( – promoted by JulieWaters)

What is this – the 4th annual “blogger barbecue”? The 3rd? Well, whatever, its back, and its moved a bit south this year. That’s right, Montpelier, baby. Sure, that decreases the liklihood of maintaining the high officeholder density level, in relatively small Montpelier, but it was time to make the trip for our friends down south a little less burdensome anyway.

So here, then, are the vital stats:

Seriously, its a great place to be. Bring bathing suits, tennis rackets, croquet mallets, fishing poles – whatever. There will be some food for grillin’, drinks and chippage on hand, but it wouldn’t hurt to bring something (not necessary, I’m just sayin’…)

Come one! Come all! Will Charity Tensel and JD Ryan finally break down and come to blows (or does their online sparring mask something… else?)? Will Jack shave his beard for charity? Will Philip break down and confess that his writings were really the work of Francis Bacon?

So don’t miss it (map after the fold). The human adventure is just beginning.

Map shows “Poolside drive.” Turn right onto poolside drive and it dumps you into a parking lot. Park there and look to the far side of the pool.

View Larger Map

Louis Porter had a pair of analysis pieces in Sunday’s Herald & Argus, looking at the veto override and the legislative session in one piece, and the state of affairs in the still-young governor’s race on the other. They’re fine pieces, but while he discusses the impact on the session and the overrides on the gubernatorial election generally, he doesn’t examine what it might mean for the primary itself.

The obvious thing that jumps out at first is that it complicates things in the short term for Markowitz, and gives the candidates from the legislature a boost – particularly Shumlin (if he, as many expect, jumps in the ring) as the face of a Democratic caucus newly victorious and riding high on a wave of popularity in the Democratic crowd like none in recent memory. In fact, if it were Speaker Smith running, its likely that the others would be wasting their time.

Markowitz is in a bit trickier position than she otherwise would be, though, all things being equal. Why? The following rhetoric from a campaign email (dated the Sunday before the override session) is typical:

As I criss-crossed the state people voiced their concern about the budget stand-off between the Governor and legislature.  Vermonters know that these are challenging times for the state and that some combination of spending cuts and tax increases will be required to balance the state budget.

Instead of gamesmanship, Vermonters want real leadership in Montpelier.   They want the Governor and legislative leaders to have an honest dialogue and work out their differences.  The budget is not a political football to pass back and forth – we are talking about the lives of ordinary Vermonters and the future of our state.

Although the bulk of the email focuses on Governor Douglas, this is another case where Markowitz has been positioning herself to run against the Governor and the legislature (trying to grab the grownup-among-the-children meme that Auditor Salmon has also been trying – and failing – to capture) – and I’ve already heard from legislators who are feeling a bit pissed off about it. Truth is, a matter of mere months ago this probably made for a savvy approach, strategically speaking. In light of current events (specifically the real leadership that has been shown by legislative Democrats) this might seem to come off as a bit out-of-touch (or worse) to primary voters, who are unaccustomed to feeling so proud of – and empowered by – their state Representatives and Senators (it also, frankly, isn’t going to win her a lot of friends in the legislature, with whom she has had some friction)

It’s an awkward thing to simply turn off, though, as Markowitz has been generally churning out a stream of Obama-esque rhetoric, trying to capture the political zeitgeist in this overwhelmingly Obama-friendly state, and position herself as above “politics-as-usual” and the catalyst for a better political age. This sort of rhetoric kind of comes with that territory, at least to an extent.

Granted, she hasn’t been entirely consistent – her unmistakable attack on primary opponent Doug Racine goes contrary to such a hope-‘n-change campaign, for one thing. Obama did not run straight at his opponents until relatively late in the game – nor did he propose specifics on policy until he felt he had to, and the absence of a policy portfolio is a frequent criticism of Markowitz.

But it’s early yet. Missteps can be made and mixed messages can be sent, especially when you’re raising more money than god, as Markowitz seems to be doing (expect to see an eye-popping total in the first upcoming reporting deadline – somewhere in the neighborhood of two-hundred grand, while no one else will break into six figures). The key to the Obama campaign’s success, after all, was not its campaign style or message – which ran thin late in the primary – it was the campaign’s deftness, discipline and adaptability. When the “above it all” meme wasn’t working so well anymore, Obama hit and hit hard – all the while deftly maintaining his hope-and-changiness. And when his election was all but a done deal, he went back. It was something to watch.

