Hello. Independent small-p “progressive” jvwalt here. First of all, I fully admit and acknowledge that I badly underestimated Tony Pollina’s electoral strength. I didn’t think he could crack double digits, and he proved me wrong.

That said, it’s difficult to see his showing as a victory for progressive (or Progressive) politics. He and Symington split the hard-core liberal vote. Neither made a dent in Jim Douglas; in fact, they lost ground during the campaign. In a year when Democrats made impressive gains nationwide, when Barack Obama won more than two-thirds of Vermont’s Presidential votes, when the Governor presided over a sagging economy and a lackluster administration — in short, in a year when the door was wide open for a liberal victory in Vermont, the Dems and Progs shared a bit more than 40% of the vote. Approximately 70,000 — seventy thousand — Obama voters turned their backs on Symington and Pollina, and voted for Douglas.

If that isn’t a huge indictment of the left’s political ineffectiveness in Vermont, I don’t know what is.

I expect there will be a lot of post-election sniping between Dems and Progs. I expect there will be some deserved crowing on the part of Pollina backers. But as someone who does not belong to either camp — I’d like to see both parties thrive in an electoral system with IPV — let me say that this election was a disaster for Dems and Progs alike. It was a great opportunity gone up in smoke. And it begs the question: who can lead the left to a Gubernatorial victory? Can Dems and Progs find a way to cooperate, or will this circular firing squad continue to the endless delight of Jim Douglas and the GOP?

Could, perhaps, our two Senators have a meeting of the minds, come home together, and crack some goddamn heads? That’s my suggestion anyway. I welcome other ideas on how to build a successful progressive (or Progressive) movement in Vermont.  

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

If the polls are right — and they are reinforced by the abundant signs of panic in the national GOP — then our nation is about to survive a close brush with the Ghost of Richard Nixon.

One of the tragically underreported aspects of the 2000 campaign was the fact that Dick Cheney was not (as he was usually depicted) the wise grey eminence who could rein in the young, impetuous W. He was, indeed, Richard Nixon’s revenge. He firmly believed in Nixon’s broad view of executive power and Nixon’s contempt for checks and balances and constitutional rights.

The Bush Administration has been a combination of the worst aspects of Nixon and Reagan. Nixon’s unconstitutional excesses and invasions of privacy; Reagan’s tax-cut-and-spend fiscal trainwreck and kowtowing to the religious right; both men’s warmongering tendencies, politicization of the federal bureaucracy, and ruthless demonization of political opponents.  

So now the Republican Party offers us John McCain, probably the last major political figure who learned his lessons during the Nixon years. McCain still believes — as does Cheney — the discredited view that we “lost Vietnam” through a lack of political will. Hence the endless commitment to the quagmire of Iraq. And while McCain has sometimes been at odds with Bush, he has said nothing to disavow Bush’s power-grabs and invasions of privacy.  

McCain’s occasional (and oh so beguiling to the chattering class) maverick forays are straight out of the Nixon playbook: Nixon did, after all, open the door to China, establish the EPA, and expand some Great Society programs. He did some positive things, in other words, while otherwise taking a sledgehammer to our political and social systems.

There are clear echoes of Nixon in McCain’s campaign tactics: sliming his opponents, lying about Obama with a straight face. And repeating those lies endlessly, even after they’re thoroughly discredited. And doing it with a fakey Nixonian smile on his face. And refusing (except for that one town meeting) to disavow the even worse things that his surrogates have said.  

Picture an undead Nixon as Emperor Palpatine, looking on the work of his political heirs with an evil cackle. And imagine his unrestrained glee if McCain actually captured the White House, and continued the Nixonian transformation of America into a Big Brother oligarchy that operates for the benefit of the rich and powerful and seeks to impose its will on the world.

Assuming Obama wins, he will face the daunting task of dismantling the executive powers and unconstitutional excesses pioneered by Nixon and promulgated by Bush-Cheney. Obama the politician will have to deny himself the advantages of the Nixonian brand of political power. He will have the opportunity to tear down — or firmly establish — the Nixon/Reagan/Bush vision of government.

In other words, to continue the Star Wars analogy, he will have to choose whether to be Luke, or Anakin, Skywalker. If he chooses wisely, the Emperor Nixon might finally fade away into history.  

In my previous diary about the Vermont Stare (q.v.), I omitted the biggest practitioner/victim of them all: Jim Douglas himself.

Politically, he’s forward thinking enough to create a network of flacks and pretty much turn his Gubernorship into a permanent campaign. But policy-wise, he is the Vermont Stare incarnate. No matter what the situation, issue or crisis, he seems incapable of original thought. Even Bush (!) manages to back into a new idea once in a while — adopting Obama’s policy on Afghanistan (without admitting it, of course), and turning big-state Socialist on the Wall Street/banking crisis. (The banks bailout is a straight borrow from, gasp, Old Europe!)

Douglas… same old, same old. No tax increases, no matter how dire the budget mess becomes. Tax incentives to fix everything what ails us. Vermont Yankee falling apart? Write a letter. No attempt whatsoever to reinvent government or actually make it leaner and meaner. No apparent awareness that we might need an injection of new thinking or new ideas. Look… see his eyes drift off away from you? Vermont Stare.  

From the Burlington Free Press’ “VT Buzz” politics blog…

Independent gubernatorial candidate Anthony Pollina is trying to make up for lost time on the fundraising front with an e-mail to supporters today, making an appeal for them to give the full $2,000 they’re now allowed to give, following yesterday’s federal court decision.

