Oppossition research on Anthony Pollina? Why bother? You may as well do opposition research on Peter Diamondstone. They both have the same chance of winning a statewide race: none.
 

Pollina intended all along to be the Left's candidate; else why would he file his papers on the very day that Racine's consideration of running came to public view.
 

Jim Douglas will be governor as long as he wants, and the next governor after him will likely be Matt Dunne.

Here are two scenarios for Dunne:

1. If Brian Dubie decides not to run for re-election, Dunne will win the open LG seat against a GOP candidate such as Randy Brock or Walter Freed.

2. If Dubie does run again, Dunne will cozy up to whoever is the Democratic presidential nominee (Dunne's supporting Edwards now, but Edwards will probably be out of the race the day after NH) to get a federal appointment that will let him keep his name in the papers from 2009 onwards until Douglas decides to call it quits. For example, if Dunne were named regional director of the EPA for New England, he could hold press conferences every week to beat up on Douglas for not doing enough about global warming.
 

"What does Pollina do if Doug Racine declares his candidacy?" He continues as a third party candidate and hands the race to Douglas. What else?
 

"..He then added that he’s really not paying any attention to that sort of thing. Do you think that’s because others are paying attention on his behalf, perhaps doing opposition research on Pollina?...."

No, I think he's lying. Why would he treat this any differently than anything else?

Of course he's got people doing op-research for him.

That doesn't make him any more truthful in this instance than he is in any other.
 

On the Douglas cooking thing, the Times Argus had a cover shot of him stirring some pot, and, behind him, all his staffers are standing awkwardly in a semi-circle doing absolutely nothing. Somebody must have told Douglas that his staff is widely viewed as mean, stubborn and distant, so he brought them along to try and change public perception. Good luck with that.
Shame they can't volunteer more than one day a year.
 

bubba said...

"The trouble with liberals is that they will do anything to stifle "big business" even if it hurts middle and lower class workers."

And the problem with you is that you have no evidence to support your latest utterly-bogus gross generalization in particular and you don't know the hell you're talking about in general, bubbles.

As is your custom, you have no legitimate evidence or factual foundation for any of your bogus assertions whatsoever.

All you the little fella and his imaginary little anonymous friends do is make gross generalizations and spew thoroughly-discredited and utterly-repudiated 2002 rovesputin rubbish and fox noise talking points with no basis in fact as they were shredded long ago.

"Were any of you ever hired by a poor person?"

And this is relevant.....how?

That's what I thought.


"Many years ago, Teddy Kennedy decided to punish the wealthy by legislating a huge tax on yachts! Well, all of a sudden, the rich stopped buying yachts, and several yacht builders went out of business, and guess who lost their jobs!(The tax soon was dropped) If liberals would just forget about their obsession with dragging down succesful people (like Rich Tarrent last year)then Vermont would be a whole lot better off. John Kennedy (who would be thrown out of the dimocrat party today) said "a rising tide lifts all boats". How appropriate today."

Ah, the ol' a rising tide lifts all yachts song and dance, eh?

Nice try.

Too bad it swamps all skiffs.

Again, as is your custom, you've established no cause and effect relationship between Kennedy's alleged tax and a drop in yacht production independent of any or all other possible factors of causation and provided your customary bupkis for supporting evidence to provide any factual foundation for your latest bogus assertion.

Feel free to demonstrate how Teddy Kennedy was able to single-handedly impose a tax by himself without a legislative co-sponsor, a Senate Vote or a Presidential Veto.

That's what I thought.

Nice try. No sale.

If someone can't get rich without exploiting their workers, trashing the environment and massive transfusions of Federal and State Corporate Welfare, than perhaps they haven't worked hard enough and don't deserve to be rich.

Just something for you and the little fella to ponder.

Always a pleasure.
 

The Republicans are so weak that they can't even find anyone to run against Welch.

Pityful.
 

"Again, as is your custom, you've established no cause and effect relationship between Kennedy's alleged tax and a drop in yacht production independent of any or all other possible factors of causation and provided your customary bupkis for supporting evidence to provide any factual foundation for your latest bogus assertion."

Here's a recent article on that tax and its history...

