As usual, it is all about the next election.

Filed in National by on April 10, 2008

I’ve been a dummy, trying to figure out what Burris and Copeland were up to. It is always about the next election with these guys and getting a slight edge, regardless of the downstream shit mess they create.

This is what they’ve been working toward and why Copeland was all too eager to rush into WDEL this morning and delcare the Blue Water Wind Power Project dead. Here are the GOP talking points that will be drilled into your head for the next seven months:

  • The wind power deal was killed in a secret meeting of Senate Democrats.
  • Thurman Adams killed wind power along with Karen Peterson and Harris McDowell.
  • The Republicans really loved wind power and were working hard to save it, but the Dem majority was too disiciplined.

At least I can stop wondering.

So now I guess it falls to John Carney. As El Somnambulo po9ints out inthe comments:

Is John Carney really pushing hard for windpower, or is he just paying it lip service?

The reason I ask is b/c Carney talks about how his relationships with legislators will enable him to lead effectively. Yet, when you go to his website, he lists Adams, McDowell and DeLuca among his supporters, as well as Joe Farley, Delmarva’s chief lobbyist on the issue.

If he is so effective, why has he had so little impact on this issue? Is it b/c he’s tried and failed, or b/c he really isn’t as committed to the issue as he claims?

I guess we’ll see how serious Carney is soon enough.

About the Author ()

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

Comments (45)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. anonomous says:

    The problem with that theory is that Copeland was part of the efforts to kill the wind farm. And the Sussex County republicans (Booth and Hocker) have also been working overtime with Delmarva Power execs to kill the project. Now…if they actually get the wind farm through, then they might really have something to campaign on for the state. But I doubt theyre sincere about it.

  2. liz allen says:

    Hold on now…Karen Peterson said on WDEL that she was not part of the Senate meetings, or that she was informed of any such meeting…she also said, that the report written (obviously) by the real opponents…kept stating that “the committee decided”. Peterson there was no such committee meeting…this is an ethics problem for McDowell!

    Farley that jack shit has never done anything real for the people of Delaware…its time for a REAL Clean sweep. We can’t keep nary one…they have all been tainted by the “Delaware disease”. Get them all out and start over fresh.

  3. FSP says:

    ” * The wind power deal was killed in a secret meeting of Senate Democrats.
    * Thurman Adams killed wind power along with Karen Peterson and Harris McDowell.
    * The Republicans really loved wind power and were working hard to save it, but the Dem majority was too disiciplined.”

    No one said that Karen Peterson killed wind power, just that she was in the secret, closed-door caucus meeting when it was killed. I’m certain she argued against killing it. Well, as certain as I can be, since it was a secret, closed-door meeting.

  4. FSP says:

    So just change bullet #2 to Harris McDowell killed wind power along with Tony DeLuca and Thurman Adams. Thanks.

  5. FSP says:

    Finally, the giant, enormous flaw in your reasoning is the fact that this was done by the Senate Democrats, and at this point, we have ZERO shot at beating any of the Senators up for re-election in ’08.

    It would be much easier to play politics like your commenter did about Carney than to hang it on a bunch of safe Senate D’s.

    It’s just the truth. That’s all. The Senate D’s did the deed.

  6. Dana Garrett says:

    One thing I’ve noticed about Burris’ so-called support for the wind farm off DE’s coast: Many issues get discussed on WDEL and from time to time, Burris will call up and make a comment about them.

    But during the months WDEL has discussed the wind farm, NOT ONCE have I heard Burris call up and support it. NOT ONE SINGLE TIME.

    Of course, Dave SAYS he supports and he has written a couple low-key posts in support of it. But, then, what else can he do? He lives in Sussex where there is widespread support of it, including the GOP. So if Dave wants to not be blackballed from any influence w/ the Sussex GOP, he has to say he supports it.

    But does he really?

    More & more his support sounds like Copeland’s, which is support in name only.

  7. FSP says:

    I have never called WDEL to talk about the wind farm. I didn’t know it was a requirement.

    There are plenty of witnesses to what I have done on this issue. If someone who matters (basically anyone except Dana Garrett) wants to find out what I’ve done, send me an email and I’ll point you in the right direction.

