Daily Archives: May 12, 2008

Is Pollina Following in Clinton’s Tracks?

Uncategorized

Against mathematically reality in a three way race, is Pollina's commitment to the gubernatorial campaign similar in any way to Hillary Clinton's fight-to-the-end primary campaign?

Would Pollina consider a primariy race against Symington and put his support behind her if she won said primary so long as Symington pledged the same?

When will the campaign season begin to focus on Douglas' negatives instead of the tired old Dems vs. Progs debate?

Pollina will come in with less than 20% of the vote, guaranteed.  Is he furthering either the liberal cause or even the Progressive Party cause by staying in the race?

At some point, will Vermonters stop listening to someone who has never won a campaign, despite all of his promises?

Ready to Get Behind Gaye Symington

Uncategorized

As I write, the introductory remarks for Symington's gubernatorial bid announcement are being broadcast live on the Mark Johnson show.  And despite all that I have said here on GMD in regard to my frustrations with the Speaker, I am ready to get behind her in this year's uphill battle for the #1 office in the state.

Why?  Perhaps I am realizing that some of my frustrations with her sense of leadership could be intrinsically gender-oriented.  I'm not sure if this is true, since I recall back to the impeachment issue my primary frustration was based on Dem leadership here in Vermont not listening to their base.  Be that as it may, I feel it is time to open up the possibility that some of my misgivings have been misplaced, since I have have been expecting the kind of leadership that is less tactical and more unbending in confrontation with Jim Douglas.  

Also, leadership means taking risks.  We have yet to see any other leading Democrat to assume the risk of loss of power that Speaker Symington is taking on today.  She has a very good chance of failure.  She can lose.  If she gains the office by virture of plurality in a Dem controlled legislature, she will be working without a full mandate from the people, and may face a more strident second term campaign than prior governors.  For this, I think many of us who have tried and failed in our own endeavors should think about the courage of this attempt.  I would hope that those who have been more conservative by not tempting failure in their lives might appreciate what is at stake for Speaker Symington even more.

It is true that Symington leaves an impression of a politician who aspires to be politicly unimpeachable — that she doesn't want to get her hands dirty with the necessary unpleasantries of public life.  It is true that she needs to expand her expertise in areas she may not currently feel comfortable.  It is true that sometimes appears to be above the difficulties of many Vermonters.  But perhaps we have simply lost too much time since the turn of the century at the other end of the pendulum:  buried in the dirt of political chicanary; led by those who are far too comfortable with un-nuanced cowboy chuckling; played by imposter “regular folk” politicians whose lives are unaffected by the decisions they make for the rest of us.

Gaye Symington deserves our consideration and respect for stepping forward today.  I offer my own congratulations and voting support as she takes on a risk that no one else in the Democratic Party has made this year.

Good luck, Speaker Symington.  Best to you.

Nate Freeman 

I’ll blast any candidate who talks about “clean coal”

Uncategorized

Back when I was supporting Edwards, one of my major concerns with Obama was in his support for “clean coal.”  I wrote about it at the time, over at Green Mountain Daily.  Here’s what I wrote:

There’s a great diary over at MyDD which outlines some serious problems with an energy bill which is cosponsored by Obama.  The first is a bill to support liquid coal.  From the diary:

We don’t know how to sequester mass quantities of carbon dioxide created during coal liquefaction yet. Even once we figure that process out–a solution that will no doubt reduce the net energy output of the coal to fuel process itself–we’ve still got a dirty fuel that increases greenhouse emissions compared to petroleum.


There’s also a draft bill up for discussion that includes a provision which will screw us, as Vermonters, over, along with a lot of other states. 

Per The Rutland Herald:

A dozen states, including Vermont and Massachusetts, would be blocked from imposing new requirements on automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under a draft energy bill being prepared for a vote later this month.


