like Gunga Din?

Or do they go with the guy that's carried their water like Gunga Din?

We have Royce "No Choice" Pollard, the current incumbent, who has ran this city like the fringe left editorial staff of the wrapper was sending him a weekly check.

We have Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, who has done precisely the same thing, but is now trying to package himself using the New and Improved Leavittarian Double Speak veneer to get it done.

On one hand, if they bail on No Choice after all he's done to implement their agenda, what impact is that going to have on future "leaders" of our community?

On the other hand, if they guess wrong and endorse "No Choice" and "The Liar" pulls this out, then they can expect their access to city hall to be somewhat restricted... until they've paid their "penance."

The problem for the paper is that these clowns are as close together as two different politicians could be.

Yeah, yeah... The Liar points out a few occasions where he's differed... but not often... and no on much. Their number of similarities far exceeds their number of differences.

Neither of them want to allow us a vote on this massive, huge waste of billions known as the I-5 Bridge replacement and loot rail; both want tolls, but The Liar lies about it by falsely claiming he doesn't want tolls; both believe the utterly and criminally worthless waste of hundreds of millions known as loot rail is all that and a bag of chips. Both believe that wasting billions for a replacement bridge is a perfectly acceptable vaporization of dollars they, personally, won't have to pay.

Both would assign 65,000 people besides themselves a debt that will last decades that they won't have to pay.

As a result of the monumental arrogance that can lead to this kind crap, neither are fit for elective office.

Unfortunately for Southwest Washington, they're all we have to chose from.

Yeah... it's gonna be tough.
.

What do Tim "The Liar" Leavitt and Barack Obama have in common?

.
Besides lying every time their jaws move, I mean?

Why, Leavitt endorsed Obama, early on.

And from his campaign, it sure seems like Tim, with his Leavittarian approach to campaigning, is doing everything he can to emulate his hero on issues that really matter to this community.

How's that "hopey-changy" thingy working out for you, Tim?

It was insane to endorse the empty-suited, Anti-American racist bigot in the White House, whose rank incompetence will reverberate for generations.

I freely admit that Leavitt has done better then I thought he would. But when you're a liar surrounding himself with the corrupt (Like Commissioner Steve "Put the 100G in an envelope, please" Stuart) maybe it isn't that difficult to do.
.

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.
.

If it's important to Clark County, you'll read about it in the Oregonian: Beset by money woes, I-5 Bridge project looks at cuts.

.
I'll be the first to admit that the Columbian has wasted thousands of barrels of ink in their ongoing, more-than -a-decade-long effort to scam us into paying for their agenda.


In this instance, it is the massive, criminally huge waste of $4 to $10 billion or so replacement of a perfectly good bridge to get loot rail into Vancouver; an unneeded and unwanted community accessory overwhelmingly rejected over 10 years ago at the polls.


Of course, these scum don't want us to have a say on THIS issue, because the"say" we would have "might" not be the "say" THEY want to hear.


It goes without saying that these morons are assigning the vast majority of the cost for this humongous blot on democracy in Southwest Washington won't have to pay for it. Nope, that's a massive mission THEY would assign to US, to the tune of at least $1300 or more a year to the commuters of Clark County, sucking tens of millions out of our local economy for their nefarious purposes.


Well, the local newspaper of record (The Oregonian), that has already provided proof that this monstrosity will do absolutely nothing to decrease congestion or increase freight mobility, is telling us the following:

Money woes and politics now threaten to pull the plug on the $4 billion project
to replace Interstate 5's Columbia River bridge.

The bridge/loot rail project has become a political football. One candidate was elected opposing this steaming pile; one candidate for mayor is lying about his position on tolls... the other really hasn't said what he would do if the tolls came back exceeding the $2 limit he's put on it... the city council incumbents all support Adam's rather petulant position of my way or the highway.


Here's what anyone not blinded by rank political ambition knows (You listening, Liar?) this bridge CANNOT be built without huge tolls. It MAY not be buildable WITH huge tolls, but it CANNOT be built without tolls.

Except for one political scumbag, everybody acknowledges that fact.

Here's another fact:

Because the scum ramming this thing down our throats will not allow us to vote on ALL of it, the people will be so furious when they are allowed to vote on ANY of it that the overwhelming vote against financing loot rail will make the 70-30 "no" vote look like a fender-bender in comparison.

NO one advocating this pile of crap should be re-elected to any office UNLESS they DEMAND a COUNTY WIDE vote, FIRST.

And none of these scum or the rank hypocrites of the local paper have done that.
.

Leavitt continues to lie about the bridge and tolls.

.
The slime continues to ooze out of Tim "The Liar" Leavitt as he expands his faux Pied Piper routine about not wanting tolls... but not particularly giving a damn if there ARE tolls.

This is the biggest lie of the entirety of Leavitt's campaign.

The ONLY way to "oppose" tolls is to OPPOSE THE BRIDGE WHEN THEY ARE REQUIRED.

But Tim "The Liar" won't do that. He wants us to BELIEVE he opposes tolls.... but the FACTS say otherwise, because this little weasel doesn't want us to hold him accountable for his failures to oppose a bridge that no one who has to pay for it wants (And, like the vast majority of rabid bridge supporters, Leavitt won't be one of those who WILL have to pay for it... he just wants US to pick up the tab) and his failures to demand that this entire sorry episode be put to a vote of the people who WILL have to pay for it.