  8. donviti says:

    dave, dana said the same thing you just did about not calling up. and you call me a dumb ass.

    why don’t you post what you have done instead of sending me my email please? I will post it over here just for you.

  9. FSP says:

    Because, for me, it’s not about always doing things publicly. It allows me to get certain things done.

  10. Dana Garrett says:

    “If someone who matters (basically anyone except Dana Garrett) wants to find out what I’ve done, send me an email and I’ll point you in the right direction.”

    That’s, Dave, for you. It’s like his “witnesses” about the things Atkins supposedly said about him. They exist as mere claims. They are not anything he can prove.

    Take for example his claim that labor unions threatened Rep. Walls w/ a primary if he voted against the prevailing wage bill and for the Repub amendments against it.

    I contacted Rep. Walls. I gave him the opportunity to speak off the record about why he voted the way he did if he wanted to. Guess what he did. He put his comments SO MUCH on the record that he sent me an e-mail about it. I will be writing about it later.

    The upshot is: Dave Burris was talking out of his backside. Rep. Walls voted the way he did on the merits of the legislation; it had nothing to do w/ any phony threat of a primary.

    In fact, the only political threat that came to Walls was made by Dave Burris himself. He said in Leg Hall–under his disguise as a Lobbyist for a “non-partisan” organization–to two persons that he was targeting Walls this fall in the election. Dave actually admitted it here on DE Lib.

    But to cover the impression that he isn’t the only person to make political threats, he comes out w/ this fairy tale that labor threatened Walls. That way he could smear labor unions and give himself the justification that his threat wasn’t unique.

    Here’s another little tidbit about Dave Burris. Notice how he is obsessed w/ this idea about “who matters.” I now know what’s behind it.

    It turns out that Dave Burris is considered one of the biggest jokes of those who go to Leg Hall on a regular basis. He’s considered something of a kook, an extremely egotistical one.

    Many people have told me that he strides about Leg Hall and acts as if he is an important player, but he’s not. (He once had some power when he was chair of Sussex GOP, but now he’s got nothing.) He gets this impression because some Repubs in Leg Hall find that he’s a willing errand boy, but that in Dave’s mind makes him someone “who matters.”

    But this is how Dave matters in Leg Hall: as a brunt of a joke, as someone whose inflated sense of himself is so disproportionate to reality that he is mostly viewed as a source of entertainment.

    The sense I get from those I’ve talked to is that the only way Dave Burris’s self esteem could get more pathological is if he thought he was Napoleon or Jesus Christ.

    But Dave is right about one thing. I don’t matter in the larger scheme of things politically. But the difference between Dave and me and most everyone else who writes on the DE blogosphere. Unlike Dave, we don’t need to create the impression that we are someone who is important. Our self-esteem doesn’t require creating a phony sense of self importance. We don’t walk around w/ a fragile ego worrying that the only important measure of personal worth is political power. We just say our piece and when we can exert a little influence or help create a buzz around a topic that gets picked up by others w/ real political power, we are happy.

    In short, we are citizens, the “little people,” persons who, according to Dave Burris, don’t matter.

    How sad for Dave, though. He looks down on us but is oblivious to the fact that he is one of us. He fantasizes about his importance, but in the real world of DE politics he’s a source of laughter, a clown who shows up at Leg Hall and causes eyes to roll and Legislators to snicker when he walks away.

  11. FSP says:

    Somebody has an unhealthy obsession…

  12. Dana Garrett says:

    “Somebody has an unhealthy obsession…”

    Yea, you, Liar, w/ yourself.

    You LIED about Rep., Walls.

    It turns out you make up all kinds of things, don’t you Dave? Like your “importance.”

    Little by little, it will all come out.

  13. FSP says:

    “Like your “importance.””

    This, from someone who once said:

    “Besides, you know some of the changes I have brought about in DE
    politics and the DE media.”

    “Yea, you, Liar, w/ yourself.

    You LIED about Rep., Walls. ”

    No. I didn’t. I received that information from two separate sources. Why would two separate people tell me the same story?

