As of last week, Deborah Richter M.D. was preparing her announcement event at the State House.

As of last week, the person who has done more to change the direction of the broken approach to the State of Vermont's most pressing, most crushing and most economically taxing problem on Vermont families, Vermont workers and Vermont business, was about to step into electoral politics.

As of a few days ago, Dr. Richter was prepared to give a bigger voice to the cause of health care reform via a statewide campaign and put herself in a position to be a more effective agent of change.

As of just a few days ago, Vermont's most passionate and articulate advocate — for healing the wounds caused by Vermont's self-inflicted health care policy malpractice — was ready to take the fight to the next level. She was preparing to campaign for the office of Lt. Governor. She was going to begin a campaing to force Vermont government, our media and our political conversation to focus on the one issue that literally means life and death, financial security or bankruptcy, or having a job or not having a job to thousands of us.

So what happened to Deb Richter? The process behind the story below the fold.

According to two reliable sources close to the unfolding events and close to the Progressive Party, Deb Richter was sandbagged and betrayed by the politics of seemingly friendly fire.

Not the politics of the insurance companies, the hospital associations, the  Vermont Medical Society and all the other interest groups that cash checks on the backs of sick Vermonters and at the expense of access to health care. No, she was thrown under the bus by fellow travelers of the health care reform movement people who might otherwise tell you that they support progressive health care reform. Over the past few days, Progressive Party Apparatchiks pressured Dr. Richter out of the race.

The Pollina crowd talks a pretty health care reform game. However, when the person who knows more about how to achieve access to health care decides to run as a Democrat (and support the Democratic ticket including Gaye Symington), then all of a sudden priorities shift. The shift is dramatic.  When the Pollina Progressives learned that Deb Richter intended to run as a Democrat and to support the Democratic nominee for Governor, here is what happened over at the Moose Farm.  Sick kids found out they can wait.  Businesses overburdened from a system that penalizes responsible employers and gives irresponsible ones a competitive advantage are no longer a pressing concern. What about the best opportunity and most qualified person to move the Overton window closer to the rational single payer approach to solving the health care mess? The Progs answer with a question: “What have you done for us lately Dr?”

Deb Richter has worked tirelessly and selflessly through multiple legislative sessions and with many State leaders of the Democratic, Progressive and Republican parties. She has contributed weeks and months of her life to help achieve better access to health care for all Vermonters. She has necessarily had to work with politicians, bureaucrats, wonks and activists of all stripes.

Given her passionate work for health care reform, it is not surprisingly, in fact it is well known and expected, that she shares a significant ideological propinquity with the progressive policy goals of like minded liberal Democrats and Progressives alike. Many on the Moose Farm wanted her to run as a Progressive. Who can blame them. Many Democrats such as myself were overjoyed at the thought that she was ready to make a prominent, articulate and solid challenge to Brian “I only need 40% + help from Pollina” Dubie. Having Dr. Richter on the stump preaching the health care sermon that the State desperately needs to hear is exactly what this campaign season needs.

Deb Richter has been a champion voice and continually spot-on when it comes to the most important issue facing Vermont. She had a chance to become the most effective advocate in State government for a single-payer, full access system. There was one thing that Dr. Richter either did not foresee or she did not foresee the level of nastiness that would come her way. Just because you agree with someone, just because you work with them, just because they say that they also want Vermont government to pursue the same policies and reforms that you have spent a good part of your professional life advocating DOES NOT necessarily mean these same people will support you when you run for office to accomplish those goals. In fact, if it means – in Deb Richter's case – that you will support your own party's nominee for Governor while you are running for Lt. Governor, then your erstwhile friends and colleagues turn out to be the same people who want to keep you from running. That's the thanks one recieves for offering to make extremely serious personal, financial, time and other professional sacrifices to run for office. 

If Vermont needs anything in this election year, it needs an election cycle that focuses on the solutions to the health care crises. Vermont voters need a statewide candidate through whom they can express their desire to see a complete revamping of our broken health care system. Running on a health care reform platform and defeating an incumbent in the process would create a ripple effect and create cover for the incoming legislature and governor to giveVermont the reforms it needs and not just the ones that are safe and and politically painless. Having a statewide office holder who espouses the gospel of single payer health care reform only gets us closer to the goal of fixing a problem and repairing a process that is growing intractably worse.

To be clear, a source with first-hand knowledge has stated that the pivotal reason for Richter's unexpected departure was a coordinated effort by friends of hers active in the Progressive Party to cast her decision to run as a Dem and to endorse Symington as a personal attack for the purpose of hounding her out of the race. This was further confirmed by another source close to the Pollina campaign. What we have not learned, or have not confirmed, is the extent to which Hillary Anthony Pollina sanctioned, supported and/or helped derail Deb Richter's planned run for Lt. Governor. While word slowly rises to the surface and we learn more about Anthony Pollina's involvement, here is what I suspect we will NOT learn.

