Blurt: Seven Days Staff Blog

NOTE: Blurt has been retired and is no longer updated regularly. For new content, follow these links:

OFF MESSAGE: Vermont News and Politics
BITE CLUB: Food and Drink Blog

« My Secret Fantasy | Main | F-35 Fighter Jet Hits Turbulence in Congress »

April 21, 2010

Zuckerman Won't Seek Reelection to House

DZ-CP_floor Burlington Progressive David Zuckerman has decided not to seek reelection to the Vermont House of Representatives this fall.

A former House member — Progressive Chris Pearson — has decided to run for the seat and will kick off his campaign Friday.

Zuckerman is part of a two-seat Burlington district covering the neighborhoods in and around the University of Vermont. The other seat is held by Rep. Kesha Ram (D-Burlington), who bested Pearson in 2008 in a spirited four-way race between two Democrats and two Progressives.

Zuckerman, an organic farmer who has purchased farmland in Hinesburg but still resides in Burlington, said the demands of expanding his organic farm clinched his decision.

"It's the reality of life — the business is taking up a lot of time and energy right now, which is what happens when you take on a half-million dollars in debt," said Zuckerman, who runs Full Moon Farm with his wife Rachel Nevitt. The pair also has a 4-year-old daughter, and Zuckerman said a desire to spend more time with her also played into his decision.

Zuckerman said he had given up the idea of running for the House months ago, and has considered a run for lieutenant governor and Chittenden County senate.

"I've served now for 14 years, and it's time to take a break," said Zuckerman. "I may re-engage in a few years, but for now I'm going to step back."

Earlier this year, Zuckerman admitted to putting in for mileage allowances even though he carpooled to Montpelier. That drew a lot of ire from constituents, but the lead lawyer for the legislature said it's perfectly legit.

Zuckerman secured the most votes in the 2008 election with 2316, while Ram had 2163. Pearson followed in third with 1494 votes, while Democrat Phillip Ortego had 781 votes.

"As many of you remember, I lost my election in 2008. It was a painful process. But 2010 brings a new opportunity, and my friend David Zuckerman's retirement from the House creates a great chance for me to go back," Pearson said in an email inviting supporters to attend his campaign launch Friday on the UVM campus.

He told Seven Days that he's been thinking about a return to Montpelier for months, but began reaching out to supporters in earnest after the New Year.

"I really miss it, and I was able to accomplish quite a bit in my two years there, and it sort of was just getting started," Pearson said. "I wanted to give it a lot of thought, and I would like to continue doing [that], and a voice like mine provides an awful lot in the process."

In his first term, Pearson served as leader of the six-person Progressive Party caucus. During his single term, he called for funding schools by income taxes rather than property taxes. He also introduced legislation to create a "do not mail" registry akin to the state's Do Not Call registry. The measure was designed to keep people from receiving unwanted junk mail.

Pearson said that in his day job, working for National Popular Vote, he has seen how one person can make a difference in a small legislature.

Besides Pearson, the Progressive Party is likely to run a second candidate in the race, said Morgan Daybell, the party's executive director.

Will the last Prog to leave the building please turn out the lights?

Zuckerman will be missed. Thanks, for serving, Dave.

While Rep. Zuckerman and I have differed in many blogs over these and various web pages, forums etc through the years, I commend him for his many years of service. I wish him well in his new business venture which is understandably a great challenge. I am sure with his commitment, in the future years more discussions,disagreements, and resolutions will be reached, as he participates in the process known as democracy.
Good luck Dave we will get it on again in the future as we all work towards making this a better land

I expect Chris Pearson will set the ethical standard for all legislative candidates and “Take the Pledge” not to accept any expense allowance unless the expense is actually justified.

Lobbying against the electoral college is a poor idea, especially for Vermont. We were lucky enough to receive visits from candidate Bill Clinton and Candidate Barack Obama. They never would have come here if Vermont didn't have three electoral votes. Much of the wind in the sails of the popular vote movement came from 2000, but how long can that wind support paying positions like the one held by Mr. Pearson?

If I recall Pearson's junk mail proposal was of questionable constitutionality, enforceability and essentially amounted to the creation of another bureaucracy, and a new tax on business to support it.

And I seem to recall Pearson offering some poorly written blog comments on occasion.

Chris Pearson would have have some work ahead of him if he ever wanted to win my endorsement, and I would not assume he's a shoe-in in the election. Kesha Ram took him to school last go-round and I would not count the Dems out of fielding another winning candidate this time too.

