This is the final series of responses from the five Democratic candidates for Governor to the questionnaire sent to them by GMD. These, and all the questions we asked, had their genesis in this diary from last summer, as well as emails from readers. The questions were cleaned up and refined a bit, to streamline the process and make it as inclusive of all the suggestions as possible.
The final questions below are a bit more Democratic-voter "inside baseball," as they concern the primary process - including how each candidate intends to help the winner, if in fact they are not the one chosen to face the Republican candidate in November.
And again, some candidates' responded question by question. Other times candidates would take all the questions under a given category and write a collective response encompassing all the questions. In some categories, candidates would respond by combining some questions and not others. As such, the questionnaires are presented as follows: under each category, all the questions we asked are listed as bullets. At the end of each category, the candidates' complete answers are presented (in alphabetical order by candidate). If the candidate answered each specific question, their answers are numbered accordingly. If their answers are not numbered, that indicates a generalized response to all the questions collectively.
In addition to the questions below, we also asked if the candidates would be willing to take part in a live forum or debate sponsored by GMD at some later date. All candidates indicated they would, so that possibility remains on the table.
A national survey released by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities shows substantial levels of public support for the passage of federal climate and energy policies. Although there has been a drop in the public sense of urgency surrounding global warming, support remains. According to this poll majorities spanning party affiliation support many of these policies.
The survey found support for:
• Funding more research on renewable energy, such as solar and wind power (85 percent)
• Tax rebates for people buying fuel-efficient vehicles or solar panels (82 percent)
• Establishing programs to teach Americans how to save energy (72 percent)
• Regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (71 percent)
• School curricula to teach children about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions to global warming (70 percent)
• Signing an international treaty that requires the United States to cut emissions of carbon dioxide 90 percent by the year 2050 (61 percent)
• Establishing programs to teach Americans about global warming (60 percent).
These findings are reminiscent of polls early in the healthcare reform debate that showed broad cross party support. Healthcare support was never capitalized on effectively as the healthcare legislation lurched and stumbled its way through the legislative process.
A similar lurch and stumble scenario may be playing out again with these issues. This poll reports that majorities of Republicans and Democrats support renewable energy research, tax rebates, regulating carbon dioxide, and expanding offshore drilling for oil and natural gas.
However it also shows that...
Sixty percent of Americans, however, said they have heard “nothing at all” about the cap-and-trade legislation currently being considered by Congress. Only 12 percent had heard “a lot.”
(Just moving this up as a reminder; the show's Saturday night. - promoted by JulieWaters)
This benefit concert is for the Greater Falls Warming Shelter. Featured performers include Jesse Peters, Derrik Jordan, Vermont Timbre (Mike Mrowicki & Amelia Struthers) and Julie Waters.
It will take place at Emmanuel Episcopal Church (Stone Church) at 20 Church Street in Bellows Falls, VT. It starts at 8. Admission is by donation.
To me, music is transformative, and concerts like this illustrate that better than anything else I can think of; as musicians, we play, hopefully for money, but often just to be out there and share our craft. There's something about shows like this which push us to think about our music not just in terms of what we can get from it, but what we can give with it as well.
Music is a creative process, but not everyone follows their muse without getting scathed in some form. Some of our most talented musicians have, at some point in their lives, ended up destitute, homeless or otherwise separated from the rest of society. This concert is one small way some of us can honor those among us whose who have fallen from their expected path and who too often fall through the cracks, discarded by the world around them.
This is the third diary of responses from the five Democratic candidates for Governor to the questionnaire sent to them by GMD - and yes, we said there would only be three, but there will be a fourth, likely posted on Sunday.
Once again, the questions had their genesis in this diary from last summer, as well as emails from readers (the questions did undergo a certain amount of "processing" to clean up and consolidate them a bit).
The topics addressed in part 3 are SOCIAL SERVICES, and our catch-all category RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT (generally).
A reminder of how to read the responses. The questions were presented under general categories. Some candidates' responded question by question. Other times candidates would take all the questions under a given category and write a collective response encompassing all the questions. In some categories, candidates would respond by combining some questions and not others.
As such, the questionnaires are presented as follows: under each category, all the questions we asked are listed as bullets. At the end of each category, the candidates' complete answers are presented (in alphabetical order by candidate). If the candidate answered each specific question, their answers are numbered accordingly. If their answers are not numbered, that indicates a generalized response to all the questions collectively.
So follow us below the flip for the candidates' responses to this third of four rounds. Then come back soon for the truly final questions concerning the 2010 ELECTION PROCESS.
I'd like to deliver a word of advice to some of you all - especially a few folks in the Senate.
Now I know you want to be pragmatic about Vermont Yankee. And I know that pragmatism is a relative thing in politics. Obviously if it were absolute, there'd be no question. VY is past its expiration date by any measure, its record of problems is large, they've lied to you about their operations and they have a radioactive leak they still can't find after weeks. Add to that the fact that they're proposing power for Vermonters at a rate currently higher than the open market price, and for only 11% of our state's demand. Far from the "third of our power" they provided in the past (and that we keep hearing about). There's no part of objective pragmatism that wants any of that deal.
But again, "political" pragmatism is a relative thing - and it's relative to where you feel the public is. If there are two sides, you all often feel the pragmatic place is in the middle - and its because that "pragmatism" is about prospects for supporting your further electoral ambitions. Hey, you might get to run for Governor someday!
So here's another factor to consider in your electoral pragmatism calculus.
