Sometimes it makes sense to restate what it is GMD is doing here, as some people apparently feel a strange compulsion to return day after day, even though they just can’t stand it. You should probably find a way to break that habit, as emails demanding we change to better suit you are a waste of everybody’s time.

This is a Dem-oriented site (not a Dem site), but don’t let that fool you. Other Dems don’t anymore. We are fiercely independent. We push hard on progressive issues and in a fairly routine manner, take our elected officials to task if we don’t like the way they’re behaving. Maybe not always in the same ways as some readers would, or to the degree some might like – but believe me, it’s a lot more than many would prefer. In any event, political institutions are loath to absorb criticism, but the Democratic community has largely taken our measure and learned what to expect. I’d like to believe they are stronger for it, as any institution that is not capable of self-criticism is a sick or dying institution.

But Progressive supporters of Anthony Pollina are clearly, of late, having a hard time with this concept. I don’t know whether it’s that they’re coming late to the show, or whether they’ve seen the criticisms of Democrats on this site for so long, they’ve just assumed – in a “with us or against us” kinda way – that we’re all a bunch of Progressives. Surprise! We’re actually all a bunch of individuals (I know, what a concept).

The left is clearly split in this state in a way it isnt elsewhere. Both the Democrats’ and the Progressives’ capacity for self-criticism have splintered off into the other with the schism, leaving each profoundly unhealthy. For my part, I’ve decided to treat the candidates from each party similarly, while continuing with my own opinion that the system is hardwired to prevent three parties from stably co-existing (hence my Dem-thing). What that means is, I’m gonna criticize them when I think they’re out of line – and out of line can mean anything from being phony, to being hypocritical – or sometimes just being stupid. And yeah, I’m gonna pat them on the back sometimes too, as I’ve done with Dems, Progs – and even, on a couple occasions, Republicans (gasp!). But the fact remains that there’s plenty of phoniness, hypocrisy and stupidity to go around in politics, and if you think what you see as your political “team” is somehow inherently, mystically immune from such institutional inevitabilities, do us all a favor and frequent another website that doesn’t require quite so much critical thinking. Here, try this one.

(UPDATE: I just got invited to tomorrow’s Pollina campaign kick-off event. There’s some more reachin’ out for ya…)

I dunno whether its the season changing or what, but this week does sure seem to be Pollina week. Might as well go with it.

Pollina’s campaign is revving up a bit more, and with it seems to be some real attempts to make some sort of unity thing with Dems work (at least to a point). The fact is, between the sketchy “Democrats for Pollina” and the active reaching out to local party committees, he and his team are making an effort, and that’s worth something. Even in the blogosphere. Although I’d never expect Pollina in a million years to stick his neck out into the mosh pit that is GMD, he did sit down for an interview with Philip over at VDB which should be up soon.

At the risk of being over-the-top in my analogy (bear with me), there’s always been a bit of the Middle East conflict to the whole Dem-Prog thing. You’ve got the Dems who control most of the firepower and infrastructure, and the Progs who are often reduced to electoral guerilla warfare (by playing spoiler, and the like) and who are se existence is predicated on the frequent questioning of the Dems “right to exist” (so to speak) by labeling them as one and the same with the GOP and pushing to supplant them as the “real” leftist party in Vermont. One sign of things being different is the quote atop their website:

“The Republican and Democratic parties are not the same. The Republicans are an extreme right wing party. The Democrats are a centrist party tilting, perhaps, a little bit to the left …”

(Put aside for a moment this quote comes from the same Bernie Sanders who scores lower on ProgressivePunch’s ratings than nearly 10% of the Senate Democrats) That’s a big statement from them – especially to headline like that.

Of course, the “centrist” argument is still a crock that serves their purposes. The thing about the Dems is that they’re all over the map – as Howard Dean likes to call them, a “coalition party.” Spend five minutes on this site or ones like it and you’ll see there are plenty of Dems every bit as leftist as Progs (sometimes moreso, as I’m reminded of Pollina’s own reticence to come out for Civil Unions early in that debate – presumably for fear of alienating his developing NEK support, as well as the fact that the Rural Vermont founder is often concerned about environmental issues only up to the point where they could have any impact on farms). But this illusion that there’s a clean “spectrum” – that if you far enough to the left you turn into a Prog – is a simplistic construct that definitely serves their interest.

