crossposted @ www.vermontbloggernaut.blogspot.com

So the long anticipated, short-term fix to the Grand Isle Drawbridge has been completed. Where once traffic traveled over rust, the metal is bare and bright. No longer do Islanders traveling north and south have to worry about dropping through into the lake. VTrans did a good job of facilitating a solution, but most of the credit belongs to Engineers Construction Inc.

The workers from ECI were diligent in their work in spite of all sorts of adverse weather conditions, from rain, wind, snow, and extreme cold to a mini ice storm. After the ice they had to break the whole bridge free, before restarting their work. All the while, cars trooped north and south only a few feet away. That crew certainly worked hard for the money they earned.

Now that this chapter has closed in the story of our drawbridge, I wonder what the next one holds. After all, this is still only a temporary fix, and I have yet to hear what the state plans to do next. For that matter has anyone in the Islands heard anything? Of course not!  

There have been no public meetings on the future of the bridge. The state and VTrans are having their little meetings down in Montpelier, behind closed doors, without any input from islanders. It’s apparent that they only care to do what they want, not what we want. Where is our senator, where are our representatives?

Islanders please let you voices be heard! Talk to Senator Mazza, and Representatives Trombley and Johnson, voice your concerns. Don’t stop there! Contact the governor, VTrans, your local selectboard, your neighbors! Islanders need to be heard on a subject near and dear to their hearts, their drawbridge, our input is important!!

      Ian Carleton:  Big Money

In today's missive from the man who can't get a candidate for governor, Ian Carleton crows,

“Keep Big Money Out of Politics: Tell Jim Douglas not to block campaign finance progress.”

Frankly, Carleton's huffing and puffing is getting a little tiresome, especially since he can't come up with a viable candidate to replace Douglas.  To give him credit, it must be a most unenviable position to be the Chair of VDP at a time when his job is pretty much to blow air into a leadership vacuum.  Keep huffing and puffing, Mr. Carleton.  I hope the job pays well. 

Since the time I wrote on this subject in  Times Argus and Rutland Herald as well as here at GMD there have been no changes to the bill regarding Limitations of Contributions.  As I mentioned then, The US Supreme Court overturned Vermont's 1997 law because contribution limits were excessively low.  Justice Breyer argued that the rationale for preventing the appearance of corruption does not mean “the lower the limit, the better.”  In fact, the very low limits provide too much of an advantage to incumbents as well as self-financed candidates.

So what is “big money” according to Ian Carleton?  $1000.  

Probably about the same as one month's mortgage payment.  Any politician even appearing to sell out so cheap certainly would have made news by now. 

Not only would it be newsworthy if there was actual evidence of political corruption in Vermont, it would be equally newsworthy if there was even an appearance of corruption on the part of our political leaders based on contributions to their campaigns.  So far, no news.

Three years ago the United States Supreme Court sent AG Sorrell home empty handed in its rebuke of Act 64, the 1997 campaign finance law.  Given the minimal differences between Act 64 and the new bill, S.164, it looks as if Vermont Legislators don't give a damn what the Supreme Court Justices think.

[Cross posted to Broadsides.org]

There’s something missing in the Vermont Progressive Party’s platform. In fact, it’s also missing from the platform of Progressive Party gubernatorial candidate Anthony Pollina. And it’s no small matter – it’s the Iraq War.

Go and look for yourselves. I did, and I didn’t find one word about the Iraq War or its many associated ills even mentioned in either platform. Moreover, I did a word search in the Progressive Party’s 27-page platform and absolutely nothing turned up when I searched for “war,” “Iraq,” “peace,” “national guard,” or “soldiers.” Nothing. Zero. Not even a mention.

