A Progressive Mandate?
Now that Mayor Kiss is starting to outline his agenda, many fiscal conservatives are beginning to wonder what the Kiss administration will hold for Burlington's financial future. Will he be able to solve our budget woes, as he suggested during the campaign, or will he further increase them in an attempt to fund the Progressives' socialist agenda?
There’s a commentary on the Burlington GOP homepage by a Republican voter, who helped elect Kiss with his second-place vote, attempting to clarify why so many Republicans gave their second-place vote to Kiss.
Kiss should not misinterpret the support he received from the Curley supporters that we embrace his ideological agenda. Let me be emphatic on two points. WE DON’T’ AGREE WITH YOUR IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA AND WE DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY BECOME PROGRESSIVES!!!! He said he managed an entity with a large budget. Therefore, we would expect that he would use his management skills to begin to manage the fiscal problems in Burlington, not add to them! Again, if you didn’t hear it loud enough during your race for Mayor, let me state it again. WE ARE TAXED ENOUGH!!!!! Let me remind you. You resigned from the Vermont State Legislature. You are now the Mayor of Burlington. Please act and manage accordingly!!This topic was also discussed by City GOP Chair Fred Osier and newly elected City Councilor Paul Decelles on the Burlington GOP live @ 5:25 show on channel 17 last evening. You can listen to the podcast here.
An interesting question was raised on that program: Would voters have still voted for Kiss if he had mentioned that universal healthcare was part of his mayoral agenda?
You can look at the mayoral race results. If the GOP vote went to Miller, she would have won. Kiss only won by 775 votes. Kevin Curley had 2609.
On the show, Osier said he was convinced to give his second-place vote to Kiss by one of his supporters. I had that same experience.
It is way too soon to tell what kind of mayor Bob Kiss will be, but if he continues on with the priorities that he laid out thus far, I will have to say that the Progs did a great job of working us over. Those are not the same priorities we were voting for.
Note: Mayor Kiss’ speech before the Burlington Business Association (blogged about here) will air on Channel 17 Friday 4/14 @ 4:17 PM.
49 comments:
These weren't the priorities you were voting for? What did you think you were voting for?
Did Kiss mention universal healthcare once during his campaign? Of course not, it would have lost him the election.
He also might have mentioned that he was going to engage the president of the VT AFL-CIO to "assist" in the development of next year's budget. Given that two of Burlington's biggest problems are inappropriately aggressive city employee pensions and massive overstaffing, what chance is there that this guy will address these problems head on? Oh, about zero. Again, a little detail that he forgot to mention ahead of time that would have cost him the election.
Enjoy your last term, Progs. We won't get fooled again.
I would never vote for Kiss if I had any idea what his agenda was. Oh wait... I put him last on my ballot - because progressives ALWAYS end up having these awful champagne socialist agendas.
"We won't get fooled again."
That's funny.
I have no sympathy for anyone who voted for Kiss and now regrets it.
Republicans know what Progressives are all about. What did they think would happen? I guess they figure he'll be a one termer. How many times did Clavelle get re-elected again?
News flash: Progressives don't care about fiscal responsiblity. That's the taxpayer's problem.
There was a reason all they talked about was what a nice 'low-key' guy Kss was!
Republicans should have voted for Hinda. At least then they could have had a few laughs at her expense while the city went down the tubes. Now their feelings are hurt because they've been "betrayed". Give me a break.
"We won't get fooled again."
This is funny.
Hey Bob, since you think you're so smart, why didn't you try to talk me out of voting for Bob Kiss second before I voted.
Charity, you know how strongly I believe in women's sufferage. I would never try to influence your vote!
Besides, now I have three years to say things like: "Hey, don't blame me, I didn't vote for Kiss"!
There is this other possibility that Republicans are just totally sexist and couldn't stand the thought of a woman winning, even though in actuality she was basically one of them.
Just a thought.
Anyone backed by Howard Dean is not a Republican!!!
Do you really think that Burlington Republicans are sexist???
Do you think they would inflict this pain on themselves just to keep a woman out of the Mayor's office?
I think the guy who wrote that piece on the GOP homepage was genuinely duped. Although how, I don't know. Just because Progressives don't like Democrats, doesn't mean they'll act like Republicans when they get elected.
