(Cross posted at Broadsides.org)

Yikes. Given the recent financial disclosure submitted by one-time Democrat, one-time Rainbow Party, two-and-a-half-time Progressive Party and now half-time Independent candidate, Anthony Pollina, we now know why he put his silly little credit card idea so front and center in his campaign for governor: The poor lad is out of cash. Yo Tony, credit or debit?

Yesterday marked the financial disclosure-filing deadline for any statewide candidate who has spent or raised more than $500. And the paperwork submitted by the mainstream media’s top three gubernatorial candidates – Pollina, Gaye Symington and Jim Douglas – looked remarkably like the candidates themselves. Pollina’s was pathetic (only $20,000 left), Symington’s was bland, and Douglas’ was what one would expect from a spoiled incumbent Republican (loaded).

Other than the fact that it looks like another cakewalk for an incumbent in this election, the news from the filings should focus on what losers the left is putting up against Douglas – especially in a year in which St. Obama is expected to mop up in Vermont. Pollina, for example, was a distant third in the race for the cash, despite the fact that he was the first to announce his candidacy, didn’t have a job to distract him from his run, and had made the claim last January that he had raised more than $100,000 at that point. If we take his $100,000 claim to be true, that means Pollina only raised about $60,000 in the seven months since then. Ouch. So he either lied back then or he’s been pathetic since then – choose one.

Now that he’s losing the campaign cash war, Pollina will soon be playing the campaign finance reform card. And while I’m all in favor of reining in the money chase, I think it’s more than ironic that it was Pollina who was (falsely?) thumping his campaign war chest last December while trying to scare away any Democratic Party challenger. Way back then, amassing and trumpeting great campaign wealth was essential for Pollina. But now that he’s getting his financial clock cleaned by both of his main opponents, money is bad, bad, bad for politics. In Pollina’s Hypocrisy We Trust.

My guess is that Pollina will seek to stop the bleeding to his already seriously damaged political reputation and drop out of this race before he has to officially file as an Independent in September. Between now and then the writing will be on the wall: The money will be drying up, the polls will be dismal, and he’ll get all kinds of pressure from the liberal elite to bag it or never come calling again. From my perspective, his new and phony “Independent” label was his first step out of the race. And it will make his last step – an endorsement of Symington – much easier in September. Remember, Pollina is pals with – and a financial grantee of – Symington’s husband, Chuck Lacy. We shall see.

—

Speaking of Pollina, congrats to Shay Totten of Seven Days for being the first Vermont journalist to jump into the smarmy waters of Pollina’s Vermont Milk Company. Via Blurt, Totten reported on the latest round of layoffs at the company and the dairy company’s continued financial strain. Totten also made note of the fact that Pollina changed his official campaign biography with regard to his relationship to the company after news of its failure to pay farmers came to light. Pollina’s original bio declared that he “ran the company.” But after the financial shit hit the fan, Pollina changed his bio to read that he was merely on the board of the company. Nice.

Louis Porter of the Vermont Press Bureau tried to follow Totten’s lead with his own version of the story in the Times Argus/Rutland Herald. But Porter – not surprisingly – took the tepid route and ignored Pollina’s biography fudging and, instead, let Pollina’s mismanagement be explained away by the tough financial times for everyone. Well, that ignores the fact that there are many food/ag entrepreneurs in the Vermont Milk Company’s Hardwick region who are flourishing (and growing) in these tough economic times. Look, for example, at Vermont Soy, Jasper Hill, High Mowing Seeds and the Food Venture Center – they’re all booming.

Sorry, but the problem with the Vermont Milk Company was that it had a dinosaur-like business plan being “run” by a political debutante with no business experience. Remember, it shunned organic in a time when organic is king in the marketplace. And its first big product was an overly plasticized “single-serving” shot of a – say what? – creamie. Yes, I just wrote about the Vermont Milk Company in the past tense. Because, it’s over up there. The only thing keeping the doors open for now are the secret Pollina contributors who were rushed in to keep it open until after the election.

Let’s hope one of those more competent and visionary Hardwick-area foodies can at least take over the facility once the Vermont Milk Company officially becomes another casualty of the Pollina touch.

(Cross-posted to Broadsides.org)

The mood of the day in the Vermont media and blogosphere was one of shock, shock, shock over the announcement that the Progressive Party’s leader and co-founder, Anthony Pollina, decided to ditch his own political party and, instead, run as an independent for the position of Vermont’s governor. But none of us should have been shocked, especially if we’ve been following the whiplash-like switchbacks and flip-flops of Pollina’s rather miserable political career. If there’s anything Pollina does better than losing elections (o-for-whatever since the 1980s), it’s waffling, meandering and otherwise just floundering in the shallow end of his ideological pool.

Instead of being shocked, we all should have felt a little sheepish about watching the latest political wreckage of the latest Pollina campaign. I know, I know, you don’t really want to look at the wreck but you just can’t help it – especially with the Vermont media covering it as if it somehow matters.