The “discussion draft” would prohibit the head of the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing a waiver needed for a state to impose auto pollution standards if the new requirements are “designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”


This is bad.  The first bill has quite a few Democratic sponsors and presents a serious danger.  The second is only in draft form, so it’s got a much better chance of being modified before it makes it into being an actual bill, but they’re both representative of how much work we have to do to deal with the existing archaic mentality when it comes to proper energy usage.

I hadn’t heard much from Obama on the clean coal front lately; I was hoping maybe he’d figured out what a bad idea it was.  Apparently not.  Talking Points Memo has a pro-coal ad going up in Kentucky, in which he promotes his legislative record in support of “clean coal:”

Think Clinton’s any better on this?  Not according to her website:

…Hillary will urge all of the nation’s stakeholders to contribute to the effort. Automakers will be asked to make more efficient vehicles; oil and energy companies to invest in cleaner, renewable technologies; utilities to ramp up use of renewables and modernize the grid; coal companies to implement clean coal technology; government to establish a cap and trade carbon emissions system and renew its leadership in energy efficient buildings and services; individuals to conserve energy and utilize efficient light bulbs and appliances in their homes; and industry to build energy efficient homes and buildings.

Here’s Chelsea promoting “clean” coal in PA:

And please, don’t even get me started on McCain.

This is royally screwed up.  No matter whom you support, you should be telling them what nonsense “clean coal” is.   Greenpeace has its number:

Despite over 10 years of research and $5.2 billion of investment in the US alone , scientists are still unable to make coal clean. The Australian government spends A$0.5 million annually to promote Australia’s ‘clean coal’ to the Asia Pacific region. “Clean coal” technologies are expensive and do nothing to mitigate the environmental effects of coal mining or the devastating effects of global warming. Furthermore, clean coal research risks diverting investment away from renewable energy, which is available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now.

The first CCT programs were set up in the late 1980s in response to concerns over acid rain. The programs focused on reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), the primary causes of acid rain. Now the elusive promise of “clean coal” technology is being used to promote coal as an energy source.

(also see their myths and facts about clean coal)

It’s time all our candidates get off this bandwagon and it’s past time we start challenging them when their debates are sponsored by lobbyists for the coal industry.

Pollina picks a fight with GMD (and mocks notion of taking race to legislature).

Uncategorized

As discussed previously, the two gubernatorial candidates on the left are probably the two politicians in the state in the biggest ruts. They each have some bad communications patterns that have long set in, and as such, a lot of voters have some have drawn some pretty stark conclusions. The prize may go to whichever one can demonstrate enough perspective, discipline and humility to recognize (or be forced to recognize) these ruts and step out of them, surprising voters with a political re-introduction that brings them in line with their own rhetoric.

So far, the signals are mixed from Gaye Symington. Her speech at the Curtis awards suggested she is taking those steps, but her public response to the stimulus package suggested she is still deep in a sort of self-destructive, political victimization complex.

In the case of Pollina, however, the signals are not so mixed. When I have waxed analytical – even to the point of straining optimistic credulity – on this site, it has always been with an implied assumption that Pollina would be manifesting the “let’s work together” mantra of his ambassadors. And yet, in repeated public appearences, he seems to consistently revert to form, with his own simplistic, fringe-candidate-style victimhood, indifference to consistency in his words, and consistently indulged impulse to smack around “The Democrats” in terms both hypocritical and outright disingenuous. In other words, for many of us who simply don’t trust him (regardless of his occasionally inconsistent stances on issues), he has made no effort to demonstrate to us that he is now trustworthy. He seems for all the world to remain openly scornful of those who would question his demand (not a request – a demand, as we’ll see below) that voters anoint him.

At Anthony Pollina’s appearance on the Mark Johnson Show last week, Johnson asked him pointedly about the idea floated at this site:

The plan here is to keep Douglas below 50%, forcing the final vote into the Legislature, where lawmakers give the nod to the number two vote getter. To make this work, the logic would have to be promoted ASAP and steadily, in order for it to gain exposure in the press and legitimacy among the public. The reasoning would be similar to the logic behind IRV, which the public has already been somewhat primed with. The winner should have a majority. If a majority rejects the Governor, the third place candidate agrees to essentially recuse themselves from the running and throw their support behind the second place winner – and by extension, their electoral support follows. The legislature then has a consistent rationale for picking the number two.

