Senator Dick McCormack (D-Windsor) took a few moments today to speak candidly about the new legislature and the prospects for environmental and economic policy progress in the upcoming session.

Is this a GMD-kinda legislator or what?

Received a fascinating email from the Vermont Freedom to Marry group, announcing today’s protest in Burlington as part of a national day of action condemning the passage of California’s anti-gay Proposition 8:

We’ve heard from several people around the state who want to take part in the Join the Impact national day of protests about Proposition 8. In truth, we’ve been wringing hands about this. Given where we are in the marriage movement in Vermont, protests aren’t exactly going to advance our efforts, but people are calling on Vermont to Reclaim its Leadership Role — It’s time!

We’re shifting gears, and we’re asking you to join us this Saturday to acknowledge the painful and discriminatory vote in California while urging Vermont to Reclaim its Leadership Role by passing marriage equality in 2009!

Saturday 11/15

City Hall

Burlington

1:30pm

We’ll see you there!

Hm. Sounds like they’ve been dragged into this solidarity action. “Hand wringing” is an interesting phrase, but most interesting is the statement “given where we are…protests aren’t exactly going to advance our efforts.” It’s tossed out there like a given, with a “Duh” sort of tone.

Now I am one who believes that street protests are not nearly as effective as they once were. In fact, I think there are many occasions – likely even most – where they are no longer effective at all. But I think the more local the level, the more meaning they probably have – and in a small state like Vermont, it becomes a tougher question.

But the Freedom to Marry folks seem to approach it as a closed one. Of course protests would be a bad idea. Since the issue has moved out of the courts (civil unions) and into a rough election in 2000, same-sex marriage advocates seem to be going to extraordinary lengths not to offend, and that has meant keeping the movement from ever going truly grassroots in this state. It’s been approached far more academically, and in a highly controlled and deliberate manner. The goal seems not to offend, and to try and creep towards majority acceptance. To avoid confrontation.

The question, of course, is how long that strategy can – and should – be maintained? Let’s face it, it’ll take a hundred years to creep into consensus on this, so eventually (I assume) the goal will be to make change in the legislature, and the legislative process is inherently adversarial (that’s democracy for ya).

What do you think? Is it a given that public action would hurt this effort in Vermont?

Nice! I take the day off, and there’s something important to post. Here’s Senator Leahy on VPR today, regarding Lieberman: “I’m one who does not feel that someone should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he (Lieberman) did.” He goes on to condemn the “attacks” on Obama as “way beyond the pale,” labelling them as “horrible.”

Click on the embed link below to hear the question and its complete response. It’s about 2 minutes. You can find the complete podcast at VPR.

Lots of updates on the Speaker’s race. Shay has the goods, including the one bit of gossip I had in my pocket, but couldn’t be first up with yesterday cuz it was during work hours. Sigh… the hobbyists’ lament. Guess we’ll all know how it goes on the 6th when the Dems caucus.

Speaking of December 6th – that’s the now-official date for the progressive althing (big honkin’ meeting) I suggested in a the post earlier this week. Why the change? I’d originally contemplated tying it to the same day/locale of the Democratic State Committee meeting, but that meeting is going to have so many components, I’d be asking some people to stay for, essentially, a 4th meeting. And that’s not the way to squeeze out fresh ideas from human brains. So based on advice, I’m gonna risk a loss of momentum and bump it to the first weekend in December: Saturday, December 6th.

A note: this is a Dem focused conversation I’d like to have. Hence the original idea of timing it after a Dem State Committee meeting. New media is becoming a force, and I believe it – we – could have a profound effect if we engage in a full and deliberate way from the get go. I’d like to create open (and off the record for all) discussions about problems with the Party and the Left’s structure in the state, concerns about the players (we cant handle another candidate vacuum like this last time), and what this means for dealing with the Dem-Prog issue. Since the Progs are so much more of a linear hierarchical organization that the sprawling thing that is the Dems, I think conversations like this have to happen (both with self-identified Dems, as well as those who may not ID as Dems but are “stakeholders”) before meaningful discussions about working together can happen. Again, email me if you’re interested. The plan now is Saturday December 6th in Montpelier – tentatively 11 AM at the Kellogg Hubbard Library, but we may push that time back a bit to accommodate the caucus. Will have it firmed up within the day. Dem, non-Dem who has a stake in the Dems being an effective progressive force… definitely not the place for “anti-Dems” though. Let’s brainstorm!

