The funny thing was when Loudell said earlier in the broadcast that Dave would be interviewed, I thought Dave would say there is no certain evidence that McCain messed around w/ the lobbyist, which is true (although I personally believe it). But I did think that Dave would have the integrity to come out w/ a clear condemnation of McCain being hypocritical & deceptive about the abiding influence of lobbyists on him. I recorded it w/ the full intention of posting it on DW and to pat Dave on the back for showing real integrity.
But what did he do? Loudell asks him about McCain, a member of the commerce committee, flying around on corporate jets and what is the main thrust of what Dave says? “Everyone does it.”
(Really? Everyone? Proof?)
I was flabbergasted.
I believe the interview occurred on Thursday; I’ve held onto to it until last night. But after the following days of blog-comment interaction w/ Dave and seeing the crap, pure crap, he’s been spewing and his unwillingness to apologize for his libel against me by calling me a socialist, I realized that I’ve lost my friend. The person now going by the name “Dave Burris” is someone I don’t recognize.
Dave’s comment about everyone doing it was very disconcerting.
Dana, there was another line in that interview and maybe you know it, but Dave said something that the Republicans were worried about McCain’s ant-lobbyist actions.
I don’t see how that statement could be considered positive for the Republicans.
The only time I hear GOPers condemn lobbyists is when the advocate for working people, the poor and senior citizens.
But corporate lobbyists–well, their gifts, retreats for politicos to the Caribbean, free flights on jets, their PACs, etc–all that has something to do w/ “free speech.”
Yeah, when Democrats do it, it’s a huge international incident demanding immediate corrective action, But, when Republicans do it, it’s just “everybody does it” to Dave.
This morning’s email pointed me to This remarkable article about how the right came to start defending McCain on this business from Politico.com.
Now, I do consider Politico to be a largely dodgy enterprise, but what interested me is a traditional real media outlet (sorta) discussing IOKIYAR as a real organizing principle of the current crop of repubs in charge. The need for a real enemy is more important than the need for some ideological principle. And they are right. Insert any Democratic politician’s name into the original Times story, and the right would be howling in unison about the two-facedness, the corruption, etcetcetc which would be picked up by the traditional media as fact of some kind. The fact that everybody (mostly) has dodgy ties to lobbyists would never be a factor, much less an excuse for this hypothetically singular Democrat.
Now, most of us who are interested in better government have lots of concerns about lobbyists and how they get privileges and priorities with legislators that greatly surpass any considerations provided to those of us who vote. “They all do it” may be (mostly) true, but it certainly does not move the ball down the field of better government.
The original NYT article on this was a real mess — lots of anonymous sources, mixing up the adultery stuff with the lobbying stuff — but in many ways this recalls the Judy Miller writing in the runup to the Iraq war. And almost all of that writing is — if not debunked — certainly quite questionable.
BUT, since the NYT was actually cheerleading for something the repubs wanted, they were delighted to use all of this as it came, even from their hated Newspaper of Record.
Thanks for that link Cassandra. Good article, but it neglects that fact that the left joined the fight very very late.
This remains a country at political war, with both sides more distrustful and disdainful of each other than ever before. They not only question the other side’s policies, but its integrity and motives. This is especially true at the grass roots. Everyone from MoveOn.org to the Republican National Committee reacts to every political happening…(snip)
This episode exposes, more clearly than ever, the business model for big-time conservative activism: Its lifeblood is this us-against-them mentality. It needs an enemy, be it The New York Times, or Obama, or secularism or illegal immigrants.
Having been that bogey man enemy for years – and being in a party that did not get that they were viewed as “the enemy” I can tell you that the spirit of life or death combat is at the heart of this blog’s mission.
We simply will not lay on the ground waiting for the Dave Burris’s of the world to get tired of kicking us in the head, lying about how tax cuts work, and smearing our candidates. We will not go back to the 1990’s.
Who said anything about lobbying. Oh thats right. Your buddies here in Democrat happy land. It sucks when anyone peddles their influence so how about you talk to your Democrat congress about all the lobbyists getting rich from them right now. You are in power now. Wheres all that change eh before you demand more power.
mccain is shit for doing it. they should all be taken to task starting with the ones doing it right now. that is why you dont want democrats mentioned.
i made it fine. but i can see how you would say that pointing out how you give democrats a free pass is mentioning democrats. we know where youre coming from bro. glad you agree with the rest though. now get your happy ass to work exposing your own partys influence peddling. okay then.
