vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

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

12.06.2008

All smiles at the Democratic caucus

No one was smiling as Steve Klein reviewed the state's fiscal challenges, but once that nasty piece of business was completed, House Democrats were hugging and clapping and unanimous in their selection of new leadership.

Rep. Shap Smith, the Democratic nominee for House speaker, and his now former rival, Rep. Mark Larson, sat side-by-side and Larson nominated Smith. "I know Shap shared my values," Larson said. "I'm proud and prepared to stand by his side when he becomes speaker of the House."

When Smith took the microphone, he complimented each of his rivals -- Rep. John Rodgers of Glover, Rep. Johannah Donovan of Burlington, Rep. Carolyn Partridge of Windham and Larson. Larson and Smith both spoke of spending their first two years in the Legislature on the same committee -- Fish and Wildlife. Smith said of Larson, "I'm incredibly grateful to call you my friend and really look forward to the next two years, working together."

What does that mean? Will there be some committee chairmanship for Larson?

Similarly, Rep. Janet Ancel nominated Rep. Floyd Nease to be House Democratic Leader, noting that since she only pulled out of the race Friday, she hadn't had a lot of time to work on her speech. Ancel said Nease had many strengths, "but I don't think one is his choice of a barber." Nease was sporting a new hairstyle -- a kind of buzz cut.

Nease called Ancel "a class act." He joked that he hoped the caucus wouldn't have "buyers' remorse because "you didn't elect the smartest person."

Rep. Steve Maier, D-Middlebury, nominated Rep. Lucy Leriche, D-Hardwick, to be assistant leader, then noted she wasn't at the caucus. She was on the other side of the globe on a long-planned vacation -- scuba diving.

Rep. Jason Lorber, D-Burlington, had been a candidate for the assistant leader slot. In endorsement Leriche, he said, "You need someone who will be straight with you." He kept a straight face while the caucus giggled. Lorber is gay. He tried another line, saying Lucy would always have "the skinny" on issues, a reference to her slim build. He didn't get much reaction to that line. "OK, not as good as the first one."

As is usual at these organizational caucuses, everybody was talking unity. Partridge, stepping down after four years as House Democratic Leader including the last two with a 93-member caucus, identified the big challenge. Democrats now have an even bigger majority -- 95.

"That can be a great blessing or it can be a great curse," she said. Saturday, Democrats were hopeful they could transform their majority into a blessing.

-- Nancy Remsen

posted by vt.Buzz | 4:42 PM |

Comments:

Terri:

Did you guys staff the GMD "activist meeting" Saturday? Or was it not open to the public?

Just curious.

# Posted by:

Independent Vermonter | 11:26 PM, December 07, 2008

Anyone see that Gibbs guy on U Can Quote Me? He said he will be okay as f&w chief because the employees are experienced. Huh? So he is okay to be in this position because the employees can fend for themselves and don't need his direction?
If the Democrats want to show they are learning, start by nixing this fool.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:20 AM, December 08, 2008

In answer to Independent Vermonter: No, we didn't go to the "activist meeting" Saturday. Didn't inquire whether we would have been allowed. From Odum's write-up it sounds like there were heated debates but he's not going to tell us the nature of them. Otherwise, it sounded like they talked about how to put enforcers into place. Henchmen, if you will. In other words, the real worry is about keeping people in line while also making "a more inviting electoral environment for potential candidates." Interesting contrast.

- TH

# Posted by:

vt.Buzz | 10:32 AM, December 08, 2008

Terri:

As long as you're taking questions, along the lines of Indy's inquiry, do you Freeps Folks usually staff or have greater access to the inner workings of Administration, Legislative Minority and alleged Gop "Activist" Meetings than their Dem counterparts, or, if not, do you have a Gop counterpart to Odum who always gives you the straight dope on what was discussed, who said what to whom and the full nature of any disagreements, etc?

In short, from the Administration on down, are the Gops more honest, open and forthcoming than their Dem Counterparts?

Is it truly a two-way street or is it somehow different when they do it?

Just curious.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 11:24 AM, December 08, 2008

Jason Gibbs is experienced and will be a good Commissioner - just like George Bush's "Brownie, you're doing a great job!"

After all, his experience is --- openthe envelope please! --- he was an Eagle Scout nad he snowbaords!

Wow, I'm impressed!

I hope the Senate Dems see through this and vote this guy out!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:37 PM, December 08, 2008

C'mon, the Dems can't vote the guy out just because he's another in an endless series of unqualified doogie appointees.

That would be hyper-partisan of them.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 1:03 PM, December 08, 2008

There was nothing keeping TH or anyone else from the "activist meeting", other than them not bothering to come.

