It's a brave new world, thanks to a coalition of lawmakers across the party spectra. Some thoughts on the politics of it all:

• SuperShap. Speaker Smith didn't have a lot to lose on this, despite the Governor's taunting. Douglas never gets his vetoes overridden in the House, how would the spankin' new Speaker pull it off given the under-the-two-thirds-bar on the original votes? People would have been glum, but unsurprised. Of course, he did pull it off, and you could hear the sound of jaws dropping statewide from folks who were not so closely following the vote count. If reality follows perception (which of course in politics, it does), Smith just became the 800 lb gorilla in the policy arena in Vermont in a way Symington never was, and that may well mark the fastest ascension I've ever seen.

• Smith's gain is Shumlin's gain. Shumlin has had a Senate supermajority for some time, but its full potential power has always been stymied by the lack of same in the House. Shumlin, too, has graduated to 800 lb gorilla status – and with his high-profile work on this issue, may have just locked up some important alliances and goodwill going into a potential Democratic gubernatorial primary.

• Do we owe Emerson Lynn a big chunk of credit, here? St. Albans Rep Jeff Young provided the key vote, after Sonny Audette was reportedly a no-show for health reasons (hmmm…). Young, of course, voted against the bill initially and surprised a lot of people by voting for the override. In socially conservative St. Albans, one wonders if the surprise St. Albans Messenger editorial from editor and conservative standard bearer Emerson Lynn – where he actually endorsed same-sex marriage – may have provided Young enough psychological wiggle room to do the right thing. I guess we'll never know.

• As for Young, we should show him some love, as his stated reason for making the last minute change is an… odd… one at best, and isn't going to help take any of the pressure off him:

He said he continued to be philosophically opposed to gay marriage, but decided that voting with his fellow Democrats would help him be an effective legislator in the future.

• Lots of folks seem to be worried that this will all play well for Douglas, with some even going so far as to suggest this is all part of his master plan. Heh. No way. Douglas is a manipulator, but in a…shall we say…. macro way. He's not a fine-tuned kinda puppet master. And sure, this, to large extent, takes the matter off the table for next year's election, but considering how energized and empowered the Dems and Progs are feeling on this, as well as the public perception that the opposition is now a force to be reckoned with, its easily a net loss for Douglas – who brought this on himself with the strangely timed veto announcement that provided rhetorical cover for no-voting Democrats to switch their votes. Thanks, Jim.

• Will there be consequences? And no, I don't mean to yes voters, I mean to no voters. Douglas announced his intention to veto based on the historic truism that this issue has never been a litmus test for moderate and left voters the way it is for right-wing voters – but given the changing political dynamic is, that really true for everyone anymore, particularly Representatives Atkins and Bissonnette in Winooski? Sure Winooski has a more conservative demographic than Burlington, and Atkins and Bissonnette are institutions, but there are plenty of signs that the city has been steadily turning more to the left in recent years, so I wonder if its not out of the question that this may come back to haunt them. What do you folks think? Will it? Should it?

• Cynthia Browning Whining. No-vote Dem Cynthia Browning of Arlington complained to the press about the pressure she was receiving to change her vote. Yeah, that'll help your relations with the caucus and the leadership even more. A tip: when you're stuck in a hole, first rule is to stop digging.

Seems pretty unlikely, but there’s a report of a radio ad that sounds suspiciously like a campaign commercial.

The word comes from right-wing blogger Christopher Stewart (formerly of the Martha Rainville Congressional campaign and the Rich Tarrant Senate campaign, but who now does consulting in the DC area while continuing to blog under the moniker Monday Morning Clacker) who simply says “I got word this morning that a Rich Tarrant radio ad of some sort is running in the Rutland, Vermont area.”

Now he seems to know better than to put anything more out there, and this may well fall under the category of Champ sightings, or be a spot for an unrelated, nonpolitical matter – except that the one comment at Stewart’s site makes one wonder:

An ad ran this morning on Q106 in Claremont NH. It sounded like it was from 2006, but it was there big as life in 2009.

#1

Written By Will Hunter on April 6th, 2009 @ 3:30 pm

Hmmmm. Still probably nothing, but enough to make me curious. Has anybody heard such an ad…?