Has anyone noticed that at 3:26 of that podcast either Steve or Dana posted, Dave’s ACTUAL QUOTE is this: “I think that everyone does it isn’t a real excuse.”
It must be Dave’s fault that Dana or Steve didn’t hear it correctly. Dana’s jihad, I guess.
The stuff about the excuse was the throw away line. The emphasis was on everyone does it. In fact, in the same segment he says about politicos riding on corporate jets “It’s part of the scene…,” as if it’s no big deal.
I believe it’s clear from listening to the audio that Dave was basically dismissing it.
Beyond that, what is the factual basis for Dave to say that “Everyone does it”: rides on corporate jets w/ lobbyists? He just made that up from whole cloth. He has no proof of that. None.
Why did he tell that whopper? To cover McCain’s butt.
Dave’s ACTUAL QUOTE is this: “I think that everyone does it isn’t a real excuse.” I heard this too (just listened to the clip on Dana’s site).
But isn’t there ANY dissonance about an admission that everyone does it, but we’d rather that they didn’t; while having on about what a fighter against the moneyed interests the guy is? I fail to see any principle behind grand pronouncements about the perniciousness of lobbyist and other special interest funds and THEN getting on some corporation’s private jet.
I think that Dave’s entire quote should have been presented. It does rather seem as if Dana has turned to the dark side as far as partisan shill now that he is more or less relying on the DEM-controlled unions for a living. If Dave hadn’t asked if Bullock or Korn was paying him, I would have. It is a reasonable assumption since Dana is so strident about it all.
The DEMs are just about as bad as far as K Street. Look at Carper taking Abramoff cash.
And when the DEMs took DC in 2006, Carper had a press release that his chief of staff was heading FOR K STREET, and how great it was that the opportunities were opening up for DEMs there (yeah, Delay did tie that shit up just for GOPers at one point), it was just the way Carper was so excited for the chance to send his friend in there to score for the special interests that rubbed me the wrong way.
The K Street work is not helpful to the good of Delaware. I would like our Senator to take a Delaware first position and put our interests as a state before everybody else, expecially K Street. It is necessary to work with K Street, but not necessary to do all their bidding if it goes against the interests of the state- I hope Tom keeps us first.
“I think that Dave’s entire quote should have been presented.”
Not that I should give one rip about your views since they usually lack the sober thinking required for anything like an objective analysis, but I gave the audio of the ENTIRE interview. People can hear for themselves everything that Dave said. How’s that for providing the entire quote, jerk?
Besides, you are not being objective at all because you are supporter of Karen Hartley Nagel and have already engaged in a vicious lie and smear about the Bullock campaign when you claimed on your blog that Bullock is using the PAL Center phone number as his campaign phone number.
That was a deliberate lie. But let’s face the facts: If Bullock could put you on the board of some organization, you’d probably change your mind about him in an instant and think he walks on water.
One more thing, liar:
“It does rather seem as if Dana has turned to the dark side as far as partisan shill now that now that he is more or less relying on the DEM-controlled unions for a living”
Can you prove that I am now making money from unions or have ever made as much as one thin dime from a union?
If you got proof that I’m lying when I say I’m unemployed, then prove it. Publish it under your REAL NAME. If you weren’t simply an anonymous sleaze monger, you would do so.
But the reason you don’t is because you want to insinuate libels.
so your not providing for your family. why dont you get your ugly butt off the computer and get a job, then, instead of talking about everybody elses problems why don’t you handle your responsabilities?
“so your not providing for your family. why dont you get your ugly butt off the computer and get a job, then, instead of talking about everybody elses problems why don’t you handle your responsabilities?”
Oh, you are the guy whose angry because I told him last night that I wouldn’t save his butt from a pending lawsuit.
Your mistake, pal, is that you made a similar statement like the one above before, using language which is nearly exactly the same but published under your real name. I saved an image of it.
“so your not providing for your family. why dont you get your ugly butt off the computer and get a job, then, instead of talking about everybody elses problems why don’t you handle your responsabilities?”
Oh, you are the guy whose angry because I told him last night I wouldn’t save his butt from a pending lawsuit.