The message also says the campaign will record its first TV ad Friday.

One thought per paragraph: First, the e-mail apparently targets the loyal, deep-pocketed donors who have given substantial amounts already, but still haven’t maxed out. So much for building a broad-based, grass-roots effort.

Second, I’m so glad to hear he’s cutting his first TV ad. ‘Bout time. Maybe he’ll buy some airtime next. It’s almost like a real campaign now, isn’t it?  

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

Came up with two explanations.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Douglas ought to be eminently beatable this year. Sure, he’s the incumbent, and Vermonters rarely boot incumbents. But he has a weak record to run on (his main TV ad touts his milktoast economic plan, which clearly indicates his lack of ideas), early polling indicated surprisingly high negatives for him, he’s presided over the Vermont Yankee mess, he preaches the same conservative orthodoxy that’s fallen into complete disrepute — and now the Democrats are steamrolling toward an epic victory across the country.

Obama’s got double-digit leads in a lot of polls, and Republicans are abandoning McCain in droves. (Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh asked Sarah Palin about her future political plans, implicitly conceding the election.) The Dems might get a super-majority in the US Senate: not only are they going to pick off the low-hanging fruit like John Sununu The Lesser, but they might ring up red-state wins over the likes of Liddy Dole, Mitch McConnell, Saxby Chambliss, and the guy warming Trent Lott’s seat. Hell, a damn comedian is poised to cut down Norm Coleman. (Yes, I know Franken is a liberal commentator and activist of note; but he’s had to overcome all the stupid things he said and did in his life as an entertainer.)

Meanwhile, here in liberal ol’ Vermont, we can’t lay a glove on Jim Douglas?  

We shouldn’t have to be desperately hoping for a three-way split — we should be counting the hours till Jim’s concession speech. If Douglas does win this year, I imagine the Dem and Prog leadership will blame Vermont’s track record of rewarding incumbency. In fact, they will have absolutely blown an historic opportunity to shut the GOP out of power once and for all.

(Let me make sure to spread the blame equally. Pollina has run a disorganized, underfunded, and generally pointless campaign. He had the chance to take the honorable way out by running for Lite-Gov on a tacit “unity ticket,” but his ego was too damn big for that, yessir. Then he abandons his party on filing deadline day for reasons that have never been adequately explained or explored. Pollina has, in short, jumped the shark. And no, I don’t believe that outlier poll that puts him in second place, not for a minute.)

Odum’s “Open Thread” post cited rumors that prominent Dems are staying away from Tom Costello in order to keep their options open for 2010. I wonder if some of the same thing isn’t going on with Symington; how active are other top Dems in campaigning and fundraising for Gaye? If any Democrat is slacking off or actively undermining this campaign for the sake of some potential personal edge in the future, then s/he is a complete and utter hack who should be banned by the party from consideration for any higher office anytime in the future.

Do I sound angry, incensed, frustrated? To quote a certain Miss Wasilla, you betcha.  

Story in Wednesday’s edition of the Valley News (Lebanon, NH) comparing LIHEAP eligibility standards in New Hampshire and Vermont. Guess what? Vermont’s standards are significantly more restrictive!

The big drawback: Vermont imposes an asset test for eligibility for home heating assistance. Anyone with more than $5,000 in assets (excluding home, car, and life insurance policies) is just too darn rich to get help. Makes sense, no?

“This wasn’t meant to be an asset tested program. It was meant to provide support for low-income people,” said Philene Taormina, director of advocacy for AARP in Vermont. “We would like to see the asset test removed, absolutely.”

Taormina said the test unfairly targets the elderly, who are often on fixed incomes but may have savings accounts or family property that can’t be liquidated. Two years ago, she was part of a group that lobbied to have the asset test dropped from state law. Instead, Vermont legislators raised the cap from $2,000 to its current level of $5,000.

Now, that’s a relief. So how does the Douglas Administration explain this?

Those who run Vermont’s Fuel Assistance Program, though, call the resource limit a necessary iniquity, because it allows bigger payouts to the people who need them most.

(Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume they didn’t actually use the phrase “a necessary iniquity.”)

“Vermont has the highest dollar amount of benefit of anybody in the country,” pointed out Steve Dale, commissioner of the Vermont Department for Children and families.

It’s true, sez the Valley News; Vermont’s average payout was more than twice as high as NH’s. But does that compensate for the following?

As of now, its eligibility requirements are stricter than any other state in New England. Only four states in the country, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Michigan and Nebraska, have tighter income cut-offs.

And you thought Vermont was a liberal state.  

(I had meant to write up a post about this, but someone else beat me to it. – promoted by JulieWaters)

In case there’s anyone out there who’s not on their way to Denver, the state has made a deal with Vermont Compost which seems to amount to a total capitulation.

As reported in the Times Argus, the deal removes all threat of regulation or sanction until January 2010, which appears to be in line with the Legislature’s moratorium on enforcement actions against composters. (The moratorium, and the VC agreement, are designed to allow time for state officials to figure out how to regulate large-scale composting operations.) The agreement also settles the two appeals filed by VC against previous state enforcement actions.

The only limitation on VC, according to the T-A:

Vermont Compost Co. will agree to run its Montpelier operation under many of the same health and safety rules and restrictions as it does another facility in East Montpelier. The East Montpelier site is governed under a solid waste permit, but the Montpelier site is not.

Unless I’m missing something, the Douglas Administration has completely reversed course on the issue.