• We will NOT learn that Anthony Pollina, after the Progs had turned their backs on Vermont's permier health care reform advocate, called Deb Richter last weekend to encourage her to stay in the race.
• We will NOT learn that Anthony Pollina told Deb Richter “health care comes before politics. I'd rather see you as Lt. Governor even if you do not endorse me.”
• We will NOT learn that Anthony Pollina, in the face of his Progressive Party supporters chasing Deb Richter out of the race, stood up and said, “I'd rather see Deb Richter as Lt. Governor instead of Brian Dubie for the good of Vermont even if it means that she campaigns with Gaye Symington.”
• We will NOT learn that Anthony Pollina instructed his Progressive Party associates to cease obstructing Deb Richter's run as a Democrat.

Let's face it, many Progressives (not all for certain and in fact I know some Progressives are not too happy about this turn of events) believe it will be to their party's advantage if Anthony Pollina can attack Democrats generally, and Symington specifically, on health care as opposed to supporting a Democrat such as Deb Richter who is ready to prescribe a better health care policy regimen for all of us.

In 2002, Anthony Pollina single-handedly handed the keys to the Lt. Governor's office to Brian Dubie. Looks like this year, his team just insured Brian Dubie's reelection too.

I can only echo John's solid suggestions for Denver.  If anybody should be there, it is two “more and better Democrats” blogger types such as Neil and Philip.

There is one more person I want to put on the list.

Mary Sullivan.

In fact, I want to put her right at the top of the list.

Several months ago, I said to myself: “Self, if we don't send John Edwards to Denver as the nominee, sending Mary Sullivan and Barack Obama will be the next best thing” (or so the story goes…). Well, it did not quite pan out for Senator Edwards. Now I am ready to go to the mat for Senator Obama, and I can't think of anyone better to be a delegate representing Vermont Democrats than Mary Sullivan.

For those of you who do not know Mary already, she is a walking, talking, living, breathing made-to-order Democratic convention on two legs. As Philip Baruth describes – from the Club Obama night –

It was the sort of event that money can’t buy. You can’t pay people to sweat the details the way Neil did in the weeks prior to last night. You can’t pay people to gently encourage public endorsements the way that Mary Sullivan — a quiet force of nature in her own right — has for the last six months. 

Mary was one of the Obama campaign's “Vermont Women for Obama” established last winter. (Free Press 26 February 2008).

And best of all, she is a terrific writer who sent us dispatches from the 2004 Democratic Convention.  I'm sure we can talk her into a guest post or two from Denver as well. As described in grist.org from her 2004 dispatches,

“Mary Sullivan is one of 22 Vermont delegates to the Democratic National Convention, and one of nine state delegates originally pledged to former Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean. She was a 10-year member of the Vermont House of Representatives and chair of its natural resources committee. In the 1980s, she wrote for The Washington Post. Currently, she is communications coordinator at the Burlington Electric Department, part of the Alliance for Climate Action.”

There is an excellent list of liberal Democrats vying for the chance to be national delegates for Senator Obama at the Vermont State Convention. Please consider Mary Sullivan, she's extra cool! AND you can see her campaigning in the cold for Senator Obama RIGHT HERE (http://my.barackobama.com).  

 Loading ...

I am continually frustrated, bewidered and infuriated by the depressing lack of outrage in the United States. The criminality of the Republican leaders in Congress for most of the past dozen or so years has been met with relative silence. Criminality and prevarication has been the default policy of the Bush adminstration since Mister Bush was socially promoted to the presidency in 2001. Given the magnitude of the outrageously blatent crimes, the lack of citizen outrage is spiritually deafening.

I like to think of myself as someone who is at least keeping score of the

So when I saw the details of this: 

Staff Sgt. Hartley, the son of a police officer and a career military man, was on his fifth deployment when he was killed on 8 April 2008.

I felt disappointed in myself. I realize the what has been done to our military is reckless beyond words and what this Republican administration has done to the troops went from cruel to insane even before the 2004 campaign of reelection dishonesty about everything importnat to the troops and their families

Staff Sgt. Hartley died April 8 in Kharguliah, Iraq, of wounds suffered when his vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 10th Field Artillery Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Benning, Georgia.

I remember when “A Deployment” – just (just!) one deployment – was frequently an earth shattering event for an entire extended family, if not a community not to mention what it meant to the individual we recruited into our armed forces.

“A Deployment” – One Deployment to a war zone overseas.

Since 2002, Republicans talk about deployments and deployment extensions like just another semester in college spent not bothering to collect enough credits to graduate.

“A Deployment” has become just another piece of devalued currency to the GOP war machine.

When a family member had “A Deployment” to a war zone several years ago, it rocked my family. Prior to Dubya's social promotion to the presidency, I've had neighbors and business friends who had “A Deployment” and it shook our community with anxiety.

Five deployments to an endlessly scheduled political cycle of violence is obscene.