Cancer rates may not be up around Vermont Yankee yet, but that will change now that this stuff is getting into the groundwater. We all know that. The tritium level increased dramatically today, and that's going to start having an impact on public health - and those effects may start cropping up right about the time you might want to run for Governor, or Lt. Gov, or US House, or whatever. There will be sick kids. It's not hard to read the future on this. We all know where this is going.
So there will be sickness. Cancers. And then there will be campaign commercials from your primary opponents (and you can be certain there will be primary opponents - we will see to that). And those ads will remind viewers that, when you had the chance to put a stop to this, you didn't. Because you thought worrying about cancer rates among Vermonters wasn't important. Wasn't responsible. And those ads will run on the TV and the radio and the newspapers over and over and over.
So you may want to ask yourselves again what the "pragmatic" thing to do vis-a-vis Vermont Yankee is.
It appears that a long-standing injustice done to some of Vermont's most vulnerable populations in the early part of the 20th century is about to be officially acknowledged at last. The Burlington Free Press reported today that the Legislature took testimony from a few of the descendents of those vicitimized in the Vermont Eugenics Project, pursuant to issuing an apology to the wronged communities. Had the project achieved it's goal of sterilizing all but those who came from "the fine old stock of original settlers," there would be no descendents to offer that testimony today. It is a shame and a cloud of disgrace that hangs over the past of both the state and it's premier university, since it was under the influence of a UVM Dean of Zoology, Henry F. Perkins, that the legislature undertook this ignoble adventure, following the preliminary "studies" in the 1920's.
The UVM website devoted to the topic has an oddly understated tone, considering the volatility of its subject. Nancy L. Gallagher, who is credited on the website, has written a detailed history of the experiment entitled "Breeding Better Vermonters: The Vermont Eugenics Project." A friend loaned me this UVM publication several years ago because I was completely ignorant on the subject. In all the twenty some years I had lived in Vermont, no one had previously mentioned this particular piece of regional history to me. Quite an eye-opener.
Vermont was by no means unique in this perfidious action. When, in 1931, Vermont passed it's own sterilization law, it was the 27th state to do so.
(Continuing the policy of promoting diaries from officeholders and officeseekers, with some copy bumped below the fold. - promoted by odum)
Hey GMD: Today, I sent out an email to my supporters. Wanted to make sure you had a chance to be involved too.
Papers across Vermont and across the country are reporting on the troubling radiation leaks at Vermont Yankee. While Vermont’s water and land are being poisoned by high levels of tritium, our governor’s response is to call for a "timeout."
A timeout?! We don't need a timeout; we need a "No" vote, and we need it now! It’s time to close Vermont Yankee.
Before you get frustrated, take a look at another thing: The map below. 231 Vermonters from across the state have signed onto this petition. Every day we gain more momentum. Now, it is time to deliver.
(Continuing the policy of promoting diaries from officeholders and officeseekers, with some copy bumped below the fold - promoted by odum)
In a state known for optimism, cynicism is growing in Vermont. What used to be concerns about just Washington, DC are now coming to the Green Mountain State. Corporations misleading regulators and a perceived revolving door between the administration and embattled companies are creating uncertainty about the positive political traditions in our state.
Vermonters have tried to do something about these concerns. In the 90's, I was proud to be a part of passing comprehensive campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court threw out our laws. More recently, this same Court took the egregious step of deciding that corporations have the unlimited ability to influence elections.
Vermont candidates have also attempted to set standards for transparency, including Governor Douglas' repeated calls for financial disclosure by candidates running for statewide office. While many of us did not like the way it transpired, one thing was clear: Vermonters wanted that transparency.
All of this comes at a time when we are entering a very competitive campaign season for Vermont statewide offices. We currently have no laws on the books establishing campaign contribution limits, companies like Entergy that have enormous interest in the outcome of the race have been told they can spend as much as they want on influencing this election, and we have no laws outlining what and when a candidate should disclose about his or her personal finances. As a result, we find candidates focusing on issues of disclosure when they should be focusing on the other important issues facing our state.
Just a farily obvious example of the Republicans' natural affinity for the bosses. The state decides to issue a new license plate to honor Vermont's war veterans. Who gets the first one? The oldest surviving WWII veteran? The most highly decorated Vermont veteral from each of the wars honored by the license plate?
This is the second diary of responses from the five Democratic candidates for Governor to the questionnaire sent to them by GMD. Once again, the questions had their genesis in this diary from last summer, as well as emails from readers (the questions did undergo a certain amount of "processing" to clean up and consolidate them a bit).
The topics addressed in part 2 are PERMITTING, AGRICULTURE, HEALTH CARE, and EDUCATION.
A reminder of how to read the responses. The questions were presented under general categories. Some candidates' responded question by question. Other times candidates would take all the questions under a given category and write a collective response encompassing all the questions. In some categories, candidates would respond by combining some questions and not others.
As such, the questionnaires are presented as follows: under each category, all the questions we asked are listed as bullets. At the end of each category, the candidates' complete answers are presented (in alphabetical order by candidate). If the candidate answered each specific question, their answers are numbered accordingly. If their answers are not numbered, that indicates a generalized response to all the questions collectively.
So follow us below the flip for the candidates' responses to this second of three rounds. Then come back on Friday for the final questions covering SOCIAL SERVICES, the 2010 ELECTION PROCESS, and a broad range of other questions collectively bannered as RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT (generally).
This benefit concert is for the Greater Falls Warming Shelter. Featured performers include Jesse Peters, Derrik Jordan, Vermont Timbre (Mike Mrowicki & Amelia Struthers) and Julie Waters.
