Eating up more redundant front page space, but another VY thought burning to get out. Tim Newcomb has a political cartoon today depicting a battered Vermont Yankee being pushed off a plank by Peter Shumlin, who muses on his leadership qualities while the Yankee character asks “Is this vote about me or all about you?”

I love ya Tim, and you’re not the only one peddling this line, obviously – but its not only unfair, its bunk. Politicians have agendas. They run for office based on them – openly. We elect them based on our collective assessment of those agendas. We expect them to be consistent and effective in acting on those agendas if elected. It is, in fact, the job.

Of course Shumlin has an agenda. And of course voters for governor will judge the quality of that agenda, as well as judge him based on how consistent and effective he has been in pushing it. What on earth is the problem?

Shumlin has been nothing but consistent on this issue. And he did not bring VY to this moment of truth – the calendar and Entergy’s own incompetence and deceitfulness did. To suggest otherwise is to grant Shumlin weird, reality-bending powers (see Governor Salmon).

On this issue over the years, Shumlin has been consistent, and now he is attempting to be effective. He didn’t create this critical moment, he is showing leadership by acting on it. Yes, most Democrats seem to believe that the best way to get elected is do as little as possible, so perhaps he’s going against the zeitgeist here – but to suggest he should be taken to task for being consistent and effective – all because one shouldn’t do that if one is running for governor is as clear an example of the dysfunctional pathology gripping american politics as I can think of.

Not to eat up unnecessary front page space, but does it occur to anyone else that in Governor Douglas’s constant defense of Vermont Yankee in terms of “safety” isn’t an attempt to bait legislators (and lobbyists) into an explicit discussion on the plant’s safety – the one criterion that they are explicitly prohibited from basing a decision on?

Think maybe he’s trying to help his corporate pals at Entergy build a public record to support their inevitable lawsuit against the State of Vermont when relicensing is rejected?

In case it hasn’t been obvious, I’ve been in a serious slump in the whole writing/blogging thing. And its a bad kind of slump, too. Everyday I find things I really want to write up, but then I get to the computer and I just go flat. Big drag.

So today, after reading all the Vermont Yankee discussions in the paper, I was struck by an increasingly bizarre irrationality on the part of Yankee proponents. As though all the arguments and concerns that have piled up have become too much, and supporters are just covering their eyes and ears.

It almost seems like a pathology at this point. Yankee Dementia Disease.

You hear Peg Flory on the radio or in hearings so clearly furious at Yankee opponents, angrily (and futilely) throwing out “gotcha” points that she has to know are easily countered by whatever bits of information she has chosen to withhold in order to play Entergy cheerleader (and thankfully, there’s always someone standing right next to her to call her out on her deceptively selective informational tidbits.)

Back to today’s paper, there’s the piece by former Governor Salmon, but this problem isn’t really anything new with him, as his irrationality is – as usual – worn on his sleeve. He offers little more than a truly ironic rant about the “shrill voices of ideologues”, along with the bizarre statement that it “strikes (him) as odd, if not downright unexplainable” why “anti-nuclear activists” would time their shut-down efforts during a recession.

“Timing” their efforts during a recession? Seriously?

I mean, its hard to know how to respond to that, except to wonder if Governor Salmon’s tether to reality hasn’t come loose. I suppose the upcoming relicensing, a potential new power contract, tritium leaks into the groundwater, the bustling low-cost energy market, the recent cooling tower collapse, security breach, and the lies from Entergy execs to the state of Vermont – they’re all part of a delicately balanced, meticulously planned plot by the all-powerful Greenpeace, and those damn dirty hippies didn’t have the decency to wait another year to have all their well-placed corporate stooges and saboteurs commence with their master plan.

Seriously. This is apparently what he is saying. I’m not sure how anyone who could make such an argument could even be taken seriously. In fact, the only response that comes to mind are the immortal words of Buzz Lightyear.

