Ed Flanagan

Wait (0.00 / 0)

Other people on this forum may remember that while I may be in sync with much of Mr. Flanagan's politics, I was strongly against his candidacy for Lt. Gov.  This was because of things he did in the past as auditor and more importantly, the way he did them. In my opinion he sometimes acted against people in advance of knowing all the facts.

We have a terrible tendency in this country to pre-judge prior to knowing the facts.  President Obama, after saying that he doesn't know all the facts, called the actions of the police "stupid".  That was stupid.

Let's not be stupid here.  This is day one of this issue.  Many facts will come forward to either substantiate the allegations of immoral and possibly illegal actions or to exonerate Mr. Flanagan.

Let's not pre-judge.

PJ

---

by: Peter Joes @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 23:11:29 PM UTC

Not pre-judging is kinda' what he did (0.00 / 0)

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

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 23:15:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Traumatic Brain Injuries (4.00 / 1)

I was discussing this issue with a close associate who has worked in a health care setting for years.  This person observed that many patients suffering from brain trauma exhibit an almost reflexive tendency to reach for their genitals, be they farmer, factory worker or ... nun.  Maybe folks in the media and blogosphere should consult medical professionals knowledgeable with these injuries and confirm what my associate has observed.  Mr. Flanagan's alleged actions may be symptoms of on-going trauma, which is unrelated to a person's political views but may indeed affect one's suitability for public office.  That said, I look at many state and national politicians who have not suffered severe injuries to the brain as has Ed Flanagan, and I wonder what the reasons are for their bizarre, irrational and destructive behaviour.

---

by: Bruce Post @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 04:34:25 AM UTC

Fairness goes both ways (0.00 / 0)

odum -- I have to say that, in your understandable attempt to be fair to Ed Flanagan, you're being unfair to other people and possibly to the truth.

Let's take Mr. Archambeau. You don't actually accuse him of making stuff up for political reasons, but that's the clear implication. Even if he's not a diehard Flanagan supporter, do you really think he'd put himself in such an uncomfortable spotlight making false accusations just to cause trouble?  That is a huge step to take. And too often, the accuser gets the worst of it in these public exchanges.  

Elsewhere in your post, you imply that those who condemn Flanagan will act out of anti-gay or anti-disability bias. In fact, there are perfectly valid reasons to doubt his fitness for public office.

Finally, you draw a line where I would not. You posit the issue in terms of "conduct that demonstrates that he can no longer perform legislative service." In fact, there are many kinds of misconduct not directly relatable to official performance that, in my judgment, would make a person unfit for high office. If Totten's report is true, Flanagan is unfit.  

PJ is right, it's too soon to judge for sure. But in our effort to be fair, let's not go too far and try to sweep this under the rug.

I'm going to add one note here, something Flanagan added to his denial that I find unsettling.  Flanagan, according to the Burlington Free Press: "If I offended anyone, I'm very sorry." Flanagan, according to a Totten blog post: "I'm very sorry if I offended anybody in whatever I did when I was unclothed."

First of all, I hate when anyone resorts to the apology "if I offended anyone." Apologize if you've done something wrong; stand your ground if you haven't. Don't weasel it. Second, in the Totten quote, he seems to be saying that he doesn't know or can't remember what he did. If true, it reveals a disturbing lack of self-awareness and self-control.  

---

by: jvwalt @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 06:50:49 AM UTC

Unfortunately (0.00 / 0)

It's not uncommon for people with certain types of brain injuries to be unaware of their actions at times. Ed may not be able to stand his ground in his apology, because he may not actually have any memory of anything for which an apology would be needed.

I don't know enough about the reported incident or of Ed's brain injury to be able to make any pronouncements either way, but I do know a couple of brain injured people, and from that experience and lots of reading, I know that each brain injury presents its own challenges, sometimes large, sometimes small, and but always unpredictable.

I know one person who drove a car down a staircase in a public park in the middle of the afternoon nearly 20 years ago. To this day, he remains entirely unaware that it had happened. It's simply not in his memory. His mind was not functioning in a way at the time that would allow memory to form.

My own father, who had a couple of strokes, "loses" all sorts of events. There are simply things he can't process, such as, for example, any activity that occurs in his left peripheral vision. If it happens, he "sees" it, but his brain cannot store it, so it ceases to exist instantaneously.

