It’s 4 days until our upcoming strategy/brainstorming session among new media activists and other “Democratic stakeholders,” focusing on avoiding the mistakes of this recently passed election cycle and bringing power, energy and ideas to bear from outside the usual institutional channels that seem to limit us year after year to many of the same dead ends.

We have a solid, workable and varied group who have RSVP’d so far. I would remind everyone who hasn’t RSVP’d to contact me (jodum at poetworld.net) if you plan to attend, as I have reserved a very small room and I need to know if we’re going to push the capacity limit – again, this is not a public forum per se – its a working meeting with the goal of brainstorming some specific strategies and moving towards implementing them to whatever extent we feel is manageable.

Over the days leading up to the meeting, I’ll break out the discussion items into diaries to solicit input from the greater GMD community, whether or not you’re planning to attend. After introductions, the first point of discussion is slated to be:

II. A review/discussion of the states of the 3 major parties.

(Please note that what follows is my opinion only, if that isn’t already obvious. Maybe when I show up to Saturday’s meeting, the collected group will tell me I’m full of crap… wouldn’t be the first time…)

If you look at the states of the 3 parties, there’s no question but that the Democrats look (on paper, at least) to be the strongest and healthiest. 4 of 6 of the Constitutional offices. 2 of 3 members of the Congressional delegation, with the third a D in all but ballot line. The Dems were the only party to actually add to their numbers in the legislature (albeit slightly), and hold overwhelming majorities in both.

The fact is, though, that all three parties seem to be in a sort of stasis – which can also be described as a rut. And if the rut continues, it’ll be the Dems who end up taking the biggest hit from the inevitable rut-driven frustration from the electorate, as they have the most to lose. Electoral inertia will give way to electoral entropy and the Dems will see that lead fritter away if they continue to make minimal legislative action and no serious attempts to take the top two Constitutional offices.

Who would gain from such a withering? Both the Rs and the Ps took hits this time. For the Rs it was a real humiliation, but for the Ps it was more of a crisis, as a loss of 1 is a significant percentage loss from their caucus total. Added to that is the fact that its two highest profile pols – Anthony Pollina and Tim Ashe – felt the need to move beyond the P label in order to increase their chances.

Even worse for the Progs is that this strategy seemed to work. Fusion candidate Ashe won and Pollina the Independent rescued Pollina the Prog from his basement polling numbers, leading to a very respectable finish compared to most other Progressive runs. That’s not good news for the Prog label.

Where it’s inevitable that Rs would benefit if the Dems are indeed peaking, its less clear how the Ps would fair, as they are not one of the “two parties” of the “two party system.” Are the Progs plateauing, or is this merely a bump in the road?

Where the two party system polarizes the big two into broad, coalition-style entities, the Progressives – due to their outsider status and their relatively small size – have the luxury of structuring themselves more like a mission-driven nonprofit. They have a linear hierarchical structure the Dems don’t, and can particularlize that mission as a traditional nonprofit does. The Platform process is more of a formal, almost ritualistic exercise in this way – whereas with Ds and Rs, it is where the perennial effort to define themselves theoretically takes place. The tension for the Progs, then, is in over-particularizing themselves so much that they would consign themselves to niche status forever.

The Republicans in the state have fallen into serious disrepair with the rise of Jim Douglas. Under the care of Douglas’s people, the Party let the Legislative seats languish as the top spot(s) were focused on like a laser beam. The grassroots R surge that put current Chair Rob Roper into office put its faith in the wrong person to fix things, as Roper’s promise to take back ground in the Legislature fell flat. Roper’s big plan was apparently to focus on the Republican electoral fundamentals of massive amounts of direct mail, but direct mail in and of itself stopped winning elections some time last decade.

Finally, the Democrats stand at the edge of a precipice. During election time, the Democrats are constructed like a coalition organization. Each “lobe” of the Democratic Party has an individual presence – the Senate caucus, the House caucus, the Party proper, the individual statewide campaigns, etc. They join forces as a “Coordinated Campaign” during election season.