    Kind of like your “Susan Del Pesco tapped to run for Governor in Jane Brady’s office” story. If I’m a liar, your a liar, nutjob.

    “Little by little, it will all come out.”

    Well, you certainly need something to do besides work, now, don’t you?

    Now take your sorry ass back to my fans among the House Dems and see what else you can get them to say. I am shocked and amazed that they would say those things about me. What is it that I do again to establish my egomaniac kookiness? Walk around, is it?

    I look forward to the products of your borderline restraining-order-grade obsession with me.

    And note that in the “important” category, I placed EVERYONE in the world but you. Not as egocentric as your description.

  14. FSP says:

    And what about this comment, where you claimed that Ron Williams would be issuing a correction from his column.

    There was never a retraction. Were you lying then, too?

  15. FSP says:

    One final note. I never claim to have any political power, but others have claimed that I do. For instance:

    One guy claimed that I wrote amendments and assigned them to different legislators.

    The same guy claimed that “no one in Delaware did more to defeat HB 177 than Dave Burris.”

    I wonder where that guy got the idea that I had any pull whatsoever.

  16. The BWW proposal is on life support-unfortunately.

    I assumed that would happen and which is why we launched an effort to bring renewable energy to every farm, home and business.

    The 20/20 plan. 20% of all homes producing 20% of Delaware’s energy needs by 2020.

    Take care.

  17. Dana Garrett says:

    “No. I didn’t. I received that information from two separate sources. Why would two separate people tell me the same story?”

    I don’t believe you. I believe you are now making up this story about two people telling you that. It’s another claim you can’t verify. It’s a lie like the story about Walls. You lied and are telling a lie to cover it. Just like you lied about the cost of Denn’s bill. Still no proof on that lie also.

    ““Besides, you know some of the changes I have brought about in DE
    politics and the DE media.”

    So, what about that isn’t true? That doesn’t mean I’m a major player. It just means that on occasion I’ve had some influence. But it’s you who suffers from delusions of grandeur. I have had a few Legs tell me that you are considered a joke. They actually laugh at you in Leg Hall.

    “Kind of like your “Susan Del Pesco tapped to run for Governor in Jane Brady’s office” story. If I’m a liar, your a liar, nutjob.”

    I never said that happened. That’s another lie by you. Prove where I definitely said that happened. You can’t.

    “Well, you certainly need something to do besides work, now, don’t you?”

    I don’t even know what you are referring to here.

    “I look forward to the products of your borderline restraining-order-grade obsession with me.”

    Dave, once more this is an example of your pathological sense of self-importance. Why would anyone be obsessed w/ you? I know that is what you WISH, but you are not that important. I only chide you for two reasons. One, it’s so damn easy and fun. Two, the more I goad you, the more I catch you in lies. All of it is being recorded. All of it is also being recorded on the web so that when you run for office someday, it will all get printed off, be placed on campaign literature, show up in the handles of front doors and the windshields of parking lots, and you’ll get creamed. And you will have no one else to blame but yourself. Besides, a liar like you shouldn’t be in office. You can’t be trusted. You’re dirty.

    But, do Dave, stop flattering yourself. There’s no obsession w/ you. I have active correspondences, work, etc. that fills my interest. You are just one diversion in my down time…a mere plaything…a laughingstock to me like (as it turns out) you are in Leg Hall.

    Oh, one last thing, what makes you it was only Dem Legs that told me that?

    You have no clue where you really stand, do you? LOL.

  18. Dana Garrett says:

    Why look I’m so unimportant Dave has come back for a 2nd try:

    “There was never a retraction. Were you lying then, too?”

    Dave, the NJ changed its mind. I made that comment before they did. That’s not a lie. It was the truth at the time I said it. The facts changed after I said it.

    The difference is that my statement was based in fact. But your statement about Walls had no factual basis. It was pure invention and we both know it.

  19. Dana Garrett says:

    “One guy claimed that I wrote amendments and assigned them to different legislators.”

    Oh, big deal. I wrote most of the law for juvenile drug court program but I don’t believe on that basis that I walk on water in leg hall. In fact, I realized immediately when I, a non-lawyer, was given the task to do it in a courthouse full of lawyers: (like you in Leg Hall) I was an errand boy. The difference is I knew immediately I was being used, but you don’t. You basically do the grunt work and then fantasize your are of extreme importance.

