Thanks, Martha Abbott!

Amen! (4.00 / 6)

Thanks, Martha!

Musician, Web Designer, Photographer

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 15:05:22 PM UTC

Amen! (4.00 / 4)

Yes!  Thanks, Martha.

---

by: Linda in the Northeast Kingdom @ Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 15:50:46 PM UTC

Blech ... (0.00 / 0)

if Abbott didn't want to really run for governor, she shouldn't have put herself up there just to be an obstructionist. She knew she wasn't going to really be running from the get go.

Instead of pushing progressives (small 'p') to become "better Democrats", she should be pushing the Democratic Party towards finally delivering on IRV.

As a (temporarily) capital 'P' and small 'p' progressive I'm disappointed.

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

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 15:57:14 PM UTC

The Progressive Party (4.00 / 3)

Ran a candidate for the position because not doing so would make it possible for some nutjob to claim the "P" label and run on their ticket. This forestalled that possibility.

I'm glad she has decided not to make the general a 3-way race, but I also wish that we had a better voting system, so that a 3-way race would be less likely to result in the worst candidate winning.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 16:14:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So instead we have a 'nutjob' who didn't really want the position. (1.20 / 5)

I would rather have not voted for the unwanted nutjob instead of not even being able to vote for the wanted nutjob.

This will be the last year I'm going to affiliate with the Vermont Progressive Party. As a group they've decided to do a Bernie Sanders and join the Democratic Party ... they call it "pragmatism", but I call it "surrender".

That is too bad.

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

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 16:21:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have to disagree. (4.00 / 2)

Strategic alliance-building is just smart politics.  Parties are aggregates of individuals with compatible but not necessarily identical viewpoints. Bernie Sanders did not "join the Democratic Party."  In fact, if we are talking about elections, one could argue that the Democratic Party joined the Progressive Party in that particular campaign.

Bernie caucuses with the Democrats because that is again a strategic alliance lending him the weight of Pat Leahy and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to propel some of his agenda forward.   If one argues for the viability of a multi-party system, one should at least concede the necessity of  strategic alliances in order to avoid inertia on the progressive side of the equation and potentially disproportionate power on the right.  

---

by: Sue Prent @ Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 17:42:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The "progressive" wing of the DC Dems ... (0.00 / 0)

have helped deliver a massive retreat from a position of overwhelming strength. I don't call Sander's forsaking independence and non Dem/Repub politics for that a positive step.

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

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 08:15:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not fair (4.00 / 4)

She acted in good faith to protect the interests of the Progressive party and to serve the better interests of the State.  Calling her names for her efforts is offensive.

She stepped up to the plate and she made it clear what she was doing.

This argument makes zero sense:

Instead of pushing progressives (small 'p') to become "better Democrats", she should be pushing the Democratic Party toward[] finally delivering on IRV.

Those two goals have never been, and are not now, mutually exclusive. If anything, the Venn Diagram toward IRV shades a shitload more of the "better Democrats."

Arguably, she may be in a better position to advocate for IRV, which is what most of us here want, because of her efforts.

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 @ Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 19:29:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not fair? (0.00 / 0)

Not fair to whom?

Anyway, as long as the Democratic establishment feels they're safely in control there'll be no push from them for anything like IRV that could challenge their political power. The Dems, even in Vermont, were only interested in IRV because there was a threat of a viable alternative.

The alternative (Vermont Progressive Party) is in the process of throwing in the towel.

You want to see the future of the Vermont Democratic Party? Just look to the national level.

Now THAT isn't fair.

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

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 08:11:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

To whom? (3.00 / 1)

"Not fair to whom?"

You called Martha Abbot a "nutjob" for protecting the brand of the Progressive Party. I'm sure she had better things to do with her time than put herself out like that.

Disagree with her strategy if you really want to. However, calling her a nutjob is not fair to her and ignores her commitment to preserving gains of the Progressive party; or at least, arresting any significant setbacks.  

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 @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:31:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Uh .... "nutjob" was YOUR phrase ... (1.67 / 3)

and all I did was play with it. In case you aren't keeping up with what you wrote:

Ran a candidate for the position because not doing so would make it possible for some nutjob to claim the "P" label and run on their ticket.

So it's okay for you to call some anonymous maybe wannabe Progressive gubernatorial candidate a nutjob, but I can't take that phrase and apply it?

