What a joke!

Filed in National by on March 12, 2008

Listen to this moron Charlie Copeland waxing eloquent about “open government” when just yesterday Harris McDowell admitted to Al Mascitti that he and VonCopeland met in secret with Randall Speck prior to the Blue Water Wind Hearings.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VpWcQNug5w[/youtube]

Fraudulence thy name is Copeland.

UPDATE: read Dave’s weak defense of Copeland (“not a fraud but a limp dick loser”) here.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (125)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Open Government Scams « kavips | March 14, 2008
  1. nemski says:

    Sometimes my state senator makes me gush with pride.

  2. Al Mascitti says:

    Of course, given the accuracy of McDowell’s other statements, we might want to give Copeland the benefit of the doubt…. 😉

  3. Sagacious Steve says:

    I’ll show you how legit this ‘open government’ initiative is. The purported ‘President’ of the Delaware Taxpayer Coalition, Jim Bowers, was quoted in the article. Lest we forget, Jim Bowers is the Wayne Smith sockpuppet who got waxed by Bryon Short in the 7th RD Special Election and who is running again. As for the Delaware Taxpayer Coalition, it is that articulate advocate for good government started by…Dave Burris.

    One can only conclude that this is a deliberate dog-and-pony show, not a legitimate attempt to make government more transparent.

  4. FSP says:

    Jim Bowers is not the President of the Delaware Taxpayer Coalition. I am. Jim is the one who came up with many of the ideas for the transparency package, so that’s why he was there. The package would not exist without him.

    So, the fact that he’s doing more to help make the state a better place than the guy who beat him (only by 200 votes, hardly ‘waxed) is a credit to him. Hell, Bryon Short thought that Bowers’ bills were so good, he signed on as a cosponsor.

    How can you say it’s not a legitimate attempt? There are bills in the system. Those bills will be voted on in the House, and hopefully the Senate. How much more legitimate can you get than that?

    Deliberate dog-and-pony shows are what you get every Tuesday and Thursday from Carney and Markell.

  5. jason330 says:

    Spare us the pretty words. Copeland’s actions (meeting in secret strategy meetings to kill the wind power project ) speak much louder.

  6. disbelief says:

    They should have done a “Great and Powerful Oz” set-up just like in the original movie with flame-throwers and thunder machines. That way, no one would have noticed the DP&L procreative juices leaking out of Copeland’s backside.

  7. Sagacious Steve says:

    Please spare us the ‘Jim is the one who came up with the ideas’ crapola. The next original thought that Wayne Smith’s Siamese twin has will put him one up on John Carney.

    This is nothing more than a pathetic and partisan attempt to prop up a weak candidate. Delaware Taxpayers Coalition, indeed. Dave Burris, non-partisan good government crusader (Insert your own joke here).

  8. FSP says:

    Yeah. We can see which side of this you’re on, Steve. Thanks for your support in making Delaware’s government better, you twit.

    Party at your house when Thurman kills Jim’s bills?

  9. cassandra m says:

    What is interesting about this initiative is that it isn’t really about open government, but just about open records. I also note that no one talked about the cost of implementing these requirements for open records or how these costs would be provided to the agencies targeted. From a quick look at the bills discussed, it seems as though folks without internet access still won’t have these newly open records.

    I am a really big fan of data being free (with some caveats) and especially government data being free. But I am not a fan of setting up an initiative to let taxpayers see how their funds are managed without telling those taxpayers how much this will cost — the startup costs, the long-term maintenance costs and how these agencies (I am particularly interested in school districts) will get the funds to do this.

    Real “Open Government” would make sure that government meetings are (mostly) open to the public, have an adequately pre-announced agenda, have a way to ensure that public voices get heard, produce minutes (including records of votes), get those minutes posted in short order (or better, provide video of proceedings), make sure that interested citizens can obtain minutes and agendas, and provide some framework for the entirety of the government (including the General Assembly) to reorient itself to doing its work where the public may observe and participate (as appropriate).

    But it is crazy to talk about this series of bills as open government when the only thing that these bills do is open up the financial books (without a price tag).

  10. FSP says:

    The price tag has been discussed previously. The state of Oklahoma did almost exactly what we’re proposing, and they did it for $250,000. Missouri did even more, and did it for $1,000,000.

    The state is in the process of finishing a brand new financial database system that would slash the cost of implementing these programs.

    Not to mention the savings. If you think these bills will COST money, you’re out of your mind.

  11. FSP says:

    And as to your other point, Jim Bowers talked about the open government movement so far focusing on the “front end,” which is the processes you describe, while these bills will focus on the “back end,” or the results of those processes. So he clearly delineated the difference.

  12. jason330 says:

    No, they will be liek the Iraq war and MAKE money.

    Anyway you don’t address the meat of Cassandra’s post and I can see why you don’t.

  13. Pandora says:

    Red Clay addressed this issue at a special board meeting. The cost discussed averaged around 40 – 50 cents a page, but nothing was decided.

    The problem I have with this is that when I’ve requested info from Red Clay confusion abounds. Part of this is my problem, I don’t know all the jargon. Part of this may be a deliberate misunderstanding on the districts part.

    Example: Several years ago I was looking for info on “High-Poverty” students. First, I was told that no such report existed. Then I was sent a stack of papers that didn’t address my question (I would have been furious if I had been charged for that!). Finally, a helpful administrator told me I needed to ask for info on students who receive “Free or Reduced Lunch”.

    I can’t help but feel that the first person I spoke with knew what I was looking for, but decided not to point me in the right direction. Burying people in paper that doesn’t answer their question and then charging them could prove problematic.

  14. Al Mascitti says:

    Cassandra, internet access is available to anyone who goes into a library. I don’t have the material at my fingertips, but when this came up in January I talked to someone from the national effort and the cost was estimated at a little less than $1 million. For anyone who currently must jump through the paperwork hoops to get this information, this would be a big step in the right direction. Bloggers especially, who do not have the resources of professional newsgathering organizations, would benefit greatly from this. I’m really puzzled by your apparent skepticism.

  15. FSP says:

    J – I addressed all of cassandra’s points. I can see why you fail to acknowledge that.

  16. FSP says:

    Thank you for admitting that you’re a fraud. That’s the first step to recovery. Best of luck with that.

  17. cassandra m says:

    Details of what this: cost was estimated at a little less than $1 million. entails would be useful. If I am going to demand some accountability about how my government spends my money, why should that demand stop for folks who might actually be opening the books (something I might approve of)?