Brain injury can be a cruel affliction, because it can affect so many aspects of your mind's functioning, changing your moods, your behavior, everything - and you may never know it.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 07:55:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Being fair (0.00 / 0)

PJ is right, it's too soon to judge for sure. But in our effort to be fair, let's not go too far and try to sweep this under the rug.

I don't see disagreement here. All three of you are saying "give him the benefit of the doubt," and rather than sweeping it under the rug, Odum has opened a discussion on the front page of his blog.

Finally, you draw a line where I would not. You posit the issue in terms of "conduct that demonstrates that he can no longer perform legislative service." In fact, there are many kinds of misconduct not directly relatable to official performance that, in my judgment, would make a person unfit for high office. If Totten's report is true, Flanagan is unfit.

Also, where is the disagreement here? John said that Sen. Flanagan should continue serving based on the decisions of the Chitt. Co. voters unless he engaged in "misconduct" or "conduct that demonstrates that he can no longer perform" his job. That pretty much covers the bases and is the standard the generally applies to all of us to one degree or another depending on what we do.

On this third point, I completely disagree.

Elsewhere in your post, you imply that those who condemn Flanagan will act out of anti-gay or anti-disability bias. In fact, there are perfectly valid reasons to doubt his fitness for public office.

First of all, the two are not mutually inclusive or exclusive.  People can (AND DO!) feel both ways or simply just take one or both biases and judge him on the basis of their prejudices only.  

I've seen the reaction to him at the State House. I've been heartened by his perseverance and the acceptance and respect he has garnered despite a heartbreaking tragedy. I have also seen, heard, and witnessed people saying dismissive things about his abilities that were grounded more in how he walks rather than how he votes and represents his constituents.  I have also appeared before committees on which he has served. He is not the same person, he has suffered greatly but he has also been as tuned in as many of his colleagues, sometimes not as tuned in as other colleagues and without a doubt, significantly more tuned in than at least two of his colleagues that I can name off the top of my head. It's not fair to judge him against the 1990s Ed Flanagan. It's only fair to judge him against what the job demands. Let's wait on that latter point until we all know more.

The anti-disability bias is very real and it is an issue that is separate from whether he is capable of doing his job. I trust many people will judge this objectively and I know quite a few will not because they have not since he returned from his accident.

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:45:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clarification (0.00 / 0)

I'm trying to bring up everything and anything this brings out.

As regards Mr. Archambeau, my point is simply to question the statement that he had no personal intent in making such a charge public. Maybe, maybe not. I try to put myself in that situation, and honestly I would've tried to deal with it without such a total and absolute public humiliation onto Flanagan. Based on his statements, I have a hard time believing Mr. Archambeau shares that concern, and that bothers me.

As far as anti-gay bias is concerned, I simply worry about the anti-gay garbage that's likely to come spewing from the right after this. I certainly didn't mean to imply that anybody directly involved was exhibiting any. Frankly, the notion hadn't occured to me. I think my only mention was "among other circles, the reaction will be quite the opposite. This is why the sourcing on the story better be rock solid". I do think that was pretty clear.

Anti-disability bias is another story. yes, I do feel that many of the criticisms of Mr. Flanagan over time have come from there, yes I do think it is an "invisible" or socially acceptable bias, and yes, I do think it needs to be hauled into the sunlight and discussed. I'm disappointed in myself for not having done so sooner. Although that doesn't impact on whether or not the current allegations are true, it is part of the overall critique of Flanagan up to this point, and if we are to host the Democratic group therapy session on this whole incident, I wanted everything out there.

But believe me, there's no sweeping of anything under the rug here.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 12:24:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not real sure about the gay issue (0.00 / 0)

Even with my right leaning beliefs, the word gay never popped in my head while reading the story.  

What came to mind was "if this is true, is this guy fit to serve?"  plain and simple.  

I also do not believe that it is anti-disability to question whether he can continue to do his job after his injuries.  It really comes down to "can he perform the duties of the job?"  This question should be asked of EVERY person at every job.  If the answer is no, then he needs to find a new job.  I know that may seem a little  harsh, but I'm willing to take a beating on this one.  If Mr. Flanagan could continue to do his job with some assistance, I say lets get him that assistance and let him continue to serve.  

---

by: grumpyvermonter @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 13:34:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

if true.... fit to serve (0.00 / 0)

That is the question.

