The sliminess that is the Columbian: No mention of Harris's come apart about Leavitt's Folly until it went viral.

.
For years now, Brancaccio has made excuses as to why no effort has been made by the local stain on journalism to quote those in opposition to the horrific waste of billions of dollars his despicable rag... and himself, as far as that goes... is doing everything they can to ram down our collective throats.

Primarily, he used to whine, there wasn't anyone to talk to.

Well, there is now. NOTOLLS.COM will provide all the opposition quotes anyone could ask for... if they were interested in asking for them.

And Brancaccio, obviously, is not.

Fake, bogus polls; multiple editorials between Brancaccio and his editorial page attack dog... and only the rare word about the massive opposition ... and essentially no words about the crushing, negative impacts to our local economy as $100,000,000 per year in disposable income is rerouted to pay for Leavitt's Folly... and taken away from 65,000 families and local businesses who would otherwise benefit from the available money... now doomed to be vacuumed in to the Folly.

But Monday's city council meeting report takes the cake.

Oh, I'm not particularly concerned about what was in the article. What concerns me the most is what was left out.

Jeannie Harris did a high speed come apart when David Madore made the cardinal sin of using open mike time to try and express his views on the subject. Harris flipped, got totally stupid, and, well, you know the rest.

And not one word of that made the article. In fact, not one word of opposition to the trash pile was even mentioned in the article... let alone Harris's moronic display that should result in her removal/resignation from the city council or any other elected position.

Now the city attorney and Harris's allies are in full cover her ass mode, as they come up with multiple justifications for her bizarre, inexcusable conduct.

As for the local stain on journalism, they only mentioned after they had to, when a couple of council members requested an ethics committee investigation into Harris's bizarre and abusive conduct.

One wonders. Why did they leave it out of the Tuesday article? Why was there no mention of the opposition to this horse dung pile mentioned in the article?

Expect Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, Bridge-toll flipper extraordinaire, to protect her and minimize the damage. After all, on the toll issue, both The Liar and Harris want to stiff tens of thousands of families in Clark County with tolls in excess of $1300 per year... for eternity... just so they can get their damned loot rail into Vancouver and ultimately, cost us billions more as they set the foundation for expanding that massive waste of money county wide so we can ALL get the joy of paying for it.

Lew Waters has the details, including video of the Great Ape's implosion.

Now, if Harris had been opposed to the loot rail/bridge waste project, the rag would be howling for her resignation. As it is, we'll get some "Tut, tut, Jeannie... you must play nice" garbage and that will be that because she's on the side of those who want to screw us... and that's how this waste of pulp rolls.

In the end, nothing will happen to Harris that makes any difference, and she will learn, like Moeller has learned, that with the rags' help, getting away with abusing people is just one of the benefits of elected office when you're aligned with the cancer on our community's agenda.
.
.

NOTOLLS.COM smacks political-career-ended Tim "The Liar" Leavitt upside the head.

.
As regular readers know, democrat and one-term mayor, dead-ended-political-career Tim "The Liar" Leavitt, working hand and hand with Steve "I've been bought before" Stuart came up with a series of lies on the tolling issue to suck in the more gullible members of the GOP in an effort to separate himself from Royce Pollard.

I knew he was lying; I knew that there was no way that Steve "ask not for whom the bridge tolls" Stuart would ever support someone who opposed to tolls, so, I knew... and repeatedly stated, that Leavitt was LYING.

So, sure enough, he flipped on the issue relative moments after he was elected.




NOTOLLS.COM arranged for this little vignette to remind people of that and to hold HIM accountable.

Now, there are a lot of things NOTOLLS should be doing that they're not, and all that is a shame... but all that is a result of less then, well, efficacious advice.

That said, this kind of thing is going to dog Leavitt until he loses in the next election.

NOTOLLS needs to vilify Stuart and quickly. Prove that you can take a seat away from a moron who wants to ram a permanent, $1300 or more monthly fee on commuters... organize those 65,000 voters to take Stuart out and he's toast. And so is anyone else who agrees with him... like Marc Boldt.

Just sayin.
.

Memo to Temple Lentz of the Daily Couv: Before you worry about Madore "buying" politicians, you should take a really hard look at Stuart and Leavitt.

.
Temple, Temple, Temple....

Temple Lentz has a cute little blog called The Daily Couv. It's a well-written, frequently humorous look at politics around here... through the leftist bent, of course.

Yesterday, she took a shot at David Madore for his effort, in her words, to buy politicians.

Read it here

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Man Who Funds Notolls.com Looks Forward to "Playing My Elected Officials Like a Theremin"

David Madore, Camas rich guy and CEO of US Digital, issued a statement today through Notolls.com, the Washington state PAC he chairs and for which he is the primary funder.

"Yes," Madore said, "No two ways about it, I'm doing everything I can to buy these politicians. Jenkins, Cismar, Svehaug, Riley ... Man, who am I leaving out? Oh, right -- Appel, Boger, Harris, Peck, Rossi, and of course the failure that was Russell. Well, you can't win 'em all."