In other words, the real worry is about keeping people in line while also making "a more inviting electoral environment for potential candidates." Interesting contrast.

See, now if you had bothered to show up, you wouldn't have come to that conclusion. It's not up to us to do your job. I doubt the "GOP activists" are any different.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:22 PM, December 08, 2008

Neither do I, JD, but, evidently, it's different when they do it.

To paraphrase Joe Jackson, "Don't you know that it's different for gops."

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 1:29 PM, December 08, 2008

Wow, Terri, seems like you perceive a little...hostility? Or is it that you're trying to CREATE that perception with dismissive, contemptuous comments like yours above?
Next time, send YOUR henchmen.
We might even give them coffee.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:30 PM, December 08, 2008

I'm curious as to why TH and the Burlington Free Press wouldn't think something like this is newsworthy. What is her or the BFP's rationale for not covering it? Why did they "not inquire whether they would be allowed?" If it's a public meeting, of course you're able to cover it. Seems like it's the responsibility of journalists to find out.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:33 PM, December 08, 2008

Perhaps they didn't cover it because it wasn't that big of a deal.

The GMD folks had a meeting -- big deal!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:05 PM, December 08, 2008

"In other words, the real worry is about keeping people in line while also making "a more inviting electoral environment for potential candidates." Interesting contrast."

Damn, that's good stuff. Mr Roeper couldn't write gop talking points any better than that.

Gee, Terri, if you're gonna shill for the gops, ya may as well make it official and get paid for it.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 2:11 PM, December 08, 2008

Anonymous said...

>>Perhaps they didn't cover it because it wasn't that big of a deal.

The GMD folks had a meeting -- big deal <<

It was more than just a bunch of GMD folks. There were folks from within the Democratic Party, such as County Chairs and the State Vice Chair, elected officials, campaign professionals, and many people outside of such insider circles, from labor ambassador Ralph Montefusco to environmentalist Bill McKibben.

So if high ranking members of the Vermont Democratic Party and a renowned environmentalist and author shows up and it's not newsworthy, tell me "anonymous" when is it?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:14 PM, December 08, 2008

Well "anonymous", not every meeting in the state can be covered by a newspaper.

Anyone who wants to know what happened at that meeting can read about it on the GMD blog.

The Free Press can't possibly show up every time Bill McKibben shows up for a meeting.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:37 PM, December 08, 2008

Yeah, the Dems will squelch Gibbs' nomination. Sure they will. And Dick Mazza is really a Democrat, right?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:41 PM, December 08, 2008

The state senate never rejects a gubernatorial appointment. Regardless of party, the senate as an institution has never been used to reject the governor’s personnel choices.
Technically, they do have that power – but they don’t use it. Until the level of partisan rancor in Montpelier reaches a significantly higher threshold, we don’t see it happen.
Of course, the appointment of Gibbs – who is not qualified for this job – brings us closer to that point.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:54 PM, December 08, 2008

It's funny how the folks at GMD think that every meeting they have is huge news that deserves statewide press coverage.

It's a good blog ... but not nearly as important as they think it is.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:56 PM, December 08, 2008

John Odumb and his ilk with their myopic view of the world think that everything they do or say ought to be headline news.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:17 PM, December 08, 2008

I think every statewide office holder wants to run for Governor in 2010 so who will it be?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:24 PM, December 08, 2008

Terri:

Sorry, didn't mean to knock over a bucket of snark. I just wondered whether there was an objective account of the GMD meeting somewhere. I read John Odum's wrap up at the site.

Your analysis of that account of the meeting didn't strike me as being that far off. Phrases like "being able to apply pressure;" a "sore loser law" to keep losing primary candidates from running in other parties or as independents; and "creating entities that act as enforcement" to bring the "wrath of god" against "wavering override votes" were plentiful.

# Posted by:

Independent Vermonter | 12:48 AM, December 09, 2008

Wow, Terri makes one small comment about the GMD blog, and Odum writes a novel about his 'relationship' with her.

This guy has a Texas sized ego.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:32 AM, December 09, 2008

He was excited by the attention.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:33 AM, December 09, 2008

When one only encourages adoring fans to visit the site, one gets an inflated sense of one's role in Vermont politics.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:25 AM, December 09, 2008

"Hallenbeck dislikes us so much, it distorts her journalistic eye."

actually odum... she probably just doesn't care.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:17 PM, December 09, 2008

Anonymous writes:

>> The Free Press can't possibly show up every time Bill McKibben shows up for a meeting. <<

Um.. it's more than McKibben. That's the whole point. It was top-level Dems and Democratic Party activists.