Pollina’s bizarre yet predictable dissing of the political party he had only moments before anointed as “the answer” to Vermont’s political troubles is what we can only hope will be one of his last political acts. It reeks of desperation. You know, kind of like one of those “hey, look at me” antics of the ornery child in the corner – anything for just one more moment of attention.

If Pollina were to pull these kinds of stunts in most any other political climate besides the sleepy and incestuous political climes of Vermont, he would have been relegated to the laughing stockpile many elections cycles ago. Instead, in the comfy cocoon of the Vermont media and political elite, Pollina has been able to keep his name in play despite mountains of desperation, piles of losses, and a mere small valley of supporters. Hey, it sure beats Jersey, huh Tony?

For me, the worst part of the these all-too-frequent Pollina flip-flops is his apparent disregard and even disdain for his followers (few as they may be at this point) – all while parading in a charade of “caring for the little guys and gals.” Pollina, for example, is known for getting up on his high-horse and spewing his mostly borrowed rhetoric for causes such as campaign finance reform, fighting for farmers and building alternative political parties (yes, he said “parties”). But when it gets hot in Pollina’s political kitchen, he more often than not runs for the back door, leaving his guests with little but his stale rhetoric to pick over as they realize their “leader” has left the building.

Remember, Pollina loved campaign finance reform when he was rolling in $300,000 of the state’s money but suddenly found it objectionable when it didn’t fit his latest political goals. Similarly, Pollina loved to rail against the big, bad corporate dairies that were ripping off small farmers until, that is, he started his own dairy corporation and began ripping off small farmers. And now Pollina wants us to somehow ignore nearly a decade of his rhetoric about the essential importance of building his Progressive Party.

Pollina’s political career could be summarized as one, big “nevermind.” Emily Litela’s got nothing on Tony.

The most laughable spin of Pollina’s latest “nevermind” moment is his campaign’s assertion that his sudden adoption of the “independent” label will somehow amount to his reincarnation as what must be the immaculate conception of Bernie Sanders’ political son. Give me a break. Sure, in the shallowest of shallow interpretations, Pollina running as an “independent” is similar to Bernie’s many, many runs as an “independent.” But, other than the use of word “independent,” the similarities stop there.

First of all, Bernie won elections. And, more importantly, Bernie won LOCAL elections and built a formidable movement based on his political consistency (“people are suffering…”) and local election victories to vault him to where he is now.

Sorry, Tony, but you would have never seen Bernie Sanders touting a silly “credit card” as even the most remotest of “solutions” to Vermont’s economic woes. Earth to Tony: When the state wants a “certain percentage” of our purchases, we call that a “tax.” And, currently, the state is getting 6% off of every purchase. Besides, there is absolutely nothing “progressive” about promoting “credit” (read: debt) as a solution to our state’s economic woes. But I’ll bet those Republicans that the Pollina campaign claims to be targeting will love the idea of debt. Bush does.

While Pollina is aiming for the Sanders’ mantle, it would be more accurate to equate him with the Democratic fink known as Joe Lieberman. Yeah, you know, the guy who loved the Democratic Party’s warm glow when he was its vice-presidential candidate or getting its institutional support when fending off the liberal Ned Lamont, but just as quickly turning his back on it when he thought it would be best for him, and him alone.

The ugly truth in this latest Pollina “nevermind” is that he lied to his supporters and to the people of Vermont. He baited us with a decade of rhetoric about the importance of his “third party” and then switched when he thought it was best for him, and him alone. Worse, Pollina invoked the rhetoric of being against “party in-fighting” while, at the same time, managing to diss all parties – including his own. Go figure. Or, rather, nevermind.

Last Sunday, Pollina sat and watched as Peter Diamondstone of the state’s other major party, Liberty Union, got handcuffed and arrested for trying to participate in the first debate of gubernatorial candidates. Pollina said nothing. He refused to defend him. Instead, Pollina sat silently on his hands as he watched Diamondstone be forcefully removed and arrested for trying to bring his views forward, all the while knowing that the next morning he would be abandoning his own “major” party.

That, my friends, should tell us a lot about Anthony Pollina’s character. Please, oh please, let this be Pollina’s last campaign.

Don’t worry, Tony, we’ll remember you with your own favorite word: Nevermind.

[Cross posted at Broadsides.org]

This morning’s headline says it all: “Bipartisan Accord on War Funding Bill.” Did you get that? Yeah, the “bipartisan accord” thing. For those who haven’t had enough coffee yet today, that means that – once again – BOTH the Dems and the Republicans in Congress are agreeing to give the Bush-led military another $165 billion to continue to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq well into next year. Yes, next year, past the much-anticipated and hyped date of 1.20.09 when all the good Dems were “hoping” everything would be magically “Obamafied.” Good luck with that.