It should be noted that Johnson refers to this as an idea being floated by “The Democrats,” a conceit he repeated uncritically during his appearance on Vermont This Week as well. Now I understand when Progressives make assumptions like this, as the Progs – like the Repubs – are a more top-down, command-and-control institution than the Democratic Party, which can become a virtual free-for-all, but from someone like Johnson, I think it is journalistic laziness. With only one exception, every prominent Democrat I’ve talked to about the idea has rejected it outright, so if you’re going to lazily default to some shorthand about what “The Democrats” think, this idea ain’t it (maybe he – like some folks – have decided that this blog is some sort of secret mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, which – although it may fit into the sort of simplistic grand Dem machine conspiracy narrative that makes it easier not to actually look reality in the face and think critically – is patently laughable).

In any event, here is the exchange with the salient response:

(Johnson): From the Democrats one of the scenarios they’re already throwing out is that if you’re in the race that you could help keep Jim Douglas below 50%, the race gets into the legislature – even if Gaye Symington is in second place, they can argue that all of your votes would’ve gone to her. what’s your reaction to that?

(Pollina): Well, 2 things…

(snip – where Pollina repeats the Progressive mantra that they are Northeast Kingdom powerhouses. An assertion that is overstated, as I demonstrate in this diary – but he includes a more personalized analysis of his own performance compared to other Progs, which certainly has merit, and probably deserves a whole ‘nuther diary to analyze properly – click on the audio link below for the full response)

… the other thing is, see they’re locked into this thing thats it about Progressives vs Democrats, they don’t understand that its about appealing to voters its about creating jobs, its about fixing roads, its those kinda things. so they’re caught up in a politics as usual kinda game which i don’t really have a lot of patience for anymore.

…The other thing is when you talk about, well, the legislature may elect the person who came in second – thats not a good signal to democracy, frankly. I don’t – I don’t – think – if that’s the strategy, then I think Vermonters ought to understand that the strategy is that Gaye Symington plans to come in second and expect the legislature to elect her. Boy I wouldn’t want to be the governor who came in second, to tell you the truth.

And the other thing is that that is totally contradictory to everything the Democratic Party said back in 2000 and 2002, when they made everyone commit to the idea that the highest vote getter should be the one who the legislature elects – that the highest vote getter should – and I agree with that, frankly. I don’t have a problem with that. But it would be interesting to me if now they would change their tune and say now – everybody – the legislature should elect the one who came in second.

I don’t know – to me thats exactly why – thats why I’m running, ’cause to me thats the kind of games that get played around politics which are why people dont pay attention and don’t get involved and not a good idea. Sorry – don’t get me excited about this kinda stuff (laughs)

Well, well. Once again, I feel so darn “reached out to” as a Democrat.

The righteous outrage, matching interviewer Johnson’s incredulity! How dare those Dems? What nerve!

Again, the problem here is that “the Democrats” aren’t floating this idea. And again, everyone I’ve talked to close to the Symington operation and the Party (with the exception of the personal opinion of one Party staffer who has nothing to do with these decisions) have rejected this notion. It’s a notion being “floated” by this blog. We were doing what we always do – trying to change things.

And, as readers might expect, I am not enthusiastic about sitting back and letting my own words be disingenuously used in Mr. Pollina’s own style of petty political gamesmanship, (or be aided and abetted by a talk radio host who doesn’t feel the need to get his information straight).

For the first response to Pollina’s indignation, let me present – from earlier in the same interview – Anthony Pollina:

(Pollina): If you like all the bickering – you know, he said this and he said that, or she said this and he said and lets all argue about it – if you like all that than you will not vote for me.