"We won't get fooled again"
That still cracks me up.
Haik, why don't we print up some T-shirts that say "GOP" on the front and "Won't get fooled again" on the back?
It could be our ticket out of here!
Try to reconcile the google cache of Kiss' campaign site with his recent speech to the BBA, it may clarify some things for you.
"'We won't get fooled again'
That still cracks me up."
I'll be laughing harder when Kiss' next opponent wins the election using it as a campaign slogan.
Um, Haik, didn’t you vigorously oppose Hinda on your blog? Are you sexist?
BTW, I find it absolutely stupid (sorry, Haik, there’s no better word) that anyone would think the Burlington GOP is sexist. Wasn’t I the last chair person they had? Yeah, that would be me. I am a woman.
Bob, I’m glad you’re having so much fun with this. Yes, it was stupid to believe that Kiss would do anything other than try to institute a socialist agenda in the city, but do you have to rub it in?
Speaking of Bob Kiss' speech to the BBA, it will air on channel 17 again Tuesday 4/18 at 11:02 PM and Wednesday 4/19 at 4:02AM, 10:02 AM, and 4:02 PM.
channel 17 schedule
You shouldn't leap to so many conclusions, Charity. Just because you were the GOP chair doesn't mean there aren't some GOP voters out there with sexist voting tendencies. You don't know what's in everybody's head. Just becuase I have this sexism theory (theory not accusation) and opposed Miller myself, doesn't make me a sexist. Your logic is wicked flawed.
Also, for all the years he was governor, Dean himself might often have been confused with a Republican, so I'm not buying what you said about him either. I think Miller would have acted more like a Republican than Curley as mayor.
"Won't get fooled again" is funny Bob- but I don't think selling t-shirts to the six or eight of crackpots in our little sphere who would want them would justify quitting our day jobs...
...Or maybe I'm afraid that could be an effective slogan against any incumbent (regardless of how stupid it sounded when "anonymous" said it above) and I want to poo poo the idea to protect Kiss, whom I really like.
Besides, Pete Townshend would want royalties. Yeah. That's the ticket.
Charity, the T-shirt idea was excessive and I apoligize for that.
I'm partly playing devil's advocate here. Personally, I don't believe anything the Progressives say. Republicans knew that the only candidate worth voting for was Kevin Curley. They also saw through all the idiotic buzzword platitudes that Hinda was throwing around when she wasn't insulting them outright. So I can see why they wouldn't want her to get elected. (Haik, I forgot about this when I responded to you earlier)
I know that there was a feeling of kinship between the Republicans and the Progressives during the campaign, and that is where the feeling of betrayal is coming from. But they're still socialists. They only see business as tax revenue and will dump money into social programs while the infrastructure crumbles. It's just what they do.
Anonomous, I'm busting your chops here too. Burlington needs a Republican mayor and a fically responsible city council. By that I mean one that cuts the budget instead of raising taxes like they do now. Burlington does not have very long before it collapses financially. It will already be a long and painful process to fix the mess the city is in now.
There is probably close to 150 miles of paved roads in the city and all but 2-3 of it needs to be repaved. I can't even imagine how bad the water mains are now. Champlain School is closed at least once a year because of a water main break (except this year because the winter was so mild).
For most non-homeowners, once you get over the waterfront and Church St, the city doesn't have much to offer. Certainly not enough to pay for 20+ years of mismanagement.
Haik, I forgot about how Hinda had insulted people in the New North End during an interview when she was talking about doing "yoga off the mat". She said something about how that kind of talk wouldn't fly out in the New North End because the people there would think she was weird. That's pretty condescending, but par for the course with her.
Also, Republicans could see through all her buzzword crap. She could not answer any question without using some fluffy platitude about areas of entrepreneurial opportunities, or some such. Republicans want clear answers and tangible goals to fix real problems that the city is facing.
It's not sexism. Would you vote for someone whose BS you saw through and who had insulted you? Probably not.
Okay, let me see if I get this right. If a person (like you) opposes a woman candidate, he is not sexist, but if a Republican does it, your theory is that Republicans are sexist because you (who has no concept of what it is like to actually be a Republican) think Republicans should have supported her.
And my logic is flawed?
BTW, Haik, I wasn't saying that you are sexist, I was trying to point out the flaw in your theory.