UPDATE! PLEASE NOTE: Only part of this althing is going to be a “Dems/Progs discussion”… the D-P thing is only one component of a “how can we do better” conversation, and I think it’s needlessly limiting to narrowcast that “how can we do better” discussion right from the start. There are a lot of things we need to talk about doing better from our unique position as modern-day “plugged in” activists (again, as both self-IDed Dems and Indy-types with an investment in the Dems being functional and progressive…. call them “Dem stakeholders”) that may have nothing to do with what the Progs do, and in fact may be necessary to ultimately facilitate inter-party dialogue.

Call it “I know you are but what am I” politics. Call it also a parable for those of us outside of Burlington who are talking about Dem/Prog fusion or cooperation to have a sense of just how herculean a task we’re taking on.

Question: Why are we still talking about this race?

From the UVM Cynic on Tuesday:

Ram cited quotes from Zuckerman saying he had heard Ram only worked one or two days a week at her job at a preschool program in the summer.

Ram also mentioned a statement from Pearson saying that she had not put forth any ideas about student leadership when they met for coffee a year earlier.

“I think those are both lies and false allegations directed at my campaign, and I stand by that,” Ram said.

And:

Ram said she will “have to be very aware that there is some tension between the Democratic Party and the Progressive Party, and that will play out in our relationship.”

Zuckerman said that Ram’s campaign is responsible for that tension.

“This campaign that [Ram] waged certainly created a great deal of tension. Tension between Progressives and Burlington Democrats that I have not seen for eight or 10 years,” Zuckerman said.

Elections are adversarial in nature. And of late, part of that process at the “macro” level has been to be the first one to peg your opponent as a sleazebag. Unethical. You don’t see that so much at the local level because politics becomes more personal and less institutional. Nobody wants to call their neighbor a sleazebag, right? Because if you do that “personal” quality becomes the other kind of personal. And if you push those kind of boundaries in a local election, you’re playing a slash-and-burn strategy, tromping on community cohesion in order to win, and that’s a problem.

Welcome to the just passed(?) Chittenden 3-4 race between incumbent Progressives Chris Pearson, David Zuckerman and Democrats Kesha Ram and some other guy. The race went to Zuckerman and Ram, and I have never seen a race at any level where the charge of “liar” was thrown around for such frivolous reasons. Ram:

In response to Pearson’s comment, Ram said that she is “frustrated by all of these blatant lies and negative attacks.”

Zuckerman:

“If my opponent is telling people that I am going to be moving out of the district in two years, she is lying based on information that she heard directly from me, and that is a very, very serious situation,”

There’s no question that this became personal very quickly. Pearson and Zuckerman took the candidacy itself as a personal attack, and there’s no question they responded with ferocity.

But folks on every side in the district asked some obvious questions of their candidates that simply can’t be considered personal. Would Ram be running if Pearson and Zuckerman were Democrats? How to reconcile Zuckerman’s re-election bid against his intention to move out of the district in a few years? Both obvious questions that clearly took on a personal bent needlessly. (For the record, I believe the answer to those questions were probably “yes” and “whatever” in that order… in any event, there’s nothing wrong with asking questions – especially obvious ones staring you in the face).

