Comment Rescue: John Kowalko on Charlie Copeland’s false memory

Filed in National by on August 8, 2008

John Kowalko:

As one who personally attended scores of meetings, hearings and political posturing exercises on the matter, I have said before and I reiterate this point. Charlie Copeland did not support the Off-Shore wind project and in fact, aggressively worked behind the scenes as well as out in the open (occasionally), against it. This is a matter of record and Tom Noyes and Matt Denn are dead on correct.

About the Author ()

Comments (18)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Outside the Perimeter: Copeland’s Bad Week « kavips | August 14, 2008
  2. May Wonders Never Cease… « kavips | October 6, 2008
  1. so Dave is either wrong or a liar.


  2. this would be one of those times that the News Journal could get it right. We have an actual politician setting the record straight.

    Not some party hack that disappeared for a few months and then magically reappeared on the blogosphere to act weasely.

    So, I’d like to see FSP challenge Mr. Kowalko on his words.

    Oh, but I forgot they had a meeting in a restaurant so that makes it not secret.

    Burris you are third rate at best.

  3. oh, and one last thing….

    Hey Joanne Christian what was it you were saying about blogs?

    I’m pretty sure if we can push this out, we won’t be an echo chamber. We will be more like the Cannon that destroy’s Mr. Dupont Copelands chances of brandishing his type of johnny come lately politics.

  4. Polenta says:

    “johnny come lately”

    I figure if you post a few more times, you’ll come too?

    Here’s a hanky for you…..

    There WILL NEVER be any windmills built by Bluewater Wind or Babcock and Brown.

    The project itself may be picked up by some other company, but BWW/B&B were scam artists extraordinaire.

    They needed a letter of agreement to stay one step ahead of the auditors in Australia, who have accused B&B of inflating their assets.

    B&B will be bankrupt or broken up in the next year or two. That’s why there was a 2-year no penalty withdrawal.

    This was an election feint.

    You swallowed it balls deep.

    Don’t forget to burp.

  5. source of your comments please?

  6. Polenta says:


  7. Jason330 says:

    finding evidence of Copeland being against the Blue Water Wind deal is like trying to find hay in a haystack.

  8. Merkin says:

    Don’t you Demos like to form a committee first? New branch of government? I mean it’s so simple to find hay, it might be complicated!

  9. FSP says:

    You’re all talking about a wind farm deal that did not happen. It was cast aside in favor of a better deal. The wind farm deal that did happen was 100% supported by Sen. Copeland.

    Now, if you want to talk about John Kowalko vehemently opposing the good and open government transparency package, we can talk about the public record on that matter all the live-long day.

  10. ruh roh, changing the subject so typical.

    We can take that as a win when that happens. Oh look over there (as dave runs away)

  11. so copeland didn’t support the bad idea. Just the good one. Judgement and leadership. Sweet!

  12. Merkin says:

    That’s the best ya got, DV?

  13. FSP says:

    DV, you can make a T-shirt:

    I’m not hot, but I supported the idea that got rejected in favor of the better idea!

  14. “I’m not hot, but I supported the idea that got rejected in favor of the better idea!”

    Dave Burris, 8/9/08

    I like it!

  15. Joanne Christian says:

    DBB-but remember you are now Hef–echo chamber did not apply to BWW as agreed that Liberal Nite. However…to come from such a concrete position of “if you’re not with us you’re against us”, is pretty scary posturing in legislation. Instead of the reactionary “push this good news vote through”, I for one appreciate the financial, logistical, environmental,and demographic scrutiny the project went under, and the hybrid of the final decision. Isn’t that what our “true” legislators are to do? Look out for all those wrinkles on behalf of the taxpayers and citizenry of the State? Do you think it was the easy way to go to be the “wet blanket”, on a project that was unequivocally the darling of your legislative contemporaries…and a popular buzz for the public? Did we not just come off a failed “bridge plan”, in that very same county..that no matter whose watch that was, the legislature eats crow, and the taxpayer eats the bill? Yes, love the memory–but with some perspective as a side dish would be appreciated. So, in summary, yes BWW went through w/ modifications–initially, and responsibly, challenged by Copeland to arrive at a place he could support and vote favorably. Your indictment of anything prior to that vote goes towards petty–and undermines the doubting,questioning, investigative, analytical committee work , I for one, expect of a legislative body preparing themselves to commit the citizenry of Delaware to something new, innovative in these parts, alternative, foreign to many, and hugely EXPENSIVE. What we lost a few months of time? No foul..or whatever the baseball mantra is. Now back to your harem…the vote stands….the controversy being RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATING…and I like that in Dover.

  16. Merkin says:

    It was only thanks to McDowell, Copeland and others who put the deal under real scrutiny. They bought us time, saved us money, and ultimately kept Delaware from falling victim to the BWW scam.

    Liberal treehumpers were ready to give up the prize like a 16-year-old on prom night…..a tub of crisco, three holes, two hands, no waiting!