People are starting to go gonzo over Senator Shumlin's. - er... "odd" - notion that Republican Senator Vince Illuzzi is the man that Democrats should support as an independent challenger to Jim Douglas. And the damndest people seem to be picking up on the idea. Allow me to do my part with a bucket of cold water.
First of all - full props to Illuzzi for many of his stances. He often votes in seriously un-Republican ways on environmental matters and on bread-and-butter Dem issues such as the minumum wage. He also broke ranks and supported Peter Welch for Congress (although he supported Ruth Dwyer for Governor). This isn't a guy who's going to win any popularity contests among the GOP faithful.
But all of this smacks of desperation - especially at this point in the process. People want so badly to retire Jim Douglas that many are falling into the trap of trying to think "strategically" about who some self-identifying Republicans would allow themselves to vote for. I would remind folks that we suck at that, and we do much better when we put forward clear, ideologically consistent candidates that do not appear to be doing too much triangulation (and as you'll see below the fold, Illuzzi is quite a triangulator). I firmly believe that the fault of Racine, Clavelle and Parker were in their campaigns, rather than their qualities (although the Prog label might have doomed Clavelle with a wide swath of the electorate from the beginning).
In any event, it behooves us to look clearly at who we'd be voting for if we backed a GOP maverick in lieu of a Dem in the election. If you're concerned about civil rights, campaign finance laws and abortion rights (for starters)... you might want to take a look below the fold...
Many people I've talked to feel that the recently passed veto session was, for all intents and purposes, the real start of the 2008 Governor's race. Sure we don't have a candidate yet - and, well... that's a problem, no doubt - but it feels for all the world like the race is on nonetheless, and we can at least be laying the groundwork for a successful run by...well, by somebody.
And a little encouragement might get a wavering candidate in. A usual Vermont short election calendar serves incumbents - especially the incumbent Governor - so why wait?
It's time we all did what so many in the rest of the country have done (and what kestrel9000 is doing in Virginia, until such time as he finally gets a job up here that allows him to move back to Vermont where he belongs) - that is, make our OWN media. Blogs, sure. If you're at all inclined, you oughta have one, but what I'm really talking about is A/V! Time to get out the cameras and/or microphones and start following Republicans to public meetings and events. Ask the tough questions, get them on record and put it out on the intertubes as a permanent record. Ask them how they voted on the global warming bill, death with dignity, campaign finance. Ask how they feel about gay marriage, IRV, the RNC hiding from a subpoena behind "executive privilege." Ask them in front of GOP crowds. Get a hold of a video editor and add your own music and effects, or just post it raw. Nobody's gonna do this for us, folks, so lets start to kick it up a notch.
To that end, GMD will have a contest: make your own internet ad that tells voters why its time to stop voting for Jim Douglas and submit a link in a user diary, or just via email to me (check my profile). We'll get them all posted and let people vote on their favoritte. It could be video, or just straight audio, if you're more into the radio thing.
Now, I have no illusions about the relatively small pool of readers of this site. None of us on the front page are expecting hundreds of entries. So we'll allow plenty of time for the contest. Get your entry in by the first of November, and we can announce the winner exactly one year before election day. That's three whole months, folks. Plenty of time to get creative! We'll post updates and reminders from time to time, and I'll add a link to this diary at the top of the page so new readers can be brought up to speed.
It's veto-override time, and the Dems have laid out an issue that places them in stark contrast with Jim Douglas. Despite his attempts to control the global warming debate, Douglas has let his snarky side shine through with dismissive and patronizing comments about the topic. Meanwhile the Democratic legislators have been out drawing contrasts on this, as well as on the other veto in play - the campaign finance bill. Check them out here and here for some examples.
Given the events of the week, it would seem to behoove us to consider the names being bandied about as potential replacements for Governor Douglas - all of which would, presumably, take energy and climate issues more seriously. Despite the assumptions of many, most of the Democratic "A-listers" are in no hurry to challenge political juggernaut Douglas. There's no sign that politicos like Peter Shumlin, Gaye Symington, Deb Markowitz or Jeb Spaulding are making any moves. For who is, we consult the rumor mill (and if anyone has heard any other buzz, please chime in in the comments)...