But those questions stirred the pot. What followed were frivolous questions that still get cited but were really meaningless. Were Pearson and Zuckerman starting a whisper campaign about Ram’s level of employment? Why was Ram running with a “sponge” candidate? (That last one was asked by a lot of folks who should know better… you run a “sponge” who has no intention to win in a multi-member district to “soak up” the votes of people who will only vote party lines, so their votes have as much impact – picking two ballot names –  as those of others. Otherwise they essentially cast half-a-vote, and the resulting math can hurt a lone partisan candidate if the race is tight. It’s weird, but its common knowledge). Ram’s running mate turned out to be the worst sponge in history, though, when he publicly went all limp and said he didn’t want the position – doing nothing but reflecting badly on Ram. Meanwhile, the conspiracies abounded. Ram was a tool of the Leahy crowd/City Dems/Democracy for America to take down these dangerous Progs – apparently because the obvious truth (that Ram wanted to be a State Rep) was too boring (although it should be said that Ram’s choice of Ian Carleton for Campaign Treasurer was just asking for that kind of response).

So we had a scenario where everyone was already taking things too personally from the get go. That sort of thing only gets worse.

If you think all this is a bit much, better sit down.

Here’s how out of hand this has gotten. From Haik’s blog:

Blurt’s November 7 2008 blog round up links to stories by Max Bookman on Zuckerman, Pearson, and Ram.

Most of the comments are in the Ram piece. The ones from David Zuckerman and (Democratic City Councilor) Ed Adrian are interesting…

From Dave:

“…But I have to wonder…had Chris and I been Democrats would Kesha have run against us in a primary? Would people like Ed and Maurice worked so hard to defeat us? Do party labels matter that much? If they do, is that not a sad statement about our democracy?

From Ed:

“…Dave has also worked very hard at reaching out to the community and I applauded him for his efforts publicly on the FPF on October 30, 2008

where I stated the following:

“I have known Dave Zuckerman for over a decade when we shared a regular card game with a group of other folks. I am a founding member of his CSA, he came to our wedding and I consider him a friend. He has worked hard and I wish him the best of luck. Remember that each and every one of you in the Chittenden 3-4 legislative district can vote for two people for the Vermont House. I would encourage all of you to join me in voting for Kesha.” *** I should note that as of November 5, 2008 I became, not due to my own choice, a former member of Dave’s CSA….”

I hate when people assume we know what acronyms stand for. Ed mentions “FPF.” That’s Front Porch Forum, a neighborhood email update. He also mentions “Dave’s CSA.” CSA stands for Community Supported Agriculture. Some kind of hippy-zippy food buying group thing.

But anyway. Is Ed Adrian trying to imply that Zuckerman kicked him out of a food co-op because he helped Kesha Ram defeat Chris Pearson? Whoa Nelly. Ed Adrian is running for mayor, by the way.

Amazing, huh?

Zuckerman responded in the comments:

In Vermont we all have many business and personal relationships that cross our political philosophies. That is part of what makes our political scene more “civil” in most instances. However…there are also some unwritten codes that I have observed in my 12 years of being in politics. One of them is

that folks tend not to use their personal or business relationships for political gain at cross hairs to the business relationship or without chatting about it first. And this is where Ed crossed the line.

In his posting you will see that while it was couched as being friendly etc. it was also a political ploy (and it was part of their overall strategy to get people to vote for Kesha and me…which was an effective one…so kudo’s to them).

I have no problem with folks endorsing whoever they want to over and around friendships. Those are political decisions. But to use a friendship or business relationship as a tool for partisan politics was beyond ok.

I might add that only 2 weeks (give or take) earlier, I had had a discussion with Ed asking him that we separate our business relationship from politics at CSA pick-ups because it made some other members uncomfortable (without placing blame on him or me, we just get heated…and we enjoyed it…but other members did not). So it was on the heals of my asking him to separate our politics from our business relationship that his email was sent out. From that, the next time I was to see him (I thought) other than the heat of election day was at the next share pick up on wednesday. Sure the timing was not great…but it was the next scheduled pick up. I wanted to do it in person to try to explain all of this rather than through emails and blogs.