The rest I also basically agree with, and again, we're talking "pre-YMCA" allegations here. It's not necessarily biased to ask such questions, it is biased to conclude based only on his disability that the answer is no, he can't serve (which has been done, IMO) - and again, "fit to serve" in any event is subject to the decision of the voters.

Although its worth discussing, this is - obviously - to large extent moot, given these current allegations which dramatically change the ballgame.

I just hope he's doing okay, and I really hate the thought that anybody might be enjoying any of this.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 13:49:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What if ... (0.00 / 0)

The question that keeps occurring to me is "what if the Senator involved was a Republican? What might be said if it was Hull Maynard or Bill Doyle or Vince Illuzzi? We'd probably like to think that the same level of cautious questioning and potential sympathy would be shown, but I'm not sure.

I can't remember the legislator's name, but maybe 10 or more years ago, a legislator was caught for DUI. To the best of my recollection, he either resigned or declined to run for re-election  (maybe he had someone else drive him to the legislature to the end of the session until he regained his license). The offense had nothing to do with his legislative duties, but was clearly an anti-social (and illegal), reckless act. It may have had a bearing on his lack of judgment. The law-breaking aside (I'm not sure that anyone is considering pressing charges against Ed -- or if there are charges to press ... public lewdness maybe?), the question is, would we be calling for the resignation of a Republican who might have done the same thing?

NanuqFC
In the part of this universe that we know, there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying. ~ Bertrand Russell  

---

by: NanuqFC @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 15:15:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Absolutely would call for their resignation (0.00 / 0)

If this had been a Republican, he would be beaten up all day here.  There would be no talk of how sad this is or anything like that.  

I would expect this type of reaction on GMD, based on the political leanings here.  I would also expect that Tiger and Charity would defend them to the end.  

This is the nature of the blogosphere.  

---

by: grumpyvermonter @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 15:40:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

disagree (4.00 / 1)

Sexuality doesn't get leftist bloggers dander. It's hypocrisy that does. When a Republican gets taken to task for inappropriate conduct, its always the hypocrisy that gets us going. Family values guy having an affair... closet case hitting making inappropriate advances to members of the same sex... etc. This is pretty well established, and has been repeated over and over everytime a GOP politician does such a thing.

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 16:16:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

there's the rub, grumpy... (no pun intended) (0.00 / 0)

Given the draconian positions the Republican Party takes on 1) regulating, marginalizing and prosecuting sexual behavior and human sexuality and 2) their advocacy of "social Darwinism" which manifests as a lack of support for funding and  services, and intolerance for the disabled, a Republican involved in something like this would find him/herself smack dab face to face with his/her own considerable hypocrisy.  

It's funny how some people's politics radically change when their circumstances change.  James Brady went from bagman for Phylis Schafly and Ronald Reagan to a whole different part of the political spectrum when he ended up on the wrong end of American gun-nuttery and a TBI.  

---

by: Undamned Yankee @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 21:27:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong question .... (4.00 / 1)

the issue here is about someone's medical condition and not political affiliation.

Please remember: we're still talking allegations.

So, would I react the same way to any other politician dealing with equivalent medical issues and caught in an equivalent situation? Yes.

It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 16:01:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes to odum and Rama (0.00 / 0)

Same thing, i knew this would come up, the "if it were a Republican" thing. If he had a TBI or some other sort of disability, I'd go at it the same way.. does it impede his ability to serve? Gay-bashing/family-values type? Yeah, I'd let er.

Looking at the comments section at Shay's piece and a few other sites, there's already a ton of jerk-off jokes. Either these people are unaware of Ed's unique condition or they're just a bunch of insensitive fuckers.

You can read JD's latest at five before chaos. Politics. Godlessness. Music. Films of questionable quality. It's all there, folks.

---

by: JDRyan @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 16:24:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A first impression and the second auto accident. (0.00 / 0)

Ed Flanagan has served Vermont well but he clearly needs help.  It's time for the people who know and love him to begin the gentle and firm process of intervention and healing.  Allegations being allegations, the question beyond factual events at the YMCA is, "What has created a spiral of self-destructive behavior in Ed Flanagan?"  This is a question his close friends and loved ones should really be asking as his complicated health issues continue to dramatically affect his public life.