Name
Bill Sorrell
Matt Dunne
Paul Millman
Resume
Attorney General of Vermont since 1997, when he was appointed to fill the spot by Governor Howard Dean (for whom he’d served as Secretary of Administration) after Jeffrey Amestoy became Chief Justice. Sorrell argued for Vermont’s campaign finance law before the Supreme Court and has argued against tobacco companies and auto manufacturers on behalf of Vermonters
Former Majority Whip in the Statehouse, Americorps head and State Senator from Windsor County. Unsuccessfully ran against Lt. Governor Brian Dubie last year and has been promoting his Service Politics Institute since. He is currently doing community outreach work for Google
CEO and co-founder of the employee-owned Chroma Technology in Rockingham, which received the Business Ethics Living Economy Award. VP of the Vermont Employee Ownership Center, and a board member of Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility and the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies. He’s a member of the VT Business Roundtable.
Buzz
Baruth has been pushing him as a candidate recently, and Sorrell is clearly allowing his name to be floated
Dunne is a political animal and is widely expected to run for either the top spot or the number two spot again. Freyne has been promoting him as a challenger to Douglas.
Still only a rumor, but a rumor-plus at this point. Millman is well known in Windham County as an entrepreneurial success story.
Pros
The most well-known of the three to Vermonters, having been on multiple statewide ballots, generally winning handily. Has a moderate image that may appeal to swing voters.
A solid campaigner who knows how to run an effective operation. Has been “introduced” to Vermonters on a statewide ballot already. Strong on the stump and popular among the base, having defeated popular former state Rep. John Tracy in the ‘06 Lt. Gov. primary.
A tailor-made resume to hit Jim Douglas on his strengths – particularly among the swing voters. Strong management experience and an engaging success story. Has been widely lauded by people of all political stripes. Personal wealth and connections could narrow Douglas’ fundraising advantage.
Cons
Largely untested in a tough race. Some ambivalence towards him from the Democratic base, outright hostility among some in the left in southern Vermont following his response to the Woody Woodward police shooting incident.
Would be running for the top spot after coming off a loss for the number two spot, would therefore have to convince people he could win against a tougher candidate. Seen by some as too young for the top job.
Although the hubbub places him as politically progressive, he remains largely an unknown on policy issues. Not a familiar name outside of Windham County. Democratic base may be leery.
There's a sense in which media blogs are dangerous things. One of the reasons for the success of the blogosphere (political and otherwise) is it's personal, often matter-of-fact communication paradigm. Blog entries are conversational, informal, and inevitably (whether intended or not) relay a sense of the person (or at least their "internet side"). Blogs are, after all, online personal journals in which some of us like to wax political, and some just want to discuss their Star Wars memorabilia.
This creates a challenge for traditional media outlets who want a piece of that blogosphere action and send their journalists into the fray. Journalists are supposed to have a professional detatchment from their subjects, but professional detatchment is the very antithesis of political blogspeak. Certainly there are other times when journalists are systemically encouraged to either editorialize, or make full blown ideological crusaders of themselves. One could even say that's the zeitgeist.
But put a beat reporter in that position and things are different. The Vermont political press corps are all blogging these days, potentially providing uncomfortable (but illuminating) views into their own biases and thereby inviting everything from speculation as to whether or not these biases inevitably creep into their reporting, to full-blown criticism.
Well, invitation accepted. I give you Burlington Free Press reporter Terri Hallenbeck and her apparent distaste for Freshman Representative Peter Welch (continued on the flip).
Let's look ahead to just how the H.520 fight could play out in the coming weeks. As I've said, the big mistake of the announcement was twofold; one, that it let many of the supporters feel left out in the cold scratching their heads (and greenvtster is mistaken, only in that leadership had up to that moment, very much been in coordination with the base on this), and two; that the timing was premature and gave the appearence of capitulation, and therefore - weakness (and you never want to show weakness at a time like this).
Still, it was a strategic move, and if you still doubt that - consider how this could now play out.
Leadership holds the veto vote and comes up short. They then do what they've suggested; vote to suspend the rules and modify the bill, putting off the funding schema until January. This bill - a new bill - passes with a simple majority.
