Vermont Leads - USA Follows?

Cheer up, folks.

The voice of this little Green Mountain State continues to catch the nation’s ear. The tide is turning, not as fast as we'd like, but it is turning.

CNN’s John King aired a nice little feature on the CNN “Political Ticker” Wednesday afternoon about “President Bush's forgotten state?”

They’d actually had it in the can for a couple weeks - bumped by the Minnesota bridge-collapse story and the mine cave-in.

C’est la vie, eh?

And not only the usual suspects appeared before the camera like Bernie Sanders, our “self-described socialist” senator and UVM Political Science Prof. Garrison Nelson. Garrison told CNN that he "sees no upside in the president paying a visit to Vermonters."

"It is a photo opportunity he does not need," Nelson said. "I cannot imagine any assemblage in the state of Vermont that would give him an unalloyed positive reception."

But CNN also noted:

Vermont does have a Republican governor, Jim Douglas, but he is a throwback to the moderate breed of Republicanism that once thrived across New England. Douglas notes the first President Bush visited Vermont last among the 50 states, and predicts the son will do the same — despite his low popularity.

"He can take it," Douglas said of a potential Vermont visit. "He has certainly taken a lot of hostility and tough questions and I am sure he can do that here."

More to come, too.

A crew from one of the original "Big 3" networks (psst: ABC) was in town yesterday. Curious, they were, about why this president won't set foot in this state.

Too bad they weren't as curious when the crooked Bush/Haliburton/Fox News Team led us into war on such fraudulent evidence, eh?

Comments

[jvwalt]

I keep hearing about this "moderate" Governor we supposedly have, but I've seen precious little evidence lately. Jim Douglas has been playing the hardliner for at least a year or so: examples include his dalliance with Congressional right-wingers on the national forest legislation, his extreme anti-tax rhetoric, his veto of the energy bill (even without the Yankee tax), and his veto of a watered-down campaign-finance bill.

I'd say that he used to be a moderate. These days, he looks more like a conservative Republican. I suspect that he sees Vermont Democrats as no threat to his re-election, so he doesn't need to triangulate as much as he used to. He may also be harboring thoughts of higher office -- Senate, or even President. If so, it'd be useful to ingratiate himself to the national GOP base, a la Mitt Romney.

[Nate Freeman]

I'll second jvwalt's comment. Unfortunately, until an established moderate comes along to challenge Douglas, independent voters will still support him.

[jpc]

"The tide is turning, not as fast as we'd like, but it is turning."

Yes it is, with both Clinton and Obama on record saying the troop surge is working, the dems are losing ammo for the election. With a sub-president approval rating the public is unhappy that their have been more hearings intiated then laws passed. The tide is turning and Romney will once again have a republican controlled congress.

jvwalt, I don't think Douglas' stance on the issues was a party issue but a common sense issues.
a.) All the forest issue did was remove more of Vermont's land from use by vermonters, what good does it do us to have pristine land if all we can do is drive by it? b.)his anti-tax rhetoric is old school conservative republican and is sorely needed in a state with the highest tax rates. c.) He was right to veto the energy bill as well. We do not need another redundant program. There are at least 3 state programs that address the weatherization issues. Why create another that does the same things? A responsible legislature would have tried to consolidate the 3 we have and make it more efficent. and d.) the campaign finance law had one glaring issue that the dems wouldn't budge on. It placed no limits on personal contribution, so that millionaires like Tarrant for example, can spend loads of dough while the other candidate is handicapped by fundraising limits. Further there were more threats to question the bills legality which means that Sorrell would have been back to the Supreme Court costing the tax payers another 2million just to find out that it was another bad bill. Douglas is a only a smidgen right of center.

[Anon]

"what good does it do us to have pristine land if all we can do is drive by it?"

You mean besides the cleaner air, cleaner water, healthier game, better fishing and more plentiful game?

[jpc]

You mean that prisitine land that can't be logged so will develop into a useless forest full of blow downs and rotting trees, allowing fungal spores to be released into your cleaner air, healthier game that results from trying to outrun predators throught a mass of tanglements. There has been plenty of woodland "saved" in this state, we don't need any more. All this land that was once open to snowmobiling and four-wheeling that attracted tourist dollars and allowed others to enjoy the wilderness, is now off limits. So glad we saved it. Common sense and a respect of the land would have had much better results without taking away more of our land and dictating how,when,and where we do what. Even so, because Douglas decide to try to protect the interests of rural VTer's hardly means his a hard right winger.

[Anon]

Fungal Spores?

Your argument is that forests grow fungal spores which are a detriment to our health?

That's just plain nuts.

[Anon]

Oh, and wilderness is bad for wildlife because they get tangled up ?? !!

Wow. It's amazing that the moose and deer survived for so long before humans came along!!

What bizarre logic.

[bigbadbrad]

Maybe some of those spores lodged on JPC's brain? Keep dreaming about Romney and that republican Majority. Please seek professional help, I'm starting to worry about your sanity. Make no mistake, their is a severe reckoning coming for your beloved Neo-Con Party.

[Jane]

I double dare Bush to come to Vermont. There ain't no mountain high enough, nor valley low enough to keep us away. Bring it on.

[Peter Joes]

Now wouldn't it just be slick if some outfit put on a mock appearance by George President Bush?

The mocker can arrive, there can be protests, there can be a debate with Sen. Sanders - - lots of fun.

I'm thinking maybe Bread and Puppet could put together a good Bush mask and provide the "riot" police etc.

Hmmmm

PJ

[jpc]

"Make no mistake, their is a severe reckoning coming for your beloved Neo-Con Party."

I hope so, the neo cons are the worst thing that has ever happened to the republican party. Which is why the two candidiates I am willing to support are really liberal republicans. Seriously, the furhter away from center the worse off this country gets and right now there are far too many on the extremes in both parties. Neither does us much good.

Anon, I figured the gloom and doom would fit right in with the typical views, I retract my comments, the original point was whether douglas is moderate or not, and because he opined against it doesn't make him an far right republican. That got into the land debate, where my basic point was that the government telling vermonters what they can and can't do on vermont public land is for the birds. A little common sense goes a long way, forests can be properly maintained without gov interference. Selective cutting promotes a healthiER forest then simply allowing them to grow unchecked. As far as your comments go, restricting use does not produce cleaner air, water, more fish, or healthier wildlife. That's all there even if the public is allowed to use it responsibly. Either way, it is long past.

[Anon]

The dude who cautioned that trees create, "fungal spores to be released into your cleaner air" is now lecturing on the use of common sense?

That's funny!

[notso]

"A little common sense goes a long way, forests can be properly maintained without gov interference. Selective cutting promotes a healthiER forest then simply allowing them to grow unchecked. As far as your comments go, restricting use does not produce cleaner air, water, more fish, or healthier wildlife"

You apparently live in the city and have no experience with logging.

Furthermore, without the control provided by wilderness designation, how can you define "healthiER forest"?