Chalk up another “do as I say not as I do” moment for a longtime politician who, despite all the defeats and disappointments – and despite all the pretense (from his supporters, moreso than him) of moving beyond the past and working together, is chronically incapable of letting an opportunity to collectively condemn “the Democrats” go by.

This is why he still cannot lower himself to ask for Democrats (and others) to support him. Here’s the rest of the above quote, with emphasis added:

If you like what you hear coming out of Montpelier, if you like all the bickering – you know, he said this and he said that, or she said this and he said and lets all argue about it – if you like all that then you will not vote for me. But if you really would like to change the attitude about state government and looking for some different ways to move forward, then you will support me, so thats where we’re at

“You will.” “You will not.”

That’s not an ask, that’s a command.

And in that imperious moment, we are reminded that Pollina’s biggest impediment to rising above a third place electoral footnote is one person: Anthony Pollina.

Despite the history and experience, Pollina is absolutely committed to playing the role of fringe candidate.

If there is one quality that defines all fringe candidates, whether left right or just zany, it’s a sense that the normal rules don’t apply to them. That they can do and say anything they want, give free rein to any impulse they have, unquestioningly confident as they are in their own righteousness – and equally certain that any who would question that almost supernatural certainty are not simply agents of badness, but are in league with all the other agents of badness.

It is the cosmology of a 1950’s era Superman comic book.

Now this is not to say that all Progressive Party politicians have the fringe psychology at work, but it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that Pollina does. It has certainly been on display in the past – most recently the infamous campaign finance debacle of 2002, where Pollina and his associates brazenly broke the rules of the very public financing law that he helped pass. Rather than respond with humility, Pollina went ballistic – first accusing one Democratic insider of a grand conspiracy (“I smell Dean! I smell Leahy!” he was quoted as ranting at that Dem privately), before suing everyone who was near the initial letter of complaint or the enforcement of the law in an all-out, scorched Earth strategy to destroy the very law that stood in defiance of his own defiant willfulness.

But many of us can’t help but keep listening. Policy is important to me, and although he hasn’t always been consistent in his support of progressive policies on Iraq, civil unions and the environment, his rhetoric is solid, and when he sticks to issues he is a solidly compelling pitchman. Hence my own suggestions to his surrogates over a few months on what I believed he needed to do to be successful and show dubious voters like myself that he had, indeed matured.

But its been clear in recent months that Pollina still feels entitled to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, whether or not its consistent, accurate, fair or reasonable – feeling no compunctions about doing so after the fact – and remains openly scornful of those who might, y’know, expect a little more integrity from their candidate (even if he is commanding that they vote for him).

The inconsistent rhetoric above is only the beginning. In that same interview, Pollina made a point of stating that he had never “run” (quote) the Vermont Milk Company, and that he had never claimed that he had. When an annoyed caller phoned in, reading the following from his campaign website (emphasis added):

Anthony Pollina, 56, has a variety of professional experience that combines to make him an effective and unique leader. In 2003 he was approached by a group of dairy farmers interested in working together to keep farming viable. The result was the Vermont Milk Company – a farmer controlled ice cream, cheese and yogurt plant. Anthony ran the start up until 2008.

At first he argued with the caller, then dismissed her by saying it “didn’t matter” (unfortunately, the MJS podcast cuts off the last several minutes of the interview, including this call). But what is just as significant that here, 4 days after the interview, he has not felt any need to alter the website to conform with his new version. To him, it really doesn’t matter.

And therin lies the problem. Straightforwardness and consistency does matter, and I, for one, would consider it a big problem if someone who wants my vote really finds those things that expendable.

Nor does reality matter, apparently. In his dismissal of the legislative scenario, Pollina noted above:

Boy I wouldnt want to be the governor who came in second, to tell you the truth.

This is certainly not the hubbub that was going around at the time. Conventional wisdom was, as Jack opined in this comment:

Back when he was running for Lite Gov they were sure that he was going to come in second, Shumlin would finish third, and that he would win in the Legislature.

