Are you sitting down for this?

A few weeks back, Caoimhin wrote a fantastic diary expressing concerns over proposed implementation of 2005’s legislation creating the Vermont Prescription Monitoring System. At the time, he wrote:

The Department of Health is in the process of seeking legislative approval of administrative rules the Department drafted to govern VPMS. The proposed rules will monitor your physician’s provision, and your access to, hundreds of treatments for thousands of conditions. The purpose of the law is intended to identify substance abusers and to facilitate their treatment — nothing inherently wrong with that and in fact it is a laudable goal.  However, the proposed regulations by the Department of Health do not accomplish the goal set out by the legislature, violate the laws governing the VPMS and present too many dangers for disclosure, misuse, mishandling of sensitive patient medical information.

As CL stated, the law mandates collecting the minimum necessary information to achieve it’s stated goals.

But instead of the Department of Health, we apparently needed to be watching out for the State Police.

GMD has learned that State Police representatives are going to Vermont Pharmacies and demanding complete dumps of all information about patients with Schedule II prescriptions (the class of medications that include prescription drugs with street value). After talking to a few pharmacists, I found one in Franklin County that confirmed they had been approached, and had been advised by the state that they did, indeed need to comply with the request. Needless to say, he wasn’t too happy about it.

What’s even more disturbing? When I asked if he knew of any other pharmacies that were being mined for data in this way, he responded that it was his understanding that this was a process that was to take place across the state.

Sounds to me like the State Police is actively putting together a medical records database of Vermonters across the state for the purpose of, as this pharmacist opined, “fishing expeditions.”

And if you think something of this magnitude wasn’t signed off on by the Governor’s office, you’re kidding yourself.

The pharmacist I spoke to was understandably concerned about the implications to their responsibilities under the federal law which regulates electronic medical records and privacy, as such a warrantless, mass-data capturing adventure would seem to run afoul of this federal regime. However, HIPAA (The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) also requires pharmacists to cooperate with local, duly empowered law enforcement, so he was advised to comply.

When I expressed shock, the pharmacist merely suggested I look at “who’s in the White House.”

Not to mention the Pavilion in Montpelier.

Here’s the part of the state law that’s the problem:

§ 4218. Enforcement

(a) It is hereby made the duty of the department of public safety, its officers, agents, inspectors, and representatives, and pursuant to its specific authorization any other peace officer within the state, and of all state’s attorneys, to enforce all provisions of this chapter and of the rules and regulations of the board of health adopted under this chapter, except those otherwise specifically delegated, and to cooperate with all agencies charged with the enforcement of the federal drug laws, this chapter, and the laws of other states relating to regulated drugs.

(b) Such authorities and their specifically authorized agents shall have, at all times, access to all orders, prescriptions, and records kept or maintained under this chapter, as provided herein.

(c) A person who gives information to law enforcement officers, the drug rehabilitation commission, or professional boards as defined in section 4201 of this title and their specifically authorized agents, concerning the use of regulated drugs or the misuse by other persons of regulated drugs, shall not be subject to any civil, criminal, or administrative liability or penalty for giving such information.

Can’t get much broader than that.

This is a bad law, and now we’re seeing exactly why.

I’ll post more information soon. In the meantime, it’s time for some letters to the editor (and some calls to legislators).

UPDATE: In State of Vermont v. Judy Welch, the Vermont Supreme Court – unbelievably – has upheld the power of law enforcement to seize pharmacy records without a warrant as far back as 1992, stating “there is no patient’s privilege available for pharmaceutical records.” Here’s a link (MAJOR hat tip to CL for all the help, here)

From Geoffrey Norman at VT Tiger, emphasis mine:

Ms. Partridge does not say what specific utterance by the Governor got her nose so out of joint.  And one is curious, since the man is the soul of temperance.  If Jim Douglas and Harry Truman were in a kitchen somewhere together, Truman would no doubt be saying, "Jim, dammit, turn up the heat." 

Benefit of the doubt time, cuz I'm such an agreeable guy: from the tone, it sounds as if Norman sincerely believes this, and isn't just perpetuating a convenient narrative for his team. By all means, then, let's review a little history after the fold…

According to press accounts at the time, Douglas hammered away at Leahy for voting for a $23,000 boost in congressional salaries at a time when the Vermont economy was sluggish. Douglas chided the senator for calling such an attack unfair and labeled a pamphlet on the subject as "McCarthyism innuendo," according to the Oct. 30, 1992, editions of the Rutland Herald.

