Douglas Unchallenged

"I want every state to succeed. But it doesn't need to be economic success versus conservation. They're compatible."

Words of wisdom from a certain governor at this weekend's summer pow-wow of the National Governors Association, eh?

And the governor quoted in the Detroit paper was the governor of Vermont, Republican Jim Douglas [left].

One question I asked Gov. Douglas in our little one-on-one after last Thursday's South Burlington ribbon-cutting, before he left for the Michigan get-together, was how he'd handle - should he get them - questions about his recent success in Vermont in opposing global warming reform. In particular, having his bold and rather angry veto of the global warming/climate change bill upheld because Democrats could not muster a two-thirds vote in the July 11 special session?

GOV. DOUGLAS: "It must be [before] one of the NGA committees."

FREYNE: It is before one of the committees

DOUGLAS: "I'm not on that committee."

FREYNE: That's what I'm checking.

DOUGLAS: "I don't know if it'll come up in the plenary session. We adopt policies by consensus. Unless there's a statement that has broad support on a bipartisan basis, then it's not likely to come before the NGA."

FREYNE: What if some smart-alec reporter out there asks? How did global-warming legislation lose in tree-hugger Vermont?  What's going on in Vermont?

DOUGLAS: "l'll say there what I say here, which is we have a strong committment to environmental stewardship. We're well known for that. It's a reputation that's literally worldwide, one of which I'm very proud, and I'm going to continue to do what I can to reduce emissions on the regional basis, on an international basis, and on a local basis as well.

"But we also are the state that has the highest state and local per-capita tax burden in the country and that is not acceptable in terms of growing our economy and creating more and better-paying jobs.

"So we have to find a way to continue our environmental stewardship that doesn't raise taxes."

He's good, isn't he?

Meanwhile over at the opposition party, the supposed majority party under Montpeculiar's Golden Dome - Les Democrats - State Democratic Party Chair Ian Carleton [left] of Burington has taken exception to our mention the other day that he had been seriously considering a run for governor in 2008 [Carleton's political party, as you know, is having difficulty finding a candidate]:

"Sources say he gave some serious thought to taking on incumbent Republican Gov. Jim Douglas in 2008, but has decided against it."

Replied Attorney Carleton, graduate of Yale Law School and former Burlington city council president, via email:

"I have not given serious thought to taking on Douglas in 2008, and so by definition I have also never decided against it.  That is not a coy way of keeping the door open to the possibility of a run, but rather to say that both halves of the rumor are untrue.  Simply stated, I have far too much going on in my life right now between family, work, and the Democratic Party to give such an endeavor the time and attention it deserves.

"If I am going to run for office again some day -- and if the timing were right I would certainly consider doing so -- I will do it only if it is the right timing for my wife and children, and because I think I am the best person for the job.  I am not interested in political gamesmanship or egotistical folly. Modern American politics is too littered with that garbage already."

Sorry. I trust my sources on this one. The reason there's no name of a Democratic gubernatorial candidate even being floated, I'd suggest, is that there is no Democratic candidate who thinks he/she has a chance of WINNING against Gov. Scissorhands.

Which tells us something about a current shortcoming of the Vermont Democratic Party, doesn't it?

Comments

[vermonter]

"He's good, isn't he?" Yes, he is good. You never "get" him, as often as you try.

And, as for Carleton: "I am not interested in political gamesmanship . . ." This is a complete joke. He engages in it with every press release and every issue of the Dem. Pty. newsletter. The one you recently caught him on, of suggesting gubernatorial wrongdoing because the state did business with a company that donated -- gasp! -- $1,000 to Douglas' campaign, is a perfect example of "political gamesmanship" -- and a pathetic one at that.

[linguini]

It is time for coronation of King James!! Where is the crown?? Perhaps Shumlin, Symington and yes even Carleton can do the honors of placing the crown on King Jimmy D!! The fact of the matter is that the Dems can all do the math (on this one) and no one wants to even go against Douglas as a token candidate. Time for Carleton to get on the phone to Peter Diamondstone, who has run in every election since the late '60's. He would at least make things interesting!! Douglas will rule the state until he decides to step down and finally retire from state politics. When will that be?? Only King Jim can answer that and he isnt telling.. Get used to him he will be around for a long time.

