More like this might be a good idea,you know elbows better late than never.Douglas has denied it but not explained it .If I was an undecided voter hearing Gov.Douglas may have missed a chance at Federal highway funds would be my list of concerns. Higher than say a campaign funding dispute.

Symington: Douglas may miss chance for highway aid

October 17, 2008 2:15 PM ET

RICHMOND, Vt.  – Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gaye Symington says the administration of Republican Gov. Jim Douglas is likely to pass up more than $137 million in federal money to fix Vermont’s roads and bridges.

Symington says lack of planning by the Agency of Transportation is to blame for what could be a missed opportunity to receive federal funds.

The outgoing House speaker says she and other lawmakers have been asking for months for an accounting of federal funds unclaimed by the state – and just got one Thursday from the Federal Highway Administration.

Douglas has denied there’s any federal money available that isn’t being used.

http://www.fox44.net/Global/st…

( – promoted by JDRyan)

Here they go again…

A Rutland Herald article and a VT Progressive Party blog post are both trumpeting the sense of outrage, OUTRAGE!, that Pollina and the Progs are feeling over what they are trying to characterize as “swift boat-style attacks” on them by the Democratic Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz and Attorney General William Sorrell over the recent campaign contribution interpretation.

Let’s be clear about what’s going on here. This is really nothing more than a distracting political ploy by the Pollina/VPP camp. It’s a campaign of false outrage in the tradition of the McCain/Rove playbook. Pollina and the Progressives want Vermonters to think that it’s important to talk about the fact that the AttGen and SecofSt came out publically against the legality of their 2-election contributors.

Here’s basically what the AG & SoS said:

The campaign laws say that you may take donations of up to $1000 per contributor for each election; with the primary and the general being separate elections.

They said that once Pollina made the surprising move to run as an independent, he was not participating in 2 elections since he would not be in a primary, and he was thereby limited to only $1000 per contributor, at most. A pretty reasonable argument to make. There are legitimate concerns about the underlying fairness of allowing the big party candidates to double contributions because they have a token primary election, but these concerns are legally irrelevant to this current matter, and beside the point in examining this political tactic.

Pollina and the VPP are now calling this very reasonable interpretation a “swift boat-style attack”.

The court determined that Pollina actually did “participate” in a primary election because the language defining “participation” includes intention to participate, or incurring any campaigning expenses and is very loose. This is an interesting judgment to say the least, and is open to interpretation. To say, alternately, that Pollina did not “participate” in a primary because there was no primary is a matter of differing, and reasonable legal judgment, not a partisan attack.

Just like the McCain campaign architects, they are counting on people not really paying attention to sell this sense of outrage!

I hope that voters are smart enough to see through this ploy and will keep their focus on the more substantial issues that are being discussed in this campaign.

This is the final part of my interview with Peter Welch last Friday.

JD: Now, speaking of challenges, you're fortunate this year not to have a challenge from the right. You said in the Argus/Herald article that might be because people are happy with what you're doing. There's also the reality that they're [the GOP] are in a lot of trouble right now and you're in pretty safe territory, so they have to focus their resources elsewhere. You have a challenge from the left, which I always think is a good idea. Thomas Hermann, running as a Progressive. I was up late last night…

PW: He's working hard, he's a very good guy.

JD: I got the same impression. So, I was up late last night looking into a lot of this, what he says about your record. Iraq, we're going to talk about that, now. He mentions two votes in particular of yours…

PW: Yes, he… this is the Jimmy Leas attack.

JD: I read about this… H.R. 2206. That was the one you originally voted for, when it had the withdrawal timetable but he failed to mention in the article that you voted against it when it came back from the Senate without the timetable.

PW: Yeah, it' s flat out wrong. I've said that I'll use the power of the purse, and I'll support legislation that had a specific objective of bringing the troops home, and that… First of all, the sequence of that is wrong. That's Jimmy, in a way. And everyone is absolutely welcome to challenge my record, but not distort it. Step one, that's what this was, and this was a high point in which Vermont was prominent in fighting back on the war.

JD: And this was in May of 2007, right?