“Back in the hot summer of 1990, Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell proudly engineered the infamous "luxury tax," a nasty little tithe on everything from furs to jewelry to yachts. Democrats were proud: Not only were they throwing new dollars at the Treasury, they'd done it by socking it to the rich. The wealthy, in the words of then-House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, would finally pay "their fair share."
Within a year, Mr. Mitchell was back in the Senate passionately demanding an end to the same dreaded luxury tax. The levy had devastated his home state of Maine's boat-building business, throwing yard workers, managers and salesmen out of jobs. The luxury tax was repealed by 1993, though by the look of today's tax debate, its lessons haven't been forgotten...” http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/reluctant_class_warriors.html

And a column from its aftermath...

Shipwrecked In New Jersey
By Robert A. Peterson

Mr. Peterson is headmaster at The Pilgrim Academy in Egg Harbor, New Jersey.

I grew up in a town where yacht-making was the chief industry. Indeed, boat-building has been a South Jersey specialty for hundreds of years. The first ships were built with cedar from local cedar swamps, then dragged down nearby streams to be launched on the Mullica, Maurice, and Great Egg Harbor Rivers. By 1776, the Delaware Valley, including South Jersey, was the nation’s leading shipbuilding area, outstripping even New England. In the 1900s entrepreneurs like Charles Leek started making pleasure crafts and sport-fishing yachts for the wealthy. Within a 20-mile radius, four major boat companies emerged: Pacemaker (now Ocean Yachts), Post Marine, Viking Yachts, and Egg Harbor Yacht. Thirty miles distant was another major boat- builder, Silverton Yacht.

As children, we benefited from the yacht companies’ presence in many ways. Sure, many of our parents worked there, but more important to us was the discarded wood pile. We could go there and pick out pieces of teak, mahogany, and other expensive woods to build our tree houses, clubhouses, and go-carts. Even the five o’clock whistle served us, telling us it was time to end our play in the fields and go home for dinner. And of course we were all excited when one of our favorite comedians, Jerry Lewis, came to town to pick out his own yacht. I didn’t understand it at the time, but essentially what Lewis was doing was employing about 30 South Jersey blue-collar workers—paying their insurance bills, feeding their children, and paying their mortgages—for over a month. Lewis, in turn, had made his money by mass-marketing his acting skills, bringing laughter and relaxation to some of those same blue-collar workers who watched him on television at night.

As I grew older, I came to realize more and more the important role the boat-building industry played in our area. In the 1960s, the Pacemaker Yacht Company employed more people than the electric company. Thus, a product that only the rich could afford was fueling the better part of our local economy.

Many local people got their first work experience in a boat factory. Here they learned a trade without having to burden the taxpayer in a job-training program or publicly supported vocational school.

The boat companies also fulfilled a crucial role in training future entrepreneurs and businessmen. Not everyone wants to spend his life working for someone else; millions of Americans want to go out on their own and create their own businesses. But in order to do that, they need start-up money, marketable skills, and solid work experience. For years, the boat companies have provided those goods. The owner of Anchor Custom Upholstery, for example, learned his trade at a boat factory. P. J. Reinhard, a local carpenter’s shop, first made cabinets for yachts. They have since expanded into other mill work. Kauffman-Wimberg Insurance, a 40-year-old insurance firm, got its start when it obtained the insurance contract for one of the boat companies shortly after the insurance firm was started. Many local electricians, plumbers, and other skilled workers picked up their first tools and learned their trades at the boatyard. Today, they are independent businessmen in their own right—spin-offs from the yacht-making industry. Other businesses were either created or prospered as they served the needs of the people who worked on the boats. My father has an independent auto repair shop, and many of his customers over the years were boat-builders. Money in their pockets meant money in my father’ s pocket. And that meant money in my pocket, which I used to help pay for college.

Trickle-Down Philanthropy

Money from the wealthy who bought Egg Harbor-built yachts trickled down in many other ways. Jack Leek, who owns Ocean Yachts, has been a one-man charitable foundation. Sharing the profits made by selling his yachts all over the world, he has donated generously to his church, to Rutgers University, to the Atlantic City Medical Center (where he paid for the emergency room), to the community athletic association, and to Ducks Unlimited.

The physical plants themselves have provided the community with tools and capital equipment that have often been used to help local civic and charitable organizations. At churches and schools, podiums, benches, and other furniture were made by boat carpenters who had permission to stay after work and use some of the big equipment.