"regardless of how stupid it sounded when 'anonymous' said it above"
So it's stupid, but it would be effective against an incumbent. Brilliant.
Why don't you try addressing some of the specifics in the editorial that this post linked to? Maybe you could point out where Kiss mentioned "universal healthcare" for Burlingtonians during his campaign? Or do you just prefer to keep up your unbelievably low signal to noise ratio?
Haik, I haven't heard many comparisons to Dean and Republicans lately. Have you?
Especially since a real Republican became governor and told us how badly off the state's highway fund is. Seems Dean was raiding it to pay for all the increased medicare benefits he was pushing before he ran for president. Gov Douglas also said that it will take ten years to get the highway fund back to where it needs to be to keep the roads paved.
Can you honestly say thay you think Dean is conservative?
He's the screaming nutjob who wanted universal healthcare and an immediate withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn't sound very republican.
Also, he's leading the DNC farther to the left!! That doesn't sound very Republican.
He also was on the news after he voted for Hinda and said his second choice was Kiss. That doesn't sound very Republican either.
"Anonomous, I'm busting your chops here too. Burlington needs a Republican mayor and a fically responsible city council."
I absolutely agree with that, so how are you busting my chops?
Again, Bob. It's just a theory. If it makes you feel better- I'm open to the notion some Kiss-first-choice voters were swayed by sexism too. I don't know and you don't either.
And EVERYBODY wants "clear answers and tangible goals to fix real problems" (if they exist). Do you think that's uniquely Republican?
*Pleaze!*
(Charity- No. You are not reading what I said correctly; and Yes. Your logic is flawed; and No. I'm not going to explain further; and what makes you think I was never a Republican? You're jumping to conclusions again.)
(Anonymous- Yes. It sounded stupid and; Yes. It could be an effective slogan; And hey- signal-shmignal to Noise Shmoise. Aparently I'm transmitting at a frequency you're not equipped to receive. That's too bad for you, I guess. And there's a darn good chance you'll be fooled on a regular basis for the rest of your life.)
"And EVERYBODY wants "clear answers and tangible goals to fix real problems" (if they exist). Do you think that's uniquely Republican?"
No I don't. My point was that Republicans did not like Hinda because they could see through her corporate-speak and because she insulted them. She was offering fluffy rhetoric when asked specific questions about things like reducing taxes, bringing businesses to Burlington, etc.
That's why they didn't vote for her.
I also don't think Progressives didn't vote for her out of sexism either. She just wasn't very likable.
Republicans didn't vote overwhelmingly for Ruth Dwyer either for the same reason. She was not likable and she insulted nearly everyone during her campaign.
OK- but you're making these blanket statements like: 'Republicans voted this way because-' and 'Progs didn't vote that way becuase-" And all I'm saying is the only person you can really say voted 'abc' because 'xyz' is yourself. The rest is speculation- and that's what I was doing- speculating.
I agree Miller spewed a lot of Bullshit- I don't know much about Dwyer except she tried to ride some anti-gay marriage backlash with the whole 'take back VT campaign.'
Ever see the "Take Vermont from Behind" stickers? Those were mine.
The republicans blew a golden opportunity with that one. If they had nominated anyone other than Dwyer (for a second time, no less!), Dean would have lost. People were pissed. I was living in Danville then and every other house had a 'Remember in November' sign on the lawn.
I imagine that having one of those stickers on your car was fine, until you left Burlington. I don't imaging stopping for gas in Bethel would have been very pleasant!
So you're saying they're a bunch of homophobic bigots in Danville and Bethel?
"The take VT from Behind" sticker was a joke meant to poke fun at everybody- The 'take back VT' crowd and the 'Take VT forward' crowd. The gays and the straights and everybody in between. As with many of my jokes, a lot of people didn't get it.
The Take Back Vermont campaign was not an anti-gay marriage campaign. It was made into that - very effectively I might add - by the liberals who wanted to thwart a citizen uprising against their growing centralized power.
It was about getting back to the local democracy that was traditionally Vermont. It was about act 250 and act 60, among other things. Granted, the court decision that led to civil unions was a factor, but only because it was another example of the erosion of local democratic control.
