vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

11.09.2006

The guv's peeps

It was about 1:30 p.m. Thursday when Gov. Douglas was telling us at a press conference that he wouldn't be surprised if some members of his staff moved on. After four years, this government service thing can get old for some people, he said.

Who? we asked. He wasn't offering any particulars.

It was about three hours later when the press release arrived that Ag Secretary Steve Kerr would be leaving. Douglas' spokesman Jason Gibbs said the meeting with Kerr happened after the press conference. He wouldn't say whether the governor had an inkling the resignation was about to happen.

Any predictions on who's next to go?

- Terri Hallenbeck

posted by vt.Buzz | 7:46 PM |

Comments:

Good riddance to the worst ag secretary vermont has ever had.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:45 AM, November 10, 2006

Wouldn't it be interesting if someone from the press were to ask Martha Rainville how she feels about the Rumsfeld resignation?

Seems that the White House really screwed her there. If they'd have just fired the guy 3 weeks ago, Welch wouldn't have been able to hold Rummy's incompetence against her.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:40 PM, November 10, 2006

Rainville didn't make it just because Rummy was still in place.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:07 PM, November 10, 2006

So, that's how the GOP is spinning Rainville's defeat...blame it on Rummy.

What about the fact that the entire Iraq invasion was a disaster? What about Bush's lies? Rainville's plagiarism?

Naw...it's just Rummy. Everything else is swell.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:38 PM, November 10, 2006

If Douglas was clever he would give a Democrat a job!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:49 AM, November 11, 2006

Hey Goofballs,

Stop making assumptions.

I'm not "spinning" the Rainville defeat and I'm not from the GOP (greedy old party).

Martha lost because she waffled on the War on Iraq and failed to articulate her position on any number of important issues -- oh yea, and Welch is a good candidate who ran a great campaign.

HOWEVER, she did get screwed by the White House on this Rumsfeld thing. As I said, IF Rummy had been fired BEFORE the election, Welch would have had one less stick to beat Marty over the head with.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:55 AM, November 11, 2006

Yes, but she still would have lost. Welch won by a huge margin though she did end up distancing herself from Rummy which was probably a good move in our state.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:44 PM, November 11, 2006

In an election year where control of the House didn't hang in the balance, I'm positive Rainville would have won. Exhibit 1: that's all Welch talked about.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:03 PM, November 11, 2006

The reason why the Republicans said they wanted her was because the control of the house was in balance. She was supposed to be this sure bet yet she came out of the gate without those D.C. talking points memorized yet. She is a fabulous first impression lady, don't you think? Sure Welch probably was nervous at first but it is hard to picture him being nervous for too long.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:40 PM, November 11, 2006

Yea, I'm pretty well versed in what liberal bloggers think about the Rumsfeld resignation.

I was asking what Martha Rainville's take on the situation.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:46 AM, November 12, 2006

Eventually, she said what she thought of Rummy's resignation before he resigned. She said it should happen and it did. I doubt she would have changed her mind.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:03 PM, November 12, 2006

Martha's a loser. Time to move on!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:36 PM, November 12, 2006

Great. More opinion from liberal bloggers.

You guys never miss a chance to opine.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:57 AM, November 13, 2006

Why we were supposed to vote for Welch?: (1) Rumsfeld should go; (2) control of the House hangs in the balance; and (3) Rainville would have no choice but to support Hastert. In less than 24 hours, these three "pillars" of the Welch campaign were already gone -- and none of these reasons for voting for Welch are even needed any longer given the Dems margin of victory. That's what happens when Vermont sells its political soul to the national parties instead of remaining genuinely independent and voting for the person, not the party.

# Posted by:

BarreBoy | 10:03 AM, November 13, 2006

barreboy, none of these things would have happened had the House stayed in Republican hands.

Electing Welch, and a majority of Democratic legislators, led to the fall of Rummy and Hastert.

The Democratic majority has already accomplished two great things -- and they haven't even been sworn in yet !!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:08 AM, November 13, 2006

You miss the point. Vermonters were voting for their representative, not everyone else's. Vermont could have elected Rainville without any of the macro fear-instilling effects at the center of the Welch campaign. That is, if Rainville had been elected, the three events I listed would have taken place anyway. Any linkage is artificial.