Thirty years ago, our church had to expand its main sanctuary. But how could we duplicate the large beams on the ceiling so that the new section would look the same as the original sanctuary? The only place in town that had the equipment to make such a beam was one of the boat factories. Fortunately, one of our church members, a master carpenter, got permission to use the equipment and the beams were replicated. Even the curtains in the private school where I teach were made by school mothers from discontinued bolts of cloth that were once used on some of the world’s finest yachts. When I teach my economics course, I’m continually reminded of the benefits of “trickle-down economics.”

In addition to sponsoring Little League teams, the presence of the boat factories made it easy to conduct fund drives for local charities as well as organize people for the Red Cross blood drive. Ocean Yachts and Egg Harbor Yacht, for example, would let their workers go home early if they agreed to give blood that afternoon. In the early 1980s, the Red Cross typically received 250 pints of blood at each drive. Last year, with the boat factories almost at a standstill, it collected only 60 pints of blood.

With so many benefits “trickling down” to middle-class and poor Americans, it’s hard to understand why Congress would seek to destroy the boat-making industry. Yet that’s exactly what it did in 1990 when, according to a Wall Street Journal report, “Congressional Democrats [were] eager to show they were being tough on the rich.” A ten percent tax was added to the cost of luxury yachts. Since a yacht today costs anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000, this means that at least $10,000 had to be paid to the government before a potential buyer could get his first whiff of salt air. With the economy already heading for trouble, this was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Ocean Yachts in Weekstown trimmed its workforce from 350 to 50. Egg Harbor Yachts entered Chapter Eleven bankruptcy, going from 200 employees to five. Viking Yachts dropped from 1,400 to 300 employees. According to a Congressional Joint Economic Committee Study, the boat industry nationwide lost 7,600 employees within one year. As Bob Healy, president of Viking Yachts explained on NBC News, “Every six or seven years, you have a down cycle. You might be off 20 percent, 30 percent, or 40 percent at maximum. Our industry is off 90 percent nationally.”

Despite all the talk about stimulating the economy, and the clear evidence that both the luxury taxes and higher taxes in general have pretty much destroyed the yacht-making industry, the tax did not generate any significant revenue, and has only cost taxpayers money by forcing workers onto the government dole. Congress originally estimated that the luxury tax on boats, aircraft, and jewelry would raise $5 million in taxes a year. Instead, the Treasury has lost $24 million through lost income-tax revenues and higher unemployment and welfare payments.

It’s important to realize that yacht-making has been—and could be once again—one of America’s premier industries. It’s something that we Americans do well. South Jersey, crisscrossed by rivers and surrounded by water on three sides, has a comparative advantage in yacht-building. Not only do South Jerseyans have a long heritage of boat-building, but the South Jersey launching docks are close to such major population centers as Philadelphia and New York City. A prospective buyer can leave New York in the morning, take a test drive on the Atlantic Ocean at noon, and be back in New York for dinner that night. Many yachts are exported overseas, as both wealthy Japanese and Europeans acknowledge the skill of our South Jersey craftsmen. This is not an obsolete buggy-whip making industry that needs government subsidies to exist, but a high-tech industry that should be able to thrive as long as men go down to the sea in ships. (The technology involved in making fiber-glass yachts with state-of-the-art navigational equipment and creature comforts destroys the notion that there are certain key high-tech firms that should be targeted for government help. Today, high-tech is involved in everything from making better potato chips to making a safer yacht.)

It should also be noted that jobs traditionally created by South Jersey’s boat-making entrepreneurs are exactly the kinds of jobs that today’s government officials would like to create, but can’t. A teenager with no college education can go to a boat company and get a job that provides full benefits as well as on-the-job training. He’s also in an industry that promises employment well into the future and has and can adapt to changing technology. As a “light industry,” yacht-making represents little threat to the environment; in fact, the invention of the fiber-glass hull years ago makes using tropical woods like mahogany no longer necessary or cost-effective. Finally, it’s an industry that could expand and hire more workers if more people could afford to buy yachts—which is indeed what would happen if we became a low-tax, high- growth society. Just before the luxury tax was passed, Ocean Yachts had opened up a research and development division to build smaller yachts. The idea was to make it possible for more upwardly mobile companies and individuals to afford an Ocean Yacht; once hooked, they would eventually trade up to Ocean’s larger yacht. Today, thanks to high taxes, that research and development building stands idle.

