Guess its time to get off the dime and start a Geithner thread. Or a Geithner/Summers thread. Or is it an Obama thread?

Whatever. The point is: imagine for a moment that overwhelming sense of relief and burst of national economic confidence that would result if we woke up to find that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers had resigned, and that Presidential Economic Advisory Chair Paul Volcker was taking over at Treasury?

Interestingly, Obama is finding a way to unite Ds and Rs after all – in frustration with his economic team. Of course, what’s really happening is hardly unity; Dems and Repubs are now in a race of populist-esque rhetoric to get to the political-moral high ground on the matter. The result, in the immediate term, has yielded policy dividends, such as the creative, almost-100% tax on the dreaded AIG benefits that’s passing quickly through Congress (and that Obama has suggested he’ll sign, putting him in direct opposition to the previous efforts of Geithner and Summers to insure Wall Street bonuses were left untouched in the economic stimulus bill).

But of course, the R-D conflict and the surprising emergence of Congress as a warp-speed lawmaking entity has come in no small part as a result of the vacuum in economic leadership that has come to a head in the White House.  

Geithner was supposed to be a Larry Summers that people could work with (while Summers himself has a position of equal significance, but one where he doesn’t have to deal with people as much), but the mixed signals sent from him, Obama, and various “inside sources” has led to a damning chorus of “who’s in charge” directed at the new administration – and not simply from the folks thought of as “the left” or “the right.” The result is a sense that nothing was really gained by getting Tim instead of Larry – the two of which are becoming an intellectually marginalized tweedledee and tweedledum. The two, rather than representing “change,” seem to be mired in a desire not to play economic managers, but to try and play financial sector good-ole-boys while still expecting the economic recovery to be a relatively casual affair.

Here’s a rapid fire list of some of the high-profile particulars against Geithner (and Summers): either he’s bullshitting about when he knew about the AIG bonuses, or he has a serious memory problem (ha), their uncoordinated, inadequate plan to deal with the banks, a pronounced resistance to transparency, and of course, the naked sleaziness of blaming embattled Chris Dodd for pulling bonus restrictions out of the stimulus legislation before finally acknowledge it was at his own urging, etc.

It was hard to understand Obama’s committment to institutional throwbacks Geithner and Summers – especially in light of the plethora of good advisers he has otherwise been surrounded by (many with significantly superior reputations, such as Volcker). Obama is not an economist, so one wonders if his committment to this twosome is as much about personal connections as it is about policy.

Whatever the case, we’ve entered untrodden political ground as the AIG news seems to have caused the electorate to pop. Obama does himself no favors by dismissing the affair as a “distraction.” Its hard to imagine things improving quickly with Tim and Larry at the helm, and Obama’s emotionally validating speeches delivered without a clear reflection in actual policy have begun sounding hollow in absolutely record speed for a new President.

If he doesn’t make some tangible moves to take control of the conversation (and the situation) soon, the price to pay will be high – and the cost in his reduced clout on the Hill and in the polls will likely be progress on upcoming priorities such as health care.

Busy, crowded and intense at the Statehouse as testimony is taken on the Marriage Equality Bill.

It’s like the Civil Unions battle on the one hand, but the feel was very different. Where that seemed like a knock-down drag out, this seems more celebratory somehow. Like a really good thing is happening.

CCTV has a video feed, and there’s liveblogging at Blurt and the Freeps (which also has a video feed).

In the media and in online forums, he’s vigorously defended his calling of the police and tasking them to stand ready to throw out Democratic City Councilors over 5 minutes of procedural kerfuffles (seen here:

“I had no choice but to have a police presence there in case this behavior continued–otherwise those two Councilors could have literally shut down the meeting.”

…and here:

“The Police were only going to be used if the two Councilors literally would not allow us to conduct the meeting. No matter how you feel on the particular issue in question, the minority should not be able to thwart the will of the Majority.”

). He’s found defenders aplenty from Republican and Progressive circles.

