If Kaufman wrote the campaign plan, that's the blueprint for the campaign's core strategy, right? So if the person who masterminded the campaign's strategy is now passing around astroturf messaging points to support that campaign -- whether she's being paid at the moment or not -- seems to me it's hard NOT to draw a connection between the two.

Yes, I am a Rex supporter, and for that and other reasons of transparency, is why I use my full name, "Matthew D"

Well, Matthew D, we share more than a first name: we both care deeply about the future of this place, and we both think the CRC is a mess in its present form. And I'll bet we also share this: if you're really thoughtful, as it's clear you are from your past posts and how well you write, you can also understand why I'd find it a little galling for someone who won't even sign his full name to attack a friend of mine -- I bet you'd feel the same if our roles were reversed.

Now, I totally understand wanting to retain some privacy in this abusive, intrusive world, so I certainly don't blame you for holding on to it. And for that reason, I encourage you to stay "Matthew D" no matter what I say. But when you pass off clairvoyance as if it's fact -- "He wants another title under his belt so he can move up to higher offices" -- then, really, that's something you should sign your full name to. After all, I can't look YOU up on ORESTAR.

That aside, there may be more that unites us than divides us, as I said. Most importantly, we're both "very critical of the direction that the Columbia River Crossing has taken." I don't speak for Rex, but I believe he'd also agree, too, believe it or not. His official connection with the project ended with the Task Force recommendation, which envisioned a pretty smart bridge project with great bike/walk, tolling to kink the hose of traffic, and for god's sake, got light rail into Vancouver when all previous attempts had failed. Rex still thinks the promise of that kind of project is worth fighting for, as do David Bragdon, Sam Adams, and Jeff Cogen, if you read the letter they wrote to Kulongoski the other day. Nevertheless, that letter was also incredibly critical of the CRC in its present form -- and of that letter, please note, Rex said "I couldn’t agree more with the statements made by my fellow elected leaders." That's because they all feel there's a difference between what the bridge could have been, and what it has become.

In fact, almost everyone's problem is what happened after the Task Force finished its work -- ODOT/WSDOT took the reccs and stuffed them like a goose, larding the project into the monstrosity we know and love today. With the project so reviled right now, I agree there's political advantage in trying to tie Rex to what the CRC became, but the distinction between what all those people signed off on as members of the Task Force, and what ODOT did with it, is real.

If you don't buy that distinction, that's fine. I've known and trusted Rex for a long time, and I've looked through some of that mind-numbing documentation (though not all, thank god), so I do. All I'd say is that if your argument with Rex is only about the CRC, then it's worth another, dispassionate look -- and not only via the Stacey campaign literature. Then, if you're still convinced Rex is a bad guy, by all means, you've done your due diligence and should cast your vote accordingly.

… except, Matthew D, that the May 2 study WW mentions was the DEIS, which evaluated the pros and cons of 5 options (http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/Library/Type.aspx?CategoryID=26). It makes no conclusions (see Executive Summary, p S-35), so how is it possible that "The task force says the option that best reduces congestion is also the most expensive"? That's why that WW article never made any sense to me. The Task Force didn't officially decide anything until the public comment period was over, two months later, and that doesn't say a thing about 12 lanes.

So apparently:

- Rex is a great, eternal champion of 12 lanes. This is proven by his talking up the DEIS report which analyzes 5 possible options and makes no recommendations -- though to be fair, it does paint a bleak picture of the first alternative, which is doing nothing.

- Two months later, the final analysis of the task force is released. It specifically recommends only 6 lanes (plus, yes, additional at ODOT's discretion -- http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/MeetingMaterials/TaskForce/CRC%20TaskForceLPARecommendationResolution.pdf). Rex has stood behind this doc since it was released. So now, suddenly, Rex is actually on record as a great, eternal champion of 6+ lanes (and the other reccs contained within).

- so is Rex really for 12 lanes forever, as WW implies (but doesn't actually quote him as saying), or for 6+? Well, which document comes later? Which document discusses options, and which contains we-stand-by-this conclusions? Which document was the last word of this Task Force, behind which Rex has stood ever since? And which, therefore, is a fairer characterization of Rex's position for the last year and a half?

About your second point, though, I have to agree. My guess (again, I don't speak for Rex) is that as a public employee he thought shoveling out more taxpayer money just because people weren't paying attention the first time was difficult to defend. Why did he change his mind? I don't know. I do see that David Bradgon and Sam Adams said the same thing a couple weeks after that article -- http://news.oregonmetro.gov/6/post.cfm/a-realistic-road-to-construction-for-the-columbia-river-crossing-project -- "Neither Mayor Adams nor I support cancelling or 'restarting' the project, as there has been a large amount of solid work accomplished so far."

Of course, their thinking on the matter evolved too, as you indicate in the Kulongoski letter you quote. Rex agreed with them back then, and he agrees with them now. So depending on whether you like those guys or not, they either flip-flopped, or the project continued to devolve enough that they decided something had to change. In any case, while they all still support some kind of bridge project, and still don't want to start again from scratch (they call it a "re-direction - led by a stronger local role"), they're demanding accountability and representation.

That sounds reasonable to me. Does it to you? So, is Rex allowed to change what he thinks is the best course of action as new events transpire? Or do only Sam, David and the rest of us get that privilege?