Douglas shot back by saying Leahy was "screaming like a stuck pig," the paper reported.

(Douglas:) "There are obviously people who are not interested in my political success, and they’re certainly exercising every opportunity to try to act on that belief this year."

Then he blamed the media:

"Some of the questions I get from the media sound an awful lot like some of the e-mails that come out of the other party headquarters."

Huh? I was speechless. Was he saying that questioning the technology security breaches or the delays at the Bennington office building was somehow political?

This is part two of my series looking at the potential Democratic challengers to Jim Douglas. Part one involved a lot of charts, graphs, numbers, and nearly 4000 words. For part two, I have no such data to work from – only gut instinct and personal impressions. Thankfully that means this one will be a LOT shorter…

Previous entries: Anthony Pollina

Peter Galbraith does not have your typical resume for a pretender to the throne of Jim Douglas. Check out this bit from an online bio of the acclaimed author of The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End –

As U.S. Ambassador to Croatia, Galbraith was actively involved in the Croatia and Bosnia peace processes. He was co-mediator and principal architect of the 1995 Erdut Agreement that ended the war in Croatia by providing for peaceful reintegration of Serb-held Eastern Slavonia into Croatia.

During the war years, Ambassador Galbraith was responsible for U.S. humanitarian programs in the former Yugoslavia and for U.S. relations with the UNPROFOR mission headquartered in Zagreb. Ambassador Galbraith's diplomatic interventions facilitated the flow of humanitarian assistance to Bosnia and secured the 1993 release of more than 5,000 prisoners of war held in inhumane conditions by Bosnian Croat forces.

Galbraith helped devise and implement the strategy that ended the 1993-94 Muslim-Croat War and participated in the negotiation of the Washington Agreement that established the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was co-chairman of the Croatia peace process ("the Z-4 process") that produced several agreements between the Croatian government and rebel Serbs. From 1996 to 1998, Ambassador Galbraith served as de facto Chairman of the international commission charged with monitoring implementation of the Erdut Agreement.

From January 2000 to August 2001, Ambassador Galbraith was Director for Political, Constitutional and Electoral Affairs for the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). He also served as Cabinet Member for Political Affairs and Timor Sea in the First Transitional Government of East Timor. In these roles, he designed the territory's first interim government and the process to write East Timor's permanent constitution.

Ambassador Galbraith conducted successful negotiations with Australia to produce a new treaty governing the exploitation of oil and gas in the Timor Sea. The resulting Timor Sea Treaty will double the GNP of East Timor, and is believed to be the first time the United Nations has a negotiated a bilateral treaty on behalf of a state. He also led the UNTAET/East Timor negotiating team during eighteen months of negotiations with Indonesia aimed at normalizing relations and resolving issues arising from the end of the Indonesian occupation.

Now reading that resume for a potential Governor of Vermont either gets you scratching your head or thinking to yourself: "cool." I admit it, I'm part of the latter group, despite the fact that it doesn't take a genius to see the overwhelming roadblocks to a Galbraith ascendence: lack of name recognition and a dearth of electoral experience. In fact, as with Pollina, it's hard for me to see Galbraith winning this.

We'll spend a little time on those two drawbacks in more detail, but let's look first at the ways he might bring leveragable assets to a gubernatorial race…

Despite his lack of applicable political experience, Galbraith can certainly make the argument that he's a person who can get things done – and who can motivate others to work together towards common goals under the most extraordinary of circumstances. He can also argue that his international standing can translate well for Vermont business, working around the deficit in American image caused by the Bush administration.

The biggest thing he has going for him, though, is his outsider status. Despite the Party label, he can run more credibly as an outsider than Pollina, who is very much a part of the Vermont political landscape. It's the "outsider" label that has effectively minimized the impact of the "inexperienced" tag, and Galbraith is positioned in a way to take full advantage of that.

You'll hear me repeatedly refer to the need for candidates to look to the Dean New Hampshire field model, and there are varying degrees of doing so. Often, I only mean they should take the traditional dynamic of doing field work to support regional events (and ultimately GOTV) and bust it open – make field work not about what happens when the candidate is in the area, but what happens when the candidate is somewhere else. In Galbraith's case, though, he should adopt the Dean model hook, line and sinker – and surrender himself to it.

