"Whether Democrats or Republicans are in power--and we have a lot of historical experience that tells us this--corporate power will dominate the country, the military-industrial establishment will be in power, the war against the poor will continue, and we will need a movement, a great national movement, to oppose that."

— Howard Zinn

State explores buying local food

Submitted by Vermont Progres... on Thu, 2007-11-08 01:00
Tags:

November 8, 2007, the Burlington Free Press, by Nancy Remsen

Turn prison yards into vegetable gardens and put more Vermont food on the menu in the Statehouse cafeteria. Those are some of the strategies listed in a report that examined how to boost state government's use of locally raised food.

Lawmakers had directed the Agency of Agriculture and the Department of Buildings and General Services to review food-buying practices and figure out how the state could follow its own "buy local" slogan.

"The Legislature has talked about this for years," said Enid Wonnacott, executive director of Northeast Organic Farmers Association. "Nobody doesn't want this. It's just making it work and the economics of making it work."

The report rejects mandating a local food-buying quota for state government, saying such a preference system would put Vermont farmers and vendors at a disadvantage when marketing their products in other states. New York, for example, places reciprocal penalties on businesses from states with local preference policies, the report says.

The report says no law or rule changes are needed to promote more government buying of local products. It also doesn't recommend significant funding.

State officials briefed the House Agriculture Committee on the report Tuesday. Committee Chairman David Zuckerman, P-Burlington, said it was too soon for the panel to weigh in on the proposed strategies.

"Nobody is prepared to say that is enough, but there is a lot of interest in getting local food into state institutions," Zuckerman said. He applauded the recent hiring of a woman who has been active in promoting local food purchasing among consumers and at the University of Vermont. "Now it is a question of whether we can give her the resources, whether it is money or political push."

[Full Story]

  • ""

Stop the Sale Update

Submitted by Morgan Daybell on Wed, 2007-11-07 14:59
Tags:
The Public Service Department conducted its last hearing on the proposed sale of Verizon's land lines to Fairpoint last week. On October 30th, members of the coalition opposed to the sale, including the CWA and IBEW, delivered 5,000 postcards to NH Governor Lynch (through a representative) from NHers opposed to the sale. On November 12, the coalition will hold a similar event at the Vermont Statehouse, delivering a wheelbarrow-full of postcards to Lt. Gov Dubie, who will be there in place of Gov. Douglas.
Will thousands of postcards from Vermonters have more of an effect that hundreds of Vermonters showing up at the Statehouse to push for impeachment? Would Douglas have received the postcards in person if the wheelbarrow was wrapped in a red ribbon?
The Department laid out 56 conditions that should be met before the Public Service Board approves the sale.  A decision from the PSB is expected in December.  More information on the Stop the Sale coalition can be found on their web site.  The event/press conference takes place next Monday at 1pm on the Statehouse steps.

The positive effect of alternative parties and candidates

Submitted by Martha Abbott on Tue, 2007-11-06 11:13
Tags:
Many of us are concerned about the trend toward negative campaigning: Opposition research, filming the opponent while having a campaign operative ask harassing questions and, of course, the negative advertising.   While it may be the job of the opposition candidate to explain where they disagree and why, to discuss past accomplishments or lack of them or job performance, I think most of us would agree that a majority of the campaign air time should be spent talking about the issues, the vision and ideas offered on the positive side. There are three things we can all do to prevent negative campaigning: 1) Make it clear when interacting with candidates, calling talk shows or writing letters to the editor that you don’t vote for candidates who do it. 2) Support alternative candidates and parties, whether or not you intend to vote for them.  When there are 2 candidates running for office, one of them is very likely to get more than 50% of the vote.  Candidate “A” simply needs to convince the voters that she is the best candidate because of what she stands for.  Or Candidate B needs to convince the voters that Candidate A is a bad choice either for legitimate reasons or by casting Candidate A in a bad light, implying all kinds of terrible things about her. However, when there are 3 candidates running, it is highly possible that no candidate will get more than 50%.  Depending on which office the election is for, there is likely to be a runoff (in the Legislature) or at the polls.  If a candidate is running a negative campaign, it may backfire in step two of the process.  Both of the remaining candidates are going to need to pull away some supporters from one or both of the other candidates in order to win.   If Candidate C has run a negative campaign, she is less likely to pick up the former supporters of A and B than if she ran a positive campaign.  Having 3 or more candidates provides some built-in incentives for positive campaigning.   3) A 50%+ threshold combined with an Instant Runoff Voting system provides even more disincentives to candidates to “go negative”.  Now, the runoff election isn’t several weeks away; it is a built in part of the intitial campaign.  There is no extra time to try and win back some of the supporters of the candidate who came in third and is out of the race.  There is no new message, no new and different spin.  The candidates all have to think about the effect their negative campaign tactics could have on their own ability to attract the second votes of the supporters of their opponents during the campaign itself.  That was very evident in the last election for Mayor of Burlington, where  an Instant Runoff Voting system was used for the first time.  The candidates, their comments in forums, ads and official statements were very positive. Why?  Because they were all fully aware of needing to get the second votes of the one who came in third.  If you “go negative” against a candidate, his or her supporters won’t pick you as their second choice….they are much more likely to pick the candidate who did not attack their first choice candidate.

