Thanks Shumlin! You screwed your friends in the house!
 

Finally, we can put this nonsense behind us.
 

Impeach Freeps management for failure to deliver!
 

Get yourself out from you Gannett-induced stupor and cancel your subscription !!!

Get yourself out from you Gannett-induced stupor and cancel your subscription !!!

Get yourself out from you Gannett-induced stupor and cancel your subscription !!!

Get yourself out from you Gannett-induced stupor and cancel your subscription !!!
 

Easy kids. I passed your delivery concerns along to the Free Press circulation director, who said he will check on it. It's true, that once we pour our hearts and souls into our work, we like it when our customers can get the product.
- TH
 

Is there any way this guy can work some magic and delivery Peter Shumlin to that magical place where all the missing papers disapear to?
 

Thank you Terri for promptly publishing the vote tally. I was listening to the VPR streaming audio and missed the final count because the stream kept cutting out.

From what I heard, the people who lobbied for the resolution in the question and answer session with Gaye Symington in the House chamber before hand were far more eloquent than the support on either side in the actual House debate. They were prepared to state their case and I am glad they did.

The gist of Ms Symington's argument against this resolution is that we should give time for the current congressional investigations to provide the check and balance to the administration's activities. I would posit that the congressional investigations will not produce any change in the behavior of the current Bush administration. If this is so, will impeachment be more acceptable in three months, in six months? If not now, when?
 

Peter Shumlin and Gaye Symington deserve each other - Zuckerman for Governor!!!
 

Zuckerman deserves heaps of praise for introducing impeachment. It wasn't a waste of time. But there is a lot of wasted space being used up by worthless Democrats.
 

OK - but seriously - this impeachment crowd might have been taken more seriously if they had taken a bath and put on some deodorant before making tTe trek up to Montpelier.

You can't lobby an effective lobbiest when your own body odor is repelling the people you are trying to lobby. Not to mention you aren't going to be taken seriously if you smell like a bum.

Yesterday's collective BO was all the evidence that legislators needed to confirm that this was just a fringe movement, and not representative of average Vermonters (who, believe it or not, take a shower every day).
 

Sorry - typos in the above post. Should be:

OK - but seriously - this impeachment crowd might have been taken more seriously if they had taken a bath and put on some deodorant before making the trek up to Montpelier.

You can't be an effective lobbiest when your own body odor is repelling the people you are trying to lobby. Not to mention you aren't going to be taken seriously if you smell like a bum.

Yesterday's collective BO was all the evidence that legislators needed to confirm that this was just a fringe movement, and not representative of average Vermonters (who, believe it or not, take a shower every day).
 

Snarky Boy says Zuckerman was a wimp yesterday. He actually says Pearson was much better. Changing of the guard?
 

Some anonymous lump of crap on the internet is calling somebody ELSE a wimp?

That's rich.
 

says anonymous!
 

Yea, but I'm not calling people wimps.
 

Truth be told, Snark didn't actually label Capt. Ponytail a "wimp." Just said he kind of "cowered." But I do agree with Snark that it may be time for Pony-T to ride into the sunset and let Pearson take over.
 

Can you define "Progressive"?
 

Oh, yea!
 