But I digress. The fact is, the Progressives are no longer out there actively, personally bashing Ds as they have throughout their history. And what do Progs sound like when they’re not slamming Dems? They sound…well… familiar….

At a Pollina press conference in early Februrary, a Free Press reporter asked:  “All of these ideas have come up here in this building — the capital gains idea the Speaker had, some senators had the idea that the governor needs to work more with the legislature on this bill, as it comes out of Shumlin’s mouth.  It almost looks like you’ve been watching their tapes and coming out and repeating them.”

Pollina’s response: “What I think it is is that I am a Vermonters who’s in touch with people around the state who is more in touch with people outside this building than inside this building and understands what needs to be done and when you talk about this dynamic that goes on between the governor’s office and the legislature and how they’ve had some of this conversation and some of this back and forth, there’s one component that’s missing in the dynamic right now which is a governor who share’s the commitment that the legislature has for a budget that works for Vermonters.  If we just change the occupant of that office across the hall this process would be different.”

Hmm.

On John McCain, compare some of the rhetoric from VDP Chair Ian Carleton & Pollina:

Carleton’s statement: 13 February

Pollina’s statement: 14 February

Carleton:

“On the war, SCHIP and tax cuts, McCain is out of touch with Vermonters and the majority of Americans who are demanding a real change in priorities.”

Pollina:

“Douglas’ appearance today with Sen. John McCain demonstrates just how out of touch he is with Vermonters who want to stop the war in Iraq.”

Carleton:

“As the country slips into recession, Vermonters would like to see the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on endless war instead invested in America’s future investments to create jobs, repair our roads and bridges, build schools and fight disease.”

Pollina:

“Douglas’ appearance today with Sen. John McCain demonstrates just how out of touch he is with Vermonters who want to stop the war in Iraq. And want to start investing again in our local communities and families”

Carleton:

“McCain’s policies offer little more than a third term for President Bush.”

Pollina:

“McCain is a direct link to the past. With most people in Vermont and across the country ready for a change in direction, Douglas is promising us more of the same.”

Carleton:

“While both of Jim Douglas’ chosen candidates George Bush and John McCain are the primary supporters of the grossly mismanaged Iraq War, most Vermonters are ready for a change in priorities ….

Pollina:

“Remember Douglas supported George Bush who brought us the war in Iraq…”

Carleton:

“John McCain never admits that, just like President Bush, he said victory would be easy. Now, McCain says we’ll be there for 100 years, but refuses to say how he plans to pay for it”

Pollina:

“Now Douglas is supporting McCain who says we can expect to be in Iraq for 100 years.”

I guess when Progs aren’t castigating Dems for existing, they sound a lot like… Dems.

Okay, maybe I mock a little, but it does improve prospects for working together.

Of course, there are limits, which suggest the question as to how much of this is sincere, and how much just political necessity. You may remember my own frustrations with the gratuitous Dem-knock (and in the absence – at the time – of any criticism of Douglas) on the Anthonypollina.com website. After a couple days of complaining, it was taken down. But not in response to this blog, as it turns out, as a few days later it returned – but not before Chris Pearson dropped me a heads-up email (with a message to readers of this site):

I wanted to give you a heads up since our site has been the subject  

of some back and forth on your blog.  As you know, campaigns move in  

fits and starts.  After you took us to task for posting the Reformer  

editorial at the top of our News section we added three statements  

Anthony had sent out in the last few weeks which bumped the Reformer  

piece and others.  The site is set up to post the three most recent  

additions.

We are now poised to alter the way it works so we allow two news  

hits, two press statements and two recent letters to the editor.  

When we make this change (later today), the Reformer editorial will  

re-appear.  However, we’ve tried to make it abundantly clear that  

it’s not our language, rather one of the states leading papers.

