Mark Johnson needlessly gotten caught in the crossfire when I unloaded on Mr. Pollina (currently on Vermont Edition, again promoting his campaign by complaining about Democrats… seems to be the only “issue” he’s really passionate about in the last week). It seems Johnson really is hearing from many prominent Democrats that there may be interest in the legislative option in a three-way race, and isn’t just shorthanding GMD as “The Democrats” (although “some Democrats” still would have been a more accurate and appropriate phrasing). All I can say is: wow. That’s a 180 degree turnaround from what I was hearing.
Of course, Johnson did lead the chorus of very serious experts (which also included Terri Hallenbeck and Shay Totten) pooh-poohing the entire possibility out of hand on Vermont This Week last Friday, and has really latched onto the issue – even pushing Gaye Symington for a commitment to oppose the idea after her announcement speech (and reading way too much into her non-response: Here’s reality – no candidate with half a brain is going to get pulled into the specifics of any issue right after their announcement speech, lest they end up inadvertently eclipsing the positive message the whole announcement was designed to transmit.)
So I’ve made a couple more inquiries – and the landscape may indeed be changing on this issue, in no small part from the discussions at this site. Good. Now Anthony Pollina may currently be running around BSing Vermonters by insisting its a bad idea that he never approved of himself in 2000 or 2002 (which, by all accounts, is a naked fib), but the fact is that he was right, and folks like me were wrong. Now the question is for Mr. Pollina, is truth and what’s best for Vermont really of less importance than saying whatever pops into your mind to bash Democrats? Based on your media interviews in the last week and the content at the Prog Blog, that’s sure how it looks.
As for the very serious experts… I’ve only proposed the idea predicated on the ability of Dems to propagate the message in an IRV-style context over a long period to gain acceptance – and stated outright that it works much better if the third place candidate buys in and agrees to endorse the second place finisher in the event that happens. I’m not an idiot.
But as far as shorthanding Johnson’s advocacy of his strong feelings against such an approach as “lazy,” apparently it wasn’t, as my info was stale. My apologies.
Tell you what – I’ll make it up to you by phoning in reports to your show from the floor of the Democratic National Convention if you don’t make it (see above diary)….