Rich Tarrant tried to run a vanity campaign against Bernie Sanders, and in doing so had the problem of defining himself to the electorate. His solution? Lots of money and a cheesy, relentless ad campaign. It was a disaster.

When Howard Dean had to define himself to a nationwide audience, he created a house-event powered, person-to-person strategy – punctuated by volunteer regional events that didn't even include the candidate – that did the candidate-defining for him, often completely out of his own control (this was coupled, obviously with the revolutionary online campaign). This Amway-esque model allowed people to project all kinds of wondrous things into Dean's persona very quickly, propelling him to national significance (and changing him as a political figure in the process).

It's this kind of wildfire, feelgood-projection that Galbraith would need to encourage. There isn't another effective means to close such an absolute and complete name-recognition gap in this time frame. He needs to start in January, using as many paid staff as he can, but figuring that his resources will be limited (but maybe not THAT limited…see below).

Like any challenger to Douglas, Galbraith needs to have a head of steam going into the Summer – which is when the traditional media usually take notice. Anybody running needs to have evidence that they are a credible challenger or the media will sink them, as they do to all of Douglas's opponents.

This approach butts him right up against his other weakness: lack of campaign experience. Galbraith is a smart guy, and smart guys who are interested in politics tend to have years of armchair quarterbacking under their belts. When they decide to make the plunge, they are often reluctant to surrender control to people who know what they're doing, and can run their own campaigns into the ground. Galbraith needs to find good, creative, talented staffers who he trusts, and then turn himself largely over to them.

What he should do:

Raise some money. Galbraith may have enough out of state connections who can exploit the lack of meaningful campaign finance limits to jump start a campaign when the in-state money people are dubious about him. Bring someone on board to set up a bunch of big out of state parties. Get a good website up and going to tap into his crdibility with the netroots anti-Iraq crowd to try to gin up some smaller donations. Use this out of state money to jumpstart an in-state field heavy operation.

Let's face it, everybody always makes noise about their opponent when he or she raises a bunch of out-of-state money, but nobody really cares. 

Field, field, field (and earned media):

As I said before, Galbraith has to do this up, Dean-style. Turn what money he can get straight into that sort of house-event-driven operation and surrender much of his image and message to that machine. Go with the flow by letting the field operation somewhat define you, read that flow, and then grab onto the key emerging themes and pump them up with as much local earned media as you can. You're a well-respected intellectual sort, so most of the reporters will want to impress you. Exploit that goodwill.

The only hope here, is to get a head of steam – if not on points, at least on the novelty of a movement-style campaign to get some positive coverage and press interest after the session.

Message:

Run against the governor, but also against the legislature, who aren't gonna do squat to help you anyway. Be the stern, mature parent who will come in and get the squabbling kids to grow up and get things done.

Use that international cred. Galbraith can position himself as a conduit around all the anti-US sentiment in the rest of the world who will be able to pitch Vermont directly, credibly and positively to the rest of the world in the interests of commerce and tourism.

Be careful not to alienate yourself from voters with the intellectual thing. Again, nurture a more parental image rather than one of a teacher – but an approachable parent. Stern, serious – but in a primal sort of way, also comforting and reassuring.

Rapid Response:

Everybody needs rapid response, but Douglas will try and define Galbraith right out of the gate, since he's such a blank slate. Rapid response will be more important, and it should be rapid response that showcases Douglas's penchant towards petulance. This gives an opportunity to draw maturity contrasts.

Big Economic Announcements:

A few populist oriented, cut-through-the-crap economic policies, designed to make people double-take, and thereby sit up and take notice they otherwise wouldn't have. Populist stuff is generally about doing away with things or stopping things, rather than starting new things. FInd some things to do away with that people would like to see done away with.

How about the statewide property tax? Hint, hint…

Too much to blog about yet, too little time. Thought I’d experiment with getting caught up this way (decided to just use the blogging meta-topic that was on my mind).

Late morning today, but I wanted to get this up before I go to work

Leahy's office is reporting they are "taking the next step" regarding the Judiciary Committee subpoenas that the administration has instructed the subjects to either ignore (in the case of Karl Rove), or simply to show up and cry "executive privilege" to any questions that matter (and again, this is in regards to the political firings of US Attorneys).