Markowitz isn’t showing the discipline yet (comments she’s made about other candidates that she really shouldn’t be making continue to trickle to my ears – nothing outrageous, just… impolitic… given the amount of ears – even supportive ones – that could gossip) or the deftness (clumsy, clumsy, clumsy with the dismissal of Racine’s overtures to the Progressives) – but this, then, is yet another reason why a primary will be a good thing. “Lesser” statewide incumbents have a tendency to believe they know all they need to know to run a race for Governor because – after all – they’ve already won statewide races themselves and have it all figured out. The truth is they have no idea what they’re really in for.

If Markowitz does win next year’s primary, she will do so having worked these kinks out and refining her message and campaign plan, as well as learning adaptablility as a matter of simple necessity.

Not to spend all our time on Markowitz (given that – wonder of wonders – her’s is no longer the only active campaign! Thank god…. somebody else to pick on as well!). Doug Racine has been busy shoring up the base since the end of the session. Consider the latest press release from the Racine campaign:

Friday June 5, 2009 Burlington VT:  

Sen. Doug Racine called on Governor Douglas today to extend the deadline for proposed layoffs and work with state employees to explore options for avoiding layoffs proposed by the Governor.  

“In these times, we should do everything we can to keep Vermonters working” said Racine “No Vermonter should be laid off before every option is fully explored.  There are still options available to avoid layoffs and achieve the saving required by the Legislature.  These include mediation between the Administration and the VSEA and the retirement incentive recently enacted by the Legislature.  It is reasonable to delay any layoffs until it is clear that they are unavoidable. We’re not there yet.”

Racine is coming off his high profile overture to the Progressives, and last week was once again spotted in a Montpelier coffee shop chatting it up – not just with Pollina, but with Progressive Representative David Zuckerman. Racine – who has strong relationships in the business community in Chittenden County – is clearly looking first to shore up support among the left and the traditional Democratic constituencies like labor.

And yes, that includes the netroots. Racine sends GMD press releases, for example, while Markowitz does not. It will be telling to see if we end up on Bartlett’s and Shumlin’s list.

In Racine’s case, the question that will be asked clearly will be whether or not he will position himself too far to the left, or if that’s even a meaningful concern (I can’t see it myself, Racine’s well within the mainstream and is not a doctrinaire lefty). Racine has a policy record that Markowitz does not, which comes with strong advantages and disadvantages – although there’s no question that given the high regard the Dem primary voters currently hold this legislature in, that – for the moment – is far more of an advantage. It should never be forgotten, however, just how fickle and quick-tempered the Democratic base can be with their caucus.

In fact, the most interesting thing about the Racine press release is not what it says, but who sent it. Surprisingly little attention is being paid to the fact that Representative Mark Larson – part of the very leadership team that delivered the House veto override – is working for the Racine campaign. Truth to tell, that’s a jaw-dropper. Larson is a very big fish to be working on a campaign payroll, and the former candidate for House Speaker’s presence comes with an undeniable level of implied (if not concrete) legislative support.

The flip side to that, however, is the trickle-out way this bombshell was offered to the public. What should have been fodder for the headlines was instead eked out, buried well into Shay Totten’s column in Seven Days. The lack of media savvy and management in that missed opportunity shows that Racine, too, has a lot to learn yet in order to bring his burgeoning campaign up to where it needs to be to win folks over.

Good thing we have the crucible of a primary to get whoever the winner is into fighting trim, eh? I do love the smell of democracy in the morning.

Looking forward to the next few weeks when we see what candidate Susan Bartlett and presumed candidate Pete Shumlin lead off with.

This is all going to be so much more fun than last time.

Vermonter Steve Benen, he the one time Carpetbagger and current Political Animal, has been pegged by Wikio.com (and picked up and amplified by ABC's "The Note" blog) as having the tenth most influential political blog in the country – rated even higher than DailyKos and Firedoglake, and only one notch down from Talking Points Memo.