After a massive breakdown of trust and cooperation among these lobes in the mid 90’s, relationships and trust were steadily rebuilt, and the results showed in Legislative races, as well as in the consolidation of the “other” four Constitutional offices. The collective resources are impressive, including the Party’s second-to-none “Voter File” which consolidates Vermont-wide voting pattern, demographic and polling data over about 15 years.

This year, however, only 3 of those entities fully paid in to the coordinated effort, suggesting a serious breakdown. Anecdotally, the reasons for that are clear; the Coordinated Campaign focused a disproportionate amount of its resources on the Obama campaign (certainly to a far greater degree than was done for the Gore or Kerry campaigns). An odd choice, to be sure, as Obama had Vermont wrapped up before he even announced his candidacy. Legislative interests in particular felt ill treated by the coordinated campaign, and many decided to “go it alone” breaking down working relationships that took no small amount of effort to build up.

Additionally, there are multiple reports that the Coordinated Campaign’s crown jewel – the Voter File – is in rough shape, including not-insignificant losses of data. While its hard to believe it cant be repaired (if it hasn’t been already) the fact is that this prime tool for Democratic candidates was less relevant for the Obama campaign, which had its own voter ID methodology for the state. Reportedly, with the Obama campaign not sweating the Voter File (much of which represented days of work from many of the local candidates themselves), the Coordinated Campaign wasn’t sweating it too much either.

The end result may not have been apparent this cycle, but will likely manifest in 2010. Rebuilding trust and refocusing the players will be time-consuming and frustrating, and is by no means guaranteed to happen.

All things being equal, the Dems are primed to take a hit in 2010, and the ripple effect to the chances for taking down Dubie and/or Douglas will be significant, whether you’re a D, P or I.

From VPR:

The chairman of the Vermont Senate’s Judiciary Committee says lawmakers may want to consider expanding the power of legislative committees to subpoena witnesses and take testimony under oath.

Senator Richard Sears says his panel was frustrated at times in recent months during hearings looking into how Vermont responds to sex crimes against children…

…Legislative committees currently can issue subpoenas only with the approval of the full Senate or House or both.

It’s a sentiment certainly repeated ofttimes at this site, but not simply for compelling testimony on this one issue. The fact is that Vermont’s Legislature cedes an inordinate amount of power to the Governor – and the lack of oversight with any teeth is a huge part of that problem. The only thing preventing the Legislature from implementing a more aggressive check-and-balance system like that at the federal level (or in many other states) is, well… the Legislature itself. And we’re not talking a change in law but a change in the rules of how the Legislature conducts itself.

It’s a change long overdue.

I’ve now heard from several sources the Symington campaign described as the “worst” campaign in memory. Many, by extension, ask what the campaign staffers thought they were doing, describing it as “the worst run” campaign in history.

I have a nearly-unique perspective on the charges, as my last job in electoral politics was in the campaign previously dubbed “the worst” by many of these same observers: the Clavelle for Governor campaign. I was the Field Director. It wasn’t loads of laughs, as you might imagine. There are times when I’m tempted to defend what we did from some of the commenters even on this very site, while there are other times I feel like jumping on and escalating the criticism. What I have done in the 3 years of this blog however, is shut up. If there’s any type of commentary/venting that needs to be done freely on a site like this, its commentary of our election efforts.

But I want to say something about the Symington effort – specifically, the Symington staff. I was not privy to any of the inner workings. I got some glimpses, sure – enough to draw my own conclusions in some cases, but you never know everything.

But one thing is for sure. It was pretty clear at the time, but its something that it never does any good to tell oneself at the time. Symington never had a chance. As a public speaker and a debater she was problematic, despite her improvements earlier in the year.