“I have given the White House’s claims of executive privilege and immunity careful consideration,” wrote Leahy.  “I hereby rule that those claims are not legally valid to excuse current and former White House employees from appearing, testifying and producing documents related to this investigation.  Accordingly, I direct Mr. Bolten, Mr. Rove, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Jennings to comply immediately with the Committees subpoenas by producing documents and testifying or face possible contempt citations.”

Obviously, this amounts to basically a "no, we're serious" from Judiciary, but its Leahy's contention that this is a necessary next step in turning up the heat. Be that as it may, one wonders why it has taken so many months. It has been long enough, one hopes that there isn't simply a strategy of extending the "next steps" over so much time as to run out the clock on the administration, while still being able to claim credibly that Democrats were aggressively performing their oversight responsibilities.

So I'm with you, Patrick – but we're all hoping this process is a means to an end (the end being real accountability), rather than an end in itself. 

UPDATE: All cynicism aside, this may also be an attempt to box the administration in. Leahy also calls the executive privilege canard “surprising in light of the significant and uncontroverted evidence that the President had no involvement (in the firings of the U.S. Attorneys).” This sounds like an attempt to force a choice between releasing the privilege assertion and allowing testimony, or leaving an implicit (if not explicit) acknowledgment on the table that yes, indeed, Bush was directly involved in the firings.

The question remains whether or not Bush cares that anybody might conclude that he was involved, given that impeachment remains “off the table.”  

Getting caught up on some things…

• Hmf. Soapblox's new code apparently eliminated the "Draft Diaries" feature. WIth it went my second examination of the Gubernatorial pretenders, this one focusing on Peter Galbraith. Look for that tomorrow, if you care. Mutter, grumble…

• Republicans gone wild! Somebody put something in the water in the last week. John McLaughry is apparently striking back after getting trounced in his debate with Bill McKibben, as his latest multi-front proclamations of global warming denial are nothing less than screeds. Last week's piece in the Free Press (followed by a piece on VPR today I heard about but did not hear) was a doozy (emphasis added):

  The report advocates the creation of a "vigorous, proactive, public/private partnership to promote "enormous, systemic and long-term cultural, cross-generation change in our awareness and behavior through the efforts of our formalized K-12 public and private school systems." (Whew!) Cynics will doubtless refer to this as the "Green Madrassa" proposal, whereby our environmentally certified schoolteachers are instructed to fill up their pupils with certified "Green Theology."

  Wow. What a strange, bitter world Mr. McLaughry must reside in to have such contempt for science and the people busting their butts to make things better. 

• More goofy is this diary at Vermont Tiger. Part of their schtick of late is apparently to attend left-oriented functions and write condescending, distorted reports on what they experienced. It's unfortunate, as the site tends to be a bit more above board in general. Their report on the Environmental Action conference in VTC two weeks ago was kind of funny, however. It's entitled In The Camp Of The Luddites, which gives you a sense of its flavor.

  I was one of the "Luddites" in attendence. I actually presented a workshop with my fellow left-wing Luddite, Philip Baruth. Our Luddite topic? Using technology and the web to promote ideas and campaigns. You know, classic Luddite stuff. Didn't see Mario at that one. 

• In happier news, Prog uber-organizer Peter Sterling just became a father. Congrats to the new parents. 

This week, I'm leaving the current events behind and taking a look at the four names being bandied about for the Democratic nomination for Governor: Matt Dunne, John Campbell, Peter Galbraith and Anthony Pollina. I'm starting with Pollina because I think the other ones will be relatively short, but looking at a potential Pollina candidacy means practically doing a freaking research paper, and I'd rather get the heavy lifting out of the way...

Look, let's be honest.  A Pollina administration would be a great thing. He would (presumably) clearly promote progressive policies from health care to economics. It would be a welcome change for all us lefties.

It would also be a great thing for ways that the Progressive Party true believers would likely not care to see; running as a Progressive-slash-Democrat would bring the parties together in ways the dogmatic sorts in both parties would prefer it didn't. Once in office, the reality of the hardwired political process would truly come into play, as Pollina would reach out to Democrats to help run the government in a day to day way, as well as to pass progressive legislation. The independently elected nature of the chief executive would continue to do what it historically does; polarize the political battlefield into two parties – the party of the executive, and that of the opposition. The party of the executive, in this case, would inevitably become a combination of Progs and Dems, permanently and institutionally merging them (and in the process, proving once again the hardwired intractability of the two-party system – but at least bringing us a little partisan peace in the process).

