vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

4.25.2008

By one vote

The House just proved that every vote counts.

With all members present this morning, the House fell one vote short of overriding the governor's veto of the campaign finance bill. The vote was 99-51. Democrats needed 100 votes for a veto.

Democrats couldn't pull Rep. Ron Allard, D-St. Albans, into the fold. He was the only one with a D listed after his name to vote against the override. Democrats were also unable to win the support of independent Darryl Pillsbury of Brattleboro.

Rep. Dennis Devereaux, a Republican on the House Government Operations Committee, voted for the bill on the floor but joined his party in sustaining the veto.

Without Allard or Pillsbury's support, Democrats needed a few absences among Republicans, but it was perfect attendance on a Friday.

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 11:21 AM |

Comments:

Dems are quick to criticize the Governor for not doing enough to solve policy problems. What the heck have the Dems, who have a supermajority in both legislative chambers, been doing with the numbers so grossly in their favor?

Please. When the Dems get their act together, then they can start lecturing us as to how the minority party in the state doesn't do enough.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:35 AM, April 25, 2008

Well, jw, guess your "super majority" in the Vermont house hasn't worked out too well. And you still cling to the delusion that there will be even a greater majority next year! At least 51 reps know enough to save Vermont another wasted million or so tilting at windmills again at the Supreme Court.

TAKE BACK VERMONT!!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:51 AM, April 25, 2008

Who do you want to "take" Vermont from??

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:58 AM, April 25, 2008

Coopy would respond but he just goosed stepped his way down to the Statehouse to lecture Allard. He was mumbling something about being a factually-challenged, ignorant coaltion of clueless, gop slop. I may have missed a few descriptors along the way.

Maybe JW doesn't have his finger on the pulse of the State as he claims.

I am schocked!

Congrats to Allard for voting his mind.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:29 PM, April 25, 2008

And Symington wants to be governor? Good luck with that dream Gaye. Time to elect a new Speaker and time for the Dems to run someone against Allard the ball-less.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:33 PM, April 25, 2008

If Cathy Voyer thinks she can take on Welch, she's either insane or she knows something that the rest of us don't!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:47 PM, April 25, 2008

In 2006 Vermonters voted for "change" and put a super majority in charge of both bodies in Montpelier and a majority in Washington DC. Are we any better off for it? Two years later consumer confidence is at an all time low, bankruptcies reign, taxes are even higher, we are being regulated to death. When we hand the reins to the democrats they just can't handle the wagon. We need action on issues that pertain to economic security and stability, not running our mouths off with statements about the president or governor. It is up to lawmakers to do the work of the people. So get to it or get out of the way.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:55 PM, April 25, 2008

Amazing the Democrats won't support campaign finance reform. What a pitiful party with pitiful leadership.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:08 PM, April 25, 2008

Actually, 99% + of Democrats fought for campaign finance reform.

It was Douglas who vetoed it. The blame is on him.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:22 PM, April 25, 2008

No ... see, the fact that ONE Democrat voted against it proves that ALL Democrats are against it ...

And the fact that 99% of the D caucus held together proves that the D caucus is ... somehow ineffective.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:28 PM, April 25, 2008

Effectiveness means accomplishing something. Which would require actually collaborating with Republicans instead of trying to cram things through. Three strikes and they're out when it comes to overriding vetoes. Maybe they could actually try cooperation now? Or is that too muxch to ask from our Democratic "leaders"?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:41 PM, April 25, 2008

"Effectiveness means accomplishing something"

Then Jim Dougals isn't effective at all !!!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:52 PM, April 25, 2008

jw will no doubt have harsh words for Mr. Allard. I can see the veins popping out of his little pinhead already!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:04 PM, April 25, 2008

"Effectiveness means accomplishing something"

Then Jim Dougals isn't effective at all !!!!

^^^ That's true. Hard to think of one Douglas initiative that's come to fruition.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:10 PM, April 25, 2008

Collaborate? Cooperate? I doubt if those are words in the democrat vocabulary.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:14 PM, April 25, 2008

Barreboy ....you comment is exactly right.

Captain America

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:20 PM, April 25, 2008

Thought you might like to read the following:
>
> A little over one year ago:
>
>
>
> 1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
>
> 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
>
> 3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
>
>
>
> Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
>
>
>
> 1) Consumer confidence plummet;
>
> 2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
>
> 3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
>
> 4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value
> evaporate
>
> (stock and mutual fund losses);
>
> 5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion
> dollars;
>
> 6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
>
>
>
> America
> voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
>
>
>
> Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to
> work with what's handed to him.
>
>
>
>
>
> Quote of the Day........'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.' -- Barack Obama
>

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:33 PM, April 25, 2008

"Hard to think of one Douglas initiative that's come to fruition."

Well, Douglas did build the circ highway!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:51 PM, April 25, 2008

Once again for the braindead among us...The Governor proposes, the legislature approves. Who is to blame for the lack of progress?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:30 PM, April 25, 2008

Once again for the braindead among us...The Governor proposes, the legislature approves. Who is to blame for the lack of progress?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:30 PM, April 25, 2008

It amazes me that some jackass in here thinks the Democrats are to blame for low consumer confidence, et al. Wake up. Georgie Bush has pissed away all the money we could have been using to keep the economy humming. It's that little thing called the Iraq War. Remember that? Cost Vermont nearly a billion, per cap. And those oil prices? They might be helping Cheney and Bush reap huge profits but they ain't doing diddly for the rest of us. If you want to point the finger of blame, point it at Jimmy Douglas' endorsed idiots (twice). Dems are left trying to pick up the pieces, much as Clinton DID beginning in 1992. Remember the surplus, or are you still fixated on the BJ?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:50 PM, April 25, 2008

You have this assbackwards- The Legislature introduces all the bills, not the Governor. If you want to throw blame, throw it in the direction of the majority- they steer the committees, they decide what bills and when they get voted out of committee and to the floor- the Governor has no say in that process. Every committee in the house is headed by a Dem and obviously Madamme Speaker is a Dem so throw your accusations to the ones who are SCREWING things up.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:52 PM, April 25, 2008

Anonymous said...

"Actually, 99% + of Democrats fought for campaign finance reform.

It was Douglas who vetoed it. The blame is on him."

Don't confuse the whacks with the facts.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 5:08 PM, April 25, 2008

Taxes under Bush 2008
>
> Single making 30K - tax $8,400
>
> Single making 30K - tax $4,500
>
> Single making 50K - tax $14,000
>
> Single making 50K - tax $12,500
>
> Single making 75K - tax $23,250
>
> Single making 75K - tax $18,750
>
> Married making 60K - tax $16,800
>
> Married making 60K- tax $9,000
>
> Married making 75K - tax $21,000
>
> Married making 75K - tax $18,750
>
> Married making 125K - tax $38,750
>
> Married making 125K - tax $31,250
>
>
>
> Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates
>
>
>
> It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above
> think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest
> President
> ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal
> the
> Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the
> categories
> above can't wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting
> with Paul
> Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know
> what
> happened.
>

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:10 PM, April 25, 2008

Anonymous said...