 High praise indeed. I've always wondered why Steve – who has such a high profile nationally (you can catch his mug from time to time on Rachel Maddow's show, for example) gets so little recognition locally. The Vermont media crowd acts as though they never heard of him (well… he is just a blogger).  

Of course, Megan McCain (blogging daughter of John McCain) is on the warpath against Steve of late, for his daring to suggest that she was not as influential a national figure as former Vice President Dick Cheney (hoooooo-wee, is a trip to the Total Perspective Vortex in order for somebody). Sadly, Ms. McCain also did not make the wikio top 100 list. Neither did Cheney, for that matter. So there.

UPDATE: Steve is having scary flashbacks seeing his teenage self plastered across the internet for all to see. I assure you all he's much more respectable now, and in the interest of fairness, I will once again humiliate myself thusly (once again, via Facebook):

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.

From CNN: 

Dr. George Tiller, whose Kansas women's clinic was the epicenter of the state's battles over abortion for nearly two decades, was shot and killed at his church Sunday morning, his family said. Tiller, 67, was one of the few U.S. physicians who still performed late-term abortions. He survived a 1993 shooting outside his Wichita clinic

What you don't see anywhere in this report is the real word for this sort of reprehensible action: terrorism.

I'm not making a political statement by saying that. I'm not even making a moral one. I'm just using the english language. This is the definition of the word:

ter⋅ror⋅ism  [ter-uh-riz-uhm] –noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

While I might not be making a political statement about the act by calling it what it plainly is, I will make such a statement about the coverage; by not calling this murder out for what it is, outlets like CNN have opted to make their own political statements by omission, rather than play the role of neutral observer that supposedly characterizes the fourth estate.

Yup. The “liberal media” strikes again.

State governmental budgets are arcane things to the uninitiated – or if not, they are at the very least time-sucking, brain-squashing things for those who have enough to worry about already. As such, we lean on what's in the press or what we hear from advocacy groups on what the details are.  In this budget, we've all heard grumblings from advocates (myself included) about the inadequacies of the budget passed by the Legislature, but how it is miles above what's come from the Governor's office.

Here, then, are some points of comparison (in terms of program cuts), in plain english (Note: What the following list does not cover is the implications of the Governor's plan on local property taxes… look for a diary Monday on that):

• The legislature’s budget does not cut monthly management reimbursements to doctors. Compare that to the Douglas budget, which cuts over $5.2 million in monthly management reimbursements to primary care doctors (this proposal would result in an average cut of almost $6,200 a year for 828 doctors around the state… but, 55 doctors would have to absorb cuts from $20,000 to over $70,000 a year.)
• The legislature cuts the Vermont Housing and Conservation board by about 50 percent to around $6 million in FY10, while the governor’s budget cuts VHCB an even more whopping 85 percent – an additional $5 million – basically killing the whole highly successful affordable housing and conservation program (that Douglas has had in his sights since well before the financial crisis) dead.
• The legislature’s budget makes a painful $480,000 cut to the Department of Children and Families. The governor, on the other hand, cuts more than $2.2 million.

More on the flip (including comparative impacts on state employees):

• The amount paid for dental care under Medicaid — currently $495 a year – is protected under the legislature’s budget, while the governor would cut Medicaid dental coverage to $200 a year
• On employee cuts: The legislature’s budget calls for $14.7 million in cost cuts. It stipulates that $11 million will fall on union employees, $2.4 million on non-union positions and $1.3 million will come in the form of cuts to contracts. Not stuff to feel good about, but contrast that against the governor’s plan which makes an additional $2.3 million in cuts to state employees (and you know would disproportionately hit the union employees since – as with the property tax bomb he’s dropping – Douglas is seeing the entire financial meltdown as an opportunity to play executive union-buster). That right there totals $17 million, and the governor included another $3 million in cuts to personal service contracts, bring the total in payroll cuts to $20 million. Clearly, the difference here is not insignificant (especially to a lot of employees who would otherwise get cut).

  There are details to the legislative proposals around the employee cuts – ideas designed to make the whole thing less painful, such as giving the legislature a role in deciding who gets laid off and encouraging early retirements. They’re worth worth breaking out in a separate diary, warts and all.