What happened to the conservatives?

Submitted by Chris Pearson on Mon, 2007-11-05 12:03
Tags:
For all the frustration we place at the feet of the Democrats (not ending the war, not turning the corner on health care, not pursing aggressive solutions to the climate crisis, etc.) lately I've started to wonder about Republicans. What happened to the conservative ethic? Wasn't it one of their central themes? Where are they when it comes to conserving our natural environment? Seems they'd rather sell it to the highest bidder. Perhaps any conservative instinct is overshadowed by a rigorous belief in the market. John McClaughry of the Ethan Allen Institute argued recently in a letter to the Free Press that he didn't believe all the hype about global warming being the result of human activity. Who cares? Put aside the connection if you don't accept it. At the end of the day, doesn't the conservative in you believe we should use less energy? Isn't it conservative to save people money on their energy bills? We can debate the root cause of our problem or we can simply use less energy and save money. Really, why are we arguing? Health care is similar in that the solution we populists demand ought to appeal to conservative values. Shifting to a universal, tax-funded health care system that covers everyone is the only proven way to reduce spending on health care. Want to keep spending twice what other countries spend per person? Well then keep up the status quo. And the war. I could fill pages yelling about the war. I'll spare you, but I do have to ask - how does a real conservative feel about having already spent half a trillion dollars in Iraq - that's $500,000,000,000.00 in case the visual helps. How in the world does that jibe with conservative principles? Is it justified because of our need for oil? If so, please see paragraph #2 - isn't it more conservative just to use less oil and save more money in the first place? Heading into an election year Progressives have a terrific opportunity in Vermont. We can take advantage of the disappointment many feel at the lackluster performance from Democrats in Montpelier and Washington. And, perhaps more important, we should be mindful of the deep betrayal Bush and Co. have handed Republicans. By framing issues through the conservative lens populists can turn the political spectrum on it's head. Progressives have always believed in spending money cautiously and effectively. We are a frugal group. I think it's a natural for us to reach frustrated Republicans and Democrats alike. Don't forget - even in Vermont where we do better than average, a lot of people don't bother to vote. I'm willing to bet an effective campaign could increase turnout and launch the beginning of a new era in political coalitions. Instead of ignoring tough questions and downplaying looming problems we have to get down to work - face to face with all sorts of opinions and hash out an agreement. Waiting much longer isn't a good option and I'm betting conservatives out there agree.

Poll Suggests Douglas Vulnerable

Submitted by Vermont Progres... on Mon, 2007-11-05 01:00
Tags:

Gov. Jim DouglasAnthony Pollina
The Douglas campaign can't have enjoyed last week's WCAX poll that shows just 42% of Vermonters want him re-elected. Another 25% of the state haven't made up their mind yet. After 5 years in office Vermonters are looking for accomplishments.

Looking at the Douglas website is revealing. Just for fun, click on the scissors and you'll jump to his "issues" page. No wonder we're starved for leadership.
 scissors
Meanwhile, speculation grows about a looming Pollina decision. . .

[WCAX Poll Results]
[Recent Letters to the Editor]
[Sunday's Free Press Article]

  • ""

2008 election paints different picture from 2006

Submitted by Vermont Progres... on Sun, 2007-11-04 00:00
Tags:

November 4, 2007, the Burlington Free Press, by Terri Hallenbeck

With a year to go before the 2006 election, Peter Welch had a campaign office and staff and a pretty good idea who his opponent in the race for the U.S. House of Representatives was going to be. So did U.S. Senate candidates Bernie Sanders and Rich Tarrant. Vermonters knew the race for governor would be between Jim Douglas and Scudder Parker.