PW: Right. Jim McGovern from Massachusetts – I serve with him on the Rules Committee. He and I sponsored an amendment – and he's close to Pelosi, more than me – but this was our amendment, and we got this agreement from her to put this up for a full vote in the House. And this was a bill that would have required having our troops home, I believe, within six months, I'll have to check it. But it was a date certain to bring our troops home. It's the first time we had a vote to bring our troops home in the five years of the war, it got 171 votes, I believe. It failed, but we got 171 votes. That was me sponsoring it. So, the next vote was on the funding, but it had the timetable in there, okay, of bringing our troops home by a date certain. I voted for that, but that's consistent with what I said I would do, you know. It had the timetable. That passed the House, goes to the Senate, the Senate strips out the timetable, brings it back, and I voted against it. That's the story.

JD: H.J 52? The other one.

PW: Yes, the continuing resolution.

JD: Now, Senator Russ Feingold said in particular about this, “We're about to vote on a continuing resolution that contains tens of billions of dollars to continue the misguided war without a timeline.”

PW: That's simply not right. First of all, you know that all of the war funding bills were supplemental appropriation bills. And this is yet another thing for which George Bush should be condemned. It was on the credit card. So, the funding for the war never went into the defense bill. The funding bill went on a supplemental appropriations bill for war funding. So all of the war funding was in separate supplemental bills. This bill was a continuing resolution to keep the lights on in government for six weeks.

Now, some people have apparently argued, well, if you keep the lights on, it keeps the war going. And I'll let the people decide whether that's it, but the bottom line is that i means Walter Reed shuts down, it means soldiers that are getting health care for their treatments don't get it, it means Social Security checks don't go out, and so on.

JD: But that did contain money for continuing combat operations, correct?

PW: No, the argument that the proponents have made is that by allowing the Pentagon to have money along with the VA, with the hot lunches, along with Walter Reed, that money was, quote, “fungible”, so they could move it around. So, we could argue about that, but the point is that fundamentally it was about appropriation or every single thing government does, from hot lunch, to the highways, to our hospitals, to the VA.

And, it may be, I mean, a fair argument that somebody could make is that their position is that we should just shut down all of government. I mean, that's the straight-out argument. Not just cut off pentagon funding for the war, literally shut down government.

JD: That worked really well for Newt Gingrich, right?

PW: So that's the honest argument that somebody could make. And they could say, “Peter, you voted to continue funding for hot lunch and veteran's programs and you shouldn't have. That's the argument they're trying to make there.

JD: But couldn't you say they could have made the argument that also said that a better resolution should have come back for you to vote on, that was more specific about the funding?

PW: Well, you know the answer to that is always theoretically possible, okay? I mean, it always is. There's never anything I've voted on in Montpelier or Washington that didn't have plenty of room for improvement. So the question is, did I fight for things that were better? Did I use the power that I have as one of 435? And, was there any more room or were you at the end of the rope? So that's it. It's kind of a convenient argument that you could always make, but there's nothing you can ever pass that will be, quote, “perfect”.

I mean, what's amazing about this is that the war, the folks who are watching this, who have spent their lives these past six years trying to bring this war to an end and get congressional support, they're in a sense nonpartisan and very critical of what we do in Congress, rate me 100%. I've got an A rating from the progressive blogs, the middle-class blogs, so, you know it's hard to see… there's nobody who's done more.

JD: Well, then let's talk about the anger. I was at that meeting in Barre last winter [Peter's meeting last year with anti-war activists]. What were you thinking as you were going in there?

PW: Well, here's what I thought. I thought that, and I've always thought this, it's a big reason why I went. I share the fury about the war. Bush lied to us about the weapons of mass destruction. It's made us weaker, I mean all of the things that have made this so terrible, paying for it on the credit card, and Vermonters are really angry. They also had a lot of hope in that election two years ago, that by changing their congressional… going from Republican to Democrat, that we'd be able to end it. So there was an immense amount of frustration. A lot of us in the House had frustration. I voted on the timetables and sponsored the first bill to bring our troops home. So I shared the fury.