But Salmon and Flory are too easy. What really got my attention, and that I thought was worth a long, carefully considered response was the piece by Richard Mallary, who calls for a “rational assessment,” and then – with great deliberation – completely avoids even mentioning (let alone “assessing”) the most damning rational arguments against relicensing. And the few almost meaninglessly broad approaches to the anti-VY argument he does take, he quickly dispenses with by casting them generally into a trust-the-Nuclear-Regulatory-Commission catch-all (as if there isn’t a “rational risk assessment” associated with that right there).

So that’s what I was gonna write. Except now I guess I just did, sans the meticulous point-by-point dissection of Mallary’s piece. This stream of consciousness blogging is weird. Guess I have to go back and fill in the links now. Grumble.

What I was going to suggest, rather than write an actual post, was to have a little fun. And I suppose I still can. This morning, I was following one link after another – as one does on the web – and ended up with this oddly inspirational combination of text and google advertising at the bottom of a passing page:

Now that was inspiring. A Yankee haiku. There’s a worthy topic for a Sunday post.

I’ll start:

VY forever!

Leaks, Lies, Collapses, Breaches

It’s only business.

Tritium fine, they say.

Cobalt, Zinc-65, just

to cleanse the palate.

Woo-hoo! I could do this all day!

Next?

Former gold medalists both, 23 year old Hannah Teter of Belmont took the Silver Medal and 26 year old Kelly Clark of West Dover took the Bronze in the Women’s Halfpipe Snowboarding competition at the Vancouver Olympics. Congratulations!

That makes three medals for Vermont (a matched set, in fact – Bronze, Silver and Hannah Kearney’s Gold in the moguls).

So let’s see… whats that in medalers per capita for the state… 1 in 208,000? C’mon, that’s just gotta blow the other states away.

“Liar” accusation of the week. I’ll just raise it up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes. Does the writer have a point?

Hi Odum,

I think your post about the VT secessionist candidates (knitting with one needle) was very misleading. WONDERING is just a blogger for VT Commons and in no way represents the candidates. I am also a blogger for VT Commons and I think WONDERING is off their rocker. To equate the positions of one blogger with an entire field of political candidates is just inflammatory and lazy. VT Commons blog is an open forum (and maybe that’s not a good idea) but what you put out there was basically a lie.

Best, (name removed)

I admit, it occurred to me leaving the name of the sender in might foment a little grief in the ranks, but my better self prevailed. Although I do post emails when appropriate, its not cool to leave the names in.

– gasbag

I wish WCAX would pay Research 2000 to run their polls with a real sample size. 400, even parsed out as professionally as the top-notch R2K folks do, is still small, and it leaves us with a 5% margin of error, which just seems too big. Usually, 600 is considered a good floor. Ah well, at least they’re numbers, and I thank WCAX for doing it.

So how do these numbers stack up, and what do they say when juxtaposed against what we now know are numbers from an internal primary poll?

WCAX has, this time, posted most of its crosstabs, meaning I don’t have to go fishing around for them and print them here as I have in previous election cycles with their polls. So here, again, is the link.

First of all, I wish the numbers were better, of course. Statistically, the leading candidates are in a tossup with Dubie, but it’d be nice if that quantum polling edge leaned a bit more our way. The early polls show Dubie ahead against 4 out of 5 Dems – the exception being Markowitz. Although her lead is well within the margin of error, its still bragging rights which should serve to regain much of her lost momentum in recent months. Racine sits behind Dubie at the outer edge of the margin of error – 5%.

That Bartlett lags back so far (18%) is no surprise given her name recognition challenges – and certainly name recognition is going to account for much of what we’re reading here. What may be a surprise is that Dunne trails Dubie in his head-to-head by 8%, while Shumlin trails by 10%. Well within the small polls margin, sure, but that’s gotta be a drag for Shumlin, who has been so prominent in the news of late. On the other hand, Dunne has appeared on a statewide ballot more recently, so that level of recognition is likely in his favor.