In fact, consider the absurdly contradictory impulses at play above. First Pollina says:

the Democratic Party… made everyone commit to the idea that the highest vote getter should be the one who the legislature elects

Followed only 7 words later by…

I agree with that, frankly. I dont have a problem with that.

So which is it? The big bad Democrats “made” you do it (how does that work, exactly?), or is it something you “had no problem with”?

Now I don’t think the problem is that Pollina is intentionally bullshitting, I think its – again – Fringe Candidate Syndrome; that he gives into every impulse without questioning himself (such as the decision to accept a 6-figure anonymous bailout of the VT Milk Company, or his chastising Ian Carlton for communicating with him “through the media” by sending a letter to the, er, media, for example). His impulse one minute was to bash the Dems with a “Mom, he made me!” style line, and his next impulse was to bash the Dems for supposedly suggesting the legislative option. Doesn’t matter that they were in direct contradiction.

It’s a sense of entitlement, such as this brazen contradiction on display from the same interview. First this:

(Pollina): I’m still open to the conversation as to how we replace our governor.

(Johnson): Would that conversation include you stepping aside?

(Pollina): No.


Then this:

(Pollina): Conversations as you know – they gotta go both ways. A conversation is back and forth, not just forth and no back.


Apparently it depends on who’s conversing.

Just a bad day? Don’t bet on it. After all, it was less than two months ago when we had this via Philip:

Pollina: …when we talked about making the statement that I was going to be a candidate and then trying to raise the money, and then opening a bank account, all of that – at every step in that early process, we actually kept the Democratic party informed. We literally called them up to say, “We’re opening a bank account today,” or “We’re gonna do this today.”

To which Pollina’s former VPIRG colleague, VDP Chair Ian Carleton responded:

Over the course of Mr. Pollina’s candidacy the VDP has received only one “heads-up” phone call from his campaign – when Pollina’s colleague Chris Pearson called to say that Pollina was going to file paperwork with the Secretary Of State’s office disclosing that he had raised in excess of $500. No other such communications took place.

Neither Pollina nor anyone on his behalf ever called the VDP to let us know that he was “opening a bank account today,” as Mr. Pollina claims in the interview, nor was any such call made about “trying to raise the money,” as Pollina also states.

Nor, for that matter, did anyone on Pollina’s behalf call the Democratic Party to let us know Pollina was going to declare his candidacy at the Progressive State Committee meeting last fall. For Pollina to represent that he or his campaign kept Democrats apprised “at every step in that early process,” is far from accurate. None of the specific examples Pollina provides ever took place.

Now if you presuppose a grand conspiracy, I suppose you can conclude that this is actually a complex web of carefully plotted out lies and schemes to get Pollina to serially exaggerate, misstate and contradict himself. A conspiracy that this blog must be at the center of. All to stop the people’s champion from rising to power on the shoulders of his silent legion of supporters.

Of course, that would make you an idiot.

The fact is, Pollina’s deficit has never been a problem with the issues, it’s been a deficit of trust. That he looks, not like a left-wing visionary, but a holier-than-thou Dem-basher who thinks he’s above the rules and who eschews impulse control.

I didn’t accept the Facebook invitation to the “Run Gaye Run” group because I wanted to avoid any firm commitment to a candidate before the Primary (one might say, to make it easier to harass them all equally – Lord knows we’ve all been rougher on Symington over the years on this site than anyone else on the left – Pollina included – by a long shot).

But when faced with a choice of two lefty candidates with similar views – one of whom I trust, but who more often than not lets me down in terms of strategy and political savvy – and another who I don’t trust at all (and who remains untested and unproven in an elected setting) – I will always choose the one I trust.

And I will not be voting for Anthony Pollina this year, because I don’t trust him.

And let the message again go out to Pollina, Symington, Douglas and everybody else; this is the blog age. And that means that the era of being able to say whatever you want without being held accountable for your words is over.