Your mistake, pal, is that you made a similar statement like the one above before, using language which is nearly exactly the same but published under your real name. I saved an image of it.
If you really want to play this came, I’ll post them both and let people draw the obvious comparison.
You’d better back off. I’m no longer in a forgiving mood w/ you swine.
No Dana I didn’t run for the hills, Ass. I have an active social, civic and political life. I didn’t get back to this post until just now.
You have become everyone’s favorite swine, dear. Oh my.
As for KHN, I am not particularly in her camp anymore since she refused to come onto YOUR blog and denounce what was being said about Bullock. (the references to his having extra-marital relations with women in his congregation). And you know that that is true.
As for the PAL phone # on his campaign literature, Dana, are you disputing that you published it, just so? You know that I was not the one to bring up the impropriety of having the PAL’s number on his literture and you know that I quoted the one who did from your blog. Something that you never even bothered to challenge either way, IIRC.
This from you is a laugh
That was a deliberate lie. But let’s face the facts: If Bullock could put you on the board of some organization, you’d probably change your mind about him in an instant and think he walks on water.
For one thing, honey, one doesn’t get PUT on a board, one is elected. I serve on the board of the CLNCC, the PSA and the CC DE (what was once and hopefully will again support a lobbyist for good government in this state). I was elected to serve because I cared to serve.
About being paid by the unions, I lifted that from you, verbatum, in discussions you had with Burris. You said that you were going to start working for the unions. Sorry if that didn’t work out for you but don’t insult me by acting as if you don’t know where I picked up the idea of it.
by the way, your lame attempts at smearing my character didn’t go unnoticed. Sober thinking implies that I am a drunk? Nice.
And Mascitti’s old canard that McDowell placed me ‘on a board and so I protect him’ must be something you ‘saved’ in your little file cabinet that you keep on all of the people you deal with on the internets who cross your path. Sick fuck.
I don’t know McDowell. I went down to Dover to get in his face, however, at the public hearing for BWW/DPL and spoke my peice which is more than I can say about you, you windbag.
Your evil, evil ego problem will be the end of your reputation, Dana. It certainly has undermined your popularity.
“You know that I was not the one to bring up the impropriety of having the PAL’s number on his literture and you know that I quoted the one who did from your blog.”
I don’t know that. The person who did it used a pseudonym and I suspect you are that person just so you could post the distortion and smear on your blog.
“Something that you never even bothered to challenge either way, IIRC.”
I didn’t bother to refute it on your blog because virtually no one reads it. It’s a waste of my time.
“About being paid by the unions, I lifted that from you, verbatum, in discussions you had with Burris. You said that you were going to start working for the unions.”
And where did I say I had started to work for the unions?
And why did you say that you wondered if I was working for Bullock when I had already made the comment well before that if I did I would give full disclosure?
You didn’t really wonder if I was working for him. You just wanted to join Burris’ smear because you don’t support Bullock.
“For one thing, honey, one doesn’t get PUT on a board…”
Well, that’s not true in all cases. But, hey, make it up as you go.
Nancy: Let me respond to your comment about not going on the blogs to denounce the anti Bullock posters. FYI none in the Karen Hartley Nagle camp posted anything derogatory against Bullock…but some thought we did. I recall Mike Dore responded for Karen Hartley Nagle, that, “Karen didnt support any negative statements about Rev. Bullock and didnt support others doing it as well”.
I also responded as it appeared “some” thought that information came from us. Many know the facts around that situation. We do not know who the anon poster or posters were, but obviously others are well aware of the events.
I am surprised you would take this stance, since Karen always has nice things to say about you.
I don’t know that. The person who did it used a pseudonym and I suspect you are that person just so you could post the distortion and smear on your blog.
*
Dana, your tinfoil is crinkling.
Why don’t you do an analysis of anon (IP comparisons etc,) and see who it was.
You have sunk to that low ebb that we all see from you like clockwork. Meds, brother.
Sorry if you can’t remember what you say on the internest (meds again?) but in the long convo you had with Dave about prevailing wages you discussed that you were going to start to work for unions in response to Dave saying as much in a manner of disclosure on your part.
You still haven’t answered why you impugned Burris as a racist. That is an unforgivable slur and if you can’t apologise for it, you will lose the respect that you have garnered here in Delaware.