With a year to go before the 2008 elections, voters look out at a very different picture.

Welch is the only member of the congressional delegation whose seat will be on the ballot. He comes to the 2008 race no longer as a newcomer, but as an incumbent, and he has no known opponent.

Neither does Douglas, though that could change soon. In the next couple of weeks, a Democratic candidate might declare candidacy. Parties that had cited November as a benchmark for when they hoped to have top candidates in place for the 2008 election now suggest there is no hurry, however.

If it seems the 2008 campaign season lacks the intensity that two open congressional seats brought in 2006, the national race for president could pick up the slack. Presidential elections always draw more voters to the polls.

In the end, though, politics is local. Parties will focus a significant part of their efforts on local legislative races, with Democrats eager to hold onto or shore up their majority in Montpelier and Republicans longing to gain back seats lost in 2006.

Who's in, who's looking in

Although the campaign signs are tucked away, Welch, a Democrat, plans to seek a second term in the U.S. House. Who he will face is a mystery, but Welch said he takes nothing for granted: "I expect to have vigorous opposition," he said.

Republican Party Chairman Rob Roper said last week that one person is considering challenging Welch, although he doesn't know when that individual will make a decision.

Douglas, a Republican, has made it clear he will seek a fourth term as governor. Democrats have a small pool of people who are thinking about challenging him, though many would-be candidates are not interested in taking on a three-term incumbent who has won the last two races convincingly.

Among those considering a run are Senate Majority Leader John Campbell from Windsor County. Campbell said last week he likely will make an announcement in the next two weeks.

Peter Galbraith of Townshend, a former diplomat who served as ambassador to Croatia, sounds like a less-likely candidate. He said he told Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin he'd think about running. "I had a conversation over lunch about it," he said. "I don't have anything to announce."

Former state Sen. Matt Dunne, also of Windsor County, said he expects to make a decision this month about whether he will run for governor or lieutenant governor or skip the 2008 election.

Progressive Anthony Pollina of Middlesex said he's in no rush, but added, "As time goes on, I find myself expecting more and more to be a candidate next year."

Democrats and Progressives are talking about working together to endorse one candidate to take on Douglas, though Democratic Party Chairman Ian Carleton said his party is committed to having a Democratic candidate.

[Full Story]

  • ""

Follow Buffet's Lead

Submitted by Chris Pearson on Fri, 2007-11-02 09:45
Tags:
Warren Buffet that is, not Jimmy Buffett, although it is Friday so perhaps a margarita is in order. I'll have mine on the rocks with salt. Warren Buffet, one of the richest people in the world, has launched a campaign that is 100% in synch with what Vermont Progressives have been saying since the beginning: our tax system is unfair. As the billionaire investor put it, "The taxation system is tilted toward the rich." Wow! Warren BuffetTo demonstrate his point Mr. Buffet surveyed his employees. Of the 18 working directly under him 15 responded. On average these employees paid federal payroll and income taxes totally 32.9% of their income. Nearly a third. Warren, on the other hand, paid just 17.7%. He had just under half the liability his middle-class workers endured. And don't go thinking that he simply pays people to shift money around to hide income and take advantage of all those off-shore tricks many rich folks keep up their sleeve. Not so says Warren. He doesn't use any shelters or even plan for taxes - he just follows the rules laid out by Congress. Of course, paying 17.7% after earning millions or billions generates a lot of money for the US Treasury. But who cares? The point is, we have a system that looks at capital gains differently from wages. We reward those at the top of the economic ladder when they can easily afford a greater share of our public burden. Gone are the days when investors are taxed at 40% for capital gains. Gone are the days when we had an aggressively progressive income tax structure so those at the top helped balance budgets. I'm not suggesting this is a simple fix. Congress is a mess. Depending on who you ask we throw half our tax dollars to defense spending. We have the most expensive higher educational system in the world. We have the most expensive and least effective health care systems in the world. We need to invest in renewable energy and alternatives to the combustion engine. We need to rebuild our rail infrastructure and we need to re-invigorate small-scale agriculture. We have a lot on our horizon that will demand a shift in priorities. And that's going to take money. Let's hope Warren's radical plans catch on, otherwise you, me and all our friends will be have to pony up. You can watch the MSNBC video here.