Member
Vote
Acinapura of Brandon No

Adams of Hartland No

Ainsworth of Royalton No

Allard of St. Albans Town No

Ancel of Calais Yes

Anderson of Montpelier Yes

Andrews of Rutland City No*

Aswad of Burlington Yes

Atkins of Winooski No*

Audette of S. Burlington No

Baker of West Rutland No

Barnard of Richmond Yes

Bissonnette of Winooski No

Bostic of St. Johnsbury Absent

Botzow of Pownal No

Branagan of Georgia No

Bray of New Haven No

Brennan of Colchester No

Browning of Arlington No

Canfield of Fair Haven No

Chen of Mendon No

Cheney of Norwich Yes

Clark of St. Johnsbury No

Clark of Vergennes No

Clarkson of Woodstock No*

Clerkin of Hartford No

Condon of Colchester No

Consejo of Sheldon No

Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford Yes

Corcoran of Bennington No

Courcelle of Rutland City No

Davis of Washington Yes

Deen of Westminster No

Devereux of Mount Holly No

Donaghy of Poultney No

Donahue of Northfield No

Donovan of Burlington Yes

Dostis of Waterbury Yes

Edwards of Brattleboro Yes

Emmons of Springfield Yes

Errecart of Shelburne No

Evans of Essex Yes

Fallar of Tinmouth Yes

Fisher of Lincoln Yes*

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City No

Flory of Pittsford No

Frank of Underhill No

French of Randolph Yes

Gervais of Enosburg No

Gilbert of Fairfax No

Godin of Milton No

Grad of Moretown Yes*

Haas of Rochester Yes

Head of S. Burlington Yes

Heath of Westford No

Helm of Castleton Absent

Hosford of Waitsfield Yes

Howard of Rutland City No

Howrigan of Fairfield No

Hube of Londonderry No

Hudson of Lyndon No

Hunt of Essex No

Hutchinson of Randolph Yes

Jerman of Essex No

Jewett of Ripton Yes

Johnson of South Hero Yes

Johnson of Canaan No

Keenan of St. Albans City No

Keogh of Burlington No

Kilmartin of Newport City No*

Kitzmiller of Montpelier Yes*

Klein of East Montpelier Yes

Koch of Barre Town No

Komline of Dorset No

Krawczyk of Bennington No

Kupersmith of S. Burlington No

Larocque of Barnet No

Larrabee of Danville No

Larson of Burlington Yes

LaVoie of Swanton No

Lawrence of Lyndon No

Lenes of Shelburne Yes

Leriche of Hardwick Yes

Lippert of Hinesburg Yes

Livingston of Manchester No

Lorber of Burlington Yes

Maier of Middlebury Yes

Malcolm of Pawlet No

Manwaring of Wilmington No*

Marcotte of Coventry No

Marek of Newfane Yes

Martin (Cynthia) of Springfield Yes

Martin of Wolcott Yes

Masland of Thetford Yes

McAllister of Highgate No

McCormack of Rutland City No

McCullough of Williston Yes*

McDonald of Berlin No

McFaun of Barre Town No

Milkey of Brattleboro Yes*

Miller of Shaftsbury Yes

Minter of Waterbury Yes

Mitchell of Barnard Yes

Monti of Barre City No

Mook of Bennington No

Moran of Wardsboro Yes

Morley of Barton No

Morrissey of Bennington No

Mrowicki of Putney Yes*

Myers of Essex No

Nease of Johnson Yes

Nuovo of Middlebury Yes

O'Donnell of Vernon No

Obuchowski of Rockingham Yes

Ojibway of Hartford Yes

Orr of Charlotte Yes

Otterman of Topsham No

Oxholm of Vergennes No

Partridge of Windham Yes

Pearson of Burlington Yes

Peaslee of Guildhall No

Pellett of Chester No*

Peltz of Woodbury Yes

Perry of Richford No

Peterson of Williston No

Pillsbury of Brattleboro Yes

Potter of Clarendon No

Pugh of S. Burlington Yes

Randall of Troy Yes

Rodgers of Glover Yes

Scheuermann of Stowe No

Shand of Weathersfield No

Sharpe of Bristol Yes

Shaw of Derby No

Smith of Morristown No

Spengler of Colchester Yes*

Stevens of Shoreham No

Sunderland of Rutland Town No*

Sweaney of Windsor Yes

Symington of Jericho Presiding

Trombley of Grand Isle Yes

Turner of Milton No

Valliere of Barre City No

Westman of Cambridge No

Weston of Burlington Yes

Wheeler of Derby No

Winters of Williamstown No

Wright of Burlington No*

Zenie of Colchester Yes

Zuckerman of Burlington Yes*
 

Rep. Andrews of Rutland City explained her vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker;

I voted no because, like the Representative from Woodstock, I feel that the ballot box and proceedings currently underway is the most appropriate place to express our outrage.

But, I do not feel that the time spent in this discussion has been wasted. Throughout this session, I have become increasingly aware of how the problems we need to be spending our time on have been exacerbated or even created by the actions of this administration.”

