I’m still feeling politically hung-over from yesterday’s impeachment affair at the Statehouse. And I’m still scratching my head over the near-complete lack of passion from the sponsors of the impeachment resolution – especially Zuckerman. Can anyone explain why Zuckerman totally clammed up on what should have been a fawning stage for him? And, if the silence was what he was planning, why did he insist on being the so-called leader of the effort?
And you know the little insider-birds at the Statehouse have already landed on Snarky Boy’s shoulder to whisper these answers in my ear (hey, after work beers always result in fine tips): Zuckerman, according to my well-place sources, was playing both sides of the fence on this one. He was aiming for the media glow for the betterment of his statewide political profile but he also didn’t want to rock the boat amongst his legislative colleagues. So, Zuckerman spewed eloquently for the media cameras but silenced himself when it came to the toe-to-toe with his colleagues. It was what he thought was going to be a win-win for him: he’d get the impeachment movement fawning over him for getting the vote but he wouldn’t ruffle any feathers by actually fighting for it or making any of his colleagues uncomfortable during the debate.
But with the exception of the most starry-eyed impeachment folks, the strategy seems to be backfiring as more and more people replay the floor debate and keep coming up with blanks when trying to place Zuckerman at the scene. Remember, Zuckerman wasn’t going to say a word during the debate until he was specifically called upon to answer the inquiries by one of the anti-impeachment representatives. And, let’s face it, he was just short of pathetic in answering those inquiries, exhibiting all the passion usually reserved for – oh – brushing your long locks.
In the end, there were three big reasons for the overwhelming defeat of the impeachment resolution: Gaye Symington’s not-so-subtle lobbying of her colleagues; Zuckerman’s sponsorship of the resolution – thus irking the mainstream Dems who can’t stand the Progs (remember how Brian Dubie got elected); and – according to my sources – some very strong signals from the Welch, Sander and Leahy people. Yep.
As we know from the ridiculous joint statement our three federally elected officials put out against moving forward on impeachment, these three Dems knew that killing it in the Vermont House was the last chance they had to stop the movement’s march to their doorsteps – especially Welch’s. After the Shumlin Snake slithered and twisted away from taking one for the team, the team turned all their heat up on Symington and the House Dems to stop the impeachment movement before it scorched them all.
Welch, Sanders and Leahy love to rail against the Bush team but they also know the Bush team has been wonderful for their political careers. They use the Bush name in Vermont like Bush uses the Osama name across the nation: To try to scare the shit out of people and take the emphasis off the fact that they’ve got no real plan other than scaring people to the polls. Let’s face it, without Bush, we’d be talking about Congresswoman Rainville right now. And Leahy wouldn’t be donning the chairman’s cap and basking in the love lights of the libs who aren’t willing to see the great disconnect between Leahy pointing out all the illegalities of the Bush team and yet NOT supporting impeachment. Oh yeah, Bush is the electoral gift that keeps giving – well, for one more election that is.
It’s going to be very interesting to see if the leaders of the amorphous impeachment mob will be willing to turn their rage to where it should be aimed now: Straight at Peter Welch. Or will they be satisfied with their “success” in the Senate and bow to the
Dem insiders’ calls to take it easy now and stop the political scorching? That would be a total shame – not to mention a complete rebuke to the idealism, passion and energy of so many people who rode the impeachment train this far.
One thing is for sure: A powerful movement has been created. More importantly, it’s a movement that dares to dream, be bold and – for the most part – shun the political correctness codes that normally doom such movements. That’s why hundreds of people took so much time out of their lives to be a part of it. It was real. It was focused. It was passionate. And – better yet – it didn’t belong to any party or high-profile pol.
Here’s to hoping the movement grows – in numbers and boldness.
Snark on.
