Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: Stories: News + Opinion: Fair Game

Re: “Jane Says: Sanders' Secret Weapon or a Political Liability?

Genese Grills defense is that shes been using her real name on her campaign page? I would certainly hope so! That does not excuse her from getting caught trying to run a dirty campaign and trying to stir up negativity against her opponent by impersonating an anonymous commenter online. Surely, she could easily find the account info button at the top of this page if she really wanted to use her own name?

However, this is in keeping with her usual modus operandi of relentlessly spamming the Front Porch Forum with her anti-mall propaganda, which many believe led to the failure of that campaign because people were put off by her long-winded rants there, which often exceeded 10-15 pages . This abuse of public forums is quite in keeping with the political strategies of a post-Trump era. Genese also tried to sabotage Bernies campaign by smearing his wife during the election because of a personal grudge over being unceremoniously fired from her last academic post, years ago. She didnt care if Bernie, whom she supported, lost; her only small-minded and petty goal was to keep Jane Sanders out of the White House as First Lady (see http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/jane-says-sanders-secret-weapon-or-a-political-liability/Content?oid=2670992).

However, if she doesnt get her way, we may expect to see this city council hopeful collapsing on the floor of the police station in tears again, which is where she was observed last summer after another failed campaign to stop the air show. Burlington, please dig deeper and ask yourselves who you really want having access to city government?

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by VivaONE on 01/16/2017 at 11:02 AM

Re: “The Gun: How I Bought an AR-15 in a Five Guys Parking Lot

I have one question for Heintz. Let's say you get your wish and background checks are required for this type of purchase. How exactly would that have changed the transaction? How would anyone enforce it?

Posted by Jeff Kaufer on 01/10/2017 at 7:44 PM

Re: “Rutland First: Vermont's Homegrown Opposition to Syrian Resettlement

Rutland mayor should deal with your heroine problem before bringing in more needy people who will suck the tax payers dry adding to more welfare, higher education costs, healthcare, etc. Take care of Vermonters first!

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Tammy Santin on 01/03/2017 at 8:12 AM

Re: “Signing Off: Reflections of a Vermont Political Columnist

Good going Paul. You are a fine journalist, may you have much success in the future. Walters, with his bias and liberal baggage will have difficulty filling one of your shoes. Sorry to see you go.

7 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Walter Moses on 12/29/2016 at 3:26 PM

Re: “Signing Off: Reflections of a Vermont Political Columnist

That's the point I was making: Gov. Elect Scott hasn't taken office yet, he hasn't done anything to warrant any criticism, yet Walters found an excuse to slam him already. It was a political attack.

8 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by knowyourassumptions on 12/29/2016 at 1:41 PM

Re: “Signing Off: Reflections of a Vermont Political Columnist

what knowyourassumptions wants is for the governor elect Scott to not face any criticisms. Anything that questions Scott's policies (or lack thereof) is a hit job.

6 likes, 11 dislikes
Posted by A_Trout on 12/29/2016 at 12:05 PM

Re: “Signing Off: Reflections of a Vermont Political Columnist

I'm very concerned about the future of this column. I know Paul was sympathetic to the Left, but he tried to be fair. He did not spare Vermont's liberals and leftists from his insightful analyses and critiques. His successor in these pages is an evangelistic Leftist. He has already done an adoring puff piece on Zuckerman and ginned up an excuse to do a hit job on Scott.

11 likes, 12 dislikes
Posted by knowyourassumptions on 12/29/2016 at 10:08 AM

Re: “Signing Off: Reflections of a Vermont Political Columnist

Another great column, Paul. You've been terrific in that role. Good luck in your new sphere -- plenty to cover in the priority areas you cite.

15 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by DeeBee on 12/29/2016 at 9:24 AM

Re: “Caucus Conundrum: Will House Dems Fight Anew for Carbon Tax?

I sure hope Rep. Mary Sullivan has not wasted any money on voice lessons; she's obviously tone deaf. Only in Chittenden County are the lefty elite so out of tune with the needs of working class motorists struggling to pay the bills. As I recall, Sullivan was also a huge supporter of the Progs' moronic and disastrous Burlingtom Telecom debacle. Well, at least she's reliably consistent.

6 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by wahrheit on 12/21/2016 at 9:20 PM

Re: “Now What? As Scott Fashions Agenda, Dems Watch and Wait

He'll be a poor man's Jim Douglas, at best.

2 likes, 20 dislikes
Posted by Wayne Michaud on 12/21/2016 at 4:03 PM

Re: “Caucus Conundrum: Will House Dems Fight Anew for Carbon Tax?