Madore went on, "But even though you can't win 'em all, you can sure try to stack the deck. Once I get my candidates in office, many of whom wouldn't have been able to raise even five bucks without my backing, I look forward to seeing the return on my investment."

Asked what's in it for him, Madore shrugged and said, "You know, the usual. Tax breaks that I can turn around and make into my own investments instead of creating jobs, mainly. However, I do have to admit that what I'm most looking forward to? Playing these suckers like a theremin."

More:


Now, Temple is, of course, entitled to her opinion, just like I'm entitled to mine.
But the question is this: is she going to apply the same test to her own good buddies and fellow democrats, Steve "Easy Money" Stuart and Tim "The Liar" Leavitt?

Stuart, as regular readers of this blog know, is a wholly-owned tribal subsidiary, bought and paid for by David Barnett through $100,000 laundered via Progressive Majority.

"The Liar" Leavitt, best known for scamming gullible GOP'ers into voting based on an entirely false "anti-toll" position that he flipped on as soon as he could... received the gift of $40,000 in bogus independent expenditures so he could get elected... and where did THAT money come from? (Yes, I know where it came from. No, I'm not the only one. And no, I ain't saying.)

Of course, we won't be hearing about any of that from Ms. Lentz, because, well, after all, Lentz was The Liar's campaign manager and Tim is working double overtime to have her installed as his "Chief of Staff." Further, since I believe the bridge toll scam was hatched by Steve "Unmarked Bills" Stuart, an integral part of Leavitt's campaign who is doing everything he can to stuff a $100,000,000 yearly hole in our local economy, slamming 65,000 commuters with hundreds of dollars in additional costs just to go to work in Oregon; well, Temple sure isn't going to hold Stuart up to the same disinfecting light...

And, of course, I can't wait to see her express those same concerns over the efforts of one David Nierenberg, who has similarly bought mostly democrat campaigns for years, including, well, $34000 to Steve "Bank Transfer" Stuart since 2005 and even some money for Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.

But that's different... right? Or is it that Temple's concern over buying politicians isn't the actual sale, but instead, limiting that concern to who's doing the buying?

Is she?

So, Temple, you go, girl.

But in the future, try applying the same standard to EVERYONE you examine... and not just the non-leftists.

You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, now, would you?

(Disclaimer: I don't work for Madore or anyone connected to him. This is just how I see it.)

Marvin Case on Steve "Easy Money" Stuart and tolling.

.
Marvin Case, for the few who don't know, was the "all-everything" at The Reflector for many years. While I don't agree with him about everything (Marvin has expressed a mystifying rabid support of the organized crime establishment known as the Cowlitz Megacasino, for example) he was and remains a force to be reckoned with in this community.

It seems that the new ownership continues to extend the hospitality of the Reflector and has provided Mr. Case with the role of Publisher Emeritus. That is a smart decision.

In this week's observations, Marvin talks about the issue of tolls on the unwanted and unneeded I-5 bridge replacement. In those observations is the following:

It’s safe to say that tolls would be increased on I-5/I-205 as time goes by. Stuart says he will support tolls if county residents find them to be acceptable. Stuart seeks an accurate assessment of public opinion on the topic through either a vote or rigorous survey.

This, of course, is a flat out lie from Stuart.

If he actually believed this, he would have joined with Tom Mielke the several times Mielke has attempted to get an advisory vote on the ballot.

Like the rest of the downtown mafia, Stuart doesn't give a damn what the people want. The LAST thing Stuart wants is to have proof of what he already knows: the people of Clark County don't want this crap pile. We don't want the billions of dollars in debt. We don't want a $100,000,000 hole blown in our local economy for the rest of our lives.

Stuart is no idiot. Corrupt? Most likely. An idiot?

If the people came out swinging against this project, Stuart would be forced to act or be held accountable for getting people like fellow democrat Tim "The Liar" Leavitt elected... the same Leavitt who scammed the voters into actually believing the lie that he opposed tolls.

There is no "rigorous survey" that could possibly exceed the accuracy of a vote. Stuart knows that.

A vote would cost a few thousand dollars more for an item added to the ballot to be counted in the general election this November.

Stuart knows that as well; yet he's done absolutely nothing to make either of those things happen.

He reminds me of the people who lived across the street from the ancestral estates of the Count of Dachau. They claimed they had no IDEA what went on there.

Well, like Stuart, if they don't know, it's because they didn't want to know.

Stuart is going to get that bridge built for the downtown mafia come hell or high water. His backers demand it, the blood-sucking unions demand it, and his fellow democrats demand it. And if 65,000 people and their families get screwed with a toll Stuart demands that we pay, well that's just too damned bad for us, since HE won't have to pay that toll to go to work, and neither will 99% of the rest of the people cheerleading for this, the most massive waste of money for light rail in the history of this planet.