Then we go through it again - the new bill goes back to the Governor's desk where he can sign it, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature. WIthout the funding scheme, the pressure will be a lot greater than it was before -especially since his "unfunded mandate" and "bureaucracy" excuses are so thin, they're falling completely flat.
But let's say the Governor vetoes it again. The Dem leadership then has the option - even the responsibility - of calling another override session. When? Check your calendar, folks, we're talking September again, when we can have all hands on deck - and with a bill that, in theory, many of the opponents have indicated they'll support. With all its policy provisions intact. And the whole thing keeps the issue alive and active in the public debate leading up closer to the election season.
The problem is we've become conditioned to see every move of the leadership as a failure (and the anti-Dem crowd gleefully exploits that), and in this case - at least in the big picture - it's just too early to tell.
The AP is reporting that Governor Douglas, Senator Shumlin, and House Natural Resources Chair Representative Robert Dostis are scheduled to meet tomorrow to discuss the global warming bill and the upcoming July veto-override session. Right on the heels of that announcement comes this from the Senate Prez-Pro-Tem's office:
The leadership of the Vermont House and Senate today announced that in light of Governor Douglas's veto of H.520 and his objection to the source of funding for the bill, Senator Shumlin and Speaker Symington will propose a suspension of the rules during the veto override session on July 11 to consider the same bill with the funding for an all fuels efficiency utility removed. Since the legislation vetoed by the governor stipulates that funding for the all fuels efficiency utility will be needed starting in 2009, this proposal would allow the legislature to consider how to fund the utility when it reconvenes in January. In the meantime, the planning process for the utility, as well as other key provisions in H. 520, will be enacted
This announcement is one of two things; either another example of our legislative leadership running to move the goalposts and compromise before negotiations have even begun... OR... a(n attempt at a) savvy move to put the Governor on the defensive, and put the media focus of tomorrow's meeting squarely on the content of the bill and not the "dreaded" funding scheme vis-a-vis Vermont Yankee.
My money's on the latter, but its risky. Still, the papers and internet are replete with conservatives claiming that they'd be all for this bill with a different funding scheme. This calls their bluff, and leaves them nowhere to hide if they really are global warming deniers. It also puts the BS to the GOP nonsense line that the bill is all about "getting" Vermont Yankee.
Unfortunately, it also leaves the Dems nowhere to go in a July compromise, but to take actual policy content out of the bill. It's a good ploy, but the risk seems perhaps disproportionate and the timing dangerously off. We'll see. The content of the full press release is below the fold, along with a poll as to whether or not you think this is a wise strategic move...
The Vermont media continue to fawn over Gov. Douglas's trip to China. The trip - which shouldn't have registered a blip on most Vermonters radar screen, is a picture-perfect PR success, no doubt crafted by his staff of a gazillion, taxpayer-funded spinmeisters, who had the sense to pad it with high-profile tag-alongs - including Mark Johnson himself, guaranteeing mega-coverage during and after the event for the benefit of his key electoral demographic.
Vermont Gov. James Douglas, a Republican Party survivor in one of the country's most liberal states, made a decent push for constituents this week, diverting his attention from Vermont's No. 1 international trading partner Canada to try to nudge the Green Mountain State toward the center of China's international business radar.
The truth is, China's relationship with American corporations is a very big deal these days, and the Governor could have used the opportunity to stand up for the basic workplace protections the Chinese have moved towards implementing (see below the fold):
Jim Douglas hardly tries to conceal his snarky streak anymore.Freyne has a quote where Douglas lets his contempt for concerns about climate change shine through:
"I’ve said many times that Vermont has such a small imprint on the surface of the planet that we can do as much as possible and still not save a single polar bear or make any significant impact on global warming,"said Vermont's Republican CEO.
"But China can have an impact because of the environmental challenges the environmental officials we’ve met with recognize and need to deal with. I would hope that Vermonters who have a serious interest in climate change would devote their time and energy to places like China
Looking for the perfect gift for Dan DeWalt this summer? Click here.
