What has Pollina spent it on? I don't think I have seen anything from him....other than the Church St. event.
 

I can tell you what he's not spending it on.....

Paying back the farmers that he ripped off at the Vermont Milk Company!!
 

I don't really know what Symington could have money on.

Come on Gaye!
 

It shows that Republicans and Democrats are just pawns for the rich. Why does Douglass have so much money because he has bent over backwards to represent big-business interests. Meanwhile Gaye and the Democratic party machine tries to destroy any real grass roots effort, by taking away resources from real progressive campaigns.

Remove the money from politics and I'm sure we will get a different game.
 

Sure - that's why Douglas has brought in more money from Vermonters than Symington or Pollina.

Oh - and from four times as many contributors.

Why won't your candidate admit that he's a loser and use that campaign cash to pay back the farmers he screwed over.

Oh - I almost forgot - dismissed!
 

Gaye has only been raising money in the last two months or so. She's clearly raising at a faster rate than Douglas is. Momentum is on her side. The big question is whether she can continue to raise at that rate (and even faster) by election day.

I don't know if Gaye can pull off an election upset, but one thing is clear -- this will be Douglas' most serious challenge yet.
 

Jim's been raising money since Nixon was president. Of course his total will be bigger. The only "news" in this story is that he is spending so much so early. Means he's nervous, and he should be with his total mishandling of the economy and energy policy.

36 years in Montpelier is enough.
 

Are you telling me that on the first day of August, the Democratic candidate for Governor - in perhaps the most Democratic state in the nation - has only $130,000 cash on hand?

That is pathetic. She obviously is not serious about this race. Her heart is not in it.
 

One place Pollina has been spending his money is for an ad on the Daily Kos.

Boy that sure makes me want to take him seriously.
 

Remember back in December when Pollina said that he'd run IF he could raise $200,000 ??

Remember in January, when he boasted that he had raised over $200,000 ??

Now it turns out that was a LIE !!

Is anyone else following this ???
 

It was $200,000.

Are you lying are are you factually challenged?
 

Jim Douglas' war chest will allow him to follow the Rove playbook to a "T" - watch out Vermont - here comes swiftboating in Vermont!

Oh, I almost forgot - Jim Douglas has been using swift boat techniques since 2002 electuion vs. Lt Gov Racine!
 

Yeah you are right - Gov Douglas has been the most negative campaigner for election in Vermont - with maybe one exception, Rich Tarrant!

Anyone see the common thread - GOP!
 

OK, so let's talk about negative campaigning.

Q: Who has the most negative YouTube clips about their opponent?

A: The VDP and Team Symington - latest count is at 9

Q: Who has a website dedicated to bashing on their opponent?

A: VDP and Team Symington.

Shall I continue?

Dismissed.
 

Like it or not, Jim Douglas has a 36 year record in politics ... and very little to show for it.

He's accomplished virtually nothing as Governor.
 

This is a huge problem for the Pollina camp.

He's only raised $66k in the last 7 months, and he has $23k left.

At this rate, he'll be bankrupt by the end of August.

It's hard to see how he can keep going to November.
 

Gosh you are stupid

From this very Blog and check out the date moron

1.15.2008

Pollina says he has hit $100,000

Got my first e-mail from "Pollina for Governor" a short time ago.

Progressive Anthony Pollina announced that he has met his goal of raising $100,000 by mid-January. Six hundred donors contributed, he said.

He also claimed support from Democrats, citing Laura Cary, Becky Moore, Crea Lintilhac and Ben Cohen as examples. Pollina wants the Democratic nomination for governor. There are, however, some Democrats who don't want him to have it.

Pollina also has a campaign coordinator - Meg Brook, who is also the South Burlington and Chittenden County Progressive Party chairwoman.

As you saw in today's FREE PRESS, Pollina says he will be giving up his "Equal Time" radio show soon. And no, despite the name of the show, WDEV is not bound by equal time rules in this case. Those are federal rules. Pollina is running for a state office. If there is a question surrounding his time on the air, it's whether the donations that pay for it count as a campaign contribution.
 

We can do better... Than Pollina!
 

We can do better... Than Douglas!
 

We need to do better than the 3 options in front of us today.
 

It is refreshing to have a more civil space with Coop fellow missing. Could we establish a more civil and interesting conversation and leave out calling each other "stupid".
 