[One_Vermonter]

Governor Veto is in a strong position -- not because he's a political genius -- because INCUMBENT governors NEVER loose in Vermont.

When is the last time an incumbent Governor lost?

[vermonter]

Governor "veto" has vetoed fewer bills than his predecessor, Gov. Dean. And Gov. Dean had a Democratic Legislature most of the time he was in office.

[one_vermonter]

Has an incumbent governor EVER lost in Vermont??

I bet not.

That's why Governor Veto will sail to re-election. God knows it isn't because he's done anything productive for Vermont.

[BearGrylls]

It figures that vermonter is a huge fan of King Jimmy. As a European History scholar, he kind of digs the idea of kings and monarchies. I can see vermonter now, sitting there in front of his computer, sipping tea with his pinky finger extended out. Jolly good, my Jimmy. You have once again dispatched of the wily Carlton.

P.S. There's more to the story about the $1000 contribution. Shame vermonter chooses to gloss over the facts in favor of a quick slap at Carlton. Typical of Euro Trash majors.

[jpc]

Please enlighten us to the rest of the story beargrylls. What more is there then the 1000 dollar donation? I am curious as from what has been reported it seems that Carleton is playing the part of the pouting school boy who is mad about his legislation veto, and so is trying to get some revenge. Pathetic, but maybe there is more to it.....

And it isn't just gubentorial incumbents that are shoo ins, it every incumbent. Sure they get defeated sometimes, but the majority hang of until the decide to retire. Look at our federal reps, it took Jeffords stepping down to get a different person in there. And despite their lack of effectiveness Leahy, Sanders, and even Welch are going nowhere until they are ready. Which is why nobody wants to run against Welch either.

[vermonter]

Hey, BearGrylls, here we go again with your insistence on making fun of people instead of discussing the issues.

1. I am not a huge fan of "King Jimmy." I was a much bigger fan of King Howard, who ruled with just as much of more of an iron hand as Douglas, and was in office longer. In addition, you show that you are not exactly the master of nuanced reading. Every one of my comments on this blog shows that I am not a huge fan of King Jimmy, but that I am much less of a fan of the activist socialist and clumsy Legislature under Symington and Shumlin. I'd dump Douglas in a heartbeat if we could have Dean back. Not the guy who had a sex-change and ran for Prez, but the moderate Dean who ran this state well. He'd attract some business to Vermont and would kick Symington's and Shumlin's asses for their craziness, just the way he kept Democrats Obuchowski and Ready and Rivers and McCormack in line. He was every bit as much of a imperial Governor as you seem to think Douglas is. In fact, he was famous for his contempt for the Legislature.

2. Why do you criticize me for commenting on Carleton's pathetic and embarassing whining about a $1,000 contribution, instead of criticizing Freyne for breaking the story and making fun of Carleton, too? And if there's more to the story, why didn't Freyne tell it? If there's more to the story, why didn't Carleton himself tell it? If there's more to the story, why don't you enlighten us so that we'll see your pal Carelton is right and the rest of us, including Freyne, have it all wrong?

[sandy ward]

Yes, not having a candidate to run against Douglas says alot about the dem party, but the failure falls on it's members. Maybe we should be looking to the Progs to lead?

Who replaced Dem Peter Smith in congress in 1990?

[manoman]

I find it ironic.

Republicans's get nothing from Douglas. He's completely ineffective. Yet, there is no way for them to replace him with somebody who could push the republican agenda.

Those who would be served best by a real leader are stuck with a Governor who does not champion and lead their cause.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are making small incremental gains in putting forth thier agenda.

I think the Douglas reign will come to an end when two things happen:

-when people finally come to the realization that Douglas hasn't done anything and that the issues that they feel important have not been made better during his tenure.

and

-his competitor is agressive enough to play hard ball with regard to Douglas' record.