It is a mind numbing obscenity in its undervalued and underappreciated signigicance. It is mind numbing in context of so many obscenities comitted by Mister Bush in our name against the world, against the people of Iraq, against our future, against our military and against Staff Sgt. Hartley, his family and his community. No one in the U.S. military was recruited to do what we are making them do in Iraq. No one in the U.S. military was recruited to do what we are making them do to Iraq.

Five Deployments.  In a year when finding it in one's heart to feel pride in the United States is a legitimate campaign issue to the right wing chickenhawk criminals who are responsible for Staff Sgt Hartley's obituary, I do not possibly know where I could find capacity to be proud of the United States.

I recommend Jack McCullough's excellent post on a recent Vermont Supreme Court decision. The Court reversed a criminal crop cultivation conviction after the police broke Vermont law protecting our State's civil society. Unlike the defendant's conduct, growing marijuana plants, the police conduct really does have victims – us.

In addition to the high cost of fighting a war against people who grow marijuana as Jack explains in his post, another unfortunate and frustrating, aspect of this case is the seemingly accepting attitude of the trial court toward the police behavior.

Let's see what the Supreme Court had to say . . .

The officers filed false affidavits with the court and gave perjured testimony at the suppression hearing. The Vermont Supreme Court explained how the trial record showed:

¶ 6. After the flight, the state trooper prepared an application for a search warrant based solely on his observation during the aerial surveillance of what he believed to be marijuana plants. In the application, the trooper characterized the surveillance as having been from “an aircraft at least 500 feet above the ground . . . .” The warrant was issued and executed, and three marijuana plots were discovered by defendant’s home.

¶ 7. Based on the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, the court found that the helicopter circled defendant’s property for approximately fifteen to thirty minutes, well below 500 feet in altitude, and at times as low as 100 feet above the ground. Although both the trooper and the pilot testified that the helicopter remained at least 500 feet off the ground at all times, the court did not find their testimony to be credible.

The court further found that pilots doing MERT flights in Vermont are told to stay at least 500 feet above the ground and that, according to a National Guard pilot who testified for the State, the reason MERT pilots are so directed is to avoid invasions of privacy.

The truth, of course, was that the cops were buzzing the town and the defendant at tree-top level, no more than 75-100 feet above ground. The police lied, the knew they were lying and the court knew they were lying. 

The judge thus had a felony case brought against a citizen based on an officer's false written statements. The officer compounded the deceit by appearing in Court; and when asked about the false written statements, showed no compunction about giving false testimony in open court as well. “Testimony not credible” — My experience, when a judge says a police officer's testimony is “not credible,” is that the judge is being extremely diplomatic. Saying the officer is “not credible” is court talk for “they guy is blowing smoke up my robe and damn well knows it.”

Still, this was just another drug case, and the over-burdened trial court choking with public health issues gave it a pass. The result was, unlike a few plants growing in the forest that hurt no one, the police committed a crime against Vermont civil society. Worse, they lie about it under oath and in open court after-the-fact. It then takes the over-burdened judiciary five years to fix some of the damage done by the illegal use of police resources against Vermonters.

The war on people who use marijuana wastes millions of dollars of Vermonter's assets every year. From the record in this case, Vermont's front on the war against people using marijuana also is corrupting a vital public asset and institution – our police – as well. That is a huge expense and an enormous intangible waste of resources.

Would the trial judge let slide the same type of highly disrespectful and insulting attitude toward her court had the police looked her in the eye and made her listen to false testimony about a white collar crime, a domestic violence crime or a burglary? I have no idea (and I certainly hope not).

Think about the “true cost” of this for a moment. The State invests millions in the training, salary, healthcare, benefits etc. of its public safety officers. Police officers do not just investigate (thankfully) victimless acts of crop cultivation or other agricultural offenses involving relatively benign substances such as marijuana. Rather, the police are also responsible (remember?) for crimes that leave victims. The Department of Public Safety needs to allocate resources to handle that end of the job as well.

Imagine you are a victim of any number of real crimes: domestic abuse, rape, assault, battery or armed robbery. Do you want your case investigated by an officer with a public record of falsely sworn affidavits? How secure will you feel and how sure will you be that the person who victimized you will be convicted if a judge or jury cannot trust testimony from the officer investigating the crimes perpetrated against you?

Imagine being a crime victim, someone shot or raped, and you are sitting in the courtroom during the perpetrator's trial. How much comfort will you take hearing a police officer being cross-examined on the sworn testimony needed in your case to send a violent criminal to prison?

It seems the more we continue and the further we escalate our war on people who use substances, the less reliable our core public institutions are when it comes to matters of honesty, perspective and civil rights. Drugs may be poisonous intoxicants for some people. In the case of State v. Bryant, it is hard to tell which party's judgment was more impaired by illegal drugs. One thing is for sure, the defendant is definitely not on the top of the impaired judgment list.

