burlingtonfreepress.com

Sponsored by:

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

Comments:
Good riddance to the worst ag secretary vermont has ever had.
 
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.
 
Rainville didn't make it just because Rummy was still in place.
 
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.
 
If Douglas was clever he would give a Democrat a job!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Martha's a loser. Time to move on!
 
Great. More opinion from liberal bloggers.

You guys never miss a chance to opine.
 
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.
 
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 !!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Lets get rid of Wayne Laroche too.

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



<< Home

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010