You know, the practical problem we run into is the Senate, so can have a House with a working majority, you have the votes to get the troops home, it gets to the Senate, and you don't have the votes to do it. Even when we got advisory language to the President, he vetoed it, and we didn't have the votes in the Senate to overcome it. So, I can see why people are really, really frustrated. And the challenge for all of us in politics, and in life, is to do the best we can, to channel that frustration.

JD: But did you come out of that meeting feeling any different about anything?

PW: [pauses for a moment] Well, see, I went in as somebody totally opposed to the war, and who's committed to doing everything I could with my one vote, every day I could, to try to bring that to an end sooner, rather than later. And that meeting, I think, really had a couple of different things going on. I mean, there were some people there who just basically had come, they wanted to show me up, and tear me down, and it didn't matter. There was no willingness to have a dialog, no willingness to let me listen to them and then actually explain what I was doing, why, and how. And as you may remember, I made it clear to folks there that I would stay as long as they wanted and answer any question that anyone wanted to ask me. I feel that's my responsibility,and I was willing to do that. But there were some people that wanted to turn it into some kind of a show trial.

There were an awful lot of other people there, frankly, who wanted to have a discussion about the war, what's going on, what to do about it. They might want to ask me questions about what I did and why I did it, maybe answer some of the questions the organizers asked of me. So it was a mixed group who was there, you know?

JD: You know, it seems that a lot of antiwar activists really just feel like “no means no”, meaning they want a hardline position on this. Not just “voting for funding if there's a timetable”, meaning “no money for the war, period.” What would you say to them? You see, I think what part of it is… I talked on the radio, WKVT, shortly after the meeting, and I said that part of what makes it different about Vermont, being as liberal as we are and definitely one of the most antiwar states in the country, is that it think that some people expect more, a more vocal, leadership role from you than…

PW: Well, I think that might be right. You know, my goal is to bring that war to an end, as soon as we possibly can. And, sometimes it's a judgment call as to what step you can take that will do the most to advance that cause.

JD: A difference in tactics is what you're saying?

PW: Well, see, I think, to accomplish any goal… I find that in politics, its often exciting and it's often very hard. You might get a group of people together that are really committed to the goal of universal healthcare. We want that. Everyone of us in our soul really wants that. But when you get to the actual implementation of it those same people who share that goal and that passion might have honest differences of opinion about what's the best next move? Some people might say, “Let's propose single payer.” Others might say, “Let's do a petition drive.” Others might say, “Let's do a demonstration in front of the hospital.” And who knows who's right?

This is what I get from the civil rights movement. When I started working in Chicago, we were working on housing, and the issue there is that poor people lived in neighborhoods that were redlined, so no matter how good their job, they couldn't get a mortgage. Fast forward to 2007, the Lehman Bros. hired mortgage originators to go into those neighborhoods to sell loans to people that could never afford them, because they were poor, and they could talk them into it, and they didn't care. It's still victimization and predation, in case by giving money, in another by withholding money.

JD: But don't you think there's something to be said for personal responsibility, as well?

PW: There's an element of that. I believe there's a lot to be said for personal responsibility. But just to go back to your question, I remember the hardest parts of the work that I was doing, you know, ultimately we ended up doing this payment strike to try to get some justice, really, for these families.

But we had fierce debates among ourselves whether we should be doing leafleting out in a suburb where one of these real estate speculators lived. What would be the backlash? How would that affect us? We had debates about whether we should picket in front of the Federal Savings and Loan. Should we picket in front of Continental Bank? And, it was an assessment about how that tactic would work. Would it set us back? Would it result in too much backlash? I mean, all these practical questions that you can't escape if you're honestly trying to be responsible to achieve a goal, whether it be the case of us in Chicago to get civil rights for folks who were denied them, or if it's in Congress, in trying to bring this war to an end as soon as humanly possible.

And I find that to some extent, we sometimes take refuge in a tactic because it gives us a certainty that it will work, it gives us the satisfaction that we're being on the high ground, and I find life to be much more complicated than that.

JD: It's empowering. It's definitely empowering, and that's something that I wanted to ask you. You've had sit-ins in your office, things like that, there were protests out in Denver, much more out in St. Paul.. in terms of some of the traditional methods of protest and civil disobedience, do you feel they have the same relevance that they did thirty or forty years ago?

