Busted! Mainstream Media Finally Catching on to Douglas' So-Called "Affordability Agenda"

Today's Times-Argus editorial page devotes a full column taking Jim Douglas to task for his habitual knocking of Vermont's economic and jobs development climate.

Jim Douglas and his so-called "affordability agenda"

are digging Vermont into a big hole.

Is the mainstream media finally catching on to the political agenda behind the "affordability agenda"? Or, are they just getting tired of his say-more, do-less attitude? Either way it's high time the Governor was subjected to a little more scrutiny. Maybe his days of getting a free pass are finally over.

An excerpt:



"Don't believe what the governor is going to tell you about our young people moving away. Declaring that the sky is falling because of Vermont's status as the oldest state in the union has become as much a part of Jim Douglas' routine as is his folksy demeanor and having a veto showdown with the Democrats come springtime.



Douglas has in fact built his "affordability agenda" on the idea that we are chasing young people out of the state with our high taxes.

But it's not true.

...It's time Douglas stopped doing a similar disservice to Vermont business. The perception is that Vermont is not business-friendly, in part because our state's chief executive won't stop telling people that's the case.It's easy to see why he's doing it: It gets Jim Douglas re-elected...



So what can Douglas do? He has talked about finding a regional solution – emphasis on the "talk." And he has put forward some positive initiatives around education, selling the state as a "green" destination and small business development. None of those things can hurt.

But playing Chicken Little over taxes is worse than useless because it encourages those people and businesses that want to be in the Northeast to look elsewhere.

Vermont can't afford the "affordability agenda" if it's being sold one knock on the state at a time."

Kudos to the Times Argus editorial staff for this important work. Read the entire column here.

Three things this editorial makes clear:

1) "Don't believe what the Governor is telling you..."; and

2) The Governor is doing our state and our business community "a disservice"; and

3) Vermont can't afford Douglas' so-called "affordability agenda."

Sounds like a platform for Vermont Democrats to run on in 2008.

'Nuff said.

Who Will Fight the Good Fight?

Democrats are looking for a candidate who will win in 2008. Fortunately (or unfortunately), we have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to viable candidates for the nomination. Hillary, Obama, Edwards... they are all legitimate contenders who (barring catastrophe) could - should! - deliver the White House next year.

Given that, we need to consider not only who can win the election but who is best equipped to actually create the change we want to see in this country once the election is over. That is: who will fight the good fight for ordinary Americans after the elections are over?

Will the real change agent please stand up?

The conventional wisdom on this point breaks down the three contenders into two basic camps based on their current rhetoric: Institutional candidates and the Populist Candidate. So, Obama is the outsider, right?! Wrong.

Obviously, Hillary is trying to show she is most "electable" by running an insider's campaign. Message: Elect me - I have experience and I know how to work the controls. "Competence, not cronyism." Not bad... but hardly a wholesale system shake-up.

Obama's message? Elect me because I'm inclusive. Everyone has a seat at the table and together we'll make change. His website touts his efforts to partner with unlikely allies: Obama, his site reminds us, "enlisted the help of Republican allies to limit lobbyist influence." I don't know about you, but that is less than encouraging. Even if you like the idea that the guy can build bridges, work together, etc. The statement itself strikes me as something of an oxymoron.

Paul Krugman points out:

"...believing that the insurance and drug industries — which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems — will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform," is unrealistic. Krugman argues that it's perverse to run on inclusion and then turn around and give voice to the very powers who are stopping the change he advocates from actually taking place.

Nope. If that is really Obama's message, that won't get the job done. That's not going to be good enough.

The real change agent with the message and the muscle to take on Washington special interests is John Edwards. He's campaigning on a populist message that says "Elect me. I will NOT give the special interests a seat at the table. They've owned those seats for too long. It's time to give the American people the seats around the table." His website doesn't even bother having a link to "fighting Washington corruption" or "taking on Washington" - probably because just saying it means that you're going to be trying to work with the powers that be...