"Once again for the braindead among us...The Governor proposes, the legislature approves. Who is to blame for the lack of progress?"

That would be the Governor.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 5:11 PM, April 25, 2008

> You think the war in Iraq
> is costing us too much? Read this:
>
>
>
> Boy, am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it
> is
> the Iraq
> war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. I now find that to
> be
> RIDICULOUS.
>
>
>
> I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again
> until
> they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading
> them. I have
> included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.
>
>
>
> 1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens
> each year by state governments.
>
>
>
> Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77
>
>
>
> 2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs
> such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
>
>
>
> Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
>
>
>
> 3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal
> aliens.
>
> Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
>
>
>
> 4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary
> school
> education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of
> English!
>
> Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html
>
>
>
> 5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the
> American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
>
> Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
>
>
>
> 6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
>
> Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
>
>
>
> 7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
>
> Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
>
>
>
> 8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare
> & social services by the American taxpayers.
>
> Verify at:
>
> http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
>
>
>
> 9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are
> caused
> by the illegal aliens.
>
> Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
>
>
>
> 10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate
> that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In
> particular,
> their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in
> the US
>
> Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
>
>
>
> 11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens
> that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal
> aliens from
> Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth,
> heroin and
> marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
>
> Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
>
>
>
> 12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of
> mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average
> cost of
> between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'
>
> Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
>
>
>
> 13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back
> to
> their countries of origin.
>
> Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
>
>
>
> 14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex
> Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.'
>
> Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
>
>
>
> The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
>
>
>
> Are we THAT stupid?
>
> If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the
> other hand, it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope
> you
> forward it to every legal resident in the country including every
> representative in Washington,
> D.C. - five times a week for as
> long as it takes to restore some semblance of intelligence in our
> policies and enforcement thereof

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:12 PM, April 25, 2008

Please don't debunk the liberal talking points.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:25 PM, April 25, 2008

Anonymous has left a new comment on the post "By one vote":

"Please don't debunk the liberal talking points."

To the contrary, go ahead and try, little factually-challenged fella. That's entertainment.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 7:02 PM, April 25, 2008

Never in the course of human events has so much ignorant, anonymous slop and bandwidth yielded so much bupkis and so little legitimate info.

Once again, the Gops controlled Congress for 12 years and everything for the first six years of Bush's Illegitimate-Trash Reign of Error.

Just what prevented them from doing anything about illegal immigration during that period of time, little factually-challenged, nameless-nitwit fella?

That's what I thought.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 7:15 PM, April 25, 2008

Anonymous said...

"Once again for the braindead among us..."

Is it your contention that the entire nameless-nitwit community is too "braindead" to spell brain-dead or is it just your ignorant, anonymous ass that suffers from that particular affliction, little factually-challenged fella?

"The Governor proposes, the legislature approves. Who is to blame for the lack of progress?"

In other words, the nameless-nitwit community thinks the Legislature is supposed to just rubber-stamp whatever the Governor tosses them.

No, they're not.

I remind you, Doogie the Dimmer had a Gop Legislature when he took office in 1/03. The Voters of Vermont saw fit to replace it with a Dem Legislature.

While a competent Governor who gives a damn about the State of Vermont would be the best solution, clearly, the House just needs a few more Dems.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 7:34 PM, April 25, 2008

Anybody heard from Scoopy?

He's been quiet around here. When he gets off his meds, he'll often post 2-3 times in row.

And who can blame Allard really? He gets his info from Paul Bleaudry on the St. Albans radio station each morning.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:38 AM, April 26, 2008

"Anybody heard from Scoopy?

He's been quiet around here. When he gets off his meds, he'll often post 2-3 times in row."

He will also post from time to time while on his meds. You have seen them. He will post some cut and pasted trash talk and then immediately post a follow-up trashing the post he just made. I wonder if it is not multiple personality disorder he suffers from.

Anyway, I think our goose-stepping little buddy is licking his wounds over the Dims inability to override yet another veto. Gaye has done a great job marshalling her Party to the cause. It is comforting to know she wants to take that leadership ability and run for Gov.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:37 AM, April 26, 2008

So there's one ringer in the lot. If you run on one ticket and actually support the other it's your constituents who are deceived.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:45 AM, April 26, 2008

I pray the press makes it its mission to report regularly on where the candidates money is coming from in this election cycle, particularly Douglas's. You can also check it at the followthemoney website. Let's see how much the GOP pigs and Allard and Pillsbury are getting. You had a chance to make a difference and lead the rest of the nation and you blew it. Oh well, at least Douglas's chosen candidate (the wind is blowing which way Jimmy?) was the co-author of campaign finance reform legislation. Once he realizes McCain supports reform, he'll claim he does as well. Pigs at the trough. Noting more.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:55 AM, April 26, 2008

Explain VPIRG's fundraising to support their special interests? They wrote S.278 and now it is okay for them to raise money, but no one else! Who's the pig?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:46 AM, April 26, 2008

It wasn't a statement about the environment being a special interest. You said that to deflect the point.

It was a statement of fact about the conflicted role of VPIRG. Writing legislation and soliciting funds for the same cause.

Clearly a wise man like you understands conflict of interest.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:09 AM, April 26, 2008

Anonymous has left a new comment on the post "By one vote":

"It wasn't a statement about the environment being a special interest. You said that to deflect the point."

Really? How so? It's a direct quote of your statement, schmuck.

Ya gonna pull a Charles Barkley and tell me you were misquoted in your own autobiography now, little factually-challenged fella?

Knock yourself out, nitwit.

That's entertainment.

The fact that you don't know what the puck you're talkin' about has been evident to me since day one, deducebag. Either does the rest of the nameless-nitwit/coalition of the clueless cretin community, but I'm pleased to see that it's finally dawned on your ignorant ass, little fella.

Congrats. The first step in dealing with a problem is facing up to the fact that you have one and you and the rest of nameless-nitwit nation certainly have several.

Still, your ignorant, ill-informed, factually-challenged ass has got to start somewhere and here's as good a place as any.

I'm proud of ya, son.

"It was a statement of fact about the conflicted role of VPIRG. Writing legislation and soliciting funds for the same cause."

It was, eh? And your evidence that they wrote the legislation is......?

That's what I thought.

The only fact here is that I quoted your ignorant ass accurately and proceeded from there, schmuck.

"Clearly a wise man like you understands conflict of interest."

Sure. Doogie the dimmer and the business community would be an obvious example.

Still, it's not my understanding of the term that's at issue here, little factually-challenged fella.
It's yours. It always is.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 10:53 AM, April 26, 2008

Coop- your head is buried in the sand AGAIN, VPIRG is no longer an advocate just for the environment- look at their web site or did you just assume all your donations were going toward the environment?
From one factually challenged fella to the next!
there-beat you to it!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:58 AM, April 26, 2008

NEK has left a new comment on the post "By one vote":

"Coop- your head is buried in the sand AGAIN, VPIRG is no longer an advocate just for the environment- look at their web site or did you just assume all your donations were going toward the environment?"