But more than that, she was hamstrung by her own choices. She started way too late in the game, and despite all the mocking dismissals of that charge from Governor Kunin at the time (Kunin, reportedly, was instrumental in convincing Symington to make the leap), this was possibly an insurmountable hurdle in itself. Add to that her more idiosyncratic self-limitations, such as her unwillingness to release her full family financial information (can we all agree, once and for all, that if you’re not willing to fully disclose your family’s assets, maybe executive office should be somebody else’s gig?). There were also reports of campaign opportunities simply left to die on Symington’s desk from inaction or indifference.

My point? Maybe Symington’s campaign staff was the worst in existence. But maybe it was the best. Frankly, we’ll never know, and that’s because this particular candidate at this particular time starting this particular campaign in this particular way was doomed from the start.

Democrats build odd boxes for themselves. Not that Republicans don’t as well, but our team is supposed to be the smart team, which makes it all the more frustrating when otherwise smart Democratic Leaders feel the need time and time again to throw consistency and political cause-and-effect to the wind for an opportunity to try and prove to many of the leery, barely-engaged “swing” voters that we are exactly what our nemeses on the Right often warn them we are.

Part of the problem is that its too easy for Democrats to think of themselves checklist voters – people who have particular views on an assortment of single issues, rather than a cohesive vision. But there’s no issue we value that doesn’t somehow tie back to an economic component. The environment, human dignity, civil rights – you name it, they all ultimately have an impact on an overall economic vision. This is why it behooves us to be consistent in that vision, as when we decouple economics from our other issues, we prove the BS the other side says about us to be correct.

And the biggest, easiest piece of crap flung our way is always the environment vs. jobs equation. The Democrats care more about spotted owls than your ability to provide for yourself, and they’re always making up crazy things like “global warming” just to lord them over you and keep you down stuff.

And policy proposals like a gas tax increase during an economic downturn, and while $4-a-gallon is still fresh in everyone’s mind just firm up that narrative in people’s minds. Not just because of the timing. There are two other reasons as well.

First of all, even people who don’t understand what “regressive taxation” means, understand implicitly that gas taxes are regressive. That’s because they hurt some of us deeply, while those of higher income brackets clearly don’t sweat it. And folks in those vulnerable income brackets notice when these proposals come from members of the Party that purports to be looking out for them.

Second of all is the perception of complete indifference. Obviously we need to fix the roads, but is an archetypally regressive tax really the only way? Nobody in the state-at-large believes that for a minute, so they are left to conclude that those who make such proposals can’t be bothered to be creative enough to come up with progressive revenue solutions – or worse, that they are being somehow punished by these folks for having to drive too much. And that’s deeply patronizing. Also not an endearing motivation.

Now there may be elements of all these things in play (or not) on an individual basis, but the real reason for the return to the gas tax as a place for revenue (and this applies to the sales tax as well) in my opinion is just that they are simple solutions, and our policymakers can’t seem to help but look towards the simple solutions, even if the policy and electoral implications can be so self-evidently problematic.

There are two reasons we gravitate toward the most simple solutions with problems like this.  

First of all, it must be said, that some of us are simple people. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, it just is. We come to a nice, easy idea, we stop there. It’s easier that way.

But the truth is that simple often equals primal, and a lot of us on the left really do act out on some of our primal instincts in the public policy arena the way some wingnuts insist we do. One primal instinct is the punitive, and lets face it, you don’t have to go very far on the liberal blogosphere before you see higher gas taxes advocated first and foremost because folks are angry to see all these SUV drivers not taking their admonitions to drive less seriously enough, so by god let’s sock ’em in the wallet.

The big justification for this gut reaction is twofold: number one, prices are higher in Europe, so there’s no reason not to have ’em as pricey here too. This, again, is deeply simplistic. No numbers in the economy are discrete – especially not fuel prices. The economy is one big balanced (or semi-balanced) algebraic equation, and you can’t just radically change one variable and pretend it doesn’t effect all the other ones. European countries have their own equations as well, and suddenly raising or dropping a critical component of that equation and pretending it won’t have consequences – even if our neighbors have a slightly different equation in play – is just plain silly.

