(This one still has some mojo, as evidenced by the comments.   – promoted by JDRyan)

I’ve cross-posted this to Daily Kos, so some of the info is a bit redundant to anyone who is familiar with Vermont politics

So here’s the situation: in Vermont, we have a Republican Governor who is not unpopular, but also could be vulnerable.

We also have a member of the Progressive Party who has run for the governor’s seat before, but never came close to winning.  In 2000, a three-way election between Howard Dean (D), Anthony Pollina (P) and Ruth Dwyer (R) was a close call: Dean won with 50.4% of the vote.  Dwyer got 37.9% and Pollina got 9.5%.  

That doesn’t sound like a close call, but in Vermont, if a governor doesn’t receive 50% of the vote, the legislature gets to chose the outcome of the race, and at in that election, Republicans took over the legislature.  In other words, we came very close to having a Republican hold the seat with more than 10% less of the vote than the Democratic candidate.

So now we’re in a similar position, but possibly reversed: our current Republican governor, Republican Governor is running for re-election.  Pollina is showing a strong interest in running.  We are likely to have a Democratic candidate (if not a primary) but do not have one yet.

The question, in short, is How do you solve a problem like Pollina?I will state up front: my primary interest here is seeing a left-winger in the governor’s seat.  If we can successfully do that with a progressive, I’m okay with that, but I don’t see that as likely.  I think it’s much more likely that if anyone can win that seat, it’s going to be a Democrat.  My allegiance with the Democratic party is a pragmatic one.  I like the theory of third parties, but I don’t like the idea of losing races because of them.  

So for me, I think it’s important that we make this a genuine two-person race, and we make it a realistic one, one that actually has a chance of putting someone in the governor’s office who’s not a Republican.  But I also don’t want to be telling progressives that they have no business running a candidate.  I’d like 1-2-3 voting as an option, but we don’t have that for now.  In the meantime, we’ve got a statewide political party (the Progressive party) which has fielded candidates on multiple occasions, and while never winning statewide office, has successfully won several legislative seats.  

They’re a good party and upholding ideals that Democrats should be upholding, and I think they have every right to run a governor’s candidate.  And yet, I can’t help but think that I’d rather they didn’t run a candidate this time around.

I should also note: Vermont always has multiple candidates running, but that usually includes two different marijuana legalization candidates because, apparently, there was some sort of schism there.  Among the Governor’s debates here, there’s sometimes one that includes all the candidates, many of whom seem to be busily outdoing one another for the “craziest person in the room” award, which almost always ends with the woman who likes to talk about government cover-up of UFOs and reminds me of the woman on the Simpsons with all the cats.

So the thing is, if Pollina runs, it’s probably going to end up costing the Democratic contender some votes, and probably enough to cost the election.  And in theory, I want him to be able to run just like any other candidate, but in practice, I just don’t see it working to anyone’s advantage but the incumbent.  

Has anyone else had similar problems in their own states?  How do you handle it without presenting it as though you have the right to run candidates for the sole virtue of being a Democrat and other people from other parties don’t?  Pollina’s a threat to the Democrats because his party is strong enough to cost them votes but not strong enough to win on his own.  It’s to their credit that their party is that strong, but it doesn’t actually help us get a leftie into the Governor’s office.

I’m really torn here about how best to approach this without being elitist and without being patronizing towards Progressives.  

Thoughts?  Comments?  Suggestions?

1. Pollina has yet to declare his candidacy.  Just because he’s considering running doesn’t make him a candidate;





2. Douglas’ incumbency is both an advantage and a disadvantage.  The advantage is primarily inertia.  the disadvantage is that when you run against a man who’s been doing his job for seven years, you’ve got a lot more ammunition to do against him than if he’s a new candidate;




3. Doug Racine is a gifted public speaker and has a real sense of humor that makes him a much stronger candidate than the last two challengers for Douglas;

I’m not advocating for or against Pollina entering the race, but if he’s serious about courting Democrats, why doesn’t he run in the Democratic primary?  Let’s have a two person race for the top slot, but take some time to do some vetting of the candidates before the general election.  That will take care of spoiler concerns, but also give us a chance to see how he is as a candidate this time around and see if he can get support beyond his own party?  

One final note: I’m writing about Racine here, because he’s the candidate I favor, but I’m not suggesting no other Democrats enter.  I don’t see any problem with a 2- or 3-way primary.

Brattleboro Vermont resident Kurt Daims has drafted a ballot question petition calling for the town to indict George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for crimes against the Constitution, and making it the law that if either man comes to town, he would be liable to arrest.

Some will say that this is just another unenforceable ordinance at best, and an absurdity at worst. Others worry that it will detract from the gravity of the impeachment movement as it stands today, on the cusp of forcing hearings in the House Judiciary committee. The argument will be made that such “extreme” rhetorical proclamations only serve to divide us further from each other, marginalizing the demand for accountability, rather than promoting it.

Upon reflection these arguments can be answered and laid to rest.

To date, the most persuasive and productive arguments for impeachment have been based upon the Constitution, which is suffering most egregiously under this administration and Congress, and which expressly proscribes the remedy to be taken should these circumstances arise. And while these arguments are making headway in the halls of Congress, where impeachment must happen, the politicians who are supposed to represent us do not yet understand the depth and breadth of our disgust and dismay with their dereliction of duty. While a growing number have joined the call for impeachment, far too many are towing the identical Republican/Democratic party line of ignoring the Bush/Cheney administration’s repeated constitutional violations.

When we last faced a King George who labored to: “subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution” by: “depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury: For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses”, when we last found that “our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury”, we knew what conclusion to draw: “A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” These of course are quotes from the Declaration of Independence. And when this document was solemnly signed and made public, it had no legal standing whatsoever. It had no chance of succeeding against the world’s greatest empire. It alienated the colonists still friendly to England. It drew a line that clearly demarcated the divide that already existed in colonial society. Those who signed it were branded as radicals and, in fact, made outlaws by virtue of their signatures.

Independence was declared because the laws and actions of the government were violating the laws of nature and common morality. As members of a commonweal, colonists understood that it was their inherent right, if not duty, to rise in defense of societal standards of humanity, decency and fairness. Mr. Daims and others who drafted the Brattleboro Bush/Cheney Indictment are acting in the same spirit, and with the same moral authority as our founders did in 1776.

Prosecutors in France, Spain and many other countries have issued indictments for crimes against humanity committed outside of their borders, without regard to the nationality of the perpetrator. In some cases, prosecutors have won arrests, extraditions and prosecutions. Why shouldn’t Brattleboro give precedence to Constitutional, American and International law, rather than bow to political expediency and a misplaced desire to not rock the boat? The boat has already foundered. The nation is already divided. Our political leaders have debased themselves and rendered our Republic dysfunctional.

Let us support this call for an indictment. Let Brattleboro show the nation that in the current course of events, it has become necessary for Americans to take action. The current government respects neither the Constitution nor the people. Let us represent ourselves.

Dan DeWalt