Putting Pollina into the mix was an interesting exercise (link), but it seems like unlikely (woops) he’ll run for Governor this time around, so its largely meaningless. His entry does draw down numbers from both the R and the D, but tend to impact the Ds more, even drawing Markowitz’s numbers under Dubie (all of which is still within the margin of error, though – that 5% is a mighty big grain of salt).

Of the three that sit closest together on the polls (Shumlin, Racine, Dunne) one has to call them statistically tied. Here’s where that margin of error also gives you strange results. Racine can be said to be statistically in a tossup with Dubie. Shumlin and Dunne can claim to be in a statistical tossup with Racine – and yet Shumlin and Dunne cannot therefore claim to be in a statistical tossup with Dubie themselves.

Arg. 600 people next time – please?

Anyways… the fav/unfavs give us a lot more to work with:

FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE NO OPINION

Brian Dubie 46% 33% 21%

Deb Markowitz 48% 28% 24%

Anthony Pollina 38% 31% 31%

Doug Racine 38% 30% 32%

Peter Shumlin 33% 21% 46%

Matt Dunne 34% 19% 47%

Susan Bartlett 26% 11% 63%

The good news is, when you compare these numbers to the head to heads, one thing stands out: the more the public seems to know the Democratic candidate, the better they look against Dubie. In Vermont, this trend is likely to continue over time as it generally has with Democratic statewide candidates (the exception being Symington, whose favorables took a big late-cycle crash as folks came to recognize her name, introduced to her, as many were, through the kerfuffle over her tax returns).

Markowitz is the more widely recognized Dem and is the one in the strongest position. On the other hand, she has fewer “no opinions” to work with.

It’s fascinating to me that Shumlin and Dunne have polled almost exactly the same when you look at the head to heads as well as the favorables. It’s surprising, but Shumlin can certainly take comfort that, while he isn’t polling as strong as he’d like against Dubie (or as compared to Dunne), there’s a surprisingly high number of “no opinions” he has yet to be introduced to (at least I was surprised – thought his name was out there a bit more).

In fact, as a ratio, all the Dems favorables-vs-unfavorable numbers track very, very closely. They’re all on the same curve. That’s interesting. On issues, sure they have all been very similar, but they cut very different public figures. What this says to me is that this has as much to do with their identification as partisan figures, as their individual identities as candidates.

This could suggest that the trend this year will be less about individuals – more Democrat versus Republican than Dubie vs whoever. If that holds true, it could also be more bad news for Dubie.

However, Vermont has a tiny voting population, and tiny voting populations turn on a dime. Republicans often win through game-changing gimmicks – video of a bad press conference, poorly released tax returns, etc. They’ll be on he lookout for that.

On the other hand, their own candidate is going to be uniquely vulnerable to embarrassing moments, so they’d best watch out.

How does all this fit in to the leaked primary data? Well, that’s a completely different animal. Here’s a reminder of what we were told yesterday:

Its a poll of likely primary voters and will reportedly show Racine at 30%, Shumlin, Markowitz, and Dunne tied at 16%, Bartlett at 3% and the difference presumably undecided….And the pollsters apparently mispronounced Dunne’s

name as “Dune” – could it have cost him a point or 2?

Name recognition, for one, is going to be closer to universal among likely primary voters – the exception being Lamoille Senator Bartlett who still has to get to know many of the Dem voters).

Primary voters are a smaller – and more dynamic – lot, and they will be driven to support who they think is electable in the general election on the one hand, and on generally progressive issues (especially via constituency groups) on the other. Certainly all the candidates can make the electability claim (although Bartlett would have to speak very theoretically with those numbers on her back), but the WCAX poll could well give Markowitz the boost she needs to start breaking out of that second place primary pack (which she can’t be happy about being in, given the time and money already invested).