It’s been over three years since the luxury tax was passed, and the boat industry is still reeling from excessive taxation and government-induced recession—a casualty of the socialist rhetoric that “trickle-down economics doesn’t works.”

The 1993 budget finally repealed the luxury tax, but it was the result of a political deal rather than an acknowledgment of what really makes the economy work. At the same time Congressmen and Senators were voting to repeal the luxury tax, they were voting in new taxes against the rich. Since the repeal of the luxury tax was a political deal rather than an economic one, look for continued attacks against America’s most productive citizens.

The story of the destruction of South Jersey’s yacht-making industry poignantly illustrates what happens when policy-makers try to apply the socialism they learned in college to real world situations. Not just the yacht-making industry—but all American industry—would benefit from lower taxes and less government intervention. Until then, boat-builders and other workers will continue to be shipwrecked here in America.
 

So much for jw's glib, know-it-all sarcastic response.
 

Terri, leaving aside the content of jw's 11:03 a.m. posting (and the fact that he was wrong), please consider the tone and the use of personal ad hominem attack, and consider whether he's heeding your request to "clean it up."

Thanks.
 

Once again, little fella, get yourself a clue to go with your constant whining.

I thought you said, "goodbye cruel world," to run off and join the circus, last night.

Like I keep tellin' ya, little fella, get yourself a clue and a legitimate argument and I'll give ya the time of day. Unless and until you do that, I see no more reason to take you to be a serious person advocating a legitimate point of view than I saw to give that nice Nigerian Banker my SS, CC and PIN numbers.

Then again, I don't see any evidence that you're predisposed or have the capacity to do anything but whine.

I mean, Christ, little fella.

How can I miss you when you won't go away?
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Totally, undeniably, certifiable!
 

He dismissively says you don't have evidence, then you cite two two news stories, and he says it's a pack of lies.

It's NOT a lie that the same US Senator who advocated for the tax then begged for its repeal.

Sorry, jw, you've been whooped on this one and you know it.
 

"I thought you said, "goodbye cruel world," to run off and join the circus, last night."

No, that wasn't me. See, lots of people can't stand you, not just me.
 

Anonymous said...

"He dismissively says you don't have evidence, then you cite two two news stories, and he says it's a pack of lies."

Well, little fella, that's bound to happen when you deal almost exclusively in packs of lies the way you, yourselves and bubbles tend to do.

Nice try.

Again, I ask - for the zillionth time - for evidence and you - once again - try to pass off a cite two news stories with no foundation or verification from 1993 about incidents which allegedly took place between 1990-1993 when the alleged Kennedy Tax in question was repealed you dredged up from some wing-nut, whack-job website like RCP as evidence while whining about me never takin' your coalition of the clueless word for it.

1990-1993. You're breakin' my heart, little fella.

My achy breaky heart.

Nice try. No sale.

"It's NOT a lie that the same US Senator who advocated for the tax then begged for its repeal."

It isn't, eh? Feel free to prove it, little buddy.

First of all, I notice you've failed to answer or address the question/issue as to just how Teddy Kennedy - or any other single Senator - managed to single-handedly enact a Tax without a legislative co-sponsor or how it got through both bodies without somebody filibustering the measure in the Senate and signed into Law without being shot-down with a Veto Pen.

Imagine my surprise. Then again, you'd kinda have to.

Who was in the Oval Office between 1990-1/93 again, little fella?

Oh, yeah. That guy. The one who keeps following Clinton around and askin' him how to straighten out his psychotic and idiotic eldest son.

"Sorry, jw, you've been whooped on this one and you know it."

You sure are if you're spewin' that, nonsense, little fella.

You'd have to believe Hitler's claim that Poland invaded Germany on 9/01/39 to buy that load of rubbish.

While you're clearly qualified on the psycho-meter to more than fill that particular bill, you haven't got a prayer of sellin' me on that slop, but, what the hell, I'd love to hear your lunatic fringe sales pitch.

That's entertainment.
 

Anonymous said...

I thought you said, "goodbye cruel world," to run off and join the circus, last night.