Besides – you know the other thing that’s a lot higher in Europe: the social safety net. If we wanna kick vulnerable jobs over, we damn well better be prepared to take care of the people impacted, and as it stands, we’re most definitely not.

The second argument is that gas taxes are down now – $2 off from where they were only months ago – so clearly, people can take it.

Also silly. People were in a panic and livelihoods were being impacted. It’s hard to quantify what in the midst of our full-blown economic morass, but it would seem ridiculous to suggest that gas prices didn’t play a part in the increased debt burden being carried by working families and small business during what is, at its heart, a credit-crisis driven recession.

But at the end of the day, these two things only matter so much. The fact is that the principle in play should be fundamental; this is a regressive tax. People will say “oh its not that regressive” or even “its not regressive at all” and offer absolutely no facts to back that up before getting the argument out of the way and moving on to wax excited about what great policy it is. And of course, if you think for half a second, its clear that there is no evidence to back up such claims because they are absurd.

The gas tax hits working people disproportionately hard. It is regressive. By definition. And it’s an awfully nice position to be in, in this country (and this economy) to be able to decide from on high that’s its not too regressive, and that the little people should just suck it up (and eat cake while they’re at it, I suppose).

So why don’t we step back and ask the question that we should be asking: what’s the pragmatic thing to do?

We believe overly regressive taxation is not only wrong, its bad policy, so we make taxation as progressive as possible. Yet we need a source of revenue from somewhere to fix the roads. Of course the other argument you hear is that its somehow axiomatic that all public spending must be funded by comparably themed revenue streams, a la cigarette taxes for health care. Sounds nice, but again that’s the simplistic reflex again. Do property taxes have anything inherently to do with education? What about all the myriad general fund items that are financed through the income tax and the sales tax? Is anyone suggesting that Jim Douglas’s army of spokespeople would be okay if only he funded them with a tax on press releases?

So is there no way to break out of the simple/simplistic to come up with a new revenue stream to fund infrastructure repair that is not so regressive? Is it really so hopeless?

Geezum crow, folks, are we that uncreative? Do we give up that easily?

How about Matt Dunne’s proposed gas guzzler tax? From back in 2006:

State Sen. Matt Dunne suggested imposing a $50 surcharge on the sale of new vehicles that get 20-24 miles per gallon and $250 for those that get less than 19 miles per gallon.

The charge for vehicles that weigh more than 8,500 pounds would be $300. Pickup trucks would be exempt.

Officials said the proposed charges would raise an estimated $3.9 million.

Here’s a framework that gives ways-and-means types something far more fine-tuneable. Tweak the targeting to allow for lower mileage family transportation, set it at a percentage rather than flat charges, and voila – a far more progressive alternative.

Of course it died a quick death in the Senate, as folks like Senate Leader Shumlin decided it was too scary to talk about in front of voters during an election season.

But a gas tax isn’t???

And this – this – is where the devotion to the gas tax against all reason seems almost fetishistic. Are some of us so uncreative that alternatives just seem impossible, sure – but when an alternative arises and we push it away using the excuse that its electorally untenable and cleave again to the gas tax, which was already the most poinsonous electoral topic I could imagine before unaffordable gasoline was so fresh in people’s memories is not simply counterintuitive, it’s divorced from reality.

A gas guzzler-tax could be crafted and presented as essentially be a luxury tax. It would create market incentives that could have the effect of functionally raising mileage standards across the state. It could easily be fine-tuned not to impact the vulnerable who have no choice but to drive, while bringing down overall gas consumption. And as a luxury tax, it’d be a lot easier to sell to the swing vote set.

But is it really so much more important to us to rap the knuckles of all those darn rednecks and their monster trucks who should know better?

Come on, folks. Let’s stop punishing and start governing. It’s the right thing to do, the smart thing to do, and it’s an election winner. What more can we ask?

Today’s news:

State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding said Wednesday that he is considering running for governor in 2010, a decision he will make within the next three months.

“I’m giving it serious consideration,” said the Democrat, when asked by The Times Argus in a broader interview if he was eyeing the gubernatorial race.