    “The same guy claimed that “no one in Delaware did more to defeat HB 177 than Dave Burris.”

    I wonder where that guy got the idea that I had any pull whatsoever.”

    Deceit is just such a deep habit for you, isn’t it Dave. Now let’s notice exactly what I said in comment 10 above:

    “(He once had some power when he was chair of Sussex GOP, but now he’s got nothing.)”

    Now, Dave, what good did it do you, really, to pretend that I never qualified my statement? Did you really think that no one noticed?

    Yes, you once had a position that had some pull, but you blew that opportunity.

    Now you have some piddly ad hoc “citizens” group that gives you the title lobbyist and on the basis of that you strut around Leg Hall as if you were God’s gift to government. When the sad, sad truth is you are considered a fool.

  20. R Smitty says:

    Well, thank God things have returned to normal around here! I was getting worried. Phew!

  21. FSP says:

    If you aren’t obsessed with smearing and tarnishing me, then why do YOU always end up talking about ME? If I am obsessed with myself, where are the posts where I claim to have changed government?

    I’m uncomfortable talking about whatever influence I have, regardless of the fact that YOU like to talk about it.

    However, since you put me in that position with your continued efforts to denigrate me, let me point out that I wrote those amendments, came up with the ideas for them and decided which legislators would be best to carry them forward. Not exactly an errand boy.

    And if you think what happened with HB 177 had anything to do with my position as party chairman, you’re hopelessly lost. Which is most likely the case.

    So let me go all “Dana Garrett” on you. You say I think I’m “God’s gift to government” but that I am thought of as a fool in Leg Hall.

    Prove it. I want quotes, cited with names attached. After all, if you can’t prove it, it must be a lie according to your standards.

  22. Al Mascitti says:

    To get back to the original point, Dave is trying to walk a fine line — actually, he’s trying to draw a fine line — between Copeland’s passive resistance to BWW and the Democrats who are actively working to kill it. What he’s not saying is that, should the Democrats fail to kill it, Charlie would be perfectly willing to step up, and he’s made that pretty clear in his interviews with me.

  23. jason330 says:

    Be clear Al.

    Willing to step up to kill it? Or willing to stand behind his “I support wind power” BS?

  24. Dave, it is always best to ignore the trolls.

  25. I thought that one thing that Copeland said on the radio was perfectly reasonable, if only he or any of these entrenched Senators had raised it in the appropriate time-frame as in a year ago. The negotiations leading up to the deal on the table seemed to be tinged with Minner wanting her ‘good friends’ to take something out of it for themselves, Connective, Delmarva, NRG etc. BWW is the out-of-towner who won’t feed into so many ready hands. Why they are practically THIEVES if you listen to some people’s rationale, the ones who stand to gain if the power remains with the current monopoly.
    WHAAAAAA WHAAAAAAA.

    What I liked that Charlie said was that the wind farm should be bigger. Is this a delaying ploy? I hesitate to bring it up lest the PC crowd scolds me.
    But it is a part of the vision that Willet Kempton posed when he was first presenting the case for an off shore wind farm for Delaware. He claimed that, with the right deal and a maximum capacity, Delaware stood to make ‘billions’.
    I imagine that his concept included some state investment and benefit for selling the generated power to surrounding states, which, of course, defies Copeland’s next suppostion that we should enter into a regional entity.
    The deal that stands should be signed off on and then we should continue to develop the potential for alternative energy in ways that bouy our fragile economy.

  26. Dana Garrett says:

    Hey, Nancy, I wish I had been at home yesterday to record you when you attempted to whitewash McDowell on Al’s show. You know, when you said that it appears McDowell really wants to support the BWW project but his little utility project would be threatened if he did.

    Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that your BS is true. None.

    We all knew that your public low-key disagreement w/ McDowell was phony and wouldn’t last very long.

    So, just when he’s writing his poison report, who rushes forward to defend Harris McDowell? Surprise, Nancy Willing!

    Nancy, when are you going to tell us your real connection to McDowell?