Rep. Atkins of Winooski explained his vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

I voted no on this resolution more because I feel that we, members of the House, have more pressing subjects that require time on this floor more than the merits, pro or con, regarding our President’s actions or non-actions.

Health care, property taxes and prescription drugs are only a few subjects that we promised to solve in this session.

Our time needs to be spent on the above problems, not on an issue that Washington has not even requested our input or our assistance.”

Rep. Clarkson of Woodstock explained her vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

I vote no. I believe it is a mistake to substitute an impeachment process for electoral wisdom. While our President maybe incompetent, however, our anger at his misleading us, at squandering international good will and human and financial resources is insufficient to justify an impeachment process. This would divide us and distract us from the important work of ending the war in Iraq. The proper channel for our frustration is the upcoming 2008 election.”

Rep. Fisher of Lincoln explained his vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

Impeachment has become a metaphor for outrage. That being so, I vote a heartfelt yes.

I also fully support Congressional investigations that seek to hold the Bush administration fully accountable for its misguided domestic and foreign policies.”

Rep. Grad of Moretown explained her vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

While I agree the best course of action is for Congress to continue its work to investigate the actions of the current administration and demand honesty and accountability, my yes vote today is to give a voice to my constituents who at town meetings voted in favor of impeachment and against the war and to give a voice to those constituents who feel the current administration has caused unnecessary loss of lives, numerous violations of civil liberties, extraordinary environmental degradation and governing through secrecy. My vote sends the symbolic message that Vermonters be heard.”

Rep. Kilmartin of Newport City explained his vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

The resolution is biased, contrary to the United States Constitution, and factually unfounded and unsupported. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and I proudly do so today by my “no” vote.”

Rep. Kitzmiller of Montpelier explained his vote as follows:

“Madame Speaker,

I have had more contacts from my constituents on this issue than on any issue in the past. Every single one, without exception, has asked me to vote in favor of this resolution. They knew what they wanted me to do, and they knew why.

Madame Speaker, I have deep personal reservations about this vote, but on this day I am proud to vote "Yes" on behalf of my district.”

Rep. Manwaring of Wilmington explained her vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

My vote against the impeachment resolution was difficult for me, as I am just as passionate about the unspeakable damage that the Bush Administration has done not just to our country, but to the world.

In 2006, the voters spoke loudly and in effect impeached Bush’s rubber stamp in Congress.

It is the next Presidential election that is the key. I do not believe in my heart that impeachment serves that end. Our collective energies are better spent at the ballot box.”

Rep. McCullough of Williston explained his vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

I am a supporter of H.R. 18. One always steps correctly when following one’s heart. I followed mine.”

Rep. Milkey of Brattleboro explained her vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

The best outcome we can have from today’s debate is that all of us who believe that the leadership of our country has set us on a wrong and dangerous course – regardless of how anyone voted today – can work together in every avenue available to us to restore liberty and justice in our country, and to restore our role in the world as a beacon of hope and a defender of liberty for all world citizens.”

Rep. Mrowicki of Putney explained his vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

My vote today was not the same as yours would be, but I hope it is in accord with the high standards of respect and acceptance of diversity that you have set with your example.

I hope we all remember the Speaker is on record as being just as aggrieved by the current administration as anyone. The diversity of thought is in what to do with that displeasure.

I will take from the Speaker’s example that how one does something is just as important as what one does.

Thank you Madam Speaker.”

Rep. Pellett of Chester explained her vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

I vote “No” on this resolution with a divided mind and heart. I condemn the actions of this administration and would like very much to stem the outrageous conduct of the President and Vice President. But I feel that voting for impeachment at this point would do little good toward that end except to register a conviction or sentiment which I fear would end as a futile gesture.

Congress’ energy and actions should be focused on ending the war in Iraq, dealing with our energy issues, world hunger, poverty, health care and much more and will not be able to do that if it is in pursuit of impeachment.”

Rep. Spengler of Colchester explained her vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

When presidential power, a weak congress and press collude with corporate influence to determine the laws of the land it is called fascism because the will of the people is removed from the process. Americans under George Bush have unknowingly entered this miasma.