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

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 12:42:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's the frequency Kenneth? (4.00 / 1)

"Uh . . ."nutjob" was YOUR phrase . . ."

by: Rama Schneider @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 08:42:06 AM EDT

So instead we have a 'nutjob' who didn't really want the position.  
---------
I would rather have not voted for the unwanted nutjob instead of not even being able to vote for the wanted nutjob.

by: Rama Schneider @ Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 12:21:46 PM EDT

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 @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 21:56:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your doing a good imitation of the right wing talkers ... (1.00 / 1)

present it out of context. Unfortunately for your argument the context is in the thread above, and the context says I'm absolutely correct.

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

---

by: Rama Schneider @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 07:42:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

you might try (2.00 / 2)

do a Bernie Sanders and join the Democratic Party

refraining from making false statements while posting here, in the interest of maintaining your credibility.

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

---

by: kestrel9000 @ Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 19:37:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The 7% Solution: Progs are folding gracefully, while staying politically correct. (0.00 / 0)

What the Progs lack is a desire to talk to, and understand the needs of most voters. Their inflexibility comes from a certain self-righteousness, which means they are not really in favor of democracy, until everyone agrees with them. They are content with 7% of the vote, knowing that they are right.

The republicans know they are wrong, but have a plan to make wrong work for them. They are reaching out to everyone with an excellent marketing program backing a horrible product.

The dems are content to be republican polite, deeply regretting and apologizing for being wrong, but explaining that it's necessary because the republicans have the upper hand.

What we need is a real debate on American values, from the biggest picture on down to the local level, a debate that reaches everyone.

Who wants to begin it?

We can govern ourselves better than they govern us!

---

by: govt4all @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 13:46:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amen with reservations (3.00 / 1)

I appreciate that the Progs won't have a candidate in the race for Gov, and thank Martha Abbott for her action.

However, isn't the Prog-Dem split in Vermont getting a little old? And aren't the grandfathers of the split both Senators right now? Why can't Sen Leahy and Sen Sanders get together and issue a call for a merger of the Progs and Dems, and in fact broker a deal for both State Committees to sign off on?

Face it, the real reason the Prog's exist is not out of some principled stand on policy differences, but because the Dems in Vermont in the 1960s, when Burlington began to be infiltrated by hippiedom, were really the Rockefeller wing of the VT Republican party, which totally controlled the state.

I mean, read our election laws. They are so much about how parties operate because the legislatures that wrote them were 95% GOP trying to put in place rules that would prevent hegemony through cronyism. They weren't to strengthen a two party system in the state: they are designed to prevent a clique from dominating a party using smokeroom deals.

Party rules that sought to strengthen a two or multiparty system would (a) require party identification at registration (b) conduct closed primaries (c) give nominating power to the state committees with primaries only if alternate candidates could produce signatures.

Anyway, back to why Progs even exist. When Bernie moved to Burlington, there was no room for a Bernie in a Phil Hoff Democratic party. It's not that he was a lefty Dem, it was that the Dem party in Vermont was basically a conservative Dem party because they were liberal refugees from a GOP that had nominated Nixon to run against Kennedy.

When the longhairs showed up in town, the political game was GOP vs liberal-GOP-calling-itself-Dems: no wonder the Progs got started!

In the rest of the state, this wasn't the case. Progressives everywhere else are Dem activists and don't quite understand why Progs exist in Vermont.

Anyway, seeing this recount fiasco unfold I am reminded again that party organizations aren't taken seriously by any of the candidates of any parties. The few of us, Dems and Progs, who actually give a damn about the parties themselves should not be diluting our impact by dividing our loyalties between D and P.

Just my $0.02. I may be wrong.

F. X. Flinn
Quechee

---

by: FXF @ Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 19:31:07 PM UTC

Same as now (0.00 / 0)

"the political game was GOP vs liberal-GOP-calling-itself-Dems"

Which is exactly what we have now on the National level.  Obama, Reid, Pelosi, the Blue Dogs, etc., are all moderate Republicans masquerading as Democrats, but selling out the actual values of the Democratic voter every time they possibly can.

---

by: Comrade Rutherford @ Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 23:51:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Absolutely right! (0.00 / 0)

We have one and one quarter political parties, and that meny viewpoints out there in the mass media.

Unispeak is killing our country. At one time, we had strongly divergent views widely expressed.

Now we have those who rape and pillage America boldly, and those who know it's much better to do so quietly and politely, while apologizing occaisionally.

We can govern ourselves better than they govern us!

---

by: govt4all @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 13:29:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Really? (0.00 / 0)

At one time, we had strongly divergent views widely expressed.

I'll buy your unsubstantiated claim that at one time "we" had strongly divergent views which were "widely expressed" but if you feel your views aren't currently "widely expressed" what are you doing to get them out there? Who among us is preventing you from getting your views aired?