But there’s really nothing new here. The Dems have been going along with Bush and the Republicans on these wars from the beginning. They overwhelmingly voted to authorize the original force and they’ve fully funded them every single time the big, bad Bush has asked them to. Oh sure, they’ve whined, and squirmed, and begged, and stomped their feet from time to time but, in the end, they’ve always blinked in this little game of funding chicken with Bush.

What’s truly amazing is that even though the Dems keep funding these wars, they keep spewing the anti-war rhetoric. Worse, no matter how high these contradictions continue to pile up, the Dem cheerleaders keep drinking the almighty Kool-Aid and dreamily shaking their “change” and “hope” signs. Go team, go! Right. Over. The. Cliff. Well, when you act like fools, you’ll often be taken as one.

This new war funding bill will keep both wars financially greased until at least May of next year, thus handing Bush one hell of a stick to turn around and poke the Dems, the nation and the world right square in the eye. Impeach him? No, say the Dems, let’s just keeping feeding the beast and his beastly ideas even while he’ll be lounging in Crawford planning his silly little library (sorry, Mr. President, but My Pet Goat is already checked-out).

The Obama campaign was clearly a major player in ironing out this compromise, knowing that it would certainly be a campaign issue. Thus, it should give the antiwar/Obama crowd a reason to stop and reflect what they’re cheering for. Why, for example, would Obama and the Dems punt on the war issue? Worse, why would they agree to fund these wars through what they hope to be the first four months of an Obama administration? Looks like that “change” will be coming later than we thought – if at all.

But I’ll answer my own questions. There shouldn’t be any surprise about the Dems punting on the war issue (again) because that’s all they’ve been doing from the beginning. It’s apparently all they know how to do: huff and puff and then roll over for a belly scratch.

As for agreeing to fund the wars well into what they hope will be an Obama administration, it’s just the first of what will be many, many cave-ins and cop-outs. Wait, it’s not even the first, because this morning Obama announced that he was opting out of public financing for his presidential campaign. But, he noted, he really likes the idea of public financing. Hmm, I’m beginning to see a pattern: Hate the war but fund it, like public financing but reject its funding. And yes means no, right? Got it. Go team, go.

By agreeing to fund the wars for another year, the Obama camp will be able to continue to dodge any specifics on the war issue throughout the campaign. And even if he wins, he’ll have four months to claim that his hands are tied by the yearlong war-funding bill that this Dem-led Congress is about to pass. What a shame, because it also effectively kills any real grassroots potential that could have been harnessed by the stadiums full of screaming Obamacons that will certainly surface in the fall. But they can’t let the issues get in the way of the campaign. It might interrupt the cheering, the check signing and the hope. Oh, the hope!

Vermonters will be interested to know that Welch, Sanders and Leahy will most likely be voting against the war-funding compromise. They’ve clearly got visions of the riff-raff dancing in their offices again if they do anything but vote against it. Yes, indeed, direct action has an impact from time to time. But, before too many Vermonters pat themselves on the back for being oh-so-different, consider that none of the three will take any political risks to kill the bill. You know, things like filibusters, lobbying the leadership to stop the games, and/or the introduction of an alternative bill that would stop the funding now. It’s their party – and they’re staying for the dance.

Make no mistake, the Dems own the war. And forget 1.20.09. The best we can hope for now is 5.20.09.  

[Cross posted at Broadsides.org]

Did you hear the one about Pollina endorsing Obama? Oh wait, that wasn’t a joke. Pollina was serious. Or should I say: calculating. And, once again, he’s hoping no one will notice his latest “do as I say, not as I do” moment.

But, first, it’s true: Anthony Pollina, the rather dusty stalwart of Vermont’s Progressive Party, put out a press statement a couple of weeks ago announcing his endorsement of Barack Obama for president. Hmm, let’s see, besides everything, what could be strange about Pollina, the “I’m no Democrat,” endorsing Obama, the Democrat?

Good grief, Pollina apparently has no shame. Because, as you may recall, Pollina is running for governor of Vermont as a decidedly non-Democrat against – yep – a Democrat, Gaye Symington, and a Republican, Jim Douglas. And it’s the same Pollina who also ran against Vermont’s last Democratic governor, Howard Dean, who now, interestingly enough, is Obama’s choice to continue running the entire national Democratic Party.

This is getting weird.

For those of us with a memory – or at least access to Google – we remember when Pollina was calling Dean and the Democrats a mere extension of the Republicans. And, I have to admit, it was the kind of rhetoric that made my heart go pitter-patter. But, because I was familiar with Pollina’s nonsense, I knew he didn’t mean it. And, of course, he doesn’t – and didn’t. Why else would he now be endorsing the Dean-led Democratic Party’s candidate for president?

Wait. Don’t answer that. Because I know the answer: Self-serving desperation. And therein lies the difference between truly inspiring third – and fourth and fifth – party challengers and the self-serving, ideologically-adrift retreads like Pollina.