It's a matter of time. I see the difference between Parker and Clavelle vote counts as being a trend.

[John A, BUrgess]

Time for a Vermont history lesson. Incumbents were defeated for governor in my lifetime twice. 1962 in a general election, and --in a GOP primary-- in 1946.

[one_vermonter]

Sandy -- Here is your chance. Put a Prog against Douglas. Looks like you'll get a clean shot at him. Good luck. But there isn't a Prog in the state that can beat him.

John -- thanks for the history lesson. I think it proves my point. No incumbent Gov has been boosted from office in 45 years (in Vt)!

The Governor of Vermont only needs a pulse to get re-elected. And Douglas ALMOST qualifies!

[vermonter]

"Who replaced Dem Peter Smith in congress in 1990?"

Sanders did, by a small margin. He ran for the seat in 1988 and lost to Smith, a liberal Republican. (Remember, Sanders has run for practically every office in Vermont at least once or twice.) In 1990, Sanders tried again against Smith. At the end of the campaign, Sanders got Smith to admit that he was in favor of gun control. Sanders then appealed to all the hunters and gun nuts to vote for him and they all came out in droves. Sanders won the seat by appealing to the people he would call "right wingers" and "reactionaries" because Smith (who never said anything against hunting) was in favor of handgun control. A shameful tactic by Sanders, frankly. Proving that he's just a do-whatever-it-takes, the-ends-justify-the-means office seeker, just like every other politician.

[Pot and Kettle]

"just like every other politician."

Including your buddy Governor Veto.

[jpc]

Actually, there is a difference between sanders and everyother politician. Most actually accomplish something.

[JPC_LSD]

Douglas hasn't.

[bigbadbrad]

I reiterate, I'm a history minor. What does "Vermonters" major have to do with anything, anywhere, ever?

[Skeeter Sanders]

"The reason there's no name of a Democratic gubernatorial candidate even being floated, I'd suggest, is that there is no Democratic candidate who thinks he/she has a chance of WINNING against Gov. Scissorhands. Which tells us something about a current shortcoming of the Vermont Democratic Party, doesn't it?"

So says Peter Freyne. But I say it says more about Gov. Douglas than it says about the Vermont Democratic Party.

Lest we forget, it wasn't all that long ago when the Republicans couldn't find a candidate who could knock off Douglas' Democratic predecessor, Howard Dean -- with Dean eating for lunch every GOP gubernatorial nominee thrown up against him (To this day, I still feel sorry for Dean's 1994 opponent, John Carroll; he was by far the most decent one of the bunch).

What's the one thing that Dean and Douglas have in common? If your answer is that they've both governed from the center of the political/ideological spectrum, you'd be absolutely right.

Think about that for a moment. Although Dean has taken a hard left turn since leaving "Montpeculiar," there's been virtually no difference in Douglas' governing style from that of his predecessor. The fact that Vermont governors serve two-year, rather than four-year terms forces them, out of political necessity, to govern from the center.

I'm a left-of-center independent who traditionally votes for Democrats and I voted for then-Lt. Gov. Doug Racine in his unsuccessful 2002 run to succeed Dean. But I voted for Douglas' first re-election in 2004, because two years isn't long enough for a first-term governor to have done anything to warrant voting against him.

On the other hand, I cast a protest vote in favor of Scudder Parker in 2006, angered by Douglas' veto of the gender-identity non-discrimination bill. As a bisexual man, I could not, in good conscience, reward Douglas with my vote after that veto. But in spite of that, I still saw little reason to oust him. I had no illusions about Parker becoming governor; to be frank, Parker was a lousy candidate who didn't deserve to win (This year, Douglas signed a revised version of the gender-identity bill into law).

And despite his veto this year of the climate change/energy bill, I still see little reason to give Douglas the pink slip. Let's face it: Douglas is no George W. Bush by any stretch of the imagination (He wouldn't have gotten elected dog catcher in this state if he was).