  27. Dana Garrett says:

    “Prove it.”

    Well, Dave, I unimportant, remember. It doesn’t matter what I can prove.

    Besides, you asking for proof of anyone else for a claim is probably more laughable than your reputation in Leg Hall.

  28. FSP says:

    So you can’t prove it. Well, it must be a lie, then. By your own standards, you are a liar.

    Game.

    Set.

    Match.

    Again.

    The defense rests.

  29. FSP says:

    Al — I just want people to know exactly where the murder took place.

    He and I are not on the same page on this issue, but to say Copeland would kill it is a bit of a red herring, since if Copeland were pro-tem, we would never have overreacted with HB 6 in the first place, and certainly would not have strung BWW along this long.

  30. I wish you would stop lying asshole.’
    Dana, I never said THAT McDOWELL was ACTUALLY for WIND. dick fuck

    McDowell really wants to support the BWW project but his little utility project would be threatened if he did.

    What I said was he was very likely threatened by the ‘powers’ with his SEU funding if he didn’t toe the line.

    You want to get creative about what other people say, go for it. You don’t have a wick of credibility anywhere that I can garner. Obsessive creeps like you should be shunned by all.

  31. shoot, the editing I just made didn’t take:

    You are a sick scumfuck who hears what you want to hear but stop putting your disgusting words in my mouth.
    Your “QUOTE” that I said:
    “McDowell really wants to support the BWW project ” is just plain Dana Garrett Bullshit.
    I never gave an opinion on what may or may not be in his heart about wind power.

    Get off of your cloud.

    And to those who think BWW is dead, you are jumping the gun IMHO.

  32. Dana Garrett says:

    Poor, Dave, keep on w/ your delusions that you are a powerful person in Leg Hall. You obviously need those delusions to feel good about yourself.

    It’s all the same to me.

    But, really, you had no right to lie about Walls and Denn. Can’t you find a way to think of yourself as the Ronald Reagan of Delaware w/o making up BS about other people? In other words, can’t your delusions come w/ a little decency?

  33. FSP says:

    I didn’t lie about either. And since you didn’t prove I did, you are a liar by your own standards.

    You claim to have an email from Walls where he strongly claims to have voted with the unions on PW on the merits. Let’s see it.

    “Poor, Dave, keep on w/ your delusions that you are a powerful person in Leg Hall. You obviously need those delusions to feel good about yourself.

    It’s all the same to me.”

    That is the sound of Dana Garrett conceding. I’d give up, too, if I kept getting pounded in the same debate by the same person. You keep trying to tear me down, and I’m going to keep stuffing your face in it, fraud.

  34. Dana Garrett says:

    “What I said was he was very likely threatened by the ‘powers’ with his SEU funding if he didn’t toe the line.”

    OK, you stated it negatively. That means if he didn’t have to toe the line, he would have supported it. That was your OBVIOUS implication.

    And look how you are defending McDowell’s fellow traveler here:

    “I thought that one thing that Copeland said on the radio was perfectly reasonable, if only he or any of these entrenched Senators had raised it in the appropriate time-frame as in a year ago….”

    “What I liked that Charlie said was that the wind farm should be bigger. Is this a delaying ploy?”

    You know perfectly well it’s a delaying ploy. A regional agreement, if it occurred at all, would take several years to negotiate. Besides, NJ is already online for their own turbines. It’s all BS by Copeland, a smoke screen, but you are casting doubt on it being BS because Copeland’s position accords w/ McDowell’s.

    When are you going to tell us about your real connection to McDowell?

    I found those libels about Potter you were passing out like crazy when he was primarying McDowell. Oh, but that’s right. You weren’t working for McDowell! LOL.

    Shall I post the “Potter Journal,” Nancy. Shall I show everyone what depths of filth you are willing to spread on behalf of Harris McDowell?

  35. Dana Garrett says:

    “You claim to have an email from Walls where he strongly claims to have voted with the unions on PW on the merits. Let’s see it.”

    Not a problem:

    http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgrfjsw8_605hcmzq6d8

    Suck it up.

    Now, you should apologize to Rep. Walls for telling that tall tale.

