It was relatively quiet at the Vermont Democratic Party Platform Convention (you can read the amended and passed document here). In contrast to other years, the hostility level from the floor was waaaay down, although one gentleman tried to add a section condemning the “government corruption” in drug interdiction and treatment agencies. Most others present agreed that the statement didn’t fit — and Chair Ian Carleton was mightily offended at the impugning of the sincerity and righteousness of people he meets every day in the courtroom as a litigator.

But two interesting things happened, both of which trend toward more openness and transparency in the VDP: the Presidential Electors were nominated from the floor; and their election was accomplished through (a slightly odd version of) IRV.

Some recent history and context after the jump.

The Presidential Electors are the people from each state whose votes actually elect the President. They are, collectively, the Electoral College, which was the Founders’ last-ditch protection against rule by the rabble.

When we vote for, say, Barack H. Obama in November, if we read the ballot carefully, we see that we are actually voting for “Electors for [or pledged to] Barack H. Obama.” The total of Electors for the US is 538. Vermont has 3. Alaska (which has nearly the same population as Vermont and waaaay more earmarks) also has 3, as do Delaware, Montana, each of the Dakotas, and Wyoming.

Traditionally, the Electors for the Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates have been presented as a slate of three names which was then simply ratified at the Platform Convention. It was never anyone I’d ever heard of, and I had no clue as to how they were chosen. Some Democrats with longer experience suggest that the office was primarily honorary.

VDP Chair Ian Carleton neglected to appoint a “Credentials, Rules and Procedures” Committee o run the nuts and bolts of the Platform Convention. The committee working on writing the Platform met throughout the spring and summer and actually posted a couple of different drafts on the VDP website several weeks ahead of the event — thanks in large part to VDP Vice Chair Judy Bevans’ competence, determination, hard work, and great good humor.

Two weeks before the convention, the Platform (writing) Committee was suddenly informed that it was up to them to oversee everything. So, essentially, they did. Building on the 2006 rules, with some additions and interpretations by State Committee Treasurer Michael Inners, and consultation with the 2006 Rules Committee, and their own persistent questions about how the slate of Electors was chosen, they came up with rules that pretty much make sense. And they were able to include the procedure for open elections of Electors.

Attendance was down, and the VDP knew somehow that it would be: staff set up maybe 50 chairs in Barre’s Old Labor Hall. It begs the question: was it because we know in our hearts that the Democrats must and will win in November, and that the national Platform will “rule” the next four years? The fire of opposition to a corrupt regime has been banked in a soothing ash blanket of “Hope”?

The draft VDP Platform focused on Vermont issues (economy, energy, healthcare, environment) and did not mention the Iraq War or impeaching G.W. Bush or R.B. Cheney. An amendment was offered and passed enumerating the reasons to support “prompt withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq” and to oppose “permanent military bases” there, as well as “military incursions into Iran and Pakistan.”

I worry that the low attendance was abetted by deliberate inaction by the VDP staff. And that it’s one more nail in the coffin of a dying process. Nearly everyone agrees that no one reads the document. Two years ago, constituents like the VSEA and other labor groups raised objections and insisted on changes. This year? Nothing. Maybe that has as much to do with  labor’s leap to Independent Pollina (who doesn’t have a party and thus is not required to have a platform).

(Here’s a recap of last night’s PSB hearing. Thanks for putting this together Ed! – promoted by Christian Avard)

Susan Smallheer wrote it best. From the Rutland Herald:

http://rutlandherald.com/apps/…

Opponents of nuclear power pointed to the turmoil on Wall Street on Monday as proof the state needed more guarantees from Entergy Nuclear that money would be there in the future to dismantle and clean up the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

More than 250 people turned out Monday night to urge the Vermont Public Service Board to either deny the owners of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant a 20-year extension on its state permit, or to keep the plant running to save jobs and relatively low electric rates.

More below the fold.