In other words, you've got no evidence to support your delusional dreck.

Thanks for clearin' that up, sport.

Feel free to point out just where and when I said their activities were confined solely to the environment, little factually-challenged fella.

That's what I thought.

Once again, you posted this delusional dreck:

"Explain VPIRG's fundraising to support their special interests? They wrote S.278 and now it is okay for them to raise money, but no one else! Who's the pig?"

In response: I posted the following:

"Since when is the environment a special interest, little factually-challenged fella?"

Feel free to point out just where and when I claim that VPIRG's fundraising efforts are confined solely to the environment, little factually-challenged fella.

Take your time. Clearly, your ignorant ass ain't goin' anywhere.

That's what I thought.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 11:36 AM, April 26, 2008

bubba said...

"Well, jw, guess your "super majority" in the Vermont house hasn't worked out too well."

Since when does Symington have a "super majority", little factually-challenged fella?

Is it your contention that Symington is one of 100 Dems in the Vermont House of Representatives, little bigot boy?

If so, feel free to substantiate your latest factually-challenged/fundamentally-dishonest/delusional-dreck merchant claim.

That's what I thought.

Once again, little bigot boy, if 93 was 100, your ignorant ass would have a point, but it's not so ya don't.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 11:49 AM, April 26, 2008

yawn...

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:52 PM, April 26, 2008

Clearly all those years as a long distance runner has damaged more than JW's knees. The constant pounding on the pavement has apparently rattled loose a few of his marbles.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:59 PM, April 26, 2008

to save Vermont You said Knock yourself out, nitwit.

Clearly all those years He gets from Paul Bleaudry are being regulated to death.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:02 PM, April 26, 2008

Is it at all possible that campaign finance is yet another example of a solution in search of a problem, a la Instant Runoff Voting?

With no evidence of corruption or widespread dissatisfaction with the current systems in place, all but two statewide offices, and massive majorities in both chambers, what is it that the Democratic/Progressive left wants? All 180 seats in the Legislature and every statewide office?

Other than the inability of the left to win the top two offices in the last three cycles, where is the problem? How many Vermonters voted in the current Legislature on the campaign promises to do campaign finance reform and IRV?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:03 PM, April 26, 2008

There seems to be a black cloud hanging over this whole debate about moving around the pieces of Vermont's prison system. Doesn't anybody realize that the governor has taken huge amounts of money from Corrections Corp. of America? Where do a lot of Vermont prisoners go? To Corrections Corp. prisons in other states. Does the governor or anyone in his family own stock in Corrections Corp.? This is a perfect example of why Vermont needs campaign finance reform. Scratch the guv's back and he'll scratch yours. Now they want to close down Str. Albans and send all those prisoners to these Corrections Corp. prisons. Little windfall for this campaign contributor right before the next election? Hoe nice. Let's see how much Corrections Corp. gives to Douglas in this election. I'll be watching. While we're on the subject, has this Sears guy taken any money from Corrections Corp.?
Nah, there's no need for campaign finance reform. It's all kosher.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:40 PM, April 26, 2008

You are a wise and perceptive man IndependentvermonterM

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:42 PM, April 26, 2008

IndependentVter has left a new comment on the post "By one vote":

"Is it at all possible that campaign finance is yet another example of a solution in search of a problem, a la Instant Runoff Voting?"

Is it possible that you have some evidence or factual support your latest load of delusional dreck, little factually-challenged fella?

That's what I thought.

What is this gop aversion to a level playing field, little fella?

If you can't buy or steal it, do you feel that puts gops at a competitive disadvantage?

I see your point. It's not like you clowns can win on the merits when you don't have any.

"With no evidence of corruption or widespread dissatisfaction with the current systems in place, all but two statewide offices, and massive majorities in both chambers, what is it that the Democratic/Progressive left wants? All 180 seats in the Legislature and every statewide office?"

And your ignorant ass finds something sinister and/or surprising in that, indy?

Is it your contention that the Gops aren't trying to gain Legislative Seats and Offices on the Municipal, State and Federal Level as we speak, little factually-challenged fella?

If not, ya better get yourself some more effective Party leadership, schmuck.

It's not like the merits of your arguments are gonna carry the day.

Of course, a legitimate case and the evidence to back it up wouldn't hurt.

Clearly, the Dem majorities aren't massive enough since Doogie the Dimmer continues to veto legislation supported by the vast majority of Vermonters, little fella.

Then again, if Vermont wanted Doogie the Dimmer to have a rubber-stamp Gop

"Other than the inability of the left to win the top two offices in the last three cycles, where is the problem?"

Again, your woeful lack of logic and evidence to support your latest load of horesebrithume for openers, little factually-challenged fella.

It's never a bad move for me to give that thread a tug. Whenever I do, your pathetic excuses for arguments disintegrate before me in the blink of an eye.

There's never any heavy lifting or huffin' and puffin' involved. That's why I like this joint so much.

Is it your contention that IRV would apply solely to the Office of Governor and Lite Governor, little factually-challenged fella?

If so, what evidence do you have to support your psychotic slop?

That's what I thought.

No heavy liftin', no huffin' and puffin' and only the most token of opposition. What's not to like about this joint.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 3:58 PM, April 26, 2008

There are lots of great Democrats out there but the leadership in the house and senate is just plain sad.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:10 PM, April 26, 2008

I'm a Democrat, but I've got to hand it to the Republican House Leadership team. I don't know how they pulled this off, but clearly they have their act together.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:37 PM, April 26, 2008

Anonymous said...

"I'm a Democrat, but I've got to hand it to the Republican House Leadership team. I don't know how they pulled this off, but clearly they have their act together."

Gops are always gonna win a goose-stepping contest. They're gops first, Americans, 329th and Vermonters, 498th, for Christ Sake.

If they gave a damn they wouldn't be Gops.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 5:08 PM, April 26, 2008

Is Anthony Pollina really still running even though Gaye Symington is now the Democratic candidate?

Are any other Progressives running for statewide office?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:11 PM, April 26, 2008

JWCOOP10 said.... "There's never any heavy lifting or huffin' and puffin' involved. That's why I like this joint so much."

Once again, little factually-challenged/fundamentally-dishonest/slow on the uptake Jeff, my claim that you have not made a legitimate point or provided the evidence to back it up since you got here is a statement of fact and unless and until you manage to meet that burden, it will remain so.

As for insults, you're ignorant trash with bupkis because you keep proving that your ignorant trash with bupkis, Jeffy.

Either get yourself a legitimate case, develop some civility and provide some evidence to substantiate YOUR act or do us all a favor and get lost.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:57 AM, April 27, 2008

JWCOOP10 said..."
What is this gop aversion to a level playing field, little fella?

If you can't buy or steal it, do you feel that puts gops at a competitive disadvantage?

I see your point. It's not like you clowns can win on the merits when you don't have any."

