Reply #47: The author of the "rebuttal" completely ignores some facts that [View All]

[DemBones DemBones]

are cited by Colby, such as:

"Remember, when Dean took office there were no Wal-Marts in Vermont; there was no Home Depots; Burlington's downtown was dominated by local stores not the national chains that now rule the roost; there were 36% more small farmers in existence; there were no 100,000-hen mega-farms; and sprawl wasn't a word on the tip of everyone's tongue."

It should be fairly easy to determine whether these are facts or not, with the possible exception of whether literally everyone in Vermont is talking about "sprawl." (Of course, the author was using a figure of speech, but I'll cede this one to Dean just to be sporting. Now you Deanies just need to prove Colby's other assertions are untrue.)

By the way, attacking Colby for his 2000 Nader vote, as Kaufman did in his "rebuttal," is totally irrelevant to any facts about Dean's gubernatorial record on the environment. It's argumentum ad hominem.

Here's something else from Colby to fact check:

"Stephanie Kaplan, a leading environmental lawyer and the former executive officer of Vermont's Environmental Board, <snip> points to the "Environmental Board purge" in the mid-90s that allowed Dean to set the pro-development tone. In 1993, the Board issued an Act 250 permit to C&S Grocers in Brattleboro with conditions that restricted the diesel emissions from its heavy truck traffic. After C&S execs cried foul and threatened to move to New Hampshire, Dean broke gubernatorial precedent by publicly criticizing the Environmental Board for issuing what he called a "non-permit."

The article by Colby goes on to explain that a year later, four members of the Environmental Board, including its chair, were up for reappointment. The Republican majority in the state senate, apparently acting on Dean's "not-so-subtle clues," voted not to reappoint any of the four, making a major change in the board.

"After the post-C&S purge," says Kaplan, "the burden of proof for Act 250 permits switched from being on the applicants -- where it's supposed to be -- to being on the environmentalists. That's why 98% of the permit requests are approved and only 20% ever have hearings."

Plenty of facts and figures there to check. Let's see some Deanies prove any or all of them to be false. I'm open to seeing proof that Dean's being treated unfairly. Are you Deanies open to admitting to yourselves that Dean's environmental record is not very good? He was good on land preservation, a fact that Colby pointed out in the article.