June 16, 2005

TAKE BACK VERMONT:

Vermont Lt. Gov. Dubie eyes House, Senate races (Jonathan Singer, 6/14/05, The Hill)

Vermont Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie is being pulled in two directions — by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who would like him to run for the House, and by Senate Republicans urging him to seek the seat being vacated by Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.).

Hastert met earlier this month in Vermont with Dubie while the Speaker was attending a fundraiser for Republicans. Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is leaving the House to run for Jeffords’s seat.

Meanwhile, Dubie was expected to be in Washington yesterday attending a candidate school organized by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) also contacted Dubie, lobbying the Vermonter to run for the Senate seat. Brownback spokesman Aaron Groote did not return calls.

Dubie said in an interview that White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card had called him but did not say what race, if any, Card urged him to enter.

“There are opportunities in both the Senate and the Congress, and I don’t want to close any doors,” said Dubie, who is also a pilot for American Airlines and a colonel in the Air Force Reserve.


Strange how little the national party has done to exploit the wide cultural divide that has opened in Vermont.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 16, 2005 5:17 PM
Comments

1 house seat, 2 senators, 3 electoral votes - Vermont is but crumb on the American poltical plate.

Though taking the senate seat should be priority for the party obviously.

Posted by: Shelton at June 16, 2005 6:33 PM

Agreed - a Senate seat is far more valuable than a House seat under present circumstances.

Posted by: obc at June 16, 2005 6:59 PM

oj: what is the "wide cultural divide" that you describe? Americans know Vermont to be a Ben&Jerrys socialist commune.

Posted by: John J. Coupal at June 16, 2005 7:35 PM

John:

The GOP took back one house of the legislature and the governorship because older Vermonters resent the flatlanders--property taxes, environmental permitting & civil unions. Had the national paryt spent the money they'd have beat Bernie in '94 over the assault weapons bill.

Posted by: oj at June 16, 2005 8:30 PM

Lots of Republicans won in '94 only to lose in '96 (like the seat in Raleigh, NC - now held by David Price). Sanders might have been beaten in '94, but he would have won again two years later.

6 years trumps 2, especially when trying for 59 or 60 seats. But the GOP should by all means fight in Vermont - taking the battle forward. It will only expose how bankrupt the Democrats (for the most part) are.

And every GOP candidate for any office should run Durbin's little speech from the Senate floor in ads both in 2006 and 2008.

"Here is the Senate Minority Whip, slandering the US military and aiding the murderous enemies of the American people".

Drive the stake in all the way.

Posted by: jim hamlen at June 16, 2005 10:16 PM

incumbents never lose in VT--the gun thing gave them a unique shot

Posted by: oj at June 16, 2005 10:37 PM

And in 2006 there will be no incumbents running.

Posted by: obc at June 17, 2005 12:17 AM

Taking back Vermont would be great for precisely the reason that Mr Coupal unknowingly gives. The majority of Americans think of Vermont as a bastion of left-wing moonbatism that always has been and always will be. Taking back an alleged liberal stronghold like Vermont may not mean much in terms of numbers, but in terms of the perception of Democrat unbeatability in blue states it would be huge.

Posted by: Governor Breck at June 17, 2005 7:09 AM
« CRANKIN': | Main | TODAY I AM A MAN: »