Luna challenged to be a man...

Thank God for people like Joe Vandal over at IdahoFallz.com! He doesn't waste time pussyfooting around, but is open and up front with his challenge to Luna--explain the discrepancies or admit the lies.

Joe Vandal points out that Luna keeps dancing around the subject and ignores the questions... instead Luna hides behind the skirts of his former boss--who tries to convince us that the REPORTER was the one who lied, not Luna.

No, the reporter was not fired. And in case anybody STILL thinks that Luna is just misunderstood, Joe Vandal points out the following:

Discrepancy #1: Luna claims he was a presidential appointee, however the 2004 Plum Book (page 55) describes Thomas R. Luna as an “SC” type of appointment, defined on page 5 as a “Schedule C Excepted Appointment”. A presidential appointment is defined as “PA” or “PAS” types. How does Luna counter this evidence?

Discrepancy #2: Luna claims he was a “Senior Advisor”, however the same 2004 Plum Book entry describes Thomas R. Luna as a “Special Assistant”. How does Luna counter this evidence? Does Tom Luna have a certificate or promotion papers that describes him as a “Senior Advisor”?

Discrepancy #3: Luna’s federal pay grade is described in the same 2004 Plum Book entry as a GS-15, indeed a few pay levels lower than what a presidential appointee would earn. This bolsters the AP reporter’s argument. How does Tom Luna counter this evidence? Does Tom Luna have a pay stub describing him at a higher pay grade?

Discrepancy #4: Luna claims he had several meetings with President George Bush and Bill Hansen, but the AP story said Hansen did not recall any. Given that Bill Hansen has attacked the AP story, does Bill Hansen now remember these meetings with President Bush and Tom Luna? Does Tom Luna have records of any meetings with President Bush? (Note: Staged photos in front of the desk are not enough.)

Joe Vandal reminds us that "Luna has said he will demand accountability from our schools. We Idahoans will demand accountability from Luna to answer these allegations before he lays his fingers on our schools."

In the Comments section, it is pointed out that Luna won by a small margin... and it's probably safe to say that those same voters would NOT have voted for Luna if he had admitted that he lied about his background... or had even honestly reflected his less-than-qualifying experiences in the first place! FYI, a recall can begin 90 days after Luna takes office (not 90 days after he was privately sworn into office).

Stop by Tom Luna Must Directly Answer Allegations or Face Consequences and read the whole post... send it on to friends... heck, send it to Tom himself and let him know, that as an Idahoan AND a voter, that you want him to answer these questions!