But let’s back up. For non-comatose Vermonters, we know that Pollina is running for governor (again) under the banner of the Progressive Party, the folks who have sometimes, kind of, maybe (depending on the day and the circumstances) tried to make the case that Vermont needs a viable third party because the Democrats and Republicans are hopelessly and ruthlessly protecting a political status quo that isn’t serving the rest of us very well. Can you say “Iraq War,” “health care,” “global warming,” “alternative energy,” “economic justice,” “corporate oligarchy”? I knew you could.

But the problem with Pollina and the Progs is that they only spew that rhetoric – or even pretend to believe in it – when it appears to be politically convenient. And they’ll just as soon say that there’s no hope in getting anything substantive done within the Democratic Party before announcing that they’re either cutting a deal with Dems over which electoral races to sit out or, in the case of Pollina, endorsing a Dem for the highest of political offices: president. Go figure.

So, when it comes to their ever-changing opinions/relations with the Dems,  Pollina and the Progs either don’t believe their own rhetoric, don’t understand that they’ve created a paper trail of opinions (and campaigns) that we can see, or they think their supporters are fools. Or, I guess, it could be all of the above.

How, for example, can Pollina run for governor against Democrat Gaye Symington, claiming “major differences” with her, and yet also endorse Obama for president? What, exactly, are the “major” policy differences between Symington and Obama? I don’t see any, as a matter of fact. Both, quite frankly, are liberal Democrats. Neither supports universal health care. Neither supported an immediate de-funding of the Iraq War. Neither supports a complete and total roll back of the trade policies that have so dramatically damaged working families. Neither supported impeachment of Bush. And both enjoy a ringside seat to the power elite game of inside politics, footsie with corporate lobbyists, and an absolute allegiance to “the party” with little regard for what that means for the people.

But yet Pollina – and other Progs like David Zuckerman – have now made it a point to cast Symington as the mortal enemy and Obama as the savior. It makes no sense. Unless, of course, you consider political expediency.

Pollina & Co. are hoping that voters and the Vermont media will forget all that rhetoric he spewed about Dean when he ran against him in 2000. Just as they’re hoping that people will forget about their on again/off again charges that the Dems are too snuggled with power to really get anything done. But they can’t have it both ways – blasting them one second and endorsing them the next.

The reason Pollina is constantly pulling the Obama card is obvious: he’s desperate. He’s willing to say “never mind” to his rhetoric of the last ten years in hopes that he’ll be able to get onto the Obama coattails in November. But someone needs to remind Pollina that he’s a member of the Progressive Party and Obama (and his opponent, Symington) are Democrats. Hey Anthony, may I introduce you to Ralph Nader? He’s great. He believes what you says. Fights for it, too. Try it sometime. That’s the point of “third parties,” you know.

Pollina knows that he probably won’t be made to feel embarrassed by his Obama endorsement. First, the sleepy Vermont media probably won’t figure out the oh-so obvious contradictions and, secondly, he knows that Obama won’t be bothered by a visit to Vermont – a visit that would certainly feature him with other Democrats like (ahem) Symington.

Poor Pollina. He’s seems really, really confused.

[Cross posted at Broadsides.org]

Well, imitating Bernie, that is. On the oil issue.

I’m speaking, or course, about Congressman Peter Welch’s “telephone town meeting” last night on the oil crisis; a phone version of what Senator Bernie Sanders did a few months back on the Internet. The political formula for these little stunts is to give the people – you know, those non-millionaires amongst us – a chance to spill forth with our pain regarding the absurdly high price of oil. And then our elected millionaires can put on their best face of concern and voice of empathy and proceed to get gobs of headlines regarding their willingness to hear our stories.

But wait, there seems to be something missing here. Oh yeah, the action, as in: These people of wealth, power and high-elected office that seem so interested in our sob stories actually doing something about the oil crisis.  There’s apparently no career safety in actually addressing these issues (it gets in the way of contributions and makes enemies amongst their ruling friends). But listening? That’s where it’s at, career wise.

And it’s all our fault, too. Because if we really wanted our elected officials to really care about us and address the issues that are putting a fatal pinch in our lives and livelihoods, we’d stop sending millionaires to represent us. I mean, come on, do you really think Peter-the-multi-millionaire can really feel our pain at the pump? Or even Bernie, for that matter, the man who has become one of the nation’s richest 5% during all that time he’s spent railing against them. I guess he’d call that his own brand of successful socialism – take from the government and give to himself.

The Vermont media buys these little political gimmicks like a giddy kid in a candy store. Take, for example, Josh O’Gorman of the Rutland Herald, who opened his fawning piece about Welch’s telephone conference call with a syrupy line about how the event joined “emerging technology with direct democracy.” Oh, come on – it was a friggin telephone conference call with our representative. Sorry, but I remember doing telephone conference calls 15 years ago.