The Senate has adjusted their Marriage Equality bill to match the House’s and sent it to the Governor, who should veto it any moment now. With the override vote expected tomorrow morning, here’s an update on the numbers – and who needs to hear from their constituents.

If the pro-equality Republicans hold – and that is a big if (when it comes to Republicans, I am generally highly cynical these days… hopefully I’ll be proven wrong), given that Rep. Westman joined their number, that would leave pro-equality 4 votes short, assuming everyone is there (and I’m still hopeful that some of the no-voting Dems will get the – ah – blue flu).

One vote, as has been pointed out already, could come from the Speaker. And the other three may already have lined up. It’s already out there that no-voting Democratic Representatives Sonny Audette (South Burlington) and Debbie Evans (Essex) are indicating they will vote for the override as a matter of respect for the process, if not a change of heart on the bill itself. Word from the Statehouse is that Representative Bob South (St. Johnsbury) may be the 4th vote that puts the override over. No word on the other no votes – including Winooski’s two Democratic Representatives, who could well find themselves primaried from their intransigence on this issue.

At any rate, these three Democrats – as well as the Republican “yes” votes – need to hear supportive things from their constituents. Be supportive and positive. And that support probably should applaud them for standing up for the process and against gubernatorial intimidation, rather than for equality itself. Here is contact info:

Rep. Bob South: rsouth@leg.state.vt.us, vtrepsouth@gmail.com

Rep. Sonny Audette: (no email, and I hesitate to give out home phone numbers)

Rep. Debbie Evans: devans@leg.state.vt.us, ekevans@aol.com

Messages can also be left for them – as well as Republican yes votes Westman of Stowe as well as Donahue (Washington 2), Wright (Chittenden 3-1), Hube (Windham-Bennington-Windsor 1), Komline (Bennngton-Rutland 1) and Scheuermann (Lamoille 1) – at the Sergeant-at-arms number: 828-2228. Further contact info can be found at the legislative website here.

Update by Julie Waters: Douglas vetoed the bill at 5:38pm.

The hubbub from everybody – from the media folks to the casual observers – is that the inevitable veto override vote over the marriage equality bill is a (if not the) defining test of leadership for new House Speaker Shap Smith.

It’s a benchmark to be sure (a huge one), but it ain’t the showdown at the OK Corral, as much as the Governor would like to make it one through his comments (“I’m sure that legislative leaders would not have advanced this bill if they didn’t have the votes to override a veto,” – a nakedly ridiculous comment that was transparently meant as nothing more than a playground-style taunt… historically, Mr. Douglas is nothing if not petty). If anything bears such status in any given legislative session, it (almost) always ends up being the final wrangling over the budget, regardless of the weightiness or full implications of other issues in play – and it’s likely that process has only passed its latest phase, given the Governor’s legendary politicization and gamesmanship of virtually everything in government. Part of the reason for that’s a function of the inevitable media-narrative timing, as the budget will always have an archetypal showdown quality in divided government.

But this is a leadership benchmark for Rep. Smith to be sure, and as such it affords us an opportunity to assess what may be different in the Smith era versus the Symington era (or perhaps it should be more accurately dubbed the Smith/Nease era, given the profile of Majority Leader Nease).

Smith has made attempts to be proactive in policy messaging with mixed success. It’s helpful that he seems to have a public chemistry with Senator Shumlin, but he’s also faced with an opponent in Douglas with years of experience keeping Dems reactive rather than pro-active (of course, they’ve often made it easy for him).

In terms of tactics and perception, the Marriage issue is a perfect vehicle for continuing the proactive dynamic (in fact, the entire issue of LGBT rights has evolved from being treated by Dems as an inconvenience to a badge of honor in the last decade… but that’s tomorrow’s diary). That’s not to say it isn’t still high stakes, simply that it places Democrats in the context of, as they say, the right side of history very clearly.

What Smith hasn’t seemed to have done yet is build the kind of interdependent network typical of caucuses. The mutual backsratching relationships among lawmakers decried by many, but that within a caucus make for an active, meaningful chain of command. In other words, there is a time for hierarchical whip cracking within a legislative caucus and Smith and Nease don’t seem to have built the whip yet, leaning instead on camaraderie to keep the caucus together. That’s great when it works, less so when it doesn’t.