"Those ads, she argues, failed to mention that 90 percent of the money raised by the levy could go back to Vermonters in the form of direct rebates to consumers, a sales tax cut and credits for home-weatherization projects."

Let's break this down shall we? There is a BIG difference between "could go back" and "will go back." I for one have long ago stopped believing in the Dem's promise of "tax rebates.' You can talk all you want here about a "sales tax cut"...but Vermont has passed a law seeking (along with Colorado) to force online retailers to report to the state that you purchased something online. That makes the majority in Vermont very "two-faced" telling you they want to cut sales taxes on one hand, while on the other, doing everything they can to collect sales taxes from a different source. This thereby forces you to pay a sales tax to a retailer that does not have a physical presence in the state. And as for that "credit for home-weatherization" what a load of BS. Isn't that why we have the state literally stealing money out of our pockets for Efficiency Vermont? When oh when will someone do a report to see just what Efficiency Vermont is doing with all that money.

Go ahead, let them force a carbon tax down Vermonters throats. Then we can all move into Chittenden County, live in a one room rental, ride a bike to work, and wait for our gov't check. Can we say UN Agenda 21 anyone?

5 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Judith McLaughlin on 12/13/2016 at 10:50 AM

Re: “Caucus Conundrum: Will House Dems Fight Anew for Carbon Tax?

Thank you Rep. Sullivan for standing strong. While yes, what Vermont does isn't going have a significant impact on reducing world green house gas emissions someone has to take the lead and why not this small state where it is possible to make good decisions for the benefit of the ecosystems of the Earth which are being destroyed resulting in the sixth great extinction. A carbon pollution tax will ;provide an incentive for people to reduce their carbon emissions like driving more fuel efficient vehicles rather than huge pick up trucks which are now the most popular selling vehicle in Vermont.

And yes we need to talk about and deal with population growth.
EI equals PxAxT
Environmental Impact equals the size of the Population times the Affluence of that population times the kind of Technology that people spend their money on. As just one example manual push mowers or huge ridding lawn mowers.

Population size is the major factor and our governor elect wants to grow our population by 70,000. What is that going to do to our carbon emissions never mind the rest of our environment?

When are climate activists going to talk about the cause of our problems and not just the symptoms which is failing miserably.

3 likes, 22 dislikes
Posted by George Plumb on 12/08/2016 at 9:20 AM

Re: “Caucus Conundrum: Will House Dems Fight Anew for Carbon Tax?

Does anyone see the irony of having someone like Mary Sullivan (or Tony Klein before her) on the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee? In its own words, the House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy "considers matters relating to conservation and development of the State's land resources, geology, forestry, State parks and lands, scenery, air quality issues, environmental permitting, solid waste management, and energy."

What happened to the "Natural Resources" component of the committee? The conservation and scenery part? It seems the Democrats on this committee are focused solely on the "Energy" and "development" components. How else to explain the total exemptions from Act 250 and all local zoning so developers can dynamite and bulldoze mountaintops for wind towers, filling in streams along the way; and the same exemptions that permit the solar panel carpet-bombing of land zoned for natural resources protection and wildlife corridors. All thanks to legislation that originated from this Committee (or possibly the lobbyists and campaign donors who worked with the Democratic members of this Committee).

Former Democrats and Independents abandoned the Democratic Party in droves this year to vote for Phil Scott, in no small part because of the policies pushed by Democrats on this Committee.

28 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Chris in S. Burlington on 12/08/2016 at 1:56 AM

Re: “Caucus Conundrum: Will House Dems Fight Anew for Carbon Tax?

It is laughable that 650,000 people in Vermont are going to make a dent in global warming when there are literally billions of people in India and China, many adopting a Western standard of living and consumption. Last I checked, China has zero carbon tax.

And it is amazing that the people worrying about global warming rarely say a peep about worldwide population growth. We've gone from 1.6 billion in 1900 to pushing 8 billion now. How many mammals, birds, amphibians go extinct each year as humans take over more of the planet? Global warming is the least of our problems. Knowledgeable scientists say that assuming current warming projections are accurate, we are already too far along anyway (and still would have been, even if Hillary Clinton had been elected & tried to follow through on her policies).

Anyone who privately wants to drive a Prius; put solar panels on their roof, go for it. Eat vegetarian or better yet, vegan. Follow Bill McKibben's original advice in his book, "Maybe One" (i.e., one child). Private choices can make a difference.