Spaulding, a Democrat who has served as treasurer since 2003 and was previously a state senator from Washington County, said people urge him to run for governor on an almost daily basis, adding, “It’s impossible not to think about it.”

Lots to say about this. Not any time to say it, as its Thanksgiving. Later for sure.

First things first; I have a job, a roof over my head, food, a great family and I live in a great place.

Then there’s:

More follow…

The meal du jour:

The endless entertainment provided by my fellow humans:

…and, OH yeah…

Priorities, you know.

It seems our little dustup at GMD is quite timely.

Following the withdrawal of John Brennan for consideration to any Obama Administration Chief Intelligence position and the subsequent blaming of “bloggers” (including otherwise “hands off Obama” progressive bloggers such as Glenn Greenwald) for his fall from favor, the traditional media has picked up on the notion that many progressives are feeling squirmy (or even more actively unhappy) at the sense that voices on the left are being passed over as Obama puts together his governing team.

In fact, there’s been a mini-explosion of coverage on the topic. Here’s Dean Baker on NPR, Hotline coverage, USA Today and even this from the Canadian media as some examples.

Obama himself seemed a trifle annoyed annoyed at his press conference – perhaps a sign that the concerns are indeed reaching his ears.

It will surprise few that I think this is a good thing. In fact, this is what many of us hoped to do: get his attention and say “hey, don’t forget us, we helped get you into office, remember…? Really hoping your coalition doesn’t include everybody-but-us”.

And actually, its even better than that, as progressive economic guru Paul Krugman has weighed in on the matter:

A thought I’ve had: there have been some complaints from movement progressives about the centrism/orthodoxy of Obama’s economics appointments. To some extent this was unavoidable, I think: someone like the Treasury secretary has to be an experienced hand who can deal with Wall Street, and I haven’t heard anyone proposing particular individuals with clearer progressive credentials to hold that position…

But the Obama administration’s new economics advisory board would seem like a very good place to give progressive economists a voice. There are a number of excellent people whom Obama might not want to put in line positions but would be very much worth bringing in to offer well-informed alternative views.

Notice his use of the term “movement progressive.” That’s a signal directly to folks like the Open Left crowd that they’re being heard. And by reassuring these folks that things are gonna be okay, Krugman is – willingly or not – taking on the role of media good cop to the agitated bloggers’ bad cop.

With this dynamic playing out before the President Elect, there’s a sense that the agitating-bloggers have accomplished what they wanted, and I, for one, feel better about the prospect of being at the table in something more than a tokenistic way, or only in the person of Melody Barnes (she sure sounds like a progressive, at any rate). In fact, Sargent at TPM speculates on the following scenario offered by Krugman:

For the leading progressive economic voice to be saying this is obviously good for Obama. But Krugman also has a challenge for the President-elect, pointing out that the new economics advisory board unveiled today offers him “a very good place to give progressive economists a voice.”

“Let’s see whether progressives do in fact get a seat at this particular table,” Krugman says.

Indeed. Obama did say today at his presser that “labor” would be given a seat at this table. Here’s the perfect opportunity for Obama to allay the concerns — founded or not — that some liberals have been giving voice to.

Sounds good. If it plays out that way, I, for one, will consider it yet another testament to speaking out to make sure you aren’t taken for granted or otherwise forgotten. I may be wrong, but I expect within the week we’ll hear Obama go out of his way to announce some high profile, significant positions going to more progressive thinkers. At least I hope so.

Douglas’s new head of the Agency of Human Sevices, Rob Hoffman (former Corrections Commisioner), was on Vermont Edition yesterday. As VPR puts it, AHS is “the state’s largest agency and it provides services to the most vulnerable people”.

