Quite a week. Another day, another public challenge of the Obama administration by a Vermont Senator.

Bernanke’s nomination comes before the Senate Banking Committee this Thursday. It’s unclear how far he’ll be willing to go with this hold, but it’s a very big deal regardless. Reid has shown in the past that inconvenient holds from the Democratic caucus do not necessarily elicit the kind of traditional Senatorial deference that holds from the opposition do (raise your hand if that surprises you).

WASHINGTON, December 2 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today placed a hold on the nomination of Ben Bernanke for a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

“The American people overwhelmingly voted last year for a change in our national priorities to put the interests of ordinary people ahead of the greed of Wall Street and the wealthy few,” Sanders said. “What the American people did not bargain for was another four years for one of the key architects of the Bush economy.”

The rest of the Sanders press release follows.

As head of the central bank since 2006, Bernanke could have demanded that Wall Street provide adequate credit to small and medium-sized businesses to create decent-paying jobs in a productive economy, but he did not.

He could have insisted that large bailed-out banks end the usurious practice of charging interest rates of 30 percent or more on credit cards, but he did not.

He could have broken up too-big-to-fail financial institutions that took Federal Reserve assistance, but he did not.

He could have revealed which banks took more than $2 trillion in taxpayer-backed secret loans, but he did not.

“The American people want a new direction on Wall Street and at the Fed.  They do not want as chairman someone who has been part of the problem and who has been responsible for many of the enormous difficulties that we are now experiencing,” Sanders said.  “It’s time for a change at the Fed.”

The Federal Reserve has four main responsibilities: to conduct monetary policy in a way that leads to maximum employment and stable prices; to maintain the safety and soundness of financial institutions; to contain systemic risk in financial markets; and to protect consumers against deceptive and unfair financial products.

Since Bernanke took over as Fed chairman in 2006, unemployment has more than doubled and, today, 17.5 percent of the American workforce is either unemployed or underemployed.

Not since the Great Depression has the financial system been as unsafe, unsound, and unstable as it has been during Mr. Bernanke’s tenure.  More than 120 banks have failed since he became chairman.

Under Bernanke’s watch, the value of risky derivatives held at our nation’s top commercial banks grew from $110 trillion to more than $290 trillion, 95 percent of which are concentrated in just five financial institutions.

Bernanke failed to prevent banks from issuing deceptive and unfair financial products to consumers.  Under his leadership, mortgage lenders were allowed to issue predatory loans they knew consumers could not afford to repay. This risky practice was allowed to continue long after the FBI warned in 2004 of an “epidemic” in mortgage fraud.

After the financial crisis hit, Bernanke’s response was to provide trillions of dollars in virtually zero-interest loans and other taxpayer assistance to some of the largest financial institutions in the world.  Adding insult to injury, Bernanke refused to tell the American people the names of the institutions that received this handout or the terms involved.

“Mr. Bernanke has failed at all four core responsibilities of the Federal Reserve,” Sanders concluded.  “It’s time for him to go.”

This is a healthy thing. We need more debate, not less, on these issues. And Senator Leahy does not mince words:

But can anyone imagine the Unites States using landmines in Afghanistan, a country where more civilians have been killed or horribly injured from mines than any other in history?

A country which, like our coalition partners, is itself a party to the treaty?

[…] Can anyone imagine this President, who has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize which only a few years ago was awarded to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, having to publicly defend such a decision?

It’s also a smart thing. One wonders why Obama has wavered on signing onto the international treaty to ban land mines in the first place (presumably a political calculation), but given the heat he is only beginning to take from the left on military policy, he may well be open to reconsidering the political calculus. It has been his pattern to follow major disappointments to his base with some sort of policy compensation prize, and if Senator Leahy and others push on this, they may get traction.

Full comments after the flip.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY

On

THE CARTAGENA LANDMINE BAN TREATY REVIEW CONFERENCE

Senate Floor

December 1, 2009

MR. LEAHY.  I want to speak briefly on a subject that many Members of Congress – Democrats and Republicans – have had an abiding interest in over the years.

Throughout this week, delegates from countries around the world will gather in Cartagena, Colombia, to participate in the Second Review Conference of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.

The Cartagena review conference, would have been the perfect opportunity for the Obama Administration to announce its intention to join the 156 other nations that are parties to the treaty, including our coalition allies in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

In fact, every member of NATO and every country in our hemisphere, except Cuba, is a party to the treaty.  The United States is one of only 37 countries that have not joined, along with Russia and China.

By announcing our intention to join the treaty in Cartagena, this Administration would have signaled to the rest of the world that the United States is finally showing the leadership that has been wanting on these indiscriminate weapons that maim and kill thousands of innocent people every year.

The United States military is the most powerful in the world.  Yet we have seen how civilian casualties in Afghanistan have become one of the most urgent and pressing concerns of our military commanders, where bombs that missed their targets and other mistakes have turned the populace against us.

Despite this, one of the arguments the Pentagon makes for resisting calls to join the Mine Ban Treaty is to preserve its option to use landmines in Afghanistan, even though we have not used these indiscriminate weapons since 1991.