And certainly energy efficiency and home weatherization is a great thing. Vermont already does a great job of education around this and encouraging it. But the Democrats are missing the message from this past election. We do not need any more new taxes. Taxes are already way too high in Vermont.

30 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Chris in S. Burlington on 12/08/2016 at 1:37 AM

Re: “Caucus Conundrum: Will House Dems Fight Anew for Carbon Tax?

Glad to see legislators standing strong on climate change. With Trump as president, we NEED to lead the way here in Vermont on climate and many other issues. It's vital that we implement meaningful policies as soon as possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The carbon pollution tax, with the proper uses of that revenue, is an extremely effective way to do this. Thank you Rep. Mary Sullivan!

5 likes, 42 dislikes
Posted by Student for a Clean Energy Future on 12/07/2016 at 1:39 PM

Re: “Caucus Conundrum: Will House Dems Fight Anew for Carbon Tax?

I appreciate Rep. Sullivan standing firm on a carbon pollution policy that offers many benefits, despite what the onslaught of attack ads on the policy wanted you to believe. Rep. Sullivan rightly wants to refocus a legislative and public dialogue that is informed by an open and honest debate on the merits of the policy as a smart economic development tool. Taxing carbon pollution (something we must produce less of) while reducing taxes on our incomes and businesses (things we want more of) means we're talking about a tax shift. And, let's not forget, that a previous version of the policy included a 10% energy independence fund that would allow Vermonters to access financing to tighten up their homes, wasting less energy and money, among other opportunities. Let's have that discussion.

7 likes, 46 dislikes
Posted by kcorey on 12/07/2016 at 1:27 PM

Re: “Caucus Conundrum: Will House Dems Fight Anew for Carbon Tax?

Thank you, Rep. Mary Sullivan, for staying strong in the face of misinformation. There are economic advantages to Vermont tackling the problem of carbon pollution, including growing more in-state jobs, growing the economy, and investing locally in efficiency and renewables.

9 likes, 47 dislikes
Posted by Daniel William Barlow on 12/07/2016 at 1:24 PM

Re: “Caucus Conundrum: Will House Dems Fight Anew for Carbon Tax?

The public relations and advocacy KSE Partners engaged in over the wind projects in Windham and Grafton was such a failure, it's no wonder they changed their name. Dylan Zwicky, Alex MacLean and Todd Bailey were all over those towns, going door to door and of course working to buy the votes. If anything, voters were turned off by the efforts of KSE Partners and Iberdrola.

25 likes, 13 dislikes
Posted by A. Smith on 12/07/2016 at 1:24 PM

Re: “Caucus Conundrum: Will House Dems Fight Anew for Carbon Tax?

If Governor-elect wants affordability, energy independence, and a 90% renewable Vermont by 2050, he should seriously keep an open mind on carbon pricing. This is no time to be divisive - a carbon pollution tax if designed well can lower the cost of living in Vermont, and retrieve some of the $1.6 billion dollars we send out of VT to buy fossil fuels. I just found this booklet, "Tax Reform that Agrees with Vermont", that includes insight on how to price pollution, put together by The Vermont Fair Tax Coalition - in 1999. Time to get a move on, VT! Thank you, Rep. Mary Sullivan, for not backing down, and for doing exactly what you should in the face of a Trump administration.

7 likes, 44 dislikes
Posted by Hannah Huber on 12/07/2016 at 1:10 PM

Re: “Caucus Conundrum: Will House Dems Fight Anew for Carbon Tax?

The commentators, pundits, and Vermont media at large have forgotten, or maybe never were aware to begin with, that the same polling done by WCAX that correctly projected the Scott victory also showed 49% of Vermonters responding favorably to "a Vermont carbon tax aimed at reducing global warming," which is a pretty reductionist way of describing a plan that was really more comprehensive tax reform. Taking that poll at face value, those who respondents voting for Scott also favor a carbon pollution tax, so why has the opposite narrative all we hear? Rep. Sullivan is right. The policy was incredibly misrepresented, and it takes real courage to not fall in line with others who know the same and would instead of correcting that neglect to say anything as a matter of convenience.

9 likes, 39 dislikes
Posted by Austin Davis on 12/07/2016 at 1:09 PM

Social Club

Like Seven Days contests and events? Join the club!

See an example of this newsletter...

Recent Comments

Keep up with us Seven Days a week!

Sign up for our fun and informative
newsletters:

All content © 2017 Da Capo Publishing, Inc. 255 So. Champlain St. Ste. 5, Burlington, VT 05401
Website powered by Foundation