...Oh and thank you for your service David Zuckerman. All the best to you and your family and I wish your farm great success!

Agree with Haik on the Electoral College thing. Vermont has enormous clout because of the EC. No state with 600,000 people would count for squat if it weren't for the EC. And does anyone really want the entire country to be ruled by exclusively whoever New York City and Los Angeles decide to pick for Prez? I don't. You're doing your own state of Vermont a great disservice, Pearson. Howabout you get a real job so you don't have to hope to get elected to the Vt. Legislature to make a living? Or move to LA where your national popular vote thingy might be considered a good thing.

Why is public service so vilified? When did it become automatic that wanting to serve my community means I have to be subject to rude comments like "get a real job?" Feel free to disagree with me, but a little respect would be appreciated.

Haik and "Geta" seem to agree with Gov. Douglas who vetoed the popular vote legislation on the basis that VT does well under the electoral college. Personally I agree with the sentiment expressed on the House floor when we passed the bill overwhelmingly: "How could Vermont possibly have any less influence?"

I believe every vote in the country should be equal. If every vote is in play then every vote will actually matter. Today candidates spend 2/3 of their money in 6 battleground states. New Hampshire got $14 million in spending in the fall of 2008 (not the primary) because it might have gone red or blue. Vermont got nothing. How is that good for us, exactly? What's wrong with every vote being equal? The top 50 cities in this country only account for 19% of the population so there is no way LA or NY will control the outcome.

But anyway, I hope to engage my neighbors in a rigorous debate this summer and fall and I hope to get back to Montpelier. It was a difficult but exciting job and I believe I can have a positive influence. We need to ask a new set of questions and look at our economy in a sustainable and localized way. If my neighbors agree I hope they'll vote for me.

Man if you can't handle comments like "get a real job" then you are not cut out for politics.

How could Vermont possibly have any less influence?

By getting rid of the electoral college. That's how Chris.

I believe every vote in the country should be equal.

Vermont is disproportionately represented in the US senate, as well as in the electoral college. Do you believe a small state like ours should not have two senators?

How do answer Chris?

Our bi-cameral legislature and the electoral college were born of the same set of compromises when the constitution was written.

Speaking strictly about proportional representaion from each state, the existance of the senate should be every bit of an anathema to the popular vote crowd as the electoral college.

If your goal is to amend the constitution to make presidential elections more fair, then how do you reconcile the existence of the senate?

If you've been a lobbyist for the abolition of the electoral college for some time, then surely you've pondered this question before. What say you?

Back to lawmaker Dave Z. His record of accomplishment in the state capitol is pretty impressive and worth noting as he shifts gears. I've worked in the statehouse throughout his entire career there. The guy has produced a lot of reforms that make a real difference for vulnerable elders, working people, the environment, farmers, and more. He's also led the way on tough issues that many elected officials would rather hide from, such as common sense drug policy reform.

"When did it become automatic that wanting to serve my community means I have to be subject to rude comments like "get a real job?""

"Serve your community?" Oh gimme a freakin break and leave off with the false noble sentiments already. You want the public salary and you want the power and recognition.

Despite your party's efforts to run business out of the state, IBM is hiring, at least temporarily. Give the private sector a try.

I always thought Zuckerman should have run for governor. I'm certain he would have been a much stronger candidate than Pollina.

Pollina who?

Thanks, David Z., for your years of service. See ya at the farmer's market.

I don't think you could be any more wrong Haik. By moving to popular vote, VT will become more important not less. As will all of the less populated states. Opposed to it being about 3 electoral college votes its about X hundreds of thousands of votes to their overall total. The three now can be taken completely for granted in VT and in many other states.

Candidates already spend a disproportionate amount of time in NYC and LA now. That is not going to change because of the high value of a large concentrated population and therefor a high number of voters. But when a candidate is counting true votes not some manufactured number they will have more motivation to spend time in more regions.

As it stands now don't you think pres candidates spend less time in up state NY then NYC? Of course they do. But why? by your theory they should spend essentially equal time all over NY.

Additionally, manufacturing some false problem between our representational form of gov't and how we elect our president is a ridiculous argument. The electoral college reduces the effectiveness of our voting system by artificially altering the one person one vote system. This has nothing to do with our representational democracy as it has nothing to do with electing any member of congress. The congress and the Senate are not elected through a statewide electoral college system, they are elected by one person one vote. The electoral college creates an unnecessary redundancy in an attempt to create the equality that our form of gov't already attains. In fact one could argue that our current Presidential electoral system decreases the true intent of equal representation for our nation's people.