What other news-breaking items were going on in Burlington that day, that warranted coverage? And how does a story like this not benefit the public interest? I think it does. Tell me why it doesn't benefit the public interest. Especially since the state can elect Obama, Welch, a super majority in the Vermont legislature, and STILL not elect a Democratic governor. I think it has everything to do with the rest of BFP readers.

>> Anyone who wants to know what happened at that meeting can read about it on the GMD blog <<

Unless you are a computer savvy person, most people out there don't read blogs or even know what a blog is. A lot of ordinary Vermonters are still behind the times on this.

And because Vermont is such a pro-business environment, not everyone in the state can get Internet service. You'd be amazed to find out how many places in Vermont still don't have access to hi-speed Internet.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:17 PM, December 09, 2008

They are going to have to get it -- because the newspapers are running out of money --

That fact alone means less coverage. The BFP misses a lot of big stories -- I don't see how you expect them to cover a little story like this.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:01 PM, December 09, 2008

The GMD bloggers think that they are GOD bloggers.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:39 PM, December 09, 2008

if the editorial board of the bfp thought the meeting was a story, they would have sent someone on assignment. they didn't. and i don't think terri really wants to spend her free time going to gmd's fanatical clubhouse gatherings. it wasn't interesting enough for the news: get over it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:52 PM, December 09, 2008

That meeting just wasn't that important.

It's great that the GMD folks are so excited about what they are doing. But it's hard to see how it's going to amount to anything.

Just a bunch of activists blowing off steam. Big deal.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:14 PM, December 09, 2008

Well, they think they're big movers and shakers. They should have gotten a bit of a clue as to their marginal role in the Party when their blog buddy Nate Freeman got slaughtered in the lt. guv primary.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:08 PM, December 09, 2008

"Anyone see that Gibbs guy on U Can Quote Me? He said he will be okay as f&w chief because the employees are experienced."

You had me at "that Gibbs guy." Tells me you know him real well.

He said a lot more than that too. I've known Jason a long time. He's very, very bright and very, very capable. And he brings tremendous energy and enthusiasm. Does he have the traditional credentials? No. But there are any number of jobs I'd want a guy like Jason for that he's not traditionally credentialed for.

Yes, it is important to have experienced people around you. Barack has no foreign policy people around him. So it's wise that he has people like Biden and Gen. Jones around him.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:18 PM, December 09, 2008

I've known Jason for a long time too.

He isn't qualified for this job and he'll be terrible at it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:56 PM, December 09, 2008

To set the record straight:

As the poster John Odum tried to discredit in his screed as "recently banned from GMD for crossing what is likely the only complete taboo in this site - going after somebody by using their employer as a weapon against them" let me assure you that's not true.

I NEVER "went after" Odum by using his employer as a weapon against him.

If he hasn't sent it down a memory hole, read the diary that led to my being banned; the link is below. I had the temerity to call him and another poster, a member of the St. Albans group fighting against Wal Mart for being hypocrites, namely, their position that when their side protests it's "grass roots action," but when others do it, it's "coercion" and "harassment;" that when Wal Mart spends money on the public process in Vermont they're a "distant business giant," but when Odum's employer the Vermont Natural Resources Council does it, they're somehow a local, grassroots group.

http://greenmountaindaily.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3489

That came after having plenty of my other comments on the site positively rated. When I agreed with Odum or other posters, I said so. When I disagreed, I did so politely.

So I didn't break the so-called rules of their site. I had no idea that mentioning VNRC or any of their issues was cause for banishment; Odum never recuses himself from discussing issues his employer works on.

I don't expect Odum to ever admit he over-reacted because I disagreed too effectively with him one time too many. But don't let him BS you into thinking I threatened his livelihood like the Second Vermont Republic people did. All I did was call him and another poster hypocrites. Politely.

# Posted by:

Independent Vermonter | 8:03 PM, December 09, 2008

Is there a right-wing cause that you aren't in love with "Independent Vermonter" ??

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:17 PM, December 09, 2008

Yeah, that's me. Mr. Right Winger. That's why I called out the anonymous poster who made the homophobic comment on the previous thread.

I'm an independent because I don't affiliate with any party. See my comments on idealogues; I see them on the right and left. If you want to slap a label on me call me a libertarian.

# Posted by:

Independent Vermonter | 8:29 PM, December 09, 2008

Libetarian -- like Bob Barr.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:51 PM, December 09, 2008

Libetarian is code for extra-kooky right wing.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:14 PM, December 09, 2008

Namecalling? That's your only response?

That's becoming a way too popular M.O. on this site.