Sounds just a little Marxist to me. Don't you guys ever get tired of reading Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels? ....take from those that have earned it and give to those who don't. Strive for sameness. Push the achievers down to a level low enough that the non-achievers can get there without trying too hard. Keep alive a thread of class struggle. If people fight among themselves they are less likely to see the abuses of the Liberal elite and how they get fat off the system.

Seem to me the 'merits' as you put it are in fact evidenced by where the campaign money goes to begin with. If people didn't support the GOP platform they would give their money to the side they do agree with. It seems the Dems are clawing to legislate the receipt of money they can not otherwise earn in the light of day.

It's a strange concept for you guys but that is called the Free Market. Ask the USSR how it works... they abandoned the flawed Marxist policy for a life of Capitalism. Ask China but do it quickly as they rush to the Free Market.

It doesn't surprise me that you seek a society of oneness. From all your posts you are clearly one that will benefit by dragging achievers down to your level. You try to do that every day.

I think for most Vermonters though they are proud of what they achieve and don't look kindly to government handouts and unearned entitlements. Why else would they fight so hard for the traditions they have grown up to? And most obviously, why would they continue to donate to and elect a Republican to the highest office in the State?

Captain America

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:33 AM, April 27, 2008

Isn't it the Majority Whip's job to keep his troops in line? Floyd is a loser.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:30 AM, April 27, 2008

JWCOOP10 said..."
What is this gop aversion to a level playing field, little fella?

If you can't buy or steal it, do you feel that puts gops at a competitive disadvantage?

I see your point. It's not like you clowns can win on the merits when you don't have any.""

"Sounds just a little Marxist to me."

So, little factually-challenged fella, when you think level playing field and equality you think Marxism?

None of that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal horsebrithume for you, eh, Admiral Anti-American Activities?

Clearly, your beef's not with Marx and Engels, it's with Jefferson, Madison and the rest of the Founding Fathers, herr hatespeech.

Thanks for clearin' that up.

"Don't you guys ever get tired of reading Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels?"

Well, since I've never read them, I'd have to say no.

Doesn't your ignorant ass ever get tired of making specious allegations you can never substantiate and frequently can't spell, herr hatespeech?

"....take from those that have earned it and give to those who don't. Strive for sameness. Push the achievers down to a level low enough that the non-achievers can get there without trying too hard."

Nice try. If these alleged "achievers" can't compete or "achieve" on a level playing field or without a stacked deck, then, by definition, they're not really achievers, little factually-challenged/fundamentally-dishonest fella.

"Keep alive a thread of class struggle. If people fight among themselves they are less likely to see the abuses of the Liberal elite and how they get fat off the system."

Well, as Warren Buffett said, "Sure there's class warfare in this Country and my Class is winning!", but, I'm sure you and the rest of nameless-nitwit nation know more about capitalism and makin' money than some dumb schmuck like Buffett would.

That's what I thought.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 12:17 PM, April 27, 2008

YES Ron Allard
at least one Dem witha conscience and a backbone

THANKs Ron

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:23 PM, April 27, 2008

"Achievers" = a derogatory term to jw and his fellow bottom-feeding parasite pond scum.

"Democrat/Progressives" = see above, i.e., the opposite of "achievers".

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:10 PM, April 27, 2008

All "achievers"don't feel that they are the only ones who have accomplished something--just Republican ones.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:40 PM, April 27, 2008

Noticed an article in today's BFP about a doctor achieving something
with remitting childhood cancer; bet she doesn't equate achievement with
accumulation of money.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:42 PM, April 27, 2008

I'll bet she isn't working for free

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:10 PM, April 27, 2008

When asked "Don't you guys ever get tired of reading Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels?"

Coopy replies..."Well, since I've never read them, I'd have to say no."

Prove you haven't read it. Your words alone aren't proof little factually-challenged/fundamentally-dishonest/slow on the uptake fella. Your claim that you have not read or supported radical left wing philosophies is not backed by any evidence while your words and repeated actions suggest you do. Back it up, something you have not done since you got here.

You're ignorant trash with bupkis because you keep proving that your ignorant trash with bupkis.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:20 PM, April 27, 2008

JWCoop 10 says...."None of that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal horsebrithume for you, eh, Admiral Anti-American Activities?"

The founding fathers said all men are created equal. They did not say that all men will always be equal. In fact they embraced the independence of man, the ability to build their own life and enjoy the successes of their life. I think Jefferson's Monticello or Washington's Mt. Vernon were not typical homes for the early settlers. I suspect some wing nut leftwing group from VT was not crying out about the injustice of how the political machine not a level playing field favoring the election of George W or Thomas J or the Adams brothers even though it was a very closed playing field. Even with these evil forces our country developed nicely. Go figure.

All men are created equal. It is up to each man to make the choices that shape his future. Those who choose to not take risks, seek education, invest the time and energy needed to be a success are free to do so. They should also be willing to accept the consequences of those choices.

Captain America

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:42 PM, April 27, 2008

JWCOOP wrote: "Is it possible that you have some evidence or factual support your latest load of delusional dreck, little factually-challenged fella?"

Well, here's the U.S. Supreme Court's take on issue, from RANDALL ET AL. v. SORRELL ET AL.:

"The respondents have not shown, for example, any dramatic increase in corruption or its appearance in Vermont;nor have they shown that expenditure limits are the only way to attack that problem."

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1528.pdf

And it only cost Vermonters about $1.5 million to establish that fact. Oops, sorry, that's not accurate. That's what the taxpayers had to pay to the lawyers of the side that won the case; it doesn't count the direct cost of paying Bill Sorrell and his folks for taking the case to the SUPCO.

Other than VPIRG's obvious interest in giving advantages to their friends in the Democratic/Progressive Parties (they can engage in all the "issue advocacy" they want without being subject to campaign finance rules, but the political parties are hamstrung) not very many people in Vermont are clamoring for campaign finance reform.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that -- gasp!-- political parties like the Democrats and Progressives would want to shape the rules to give themselves an electoral advantage. But that doesn't mean I don't want somebody -- Republicans, independents, or anyone -- to challenge them on it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:52 PM, April 27, 2008

We probably won't hear much from ScooperCooper on Tuesday it's Free Scoop Day at Ben and Jerry's...

___________
from the Burlington Free Press

Tuesday is Free Scoop Day

Published: Sunday, April 27, 2008
It’s an annual tradition for Ben & Jerry’s to provide free ice cream cones at many of their scoop shops around the world.

This year, Ben and Jerry’s turned 30, so there’s even more cause to celebrate. Free cone day runs from noon until 8 p.m. Tuesday.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:57 PM, April 27, 2008

IndependentVter has left a new comment on the post "By one vote":

JWCOOP wrote: "Is it possible that you have some evidence or factual support your latest load of delusional dreck, little factually-challenged fella?"

"Well, here's the U.S. Supreme Court's take on issue, from RANDALL ET AL. v. SORRELL ET AL.:

"The respondents have not shown, for example, any dramatic increase in corruption or its appearance in Vermont;nor have they shown that expenditure limits are the only way to attack that problem."

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1528.pdf"

Is that the entire decision, indy, or did they say anything else?