And this takes us right back to Jack's original point that bears repeating. It bears repeating because it goes in the face of the lie the police, the politicians, the incarceration industry and the commercial drug companies keep are telling us every day about the resources lost to criminalizing public health matters. The truth is, we pay out the ass for this folly. Mr. Bryant did not have an opportunity to cultivate his marijuana plants. However, over the five years his case worked its way through the criminal justice system and the appeals' process, hundreds of hands worked on countless aspects of this case. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe more, from the police, the courts, judges, law clerks, private investigators, dozens of private citizens losing days of work to investigation and traveling to court to testify, prosecutors, appellate attorneys in the Attorneys General's office and Mr. Bryant — all went up in smoke.

Doin' a heckofa job. 

Dick Cheney pays George Bush $100 for an ole'fashioned Texas corn-holing and George is guilty of prostitution.  He committed a CRIME!!!

George Bush pays Dick Cheney $100 to do the neocon nasty (with his pacemaker turned up to 11) and Dick is guilty of prostitution. He committed a CRIME!!!

However, I pay both George & Dick $100 to fuck each other. Or I pay $300 to George and Dick and Joe Lieberman AND I then film George & Dick fisting and felching Joe who is now reaching around the aisle instead of across it.  I then sell copies of my magnum opus “George Dicks Joe,” say – for instance – through a website. I have just paid three people to have sex, I have filmed it, I will now be paid myself due to the fact that I PAID THREE PEOPLE TO HAVE SEX SO I COULD MAKE A MOVIE OF THE ENTIRE DISGUSTING AFFAIR and it is ALL FUCKING LEGAL and I have a tape to prove it!

Land of opportunity, Baby! See, in America, if someone pays for sex, it is a crime. If someone pays two, three or twelve people to screw and then sells pictures or movies of it, its commerce.  (Excuse me, “art“).

— It gets worse, after the jump.

Grow up. Grow the fuck up.  This country is in the shitter and we are obsessed with a personal tidbit about a guy who has too much money, too much ego and a gullible wife — all of which is totally irrelevant to a n y t h i n g  –  t h a t  –  m a t t e r s.  Other than a penchant for getting laid (and there are worse “penchants”) he is doing a great job as Governor. He was doing a great job as Governor. He will no longer be able to do a great job as Governor. If grown-ups cannot get their leg over without the country coming to a halt, we are in worse shape than Elliot Spitzer's wedding china, much of which has hit the wall by now.

Perspective? 

We stopped the country, and no one was allowed to get-off, for two years at the end of Bill Clinton's 2d term of office. We have the world's most overbearingly military top-heavy resource-devouring engine of a nation. So what was the best use of our Government's resources during Clenis' second term?  We tried to shatter to pieces a constitutionally evolved republican form of government because Bill Clinton did what we all expected him to do the first chance he had to do it (and we voted for him twice just the same).

Next, we let three viciously corrupt & partisan Republican Circuit Court of Appeals judges place an equally corrupt prosecutor – Ken Starr a savage with ethical gangrene – loose on the trail of a bad-faith phantom case initiated by GOP fraud and lies. We risked the welfare of the entire nation and parts of the world too, for the prurient political entertainment of Republican hypocrites and criminals who faked outrage worse than a $5,000 hooker fakes an orgasm. 

Nobody bothered to notice we actually were at war in the summer of 2000 – 2001. We were happy to be titillated and stoopid. Still, virtually no one knew and most who knew (including the GOP Congress) did not care that we were at war. Instead, all summer and fall in 2001 it was Chandra Levy 24/7.  On September 12, 2001, the war was over. We had lost a huge battle the day before but the U.S. came out victorious — only to watch the Republicans go back and un-win a war we had just won by not realizing we were in it.

Where is our compass?

This country is going to hell and it has nothing to do with Clenis or Elliot Spitzer.  Spitzer is a hypocrite and I have zero sympathy for him. Shame on him for chasing prostitutes for prosecution as the State's Attorneys General. And shame on us for caring when he chases them for personal gratification behind the back of his long-suffering wife and in front of his humiliated family.

But so what? The man was getting the job done. He is an example of the type of Governor we need. The real problem is, we have a severe shortage of Governors like Elliot Spitzer, and we badly need more like him. Of course, I would not let the Putz date my sister, but I would let him run my state in a heartbeat. That's the point.

How the hell will the U.S. ever function if a person needs to decide between getting laid and getting the job done for the country? I do not care that Ike Eisenhower or John F. Kennedy or Franklin Roosevelt got their rocks off with women who were not necessarily going to show up on the family Christmas card. They got the job done. I don't care that the last liberal President we had (Richard Nixon) slept with his socks on and never did anything more salacious than play hands-up/hands-down with his wife in a dark room with drawn shades and sheets up to their earlobes. He was a paranoid crook and was just as likely to fire a missile from the roof of the White House as impose price controls or triple the EPA's enforcement budget. Like any President, I just do not care about whether he “did” or didn't” when he was off the clock. 