What’s interesting is that Racine’s strong showing among Dems cannot easily be written off to name recognition. It says that concerns about the “fire in the belly” passion issue will not be enough in and of themselves to keep him from winning, so his opponents will likely have to start hitting him more directly and specifically if they want to close that gap. With one candidate that significantly ahead of the others, this could well coalesce into a 2-person, rather than a 3-person race as we go through the summer. Markowitz and Dunne both come at the game from outside the legislature – Dunne even from outside Montpelier – which will make it simpler for them to distinguish themselves. Both could be well-positioned to consolidate the non-Racine primary vote and scoop up a lot of those undecideds over the coming months.

Shumlin, as the Senate President, will have to make his case on leadership and gravitas, and will more directly eat into Racine’s numbers if he gets the traction.

Bartlett clearly has work to do.

A big moral to this story? All of these name recognition numbers are already stronger than most of our non-primaried gubernatorial candidates were at this time. That’s only going to increase as the primary further heats up. And as we see above, the more the public knows the Dem, the better they fare against Dubie and that rock-solid Republican 42-46% that he can expect come November.

So as simple as 1+1=2, then, there is no question that this primary is a good thing, and could well play a vital role in a Democratic return to the Governor’s race – so long as it doesn’t get out of hand.

Let’s work hard to be sure that it doesn’t.

Press release from the Speaker’s office:

The Vermont House of Representatives today passed S. 117,  An Act Relating to the Date of the Primary Election.  The bill moves the primary election up from the second Tuesday in September to the fourth Tuesday in August.

The bill allows Vermont to come into compliance with Federal law which mandates the ballots to be mailed to overseas voters-including deployed members of the Vermont National Guard-at least 45 days before an election.  Under current law, Vermont’s primary election results would not be certified in time to meet that requirement prior to the general election

“This bill is about giving our troops who are fighting for democracy the opportunity to participate in democracy,” said Speaker Shap Smith.  “Our troops overseas deserve to have the same opportunity to vote that we have here at home.”

“Not only does moving the primary support our troops, it allows us to comply with Federal law,” said Rep. Donna Sweaney, Chair of the House Committee on Government Operations.  

S. 117 was passed by the Senate last year, 21-7.  The House approved the bill today, 139-6.  It will be read for final passage on Thursday.

Burlington Telecom would seem to be in trouble. It has to make a $386,000 payment on the interest on its debt. They’re already in trouble, of course, for dipping into city reserves without repaying them in defiance of their licensing from the state. Now the Public Service Board is saying “no” to their request to do it again, and a court has barred them from using other city money. Doomed? Probably not.

As I said, when the Mayor and the Council Progressives dug in on the issue of transparency and rule breaking, rather than just biting the bullet from the get-go with a “mistakes were made” moment, they upped the ante, making Burlington Telecom itself a partisan issue and putting its continued existence in jeopardy. That has clearly played out to the letter.

But now that BT is synonymous with the Burlington Progressives, it will likely be treated similarly to the now-defunct Vermont Milk Company. So here’s my prediction: A deal will be announced by Friday whereby an anonymous guardian angel “investor” will have emerged to cover the $386,000, and the status quo will live to be fought over another day.

And once again for the record (and as a firm supporter of this kind of public information utility): it should never have come to this.

There is apparently some hand-wringing in the House over the announcement that the Senate will vote on Vermont Yankee next week. Some (including some in the Senate) feel that now is not the time. Here’s why those folks are wrong – perhaps dangerously so:

• Some are arguing that the threat of a legislative vote against relicensure is leverage to be used against Entergy – but leverage for what, exactly? It’s only leverage in looking for a good deal on power. We need to be clear that the only good deal on power from this dangerous plant with its unfunded cleanup pricetag is no deal, and we don’t need any leverage for that.
• Remember: A no vote in the Senate on relicensing doesn’t change the fundamentals of the game board, but it shifts the power dynamics dramatically. Entergy will still have until 2012 to get a yes vote for relicensing, but they’ll have to get the Senate to vote to reverse themselves, while any allies they have on the House side will have become impotent. That’s a far, far bigger boulder for Entergy to push up the hill.
• Vermont Yankee is reeling, but Entergy is a massive corporation with resources above and beyond anything VY opponents will ever be able to bring to bear. All they have to do is play rope-a-dope during their public flogging until the leak is found and public opinion turns, and they will end up controlling the conversation.
• Those easily swayed swing votes in the legislature will only swing our way during a crisis. The crisis is now.
• It could be an entirely different ballgame after the Town Meeting break, as the armies of Entergy lobbyists will descend on Montpelier any day now.
• If the Senate votes no on relicensing, that in no way rules out further action or hearings.