Say what you want about Douglas, but I'll pick him over Bush any day. Truth is, "Governor Scissorhands" would be blasted as a liberal by the right-wingnuts who dominate the national GOP. Besides, what's happened in Washington, D.C. in the last six years has made me absolutely despise one-party rule, whether in Washington or in Montpelier.

[Peter Joes]

According to Governor Douglas, quoted above, "... we also are the state that has the highest state and local per-capita tax burden in the country."

Now why would the governor want to advertise to potential businesses that may want to move here that we are number one in taxes when he knows full well that a more in depth study found we were fourteenth in the country?

And no one calls him on it!

As to being fourteenth, as a rural state with a widely dispersed population Vermont can be either of two things but not both:

1. A low tax state with lousy schools, poorly maintained roads and many unserved needs OR

2. Be about fourteenth, spend the money wisely; have health insurance for all children, well maintained winter roads, good schools etc.

PJ

[Peter Joes]

According to Governor Douglas, quoted above, "... we also are the state that has the highest state and local per-capita tax burden in the country."

Now why would the governor want to advertise to potential businesses that may want to move here that we are number one in taxes when he knows full well that a more in depth study found we were fourteenth in the country?

And no one calls him on it!

As to being fourteenth, as a rural state with a widely dispersed population Vermont can be either of two things but not both:

1. A low tax state with lousy schools, poorly maintained roads and many unserved needs OR

2. Be about fourteenth, spend the money wisely; have health insurance for all children, well maintained winter roads, good schools etc.

PJ

[vermonter]

Gaye Symington even remotely worth considering as a candidate for Governor? NOT. She's a rich hypocrite. Here's an excerpt from the editorial in today's Free Press about the need for financial disclosure laws for Vermont's state officeholders:

"House Speaker Gaye Symington told the Free Press she favors personal financial disclosure by the governor, calling it a "reasonable expectation." But Symington said a similar requirement for members of the Legislature "might be less necessary" because of an individual lawmaker's limited ability to influence events on his or her own.

So Princess Gay of Hypocritia thinks financial disclosure laws should apply to the Governor, but not to mere state reps like her? THAT'S BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT HER FAMILY IS AS RICH AS CRESUS.

What a goddam lousy hypocrite!

[VERMONTER]

"Including your buddy Governor Veto."

He's not my buddy. But anyone who thinks there's a difference between him and Sanders in terms of personal political ambition -- grow up. Douglas uses moderate-to-right rhetoric to fool the people. Sanders uses left-of-center rhetoric for the exact same reason. TO GET ELECTED.

[montpelier28]

Vince Illuzzi - Independent for Governor - Heard the idea on NPR - Vince in great even if he is a Republican. Sounds like more than he wants to take on but he works so hard for VT now that it may lighten his workload.

[one_vermonter]

Douglas is a carear politician who would step on his grandmother's face for a vote.

[Padraig Pearse]

Illuzzi gets my vote! He's always been an independent and is the hardest worker in the legislature. Might be the only candidate who could take down Douglas.

[vermonter]

Yup. He probably would.

And soooooooooooooo would Sanders.

And newsflash: Sanders has been a "career politician" for longer than Douglas has, and I believe has run for more offices than Douglas has, and has switched parties along the way, to boot. In fact, Douglas would have a hard time catching up to Sanders' lifetime list of offices sought. And at least Douglas has always stuck with one party.

You know, come to think of it, I actually think I've seen Sanders stepping on his grandmother's face! It may have been when he first ran for Governor of Vermont two years after moving here from Brooklyn in the mid 1960s. (Can you say chutzpah?) You know, back when. When he was with the "Liberty Union" party, before he moved to Burlington and became a Progressive/Socialist/Independent/Democrat. Remember?

And speaking of grandmother-face-stepping career politicians, care to discuss Shumlin now?

This is not to defend Douglas. Only to point out that grandmother-face-stepping career politicans come in all flavors. To me, they're all pretty much equally despicable creatures. But the career politicians who claim to be for "for the people" are probably the most despicable, because it's an out-and-out lie. Sanders is no more for "the people" than Douglas is. Once the word "career" applies, it's not about the "people." It's about keeping your public sector job and gaining more power over other people's lives. And that's Sanders. First Mayor (8 years). Then Congressman (16 years). Now Senator. Please tell me that you don't think Sanders is a "career politician"????

