Updated: McKenna Wastes No Time Stabbing Clark County In The Back

by lewwaters

It’s not like Clark County voters weren’t warned about JayRob McInslee (Rob McKenna) and his liberalism. And he sure didn’t waste any time expressing support for the very project conservatives in Clark County have been denied a vote, ignored and opposed from day one.

A late Wednesday, August 8, 2012 Columbin article, the unofficial daily newsletter for the CRC & Democrat Party praises McKenna for backing the CRC during a speech at a Rotary Club meeting in Vancouver.

McInslee said, “There has to be a new crossing. We can’t sit back and continue to consume what we have and not replace it. And it’s absolutely vital to our economy.”

Obviously he is clueless as to how many have tried to speak out and advocate additional bridges across the Columbia River.

He apparently is clueless that the bridge relieving any congestion is not even a factor for Portland’s Metro, their only concern being forcing us to accept their financially failing light rail that we have indicated 3 times in the past we do not want.

JayRob also said, “I know there are at least a few people who don’t think it needs to be replaced at all, and I’m still trying to understand that.”

Maybe that ODOT, until recently, admitted the old bridges have another 50 years of life contributes to that idea of those few. But overall, most of us are for a new bridge, but without Portland’s financially plagued light rail attached to it.

As indicated previously on this blog, the bridge does not appear on the structurally deficient bridge list, indicating it I not in any immediate danger of collapsing, as he next pondered when he said, “That corridor is too vital to allow it to fall into the river, so we have to figure out what the right replacement looks like, what we can afford, when it needs to be done — all of that.”

First of all, what needs done is CRC brought to a screeching halt and a Justice Department Investigation launched into just where our nearly $150 Million has gone and why we continue to pour more and more money at it and after 15 years of planning, cannot even get the river clearance right.

Next, he could look into why local officials have done whatever they can to ignore citizens, deny us promised votes and decide we are going to be stuck paying for this monstrosity forever.

Of course, here is no guarantee he will ever be Governor as he has rapidly been losing his once double digit lead in the polls, now lagging behind nearly by as much.

He has taken several steps contrary to conservatives for some time now, fighting to give the names, addresses and signatures of signers of R-71 to any and all homosexual activist group after they announced they planned on having “uncomfortable conversations” with singers, opposes ending birthright citizenship for offspring of illegal aliens, believes he can tweak Obamacare to make it affordable and functional, distanced himself from Wisconsin’s successful Governor, Scott Walker, let public unions know they have nothing to fear from him and much more.

And now, he supports the single most contentious matter in Southwest Washington.

The primaries are over now and he will be one of the candidates vying to govern our struggling state. It’s too late for anyone else to enter, given our Top Two Primary. It’s too late for changing your vote.

Once again, it comes down to Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dem.

I’m sure Tim Leavitt, Steve Stuart and other supporters of this bankrupting project at C-Tran are elated to know it will not matter which one wins in November.

All that matters is screwing taxpayers over again.

Don’t blame me, I supported a conservative.

UPDATE: Clark County Assessor Peter Van Nortwick, a strong McKenna supporters said in a facebook comment, “Lew, I got it right from Rob right now in a text. He does not support a new bridge with light rail on it. He sees the bridge is old and will need to be replaced.”

Strange that if that is how McKenna stands, he couldn’t say so and that he said he has no idea why the project is so contentious and so many are opposed to it.

22 Comments to “Updated: McKenna Wastes No Time Stabbing Clark County In The Back”

  1. RINO Rob sickens me with his ignorance.

    Is it deliberate? Is he being “handled?” Does this moron REALLY believe that the bridge is going to “fall into the river?”


    Are you kidding? I don’t even want this moron in my government.

  2. Well, this isn’t surprising news. As Attorney General, he supported the mortgage settlement (http://nationalmortgagesettlement.com/) so you know he’s unprincipled and has no respect for the rule of law.

  3. Ultimately the election result will not matter. We are way beyond voting saving us.

  4. Then RINO Rob needs to come out unequivocally opposed to the CRC. Because when it comes to what he actually said, well, I’m still trying to understand that.

  5. “That corridor is too vital to allow it to fall into the river, so we have to figure out what the right replacement looks like, what we can afford, when it needs to be done — all of that.” That is what Rob is quoted as having said. I confirmed tonight he is against a bridge with light rail on it. If you look at his statement, “we have to figure out what the right replacement looks like”, indicating to me this bridge with light rail as a light rail project is in his opinion not the right bridge. “what we can afford”, meaning a 4 to 10 Billion dollar bridge is not the right price, and “when it needs to be done”, therefore right now may not be the right time. Not sure how that gets spun into supporting the CRC. I take from his quote that we have to look at “all of that’ as an indication that this isn’t the right project and we need to look at it. Don’t let the Columbian’s framing of the story jade you. It should have said, McKenna doesn’t support CRC, but a new bridge design at the right cost and time.