That's what I thought.

Congrats, you've graduated from outright lies to half-truths and it only took you and your clueless cretin compatriots 6.5 months to do it.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 6:16 PM, April 27, 2008

Heather Locklear just got PWNED! Of course, the real loser here is Richie Sambora. Who no doubt saw both of his former loves then drank himself stupid and drove the kids through Disney World. No, I'm serious, he went right through it. There's a hole in Space Mountain and Tinkerbell's probably not gonna make it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:32 PM, April 27, 2008

Anonymous has left a new comment on the post "By one vote":

JWCoop 10 says...."None of that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal horsebrithume for you, eh, Admiral Anti-American Activities?"

Herr Hatespeech counters with:

"The founding fathers said all men are created equal. They did not say that all men will always be equal."

They didn't, eh? In what sense do you mean that, little factually-challenged fella?

Is it your contention that the Founders did not say "That all men will always be equal", as you put it, in the eyes of the Law?

Moreover, is it your contention that it was their intent that rich guys like Washington and Jefferson should have more votes than the average voter?

If so, feel free to point out just where and when they said or indicated that, herr hatespeech.

That's what I thought.

I see ya dropped the lunatic-fringed Marx and Engels angle. Smart move, little fella.

"In fact they embraced the independence of man, the ability to build their own life and enjoy the successes of their life."

Really? And when did I say they did, little factually-challenged fella? By all means, feel free to point out just where and when I said that they did, little fella.

That's what I thought.

One man-one vote. Tell me, how exactly does constitutionally granting one the right to vote while simultaneously limiting them to one vote preclude legal limits on campaign spending, little factually-challenged fella?

That's what I thought.

"I think ..." Ya do, eh? That's a good one, little fella. While that's debatable at best, for the sake of argument and my amusement, let's pretend that's true, invariably, that's where your ludicrous, lunatic-fringe "arguments" fall apart.

You have what's known as a "tell", little factually-challenged fella. Actually, you have several of them, but I'll bail your ignorant ass out on this one.

You're welcome.

Every time you start a sentence with the words, "I suspect" or "I think", you're toast.

Ya got bupkis. You're bluffin' and I'm gonna call your ignorant ass every time, look at your cards and pull your chips towards me and add 'em to my pile. It's a lock.

If ya had anything, you wouldn't feel the need to qualify it, little fella. You'd produce it.

You don't. You do. You can't.

Tough break, little fella.

Again, how does limiting a registered voter to one vote deprive him of his First Amendment right to free speech, little factually-challenged fella?

I'll let your ignorant ass skate on the lunatic-fringe Marx and Engels slop but you're gonna have to come up with the goods on this one.

Moreover, how does limiting one voter to one vote preclude putting limits on campaign contributions?

That's what I thought.

Speech is not money or property, little fella. A vote is not recognized as legal tender available to purchase goods and/or services at the discretion of its holder. You can't buy one's vote with, oh, say, a conveniently located exit off I-89 that would cause property owned by the purchaser of said vote to undergo a sudden, dramatic increase in value for, oh, say, a piece of the action.

Not legally anyhow.

Not even if the property is located in South Florida and the seller of said vote is a gop Congressman from Alaska.

Ask Congressman Don Young, R, AK if ya don't believe me. To the best of my knowledge, he's able to accept calls from the public.

One is not taxed on speech, little factually-challenged fella, they're taxed on property.

"Jefferson's Monticello or Washington's Mt. Vernon were not typical homes for the early settlers. I suspect some wing nut leftwing group from VT was not crying out about the injustice of how the political machine not a level playing field favoring the election of George W or Thomas J or the Adams brothers even though it was a very closed playing field."

And did Washington and Jefferson award themselves more than one vote given the fact that Mt. Vernon and Monticello were so much grander than the homes of the average American Citizen, little factually-challenged fella?

That's what I thought.

Given the fact that they limited themselves to one vote despite their personal wealth being greater than that of the average American Citizen, how would that lead one to divine that their original intent was to allow anyone and everyone to spend as much of their own personal fortune as they saw fit to attempt to buy or influence the outcome of any election or pending legislation before any or all branches of Local, State of Federal Government, little fella?

That's what I thought.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 9:32 PM, April 27, 2008

Anonymous has left a new comment on the post "By one vote":

When asked "Don't you guys ever get tired of reading Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels?"

Coopy replies..."Well, since I've never read them, I'd have to say no."

Iggy-slop counters with:

"Prove you haven't read it."

You're nothing if not amusingly stupid, little factually-challenged fella.

Well, either way, you're nothing.

Always an amusing pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 9:50 PM, April 27, 2008

Anonymous has left a new comment on the post "By one vote":

"Heather Locklear just got PWNED! Of course, the real loser here is Richie Sambora. Who no doubt saw both of his former loves then drank himself stupid and drove the kids through Disney World. No, I'm serious, he went right through it. There's a hole in Space Mountain and Tinkerbell's probably not gonna make it."

Thanks for sharin', little fella.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 9:53 PM, April 27, 2008

I have platinum blonde hair, and I'm extremely curvy: I pour myself into a dress and show up and strut my stuff at premieres. Of course I expect people will have certain ideas but it's weird if people associate the fact that I sell handbags or wear a bikini with who I am when I wake up in the morning. People think I'm going to be some brazen harlot, but I'm not out there with every Tom, Dick and Harry or catching hepatitis.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:27 PM, April 27, 2008

The biggest putz in the whole group is Devereaux.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:12 PM, April 28, 2008

If John McCain is such a huge advocate for campaign finance reform, why can't at least two or three Vermont Republicans follow suit? Oh yeah, I forgot. They are the biggest bunch of lemmings in the country. "Jump" said Jim Douglas and Rob Roper. "How high" responded the VT GOP delegation.

FOLLOWTHEMONEY.ORG

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:31 PM, April 28, 2008

Ron Allard's Sugar Daddy's in 2006 include:

VERMONT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE/CAMPAIGN RESEARCH CENTER $250 13.45% General Business

PFIZER $200 10.76% Health

ENPAC NUCLEAR $200 10.76% Uncoded

VERMONT SKI AREAS ASSOC $200 10.76% General Business

Pig at the trough!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:34 PM, April 28, 2008

Judging by Pfizer's contribution levels to Allard, he must really love his viagra!