It’s a work in progress, but the good news it – it is in progress.

But this early in the Smith regime, what interests me more than the new commander building the tools of command is the change of psychology within the caucus. In recent years, the caucus has felt gripped in paralysis. It’s a feeling that’s been there even when the caucus has been doing things – like passing the Catamount Health Plan. A sense that they dare not do more than necessary, lest they get shot down by a hostile governor, an ineffectual press corps and a fickle electorate. This created a bunker mentality that carried into the last race for Governor.

This year, however, it feels like there’s a culture change trickling down from the more combative leadership. For example, included in the press coverage about the budget passage in the House were these gems:

Moments after passage, the House Ways and Means Committee spelled out the tax increase. At its heart would be a surcharge that amounts to an increase in the state income tax that would raise about $17 million a year.

That income tax would be spread across Vermonters of all incomes, but it would also be progressive, like the underlying state income tax, hitting those earning the most the hardest…

…Before its final approval in the House the spending plan was amended in several ways. A measure proposed by Rep. Michael Fisher, D-Lincoln, requiring legislative approval before human services offices are closed was approved. So was one offered by Rep. Paul Poirier, D-Barre City, putting limits on when contractors can be hired to replace laid-off state workers.

I don’t know which of those things make me feel better – but none by itself makes me feel as good as the fact that we have a Democratic caucus where these things come up and are approved.

That’s not to say there aren’t weeniecrats doing weenie things – and as the session winds down, we’ll be seeing that play out – particularly on environmental issues and permitting, where self-dubbed “moderate” Dems (which, in these cases, will mean myopically short-sighted, visionless Dems who want shore up their conservative bona fides). And there is far more that the caucus could – and should – do. But the fact is, there’s more of a culture of Democrats rising to the occasion as Democrats in the caucus than before – and it feels good to be heading in that direction.

Because the definition of camaraderie and teamwork within the caucus seems to now have less to do with making the Speaker’s life as comfortable as possible when our team is in the right, and more to do with making the Governor’s life as uncomfortable as possible when he’s in the wrong.

And what a great change that is.

The bill passed, as expected – and without the 100 votes needed to override a veto (depending on how many legislators participate in the override vote), which was also largely expected. Obviously, there were hopes that it would be otherwise, but with the anticipated defection of conservative Dems, that was always a long shot.

Roll call details forthcoming (well, actually that’ll probably be a while, but I’m hoping we can all scrape together details…. particularly of which Dems voted against. I know I wanna know).

Update: Dems voting against (from the comments – please add names below as you find ’em – there was a total of 11):

Rep. Michel Consejo (Franklin 5)

Rep. Dick Howrigan (Franklin 2)

Rep. Jeff Young (Franklin 3)

Rep. Cynthia Browning (Bennington 5)

Rep. Sonny Audette (Chittenden 3-9)

Rep. Clem Bissonnette (Chittenden 3-6)

Rep. Ken Atkins (Chittenden 3-6)

Rep. Tim Corcoran (Bennington 2-1)

Rep. Debbie Evans (Chittenden 6-2)

Rep. Dave Potter (Rutland 1-2)

Rep. Bob South (Caledonia 3)

Repubs voting for:

Rep. Anne Donahue (Washington 2)

Rep. Kurt Wright (Chittenden 3-1)

Rep. Rick Hube (Windham-Bennington-Windsor 1)

Rep. Patti Komline (Bennngton-Rutland 1)

Rep. Heidi Scheuermann (Lamoille 1)

Update: Two Republicans were absent for that vote, O’Donnell of Vernon and Westman of Cambridge. Both are certain no votes. Westman is often featured as a spokesperson for the rancorous religious opposition. So the totals for the vote today (Friday, April 3) may be different from those of last night. — NanuqFC

Update: Whoops, Westman voted yes today, and I think I must have him confused with someone else from Cambridge. — NanuqFC

Update #2: The list of Reps by district and how they voted is here.

