On behalf of the State of Vermont, Governor Douglas is threatening to deny equal marriage opportunities to same gender couples. This will have at least one of the following results.
1. A long, drawn out, expensive, divisive, distracting, unnecessary, mean-spirited and painful for many Vermonters battle that he will eventually lose in the legislature, if not this year, then soon.
OR
2. A long, drawn out expensive, divisive, distracting, unnecessary, mean-spirited and painful for many Vermonters battle that he will eventually lose in the Supreme Court next door to the State House.
Or
3. The Governor will force "Number 1" which will lead to "Number 2" with the Vermont Courts, which will put us RIGHT BACK TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY and will require additional legislation to carry out the Court's order.
If the Governor goes through with his discrimination veto, he will inevitably force court and legislative battles. The Governor's pro-discrimination veto will send us -- in 2010/2011/2012 -- right back to the 2009 General Assembly. Right back to the 2009 General Assembly that is, today, proudly standing with all Vermonters and protecting their rights.
If the Governor chooses the path of division, delay, distraction and the disgrace of rejecting Vermonters' rights to marry -- all of our rights as Vermonters and as people -- to enjoy State created legal marriage benefits, then the following is a harbinger of what's to come.
You did not read it here first, but you will read something like it soon enough if the Governor chooses goes through with his discrimination veto.
Poking around this morning, I came across a good piece at the blog Dissenting Justice, a DC blog by Professor Darren Hutchinson. His post, Definite Candidate for Wimp of the Year Award: Vermont Governor Jim Douglas, is a good one, as it's taking on the lack of spine of our pathetic excuse for a governor in the way he's dealing with the marriage equality debate. He believes the governor is hiding behind the president, as Obama has also come out for civil unions as opposed to full-blown marriage, and that it's easier to do that than for Douglas to come up with his own coherent argument.
The latest talking point/strategy from GOP HQ seems to be to fight anything progressive with the argument that it's "distracting" from dealing with the economic crisis that they played a huge part in creating (you know, that whole "Reaganomics on steroids" thing). We're seeing it with all the Village-speak lately with this "Obama trying to do too much" garbage. Now, coming from Republicans, not the most adept, complexity-handling, agile subset of our species, this is understanding... sometimes I wonder how they're able to actually show up to work in the morning in DC with all those similar-looking big grey buildings everywhere; if it weren't for the obvious dome of the Capitol, I suspect some would probably show up at the Smithsonian for work.
And as Hutchinson points out, Douglas, in a bold stroke of originality, is using the same playbook as the mouthbreathing Eric Cantor, who recently criticized Obama's stem cell decision as a distraction, yet apparently found that a resolution congratulating the American Dental Association , a bill to declare English as the official language of the United States, and a beer tax reduction all vital, pressing issues that most of the country loses sleep over at night. I know I do; every time I go to the dentist, I ask him if he feels appreciated enough by the American people, and that he damn well better answer in English, because I'm feeling ornery because of those few extra cents I paid on my bottle of beer last night:
Why Aren't These Things "Distracting"? Here are some of the other things that Governor Douglas has done (or has planned for this year) that have not caused economic collapse in Vermont.
Vermont Quarter to get a Makeover>: "Governor Jim Douglas has nominated Vermont’s 150 miles of the Appalachian Trail to replace the scene of Camel’s Hump and sap buckets as part of the U.S. Mint’s new America’s Beautiful National Parks Quarter Dollar Coin Program."
Governor Douglas has time to hang out at a tree tapping, go on a tour of sugar houses and attend a poster contest banquet, but he thinks that debating civil rights is too distracting.
Maybe he's not distracted because they're all superficial campaign-like PR events, which is primarily what Douglas seems to think passes for governing, when he's not impeding progress in some form or another. Indeed.
I recently got word from some mumblings in the statehouse that the pave-the-state forces will be going full on this session, and lo and behold, what's in today's Argus/Herald? Act 250 reform also a target:
Governor James Douglas ensured yet another session-long debate over permit reform Thursday when he blamed Act 250 for impeding economic growth in the state.
Job creation and economic development were keystones last summer and fall in Douglas' re-election campaign. Delivering on promises to reduce unemployment, increase stagnant wages and bolster corporate revenues, Douglas said Thursday, will require wholesale changes to the state's sweeping land-use and development law.
"The current system remains a labyrinth, fraught with unpredictability, which threatens job creation for years ahead – unless we are prepared to make substantive changes that will modernize the system," Douglas said of Act 250 in his inaugural address.