Darren Allen took a lot of heat when he reported on US Senator Jim Jefford's memory loss, yet the subject was relevant because it clearly affected Jim's public capacity.  These public/private are difficult conversations and it's a relief to see that reactions to this story haven't plunged into a pit of bile.  Frank, honest opinions are difficult to put forward at times like this.  But honesty and frank discussion is also necessary.

My first impression of Ed Flanagan wasn't good and in fact it continues to make me view the YMCA story as part of a longer, more significant trend than is currently being discussed.

At the February 2005 Curtis Awards the late Jean Ankeney introduced me to Ed Flanagan.  He was really drunk.  If you happen to have lived with alcoholism you know it when you see it.  It seems obvious to me that Ed Flanagan, like many good Vermonters, suffers from alcoholism.  This is the first observational symptom I think of in the Ed Flanagan story since 2005 when I met him.

Nine months later, on the Thursday before Thanksgiving, Flanagan's famous automobile accident occurs.  As we know, his car crashed off I-89 in the wee Thursday night/early Friday am hours.  So, was he drunk?  That's the first question that comes to my mind.  The recent article by Ken Picard, Continuing Ed, helps us recall that there was terrible weather and poor driving conditions that night.  But we may not remember that the state police investigation had determined the accident occurred hours before snow squalls made driving treacherous.  So, was he drunk?  If Flanagan was given a blood alcohol test the result would have most probably been within the legal range since 14 hours passed before he was rescued.  No one can say that Flanagan's terrible accident was or was not related to alcohol.  It's an open question.  It's a legitimate question.  It's a red flag for future events.

Flanagan returned to legislature in May 2006.  That's great news and it inspires everyone around him.  But then...

In December 2006, Flanagan's second automobile accident occurs.  What happened?  Maybe it really doesn't matter by now.  It might have been speed, a TBI blackout, alcohol or who knows what else.  The primary fact that rises to the surface is that Ed Flanagan, only 13 months after an incredibly close scrape with death is in an accident once more.  This time the concern isn't about the magnitude of the accident; it's about Ed Flanagan putting himself in a position of peril a second time.  Those who have been rescued from death should know better than to test the gods twice.  They should know better than to put their friends and family through hell a second time.  Most people who suffer an accident change behavior and lower the risk in their life.  But some don't.  Of those who don't, a spiral of self-destruction can often be observed.  Ed Flanagan's second accident is an example of a man not thinking through life-threatening risks.  It's an example of self-destructive behavior that left unchecked may very well form a continuing pattern manifest in various ways.  Between the second auto accident and the alleged behavior at the YMCA a psychological line can be traced suggesting deep emotional issues that have yet to be resolved.

Sometimes it really is helpful for family and friends to make a judgement call about their loved one's behavior.  Parents do this with children every day, never for a moment diminishing the child's identity and value as human being.  Ed Flanagan clearly needs his friends, family and loved ones to help him assess his behavior and what steps he needs to take in order to change.  Failing that would be the real tragedy of the Flanagan story.

Most commentary, I imagine, will be centered around this week's news and Flanagan's first, TBI-causing automobile accident.  My view is formed additionally by my first impression of him and also through the context of the second accident.  On that day in December 2006, it seems pretty clear that Ed Flanagan was beginning to privately spin-out on an exit ramp to personal self-destruction.

Ed Flanagan is esteemed for the hard work he has given to the State of Vermont and he will continue to be praised for his precedence and achievements.  Like any human being, he deserves the strongest remedy for whatever ails him.  Let's hope he gets the help he needs.

Respectfully submitted,

Nate Freeman

.  Now we learn that, according to Shay Totten, several people associated with the Burlington YMCA have been offended by Flanagan's more than unusual behavior in the locker room.

No, no and no.  

Nate Freeman

Northfield, VT

natefreeman@gmail.com

---

by: mydog @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 17:33:48 PM UTC

a stretch? (4.00 / 1)

Ed was drunk when you met him; you've known alcoholcs and you know one when you see one

therefore, "It seems obvious to me that Ed Flanagan, like many good Vermonters, suffers from alcoholism"

sorry, not nearly enough evidence for me

I did consulting work for Ed for almost five years while he was State Auditor ('95 - '00); I worked from my office so I wasn't around him that often but I never saw any evidence of alcoholism; odd behavior? sure, he's an oddball; but none of the people who worked in the office ever said a word about drinking and they were not shy about sharing office dirt

so why don't we just back off the armchair diagnoses and keep a good thought?