Shad 2, Vermont Yankee 1. A judge has again ruled that Vermont Yankee can't dump its water discharge into the Connecticut River (potentially harming fish) after receiving permission from the Douglas Administration to do so.
Speaking of haters, are authorities getting involved with the threats received by Rep. Bill Lippert (D-Hinesburg) thanks to Bill O'Reilly? This site and other Vermont sites have received hits from law enforcement via a Google search for "bill lippert fag". It's not the norm for people in law enforcement to use department computers for personal use, so this is likely a sign of some sort of official inquiry or investigation. Book 'em Dano, I sez.
I'm slowly transcribing the taped interviews I did at last weekend's DemocracyFest, and I was pleased to be able to get Matt Dunne's attention, as he was just doing a flyby between other obligations in order to do a presentation on his Service Politics project.
Dunne, of course, is on top of the "who's-gonna-run" speculation lists for '08 - either in the context of a second try against Lt. Governor Brian Dubie, or possibly even against Governor Jim Douglas.
Matt's a good guy and I always enjoy talking to him. Detractors tend to paint him as overly ambitious, but I think what they're often detecting is the just the same sort of political addiction that many of we bloggers share. The guy is just really into this stuff.
The interview is below the fold. As with the Dean interview down the page, my recorder dropped some audio (which I denote)...
Climate Change has sure been the topic of the week.
Internationally, of course, Bush predictably rejected German Chancellor Merkel's proposals for greenhouse gas reduction benchmarks, but allowed her to attempt to save face by agreeing to some other meaningless promise to look into the matter, once again. Wonder how many backrubs that measly accomodation cost her.
Locally of course, Governor Douglas followed through on his promise to veto the Vermont Legislature's Climate Change bill, and on news that Al Gore's aid had been enlisted by the Legislative leadership, Douglas quickly cobbled together his own proposal in a failed attempt to steal Gore's thunder (instead, I think he may have added to it, based on the prodigious news coverage).
Douglas's plan at a glance seems odd. A thrown together jumble of half-considered ideas to provide loans to Vermonters for energy efficiency. As if low-income Vermonters will fall in line to heap more debt on themselves (of course, the banks must love it, as these loans would be guaranteed by the state). No idea where the funding for those guarantees will come from (well, we know it won't be Entergy). As for incentives for renewables, I haven't heard anything, and exactly what's supposed to be done with this proposal now that the biennium is done is anyone's guess. Wait til next year I s'pose. All in all, Douglas couldn't have piked a clearer way of showing how little regard or concern he has for the issue.
As for the Gore videoconference over Vermont Interactive Television, his remarks can be heard on VNRC's website. Freyne has a lot of quotes from Shumlin in the brief presser that followed, and he is absolutely right when he says that Shumlin was in top form. Seriously, this was the best he's sounded in many weeks, as he demonstrated a real command of the room. Symington as well seemed more focused and passionate than usual. I suppose the break has already done both of them some good.
And for a hastily thrown together event, it was surprisingly well-attended at the remote VIT sites around the state. It's a shame the tech didn't go off as well, as Gore's link to the VIT network was routed through the internet, rather than via ISDN or satellite (and we all know how the internet can be). After many fits and starts, Gore's audio was a mess and out of sync (you'll hear it if you go to the mp3 link above) - but it was nevertheless audible.
A veto override is still clearly a longshot, but there's an awful lot of focus and energy around the issue that seems to be snowballing, so contact your legislators if you haven't already (and maybe you should do it again if you have).
Legislative Democrats had their chances for a significant power shift increase dramatically today - and they have Jim Douglas to thank for it.
Despite an enormous, broad-based push on its behalf, the Governor has made it clear he will veto the climate change bill, which has become less and less controversial the more members of the media, the legislature and the public have had time to familiarize themselves with it. legislative leaders have scheduled an unusually late July 11 special session to attempt an override - presumably to allow plenty of time to muster support.
Still, an override remains a long shot at best - even with its prospects improving daily. But the Governor just made another decision that opens up a strategic vulnerability; his veto of the new campaign finance bill.
This veto should surprise no one - with a few high-profile exceptions, there's nothing that bugs the GOP machine like campaign finance reform legislation. Both they and their constituency groups can't stand that stuff.