Douglas' proposal seeks not only to expedite Act 250 proceedings but to fundamentally alter the criteria on which applications are judged. Rather than considering development proposals on their environmental impacts alone, Douglas wants the system to take into account their potential economic and social benefits as well.
Republicans... you can always count on 'em to exploit a crisis to do everything they can to manufacture a reason to undo good things, especially environmental protection. Like so much else they believe, it's a bunch of faith-based fiction. More below the jump.
(This is a lot more important than my hummingbird photos. - promoted by JulieWaters)
Overheard in Montpelier -- Jim Douglas to Anthony Pollina:"Tony, here's $28,000, don't spend it all in one Party."
Anthony Pollina's campaign is not handling his departure from the Vermont Progressive Party with the aplomb expected of a politician who has run in three statewide elections since 1984.The current campaign finance flap was a foreseeable distraction, but he apparently had no pre-determined solution nor did he take proactive steps to stave off the problem before allowing a confusing political/financial/legal narrative to take hold.
The most important aspect of this story is also the most overlooked. No one seems to be discussing the fact that:
1. Mr. Pollina has broken no campaign finance law.
3. Mr. Pollina may legally continue to collect contributions as an Independent in the same manner that he would have done as a Progressive.
Pretty crazy considering both his response to this affair and the press he has received as result.
My opinion (glad you asked) Mr. Pollina owes Governor Douglas a big fat sloppy wet kiss because, thanks to the Governor, Pollina is not legally obligated to return a single penny. In fact, Vermont law does nothing to prevent him from going back to his contributors (caveat, good luck trying!) for more $$ -- all thanks to Governor Douglas.
As the Douglas administration's escalated rhetoric regarding what to do about protecting Vermont's children reaches new, shameless heights in both pandering and finger pointing, with draconian legislative proposals that really don't solve the problem but throw red meat to the base, and even disingenuous push polling, there is yet another failure of the Douglas administration in that regard worth bringing attention to. Although Vermont hasn't led a military attack on New Hampshire yet under false pretenses, Douglas' damage to our fine state is reaching Bush-like levels of neglect and incompetency.
The state's Child Development Division is the agency responsible for ensuring that the state's child care providers are following the necessary procedures and safety standards, often dealing with simple matters such as numbers of fire extinguishers, property and facility inspection and such. The inspections are necessary to the initial licensing process, but unannounced inspections are also conducted to make sure regulations are being complied to.
That is all well and good, but there's a big problem here. Most of the child care providers are not being inspected, and the budget for the agency is getting cut. More below the jump.
A few weeks ago, I wrote here about outdoor writer Dennis Jensen's excellent blast of Jim Douglas' photo-op on the opening day of trout season, in which he couldn't even be troubled by baiting his own hook. Now, as I pointed out before, what I like about Jensen among other things, is his willingness to delve into political matters from time to time that go against the orthodoxy of his generally conservative-leaning audience. I was on the lookout for a backlash after that latest article. The only one to be seen came in the form of a letter to the editor from, who else but, Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Wayne Laroche, one of the few Douglas admins who haven't jumped ship lately. Laroche, the guy who baited Douglas' hook, offered up a defense of Douglas that illustrates exactly why Douglas continually seems to get a pass from voters: the illusion of doing something, as well as a rather selective airing of the accomplishments.
Part of what I attribute to Douglas' continuing electoral success (aside from his role as "The Great Preventer", who keeps the non-existent nefarious liberal-Marxist elements at bay) is that on the surface, if you're one who doesn't follow politics closely, he sure seems like a busy guy. Breaking ground at new constructions, cutting ribbons, singing the praises of McDonalds' "nutritious food" the day after appearing at an event to support the importance of buying local food, marching in parades, etc. For some people that really seems to be enough. And Laroche's letter to the editor appeals to that mindset.More below the jump.
It's been a frequent observation here on GMD and elsewhere about how much Jim Douglas is really one of the worst spokespeople we currently have to promote the state of Vermont, simply because he seems to never miss an opportunity to let everyone know how awful it is to live here. It seems that not a day goes by where he's complaining about the tax burden, the regulatory climate, and a plethora of other things. I often joke that even though things are pretty decent for me personally, I'm thinking of moving away just because Douglas' blather is rubbing off on me, and maybe things are pretty bad for me here and I just haven't figured it out yet. I can't think of a better way to attract businesses and skilled workers than to tell them how bad it is here, can you?