Entergy Nuclear needs approval from both the Public Service Board and the Vermont Legislature, as well as federal regulators, if it wants to continue operating beyond 2012, when its original 40-year license expires.

During the first 90 minutes of the PSB hearing, sentiment was running 2-1 against nuclear power, saying that the state had a great opportunity to turn Vermont into a Mecca of alternative energy: wind, solar and hydro.

Opponents of nuclear power argued that Vermont Yankee only provides 2 percent of all the power needs in New England, and that New England would be better off without the safety threat the 36-year-old reactor poses, they said.

And they noted that only 170 of Entergy Nuclear’s 600 employees actually live in Vermont, with the balance in New Hampshire or Massachusetts. The reactor is located about 5 miles from Massachusetts, and just across the Connecticut River from New Hampshire.

Supporters of Vermont Yankee, who were mostly Entergy Nuclear employees, asserted that the plant was well-run and like its advertisements say: “clean, safe and reliable.”

I’m not exactly sure how or why, but I was invited to become a member of a daily polling group at the new political aggregate news site politicshome.com founded by a small group of British news professionals from places like the BBC and the Observer. The group is dubbed the “Online 100” and politicshome labels it:

…the 100 leading online voices in the United States…. The panel includes Arianna Huffington, Karl Rove, Joe Klein, Joe Trippi, Mike Allen, Mark Halperin, Mark Blumenthal, Dana Milbank, Jonah Goldberg, John Fund, Jake Tapper, Chuck Todd, Marc Ambinder and Andrew Sullivan.

Weird, huh? I figure the reason even Karl Rove is admitting that McCain’s ads have gone too far is because my good influence is rubbing off on him…

But I digress. The first Online100 question was something to the effect of “What do you think Obama’s biggest mistake to date has been?” (I’m hoping for a McCain question along the same lines any time now…). We had a very few multiple choice options, and my pick was with the majority – that he hadn’t been aggressive enough in response to Palin.

But my real answer wasn’t there. Obama’s biggest mistake – and it was a doozy – was his decision to choke off all support of 527 groups (the independent expenditure organizations that run issue ads during elections and are usually more bare knuckle in their attacks). Democratic activists and funders dutifully accommodated the Obama campaigns desire to consolidate any and all anti-McCain messaging under their direct control. It sounds like a good move from a management perspective, but if there’s one thing I’ve seen kill a campaign, it’s a dearth of diverse messaging and a lack of full engagement by constituent support groups. When such decisions become the sole purview of a tiny handful of people, the result is never good.

And that result? Well, we’ve all seen it, haven’t we? An Obama campaign slow on the uptake, that has allowed its lead in the polls to fall away quickly due to their non response to McCain and Palin. McCain has been doing nothing that shouldn’t have been expected – call it the Audacity of Audacity. It’s Roveism with McCain’s own flavor. Karl Rove has never been the genius he’s been made out to be. What he really is, is a sort of savant; he never really got the conventions and scruples of electoral politics, so he figured screw ’em. There was nothing too outrageous or revolting he would do, and with each dose of outrageous campaign slime, the Washington establishment would simply throw up their hands and be “shocked, shocked!” that he would do such a thing. They’d then figure that everyone would be so appalled by it all, that shame and remorse as well as a public backlash would keep him from descending into such slime again.

But Rove – the bull in the china shop – smashed all the china, which was of course what he was trying to do. Rather than step back from his success, he repeated it – over and over again. The Dems in DC continued to be shocked and incapable of responding through their shock, and so it went.

McCain is following the same playbook, but this time the slime he’s slinging isn’t even tethered to an intentionally skewed version of reality in order to grant it a fig leaf of moral justification. He’s just pulling it out of thin air. Funny that this simple (and logical) next iteration of Rovism is enough to cause even Karl himself to recoil a bit.

The point is, that there was a degree of ugliness that was inevitable that the campaign proper would not be equipped to respond to. But the Obama general election campaign was partially predicated on a sort of Gandhian approach; if we just step up honorably before the cameras and allow ourselves to be unjustly clubbed bloody before the eyes of the world, public sentiment will turn our way.