Since the Pentagon has never voluntarily given up any weapon, including poison gas, which President Woodrow Wilson renounced in 1925, perhaps this is to be expected.

But can anyone imagine the Unites States using landmines in Afghanistan, a country where more civilians have been killed or horribly injured from mines than any other in history?

A country which, like our coalition partners, is itself a party to the treaty?

A country where if we used mines and civilians were killed or injured the public outcry in Afghanistan and around the world would be deafening?

Can anyone imagine this President, who has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize which only a few years ago was awarded to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, having to publicly defend such a decision?

I wonder if anyone at the Pentagon has thought of the military and political implications of that.

Last Tuesday, the State Department spokesman announced that the Administration had completed a review on its landmine policy and had decided to continue supporting the Bush Administration’s policy, which was, in key aspects, a retreat from the policy of President Clinton.

This was a surprise to me and others, as I had encouraged the Administration to conduct such a review and then heard nothing for months.  In fact, I had spoken personally with President Obama about it just a few weeks before.

I did not hesitate to express my disappointment, as did many others.  Shortly thereafter this wave of criticism, the State Department reversed itself, and announced that a “comprehensive review” is continuing and that it would send a team of observers to the Cartagena review conference this week.

It may well be that the State Department spokesman misspoke.  Whatever the truth is, the Administration’s approach to this issue up until this past weekend has been cursory, half-hearted, and deeply disappointing to those of us who expected a serious, thorough reexamination of this issue.

One would hope that an Administration that portrays itself as a global leader on issues of humanitarian law and arms control recognizes this is an opportunity.

Any serious review should begin by examining the extensive history of the negotiations that led to the treaty, and the technical issues that were debated and addressed.

It should involve consulting our allies, like Great Britain and Canada, whose militaries have operated in accordance with the treaty’s obligations for a decade, including with our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, to determine what their experience has been.  

It should involve consulting with the Pentagon, of course, but also with retired senior U.S. military officers and diplomats, many of whom have expressed support for the treaty.

It should involve consulting with Members of Congress, and with the humanitarian and arms control communities who have extensive expertise on all aspects of the treaty and its implementation.

Unfortunately, none of these obvious steps was taken.  Instead, an opaque process involving limited consultations with the Pentagon simply resulted in a regurgitation of the Bush Administration’s talking points.

That is not what we expected from this Administration, and I welcome the announcement that a comprehensive review will be carried out.

The United States has not exported anti-personnel mines since 1992.

We have not produced anti-personnel mines since 1997.

And the United States has not used anti-personnel mines since 1991 – when many of them malfunctioned.

In effect, we have been in de facto compliance with the treaty for 18 years, with the exception of not yet destroying our stockpile of mines.

And in the interim we have invested millions of dollars to develop alternatives to indiscriminate landmines, to replace them with munitions that include man-in-the-loop technology, so they are not victim-activated.  

Indiscriminate landmines, whether they are persistent mines or those that are designed to self-destruct or deactivate, are nothing more than booby traps.  They cannot distinguish between an enemy combatant, a U.S. soldier, a young child, or a woman out collecting firewood.  They do not belong in the arsenal of any modern military.

I have supported President Obama and I look forward to supporting him on many issues in the future.  I hope this is can be one of those issues.

I am confident that if a proper review is conducted, and the President considers the equities, he will conclude, as our allies have, that the humanitarian benefits of banning anti-personnel landmines far exceed their limited military utility.  Ultimately, this is a decision President Obama will need to make himself, just as President Wilson did almost a century ago.

I want to commend the Government of Colombia, a country where landmines have taken and continue to take a terrible toll on civilians, for hosting the review conference.  Colombia joined the treaty years ago.

I also appreciate that the State Department has sent a team of observers to Cartagena.  I hope they use this opportunity not only to highlight the hundreds of millions of dollars the U.S. has provided for humanitarian demining and assistance for mine victims over the years, but also to learn from the delegations of countries that are parties to the treaty.

I want to pay tribute to the leadership of Canada, and my friend Lloyd Axworthy, who as Foreign Minister showed the extraordinary vision and leadership that culminated in the Mine Ban Treaty, and to the other nations that have joined since then.

The treaty has already exceeded the expectations of even its strongest advocates.  The number of mine casualties has decreased significantly.  The number of countries producing and exporting mines has plummeted.

And at the same time, none of the arguments of the treaty’s naysayers have come to pass.

The United States is the most powerful nation on earth.  We don’t need these indiscriminate weapons any more than our allies who have abandoned them.

We have not used landmines for many years.  We should be leading this effort, not sitting on the sidelines.

It is time for the United States to join the right side of history.

# # # # #

I picked up my ten year old from shooting hoops at the rec center during President Obama’s speech on his “new” Afghanistan policy this evening. He gets in the car as Obama’s wrapping up his remarks. We drive the handful of blocks to the house, and as we’re getting out, my son (a big Obama fan) volunteers the following unsolicited opinion of what he just heard: “when Obama gets up and speaks about something, he always says the same stuff and acts like its the new thing.”

Indeed.