PS - it is also somewhat humorous to read you state Chris will need to do a lot of work to get your "endorsement" opposed to simply your "vote". It betrays your belief that you think you are much more important then you really are.

rock on pearson. you have my vote.

There goes Fake Jimmy again, sucking up so he won't get kicked out of Zuckerman's CSA like Ed Adrian did. Haik, how dare you ask questions - no vegetables for you!

"real Jimmy"

Thanks for the note. Why such anger? Any chance you want to reveal who you are (last name etc.) as opposed to just flinging garbage without people being able to know who you are? Probably not.

questions are certainly reasonable. I believe Haik raised a point and Chris answered it. We actually have more power that our size as a state because we have two Senators, not because we have three electoral college votes. While that was originally set up to give states somewhat more equal power in the election of our President, the facts from many recent elections is that the power resides in "swing" states (regardless of size). Those that are either deep blue or deep red are more or less ignored by the major party candidates from either party because they know they either have it in the bag or can not win those states.

As for Obama visiting Vermont...he dipped his toe into the state once (once the campaign was truly going) and that was for a big fundraiser in Windsor County. Not really a major campaign rally etc. The last real candidate to do more than a pass by was Clinton in 1992 and that was because VT had come into play at that time (believe it or not!)

And sure do hold a memory and a grudge. It must really get you down. What do you do for fun?

And to Dale and Adam-

Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it. I have always tried (and sometimes failed) to present my views and listen to others. One of the aspects of serving that has been best is the range of views held and the articulate voices that often present those views.

We each live in our sphere of friends and our own perspective. It is great that in Vermont we mix more than in many other places. From that, even better results often come to bear.

Sadly, when it is about personal gain or personal promotion, it takes down everyone. I hope politics in Vermont and Burlington does not go down that negative path. And I am sorry for the moments when I have have moved away from issues and have gotten mired in the muck as well.

@ Zuckerman: To Jimmy: "Thanks for the note. Why such anger? Any chance you want to reveal who you are (last name etc.) as opposed to just flinging garbage without people being able to know who you are? Probably not."

It ain't garbage. Adrian wasn't the only one kicked out of your CSA for expressing opinions you didn't like.

David, don't you remember? Obama came twice in the election. Obama came for a fundraiser, but before that he visited Ira Allen Chapel at UVM.

Your noting that Vermont was a swing state in 1992 only makes my point.

And I heard the same thing about the CSA, by the way. From what I heard it sounded like a petty move. Hopefully that wasn't the case and there are some facts I'm missing, but it sounded like political retribution. If that's wrong David, please explain.

It's dead wrong to say the electoral college reduces Vermont's influence in presidential elections. You have to be really bad at math to argue that.

And yes, Vermont's disproportionately high repesentation in the senate helps us out. It helps us in the same way our disproportionatly high repesentation in the electoral college helps us in presidential elections.

For those who don't know. The numbers of electors from each state is based on the number senators and repesentatives it has.

Christopher Peason did not address my question, Matthew. I would have prefered an answer from the lobbyist himself.

And Matthew, if I lived in Peason's district, he would have a lot of work to do to win my vote, but since I don't, it's only my endorsement that's in play. What's the value of my endorsement? Well that's hard to quantify, but I wouldn't assume it's meaningless.

In fact, I think I might devote some extra attention to the Pearson race on my blog now. And that attention may not be favorable to Mr. Peason. It would be foolish to assume that's nothing to worry about.

So find all the humor you want in my endorsement choices. We will see what happens.

And Peason. You would present as a stonger candidate if you answered questions personally, rather than letting surrogates like Mr. Lyons fight your battles for you.

I apologize. Soon, i'll use my real name, you know, like someone who's not a sociopath.


I am not sure who else you are referring to. Ed (and his family sadly) was the only one. If you want to smear me and imply there were more, fine. But that's all it is. The reasoning has been hashed out before. It was more than petty politics...but I am sure if I explain it again, it will just lead to a long back and forth. But please, do not smear me with false accusations. We can disagree on any number of things, but attacking me personally or my business is uncalled for.

Now, on to a real topic for debate; National Popular Vote and the electoral college. I am well aware that Obama came to UVM. But that was for the purpose of winning the primary. As far as I know, NPV would not change that process. But as far as general elections go, we only matter when we are in play (and that is rare). That does not reinforce your argument, it points out that our three electoral votes are not a big deal...and therefore get little attention in most general elections because we are not a swing state. If a candidate wins a state by 5% or 20% it is worth the same (in the electoral college). If that state is within 1-5 points...then it can be won and the campaigns invest. But any margin matters under NPV, and if one can get a higher turnout or a higher percentage in a like minded state...then it is worth investing there to increase ones votes. So with NPV it becomes worthwhile to campaign anywhere that the voting population is not set in stone.

