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?
"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.
Posted by: vermonter | Monday, July 23, 2007 at 11:01 PM
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.
Posted by: linguini | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 06:31 AM
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?
Posted by: One_Vermonter | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 07:12 AM
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.
Posted by: vermonter | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 07:32 AM
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.
Posted by: one_vermonter | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 08:47 AM
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.
Posted by: BearGrylls | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 08:56 AM
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.
Posted by: jpc | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 09:30 AM
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?
Posted by: vermonter | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 09:55 AM
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?
Posted by: sandy ward | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 10:45 AM
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.
Posted by: manoman | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 10:47 AM
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.
Posted by: John A, BUrgess | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 11:26 AM
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!
Posted by: one_vermonter | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 11:46 AM
"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.
Posted by: vermonter | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 11:46 AM
"just like every other politician."
Including your buddy Governor Veto.
Posted by: Pot and Kettle | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Actually, there is a difference between sanders and everyother politician. Most actually accomplish something.
Posted by: jpc | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 01:06 PM
Douglas hasn't.
Posted by: JPC_LSD | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 01:15 PM
I reiterate, I'm a history minor. What does "Vermonters" major have to do with anything, anywhere, ever?
Posted by: bigbadbrad | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 01:24 PM
"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.
Posted by: Skeeter Sanders | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 04:42 PM
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
Posted by: Peter Joes | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 08:55 PM
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
Posted by: Peter Joes | Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 08:56 PM