But in adding another potential override to the plate, Douglas may have given an out to some of the more conservative or vascillating Dems that will be under enormous pressure to tow the party line in July. A way to vote with the Governor on the most high-profile issue, but vote against him on the other. Freshman Democratic Representative-appointee Jon Anderson of Montpelier has done little but piss off the Democratic leadership since his arrival (voting with the Governor on a previous veto-override vote, but also in particular on campaign finance, where he sided with the Vermont GOP and Right-to-Life on a key amendment vote), and is very much in the Douglas camp on most issues. However his vote for the impeachment resolution and subsequent comments in the Montpelier Bridge publication indicate he is very concerned about winning re-election as a conservative in liberal Montpelier.
Such a twofer would enable Anderson and others in similar situations to vote for their man Douglas on the high-profile climate bill, but vote against him on campaign finance in order to try and claim political and intellectual independence before their constituents (and the caucus leadership). This isn't necessarily good news for climate change, but it's still good news for Dems, potentially. Why?
Because if a Douglas veto -any veto - is overridden, that'll be the headline in all the papers the next day. And the perceived power shift will have the potential to send shockwaves into the next session, as well as the next election season.
So now it's official. As odum predicted first, the Governor has chosen attorney Jon Anderson to replace Representative Francis Brooks, now the Statehouse Sergeant-at-Arms. While possessing Democratic bona fides enough to give Douglas a weak pretense of justification (he was briefly city chair and has hosted a few fundraisers), the fact is that there's a reason why the Montpelier Democratic Caucus rejected him so soundly (out of five possible candidates to appear on the list forwarded by the committee, Anderson came in dead last with 5 total votes including his own - the winners were Mary Hooper with 16 votes, Cary Brown with 15 and Matt Levin with 11). So now the citizens of Montpelier have their own little Joe Lieberman. Thanks, Jim!
The reason, of course, is that he is conservative by Democratic standards in general, and off the charts by Montpelier standards. If you ask people who work around the Statehouse, all you'll hear is shock at the idea that he is anything other than a Republican. He works with anti-environmental interests and allies himself closely with Douglas' people - which is, of course, exactly why he got the job - he's a 'yes man' to the nth degree.
But he won't hold it for long. Mary Hooper is likely already making calls to prepare her primary campaign, and she trounced him by an overwhelming margin in one citywide race already. Montpelier Dems will be livid at this kick in the nuts from Douglas and Anderson and Montpelier residents at large will not put up with a right-winger representing them in the legislature any longer than they have to. Especially in a leftie town like Montpelier.
Rep. Peter Welch: It's easy to see the minefield Welch is in, simply by looking at the latest Danziger cartoon in yesterday's Times Argus/Rutland Herald (check the "Rainville '08" alongside the signature). Welch made the Iraq War the centerpiece of his campaign. After his campaign at Democratic gatherings, he forcefully and passionately continued the theme. Now that proposals for ending the war are coming almost daily, the term "non-binding resolution" has already become farcical, not simply among the activist left, but within the US Congress itself. Welch currently looks like he's standing still, signing onto non-binding bills that seemed like yesterday's news before the ink was dry. While his ideas on Global Warming are important, it is clear that - due to his own campaign strategy - his stance on the War will be the issue that defines his first term, both among his supporters and his Republican opponents. It may seem unfair to Team Welch that things are moving so quickly, but them's the breaks - and again, Welch brought them on himself. Add to that the fact that Senator Leahy - someone with far more authority to speak on what is and isn't proper and possible in Washington - is now on the leading edge of the issue through the Feingold-Boxer-Leahy bill, I suspect Welch has until the end of the month to join him on that edge and match his own campaign rhetoric. Any longer than that and - even if he does come around to the Leahy position - he will be tagged as having done it grudgingly and only under public duress (in other words, the "phony" label)Done.