PW: No, I don't, and I think it's totally different. You know, I serve with John Lewis. And in those early civil rights days, the folks who demonstrated, black and white, put themselves in danger of getting killed. Literally. Beaten up. Maimed. And the harm's way they put themselves in was real. It was somebody like John Lewis who we see every day was beaten to the brink of death. He sat in, time and again, to integrate a lunch counter. And that's simply not the case now.

JD: What's… there's still the risk of getting beaten or killed. St. Paul showed us that. I'm not sure what you're saying. The danger element of it is still there.

PW: Well, I wouldn't compare it to the folks who were in the early 60's, and I don't include myself in that, by the way. I did some demonstrating but I wasn't like some of the Freedom Riders. I mean, it's fundamentally different. It's not without risk, and I respect that.

JD: Do you think it still has a place?

PW: Sure. Yeah, I do.

JD: Now, how does.. you and your colleagues. How does it affect you? What are the various reactions you get to that when you see it? It doesn't get the media coverage that it used to.

PW: Well, I frequently will talk to people. I mean, I want to hear them. I respect activism. I respect people who are willing to make an effort to change things. I might disagree with their tactic, whether I was in public office or not. I would sometimes disagree with that decision for a particular action or not but sometimes I'd agree with it.

Obviously, in politics, it's really important to mobilize and organize. So that, I respect, and I respect speaking out in public ways to get attention. But the “how to” so you're successful in making your point and not having it hijacked by others to make a different point, that's a matter of judgment, and some people have better judgment than others.

JD: Is it about fighting or winning? I look at that and I think that question tends to get overlooked when considering tactics.

PW: Yes, I think the goal of our efforts has to be to make progress. You know, winning is a bigger term than I'm used to in politics, or in life, frankly. It just, you know, is such a dynamic, this world we live in, and our own lives, they are so dynamic, and it's not like we get to a place where we have a static equilibrium or we're perfect, in our own world. All of us have our limitations and we're aware of them and it's this society, we have our limitations as well. And I think there's this big place in politics and in life, for tolerance and respect. I really believe that. You know, I do my best, but I never assume that I'm absolutely right. I also found that focusing on what the goal is, and not some specific tactic often creates space for people to feel successful, to get there sooner, rather than later.

JD: Okay, can I have one more quick question?

[voice in the background – “Is it yes or no?]

JD: If there's one thing you have to say if you look back over these last two years that you might have done differently, what would it be? Especially in light of what you just said… Something you could have done differently legislatively, a way you could have handled a certain issue, the way you conveyed a certain message…What would you have to say you would have done differently?

PW: I'll have to think about that. You know, my goal was to be engaged and listening. Open, and accessible. I think my job is to do the best I can to be a means by which Vermonters can participate in this discussion about the future. And one of the things I'm really proud of is the “Congress in Your Communities” stuff, just about every weekend. It's just about talking to folks on their terms and on their time. And a lot of the best legislation. I guess I've passed more legislation than any new member, like 55 members, by factor of a lot. In significant stuff, not naming a highway or something. A lot of those ideas, like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Rutland.. the hospitals that were going to get whacked, those came directly from me talking to people in the street. They gave me these ideas, I translated them into legislative-speak. The milk program, where on the House side, we made a lot of progress, Senator Leahy was obviously incredibly important in this, but the feed adjuster, respect for the cost side… all of these things emerged because I was talking and listening to Vermonters.

JD: But is there something you could have done differently?

PW: Well, I'm sure there is. I don't look back on any votes with regret, okay. Could I have explained things a bit better? Probably at times, I could. I'm very proud of my record on the war, and even on this economic issue, there are times where you've got to reach into you own soul, and come to your best judgment about that's the right vote. And in my case around the war and on the economy, where it affects average, hard-working Vermonters, my strong desire is to make the call in an honest way, the best I see it, and to deal with the political fallout afterwards. It's a great job.

JD: Okay. Thanks, Peter.

PW: Thanks, JD.