Shedding the polar bear fur

Submitted by Robin Chesnut-T... on Thu, 2007-11-01 10:05
Tags:
Several recent postings in this space, and the responses to them, have eloquently denounced the current debacle in Iraq and have pinpointed the twin causes of "influence" in the Middle East and control of middle eastern oil. Others have talked about the Democratic presidential contenders' unwillingness to support full withdrawal from Iraq. We can protest all of the above on moral, humanitarian, political, and economic grounds, but we we won't get anywhere. The US lives on oil, the economy drinks it, everyone drives it, and the powers that be live in fear of losing access to it. They fear that losing access to cheap oil will destroy the US economy and way of life. Well I have news for them. We will lose access to cheap oil, in fact we already have. An occupation of Iraq projected to cost $1.2 TRILLION over the next decade is not cheap oil. The most recent reports indicate that Peak Oil, the point at which the world’s consumption of oil exceeds its ability to produce oil, is not coming in 2015 or 2010 as predicted. It already happened in 2006. There is no more cheap oil. Our government’s dedication to the traditional energy sources of oil and coal are part and parcel of  its refusal to take any meaningful action to slow, stop, or reverse global climate change. Increadibly there are still those who refuse to see the evidence before them. One of them is Vermont’s own John McClaughry. He wrote in a recent Burlington free Press opinion, of his recent on stage “discussion”  of climate change with Bill McKibben :
 He (McKibben) now bizarrely maintains that scientists are unanimous that  human activities are inexorably driving Planet Earth into Al Gore's Heat Death...  With no embarrassment whatever, McKibben has cast his lot with the U.N. empire builders, research grant seekers, report riggers, data falsifiers, PR flacks masquerading as scientists, bogus computer projections, disaster book and film peddlers, enviro groups sucking up direct mail contributions, partisans out to shed George W. Bush's blood, and assorted goofies wandering about in polar bear suits.
With no embarrassment whatever Mr. McClaughry apparently expects us to mistake this bizarre name calling for a debate. I didn’t realize that the Nobel prize winning coalition of 3000 climatologists are just empire builders. My bad. All of these crises; the occupation of Iraq, addiction to oil, and global climate change share a common solution. We need a huge, federally funded effort, on the same scale, if not larger,  as the 1960s “space race”. The goal is not space but energy independence: 1) Conservation and efficiency - the cheapest energy is the energy not used. 2) Increased research and production of nonpolluting renewables: wind, solar, hydro, tidal flow, geothermal. 3) Increased research and production of other renewable energy sources:  biomass, ethanols, etc. (with a focus on efficiencies, Please, no corn ethanol). 4) Increased research and production of energy storage and delivery systems: hydrogen (which is not an energy source but an energy delivery system), better batteries, etc. 5) Increased research into nuclear fusion. And into storage, reduction, and elimination of toxic waste from nuclear fission plants. When we wean ourselves from oil we make the occupation of Iraq and other future foreign adventures unnecessary. We stop depleting our national treasury and national resources. We leave a more livable planet for our children. And I can pack away my polar bear suit.

2007 Convention

Submitted by Vermont Progres... on Thu, 2007-11-01 00:00
Tags:

Join us this Saturday at Vermont Law School's Chase Center for your 2007 Progressive State Convention.

Don’t be demoralized by politics as usual. Be proud of what we have done here in Vermont in creating a role model for other states to follow. Remember that we are 25 years ahead of them in terms of growing a party of the people that is not corporate owned.

As we watch the same old frustrating battle in Washington...as we hear more and more people becoming disillusioned about the inability of traditional parties and traditional politicians to have the guts to do what the voters actually sent them to DC to do: end the war in Iraq, we know that in Vermont we have a viable alternative to the two "brand name" parties. It is not easy but we are building for the future.

It's going to be a very exciting year ahead.

2007 State Convention
Saturday, November 10th, 10:00 am
Chase Center, Vermont Law School, South Royalton

Call 229-0800 if you need child care

Directions to VLS here.  A campus map is here.

  • ""

Letter to the editor

Submitted by Vermont Progres... on Thu, 2007-11-01 00:00
Tags:

November 1, 2007, the Burlington Free Press, by Vermonters


Dems, Progs unite behind Pollina
published in the Burlington Free Press, October 18

As a former Democratic state senator, I think it's only common sense for Democrats and Progressives to unite around a common candidate for the governorship in 2008 ("Progressives, Democrats together?" Oct. 14). In my view, Vermont needs a strong, vibrant model of collaboration between these two political parties rather than the tired pattern of competition. The Internet provides numerous examples of the creativity spawned by collaboration as opposed to the energy wasted by a competitive mentality.