If widely expressed views don't resonate with a significant portion of the population through voting and political action then it's arguable that those views aren't as widely expressed as you might think.

It's also possible that people with divergent views believe differently than you and have concluded that the way to express their differences in political philosophy is from within the system that exists instead of trying to change it from the outside.

Your fear mongering around "unispeak..killing our country" is baseless and troublesome.

---

by: farjas @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 13:51:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

When one side dominates the debate, it's a problem. (3.00 / 2)

Our medical system is falling apart, because costs are so high. Did our debate center around cost control, and getting the best care out there to the most people?

All over the world, a variety of socialist medical systems deliver comparable or better care at half the cost! Were those systems considered in the national debate?

I found that here in the Burlington area, people were afraid to say "socialist" because they thought they would be attacked, and they would lose.

That's unispeak in action - no intelligent consideration, just one side booming out, while the other side compromises over and over, until the result is such a mess that neither side likes it, and it will likely fail.

It's not that there aren't other points of view. It's just that there is no organized opposition to the point of view that everything should be based on money - a very different point of view than those on which this country was founded!


We can govern ourselves better than they govern us!

---

by: govt4all @ Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 12:13:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Institutional memory (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the Educational post.

Believe in whatever makes you do the right thing.  

---

by: KB @ Sun Aug 29, 2010 at 23:52:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sanders History and Socialism (3.50 / 2)

Flinn makes some good points but...
lets remember the actual history... Sanders did not come from a liberal or Democratic starting point. He began running for office with the very far left Vermont Liberty Union Party. This party was (and continues to be) a socialist party. Furthermore, a good case can be made that the Progressive Party (which Bernie more or less started) is also socialist in nature (however more akin to the modern, moderate, and mainstream social-democratic parties in Europe as opposed to Eugene Debs).

My question is; while a fair number of VT Democrats in/or seeking office may have some socialist leanings (and, as a Union member, I mean this as a good thing), are they, as a party, really oriented in that direction? For example, single-payer healthcare care is supported by Shumlin, but is it supported by the Vermont Democratic Party? That remains to be seen (2011?).

So my point is, as long as the Democratic Party, as a whole, is favorable to more conservative economic and social policies (ie state job cuts, regressive property taxation, relying on the free market for milk prices, private or employer based health insurance), and as long as the Progressive Party is advocating a for more socialist approach (progressive income tax, extension of social programs, single-payer, no lay-offs, ect,) their appears to be a very good reason for the Progressives to continue to exist, on their own.

Now before folks get upset here, I recognize that many thousands of rank and file VT Dems support a a very good small 'p' agenda. I also recognize that some of those agenda items occasionally make it through the State House. And I think forums like Green Mountain Daily play a great role in this regard. But I still question the soul of the Vermont Democratic Party. Don't we all?  

---

by: Dave Van Deusen @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 03:33:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right now, socialism in American is history! Why????? (0.00 / 0)

I don't take comfort in being right when wrong has the upper hand. Do you?

If we're right, why are we losing the debate on American values? It's too easy to blame the media.

We should be smart enough to use the media. We need to have confidence in our values, and be brave enough to take the initiative.

For instance, Barack Obama was on TV, saying he really is a Christian, not a Muslim.

It's the oldest political trick in the book:

 Politician: At the next campaign event, ask my opponent if he's stopped beating his wife yet.

 Innocent: I can't say that. No one believes he has ever beaten his wife!

 Politician: I don't believe it either, but I'm going to make him deny it!

Obama's opportunity was to say, "There are people who want to use American Christians the same way terrorists have used Muslims!"

Obama failed. A few days ago Shumlim failed.

We are failing, because we stay on the defensive, instead of taking the initiative.

We can govern ourselves better than they govern us!

---

by: govt4all @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 14:02:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where else could he go? (0.00 / 0)

Sure, Sanders ran with the VLUP, but where else did he have to go back then? Surely his political talent was obvious to one and all, and the considerable interest in him was obvious as well, but of course the local Dems then were barely Democrats; they had all been Republicans only a decade earlier. Everyone in VT was a Republican; the Republicans had defeated slavery and Vermont was radically anti-slavery. That pulse lasted 3 full generations. It took Kennedy to shake them loose.

---

by: FXF @ Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 03:34:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like it (4.00 / 2)

Strategery is absolutely fine in politics.

Now let's get cracking on IRV, campaign finance, etc.

Become a fan of our grassroots campaign on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/todd4v...

---

by: ntoddpax @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 03:18:13 AM UTC