The Statehouse was still abuzz today over yesterday's House vote on the governor's veto, where Democrats fell just three votes short of an override. After the weekend, this one will be far in the rear-view mirror, but for now it's a more catchy conversation than, "Hey what do you think about the 2008 budget?"
Legislators have a way of blaming the media for suggesting that a veto-proof majority exists in the House. I'd like to suggest that if we didn't point out that there was this first-time-ever-for-Democrats theoretical veto-proof majority if the Progressives and the independents cooperate, everybody'd be after us.
So this fragile, first-time-ever thing was challenged for the first time Thursday. Two Democrats and one independent didn't go along. One D was also at the dentist. One of the wayward Democrats was Ron Allard of St. Albans, who's often gone against the party and so was no surprise. Independent Darryl Pillsbury is labeled an independent for a reason, so his vote's not very predictable.
The surprise of the day was newcomer Jon Anderson, in his third day in the Legislature. He's listed as a Democrat, but he was the fifth of five choices among Montpelier Democrats making the nominations to the governor. Now people are really wondering what kind of Democrat he is.
Does a real Democrat back the governor? Does a newcomer in his third day on the job not realize how politically charged this vote is? Does a newcomer think, more than old-timers, that such a vote shouldn't be so purely political? Where do you draw the line between voting with the party and voting with your own self? Thursday's vote raises these questions and more.
- Terri Hallenbeck
