I guess I just don’t understand Peter Shumlin anymore. I suppose I never did. I can come up with one “unified field theory” for the “Shumlin whiplash” effect described by Philip Baruth (first we oppose the Governor’s education scheme, then we’re putting it into legislation at the last minute – first we’re hammering Vermont Yankee on their sweetheart tax deal, then we’re taking a pass – we can’t even discuss the gay marriage issue in the session, then we’re all for it – impeachment, well…). All I can figure that makes sense is that he has poor impulse control. That instead of having all these conversations in his head – y’know, the kind of back and forths that we all engage in – he’s playing them out in the wide open for everyone to ride along with.

(Let me be perfectly clear about something. Although I have no doubt I irk him, I’ve always liked Peter a lot. I’m not one to personalize these sorts of concerns, and I’ve never doubted that his heart is in the right place. I just want badly for him to be successful and effective. We all need him to be. Symington as well. Those who get understandably frustrated need to realize there are no pretenders waiting in the wings come January, so to advance our agenda, we have to make these two relevant and impactful, sometimes despite themselves)

The latest from Shumlin is another big, Jon Stewart-style “whaa…?” According to Freyne, the same Shumlin who has been pushing the notion of Republican Senator Vince Illuzzi running for Governor is now encouraging Progressive Party standard-bearer (and old Shumlin electoral nemesis) Anthony Pollina to get into the race (lemme hearya say “whaaa…?”)

Freyne:

Progressive State Rep. David Zuckerman of Burlington told yours truly that Shumlin first broached the subject of a Pollina nomination last April.

“He came up to me at an event in Montpelier,” said Zuckerman, “and said we’ve really got to talk about how we’re going to get rid of Jim Douglas, and I think Anthony Pollina should really consider running.”

Rep. Zuckerman said Sen. Shumlin also called him a couple months later.

Shumlin “was still interested but didn’t want to be public about it, since he’d been doing so much public work about getting Vince [Illuzzi] to run. Shumlin was calculating and trying to figure out who the best candidate to beat Jim Douglas would be.”

Jane! Stop this crazy thiiiiing..!!!

…ahem…

On the one hand, you’ve got to admire Shumlin’s selflessness. This goes completely against the nasty narrative of Shumlin being all about Shumlin. It’s gotta take a lot of humility to make such a call and put such a suggestion out there, given his history with Pollina. Anyone fixated on that narrative of the guy is going to be forced to re-evaluate it, unless they are determined to carry a chip on their shoulder.

On the other hand… well… sheesh. Y’gotta wonder if Shumlin has so lost faith in his own party that he assumes anybody but a Democrat can defeat Douglas. That’s a serious institutional self-loathing message there, and people are going to start questioning whether the guy is serious about his party, or if he’s casting himself as a party of one.

But what about the merits of a Pollina run? Clearly in a three-way race, Pollina comes in third (unless that three-way is Douglas-Pollina-Illuzzi, in which case he comes in a distant second). We have the historical data on that, and the dynamics – if anything – are less favorable to third parties now than they were closer to the turn of the millenium.

Pollina as a unity candidate is a different story, though – and one not without precedent. The legendary Dem-basher himself ran under the Democratic banner waaaaay back in the eighties (and that didn’t go so well).

Nevertheless, I don’t see it.

Don’t get me wrong. I wish it were a viable option. I worked on Peter Clavelle’s campaign, and a big reason I was an early booster for the Mayor’s candidacy was precisely to build a bridge between the Dems and Progs. Clavelle was a far better candidate for that in the sense that he had built bridges between the Progs (and himself) and Democrats – even among the center-right, who respected his tremendous success in Burlington. His executive experience was second to none among possible contenders. Still, a big part of the problem was that the “Prog” label proved to be more of an albatross than I’d ever imagined. There were a lot of dug-in, hardcore moderate Dems who simply wouldn’t consider him, and he could never bridge the trust issue with them. In the end, he very nearly split the difference between Pollina’s strongest statewide result and Democrat Doug Racine’s previous contest with Douglas.

In terms of final election numbers, for a Prog he ran spectacularly well. For a Dem, he ran poorly. The rest is history, but it’s history that would likely be a Pollina campaign’s best-possible-case scenario.