I was just trying to find something to back my statements up and I found a good article written in November3, 2000. You should read it, if you care to know the truth about that movement.
Link
Funny how two people can read the same thing in such different ways.
To me the piece you linked to seems to reinforce the idea the the 'take back VT' campaign was pretty much based on homophobia, with a little of acts 250 and 60 thrown in as fig leafs to take the edge off the hate message.
Thanks for looking it up though. There was some good historical stuff in it.
"Yes. It sounded stupid and; Yes. It could be an effective slogan"
So you think a "stupid" slogan will resonate with Burlington's citizens? Sounds like you're pretty out of synch with your own town, good thing you'll never hold public office here again.
" So you're saying they're a bunch of homophobic bigots in Danville and Bethel?"
No, but your chances of trouble are probably higher there, or in any small town.
I saw those stickers as a gay thing, and I suspect most other people did too.
Also, having a gay lifestyle is one thing, but flaunting it is another, especially in a hick town. You're asking for trouble.
"good thing you'll never hold public office here again."
You gonna stop me, Jackass? You don't even have a name.
Haik, I think he or she probably does actually have a name in real life.
"You gonna stop me, Jackass?"
No, all but maybe five voters will take care of that if you're masochistic enough to run again. By the way, on behalf of your theoretical opponent, PLEASE run again.
"Haik, I think he or she probably does actually have a name in real life."
Don't confuse him, he might throw another tantrum and delete all his posts again.
Good point. One name. One vote. If I ran for something and this douche bag wanted to make me lose, then he, she or it would have to come out of the shadows and oppose me openly. I doubt that would happen.
"Funny how two people can read the same thing in such different ways."
I did not write those comments in response to that piece. I wrote those comments and then went looking for another source that said something similar to me.
I remember the time. That movement was brewing before CUs, maybe not by that name, I'm not sure. It was turned into an anti-gay thing, but that is not what it was about.
I really don't care what gay people do. That is not an issue I care about in the least, but it is frustrating when a court starts handing out mandates to the legislature. It's not right. Even if the court is right that gay people should have the right to marry, or civilly unite, it is wrong for the court to have that kind of unchecked power.
Five voters? You ARE confusing me. Whatever. I wish you the best.
"One vote. If I ran for something and this douche bag wanted to make me lose, then he, she or it would have to come out of the shadows and oppose me openly."
Now why would I need to bother with that when you've been so busy writing campaign material that ANY opponent could beat you with:
"When I was there public forum was one of my least favorite parts of the meetings. Nine out of ten people who speak say totally useless and irrelvant things. I remember thinking often how much I just wanted to scream "Just Shut-Up you f*ckin' Idiot!" to whomever was flappin' his or her gums."
Sounds like a winner to me!
Haik, I just re-read that link and I do not see the homophobia there. Care to elaborate?
Well, it's subtle but the author Robert Maynard points out that procration by opposite sex couples is the reason for government sanction of marriage. He uses the word "subsidy" which I don't fully understand- but I read it as interchangable with sanction.
In a nutshell, the idea is to prevent a break up of the relationship and the possible abandonment of children.
Then he goes on to say Civil Unions insist "that an equal subsidy be given to those who are engaging in relationships that are purely a matter of private concern."
He avoids discussing cases where couples in a traditional marriage can't or don't reproduce, and cases where same sex couples adopt or bring biological children with them into the new family unit. In the latter cases it would be false to argue said relationships are "purely a matter of private concern."
From that selective discussion of the realities of different relationships in the context of the state's interest in the stable raising of Kokos, er, children- I'm teasing out homophobic motives.
It might be considered a stretch to call it that way- but I bet there are those who would think I'm dead on.
Thanks for asking me to explain, though. It shows a sense of fairness on your part that you did.
"Sounds like a winner to me!"
You never know, anonymous. Some people might like that kind of talk. Bob the Optimizer seemed to agree with me on that one.
Besides- say I run for the school board in five years. Are you going to be the whacko who digs up my old blog comments and tries to destroy me with them? Are you printing them all now and saving them for that purpose?
If you are, you got problems.
"Some people might like that kind of talk."
Yeah, "vote for me, you pack of slobbering idiots," that's a bold new direction in political sloganeering.
Just keep talking, "comment deleted." I'm sure no one will remember any of it.