    Notice, he voted for it on the merits.

    Not only that. Walls reasoning was impeccable. He UNDERSTOOD what the legislation was about. That’s why he voted for it. Not because of some contrived threat by unions…your little pretext for going after Walls because that’s what you planned to do anyhow thinking his seat is vulnerable.

    It’s a tall tale to put on campaign literature wasn’t it Dave? “Rep. Walls caves in to union pressure, blah, blah, blah…”

    But it’s all BS, either devised by you or certainly promoted by you.

    Your level of deceitfulness is astounding.

  36. FSP says:

    Thank you, Dana. That doesn’t address his votes on the amendments, which is where his own supporters said the threats came from.

    Also, Rep. Walls claiming it didn’t happen doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

  37. Dana Garrett says:

    “That doesn’t address his votes on the amendments, which is where his own supporters said the threats came from.”

    More BS to cover BS. The amendments were attempts to gut and cripple the the bill. So of course he wouldn’t vote for them since he was for FOR the bill.

    You’ve been caught red-handed.

    Here’s another way you’ve been caught red-handed. Most unions and the AFL-CIO supported BWW. Who was the only Dem Rep to vote against the resolution last night? Why, Rep Walls. But how did that happen on your theory that Walls is afraid of the unions?

    That’s because your “theory” has no basis in fact. It never did. Just BS the DE GOP intends to put on campaign literature in the district. But it won’t work now. Because the GOP lie has been exposed and will be exposed further….

    You should apologize to Walls.

    Where’s you evidence about the cost of Denn’s bill? I gave you proof. Where’s yours?

    Let’s hear your excuse for not giving it. Let’s hear you try to wiggle your way out of more BS…more claims of proof that never exists.

  38. FSP says:

    Thank you, Dana. You have done me a wonderful favor.

  39. Dana Garrett says:

    “You have done me a wonderful favor.”

    Bull. More pretending from the man who is a legend in his own mind.

    I noticed that you FAILED to provide your proof about Denn. That’s because it doesn’t exist.

  40. FSP says:

    Why should I provide anything to you? You claimed that people basically think I’m the laughingstock of Leg Hall, but provided no proof of any real person who said so. Not that it would matter anyway, but we’re playing by your rules here. How would anyone know what goes on in my mind anyway?

    It’s over. You did what I needed you to do. Bye now.

  41. R Smitty says:

    Side question…does Rep Walls know you are publishing emails direct from him to you?

    Just how much communication do you store away via internet applications, anyway?

    Thorough, yes…creepy, hell yes.

  42. Dana Garrett says:

    Dave, you can’t post your proof because it doesn’t exist. You always make up an excuse for not providing the proof. People can see through it.

    “You did what I needed you to do. ”

    Oh, please. Here you go again acting as if you’ve got some inside line on information that makes the e-mail very important. Trying to pretend that you manipulated some vital info from me when the truth is you hoped I didn’t have an e-mail exposing your tall tale about him being threatened by the unions.

    You’re always blowing smoke, trying to create the impression you are some major player.

    I really should lay off you. It’s like beating up a child.

  43. Dana Garrett says:

    “Side question…does Rep Walls know you are publishing emails direct from him to you?”

    I see the 2nd string is here hoping for a better result. Read comment 10, Dave’s lickspittle, your answer is there.

  44. R Smitty says:

    Shit, Garrett, can’t you ever meet a comment without a derogatory remark?

    All you said that he was so much on record, he sent you an email about it. In those words, tell me, does sending an email equate to permission to publish publically and to save on an internet application (susceptible to hackers)?

    If he explicity communicated to you that it was OK, then so be it. You didn’t say that, though. Shoot, if every time I sent an email meant that it was going to be published publically, I’d maybe send one or two a week, if that. Get the point?

    Finally, get over your self humor, the only interest I have here is of being a friend to Dave. I understand that is a foreign concept to you, friends standing up for friends, but it’s what I do.

  45. R Smitty says:

    Going waaay back to Nancy’s comment #24:
    Dave, it is always best to ignore the trolls.

    Dana Garrett: the only force in the blogosphere that made a Dave Burris and Nancy Willing alliance possible.