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 18:34:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

as you will (0.00 / 0)

Doug, you can take it as a personal attack if you so choose; that's up to you.  I didn't offer a diagnosis.  Everything I touched up on is a symptom, alcoholism included.  


Nate Freeman

Northfield, VT

natefreeman@gmail.com

---

by: mydog @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 19:55:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

c'mon Nate (0.00 / 0)

You unequivocally pronounced the guy an alcoholic because he seemed drunk when you met him. Then you say "you didn't offer a diagnosis." The next sentence, you re-offer the same diagnosis.  

Nullius perfectus est

---

by: odum @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 19:59:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

clarification (0.00 / 0)

Alcoholic/alcoholism are words that send up a real flare and I'd better explain where I'm coming from.  I think alcoholism can be both an illness and a symptom.  People are generally used to the phrase, "self-medication" in context to marijuana use and indeed the same is true of alcohol.  I am asserting that Flanagan verly likely has underlying issues that are probably contributing to his behavior and that it might be useful to look at events in his life that appear to be strongly symptomatic of an undiagnosed emotional and/or mental health illness or illnesses.  

My reference to alcoholism is not a diagnosis.  It is, however, something I observed based on all that I have learned about it.  Perhaps it would be more accurate to say something like, "In my view, Ed Flanagan exhibited typical behaviors and mannerisms that, to the best of my knowledge, are strongly associated with alcoholism.  It was my observation that Flanagan's behavior was unlike the behaviors and mannerisms of moderate social drinking as could be seen in the room of a few hundred other people who were also drinking and having a good time at the 2005 Curtis Awards."  Flanagan didn't seem drunk; he was definitely drunk.  At the time, I shared my thoughts with Senator Ankeney and she in turn acknowledged Flanagan's drinking as a problem of course in her respectful, almost grandmotherly way.

The long and the short of my comment is, Ed needs help sooner rather than later.  In my opinion, the most important question isn't what allegedly happened at the Y and whether it was TBI-induced.  There's a bigger, more complicated picture that should be addressed in Flanagan's private life so that it does not continue to affect his public life.  My question is, as stated above:

"What has created a spiral of self-destructive behavior in Ed Flanagan?"  

The action item I propose is gentle, firm intervention on the part of family, friends and those who love and appreciate him.  I think it's too early to ask the question about whether he is fit for office and I agree that is a decision voters can make.  As to future plans, I think Ed, with his support team, are the folks to make that decision.  As I mentioned above, if the people closest to Flanagan don't come together to help him now, that would be another tragedy, and it's the only one that Flanagan cannot be held accountable for.  

The guy needs support and help and I hope he gets it.  

 

Nate Freeman

Northfield, VT

natefreeman@gmail.com

---

by: mydog @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 21:57:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I call "load of crap." (0.00 / 0)

At the February 2005 Curtis Awards the late Jean Ankeney introduced me to Ed Flanagan.  He was really drunk.  If you happen to have lived with alcoholism you know it when you see it.  It seems obvious to me that Ed Flanagan, like many good Vermonters, suffers from alcoholism...

You may not be aware of this, but someone who is suffering from very low blood sugar can come across very strongly as though they are drunk. There are many of the same overt symptoms, down to lack of coordination, slurring of words, poor judgment, even possibly passing out of the problem isn't remedied quickly.

But, please, if I ever suffer from a low blood sugar attack in your presence, please make a point of telling everyone I'm obviously an alcoholic.  It would be... someone help me out here.  What word am I looking for?

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 22:27:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

whatever.... (0.00 / 0)

I stand by what I say and of course anyone can disagree with what my observation was, but that's not the point.

The guy needs help.

Nate Freeman

Northfield, VT

natefreeman@gmail.com

---

by: mydog @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 22:54:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some questions (0.00 / 0)

The thing that strikes me about all of this... if a complaint was made by Y members, why go to the media with the story? Who gains in this? Isn't Archambeau a Prog Party operative? Isn't Seven Days a Prog paper? I see now that the Y director has written a damage control email to the membership.  Did the Y management ever approach Mr Flanagan before it hit the papers?

All of this sounds fishy to me.

