Hearty congratulations to “Angry Jack” Lindley, chair of the VTGOP, for rising — however briefly — out of the fog of political irrelevance that is his usual lot in life, and actually… wait for it…

… making NEWS.

That’s right, ol’ A.J. (pictured at right in his day job, as proprietor of “Angry Jack’s Shell Emporium,” one of the finest retail establishments in all of Bikini Bottom) managed to catch the attention of our state’s political press with one of his overheated, knee-jerk press releases. This one, snarking all over Two-Fisted™ Bill Sorrell’s Appeals Court defeat in the state’s effort to close down Vermont Yankee.

A press release that only took him, as Dave Gram reports, two days to come up with. Must be busy season at the Shell Emporium, eh, Jack?  

After the jump: Republican Hypocrisy! And, a disavowal of Randy Brock.

Anyway, Lindley argued that the fight against VY has been “ill-advised, inappropriate, and ultimately ineffective*.The state of Vermont has nothing to show for it now, except wasted resources.”

*Which, as Gram points out, puts Jack Lindley somewhere to the right of his own gubernatorial nominee, Randy Brock. In 2010, then-Senator Brock was part of a 26-4 majority voting against a measure that would have authorized an extension of Yankee’s operating license — putting the state squarely in Entergy’s path. Lindley now says Brock’s vote was “ill-advised.” SO, I must conclude, the VTGOP has moved to Brock’s right on the Vermont Yankee issue?

But Angry Jack is right that Vermont faced long odds in its effort to block relicensure, and in seeking to close VY it risked losing an expensive legal fight. And you could certainly question the stewardship of public resources.

However, I would just like to point out that every Republican-controlled state in the country feels absolutely no compunction about passing legislation that’s likely to be overturned in court. To name two examples that have occurred dozens of times across the country, Republican legislatures have passed (and Republican Governors have signed) restrictions on reproductive and voting rights that are very unlikely to survive a court challenge. And when one of their laws is overturned in court, they keep on coming back with slightly rejiggered laws that are, again, subject to court review. Ad infinitum, ad nauseam.  

And they don’t seem to give a good goddamn about all the taxpayer money they’re spending on lawyers.

So Jack, to the extent that you have a point in your attack against Sorrell, Shumlin, et al., I do hope that you press the same argument against all your ill-advised, inappropriate, and ultimately ineffective Republican colleagues who are far more guilty of wasting resources than Vermont’s Democratic leaders.

Sorry, Jack, I can’t hear you. Did you say something?