But apparently the spin war hasn’t gone so well, as this email was sent from outgoing Burlington City Council President Kurt Wright to council members and at least one member of the media (emphasis added):

ReplyTo: vinewright@burlingtontelecom.net

Subject: The last coucil meeting

Sent: Mar 16, 2009 4:59 PM

Dear City Council members,

Like all other Council members, I much regret that our otherwise constructive year of dealing collectively with important issues was compromised during the last two meetings. When I became your President, I committed to being fair to each of you personally though our interests were likely to differ on matters of policy.  With but one regular meeting of this Council’s term remaining, I am most hopeful that we can restore the approach that served us so well.

I know that some members take exception to my request for a police presence at our last meeting.  This decision on my part was not intended to intimidate members or influence the outcome of debate in the slightest, but merely to prevent the meeting from deteriorating into a completely chaotic state.  I did and do see my primary obligation as President to facilitate meetings so that the public’s business can be accomplisehed.

With 20/20 hindsight, I can appreciate the views being expressed by those who assert I made the request I did, unnecessarily and prematurely.  I regret any misundertanding that may have arisen as a result

of that decision, a decision that I made with pure motives, but that on reflection may have been premature.  I recognize that it is never a decision that should be made to casually or too soon.

I commit to my fellow City Councilors that I will use every effort as your President to conduct our last meeting in a fully constructive manner.  I ask each and every one of you to commit to achieving the same result.  I believe the legacy of this session will be as positive as possible if this goal is achieved.

I thank you all for your co-operation and service to our City.  To paraphrase Councilor Shannon at the end of the last meeting “lets all admit mistakes were made on all sides” and move on.  I think that advice was very wise

and I hope we can all abide by it and move forward–in the best interests of our city, because to continue with this would not be in the best interests of our city.  Thanks,

Kurt Wright

Okay. Given that he defended his decision loudly and publicly, will he submit his mea culpas equally publicly?

Conservative “intellectual” John McLaughry on same-sex marriage this morning:

Marriage serves at least three important social functions: procreation and child rearing, mutual care and assistance, and reining in young males with raging hormones by linking approved sex to a serious and long-lasting social commitment.

It’s so hard to debate with people when they don’t even pretend to think, let alone think critically.

There’s already a long, active thread on this subject, but one comment in the thread seems to me to merit promotion to a full fledged diary, and that’s Jack’s. To that in a moment.

First of all, I want to say I finally watched the video. Now to hear the sturm und drang on the web, you’d think that Democratic City Councilors went wild, and Ed Adrian became practically rabid. Republican Council President Kurt Wright simply had to call the cops out to control the unhinged assault on Democracy that will forever poison the city (and the state’s) view of the entire Democratic Party, which was revealed to be either complicit in a pre-planned plot to thwart the will of the people, or hypocritical for not calling for Adrian’s head.

Gimme a frakkin’ break. To say it didn’t live up to the hype is like saying Number 10 Pond doesn’t live up to the Pacific Ocean. Jack:

1. The entire period of the so-called disruption and confrontation regarding the points of order and points of information lasted maybe five minutes or so.

2. It appears that there were a number of different points of order and points of information that the Democrats were raising. As I could make them out, they included whether the Council was holding a new meeting or a continuation of the previous meeting; what agenda they were working from in light of the fact that the clerk had issued a new agenda but Councilor Knodell initially seemed to be addressing an item on the original agenda; whether it was in order to take up the ordinance without its first having gone through the ordinance committee; and whether the current Council was bound by a resolution that laid out a special process for this ordinance, notwithstanding the fact that there had been a change of council membership since the adoption of the original resolution. (I may be missing one or two points, but I think that’s the gist of it.)

3. From what I could tell, the Democrats tried to get rulings on their points of order (or information ), but I didn’t see them pushing any particular point of order once there was a ruling from the Chair on it.

4. There were a number of times when the Chair tried to reject or rule a point of order out of order before hearing it.

5. The Chair eventually informed the objecting members that they had the right to appeal his rulings and seek a vote on their point of order if they disagreed with his ruling; they never did so.

6. At no point did the Chair ask for a vote on whether the Democrats were obstructing the proceedings and should be removed.

I think #6 is an important point. There is a parliamentary process for removing members who are obstructing the work of the body, but they don’t involve the Chair calling the police. There may have been people other than Kurt Wright and Jane Knodell who were annoyed at the objections of the Democrats, but we didn’t hear from them. We can’t know what they would have done if it had been put to a vote, but it is at least possible that members of the Council who would need to maintain a working relationship with the minority might take a different view of how to proceed than the lame duck Council President and Councilor.

