Somehow, it seemed too obvious. So obvious that I just assumed I was missing something. I didn’t ask anybody about it, didn’t post a curious blog entry. Nothing.
Out of a field of several solid candidates being floated, the legislature selected Brig. Gen. Michael Dubie to succeed Martha Rainville as the Vermont National Guard CO.
So, there are some obvious head scratchers, right? Rainville has established this position (and in a distasteful way) as a potential springboard for statewide office. And this Dubie is the brother of the other Dubie — you know, the highest profile social conservative in Vermont; Republican Lt. Governor Brian Dubie, who can now take statewide elections quite handily.
So it seems obvious, yes? That the Democratic Legislature could be creating and empowering the next dangerous political challenge to Democrats a few years down the road? Am I nuts here? It seemed so obviously dangerous that I assumed legislators must have had real reason to believe that he would not go political on them — that he would focus on the job bestowed upon him and leave the policy arena to the policy makers. That he had no partisan ambitions.
Note to self: never make assumptions…
From the Burlington Free Press:
Brig. Gen. Michael Dubie said the resolution that calls for a study of how overseas deployments affect the troops and the National Guard’s readiness to respond to emergencies in Vermont would be acceptable if the hearings it called for were confined to the narrow wording of the proposal.
“I know that in any public process you run the risk of having discussion on this resolution … by people who would turn it into an anti-war or a referendum on the war or even a referendum on, say, the present administration,” Dubie told the House Appropriations Committee. “I am very worried that if that is the case, that it would sent a very negative message to our soldiers and our airmen that are currently deployed and also their families.”
Dubie also said that the six public hearings called for across the state were too many.
“I’ve said oftentimes in the past it’s not what is done, but the message that is sent,” Dubie said.
Do I need to break this down? The argument goes:
1. Dont discuss the bill, because it could lead to a broader discussion on the Iraq War.
2. A discussion of the Iraq War would lead to people making public comments opposing it.
3. To oppose this war undermines our troops.
(and then sprinkle in a healthy dose of telling the Legislature how to do its job, in re public hearings, which he apparently isn’t fond of)
In case you hadn’t noticed (perhaps you’ve been in a coma for three years…it happens), there is no more political statement one can make in this day and age than number 3 above. It’s the classic “shut up and slap on your Bush bumper sticker” garbage people who oppose this fiasco been hearing for years. It’s patently ridiculous on its face, a longtime administration talking point, Fox News standard copy, and has become such a wild-eyed, rabid line of rhetoric, even Republicans have finally started distancing themselves from it.
So he’s political already, and in the most annoying, even petty, way possible.
If there are any legislators reading this, I’d love to hear why you didn’t think this would happen. Short of some insight, all I can say is; thanks loads. At least when he decides it’s his turn in a few years, he can recycle his brother’s giant roadsigns and call himself the environmental candidate…