---

by: JayV @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 19:26:36 PM UTC

A very interesting line of questioning indeed. Who benefits? (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

---

by: CarbonCopy @ Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 22:03:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I completely agree (0.00 / 0)

The alleged activity took place in a locked room that only adult men have access to, by key. The activity, even if true, therefore could at worst serve to create an awkward moment for fellow club members. So, what does the offended fellow club member do? Does he simply report the incident to the Y - who would surely handle it professionally?  No, he went to the press with it.

From the Free Press article:

Archambeau is a former chairman of the Progressive Party. He said he agrees with Flanagan's votes in the Senate and had no political reason to undermine him; but he said he questions Flanagan's "rationality" and believes Flanagan "does not deserve the public trust" and "needs to go."

He may indeed agree with Flanagan's votes, but Archambeau quite clearly wants Flanagan's political career to end. He quite clearly says so.

If Flanagan is truly irrational, mentally unfit to serve the public, as Archambeau asserts, then surely we would see this during the campaign and especially during the debates for the position of Lt. Governor.  That's a proper arena to judge his mental faculties.  

But instead, Archambeau has seen to it that the public will judge Flanagan on the basis of a salacious allegation that he touched himself in a sauna room.

Well the bar has been significantly lowered, hasn't it!  There's no intern here, no blow job.  No pedophile emailing to legislative pages.  

The allegation is touching oneself. In a locked sauna room.

And yet in comments here on a progressive blog, folks are clutching their pearls and fretting about "illegal behaviour".

Really, is this 2009 or 1909?
 

Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com

---

by: Rob in Vermont @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 03:24:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ditto. A call for political action in the same breath as the accusation may even be slanderous. (0.00 / 0)

I also found Archambeau's public performance very questionable.  In the quote above he concludes that a political action is required in response to his own civil complaint.  An all-in-one-breath, go-to-the-media accusation such as, "I saw Flanagan masturbate and therefore he should be removed from public office," smells like defamation of character.  Archambeau could have made a more appropriate conclusion if he said Flanagan should be removed from the YMCA.  

 

Nate Freeman

Northfield, VT

natefreeman@gmail.com

---

by: mydog @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 04:01:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just learning all of this this morning (0.00 / 0)

I have been in a time warp between crop failures (tomato blight) and an old high school friend coming to town.  So I know nothing about the news stories or the claims except what I have read here on this blog this morning.

I have not spoken with Tiki, but certainly know him well as both a farm member as well as from his role as chair of the Burlington committee of the Progressive Party.  While this may have not been the best release of information (I don't know how it happened one way or another), I firmly believe it was not with political angles.  Every Progressive that I know has has supported Ed in his various roles in Govt, as Auditor and as Senator.

Clearly, as is the case with a range of readers of this site, people of all political persuations (R, D, P, I, other) are in internal thoughts about his future service to the state with respect to his abilities, not his philosophies. It remains unknown to most of us, even people like me who serve with and respect him, whether he can perform all the duties of the office which he now seeks.  I am not a TBI expert by any means, although I did live with my father-in-law for the last year of his life after brain sugery.  But the brain is far too complex for my one experience to give me the "expertise" necessary for this situation.

I just want to say that without a doubt in mind, there is not a Progressive political angle to what has transpired over the last few days.  The Progressives that I know have considered Ed to be one of the best Democrats to serve.  He has always put issues above party politics and I believe the discussion here (in general) has also put Ed's personal wellbeing above partisan politics as well.

I hope that continues.  I know that there will be a tendency to charge Tiki with partisan intentions...but I truly do not believe this to be the case.

---

by: David Zuckerman @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 12:50:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What other possible motivation? (0.00 / 0)

I find it hard to believe other than partisan intentions, given the way it has been pitched to the press.  It is unquestionable that the main beneficiary of Archambeau's bit of Karl Rove channeling will be other potential candidates for Chittenden Senate.

The only reason to have gone public with these charges is to attempt to force Ed out.  We don't even have to speculate as to motive - Archambeau doesn't even pretend otherwise.  His pubic statements are very clear on their face.

If Ed resigns, Douglas gets to appoint.

I will ask directly:  would you seek such an appointment?  Would you refuse it if offered?

---

by: CarbonCopy @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:50:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

please, let's not go there (4.00 / 1)

David doesn't deserve this question and it's incredibly doubtful a Douglas appointee would make any D or P pleased.

