(UPDATE: Woops… had my number 3 and number 4 paragraphs in the wrong order… it should make more sense now. Sorry.)

Yesterday’s piece by Porter discussed the nascent Secretary of State’s race, focusing on announced candidates Chris Roy (R) and Charles Merriman (D). He referred to the oft-mentioned interest (first publicized, as near as I can tell, right here way back in February) shown by former Chittenden Senator Jim Condos, and added the name of Chris Winters (Markowitz’s OPR director) into the SoS mix.

Also reported as rumor back in February as possibly being interested in Secretary of State was GOP Rep. Peg Flory, and her name has been heard kicking around again for the office. But perhaps most interesting are the persistent rumors about former Windsor Senator Matt Dunne who is, by many accounts, seriously considering an SoS run.

Scuttlebutt is also that Markowitz for Governor Campaign Manager Jason Powell will be leaving his position (this is kind of an aging rumor… not sure of its current status). It’s not clear whether or not he’ll be remaining with the campaign or not, but there are murmurs of law school in his future.

But you want a really odd rumor? One I wouldn’t put too much credence in, but – hey – it’s in circulation; that Republican Martha Rainville may be looking for a rematch with US Rep. Peter Welch.

That last one is a little tough to believe, and I’d suggest not putting too much stock in it for now… but it’s definitely out there, so who knows? Stay tuned, at any rate…

A lot of us continue to worry about the ongoing collapse of newspapers and the threat to traditional reporting. It’s something we’ve talked about a lot at GMD, and something which you’re hearing more about from the industry in question. Unfortunately, what you hear is rarely constructive or meaningful. Take for example the latest from WCAX from July 30th (ht Philip).

Beyond the most perfunctory mentions, are there any actual discussions of altering the business model? Of identifying what’s working and what isn’t? Of creative new approaches? Of looking ahead to a new media landscape?

Yeah, right:

“We are not a blogger who is coming and going, building new identities every day based on their own opinions, that is not going on with us. That is why we are credible. We are just not going anywhere,” says Catherine Nelson, the general manager of the Rutland Herald.

“(Bloggers) are perhaps stealing, maybe that is too strong a word, but stealing their news from newspapers and television. They are not doing original reporting. So the funny thing would be, if newspapers were to disappear tomorrow, we would be pulling the rug out from under them,” Stern says.

“The internet is still just a bog of misinformation,” Wolstenholme says.

“One of the problems in this new media world is the lack of focus,” says David Mindich, who chairs the journalism department at St. Michael’s College. “Bloggers merely augment what traditional journalists do.”

No escape from the blogger boogeyman, apparently.

The token blogger interviewed is Philip Baruth, and Philip does a fine job sounding nothing like the wild-eyed enemy of freedom and information that this, and so many other such reports, paints. Of course he also does a good job stating the importance of professional reporters, making the blog-bashing screeching going on around him that much screechier.

Blogs, of course, do not directly compete with newspapers. But “new media” speaking broadly (including blogs) present clear challenges for “legacy” media, both in terms of challenging quality and quantity of content (and, at times, veracity), as well as technical and creative hurdles for how to reach their audience in a cost-effective manner. And certainly, those challenges threaten to swallow entire newspapers.

When a person feels denigrated or unfairly run down, there are, generally speaking, two ways they counter it. They can start talking themselves up, or they can start talking others down so they seem to rise in comparison. The latter is a lot easier, and seems to be the more common M.O. among many media professionals. But the fact is, all the trash talking of bloggers-in-their-underwear in the world is going to amount to nothing as far as the bottom line viability of traditional news venues are concerned.

And cracking the new media nut meaningfully is going to mean a lot more than simply having your reporters blog, its going to necessitate reimagining entire business models.

All of this is why the denial also on display is frightening:

“The loud voices proclaiming the death of newspapers, if you dig into who they are, are the people on the web,” says Dennis Stern, a senior vice president at the New York Times.

Okay, just “people on the web.” And just from websites such as The New Yorker, The Business Insider, USA Today, and, of course, this recent Rasmussen poll for US News & World Report:

65: Percentage of American adults who think daily papers won’t exist in 10 years

17: Percentage of adults who think daily papers won’t exist in three years

83: Percentage of Americans between 18 and 29 who think newspapers have less than 10 years left

Just a bunch of crazy bloggers, all, I suppose.

Clearly, the time has come for “experts” like Stern to stop shaking their fist at the storm and wake up and smell the coffee.

And yes, a professional editor would’ve done something about that mixed metaphor.

I’ve had several conversations already with people about the news regarding Ed Flanagan. Among those in the circles I run, there is compassion, concern and sadness. However, I know full well that, among other circles, the reaction will be quite the opposite. This is why the sourcing on the story better be rock solid, as there is likely to be an avalanche of anti-gay sentiment from the right at this news.

Flanagan, of course, has had an extraordinary political career. As State Auditor, he was the first openly gay statewide officeholder in the nation. Love him or hate him, he has been a fierce advocate for progressive priorities, and he transformed the Auditor’s office during his tenure into a state watchdog operation. And his continuing work in the State Senate, despite his accident and subsequent Traumatic Brain Injury has been downright inspirational.

These untoward allegations, of course, come in the wake of charges delivered via Seven Days’ Ken Picard of Flanagan’s mental fitness for holding office. Setting aside, for a moment, the fact that (like it or not) its up to voters to make that call, I never bought it. Flanagan’s TBI clearly presents several challenges for him, and observing as well as interacting with him, its easy to infer that one of them is a challenge of focus. But the fact is, when he engages that focus, it seems to me he is “all there.” If he’s representing his constituents with honesty, integrity and intelligence – why should this disability matter?

And in fact, it is that disability that I believe many of his critics can not, or will not, see past. I fear that people who should be allies have written him off simply because of the way his disability forces him to walk down the street. That’s a shame because who the hell cares how his physical disability manifests itself. Unless he is genuinely engaged in some type of misconduct or conduct that demonstrates that he can no longer perform legislative service, the only relevant question (a question for Chittenden voters) begins and ends with whether he is representing them to their majority satisfaction. So far, the answer has been an unqualified “yes.”

In any event, there is nothing here that justifies the prior reporting on Ed Flanagan that called his public service into question. Those articles earlier this year were based on the travails of his disabilities and bereft of examples demonstrating Mr. Flanagan was failing to do the job Chittenden County voters elected to do. Instead we read dismissive comments about his physical abilities.  

With that background, it is disappointing to read Totten’s comment “In light of these recent revelations, I wonder if Flanagan’s supporters will reconsider their blind faith in his ability to handle the rigors of public office without some additional supervision and support.”   Keep in mind, before today, neither Seven Days nor any other credible source gave an example of conduct or political judgment that called Mr. Flanagan’s ability to perform public service into question.  Indeed, even if the allegations published today turn out to be true, or turn out to contain elements of truth, that will in no way justify the prior suggestions that Mr. Flanagan’s disabilities, without more, negated his ability to represent Chittenden County.  

Also, in fairness to readers who are just tuning into this story, Seven Days’ lead source – Tiki Archambeau – was quoted saying “I don’t have any political reason for coming forward. . . I’m not out to bring the guy down”.  That may be true. It also might not be the whole story. Mr. Archambeau after all, when last we heard from him, was posting here on GMD claiming, among other things, that “[if you] were principled in the first place, you wouldn’t be a Dem.” Mr. Archambeau may not be out to bring down one particular Democrat, but he has no trouble implying to others that Democrats do not have principles.

Mr. Flanagan has denied the reports. Like many others, I am obliged to give him the benefit of the doubt, particularly given his tremendous record of service to the state. Despite my concerns, I remain hopeful that they aren’t true, and even more hopeful that – if they are true – he is able to get the support he needs to work through what will be a difficult time.

How was Howard Dean’s first night as Keith Olbermann’s stand in on MSNBC? Here’s a sample. A little unsteady at times, but hey – it’s not like he had a warm-up gig as a local weatherman for a few years or something (don’t rustle the papers on your desk when the guest is talking, Governor). And ya can’t beat the content. Looking forward to Round 2 Wednesday.

What the…?

Catherine Nelson, vice president and general manager of The Times Argus, announced today that Steven Pappas has been named editor to replace Susan Allen.

Allen, who has served as the paper’s editor since 2006, is staying on with the 10,000-circulation newspaper, serving as its Montpelier reporter.

I wonder what the deal is, here.

I’m not going to editorialize on this issue one way or another for a variety of reasons, but I found the following on YouTube this morning and thought it quite an interesting encapsulation of the conflict playing out on the ground. No doubt it will be fodder for interesting discussion.

So here is – from the YT description – video from “Near the end of the 2+ hour meeting between the community of Ira, Vermont and proponents of Vermont Community Wind Farm, an 80 MW “concept” of Per White-Hansen, with public relations person Jeffrey Wennberg”, presented without comment…

(UPDATE: Thune amendment defeated.)

The US Senate is preparing to vote on an amendment to the Defense Department appropriations authorization bill (S. 1390) that would override laws in 48 states by mandating that a concealed weapon permit from one state be accepted by another. Opponents are rightfully concerned that someone in, say, New York City, could take advantage of the far more limited restrictions in a state like Vermont (through a friend in the area, by getting a second address, etc) to legally import weapons in violation of the letter and intent of their home state’s restrictions. Proponents simply want an end to any and all restrictions on firearm ownership.

I’m not a big fan of gun control laws. Still, I recognize the “nukes in Wal-Mart” argument and have made it myself – simply that no one anywhere is truly in favor of literally unrestricted arms dealing and/or possession, and that the adjective “well-regulated” in the second amendment does mean something, even if we can’t agree on what.

What I have a problem with is large scale, sweeping, federal-level laws that impact what we would think of as “traditional” firearms. I recognize that, if a major US city like NYC is having an epidemic of gun violence, its citizenry has the right to support extra restrictions. But that right ends where that local jurisdiction – and the local problem – ends. We in Vermont should not have a right – any right (even one we may not personally find appealing and choose not to take advantage of) – curtailed to address a problem we do not have. If people start shooting each other – sure. When society is threatened, it is common to have a public discussion about the merits of curtailing some freedoms for the health of the greater community. That’s always a scary conversation, I’ll grant, but its a dynamic that has defined civil society since the emergence of the very first cities, if not before.

And while it would seem that this sort of federal approach to personal firearms would be anathema to those concerned with gun rights, we are now seeing – yet again – that Republicans such as bill sponsor John Thune (R-ND) are always too ready to abandon what they purport to be their core principles in order to force society to reflect their own parochial worldview. “Federalism,” “original intent,” “state’s rights” are once again shown to be nothing more than buzzwords in the toolbox used by the right to force their view of society on everyone and anyone they can. All this serves to underscore the complete absence of any core values in so much of the modern Republican Party besides a base desire for control over others – either at the personal level as with abortion and gay rights, or, in this case, the community level.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m anything but an absolute state-rightser. Not even close, really. But after all, if state and local sovereignty is to mean anything at all, it should at the very least allow for the control of the flow of arms across borders.

So if this law should pass, we should consider a companion bill to change the flag from a field of 50 stars to one, big, Republican-red one.

I spoke with Senator Bernie Sanders late last week about the issue of the moment nationally: reforming the health care system. Sanders spoke about his views on the prospects for a strong public plan to survive the legislative process, discussed the prospects of meaningful reform against an often too – conservative Democratic caucus and without hitting the private insurance industry head on, the stakes for the nation and the state, and what Vermonters can do to help the process.

My recording rig was decidedly low tech, so there are some gaps where the conversation could not be cleanly transcribed, but 98% of the conversation remains, I think.

odum: You’re obviously a proponent of single payer health care. You’ve suggested in the past that it might be more workable at the state level…I understand you’ve tried to include that option in the health care bill – and you’ve also introduced the American Health Security Act of 2009 (which would introduce single payer at the national level), so its easy to infer that you’re just going at the issue from every way you can. But of those two approaches, the state level or the federal level – which do you really feel is more practical and attainable?

Sanders: Well at this particular moment, neither is going to be attained. This country is facing a major, major health care crisis, and I think most Vermonters know the dimensions of that crisis. It’s 46 million without any insurance, more are underinsured. John, its very important not to forget that a lot of folks who count for having insurance end up with $10,000 deductibles and very weak insurance programs that really don’t address their health care needs. We have 60 million Americans who do not have access to a doctor on a regular basis, and that can end up in the emergency room or in the hospital at great personal suffering and great expense to the system. In the midst of all that we end up spending twice as much per person on healthcare than almost any other country on Earth.

(Continued below the fold…)

So we have a system clearly which is dysfunctional, which is not working, which results, by the way, in some 18,000 people dying every year because they don’t get to the doctor when they should.

So in my mind, if you are serious about doing the following three things; number one, providing comprehensive – that means coverage for all basic health care needs to all Americans, and if you want to do that in a cost effective way – the only solution is to end the dominance of the private insurance companies, and the 1300 private insurance companies and the thousands of different programs which end up, just in terms of administrative and bureaucratic costs, wasting about 400 billion dollars a year. That’s the only approach – and I say that not from an ideological approach, just from a basic economic point of view –  that you can save 400 billion a year through administrative costs, and that’s why I’m for single payer.

Now, you’re asking me which way is going to be more practical – I’ve introduced in the health committee the state option for single payer. I got 4 votes. Out of 23 members. No Republicans and 4 out of 13 Democrats.  I think, you know, there is the potential to do better, but right now – for a variety of reasons having to do, among other things, with the fact that the insurance companies and the drug companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbyists, in campaign contributions, single payer is not going to prevail at this particular point. We have more and more people in Vermont, more and more people in America, that  support that concept, but that grassroots strength has not manifested in the congress right now.

odum: Do you think universal coverage is attainable and sustainable without actually eliminating the private insurance industry or is leaving multiple payers on the table – even in a sort of Medicare-for-all scenario – limit the ability to capture savings from inefficiency too much?

Sanders: That’s a very good question. What my fear is, you know, you can put a lot of money into the system, you can expand Medicaid which will cover perhaps 20 million more people if you take it up to 150% of poverty – you can put heavy subsidies and help people, low and moderate income people to find private insurance or a public insurance program – but the question you’re asking is a good question. Because it suggests that if you put that much money – more money – into an already wasteful system, at what point does the federal government just say, you know what, we just can’t afford to keep throwing money at a wasteful system, we’re going to cut back.

So theoretically, yes, you can have universal insurance simply by throwing more money into a dysfunctional system. There is, given the fact that we have an $11 trillion national debt right now, what would probably happen is that at some point people would say, you know what, we’re going to have to cut back.

odum: Now talking about the plan that’s being bandied about and the so-called ‘public option.’ Opponents say it will be too competitive with private insurers and will lead to single payer from everybody opting into it. Proponents generally say no it won’t, but during the campaign, there was at least one Presidential candidate who was openly saying that such an approach might do just that, and was trying to make it a selling point. What do you think? Could this help grease the skids to single payer?

Sanders: Well, what it does do, if you – what the polls seem to indicate, in fairly overwhelming numbers, over 70% in a New York Times poll – is people would like the option of being able to choose a Medicare type program in competition with the private insurance companies. I think, on a level playing field offering the same set of benefits, the public proposal wins out but the administrative costs would be substantially less, and in general people feel better about a Medicare type program than they would private insurance. So I think you will see significant numbers of people coming into a private program.

Would that mean that after a certain period of time, with the existence of an expanded Medicaid, Medicare, and a public program that brings more and more people into it, that if that program performs well, you’ll be left with private insurance companies left with private insurance companies having relatively small numbers of people… perhaps, but there are other scenarios … where that would not take place, but it is a possibility.

odum: Will you vote for a bill that doesn’t include a public option?

Sanders: I don’t want to – the answer is, I have been probably – you know, my view is that there should be a single payer – at the very, very least there has got to be, not just a public option, but a strong public option, and let’s leave it at that. That is what my view is, and I don’t want to be talking about what I will do and what I won’t do, but I think at the very very least there has got to be a strong public option.

Now in the bill – the bill that passed has, I don’t know how many pages it has, but many many many hundreds of pages, so a lot of good things in this bill. While it is not single payer, and while even the public option is not as strong as I would like, there are a number of things in it that have not gotten a lot of publicity which are very important.

For example, I have pushed very hard on the whole issue of primary health care. Because I think you’re not going to tackle the health care crisis in general, to what it means to the people and the costs, unless you significantly change our approach to primary health care. In this bill, we have basically laid the groundwork for a revolution in primary health care, and that’s something that I pushed. There will be a quadrupling of community health centers in Vermont. In the last six years we’ve gone from 2, to 8, and you know have over 30… federally qualified health care centers which provide on a sliding scale basis primary health care, dental care, mental health counseling and so forth – prescription drugs. We have over 30 satellites treating over 100,000 Vermonters in terms of their primary health care right now. We’re going to increase that number with new health centers in Bennington and Addison Counties over the next couple of years. This legislation quadruples the number of community health centers in America. Quadruples them. Providing them in every underserved area in America. … we’re going to get tens of thousands of new doctors and dentists into primary health care. Is that pretty significant? It is.

This legislation puts a lot more money into disease prevention, so that we can do our best to prevent people from coming down with heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other chronic diseases, which cost significant sums of money. We have language in there dealing with quality control – (to) deal with the reality that some medical facilities provide higher quality care at lower costs than other facilities do, and to learn from that experience. Is that important? It sure is.

So there are a number of components in this bill that are pretty good. Pretty significant. There are others that are fairly weak, and that’s where we are today.

odum: How committed do you think the Obama administration is to making sure this bill comes out the other end a meaningful bill – it seems like the signals have been sometimes mixed.

Sanders: I think that’s not necessarily the right question. I think they are committed. The problem is – here’s what you’ve got politically. You have the Republicans who essentially don’t want to do anything. So that means the ballgame is completely with the Democrats, and as you know, the Democrats are not a particularly progressive party. So you’ve got a number of conservative Democrats whose views on this issue are not different than the Republicans. They don’t want – forget single payer – they don’t support a strong public plan. You need to expand funding for example – they don’t want to do progressive funding, they would do a tax on health care benefits for example, which is totally anathema to many progressives.

Here in an instant is the heart of the problem; you have a health care system today that is disintegrating, and it ends up being the most wasteful, expensive, bureaucratic, in the entire world. The situation if we don’t do anything will only deteriorate further…

…you have Republicans saying no to anything significant, which leaves only the Democrats to deal with it. You have a number of conservative Democrats who are not prepared to do that for a variety of reasons, you have the insurance companies and the health care industry spending $1.3 million every single day – every single day – on lobbying, drug companies spending huge sums of money.

So the political question you have – is the United States Congress with the Republicans saying no – right wing and not wanting to do anything. With the Democrats not being particularly progressive. Is there the political capability of addressing this crisis? And the answer is, it’s not quite clear. It may well be that there is not. You know, its like saying that there’s is a major fire in a downtown in a small town and you just don’t have the fire department to put it out, and the fire is wreaking havoc. That’s where we are right now. It’s a huge crisis, it is getting worse, we are in worse shape than any other major country on Earth, and we may not have – for a variety of reasons – the political will to stand up to the insurance companies … and that just may be the political reality. I hope it is not, but that may be.

odum: Well, we’re working on those Democrats…

At this point, how are the prospects for keeping the caucus together against a filibuster looking – and that’s been an effort you’ve really been at the forefront in.

Sanders: And I’ve helped kind of raise that issue. In some respects, the election of Al Franken is the best thing that could happen to the Democrats, and in some respects its the worst thing, because what it says now, when the average American says ‘Wait a minute, we’ve given you a Democratic – we had 8 years of the worst administration in the modern history of America, George W Bush, all right? We turned that administration aside and we gave you a Democratic president, we gave you a strong vote in the house, and now we’ve given you a filibuster proof vote in the Senate with Al Franken. You’ve got 60 votes. And the good news is you have the power to do something.’

What I have said is that every Democrat in that caucus – or independent – can say to the Republicans that we’re not going to let you filibuster and filibuster and filibuster and defeat the ability of the American people to address the health care crisis, and that’s wrong. We’re going to vote to stop the Republican filibuster, and the point here that’s underlying that point is that  you do not need 60 votes to pass legislation, you need 60 votes to stop a Republican filibuster. And my view from day one has been that every Democrat has to pledge to stop a Republican – every person in the Democratic caucus – has got to vote to stop a Republican filibuster. And if after that, there are some Democrats who are not prepared to support at the very least a strong public plan, let them vote no. All you need is 50 votes plus the vice president and you’re going to have health care reform with a strong public plan. And that’s been my view.

And running to the Republicans – and Chuck Grassley and others in the conservative group saying ‘oh you need our vote.’ You don’t need their vote. There’s 60 in the Democratic caucus, you can stand together you can defeat the Republican filibuster, then you need 50 of them plus one and you’ve got 50 of them plus one to pass a strong public plan

odum: On the way out, I’d ask if you have any suggestions of what Vermonters can do to help this process, given that, you know, we’ve got a pretty solid delegation in you three guys up there. Is there any other way we can weigh in and try to affect it?

Sanders: The answer is, I think, you have – the message has got to be that every member of the Democratic caucus has got to be prepared. That number one – at the very least, there’s got to be a strong public plan within the legislation. And the Finance committee is not going to report out a strong public plan. The Health Committee did and the House bill has a reasonably strong plan. And number two, that if there are people in th4e Democratic caucus that don’t want to support a strong public plan, that’s fine. Let them vote no. But let the entire caucus stand together against the Republican effort to do nothing, and that we need a national movement – a strong grassroots national effort to do that, and I hope Vermonters will participate in that effort.

It’s not new news anymore, but…

(The Vermont Milk Co.) formed by farmers who were seeking stable milk prices and added value for their product has shut its doors…

…Board member Sam Burr told The Burlington Free Press that the company was forced to close this week because of insurmountable debt.

Against my admittedly bare bones impression of their business model, I remember a few years back questioning its long-term viability. Maybe without the economic downturn it would’ve worked, but we’ll never know. It was clearly in trouble before the bottom fell out of the economy.

Anyone inclined to celebrate because Anthony Pollina bugs them shouldn’t. This endeavor was not Anthony Pollina – although he was obviously a huge part of it. But even that’s beside the point. Pollina has bugged me relentlessly over the years for a variety of reasons, but the fact is he was trying to do something good here. Trying to make a difference. It what he always does, what we try to do here, and the news of the VMC’s collapse has no silver lining. Sure, there were things about the operation that gave me the creeps – such as its anonymous bailout during the Pollina gubernatorial campaign – but it was without question a force for good… just not a force built to survive.

What its collapse will be is fodder for those who feel that the very nature of the market makes it impossible to do any meaningful, systemic good within it. I think this is a deceptively simplistic path to go down – in its way, as deceptively simplistic as some of the assumptions behind troubled endeavors such as the VMC; that one can avoid the downsides of capitalism simply by getting into business and choosing not to be greedy and playing by your own rules. Of course, the realities of a complex system like our economy are largely immune to being influenced by our personal (often way too easy) dogma, no matter how dearly it is held.

But at the end of the day, Pollina & company were trying to think outside the box. Much like his Progressive Party itself is an attempt to think outside the box. And when such outside-the-box attempts fail, there’s the added downside of feeding cynicism and making it even harder for the next outside-the-box idea to get traction, at least for a while.

I don’t know what the next creative idea will be – either for Vermont farmers, or any other demographic in dire straits. I do know that we have to find ways to encourage this sort of creativity, but we need to be smarter (and less dogmatic) about it – and that means not only challenging what we may see as a hostile system or status quo, but challenging our own easy assumptions and ofttimes-seductively-simple solutions as well.

• Several Dems would apparently be happy to see either Markowitz or Racine come out ahead in the primary. Folks like Jake Perkinson, Gail Holmes, Peter Anthony, Bill Botzow and Bill Stetson gave to both candidates.
• Racine shows a $250 contribution from former Progressive Burlington City Council member Jane Knodell. A sign that Racine’s courting of the Progs is beginning to pay off?
• In regards to Douglas, can somebody explain to me why the citizens of South Hadley, Massachusetts have apparently contributed $2000 to his re-election campaign? The contribution is listed as from “South Hadley Landfill” which, according to their website, is owned by the town of South Hadley. It’s managed by Interstate Waste Services. Douglas does receive other contributions from landfills and the like – but the report’s listing clearly states that the contribution is from the “South Hadley Landfill,” not Interstate Waste Services.

  Wuzzupwitdat? Sounds like something for a professional reporter who does this for a living to dig into, yes? Exactly why we need professional reporters. I sure as hell don’t have the time in my life to play journalist.

  UPDATE: Totten says the South Hadley Landfill is “owned and operated by Interstate Waste Services out of Ramsey, NJ, according to information from the company and incorporation papers on file with the secretary of state’s office.” That doesn’t square with the website, but its most likely the website is out of date. May still be worth a call to the town, though.