[sandy ward]

What I remember from 1990 is a similar situation with Peter Welsh. Peter Smith said he supported the pro firearms groups to win the election and then changed his mind once in DC. Reminds me of the antiwar movement and Peter Welsh.

The Progs might be able to get Sand to run along with an endorsement from the dems.

Senator Vince Illuzzi walks the fence on issues, but he'd probably be better leader for the republicans.

[vermonter]

You haven't answered my or JPC's questions:

1. are you supporting Sand for the single issue of marijuana legalization? What are his positions on other issues; and

2. are you in favor of legalization of cocaine, heroin, etc., or just marijuana?

[sandy ward]

Vermonter, You haven't ansered my questions.

1. Why do you think marijuana should remain illegal?

2. And, how come you can't put forth a candidate for your own party? And, you always refer to the dems as 'they' not 'we' or 'us', why is that?

Hey bigbadbrad, the history major thing comes in to play any time someone mentions that Douglas is a fascist.

[bigbadbrad]

Oh. Vermonter, I have to disagree on you characterization of all "career" politions. If Bernie had never won that 1st election, we'd just call him a political gadfly. Instead, He's conciderd a champion of the common man. I think you chacterization is unjustified. Second, while our prisons are full of low level drug offenders of every stripe, I don't think anyone is seriously advocating legalization of hard drugs. I join the chorus of many who few it is time to have a serious debate over this countries policy on cannabis.

[jpc]

But see that is part of the point bigbadbrad, where is the line? Why is okay to legalize pot, but not any other drugs in its class? Why not legalize them all? It opens a big can of worms for what benefit? Other then making it a non criminal offense so that some people can smoke it without reprecussion, I don't see any benefit to it, only downsides.

And Sandy, for someone who is so demanding for people to answer her questions you are certainly determined to avoid answering any yourself. Since you want to change the laws, I think it is up to you to justify legalizing it, not the other way around.

And let's not sugar coat things, "low level drug offenders" are criminals. They knowingly broke the law, not because they had to but because they don't care and have no regard for the law, which would imply that regardless of what there original crime was it unlikely that some other crime would not have followed. And last time I checked, most low level drug offenders were getting community service and a fine, very very few actually get jail time for possession unless they are repeat offenders.

[vermonter]

"1. Why do you think marijuana should remain illegal?

2. And, how come you can't put forth a candidate for your own party? And, you always refer to the dems as 'they' not 'we' or 'us', why is that?"

JPC is right. It's up to you to justify a change in the law, not up to the rest of us to justify why it shouldn't stay the same.

You seem to have a strange, I would say pathological, fixation on my particular pick for gubernatorial candidate from my party. You keep asking, like a sleepwalker, "why I can't put forth a candidate for my own party." Why, or why do you care who I would pick, because you're gonna vote for Robert Sand, or Hardy Macia, or write in Billy Greer anyway. But I've already answered this question. Please pay close attention now, because I think I've said this 100 times: I could only support a moderate from my party for Governor, and I don't see one -- except maybe Spaulding, who says he's not planning to run. OK, do you understand now?

Brad, you disagree with me about career politicians. Apparently, you agree that some are bad because they are "career politicians," but think that some are good even though they ARE career politicians. You specifically mention Bernie, and you say, "Instead, he's conciderd a champion of the common man." You don't explain why he's different from all other caree poiliticians, except as to what he's "considered." Why is he different. By the way, I agree with your choice of words: I'd agree that he's "considered" a champion of the common man, and I'd say he's used that strategy very effectively to gain power. But I don't really believe it. Whether your "career" Douglas or "career" Bernie, it's still about power. If someone came along who everyone agreed was more "pro common man" then Bernie, do you think Bernie would voluntarily give up his Senate seat? No, Bernie will be in office until he dies. Just like Douglas, probably.