Maybe some day, but Obama had the timescale wrong. Eventually I believe voters will turn against that crap, but only after the level of egregiousness builds to a critical mass – which is going to take several election cycles, not simply a couple of news cycles.

So Obama cut some of his best tools off at the knees, unilaterally disarming before a candidate who will clearly stoop to anything.

And if you’re one of those devotees who believes that Obama is so unassailable, so perfect that any and all campaign criticism amounts to concern trolling (an ugly accusation when thrown against allies, designed to demand and enforce an ugly sort of groupthink), here’s the brainlock for you; the Obama campaign itself has realized its mistake.

(Obama makes no mistakes… but Obama is saying he made a mistake… and Obama makes no mistakes, so its not a mistake that Obama made a mistake… but Obama makes no mistakes… Norman, coordinate! Norman, coordinate!)

A few weeks ago, the Obama campaign reversed course and decided maybe the 527’s aren’t such a bad idea after all, all things considered. But building a 527 media machine from scratch takes time and money – neither of which magically appear at the drop of a hat.

So the greater Democratic power broker community has become as edgy as much of the activist community (aw – aint it nice when we all come together…?), and news is out today that they’re working to make something happen – and fast, given that we’re into the home stretch, and ground lost may or may not be easily made up. From TPM:

Several senior Democratic strategists unaffiliated with Obama’s campaign convened a private conference call late last week with at least four dozen of the party’s most prolific donors to progressive causes and outside groups — a call designed to instill a sense among donors that things are “pretty damn urgent” right now, one of the organizers of the call tells me.

The call is yet another sign that donors and outside operatives — who had earlier gotten the message from Obama that he doesn’t want such activity — now recognize that Team Obama is privately hoping for such efforts to gear up in earnest.

Now I’ve gotten a bit cynical in my old age (ya think?), and people, I know, are hard to un-set from their ways. If Obama wins this thing – and I still think he will – all the true believers will post their pontifications mocking and scoffing at all of us “concern trolls” who had the audacity to speak up and say “trouble” when we saw it. The Obama course correction will be retconned, not as a change of strategy during the heat of election season, but will be evangelically revealed by the unofficial prophets of the campaign to all have been part of the master plan all along, so everyone should return to their previously scheduled fealty (Note to NJ: not referring to you or your comment of the other day… this is different).

Ironically, in doing so, they’ll be shortchanging the Obama campaign on what – during the primary – was its strongest asset; its adaptability. Following a seamless, unwavering master plan is the polar opposite of adapting, and by denying any mistakes or bad choices from a campaign that had been quick on its feet to recover from them, they miss the real picture of what’s been going on.

Now lets be clear – Obama’s still on the right end of most of the metrics in this race – even if barely. And I stand by my video of last week where I told folks to calm down about Palin. By guess is that Palinmania is peaking, and the media pushback has begun. I suspect the entire McCain campaign has peaked. And I hope I’m right.

But the fact is, that campaign adaptability has not been on display in recent weeks, and the reason for the hints of an Obama resurgence have been McCain’s screw-ups, rather than Obama’s maneuvering. Obama has only started firing back himself, and if the campaign does go down, I believe it will be primarily because Obama made this doozy of a 527 mistake and took way too long to realize it was a mistake.

But let’s just all keep working to make sure it doesn’t come to that…

Remember that big charge of money up front,and guaranteed yearly payments the State was going to get if it leased the State lottery?

One of Jim’s big ideas might have wound up in a pretty big tangle of failure.

I guess it is good Gov.Douglas didn’t get to do more about leasing out the lottery.Opposing it was the wise move by the legislature.

What if Lehman Brothers had leased Vt. state lottery?

– When Gov. James Douglas proposed the idea of leasing the state lottery earlier this year, one of the major players in the discussion was Lehman Brothers, the massive investment bank which filed for bankruptcy protection Monday.