And what’s this nonsense about “direct democracy”? Again, it was a conference call, whereby the people got to cry and Welch got to put on his most sincere sounding voice before returning to one of his dwellings and – I assure you – not having a nanosecond’s worth of anxiety about his energy bills. Remember, this is the guy who sends monthly checks to some hucksters who’ve convinced him that paying them will relieve him of his carbon guilt. Brilliant.

But if a telephone conference call can now be considered “direct democracy,” I would suggest that we’re in a lot more trouble than I thought. Or, should I say, enough trouble that the issue at hand – the oil crisis – doesn’t have an ice cube’s chance in hell of being solved. Besides, I always thought “direct democracy” had something to do with moving forward with decisions. You know, things like voting or taking other kinds of action. Yes, action, as opposed to mere listening and presenting crocodile tears.

Moreover, not one of the Vermont media’s lapdog-like pieces on Welch’s phone call with the masses dared to look back at the pieces they wrote last month on the congressman’s legislation regarding the oil crisis. The pieces wouldn’t have been hard to find. They were published across the front pages with headlines like “Welch Passes Bill That Provides Oil Price Relief.” Oh yeah? Well, way back then – in May! – Welch’s little gimmick to stop oil shipments to the national petroleum reserve was said by the congressman himself (and repeated by the cheerleading press) to lead to “immediate relief” at the pump. But everyone outside of the congressional and mainstream media clubs laughed at the proclamations – privately, of course, because no one called us for a comment.

And how did that “immediate relief” work out? The price of gas has risen by more than 20 cents a gallon since Welch’s bill was signed by President Bush. But you won’t read about this fact in Vermont’s mainstream media – they’re too busy touting Welch’s next gimmick.

The truth is, Welch, Sanders, Leahy and the Democrats have had two years of congressional control and they have done little but offer to “hear our pain” and do nothing about it. They heard us on our demands to stop the war. And they voted repeatedly to keep funding it. They heard our demands to bring the Bush regime to justice. And they served up worthless (and ignored!) subpoenas. They heard our demands for health care relief. And they did nothing. They heard our cries for energy solutions. And they asked us to put it in writing or participate in silly telephone conference calls.

Worse, with each of their failures, they blamed the big, bad boogeyman, President Bush. But when we offered the solution of impeachment, they said it would be a distraction. From what? Please, tell me what this Congress has done since they dispatched with the “distraction” of impeachment?

Enough already.

[Cross posted to Broadsides.org]

There’s something missing in the Vermont Progressive Party’s platform. In fact, it’s also missing from the platform of Progressive Party gubernatorial candidate Anthony Pollina. And it’s no small matter – it’s the Iraq War.

Go and look for yourselves. I did, and I didn’t find one word about the Iraq War or its many associated ills even mentioned in either platform. Moreover, I did a word search in the Progressive Party’s 27-page platform and absolutely nothing turned up when I searched for “war,” “Iraq,” “peace,” “national guard,” or “soldiers.” Nothing. Zero. Not even a mention.

To be fair, I also did a similar search of the Vermont Democratic Party’s platform. And, frankly, I was pleasantly surprised to find a whole host of references to those very same search words. The word “peace,” in fact, was in the platform’s very first paragraph. But the Vermont Democratic Party didn’t just drop the peace words, they made sense with them. For example, consider this paragraph that appears under the headline, “The War in Iraq:”

a. We condemn the false claims that justify the war in Iraq, and the failure of current foreign policy to consider the historical, cultural and religious forces in the region.

b. We are committed to a sensible and clear strategy to bring those who still serve home from Iraq quickly and with dignity.

c. We are committed to an active policy to cooperate with other nations to support a financial and political commitment to stabilizing and securing Iraq.

d. All military personnel, veterans and their families must be recognized for their courage and service and are entitled to full medical, emotional and financial support.

See? That’s not real hard, is it? Or controversial, for that matter, since nearly 80% of Vermonters want an end to the Iraq War.

Why, then, would Vermont’s Progressive Party and its perennial candidate of choice, Anthony Pollina, refuse to even acknowledge the war in their platforms? In a word: Politics. Or, if you’d prefer a few more words: A failure to lead.

Back in late-2001 when this nation was in its bloodthirsty post-9/11 rage, the nascent Progressive Party set the stage for ignoring the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq by resorting to parliamentary maneuvers to squelch efforts by party activists to pass a resolution condemning the deafening drumbeats of war at the time. At its November 2001 state party convention, a resolution condemning the war talk was first passed by those in attendance. But then Progressive Party leaders, led by then-Representative Carina Driscoll, quickly maneuvered to “table” the resolution and – with breakneck speed – succeeded in killing it.

I remember it well. Because I was there. And I remember the confusion amongst those in attendance when one moment we thought the Progs were about to do the right thing by opposing the Bush war machine and then the next minute being undercut by underhanded maneuvers that effectively ended the debate.