If both Democrats and Progressives agree that the state's present leadership is merely a caretaker government given to criticizing emerging ideas before they are even fully formed or debated, then one solution is to unite behind the highly competent, widely known Anthony Pollina, who can build a consensus for some practical, yet bold new directions. Without true collaboration between Democrats and Progressives, the governor's race in 2008 will be the same old, same old.

SALLY Y. CONRAD
Burlington

Pollina is the obvious candidate for governor
published in the Rutland Herald, October 14

Democrats and Progressives tend to agree about many things, one above all, that Vermont would be better off if our current governor were replaced at the next election by one of their own.

There is good reason for this. Gov. James Douglas has been an obstacle to needed legislation on health care, the environment and campaign finance reform. The question is who will replace him? This is an idle question so long as Democrats and Progressives are each committed to running their own candidate. Rather, both parties must unite behind a single candidate.

Anthony Pollina is the only public figure to come forward, albeit tentatively. He is a very plausible candidate. He has a long career in public service; he represents the interests of a broad spectrum of Vermonters: young and old, families with middle and lower incomes, local entrepreneurs, family farmers. He cares about our state: its people, the land, its special way of life. Were he governor, much of the prized legislation that did not make it in this and the last biennium would be law.

I see no one on the horizon among Democrats who has as much promise. It's time for Democrats to consider supporting Pollina. I am ready to do so, but only if he listens to the concerns of thoughtful persons in both parties and responds constructively in a way that unites, and only if he runs to win. I'm confident he will do these things.

Victor Nuovo
Middlebury

Next year chance for change in Vt.
published in the Burlington Free Press, November 1

In November 2008, we will have the opportunity to vote for changes in leadership in Montpelier, so it's not too soon to think about candidates for the top offices. In my voting life I've supported Republicans, Democrats, Progressives and independents.

Vermont's current executive arm appears to be overly cautious, often negative and too satisfied with the status quo. For the gubernatorial election, I know of no Democrat who has the qualities needed to make a successful run against the incumbent governor.

While I do not agree with Progressive Anthony Pollina on all issues, he has the qualities that make him a most viable candidate. He has vision, energy, charisma, name recognition and the political skills to run a strong campaign.

For lieutenant governor, an outstanding candidate is Democrat Matt Dunne who has youth, experience, a positive vision of the future, and the energy and ambition to work hard toward his goals.

While Democrats and Progressives may disagree on a number of issues, to achieve success next year they must back the same candidates for governor and lieutenant governor. In the interest of Vermont's future and for the next generation, I hope the leadership of both parties will put aside their partisanship and unite behind a Pollina/Dunne ticket.

DICK WALTERS
Shelburne

 

  • ""

Grasping at Straws or Organizing for Power?

Submitted by Traven Leyshon on Wed, 2007-10-31 09:30
Tags:
In November 2006 the U.S. electorate repudiated the Bush regime's war in Iraq and put the Democrats in control of Congress, with a clear mandate to bring this disastrous adventure to an end. A year later it is clear that Congress under the Democratic leadership could – but won't – end the war. It's even becoming apparent that the leading Democratic presidential candidates – for all their Bush-bashing rhetoric – don't intend to do so after the 2008 election. Because the Democratic Party depends on the antiwar vote, they have to look like they're trying to force Bush to begin withdrawing from Iraq. But are they serious? Initially, the Democratic leadership hid behind the pretext that their thin majority could not muster the votes to defeat a Republican filibuster of "timetable for withdrawal" legislation. In fact, Congress could cut off money for the war with a simple majority, simply by not passing Bush's semi-annual request for hundreds of billions in off-budget "supplemental" funds. If Congress wants to find a "dysfunctional government and legislature" that can't meet basic benchmarks, or the most immediate needs of the people, all they need to do is look in the mirror.

Health Care, Social Security, Public Education ... Get Real!

The war and occupation of Iraq has only brought chaos to Iraq. And to the U.S. as well, with New Orleans drowned, bridges falling down, 47 million people without health care, jobs lost and unions crumbling. Under the latest spending request, the cost of the war to Vermont taxpayers would rise to $888 million, and to $617 billion for the nation, through fiscal Year 2008!