We used to chart our own course. Now, our congressional seat is just one of several hundred dictated by forces beyond our borders and our control.

# Posted by:

BarreBoy | 11:21 AM, November 13, 2006

You miss the point.

Vermont is against the Republican agenda that Rainville is a champion of.

Vermonters rejected the ideology that Rainville represents.

Sore looser, I guess.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:34 AM, November 13, 2006

You miss the point.

Vermont is against the Republican agenda the Rainville was a champion of.

Vermonters rejected the ideology that Rainville represents.

Sore looser, I guess.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:34 AM, November 13, 2006

Vermonters played an important role in ousting the Republican leadership in congress.

Of course the Republicons are going to whine about that. They thought that Rummy was going a heck of a job.

And Denny Hasturd? Yea! Great guy! Put his own financial interest ahead of the people's interest, ignored vast corruption, swept the Mark Foley affair under the rug, failed to provide reasonable oversight to the White House. But the Republicons loved him.

Of course there are going to be sour grapes. The Democrats (Welch included) were able to show the people that there is a viable alternative to the BS that the Repubs have been dragging us through for 6 years.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:57 AM, November 13, 2006

That's nonsense. Rainville lost because she wasn't what Vermonter's wanted. Trying to spin it as outside control dictated the outcome is another pipe dream of a dilusioned group of folks that think that Vermont is a republican state. You guys better come to terms with reality.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:14 PM, November 13, 2006

Lets get rid of Wayne Laroche too.

And more to the point, why do we guard our scientific hen houses with these political foxes?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:16 PM, November 13, 2006

Hard to argue with such pithy, articulate statements by one or more anonymous bloggers who know not me or my thoughts on the various isues.

Perhaps I am a Republican who thought the national party had lost its way and was sorely in need for a wake-up call? That doesn't mean I can't support a good person who would have championed reform within the party. But ad hominem arguments are the fall-back position of those unable to articulae a cogent analysis.

# Posted by:

BarreBoy | 4:24 PM, November 13, 2006

I do believe Welch's campaign was fear-based. But Rainville, as nice as she is to be around, lacks substance. It just wasn't there. She was not a champion of any agenda because her opinion could change and she didn't understand the foundations behind things she said. Vermonters are independant thinkers and cannot be snowed. And no...I am not a liberal.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:27 PM, November 13, 2006

Barreboy, I'll admit that I thought you had a politcal-crush on Rainville. She could do no wrong in your eyes during the campaign thus it weakened the strength of your comments at the time. 20-20 makes all of us see things better.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:29 PM, November 13, 2006

20-20 hindsight is what I meant. :) GOP could have done more to educate her on issues possibly....talking points only get you so far.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:31 PM, November 13, 2006

Rainville was tainted. Clean politics, but then scandal. Independent, but then GOP funding. Two positions on Iraq. Would the real Martha Rainville please stand up?

Sorry but the facts are that Welch was elected, Rumsfield was shown the door, the house turned to Dems, and Hastert opted to not be minority leader.

Any "what ifs" concerning Martha are just that.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:23 AM, November 14, 2006

Anonymous No. ?: I assume, then, given your aversion to the slightest taint that you are opposed to John "Abscam" Murtha being the Dem Majority Leader in the House, right?

# Posted by:

BarreBoy | 12:22 PM, November 14, 2006

Murtha? What's Murtha have to do with the fact that Martha lost, Welch was elected, Rumsfield was shown the door, the house turned to Dems, and Hastert opted to not be minority leader.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:53 PM, November 14, 2006

I agree that the what ifs are mere what ifs at this point. I thought Philip Baruth's article was good in Vermont Guardian. I find him a bit of an angry writer and Bush hater which I am not. I am a strong Republican but his analysis is correct in this case, I believe. No of course, we are not excited about the Dems being in control of the House. But maybe it will be a wake up call to the GOP...if they are willing to learn a lesson.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:48 PM, November 14, 2006