There's no question that Pollina would be a long shot – so long, that I honestly don't see him winning. Still, anything's possible, and if he becomes the nominee, it becomes the job of the rest of us to do what we can to make the impossible, possible and get him elected.

Any discussion of how it might happen requires we start with what the Progs have been telling themselves for years; that Pollina could peel off Republican voters in a way that no Democrat could, based on his 2002 performance in a few counties during the three-way race for Lieutenant Governor against Brian Dubie and Peter Shumlin.

First of all, it's the Progressive mantra, repeated by UVM's Middlebury College's Eric Davis, that Pollina would have a better shot against Douglas than an Democrat would. Their reasoning is based entirely on Pollina's performance in the 2002 Lieutenant Governor's race, where he performed better than Democratic rival Peter Shumlin in 2 of 3 Northeast Kingdom counties, as well as in Lamoille County (he also outperformed Shumlin in his home County of Washington, but that doesn't capture the spirit of Progressive romanticism the way his showing in the notoriously Republican Northeast Kingdom does). The argument is that this NEK showing demonstrates that Pollina has an ability to peel off enough Republican voters that would never vote for a Democrat, to defeat Douglas.

While the numbers are compelling, and do tend to demonstrate that Pollina has the potential to be a competitive candidate, the numbers simply do not support the sweepingly optimistic conclusions arrived at by Professor Davis and the Progressives.

Let's take a look.

Here are the percentages in the 2002 Lt Gov race among the major candidates:

Pollina comes in third in Essex County, but for sake of argument, let's look at the idealized Progressive demo models only; Lamoille, Caledonia and Orleans. In this way, we're looking at the best case numbers to back up the Progs' claim. Here are the combined actual numbers:

Presumably, Davis and the Progs would point us to the same year's totals for Douglas as a baseline comparison:

In this image, the combined anti-Douglas vote in these three counties is 13252. Compare that to the combined vote of Shumlin and Pollina against Dubie, where you get a vote total of 14770. That difference of 1518, argue Progs, are Republicans and Independents voting for Pollina who would never vote for a Dem. Compare that number against Douglas's 14089 in a head-to-head comparison, and the difference is a net 681 in favor of Pollina.

To assume this equals a Pollina victor is obviously to assume that no more than 680 Democrats vote for another candidate (that's about 2.8%). Sketchy, that.

But if the suggestion is that these numbers will all be at the expense of Douglas votes, and not simply additional anti-Douglas votes, the slim margin of victory gets a bit bigger. Just how much, however, is impossible to quantify. That puts us into the land of “gut feeling”, especially given that Hogan was in the race. Mathematically and intuitively, it's likely that no more than a negligible amount came from Douglas's totals, which makes this a dicey calculus.

In fact, if you look at Democratic towns like Montpelier and examine how consistent the Dem statewide candidates performed, with the exception of Racine, who showed a deficit almost precisely equal to the vote totals generated by Hogan, it seems highly unlikely that Pollina pulled too many votes from the population that could cleanly be considered Douglas's at all. Those were probably Hogan voters. Specifically characterizing the Hogan voter, though, is likely a quixotic task, and if Pollina can bring them back in the fold, that's a strong argument on his behalf.

The “peel off the republican vote” theory continues to break down if you look elsewhere. The argument put forward by proponents is that, if Pollina can take Republican-types in the NEK, he can do it elsewhere in the state. Well – the problem with such a statement is clear: he also ran in the rest of the state in 2002, and we have those results. What do they look like, and what happens if we apply the same logic? 

The other statewide Republican strongholds are Bennington and Rutland Counties, where Pollina came in third. Here's the breakdown:

Sure, Pollina came in third, but note that the combination of Shumlin and Pollina are, again, greater than 50%. Here are the comparitive gubernatorial numbers.

Assuming the Dems all were to hold with Pollina, that is an increase over Douglas's numbers 18484 vs. 18323 (a 161 vote difference). In these counties, 2172 more voters appear in the top three ballots for Lt Gov than Gov, in this case reinforcing the Progs frequent argument that Pollina can bring in more first time, or returning voters who abandoned the process, but the numbers also work against the suggestion that the net addition of Pollina's voters with Shumlin's would come at the expense of Douglas in a Pollina vs. Douglas head-to-head. Arguably some would. Likely most would not.