And this is the hard part, because the Front Porch Forum post that Zuckerman cited as justification for Adrian’s expulsion and is terming unethical was this one:

WHY I SUPPORT KESHA RAM

By Ed Adrian, City Councilor – Ward 1, Brookes Ave,

Tue, 28 October 2008

I have been somewhat surprised about the lack of political discussion on the FPF and hesitant to disturb that tranquility.  Thus in return for your brief attention and bearing with me through this posting, I offer two humorous website links at the bottom to get you through the last days of the presidential campaign.  

As we head into the final days of this campaign, I have been asking myself why I support particular candidates actively.  Yes I am a democrat and I like to support my fellow democrats.   However, while I may vote for a democrat, I do not always support him or her publicly.  Every once in a while through a

candidate comes along who is so extraordinary that I will go out of my way to provide as much support as possible for that candidate.  Kesha Ram is such a candidate.

I think that one of the best indicators of how well any individual will serve as a public representative is reflected by how well they run a campaign.  What kind of organization do they have, who supports them, how much do they want the job and how hard are they willing to work to get it.  Most importantly are they willing to get out there and touch base, in person, with as many people as possible. Kesha has assembled an impressive team in this race.  Her literature, management and messaging is all topnotch.  Most importantly though, Kesha has worked her heart and soul out in getting to meet the community over the last 5-6 months.  

I believe that the same energy that Kesha has put into her campaigning will readily translate into responsive action for her future constituents.  In my opinion, assuming your ideologies are roughly in sync with a candidate, constituent services and communication is the single most important attribute for a local official to provide to his or her community.

Kesha also draws on some unique life experiences.  As a woman and an ethnic minority she has seen the world through eyes not shared by any other current member of the Vermont House.  Now this is not to say that someone should vote for Kesha simply because she is a woman and/or a member of an ethnic minority.  

However, if a person as candidate is looked at for everything that they bring to the table these are two assets that certainly are worth considering when casting a vote.  In this instance much more defines Kesha then her gender or ethnicity.  

Kesha is a graduate of the UVM class of 2008.  In her last year at UVM she served as president of the student government association and managed a budget of 1.4 million dollars.  Kesha has spent the last year serving on the City’s Environment and Energy Coordinating Committee.  She was one of only 65 students in the nation awarded a Truman Scholarship.  She has been endorsed by Democracy for American and is the youngest person ever to have been endorsed by Emily’s List.  Her background provides her the unique ability to advocate for green jobs, affordable childcare, reproductive choice and the freedom to marry.  

I have known Dave Zuckerman for over a decade when we shared a regular card game with a group of other folks.  I am a founding member of his CSA, he came to our wedding and I consider him a friend.  He has worked hard and I wish him the best of luck.  Remember that each and every one of you in the Chittenden 3-4 legislative district can vote for two people for the Vermont House.  I would encourage all of you to join me in voting for Kesha.  

Now as promised here are the links –

http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/taf….  (Send it to yourself and your friends.  You will not be disappointed.  Guaranteed!)

http://www.funnyordie.com/vide… (For all you Ron Howard fans out there).

Best,

Ed

I don’t get it. The last part reads like an endorsement of Zuckerman. It praises the Progressive Rep and reminds folks that they get to vote for him too. In fact, it reads as a partisan Dem giving other Dems permission to split their vote between Ds and Ps.

I really don’t get it, and I can only assume that the reason I don’t get it is that those of us reading things like this are looking at the tip of an iceberg. What iceberg? Okay, there’s the old Prog vs. Dem you-poked-me-first-no-you-poked-me thing playing out in the comments at Blurt, BurlingtonPol and elsewhere – but in this case I think there’s another iceberg under there. A more personal one. One that we were never meant to see.

Never. Meant. To. See.

Clearly there’s so much history and animosity and warfare going on that people can’t think straight. The problem is that these people – all of them – Zuckerman, Adrian, Ram, Pearson – are in positions of authority. In other words, its their jobs to think straight, even if vengeance and personal vindication are so much more satisfying. They lose that luxury as part of the price of being public servants. It’s about sublimating the self in the interests of the community, and it comes with the turf. Reading all this is embarassing. And the bungle moments are even worse. Did nobody tell Ram’s running mate not to act like a dolt to the press? Did Zuckerman think he could kick somebody out of his CSA over politics and have it not go public?