Impeachment is justified and is the first step to gain citizen control. The second is demanding election finance reform to extricate elected officials from powerful interests. The third step is breaking up the conglomeration of the media. Until we have a president who is not above the law, meaningful election finance reform and a free press, our most sacred union will continue to be in peril.”

Rep. Sunderland of Rutland Town explained his vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker”

By considering this action and resolution today the Vermont House of Representatives has demonstrated that it is numb to the serious and back breaking needs of Vermonters. While nearing the end of this legislative year, we have done nothing to ease the property tax burden on Vermonters, we have done nothing substantial to help our farmers remain viable over the long term, and we have done nothing to make our children and communities safer.

Vermonters have lost this legislative year at a price of over 3-million dollars in legislative costs alone. Because of our inaction on important and relevant issues, they will continue to suffer with some of the highest taxes, fewest economic opportunities, and most overbearing state governments in the nation. I voted 'No' to protest our jumbled and misdirected priorities and will hold out hope for a brighter future.”

Rep. Wright of Burlington explained his vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

I voted no on this resolution as inappropriate… But I salute you Madam Speaker for doing this in the right way… As opposed to the way the “other body” in this building passed it. No debate on a resolution of this magnitude is wrong.”

Rep. Zuckerman of Burlington explained his vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

This vote was a statement to our delegation, no more, no less. It was not easy, nor hard but necessary. A prior congress diminished the impeachment process, that is no reason we should not move forward.

We can and must deal with many issues. They are all important. The separation of powers is extremely important. To spend one hour on this issue is nothing near a waste of time. This is not about policy but it is about our Constitution.”
 

At the end of the day, the impeachment resolution went down in flames becauses the 300 supporters were stinkin' up the house with bad BO. A NO vote was the only way House members could clear the air.
 

The previous post was made by some trust-fund baby who has had everything in life handed to him/her. Obviously, brains were not one of things handed to him/her. How f-ing stupid is the BO joke. What are you, 10 years old? Do us all a favor and enlist today. There's a post in Iraq waiting for you (and, hopefully, an IMD).
 

Too bad we "trust-fund babies" have to work for a living and don't have time to parade around bitchin' about how everyone one else is making our life so difficult.

I guess there isn't a government program that pays for deodorant.

Why don't you try working for a living like the rest of us and get a life (and some deodorant). Bush will be gone in 18 months.

And you know what?

The government isn't wiretapping your phone or holding you in detention. Sorry to break it to you, but they really don't give a crap about your pathetic existance. I know - its harsh, but someone has to break the news to you.
 

Your attitude sums up that of the Bushies.

Certainly the Bush Administration does not care about the existance of citizens who have a net worths of under $1,000,000.
 

I am not a trust fund baby or a hippie - just a hard working Vermonter. I feel you can disagree with this impeachment movement and still be for change. I also don't feel the BO jokes are juvenile - you had to be there.
 

Apparently the republican Rep from Burlington has never greeted returning troops The collective stench from the BO of our returning troops in the Air Guard hanger can also overwhelm the stench of your republican blood money...you think it's why we're losing the war in Iraq, too?
 

I think there is no respect for the blue collar hard working ethic that built this country - which used to be the Democrats!
 

The pro-impeachment idiot from Glover, Rodgers, only represents the soap-impaired hippies and druggies from the Bread and Puppet theater and the rest of the pot-heads in West Glover. A once-conservative town reduced to this!
 

"Apparently the republican Rep from Burlington has never greeted returning troops The collective stench from the BO of our returning troops in the Air Guard hanger can also overwhelm the stench of your republican blood money...you think it's why we're losing the war in Iraq, too?"

Are you really trying to compare the guy who sat in the hallway of the statehouse, took his shoes off, didn't bother to shower for a week and lost his deoderant two years ago with our brave returning troops who fought for the freedom for millions, who have suffered through 120 degree weather and a 26 hour flight?

btw - You assume it is Republicans complaining about the unwashed crowd. Trust me - Democrats were appalled by the caliber of people there as well -
 

Democrats were just as turned off
by it all as anyone else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

I guess after a day in a drug-induced stupor these leftist morons can't even smell themselves. Hey, remember that it is Vermont's responsibility to care for other states' dregs of society!
 

We are going bankrupt "caring for the dregs of society"!