"No, that wasn't me. See, lots of people can't stand you, not just me."

Ah, so it was one of the other posters posting under the screen name, anonymous, eh, little fella?

And I would know that.......how?

And you can confirm that....how?

Sure it was.

Nice try.

Feel free to prove it, little fella.

Your word's always no good around here.
 

Anonymous said...

"Jim Douglas will be governor as long as he wants, and the next governor after him will likely be Matt Dunne."

Which sheep sacrificed his or her life to provide you the entrails you've managed to divine this psychotic slop from and why the hell did they bother.

Hopefully, you and yours can take their place in the next life.


"If Dubie does run again, Dunne will cozy up to whoever is the Democratic presidential nominee (Dunne's supporting Edwards now,"

Gee, that would be the first time in the History of the World somethin' like that ever happened.

I'm shocked.

"but Edwards will probably be out of the race the day after NH) to get a federal appointment that will let him keep his name in the papers from 2009 onwards until Douglas decides to call it quits." For example, if Dunne were named regional director of the EPA for New England, he could hold press conferences every week to beat up on Douglas for not doing enough about global warming."

Really? And just what's preventing Symington, Shumlin and/or VPIRG from doing that right now, my little Milton Machiavelli?

That's what I thought.
 

Anonymous said...

I thought you said, "goodbye cruel world," to run off and join the circus, last night.

"No, that wasn't me. See, lots of people can't stand you, not just me."

Gee, how will I go on.

It's funny how they're all named anonymous and bubba, little fella?

Why do ya think that is?

Nice try.

First of all, even if everyone posting as "anonymous" was actually a different person, there still wouldn't be lots of people here to do anything. Period.

Secondly, If I'm legitimately confusing you with someone or a collection of someones posting under the name "anonymous", how would I know and why should I care?

You'd have only yourself to blame.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, why shouldn't I consider any and all "anonymous" posters to be the same "anonymous" person?

That's what I thought.

It's been fun.
 

4 psychotic posts in a row from jw and he's dialoguing with himself.

He's denying reality about the luxury tax because he refuses to acknowledge what happened. The evidence has been put forth and he has his eyes closed and his hands over his ears and he's saying "I can't hear you, I can't hear you."

Nice.
 

Please DON'T ban JW from this site. As annoying as he is, it is important that the world see exactly where the left in Vermont is coming from, how they think, and the bullying way they go about trying what they want.

Nothing to offer but hate, nasty name calling, hollow rhetoric, a truly twisted view of the world and themselves, and zero ideas.
 

Please DON'T ban JW from this site. As annoying as he is, it is important that the world see exactly where the left in Vermont is coming from, how they think, and the bullying way they go about trying what they want.

Nothing to offer but hate, nasty name calling, hollow rhetoric, a truly twisted view of the world and themselves, and zero ideas.
 

Have you noticed the hate, nasty name calling,and hollow rhetoric from the right-wing posters who regularly respond to every article, opinion piece, or letter the BFP publishes?
We don't hear complaints about them.
Or is this their prerogative only?
 

I read those comments from time to time and they are very hateful from the Right. But that's a different blog. That doesn't justify the shocking jw hate speech posted here.
 

I wasn't justifying anything; just noting that you don't complain when it comes from the Right.
 

And , might add that it's been going on a lot longer unchecked with no complaints from anyone. The point that it's from a different section of the BFP is irrelevant. It's still happening.
 

"I wasn't justifying anything; just noting that you don't complain when it comes from the Right."

The major notable Righty on THIS blog is Bubba, and I do from time to time complain about his, shall we say, bombastic interjections. Still, nothing compares to the ad hominem hatred spewed by jw on this blog, both in terms of quality and sheer volume.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

bubba said...

"Totally, undeniably, certifiable!"

Thanks, bubbles. If only the quality or your arguments and the veracity of your evidence could reach that threshold.

Always a pleasure.
 

Anonymous said...

"Terri, leaving aside the content of jw's 11:03 a.m. posting (and the fact that he was wrong), please consider the tone and the use of personal ad hominem attack, and consider whether he's heeding your request to "clean it up."

Ah, yes, the old "it's the singer not the song" song and dance.

Always the preferred fallback position of knuckle-draggin', gop-slop spewin', factually-challenged wing-nut nitwits who can neither sing nor dance.