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.
.

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

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

It didn't work.

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

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

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

Leavitt town hall turns rambunctious on tolling protests

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

By Andrea Damewood
Columbian staff writer

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross posted at Tim Leavitt Watch.

So, I was at "The Liar" Leavitt's dog and pony show last night.

.
Remember, folks.... it's not that Tim "The Liar" Leavitt lied to those of you who couldn't see it... Anyone reading this blog about Leavitt since he announced knew that he was lying the whole time. It's that he took this long to admit it.

The sooner he came out of the closet on this, the sooner he could put it behind him and begin to REALLY concentrate on screwing us in ways Pollard hadn't dreamed of.

The Liar's performance last night's was so unbelievably pathetic... so absolutely cynical, that his decision to come out of the closet on his genuine stance on tolls (Which, of course, is that he supported tolls all along, supported tolls even thought he sold himself to the less informed as opposing tolls) was yet another of his political ploys, designed to get it out of the way now, while cynically sure that with the Columbian's help (You can bet, given the fact that the local rag does everything they can to help bridger/looters, that like their Moeller debacle, they will stop mentioning this worm's political treason as soon as possible so we all forget about it as soon as possible) that this issue will rapidly disappear to do less political damage to The Liar in the future.

Leavitt, of course, is a coward and a liar. Many politicians share those tenets. But this "Oh my, I lied to you all like a rug... but holding on to my position that I used TO GET ELECTED is just too hard... and being honorable and keeping my word is just too difficult, and then, as I lie to you about 'no one else opposes tolls' (Commissioner Tom Mielke does) the very idea that I COULD take a stand based on principle no matter how many people beat on me is just.... welllll..... far too difficult for me to contemplate."

The Liar actually stood there and told someone that he "didn't see where holding an advisory vote would serve any purpose." Oddly, the paper, which would rather burn itself to the ground then get into the issue of an advisory vote, failed to mention that effort by someone else in the crowd.

Here. Let me help you with that, Liar:

For scum like you who used people, lied to people, mislead people.... who only NOW tell us that there's really "nothing you can do about it... you have no impact on tolls... they're set at the legislature" and so on and so on.... I've got to ask: how come you didn't say any of that tripe during your campaign, Weasel?

As I told you last night, the moment I heard that Steve "Easy Money" Stuart was running your campaign, I KNEW you were lying. I KNEW you were pro-toll.

And see, that's why I supported Pollard: Pollard was all of those things as well, but he was much more honest about it.

Pollard made no bones about his positions. You, on the other hand, are a stone cold lying scum bag. If you told me it was daylight out, I'd have to check it for myself.

And I STILL haven't received an answer to my question, you little worm: because you we're such a lying scumbag during your campaign.... when, exactly, are we supposed to believe you?

Clearly, principles like honor and ethics are completely foreign to you and the scum like you.

You whined and sniveled like no other politician I've EVER seen, and I've been doing this a long time.

Here's what you COULD do: you COULD spike the whole project.

You little fricking coward; you COULD take a stand and tell the world that you will oppose the project if it has tolls. You COULD do that, but because you're such a sniveling, whiny little coward, you won't. After all, you little worm, you wouldn't want to be an "obstructionist," right?

You see, Liar, you took a stand. People believed in you because of that stand. And what YOUR job is, is this: to do every thing you can to fight for the principles that got you elected. That *I* knew you were a lying turd makes no difference. People were so politically ignorant they BELIEVED in you. THATS what matters. Of course, I knew you would betray them, because that's what you are.

And I got news for you.

I'm going to be out here as long as I live telling them.

And now, you make a political calculation to crawl away from your honor NOW, to minimize political damage to you LATER, a project the Columbian has ALREADY started on.

That's what a foreign concept like "courage" could do for you. But you wouldn't know anything about that, either.... would you?

After all, you wouldn't want to disappoint Steve "Unmarked Bills" Stuart.... would you?

No wonder people hate politicians. No wonder Vancouver is such a fiscal train wreck. With "leadership" like yours... it's surprising that the city still stands.

"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.
.

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt: ANOTHER democrat position?

.
We all know that Tim "the Liar" Leavitt was a scammer and a liar in the last election, falsely claiming that he opposed tolls on the bridge; he, of course, supports tolls; always has and has done nothing... and will DO nothing... to keep massive tolls from being implemented, just like his democrat buddy and campaign staffer Steve "Easy Money" Stuart... who is doing everything he can to nail 65,000 commuters with a $1300 or so yearly fee to go to work.

Now, The Liar wants to silence political dissent.

The details are in this article in the local rag. But suffice it to say: The Liar is sharing yet another in the long list of leftist philosophies (The Liar was, after all, an early endorser of Obama) that he kept so carefully hidden from the Republicans who got him elected: in this case, that the First Amendment is, in reality, the first suggestion.
.

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.
.