I used to be against term limits because I thought it was undemocratic and I was persuaded that "experience counts." Now I'm in favor of them, because there's very little that's democratic in our system of elected official incumbent protection, of which Bernie is a master player. I'm also in favor of getting money out of election campaigns, and I support any measure to limit spending and fundraising, including the weak measure that Gov. Douglas vetoed.

[BearGrylls]

Hemp, or marijuana, can make a great rope in a pinch. Advice like that, you can't buy my friends.

Illuzzi would be an interesting match-up for Governor Robo. He should run as an "I" and limit contributions to $50. Compare that to the busload of money Doesless would get from the RNC.

[manoman]

"Time for a Vermont history lesson. Incumbents were defeated for governor in my lifetime twice. 1962 in a general election, and --in a GOP primary-- in 1946."

Understood. But Vermont is changing, so I'm not sure history will repeat itself.

Although there was no incumbant in the Douglas/Racine race, the final numbers were 45/42.

So that says that voters aren't necessarily firmly in the republican corner. It could well be that backlash from the Champion lands deal caused this result. Perhaps even why Douglas pulled his more recent Wilderness stunt.

We had Clavelle and Parker running against Jimbo. Neither of these guys was much of a candidate. Neither had a any backbone. Parker did better than Clavelle. Clavelle, with a black mark for being from Burlington, was easily painted as an idiot in Douglas' trademark negative smear TV ad. Douglas' attempt with Parker didn't work as well.

I still think that a person can beat Douglas, but they have to take Douglas to task for not getting things done.

[sandy ward]

Defend why marijuana should become legal? Funny because it seems to me that it's the dems who are making republican Bush justify continuing his 'based on lies' war in Iraq.

Sanders has done more already this year than Douglas because he recently brought $1 million for our vets to receive treatment for PTSD and other injuries suffered. And, I for one am glad because my husband hasn't been the same since he returned from deployment. What about you or your spouse, Vermonter, ever been involved in any wars?

What I know about Sand is that he is solidly antiwar and has the ability to unite the anti-drug war and anti-Iraq war fractions...both issues near and dear to my heart. He is pro-enviornment, pro-choice, pro-civil rights, pro-justice and pro-change. I am not aware of his positions on taxes or business. By the way, the single issue question has always been presented by the republicans, not the dems.

[jpc]

Well you at least answered the Sand question, but sitestepped the legalizing pot/hard drugs question. I guess its just the bad habits formed running for office huh?

The Sanders/Douglas comparison isn't valid, they have totally different roles in government. One writes laws, the other signs them...

[bigbadbrad]

Jpc, Hemp was a legal plant that grew where it took root until quite recently. Hard drugs are wholly and completely manipulated. Yeah, I know so is herp worth smokin'. I'd just say (and I'll leave it at this) that I feel that herp is a much less dangerous mind altering substance than say cigs or booze. Two things I very much enjoy, I must say. Like alot of adults who used to partake of a little weed, I dont really partake anymore. I subscribe to the european philosopy on it. its best to control it and regulate it. Keep people same and remove the taboos. enventualy, hopefully, people move on without too much damage. I think that has proven to be a much more effective public policy. As for hard drugs, I've seen what they do to people. I don't have any appitite for people who deal or due hard drugs. Especially dealers. So do most people with any history in or on the periphery of that dark place. So I think that issue is a non-starter from the word jump.

Vermonter, We'll have to agree to disagree about career politicains like Bernie and their Motivations. I think that most of them get into it for what they believe are the right reasons. It just doesn't turn out the way we hope most of the time becaude we run up against powerful conflicting interests.

[jpc]

Sandy a lot of drugs, grew where they took root. Coke, pot, opium are all natural products of plants. So I don't consider that argument valid. Cigs and Booze are not mind altering, the difference and reason why some are legal and some aren't. Drunk and High are not the same things. I don't see where any of you arguments would give reason to legalize pot. But, thanks for the point of view.