  While there’s a big difference between the leg and the gov here, we’re unquestionably looking at two decidedly un-pretty scenarios.

More on this tomorrow – specifically a look at the governor’s claim that only he is looking ahead to further budget problems in fiscal 2011, and that his perspective justifies the draconian cuts he prefers.

And stay tuned for Monday’s really big property tax show.

All of these numbers, of course, are made possible by the fine people at the Joint Fiscal Office who are all far smarter than I.

Democratic legislative leadership continues to impress by staying more or less in the driver’s seat of the budget debate. At a press conference today, Speaker Smith and Senator Shumlin indicated they would indeed hold an override vote on June 2nd, rather than adjourn to another date, and that they would propose a concurrent package of adjustments to the budget, designed to address concerns around the original bill – concerns expressed by the Governor as well as legislators of every stripe.

Now, the package includes a laundry list of several items, none of which really adds up to significant changes. The bill addresses the Unemployment Insurance Fund shortfall (which needed to be done regardless), there’s an exemption to farmers and logging interests from the ballyhooed closing of the capital gains tax loophole. All in all, not significant stuff. While reporters rightly pushed to determine if this companion package was designed to entice vacillating override votes, the truth is that it probably wasn’t. More likely that its simply an attempt to maintain the pro-active high ground both in the days leading up to the vote, as well as in the coverage on the day of.

A sense of how effective the leadership has been in keeping Douglas off his stride (and against all odds with a traditionally Douglas-friendly media that – at best – likes to cast battles into two polarized, equally out of touch sides): I was told that Douglas, when asked to respond to Democrats proposals, cited many of the very things addressed in this companion bill, and had to be told by reporters that his talking points (such as the impact of the cap gains change to farmers) were already obsolete. Woops.

Also of note is the fact that the budget hasn’t hadn’t actually been sent to the Governor yet (it arrived yesterday, expect a veto Monday). It may seem like a detail (and an odd one), but it will serve to maximize the drama of the June 2 session by tying the veto more closely to it. Heightened drama in this process means heightened attention and a leveling of the playing field (Douglas uses lulls and breaks in the narrative to work the media and public opinion very effectively).

On a side note: also present was Auditor Tom Salmon. Salmon, of course, recently grated with ill-timed and ill-considered grandstanding, “offering” his services as a budget mediator between the Legislature and the Governor (a transparently self-serving show he’s been roundly criticized for by most, Tim Newcomb notwithstanding). Maybe he was hoping to catch some camera time himself, as his continued media push for his “plan” has increased since the initial Reformer piece, and is bordering on buffoonery. Hopefully he’s gotten it out of his system.

One can be forgiven a feeling of schadenfreude, given the history of the Democratic Legislature being, shall we say, less than supportive of its party’s candidates for higher office. This Legislature may end up better, of course, but it did fail its first test (moving the primary date to something more reasonable).

Still, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and past sins notwithstanding, the fact is that caucus leaders need support in this budget showdown with the Governor – not grandstanding – particularly not from other high profile Democrats, lest their grandstanding be used as a rhetorical billy club against us all by Republicans. This budget standoff is both a delicate and incalculably important political affair, and it behooves fellow Democrats in higher office already not to be too opportunistic and upset the apple cart. Case in point, Auditor Tom Salmon:

State Auditor Thomas M. Salmon has offered to lend his services as a mediator during the budget negotiations between the governor’s administration and the Legislature.

“Yes, the auditor has offered,” said Salmon in an e-mail to the Reformer Tuesday morning.

Salmon, first elected in 2006, said this is a sensitive and serious issue in Montpelier, and he could bring an independent and impartial voice to the discussions.

“I think most Vermonters would like to see a solution from the servants of the people,” Salmon said.

Salmon is not a professional mediator, he’s had nothing to do with this process, he’s not in any way qualified to play the role of parent-from-on-high he’s casting himself as – and yet he’s doing so at the worst possible time. We do expect a certain amount of showboating from politicians, but this one fails the right-place-at-the-right-time test rather spectacularly.