Kill one person and it's called murder. Kill tens of thousands and it's called foreign policy.

Submitted by Ross Laffan on Tue, 2007-10-30 07:02
Tags:
Collateral damage. Yes, you know the term. The military uses it to describe civilians killed . According to an AP report about 5,200 civilians have died this year becaue of insurgency-related violence in Afghanistan. About 700 of those have been killed this year. Half were caused by U.S. and NATO forces. These deaths are often cause by airstrikes and Afghan President Karzai has pleaded with Western forces to prevent such deaths. Strangely, spokesmen for the the U.S. military and for NATO have said they're aware of no formal request that the use of airpower be curtailed. Hopefully, they caught 60 Minutes this week where Karzai, when asked if he wants the use of airstrikes curtailed replied: "Absolutely. Oh, yes, in clear words and I want to repeat that, (there are) alternatives to the use of air force." Ten thousand people rallied and marched in Boston on the weekend led by 15 members of Iraq Veterans Against the War followed by hundreds of labor union rank and file, clergy, students, children, mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers. Demonstrations in numbers even larger took place in cities across the country. The marchers represent nearly 70 percent of Americans who want the troops withdrawn or reduced. Presidential candidates who call for withdrawl are laughed off as kooks or naive and unelectable. Our Democratic Congress refuses to represent the majority of Americans in regard to ending the war.
Iraq Vets Against the War
What can we do to stop the violence and destruction and the collateral damage, the killing of innocent men, women and children?

2008 Governor's Race Starts To Shape Up

Submitted by Vermont Progres... on Tue, 2007-10-30 00:00
Tags:

October 30, 2007, WCAX, by Kate Duffy

Jim Douglas was re-elected to his third term as governor less than a year ago. But with a two-year cycle, political parties are already thinking about whether he'll have a fourth term.

A poll conducted for Channel 3 News asked 400 likely voters what they would do if the 2008 election were held today.

poll graphic42 percent said they'd vote to re-elect Jim Douglas.

33 percent said they'd replace him.

25 percent said they were not sure.

"I think it's going to be very hard for anybody to beat him," said Rob Roper, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party. "He's well-liked, and he's doing an excellent job."

Roper said the numbers show Douglas is in a strong position for 2008.

Poll graph"The most obvious difference is the fact the Democrats haven't been able to field a candidate against Gov. Douglas," he said. "So far, nobody's stepped up to express any interest in doing it. That's another indication of the governor's strength in '08."

Leaders of the state's Democratic and Progressive parties saw these results much differently.

"I think it's significant that the re-election numbers are below 50% for (Douglas), and this is before there's even an announced candidate in the race," said Morgan Daybell, executive director of the state's Progressive Party.

"My first reaction is, this is bad news for Jim Douglas," Democratic Party Chair Ian Carleton said. "This indicates serious slippage since the November '06 election. I would not be taking any comfort from these numbers if I were Jim Douglas."

The poll also asked people who they'd like to see run against Douglas.

Of the eight choices, Democrat Matt Dunne and Progressive Anthony Pollina were the only ones with more than 10 percent -- Dunne with 22 percent, Pollina with 12 percent.

Each of the other Democrats has said he or she is not interested in running for governor.

More than a third of likely voters -- 37 percent -- said they were not sure.

"I would assume that most of those voters who are not sure are maybe considering whether they want to support Jim Douglas again," Daybell said, "and I think there's a lot of opportunity for Anthony to make inroads with those folks."

"There are compelling reasons for Vermonters to vote Jim Douglas out of office," Carleton said. "And Matt Dunne, according to this poll, is very well positioned to get that message to the people."

Since this poll was conducted two weeks ago, two more Democrats have expressed an interest in running for governor. Peter Galbraith and John Campbell were not included in the poll numbers. Carleton praise both of them as viable candidates.

Both Matt Dunne and Anthony Pollina have said families and other interests will factor into their decision to run. And with a year left, party leaders say there's no rush to join the race.

"The most important thing with the poll numbers is that the governor's race is open," Daybell said. "There's a lot of talk of Gov. Douglas being unbeatable, but I think the numbers here really point to the fact that he is vulnerable."

Kate Duffy - WCAX News

[Source]

  • ""

Four more years?