To be fair, I also did a similar search of the Vermont Democratic Party’s platform. And, frankly, I was pleasantly surprised to find a whole host of references to those very same search words. The word “peace,” in fact, was in the platform’s very first paragraph. But the Vermont Democratic Party didn’t just drop the peace words, they made sense with them. For example, consider this paragraph that appears under the headline, “The War in Iraq:”

a. We condemn the false claims that justify the war in Iraq, and the failure of current foreign policy to consider the historical, cultural and religious forces in the region.

b. We are committed to a sensible and clear strategy to bring those who still serve home from Iraq quickly and with dignity.

c. We are committed to an active policy to cooperate with other nations to support a financial and political commitment to stabilizing and securing Iraq.

d. All military personnel, veterans and their families must be recognized for their courage and service and are entitled to full medical, emotional and financial support.

See? That’s not real hard, is it? Or controversial, for that matter, since nearly 80% of Vermonters want an end to the Iraq War.

Why, then, would Vermont’s Progressive Party and its perennial candidate of choice, Anthony Pollina, refuse to even acknowledge the war in their platforms? In a word: Politics. Or, if you’d prefer a few more words: A failure to lead.

Back in late-2001 when this nation was in its bloodthirsty post-9/11 rage, the nascent Progressive Party set the stage for ignoring the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq by resorting to parliamentary maneuvers to squelch efforts by party activists to pass a resolution condemning the deafening drumbeats of war at the time. At its November 2001 state party convention, a resolution condemning the war talk was first passed by those in attendance. But then Progressive Party leaders, led by then-Representative Carina Driscoll, quickly maneuvered to “table” the resolution and – with breakneck speed – succeeded in killing it.

I remember it well. Because I was there. And I remember the confusion amongst those in attendance when one moment we thought the Progs were about to do the right thing by opposing the Bush war machine and then the next minute being undercut by underhanded maneuvers that effectively ended the debate.

At the time, I was a columnist for Seven Days so I approached Anthony Pollina and asked him about why the party leaders killed the anti-war resolution.

“We want the party to focus on statewide issues,” Pollina told me at the time. “9/11 and the response to it isn’t a Vermont issue.”

It was a mantra that the leaders had apparently agreed upon because they all repeated the same line as I made my way from one leader to another – from Driscoll to Ellen David-Friedman to Chris Pearson. They were in lockstep: The Progressive Party would not lead on the war issue – nor would they even mention it.

After the Party’s convention, Pearson sent out an email update to the Party faithful, declaring that there was “relief” amongst many that the Progs didn’t take a stand on the upcoming wars. The apparent “relief” they were feeling was about not wanting to “marginalize” itself from the voting population before Pollina was about to launch a run for lieutenant governor.

And so the war silence began for the Progs. Worse, that silence continues to this day.

To date, six Vermonters have returned from the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq in body bags. But the Progressive Party apparently still doesn’t believe it’s a “Vermont issue.” Moreover, according to the Policy Priorities Project, Vermont tax-payers have coughed up more than $680 million to fund the Iraq war, while Vermont’s Progressive Party or favorite son, Pollina, won’t even mention the war in their platforms. They’d apparently rather express “relief” in ignoring it.

Unfortunately, ignoring the war is a privilege many of us can’t share with the Progressive Party’s leadership. The six Vermonters who lost their lives can’t ignore it. Their families can’t ignore it. Those of us with an understandable sense of outrage over the Bush administration’s lies and deceit while marching us to war can’t ignore it. And those of who can think of much better ways to spend the $680 million can’t ignore it, either. Indeed, nearly 80% of Vermonters don’t want to ignore the issue of the War on Iraq – they want it ended, and ended now.

The Progressive Party’s “duck and cover” approach to the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq is in direct contrast to the rich history of bold leadership that has been found in alternative parties in this country. Its silence on the number one issue of the day should tell us a lot about the current leadership of the Progressive Party and its apparent “relief” in not leading.

Vermont’s Progressive Party should be ashamed of the deaf ear it’s turned toward the most pressing issue of our time. Because there’s nothing “progressive” about avoidance.

Per WPTZ:

MONTPELIER, Vt. —  A majority of nearly 7,000 Vermonters completing opinion surveys on Town Meeting Day said they favor same-sex marriage. 54-percent said they support allowing gay couples to marry while 37-percent were opposed.