Read the article, here.

Edwards appears to be the only candidate ready to "stick it to the man" and actually take the moneyed system head-on. He can afford to tell the truth since he has nothing to lose sitting in third place in most of the polls. "Families are working harder for stagnating wages when there are nearly 60 lobbyists for every member of Congress." Fixing America "will take strong, bold steps, not incremental steps and half measures." True enough.

America needs someone willing to lay out a clear vision for the country and take risks, not someone who will continue to compromise our values in the pursuit of maintaining power. For that reason, Edwards seems to have the most to offer.

** Newsweek has just come out with Edwards on its cover touting him as the "sleeper candidate." Some interesting analysis on how he could sneak a win with Hillary and Obama splitting up larger municipalities in Iowa, which through arcane rules could allow smaller, rural areas where Edwards is working to carry the day.

Report: Nation's Wealthy Deprived of True Meaning of Christmas

It's true... the wealthy really have it hard at the holidays. Note: While I love this parody put together by our friends over at The Onion, I had to laugh that it's sponsored by Ford's giganto-super-sized "hybrid" SUV. Yikes.

Still, you gotta love this "news report":


Report: Nation's Wealthy Cruelly Deprived Of True Meaning Of Christmas

The Drug War Bible: King James Version

Great post by Jack McCullough over on Green Mountain Daily exposing King James' hypocrisy in the public kerfuffle over Windsor County State's Attorney Robert Sand and his sane approach to dealing with non-violent drug offenders in Vermont.

An excerpt:

"The Valley News had the story yesterday... "just days before Douglas' rebuke, a case involving 110 marijuana plants in neighboring Orange County was also sent to diversion. That case, and the Republican prosecutor who declined to seek criminal sanctions, escaped Douglas' scrutiny."

.... So why the change of heart? Yesterday in the Valley News, "Douglas spokesman Jason Gibbs said the two cases are not comparable." Why not? Because of the appearance of preferential treatment to a lawyer in the Windsor County case, and the fact that Sand is known to disagree with Douglas' opinion on how marijuana should be dealt with.

In other words, he decided to attack Bobby Sand and not his counterpart in Orange County, Republican Will Porter, for purely political reasons."

Read the entire post, here, at Green Mountain Daily.

This is another interesting example of the GOP abandoning its self-professed traditional federalist principles. Usually Republicans argue that local control should be king. And, the elected representatives closest to the people should be allowed to reflect the popular will ("keep big government out"). In this instance, rather than viewing Sand's position as an interesting experiment that could actually yield data on a persistent social problem, the Gov. decided to try to score political points rather than actually take an interest in solving the problem and respecting the will of Windsor county voters.

This may be the year that Vermonters actually get a glimpse behind the curtain and see the hypocrisy for themselves. Methinks this one is going to come back to bite King James. He may be sorry he ever waded into this...

Trashed! Why Douglas, the Chamber, and Vermont Tiger Talk Down Vermont's Economy

They're at it again.

Have you noticed a trend in how Gov. Douglas, the Chamber of Commerce, and their buddies over at "PaperTiger" continually assail Vermont's business climate? This has been going on for some time now, but we are likely to see the hue and cry reach fever pitch as the election season heats up and the Governor poses as the tough guy standing up for jobs and the little guy. Of course when it comes to actually doing something for the little guys (energy veto, anyone?), the Gov takes a pass.

Usually Governors are the "cheerleaders-in-chief" of their economies. That is, they work tirelessly to promote their state as a good place to do business. Not so here in Vermont. So, what gives?

Well, for one thing, "Jim=Jobs" hasn't exactly panned out. For another, maybe things aren't really as bleak as they seem? While most states are severely buffeted by recession, we tend to weather those storms pretty well. I guess if your definition of a successful business climate is strip malls, McMansions, and a stripping away of cultural identity then certainly by that measure we lag behind other states. But this is Vermont! Do we really need to trade away our heritage to look just like "Anytown, U.S.A."? I don't think so.