The Pollina campaign has been run worse than the Tarrant campaign of '06.

There were about 30 seconds back in December when it looked like he MIGHT have a shot at coming in second.

Now it's clear that the guy is destined to finish last every time.
 

Considering the fact that Gaye has been in the race since mid-May, I think these numbers are pretty good. Pollina's numbers are just very disappointing. I agree with whoever said he'll be bankrupt by August. I'm sure he's wishing he took public funds now.
 

Stick a fork in him - Pollina's done!
 

Not only are you dumb but you have zero reading comprehension skills.

NO WHERE did I claim he could win. I just prefer that we have this so called debate around facts opposed to made up stories. If you can't win with intellectual honesty, go home.

Pollina has zero chance of winning and in fact should drop out of the race. But he has not lied as you so intelligently claimed.

The best chance we have to remove Douglas is to have a one-on-one race between Gaye and Jim but even that is a long shot.
 

Where is chuck lacy? I miss that little dude.

Always a pleasure. Dismissed.
 

It's too early to read much into the fundraising numbers yet; Douglas had a big carryover from his last campaign. And Pollina's jumping ship from the Progs happened too late in the reporting cycle to tell if it had any impact.

I find it amusing that the Democrats on GMD are trying to take Douglas' early spending as a sign of desperation or fear. He's got the money and the only ads I've heard are the warm and fuzzy ones that remind people he's feeling Vermonters' pain and will work to help them. Not a bad message to innoculate him from the charges his opponents will soon level blaming him for $4 gas and the national recession.
 

Well, indy, that national recession not only ocurred on the watch of the incompetent, illegitimate-trash schmuck in the WH Doogie supported for reelection in '04, it's purely the product of the very gop-scum policies doogie supports, so that don't get little jimmy off the hook.

Gop-scum in DC controlled all three branches of the Federal Government during doogie's first four years in office and gop-scum minorities in Congress continue to provide shrub with an even larger veto-override-proof margin than doogie enjoys here, so spare me the "there's plenty of blame to go around" song and dance.

Like the War in Iraq, this recession is a gop-scum disaster from start to finish and try as you might, ya can't blame this on the Dems.

There's just no gettin' around the fact that whether Vermont's problems are the result of gop-scum policies on the national level or they're of doogie's making, Vermont's woes are gop-scum inflicted.

The doogie/dubie debacle is the problem. Losin' the doogie/dubie debacle is the first step in Vermont diggin' itself out of the hole gop-scum and gop-scum policies have put us in.

Always a pleasure.
 

You are quite the sweet talker JW....just getting off your shift at B&J's?
 

In other words, you're still dumb, you're still scum and your ignorant anonymous ass has still got bupkis.

Thanks for clearin' that up, little fella.

Always a pleasure.
 

jwcoop10 said: "There's just no gettin' around the fact that whether Vermont's problems are the result of gop-scum policies on the national level or they're of doogie's making, Vermont's woes are gop-scum inflicted."

I'm sure that Democrats are going to try their best to hang national problems and Bush's unpopularity on Douglas, but it didn't work for Scudder, it didn't work for Clavelle, and I doubt it will work for Symington or Pollina.

I think Vermonters are smart enough to know what things a governor or legislature can control or influence.
 

IndependentVter...

jwcoop10 said: "There's just no gettin' around the fact that whether Vermont's problems are the result of gop-scum policies on the national level or they're of doogie's making, Vermont's woes are gop-scum inflicted."

"I'm sure that Democrats are going to try their best to hang national problems and Bush's unpopularity on Douglas, but it didn't work for Scudder, it didn't work for Clavelle, and I doubt it will work for Symington or Pollina."

Well, when the facts are on your side, Indy, there's no reason not to lead with 'em. They are and they will.

Moreover, that's when Bush was in the 50s, the 40s and the high 30s, indy. He's not there any more. Feel free to check.

In Vermont, Walt Freed was the gop-scum Speaker when Doogie took office. He lost the gig two years later and no gop swine managed to step up and take his place. The Dem Majorities in the Legislature have increased with each election cycle and should he survive, Doogie's gop-scum veto-override-proof legislative minority will be a thing of the past and he may well regret not startin' his lucrative gop-scum lobbyist career a term or two sooner.