    There is no doubt that opening the books is a good thing. There is no doubt that for those with ready internet access what is proposed is alot easier. I just want to know the price tag. In detail. Out in the open the same way the other expenditures should be. Unless, of course, taxpayer funds are not being spent. Then, nevermind.

    But there is still no discussion of real open government — guaranteeing a good amount of sunshine on how the government makes its decisions. If these bills are the “back end,” or the results of those processes, you already start out in a dysfunctional fashion since you’ve never set up any processes to get results from.

  18. FSP says:

    Cassandra — There are already bills in the legislature that address your concerns, and they are dying the same death at the hands of the Democrat-controlled Senate. The House passed a FOIA bill last year, HB 60, adding to SB 4. Both are dead as a doornail.

  19. FSP says:

    As far as the cost is concerned, that’s what a public hearing and a fiscal note are for. Things we didn’t get while the bills died in Nancy Cook’s drawer.

  20. cassandra m says:

    Yes, I know that, Dave.

    But I still don’t know how you are gauging results from processes that don’t allow us any visibility into them.

  21. cassandra m says:

    So — you are telling me that legislation for open records is being proposed without an estimated or proposed budget? That the budgets are developed out in the open, in a hearing?

  22. Al Mascitti says:

    Not only that; legislation for open government is being discussed in closed caucuses.

    Keep in mind that these records already are available. This is about making them more accessible. I’m having a hard time understanding your skepticism as anything other than partisanship. The cost, no matter how it’s calculated, is almost nothing in relative terms.

  23. FSP says:

    We’re not gauging or estimating results. We’re requiring all state contracts and state checks to be posted online, so citizens can see where the money is being spent.

    “So — you are telling me that legislation for open records is being proposed without an estimated or proposed budget? That the budgets are developed out in the open, in a hearing?”

    No. The Comptroller General determines what the fiscal impact of the bill will be. That is the process, and state agencies will certainly complain in the hearing that the fiscal impact goes far beyond what will be estimated. They have done so in every other state that has passed transparency legislation. The cost is simply not that high. The information is already kept in a database. The programming required to post those data entries to the web is basic.

  24. cassandra_m says:

    The cost, no matter how it’s calculated, is almost nothing in relative terms.

    This is likely right, but is no defense on not being able to say — in detail — what that cost is. Being able to associate a cost of implementation of any legislation is real good government, whether the cost is trivial or not. (Otherwise why do you want to see the check registers of schools?)

    If asking folks who want more accountability in government to model some good behavior is partisan, then so be it. If some politician came on your show, Al, and told you that implementing this would be too expensive, you’d certainly press them on the details of why. Me, I’m a generally supportive taxpayer who is looking to know what this is going to cost me. Really guys, I don’t get what the big deal is here. If we all want to know the budget for XX new road, I don’t know why it is beyond the pale to want to know what the costs are of implementing new legislative mandates.

  25. cassandra_m says:

    So, Dave — the Comptroller General is developing the budget for implementation of legislation? (Evaluating fiscal impact implies to me that there is a budget to actually evaluate it by.) But what do I know — I’m just a taxpayer trying to ask how much this costs.

    There is no doubt that there will be pushback on implementing this. But it seems to me that the goal of getting this done is to make sure that every taxpayer can easily double check claims — from anyone — like this:

    The cost is simply not that high.

  26. Al Mascitti says:

    And the information that it cost $1 million in a state the size of Missouri isn’t a good enough answer? I call BS.

    “If some politician came on your show, Al, and told you that implementing this would be too expensive, you’d certainly press them on the details of why.”

    No, I’d question why they’re saying that when the estimate is that it’s less than $1 million. The fact is that it’s impossible to say with any certainty what the exact cost will be until they start implementing it. Estimating based on the cost in other states seems plenty informative to me, why not to you?

    Then again, I’m not in this to call the motives of Republicans into question. I wonder if you can credibly say the same.

  27. Al Mascitti says:

    “If we all want to know the budget for XX new road, I don’t know why it is beyond the pale to want to know what the costs are of implementing new legislative mandates”

    It might interest you to know that the very requirement you cite — an estimate on the cost of implementation — is waived on almost every bill that goes before the legislature. Including those what will cost many, many times more than this one will.

  28. Rebecca says:

    Um, to get back to Charles Von Copeland and Open Government. Ya see, the minute he was elected Leader of the Minority Caucus he walked out of the caucus room and announced that all eight of the Senate Republicans would be voting for Thurman “I’ll-Never-Pass-An-Open-Government-Bill” Adams for President Pro Tem. Copeland knew that Adams had desk-drawer-vetoed every open government bill for the past four years when he corraled his caucus to support Adams. The eight R’s plus the three D’s from Sussex made up the majority of eleven votes that Adams needed to bludgeon any well-meaning Democrats into line. Copeland enabled Adams and now he’s got the nerve to complain.

    Typical Republican hypocrasy.

  29. jason330 says:

    It is a total joke Rebecca. Thanks for pointing that part of it out.

    Burris knows full well who the fraud in this drama. However, if he and Copeland came clean now – they could shock the world.

  30. cassandra_m says:

    And the information that it cost $1 million in a state the size of Missouri isn’t a good enough answer? I call BS.

    This is not information, it is an anecdote. While I only spent a couple of minutes looking on line for this earlier, I haven’t found any backup to this number. If it exists, help me find it and this all goes away.

    Estimating based on the cost in other states seems plenty informative to me, why not to you?

    Do you what is included in all of these costs — so that you know that you are comparing apples to apples? If you do, then share that and this all goes away.

    It might interest you to know that the very requirement you cite — an estimate on the cost of implementation — is waived on almost every bill that goes before the legislature.

    I do know this. And where are the efforts to get the GA to curtail this bit of business? If you are asking for good fiscal practice, this seems to be a place to start. A budget associated with these mandates gives taxpayers real benchmarks to assess performance by. And not just the performance of the executing agency.

    In my real, professional life I live and die by budgets and am always astonished at the answer, “It is less than XX amount so it is trival.” In the main, I can’t get away with saying that to paying clients (unless I tell them that I am covering those costs) and fail to see why this is an OK response to the taxpayers footing the bill.

    Now — you may be perfectly satisfied with verbal assurances that that this is the cost. Me, I want to see how they get to that number. If I understand these bills correctly, its creators likely agree with me and should be able to address that.

    But I take it that I am wrong about that.