So the other part of Pollina's backers' argument is that these numbers don't just show him as competitive in GOP strongholds, they clearly indicate he would run better in Republican areas than any potential Democratic candidate. To address that argument, let's look at how Matt Dunne did in Rutland and Bennington Counties in his head-to-head against Dubie last year.

Dunne brought in 12538 votes in the three combined counties of Orleans, Lamoille and Caledonia. That's not a significant amount more than Shumlin did, which adds a lot to the Progs' argument.

On the other hand, in the southern statewide GOP stronghold  of the combined Rutland and Bennington Counties, Dunne brought in 17107 votes, nearly 5000 votes more than Shumlin, and under 4% off of  the 18484 combination of Pollina and Shumlin.

What does this data mean? It makes a lot of suggestions, but few conclusions. If one assumes that all the Dem votes belong to Pollina in lieu of a Dem candidate, Pollina does look stronger in these Republican areas – although negligibly so in the south, where the limited differential is due to his ability to bring in new voters, rather than his ability to pull GOP and Independent voters. In the north, his advantage is larger, and the reason for it is more likel due to an appeal to the Hogan voter, potentially tying at least some of this phenomenon specifically to the peculiarities of 2002. In any event, the fact that this didn't translate elsewhere in the state's GOP stronghold's suggests this is more of a geographic appeal than a demographic one.

But that big “if” we assumed at the outset of the paragraph is a true leap of faith. As we all know painfully well, lots of weeniecrats vote for Douglas, and many of them simply will not vote for Pollina – ever. It would take polling to figure out what those numbers are, but they will likely be concentrated in these more conservative regions, simply as a reflection of the local culture. Where Pollina does batter with Republicans, there could easily be a correspondingly high drop in his votes among self-identifying Democrats or moderates, so the rosy assumptions that the Progressive model is based on is simply not likely to be based in reality.

So, it's a purely faith-based statement to suggest that the numbers show that Pollina would defeat Douglas in a one-to-one in conservative areas.

But one is on solid ground saying that he could well be quite competitive – certainly in the NEK.

Which brings us to the other challenge.

Here's the first chart showing the percentages by county in the '02 race:

Looks good, eh?

Now here are the actual numbers:

Even under the rosiest scenarios, those counties just don't have enough people to put you over the top. That's why Shumlin did more than 10 points better than Pollina statewide.

So where does Pollina find the numbers to win?

Here's where a Pollina victory could come from.

Maximizing Democratic Votes:

First of all, he is absolutely correct to assume that he needs to be a dual party, “P/D” candidate. It's an indispensible way to staunch as much hemorrhaging from the Democratic center (and even plenty from the left, given the years of bad blood) as possible. The problem here is that you can only run on one primary ballot. By all accounts, Pollina will run on the Prog ballot and expect to be written in for a Dem primary.

He's not gonna like it, but if he's serious about winning, he needs to turn that around. He owns the P ballot, but nothing less than a full-on engagement with Democratic Primary voters will convince enough of them that he's sincere about burying the hatchet. In fact, less than that will send an ugly counter-message: that he feels entitled to Democratic Primary votes – so much so that he feels he shouldn't get his hands dirty asking for them. In fact, that message is already getting transmitted more than a little bit, as Democratic activists are still getting word of his plans by reading the papers, instead of by hearing from Pollina himself. Continuing to work through proxies such as David Zuckerman and Martha Abbott is no longer going to cut it, and feeds the sense that the same old sense of superiority is still in play.

In a nutshell, to maximize the Dem vote, he's going to have to start treating Dems the same way he treats members of his own party.

Keep on doing what you're doing in Republican areas:

Clearly, he's competitive in the NEK and the GOP south, in contrast to what many of us would expect. He can't lose any of that, and Douglas's positives are still extremely high. If he can continue to generate new voters, peel off a few in the north, and hold onto 80% of the Dem vote, he'll be well positioned to hold his own, if not break through.

Make it a ground game:

The very strong new voter totals generated by the Pollina crowd in '02 show that they get this, and they'll need those skills to eke out a victory. They need to question the orthodoxy of such field campaigns and do some outside-the-box thinking – including hitting the ground in a comprehensive way as early as possible.  The lack of a meaningful campaign finance regime makes that possible, as a challenger will be able to raise a LOT of money from people who would like to see Douglas retired. The $100,000-by-January number cited by Chris Pearson as a precondition for a formal entry into the race is high, but not crazy, given the current rulebook. That money should go into a serious field operation as soon as possible.

