Watching and reading about the Republican party soul searching now in progress and the accompanying preview of potential up and comers,I was struck at first by the lack of Gov.Douglas from some of the more prominent lists but sniff around a little and he can be found.

Former Republican Party Chairman wheeler dealer Haley Barbour says Douglas is “strong as a field of garlic”. Someone with that quality should stand out more in a crowd .The Washington Post claims that Douglas won re-election even as he was targeted by national Democrats.(really?)This comes as a surprise .

It’s hard to think of our dynamic Gov.Douglas on a national stage.Winning in a 3 way race may be no great feat, but then again looking at the Republican lineup of stars maybe little feats count large .Mark Sanford (S.C.), Sarah Palin (Alaska), Tim Pawlenty (Minn.) and Bobby Jindal (La.)are all mentioned as rising stars .Pawlenty had some past problems with poor bridge maintenance,Palin was not even included on the RGA’s executive committee and Bobby Jindal’s past efforts at exorcism aren’t widely noted except in TPM media.  

Here in Vermont as we watch the Governor juggle his lieutenants strategically between State agencies is it actually possible he intends to use his garlic like power on a national stage in the future ? Gov.Douglas in a letter offered to work with President elect Obama on health care issues,certainly good for Vermont and it also puts him nicely on a national stage.Characteristically he offers the talent of others not his own .

In the letter, Douglas pointed out that 67 percent of Vermonters supported Obama, the second highest among any state in the country – even if he was not one of them.Douglas also offered Obama “the talent, skills and experience” of the people of Vermont, which he called “a small but innovative state.”

The letter focused on health care reform, one of Obama’s main campaign issues.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/a…

Senator Dick McCormack (D-Windsor) took a few moments today to speak candidly about the new legislature and the prospects for environmental and economic policy progress in the upcoming session.

Is this a GMD-kinda legislator or what?

It's Saturday, it's kind of quiet, and we've just come through a tough election fight. How about something a little lighter?

With gratitude to PZ Myers, here's our first edition of “Crash This Poll”.

Today's poll: “Should terrorists have the same rights in U.S. courts as “regular” criminals?”

 There's so much wrong with this poll question, from the assumption that we already know that somebody charged with a crime is a terrorist (or even a “regular” criminal), to the assumption that it makes us safer to ditch our civil liberties, that this poll seems amply deserving of crashing.

Also, there are only 14 votes so far, so we can make a difference.

Received a fascinating email from the Vermont Freedom to Marry group, announcing today’s protest in Burlington as part of a national day of action condemning the passage of California’s anti-gay Proposition 8:

We’ve heard from several people around the state who want to take part in the Join the Impact national day of protests about Proposition 8. In truth, we’ve been wringing hands about this. Given where we are in the marriage movement in Vermont, protests aren’t exactly going to advance our efforts, but people are calling on Vermont to Reclaim its Leadership Role — It’s time!

We’re shifting gears, and we’re asking you to join us this Saturday to acknowledge the painful and discriminatory vote in California while urging Vermont to Reclaim its Leadership Role by passing marriage equality in 2009!

Saturday 11/15

City Hall

Burlington

1:30pm

We’ll see you there!

Hm. Sounds like they’ve been dragged into this solidarity action. “Hand wringing” is an interesting phrase, but most interesting is the statement “given where we are…protests aren’t exactly going to advance our efforts.” It’s tossed out there like a given, with a “Duh” sort of tone.

Now I am one who believes that street protests are not nearly as effective as they once were. In fact, I think there are many occasions – likely even most – where they are no longer effective at all. But I think the more local the level, the more meaning they probably have – and in a small state like Vermont, it becomes a tougher question.

But the Freedom to Marry folks seem to approach it as a closed one. Of course protests would be a bad idea. Since the issue has moved out of the courts (civil unions) and into a rough election in 2000, same-sex marriage advocates seem to be going to extraordinary lengths not to offend, and that has meant keeping the movement from ever going truly grassroots in this state. It’s been approached far more academically, and in a highly controlled and deliberate manner. The goal seems not to offend, and to try and creep towards majority acceptance. To avoid confrontation.

The question, of course, is how long that strategy can – and should – be maintained? Let’s face it, it’ll take a hundred years to creep into consensus on this, so eventually (I assume) the goal will be to make change in the legislature, and the legislative process is inherently adversarial (that’s democracy for ya).

What do you think? Is it a given that public action would hurt this effort in Vermont?