  6. I included your comment, Pete.

    It does not explain how he can say he does not understand why it is a conflict.

    If the Columbia spun his words, it is up to him to issue a public clarification and correction.

    But as I said elsewhere, he is not owed anything. If he wants our votes, he is going to have to earn them.

    It’s up to him.

  7. Lew
    As his Chair in Clark county part of my job is to speak for him. I contacted him. I got clarification for you. He never said he doesn’t understand why it is a conflict and I wonder why you put so much trust in what the Columbian reports and the validity. It is clear from the story that he didn’t say he supported the CRC. That it needed to be looked at and that he did not talk to the Columbian. You take what they said as he was supporting the CRC project as a bridge with lightrail and that was wrong. Of course the Columbian is going to take his words and try to spin it their way. That doesn’t make it so.

  8. Sorry, Peter, but it’s up to Rob to clarify any misquotes.

    He is quoted as saying much more than what little you now say, it’s in my post.

    While the Columbia is not the most trustworthy source, I see Stevie Mathieu as one of the more objective writers covering politics there.

    I find it unlikely she would fabricate words to put in Rob’s mouth. If Stephanie Rice had written the article, I might lean more your way on it.

    You say over there the text message you claim to have receive “indicates” something more then what he is quoted as saying. We don’t need “indications,” we need to know where he stands.

    But the onus is on Rob to clear up any misquoted words and let us know exactly where he stands.

  9. Lew
    It isn’t even in the quotes from Stevie, it is in the headline. The Columbian never even claimed he said it. They wrote it that way. But you want candidates to address every headlines that misstates what they said?

  10. The sub-headline says, “In Vancouver, GOP gubernatorial hopeful says he doesn’t understand conflict over project.”

    Please don’t strain gnats or split hairs, Pete.

    He’s been publicly quoted and now if they got it that far wrong, it is up to him to issue a formal clarification calling them out on it.

  11. 1. Hi Peter – where are you with an audit on the tax deferral participants? I thought that was happening in 2011, has it completed? Is http://www.clark.wa.gov/planning/land_use/documents/12-0515_AttD_ReviewCurrentUseTaxationProgram.pdf an attempt at gutting the Open Space deferral?

    2. Clark county’s compliance with the stupid Growth Management Act (GMA) has been problematic. I think it was Boldt that said the GMA and urban growth boundary would have to be revisited in 2013. Therefore, Pierce county’s problem with the GMA is just schadenfreude: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/08/07/2246255/pierce-county-found-out-of-compliance.html#storylink=cpy

  12. Lew,
    I have to say I am disappointed in this article. You state that he is backing the CRC lightrail project. I told you direct quote from Rob that is on my phone right now, “I do not support a new bridge with light rail on it.” Yet even though a representative from his campaign has clarified and told you directly that you are reporting his position incorrectly and the Columbian way they spun it was incorrect you refuse to accept it.

  13. And I am disappointed in your spin on Rob’s words, Pete.

    Supporting the new bridge reads CRC to many of us, since they are the ones charged with replacing the bridge.

    As a long time and strong supporter of Rob’s and the County Chair of his campaign, you are expected to deflect opposition and spin things to his advantage. I understand that and accept that. But it is up to Rob to clear something as contentious as his quotes up, not you.

    Should he issue any statement, I will be posted in its entirety.

    If he chooses not to clarify his words, I am left with nothing but my own understanding of what was written, as it was written.

    His choice.

  14. Lew
    What is a “formal clarification’? I already posted it on the Columbian identifying myself as his Chair in Clark County. I know they look at them so they know we disagree with their spin on what he said.
    You wrote an article without checking with anyone in the campaign to verify that it was Rob’s position supporting the current CRC plan. You took the Columbian’s word for it even though the direct quotes from Rob in the story didn’t even indicate that he supported it. They didn’t say he supported the CRC, they just twisted it to appear that he does. You are the one who said it. Now you want Rob to call you to correct your incorrect story?

  15. You posted what his words “indicate” to you, along with denying he supports the CRC.

    I don’t read that in his words as they are the body charged with replacing the bridge.

    We deserve to know where he stands, not what is indicated to you.

    You can try to demean me if you want, got used to that as Jaime Herrera was swept into office. Doesn’t bother me any more.

    But it doesn’t change that Stevie Mathieu is not Stephanie Rice or John Laird. I have followed her writing and find her more objective than just about any of them.

    A “formal statement of clarification” is little more than a press release stating where they got it wrong and where he actually stands on the issue.

    But, considering he is seeking as many donations as he can from CRC supporters, many of whom belong to the Rotary Club, I won’t hold my breath waiting on any release.