Karen and I had a disagreement over whether those slurs on Bullock should remain unchallenged. Frankly, I thought that you or another friend of ours who posts anonymously had written them since it was from that person that I first heard them in private. To have posted the rumors was beyond the pale and so I asked Karen to respond and she declined.
I missed that anyone did speak for her (this was on DE Watch not the post on DWA where I do remember Mike Dore weighing in).
Dana, you can feel free to call any member of the Civic League for New Castle County and ask if I wasn’t duly elected and you can ask those who were on the People’s Settlement board if they voted me on, including your pal Potter. I don’t think he voted for me but he will tell you honestly that I was voted in.
And IIRC, you were in the room when I was voted onto the steering committee of Common Cause (its board). You can pleasure yourself all you want by imagining my motives are less than noble but you only disgrace yourself and disgust whoever reads your filth.
BTW, add Ralph Nader to my douche list.
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/24/nader-says-he-will-run-for-president/
The funny thing was when Loudell said earlier in the broadcast that Dave would be interviewed, I thought Dave would say there is no certain evidence that McCain messed around w/ the lobbyist, which is true (although I personally believe it). But I did think that Dave would have the integrity to come out w/ a clear condemnation of McCain being hypocritical & deceptive about the abiding influence of lobbyists on him. I recorded it w/ the full intention of posting it on DW and to pat Dave on the back for showing real integrity.
But what did he do? Loudell asks him about McCain, a member of the commerce committee, flying around on corporate jets and what is the main thrust of what Dave says? “Everyone does it.”
(Really? Everyone? Proof?)
I was flabbergasted.
I believe the interview occurred on Thursday; I’ve held onto to it until last night. But after the following days of blog-comment interaction w/ Dave and seeing the crap, pure crap, he’s been spewing and his unwillingness to apologize for his libel against me by calling me a socialist, I realized that I’ve lost my friend. The person now going by the name “Dave Burris” is someone I don’t recognize.
I’m heartbroke about it.
Dave’s comment about everyone doing it was very disconcerting.
Dana, there was another line in that interview and maybe you know it, but Dave said something that the Republicans were worried about McCain’s ant-lobbyist actions.
I don’t see how that statement could be considered positive for the Republicans.
Nemski,
The only time I hear GOPers condemn lobbyists is when the advocate for working people, the poor and senior citizens.
But corporate lobbyists–well, their gifts, retreats for politicos to the Caribbean, free flights on jets, their PACs, etc–all that has something to do w/ “free speech.”
Yeah, when Democrats do it, it’s a huge international incident demanding immediate corrective action, But, when Republicans do it, it’s just “everybody does it” to Dave.
LOL.
This morning’s email pointed me to This remarkable article about how the right came to start defending McCain on this business from Politico.com.
Now, I do consider Politico to be a largely dodgy enterprise, but what interested me is a traditional real media outlet (sorta) discussing IOKIYAR as a real organizing principle of the current crop of repubs in charge. The need for a real enemy is more important than the need for some ideological principle. And they are right. Insert any Democratic politician’s name into the original Times story, and the right would be howling in unison about the two-facedness, the corruption, etcetcetc which would be picked up by the traditional media as fact of some kind. The fact that everybody (mostly) has dodgy ties to lobbyists would never be a factor, much less an excuse for this hypothetically singular Democrat.
Now, most of us who are interested in better government have lots of concerns about lobbyists and how they get privileges and priorities with legislators that greatly surpass any considerations provided to those of us who vote. “They all do it” may be (mostly) true, but it certainly does not move the ball down the field of better government.
The original NYT article on this was a real mess — lots of anonymous sources, mixing up the adultery stuff with the lobbying stuff — but in many ways this recalls the Judy Miller writing in the runup to the Iraq war. And almost all of that writing is — if not debunked — certainly quite questionable.
BUT, since the NYT was actually cheerleading for something the repubs wanted, they were delighted to use all of this as it came, even from their hated Newspaper of Record.
The need for a real enemy is more important than the need for some ideological principle.
Is this really getting into the narrative? Ten years late, but I’ll take it.
Thanks for that link Cassandra. Good article, but it neglects that fact that the left joined the fight very very late.