    And this: Then again, I’m not in this to call the motives of Republicans into question. I wonder if you can credibly say the same.

    Whose motives are being called into question here?

    Thanks for playing.

  31. FSP says:

    Rebecca — Two points. First, Thurman Adams was the only person running for Pro Tem, so voting for him was not a leap.

    Second, all of the Senate Republicans voted against the Senate rules, and so did Karen Peterson. Had one more Democratic Senator – ONE MORE – voted no, there would be no more desk-drawer veto. ONE MORE. But none did. THAT was the watershed moment, and the Dems failed.

    It is YOUR party that is holding up progress on open government and lying about it to win elections, and it is MY party (not one or two people, but the whole crew) who are trying to change things for the better.

    Swallow that with your dinner.

  32. Al Mascitti says:

    I don’t have much time either, but it wasn’t all that hard to find info on this, considering that similar bills have been introduced in several states, all patterned after the federal bill sponsored by Sens. Obama and Coburn. The idea for the federal database their law set up, http://www.usaspending.gov reportedly cost $600,000 in software.

    Here’s another anecdote:

    –In Kansas, state representative Kasha Kelley says that opponents nearly defeated her transparency bill by keeping it stuck in committee and objecting that the website would cost $50 million to implement.
    John McCormack, Weekly Standard, 12/21/07

    But hey, it’s not my idea, and I confess it wasn’t a hard sell for me; I’ve seen the frustration TNJ has gone through over the years to get this stuff the old-fashioned way. If you can find citations about cost overruns and nightmarish wastes of money, by all means let us know.

  33. disbelief says:

    Maybe Lofink will pay for it.

  34. Rebecca says:

    Dave, there was no time for anybody else to run for Pro Tem because Copeland announced his eight votes for Adams within minutes of being elected Minority Leader. It was a done deal, the tail was going to wag the dog. It was also incredibly craven, or incredibly dumb. Either way, Copeland is responsible for the mess he’s in. And all the pain the Republican caucus is having to endure under Adams’ reign. Maybe next January they’ll think twice about which Democrat would be a fair pro tem. As you say, Senator Peterson has demonstrated a lot of integrity in the past.

  35. FSP says:

    Blah, blah, blah. You can’t dance around the fact that the Senate Democrats voted in near-unanimous fashion to approve the current rules. Ignore it if you want, but having Thurman Adams as pro-tem is not the problem. The rules are.

    Also, Copeland’s not stupid. He wasn’t about to cross Adams. Peterson and the 8 GOP votes wouldn’t have elected her speaker (and won’t in 2009 either), and Thurman would have had his revenge. So Copeland was just protecting his caucus.

    You’re wrong either way. Why don’t you try to fix your own party instead of clinging to straws concerning mine.

  36. Sagacious Steve says:

    Earth to Dave: The Pro-Tem names the committees, including the Senate Rules Committee. With Adams as Pro Tem, the rules will be what Thurman wants.

  37. FSP says:

    Earth to Steve: the rules are voted up or down on the floor at the beginning of each General Assembly.

    You seem to know about as much about this as you do about most things.

  38. FSP says:

    And if you don’t want Adams as Pro-Tem, you only have to do one thing: vote Republican.

  39. PI says:

    Eeee Gawd! Voting Repuglican is not even an option…..Gastly thought!

  40. PI says:

    I’d tather eat slugs than think about voting for a repug!

  41. Dana Garrett says:

    “Deliberate dog-and-pony shows are what you get every Tuesday and Thursday from Carney and Markell.”

    I guess Burris is throwing his support behind Protack.

  42. FSP says:

    Let me rephrase.

    Deliberate dog-and-pony shows are what you get every Tuesday and Thursday from Carney, Markell and Protack.

    In related news, Colorado Senator Wayne Allard today introduced a budget amendment consisting of all of Barack Obama’s campaign promises to date. The cost? $1.4 trillion.

    I wonder if Obama will vote for it.

  43. Dana Garrett says:

    “Two points. First, Thurman Adams was the only person running for Pro Tem, so voting for him was not a leap.”

    That is fucking lie and Dave Burris knows it. I told him myself of an offer to back another Dem Senator for Pro Tem on the condition that the Repubs back the person. I also told Feroce. I agreed to be the person to pass along the message.

    The offer was made at the very end of Still’s leadership. In short order Copeland became the leader and, as Mascittti said, he **immediately** threw his arms around Adams.

    I wondered why until this moment the offer wasn’t taken up (although I suppose it’s possible it was never communicated). The person who was willing to stand for Pro Tem would have changed the rules the Senate Repubs claim they find offensive and open govt bills would have received committee hearings and a vote.

    It’s starting to become clear now.

    Selander asked Copeland the other day, Why did you start these bills in the Senate knowing they likely wouldn’t see the light of day. Why didn’t you start them in them in house?

    Copeland gave some non-answer to the effect that we thought it was proper to do to start them in the Senate.

    Wow. Maybe none of this is about passing these bills. It’s about staging scenarios where they know Adams will kill them so they can use it for their leg races. They are setting this up to maximize failure for purely political purposes. They are not trying to maximize success.

    Perhaps that’s why the Senate GOP never took up the alternative to Adams. They wanted Adams as Pro Tem so they could run on the platform it’s the Dems who are denying you open govt.

    It’s for these reasons that this looks like a questionable claim to me:

    “Jim is the one who came up with many of the ideas for the transparency package, so that’s why he was there. The package would not exist without him.”

    “So, the fact that he’s doing more to help make the state a better place than the guy who beat him (only by 200 votes, hardly ‘waxed) is a credit to him. Hell, Bryon Short thought that Bowers’ bills were so good, he signed on as a cosponsor.”

    Isn’t that an interesting coincidence. The guy who only lost by 200 votes is the person who came up with these swell ideas…ideas that will look great on campaign literature.

    I’m wondering if the person who came up w/ these swell ideas would have been some other candidate who only missed winning by 20o votes if Bowers had been creamed in the special election. Give the task of coming up w/ these swell ideas to the guy who has a good chance of taking the seat from Dems. It’s perfect.

    Hasn’t Dave already given the theme for the literature piece above: Bowers is the fella who came up w/ the swell ideas and Short signed unto them, and it’s the Dems who are keeping you voter from having open govt.

    And it could all just be bullshit. Great ideas peddled only to run on but not to enact if the Repubs were in power.