# Posted by:

Independent Vermonter | 9:36 PM, December 09, 2008

You used the name "Libetarian". I simply gave it meaningful definition.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:51 PM, December 09, 2008

"You used the name "Libetarian". I simply gave it meaningful definition."

No you didn't. You name-called. Admit it. And get over yourself.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:13 PM, December 09, 2008

Independent Vermonter said...

"Terri:

...Your analysis of that account of the meeting didn't strike me as being that far off."

Once again, Indy, how things "strike you" is not evidence of anything but "how things strike you" and the fact that you have nothing else to offer but your self-proclaimed "independent" analysis of whatever the topic at hand may be which, invariably, has little to no basis in fact and tips your gop hand to the point where they can see it in Seattle on a rainy day.

In short, Indy, cut the crap. You're a gop. Who do ya think you're kiddin' with this "independent" crap. You're no more independent than I am.

I give ya high marks for havin' the decency to nuke the nameless-nitwit who kept claimin' a certain legislator was gay before claiming that "just because he doesn't self-identify as gay and there's no evidence that he is gay doesn't mean that he isn't gay" along with the stones and the imagination to come up with a screen, stand behind what you said and not claim some other nameless nitwit said it.

Clearly, that puts ya a good nine or ten notches above the nameless-nitwit nation knuckleheads, but it doesn't make ya "independent" of anything but the facts.

"Phrases like "being able to apply pressure;" a "sore loser law" to keep losing primary candidates from running in other parties or as independents; and "creating entities that act as enforcement" to bring the "wrath of god" against "wavering override votes" were plentiful."

Gimme a frickin' break.

How many gops in the Vermont Legislature voted against doogie's vetoes, Indy.

Ya gonna tell me that they didn't lean on that "wavering" Mt Holly gop.

All it would've taken was one or two and we wouldn't be in this fix.

Ya got bupkis, Indy. Again, the only thing you're consistently independent of is the facts.

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 10:18 PM, December 09, 2008

Ah, yes. No one but jwnutcake has a legitimate opinion on anything.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:39 PM, December 09, 2008

JW:

You bore me. I voted Obama/Douglas.

But I know your M.O. well enough to know that I'll never convince you of anything, so I'm not wasting time trying.

You would seem to be among kindred spirits at GMD. But your antics are tolerated here, some might argue far more than they should be.

Do you find it in the least ironic that a supposedly capital-D Democratic Party-aligned site is less tolerant of dissent than a site whose "front pagers" you accuse of being "gop shills?"

# Posted by:

Independent Vermonter | 10:47 PM, December 09, 2008

As "Independent" as Bob Barr??

Libertarian for President?

No, you aren't independent. You have a very strong, very right wing world view.

If you can't be honest about that ... well, then you just aren't honest.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:02 PM, December 09, 2008

I called myself a libertarian in response to someone's characterization of me as a "right-winger."

Check the posts closely; some other anonymous poster brought Barr into the conversation. Like I said, I voted Obama.

Sorry if my worldview doesn't fit into a nice pigeonhole for you, Odum.

# Posted by:

Independent Vermonter | 11:36 PM, December 09, 2008

Sure, and like I said, Indy, I'm heir to the Throne of England and I'm tryin' to winnow the field down to just two or three super models to continue dating and decide which Ferrari to keep in order to keep my wife reasonably content, too.

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 1:20 AM, December 10, 2008

Libertarians and GOPs are not the same thing. Libertarians are often on the Democratic side of many issues, such as gay rights and abortion. And many of them opposed the war. I respect Independent Vermonter for his views. He just said he voted for Obama. Not Bob Barr. Libertarian with a small l is different from it with a big L.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:59 AM, December 10, 2008

Both sides are going to have to court the Independent Vermonter type of voter to win. The Dems in VT don't have to win over quite so many to win elections, and that gives them a built-in advantage. But they have to court them.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:02 AM, December 10, 2008

There is a myth that independent means centrist.

But "Independent" means different things to different people.

It has become a way for people to be evasive about their true position on the political spectrum.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:43 AM, December 10, 2008

Anonymous...

"I respect Independent Vermonter for his views. He just said he voted for Obama."

Yeah, he also said his name was Independent Vermonter.

Just like you said your name in anonymous.

Apart from Indy's oft-stated contempt for Odum and GMD, I'm not buyin' either one of your stories, little nameless-nitwit fella.

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 11:35 AM, December 10, 2008

"Sure, and like I said, Indy, I'm heir to the Throne of England and I'm tryin' to winnow the field down to just two or three super models to continue dating and decide which Ferrari to keep in order to keep my wife reasonably content, too."

jw, shut up.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:00 PM, December 10, 2008