This is a pretty cool thing – especially now that its not simply a one-shot deal. Might merit some talking up nationally as a model for others. Here are the stats from last night’s call:
Telephone Town Hall statistics:
- Total participants: 6,029
- Average length of call: 18 minutes
- Number of questions answered: 19
- Callers who participated for 20-40 minutes: nearly 1,000
Reportedly, the questions were virtually 100% about economic concerns. No surprise there.
Nice story in today’s Boston Globe entitled “Republicans Feeling a New Freedom” by Sasha Issenberg, about a panel at the recent Republican Governors conference in Miami. It was a broad discussion of where the GOP goes from here. One place it’s going as fast as it can: disowning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Those are now Democratic responsibilities, one Bush ally noted with some satisfaction, hinting at a corollary to the “Pottery Barn rule” about postwar responsibility: Republicans may have broken Iraq, but President-elect Barack Obama bought it.
“He will now own it, and Republicans will be more free to criticize,” said former Ohio Congressman Rob Portman, who held two positions in the Bush administration and is now considering a run for governor in 2010.
Hey, wait — I thought criticizing the American war effort was tantamount to treason: giving aid and comfort to our enemies. Guess not, eh?
There was also a presentation by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, outlining the buzzwords for a successful campaign. They were all about things like “accountability” and “efficiency.” You know, the hallmarks of the Bush Administration and the 1994-2006 Republican Congress. Luntz noted that, four years ago, most of the buzzwords were about strength and security; now, it’s all about the economy and good government. Who’d a thunk it?
But the best comes from Saul Anuzis, the head of the spectacularly unsuccessful Michigan GOP, who has somehow convinced himself that he should be the next head of the national party. We should be rooting for this guy.
“All the things that didn’t go right with government, Republicans got blamed,” said Saul Anuzis, a Michigan party official running to lead the Republican National Committee, mentioning Iraq along with Hurricane Katrina and the so-called Bridge to Nowhere earmark. “Republicans, generally, we run better when we run against Washington from the outside.”
Good thinking, Saul. Two points:
1. “Republicans got blamed.” It’s almost like they were, oh, running the country or something!
2. “We run better when we run… from the outside.” In other words, Saul, the more the GOP loses, the better. I couldn’t agree more. Let’s put ’em way, way outside and keep ’em there for a long time.
VPR is reporting that 
Vermont State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding is recommending immediate investment in Vermont’s roads and bridges… real economic stimulus that would help keep Vermonters working, create demand for goods and materials, and repair our broken transportation system. Oh, yeah, and it’s paid for!
For years Jim Douglas has failed do anything about our ailing infrastructure and instead simply puts a band-aid over the problem. Our bridges are falling down, our roads are pockmarked and crumbling. Yet, the Governor does nothing. Why? Well, making those repairs costs money.
Jeb’s plan sounds great, right? Fix our roads and bridges and provide jobs for working Vermonters. So, what’s the catch? The catch, is how you pay for it. Treasurer Spaulding has suggested a 5-cent per gallon increase in the gas tax to bring in about $20 million annually. The total cost of repairs is closer to $120 million or more, so the state could get all the money up-front by bonding it and using the tax to pay it back over time. Then, the state could either retire the tax after about six years, or continue it to pay for other needed infrastructure improvements. Typically, Jim Douglas is going into political pounce mode and is likely to declare this “high taxes” that Vermonters cannot afford.
But is that really true? First of all, gas prices have dropped dramatically over the last few months. We were paying $4 and more per gallon. Gas is now about half that (I’ve seen it for $2.19. A nickel increase would only raise it to $2.24. Now obviously, gas prices are volatile and the cost will likely continue to go up and down for awhile. Still, why not take advantage of the opportunity while prices are low? In the meantime, we’re facing a terrible recession and Vermonters need the work. And, they really need good roads and bridges to support people getting to work, our tourism trade, the distribution of goods and services and to save the wear and tear on our vehicles.