Listening to the President tonight was difficult. It’s hard not to look at the situation in Afghanistan as driving at top speed into a brick wall, simply because the people currently driving can’t see any alternatives. Listening to Obama, one gets the feeling on the one hand that he sincerely believes he is doing the right thing.

Then on the other hand, its even more frustrating to hear him make his point with what has become a typical rhetorical gimmick for him – mischaracterizing the views of those with whom he disagrees in order to sound more reasonable in comparison. Obama rejected any and all parallels being drawn between the wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam by alluding to points of distinction between the two conflicts that have nothing to do with the genuine points of comparison made by opponents of the war:

Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan

These points are hardly the points of comparison made by critics. It was akin to being told that any comparisons of the indistinguishable symptoms of viral pneumonia and bacterial pneumonia are invalid and irrelevant simply because one is viral and one is bacterial. Nitpicking at best, intentional obfuscation at worst. Annoying in either case.

On the other side, he placed himself in opposition to those on the right who reject any sort of firm date for a US withdrawal – except of course that the July 2011 timeframe to begin bringing troops home was anything but firm. In speaking to the media during the lead-up to the speech, Obama’s aides went to lengths to explain to reporters that this “deadline” was subject to change, and didn’t even indicate what – exactly – was supposed to start happening in July of ’11. We’ve been given a date that seems both arbitrary and meaningless.

Having said all this, to those that simply call Obama a “neo-con,” it seems clear that the vision and goals of the Obama administration in this arena are in fact distinct from Bush’s, at least in concept. In practice, however, we’re still heading towards the brick wall of a re-energized Taliban, fully united with partners across the Pakistani border, with a corrupt and illegitimate Afghani leader as our co-pilot.  

What makes it all the more discouraging is that there are scattered reports of some improvements on the ground (at least in some provinces) in recent months, but a further escalation stands to undo much of that progress.

I think the reaction from Rep. Welch is worth posting:

“Tonight, President Obama presented the right analysis of the situation in Afghanistan but reached the wrong conclusion.

“The President understands that we must vigorously protect Americans against another attack by al-Qaida. He recognizes the need for a regional, diplomatic effort that takes into consideration the strategic importance of Pakistan. And he understands that President Karzai’s failure to root out systemic corruption poses a grave challenge to the legitimacy of the Afghan government.

“Nevertheless, increasing our military footprint in Afghanistan will not achieve the goals the President outlined. Our goal, and our obligation, is to protect the American people from another al-Qaida attack. Al-Qaida is a dispersed group pursuing a radical and violent agenda.  It is not a nation state. Our strategy should focus on containing and degrading al-Qaida worldwide, not expanding our military footprint in Afghanistan, a country rife with corruption and a history of tribal loyalties rather than stable government institutions.

“The President’s policy is not financially sustainable. The cost of supporting one soldier for one year is $1 million – or $30 billion per year for the 30,000 new troops recommended tonight by the President. Our nation is crippled by record deficits and skyrocketing unemployment. We need to spend our scarce resources rebuilding America, not nation-building abroad.”

I don’t have the time to put into a serious analysis, but I encourage folks to check out this solid piece from Meteor Blades at Daily Kos:

After 60 days of comprehensive reviews and leaks about differences over those reviews within the administration, no surprises have emerged in the new strategy for the “good war” in Afghanistan that President Obama announced today. Not even the slightest hint about when the U.S. troop commitment might end. And not a word about the 550 or more prisoners in the infamous Bagram prison, many of them previously tortured and still held without recourse to legal or humanitarian intervention.

Good night.

There are three “macro” ways to approach the challenges faced by candidates in winning the unprecedented Democratic gubernatorial primary we are already in the throes of, and those three can be rougly broken down as numbers, message, and strategies. We’ll look at all of these, of course (and revisit them ad nauseum), but let’s spend a minute breaking out the numbers.

As I said in this recent diary, there are a lot of factors that will drive up turnout – I believe that all together, they could bump us to unprecedented levels – perhaps even an overall primary turnout of 60,000 voters. That’s assumption 1. Assumption 2 is that this race is going to sugar out to three leaders rather than two (or four or five, for that matter), and as such, candidates should be aiming their sights on a magic number of 21,000 votes to wrap this up. A lot of assumptions, of course, but not completely random ones. Check here to see some of the reasoning.

So where are those votes going to come from, and – just as interestingly – where will these specific candidates find the votes they need? There are no perfect models to look to for the purpose of making predictions, but everyone reasonably starts off looking at the 2006 Lieutenant Governor primary between John Tracy and Matt Dunne that generated a lot of interest among self-identifying Dems. Here’s what the turnout in that race looked like:

Before going forward, I want to point out that for purposes of comparison, I have a serious fudge factor in play, as we’re looking at (more or less) current voter registration totals to compare the turnout against. I think this is a fudge factor of quality more than quantity, as the mismatched data for comparison sounds like a bad thing, but I don’t think voter registration totals (or population spread) have changed that much.

So the turnout curve comes very close to matching the population curve by county, which we’d expect. Looking at the primary turnout as a percentage of the overall population for a county, we see GOP strongholds such as Caledonia on the low end (5.06%), and Dem-heavier counties like Windham on the high end (10.29%). The mean county value of turnout as a percentage of registered voting population was 7.31% in 2006.