The Senators deserve our full support on this. This is truly a no-brainer.

I wondered why there weren’t more letters in response to what I expected would be an emotionally explosive February 3rd report from newguy Andy Bromage in 7 Days:

State Rep. David Zuckerman (P-Burlington) has a confession to make that might sound to some like political suicide.

He bills taxpayers for his “mileage” to and from the Statehouse – as much as $152 a week – even on days when he gets a ride with fellow lawmakers or lobbyists.

Zuckerman also takes full advantage of the $61 daily meal allowance afforded to legislators when they are in session, but admits he rarely spends that much on food.

“Every day I claim the mileage, and I probably shouldn’t,” says Zuckerman, a ponytailed Progressive who runs an organic vegetable farm in Hinesburg. Beyond that, though, Zuckerman isn’t apologizing for his behavior.

Ouch. It goes on.

Many lawmakers admit it doesn’t cost them $61 a day to fill their bellies, nor $101 a night to crash in Montpelier – a room at the Capital Plaza runs $106, but many lawmakers make more affordable arrangements, such as renting apartments together. Several politicians interviewed by Seven Days admitted they pocketed the difference, though none as righteously as Zuckerman.

Political parties in Burlington have become something almost akin to churches, with Democrats, Progressives and Republicans seemingly incapable of critically examining their own institutions – and certainly their own high priests and priestesses. I fully expected a nuclear explosion of emphatic, pavlovian opining divided rigidly along partisan lines and was shocked when it didn’t turn out that way.

Well, come to find out we just haven’t seen it yet. It sounds like those letters are showing up in tomorrow’s issue – and it seems there will be a lot of them.

Hopefully, there’ll be a little nuance in the discussion since the article makes it clear that the the legislators giving themselves such unofficial raises are not bound to any one party. It’s likely, though, that most letter-writers will not be able to see past David’s mug in the article’s photo and will simply vent one way or the other based on their own partisan affiliation. It’s a shame because there’s an important discussion on ethics to be had in all this. Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong.

I’m sympathetic to Zuckerman’s point. As it is, only wealthy, retired, or otherwise “supported” people can really afford to be legislators. The compensation is that bad, and that makes for a deeply screwed-up system. I’ve suggested that, at the very least, it wouldn’t break the bank to at least professionalize the Senate.

But I can’t see how there can be any question that collecting this money under false pretenses is unethical, and casting it as a virtue is disturbing.

It’s effectively placing oneself above the rules (at least in spirit… don’t know about the letter). It says to readers I can unilaterally change those rules as I see fit.

It might be morally different if he was suggesting that some other person has the right to adjust their own job compensation unilaterally, but he’s making that decision for himself. To call that a conflict of interest understates it.

If Rep. Zuckerman hired a laborer for his farm and found out that this worker was routinely taking a dollar or two from Zuckerman’s own wallet to supplement what he saw as an inadequate wage, he would rightfully be pissed off. He would likely be more pissed off if that worker considered it a perfectly fine thing to do and expressed no remorse, as well as every intention of repeating the behavior. (This isn’t quite it, as the action in question isn’t sneaky. It’s not robbing someone when they’re not looking. Perhaps its more akin to passing a bad check.)

The action he defends in this piece is a bit ethically offset by the fact that Zuckerman’s self-directed pay raise is a transgression against an institution rather than a person (at least its offset in my opinion), but its still unethical.

Please don’t do it anymore. You need to be better than this. It ain’t right, and that should be the end of it.

At any rate, I’m gonna be checking out the 7 Days lettercol tomorrow. Should be quite a show.