As near as I can tell, it isn’t quite plagiarism… at least the example I’ve been given isn’t. There are rumblings that other versions may be a different story…but…

Anyway. What the hell is odum talking about, I know. There’s a letter that has been making the rounds in Vermont, written by a “Dr. Thomas Hendricks.” It – like Rep. Burditt’s blather – is an attempt to discredit health care reform. Here’s a link to it’s appearance in the comments at Vermont Tiger. Note the postscript on that iteration of it: “This slightly revised excerpt is from Dr. Hendricks’s original letter to his good friend, Ms. Rand.”

That little wink-wink-nudge-nudge is the only hint that the letter was lifted and tweaked from right-wing demigod Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Here’s a comparison of some of the text. The Tiger post first:

I have often wondered at the smugness at which Vermont’s Legislature asserts their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind-yet what is it they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands?

The original:

I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind–yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands?

I can’t determine whether this letter was sent out anywhere lacking the roundabout reference to its origin, so I’ll hold off on another plagiarism charge.

But at the very least, there’s something a bit lame about the idea that the GOP is having to resort to fictional characters to make its points for them. Not enough real people out there on their side, maybe?

Just imagine what some of the witness lists for some of the hearings could look like if this becomes the new MO.

As near as I can tell, it isn’t quite plagiarism… at least the example I’ve been given isn’t. There are rumblings that other versions may be a different story…but…

Anyway. What the hell is odum talking about, I know. There’s a letter that has been making the rounds in Vermont, written by a “Dr. Thomas Hendricks.” It – like Rep. Burditt’s blather – is an attempt to discredit health care reform. Here’s a link to it’s appearance in the comments at Vermont Tiger. Note the postscript on that iteration of it: “This slightly revised excerpt is from Dr. Hendricks’s original letter to his good friend, Ms. Rand.”

That little wink-wink-nudge-nudge is the only hint that the letter was lifted and tweaked from right-wing demigod Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Here’s a comparison of some of the text. The Tiger post first:

I have often wondered at the smugness at which Vermont’s Legislature asserts their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind-yet what is it they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands?

The original:

I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind–yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands?

I can’t determine whether this letter was sent out anywhere lacking the roundabout reference to its origin, so I’ll hold off on another plagiarism charge.

But at the very least, there’s something a bit lame about the idea that the GOP is having to resort to fictional characters to make its points for them. Not enough real people out there on their side, maybe?

Just imagine what some of the witness lists for some of the hearings could look like if this becomes the new MO.

There is honor in being a minority in a democracy. Somebody needs to tell the Vermont GOP that, as they have engaged in decidedly dishonorable behavior in the last week.

First was the anti-health reform speech by Rep. Burditt that invoked “communism” and “radical islam” – and was apparently an act of plagiarism.  According to Hallenbeck, that speech was largely lifted from Association of American Physicians and Surgeons president Lawrence Huntoon:

Burditt said he’s inexperienced at writing speeches and didn’t see anything wrong with using another person’s words. “It’s the same opinion that I have,” he said. “There’s nothing wrong with having the same opinion as anyone else.”

House Assistant Republican Leader Patti Komline, R-Dorset, said Vermont lawmakers are not well-versed in such issues.

Hey, who cares, right? No biggie. Now don’t we have some school funding to go cut somewhere…?

Second was the rumor in full-blown circulation last week that Senator Patrick Leahy was ill and planning to retire next month. It apparently got enough traction that it caused Leahy’s Vermont staff to feel the need to engage and quell the rumors.

All I’ve been able to find out was that the rumor originated with Statehouse Republicans, and since it has no basis in – well, apparently any reality whatsoever – insiders assume it was merely started as an act of mischief. Presumably spreading concerns around the Senators age, health and competence are all they feel they’ve got to undermine him.

Class act, this “loyal opposition.”

Earlier in the week I tossed up a diary about the final reading vote (which is, procedurally, the really BIG vote before final passage) on health care reform in the House. It lead with one of those throwaway musing bits noting the low vote count and wondering why so many legislators missed it. From my perspective, those votes would be the very ones that would make being a legislator fun, after all. The diary then went into a specific critique of Rep. McFaun’s vote on the bill, which was the part I was most interested in writing.

So today – several days after the fact – I received an irate email from a legislator about the piece. Now, I only hear from legislators for two reasons; either an follow-up or engagement on a specific issue (which is cool), or a complaint. This was definitely the latter. I’ve decided to reprint the complaint here for community consideration. Although I seriously doubt an email to a member of the media like myself has an expectation of privacy, I went ahead and removed identifying comments so as not to prejudice the reading and discussion in any way, pro or con.

Dear John,

I read Green Mountain Daily regularly and generally appreciate your political analysis and commentary.

However, I just read your blog post from last week about the “so-called AWOL votes on the health care bill”, cannot get it out of my mind, and just have to respond … [Sentence removed, as it could give away the identity of the legislator].