Host Jane Lindholm discussed the upcoming, widely expected push from the Douglas Adminsistration to respond to budget issues by cutting into critical social programs and jobs, and invoked the recent “kerfuffle” (as she describes it) over emails released to the press that discussed the possibility of reclassifying social service jobs so they could be eliminated under the public’s and the legislature’s radar. Lindholm suggested better transparency might be a good idea (not, obviously, if Douglas & Company intend to hide things), and what steps Hoffman might take to make the decision making process open. Here’s an audio clip:

Burlington Representative Jason Lorber has decided to drop his candidacy for the number three position in the House Democratic Caucus – that of Assistant Majority Leader (or “Whip”). The position is currently held by Floyd Nease who is making a run at the Majority Leader spot.

Lorber is now supporting Rep. Lucy Leriche (D-Hardwick) for the position. It’s possible there could be some consensus building going on behind the scenes as we approach the December 6th caucus, particularly since it seems likely that both the #1 and #2 spots (Speaker and Majority Leader) will most likely (but not certainly) be occupied by men (Doesn’t actually sound like that’s happening).

Sadly, my telepathy helmet is on the fritz, so to gleam insights into the thinking of the leader of what has to be the most active pre-administration in the history of the Presidency, I am forced to infer, deduce, second-guess, study body language and constellations and tea leaves, and throw some bones – like every other political observer. While I still believe firmly that the progressive left should never allow anybody a “honeymoon”, as early positioning and pressure can pay off a hundred fold in later policy struggles, I also think that things may not be as dire looking as some lefty observers like Sirota clearly fear.

First of all, as Bowers points out, progressives aren’t being entirely shut out of the nascent Obama administration, they just aren’t getting the high-profile, departmental leadership positions. Now that’s a mighty big “just,” as those cabinet roles are hardwired policy powerhouses in th executive branch, while the lesser-known appointees cited by Bowers simply get as much influence as the President is inclined to give them.

But Obama may be trying for an all things to all people approach in his early staffing and positioning decisions. If he puts in usual suspects that the media accept as “mature” and “serious,” he lengthens his media (and by inevitable extension, his public) honeymoon, making it easier for him to do what he seems to want to do – make some major policy moves very quickly. We all know how progressives would be greeted by the media in major cabinet roles – the hand-wringing about ideologues would saturate the Sunday talk shows and spill into all the op-ed papers with gleeful support from the likes of GOP Senate muppet McConnell.

Now we also know that Obama is no progressive. Many during the election were counting on the idea that he was a closet lefty, waiting to blossom in the Oval Office, but I’d say that’s a pipe dream. What’s less of a pipe dream, though, is that he may turn out to be a relatively free thinker who, while centrist, may not be the sort to be bound by centrist intellectual orthodoxy. If this is the case, the progressives he’s invited to the table won’t merely be tokens, but could have an actual impact on his thinking.

Of course we all know that an “all things to all people” approach is doomed to collapse. Hopefully Obama is smart enough not to buy into his own hype enough to imagine for a second that he’ll be mystically immune to that political law of nature. But a firm hand on a centrist cabinet, coupled with genuine open mindedness and a cadre of advisors that include progressive thinkers would be a good thing. After all, we on the left fancy ourselves the real pragmatists, so if Obama remains open to all views, I have confidence that we can have an impact.

In any event, this is simply one theory that happens to fit the facts. It’s not the simplest explanation, of course, based on his highest profile appointments. That would be that Obama is simply a relatively orthodox centrist. The key to whether or not this alternate theory is simply wishful thinking will be in which positions have progressives, and what their connections are to Obama. If we see a “Whitman’s Sampler” kind of appointment (a scattering of individuals from supportive constituency or interest groups into low profile positions), that suggests tokenism. If his appointments seem more personal, its more likely that the view from the left will get a stronger hearing. And if we see lefties placed across the board in certain categories – Bowers suggests the Assistant Secretaries for Policy in the Departments – that would be even more significant.

So keep watching, but – as always – keep being loud. The left in this country at all times, in all contexts, and with all Presidents has (hopefully) learned a long time ago that it has to continually be a very squeaky wheel to have any hopes whatsoever of getting any grease.

So, as Zappa said, let’s all try and keep it greasy.