That represents an 8-per cent jump in support for same-sex marriage in the last year, noted Johnson State College political science professor and state Sen. William Doyle of Washington County who compiles the results each March.

This is not a scientific sample intended to represent the opinions of all Vermonters, but an 8% jump in support among a similar demographic is a major deal.

Vermont Senate President Peter Shumlin met with the Valley News editorial board yesterday.He spoke about many other things but this popped up at the end of the article .

Shumlin, who lost a three-way race for lieutenant governor in 2002, in large part because of the presence of Progressive Anthony Pollina in the race, also said Democrats will likely field a “good candidate” to challenge Douglas in November.

But he said the likelihood that Pollina will also be in the race would be a major pitfall.

“I’ll be honest about the challenges. If Anthony Pollina is really going to run for governor, Jim Douglas is your next governor. Just go look at the history,” Shumlin said.

www.vnews.com

If Anthony Pollina is really going to run ?

Galbraith hasn’t said anything other than he is thinking about it.Vermont Democratic Party says to make nothing of the fact that we have no candidate at this time .Strange maneuvers.  

Last year we were told about nuclear warhead armed cruise missiles being flown around the country by accident (see here and more importantly here).

Now we’re being told about nuclear missile parts being accidentally being shipped to Taiwan (see here for just one of many news bits).

So what does the hidden part of this iceberg look like? I can’t help but believe we’re only seeing a small part of a larger movement that is being carefully hidden from us.

Thankfully, however, impeachment is kept safely off the table in part by our wonderful trio of federal lawmakers.

One of the reasons that I and many other liberals supported John Edwards's candidacy for president is that he made the elimination of poverty the main theme of his campaign. I really think it's true that if you're not poor, and don't spend any considerable amount of time with poor people, it's very hard to get a realistic picture of how difficult life is for poor people in the United States.

Today we have the chance to get a good look at one aspect of this problem.  The Vermont Housing Council and the Housing Awareness Campaign have released Between a Rock and a Hard PLace, their annual study of housing and wages in Vemront, and unsurprisingly, they find that things continue to get worse for Vermont's poor. Among the findings:

 Vermont had the second tightest rental housing market in the nation in 2007. The rental vacancy rate was 4.9 percent. The homeownership vacancy rate was 1.0 percent, the lowest in the nation.11 Vermont had a shortage of 21,000 affordable rental units as of the most recent statewide housing needs assessment in 2005.12 Our state will need 12,900 more owner-occupied units by 2012. The current pace of housing construction is nowhere near what would be necessary to fill those gaps.

 Vermont has the highest rate of homelessness in New England,14 and the ength of time people spend in homeless shelters in Vermont is increasing apidly. In 2000, the average stay was 11 days. In 2007, it was 33 days.

 Forty-seven percent of Vermont’s renter households were paying more than  30 percent of their incomes for rent and utilities in 2006, and one-fifth of enter households were paying more than 50 percent of their incomes for ent and utilities.

In a crisis of such proportions, a well-intentioned leader would act, wouldn't he? After all, as the problem grows worse and worse, with no sign of relief, this would seem to be  a time when increasing state investments are needed. After all, we have seen that Vermont's investment in affordable housing has been incredibly effective,

Over the last twenty years the Housing and Conservation Board has created 8,500 units of affordable housing, helped preserve downtowns and historic sites, and conserved 365,000 acres of agricultural and recreational lands and natural areas. 

Douglas's response: slash the VHCB budget. While he has called housing costs part of his “affordability agenda” (remember that?), Douglas has proposed a $5.2 million cut in funding to the Housing and Conservation Board.  

When will people see through the smooth veneer to the vicious reality that is Jim Douglas?

I read someplace yesterday that this is being called the Tonya Harding option .Who thinks up this stuff ?