It was more than petty politics...

But petty politics was a part of it? Just kidding.

Any state can be a swing state, and campaign resources will always be finite. The fact remains 3/538 (.005) is a larger number than 600,000/3,000,000 (.002). Vermont has more influence under the current system than it would under a national popular vote.

That's as it should be. Vermont is a state like the other 49. We don't have a national government. We have a federal government. We don't have a national presidential election. We have fifty state elections, and one in DC.

We don't have a mechanism for a single national election, and I hope we never do. That's like one large field of homogeneous crops. Danger. I'd prefer my corruption and shenanigans one state at a time, thank you. Better to have fifty different strains of seed going, lest one or two succumb to parasites.

The system works well. There was a hiccup in 2000 that caused a lot of resentment and sour grapes, but it strains credulity to argue the electoral college alone should be blamed for that. You could blame Clarence Thomas, or Ralph Nader, or Monica Lewinsky. You could blame an uninformed electorate, the media, or the butterfly ballot. You could blame Joe Lieberman or the fact Gore used "you ain't seen nothin' yet" by BTO instead of "keep on rolling" by REO Speedwagon like he should have.

But some people want to use 2000 as justification for attacking the electoral college. If 2000 had not happened, it seems unlikely Christopher Pearson would be a lobbyist right now, working to cut the heart out a the system that has held our nation together for two hundred years.

Chris Pearson might think he knows better than Thomas Paine, John Adams and James Madison, but I seriously doubt he does.

Just out of curiousity, is this a full-time, 40 hour per week lobbying job Chris Pearson works at right now? Does he work in Burlington? These are fair questions to ask of a candidate for the legislature, aren't they? Voters have a right to know a little about their candidates and the voters of Chittenden 3-4 may be curious. I am a little.

Excuse me. I meant to say " a larger number than 600,000/300,000,000..."

I wonder: if Chris were an oil lobbyist running for the seat, would Haik lay into him as much as he is with Chris' current career? And what exactly does a Haik endorsement mean? So far, all it appears to mean is "I'll-stop-with-the-impertinent-questions-if-you-score-me-some-ritilin."

To argue that Vermont will be weaker on the national scene without the electoral college is weak. It further implies that the people of Burlington actually care about this issue. Any bets on how big this issue will rate in any Burlington district? Probably somewhere down the list near mosquitos.

Thank goodness Zuckerman is out good riddance to the petty thief. What a flagrant idiot to flaunt the fact that he was padding his salary during economic hard times and layofs of hardworking Vermonters working for the state.

Anyone driving by Zuckerman's farm it is open poaching season, I encourage all unemployed state workers to help themselves, His new Political slogan..

Stealing it is the Zuckerman endorsed way to feed your family.

Extra carrots for Fake Jimmy! Huzzah!

BTW Zuckerman, my memory of that incident doesn't reflect anger, depression, a particularly long memory or the holding of any grudge. It reflects an association with the combination of your name and Pearson's that I'm sure has stuck with a lot of people - at least a couple of others on this thread. I don't know Adrian, don't need to buy vegetables from you, and am otherwise unaffected by the anecdote; I just think it's funny.

Real Jimmy here. I don't condone the statements of fake Jimmy. My vote continues to be reserved for Pearson.

Fake Jimmy, going for the "go ahead and grab yourself a chicken out of the back yard" bonus!

A. I don't know this story that's being referred to, but why should David Zuckerman have to defend any decision regarding his business to anyone on this blog or anyone else for that matter?
B. Can we stop deifying Madison, et al? Not everything they touched was perfect. 3/5 clause. Need I say more?
C. The NPV proposal pledges a state's votes to the winner of the popular vote. After all, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" a number of electors, etc. There's no amending of the constitution - U.S. or Vermont. There's no destruction of the electoral college involved. States have changed the way they apportion their EC votes in the past, so a whole lot of points defending the EC in this thread are moot.

The politician who eliminates mosquitos will never lose an election.

"I don't know this story that's being referred to, but why should David Zuckerman have to defend any decision regarding his business to anyone on this blog or anyone else for that matter?"