If we look at the 2006 and 2008 Democratic Lt Gov primaries, we see that having a “native son” in the race does consistently drive up turnout, but it’s hard to say how much, given that each County in question – Chittenden, Windham, Windsor and Washington – tend to be higher performing counties for Democrats anyway. On the low end, when looking at the previously mentioned mean county value of turnout as a percentage of the registered voting population, you see John Tracy’s Chittenden in 2006 over that mean by a mere 1.03%, compared to Dunne’s Windsor on the high end at an extra 4.5%. Now, Chittenden’s results were virtually spot on the statewide mean in 2008 when the candidates were Washington’s Nate Freeman and Windham’s Tom Costello, so one could reasonably conclude that this 1.03% represents the safe “bump” in primary turnout in a county with a local candidate running, but Tracy only represented one Burlington district (compared to State Senators and statewide officeholders). That, along with the uniquely varied demographics of Chittenden, leave me inclined to take the mean of the “local bumps” from Tracy and Dunne in 2006, and Costello and Freeman in 2008, and call that mean (2.7%) the real “local bump.”

What’s the point? To put together a rough-but-not-too-rough “turnout curve” based on a gubernatortial primary with candidates living in Washington, Chittenden, Windsor, Windham and Lamoille Counties, then inflate that curve by whatever percentage necessary to get the total turnout to 60,000, which I believe will be close to the actual Democratic primary turnout. Doing so will give us a sense of how many votes will be available to the candidates from each county, and may then give us a sense of what numbers the candidates need to generate from where in order to take the nomination.

Here, then, is one turnout projection for the 2010 Democratic gubernatorial primary by county. Please note that the campaigns will be working with far more precise projections based on town-by-town analyses. This is a very fuzzy, broad estimate based on statewide averages projected to the county level. No way do I have time in my life to do this right:

What follows are possible “victory spreads” for each candidate assuming the above turnout by county. I have to say, it was often challenging to generate profiles that felt realistic that added up to 21,000 in light of the many candidates and their many geographic areas of strength. CHittenden has most of the votes, but Racine is going to win in Chittenden. Windham is another Democratic vote-mine, that candidates other than Peter Shumlin can only hope to finish second in.

Let’s stipulate that nobody can win with less than a 15% turnout in any county. It’s also clear that each candidate may be able to emphasize different facets of traditional campaigning to get to these numbers (field, paid media, earned media, etc), but all these facets will have to be in play. We’ll look at such strategies, given the likely financial pictures faced by each candidate, in another diary.

Susan Bartlett: I’ll admit, it was most challenging to make these numbers work for Bartlett, primarily because Lamoille County is a relatively lightly populated base of support. Bartlett will need to take Lamoille outright and push that momentum into the adjacent rural counties. She could also package herself as an alternative to the other “interstate corridor” candidates in counties like Rutland and Bennington – but she’ll be hamstrung by low name recognition. Like everyone, she needs to make a good showing in Chittenden County, and perhaps she can use her geographic proximity to push towards a second place finish to Racine, especially if she works the suburbs.

To bring up numbers around the state, she’s going to have to work to counter the anytime-now official endorsement of Deb Markowitz by Emily’s List, which will give Markowitz a sort of anointed “woman” candidate status.

Matt Dunne: It’d be easy to say that Dunne just needs to repeat his 2006 performance and eke out only a few more votes, but it’s not going to work that way. Dunne did show, however, that one can lose fairly decisively in Chittenden County (where he only took one town against John Tracy) and still win the state.

Dunne will win the highly populous Windsor County, and could use his popularity and geography to take two out of three of the other southern counties, and come in a strong second to Shumlin in Windham.

Dunne has maintained a good field network, which will give him good numbers everywhere. If he can tap into that loyalty – particularly in counties like Orange with well-established Democratic networks that know him well – he can generate votes in every county. Again, a second place showing in Chittenden is necessary.

Deb Markowitz: Markowitz is popular across the state among Dems. She isn’t the favorite among many constituency groups (well, labor), but those groups have been hesitant to dive into primaries, and not been terribly effective when they do, so her popularity should stay strong. With her campaign office already staffed by Emily’s List folks, the actual endorsement is only a formality. Coming into this stage with a lot of money and the EL endorsement will give her an across the board spread among the primary voters.

Not only will she take Washington County, but will be in a strong position to make a strong showing in the other interstate corridor areas – particularly Chittenden and Windsor.

Doug Racine: There’s nothing like starting with a win in the most populous county, but it won’t be enough on its own, as such he’s going to need to work his unique strength among Dems in the more conservative burbs such as Essex and South Burlington to win Chittenden big.

Racine is likely to struggle in the northeast and have a harder time in the south, so he’ll need to maximize his vote in neighboring Addison as well as take a strong second in Washington. Emphasizing his business and Party connections could serve him well in conservative Franklin/Grand Isle, and may give him a pitch in the Springfield area and into Windham.

Peter Shumlin: Shumlin takes Windham and needs to take a strong second in Windsor. He also needs to translate some of this two county momentum into the other two southern counties.