Much-lauded Rutland Herald editorial page editor David Moats crosses the media divide onto radio this morning in a VPR commentary lamenting the current decline of newspapers across the nation. The topic is an important one, and one we’ve certainly addressed at this site on numerous occasions. Amidst the alternating praise and criticism that we pepper reporters with on an ongoing basis, we’ve also had a steady undercurrent of concern for the newspaper industry’s health given the free speech/free press niche they fill.

And it’s also a frustrating topic for those of us who, in our spare time, are filling a free speech niche of our own – either by writing for, commenting on, or simply reading new media sites, and whether those be citizen or alternative journalism websites, blogs, or even social networking sites like Facebook. Frustrating because, while many in the newspaper industry – faced with an “adapt or perish” paradigm for the future – are proactively integrating and engaging new media (see Seven Days as a great example), others are simply reacting.

And Moats, for all his talent, is doing nothing more than what Herald editorial has done in the recent past – simply shaking his fist at the heavens. In doing so, he illustrates what often is a significant impediment to the continued viability of the newspaper business model; newspaper professionals unable to (or resentful of) change (or possibly evolution).

Moats’s commentary focuses its ire on blogs (and those that read them), starting out in generally reasonable tones before rapidly devolving to a blanket dismissal of the medium as “Blogmaniac.com.”

But it underscores the reality that Moats is reacting rather than being proactive, when his industry so badly needs him to be the latter. He reacts in the same way he did during the iBrattleboro trial lawsuit. For those who may have forgotten, the administrators of iBrattleboro were sued by someone based on the content of a user comment. At the time, the letter of the law as well as legal precedent were crystal clear in that the case had no merit whatsoever. Observers across the nation rolled their eyes and declared the suit would be roundly dismissed in no time at all – which, of course, it was. Moats’s editorial page, however, waxed righteous at the prospect of new media’s chickens coming home to roost and even enthusiastically predicted a trip to the Supreme Court itself. A couple other Vermont traditional news sites followed suit.

It was, frankly, an irrational stance to take at the time, and we hear a bit more of that same irrationality in this VPR piece. What makes it particularly frustrating is that Moats is usually one of the most rational voices in the Vermont media. It is a shame that he loses his perspective on this issue. In the commentary itself, Moats not only myopically focuses on blogs (as though there is no other new media), he seems to take the stance that all news of any kind seems to flow from newspapers, casting his dismissive net across television and (ironically) radio in his determination to condemn those blog maniacs. Does he really believe that no other medium generates any fresh or breaking news reports? Probably not.

Does he really believe that blogs have no value or role to play in the media landscape?

I’m thinking at this point that that may well be the case.

Between the evolution of media and the economic meltdown, the storm is now raging for traditional media – but in particular newspapers. While we continue to need them as much as ever, the transition is proving fatal for many – and that’s a concern. New media is an inevitable by-product of our new communications infrastructure. The economic collapse is an inevitable by-product of years of economic wrongheadedness. Both, while born in human activity, are at this point cultural forces of nature.

Shaking one’s fist at (and castigating) forces of nature has a poor history of leading to anything productive. It’s going to be those that harness the storm, rather than curse it, that will be around to greet the sun when the clouds inevitably clear.

Pardon this break from the April Fool’s silliness. Unfortunately, this one is for real…

The Princeton New Jersey based “National Organization for Marriage” – a national religious right group that works against LGBT rights across the country – is currently running robocalls in the state on the marriage equality bill. Click below for an example (player won’t show if you’re using Chrome… just use this link instead: http://greenmountaindaily.com/wp-content/uploads/upload/robo.mp3):

While there is a compelling case out there that this organization is either a Mormon Church front group, or is at least largely supported by the LDS Church, they got started in California (where they were very active in the California Prop 8 fight) with money from the Catholic Knights of Columbus. In any event, it is – once again – a group with a religious agenda that they feel everyone should be legally bound to, no matter what state they live in.

UPDATE: They called my home in Montpelier three times tonight – same call as the one above, except it targeted my own Rep. – Warren Kitzmiller – who has posted the following update on his Facebook page: “Angry!! about the nonsense robo-calls! I’ve gotten TONS of calls from folks who are mad about these calls and they are asking me to the exact opposite . . .which is what I’ll do.” You go, Warren…

Saying “we have to act quickly before the institution fails completely,” a bipartisan group of Senators is pushing a $750 billion bill to bail out marriage after its unprecedented collapse in the wake of gay and lesbian rights victories. Starting with civil unions in Vermont, followed more recently by full-blown same-sex wedlock in Massachusetts and Connecticut, marriage has been dealt crushing blows in recent years, with little end in sight.