    I know this for a FACT: the Repubs had a chance to dump Adams. They had an alternative to him. But Copeland then because the minority leader and FIRST THING he said he supported Adams as Pro Tem.

    And we don’t have open government. We have a GOP campaign strategy instead.

  44. Andy says:

    And my party CONTINUES to try and make the state better, and clean up the place a little bit while they’re at it.
    tell that to mobile home owners including the one in the Republican 34th district who will be evicted in November

  45. Dana Garrett says:

    “The cost? $1.4 trillion.”

    That’s a bargain compared to the GOP war in Iraq.

  46. Dana Garrett says:

    “And my party CONTINUES to try and make the state better, and clean up the place a little bit while they’re at it.”

    Great ideas.

    Are they penance for lacking the integrity to haul Nancy Wagner before the Ethics Committee?

  47. Sagacious Steve says:

    The open government bills introduced in the House have no chance of passing both chambers, and Burris and his Rethug enablers know it. Neither do the so-called insurance reforms and so-called ethics package hurriedly announced by the House R’s yesterday.

    When legislation like this is introduced well into the second year of a 2-year General Assembly session, its only purpose is to adorn campaign lit and make it look like the Rethugs are trying to do something.

    They have controlled the House of Representatives continuously since 1984. Yet in what possibly could be the waning days of their 24-year run, they ‘courageously’ introduce 3 sweeping reform packages. Guess the preceding 2 decades didn’t afford them enough time…

  48. PI says:

    Dana is exactly correct in saying: I know this for a FACT: the Repubs had a chance to dump Adams. They had an alternative to him. But Copeland then because the minority leader and FIRST THING he said he supported Adams as Pro Tem.

    Truth is, they had 10 alternatives but they hastily jumped into bed with Thurman before anything else had a chance to play out. The whole deal was signed, sealed, and delivered. Copeland’s actions are reprehensible…and always politically motivated. He continues to be a senator with little or nothing in the accomplishment column of his legislative resume.

  49. FSP says:

    As far as the Pro Tem thing goes, they were never presented with an alternative who had the votes on the other side to win. That’s the real FACT.

    Have fun in your partisan fantasy world while we pass good legislation through the House only to see it die at the hands of the Democrats in the Senate.

  50. jason330 says:

    Dave –

    If Charlie is an open government advocate he’ll respond positively to the letter I just sent him.

  51. FSP says:

    I’m sure he would respond if it wasn’t a partisan stunt coming from someone who’s never had a good word to say about him.

  52. jason330 says:

    I said he was a snappy dresser once in 2005.

    IN YOUR FACE!

  53. jason330 says:

    Anyway,

    I get from your comments that you think having ac hoc energy committee meetings, called on short notice, in order to work out public policy behind closed doors with input from a select cadre of special interests advances the cause of open government.

    Do I have that right? Because in defending Copeland that is exactly what you are defending.

  54. disbelief says:

    A Libertarian told me the other day Charlie ate poop sandwiches, and I replied, “He doesn’t like bread.”

  55. Sagacious Steve says:

    FSP wrote:
    “Have fun in your partisan fantasy world while we pass good legislation through the House only to see it die at the hands of the Democrats in the Senate.”

    Any questions, class, about exactly what the Rethugs HOPE will happen? That is THEIR partisan fantasy world and, credit where credit’s due, the partisan aparatchik masquerading as a ‘good government crusader’ just admitted it.

    They’re trying to run against the small group of dinosaurs in the Senate and to paint all D’s with that brush. Good politics, bad public policy.

    It was the Rethugs who wouldn’t permit Matt Denn’s insurance pool legislation to come to a vote in the House. It was the Rethugs who wouldn’t permit the real comprehensive recycling bill to come to a vote in the House. It’s the Rethugs who are carrying Terry Strine’s water at the expense of thousands of Delaware mobile home park residents.

    And it’s the Rethugs who, when confronted with the twin Lofink and Wagner scandals, suddenly are in the forefront of ‘sweeping ethics reform’.

    Other than perhaps at the Vicmead Hunt Club, that tired ol’ dog ain’t huntin’ anymore.

  56. jason330 says:

    Verily Sagacious – that is the smoking gun sentence right there.

  57. Rebecca says:

    Game, Set, Match.

    You lose Dave!

  58. FSP says:

    Only in a partisan fantasy world is the longstanding success of Democrats in killing bills suddenly a Republican problem.

    And Steve: every one of those bills had an open hearing and a vote, and in the case of the man. home bills, several very public hearings. I’ll take the Republican rules over the Democrat rules any day.

    “paint all D’s with that brush”

    You mean like all the D’s minus Peterson who voted to maintain the Senate rules, when only ONE of them could have changed the rules forever with just a wee bit of courage?

    Lose, Rebecca? Only in the partisan fairy tale that is Delaware Fiberal do people not see that I have the upper hand across the board here. Later.

  59. PI says:

    Dave, you talk like you’re actually a member of the House….
    “Have fun in your partisan fantasy world while we pass good legislation through the House …..” Didn’t anyone tell you had to actually be a candidate and run for office and win? Or are you just the puppet master?

  60. FSP says:

    We, meaning Republicans. Sorry. I’ll try to use smaller words next time to help you understand easier.

  61. Dana Garrett says:

    “As far as the Pro Tem thing goes, they were never presented with an alternative who had the votes on the other side to win. ”

    Horseshit. Total horsehit. The plan was once the Repubs were on board, other Dems in the Senate would sign on.

    But no word came back until AFTER Copeland became minority leader and wrapped his arms around Adams.

    Guess the reason why the Repubs never acted on the offer.

    Here was the lame excuse: the alternative Pro Tem was too liberal.

    I swear to God that was what was told me. As if that made any difference whatsoever to the office of pro tem.

    I know now the real reason: the alternative pro tem WOULD HAVE DELIVERED on open government legislation. The Repubs want to run on it, not enact it.

  62. Sagacious Steve says:

    Not ONE of the bills Burris references ever were brought before the House for a vote. There are ways to kill bills and other ways to kill bills. If a bill is voted out of committee, and a majority of the Rethug House caucus doesn’t support putting it on an agenda, it doesn’t get put on an agenda. That is how the insurance pool legislation, the comprehensive recycling legislation, and the manufactured homes legislation were kept from votes in the full House. They weren’t killed by a rogue Senator in a desk drawer, they were killed by a majority of the Rethug caucus.

    I know Dave’s dancing as fast as he can, but both ways of killing bills with overwhelming support are equally repugnant.