Historic update :Harding never won that figure skating title ,she was last seen as celebrity boxer on Fox. We may not have any Democrat there at the White House to answer the fabled 3:00am phone if this keeps up. Hillary after getting called out  for “misspeaking” multiple times about being under fire in Bosnia ,snipes back with the Rev. Wright issue,to divert attention  . Its unbelievable what  we may be seeing happen. Hillary may destroy Democratic unity against a week ,damaged Republican Party ,win the primaries and give John McCain a chance to answer that stupid phone we apparently should worry about . Mud season a time for worry.

Poll: Bitterness Of Pennsylvania Primary Could Spell Trouble For Dems In November

A new Rasmussen poll of Pennsylvania shows that the sheer bitterness of the Democratic race could spell trouble for the party down the road in this key big swing state.

The poll shows that the divisive Democratic primary is dragging down the prospects for party unity, at least for now: Only 55% of Clinton supporters say they are even just somewhat likely to back Obama if he’s the nominee, and the same goes for only 55% of Obama supporters if Hillary is the nominee.

Here are the horse-race numbers compared to the previous poll from about two weeks ago:

Clinton 49% (-2)

Obama 39% (+1)

from TPM Election Central

I just returned from a weekend in Scranton, PA, visiting friends.  Scranton, by the way, is in the midst of a fantastic revitalization.  The town’s incredible old-world architectural gems are being, or have been, restored.  The blight of post-industrial decline is being erased.  A town well-worth visiting if you happen to be in the area or passing through.

The first thing I noticed in Scranton, however, is Hillary signs.  Everywhere.  Scranton is Hillary Clinton’s father’s hometown, and she has been playing up her ties to northeaster PA.  As we drove around sightseeing with our friends, my wife called out “hey, there’s an Obama sign!”  Our host said “well, that’s two,” referring to the only other Obama sign in town on his front lawn.

Apparently there wasn’t so much political hype until Scranton’s St. Paddy’s Day parade (fourth largest in the USA), in which Clinton was prominently featured, alongside the popular mayor of Scranton, Christopher Doherty.  It wasn’t long after that the Hillary signs began to sprout like spring daffodils on lawns everywhere.  And I mean everywhere.

(Obama, for his part, was invited to speak at the Society of Irish Women in Scranton on St. Paddy’s Day, a gig that Clinton turned down.)  

We stopped in at the Scranton Obama HQ for a couple campaign buttons – they were out, which may or may not be a good sign.  While we were there we noticed several of the campaign staff wearing “NY loves Obama” pins, a major no-no in an area where people are wary of outsiders (particularly from NY).  They seemed disorganized and out of sorts, but excited and upbeat.

Scranton may be in Clinton’s corner, but there are also signs that the race is tightening up in the rest of PA.  A recent poll puts Clinton’s lead at 10 points.  Record numbers of people are turning out to register to vote – young people, new voters, African Americans.  Many people are said to be switching parties, and it’s a safe bet they aren’t switching from Dem to Rep.  

According to my hosts, Obama can narrow Clinton’s lead, and perhaps even win if he concentrates on the population centers of Philadelphia and Pittsburg – a strategy that has worked in statewide politics there.

-M

 From the LA Times Top of the Ticket Blog

… those at the event — at least the vast majority of them — highly disapproved of Clinton's behavior. But they were not willing to shun him.

Brazile's none-too-subtle point: There's a potential downside to turning away, with nary a forgiving nod, from those who once stood by you.

Wright, by the way, remains out of the public eye. He had been invited to preach tonight, Wednesday and Thursday at a church in Tampa, but his appearance was canceled because of security concerns.

— Don Frederick (author info below the fold)

Don Frederick has served as an editor helping guide coverage of every presidential election since 1984. He is a third-generation Washingtonian, so watching the political world comes naturally to him.

A graduate of Northwestern University, he was a reporter for newspapers in Colorado, New Mexico and Texas before joining the (now-defunct) Los Angeles Herald Examiner in 1983. Hired by The Times in 1989, he has worked in its Washington bureau since 1996 — a perch providing him a close-up view of the impeachment of President Clinton, the government's response to 9/11 and the day-to-day wrangling of the two major parties.