The Governor: Letting himself pop at reporters last week was a big mistake. As I've argued, I don't think it wasn't truly uncharacteristic in quality (he's always gotten nasty), but unexpected in quantity (insofar as he doesn't lose it to such a degree). The dude needs to watch himself. This is not the same Vermont press corps anymore. The rapid turnovers are changing the nature of reporting and whatever institutional buddiness exists between the fourth estate and the administration. Gone are Chris Graff and Darren Allen, for example - and the Governor is likely to find himself held to far higher scrutiny before the likes of Porter and Hallenbeck.
While Vermont Press Bureau reporter Darren Allen typically takes long breaks from his media blog before providing several rapid-fire posts, the reason for his most recent absence turns out to be a career change. From Hall Monitor::
Allen, who started this blog two legislative sessions ago as this paper's first venture into the blogosphere, has decided to leave his post as chief of the Vermont Press Bureau to become the communications director for the Agency of Natural Resources.
He will start his new job -- where he will be responsible for letting the public (and us) in on what the more than 600 people in ANR are doing -- on Feb. 5.
Allen joins fellow (former) reporter Anson Tebbets in signing on with the Douglas administration in recent weeks. Although I'm sure several former Scudder Parker campaign staffers are sending "I knew it all along!" emails back and forth by now, the move does bring up some meaningful questions (including the question of just how crappy reporting must pay in Vermont to make jumping ship so attractive, given that most people hardly get rich on the State payroll...)
Okay, so it may not officially start until this upcoming week, but in many ways that matter, the '07 Legislative session has been underway for a while now. It doesn't take a genius to see that in recent legislative cycles, the more a Party holds control of the public debate, the more they control the actual agenda. In '05 after a lot of good work by the Dems on health care, Governor Douglas stepped into the limelight and took complete control of the discussion before lawmakers had even left the Statehouse to return to their districts. That control was certainly on display in the final product, as well as in the accolades from the likes of the AARP.
The Republicans (naturally) are the only Party who seems to be tackling this in an organized, head-on way. Despite the fact that both the Ds and the Rs are in transition - moving into a new legislature as well as new Party leadership - you wouldn't guess it on the R's part from the recent papers. Message testing and propogating is very much in play, seemingly already pushing the GOP framing of property taxes and a new twist on civil confinement into the media forefront. Take a look at this AP piece on the upcoming agenda which leads on property tax:
(House Minority Leader Steve) Adams and his colleagues called for creation of a special House committee dedicated to property tax reform, much as Symington created for health care when she was elected speaker two years ago.
But she has rejected that approach, arguing that a much broader debate has to take place about why education costs what it does as well as about how it's funded.
Not only is the issue front and center on the GOP's terms, but Symington is already being placed on the defensive.
As soon as word was out that longtime Democratic State Representative Francis Brooks of Montpelier was throwing his hat into the ring for the Statehouse Sergeant-at-Arms position, speculation began on who his replacement might be. In the overwhelmingly Democratic Statehouse, it was a given that if Brooks wanted the job, it would be given to him at the outset of the session, when the position is voted on. Current S-at-A Kermit Spaulding vacillated on whether or not to make a stab at keeping the position (while praising Brooks as his personal choice, should he choose to retire), but as of yesterday he bowed to the seemingly inevetible and announced he would not seek a return to the post.
Since the announcement of Brooks' interest, Montpelier Mayor Mary Hooper made it clear to the press that she was interested in filling his seat. Her desire was amplified by back-to-back glowing pieces in the Times Argus that, by their cumulative, de facto effect, seemed to all but endorse her for the role. The scuttlebutt around Montpelier is that the statehouse seat is Hooper's already.
Let's slow down for a minute, shall we?
First of all, it's traditional for a regional caucus of the Party of the retiring lawmaker (in this case, the Montpelier Democratic Committee) to nominate three acceptable choices to forward to the Governor (not simply one or two). A tradition is not a hard and fast rule, but it's likely a tradition that will be followed in this case. For one, it's wise policy when offering names to a Governor of the opposing party not to give the appearence that you are delivering marching orders, as a one-name list would. But for another, there are likely to be several interested people (full disclosure, I was toying with the idea of going for it myself - how could I not? - but I can't imagine doing without a "real" job).
But the real point is that this is the Governor's pick, and the Governor's only. So it behooves us to consider what might drive the Governor in his decision making.