Of course, Jim Douglas used to be a gop before they turned fascist, too.

If you'll recall, he wasn't when he left office and was replaced by Bernie Sanders despite Richie Tarrant blowin' seven million bucks makin' himself less popular than he was before we got to know him. Feel free to check on that, too, if ya like, indy.

You can go off about Clueless McSame's alleged appeal to independents all ya want, indy, but the fact of the matter is that the only candidates he's ever topped on a Vermont ballot were shrub and huckleberry hound.

In fact, in finishing a distant second to Obama, Clinton got more votes than McSame and the Huckster combined.

They're not gonna get the Democratic Nomination this year, indy.

Like Bush on the national level, doogie has left Vermont in far poorer shape than he found it. With Pollina in the race, he just might hang on. If it's just Symington, he's 50/50 at best.

Then again, either way, even if he does hang on, he's looking at increased Democratic Majorities in the House and his veto-override-proof gop-scum minority will be a thing of the past.

Gops are on the ropes nationally, Indy. In Vermont, they're toast.

Doogie's had his six years and Vermont's the worse for it. It can only benefit by his absence.

Always a pleasure.
 

same old Coop-slop....

I had hoped over your recent hiatus was for a rehab trip to charm school but apparently not.
 

And I'd hoped your ignorant anonymous ass would have seen the wisdom of comin' up with a case and a clue, little factually-challenged/fundamentally-dishonest fella, but, alas, you're still dumb, you're still scum, ya still got bupkis and such is not the case.

Always a pleasure.
 

Where to start?

I said: "I'm sure that Democrats are going to try their best to hang national problems and Bush's unpopularity on Douglas, but it didn't work for Scudder, it didn't work for Clavelle, and I doubt it will work for Symington or Pollina."

jwcoop10 replied: "Well, when the facts are on your side, Indy, there's no reason not to lead with 'em. They are and they will."

I'm not sure what this means. Do you the facts are on my side, and the Democrats will try to hang national problems on Douglas? That the facts are on the Democrats' side and they'll lead with them? That the facts are on your side, and that the Democrats will successfully hang national problems and Bush's unpopularity on Douglas? I suspect it's this option, but it's ambiguous.

If you're going to use pronoun-laden catch lines like "They are and they will," you need to make sure the antecedents for the pronouns are clear.

jwcoop10 said: "Of course, Jim Douglas used to be a gop before they turned fascist, too.

If you'll recall, he wasn't when he left office and was replaced by Bernie Sanders despite Richie Tarrant blowin' seven million bucks makin' himself less popular than he was before we got to know him. Feel free to check on that, too, if ya like, indy."

Umm ... I don't need to check. I'm familiar with the story of Jim JEFFORDS, the former U.S. Senator. The last I knew, he was a personal friend of Douglas, as a matter of fact.

jwcoop10 said: "You can go off about Clueless McSame's alleged appeal to independents all ya want, indy, but the fact of the matter is that the only candidates he's ever topped on a Vermont ballot were shrub and huckleberry hound."

Sorry, but I don't recall "going off about" or even mentioning John McCain anywhere in my post. If you can show where I did, please feel free to enlighten us. Otherwise, please do me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth, a practice you frequently chide other posters on this blog for doing.
 

IndependentVter...

"Where to start?"

Ya could always surprise me and lead off with the facts and the evidence, Indy.

"I said: "I'm sure that Democrats are going to try their best to hang national problems and Bush's unpopularity on Douglas, but it didn't work for Scudder, it didn't work for Clavelle, and I doubt it will work for Symington or Pollina."

jwcoop10 replied: "Well, when the facts are on your side, Indy, there's no reason not to lead with 'em. They are and they will."

Yes, Indy, you did say that and I did issue that reply. So stipulated.

"I'm not sure what this means."

That whole fact thing is still givin' ya fits, eh? I'll try to break it down further for ya.

"Do you the facts are on my side,"

Huh? Do I WHAT the facts are on your side, Indy?

Just what is it you're trying to ask me and how is it relevant to the matter before us?

"..and the Democrats will try to hang national problems on Douglas? That the facts are on the Democrats' side and they'll lead with them? That the facts are on your side, and that the Democrats will successfully hang national problems and Bush's unpopularity on Douglas? I suspect it's this option, but it's ambiguous."