It was certainly not our desire to slam on the Democrats.  In fact,  

this editorial is incredibly positive about our candidate making  

several points we have made ourselves for many months: asking  

Democrats to treat Anthony like Bernie; pointing out that  

Progressives haven’t run in 2002, 2004 and 2006; mentioning that  

Anthony wasn’t a spoiler in 2002; and finally that Anthony (or  

Galbraith) would be a superior Governor to Jim Douglas.  As you know,  

campaigns wait a lifetime for an editorial this strong.

Please know we are not putting it back because of any desire to fight  

with you or engage in a snippy back and forth with readers of your  

blog.  We are putting it back because the content of the editorial is  

very positive.  I hope you understand and offer this note as a  

courtesy heads up.  I believe you and many Democrats are committed to  

defeating Jim Douglas and look forward to working together as the  

months unfold.

My response:

appreciate the heads up… but… and you knew

there was gonna be a but…

I appreciate the need to put positive stuff out. I

also appreciate the limitations of a cms. Thing is,

though, I also understand the need to control and

finesse message, especially on a campaign website.

There is nothing more important. And – whether or not

you think its fair – there was a message sent to the

casual reader from that snippet – and that message

will re-assert itself with the snippet’s return.

That’s just cause and effect.

But it becomes more than that when you get called on

it… obviously the cms doesn’t put it’s own content

up there, so if you choose to just say “we have no

control” and let the slam stay up… well, as those

Canadians said, “if you choose not to decide, you

still have made a choice.”

My advice- if you’re sincere about not wanting to

alienate Dems with a backhand on your front page,

don’t let the same quote be featured. If the cms just

automatically grabs the first few lines, replace

those lines on the article’s page with something

about how wonderful Anthony is. You can format it

like some sort of a teaser/pull quote on the page, so

it doesn’t look odd. If it’s a choice between grating

on some folks whose votes you need, and spending a

li’l effort not to grate on them, allowing you to

have your cake and eat it too, why not spend the

extra couple minutes?

Look – in all honesty, I held no illusions that you

had changed the website in response to the GMD diary, but I decided

to give you credit anyway, just in the interest of

not rubbing more salt on anything. I’ve decided to

treat Pollina like I do any other left wing

politician – meaning, when I think he’s out of line,

smacking him around a bit, but that doesn’t mean I’m

trying to bring him down.

In any event, tweaking the text really would solve

this little communication-with-Dems problem – and

leaving it will send a message that its a problem you

don’t care about fixing, even if it wouldn’t take any

more than negligible effort.

I honestly wasn’t sure whether he’d just roll his eyes and further ignore this “Dem,” or whether he might hear what I’m saying and spend a modicum of energy to make his point without the appearence of an insult. It was a sort of Ego-vs-Super Ego moment (although, in the interest of full disclosure – everytime I have sent any kind of “if you’re serious about reaching out to Dems, you might try…” message to Team Pollina, its been ignored, so I wasn’t expecting anything).

To no avail, the slam re-emerged, with no more word from Pearson, of course.

So I don’t know where this all really leaves us. There’s no question in my mind that the Progressives really do deserve credit for trying to build bridges here.

But based on that last interaction, I can’t help but feel that their real partisan animosities are still there, just being repressed.

We’ll know for sure after, as I suspect, Pollina loses (and badly) in November. We’ll see if – no matter how it plays out – it will all, once again – somehow – be the big bad Democrats fault.

[cross posted at Broadsides.org]

I guess the Pollina campaign will be the gift that keeps giving to this writer-boy. It’s just too bad that the mainstream media here in Vermont won’t wake up to the campaign’s many silly blunders. Yesterday, of course, we highlighted some of the names listed on the “Democrats for Pollina” website as being far from “Democrats.” And today I got a tip from a vegetable farmer here in Vermont who found it comical that Pollina’s little video speech on his campaign website about the importance of “buying Vermont food products” features a backdrop of…ready for this: bananas, oranges and a watermelon. Watch it yourself:

Like I said yesterday, this campaign is not ready for primetime – deep in the recesses of cable access, perhaps. But not primetime.

