Senator James Inhofe — the guy who calls global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” — reacting to Obama’s Cairo speech: (from the Daily Oklahoman)

Sen. Jim Inhofe said today that President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo was “un-American” because he referred to the war in Iraq as “a war of choice” and didn’t criticize Iran for developing a nuclear program.

Inhofe, R-Tulsa, also criticized the president for suggesting that torture was conducted at the military prison in Guantanamo, saying, “There has never been a documented case of torture at Guantanamo.”

“I just don’t know whose side he’s on,” Inhofe said of the president.

Senator Inhofe: how dare you undercut our President in a time of war? How dare you publicly expose our political differences in a way sure to embolden our enemies?

Oh, wait, I forgot… you’re a Republican, and those arguments only hold when a Republican is President.  

( – promoted by odum)

Okay, so Eric Davis, everybody’s go-to guy for political analysis in Vermont, was on the Mark Johnson Show this morning. At one point, Eric and Mark rather casually asserted that, regarding the state budget, the Vermont electorate is significantly to the right of the Legislative majority.

I stewed over that for a while, and then called the show.  

First of all, I made a brief case that the Legislative leadership, in fact, pursued a moderate course on the budget rather than a liberal one. And then I asked about their unsubstantiated assertion: If the Legislature is significantly to the left of the voters, how exactly did that happen? And, if the Legislature is so badly out of touch, is there something fundamentally wrong with how we choose our lawmakers?

Eric had two answers: First, that the GOP took its eye off the ball regarding Legislative races a few years back, concentrating on re-electing Jim Douglas and getting Martha Rainville into Congress. (Oops.) The Republicans didn’t even contest a bunch of races, he said. Well, nonsense. If the GOP isn’t strong enough to walk and chew gum at the same time, they’re in trouble. They didn’t run candidates mainly in districts where they had no chance of winning. Also, how does that Republican distraction somehow produce a two-thirds majority if, in fact, the electorate isn’t fundamentally center-left?

Eric’s second point: Polls give the Legislature very low marks for job performance… but individual lawmakers are popular in their own districts. So they get re-elected whether or not their views fairly reflect those of the electorate. Thus, presumably, the Republicans continue to pay the price for their 2006 inattention. There’s certainly some truth in this; Vermonters are very slow to oust incumbents (and Jim Douglas thanks you from the bottom of his heart). But still, it seems a mighty thin basis for the assertion that Vermont is a center-right state that has somehow managed to elect a solidly left-wing Legislature.  

This disconnect between politics and pundits is also playing out on a national level. There’s a basic assumption that America is a centrist or center-right nation. But somehow the Americans managed to overwhelmingly elect a Democratic President, and sizeable Democratic majorities in Congress. I realize that “objective” pundits like Eric Davis try to play it down the middle, but there’s a much simpler explanation: Vermonters and Americans, by and large, want their government to do a lot of things. Regulate the excesses of the free market, furnish services that the market does not, redress social imbalances, maintain the infrastructure, and provide for a secure, orderly society. We may not be fond of paying for all that, but we do want our government to do it. On that score, it’s the Republicans, including Douglas, who are out of touch with the electorate.  

Here is a follow up of sorts to a recent diary and an interesting news item and on Liberty University’s decertifying the campus Democratic Club last month. Americans United for Separation of Church and State took notice and took action requesting that the IRS examine the University’s tax exempt status. Liberty Union has now done the same to Americans United claiming they are an “arm” of the Democratic Party.

Questioning Liberty University’s Tax-Exempt Status

…..Americans United  Spokesman Joe Conn explained that  a private university “can do almost anything it wants” in terms of favoring one viewpoint over another, “but it can’t be partisan” in the political sense of favoring one party or candidate over another. The group often sends similar letters to the IRS during presidential elections when churches take political stands or endorse candidates.