You know, while Archambeau's role definitely lifts some eyebrows, there are much more plausible scenarios.  Look, I don't know the guy, but it's apparent Archambeau is really upset about what he saw in the gym as most people naturally would be.  Some people, when they are upset, tell everyone they know about what happened.  Burlington is an incredibly small town, so it's not hard to imagine Archambeau's story hitting the gossip circles and, after three degrees of separation, the gossip lands in Totten's lap.  Totten picks up the phone and calls Archambeau.  That's generally how many, many stories break.

So I should retract my "run-to-the-media" comment above.  Archambeau still remains in a tough position because Flanagan is so beloved.  No matter what his initial reaction and thoughts were, it's almost as if he's in a whistleblower role.    

Nate Freeman

Northfield, VT

natefreeman@gmail.com

---

by: mydog @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:36:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Archambeau, not Zuckerman (0.00 / 0)

Let me make it clear I'm not saying David Zuckerman would have created this kind of scenario.  Everything I've observed of his public actions - I don't know him personally - indicates he wouldn't have anything to do with such a scheme.

That doesn't mean there weren't political motivations involved by some participants.

Let's be clear - what impression getting out there in the public is pretty much that Ed was accosting other men in the Y.  Listen to the water cooler chit-chat.  I doubt that has any resemblance to the facts, but anyone with any political experience should expect that a story that headlines with "Ed Flanagan accused of lewd conduct at local Y" - which is what the paper editions I saw had right above the fold - is going to leave that indelible impression in the majority of readers.  (I see the online version is now headlined "Flanagan denies accusation").

Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I really can't see any reason to have taken this to the press except implementing his stated belief that Ed "needs to go".

---

by: CarbonCopy @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 15:17:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

this has nothing to do with Chitt county senate (0.00 / 0)

At this point it is understood that Ed is running for LG...so I am not sure what this has to do with candidates for chitt senate.

As for appointments...I think it is way to early to speak of anything along those lines.  There is nothing here to indicate Ed should or will resign his post (and certainly not get removed from office...not even sure how that would happen).  The line of your post is way off base.  It would also do Progressives little good to try to get him out.  He is one of the most progressive Democrats out there.  So the line of thinking is a bit bizarre.

Lastly...if folks go read the 7 days article (which I have now done), it does not say anywhere that Tiki went running to Shay with this story.  Again...I do not know the routes to create this connection, but it sure looks like Shay heard about the incident (there appear to be a few witnesses to similar past instances) and investigated.  Just because Tiki was willing to go on the record (probably asked to by a columnist who wanted to have a "real" source for an issue this big) does not mean he ran to the media.

As for the direct question to me about my politics:  

First...Douglas would appoint someone who has a track record as a D, the process generally goes with the local political committee submitting 3 names and the Governor picking one of them (although not always followed, Douglas is a relatively "traditional" guy and would likely follow it.)  

Second...once that happened...it would actually give that person a leg up on anyone else vying for the 2 seats that are going to be open in the fall of 2010...so that would hurt any Progressives chances, not help.

Lastly...I don't plan to answer questions about my political future on others terms, especially when they not even willing to reveal who they are.  That's rediculous.

To close, I think the focus should be on Ed's needs and abilities, societal decency, and not about me at all.

---

by: David Zuckerman @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 16:03:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And the GOP take... (0.00 / 0)

From the GOP "Big Tent" weekly newsletter, July 30 edition, Rob Roper has this to say:

It's fun to (WHAT!) at the Y...M...C...A..! Chittenden County Democrat Senator and candidate for Lieutenant Governor, Ed Flanagan, stands accused of... how to put this delicately... publicly self-satisfying...... Just go to the link here where WPTZ and Seven Days explain all. Suffice to say, Flanagan will not be returning to the Burlington Y any time soon. (But he is going to want to shake your hand as he campaigns for Vermont's second highest office!)

---

by: CarbonCopy @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 15:26:12 PM UTC

also a shame (4.00 / 1)

This posting by Roper on their blog just goes to show how low folks are willing to go.  As others have posted...it is one thing when "family values" political preachers then go 180 degrees oposite their stated beliefs and cheat etc., (actually hurting (emotionally) loved ones and also potentially violating the law etc.).  It is quite another under this scenario.  While certainly uncomfortable, this is far from the level of the soapboxers hypocricy.

If Roper had left the first bit and last bit out, it would have been more factual and less slimy.  But then again...he could probably not hold himself (pun intended) back.

---

by: David Zuckerman @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 16:08:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]