I mean, wouldn’t you think Pollina or someone on the campaign staff or video crew would stop to consider what food product is behind him when he says these words to Vermonters:

The State must set the example when it comes to buying Vermont products and helping provide markets for our farmers. It is frustrating to know that our prisons, state colleges and other institutions are still buying and serving dairy and other products that could be bought right here at home. We need more instate processing of meats, vegetables and other farm products. We need to make investments in agriculture infrastructure and on farm enterprises. And we need to build a Vermont Fair Trade certified brand of dairy and other Vermont products.

Or am I missing something and did Vermont just become a major grower of bananas, oranges and watermelons? Heh, you never know with global warming…

While campaign video backdrops may seem trivial, it does point to a continued sloppiness in what is increasingly looking like a haphazard and desperate effort. Remember, this is the campaign that began by trying to parse the definition of “intend,” as in: “I intend to run for governor.” He did that, of course, so he could keep his radio show (Equal Time) going while setting up the campaign without having to play by the “equal time” norms of campaigning. Cute.

And this is also the campaign that played semantics with his fundraising efforts. You’ll recall that Pollina announced at one point that his campaign had a goal of raising $100,000 by mid-January. Well, mid-January came and Pollina did what he thought he had to do: announce that the goal had been met. But when some of the Vermont media woke up for a brief second and asked for proof, Pollina had to admit that at least $30,000 of that money was in the form of “pledges.” Sure, Tony, just play loose with the facts and keep pretending you’re above the political games.

And now we come to his “buy Vermont” faux pas. Of course we all support the notion of buying local. Some of us have been doing that long before the trendy “localvore” movement became…well…trendy. But if you’re going to get up on a video soapbox and lash out at your opponent’s lack of follow through about “buying Vermont products first,” wouldn’t it be wise to hide the bananas, oranges and watermelons in the background? Or, better yet, wouldn’t you want to be featuring some good-old-fashioned Vermont products? Just a thought.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of “do as I say, not as I do” norm that many of us have seen from Pollina over the years. He wants to talk about his “closeness” with the “working man” but he’s more often than not seen sitting at the coffee shop during working hours. He wants to talk about the horrors of things like pesticides but starts a non-organic milk company. He talks about the problems of bovine growth hormone (rBGH) but is too scared to join efforts against the Cabot Creamery’s use of it. He talks about the importance of a third party but covets the Democratic Party’s support. He talked about the importance of public financing of campaigns but then ran into some very rich friends. And now he’s telling voters about the importance of buying Vermont produce with bananas as a backdrop.

Frankly, I’m not sure if Pollina’s clueless or just another smarmy politician amongst many. Either way, it amounts to a terrible start to what everyone admits is a huge uphill battle to unseat the incumbent governor, Jim Douglas. I guess he’s satisfied with fooling the same 15% of the population that he always does – and then calling it a “victory.”

Vermont progressives deserve better.

Cross posted at Rational Resistance

 In certain circles it is popular to talk about a parliamentary system as a corrective to the polarizing, winner-take-all system we have here. As we hear the complaint in some places, the two-paprty system silences or ignores minority viewpoints, and causes a conformity that favors middle-of-the-road, status quo politicians and shuns real change.

There are reasons to question whether a parliamentary system would solve these problems, or simply create bigger ones.

The New York Times Magazine carried an article a couple of weeks ago about Israel's system for determining Jewish identity. This is important primarily because, since Israel lacks civil marriage, the only way to get married is through a Jewish ceremony, and that, in turn, requires the parties to demonstrate their Jewishness. The article talks about how this has gotten harder and harder for a number of reasons, including the fact that the Jewish identification system has fallen under the sway of a more and more rigidly ultra-Orthodox rabbinical establishment. So rigid that one official is quoted in the article referring to a Conservative rabbi in America as a goy.

What does this have to do with a parliamentary system?