In yesterday's Seven Days, Jon Margolis took a look at this phenomenon echoed by Douglas and his allies, and came to the conclusion that it's a big lie. Go below the jump for more.
Fans of the early, early days of rock 'n roll might recall the Platters' 1955 hit, "The Great Pretender":
"Oh yes, I'm the Great Pretender, pretending that I'm doing well.
My need is such, I pretend too much. I'm lonely, but no one can tell..."
Well, it seems we've found a variation on this could be making the rounds as Gov. Whinin' Jim Douglas' new campaign song:
"Oh yes, I'm the Great Preventer, preventing what would do us well.
My need is such, I prevent too much. life in Vermont is hell..."
My apologies to the Platters there, but as you probably know by now, the Guv. vetoed the recent Instant Runoff Voting bill, as expected. Gotta keep those damn lib'ruls in check - it's his life's calling, you know (well, that and telling everyone else how miserable life in Vermont really is).
The Vermont Department of Public Service has asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to put a hold on the relicensure review of Vermont Yankee.
The Douglas administration has joined anti-nuclear groups from Vermont, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey in an effort to stop the NRC's relicensing of four nuclear reactors until the commission overhauls its review program. Nuclear companies in those four states have renewal applications pending before the NRC.
The 2008 legislative session is around the corner and representatives in south central Vermont are ready to do business. The Deerfield Valley, nestled Bennington and Windham counties, covers Dover, Halifax, Readsboro, Wardsboro, Whitingham, and Wilmington. Mount Snow ski resort is located smack dab in the valley, the birthplace of Brigham Young is located in Whitingham, and Twin Valley HS in WIlmington is a Division III power house in high school sports. Deerfield Valley residents hate taxes, want to repeal Act 60 and Act 68, and divided over the Deerfield Wind Project, slated to be built in Readsboro and Searsburg. The Democrats continue to dominate this area and all are eager to get back to work. Here's a preview of what they'll be working on this legislative session.
Pols have work to do
The last half of the 2007-2008 Legislature is about to begin and Deerfield Valley representatives will have a lot to work on. As the 2008 election looms, legislators will be trying to accomplish as much as they can with the hope to be re-elected in November.
Representatives from Windham and Bennington counties worked on a number of issues toward the end of last year's session and plan to continue where they left off.
The major obstacle they say they face is Governor Jim Douglas, how much his administration will work with the valley's Democratic legislators, and whether or not he will support the legislation they're working on.
A major issue on the minds of many is property tax relief and representative John Moran (D- Windham-Bennington 1) said this will be at the top of his list.
"One of the major concerns is getting rid of the residential statewide property tax and replacing it with an income tax. I will support that effort," said Moran. Moran has two bills in the works, H.538 and H.539. Moran said H.538 will look at common level of appraisal and adjust it to benefit homeowners, while H.539 will take a serious look at whether the Legislature should fund, manage, and control education at the local and state levels. H.538 and H.539 are short bills, where the ideas are proposed, and Moran said this session they plan on fleshing it out and presenting it to the appropriate committees. "It will go to Ways and Means and present more detailed suggestions," said Moran. "I'm putting a lot of focus on the income tax as a solution to the residential statewide tax. It would eliminate it."
As climate change continues to gather more steam as an issue both in Vermont and abroad, I'm continually and increasingly perplexed as to what neurons are misfiring in Whinin' Jim Douglas' brain cavity.
First, a bold and comprehensive energy bill gets shot down by Douglas so he can keep his VT Yankee buddies from paying their fair share of taxes. In Douglas' perpetual taxpayer funded campaign stops "Set The Agenda Tour", Jimbo says that he's not really hearing much about global warming. It's all about that that nasty, overtaxed, harsh business climate that Douglas seems intent on promoting Vermont with (the only "climate" he seems to be interested in). Then, the guv's Commission on Climate Change issued a report detailing the severity of the problem, seemingly contradicting the short shrift the guv' seems to be giving it.
This has been crossposted to Daily Kos. Note: I wrote the diary intended for both audiences, GMD and Kos, so I apologize if I spend too much time explaining Vermont politics or history, but wanted to be thorough enough for both audiences without having a radically different document from one to the other --julie
UPDATE: Based on confirmation from law enforcement sources, pharmacies that were approached by the State Police on Friday November 30th and from legal sources representing people affected by State Police conduct last Friday, GMD can add the following to the reporting that has occurred already.
The Department of Public Safety was planning last weeks pharmacy checks ("Fishing Derby Friday") for several weeks.
The State Police visited multiple pharmacies on Friday November 30th.