We are so screwed.

How the hell is this country ever going to function now that we have the most corrupt justice Dep't in our history? Republicans need to virtually advertise their felonies on the front page of the Washington Post to get the FBI's attention (Duke Cunningham etc.); but a Democrat like Elliot Spitzer warrants a wiretap and a full scale interstate entrapment sting operation because he take approx. $5,000 off the family budget (perfecrtly legal from what's been reported so far) through money transfers.  

Perspective? 

Ari Fleischer gets on his hands and knees to receive a nicely lubed immunity from prosecution. He proceeds to testify that as White House Spokesboy he committed treason. He admits under oath that he committed the very same crime for which the Rosenbergs were executed. The President and Vice President of the United States either conspired or were accessories after the fact to a felony that carries the death penalty. The result: our belovedly inept media cannot stop claiming that there was “no underlying crime” to Republican Scooter Libby's felonious surrender of classified information related to covert U.S. operation in the Middle East. Classified information that went directly into the possession of U.S. enemies.

Oh, AND, by the way, you do know that Democrat Don Siegleman is in prison for appointing public servants to do public service.

Oh boy, we are so screwed.

Reading Kestrel’s diary on Ralph Nader and the comments that follow, it amazes me to this day just how profound an impact that little man’s selfishness had on the world and will continue to have on the world for, literally, generations.

Sure, Ralph Nader was not the only reason Al Gore lost Florida, or the overall election for that matter. The fact is, however, that Nader’s effect on the election was so severe, that without him – without that one single factor, Gore would have won. That puts the “Nader Factor” in a different category of reasons, and it is one reason he will never escape culpability for his acts. As many faults as the two party system has, Nader exploited the faults to make the system worse, not better.  He did it in a way to maximize his impact on the election rather than his impact on policy. His selfishness costs us all dearly to this day.

Some perspective, below the jump.

The story is not that Gore won the popular vote by a relatively narrow half million votes or so. Rather, generations historians will shake their heads at the fact that the popular vote was basically tied. The important number was a decisive win for Gore in the electoral college where he rightfully won 54% of the electoral vote to Bush’s 46%. However, when the Supreme Court reallocated Florida’s electoral college votes by rigging the tallying system, Bush was awarded a state that he had lost by thousands of votes. That created a swing of 8% in the electoral column. (& without Nader swinging New Hampshire – the other State where Nader singularly changed the outcome – it would have been a 55-45% electoral college victory).  

The biggest Nader effect was in Florida. Without Nader, instead of winning Florida by just 8,000-20,000 votes, which was Gore’s approximate margin of victory after an honest count of the vote, Gore would have had such a large margin that Nader’s narcissistic sabotaging could not act as the final straw in the ensuing post-election debacle. Admittedly there were other factors that prevented Gore from receiving the Florida electoral votes he won. Nader was one individual factor that, by himself, cost Florida and the presidency.

Also, like Florida, without Nader on the New Hampshire ballot, Gore would have won that state as well, no.question.about.it. With a win in New Hampshire, Gore’s presidential victory would also have been impossible to deny.

Gore won Florida outright, yet Nader’s sanctimonious interference was the biggest electoral factor in nullifying the victory. The biggest practical factors were the fraud and conspiracy within the both the Florida Sec’y of State’s office, and the result-oriented activism of the the Republican Supreme Court that stepped in and socially promoted a drunk from Texas.

Fifty years from now, the Republican theft of the 2000 election, through ballot fraud, the corruption of the GOP Supreme Court (Scalia, Thomas & Rehnquist especially), along with Nader’s obscene act of treasonous self-love, will rank in significance with events as tragic as the RFK assignation due to the disastrous historical courses set in motion by both events.  

Assuming John McCain can hold today and eventually become the GOP nominee to face Barack Obama in the fall —

Can you spot the difference in his conservative Republican legacy of failure message compared to the Democratic message carrying Senator Obama. (Hint, the difference in these two core messages is subtle, very, very subtle. But if you look closely. . . below the jump . . .)

John McCain (R-AR) —

— meet Barack Obama (D-IL)

Tonight Anthony Pollina goes to bed with a decision to make.

Mr. Pollina is the one person in Vermont who is entitled to choose whether Jim Douglas is assured another term in office beginning in January 2009. Depending on whether Mr. Pollina decides to run with the left, or against the left, will determine whether Jim Douglas wins reelection — either by plurality if not slim majority vote.
 
Anthony Pollina owns the choice.  Depending on what Mr. Pollina does, Jim Douglas goes back into the Governor's office in 2009, or Jim Douglas faces a very good chance of being replaced by the most liberal and most progressive governor Vermont has ever had.
 