Shumlin is well known and well liked among most primary voters, and will need to tap into that goodwill to compete in rural areas with strong Dem organizations like Orange, but will not do as well in Franklin, where he may be the only candidate to suffer in the conservative area from being identified with marriage equality. However, that same identification could help him mine votes in Chittenden and make a strong showing in Addison. Interestingly, he’s already been touting his appointment of Susan Bartlett to the Chair of the Appropriations Committee in campaign contexts, so that could translate to a second place finish in Lamoille for those who like Bartlett, but don’t see her as a winner.

The caveat to all of this? None of this will be easy, and looking at these possible victory profiles, I feel fairly certain that whoever wins will probably have a different spread when the dust settles. Still, as a beginning point of discussion, this is as good a place to start as any…

From Totten: In the Lieutenant Governor race, Randy Brock is out, Phil Scott is probably in (confirmed by Hirschfeld this morning – Scott’s in).

Hmm… could Brock be keeping his Governor options open?

VPR reports that Pomfret businessman Len Britton ( who we mentioned as a rumored Republican challenger to Patrick Leahy back in early September, but we heard his name as “Lenny Britton”) is definitely in. We’re told he owns a lumberyard in Windsor County. Meanwhile, Leahy’s primary challenger (Daniel Freilich) will be holding a public forum at the University of Vermont today at 7 pm at the Dudley H. Davis Center (4th floor Livak Ballroom).

Also from VPR: Vermont Edition has started a series of interviews with the gubernatorial candidates. Matt Dunne was on this week. I haven’t listened yet – any reviews?

This is from a Daily Kos diary, discussing the results from the Research 2000 poll they commissioned that has the whole blogosphere talking:

QUESTION: In the 2010 Congressional elections will you definitely vote, probably vote, not likely vote, or definitely will not vote?

The results were, to put it mildly, shocking:

Voter Intensity: Definitely + Probably Voting/Not Likely + Not Voting

Republican Voters: 81/14

Independent Voters: 65/23

DEMOCRATIC VOTERS: 56/40

Two in five Democratic voters either consider themselves unlikely to vote at this point in time, or have already made the firm decision to remove themselves from the 2010 electorate pool. Indeed, Democrats were three times more likely to say that they will “definitely not vote” in 2010 than are Republicans.

This is big, big trouble. Can you say “progressive demoralization?”

On civil rights, economics, the war, Guantanamo, etc – Obama has done the typical mainstream Democrat thing by letting the right panic him into running away from campaign promises. Sure, there have been reasons to celebrate (such as a halt to the right wing slide of the Supreme Court – a biggie), but we’ve seen backpedaling on the marquee stuff – and are still facing disappointment on health care and likelier disappointment on climate change. The Democratic congress, too, has been unwilling to do its own part when called on, or to meaningfully challenge the Democratic President when he has signaled (both openly and behind the scenes) retreats from campaign promises. Much of this comes back to an unwillingness to play hardball with so-called “moderate” members, though in fairness the House leadership has been more aggressive than the Senate (at least for the moment).

But, we’re told, we have to be pragmatic. The obvious question, then, is where’s the pragmatism in getting our asses kicked and accomplishing nothing?

We often hear that government should be run like a business, however the “experts” applaud innovation in business but consider innovation in policy to not be “pragmatic.” In every other aspect of life, looking at what historically works and what doesn’t work before making an important decision is considered prudent, but in discussing federal policy such as health care, we’re told that’s not “pragmatic.”

And finally, looking at what actually wins elections, as opposed to what “experts” on the teevee and in the professional electioneering world tell us win elections (e.g., always run to the right) is considered dogmatic and loopy, rather than “pragmatic.”

Which just proves once again how many deeply dimwitted, self-congratulatory, bubble people there are who consider themselves elections “experts” and “professionals.” This is in no way to suggest there aren’t dogmatic absolutists on the left who couldn’t get elected in a one-candidate race, but those folks are hardly the ones in the positions of power, working so hard to bring on large-scale electoral catastrophe.

No, that would be the “pragmatists” such as Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid.

And as a further example of that “pragmatic” thinking, don’t be surprised if the “pragmatists” who insist that if everybody would shut up, follow along, be patient and give up their silly lefty dreams still blame self-inflicted defeat on the liberals. A cool, reasoned analysis of cause and effect will always fall before the power of intellectual inertia.

Or to put it more simply, if Obama and the Congressional Dems don’t start coming through, and they all get their collective asses kicked in the 2010 elections, expect the “pragmatists” to blame it all on the liberal base for not seeing the wisdom in being more like them.

It should be plain to anyone with half a brain that the explosion of state “ratings” and “top ten” lists are often not designed to further discussion, so much as short circuit it. I’m not talking about lists of clearly quantifiable metrics – obesity, unemployment, etc. Obviously, such lists can and do inform meanngful debate.

I’m talking about top ten lists of more subjective values that are arrived at too often by ideological measures, rather than anything scientific. Which states have the most “freedom” or are the most “moral,” even (especially) the “best for business.” There’s been an explosion of such lists in recent years, and the press has generally leaped at the opportunity for a canned headline and eagerly regurgitated what can be misleading, or even partisan gobledeegook into uncritical headlines.

All of this is why Kevin O’Connor at the Times Argus/Rutland Herald deserves a big gold star this week. He used last week’s buch-ballyhooed United Health Foundation ranking of Vermont as the “healthiest state” as a springboard to discuss one major metric that any meaningful “healthy” index should have included – hunger.

As O’Connor reports, “a just-released U.S. Department of Agriculture report says more than 14,000 Vermont households (one in 20, or triple the number since 2000) face hunger so severe that adults frequently go without food, while one in 10 residents now relies on donations to eat.” That’s hardly an occasion for self-congratulation. But O’Connor even goes further, talking to local activists and describing for readers what they can do to help make a difference.

I don’t want to sound like I’m knocking the United Health Foundation (well… not much). As mass ratings go, theirs is pretty comprehensive. And it does include economic factors. But for states that end up on the top of such rankings, these sorts of lists are more often an occasion for self-congratulation than self-analysis – especially among the traditional media. As such, O’Connor and his editors deserve credit for looking beyond the numbers. Hopefully this will be the beginning of a trend in the coverage of the next such lists.

From a November 5th diary:

(Why is) Auditor Tom Salmon is still running around in decidedly un-Auditor-ial arenas still trying to make himself into a teabagger hero, when he (and his pals) have decided that Brian Dubie is the gubernatorial candidate and de facto Party leader?

One wonders if the two stories suggest a common, underlying theme, as articulated by (Potential Independent Candidate for Governor Michael) Bernhardt:

“While the lieutenant governor (Dubie) has a record, there are a lot of folks who haven’t heard him talk on how he’s going to handle (the economy). So it’s raised some concern.”

It’s still a long time to the full-on electoral season. Lots of things can still happen, especially if GOP insiders are feeling sketchy about their anointed (for now) candidate.

From the Vermont Press Bureau today:

Native Vermonter, businessman and former ambassador Rodolphe “Skip” Vallee said Friday he is thinking about running to replace Gov. James Douglas.

[…] “I know Brian Dubie, I like Brian Dubie, I respect Brian Dubie,” Vallee said. But, he added, “I learned a long time ago that elections are not anointments. My view, whether it is people reaching out to me or to anybody else, is that Vermonters really need to have a full range of choices both within their party and certainly in a general election.”

What’d I tellya? The big money fiscal conservative wing of the GOP is nervous about Dubie’s ability to win, and whether he can be reliably counted on to do what he’s told. Mark my words – there’s gonna be a primary, whether it’s Vallee or someone else.

(NOTE: 2 of the 3 pieces cited/printed below seem to have been made public by Haik at BurlingtonPol many hours before I caught wind of them. You should visit his site if you haven’t been. Good stuff.

NOTE 2: Briggs had the two emails as well earlier in the day. I really fell down on the linky/hat-tipping job.)

A lot of news in the increasingly fluid Burlington Telecom issue today, as several things have happened to raise the temperature even more.

First is a letter from the 16th (Monday) that has surfaced from the Vermont Department of Public Service on behalf of Commissioner David O’Brien sent to Burlington Mayor Bob Kiss and City Council President Bill Keogh. Against the backdrop of a Burlington Telecom-focused docket pending at the Public Service Board (Docket 7044, which includes as parties DPS, Burlington, and Comcast), the letter suggests that all those involved (including the City Council) begin a dialogue on BT’s survival, cautioning:

Steps now being taken and considered by the City, such as refinancing BT’s debt and

changing its governance structure, could easily become points of contention before the PSB. Providing more fodder for litigation is not in anyone’s interest. Unilateral actions by the City are more likely to become contentious if they fail to recognize the interests and concerns of the DPS.

Ominous, yes, but nearly as ominous as what follows:

I must also be clear, however, that this Department has a responsibility to fully investigate violations and potential violations of Public Service Board orders and other legal

provisions relating to BT. We intend to do so.

Sounds ugly. O’Brien may feel he can be magnanimous with talks of a “dialogue” because he clearly knows he’s been handed Burlington Telecom by the short hairs (and is likely loving every minute of it). The DPS threats may also give context not simply to the recent City Council vote on the proposed refinancing, but today’s ante-upping moves by two City Council Democrats that further distinguish themselves and at least some in the Council from the actions of the Kiss administration.  

First was an email from Councilor Joan Shannon to Mayor Kiss:

On November 11, 2009 the Ad Hoc Committee on BT Governance requested certain information in order to better understand the current operations of BT and its governance and oversight structure.

[…]Ken Schatz has informed me that BT management and the administration are willing to share this information in Executive Session and then collect all materials at the end of the Executive session.  This is not acceptable to the Committee.

[…]In order for the Committee to have time to review this information prior to our next meeting on Tuesday November 24, they need to have this information in their possession before the weekend.  Please let me and the other Committee members know when this information will be available for us to pick up at City Hall by the end of today.  I know that this may seem like short notice, but really we have been asking for this since November 11 and can no longer wait.

In addition, the Council, as the ultimate governing body is entitled to any information we request in order to make fully informed decisions.  The Council also needs all the above information in order to either approve or disapprove of the concept of borrowing $60 million dollars.  We also need the ability to consult with independent experts who can advise us on these issues.  Certainly anyone who receives this information should be willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement and I would not object to that requirement.  I do object to the administration holding information hostage.

It’s clear that the relationship between the Mayor’s office and many on the City Council has soured so badly that some Councilors are no longer willing to accept anything whatsoever from the administration simply on good faith. Good faith is no longer an operative concept here.

As if to carve that point in stone, Councilor Ed Adrian threw down the gauntlet once and for all with an email of his own:

We have, over a period of time, been asking as individual Councilors for many of the documents that were requested of the Administration at the Council’s November 16, 2009 meeting.  Some of these requests have been for weeks, some for months and in some instances years.

[…]Bob, without getting all of the documentation that we have requested and without having a third party expert interpret this information for us, I will simply not be able to vote to continue the enterprise of Burlington Telecom in its current construction.  If this condition is not met, I will also do my very best to convince others to do the same.

Bob, at the Ad Hoc Committee on Governance for Burlington Telecom, Joe McNeil said that if after asking we were not getting the information that we needed as Councilors from the Administration to make decisions, then we needed to demand that information.

Based on that advice Bob, I am demanding that you provide us with the information requested and that you provide us with the moneys to obtain the resources necessary to make that information relevant.

It’s amazing to read this while considering how different the whole situation would now be if Kiss and Leopold had simply had a tried-and-true “mistakes were made,” mea culpa-ridden press conference and pledged to work with the council when this all broke in the first place.

Maybe (er) next time?

The complete documents excerpted above follow:

Dear Mayor Kiss,

On November 11, 2009 the Ad Hoc Committee on BT Governance requested certain information in order to better understand the current operations of BT and its governance and oversight structure.  Among the requested information is the Shanahan report and Business Plan.  Chris Burns explained that it is really the Pro Formas that currently serve as a business plan.  

Ken Schatz has informed me that BT management and the administration are willing to share this information in Executive Session and then collect all materials at the end of the Executive session.  This is not acceptable to the Committee.  The Committee does not want to spend our valuable meeting time getting familiar with these items.  The Committee would like to receive copies of the Shanahan report for their review in preparation for the meeting.  I fully understand the confidentiality is of the utmost importance to the operations of BT.  If the administration and BT management would like Committee members to sign Non Disclosure Agreements I am amenable to that stipulation so long as the Agreement is reasonable and appropriate in scope.  

In order for the Committee to have time to review this information prior to our next meeting on Tuesday November 24, they need to have this information in their possession before the weekend.  Please let me and the other Committee members know when this information will be available for us to pick up at City Hall by the end of today.  I know that this may seem like short notice, but really we have been asking for this since November 11 and can no longer wait.

In addition, the Council, as the ultimate governing body is entitled to any information we request in order to make fully informed decisions.  The Council also needs all the above information in order to either approve or disapprove of the concept of borrowing $60 million dollars.  We also need the ability to consult with independent experts who can advise us on these issues.  Certainly anyone who receives this information should be willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement and I would not object to that requirement.  I do object to the administration holding information hostage.

Again, I ask that you please respond to this email by the end of the day so that we can move forward in getting the information that we need.

Sincerely,

Joan Shannon

City Councilor

Ad Hoc Committee on Governance, Chair

November 19, 2009

Dear Bob:

I would like to follow-up on Karen Paul’s letter of the other day and Joan Shannon’s letter of today.  We have, over a period of time, been asking as individual Councilors for many of the documents that were requested of the Administration at the Council’s November 16, 2009 meeting.  Some of these requests have been for weeks, some for months and in some instances years.  The information contained in these documents will likely range from the mundane to the esoteric.  Many of us will need help interpreting and understanding them to do our jobs.  In addition, the audit and its off-shoots will require money.

Bob, my understanding is that the Administration will soon be requesting a budget amendment to rectify an “overpayment” of PILOT monies made to the City by BT .  The overpayment amount is in the 100s of thousands of dollars.  My understanding is that most of this payback will come from the  DPW for this fiscal year.  I am requesting that since you were able to come up with these monies out of the budget of another Department, that you look hard, and that on or before November 25, 2009, you find another $250,000.00 to be put into a special account, to be distributed by a majority of the Council in obtaining independent and expert review of the many working parts that BT contains.  

Bob, without getting all of the documentation that we have requested and without having a third party expert interpret this information for us, I will simply not be able to vote to continue the enterprise of Burlington Telecom in its current construction.  If this condition is not met, I will also do my very best to convince others to do the same.

Bob, at the Ad Hoc Committee on Governance for Burlington Telecom , Joe McNeil said that if after asking we were not getting the information that we needed as Councilors from the Administration to make decisions, then we needed to demand that information.

Based on that advice Bob, I am demanding that you provide us with the information requested and that you provide us with the moneys to obtain the resources necessary to make that information relevant.

The City and the people that populate it deserve no less from their elected officials.

Heading in to the Thanksgiving holiday, I am thankful for the fact that although we vehemently disagree on how to proceed in this instance, I know that we are all trying to do what we think is best for the City.  Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.  For now, I remain,

Very truly yours,

Ed Adrian

I really didn’t want to write about the Burlington scandal surrounding the Kiss administration and Burlington Telecom. This is twice now I promised I was so done with it, but each time, there has been something crop up that was simply impossible to ignore.

This time, its again about the coverage – specifically the coverage emanating from Seven Days’ Shay Totten and Ken Picard, two of the more reliable reporters in the state. I’ve never been sympathetic to the criticism that Seven Days as a whole is more sympathetic to one political party or another. In fact, I’ve seen on many occasions them clearly taking pains to avoid such an appearance.

But ever since the complete turnaround in Totten’s coverage a week or two back, Seven Days coverage of this issue has been dancing dangerously close to the land of outright journalistic malpractice – as in, making statements that are demonstrably untrue, and not correcting them when their inaccuracy is brought to light.

And I don’t have the first clue what’s behind it.

Consider this headline from Blurt, dated November 13th and penned by Ken Picard:

BREAKING: City secures refinancing for Burlington Telecom

Nice and clear, right? Only problem is, its not accurate.  

As Margolis says (as part of a different criticism of the coverage):

…the refinancing by Piper Jaffray, a Minneapolis-based underwriting company, has been announced, but not completed.

So, no financing has been “secure(d)” at all. And commenters have pointed this out. Yet the statement remains.

Now this is where it gets weirder. Shay Totten picks it back up and reports in the first paragraph of today’s Blurt post:

the Burlington City Council early Tuesday morning scuttled a $61.65 million refinancing proposal for Burlington Telecom.

Okay, first of all, if this statement is true, it stands as simple, logical evidence of Picard’s headline’s inaccuracy. If the financing was “secure,” how could it now stand “scuttled?” It was either secured, or it wasn’t. And yet, the Picard headline remains.

But the real fact is that the Totten statement, like the Picard headline, is – again – apparently inaccurate. According to Haik Bedrosian who also reported on the meeting (quoting from it extensively), nothing has been “scuttled,” the deal has simply not been approved… yet. From a Burlington Pol post entitled “Council Delays Financing” (emphasis added):

The council passed part one, but then postponed funding it with part two pending more info.

A case of he-says-he-says? Maybe, but there’s more. This is from Independent City Councilor Karen Paul via an email she sent to Mayor Kiss and Jonothan Leopold and cc’d to city councilors earlier this afternoon:

I sincerely hope that the administration will take to heart the words of the council at last night’s meeting regarding access to financial, business plan, pro forma and marketing strategy documentation and information on Burlington Telecom.  A lot was said about fiduciary responsibility last night and, as confirmed by the City Attorney, we have not only a fiduciary responsibility to Burlington Telecom, we also have that same responsibility to the city and our taxpayers.

I appreciate that you did as the resolution we passed a few weeks ago asked.  You did come back to the council on November 16 with a financing option.  In that resolution, there was nothing about the council voting to proceed with that financing on the same night.  While I understand your timeline and need to secure the financing before a payment to CitiCapital comes due in mid February, I hope that you can similarly understand the need for councilors to feel comfortable and fully informed on this rather complicated financing arrangement.  I don’t mean to suggest that it’s exotic or unusual.  As you said last night, it is not the normal run of the mill debt financing and there are going to be questions that need answering.

I would strongly suggest that you supply each councilor with the documentation necessary for us to ask informed questions.  That means giving us the material in advance.  I completely understand that this information is sensitive but we must have the information in advance so we can review it and do our due diligence.    I personally need to see a financial statement and balance sheet for Burlington Telecom (and not a maze of city financials but the actual statements for Burlington Telecom) to assess the overall health of the entity.

Lastly, I would suggest that a representative from the underwriting group at Piper be at our December 7 meeting in person if at all possible to work with us and work through the questions so we understand this financing well enough to feel confident in voting in the affirmative to authorize you to continue with Piper in this COP financing for BT.

We need to work together on this and we need to be able to do our work in a responsible way.  Please do not delay in getting us this information, if possible, this week so we have adequate time to review it.

What is 7 Days doing here? One could easily make the argument that the Council’s delay threatens to “scuttle” the financing (that was supposedly already “secured”). If I were a Burlington resident, I’d be very concerned about this deal getting bogged down so far into the tarpit that is Burlington politics that it does, in fact, dry up and blow away – but its plainly obvious that it has not been “scuttled” by the City Council or anyone else (at least not yet).

And the fact is that their own inaccuracies read as contradictory, yet they still persist. Heaven knows what we’re going to see in tomorrow’s print edition, but anyone looking for accuracy in reporting on this particular issue might well be advised to look elsewhere, which is screwy. I, for one, find myself depending on 7 Days reporting.

The postscript? Picard recently claimed (again in Blurt) that this story was first broken by Totten, when those I’ve talked to believe that the Freeps’ John Briggs was the one that first reported on it (and yes, that’s Briggs’ recollection as well, as I dropped him an email looking for clarification)

Anybody have any theories as to what they’ve been smoking up 7 Days’ way lately?