At the time, I was a columnist for Seven Days so I approached Anthony Pollina and asked him about why the party leaders killed the anti-war resolution.

“We want the party to focus on statewide issues,” Pollina told me at the time. “9/11 and the response to it isn’t a Vermont issue.”

It was a mantra that the leaders had apparently agreed upon because they all repeated the same line as I made my way from one leader to another – from Driscoll to Ellen David-Friedman to Chris Pearson. They were in lockstep: The Progressive Party would not lead on the war issue – nor would they even mention it.

After the Party’s convention, Pearson sent out an email update to the Party faithful, declaring that there was “relief” amongst many that the Progs didn’t take a stand on the upcoming wars. The apparent “relief” they were feeling was about not wanting to “marginalize” itself from the voting population before Pollina was about to launch a run for lieutenant governor.

And so the war silence began for the Progs. Worse, that silence continues to this day.

To date, six Vermonters have returned from the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq in body bags. But the Progressive Party apparently still doesn’t believe it’s a “Vermont issue.” Moreover, according to the Policy Priorities Project, Vermont tax-payers have coughed up more than $680 million to fund the Iraq war, while Vermont’s Progressive Party or favorite son, Pollina, won’t even mention the war in their platforms. They’d apparently rather express “relief” in ignoring it.

Unfortunately, ignoring the war is a privilege many of us can’t share with the Progressive Party’s leadership. The six Vermonters who lost their lives can’t ignore it. Their families can’t ignore it. Those of us with an understandable sense of outrage over the Bush administration’s lies and deceit while marching us to war can’t ignore it. And those of who can think of much better ways to spend the $680 million can’t ignore it, either. Indeed, nearly 80% of Vermonters don’t want to ignore the issue of the War on Iraq – they want it ended, and ended now.

The Progressive Party’s “duck and cover” approach to the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq is in direct contrast to the rich history of bold leadership that has been found in alternative parties in this country. Its silence on the number one issue of the day should tell us a lot about the current leadership of the Progressive Party and its apparent “relief” in not leading.

Vermont’s Progressive Party should be ashamed of the deaf ear it’s turned toward the most pressing issue of our time. Because there’s nothing “progressive” about avoidance.

[Cross posted to Broadsides.org — by Michael Colby, a possible Progressive Party candidate for governor.]

It wasn’t hard to see this coming, not with the track record of Anthony Pollina being what it is: losing, losing and losing. But the Caledonia Record reported earlier this week that the milk company co-founded by Progressive Party stalwart Anthony Pollina, the Vermont Milk Company, is experiencing some serious financial setbacks. Worse, one of the five farms that supplied the non-organic milk to the company is crying foul when it comes to the payments they received from Pollina’s company.

Last week, before news of the company’s troubles became public, Pollina tendered his resignation from the company’s board in order to “focus on his run for governor.” While the Pollina campaign is seeking to distance itself from the company’s new woes, it continues to highlight the Vermont Milk Company as a major achievement in his efforts to help Vermont’s dairy farmers.

According to the first paragraph of Pollina’s biography on his campaign website, “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.”

But Karla Barrett and Mark Sutton, two Northeast Kingdom farmers who sent their milk to Pollina’s start-up, aren’t impressed with the “help” they received.

The following is an excerpt from the Caledonian record:

“We stopped shipping milk to them December 1 because we didn't get paid,” Karla Barrett said. “They still owe us a lot of money. We got paid the base price but not the extra money.”

She said she understood there had been some poor business management decisions, but she wants to know what is going on.

“Somehow I think they should look into Anthony Pollina. I don't think he'd make a good governor if he can't run a little milk company,” Barrett said. “Hopefully, investors will come through and they can clear all this up.”

Interestingly, officials at the Vermont Milk Company are claiming that its financial problems are a result of the “high milk prices” being paid to farmers of late. Pollina, therefore, was in a most awkward position in his dual role as dairy farmer advocate and dairy company executive. And, according to Barrett, the farmers came out on the losing end of that particular juggling act of Pollina’s.

News of the Hardwick-based Vermont Milk Company’s financial failures come at a sensitive time for Pollina – just as he puts his campaign for governor into high gear while using the company as an “example” of his “professional” experience.

A call to the headquarters of the Vermont Milk Company by Broadsides wasn’t returned today. The person answering the phone only said that no one was available because the company was in the middle of a board meeting. One can only imagine that they had a lot to discuss, not least of which was trying to fix this problem before it brought Pollina down with the farmers he’s always proclaimed to be helping.

The real mystery in this story is where are Vermont’s other mainstream media outlets? So far, not a peep…

(cross posted to Broadsides.org)

It looks like Vermont’s own Howard Dean is finally getting some heat for his complete inability to handle the Democratic delegate nightmare that is playing out in Florida and Michigan. As the head of the Democratic National Committee, this delegate fiasco has been occurring on Dean’s watch from the beginning when the two states first defied the party’s wishes regarding the timing of their primaries. And now Dean’s DNC is striking out in its attempts to find a happy ending to the mess.