Legislators are people first, and, regardless of our political differences, we actually care about each other and each other’s well being.  This is one of the treasures of being in the Vermont legislature.  I understand that everyone applauded, despite the rules of the House, amidst the recent roll call vote when “Clark of Vergennes” name was read, and he was there to answer with his vote.  He had been gone for many, many days from his heart attack.

To just attribute political motives to missing even a critical vote is uncalled for, without first actually doing some inquiry.  And, yes, on the really CRITICAL votes, we do show up.  Note how (now deceased) Rep. Ira Trombley came in from his sick bed, with assistance from EMT folks, to help override the governor’s veto of marriage.  

Just a few instances of what I know, and you could have learned: Reps. Winters and Clark, are both recovering from serious heart attacks; [sentence removed to protect legislator’s anonymity] I prioritized my family first, as I was encouraged to by leadership.  Rep. Aswad sometimes struggles, at age 90+, to join us for very late night votes.  

In the future, please do some research before just posting snarky comments that later others never hear the full story about.  You are better than this.

Unfortunately, the legislator pushed the rhetoric to 11, here, when he/she castigated me for “attribut(ing) political motives to missing even a critical vote” – I can’t see where that came from, and it made me mad. The only guaranteed way of getting an angry response from me is to accuse me of writing something I didn’t. Drives me freakin’ bananas and happens all the time.

But let’s put the pulled-out-of-thin-air accusation aside and look at the rest of the complaint. Here, again, is what I wrote:

AWOLs? It’s a historic vote, arguably the most important vote of the 2011 session… so why was it 89-47? That equals 14 representatives of the people who did not represent the people in voting on the 3rd reading of this landmark legislation. Take one off for the Speaker, who often doesn’t vote unless it’s a close one, and you’ve got 13 reps with something else to do. I don’t know about you, but aren’t votes on potential laws like this the very reason one would want to be a lawmaker, whether you’re pro or con?

The list of missing includes 9 Dems and 4 Repubs. Yeah it was a done deal, so the Dems hardly needed to be whipped, and yeah, there were no doubt some good reasons (I see both St. J reps, the D and the R, were out – that suggests something may have been up in the district), but it makes you wonder. The absentees represent quite an ideological range, and were: Aswad (D-Burlington), Christie (D-Hartford), Clark (R-Vergennes), Condon (D-Colchester), Howard (R-Cambridge), Howrigan (D-Fairfield), Keenan (D-Albans City), Masland (D-Thetford), Mitchell (D-Barnard), Mook (D-Bennington), Reis (R-St. Johnsbury), South (D-St. Johnsbury), Winters (R-Williamstown).

I wrote it as largely throwaway, and was more interested in the follow up sentences taking Topper McFaun to task for his vote on the bill. Still, when I was at the Statehouse the next day, I did hear about the “missed vote” piece from a couple legislators, both in a nudge-poke-wink way, though, and not the anger hurled at me by he/she-who-will-remain-nameless.

So, the GMD community is my reality check in such things (which shows how far removed we are from the days of firebombing trolls in the comments, thank god). So what do you all think? Was the diary merely a throwaway musing, as I intended it, or out of line? If out of line, was it mildly tacky, or the gross personal violation the legislator suggests? I’m all ears, and will stay out of this…

… warts and all, 95-34. That vote count suggests a lot of Republicans aren’t even bothering.

The total ends up at the same bottom line the administration was looking for, with some different bends in the road, allowing the leg gets to play a bit of good cop to Shumlin’s bad cop (which is not to suggest that these efforts weren’t sincere – I’m sure they were). Here are some bullets, courtesy of a handy legislative fact sheet:

Human Services

• Added back $4.5 million in state spending, reducing Human Services cuts from $43.8 million to $39.3
  
  million.  Change brings in $4.8 million in additional net federal funds.
• Restored half the proposed reduction to services for frail and elderly; instrumental activities of daily living
  
  and respite/companion services.
• Restored half the proposed reduction to services to the developmentally disabled
  
  Restored half the proposed reduction for Mental Health services  
• Did not merge Catamount into VHAP, mitigating the reduced reimbursement rate to doctors and hospitals
• Restored 25% of school Student Assistance Professionals (SAP), which administration had eliminated  
• Funded tobacco programs at $900,000 over the level proposed by the administration.
• Replaced $1.7 million ARRA funding for homelessness prevention with general funds
  
  Funded 300 additional childcare subsidized slots to enable Vermonters to enter the labor force  
• Met funding needs for increased enrollment in Dr. Dynasaur and VHAP

Other

• Includes language to allow the $12m of labor, retirement, and contract savings reductions agreed upon by
  
  the Administration and the Vermont State Employees Union
• Reduced the Vermont Telecommunications Authority funding from $500,000 to $200,000.
  