Even if, beginning in January 2009, the most liberal governor ever elected to serve Vermont is not Anthony Pollina, Mr. Pollina is still the one who is going to bed tonight deciding whether roughly half of us — i.e., the Vermont voters who want and who are likely to vote for a Democratic/Progressive nominee — will have the opportunity to make the choice to replace Jim Douglas.
 
In 2008, the Democratic primary is the functional equivalent of an instant run-off primary election. If Mr. Pollina joins his fellow travelers on the left side of the political spectrum in a September primary, the person emerging with the Democratic nomination will be the person who can otherwise expect to win the most “number one” and “number two” votes from that large and that potentially winning block of left/liberal/progressive voters who want to bring change to the governor’s office. The Democratic primary may not be the perfect vehicle and it’s certainly not Anthony Pollina’s favored vehicle to the governor’s office; but the fact is, it is the only path to a win in November.

For Anthony Pollina, or whoever wins the Democratic primary, there is a great opportunity too. The opportunity to run against an incumbent Republican Governor whose popularity is sagging and the opportunity to do so while holding the unified banner of the left.

I’m really not trying to bust on Mr. Pollina (seriously). Were I wearing the shoes of any of the potential contenders, or the incumbent for that matter, I would be doing (or at least considering) what is strategically in my best interest to clear the field of potential rivals to gain my best shot in November. Mr. Pollina apparently perceives his strategic short-term interest is best served by staying out of the Democratic primary. and running against an incumbent and an extremely progressive Democrat simultaneously in November. With the only chance to secure a victory for a progressive agenda in 2009 coming from a consolidated left (which can only come from a primary between those who want to represent the left), Mr. Pollina is also telegraphing a belief that his interests, and the best interests of a progressive agenda, are mutually exclusive.  He’s wrong.
 
It is time to cut to the chase on how we can elect a liberal/progressive Governor. The decision Mr. Pollina has and the opportunity he can give to the progressives and liberals who want a serious change in direction in the governor’s office looks something like this . . .  [after the jump]

Anthony Pollina holds the key to whether Jim Douglas is defeated in November. 

The question is whether Pollina will use his key to unlock a door for the left to challenge Jim Douglas or whether he will instead use the key to lockout any chance of replacing the current GOP Governor. 

Whether it is Anthony Pollina, John Campbell, Peter Galbraith or Doug Racine, Vermont can have the most progressive Governor of our lifetime (certainly in my almost three decades of voting) starting next January.  Any of these four will be more liberal than any Governor we have seen in Montpelier.

Also, consider the climate right now.  Jim Douglas is beatable.  Jim Douglas is vulnerable. 

Jim Douglas's reelect numbers are downright mediocre and subject to further downward adjustment. Jim Douglas's Republican Party, his Republican colleagues, and those Republican policies that they have forced on America, with Jim Douglas cheerleading the whole time for the most damaging agenda ever inflicted on the United States, have driven this country into a recession.

Jim Douglas is vulnerable because he has deliberately prevented the State of Vermont from protecting itself from the predictable and expected economic trauma of peak energy, poor infrastructure maintenance, global economic transformation and a healthcare crisis that brutally taxes our businesses while shackling the working class into downward mobility. These are problems that were on the radar when Jim Douglas took office, they are problems that his party – with his singing endorsement – has grossly exacerbated and they are problems he has ignored, made worse or shown he is unable or unwilling to fix.

Jim Douglas is vulnerable because he has ignored the social and economic costs of everything from the State's war on people who are addicted to substances to the never-ending destruction of Lake Champlain th. Shit, the guy loves to tell out-of-state businesses (i.e. job importers) how lousy it is to work in Vermont! The typical Republican approach is always that it is easier to save problems for the next generation if you can convince this generation that the problems are too hard, too expensive or just plain don't exists.  Health care and Lake Champlain are just two obvious examples of that
 
Jim Douglas is beatable because the left/liberals/progressives in Vermont are ready with their votes, their sweat, their money and their voices to elect a Governor who will honestly acknowledge the damage global warming will bring to existing Vermont businesses and Vermont’s traditional economic generators. The left/liberal/progressive Vermont voter is ready to mobilize and to move aggressively toward opportunities (clean energy) that prepare Vermont for changes in the near and distant future while admitting the problems (health care) that cannot be ignored for another wasted two-year gubernatorial term.
 
And with this opportunity for the left, for liberals, for progressives & Progressives and Democrats, the formula to victory is not even that difficult to grasp. First, only a candidate who represents all of us can beat the incumbent Republican. The only way to have one candidate to represent us, is to have a primary. It really is that simple. And there is one primary that will test the candidates, clear the field and give us all a candidate to support in November. It is, was and will be the Democratic primary. Until we are lucky and wise enough to have instant runoff voting, for the Progressives/Democrats, this is the closest thing we have. Candidates are not entitled to run the election they want, they run the elections they face. If Mr. Pollina runs outside of the Democratic primary, he is only running to see how high he can jump in November. If he wins the Democratic primary, then he is in the running to unseat Jim Douglas. Isn't that what this is all about?