***

So, that's that. I had a few nuclear-related questions for Peter that I didn't get to, but he emailed me some answers. I'll put those up in a post next week. Thanks for reading and your comments, too.

This is awesome!

Been thinking about the Symington campaign. The one that started inexplicably late, proceeded at a casual amble, and has failed to exploit Jim Douglas’ obvious weaknesses or present a compelling Democratic agenda. The one that has completely missed the chance to capitalize on the Democratic sweep that’s taking shape across the country. The one that, even with the Keystone Kops effort put on by Prog — er, Independent Tony Pollina, can’t manage to solidify the Left.

Came up with two explanations.  

1. The Vermont Stare.  My wife and I are from the Midwest, and have only lived in Vermont a couple of years. There are many things we love about Vermont, but there are a few things we find annoying and occasionally insufferable.

Chief among these is the strong tendency to accept things pretty much as they are. In politics, we almost always re-elect incumbents, no matter what their actual accomplishments. In businesses and organizations large and small, there’s a tangible resistance to changing “the way we’ve always done things.” Suggestions for change are usually met by what we’ve come to call the Vermont Stare: a blank look that indicates a suspension of the listening process. You know that your idea is whizzing straight over their heads, and that nothing will ever be done about it. Even if it’s a really obvious and simple idea.

In Symington’s case, I see evidence of the Vermont Stare phenomenon in the long delay in her official announcement. She waited until the spring — because we’ve always done it that way. We’ve always had relatively short campaign seasons. Well, it’s not good enough. If she’d announced earlier, she could have (a) built a strong case against Douglas, (b) promoted her own agenda, and (c) short-circuited Pollina’s bid.

Even after she announced, she waited until the Legislative session was over before actively campaigning. We’ve always done it that way — separated campaigning from legislating. Problem is, Douglas and his taxpayer-funded flack machine have changed the game: they’ve been running a permanent campaign. Symington squandered precious weeks by waiting for adjournment. Which brings us to…

2. The Laracey Effect. Many years ago in a city far, far away, there was an assistant city treasurer named Mel Laracey. Nice guy. Saw him around City Hall all the time. One year, a seat opened up in the Legislature. This being a safe Democratic city, a crowded primary field quickly emerged — including Mel Laracey, who had never run for any political office in his life.

Now, there were some pretty powerful Dems in the primary field. When I asked Mel if he thought he had a chance to win, he said a definite yes — he believed he was very well known in the community.

Well, good ol’ Mel finished sixth, with about 3% of the primary vote. You see, Mel was very well known around City Hall. Because he spent all his time in City Hall, that was his community. He didn’t realize how many people never have anything to do with City Hall, and had no idea who their Assistant City Treasurer was.

I get the sense that Gaye Symington (and many other Democratic leaders) have a bad case of the Laracey Effect. She seems to believe that the Statehouse is the center of the political universe. She probably believes that by presiding over the Legislature, she was (in effect) campaigning. That the good people of Vermont were taking note of the debates and the maneuvering and the jawboning and the lobbying and her fine leadership of the whole process.

In fact, most voters pay absolutely no attention to their Legislature. There isn’t even that much coverage of the Statehouse any more, because of the rapid shrinkage of the Montpelier press corps. So even if they wanted to pay attention — which they don’t, because the daily grind of lawmaking is goddamn boring stuff — they’d have a hard time becoming informed. So Gaye’s activities as Speaker did virtually nothing to raise her profile among the voters. She was a big cheese under the golden dome, but she could have probably walked down almost any street in the state without being recognized.  

She would have been much better off neglecting her job (or stepping down, if she really had to be honorable about it), leasing a big bus, and traveling around the state from last fall until now.

Okay, now she does still have a chance to win. If she does, I’ve got a heapin’ bowlful of words to eat. But even so… in this strongly Democratic year, it should have been so much easier to pull Douglas down. It could have been, if not for the Vermont Stare and the Laracey Effect.  

(Re-posted from Huffington Post)

I became an environmental activist in the early 1970s just as I was completing my doctorate in ecology at the University of British Columbia. It was the height of the Cold War and the height of the Viet Nam War and we were compelled to take a very public stand against activities we thought to be catastrophic both for people and for the planet.