At least twothree pharmacies were told to by the State Police to turn over patient profiles for every patient who received a schedule II prescription from that pharmacy.
At least one pharmacy was told it would be required to update the patient profile information with the police every two weeks.
At several pharmacies the police merely introduced themselves to the pharmacist, gave their business cards and asked the pharmacist to call the police officer if they encountered any suspicious behavior such as indications of "Doctor shopping" or prescription fraud.
Late Friday, due to intense push back and complaints from pharmacists who were concerned about requests from the Vermont State Police that they reveal confidential and federally protected medical information about their customers, State Police management sent an email to all State Police involved with the pharmacy checks throughout the state instructing them to cease the pharmacy checks. After the email went out, Fish Derby Friday ceased (for now).
It's always good to start with the constitution, this time from Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Yesterday, Green Mountain Daily scooped all the Vermont news outlets by publishing a story about state police collecting pharmacy records across the state. You can find the original piece here.
A few weeks back, Caoimhin wrote a fantastic diary expressing concerns over proposed implementation of 2005's legislation creating the Vermont Prescription Monitoring System. At the time, he wrote:
The Department of Health is in the process of seeking legislative approval of administrative rules the Department drafted to govern VPMS. The proposed rules will monitor your physician's provision, and your access to, hundreds of treatments for thousands of conditions. The purpose of the law is intended to identify substance abusers and to facilitate their treatment -- nothing inherently wrong with that and in fact it is a laudable goal. However, the proposed regulations by the Department of Health do not accomplish the goal set out by the legislature, violate the laws governing the VPMS and present too many dangers for disclosure, misuse, mishandling of sensitive patient medical information.
As CL stated, the law mandates collecting the minimum necessary information to achieve it's stated goals.
But instead of the Department of Health, we apparently needed to be watching out for the State Police.
GMD has learned that State Police representatives are going to Vermont Pharmacies and demanding complete dumps of all information about patients with Schedule II prescriptions (the class of medications that include prescription drugs with street value). After talking to a few pharmacists, I found one in Franklin County that confirmed they had been approached, and had been advised by the state that they did, indeed need to comply with the request. Needless to say, he wasn't too happy about it.
What's even more disturbing? When I asked if he knew of any other pharmacies that were being mined for data in this way, he responded that it was his understanding that this was a process that was to take place across the state.
Sounds to me like the State Police is actively putting together a medical records database of Vermonters across the state for the purpose of, as this pharmacist opined, "fishing expeditions."
And if you think something of this magnitude wasn't signed off on by the Governor's office, you're kidding yourself.
The Douglas administration has long resisted public calls for an ISA of Vermont Yankee, most recently made by the state's Congressional delegation. But O'Brien indicated Tuesday night that the NRC's standard oversight process is insufficient, noting that several recent events at the plant had diminished the public's confidence in its safety and the adequacy of its oversight.
"The governor basically has asked me to work very closely with the congressional delegation to come up with an independent safety assessment that we can all be confident in -- that will answer the sort of questions that are being asked about Vermont Yankee," he said. "I think we make decisions based on the circumstances we're in and the facts we're looking at. From the governor's perspective, he's not comfortable right now, especially after the past six months -- with the cooling tower failure and the valve failure."
Governor Douglas's dictate that the duly elected Windsor State's Attorney be condemned and ignored in the interest of political grandstanding is creating some attention from legislators in the area - most notably from Senator John Campbell, who is considering challenging the Governor in '08.
If you missed the story, Jack discusses it here last week. This is how it was reported by Ross Sneyd at VPR:
Martha Davis was accused of cultivating marijuana. Game wardens say they seized 2½ pounds of pot and found 32 plants.
But the Windsor County state's attorney, Robert Sand, decided not to pursue a felony case. Instead, he referred Davis to court diversion.
So, Davis will have to go through substance abuse counseling, pay some fees and possibly perform community service.
Once those requirements are fulfilled, Davis will be free of the criminal justice system - and will have no criminal record.
First off, this is all legal. Nobody with a firm grip on reality is arguing that Sand overstepped his statutory authority, merely that they don't approve of his decision. A brave and common sensical one, frankly. But the implications of Douglas directing the State Police to bypass Sand and refer drug cases directly to the state Attorney General is an extraordinary example of executive meddling in the judicial process to score political points.
Once again, It's Douglas playing by the Bush playbook, this time concerning seperation of powers.
Okay, okay... sheesh, I figured everybody'd be all over this poll. Guess it's up to me (for the record, over the last 24 hours, I have finished this post twice only to have the app crash on me and lose all my work... ARRRRG!!)