The university is firing back by questioning Americans United’s own tax status. “AU has essentially become an arm of the Democratic Party,”wrote Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel and dean of the university’s law school. Staver told the IRS that Americans United is itself partisan because it objects mainly when churches support Republican candidates.

Spokesman Joe Conn said his organization is “not quaking in our boots” about losing tax-exempt status. “We are very rigorously non-partisan,” he added, noting in that in recent months the organization has criticized the Obama Administration for its faith-based initiative.

Conn said Liberty University chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. is following in the footsteps of his father, the famed preacher Jerry Falwell. In 1993, the late Falwell paid fines to the IRS for partisan activity in his “Old Time Gospel Hour” program.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/…

…you were so very wrong:

Burlington Free Press Headline:

    State layoffs moving ahead: Union to seek court action.  

The Herald’s:

    State workers’ union to file restraining order to stop layoffs

The Administration just hired Michael Marks, an expensive PRIVATE attorney to defend them in superior court tomorrow. When the State has so many of their own attorneys, why are they wasting taxpayer money and hiring outside counsel?

Anyone able to verify this?  I figure if they hired this guy, he’ll be at the hearing this morning.

First from the Herald, as reported by Dan Barlow:

A provision in the 2010 budget that requires Douglas to seek approval from the Joint Fiscal Committee, an off-session legislative body that makes budget decisions, before making any further job cuts has set off a war or [sic] words between the executive and legislative branches.

…and…

The union representing thousands of state workers will file for a restraining order today to stop the state government from laying off about 120 state workers.

The Vermont State Employees Association officials said they will ask a Washington County Superior Court judge to issue an emergency order to stop Gov. James Douglas’ future layoff plans. Nearly 100 state employees are scheduled to work their last day Friday.

And from Hallenbeck, in the Free Press:

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Bartlett, D-Lamoille, said administration officials told her Tuesday that Douglas would take the Legislature to court over the new wording.

Lunderville said Wednesday, “We’re not going to sue the Legislature,” but he didn’t dismiss the idea of ignoring the directive if the administration deems it unconstitutional.

There also seems to be some question about the number of layoffs.  The Free Press reports it as anywhere from 78-99, depending on whom you ask, and the Herald reports a range of 100-120.  You’d think that would be something that would be easy enough to figure out, but clearly not.

That said, there is probably a serious constitutional question here, but Lunderville’s solution (“he didn’t dismiss the idea of ignoring the directive if the administration deems it unconstitutional”) is a good lesson.  If you lose at the legislature, why risk a fair fight in the court system?  Best to just ignore the whole thing.

I also want to be up front about something here: this is personal for me.  I lost my own job a year or so ago because of budget cuts at the state level.  I was a contractor, and I think contractors should be cut before state employees so I had no real argument with that decision.  

But during the time I was working for the State of VT, I learned a lot about the inner workings of state government and I know other contractors who are still working with the state whom are an immense waste of money for us, but they’re going to cut state union workers instead of looking at contracted positions.  People I know are likely to lose their job over this bugetary shell game.

So yes, it’s personal.  That doesn’t make it less important and it doesn’t make it less disturbing.  

If the administration wants to cut these positions, the law now dictates that they have to seek approval to do so.  If they want to violate that law, they need to do it through the court system through appropriate venues, and not through the time-honored “lalalalalalalala I can’t HEAR you!” tradition.

I don’t have time to do much right now, but I just want to get it up here: NH passed same-sex marriage this afternoon.

Welcome to the club, but always remember that we did it first.

UPDATE: does this mean that the Free State Project has had its first success?

Our governor has suffered two veto over-rides in the last couple of months.  What does this bode for his political future?

Don’t count Jim out yet.  Smily-faced obstructionism is the new (old) GOP strategery for the 2012 presidential cycle. Pawlenty from MN and Douglas from VT are well positioned for the 2012 GOP nomination with their smarmy, school-marmish Church Lady personas.  