Lobbyist Officer Information
George "Ron" Allard

Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. 09/27/2002 100 donation
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. 08/20/2004 100 Political contribution
Associated General Contractors 02/17/2004 10 Luncheon
Business Resource Services 07/27/2006 50 Campaign contribution
Casella Waste Management, Inc. 10/31/2000 100 contribution
Casella Waste Management, Inc. 10/14/2004 50 contribution
Casella Waste Management, Inc. 10/31/2002 100 donation
Cendant Corporation 09/22/2004 200 Political contribution
Central Vermont Public Service 03/22/1999 8 breakfast
Central Vermont Public Service 02/09/1995 10 Legislative breakfast
Cioffi Frank 10/01/2006 50 Contribution
Cioffi Frank 07/01/2002 50 Donation
Cioffi Frank 10/01/2004 50 Contribution
Cioffi Frank 11/02/1998 50 campaign contribution
Home Builders&Remodelers Assn. of Northern VT 12/06/2005 20 Meal
Miller Brewing Company 10/31/2002 100 donation
Parent to Parent of Vermont 03/17/2004 14 Legislative luncheon
Paving Association of Vermont 02/16/2006 14 Calendar
Paving Association of Vermont 01/18/2005 9 Calendar
Pfizer, Inc. 04/01/1996 8 Portfolio of State Issues
Pfizer, Inc. 02/01/2002 14 info packet
Pfizer, Inc. 08/28/2006 200 Campaign contribution
Pfizer, Inc. 09/01/1996 8 Portfolio
Pfizer, Inc. 02/01/1997 8 Portfolio of State Issues
Pfizer, Inc. 10/29/1998 8 Portfolio of State Issues
Pfizer, Inc. 06/26/1995 8 Portfolio of State Issues
Pfizer, Inc. 07/17/2000 9 portfolio
Pfizer, Inc. 12/01/1997 8 Portfolio of State Issues
Pfizer, Inc. 09/01/1997 8 Portfolio of State Issues
Pfizer, Inc. 08/01/1999 8 portfolio of state issues
Pfizer, Inc. 10/01/1995 8 Portfolio of State Issues
Pfizer, Inc. (do not use) 11/01/1999 8 portfolio
Pfizer, Inc. (do not use) 04/28/1999 8 Portfolio of State Issues
Pfizer, Inc. (do not use) 05/20/2000 8 PORTFOLIO OF STATE ISSUES
Philip Morris Management Corp. (inactive) 11/03/2000 100 donation
Philip Morris Management Corp. (inactive) 10/04/2000 50 donation
Philip Morris, USA by Altria Corporate Services, Inc. 10/07/2002 100 donation
Philip Morris, USA by Altria Corporate Services, Inc. 10/30/2006 50 Political contribution
VT Agricultural Fairs Assoc. 05/01/2001 5 state fair pass
VT Agricultural Fairs Assoc. 04/01/1998 10 fair pass
VT Agricultural Fairs Assoc. 05/01/2004 5 Fair pass
VT Agricultural Fairs Assoc. 04/22/1999 10 fair pass
VT Agricultural Fairs Assoc. 06/01/1996 10 fair pass
VT Agricultural Fairs Assoc. 05/30/2006 35 Fair pass
VT Assn. of Hospitals & Health Systems, Inc. 01/18/2001 14 Luncheon
VT Assn. of Hospitals & Health Systems, Inc. 01/13/2000 17 LUNCHEON
VT Bankers Assn., Inc. 11/29/1994 12 Dinner
VT Bankers Assn., Inc. 12/03/2003 21 Dinner
VT Bankers Assn., Inc. 12/15/1998 18 dinner
VT Bankers Assn., Inc. 12/08/2005 27 Dinner
VT Bankers Assn., Inc. 12/16/2004 19 Dinner
VT Bankers Assn., Inc. 12/10/2002 10 dinner
VT Bankers Assn., Inc. 11/20/2000 10 dinner
VT Bankers Assn., Inc. 12/11/2007 24 Dinner
VT Bankers Assn., Inc. 11/21/1995 18 Dinner
VT Bankers Assn., Inc. 11/16/1999 16 dinner
VT Bankers Assn., Inc. 11/25/1997 25 dinner
VT Bankers Assn., Inc. 11/26/1996 20 Dinner
VT Chamber of Commerce 12/10/2002 10 dinner
VT Chiropractic Assn. 01/25/2007 20 VCA Back Pillow VCA
VT Chiropractic Assn. 01/26/2006 18 Legislative Reception
VT Coalition of Fire Fighters 01/16/2003 11 luncheon
VT Coalition of Fire Fighters 01/16/2004 11 Luncheon
VT Coalition of Fire Fighters 01/12/2006 12 Legislative Luncheon
VT Distributors Association 10/01/2000 75 Contribution
VT Farm Bureau 01/26/1995 10 Legislative breakfast
VT Grocers Association 01/22/2003 14 lunch
VT Grocers Association 02/26/1997 10 Luncheon
VT Grocers Association 02/07/2002 13 lunch
VT Grocers Association 02/05/1998 10 lunch
VT Grocers Association 02/07/2001 13 lunch
VT Grocers Association 02/10/2000 12 RECEPTION
VT Grocers Association 02/16/2006 18 Association Luncheon
VT Grocers Association 02/15/2005 15 Luncheon
VT Grocers Association 02/04/1999 10 lunch
VT Highway Users Conference 01/10/1996 10 Lunch
VT Highway Users Conference 02/08/1995 11 Luncheon ticket
VT Lodging & Restaurant Assoc. 04/06/2004 10 Legislative reception
VT Lodging & Restaurant Assoc. 04/01/2003 10 Taste of Vermont
VT Ski Areas Assoc. 08/31/2000 200 contribution
VT Ski Areas Assoc. 08/28/2006 200 contribution
VT Society of Association Executives 01/11/1995 10 Luncheon
VT Society of Association Executives 01/11/1996 10 Luncheon

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:53 PM, April 28, 2008

Anonymous has left a new comment on the post "By one vote":

"If John McCain is such a huge advocate for campaign finance reform, why can't at least two or three Vermont Republicans follow suit? Oh yeah, I forgot. They are the biggest bunch of lemmings in the country. "Jump" said Jim Douglas and Rob Roper. "How high" responded the VT GOP delegation."

Well, that only stands to reason. If they had any smarts, personal integrity and gave a damn about Vermont, the Country or the World they wouldn't be gops.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 4:03 PM, April 28, 2008

Follow the money?

Let's start with king pig himself - Shumlin:

AT&T Inc. and its Affiliates 09/01/2002 400 donation
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. 09/17/1998 500 contribution
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. 10/23/1996 100 political contribution Peter Shumlin
Barre Granite Assoc., Inc. 02/05/1996 35 name plaque
Beverage Assoc. of VT 10/01/1998 250 campaign contribution
Brock Richard L. 09/15/2002 100 donation
Brock Richard L. 03/20/2002 50 campaign contribution
Buckley Clare A. 10/30/2002 50 donation
Business Resource Services 07/27/2006 100 Campaign contribution
Casella Waste Management, Inc. 10/24/2006 100 contribution
Casella Waste Management, Inc. 10/31/2002 400 donation
Casella Waste Management, Inc. 10/31/2000 200 contribution
Central Vermont Public Service 02/09/1995 10 Legislative breakfast
Cioffi Frank 10/01/2006 200 Contribution
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic 11/04/2001 55 dinner
Electronic Data Systems (EDS) 09/27/2002 400 donation
Finner Stephen L. 01/15/2008 25 Dinner
Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation 10/30/2001 11 economic summit meal
Home Builders&Remodelers Assn. of Northern VT 01/28/1997 12 dinner
IBM Corporation 07/04/2002 128 tickets, food & bev
Kennedy Jeanne B 08/22/2002 100 contribution
Kennedy Jeanne B 10/21/2002 50 contribution
Kimbell Sherman & Ellis LLP 07/03/2002 400 donation
Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce 02/09/1998 11 breakfast
Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce 10/30/2001 11 Economic Summit meal
Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce 02/12/2001 11 breakfast
Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce 03/08/1999 11 breakfast
Long Margaret T. 07/17/1998 200 campaign contribution
MacLean Andrew W. 11/01/1998 50 campaign contribution
Miller, Jr. Edward A. 10/20/2000 50 contribution
Miller, Jr. Edward A. 10/28/1998 100 campaign contribution
New England Cable and Telecommunications Assoc. 09/18/2000 100 contribution
Otis Anthony 09/01/2002 50 donation
Otis Anthony 09/01/2002 50 donation
Parke Davis, division of Warner-Lambert Company 07/02/1998 1000 political contribution
Pfizer, Inc. 10/29/1998 8 Portfolio of State Issues
Pfizer, Inc. 06/26/1995 8 Portfolio of State Issues
Pfizer, Inc. 12/01/1997 8 Portfolio of State Issues
Pfizer, Inc. 10/01/1995 8 Portfolio of State Issues
Pfizer, Inc. 02/01/2002 14 info packet
Pfizer, Inc. 09/01/1996 8 Portfolio
Pfizer, Inc. 07/17/2000 9 portfolio
Pfizer, Inc. 04/01/1996 8 Portfolio of State Issues
Pfizer, Inc. 09/01/1997 8 Portfolio of State Issues
Pfizer, Inc. (do not use) 05/20/2000 8 PORTFOLIO OF STATE ISSUES
Pfizer, Inc. (do not use) 04/28/1999 8 Portfolio of State Issues
Pfizer, Inc. (do not use) 11/01/1999 8 portfolio
Pfizer, Inc. (do not use) 08/01/1999 8 portfolio
Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. 12/02/1998 10 lunch
Philip Morris, USA by Altria Corporate Services, Inc. 10/30/2006 100 Political contribution
Richardson Lila M. 10/31/2002 25 donation
Sherman Robert S. 06/15/2002 400 campaign contribution
Storrow Charles F. 07/03/2002 400 donation
Terry Stephen 09/01/2002 275 donation
USGen New England 10/15/1998 100 contribution
VT Agricultural Fairs Assoc. 04/22/1999 10 fair pass
VT Agricultural Fairs Assoc. 05/01/2001 5 state fair pass
VT Agricultural Fairs Assoc. 06/01/1996 10 fair pass
VT Agricultural Fairs Assoc. 04/01/1998 10 fair pass
VT Assn. of Hospitals & Health Systems, Inc. 01/13/2000 17 LUNCHEON
VT Bankers Assn., Inc. 11/30/1993 8 Cocktails
VT Bankers Assn., Inc. 12/09/1998 10 dinner
VT Bankers Assn., Inc. 12/04/1996 15 Breakfast
VT Bankers Assn., Inc. 11/30/1994 20 Dinner
VT Businesses for Social Responsibility 04/26/1994 16 dinner
VT Captive Insurance Assn. 01/30/1997 10 reception
VT Captive Insurance Assn. 01/16/2002 25 legislative reception
VT Captive Insurance Assn. 01/20/1999 15 VCIA annual conference
VT Chamber of Commerce 04/01/1998 10 fair pass
VT Chiropractic Assn. 01/25/2007 20 VCA Back Pillow VCA
VT Chiropractic Assn. 01/25/2007 19 Legislative Luncheon VCA
VT Distributors Association 10/01/2000 150 contribution
VT Grocers Association 02/07/2002 13 lunch
VT Highway Users Conference 01/10/1996 10 Lunch
VT Highway Users Conference 02/08/1995 11 Luncheon ticket
VT Independent Power Producers Association 10/09/2000 100 contribution
VT Optometric Assoc. 10/30/2002 300 donation
VT Optometric Assoc. 01/23/2002 7 reception
VT Podiatric Medical Assn. 10/28/1996 50 campaign contribution
VT Retail Lumber Association 08/15/2000 100 contribution
VT Society of Association Executives 01/06/1994 12 Legislative luncheon
VT Society of Association Executives 01/11/1996 10 Luncheon
VT Society of Association Executives 01/11/1995 10 Luncheon
VT State Nurses Assn. 01/29/1998 10 tea
VT Truck & Bus Assoc., Inc. 09/01/2000 50 contribution
VT Wholesale Beverage Assn. 07/25/2002 400 donation
Verizon 05/23/2001 45 dinner
Wilson David M. 11/01/1998 100 campaign contribution

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:09 PM, April 28, 2008

I think it's a good thing that Shumlin has taken money from the VT Agricultural Fairs Assoc.

That's a GOOD organization.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:58 PM, April 28, 2008

If Shumlin is as "anti-business" as his coalition of the clueless critics claim, why is he getting campaign donations from the likes of Pfizer, Anheuser-Busch and the Vermont Bankers Association?

That's what I thought.

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 7:15 PM, April 28, 2008

The friend said: “It’s funny how she bedded the last two people who have been helping to look after her. Amy is sex-mad — and she gets what she wants.”
The Sun revealed on Saturday how Amy plans to divorce hubby BLAKE FIELDER-CIVIL — who is behind bars on remand on assault and trial fixing charges. But she had been unable to face telling the junkie about her affair with ALEX HAINES — her manager’s aide. A source said yesterday: “In all honesty they think The Sun has done them a favour. It was getting harder to keep the affair under wraps.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:49 PM, April 28, 2008

Since this bill was written by VPIRG and "Senator" Paul Burns why don't they disclose just who their donors are?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:51 PM, April 28, 2008

Anonymous said...

"Since this bill was written by VPIRG and "Senator" Paul Burns why don't they disclose just who their donors are?"

And your evidence that the bill was written by VPIRG.." is.....?

That's what I thought.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

7:51 PM, April 28

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 8:13 PM, April 28, 2008

VPIRG makes it very clear on their website that they are behind the bill. 501c4's aren't required to disclose donors. If these guys are sincere they should come clear about who gives them their money. Otherwise they are just hypocrits.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:56 PM, April 28, 2008

Anonymous has left a new comment on the post "By one vote":

"VPIRG makes it very clear on their website that they are behind the bill."

In other words, ya got no evidence to back up your latest bogus allegation.

Nice try, little factually-challenged/fundamentally-dishonest fella.

That's not what you said, schmuck.
Scroll up a post or two and see for yourself.

In your 7:51 PM post you said:

"Since this bill was written by VPIRG and "Senator" Paul Burns why don't they disclose just who their donors are?..."

Or was that the other nameless- nitwit with bupkis, little fella?

Either way, I'm not seein' any evidence in support of nameless-nitwit nation's latest clueless-cretin contention that: "Since this bill was written by VPIRG and "Senator" Paul Burns...."