And bullshit to anyone who says that healthy competition will hurt Pollina/Campbell/Galbraith/Racine. Think fighting it out until November will make things easier? The fact is, having at least two of these candidates spending the summer proving who can stand against Jim Douglas most effectively in the general election while simultaneously raising awareness about the problems with the Douglas administration, through the publicity of a primary, is the best thing that can happen to any of us.  Mr. Pollina is not going to win without the attention of a primary and then having the Democrats fall behind him if he wins, and the same goes for Messrs. Campbell/Galbraith/Racine. If he runs in the Democratic primary, Mr. Pollina deserves our respect and if he wins, I will convert that respect to aggressive support.

The table is set for 2008. A candidate who cannot win the Democratic primary in September can forget about winning the general election in November. It is the only contest that lets the most and potentially only viable candidate from the left clear the field for an unencumbered shot at the incumbent Republican. If he expects to take on Jim Douglas by waiting until November to beat him, while simultaneously taking on another left/liberal/progressive candidate, Mr. Pollina is not taking progressive and liberal voters as seriously as he takes himself. Don’t waste our time, our money or our effort. 

Anthony Pollina goes to bed tonight with a lot to ponder. He has a tough decision to make. He can fight the hard primary battle first that will build the only winning coalition available to him; and if he wins the Democratic primary in September, he has the most legitimate – and only – shot at statewide election since he first ran statewide as a Democrat in 1984. Mr. Pollina is taking a tough call to bed with him. Unfortunately, for Vermont’s Progressives & Democrats, if Anthony Pollina is sleeping easy, well Jim Douglas can rest easy too.

Mr. Pollina, time to wake up.

Pollina:  Pure or Progressive? 

If Anthony Pollina, or any other candidate challenging the incumbent Republican Governor, cannot win the Democratic primary in September, forget about winning the general election in November. 

The Democratic primary is the only contest that will allow one of the potentially serious gubernatorial challengers to clear the field for a clear shot at Jim Douglas. Mr. Pollina cannot expect to beat Jim Douglas – AND another left/liberal/progressive candidate – by waiting until November to face the voters for the first time.  If he is unable to make his case to the progressive/liberal/left voters in September, then a wait-till-November campaign will be nothing but a vanity race that takes himself far more seriously than his campaign.

Mr. Pollina, don’t waste our time, our money or effort in November if you cannot make your case in September. It's that simple.  It may not be the best way (for you, not the left you claim to represent), it may not be the fair way (to you, not the voters), it may not be the preferred way (for you, not progressive voters), but it really is that simple.

For Anthony Pollina, or whoever wins the Democratic primary, there is a great opportunity too.  The opportunity to run against an incumbent Republican Governor whose popularity is sagging after winning and holding the unified banner of the left. It is a recipe for victory, and it is the only path to victory.

If Anthony Pollina runs (à la Bernie Sanders 2006) in the Democratic primary, he has a chance of beating Jim Douglas. He can win the governor’s office, but he will win it only by clearing the field in September and then taking the consolidated Progressive/Democratic block into the November election.

If Anthony Pollina runs (à la Ralph Nader 2000), then he has no chance of becoming governor. Jim Douglas will win a plurality or even a majority by default, apathy or inertia.

[This post is part I on the practical, mechanical and some historical context of the 2008 gubernatorial Progressive/Democratic primary election decision. Tomorrow in part II, I'll post on the politics of Anthony Pollina's decision]

After the jump, why the Democratic primary is the only path to the Governor's office for a Progressive/Democratic candidate.

We do not need to look back too far to see what is coming. There are two well-trodden paths for Mr. Pollina to follow. The question for 2008 is, will we see:

the “2006 Bernie Sanders” winning version of Anthony Pollina?

– or –

the “2000 Ralph Nader” spoiler version of Anthony Pollina?

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

In 2002, Mr. Pollina split the Progressive/Democratic vote approximately 40/60 with Peter Shumlin. That voting bloc represented almost 3 in 5 votes cast that year. Mr. Pollina's campaign strategy assured that Brian (“Mr. 41%”) Dubie became Lt. Governor despite an overwhelming 59-41 liberal/progressive preference over a squeek-under-the-door-Republican “winner.”

Today, Mr. Pollina is once again threatening the Progressive/Democratic block of voters that he will lose yet another election, in 2002 fashion, in November 2008.  It is no secret that he is trying to scare off a Democratic candidate from the fate of being pulled down with him.  Any serious Democratic challenger will weigh heavily the implications of wasting months and money for the privilege of being torpedoed by a less-than-serious vanity crusade and an end run around the only primary available to the left's voters.

If he is serious about running for Governor, Mr. Pollina will make the same correction in tactics that Senator Sanders made in 2006. Senator Sanders won the Democratic primary (w/ 94% of the vote in a four-way Democratic primary race, i.e., one Congressman vs. three putative Democratic pygmies). This was the first time in 24 years of statewide campaigns that Senator Sanders petitioned to be on the Democratic primary ballot. Even though he later declined the Democratic nomination after winning it, the formula paid dividends nicely.