Haik, I think he was referring to the purpose that marriage was originally made for. I think the subsidy part comes from the tax benefits that one receives for being married, in addition to things like social security survivor benefits for a spouse raising a child of the deceased.
I think he was coming from was the belief that originally, marriage was not just about love and commitment; it was an institution that fostered a stable family for children to grow up in.
This whole "any two people who love each other should be able to get married" thing changes the meaning and purpose of marriage.
As a society, we have chosen to support children and families, but should we be in the business of governing private relationships? (I think that was his point.)
I think a valid criticism (as you pointed out) would be that there are same-sex couples who child rear. Shouldn't their children have the same financial benefits and securities that children of hetero-sexual couples have? And if a heterosexual couple cannot or does not want to have children, should they still have the benefits of marriage?
Isn’t it more productive to just raise these points instead of just accusing people of being homophobic? (That’s not just you, but the whole pro-gay marriage movement.)
Interesting side note: the Catholic Church used to not marry couples that knew they could not have children. I am not sure if that is still the case because I am not Catholic. As an institution, marriage was about procreation. That is factual, not homophobic.
One could easily argue that it no longer is, though.
"The Take Back Vermont campaign was not an anti-gay marriage campaign. It was made into that - very effectively I might add - by the liberals who wanted to thwart a citizen uprising against their growing centralized power."
Apparently, you don't get out very much. I was at Tunbridge Fair in 2000, working at the Vt. Freedom to Marry table, in the same tent a few feet from the Take Back Vermont people. They weren't just selling the signs. They had every homophobic, filthy, ignorant anti-gay bumptersticker you could imagine. People were parading their kids to the table to witness it. This was Ruth Dwyer's base and if she had denounced them, as she should have, she would have been an also ran. And since she didn't she's the lowest of the low.
To Charity-
Isn’t it more productive to just raise these points instead of just accusing people of being homophobic?
Yes. Yes it is.
To anonymous-
Just keep talking, "comment deleted." I'm sure no one will remember any of it.
I deleted the second comment because I accidently hit 'submit' twice.
You know- whoever you are, you seem to burn a lot of energy thinking about ways to insult me, to try to hurt my feelings and to notice and comment on every little thing I say and do in the blogosphere-
What's your problem? Did I do something to you? Why are you so obsessed with me?
You're like this sick, cowardly anonymous stalker who is secretly in love with me and too emotionally retarded to express it in any rational or mature way- so you take your silly, angry shots at the things I write.
You used to actually rile me up. Now I just feel sorry for you. You're pretty pathetic.
You should probably get a life, but odds are you won't, or can't, and we'll just continue the way we have been- me being myself and you hiding behind your shroud of cowardice and taking mean spirited shots at me. That's fine.
I just want you to know you don't bother me anymore. I don't wish you ill. I feel bad for you and really hope you get better.
Okay, anonymous person, I should have said "The Take Back Vermont campaign was not an anti-gay marriage campaign. It was made into that - very effectively I might add - by the liberals who wanted to thwart a citizen uprising against their growing centralized power. And the anti-gay faction of the state that co-opted the movement did little to change that view of it with their inappropriate language regarding the gay and lesbian community."
My point is that there was reason to "Take Back Vermont" from the anti-democratic forces centralizing the power in Montpelier that have nothing to do with civil unions. It is really too bad that the whole campaign was swallowed up by that issue.
For the record, I did not vote for Dwyer. As much as I disliked Dean, I found her offensive. I think that someone could have defeated Dean while condemning the anti-gay rhetoric, if that person focused on the issue of returning to self-government. But, who can say?
And I am sorry that you experienced such hate. That is not what I am all about and I was in no way defending that.
"I deleted the second comment because I accidently hit 'submit' twice."
Wow, you "hit submit twice" a lot, don't you?
"so you take your silly, angry shots at the things I write."
Gee, who called whose comment "stupid" to start this? My comments are on topic, you ought to try it sometime.
Don't think about pink elephants.
Complaining about someone going 'off topic' is no more 'on topic' than the thing you're complaining about.
"Complaining about someone going 'off topic' is no more 'on topic' than the thing you're complaining about."
At least try paying a visit to the topic once per thread before starting your daily insecurity rant, you might find it just as therapeutic.
Post a Comment