Well, since history and the facts are on the side of the Dems and no possible, rational reading has the facts doin' doogie or McSame any favors suddenly materializing on the gop-slime side, I don't see how it matters, Indy. The facts are the facts and no matter how ya slice it, ultimately, all roads lead to the same destination.

"If you're going to use pronoun-laden catch lines like "They are and they will," you need to make sure the antecedents for the pronouns are clear."

Again, given the reality that all roads lead to the same ultimate conclusion, I'm not sure how that's relevant. Nevertheless, I'll take your grammatical concerns under advisement.

jwcoop10 said: "Of course, Jim Douglas used to be a gop before they turned fascist, too.

If you'll recall, he wasn't when he left office and was replaced by Bernie Sanders despite Richie Tarrant blowin' seven million bucks makin' himself less popular than he was before we got to know him. Feel free to check on that, too, if ya like, indy."

"Umm ... I don't need to check. I'm familiar with the story of Jim JEFFORDS, the former U.S. Senator. The last I knew, he was a personal friend of Douglas, as a matter of fact."

Is that right? Good for him. Evidently, doogie couldn't talk Jeffords out of leavin' the gops, becoming an independent and caucusing with the Dems the way shrub and cheney talked him into doing those things.

Why do you think that is, Indy?

Assuming, of course, that Jeffords consulted with his good friend, doogie, before taking those steps.

And if not, why not, Indy?

Then, of course, there's the matter of doogie not seeking his good friend's endorsement to run and replace him as Junior Senator from the State of Vermont. Why do you think that is, Indy? Surely, he would have given Bernie a better run than Tarrant did.

Indeed, with a Jeffords endorsement, he may have actually beaten Bernie. Surely, Jeffords would happily have given his good friend Doogie his blessings if asked. What's with that, Indy?

If Doogie sought his good friend's endorsement to replace him as Junior Senator from the State of Vermont, Jeffords wouldn't have thought twice about granting him such a request and yet doogie didn't run.

'Splain that to me, Indy.

jwcoop10 said: "You can go off about Clueless McSame's alleged appeal to independents all ya want, indy, but the fact of the matter is that the only candidates he's ever topped on a Vermont ballot were shrub and huckleberry hound."

"Sorry, but I don't recall "going off about" or even mentioning John McCain anywhere in my post. If you can show where I did, please feel free to enlighten us. Otherwise, please do me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth, a practice you frequently chide other posters on this blog for doing."

And when just when and where did I say you went off about McCain in that post, Indy? Don't be shy. As always, feel free to point it out.

That's what I thought.

Actually, you said that a few months back in a post on a thread related to TM Day. Hence, the part about: "..but the fact of the matter is that the only candidates he's ever topped on a Vermont ballot were shrub and huckleberry hound." in the part of the paragraph you cited but neglected to include.

That statement stands in its entirety.

Doogie only had a two-year record of incompetence to defend when he ran against Clavelle and a four-year record of incompetence when he ran against Parker.

He's got a six-year record of incompetence to defend this trip in what's become a decidely-Dem State in a decidedly-Dem year with a candidate at the top of the ticket who has inspired uncommonly high if not unprecedented turnout.

As I've said on numerous occasions, doogie may hang on to his job with Pollina in the race. Without Pollina, he may still hang on but his chances are no better than 50/50 and he's lookin' at the high probability of a veto-proof Dem Legislature.

Again, to some extent, like Vermont, Doogie is the victim of indefensible and incompetent gop-slime policies on the Federal Level.

On the other hand, doogie supported the President, the late, unlamented gop-slime-controlled Congress and the gop-slime policies that put us in this hole in the first place, so he loses that excuse with one out in the bottom of the first. That leaves him 26 outs to go and a six-year record of incompetence to try to get them with.

None of the trends bode well for doogie or gop scum governors and State Legislatures from sea to shining sea and deservedly so.

Along with bush, they've left a hell of a mess for this Country and their respective states to dig themselves out of. It's the biggest gop-slime mess since they gave us the gift of the stock market crash of '29 and the Great Depression.

Like the Country, Vermont is clearly worse off today than it wa six years ago and with the help of a gop-slime veto-override-proof legislative minority, he's been able to veto everything the Dems have given him. Just as shrub has been able to veto everything the Dems have handed him.