[bigbadbrad]

Actually, this is Brad. With respect, coke and opium are not natural products of plants. They are highly manipulated and refined. Coke has Kerosene in it for Heavens sake. Booze and cigs are much more dangerous than weed, that was my point. In the history of man, The illegality of cannibis is a very recent Phenomenon.

[Jacksonian]

It's not a matter of "Legalizing" marijuana--it's time to **Decriminalize** its use and repeal its failed prohibition.

Let Vermont lead the way--and reap the righteous tax benefits on Weed...

[Jacksonian]

Douglas will lose next November. The Lt. Governor will also become a Democrat.

However, the Dems MUST play hardball for a change--no more deballed, sweet losers. Connect Jimmy with the Chimp (let's get a photo of them together posted on every blog) and go for the jugular of his more crooked cronies like Lunderville. Shake & Bake, Brothers & Sisters...

[manoman]

"The Lt. Governor will also become a Democrat."

Lt. Governor?

Vermont doesn't have a Lt. Governor. Get your facts straight.

[montpelier28]

Reefer madness- no good reason for it to be illegal other than propping up the arrest, incarceration,& probation industry that this country cannot afford to a pay for.

[vermonter]

"Connect Jimmy with the Chimp (let's get a photo of them together posted on every blog) and go for the jugular of his more crooked cronies like Lunderville. Shake & Bake, Brothers & Sisters..."

Clavelle did this, and lost. Parker did this, and lost. Next?

Vermonters know the difference between Bush and Douglas and they resent this cheap political tactic, and respond negatively to it. Clavelle looked like a do-do. Parker was only slightly better.

Vermont voters will elect a Democrat for Governor against Douglas only if there is an overwhelming reason to vote FOR the Democrat. They will not vote for an office seeker who bases his or her campaign on Douglas = Bush.

Dems' wanna lose again? Play the Bush card against Douglas.

[Peter Joes]

Great back and forth - - this is what I meant - - skip the insults and stick to the arguments and more people will join in!

-ooOoo-

Clearly Douglas and Sanders are career politicians. But the similarity ends there.

Sanders - - love him or hate him - - is very up front with where he stands. And from conversations I have had with him, he really does feel passionately about his issues - - it isn't just a game with him. And his stands are diametrically opposed to the likes of Douglas.

-ooOoo-

The point isn't that Douglas = Bush. The point is that if the "real" Douglas is exposed he does = Bush. And Vermonters, for the most part, do not like Bush!

PJ

[vermonter]

"The point isn't that Douglas = Bush. The point is that if the "real" Douglas is exposed he does = Bush. And Vermonters, for the most part, do not like Bush!"

I do not agree that Douglas = Bush. There's a big difference on many issues. But even if you believe he is = Bush, the issue is one of tactics. Two campaigns against Douglas have clearly shown that trying to make Douglas = Bush does not work as a tactic.

[jpc]

One is moderate republican the other is on the far right. They are not the same, not even close. Have you ever seen an instance where Douglas has let religion guide his choices?

And when was pot ever legal? Where is the law that specifically says pot is legal or, are you just refering to the time when it wasn't illegal? Because, its not the same thing.

[bigbadbrad]

Christ, JPC I don't know or care. They didn't lock consenting non violent adults up for smoking it on the taxpayers dime, ok. I grow weary of this pointless interchange.

[jpc]

They also didn't used to lock up people for beating their wives and children on the taxpayer dime either. I think we can all agree that change was for the better.

[bigbadbrad]

So your equating the guy who smokes weed to the guy who beats his wife and kids? I ignore you.

[Peter Joes]

Let's look at a few simple facts:

Alcohol -- directly kills about 50,000 people a year in the US.
Cigarettes - - directly kills about 100,000 people a year in the US.
Marijuana - - directly kills about 0 people a year in the US.

Alcohol - - Legal - - sold in state stores - - heavily taxed - - regulated.
Cigarettes - - Legal - - heavily taxed - - regulated.
Marijuana - - illegal - - major consequences for mere possession - - not taxed - - tremendous revenue for criminal entities.

What's wrong with this picture for a country that believes in the concept that punishment should be meted out in relation to the seriousness of the crime?