Consider this —
In 1988, Congressman Jim Jeffords' soon to be vacated congressional seat was Burlington Mayor Bernie Sanders’ for the taking. All Bernie had to do was accept a victory in the Democratic primary. At the time, he was a successful and popular Burlington Mayor who ran a losing but energetic and inspiring Gubernatorial campaign two years earlier against incumbent Madeleine Kunin and Republican Peter Smith. Mayor Sanders had a Democratic primary nomination and a congressional seat with his name on it, if he could just get over the thought of petitioning to be on the September primary ballot.

Conversely, in 1988, Jim Jeffords’ soon to be vacated congressional seat was a known GOP hold if Bernie Sanders chose purity and politics over pragmatism and the progressive cause. What did he do? Well, rather than accept the Democratic primary nomination and a seat in Congress, Mayor Sanders accepted an 8,000 vote defeat at the hands of a 41% land-sliding Republican, Peter Smith. I still weep each time I read it. I still weap each time I read it. (warning pdf).

In 1988, Mayor Sanders chose not to vie for the Democratic nomination.  The voters of Vermont awarded, and split, 57% of their vote between two liberal candidates.  A grateful Peter Smith (R-VT) skated to Congress with less than a static baseline 41% of the GOP vote. Smith skated simply because a popular and well-known Burlington Mayor could not find it in himself to consolidate the liberal/progressive left voting bloc and accept the Democratic nomination. Mayor Sanders became Congressman Sanders in 1990, but only with an open and consolidated field on the left. With no Democratic-Independent/Progressive vote to split, Mayor Sanders was the one who coasted into Congress as Peter Smith received essentially the same vote (40%) in 1990 as he did in 1988.

The difference two years made: 1990 was a two-person race between Bernie Sanders and Peter Smith. There was no Democratic-Progressive vote to split for the benefit of the Republican incumbent.  Bernie garnered 56% of the vote – the exact same voters who split two years earlier in 1988 between the Independent Mayor and the Democratic nominee, while Peter Smith stayed static at 40%.

Fast forward.  The dynamic does not change but the stakes in 2006 were as high as they have ever been. Vermont had two open and contested congressional races. Congressman Sanders was not going to risk a repeat of his 8,000-vote loss in 1988 to a 41% Republican. With every Senate seat a critical race, there was no point in risking a nominal Democratic nominee siphoning a few nominal percentage points. Worse still, a senate seat was most certainly not worth taking the risk that a serious Democrat, albeit with no serious chance of winning, might siphon 10% or 20% points off the p/Progressive & Democratic vote in November.

To win, Congressman Sanders therefore dispatched any puritanical scruples about contaminating himself with the great unwashed vying for the Democratic nomination (and considering the field in 2006, that characterization is kind). Party purity did not seem so important when there was an office to be won rather than a personal scruples (which were totally irrelevant to voters in the first place) to uphold. Congressman Sanders wisely chose to run a purely progressive race; he ran a substantive issue oriented campaign that drew a clear distinction between his progressive values and those of his callow GOP Bush-enabling opponent. Senator Sanders’ campaign overflowed with substance, which overshadowed his participation in the (whew) Democratic primary.

In 2006, Bernie Sanders was serious about winning. In 2006, Bernie Sanders, who had never before petitioned to put himself on the ballot as a Democrat, did so for the sake of his constituents, for the sake of his campaign and to make sure he would win. It was the only reasonable choice; in fact, it was a requirement to insure that he would advance the progressive agenda into the Senate.

The dynamic has not changed in two years or twenty years.  Only the office and some of the players. Mr. Pollina has been down this road before and we've seen what happened to him we know what will happen if he runs a wait-till-November to consolidate the Progressive/Democratic voter. 

If Anthony Pollina cannot or will not run in the September primary, he is not a serious candidate. Period.

[Tomorrow, the political factors of Mr. Pollina's decision and why he, or any other winner of the September Democratic primary, is in a great position to win the gubernatorial contest]

This is a brief follow up to my prior diary regarding canvassing on Saturday (tomorrow) morning across the bridge from White River Junction, VT.

Canvassers are still needed/welcome/appreciated and to all of you who are already planning to be in Lebanon tomorrow, thank you for volunteering.  I can't wait to see the GMD crowd thread out into voter rich Lebanon neighborhoods.

I am really excited to say that John Edwards will be speaking in Lebanon at 1:00 p.m.

The details are:

Saturday January 5th at 1:15 pm
Lebanon “Fighting for our Families” Town Hall w/ John Edwards and his parents Bobbie and Wallace Edwards
Lebanon High School
195 Hanover St.
Lebanon, NH

Hope you will be there.

sláinte,

 — cl

 Loading ...