This remains a country at political war, with both sides more distrustful and disdainful of each other than ever before. They not only question the other side’s policies, but its integrity and motives. This is especially true at the grass roots. Everyone from MoveOn.org to the Republican National Committee reacts to every political happening…(snip)
This episode exposes, more clearly than ever, the business model for big-time conservative activism: Its lifeblood is this us-against-them mentality. It needs an enemy, be it The New York Times, or Obama, or secularism or illegal immigrants.
Having been that bogey man enemy for years – and being in a party that did not get that they were viewed as “the enemy” I can tell you that the spirit of life or death combat is at the heart of this blog’s mission.
We simply will not lay on the ground waiting for the Dave Burris’s of the world to get tired of kicking us in the head, lying about how tax cuts work, and smearing our candidates. We will not go back to the 1990’s.
What a bunch of phonies you people are. Here is some truth about your party from that right wing rag The Hill.
http://thehill.com/business–lobby/democratic-majority-good-for-k-streets-bottom-line-2008-02-23.html
anon, then I guess you’re in agreement with the premise of this post, “everybody does it” so it is okay.
Who said anything about lobbying. Oh thats right. Your buddies here in Democrat happy land. It sucks when anyone peddles their influence so how about you talk to your Democrat congress about all the lobbyists getting rich from them right now. You are in power now. Wheres all that change eh before you demand more power.
Again with the “everybody does it.” I wish you could hear yourselves.
go ahead and avoid your own dirty house. it makes it all ok. i wish you would read your own drivel hypocrite.
anonymous, what’s you take on the main point of the post? McCain’s $85,000 in campaign donations and favors provided for Iseman’s clients….?
And you can’t mention Democrats in your response..
…well…?
Okay then.
mccain is shit for doing it. they should all be taken to task starting with the ones doing it right now. that is why you dont want democrats mentioned.
You nearly made it. Well, thanks for the first part and I agree with you on the middle part.
i made it fine. but i can see how you would say that pointing out how you give democrats a free pass is mentioning democrats. we know where youre coming from bro. glad you agree with the rest though. now get your happy ass to work exposing your own partys influence peddling. okay then.
Has anyone noticed that at 3:26 of that podcast either Steve or Dana posted, Dave’s ACTUAL QUOTE is this: “I think that everyone does it isn’t a real excuse.”
It must be Dave’s fault that Dana or Steve didn’t hear it correctly. Dana’s jihad, I guess.
The stuff about the excuse was the throw away line. The emphasis was on everyone does it. In fact, in the same segment he says about politicos riding on corporate jets “It’s part of the scene…,” as if it’s no big deal.
I believe it’s clear from listening to the audio that Dave was basically dismissing it.
Beyond that, what is the factual basis for Dave to say that “Everyone does it”: rides on corporate jets w/ lobbyists? He just made that up from whole cloth. He has no proof of that. None.
Why did he tell that whopper? To cover McCain’s butt.
Didn’t we go through this about “Yes”?
http://delawareliberal.net//2008/02/19/mr-mccain-feingold-campaign-financing-himself/
I don’t see this ending well. 🙂
Dave’s ACTUAL QUOTE is this: “I think that everyone does it isn’t a real excuse.” I heard this too (just listened to the clip on Dana’s site).
But isn’t there ANY dissonance about an admission that everyone does it, but we’d rather that they didn’t; while having on about what a fighter against the moneyed interests the guy is? I fail to see any principle behind grand pronouncements about the perniciousness of lobbyist and other special interest funds and THEN getting on some corporation’s private jet.
I think that Dave’s entire quote should have been presented. It does rather seem as if Dana has turned to the dark side as far as partisan shill now that he is more or less relying on the DEM-controlled unions for a living. If Dave hadn’t asked if Bullock or Korn was paying him, I would have. It is a reasonable assumption since Dana is so strident about it all.
The DEMs are just about as bad as far as K Street. Look at Carper taking Abramoff cash.
And when the DEMs took DC in 2006, Carper had a press release that his chief of staff was heading FOR K STREET, and how great it was that the opportunities were opening up for DEMs there (yeah, Delay did tie that shit up just for GOPers at one point), it was just the way Carper was so excited for the chance to send his friend in there to score for the special interests that rubbed me the wrong way.
The Senator WAS sleeping with the lobbyist. Here’s proof.