How naive (or partisan) can you possibly be? The answer is, because a person's conduct as a businessperson may be relevant as to how he or she might conduct himself/herself as a state rep. (which he is) and as a state senator, lt. governor, and congressman (all of which he considered running for). He's not a private citizen. Do you think the public was not entitled to know about presidential candidate George W. Bush's disastrous history as a businessman before he ran for public office?

Are you saying a person's personal or business decisions can never be relevant to his or her political life? What if in business, a person engages in discriminatory hiring or firing practices? What if they engage in illegal or unethical business behavior? What if they cook the books?

Since you admit that you are entirely unfamiliar with the issue, please refrain from making grandiose pronouncements.

The NPV proposal pledges a state's votes to the winner of the popular vote.

That's the current system, David. A state's electoral votes go to its popular vote winner.

Where can we read this "NVP" proposal that lobbyist Chris Pearson is promoting?

(PS- Chris Pearson is a lobbyist. :)

I agree that if someone runs a business into the ground, or is successful, or breaks the law (either employer/employee, or otherwise), then that is a bit more relevant to ones being a lawmaker. But all businesses have to make decisions with respect to whether a customer or client is worth keeping or not. Not every customer is "worth it". Some customers are not welcome because they cause a disruption in the store. There are many possible situations. For instance, we have chosen to wholesale very little because it is not our business model. There are some who have asked us for product, but it does not fit into our day to make a specific delivery to a specific place as we are too busy, it does not fit for us. Individual business decisions are different than bigger picture abuses etc. Not all business decisions are relevent to how one performs the job as a publically elected official.

As for NPV, not all states allocate their votes to the popular vote winner. Very nearly all do. But I know that at least Maine allocates their votes in a proportional manner to the votes that are cast (within the state...and I know...that is different than allocating based on the national vote). The point is that each state has the right to allocate their votes however they want to. The questions to ask and discuss are whether we gain or lose political muscle with various systems. Haik, you are convinced that we lose. Others are convinced that we would win. I think there is a lot of evidence to look at more closely. Sadly, in this blog world, we can get too hung up on short bites to prove each other wrong instead of having a reasonable conversation with deeper thought and reflection.

On that note, I am admittedly frustrated that I failed to communicate the mileage issue more clearly. I was willing to speak to the media (7 days) because I believe our compensation system is totally screwed up. That never came through. I have asked legislative council to draft a change to the law...but it is too late for this session. As Sevendays reported in the second article, we are allocated an allowance, it is not a reimbursement. Just as others receive allowances, it is not prescribed how one spends the allowance. But I agree, mileage and meal allowances are bizarre.

So, I ask, and these are honest questions; what is the best way to pay legislators? How much? Unlike most jobs, the employees (legislators) are required to live across the state. Should there be different compensation for that disparity? If so, how should it be calculated?

Should legislators get health insurance? Should legislators be paid minimum wage? $20,000 a year, $40,000 a year? $60,000 a year? Should legislators be paid only for the session or should they get paid for hours worked throughout the year even when not in session? Should their phone bills and other costs associated with constituent services be reimbursed? Should it be a hard number no matter how long the session? Should legislators make the same per hour rate as the average Vermonter?

How much do you think legislators make today? What do you think the benefits are?

For those that have taken me to task for doing exactly what the system asks me to do (or anyone for that matter), please think about the above questions and send an answer (nice and completely please) either here or to my legislative email [email protected] so that I can figure out how to incorporate them into the bill idea so that it might be addressed next year (I will try to get it taken up by someone else...there are others interested in bringing our compensation in line with the average Vermonter).

I understand that some people are upset. So lets do something about changing the system. Let me know your ideas.

Breaking News!

Peg Boyle Single to Run for Open House Seat in Chittenden 3-4

Looks like it's ON.

1. I kind of wish Chris Pearson would answer the questions directed at him. When others jump in and answer, it makes it appear that he is incapable of doing so.

2. If I have an idea that I want incorporated into a bill, I can email it directly to a member of the legislature. I don't need to email it to you and have you forward it to someone.


No problem. I was just thinking that since there was so much concern about legislative pay that we ought to discuss it. Most other legislators don't think it is an issue (nor do most of the media...otherwise it would have been a huge scandal). In case you (or anyone else) is wondering, most legislators "make" more in allowances than they do in base pay (not actually true for me, I am the fourth lowest compensated legislator outside of Washington County). It is all part of the messed up system that I was trying to open the door of discussion on.