Support does not constitute authorship, little factually-challenged/fundamentally-dishonest fella. It's merely support.

Authorship is a whole other ignorant, anonymous trash with bupkis kettle of red herrings.

"501c4's aren't required to disclose donors. If these guys are sincere they should come clear about who gives them their money. Otherwise they are just hypocrits."

"Hypocrits," eh? Once again, nameless-nitwit nation levels another bogus charge they not only can't substantiate, your ignorant, ill-informed, anonymous ass can't even spell what you can't substantiate, schmuck.

Make an effort, little fella.

If you wanna change the rules on 501c4s, change the rules. Unless and until you do that, VPIRG should play by the same rules everyone else does. If that's a problem for you, it's your problem.

You're asking VPIRG to give gops their signs and tell you when they're gonna throw a fastball and when they're gonna throw a breaking ball so you can be ready.

No soap, shmendrik.

If you can't compete on a level playing field, little fella, you can't compete.

Clearly, you can't compete.

Ya know, you can start tryin' any time now, little fella. I've had enough BP. It's been a long winter and it would be nice to actually crack a sweat for a change.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 10:01 PM, April 28, 2008

Why don't you get a job then? AH

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:06 PM, April 28, 2008

"Why don't you get a job then? AH"

Gee, now who coulda seen an ignorant, anonymous, nameless-nitwit, ignorant-trash with bupkis response like that comin'.

So much for the personal responsibility people.

Gee, little fella, you chose to become ignorant trash with bupkis makin' ludicrous, lunatic-fringe charges you can never substantiate and frequently can't spell. Don't blame me for your poor, pathetic, brain-dead career choices.

This is America! This is Vermont! Stop whinin' and cryin' and be a man for once!

Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, get yourself a case and a clue and make yourself some semblance of a worthy adversary for me. I'll give your ignorant, anonymous ass another shot.

As for gigs, I've got one with flexible hours just like you nameless-nitwit coalition of the clueless cretins.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 10:32 PM, April 28, 2008

"get yourself a case and a clue and make yourself some semblance of a worthy adversary for me. I'll give your ignorant, anonymous ass another shot."

Here is something we all strive for; to be a worthy adversary for Coopy and to be allowed another 'shot'"

Survey time.... how many of you strive to achieve this goal?

You are not too full of yourself. are you.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:48 AM, April 29, 2008

No, but I certainly know what you and your ignorant-trash coalition of the clueless compatriots are full of, little factually-challenged fella.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 8:32 AM, April 29, 2008

It is quite possible to be a Republican, to favor genuine campaign finance reform, and to oppose the Dems' ill-fated legislation.

The contribution limits are too low, limiting the ability of challengers to raise funds sufficient to unseat incumbents. Furthermore, challengers presumably have another vocation before they are elected, limiting the time available to spend fundraising with a too-low cap.

In addition, the contribution limits were different for different statewide offices. Is the price for inducing statewide corruption different for different offices? Is a prospective ssecretary of state easier to "buy" than an incumbent governor?

Finally, the limit on political party contributions is unrealistic in a small state, again where challengers look to some financial infrastructure to assist. State parties channel state funds for state races, and do so transparently.

You will note that many of the problems are impediments to challengers. Shockingly, the party pushing the legislation has a supermajority in the legislature, and holds every statewide office except the top two. A cynic may suggest that the Dems will be dissatisfied with anything less than a complete political power monopoly, and this legislation was designed to achieve that goal.

True campaign finance reform would require complete internet-based transparency regarding contributions and expenditures. The Democrat Secy of State's efforts in that regard have been woeful. Then, incumbents should not be able to carry over warchests from one election cycle to the next.

The Dems want a system where only wealthy people can afford to run, who they can then lambaste as being wealthy, out-of-touch Republicans (even though the Vermotn democratic Party has for years been the party of fat cats in Vermont).

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:23 AM, April 29, 2008

Barely a Boy doesn't think Rich Tarrant qualifies as a "fat cat."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:41 AM, April 29, 2008

Anonymous has left a new comment on the post "By one vote":

"Barely a Boy doesn't think Rich Tarrant qualifies as a "fat cat."

Well, he is barely a boy. Ya gotta grade the schmuck on a curve.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 9:44 AM, April 29, 2008

barreboy said...

"It is quite possible to be a Republican, to favor genuine campaign finance reform, and to oppose the Dems' ill-fated legislation..."

Not based on your delusional dreck it isn't, bb bling.

"...The Dems want a system where only wealthy people can afford to run, who they can then lambaste as being wealthy, out-of-touch Republicans (even though the Vermotn democratic Party has for years been the party of fat cats in Vermont)."

Ya mean like McMuffin and Richie Rich, little fella.

You're ignorant trash with bupkis, schmuck.

Disappear.

9:23 AM, April 29, 2008

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 9:58 AM, April 29, 2008

It's really pretty interesting how the left (the party of the common man) so dislikes Tarrant. Here is a guy that made his fortune by working hard, taking risk and perservering (I think the Dems call this living the American Dream)and while he is unsuccessful he is a good guy but once he hits the big time he is everything evil.

Your logic makes so much sense. Cripes!

Horace Greely

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:23 AM, May 01, 2008

The left absolutely HATE people like Tarrant that have worked hard to make a good living for themselves as well as others. This hurts their core beliefs that only government can create wealth, not the other way around. You only have to look at their number one hero in the state, a sleeze that has never created a job for anyone, or for that matter ever had a REAL job of his own; that would, of course, be Brooklyn Bernie Sanders, role model for the morally deficient and terminally lazy.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:00 PM, May 01, 2008

how true that is.... Interestingly, Bernie has certainly learned to live large off the public trough and made everyone in VT feel good about it.

Let's see, the average salary in VT is $36K approx. Bernie's salary is $165K. He sure is helping VT.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:41 PM, May 01, 2008

bubba has left a new comment on the post "By one vote":

"The left absolutely HATE people like Tarrant that have worked hard to make a good living for themselves as well as others."

Ya mean like, oh, say, Ben and Jerry, for example, little factually-challenged bigot boy?

Here's a tip for your ignorant, ill-informed, lyin'-scum ass, schmuck.

If ya can't make your point without lying, you don't have one.

Clearly, you can't and you don't.

Secondly, if you're gonna continue lyin' your ignorant, ill-informed ass off at every opportunity, don't make your specious slop so easy to refute.

I'm tryin' to drop a few pounds and it'd be nice to actually have to crack a sweat for once.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 1:15 PM, May 01, 2008

Anonymous said...
"how true that is.... Interestingly, Bernie has certainly learned to live large off the public trough and made everyone in VT feel good about it.

Let's see, the average salary in VT is $36K approx. Bernie's salary is $165K. He sure is helping VT."

Is Bernie's Salary as Junior Senator from the State of Vermont out of line with the Salaries of other Senators from other States and other parties, little factually-challenged/fundamentally-dishonest fella?

That's what I thought.

Always a pleasure.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 1:20 PM, May 01, 2008

You didn't really think jw could get a job, did you?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:55 AM, May 03, 2008