The K Street work is not helpful to the good of Delaware. I would like our Senator to take a Delaware first position and put our interests as a state before everybody else, expecially K Street. It is necessary to work with K Street, but not necessary to do all their bidding if it goes against the interests of the state- I hope Tom keeps us first.
“I think that Dave’s entire quote should have been presented.”
Not that I should give one rip about your views since they usually lack the sober thinking required for anything like an objective analysis, but I gave the audio of the ENTIRE interview. People can hear for themselves everything that Dave said. How’s that for providing the entire quote, jerk?
Besides, you are not being objective at all because you are supporter of Karen Hartley Nagel and have already engaged in a vicious lie and smear about the Bullock campaign when you claimed on your blog that Bullock is using the PAL Center phone number as his campaign phone number.
http://delawareway.blogspot.com/2008/02/bullocks-campaign-off-to-rocky-start-at.html
That was a deliberate lie. But let’s face the facts: If Bullock could put you on the board of some organization, you’d probably change your mind about him in an instant and think he walks on water.
One more thing, liar:
“It does rather seem as if Dana has turned to the dark side as far as partisan shill now that now that he is more or less relying on the DEM-controlled unions for a living”
Can you prove that I am now making money from unions or have ever made as much as one thin dime from a union?
Prove it, Nancy. Prove this libelous claim.
If you can’t apologize.
Looks like Nancy Willing has run for the hills just like all the liars do when challenged to prove their libels.
Well which is it, Garrett? If your not being paid by the unions or Bullock how are you providing for your family? Level with the people.
I sometimes do work was an underwear model.
But take your filthy insinuation and stick it.
If you got proof that I’m lying when I say I’m unemployed, then prove it. Publish it under your REAL NAME. If you weren’t simply an anonymous sleaze monger, you would do so.
But the reason you don’t is because you want to insinuate libels.
so your not providing for your family. why dont you get your ugly butt off the computer and get a job, then, instead of talking about everybody elses problems why don’t you handle your responsabilities?
“so your not providing for your family. why dont you get your ugly butt off the computer and get a job, then, instead of talking about everybody elses problems why don’t you handle your responsabilities?”
Oh, you are the guy whose angry because I told him last night that I wouldn’t save his butt from a pending lawsuit.
Your mistake, pal, is that you made a similar statement like the one above before, using language which is nearly exactly the same but published under your real name. I saved an image of it.
“so your not providing for your family. why dont you get your ugly butt off the computer and get a job, then, instead of talking about everybody elses problems why don’t you handle your responsabilities?”
Oh, you are the guy whose angry because I told him last night I wouldn’t save his butt from a pending lawsuit.
Your mistake, pal, is that you made a similar statement like the one above before, using language which is nearly exactly the same but published under your real name. I saved an image of it.
If you really want to play this came, I’ll post them both and let people draw the obvious comparison.
You’d better back off. I’m no longer in a forgiving mood w/ you swine.
get a job deadbeat
No Dana I didn’t run for the hills, Ass. I have an active social, civic and political life. I didn’t get back to this post until just now.
You have become everyone’s favorite swine, dear. Oh my.
As for KHN, I am not particularly in her camp anymore since she refused to come onto YOUR blog and denounce what was being said about Bullock. (the references to his having extra-marital relations with women in his congregation). And you know that that is true.
As for the PAL phone # on his campaign literature, Dana, are you disputing that you published it, just so? You know that I was not the one to bring up the impropriety of having the PAL’s number on his literture and you know that I quoted the one who did from your blog. Something that you never even bothered to challenge either way, IIRC.
This from you is a laugh
That was a deliberate lie. But let’s face the facts: If Bullock could put you on the board of some organization, you’d probably change your mind about him in an instant and think he walks on water.
For one thing, honey, one doesn’t get PUT on a board, one is elected. I serve on the board of the CLNCC, the PSA and the CC DE (what was once and hopefully will again support a lobbyist for good government in this state). I was elected to serve because I cared to serve.
About being paid by the unions, I lifted that from you, verbatum, in discussions you had with Burris. You said that you were going to start working for the unions. Sorry if that didn’t work out for you but don’t insult me by acting as if you don’t know where I picked up the idea of it.