Second, pumping money into the economy that goes directly into creating demand for construction materials and that creates jobs is classic economic stimulus – precisely the kind that may create more economic opportunity than it costs. People use their paychecks (which is taxable income) to buy goods and services locally, which in turn puts money in the pockets of local shopkeepers, etc. and adds to the total gross receipts for the state. This is exactly the kind of activity we should be encouraging right now.
Finally, here is someone with a plan. An actual honest-to-goodness plan(!) to not only fix our infrastructure, but to invest in our communities and our people and actually do something about the economy. We’re still waiting for Jim Douglas’ plan. Unfortunately, a plan does not appear to be forthcoming. The Gov’s position appears to be that we cannot afford to do anything, so the only thing to do is cut the budget, cut services to low-income people who need them now more than ever. It’s hard to know if that is part of an actual strategy, or if it is simply the political equivalent of pulling the covers up over your head and hoping these problems will just go away. But, a plan it is not.
The Governor and the legislature should consider Treasurer Spaulding’s plan carefully. Vermonters should get behind this. It is time to do something about our economic situation. This is a worthy plan.
Crossposted at http://mulishbehavior.blogspot…
Over at another site I was debating the nature of conservatism. My interlocutor claimed that he was standing up for “true” conservatism. The conservatism of Burke and Russell Kirk. You often hear this kind of thing, often from the same kinds of people who say they are “real” liberals, by which they mean the kind of liberals that existed back in the 17th or 18th Century, but never since then.
These guys commonly argue that McCain, and even Bush, are not real conservatives, bt that if the American people knew what real conservatism is, they would be.
So in this discussion I thought I'd point out what I think the elements of real conservatism are. Maybe some of them will look familiar to you.
Bush and Douglas are what conservatism is:
Favors the wealthy over the disadvantaged at every opportunity.
Militaristic to the point of imperialism.
Simplistic, dualistic view of international dynamics.
Hostile to civil liberties, and evidencing a fondness for repressive police and military policies.
Committed to using the powers of government to enforce conservative moral and religious values.
Opposed to using the powers of government to serve the common good or to redress the legitimate grievances of disadvantaged groups.
Hostile to environmental protection or other impediments to unrestrained capitalism.
Oh, and if you haven't noticed, Burke left the building a long time ago.
My medium-range anger in the past few days turned into medium range depression, so its probably time to bump up the pick-me-up-diary for therapeutic reasons.
So, here’s the good news:
According to CNN’s Ed Henry, Tom Daschle will serve not just as Secretary of Health and Human Services, but will also be the administration’s point person on the push for a universal health care plan.
President-elect Obama’s advisers are crafting plans to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and prosecute terrorism suspects in the U.S.
“Our government authorized the use torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants, and authorized the use of procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution.
“Now, I do not question the motives of patriotism of those responsible for these policies. But this does nothing to mitigate the fact that these steps were wrong when they were initiated and they are wrong today
And of course, there’s the matter of Supreme Court appointments and not having to look forward to going to war with Iran.
There. Feeling a little better. Of course, that could be the wine, too…
( – promoted by odum)
Fair Vote, http://fairvote.org, contacted me last week about the possibility of putting a question on the Rutland City ballot this March to have the Mayor elected by IRV (instant runoff voting). There is a great explanation of IRV using the Muppets here: http://fairvote.org/irv/muppets/
It would be a charter change similar to the one Burlington passed a few years ago and now uses to elect their Mayor. Besides helping the voters of Rutland City elect a Mayor with majority support (the current Mayor was elected with just 33% of the vote), it may also help get an IRV bill passed at the state level.
Full disclosure; Fair Vote has hired me for at least a couple of weeks to work on this until they decide if they want to put additional resources ($$$, legal advise, etc) into it. I wasn’t exactly looking for another political job, but this is something I care a lot about and I’m thrilled to have this opportunity!
I’ve talked to the City and County Dem Chairs, and the City and County Prog Chairs, and all 4 of them are supportive. What do you guys think? Should we go for it?