And yet, many people, maybe most, would take issue with the simple statements above. Much public education on the issue is needed to counter the misinformation that has been generated for generations.

A commission should be set up to start with the pharmacological aspects of different drugs and move forward from that base into what a sane drug policy should be.

PJ

[bigbadbrad]

Thank you, Peter Joes!

[vermonter]

"Marijuana - - directly kills about 0 people a year in the US."

First, what does "directly" mean here?

Second, where does this "fact" come from?

Third, we have no idea how many high people cause car accidents. It is not tested for the way alcohol is. I have personal knowledgeof at least one tragic accident caused by a teenaged driver using marijuana in a car.

I'm not expressing an opinion on whether it should be legal or not. I'm just questioning the validity of these statistics.

[bigbadbrad]

Come on, Vermonter. If we could point to a handful of cases it would be a statisical Irrelevancy. Who said anything about driving a car after smoking weed? Weed doesn'thave anywhere near the effect on fine motorskills that booze does. You shouldn't talk on the phone or drive while exhausted either.

[Peter Joes]

"vermonter" - - pick your own numbers, the point would be the same.

PJ

[vermonter]

"Alcohol -- directly kills about 50,000 people a year in the US.
Cigarettes - - directly kills about 100,000 people a year in the US.
Marijuana - - directly kills about 0 people a year in the US."

One could also speculate from the above that if marijuana were as widely available as alcohol, it might cause just as many or more accidents.

[Peter Joes]

OK "vermonter" - - here are some sources:

I guess I erred, the stats are more significant than I thought.

(2000): "The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), ...and alcohol consumption (85,000 deaths; 3.5%). ... and illicit use of drugs (17,000)."
(Note: According to a correction published by the Journal on Jan. 19, 2005, ...' A dagger symbol should be added to 'alcohol consumption' in the body of the table and a dagger footnote should be added with 'in 1990 data, deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in alcohol consumption deaths, but not in motor vehicle deaths. In 2000 data, 16,653 deaths from alcohol-related crashes are included in both alcohol consumption and motor vehicle death categories." Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, Jan. 19, 2005, Vol. 293, No. 3, p. 298.)

An exhaustive search of the literature finds no credible reports of deaths induced by marijuana. The US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) records instances of drug mentions in medical examiners' reports, and though marijuana is mentioned, it is usually in combination with alcohol or other drugs. Marijuana alone has not been shown to cause an overdose death.

Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), available on the web at http://www.samhsa.gov/; also see Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A. Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999), available on the web at http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/; and US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition" (Docket #86-22), September 6, 1988, p. 57.

[jpc]

Peterjoes, the data for alcohol considers direct and indirect causes (ie car crash) while the statement about pot only stipulates nobody has overdoes from it. A report in the British Journal of Medicine shows that of 10,600 fatal car crashes 275 were directly due to pot. I realize that is a small number but if pot were to be much easily attainable then it would go up i'm sure.

[bigbadbrad]

"One could also speculate from the above that if marijuana were as widely available as alcohol, it might cause just as many or more accidents.'

One could, but one would be wrong. VERY MUCH WRONG. Cannibis use is more prevelant than you might think.
275 out of 10,600. wow, what an Epidemic! Argueing for agruments sake.

[Peter Joes]

I'd like to thank "vermonter" for two things - -

1. pushing me to check my numbers - - turns out they were way too conservative

and

2. helping me make my point.

My point again is that there is much confusion and misinformation that has resulted in a very failed public policy when it comes to drugs. I was suggesting that a panel be created that would do the following:

A. start with the pharmacology - - what are the positive and negative effects on the user?

B. what are the effects of the drug use on the public at large?

C. based on the above, what should be public policy regarding regulation, taxation, and legal use, if any, of the various drugs.

D. delineate a path for education on the issues and implementation of the recommendations.

"vermonter" suggests that the reasons for low marijuana deaths is due to the success of the current policy restricting use. I seem to recall that in areas where use of marijuana is legal, it didn't result in greater use. But - - the panel, if formed, can look into matters like these.

PJ