42 percent said they'd vote to re-elect Jim Douglas.
33 percent said they'd replace him.
25 percent said they were not sure.
Roper & company are trying to be blase about it, but this is a dramatic sea change. At this point in the last two cycles, Douglas's re-elect numbers were in the 60's. What's more ominous for the GOP is the significance of that number, which they no doubt recognize: 42%. It's roughly the mean, historical, hardcore GOP voting block that their statewides can depend on cycle after cycle. That's what he's down to, in terms of firm support.
16% percent of Vermonters say Governor Douglas is doing an excellent job. 38% a good job, with only 5% of people not sure how he's doing.
But when you put these numbers together, you've got a clear picture; the "nice guy" Douglas image is still intact, but moderates and independents are no longer confident that he's the right man for the job. It's probably not helping him that he's been using his so-called "listening tour" to TELL voters (through the media) what's important to them, rather than - y'know - listening. That only widens the perception that he's out-of-touch.
And if you think they're not scared, consider this: The original title of the WCAX web piece on the poll was "Questionable fourth term for Douglas." If you'll notice, it now reads "2008 Governor's Race Starts To Shape Up". The station reportedly responded to a reader's question about the change, saying they had received "internal and external complaints" about the original headline.
Now come on. Do you think if you or I had complaints about the message sent by a news headline that the Douglas communication offi- er, I mean WCAX - would give us the time of day? No freaking way. That was political damage control, pure and simple.
He's at it again.. I mean, seriously, why does he even live here? I was reading in the Tmes Argus today the latest about Whinin' Jim - "High taxes, a big peeve, says Douglas" It's about his recent taxpayer-funded campaign "Set the Agenda" tour, in which he travelled around the state listening to 'ordinary Vermonters" about what was on their minds, and you guessed it, the constant scourge of the GOP - taxes, was at the top of the list, according to Whinin' Jim. It's more of what we've been hearing constantly from him as of late - variations on a theme, "How Lousy it is to Live in Vermont" or something. And Jim had some other things to say as well. Jump below the fold for the goods.
So a week or two back, the playing field for Democratic gubernatorial candidates seemed to only contain a crowd of folks pleading former Lite Guv candidate Matt Dunne to run for the top job, rather than go for round 2 against the Dubester (and please, folks... he is so NOT getting that FAA job. We're stuck with him.) Then, the Pollina for Governor crowd hit the Dem scene and media hard, making their case for Pollina to be the Democratic candidate, running as a P-D (it should be noted that Pollina has yet to make this appeal in person, and I'm still dubious as to whether he would ever accept a D by his name).
Today, via Louis Porter, we have two new names; author, foreign policy expert, former Ambassador, and former Democratic State Chair (1977-1979) Peter Galbraith, currently being discussed in Greenvtster's diary below, and Windsor County Senate powerhouse John Campbell.
So - whereas a couple weeks ago, we were looking at a barren wasteland, into which no one could blame Dunne for not wanting to venture, it's now morphed into what will be in effect - if likely not in actuality - a political primary among an array of candidates appealing not only to a broad ideological spectrum, but an institutional one as well. There's the third party firebrand, flirting with the idea of reaching out his hand to those he has made a career of scorning, an economic moderate/social liberal with strong connections across the political spectrum, and an in-state political outsider with international credentials and a reputation as a serious intellectual with a considerable pedigree.
On paper, you've got to give initial polling advantage to Pollina, but Pollina would be unlikely to be able to redefine himself quickly enough to close the deal. Campbell obviously has more electoral deal-closing potential, but the business interests that Campbell has made inroads with are going to be surprisingly unwilling to ditch their buddy Douglas, even with a Dem they find more palatable. The underdog has to be Galbraith, but the notion of a political outsider and intellectual running the state is definitely appealing in theory (and I do think someone with zero name recognition could beat Douglas... the problem is that he or she would have to start on a serious ground game last May...)
So it's back on (especially when you consider that Dunne may still wanna go for it, although I'm betting not). Conventional wisdom says a crowded field is a bad thing, and I suppose the ideal would've been to have a consensus candidate back in the Summer. But given the perception of weakness the lack of a candidate has created, and the negative impact that would clearly have had going into the next legislative session, I'll take a crowded field any day. In fact, some sort of horse race may well be the only way to get the media to sit up and take notice of electoral opposition to the Governor. Lord knows, after the last couple times around, little else has seemed to do the trick.