Worse, it sure seems like Dean’s been playing his all-too-familiar duck and cover game with a political hot potato. Where, exactly, has he been during the public discourse on this mess? I’m no casual media watcher and I haven’t seen him at all.

It’s pretty clear that the Dem party power elite don’t think much of Dean anyway. I heard one pundit just scoff at the idea of Dean pulling the Obama and Clinton camps into his office to hammer out a deal, saying, “He just doesn’t have the stature.”

Vermonters, of course, are used to this kind of hiding from Dean. When the Vermont courts forced the legislature to pass the law allowing “civil unions” between gay and lesbian couples, Dean literally hid in his backroom (closet?) when he signed it. It was a most cowardly act and a major finger to the eye of the many people who worked hard on the issue and deserved the kind of public acknowledgment that normally accompanies such an historic occasion. But not with cowardly Howard – he just signed it in the backroom and then, years later, bragged about his involvement with the law on the national stage.

But it’s time for Dean to come out of hiding while the delegate mess continues to zap energy, time and focus from the real issues at hand. He’s got to stop acting like the hiding child while his parents fight in the other room. Dean is the chairman of the Democratic Party. And he needs to start acting like it.

[cross posted at Broadsides.org]

I guess the Pollina campaign will be the gift that keeps giving to this writer-boy. It’s just too bad that the mainstream media here in Vermont won’t wake up to the campaign’s many silly blunders. Yesterday, of course, we highlighted some of the names listed on the “Democrats for Pollina” website as being far from “Democrats.” And today I got a tip from a vegetable farmer here in Vermont who found it comical that Pollina’s little video speech on his campaign website about the importance of “buying Vermont food products” features a backdrop of…ready for this: bananas, oranges and a watermelon. Watch it yourself:

Like I said yesterday, this campaign is not ready for primetime – deep in the recesses of cable access, perhaps. But not primetime.

I mean, wouldn’t you think Pollina or someone on the campaign staff or video crew would stop to consider what food product is behind him when he says these words to Vermonters:

The State must set the example when it comes to buying Vermont products and helping provide markets for our farmers. It is frustrating to know that our prisons, state colleges and other institutions are still buying and serving dairy and other products that could be bought right here at home. We need more instate processing of meats, vegetables and other farm products. We need to make investments in agriculture infrastructure and on farm enterprises. And we need to build a Vermont Fair Trade certified brand of dairy and other Vermont products.

Or am I missing something and did Vermont just become a major grower of bananas, oranges and watermelons? Heh, you never know with global warming…

While campaign video backdrops may seem trivial, it does point to a continued sloppiness in what is increasingly looking like a haphazard and desperate effort. Remember, this is the campaign that began by trying to parse the definition of “intend,” as in: “I intend to run for governor.” He did that, of course, so he could keep his radio show (Equal Time) going while setting up the campaign without having to play by the “equal time” norms of campaigning. Cute.

And this is also the campaign that played semantics with his fundraising efforts. You’ll recall that Pollina announced at one point that his campaign had a goal of raising $100,000 by mid-January. Well, mid-January came and Pollina did what he thought he had to do: announce that the goal had been met. But when some of the Vermont media woke up for a brief second and asked for proof, Pollina had to admit that at least $30,000 of that money was in the form of “pledges.” Sure, Tony, just play loose with the facts and keep pretending you’re above the political games.

And now we come to his “buy Vermont” faux pas. Of course we all support the notion of buying local. Some of us have been doing that long before the trendy “localvore” movement became…well…trendy. But if you’re going to get up on a video soapbox and lash out at your opponent’s lack of follow through about “buying Vermont products first,” wouldn’t it be wise to hide the bananas, oranges and watermelons in the background? Or, better yet, wouldn’t you want to be featuring some good-old-fashioned Vermont products? Just a thought.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of “do as I say, not as I do” norm that many of us have seen from Pollina over the years. He wants to talk about his “closeness” with the “working man” but he’s more often than not seen sitting at the coffee shop during working hours. He wants to talk about the horrors of things like pesticides but starts a non-organic milk company. He talks about the problems of bovine growth hormone (rBGH) but is too scared to join efforts against the Cabot Creamery’s use of it. He talks about the importance of a third party but covets the Democratic Party’s support. He talked about the importance of public financing of campaigns but then ran into some very rich friends. And now he’s telling voters about the importance of buying Vermont produce with bananas as a backdrop.

Frankly, I’m not sure if Pollina’s clueless or just another smarmy politician amongst many. Either way, it amounts to a terrible start to what everyone admits is a huge uphill battle to unseat the incumbent governor, Jim Douglas. I guess he’s satisfied with fooling the same 15% of the population that he always does – and then calling it a “victory.”