The collapse, predicted by many, has been devastating. Divorce rates since the implosion of the marriage system have multiplied by a factor of 10. Most marriagists blame the new universal acceptance of the “gay lifestyle” in the wake of these laws, which have caused nearly 75% of all married men to experiment sexually with other men, and up to 50% going gay completely (with that number expected to increase). “I just never thought of it as an option,” one anonymous ex-husband was quoted as saying. “Now that there’s no social stigma attached, why not decide to crave male genitalia? I only chose the straight lifestyle because I didn’t really know about penises!”

It’s even worse for women, as – according to some reports –  up to 80% of wives and prospective wives have reportedly decided to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

The future is not looking much better for marriage, as the shockwaves of the collapse have impacted the schools. Graphic sex education is now mandatory for most kindergartners, with strict drag-dress codes being enforced in public schools from coast to coast.

The bailout bill itself will aim to keep marriage from collapsing entirely. Combined with the recent marriage stimulus bill – which targeted spending towards marriage creation, including significant spending on heterosexual infrastructure – leaders in Congress are confident that the marriage collapse can be stopped, and ultimately reversed. The bailout itself will create a “bad church” which will be able to absorb the bad marriages under other denominations – marriages that have become worthless given the collapse of the matrimonial institution. This should restore liquidity into the traditional wedding system and offset the problems caused by the same-sex oriented marriage deregulation trend of the last decade.

In light of the disappearance of the Governor (discussed below), state officials and lawmakers turned to Lieutenant Governor Brian Dubie to fulfill his Constitutional role, only to realize he hadn't been seen since January. The whereabouts of Dubie temporarily eclipsed discussions of the fate of Jim Douglas in the statehouse, where mutterings of "…oh, him? Is he still around?", "oh yeahhh, that guy," and "we have a Lieutenant Governor?" were repeatedly heard.

After noting that Dubie's public appearance schedule had no events listed since March of 2007, the Sergeant-at-Arms instituted a full search for the missing officeholder before a sharp-eyed pedestrian noticed something in the Governor's spare car, which had been left in a Pavilion parking space since early January. Officials speculate that Governor Douglas used the extra car while his other was in the shop, left it locked, and simply forgot that Dubie was trapped inside.

"We tried using the slim jim, but ended up having to call a locksmith to get him out of there" a Montpelier police officer was heard to say. "He was looking pretty rough by the time we got him out of there. Fortunately, the Governor had left one of the windows open a crack so he could get some air, but as near as we can tell, he's just been living on what he can find wedged in the seats."

The officer went on to explain that other drivers parking in the lot occasionally referred to hearing some odd sounds, but had dismissed them as irrelevant. "What people – even the Governor – need to understand is that you have to take responsibility for leaving critters in the car like this. These Vermont winters are pretty rough, but thank heaven it wasn't the summertime, or we might've had a real tragedy on our hands."

Governor Douglas mysteriously disappeared yesterday, and State Police have not ruled out the possibility of foul play. While the police have released little information, questions have arisen relating to observations over the course of the day surrounding the Governor’s pants.

GMD has managed to collect photos taken at different times throughout the day prior to the Governor’s disappearance, and the photos reveal an odd – and concerning – pattern:

In addition, GMD has learned that the reports from witnesses immediately prior to the Governor’s disappearence also suggest that the gradual, yet steady rising of Mr. Douglas’s beltline over the day may be more than a simple coincidence.

Witnesses report that at approximately 4:30 PM, the Governor entered his office, complaining of fatigue. At the time, those same witnesses report that his pants had risen to a point only inches from his neck. When staffers became concerned after the Governor failed to re-emerge, they entered the office and found only the following, shown here in this leaked police photo of the scene:

State Police have taken the pants in for questioning. A formal statement is expected soon, but an official spokesman has indicated that rumors that the pants in question were heard to utter “feed me” as they were removed from the Pavilion building are without merit.