  Funds Vermont Housing Conservation Board (with capital allocation) at 95% of statutorily required level.
• Consistent with ongoing 5% pay reduction for exempts, maintains 5% reduction for legislators in FY 2012.
• Anticipates proposed federal action to relieve Unemployment Insurance interest costs of $4.1m.
  
  Restored $82,000 for operation of the conservation districts.
• Provided funding to fill five vacant game wardens positions.
• Reserves up to $3.6 million of potential federal enhanced Medicaid payments in the caseload reserve as an
  
  offset for potential federal funds reductions.
• Maintains stabilization reserve funds at the required statutory levels.

Geez. Here’s a look at what some of the other new Governors of other states are doing.

Wow. That’s only kinda funny. It’s really crazyland out there.

Yes, it’s true that Vermont’s brand of Republicans tend to be a different breed than Republicans in the rest of the country, especially in these heady days of unbridled Glenn-Beckery.

But there are exceptions. Freshman GOP Representative Tom Burditt of West Rutland took to the floor this morning to speak out against the health care reform legislation. Sadly, I missed hearing him myself, but I am told that it was a meandering exercise in free-form teabaggery, quite possibly marking the first such rhetoric on the floor of the Vermont Statehouse.

In arguing against universal coverage, Democratic lawmakers were castigated for supporting this “communist” legislation, claiming it played to the forces of “radical islam” while our troops were dying overseas. Yeah, there was stream-of-consciousness stuff about lower taxes and letting the market handle it, blah blah blah – but bringing “radical islam” into the floor debate makes it one for the ages.

Update: A quote! Thanks to the commenter below who found the speech when it became available:

I find it very sad…. in a country where men and women have died…. fighting to preserve our freedom…. and have died…. fighting off socialism, communism and recently radical Muslim beliefs…. that some are now considering socialized medicine as a solution to improving access to health care.

So, he doesn’t quite call the bill “radical islam”  (as he labels it “socialism”), he just invokes it, with the direct implication that passing this legislation is at odds with the goals of those who have “died… fighting to preserve our freedom” against “radical islam” and “communism.” That’s pretty clear.

The video is sketchy, and the audio even worse, but here’s Senator Al Franken’s now-legendary impression of Senator Bernie Sanders from the David W Curtis awards in Burlington.

AWOLs? It’s a historic vote, arguably the most important vote of the 2011 session… so why was it 89-47? That equals 14 representatives of the people who did not represent the people in voting on the 3rd reading of this landmark legislation. Take one off for the Speaker, who often doesn’t vote unless it’s a close one, and you’ve got 13 reps with something else to do. I don’t know about you, but aren’t votes on potential laws like this the very reason one would want to be a lawmaker, whether you’re pro or con?

The list of missing includes 9 Dems and 4 Repubs. Yeah it was a done deal, so the Dems hardly needed to be whipped, and yeah, there were no doubt some good reasons (I see both St. J reps, the D and the R, were out – that suggests something may have been up in the district), but it makes you wonder. The absentees represent quite an ideological range, and were: Aswad (D-Burlington), Christie (D-Hartford), Clark (R-Vergennes), Condon (D-Colchester), Howard (R-Cambridge), Howrigan (D-Fairfield), Keenan (D-Albans City), Masland (D-Thetford), Mitchell (D-Barnard), Mook (D-Bennington), Reis (R-St. Johnsbury), South (D-St. Johnsbury), Winters (R-Williamstown).

Topper, we hardly knew ye… Remember when Topper McFaun (R-Barre Town) was the darling of the health care activists? The poster boy for why single-payer neednt be a partisan issue? Here’s Martha Abbott writing on the Prog Blog back in ’07:

This may be a first in Vermont Politics: A Republican is the featured speaker at a forum organized by and sponsored by the Democrats and Progressives. The Republican is Representative Topper McFaun of Barre and his bill is called “Universal Hospitalization and Premium Reduction”. It could be the next giant step forward for Universal Health Care.

Here’s a 2009 letter to the Washington World from a Montpelier voter:

I strongly protest the removal of Rep. Topper McFaun (R-Barre) from the Vermont House Health Care Committee by newly-elected Vermont House Speaker Shap Smith. It appears to be a deliberate act to undercut progress toward single payer health care in Vermont.

Here’s what McFaun said in support of William Hsiao’s proposal to take on the health care issue – a proposal which led to the current bill:

“His group has a track record all over the work designing health-care systems,” said Rep. Francis “Topper” McFaun, R-Barre. “He knows what works.”

McFaun voted no on the health care reform bill.

I’m still very curious to hear from those people who might see military intervention as an option under certain circumstances. How do you make those judgments? How does the Libya action fit into that view? How does it compare to actions in Iraq?

The last thread seems to have become exclusively a discussion/debate about the merits of non-violence overall, so rather than try to restart the original topic, perhaps a parallel thread is in order. That way the other, distinct conversation can continue unimpeded.

What do you think? I’m especially curious to hear from lefties who support this action. I assure you that your opinion will be respected and heard.