Vermont progressives deserve better.

[Crossposted to Broadsides.org]

Please, can anyone out there other than the fawning Vermont media think anything other than “loser” when the name Anthony Pollina is mentioned? I can’t. And for good reason, too. He’s a loser. He loses elections (many of them). He loses in his issue efforts (many of them). And he even loses in court when – oddly – he challenged his rare victory with campaign finance reform. I guess it must have felt weird for him to actually win something so he went to court to fight it. Good for you, Tony. Keep that record clean.

We all know about Pollina’s electoral losing. He’s something like 0-for-5. But Pollina seems to get energized by losing the way most politicians are energized by winning. The average politician, for example, begins with a lower office, wins, aims higher, wins and so forth. Not Pollina. He aims high, starting with a run for Congress, loses, and then just keeps aiming high for jobs like governor (a couple of times) and keeps losing. What’s worse is that each time he loses – and loses big – Pollina acts like he won. “Wow, I’m up to over 20% of the vote! Wait’ll next time!”

I’m guessing that when Pollina secures his next, great loss this November he’ll be so damn energized by it that he’ll probably launch a bid for the presidency in 2012. And that could be the best thing that could happen to Vermont’s Progressive Party. Because, let’s face it, Pollina’s been sucking a lot of energy out of their movement with all this losing. Worse, it’s preventing a whole new breed of Progs from stepping up and taking a fresh shot at one of the offices that Pollina keeps sacrificing to the Republicans.

It would also be nice if Pollina would stop “saving” Vermont’s dairy farmers. Because let’s look at that track record. In the 1980s, when Pollina started saving them, there were more than 3,000 dairy farmers in Vermont. Today, after more than 25-years of Pollina fighting for them, there are about 1,100 of them left. Thanks, Tony! Sure, it’s totally and completely unfair to blame him for the dramatic drop. But it’s certainly fair to ask him why – given these facts – he’s so proud of his dairy work?

About the only real progress made in the dairy industry in Vermont over the last 25 years has been the advent and growth of organic dairying. And – as if to protect his losing record – Pollina has had NOTHING to do with it. Pollina’s new Vermont Milk Company, for example, even shuns organic. Oh yeah, feel the progressive vision. And pass the pesticides…

Today, a group of so-called Democrats are gathering in Burlington to launch a skimpy little website called “Democrats for Pollina.” It’s a not-so-veiled attempt to “prove” that Pollina is getting gobs of support from mainstream Dems in his Prog bid for the governorship. The group is officially launching a “write-in” campaign for Pollina in the Democratic primary in September. Since Pollina will be on the Prog’s primary ballot, he can’t be on the Dems’. But he could – if he won as a write-in – don both labels in the general election. If, that is, the Dems let him get away with it. Fat chance.

This all kind of reminds me of the announcements last week by Hillary Clinton that she would welcome Obama to be her running mate. It’s the kind of thing that forces that cocked puppy head look that says: Huh? And I’m not sure if it’s more arrogant or ignorant for a person running behind to offer a lesser job to the front-runner.

In Vermont, of course, the early polls show Pollina being in the place he’s always in: third amongst three. Or, for those of us outside Pollina’s groupie shadows, it’s usually called LAST. What’s worse, Pollina was a good distance behind what the pollsters only identified as a “Democratic candidate” since a Dem hasn’t announced – yet. Look Mom, I’m literally losing to a no-name! Good job, Tony. Now get to your room and re-arrange your Buffalo Bills memorabilia….

But that won’t stop Pollina and his groupies who can’t stop losing to think that they’re somehow entitled to a Dem Party primary endorsement via a write-in campaign. Chris Pearson, a Prog who has actually gotten elected and a Pollina sidekick, told the Free Press that Pollina won’t enter the Dem primary officially because “that’s what Peter Clavelle did and it didn’t work.” But then Pearson goes on with this: “People know (Pollina) as a Progressive and for him to suddenly run as a Democrat doesn't pass the straight-face test.”

Well, yeah. But it also doesn’t pass the smell test for Pollina and his fumble-fingered handlers to think Vermont voters are stupid enough to fall for this write-in nonsense. Let me get this straight: It looks funny to have Pollina get the Dem primary endorsement by earning it with his name on the ballot but it’s fine for him to be sneaky by coordinating the write-in effort for it? Give me a break.

And there we have it: The mush that is the Pollina political spine. If he believed his and his party’s own rhetoric, he’d be announcing that he doesn’t want the Dem’s endorsement – no matter how it came. Instead, he’s taking us all for fools as he skips down this silly little write-in route.

Of course, there’s one way to put an end to all of this: A true progressive needs to challenge Pollina in the Prog Party primary so his followers will have to focus on their own party’s efforts rather than soiling that of the Dems.

And I think I know someone who’s interested. Stay tuned.