The article in the Columbian says:

"Tolls to pay for a federal asset that provides economic commerce for the entire West Coast should not be put on the backs of the citizens of Clark County, period," Leavitt said, to cheers.

In an interview after the debate, Leavitt added that he would not try to kill the bridge project if it proved to be impossible without tolls.

Of course, as anyone within 100 miles of Vancouver knows, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THIS THING CAN BE BUILT WITHOUT TOLLS.

I have to admit, I find Pollard's failure to pound The Liar on this aspect of his campaign to be astounding. Tim "The Liar" is obviously a sniveling little worm, lacking in the testicular fortitude required to man up and take a stand, a stand that would save this community hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on an unneeded and unwanted project designed and built ONLY to get loot rail into Clark County.

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt's rank hypocrisy cannot be overlooked, either. Another snippet of the article says this:

Leavitt, meanwhile, criticized Pollard for a tax hike that prevented police layoffs, saying the city could have saved $400,000 annually by outsourcing its parking meter management.

"In December, when we were in the middle of a recession, my opponent supported a utility tax increase," Leavitt said.

In September, WHILE we're in the middle of a horrific recession, Tim "The Liar" supports a tax increase that DWARFS the mere $400,000 utility tax increase.... by, literally, a factor of a million.

But then, Tim "The Liar" is someone who doesn't think much of money when it belongs to other people.

“It’s frustrating to me that our Congress passed a $700 billion bailout for the financial sector and they couldn’t throw in a measly $3 billion for this immense federal asset for the West Coast,”said Tim Leavitt, a Vancouver councilman who will represent C-Tran on the 10-member sponsors council. “Please give us some money. Why do we have to beat each other up locally?”

That ANY politician could describe $3 billion as "measly" shows both an arrogance and tonedeafness breathtaking in it's dimensions.

So, in The Liar's twisted world, advocating a $400,000 tax increase in the midst of a recession is bad, bad... but advocating a $100,000,000 or so tax increase in the midst of a horrific recession is good..... good.

With almost every utterance, Leavitt shows himself to be a total, political scum bag. If the people elect this clown to run the city, they'll regret it.

And all along, The Liar will be saying "you knew what I was when you elected me."
.

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.
.

Leavitt CONTINUES to LIE about his position on tolls.

.
God but I hate liars in politics.

As I pointed out below, Tim Leavitt is portraying himself as the anti-toll candidate.

The problem with that is this scumbag won't oppose this unneeded and unwanted Bridge WHEN tolls are mandated.

Note, I didn't say IF tolls are mandated.

I didn't say that because *I* know they will be mandated; Pollard knows they will be mandated AND LEAVITT KNOWS THEY WILL BE MANDATED AS WELL.

So, how is this a scam?

Simple.

Leavitt CONTINUES to tell us that he's AGAINST TOLLS.

But if he won't oppose this massive waste of billions of dollars when we GET tolls... then what difference does his non-existent anti-tolls position make?

None at all.

And that what makes Tim Leavitt a slimy worm of a politician, a worm COUNTING on the ignorants who actually BELIEVE he actually OPPOSES tolls... when, based on the outcome, he ABSOLUTELY SUPPORTS TOLLS, BECAUSE HE WILL NOT OPPOSE THE BRIDGE WHEN TOLLS ARE MANDATED.

So, when Leavitt spews this on his blog:

For several years now, through the CTRAN Board and the Vancouver City Council, I have been lobbying for the following on behalf of the citizens of Vancouver, the riders of CTRAN and the commuters of Clark County (and, for my detractors, allow me to say that this is all a matter of public record):

· No Tolls on the I-5 or I-205 Bridges

He is, plainly and simply, LYING.

You CAN NOT support something if they DO something you oppose, then go around saying you opposed it.

This moron, just yesterday, CONFIRMED that WHEN they slam tolls on this unbelievable waste of billions into place, HE, LEAVITT, WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IT.

This makes Leavitt a scummy, slimy political worm, not unlike that empty-suited, Anti-American racist bigot Leavitt endorsed in the last election.
.

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.
.

Meanwhile, why is it that Leavitt is surrounded by Megacasino supporters... and what is his position on that?

.
So, as I look at the Pollard-Leavitt issue, and I have to ask myself: Why are the Barmett/Paskenta/Mohegan/Cowlitz megacasino slime coalescing around Leavitt?

We all know Clark County Commissioner Steve "I can be bought for $100,000 from David Barnett" Stuart's take on the megacasino: he has always been a supporter, and almost got away with scamming us on that bogus "recision" agreement that the criminal types found so exciting.

We're all familiar with former Clark County Commissioner Betty Sue Morris, a commissioner who sold us out to Barnett and screwed us with an MOU that she should be ashamed of.

And Heather Melton, Commissioner Steve "Yeah, Barnett Owns Me" Stuart's fiance'.

These three seem to be working double overtime to get Leavitt elected. Why?

Neither Pollard nor Leavitt should be in elective office. But Pollard, after initially getting hosed by the Barnetts, at least has taken the right position to fight this monstrosity that Stuart, Morris and Melton are doing their best to sell us out over.

What's Leavitt's position? Are these 3 supporting this casket salesman because he'll do what he can to get the megacasino in here?

The whole world's watching, Tim. Where are you on the megacasino?
.

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.
.