This is a gop-slime mess from top to bottom and the Dems are gonna have to clean up after them. Again.

There will be no big spending increases because the cupboards are bare and there's no money thanks to the gops.

Dems the facts.

Always a pleasure.
 

jwcoop10 said: "And when just when and where did I say you went off about McCain in that post, Indy? Don't be shy. As always, feel free to point it out."

Huh?

"You can go off about Clueless McSame's alleged appeal to independents all ya want, indy, but the fact of the matter is that the only candidates he's ever topped on a Vermont ballot were shrub and huckleberry hound."

Do you even read your own posts? Or the responses to to them? Or are you going to claim that a reference to "McSame" isn't a reference to McCain? Or say that your reference isn't a non-sequitur in this case?


jfcoop10 said: "Actually, you said that a few months back in a post on a thread related to TM Day. Hence, the part about: "..but the fact of the matter is that the only candidates he's ever topped on a Vermont ballot were shrub and huckleberry hound," in the part of the paragraph you cited but neglected to include."

As I asked, where in the post on THIS thread did I mention McCain? And I DID include the "..but the fact of the matter is that the only candidates he's ever topped on a Vermont ballot were shrub and huckleberry hound," in my post.

Hey, I'll admit I dropped the word "mean" in asking you about your ambiguous question. I made a mistake.

Can you admit the same? All you did was try to slam Douglas for not running against Sanders, not acknowledge you erred in saying it was Jim Douglas, not Jim Jeffords, who Sanders beat Tarrant to replace.

Is there some reason you can't ever, ever admit you made a mistake, jw?
 

IndpendentVter..

"jwcoop10 said: "And when just when and where did I say you went off about McCain in that post, Indy? Don't be shy. As always, feel free to point it out."

Huh?

"You can go off about Clueless McSame's alleged appeal to independents all ya want, indy, but the fact of the matter is that the only candidates he's ever topped on a Vermont ballot were shrub and huckleberry hound."

"Do you even read your own posts? Or the responses to to them? Or are you going to claim that a reference to "McSame" isn't a reference to McCain? Or say that your reference isn't a non-sequitur in this case?"

Evidently I'm the only one capable of reading and comprehending them, Indy.

Again, just where or when did I say that I was confined solely to the post you cited, Indy?

"jfcoop10 said: "Actually, you said that a few months back in a post on a thread related to TM Day. Hence, the part about: "..but the fact of the matter is that the only candidates he's ever topped on a Vermont ballot were shrub and huckleberry hound," in the part of the paragraph you cited but neglected to include."

"As I asked, where in the post on THIS thread did I mention McCain? And I DID include the "..but the fact of the matter is that the only candidates he's ever topped on a Vermont ballot were shrub and huckleberry hound," in my post."

And as I asked previously, just where and when did I say that my remarks were confined to the post you've cited, Indy? You placed that restriction there. I didn't and I didn't agree to abide by it."

"Hey, I'll admit I dropped the word "mean" in asking you about your ambiguous question. I made a mistake."

Well, given the fact that it's not there and couldn't possibly be more conspicuous by its absence, that's really not much of an admission, Indy. Nevertheless, I accept your apology in the good faith from which it was made.

Again, I'm not responsible for what you infer or think you're reading between the lines, Indy.

"Can you admit the same? All you did was try to slam Douglas for not running against Sanders, not acknowledge you erred in saying it was Jim Douglas, not Jim Jeffords, who Sanders beat Tarrant to replace."

And just where and when did I say it wasn't, Indy? Feel free to point it out.

"Is there some reason you can't ever, ever admit you made a mistake, jw?"

If I make one, I'll be happy to admit it. You want me to admit to one I didn't make. That's just not gonna happen, Indy.

Again, your central point was that Symington was gonna lose because Clavelle and Parker were beaten by doogie in the past as if conditions hadn't changed in Vermont or the rest of the Country over that period of time. That's patently absurd. Doogie's not running for a second term or even a third term. Doogie's running for a fourth term and he's got a dismal six-year record of incompetence and failure to prove it.

I'm just not seein' any mistake on my part, Indy.

What's more, State Economist Jeff Carr has been forced to revise his economic forecast for Vermont. The recovery he saw happening later this year ain't gonna happen. In fact, it may not happen for a year or two. He's suggested that the Emergency Board meet again in November for the fourth time since the situation remains so fluid and so dismal.