One thing the parliamentary fans say is definitely true. A parliamentary system, rather than silencing or ignoring minority views, includes them in the structure of government, and bestows upon them real power. In Israel, since neither of the two leading parties can command a majority, the only way either one of them can form a government is by allying itself with other, smaller parties. Over the years the strength of these ultra-Orthodox parties has grown, so that by this point they hold 18 of the 120 seats in the Knesset, and the government has obtained the favor of the ultra-Orthodox by appointing them to the rabbinical court, that has the power over marriage and divorce, and that, consequently, is charged with determining who is a Jew. And who they determine is not a Jew is a pretty long list, including lots of converts, lots of people who have trouble proving their identity through synagogue records of matrilineal descent, and lots of people from America, who often aren't considered Jewish enough.

If they want to do this, it's their country, I'll probably never even visit, so they can go ahead and do it.

On the other hand, picture a similar situation here, in which Jerry Falwell, James Hagee, and a handful of their buddies were so politically powerful that they could veto any marriage if they didn't approve of the couple, and they held this power in Democratic and Republican administrations because they hold the balance of power. So if you were Catholic, or Mormon, or Unitarian, or Jewis, or, god forbid, atheist, they could just deny you the ability to marry and there would be nothing you could do about it.

At that point you could say that we've opened up the government to a minority view, and they no longer feel marginalized, and maybe they even vote at a higher rate than we do because they feel that their votes count. I'd look at the same situation and say that the parliamentary system has given a small minority almost dictatorial powers. and I wouldn't like it.

So maybe this parliamentary thing isn't all its adherents say it is.

Dick Cheney pays George Bush $100 for an ole'fashioned Texas corn-holing and George is guilty of prostitution.  He committed a CRIME!!!

George Bush pays Dick Cheney $100 to do the neocon nasty (with his pacemaker turned up to 11) and Dick is guilty of prostitution. He committed a CRIME!!!

However, I pay both George & Dick $100 to fuck each other. Or I pay $300 to George and Dick and Joe Lieberman AND I then film George & Dick fisting and felching Joe who is now reaching around the aisle instead of across it.  I then sell copies of my magnum opus “George Dicks Joe,” say – for instance – through a website. I have just paid three people to have sex, I have filmed it, I will now be paid myself due to the fact that I PAID THREE PEOPLE TO HAVE SEX SO I COULD MAKE A MOVIE OF THE ENTIRE DISGUSTING AFFAIR and it is ALL FUCKING LEGAL and I have a tape to prove it!

Land of opportunity, Baby! See, in America, if someone pays for sex, it is a crime. If someone pays two, three or twelve people to screw and then sells pictures or movies of it, its commerce.  (Excuse me, “art“).

— It gets worse, after the jump.

Grow up. Grow the fuck up.  This country is in the shitter and we are obsessed with a personal tidbit about a guy who has too much money, too much ego and a gullible wife — all of which is totally irrelevant to a n y t h i n g  –  t h a t  –  m a t t e r s.  Other than a penchant for getting laid (and there are worse “penchants”) he is doing a great job as Governor. He was doing a great job as Governor. He will no longer be able to do a great job as Governor. If grown-ups cannot get their leg over without the country coming to a halt, we are in worse shape than Elliot Spitzer's wedding china, much of which has hit the wall by now.

Perspective? 

We stopped the country, and no one was allowed to get-off, for two years at the end of Bill Clinton's 2d term of office. We have the world's most overbearingly military top-heavy resource-devouring engine of a nation. So what was the best use of our Government's resources during Clenis' second term?  We tried to shatter to pieces a constitutionally evolved republican form of government because Bill Clinton did what we all expected him to do the first chance he had to do it (and we voted for him twice just the same).

Next, we let three viciously corrupt & partisan Republican Circuit Court of Appeals judges place an equally corrupt prosecutor – Ken Starr a savage with ethical gangrene – loose on the trail of a bad-faith phantom case initiated by GOP fraud and lies. We risked the welfare of the entire nation and parts of the world too, for the prurient political entertainment of Republican hypocrites and criminals who faked outrage worse than a $5,000 hooker fakes an orgasm. 

Nobody bothered to notice we actually were at war in the summer of 2000 – 2001. We were happy to be titillated and stoopid. Still, virtually no one knew and most who knew (including the GOP Congress) did not care that we were at war. Instead, all summer and fall in 2001 it was Chandra Levy 24/7.  On September 12, 2001, the war was over. We had lost a huge battle the day before but the U.S. came out victorious — only to watch the Republicans go back and un-win a war we had just won by not realizing we were in it.