Submitted by Morgan Daybell on Mon, 2007-10-29 09:58
Tags:
Next week, the Snelling Center is hosting a second debate on the merits of electing politicians to two year terms. The debate will be between former Governor Madeliene Kunin, and UVM Professor Frank Bryan.  This year, Party Chair Martha Abbott, along with the chairs of the republican and democratic parties, will sit on a response panel. There is a proposed constitutional amendment in the VT Senate that would move to four-year terms for all statewide offices.  A second proposed amendment there would include all legislators. I blogged on this in the spring, arguing basically that we do not need to make elections easier for incumbents, but rather we need to keep our politicians responsive to the voters. The Snelling Center is taking a poll on four year terms.  You can find the poll here, and the navigate their site for more information. The debate will take place in Montpelier at the Capitol Plaza Hotel on November 6th at 7:00 PM. My opinions are laid out in the earlier blog.  What do folks think about this idea?

Echo chamber?

Submitted by Vermont Progres... on Sun, 2007-10-28 00:00
Tags:

October 28, 2007, the Rutland Herald, by The Editorial Board

Gov. James Douglas has completed what he called his Set the Agenda Tour, during which he traveled the state to listen to Vermonters and give them a chance to help him set the agenda for the coming legislative session.

Getting out and listening to Vermonters is a good thing for a governor, but as the governor puts forward an agenda drawn from what he has heard on his listening tour, he leaves us with some questions.

One, to whom was he listening?

Two, does leadership consist merely of responding to what people tell him?

Three, was he listening for what he wanted to hear?

Anyone who takes a tour of Vermont's diners and other gathering places will inevitably hear a wide range of views on a whole range of issues. From Douglas' listening tour, he concluded that the most important concern of most Vermonters was their tax burden.

But what else did Douglas hear? He heard about the cost of health care and the lack of affordable housing. If he was actually touring Vermont, he must also have heard about a range of environmental concerns, including global warming.

Douglas acknowledges that global warming is an important issue, but he dismisses it by saying it is not the foremost concern of most Vermonters.

Douglas purposely narrowed the focus of his tour. He said he wanted to hear about the "day-to-day challenges confronting Vermont's families and small businesses." These are the nitty-gritty issues of education, health care and taxation, all of them important issues. Addressing them is essential. But does leadership stop at our "day-to-day challenges"?

Most Vermonters, he concluded, are not talking about global warming, but certainly, a good many of them are. Doesn't Douglas have a responsibility to look beyond the immediate horizon to the large issues that threaten our way of life but which may not be on the radar screen of most people?

Critics of the Democrats in the Legislature have said lawmakers wasted too much time last session on issues, such as global warming, that were beyond the scope of their responsibilities. Douglas has joined that chorus of criticism, and his Set the Agenda Tour has furnished him with ammunition to continue the criticism through the selective listening that gives a patina of democratic legitimacy to his political priorities.

By dwelling excessively on the burden of taxation, Douglas narrows the range of political debate while earning the favor of those who cannot see beyond their own personal financial exigencies. It is important that the state refrain from creating untenable burdens on the state's taxpayers, but dwelling on the burdens shifts the focus away from other challenges facing the state.

The crisis of climate change touches on all those issues of affordability that Douglas says he wants to address. An aggressive policy to address global warming would create jobs and would save money on energy for Vermont families and small businesses.

On health care Douglas' narrow focus on taxes has prevented him from exercising the leadership needed to marshal support for necessary changes. He says he regrets the fees imposed on businesses that do not offer health insurance. Instead of playing to anti-tax resentments, a governor exercising true leadership would try to show that to solve our health care crisis everyone must be involved, including those businesses.

A governor can go on tour and find support for almost anything. His Set the Agenda Tour was partly responsible statesmanship and partly gimmick. Douglas needs to hear what Vermonters think, but not just those Vermonters who agree with him. He needs to lead on issues that Vermonters are only now beginning to grapple with.

There are many priorities awaiting the next Legislature, including the need to create affordable housing without gutting Act 250, to address our crumbling transportation infrastructure, to continue efforts at health care reform, to promote job creation, to expand opportunities in higher education, and to show leadership in addressing the global crisis of climate change. Using the public's natural and inevitable aversion to taxation as a way to shut down debate on these important issues is a political ploy and does not represent true leadership.

[Source]

  • ""
Syndicate content

site © 2010 and paid for by the Vermont Progressive Party ~ login ~ terms of use