  63. Dana Garrett says:

    “Dave, you talk like you’re actually a member of the House….”

    He virtually is. Word has it that he actually writes some of their legislation.

    He passed out the prevailing wage amendments to the Repubs and assigned who sponsored which amendment. (that was what was told to me by a real legislator.)

  64. Sagacious Steve says:

    Oops, I stand corrected on the insurance pool legislation. That was killed in committee after Wayne Smith (Jim Bowers’ Siamese twin), in one of his first acts as a corporate lobbyist, went behind the closed doors of the Rethug caucus and convinced them to kill the bill.

    Which reminds me, when are the ‘good-government’ Rethugs gonna allow a vote on Kowalko’s ban on the revolving door between the Legislature and lobbying?

  65. FSP says:

    They had hearings and votes in committee Steve.

    Plus, no one here has congratulated Valihura, the park owners and the home owners on their landmark compromise on HB 122. That bill will be voted on soon I imagine.

    The recycling bill was scrapped for compromise legislation, too.

    And Matt Denn’s pooling bill, which is garbage and won’t insure any new people, has four amendments attached and no one knows if it has the votes to pass.

    Still, they all had hearings and committee votes. Much better than in the Senate.

    “He virtually is.”

    You’re out of your mind. I’m barely even welcome in the House offices right now.

  66. PI says:

    So, that does make him the puppet master, then. Thought so.

  67. FSP says:

    “Which reminds me, when are the ‘good-government’ Rethugs gonna allow a vote on Kowalko’s ban on the revolving door between the Legislature and lobbying?”

    Rep. Hudson has a bill which includes those provisions, but is much stronger and includes cabinet officials, too.

  68. FSP says:

    And Steve, the Bowers-Smith thing worked once. It won’t work again. So drop it.

    Also, don’t assume that the lobbyist waiting period bills aren’t being held up at the request of a Democrat.

  69. Sagacious Steve says:

    Matt Denn’s pooling bill is ‘garbage’ only to the insurance and health care lobbyists. It enables Delaware small businesses to take advantage of the State’s buying power to obtain affordable insurance for their employees and families.

    That is why it passed virtually unanimously in a bipartisan manner in the Senate.

    But one former legislator, who needed to demonstrate to his new employers that he still had clout, was able to overturn the will of the people. And his Republican mouthpiece is reduced to calling the legislation ‘garbage’, which, granted, is an improvement over his usual incisive commentary.

    Maybe that explains why so many small business owners and their employees are deserting the R’s this year…because the R’s have deserted them.

  70. Sagacious Steve says:

    As to Smith-Bowers, they’re still next-door neighbors. Bowers was and is the handpicked successor to a legislator who sold his office for a cushy lobbying gig and, in his first act, killed legislation that would’ve provided affordable insurance to small businesses. But, in deference to his hapless shill, I’ll respect his wishes and not point out the obvious any more.

    Oh, and FSP, please, if you’re gonna write BS like “Also, don’t assume that the lobbyist waiting period bills aren’t being held up at the request of a Democrat”, then name names. Hard to believe that a bunch of ethical reformers like the House Rethugs would reluctantly hold up this legislation at the request of a Democrat, but I certainly don’t have anywheres near the inside political information that the Freeper does.

  71. When legislation like this is introduced well into the second year of a 2-year General Assembly session, its only purpose is to adorn campaign lit and make it look like the Rethugs are trying to do something.
    *
    puhlease!

    Sorry SS, but, oy, what a load. Late into the 2nd session? WTF?

    These assemblypersons met for a few short days in January and are now back just a few days into the end of the 2-year session. To keep to your POV would make a joke of anything anyone wanted to put forward in the few months that they have to do their work.

    Agreed: the whole scenario is set up so that very little ‘independent’ legislation is given the chance to be considered (not only the desk drawer tactic).
    ~*~

    I agree that the GOP is ‘playing to win’ here, but I’d guess Dana’s depiction reflects more of his current animosity with Burris than anything else. To pen that the GOP deliberately voted Adams Pro Tem in order to suppliment a corrupt plot: DE GOP GA shall accomplish nothing in office so to evenutally demoralize and unseat DEMs is Garrett The Goon speaking.

    The following should be rejected and denounced by all good Delawareans:

    “Wow. Maybe none of this is about passing these bills. It’s about staging scenarios where they know Adams will kill them so they can use it for their leg races. They are setting this up to maximize failure for purely political purposes. They are not trying to maximize success.

    Perhaps that’s why the Senate GOP never took up the alternative to Adams. They wanted Adams as Pro Tem so they could run on the platform it’s the Dems who are denying you open govt.

  72. He virtually is. Word has it that he actually writes some of their legislation.
    *
    there is nothing wrong at all with citizen participation at this level, especially with so many elected GA with so little skills to do it themselves. Certainly it is typical for lobbyists to write legislation and pass it on. Dave is a partisan activist. I see nothing wrong with his presenting prepared legislation for consideration.

    I am involved in many non-partisan groups who have done the same thing in order to get better legislation.

  73. FSP says:

    Steve — Matt Denn’s bill would have cost $100 million dollars, would NOT have insured any uninsured Delawareans, and would have taken health care decisions AWAY from consumers and put it into the hands of a government board.

    Garbage.

  74. Sagacious Steve says:

    Nancy, the Rethugs know they are facing the end of their control of the House. They know that at least two of their members are involved in scandal, both involving nepotism. They know that they’ve killed popular legislation that would provide coverage to small businesses and their families. They know that the exact same package of ‘good government’ bills have already been introduced in the Senate, but will never be considered there. They know that the News-Journal is working on at least one more story that could be quite embarassing to their caucus.

    Hence, the sudden flurry of seeming activity. Packages like the ones introduced this week never work through the legislature this swiftly, unless they are truly bipartisan and have support from the executive branch (like, for example, an excellent ‘Kids’ Caucus’ package that may be unveiled next week). None of the press events were planned as bipartisan events. They were planned as partisan events. FSP points to ‘bipartisan’ sponsorship. Why, then, were no D’s invited to the events, but a would-be candidate was trotted out to the center ring? I know you’re smart enough to figure it out.

  75. FSP says:

    “None of the press events were planned as bipartisan events.”

    You’re a fool, Steve. Jim Bowers was involved in one press conference with Copeland and Lavelle (which involved BOWERS’ ideas), and Bryon Short was involved in the health care package with Dan Short. So the vast Republican idea factory helped both of them in the same week. How is that not bipartisan?