The GOP might try to rally ’round the rebel rag one more time and put the Wasillabilly forward, but the GOP is going to find, much like the Democrats did when for 48 years the only Dem presidents that could be elected were from Dixie, that the only pols with a ghost of a chance that their party can put forward will have to be from the Nawth.  And even if Sarah does get the nomination, the ticket will have to be “balanced” (I know, hard to “balance” a ticket when one of your candidates is imbalanced) with a bonafide Yankee.

Pawlenty is stepping down at the end of his term.  He is dragging his feet on seating Franken, knowing that the big GOP donors will pay him off for keeping the Dem Senate majority under 60.  

His slow-walking Franken is burning his bridges in MN, perhaps, but not nationally.   For one, he’s got the fact that he was elected in a fairly blue state on his side.  Unlike Romney, who also can make the same claim to fame, he’s not seen as particularly slick/slimy, even if he is.  

The same with our governor.  There’s nothing slick about Douglas (but what he lacks in slickness he makes up for in mendacity and unctuousness).  

This may not be a good year for Douglas in VT, but it could be a great year for him nationally.  The vetoes might not play so well for him here, but they’ll play better in Peoria, and great in the red states and red areas.  He’s now on the record strong for gay-bashing and gutting government services, bloody shirts for the increasingly Southron GOP base.

And, perversely, he has the Vermont brand working for him, too.  He can’t be all bad if those crazy folk in VT elected him 4 times.  He must be a nice guy. (Isn’t that special?)

The folks in the rest of the country aren’t going to understand the Dem/Prog circular firing squads that have kept the governor’s office GOP.   One of the unintended consequences of the progressive (note – small “p”) infighting and squabbling could be Douglas on the 2012 presidential or VP ballot.  (America says “gee, thanks”.)

Douglas has assembled a big PR team.  That team is way too big to keep just for VT.   I think a big incentive for him to run in 2010 is to keep the team on the public teat for a national run, and, if the Progs and Dems get the circular firing squad together again, it will make it a done deal.  

A stark anonymous shot via Margolis, whose coverage and analysis of the budget battle has been terrific:

Republicans were killing time while Douglas invited a few Democratic lawmakers for one-on-one sessions in his ceremonial office, trying to convince them to cast the one vote he’d need from their party to sustain the veto.

According to Democratic sources, Douglas told those Democrats that his aides and Legislative leaders were close to a budget compromise, the details of which he outlined to them, and that if one of them would vote against the override, the two sides could easily reach agreement.

“That was a lie,” said one Democrat.

Two things happened today. And although they are related, they are in fact, distinct.

One: The political power and authority of the Democratic leadership in the Legislature increased to an order of magnitude we haven’t seen in a long time – likely since the Wright era. Most of the backslapping and glass raising is focused on Speaker Smith – and as the catalyst for the power transformation, it is well deserved. But it doesn’t end there. There has been a synergy between the Senate and House that didn’t exist before, and that means Shumlin has earned a big slice of the victory pie as well. And Smith’s team – not just Majority Leader Floyd Nease, but folks like Reps. Larson and Heath join in that power enhancing glow.

And its not just about a two-thirds vote. Smith and Shumlin rolled the dice, and they won. They produced a budget nobody liked – certainly nobody on the left. But enough lefties held their noses and voted for it because they believed that it was the best budget they could expect to pass – or at least they did after last minute fine tuning from leadership during the session (such as backing off the Current Use program as a revenue source).

The fact is that no budget that would have been acceptable to enough lawmakers on the left to keep them onboard (which was important not just for initial passage, but as a show of caucus cohesion and strength) was going to leave the Governor’s desk un-vetoed. The equation then was an almost ridiculous one; pass a budget that was just progressive enough to guarantee a veto, and just centrist enough to hold together the override vote. By walking that line so precisely – and by managing the politics so deftly – Smith & Shumlin haven’t simply come out on top, but they come out looking like masters of the game. Had they lost the override, we’d be looking at a degree of compromise with the Governor that would’ve been unconscionable, given the shortcomings of the budget already. Since they won the override – especially since they won without a single vote to spare – all will be forgiven, as they will have seemed to thread the needle so precisely, that this was more or less the most progressive budget politically possible under the economic circumstances.