Where is our compass?

This country is going to hell and it has nothing to do with Clenis or Elliot Spitzer.  Spitzer is a hypocrite and I have zero sympathy for him. Shame on him for chasing prostitutes for prosecution as the State's Attorneys General. And shame on us for caring when he chases them for personal gratification behind the back of his long-suffering wife and in front of his humiliated family.

But so what? The man was getting the job done. He is an example of the type of Governor we need. The real problem is, we have a severe shortage of Governors like Elliot Spitzer, and we badly need more like him. Of course, I would not let the Putz date my sister, but I would let him run my state in a heartbeat. That's the point.

How the hell will the U.S. ever function if a person needs to decide between getting laid and getting the job done for the country? I do not care that Ike Eisenhower or John F. Kennedy or Franklin Roosevelt got their rocks off with women who were not necessarily going to show up on the family Christmas card. They got the job done. I don't care that the last liberal President we had (Richard Nixon) slept with his socks on and never did anything more salacious than play hands-up/hands-down with his wife in a dark room with drawn shades and sheets up to their earlobes. He was a paranoid crook and was just as likely to fire a missile from the roof of the White House as impose price controls or triple the EPA's enforcement budget. Like any President, I just do not care about whether he “did” or didn't” when he was off the clock. 

We are so screwed.

How the hell is this country ever going to function now that we have the most corrupt justice Dep't in our history? Republicans need to virtually advertise their felonies on the front page of the Washington Post to get the FBI's attention (Duke Cunningham etc.); but a Democrat like Elliot Spitzer warrants a wiretap and a full scale interstate entrapment sting operation because he take approx. $5,000 off the family budget (perfecrtly legal from what's been reported so far) through money transfers.  

Perspective? 

Ari Fleischer gets on his hands and knees to receive a nicely lubed immunity from prosecution. He proceeds to testify that as White House Spokesboy he committed treason. He admits under oath that he committed the very same crime for which the Rosenbergs were executed. The President and Vice President of the United States either conspired or were accessories after the fact to a felony that carries the death penalty. The result: our belovedly inept media cannot stop claiming that there was “no underlying crime” to Republican Scooter Libby's felonious surrender of classified information related to covert U.S. operation in the Middle East. Classified information that went directly into the possession of U.S. enemies.

Oh, AND, by the way, you do know that Democrat Don Siegleman is in prison for appointing public servants to do public service.

Oh boy, we are so screwed.

Democrat Patrick Leahy continues to work front and center in the fight to maintain a FISA law that doesn’t provide blanket immunity for telephone companies (and the Bush administration?) from breaking domestic spying laws, despite the fact that the bill is now in the House (where House Dems are – for now – refusing to knuckle under). Leahy’s high-profile efforts put him in direct conflict with Senate Intelligence Chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) who, along with Dick Cheney, is the immunity provision’s chief cheerleader. In fact, Rockefeller continues to categorically reject the notion of any bill without immunity that may be bounced back to the Senate to be reconciled, despite House Speaker Pelosi engagement on the issue.

Leahy and Rep. Conyers (Chair of House Judiciary) have launched FixFISA.com, which is run through Leahy’s preferred Blackrock Associates which also maintains the web presence of his leadership PAC, GreenMountainPAC.com, which is hosted on the Get Active server. From the site:

We’re at a critical juncture. The House and Senate have passed different versions of the new FISA legislation, and we are meeting to resolve those differences.  The president and his Republican allies are using this opportunity to pressure our colleagues to give in and grant retroactive immunity.

That’s why we need your help, right now, to push back against the White House while the final FISA bill is being negotiated. Help us respond to White House scare tactics, preserve our civil liberties, and reject the Senate’s telecom immunity. Please use this online tool to write a letter-to-the-editor of your local newspaper to speak out and build grassroots support for fixing FISA the right way.

It’s a get-the-word-out tool – a pretty bare bones one at present, but slick nonetheless.