    Are you telling me that the Dems are sitting around waiting for Republicans to call them up and say, “we have another great idea, why don’t you come up and stand next to me at a presser?” Is that the Democratic way of governing?

  76. Sagacious Steve says:

    Bryon Short showed us at Dan Short’s event uninvited,and the R’s were none too happy, and also attended the rally on the steps at Leg Hall on behalf of true health care reform.

    Speaking of fools, here is the fiscal note for the Insurance Pool bill:

    ASSUMPTIONS:

    1. Effective for Fiscal Year 2008.

    2. The Act creates a statewide health insurance purchasing pool to allow individuals and small businesses to obtain a State subsidized premium from the private market.

    3. The cost estimates developed by the Lewin Group of Falls Church, Va. assume that the State will purchase reinsurance to fulfill its subsidation requirement of covering 90% of any losses to a participating insurer in excess of $30,000 per individual or family during any fiscal year. Further, the legislation’s stated intent is that the therein created Delaware Health Insurance Pool Board shall set a non-statutory maximum dollar amount per claim.

    4. The Act restricts expenditure to the amount appropriated to the pool to be accomplished by restrictions promulgated by the Board.

    5. Eligibility for individual participation will be means tested.

    6. Eligibility for small employer groups is limited to entities with 50 or fewer employees, 30% of which earn $33,000 or less.

    7. The Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Act appropriated $1,000,000 and the proposed FY 2008 Budget Act includes an additional $650,000 for implementation of program.

    8. The Lewin Group report forecasts full year expenditures from the pool of $12,400,000 in reimbursement to private carriers for catastrophic claims of $30,000 or more from a pool with 30,000 insured lives.

    COST:

    FY 2007 -0-

    FY 2008 $1,650,000 (Included in FY 2007 Budget Act & HB 250)

    FY 2009 Dependent upon Appropriation

    So, you, sir, are the fool. Well, $1.6 million is ALMOST $100 million. But keep telling your oft-repeated lies. Maybe someone will believe them

  77. I know you’re smart enough to figure it out.
    *
    …as I said, Steve, I know that they are PLAYING to win. What I am objecting to is the idea that this is too late in the session to introduce legislation.

    I also fully accept the premise that there is a great deal of GOP staging to garner eventual losses at the hands of DEM leadership. What I object to is the idea that this is a tactic that taints all GOPer activity.

  78. Sagacious Steve says:

    Nancy, point well taken.

  79. Dana Garrett says:

    “Plus, no one here has congratulated Valihura, the park owners and the home owners on their landmark compromise on HB 122”

    I’m glad the landlords caved in after the DMHOA threatened to quit the negotiations because of the landlords delaying tactics.

    If Valihura is such a success, what happened to the rent justification bill>

  80. FSP says:

    FY 2009 – “Dependent on Appropriation”

    Are you serious, Steve? You’re seriously going to hang your hat on “dependent on appropriation?”

  81. FSP says:

    “I’m glad the landlords caved in after the DMHOA threatened to quit the negotiations because of the landlords delaying tactics.”

    You can spin it however you like, but they achieved compromise.

    “If Valihura is such a success, what happened to the rent justification bill.”

    Rent control is going nowhere. I can’t imagine there is compromise to be had on that bill.

    I’ll pass your congratulations on to Valihura.

  82. Sagacious Steve says:

    FSP: You claim the bill will cost $100 million. Prove it or STFU. I provided a fiscal note that includes all the considerations entering into it. You’ve provided nothing but unsubstantiated BS. This bill extends the state’s buying power to small businesses so that the small businesses can take advantage of the state’s buying power. The state is not buying the insurance for them, the State is making it affordable. Why the Rethugs would want to deny this opportunity to small business says a lot about how the party has been taken over by the wealthiest of the well-to-do at the expense of the traditional Main Street business base.

  83. Dana Garrett says:

    “I agree that the GOP is ‘playing to win’ here, but I’d guess Dana’s depiction reflects more of his current animosity with Burris than anything else. To pen that the GOP deliberately voted Adams Pro Tem in order to suppliment a corrupt plot: DE GOP GA shall accomplish nothing in office so to evenutally demoralize and unseat DEMs is Garrett The Goon speaking.”

    Nancy, don’t try to talk about my motives when everyone knows that I have unmasked your lies and your attempt to write false smears about Chris Bullock…just like you did about Potter in 2006 when he challenged McDowell and you passed printed lies about Potter.

  84. FSP says:

    Joe Booth had a bill which predated Denn’s bill which simply would have let businesses buy into the state health care plan. NO COST to the state.

    It was declared DOA by the Governor.

    So give me a freakin’ break with your “deny this opportunity to small business” crap.

    Please. The “traditional Main Street business base,” while appreciative of government handouts like Denn’s bill, DO NOT want the same state that runs the DPC and the prison system making their health care decisions for them.

  85. Dana Garrett says:

    “Rent control is going nowhere.”

    Inventing fictions? There was no rent control bill.

  86. Dana Garrett says:

    “Dave is a partisan activist. I see nothing wrong with his presenting prepared legislation for consideration.”

    Really? When he is the official lobbyist for a non-partisan organization?

  87. FSP says:

    Any rent increase over inflation could be taken to COURT. That’s rent CONTROL.

    CONTROLLING the price of rent through enforcement by the COURTS is rent CONTROL.

  88. FSP says:

    “Really? When he is the official lobbyist for a non-partisan organization?”

    There is no such thing as a partisan lobbyist. The prevailing wage amendments were created because the Delaware Taxpayer Coalition is opposed to the prevailing wage. By the vote you can see that the only people opposed to prevailing wage in the House were Republicans, so that’s where the amendments went.

    The Democratic state chairman and Democratic national committeeman are both paid lobbyists for non-partisan organizations. I see you’re not accusing them of partisanship.

    You call for an ethics investigation on Nancy Wagner, but you fail to call for one on Keeley and Viola for voting for a bill written by and lobbied for by their employer.

    If Wagner and Cathcart voted for a bill written to save DSU money, you’d scream it from the rooftops. But Keeley & Viola’s actions are sacred because they help your beloved trade unions.

    You’ve been exposed many times over at this point.

  89. Dana Garrett says:

    “Any rent increase over inflation could be taken to COURT. That’s rent CONTROL.

    CONTROLLING the price of rent through enforcement by the COURTS is rent CONTROL.”