Which leaves Smith and Shumlin looking like game-masters, and Smith (as the change in the equation making all of this possible) looking like a hero. It’s something to think that, if not for a single vote, people would be feeling quite the opposite.

Two: The political power and authority of Governor Douglas diminished markedly.

Douglas’s reduced clout was already in full, stark display before the override vote was even cast. The most striking thing about today’s debate in the House chamber was how desperately each Republican who rose to speak tried to separate him or herself from this Governor. We’re voting against this budget, not for the Douglas budget was the steady refrain. Those GOP-ers didn’t like the legislative proposal that was sent back, but by-god they wanted it known that they didn’t like their own party leader’s offering any better.

It was something to hear over the VPR stream, and the only thing I can compare it to was the wholesale abandonment by the national Republicans of George W. Bush in the final weeks before the last national election.

Consider: two vetoes overridden, and not just any vetoes – the two most significant bills the legislature passed all session, reflecting the full political spectrum; the vision and values thing on one end, and the nuts and bolts of good public policy on the other.

The Governor, even by his own historical standards, has been lazy this year. So disengaged with the process of crafting public policy and engaging constructively with the legislature that even the press has turned on him, and now that he has suddenly and dramatically found his power to have his way with Democrats curtailed, he is beginning to look like an irrelevance. Poor policy and even outright incompetence seemed not to matter in the face of his unchallenged political muscle, but now that Douglas the bully has had someone stand up to him, he is looking very small indeed. Questions that were unthinkable a year ago will be asked openly: is Douglas finished politically? Should he opt not to run rather than face electoral defeat? Does he matter anymore?

Leaving question 2 aside, the answers to the the other two are clearly “no” and “no,” “yes” (woops) respectively, and people won’t be asking them for long – but the very fact that such questions are already being called speaks to the sea change. The second override has shown in dramatic fashion that the first was anything but a fluke, and that Douglas has unquestionably passed what will be considered his political prime when his era in power is looked back on. And in the face of a diminishing Douglas, many of those weeniecrats moderate Dems who keep supporting him for re-election may feel more inclined to consider the opposition in light of the fact that there are new, Democratic Party sheriffs in town. The ranks of the “Democrats for Douglas” crowd will begin to thin, and a press corps that smells blood in the water will have a new narrative to chew on going into next year: Douglas descendant.

What happens now? Well, we are moving into the annual period of Douglas’s greatest advantage – where any modest gains made by Democratic legislatures are quickly overwritten. When the Dems had a modest PR victory over Douglas with the passage of Catamount Health a few years back, Douglas wasted no time after legislators returned to their regular jobs in going on a self-promotional tour and putting his considerable staff of professionals to work taking full credit himself and rewriting history. Nothing has changed structurally to prevent history from repeating itself. Douglas is still a full time professional employing a staff of PR flacks who stay on the clock the day after legislators go home. It’s nearly seven months until the new session, after all, and seven months is a political eternity – especially in Vermont.

So in one sense, we’re in uncharted territory. In another, we’re moving into all-too familiar ground. What’s next? Who knows.

Still, we do have one other notable advantage that we haven’t had before in terms of maintaining a presence in the debate during the legislative off-season; a rapidly developing Democratic gubernatorial primary, which could serve to keep the dynamic of a weakened Governor very much in play through the coming months.

All in all, things could look a lot worse for the left, and a lot better for the Governor.

 

Oh sure, the Governor's hope is that the sticker shock will cause a radical rolling back of school budgets that will collapse the school system as we've come to know it in order to get that pesky teacher's union. But is the “we had to destroy the village in order to save it” approach, really in your best interests? You are, after all, the people in the villages who will have to face these very villagers to explain why you supported such disastrous tax policy.