Since it appears that solutions are not part of the goal, I am not sure where to go from here. I have ideas, but I thought input from those that seem to care would be helpful. In Montpelier I do not only listen to Vermonters from my district. I have always tried to hear from folks who have an interest in the topic or who might be impacted by a decision. Feel free to send your ideas to your Rep. and let them know that I am happy to work on it with them.

I am also a sponsor of the NPV bill. So I thought I might add something to the discussion.

Thanks for the explanation, David. Sorry for being a twit.

I think most people find the automated spam less annoying, Fake Jimmy.

David, I wasn't wondering, and I don't remember anyone else saying they were. If legislators aren't happy with the compensation scheme then they shouldn't run. I've known a few people who have served in the House and Senate and compensation was not important to them, they just wanted to serve the people of the state.

Yeah, that was a typo. Sorry. It should've said that NPV pledges a state's votes to the *national* popular vote winner. My bad. My point was simply that NPV is totally within the structure of the U.S. Constitution, because the Constitution leaves it up to the state. Interestingly, 21 states, representing 257 electoral votes, currently don't require their electors to pledge their votes for the winner of that state's popular vote.

And, as David Z. pointed out, Maine (along with Nebraska) has the district system, where the state's EC votes are split according to how its congressional districts vote, as opposed to the winner-take-all system. The district system was a lot more widely used 150 years ago, but it also led to a popular vote winner losing an election.

There's some good info on the EC at the national archives website. I'm pretty sure NPV has a website, which shouldn't be hard to find as they're lobbyists. :)

I only chimed in on the EC issue because it has been an area of interest for me, not to carry water for anyone, and I'm not really advocating one side or the other.

And, yes, I naively did not consider any discrimination or other illegal activity a "business decision." I consider that criminal, but, again, my bad. I'll certainly watch my words more carefully when (if) I chime in on blogs in the future. Didn't mean to upset anyone...

"And, yes, I naively did not consider any discrimination or other illegal activity a "business decision." I consider that criminal, but, again, my bad. I'll certainly watch my words more carefully when (if) I chime in on blogs in the future. Didn't mean to upset anyone..."

No prob.


Then I am not sure what all the fuss is about. You see...I was/am simply following the rules of compensation for legislators. So I (apparently mistakenly) understood that if people were upset with my compensation then they are also upset with the system ( was pointed out in the second, more thorough article...I am getting compensated exactly as the law prescribes.)

I am not "doing it for the pay" as you mention. I have been engaged in politics and elected office because I have felt that I could work to improve the daily and legal situation for folks through Vermont laws. Some would argue I have succeeded others that I have failed. That is up to the individual.

However, I also think that serving should be accessible to anyone (who can run and win etc.) and should not be shut out due to economics. That is why I ask what people think reasonable compensation should be? What is right as far as how much? I do not know...different folks have different opinions. I am surprised you don't want to add yours since you tend to be more than ready to add your opinion on just about everything else.

"Then I am not sure what all the fuss is about."

Take a breath and try to concentrate. I didn't bring up your mileage issue. I have opinions about it, but I specifically said that I'm not interested in discussing it with someone who's not directly in a position to do anything about it.

Furthermore, that's not what this blog post was about. Someone referenced it in a "good riddance" comment; that's not an invitation to debate the issue at length, especially when no one's debating back.

Sorry Jimmy-

I did write back to the wrong person, I did not go back and specifically read who was chiding me for farming and business versus the compensation issue. My bad.

Ya gotta love a lively debate! Now everyone have a drink!

fair enough Sean-

But then again...the folks that have brought up my business (with false accusations) and the mileage (with a false understanding of the rules of our compensation) have not chimed in to dispute or answer the questions I have asked.

For instance (@ Murphy and Jimmy (since I got the topic wrong with you before)) who else was kicked out and why? There is no one that I can why make things up?

And mileage, food, lodging, all screwed up systems...but it is the system none-the-less. So Phrog (or whoever you are), what say you to the questions I mistakenly posted to Jimmy before? How should legislators be compensated?

Happy to go have a drink, when people that throw stones are willing to back it up with facts, or admit they are making @*&@ up.

"Jimmy (since I got the topic wrong with you before)) who else was kicked out and why?"

I thought I told you to take a breath and concentrate. I never said anyone other than Adrian got kicked out of your CSA.

Between the thin skin and reading comprehension issues, it's probably for the best that you're retiring from politics. Good luck with the farming.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Stuck in VT (VIDEOS)

Solid State (Music)

Mistress Maeve (Sex)

All Rights Reserved © Da Capo Publishing Inc. 1995-2012 | PO Box 1164, Burlington, VT 05402-1164 | 802-864-5684