    Rent control means the govt or some govt appointed agency sets the rent.

    Rent justification means the landlords set the rent at any price they want. As long as it can be justified by the rate of inflation and their for improvements, they will have no problem.

  90. FSP says:

    “Rent control means the govt or some govt appointed agency sets the rent.”

    Yes, and this government has set that rate at inflation and is using the courts to enforce it.

    Rent. Control.

  91. FSP says:

    Sorry. This BILL has set the rate….

  92. Dana Garrett says:

    “There is no such thing as a partisan lobbyist. The prevailing wage amendments were created because the Delaware Taxpayer Coalition is opposed to the prevailing wage.”

    The DTC certasinly has the right to oppose prevailing wage laws and for their lobbiest to pass out amendments against them. I have no prtoblem w/. that.

    But I don’t think a lobbyist for a non-partisan organization says IMMEDIATELY after his amendments fails to pass to two people (both Democrats): “You have just lost two seats. Short’s and Walls’.”

    Two people told me separately you said that to them, Dave.

    Why Walls & Short? Because they won by slim margins last time, perhaps?

    Is that why the amendments were offered? Knowing they would fail, they would make good GOP campaign lit hit pieces against Walls & Short in 2008?

  93. PI says:

    Back to Denn’s insurance bill for a minute…Gotta say Dave has a point or two on this one. As a small business owner myself, I would not benefit from his bill because my business makes a little too much for his threshold. Buying into the state pool could be open to all small business people…regardless of receipts. Health care is important to me so I find ways to pay for it but I gotta tell you, when the economy goes south and business falls off, no one lowers my insurance rates. It’s not always easy. Denn’s bill wasn’t going to make it any easier. One year I might qualify, but the next year, I may not qualify…what then?

  94. FSP says:

    “Two people told me separately you said that to them, Dave.”

    I did say that, because both of them voted with their party and contrary to the interests of their districts. And yes, I imagine their voters will be informed of it.

    “Is that why the amendments were offered?”

    No. They were offered to pass and help the state, and they all got a significant amount of votes. In fact, had the Department of Labor employees rightfully abstained, we would have stopped a bad bill from becoming law. Still waiting for you to call for ethics hearings on those two.

    By the way, did your buddies tell you that they threatened Walls with a primary if he didn’t go along? I bet they didn’t.

  95. Dana Garrett says:

    “I did say that, because both of them voted with their party and contrary to the interests of their districts. And yes, I imagine their voters will be informed of it.”

    Bingo.

    And your saying that was a proper role for you as the lobbyist for the non-partisan DTC? Was it, Dave?

  96. FSP says:

    They voted against my legislation, and I want to replace them with people who will. It’s called being an advocate for my cause, which in that case was the abolition of the prevailing wage.

    So yes, very proper. By the way, the group I said it to consisted of two Democratic party officials, who were vigorously lobbying for the bill and pressuring Democratic legislators to vote for it.

    What’s your point?

  97. Dana Garrett says:

    “What’s your point?”

    My point is that you didn’t say it about any repubs who voted for prevailing wage bill and/or against your amendments?

    And you didn’t say it about a host of other Dems who voted for the PW bill and/or against your amendments, ones whose last races weren’t nearly as close as Short’s and Walls’.

    Why all that?

  98. Dana, everything you have written about me is a lie. Everyone is on to you.

  99. FSP says:

    Because the Dems who voted for the bill and the Repubs who voted for it are all in solid D or labor districts. Short and Walls are in R or R-leaning districts, and they voted against every amendment, and voted for the bill. The votes were out of character with their districts. They’re vulnerable. The other Dems are not as vulnerable.

  100. RSmitty says:

    Careful Nancy. I am sure you will be labelled as a Dave-minion soon, too. 🙂

  101. Dana Garrett says:

    “Because the Dems who voted for the bill and the Repubs who voted for it are all in solid D or labor districts. Short and Walls are in R or R-leaning districts, and they voted against every amendment, and voted for the bill. The votes were out of character with their districts. They’re vulnerable. The other Dems are not as vulnerable.”

    And that is a proper role for a lobbyist for a non-partisan organization. I see.

  102. Al Mascitti says:

    Sorry, Dave, but last decade’s Humpty Dumpty strategy — “words mean exactly what I say they mean” — no longer works. “Rent control” is understood around the country to mean exactly that — no rent increase, not for inflation, not for anything. Just because “rent justification” won’t get the public’s panties in a knot as effectively does not give you or your landlord-loving cohorts the right to chance the term’s definition. It’s rent JUSTIFICATION. So if you’re going to argue against it, do it on the merits.

    With that established, now let’s talk about voting on that bill. Because your party believes so strongly in letting the full chamber vote a bill up or down, right?

  103. Al Mascitti says:

    Also, Dave, B. Short’s district is “Republican-leaning” only to the extent that Wayne Smith used to win it. It’s a D district now, and with the frog-stomping every low-name-recognition Republican is going to get this November, it’s going to stay that way.

  104. FSP says:

    “B. Short’s district is “Republican-leaning” only to the extent that Wayne Smith used to win it.”

    Well, let’s look at the evidence, Al.

    2006:
    Ferris Wharton won the 7th, handily.
    Tom Wagner won the 7th, in a year he lost NCC.
    Wayne Smith won the 7th.
    Cathy Cloutier won the 7th.

    Plus, Short only won by about 200 votes, and more R’s voted in the special than D’s.

    So, no, Al, you’re wrong.

  105. FSP says:

    And the “state controlling the price of land through enforcement by the courts” bill was stricken, so it can’t be voted on until it is re-introduced.

  106. FSP says:

    from wikipedia’s rent control page:

    “Although the political debate over rent control is far-reaching, as described below, the purposes and provisions of such laws are intended to be limited in scope. They define which rental units are affected, and may have only larger or older rental complexes covered by the law. The frequency and degree of rent increases are limited, usually to the rate of inflation defined by the Consumer Price Index or to a fraction thereof. (San Francisco, for example, allows annual rent increases of 60% of the CPI, up to a maximum 7%.[2])”

    There ya go, Mr. Webster. Time to update your personal dictionary.

  107. Al Mascitti says:

    OK, I’ll concede the rent control point — it’s widely understood to include increases pegged to inflation.

    On the other hand, that’s not what the Delaware bill did — or, rather, that’s not all it did. It also allowed increases based on improvements to the premises. If there are any “rent control” systems around the country that allow this, I’m unaware of them. Indeed, that’s one of the many problems with rent-controlled apartments — there’s no incentive other than the bare minimum of the building code to encourage landlords to improve their property.