    Again, his choice. He is quoted, not you.

    I already stated that any clarification he may choose to issue will be posted in full.

    So go ahead, take some more shots at me. It changes nothing.

  16. Lew,
    I will ask him to clarify on Friday when he is here. I also have talked to David about Rob meeting with David’s experts on the CRC. My issue with you Lew is that it came out this evening. As soon as I got word about it I contacted him at about 10 PM at home and got indication it was incorrect. I let you know immediately that we disagreed with the Columbian’s statement of his position and the fact the works didn’t back it up. At that point you had 2 choices 1. Hold back your post until you verified its correctness the next day and give us a chance to respond. or 2. Keep it up there knowing it was disputed and putting false information out.

  17. Peter;
    Perhaps Rob didn’t know that CRC is THE ISSUE in Clark County? He needs to speak intelligently on the subject whenever he opens his mouth here. He can say he supports a the I-5 corridor but he needs an engineering and political advisor who KNOWS the details to keep him out of traps. And didn’t anyone warn him about the The Columbian?!

    Rob McKenna can NOT stumble & lurch around CRC. My goodness, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House, Jon Haugen, doesn’t think the I-5 bridge needs replaced – where is McKenna getting HIS information?

  18. McKenna himself spoke at the function in question; McKenna himself needs to clarify, publicly and with specificity what the hell his position is.

    Not through surrogates… but through his own mouth or in writing.

    It’s not the first time the democratian blew it, and maybe they blew it here.

    But it’s up to McKenna DIRECTLY to clarify this, and if he doesn’t, it’s because he doesn’t want to. And if he doesn’t want to, it’s because the rag was substantially correct in their recitation of events and words.

    Simple, really… and Peter, you know I’ve supported you. But your role as his Clark County chair in no way supersedes his responsibility to speak for himself.

    And it really is that simple. There’s a reason you people got hammered in the primary. I suggest you get this fixed… and fast.

  19. Peter VanNortwick, I want to vote for Rob McKenna…I really do, but I have to agree with the argument presented by Lew as well as the others, here. I agree with YOU though, that a newspaper will take their spin on what a public figure has to say…but you have confirmed in your quote of what Rob initially said as opposed to what was written on the Columbian. It isn’t a matter of how to say potato or tomato…it’s a matter of description, of clarity…and in my opinion, his statement to the Rotary Club left much open to skepticism by those who are yet to be decided on who they’ll vote for.

    As long as the light rail segment is included in the current CRC project planning, any level of approval for the crossing to be completed is approval for the light rail. TriMet, C-Tran, City, County, State OR Federal promoters of this project have not been able to show that light rail will improve transit mobility (at something we can all afford)…the number one reason behind the replacement. No light rail…no bridge. Our previous mayor had stressed that very point as have other promoters of the project. It is my opinion that the replacement has nothing to do with infrastructure. Even the structural integrity reports were within normal safety ranges. What WAS listed in the report regarding the bridges was that they would be stressed by the payload of the vehicles crossing the bridge in an outdated assumption of increased traffic flow in the initial reports by the CRC promoters…which we all know has proven the data to be incorrect, thanks to tough economic times which won’t be improving at miraculous leaps and bounds.

    You also have to ask yourself this…why did ODOT have to go change a report on the bridge inspection…what was it…2 years later??? It said in plain English that the bridges could survive several more years without replacement…then that segment was removed.

    I smell a BIG rat when it comes to this project. I sincerely hope that Mr. McKenna steps into high gear and starts doing a little investigative work. He is after all the Washington State Attorney General right now, isn’t he??? His qualifications include protecting the consumers from fraud and scam artists. Is how this project is being handled any different? We’re being scammed every time they do one of their studies.

    He’s got to give us a better reason why we the people of Clark County should vote for him, especially with the labor reports here as well as pending increases in taxes, tolling and fees with burdening us with light rail on our side of the river without financially ruining the people. The numbers just aren’t there and you cannot convince the taxpayers that it’s good for us when we can already see for ourselves, plain as day, what the outcome will be.

  20. And Peter…it’s no offense to you as you are only doing what you are supposed to do and that is show complete support for Rob and to be his spokesperson…

    but the fact of the matter is…

    It HAS to come straight from the “Horse’s Mouth.”

  21. My only nagging CRC thought is this: The old bridge says HEIGHT is needed to keep commerce flowing up and down the Columbia River. The current CRC proposal will not cut the height requirement. Why would any person support a bridge that impedes, rather than improves, COMMERCE?

  22. It’s because the only reason for the bridge is a carrier for Portland’s financially failing light rail into Clark County so we can bail them out.

    They cannot raise the road bed for the bridge because light rail cannot climb the grade required.

    They could easily eliminate the problem by eliminating light rail, but that isn’t about to happen.

Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: