All posts by odum

No, seriously – $2 million is the Emily’s List goal for Markowitz

So you’ll remember the rumor I referred to in a previous diary – that Emily’s List (the national PAC that supports pro-choice women for political office) was intending to power a $2 million gubernatorial campaign for Deb Markowitz. Well I mentioned the rumor in passing in conversation, and it turned out I was speaking to the source.

Senate Appropriations Chair and potential gubernatorial candidate Susan Bartlett contacted Emily’s List herself, only to find out that they had already decided to back Markowitz in a primary. When she informed them that she thought a gubernatorial run would need to be in the $750k – $1m range, they told her explicitly that they intended to work towards a $2 million campaign for Markowitz.

On the one hand, this means that my theory that this was a fanciful number being floated by Team Markowitz to scare off the competition was off the mark.

On the other hand – Two million dollars?!?! Holy crap!

While the Democratic enthusiast in me is thrilled by the prospect, the realist in me is shaking his head. Honestly, I just don’t see it in this state. Might as well have said 2 gajillion. Still, it’d be something to be proven wrong, as that kind of money would significantly surpass Jim Douglas.

Of course, I can’t imagine how pissed off Bartlett must really be to be stiff-armed by what should be a natural base of support. Very interesting that they’d make such a definitive commitment so early in the cycle too. On the other hand, if Bartlett does get into this and the polls start surprising people… well, you just never know with some of these big national outfits. Stay tuned. The game’s afoot.

Once More With Feeling…

Okay, in response to Mr. Margolis and others who seem to be doing a bit too much reading between the lines on my diary from yesterday:

1. The headline, Has Markowitz already been “annointed” by Leahy, Welch, VDP over other gubernatorial contenders? was in the form of a question. It’s about appearances, folks. I’m not going to name names here, but when someone (or ones) who works for, or has recently worked, for Senator Leahy and Congressman Welch, acts to facilitate (or even simply to embrace) one gubernatorial candidate’s unfettered access to Party resources (especially when the “camps” of those Democratic powerhouses have largely acted in the past as enforcers of the proper protocols surrounding such resource access) – in the Party office – you can’t help but ask the question. And I was far from the first to ask it. What do I think the answer is? I think the answer in the immediate term is ‘no,’ but once the question is called – which it has been by Democratic legislators (not by me) – the situation must be remedied, or the answer becomes ‘yes’ by default.

2. I have been hearing about this from many reliable sources – both in and out of the legislature. All are pissed off and, in my opinion, have a right to be. Had I not written on it, as I do all such things with this degree of information, it would’ve been – to my way of thinking – a deviation from the mission and method of this site specifically to protect one candidate (Markowitz) at the expense of others. I wasn’t willing to do that.

3. Although Markowitz’s opponents have the most to lose in the short term from this arrangement, Markowitz herself is the one who would come out of a primary as damaged goods if this narrative festers. I want whoever comes out of the primary to be undamaged, hence the decision to nip this in the bud now.

4. I was questioning what to do with this information long before the State Committee meeting. I’ve known about it for weeks. Bartlett’s publicizing of the letter just freed me up on how to proceed, given that the story was now “out.”

5. The Emily’s List information is a rumor. Not one that originated with me, but one that came to me. I contextualized it against the actual facts presented in the diary in an attempt to create a “unified field theory” of what was going on overall – likely that Markowitz was simply trying to intimidate possible challengers out of the race. That unified theory is speculation, and as of now, is simply a theory that happens to fit the facts. I still think its a good one. I also think its a perfectly legitimate strategy, as I stated explicitly in the diary. There is nothing inherently wrong or sleazy or untoward about trying to intimidate challengers out of the race with a sense of inevitability or invincibility.

6. Finally, the Party reference (VDP) in the title question (again – it was a question, hence the question mark) refers not to any specific individual, as the office and Voter File are not the responsibility or property of any specific individual. They are the property and responsibility of the corporation. I do explicitly label this affair as a case of preferential treatment. Whether or not the individual members of the State Committee knew about it or approved of it is secondary – it was the reality of the situation. It sounds likely that – as of Saturday – the answer is likely a “no”, or at least a qualified no. That qualification will depend on the nature of the agreement between the candidates and how the State Committee reacts or responds to questions and concerns about it. Already, I am hearing frustration that the damage is done and that the preferential treatment that has occurred to date is a bell that can’t be unrung. Maybe, maybe not. We’ll see.

Has Markowitz already been “anointed” by Leahy, Welch, VDP over other gubernatorial contenders?

Big happenings at the Democratic State Committee meeting, as the beginnings of factionalizing around the appearance of favoritism in the nascent Governor’s race around the use of Party resources has bubbled into open frustration in the midst of the Party leadership vacuum.

At issue is whether or not Deb Markowitz is being “annointed” by players in the Party – specifically the camps of Senator Leahy and Congressman Welch – at the expense of other candidates and potential candidates, such as Doug Racine, Susan Bartlett (who announced that she is, indeed, contemplating a run), Peter Shumlin – and at the expense of Party rules and protocols, which seem to have been ignored on her behalf.

The concerns here? It’s not about who is or isn’t the best candidate, it’s about having a fair fight. About not setting a precedent that these decisions are taken out of voters’ hands by an elite group stacking the deck in favor of one person or another. It’s a deep concern for those of us who see a healthy primary as necessary in this election, and stand generally in favor of a robust primary process.

It’s also about having the strongest candidate possible, and if Markowitz is to be that candidate, she would come through any tainted primary seen as tainted herself, and that’s completely unnecessary.

Background: Issues center around the Markowitz campaign’s unfettered use of the VDP office and the Party’s coveted informational resource – the Voter File. Traditionally in a contested Primary, an agreement is made between the candidates before any such access is granted. Usually those candidates don’t work out of the Party offices either, but its not unheard of. What is unheard of, again, is doing so without reaching out to every possible contender and coming to an agreement. Access to Voter File – a database of every registered voter in the state with voter identification, demographic and polling information dating back into the 90s, the likes of which neither the Republicans or the Progressives have on their own – is especially strictly controlled. Every election cycle the rules for access are reviewed and tweaked but stay similar in character, accounting for the changing technology and technical nature of how the data is stored and maintained. It is also the compendium of local corrections and identification done by county and town committees, again stretching back over more than a decade. It is the Democrats most valuable common property.

Three things are clear. One: that Markowitz’s campaign manager, Jason Powell, has made use of both the VDP office and the Voter File freely. Two: that the other candidates only heard about this second hand and were not brought into the process (even though one of them, Doug Racine, is the only person to have unequivocally announced that he or she is a candidate). Three: that this entire situation has proceeded with the full knowledge of Party players directly linked to the offices of Peter Welch and Patrick Leahy.

If you still don’t think this is a big deal, consider that Senator Bartlett read from a letter that has circulated through the House and Senate caucuses, promoted not simply by candidates and potential candidates such as Racine, Bartlett and Shumlin, but also championed by House Majority Leader Floyd Nease. The letter explicitly calls for an end to the brazen preferential treatment and appearance of a pre-ordained favorite of the Democratic Party and some of its most influential members. Nease’s involvement is significant as it makes clear that the discontent runs broader and deeper than any mere sour grapes from candidates not so favored.

At the meeting, outgoing Chair Carleton responded that a) There is now a Voter File contract, and so far Markowitz is the only candidate who has signed it, but it’s open to others. b) Office access should be equal and conditioned on payment of rent.

Unfortunately, it’s not as simple as that. For one thing, there remains some question as to whether or not those candidates who haven’t yet “staffed up” can sign up for access, and at present, Markowitz is not only the single candidate who has, but its unlikely any of the others will do so soon. As to rent, it sounds as though an amount has not been worked out, and when it is, it will likely not be levied retroactively for the usage the Markowitz campaign has already made of the space.

Part of what’s frustrating here is that there is no need for Markowitz to be involved in this ill-advised nonsense. She’s a great candidate who understands how to run elections and may well have the best shot in a primary election already, depending on how things sugar out in the coming months. It seems likely that this fits into an overall strategy to “shock and awe” opponents out of the race and clear the primary field if at possible for a direct run at Douglas. In addition to the advantages steered her way from the Party, she has already hired a Campaign Manager, which speaks to the money she is raising and has already raised. Reportedly, Emily’s List – the national PAC that supports pro-choice Democratic women candidates – has committed to supporting her, even though Bartlett is also a potential candidate. Hubbub is that EL is hoping to power a $2 million campaign for Markowitz. The connections are being worked hard to give her the appearance of an electoral juggernaut only four months out from the previous election.

Now, $2 million is a ludicrous number, frankly, and the fact that it’s in circulation is further testament to the theory that she is simply trying to scare off opponenets. It’s a legitimate strategy, and accumulating special favors from those with oversized influence over party resources… well, I suppose you could say its good work if you can get it. But she and those selfsame supporters should be deeply afraid of being responsible for creating a sense of an “establishment” candidate vs. more populist ones. In this day and age, such an impression could be poisonous, and it’s precisely the narrative they are flirting with.

It should be clear to all that the only honorable way forward is to follow the precedents of the past – precedents which candidates have had a right to expect would be in play this cycle. And going by that precedent, no candidate should have access to office space or Voter File until all the candidates have come to an agreement. Period.

For those of us who work hard to insure that the Democratic Party is an institution we can all hopefully be proud of, this cycle is off to a piss-poor start.

GMD Co-hosting Burlington Mayoral Candidates Forum with DFA

Clearly it’s the in thing with the cool kids these days to have a Burlington mayoral candidates debate (or “forum”), and GMD is nothing if not cool (and we know who the cool kids we wanna be seen with are, like Democracy for America):

Event Date: Feb 26, 2009

Event Time: 7:00 PM EST

Venue Name: Sapa Coffee and Tea

Address: 9 Center Street

City: Burlington

Potholes. Disc golf. A dome over Burlington. There’s a lot to think about when deciding who should be the next mayor of Burlington and you’ve probably got a lot of questions you want to ask.

Well, if you’ve got questions, we’ve got answers… or, at least, a mayoral candidate forum in which you can ask your questions.

That’s right, Burlington DFA and Green Mountain Daily, Vermont’s finest political blog, are co-hosting a mayoral candidate forum to get you the answers to your question. Three candidates — Bob Kiss, Andy Montroll and Dan Smith — have already confirmed, so we hope to see you there!

7:00 p.m. – Doors open / mix and mingle

7:15 p.m. – Forum question and answer period

8:00 p.m. – Mix and mingle

8:30 p.m. – Wrap up

…and here I thought it was Haik calling us the “finest” of his own accord. Ah, well.

Details on what to expect. Live blogging? Streaming? Yes to one, maybe to the other… stay tuned.

The felony appeal support bill?

I’m not a lawyer. I don’t play one on TV and I didn’t spend the night in a Holiday Inn Express. Maybe a real lawyer can explain the thinking behind this element of the proposed sex offender law moving through House Judiciary:

Another provision calls for DNA samples to be taken from all people charged with a felony if the court determines that there’s probable cause to believe that the person is guilty.

So, are we to infer that there are some people arrested for felonies without “probable cause?” Or is the working phrase a brand new animal: “probable cause to believe?” Is a DNA sample then proof positive that the supposedly impartial court has already decided I’m likely guilty before my trial has even begun? So much for presumption of innocence, eh?

At least my appeal is all set up. Everybody’s will be. What a nice idea for a cash-strapped judicial system.

Open thread-eme

Douglas vs. Racine, Round 2?

Euan referenced it below, but the first real public exchange of the 2010 Governor’s race may have just played out last week, and it had enough resonance that reverberations have continued as recently as this morning from the traditional media. From Dillon:

(Host) Racine announced in early January that he would run for governor in two years. And the governor said last week that Vermonters would think it was – quote – “perverse” for candidates to announce so early.

But Racine said that in the last several campaign cycles Douglas has raised and spent tens of thousands of dollars early in his term.

(Racine) “So it’s somewhat disingenuous for the governor to be suggesting that others who might be interested in running cannot engage in the same sort of activity that he’s engaged in consistently over the years.”

Heh.

Douglas was badly staggered last week as the public hit he took over Lake Champlain seemed to knock him off his stride, causing the policy blindside from Democratic leaders to go largely unanswered, and finally shaking him enough to make this stupid “perverse” comment and give one his most dangerous potential opponents (one who would have beat him at their last contest if not for the presence of a third significant candidate) an opportunity. And it was an opportunity not simply to pull in some solid earned media, but exactly the kind of earned media he (Racine) needs to address the concerns about whether or not he could bring to a rematch the kind of scrappiness Dems are hoping to see from their candidate.

Open Thread Goodness

  • More Secretary of State candidates? There’s hubbub that Dem Senator Bobby Starr and Republican Representative Peg Flory may be eyeing the Secretary of State spot, with Deb Markowitz all-but-officially leaving to run for Governor. Funny, but it seems like big news if the Vermont Republicans can come up with anybody to run for any statewide office. If true, the two would join former Chittenden Sen. Jim Condos who is also considering an SoS run.
  • Sen. Susan Bartlett moving closer to a run for Governor? That’s what more folks are saying. Could the Lamoille County Senate seat be up for grabs (in a real way) for the first time in years?
  • The always interesting Jon Margolis lays the definitive smackdown on Thomas Naylor and the Second Vermont Republic as only he can. It’s withering, and will probably become the go-to web reference piece on the topic in the future.

GMD Third Birthday Extravaganza Diary Index and Trivia Contest (UPDATED with trivia answers)

(Bumpbed back up to the top. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Yes, three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.

  • Total number of GMD diaries (as of the writing of this diary – includes all user diaries and draft diaries that might never have made it): 4020
  • Total number of GMD diaries by Jack McCullough alone (as of the writing of this diary): 101
  • Total number of GMD pageviews (give or take…no site meter for the first month): approximately 1,332,000
  • Most unique visitors to GMD in one day?: Approximately 32,000 (to view this diary)
  • Highest user ID number (as of the writing of this diary): 1044
  • Very first “real” GMD diary? VT Anti-Choice Forces Hitting Town Meetings (Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 01:13:45 AM EST)
  • Number of diaries that used the word “impeachment”: 309

And now, for the trivia contest! The first folks to get right answers into the diary comments win the prize listed below. At least until I post the answers, then the game is over. And I'll do that whenever I get around to it. Let's say late Monday (and no, front pagers are NOT eligible. Buy yer own GMD schwag).

Hard trivia question: What was the first prominent national blog to put a link to GMD on its blogroll? PRIZE: A GMD bumper sticker!!! (Answer: MyDD.com)

Really hard trivia question: What local political figure stepped up to speak for Vermont Democrats by saying the following about GMD – “some of the local Dems are starting to get turned off on this site and the hate that is begining to spew here” ? PRIZE: A GMD mug!!! (Answer: Former VT GOP Director and current head of the housing section of the Agency of Commerce and Community Development, Tayt Brooks!)

Super-amazingly hard GMD trivia question: When the blog first started, there were four people who agreed to be front pagers – myself, kestrel9000 (then blogging under the username Ed Garcia), Jack McCullough, and 1 other person who never posted a diary, and informed me a couple weeks in that she just couldn't make the commitment after all. Who was this person? (Note: There's no way in hell anybody could know this… I don't know if Jack would even remember, so just go for the wild guesses – you might get lucky). PRIZE: A GMD sweatshirt!!! (Answer: Former Windham County Democratic Committee Chair, Lynn Bedell!)

UPDATED (& hijacked by) Caoimhin:  Birthday Announcement & Update, after the flip . . .

 

 HAPPY BIRTHDAY John Odum

Happy Birthday, John, and know you have at least a couple of these babies coming your way.

 

Now, Enjoy Your Birthday!!!  Encore . . .

 

— from all the DFHs

Democratic Leadership Propose Major State Gov’t Reorganization (and play a dangerous game…)

Speaker Smith and Senate Leader Shumlin, in a bold attempt to take Douglas’s issues and positioning out from under him have proposed a dramatic restructuring in state government; consolidating the Department of Labor and Department of Economic Development and dissolving of the Agency of Commerce.

The move would eliminate several jobs, move others, as well as outsource many tourism-related functions to the private sector through grantmaking. In addition, many of the current responsibilities of the Department of Housing and Community Affairs would be transferred to a beefed-up VHFA and Housing and Conservation Board (see the fact sheet that went with the press release below the fold).

So a totally surprising, bold, and deft (to keep it so under wraps) move. It’s total Shumlin style, but with a finesse and discipline that Shumlin by himself could never show, and suggests that the Senate President has found in Speaker Smith and Majority Leader Nease fellow political gamesmen who can pull off the implementation of these games. So what on Earth am I concerned about?