It is unclear what, if any, impact the company’s bankruptcy – the financial terms of which are still being worked on – would have had on Vermont’s lottery if the Legislature had agreed to the idea.

http://www.timesargus.com/apps…

All the news reports say that Hurricane Ike wasn’t so bad after all. It headed a bit north and east, so it didn’t make a direct hit on Galveston and Houston, as originally feared. So, luckily, nothing bad happened. Please move along now.  Did we mention Lipstick?

Below the fold are a few videos from one town. One former town. Chrystal Beach, TX, on the northern end of the Bolivar Peninsula.

There’s a 2000ft no-fly zone, killing the news cycle from the air. Luckily, we still have the Coast Guard and small cameras. The next time, I’m sure they’ll have their cameras confiscated upon landing.

I don’t have a lot to say, because the videos really do say it all. Another community drowned. Another hurricane that may provide a clue as to what global warming has in store for us.  Another bungled aftermath by the republicans whose goal seems to be “Government that Does Less and Fails More.”

cross posted from here

Overflight, looking for people in need of rescue:

A rescue (7+ minutes long):

Damage Survey Flight Pt 1:

Damage Survey Flight Pt 2:

And the one repetetive clip that replayed forever on CNN:

by Dn DeWalt

     As Peter Welch has travelled the state this summer, he has been telling Vermonters that, contrary to critics’ assertions, he has done all that he could to stop the war and bring the troops home. During the August 8, 2008 airing of VPR’s “Vermont Edition, Congressman Welch was asked about his votes concerning Iraq. In his response he said:  “Now, my commitment, and one I’ve adhered to steadfastly, was to do everything within my power as a member of Congress, to bring this war to an end, including use my vote on the power of the purse to cut off funding for the war. And I’ve consistently done that. Every chance I have had to vote, I’ve voted to end war funding, unless it was specifically tied to spending money to bring our troops home.”  

      The September 7, 2008 Burlington Free Press quoted him making

the same claim: “Welch says he opposed war funding ‘unless it was tied to bringing our troops home.'”

      The only trouble is, it isn’t true.    

     On May 10, 2007 Peter Welch voted “yea” on H.R. 2206, that provided $96 billion to continue the occupation of Iraq. H.R. 2206 had no time line for bringing the troops home.

     Then, on September 26, 2007 Peter Welch did it again: he voted for H.J. 52 which gave another $9 billion in war funding, again without any provisions to bring any troops home.

     Mr. Welch cannot be allowed to dodge the inconvenient truths of his voting record. His failure to vote against war funding is precisely why he faces the election opposition that he does have. The Thomas Hermann campaign for Congress is calling for a correction and explanation from Mr. Welch.

        Progressive Party candidate Hermann has made his own position clear:  “The most effective way to end the war is to vote down funding. Only a bare majority is needed in the House to vote down funding and end the war. Only 41 votes are needed in the Senate to block war funding from even coming up for a vote. Voting down funding in either chamber ends the war, and it cannot be vetoed. Voting down funding for war will save lives of Americans and Iraqis, stop the destruction of their country, and free up billions of dollars for desperate needs at home.”

     “Peter Welch should not be permitted to misrepresent his record on this crucial matter. He repeatedly voted to fund the war without any provision to bring any troops home. He should forthrightly admit that he voted to fund the war without any time line for withdrawal.

      “If elected I will represent the views of Vermonters by speaking against and voting against all funding bills for the war. I will call for using money already in the pipeline to bring all our soldiers home. And I will fight hard to make sure we take good care of them when they get home.”

      Mr. Welch can make whatever excuses he wants to for his votes, but he cannot try to pretend they didn’t happen. We have a right to expect honest answers from our representatives.

      While Peter Welch was making promises he did not keep during his run for Congress in 2006, Thomas Hermann was serving as a combat soldier in Iraq. He is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and is the Progressive Party candidate for US Representative. Links to the congressional funding bills and Welch’s interviews can be found at www.thomashermanforcongress.com.