What I saw was about eight minutes of what I’ve seen in plenty of other meetings; a minority who felt (rightly or wrongly) that they were being railroaded and opting to choose (rightly or wrongly) to change that by being (shall we say) exactingly precise about parliamentary protocols. Obstructionist? Absolutely… but whether you think that’s a bad thing or not depends on whether you believe that they were being railroaded or not, and I’m not making a call either way. Again – what should matter to folks is that the police were called in, and that decision was plainly outrageous.

What I also saw was a City Council President incapable of controlling or properly running a meeting. That was pathetic.

In any event, it should be plain that ten minutes of Roberts-rules-neener-neenerisms before an incompetent Chair do not merit that Chair compounding his failure by calling the police. Such a decision was not simply ridiculous, it was unethical. So why are so many self-identifying lefties on the internet so eagerly defending the action (and, in the process – or as part of the process – so badly mischaracterizing the supposed transgressions of a few City Councilors)?

It’s all Partisan Derangement Syndrome. Otherwise sensible people getting caught up in the mass hysteria of partisan groupthink. What we’ve got is a few lefties who identify with the Progressive Party – as well as some die-hard Republicans – absolutely losing their shit because of their contempt for Democrats (or their personal animosity towards Ed Adrian). Honestly, after looking at that video, its all I can figure, and its all very childish.

I’ll tell you one thing, though. This whole embarrassing dustup is another reminder that Burlington City Politics is in serious need of an enema. Some Progs & Repubs would do well to take a lesson from folks like Rama and see it for what it is and not for the mass indictment of the Democratic Party they’d desperately like it to be.

Anyway, if you haven’t yet joined the fun, you’ll have to follow this link (CCTV has their audio and video locked up so tight I cant excerpt, and neither can I embed iframe code into Soapblox). Click here, choose the video option on the drop down menu, and click on the Downtown Use and Hieght [sic] Ordinance, and you’ll find the brouhaha roughly 6 or 7 minutes into it, lasting about 7 or 8 minutes before the recess is called (and Police are brought in).

Then come back and look at some of the selection of my favorite comments from around the web on the matter. see what you think.

“Bringing the police in made sense, given the outrageous actions of a few Dems. Those few Dems are an embarassment to the Democratic Party and the City Council.” – Posted by: Dell

Anonymous said…

“So…seems pretty unanimous that certain Dems did a great job of tarnishing their party’s rep on multiple fronts (in person, on cable, in the BFP and in certain excellent blogs).

Prediction: some party shake up / new blood.”

teamoldmill wrote: “Way to go Kurt! Disdruptive, childish Democrats, good way to deal with them. Dems are why VT is going down the tubes, and they get their panties in a bind over 1 story increase?

Police should have stepped in with billy clubs. We have to get the Dems out, or VT is going nowhere.

I am very proud somone stood up to the stupid Dems.”

redvette1 wrote: “Adrian and Berezniak are losers and Shannon is not to far behind. The first two so-called-councilors are always trying to intimidate and then get upset when their tatics do not work for them.

I fail to understand why the voters in their respective wards voted for them – unless they are of the same stock.

Adrian and Berezniak; help the City – leave, just go away, far away.

Kurt should of had you both removed Thursday evening.”

“In my 14 years on the council, I’ve never seen such an unprofessional and disrespectful display,” said (Councilor Jane ) Knodell. “The whole meeting was breaking down, no one knew what they would try to do next, and I think that the council president did the right thing by asking for [police] presence.

I like Jane, I’ve worked on a campaign with Jane, and she should be ashamed of herself for engaging in such ridiculous hyperbole in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. It’s beneath her.

I’m going to write something seriously depressing and non-political (admin privilege). So an open thread seems appropriate for another place to put any more site-appropriate comments.

In the meantime, here’s an example of why Facebook is so damn dangerous.

and in other news . . .



Equal Marriage Rights — The House and Senate Judiciary Committees will hold a joint meeting at the State House next Wednesday, March the 18th, beginning at 6:00 p.m.  More info – HERE – and details to follow.

Please come to Montpelier and show your support for Senate Bill 115 when the two Committees take public comments on equal marriage rights.  