Finally, to the extent that things really aren't getting better for most average Vermonters, it is not due to the bogeyman the Administration and its apologists point to ("high taxes" and "regulation"). Rather it is the necessities: health care, energy and transportation costs and basic housing that can make living in Vermont challenging - the very issues that Douglas and his pals prefer to duck.

Could it be that the Right in Vermont has decided the only way to maintain its hold on the Governorship is to trash the economy and scare Vermonters in order to preserve his political hide?

Worse, does such a Machiavellian strategy create a self-fulfilling prophecy that things don't, in fact, improve, thereby allowing the Governor and every other right-winger to turn around and blame the poor business climate on others? Perhaps.

Put it another way, what business owner do you know that would say to its customers: "I hate my products. They are overpriced and nobody wants them!? But, no really buy them... really, I'm open for business." Essentially, this is what Douglas and the Chamber are telling prospective businesses and entrepreneurs every time trash Vermont's "business environment."

This brings us to the implicit fallacy of the Douglas "Affordability Agenda." More slogan than program, this impressively slim manifesto allows the Governor to defend doing nothing in the interest of maintaining the status quo. The implication being that any action taken is likely to make things worse, not better. And, so as things get worse the Governor continues to scare-monger the issue and the cycle continues.

Where have we heard scaremongering and empty slogans used in the service of pressing a purely political agenda at the expense of the public?

Just remember the next time you hear Douglas, the Chamber, and "Paper Tiger" decry the state of Vermont's economy they don't do it in the service of the average Vermonter. They are pressing their "Agenda" in pursuit of a political objective: Declaring "Mission Accomplished" while failing to act in the public interest to make life better and more affordable for the rest of us.

In short, the so-called "Affordability Agenda" is simply political "strategery" masquerading as public policy.

Douglas' Worst Nightmare: Racine Considers Race for Governor

With no Democratic candidates currently announced for governor, some exciting news may be developing. The Vermont Press Bureau spoiled Jim Douglas' breakfast this morning by reporting that Sen. Doug Racine (D-Chittenden) (shown here presenting an award) is considering a run for governor.

This is Douglas' worst nightmare, and potentially very good news for Democrats because Racine may be the best hope Democrats have to defeat Douglas. Here are five reasons why:

1) Name Recognition: Racine has held statewide office before and is perhaps the only candidate who is as well known to Vermont voters as Douglas.

2) Hometown Advantage: Racine is from Chittenden County and can count on prevailing in his home county, the largest in the state. He defeated Dougals in Chittenden County in 2002 by a margin of 46% - 43%). This deprives the well-known Douglas of a huge advantage against anyone else (he's cleaned up in Chittenden County against all other contenders in past elections 56% - 40% against Clavelle; and 56% - 42% against Parker).

3) GOP-Fatigue: Racine lost by a whisker to Douglas in 2002 (45% - 42%), a non-presidential year when turnout is typically lower than usual. This year the presidential election can be expected to boost turnout generally, and more specifically, boost turnout for the Democrats after eight years of Bush-fatigue.

4) History: Traditionally, it has taken Racine two runs to prevail. This was true of his runs for Lieutenant Governor. Perhaps "two is the charm."

5) Douglas' Achilles Heel: Overconfidence. Nobody expects the Democrats to win this year against "Do-Nothing Douglas." Douglas' biggest liabilities are his overconfidence and his so-called "affordability agenda" which has done little to improve the lives of most Vermonters, despite his having occupied the Pavilion Building for the last five years. This may be the most important (and overlooked) reason that Democrats may have their best shot in years to defeat the incumbent - if they find the right candidate with the right message at the right time.

No doubt about it, Racine could be Vermont's "Comeback Kid" in 2008 should he choose to run.


Is it time for a Draft Racine movement?