    You should at least acknowledge that this was an attempt by the tenants to handle the myriad problems with government inserting itself into the real estate market.

    You also might better use your effort on rent control by forgetting about the language used and highlighting the widespread agreement among economists over what a terrible idea it is.

  108. Al Mascitti says:

    On the Republican-leaningness of the 7th District, I suppose the vote for Wharton does mean something, though I dismiss the others as votes for incumbents. Voters choose names they recognize.

    On the other hand, they recognized the Biden name but not Wharton, so that’s a point for your contention. But I’ll stick with my prediction that in a Short-Bowers race, where most voters will recognize neither name, the D will win simply because of the big letter next to his name. With nobody running for governor, this is shaping up as a dreadful year for down-ballot Republicans.

  109. jason330 says:

    Al,

    Have you ever noticed that you and I are the only people who ever concede a point?

    Just an observation.

  110. FSP says:

    “You also might better use your effort on rent control by forgetting about the language used and highlighting the widespread agreement among economists over what a terrible idea it is.”

    In this state at this time, I don’t think people care that it’s terrible economics. Not when the demagogues are having such an easy time of it.

  111. FSP says:

    “But I’ll stick with my prediction that in a Short-Bowers race, where most voters will recognize neither name, the D will win simply because of the big letter next to his name. With nobody running for governor, this is shaping up as a dreadful year for down-ballot Republicans.”

    I concede that this is a legitimate argument.

  112. jason330 says:

    You are right about the Gov race. I don’t think people have clued into what a giant screw up Castle and Strine have pulled off by letting this situation develop.

  113. Al Mascitti says:

    Dave, you might start by distributing Paul Krugman’s column against rent control. Most liberals recognize the name and like his politics; they might be surprised to find he agrees with the conservatives (and, indeed, with the vast majority of economists, on the order of 90%) on the subject of rent, um, well, control.

  114. Al Mascitti says:

    Jason: In my case, I concede points because sometimes I’m ….well, there’s no other word for it… wrong.

  115. FSP says:

    Al, again, you’re talking about thinking liberals who would recognize Krugman and his argument. Those are not the people I’m talking about.

    The people I’m talking about are the demagogues who cry about single mothers and fixed-income retirees being trampled on by greedy robber-baron park owners. The people who throw that out don’t care about Krugman’s legitimate argument.

  116. Sagacious Steve says:

    Back to the 7th District and Brandywine Hundred. While clearly we’ll have to wait until Election Day to see how things play out, the trend is not good for Republicans. To wit, the District has trended more Democratic than the registration for some time now. With a few exceptions, D’s statewide and countywide have outperformed the registration figures. In 2004, the R registration edge was just under 1000. However, John Kerry defeated George Bush in the 7th by almost 1000 votes. In 2007, when B. Short won, the R registration edge was roughly 600, and, as Dave pointed out, more R’s than D’s voted. Yet Short won by a 53%-47% margin. The current R registration edge is now less than 400, and R’s have increasingly been voting for D’s. It may not be insurmountable, but a bipartisan type like Short fits the district well, kinda like Dave Sokola fits his R-leaning Senate District.

    R’s could well find themselves in jeopardy in the 10th and 11th RDs as well. The shift in voter registration is pretty stark. The 10th (Valihura) flipped from an R to D registration edge right around the 2006 election, and there is now a 600 D registration edge in the District.

    The 11th (Lavelle) has dropped to an R edge of around 75. It is likely that it will flip in the next 2 or 3 months.

    If D’s are able to find credible candidates in those districts, Valihura and Lavelle could well be in trouble, especially if it turns out to be a wave election.

  117. Al Mascitti says:

    Steve: Thanks for the numbers. With apologies of both the esteemed legislators, I think Lavelle is safer than Valihura (and I’m not just stroking a source; he usually calls my show when he disagrees with me, and I had one of my all-time donnybrooks with him), but maybe I’m just biased in favor of politicians who speak forcefully. Bob’s strength is in negotiation and consensus-building, which is harder to sell to the electorate. (It also played a role in his drawing the short straw on the trailer park issue).

    In any case, neither has been enough of a polarizing force to outweigh the benefits of incumbency, IMHO. Unless, as you note, a D wave of scouring proportions roars through.

  118. Al Mascitti says:

    Dave, I interpret it differently: that some people care about the nursing mothers and little old people so much that their suffering outweighs the outcome of any rational analysis. To win the argument, you first have to convince them to consider the evidence. The best way to do that is to present it. Once each side understands what the other wants, we can try to come up with solutions both sides can live with. I’m pretty sure that’s how the first bill got done.

  119. Sagacious Steve says:

    Al, I agree that Valihura may be more vulnerable than Lavelle, but not for the same reasons.

    Valihura sometimes can’t resist proving that he’s the smartest person in the room, and sometimes it’s to his detriment. For example, I think he was right on the group home issue, but you don’t have to say it in a way that insults his Dartmouth Woods constituents ( swing-Republican ED, BTW) without suffering a political price. He is more of a negotiator/middle ground-type than Lavelle in Dover, but he comes across as full of himself in the District. If Democratic voters in the Naamans Road/Claymont ED’s come out in proportionate numbers, he could well lose.

    Lavelle could as well, but for a little different reason. In a district trending more Democratic, Lavelle’s positions are often more partisan than the District. Someone who can wrap the current negatives of the Republican brand around him can win. It’s less likely, but, having been through two wave elections, I can tell you that the traditional benchmarks don’t apply.

    An awful lot of mediocre Democratic candidates got elected post-Watergate. With an imploding economy already adding to a disastrous Presidency, and with no credible candidate for Governor, this could be the year of the perfect storm even for some accomplished and quality Republican incumbents.

  120. FSP says:

    I, for one, hope the Dems waste their time on Lavelle and Valihura.

    And there will be no wave this year. The wave was 2006, when people were voting D to send a message to Bush. No more Bush, no more wave.

    The Governor thing is a much bigger problem than any national wave. Especially the idea of the loser of the D primary running around and campaigning for down-ballot candidates for two months.

    That said, the historical evidence shows it’s awful tough to unseat a legislative incumbent in a Presidential year.

  121. jason330 says:

    No more Bush, no more wave. – Dave Burris

    I’m going write that down and keep it close in the event I ever need to cheer myself up over the next few months.