I joined a small committee that was meeting in the basement of the Unitarian Church. We organized a protest voyage against U.S. hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska and had tens of thousands marching in the streets. When that H-bomb was set off at Amchitka Island in November 1971, it was the last hydrogen bomb the U.S. ever detonated.

It was the birth of Greenpeace, the organization I co-founded, spending 15 years in its top committee, helping to lead environmental campaigns around the world.

But it’s ironic in the extreme that, as we mark the 100th anniversary of drinking water chlorination, my old organization and other activist groups aligned with it continue to oppose this most important public health achievement.  

Activist organizations like Greenpeace have access to a full century of observations on the results of water chlorination in the US, all the way back to September 26, 1908 when Jersey City, NJ became the first US city to chlorinate its public water supply.

It’s true, there were those back then who vehemently opposed the use of this “poison” in public water supplies. According to one official at the time, continued chlorination to eradicate typhoid was akin to being “between the devil and the deep blue sea, for at present we don’t know whether typhoid fever or the (chlorinated) drinking water is the worst.”

Thankfully from the perspective of human health, chlorination of water supplies spread rapidly. Today, chlorination is the overwhelming choice for treating public water systems.

The results are clear. This widespread adoption of chlorine disinfection across the U.S. has had very important results. Waterborne diseases like typhoid, Hepatitis A and cholera that once killed thousands of Americans each year have been virtually eliminated. Typhoid fever cases fell by more than 99 percent between 1900 and 1960. Related childhood mortality fell dramatically. And average life expectancy rose from 47 years in 1900 to nearly 78 years in 2006.

Yet, many of my old environmental colleagues continue to vilify chlorination of water by raising unwarranted fears about health risks of chlorine and disinfection byproducts. In fact, it was a Greenpeace decision in 1986 to support a world-wide ban on all chlorine use that turned out to be a breaking point between my old organization and me.

My strongly held view is that chlorine is essential for our health. It is that simple. At the time I explained to my fellow Greenpeace International directors that water chlorination was the biggest advance in the history of public health, and in addition that the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. As the only board member with an education in science, my words fell on deaf ears.

In short, my former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, giving me no choice but to leave the group as I could not support such a policy. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from water chlorination, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have continued to oppose its use for more than 20 years.

I believe the opposition to the use of chemicals such as chlorine is part of a broader hostility to the use of chemicals in general. I often cite Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring, as having had a significant impact on many pioneers of the green movement. The book raised some legitimate concerns, many rooted in science, about the risks and negative environmental impact associated with the indiscriminate use of chemicals.

But the day-to-day water chlorination that occurs across America is not in the category of indiscriminate use. For Greenpeace and groups like it, the healthy skepticism learned from Carson has hardened over the years, and given way to a mindset that treats virtually all use of chemicals with suspicion.

After a century of use and the resulting eradication of waterborne diseases across the US and the world, those activists who continue, absurdly, to oppose water chlorination only illustrate the need for an alternative environmental policy based on science and logic – not misinformation and campaigns of fear.

After all, campaigns based on groundless fears distract the public from real environmental threats such as air pollution and tropical deforestation for example.

As we mark one of the key milestones in improving the public health of Americans right across the country, let’s always remember we all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But stewardship requires that science drive our public policy, just as it did a hundred years ago in Jersey City.  

(UPDATE: Woops… didn’t see that CarbonCopy already has a diary up on this… go visit his, too)

Sessions has ruled, and goes with Pollina’s first argument – the least radical one:

U.S. District Court Judge William Sessions III wrote that Pollina was a Progressive Party candidate when he collected contributions of more than $1,000 from supporters – and therefore can keep the funds even though he is now running as an independent.

Sessions criticized the offices of the Vermont Secretary of State and the Vermont Attorney General for an interpretation of the law in a “very limited way that is not supported by a plain reading.”