I like Dave. I like Kesha. The little contact I’ve had with Chris and Ed have been extremely positive, and I like them too. To all I say: Move On.

If Mr. Pearson and Mr. Zuckerman are concerned more about the community they live in than their war, they’ll stop fighting the election. If Ram is more concerned about the community she lives in than the war, she’ll stop worrying about getting the last word. If Adrian wants to be mayor, he’ll get as far away from all this as he can. In other words; everybody needs to start acting like grownups unless they like this neighbor vs neighbor crap among those who purport to be allies on the issues – and it is supposed to be about the issues, yes?

And for those who wonder why I express concern about the political dynamics of Burlington creeping out into the rest of the state, I offer you Exhibit A.

I’m looking at the conversations both here and across the blogosphere since the election, and what’s looking back is, I think, worth a comment.

Nationally, I was concerned. Concerned that the ascent of Barack Obama would prove too rapturous an experience for enough people on the left that continuing to do what we do – challenge, question and push the envelope – would not be tolerated.

But I needn’t have worried. As reports emerge that Obama may be considering one of the Clinton-era architects of the deregulation bubble for Treasury, or that he may not intend to roll back some Bush-era civil liberties abuses, bloggers are not resting on their laurels. And sure, some die-hards are questioning the questioning, or calling for restraint – but they aren’t drowning out the due diligence that has charcterized the very essence of the liberal blogosphere with shrill cries of “concern troll” or worse. They are simply engaging in the debate like everyone else – and it’s always the right time for debate.

And this holds true for local issues as well. In a year where there are especially hard feelings between Democrats and Progressives after a challenging election, here at this site there are constructive conversations going on about how to avoid some of this internal competition dynamic on the left in the future.

That conversation has taken two directions. On the one hand is the idea of fusion being championed by posters such as Bill McKibben. Merging the Democratic and Progressive Parties would likely have to be enforced from the grassroots, as Party leaders would be resistant. On the other hand, there is the workaround notion of enabling (or forcing) a primary among the left candidates, either through IRV or some form of preference voting, a traditional runoff election, or changing the law to allow the same candidate to run in multiple Party Primary Elections.

It’s good stuff, but it needs to be more than academic. To that end, I’ve been talking to some of the folks in the greater Vermont netroots about getting together in “real life” and discussing our options to the goal of creating a plan of action. Not yet another “scrap-the-Dems” yakfest, obviously, as many of us here are Democratic Party activists (and that’s not about to change), but an addressing the cycle of ragnarok – not simply the P vs. D thing, but the tired pattern of destruction and renewal within the Democratic Party in Vermont that always leads to only marginal functionality and mixed electoral results. A positive, forward-looking, progressive media activists summit to look at the lay of the land outside of the context of the Democratic usual suspects is probably overdue and I, for one, am excited at the prospect.

We’re looking at the same day as the Dem State Committee meeting (Saturday the 22nd), probably after the meeting. Obviously, this won’t hold interest for those who reject the Democratic Party, but if you are interested, leave a comment or drop me a line (my email is on my profile). I’ll get out some emails tonight, so stay tuned. It’s time to shake things up a bit, methinks.

The Secretary of State has posted the “official” (for now) election results. If you’d rather not download an Excel spreadsheet, the results have been converted to HTML and are posted below the fold. (BIG NOTE: Senator Don Collins is listed as defeating Republican Randy Brock for Senate, despite reports to the contrary. HUGE news if correct, as it knocks most of what passes as heft off the Republican bench of potential statewide candidates)

UPDATE: The Secretary of State’s office is now reporting that some of these numbers are incorrect – specifically the Senate numbers. The data has been pulled from the website. Don’t get your hopes up about a Collins victory after all.