Of course, if you have evidence that Carr didn't say what he said and that he didn't call for a fourth emergency board meeting in November, feel free to present it.

That's what I thought.

Carr is the State's Economist. I didn't hire him any more than I hired Tom Kavet. If you don't like what he said, take it up with him.

Vermont is in the worst shape it's been in since '91 when the last brain-dead bush-leaguer was in the White House running the Country into the ground giving us THAT Bush Recession and THAT Bush Deficit.

Same brain-dead bush-league song and dance, different day.

Fortunately, when Dick Snelling keeled over and died while cleaning the filter in his pool one August Evening and left his Lite Gov holding the bag and tasked with the job of cleaning up the mess the State was in, we had Howard Dean at the helm to steer Vermont through the Fiscal Mess it was in then.

Actually, that's probably a best case scenario. The Stock Market Crash of '29 and the Great Depression are probably closer to the mark and we all know what gop-slime party had been in control of all three branches of the Federal Government for the past decade that time, too, now don't we?

Hopefully, we won't need another FDR and another New Deal to get us out of this latest gop-slime mess, but if we don't, it'll be no thanks to the gop-slime who put us in this fix. Again.

Always a pleasure.
 

Independentvter asks Coopy: "Do you even read your own posts? Or the responses to to them?"

To which Coopy replies: "Evidently I'm the only one capable of reading and comprehending them, Indy."

That about says it all, Coopy. Only you understand what runs through that troubled little mind of yours....those voices, those voices just won't leave the dark recesses of your mind will they.
 

Poopy - what time is the Mensa meeting tonight?
 

Coop can't go the meeting tonight. He is pulling a double shift at Ben & Jerry's today.

He asked you to please drop a couple "gop-scums", "bupkis'" and "ignorant asses' as the occasion arises.

Thanks.
Coopy's mom.
 

Brother, can you spare a dime?
 

Poopy, poopy - you left the same comment twice!

Such sloppiness will, unfortunately, result in a revocation of your Mensa membership.

All of us here at Mensa wish you the best of luck in your future endeavours, Poopy.
 

ooooh you sure put me in my place poopy!

guess I've been re-dismissed, yet again . . .
 

In other words, you're still dumb, you're still scum and your ignorant anonymous ass has still got bupkis.

Thanks for clearin' that up, little fella.

Always a pleasure.
 

stop it poopy . . . you are hurting my feelings!
 

I asked: "Is there some reason you can't ever, ever admit you made a mistake, jw?"

jwcoop10 said: "If I make one, I'll be happy to admit it. You want me to admit to one I didn't make. That's just not gonna happen, Indy."

Okay. Let's review. jwcoop10 said: "Of course, Jim Douglas used to be a gop before they turned fascist, too.

If you'll recall, he wasn't when he left office and was replaced by Bernie Sanders despite Richie Tarrant blowin' seven million bucks makin' himself less popular than he was before we got to know him. Feel free to check on that, too, if ya like, indy."

So jw, your claim is that you didn't make a mistake in saying that it was Jim Douglas, not Jim Jeffords, who held the U.S. Senate seat now occupied by Bernie Sanders?
 

IndependentVter has left a new comment on the post "Show you the money":

I asked: "Is there some reason you can't ever, ever admit you made a mistake, jw?"

jwcoop10 said: "If I make one, I'll be happy to admit it. You want me to admit to one I didn't make. That's just not gonna happen, Indy."

Okay. Let's review. jwcoop10 said: "Of course, Jim Douglas used to be a gop before they turned fascist, too."

I stand corrected, Indy. You're absolutely right. That should read Jim Jeffords used to be a gop. That was my mistake and I take full responsibility for it.

How's that?

Always a pleasure.
 

Yeah, where is chuck lacy?
 

Anonymous said...

"Yeah, where is chuck lacy?"

He must be holed up with your case and your clue, little nameless-nitwit fella.

Always a pleasure.
 

So, you two are friends?
 

Who cares about Gaye or Chuck!
 

Nobody cares about Gaye or Chuck but I do care about her playing fast and loose with the reporting of her income. If she will do it here what else will she do it with?
 

She reported her income. Jimmy Douglas had a hard time reading the form properly. That's his problem, not mine.