Simply that, as those who have seen Spinal Tap know, “it’s a fine line between clever and stupid.” And if you’re gonna live on that line, eventually you’ll cross it, because nobody is ever as clever as they think they are.

Here’s the thing – this proposal is big, and its impacts are unclear… except for the fact that the impacts will be big, particularly for many constituents and advocacy groups that are critical allies for the Democratic leadership (such as the VSEA). Allies that did not know this was coming and did not see it coming. And as dramatic as this is politically, those allies will be less concerned with politics than policy, and when the dust settles, a lot of those critical allies will certainly feel shut out – and may well feel pissed off, particularly if there prove to be unforseen policy implications (and I’m sure we’ll get to those in coming days).

Now maybe this time it’ll all be fine. I hope so, ’cause it’s sweet to see our side be the bold, clever side for a change. Great, actually. But given this announcement and the Speaker’s recent surprise infrastructure-based stimulus proposal, are we to assume that this is the new modus operandi? Two weeks from now will we all be blindsided by a radical new environmental permitting regime? A complete overhaul of school financing? And all crafted behind tightly closed doors with an eye towards snagging Republican talking points?

Two things. One: the activists and advocates who work, network, promote and lobby on the issues affected by such stealth policy swerves will get very tired very quickly of being left in the dark and blindsided – and critical relationships could suffer (especially when & if the policy implications prove problematic).

Two: Pulling these kind of rabbits out of the hat in an ongoing way takes a fine and firm level of control. Control over the caucus (including keeping many fellow legislators in the dark), control over the message, and control over everything else that gets proposed, advanced or promoted in and around the Statehouse. Dramatic moves like this are always predicated on very specific conditions in the political environment – and those conditions can change the day before a carefully laid secret master plan is announced. Clever has the potential here of turning into too-clever-by-half.

I’m thrilled to see bold and aggressive tactics from the Democratic leadership here – I just hope Mssrs. Shumlin and Smith do not make the classic mistake of overestimating themselves and getting burned. None of us are really as smart as we think we are, and they should take care not to either overextend or build communications houses-of-cards.

Senator Shumlin and Speaker Smith’s Proposal to Consolidate the Department of Labor

and the Department of Economic Development

? Combine Department of Economic Development with the Department of Labor

? Transition the majority of the Department of Tourism and Marketing to the

private sector, public-private partnerships or non-profits as appropriate.

o Most of the total budget would be redirected as a grant. A private entity

made up of industry stakeholders will be responsible for promotion and

operate VermontVacation.com. The grant will be overseen by a policy

staff of three to four positions.

o Vermont Life Magazine will remains in the Department of Labor and

Economic Development.

o Two Exempt positions (Commissioner and Principal Assistant) will be

eliminated and the savings will accrue to the General Fund.

o Four or more Classified positions will be eliminated and the savings will

be included in the grant to the outside entity. The expectation is that some

of these positions will be employed by the outside entity to perform the

needed functions.

? Transfer most of the duties of the Department of Housing and Community Affairs

to VHFA and VHCB. Historic Sites and Preservation functions will be

transferred to other Departments.

o The housing and planning functions will be transferred, with the existing

funding, into VHFA and VHCB. Policy oversight will remain with a staff

of three legal and planning positions in a small division of the Department

of Labor and Economic Development.

o The VHCB Board will be appointed by the Governor, the President Pro

Tem, and the Speaker of the House.

o Fourteen Classified positions will be eliminated. The associated savings

will be distributed to VHFA and VHCB, with the expectation that many

positions will transition to these entities.

o Historic Sites and Historic Preservation and Activities will be moved to

Buildings and General Services or Forest, Parks and Recreation.

o Historic Preservation Tax Credit activities will be moved to the Tax

Department.

o One Exempt position (Deputy Commissioner) will be eliminated and the

savings will accrue to the General Fund.

? Eliminate the Agency of Commerce and Community Development

Administration

o Six Exempt positions will be eliminated and savings will accrue to the

General Fund.

o Two Classified positions will be eliminated and the savings will accrue to

the General Fund.

? Thirty-five state positions would be eliminated (11 exempt and 24 classified) with

the expectation that some of these positions will transition to the outside entities

newly tasked with these responsibilities.