Your pleas to put style before substance are very revealing as it cuts to the core of just who and what you are and who and what you're not.

Thanks again for digging your own grave, falling in it and pulling the dirt in behind you as to make my life easier.

You're very thoughtful that way, little fella.



Thanks again.

It's been fun.

4:38 PM, December 21, 2007
 

The tone of the discussion, from both JWCOOP and Bubba, isn't very conducive to encouraging anyone to join in.

Both the far left and the far right are being exposed here as two sides of the same coin: Closed-minded, utterly sure of themselves, unwilling to concede a single point to the other side, and much too willing to hurl insults and invective at the other side rather than engage them in a dialogue.

What's really amusing to me is the sense I get that they both believe they speak for a huge "silent majority" of Vermonters.

In fact, plenty of us are relatively moderate Democrats, Republican, and independents who disagree with you on numerous issues and find the way you express yourselves unappealing.

If you don't want to debate or argue civilly, why don't all of you go over to Snarky Boy's -- I mean Michael Colby's -- new site, Broadsides? He needs the traffic; nobody's posting over there. And the tone he encourages is perfect for you.
 

Anonymous said...

"The tone of the discussion, from both JWCOOP and Bubba, isn't very conducive to encouraging anyone to join in."

Ya mean like you're doing now?

"Both the far left and the far right are being exposed here as two sides of the same coin: Closed-minded, utterly sure of themselves, unwilling to concede a single point to the other side, and much too willing to hurl insults and invective at the other side rather than engage them in a dialogue."

Ya mean like you're doing now, little fella?

"What's really amusing to me is the sense I get that they both believe they speak for a huge "silent majority" of Vermonters."

And what's really amusing to me is that you can spend the rest of the week looking for just where I said I speak for the "silent" or any other majority of Vermonters, little fella.

I've never claimed to speak for anyone but myself.

On the other hand, I've claimed and continued to claim that the likes of you, yourselves and bubbles sure as hell don't speak for the majority of Vermonters.

One look at the current composition of the Vermont Legislature clearly demonstrates that to be the case.

Big difference.

Your half-baked, bogus assumptions and clueless conclusions aren't evidence. They're merely your half-baked, bogus assumptions and clueless conclusions.

"In fact, plenty of us are relatively moderate Democrats, Republican, and independents who disagree with you on numerous issues and find the way you express yourselves unappealing."

Is that so? Are there any of you who aren't posting as "anonymous", little fella?

That's what I thought.

"If you don't want to debate or argue civilly, why don't all of you go over to Snarky Boy's -- I mean Michael Colby's -- new site, Broadsides? He needs the traffic; nobody's posting over there. And the tone he encourages is perfect for you."

And if you can't anonymously muster up anything more than the likes of this sanctimonious slop and demonstrate just how anyone, anywhere is preventing you from raising a serious topic, ya got nothing to say.

This isn't the first or second time I've called you on this nonsense. It's not even the fourth or fifth.

Evidently, you've got nothing to say.

Here's hoping Santa gave ya a clue for Christmas.
 

Way to go, jw.
 

Anonymous said...

"Way to go, jw."

As substantive as ever.

Looks like Santa had no clues for your Christmas Stocking.

Tough break, little fella.
 

Is Douglas cheap or what?
 

"Substantive?" You're a hypocritical laff riot and you don't even know it. In 5 or so weeks you have not posted anything "substantive" on this blog. No, calling people "schmuck," "shmendrik," "knuckle-draggin' nitwits," etc., does not qualify as substantive.
 

Anonymous said...

"Substantive?" You're a hypocritical laff riot and you don't even know it. In 5 or so weeks you have not posted anything "substantive" on this blog. No, calling people "schmuck," "shmendrik," "knuckle-draggin' nitwits," etc., does not qualify as substantive."

Fine, you're a farcockteh meshuggah schmuck who's got nothing substantive to say because the only thing you've consistently proven here is your total inability to substantiate anything you say.

Feel better now, little fella?

Always a pleasure.
 

Pollina for Governor.
 

Pollina may be the only man who could save Jimbo's job.
 

Really? Name the Democrat who could beat Douglas, with or without Poliina in the race.
 

That name is not coming forward.