Heh. In yet another reminder that it’s (already) on, the appeal for support put out by Markowitz Campaign Manager Jason Powell to the listserv of Vermont Obama supporters has been met by a similar appeal from unofficial Racine campaign coordinator Mary Sullivan. Here’s the text:

Dear Obama supporters,

Now that the use of this listserve has been expanded beyond the Obama campaign, I am writing to tell you why I am a very strong supporter of Doug Racine in his campaign to be the next governor of Vermont. The campaign has already earned lots of support and lots of volunteers.

Like Obama, Doug Racine has a vision. His commitment and his leadership skills have produced a solid list of legislative accomplishments. He has a very clear record of turning his vision into action.

Doug recently co-chaired the Vermont Childhood Poverty Council (http://www.leg.state.vt.us/WorkGroups/ChildPoverty/Child_Poverty_Council_Report_Final.pdf)  which released an action plan of how to break children free of the cycle of poverty that often runs from one generation to the next. The people I know who participated in the hearings spoke highly of Doug’s leadership style, his effective and calm demeanor, and his ability to bring different people together to work for a common purpose.

Doug chairs the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, working on moving Vermont towards universal access to affordable and quality health care. His committee is helping to lead the opposition to many of Jim Douglas’s proposed budget cuts that would hurt children, the elderly, and other vulnerable Vermonters.

He has long been recognized for his leadership on environmental protection, labor issues, progressive taxation and education. His work on the Senate Economic Development and Housing Committee is helping lead the way to creating high paying jobs in the ever changing 21st century economy.

I know Doug as a guy who knows how to get good things done.

I encourage people to get behind Doug early so that we have a very viable candidate in 2010. He is excited about the challenge of taking on Gov. Douglas. He will start by taking on his policies as a member of the Senate. The campaign website www.dougracine.com will be up and running soon. In the meantime, if you are interested in donating to the campaign you can mail a check to “Racine for Governor”, 909 Wes White Hill Road, Richmond, 05477. If you would like to be listed as a supporter or would like to help on the campaign, please email me at marysull@yahoo.com.

Thanks.

-mary

Next? Senator Bartlett? Senator Shumlin? Mr. Dunne?

Free Press reporter Terri Hallenbeck at the Free Press blog:

Some post-Town Meeting Day thoughts:

– Democrats have come in third in the last two big Vermont races – for governor and mayor of Burlington.

“The last two big Vermont races.” Over a time frame spanning Town Meeting Day to last November’s election.

Of course, within that time frame, there were a few other elections too. Just not “big” ones, like mayor of Burlington. US Congress (won by a Democrat who didn’t even face a serious challenge), Secretary of State (won by a Democrat in a blowout), Attorney General (won by a Democrat in a blowout), Treasurer (won by a Democrat in a blowout), Auditor (won by a Democrat in a blowout) and Lieutenant Governor (where the Democrat came in second).

So these weren’t “big” elections, y’see. Not like mayor of Burlington. And Governor – well, that wouldn’t be a “big” election either, except that the Democrat came in third by 200 votes. That makes it major, y’see, because it supports Hallenbeck’s preconceived point.

I’m sorry, but so many adjectives come to mind, they’re all getting jammed up in my brain, leaving me slack-jawed. Maybe this is just an early April Fool’s post…?

Or maybe she meant to say Democrats have come in third in the last two big Vermont races which they came in third in.

I mean, there is just no other way to salvage such a naked absurdism.

Have been visiting family in Kentucky for the last week and am currently in a motel room outside of Cleveland on my way back. More on the trip later. In the meantime, how about another open thread?

• Bevans to be challenged? Scuttlebutt is that Judy Bevans will not get a free shot at the Vermont Democratic Party’s top spot. After Chair Ian Carleton’s resignation, Vice Chair Judy Bevans became acting Chair, arranged for a special election for March 31st 21st, and made it clear she wanted the job in a more permanent way. Very interesting, therefore, that a challenger may have emerged: businessman Paul Millman from Windham County. Millman toyed with a gubernatorial run early last cycle, but is neither a member of the State Committee, nor has he been active in it.