Dark side – you – yes.
by the way, your lame attempts at smearing my character didn’t go unnoticed. Sober thinking implies that I am a drunk? Nice.
And Mascitti’s old canard that McDowell placed me ‘on a board and so I protect him’ must be something you ‘saved’ in your little file cabinet that you keep on all of the people you deal with on the internets who cross your path. Sick fuck.
I don’t know McDowell. I went down to Dover to get in his face, however, at the public hearing for BWW/DPL and spoke my peice which is more than I can say about you, you windbag.
Your evil, evil ego problem will be the end of your reputation, Dana. It certainly has undermined your popularity.
er correction
For one thing, honey, one doesn’t get PUT on a board, one is elected
I was nominated and elected to serve on several boards and then elected to serve on the executive committee of said boards. Can you say the same?
“As for the PAL phone # on his campaign literature, Dana, are you disputing that you published it, just so? ”
Yea, I do dispute that I represented the PAL number as the campaign’s number.
“It certainly has undermined your popularity.”
Tell it to my 2,300 subscribers.
Let’s see you prove that I did that. Prove the link and the text.
”As for the PAL phone # on his campaign literature, Dana, are you disputing that you published it, just so? ”
Yea, I do dispute that I represented the PAL number as the campaign’s number.
Let’s see you prove that I did that. Provide the link and the text.
“You know that I was not the one to bring up the impropriety of having the PAL’s number on his literture and you know that I quoted the one who did from your blog.”
I don’t know that. The person who did it used a pseudonym and I suspect you are that person just so you could post the distortion and smear on your blog.
“Something that you never even bothered to challenge either way, IIRC.”
I didn’t bother to refute it on your blog because virtually no one reads it. It’s a waste of my time.
“About being paid by the unions, I lifted that from you, verbatum, in discussions you had with Burris. You said that you were going to start working for the unions.”
And where did I say I had started to work for the unions?
And why did you say that you wondered if I was working for Bullock when I had already made the comment well before that if I did I would give full disclosure?
You didn’t really wonder if I was working for him. You just wanted to join Burris’ smear because you don’t support Bullock.
“For one thing, honey, one doesn’t get PUT on a board…”
Well, that’s not true in all cases. But, hey, make it up as you go.
Nancy: Let me respond to your comment about not going on the blogs to denounce the anti Bullock posters. FYI none in the Karen Hartley Nagle camp posted anything derogatory against Bullock…but some thought we did. I recall Mike Dore responded for Karen Hartley Nagle, that, “Karen didnt support any negative statements about Rev. Bullock and didnt support others doing it as well”.
I also responded as it appeared “some” thought that information came from us. Many know the facts around that situation. We do not know who the anon poster or posters were, but obviously others are well aware of the events.
I am surprised you would take this stance, since Karen always has nice things to say about you.
I don’t know that. The person who did it used a pseudonym and I suspect you are that person just so you could post the distortion and smear on your blog.
*
Dana, your tinfoil is crinkling.
Why don’t you do an analysis of anon (IP comparisons etc,) and see who it was.
You have sunk to that low ebb that we all see from you like clockwork. Meds, brother.
Sorry if you can’t remember what you say on the internest (meds again?) but in the long convo you had with Dave about prevailing wages you discussed that you were going to start to work for unions in response to Dave saying as much in a manner of disclosure on your part.
You still haven’t answered why you impugned Burris as a racist. That is an unforgivable slur and if you can’t apologise for it, you will lose the respect that you have garnered here in Delaware.
Karen and I had a disagreement over whether those slurs on Bullock should remain unchallenged. Frankly, I thought that you or another friend of ours who posts anonymously had written them since it was from that person that I first heard them in private. To have posted the rumors was beyond the pale and so I asked Karen to respond and she declined.
I missed that anyone did speak for her (this was on DE Watch not the post on DWA where I do remember Mike Dore weighing in).
Dana, you can feel free to call any member of the Civic League for New Castle County and ask if I wasn’t duly elected and you can ask those who were on the People’s Settlement board if they voted me on, including your pal Potter. I don’t think he voted for me but he will tell you honestly that I was voted in.
And IIRC, you were in the room when I was voted onto the steering committee of Common Cause (its board). You can pleasure yourself all you want by imagining my motives are less than noble but you only disgrace yourself and disgust whoever reads your filth.