Then there’s the fact that I doubt he’d do it. Let’s put aside for a moment the intractable moderate Democrats (read: Weeniecrats), and look at the mainstream left only; that is, Progressives and liberal Dems.

Pollina is a partisan warrior, and would be thrilled to have the left unite under his banner – but make no mistake, it would be a Progressive banner, and that would then limit him further. If he could be talked into splitting the difference (so to speak) and running as an Independent, he’d have better chances.

The problem is that liberal Dems and Progs have very different reasons for not being each other. This is a generalization, of course, so bear with me, but I thnk there’s truth in it. Dems (again, I’m talking liberal ones at this point) are usually “not Progs” for pragmatic reasons; the spoiler argument, their analysis of the political system, etc.

On the other hand, Progs are usually “not Dems” for moral reasons; Dems are bad guys, no different from Republicans, corporate stooges, etc.

I’ve found its a lot easier to talk people around their preconceived notions of pragmatism, as its an intellectual process. If you can convinvingly change the equation, you can change people’s minds.

Talking people out of their preconceived morality is a whole ‘nuther kettle of fish. As such, I suspect liberal Dems will be much more open to the idea of someone like Pollina running with their institutional support than Pollina will be about running (at least partially) under their institutional banner.

I’d like to be wrong about that. And these are obviously generalizations. Clavelle took the leap 100%, but Clavelle has always been less partisan, ultimately seeing political parties as a means to an end. That sounds crass, but it’s not. I think it’s proper. There’s nothing sacred about the Democratic Party in my eyes – it is simply my reasoned opinion that, under our political system – it remains the only meaningful electoral vehicle for promoting progressive change. I have no problem saying that the Democratic Party is, for me, simply a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.

To many Progs – and I suspect Pollina is among them – the Progressive Party (and its “ultimate campaign finance reform goal” of supplanting the Democratic Party) is not a means to an end, but constitutes an end in itself.

And that makes for a big, big cavernous divide between the liberal Democratic left and the Progressive Party faithful.

I checked the NY Times this morning and guess what?  They've gotten ridden of their annoying Times Select (paid service for access to interesting articles and columns)!!!  Now I can get annoyed by Thomas Friedman again!!!

UPDATE: The vote to restore habeus was blocked. No doubt you won’t hear the word “filibuster” from the traditional media, though, as that seems to be a derisive word reserved for Democratic actions…

Senator Leahy has been the leading (sometimes the only) Washington voice calling for the restoration of habeus corpus rights to those deemed “enemy combatants” by the Bush administration (which, depending on how the vaguely worded legislation is interpreted, could mean anybody – US citizens included).

Connecticut Senator and Presidential candidate Chris Dodd has also been pushing the matter. Emails have been coming out of Leahy's “Green Mountain PAC”, and most recently his “Leahy for Vermont” campaign fund promoting the “Habeus Corpus Restoration Act.” Here's an example:

As of right now, we're just a handful of votes away from the 60 votes we need to overcome the Republican filibuster.

That's where you come in.  We've developed an online tool to help you call your Senators, urge them to support the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, and then report back on where they stand so we can track our progress towards 60 votes.

First of all – let's make no mistake, this is very cool, and unbelieveably important. Where the tool is designed to direct voters to their Senators (by their count, they are 9 short of the 60 needed for a cloture vote) – and obviously Vermonters have their Senators covered – it's still an opportunity to be a “citizen co-sponsor,” so it's worth clicking on, and being redirected to Restore-Habeus.org.

But behind the message is an interesting subtext. Restore-Habeus.org is, as the disclaimer says, “Paid for by Chris Dodd for President, Inc.”

Now, good on Dodd for putting this at the center of his campaign, but its interesting that this campaign website not only features Leahy so prominently, but that Leahy is using his own campaign resources to direct supporters to it. It looks for all the world like a tacit endorsement of his fellow liberal New England Democratic Senator's presidential run. On the other hand, Senator Leahy was also recently at the big Obama fundraiser, helping the Junior Senator from Illinois raise some campaign cash. What gives?

There's no telling whether or not Leahy plans to make an endorsement in the Presidential Primary, but these two actions suggest he won't – that instead, he'll simply lend support to colleagues when asked.

Still, one wonders then, if we don't see similar gestures from Leahy on the behalf of Senators Biden and Clinton, if that doesn't make some sort of statement by omission.