  Millman is a poster child for progressive entrepreneurship, and long time readers may recall that I was enthusiastic about his potential involvement with Democratic politics. This move, though is… odd… for a few reasons, not the least of which is its out-of-nowhere timing. Could it be that some traditional power brokers in the Party are not thrilled with Bevans’ independent streak and have gone recruiting? Coming in from outside to mount a surprise challenge to a well-liked, hard working stalwart of the State Committee is an oddly confrontational way to join the game, after all – not to mention one that will likely end in failure (unless Bevans gets out-organized). Frankly, I think this would be a bad precedent and send a bad message. Hopefully Bevans is watching her flank by making calls and lining up support – and hopefully Millman can come up with a less combative way to introduce himself to the Democratic State Committee.

• Margolis misunderstaning. WIth all due respect for Jon Margolis (and all due appreciation for his kind words about me), he was a bit too quick to dismiss the potential impact of Emily’s List on the Gubernatorial campaign of Secretary of State Deb Markowitz. Margolis:
  

  So EMILY’s list wouldn’t give $2 million in Vermont, where no candidate for governor has yet spent more than about half of that. It gives smaller increment seed money.

  Not so fast, Jon. I chose my words carefully, stating that the report concerning the conversation Sen. Susan Bartlett had with Emily’s List indicated that EL believed that Markowitz needed a $2 million campaign to beat Douglas and was intending to help her get there – not that EL itself was in for $2 million. Consider the math: a Democratic candidate for Governor in Vermont should be able to raise $500-$750k on their own. If we take the high end of that figure ($750k), that means EL is looking at filling up the difference with $1.25 million.

  Do they just write a check? Of course not. Especially since Markowitz herself is on record still perpetuating the shared delusion that there is a $2000 per person (or non-party entity) contribution limit (although in fairness to Markowitz, after the Attorney General came out with that opinion, she could hardly disagree with it).

  What Emily’s list will do is turn to its 6-figure strong membership and solicit contributions on her behalf. Now, $1.25 million is a steep figure, but if 625 people on that list cough up the max, well – there it is. A tough goal, sure – but if you think its impossible, ask Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, the regular recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars from thousands of Emily’s List contributors.

• Shumlin the way we like him. Go get ’em, Pete.
• Prediction time: Tomorrow’s the big 4-way (okay, technically 5 way) race for the Burlington mayor’s office by way of Instant Runoff Voting. Nobody really has a clue, so my prediction is utterly meaningless, but I’m gonna make one anyway: Republican-in-Independent’s-clothing Smith takes it on the second round. Anybody else have a guess?

For those who are curious about the details of the Dem drama for this last weekend, here is the text of the letter read by Senator Bartlett at the State Committee meeting of last weekend. I do not have a list of signatories.

Dear Members of the Executive Committee,

It is with great concern that we recently learned that Party resources are potentially being shared with some statewide candidates without a concrete policy in place to ensure that if one candidate receives access to resources, other candidates also have that access.

With the strong potential of contested statewide primaries, it is critcal that the Party have clear and uniform standards for access to Party resources to ensure that one candidate is not favored or given unfair advantages over others.  To do otherwise would seriously jeopardize the Party’s impartiality and the integrity of the democratic process.

We request that the Party immediately suspend any informal arrangements it may have with statewide candidates for access to Party resources, including but not limited to use of office space, phone or internet access, voter file and NGP.  We further request that the Party implement formal policies related to access to these resources for statewide primary candidates before permitting access.

Again, we cannot emphasize enough how critical uniform standards for the treatment of statewide primary candidates are to preserving the integrity of the Party.

Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter.

The concern expressed behind the scenes in regards to favoritism from Welch and Senator Leahy is, of course, related to the involvement of Leahy Campaign Manager (and former Welch Campaign Manager) Carolyn Dwyer, who has been closely involved with the nascent Markowitz campaign, and has been associated with that campaign’s alleged open access to Party resources. Dwyer also remains the official representative of both Welch and Leahy’s interests on the Party Executive Committee. Suffice to say that I’ve spoken with some potential gubernatorial candidates, and the level of frustration directed at Dwyer relating to this matter was pronounced.

As far as any party arrangement goes, we’ll try to look into what the rumored agreement is and how consistent it is with such agreements (and with written access policies) in past years and primaries.