While the end result is no surprise (many of us argued that, when it came down to a fight, Pollina will not have to give the money back), in arguing what Markowitz and Sorrell have presented as the law on its own merits, the issue of whether or not there even is a law seems to have been sidestepped – for now. What that means in the short term is that Pollina gets his money and the barn door has not necessarily been thrown open for Jim Douglas to rake in bazillions and point at Pollina for having opened the door for him.

Although Sessions’ comments are, it must be said, strange. To say that Sorrel’s arguments are not supported by a “plain reading” of the law seems a little bizarre. $1000 per election (primary and general). Pollina is engaging in 1 election, hence a $1000 limit. That’s about as plain and simple as it gets. Sessions suggests that the “plain reading” would seem to allow for candidates to put out a press release claiming they’ll be running in a primary, collect the extra money, and then the next day say “oops, changed my mind.” By any reasoned standard, it would seem that the only objective measure of whether or not someone is participating in a given primary is whether or not they participate in a primary. Let x = x and all. Clearly Sessions is working from a more intangible definition of what a primary is than the traditional one – an election with ballots that include the names of participants. Weird.

Not only is that a bizarre definition of plain reading, its an equally bizarre projection onto the legislative intent behind the law (that’s not really a law, but as I say, that li’l bullet was dodged).

Still, when all is said and done, its probably the least harmful decision that could’ve come down the pipe, despite the surreality of the decision itself. I’d like to think this will all get straightened up for next time – but not if its Jim Douglas back in charge, as he’s the one who set the stage for this in the first place, likely hoping to be able to raise even more scads of cash if he felt the need. Unfortunately for Douglas, this ruling means that, if he does want to start raking in dough and play chicken with the gentlemen’s agreement that seems to be in play around our mirage of a campaign finace law, Sessions’ ruling means he won’t get to have Anthony Pollina be his stalking horse for the inevitable fireworks that would follow.

( – promoted by odum)

Look for several major hedge funds to implode in the coming days.  They are getting hit with a triple whammy: margin calls, deleveraging and the ban on short-selling.  

Politically, I think it will be very, very tough for the Bush Admin to call for a bail out of a major hedge fund – normal Americans don’t have access to hedge funds and they are not generally understood.  Plus, Congress is out of session for the election period.

Rubin pulled off a private sector-led bail out of LTCM (hedge fund) that imploded in the late 90s, but Paulson is no Rubin….

The bloodshed on Wall street continues….  

Watching these things is like pulling teeth – and I should know, as I just recently had my wisdom teeth pulled (note to the kids: don’t wait til your 40 to have that done, if you can avoid it). I watched the big show on CNN today, and its true that its hard not to watch that silly ongoing tracking chart scrolling at the bottom. It sucks you in.

Anyway – this was clearly McCain’s strongest debate. He controlled much of the conversation in the beginning – but he did in the first debate too, and it wasn’t enough in and of itself.

I think the negatives we saw on display in regards to McCain – the anger, the stiffness, the meanness and a degree of pandering – were still on display, but all muted. Obama, I guess, needs to stand up at these things, as he was meandering more than he has in any debate since the primary, although he was sharpening up in the last half an hour or so.

So McCain had his best debate, Obama had his worst, and I’ll still bet that the any-second-now-snap-polls will give it to Obama, just by a smaller margin. We’ll have to see. The pundits, given the low expectations for McCain following all the recent, prematurely written political epitaphs we keep seeing, will probably give the advantage as far as “winning” goes to McCain, but I think the public feedback will force them to dial that back.

UPDATE: Well, color me surprised – the snap polls are bigger for Obama than ever. CBS reports their poll of uncommitted voters gave it overwhelmingly to Obama (53%), with McCain – at 22% – coming in behind “it was a draw” at 24%.

The truth behind these big numbers may be (and hopefully is) that the narratives of these two (Obama as winner, more presidential, McCain as loser, more erratic and scary) have settled into the undecideds’ psyches and impacting their perceptions, which would explain the increasing margin for Obama in these snap polls, even though McCain debated better than he has.

Cool.

UPDATE 2: And the CNN snap polls are even better. Independents gave it 57-31 for Obama, which was close to the overall average. And on every individual metric – leadership, likability – Obama just trashes McCain (no link yet on their website).