Mine the hell out of the interstate corridor:

As good as some of the numbers look for Pollina, there'll be no magic bullet or secret, working-class-hero Prog magic that will win this for him. He is going to have to maximize the left and shallow left vote in the state's most populous areas – particularly in the counties where Shumlin outperformed him; Chittenden and Windham. He was neck and neck with Shumlin in Orange, and will likely lose some ground there, as well as in Windsor. 

Windham, however, will open up for him without a native son in play, and he needs to mine the hell out of them for votes to offset drops elsewhere.

Chittenden, of course, is where all the votes are – it's also a fickle, and frequently surprisingly conservative place. Without a Dem in play, he'll be able to bump up his very strong numbers in Washington, and possibly use the Washington dynamic to convince dubious Dems in Chittenden to play ball.

The other two counties present unique challenges. Addison he'll take, but not as well as he should against Middlebury resident Douglas. Franklin he loses – as its unlikely that the NEK dynamic will break down the dynastic, conservative politics in play.

Messaging:

Pollina is well-positioned to play the outsider, running against both Douglas and the legislature. Whoever the opponent is will have to take this tack, but Pollina can do it convincingly. He can also offset much of the lack of political experience by packaging his Vermont Milk Company adventure as business/executive experience.

He's going to have to be VERY careful on the issues, though. It won't take much for many on the Democratic left to be reminded of the politically dodgy Pollina who has been aggravatingly coy about issues near and dear to leftists, while at the same time historically excoriating those leftists when they identify as Democrats. It won't take much to remind wary left-wing Dems of the way he avoided issues such as the Iraq War and Civil Unions when he thought it would play well with the conservative NEK crowd he's so eagerly courted. Environmentalists too, will be watching him closely. He's had enough sketchiness on environmental issues (such as the new creemee making machines with their disposable components that he has been promoting) that some will be prepared to be tossed aside for political expediency – something only enviros who consider themselves first and foremost to be Progs will put up with.

Vulnerabilities:

“Out of the mainstream.” “Radical.” “Bad for business.” These are no brainers. Expect Douglas to get nasty, though, as he can't help himself on that front, even when he's way out in front. Integrity will be the target, and it will start off predicated on the campaign finance/public funding debacle when Pollina trashed his own law after running afoul of it. I guarantee you, Roper already has already run through that ad in his mind about a hundred times by this time.

Thus concludes round one. Thankfully, the next three in the series will be a lot lighter on the facts, figures and charts – and by extension analysis.

Tomorrow, we'll try Galbraith…

A couple weeks back, word came out that Bill Lofy was discontinuing his communications consulting for the House and Senate Leadership in Vermont, and taking on a job in New Hampshire. Lofy only arrived on the Vermont scene a few years ago after working many years for the late Paul Wellstone, even authoring a book about him. His arrival was much ballyhooed in Democratic circles, and he went on to run the Party's Coordinated Campaign in between consulting gigs for the Democratic caucuses. His presence was immediately felt, as under his guidance, the Dems retook control of the health care debate (before losing it again after the session… but for one brief shining moment, Douglas was not unilaterally setting the agenda).

With Lofy arriving on the scene like a communications messiah, it was hard for him not to be oversold. But despite that, it's clear that the guy was good – and more than simply being good, he was a genuine progressive. Had his heart in the right place.

It's also clear that his advice was not always heeded. Whether or not that led to his departure, I have no idea. But its hard to put yourself in his shoes and not imagine jumping at something else. In any event, his departure has only increased my concern about the grassroots/legislature relationship going into the session.

Lofy always struck me as a pro stuck between scylla and charybdis, or perhaps more accurately, between the irresistable force of Senator Shumlin's political impulsiveness and the immovable object that is Speaker Symington's refusal to work outside her political and personal comfort zone. With Lofy gone, so goes his limited mitigating or moderating influences on these two leaders that so often seem to be slaves to their most basic natures, often at the expense of political success.

So once again, we're all stuck with each other – activists with leadership that seems to consistently take them for granted at best, and condescendingly treat them as a captive constituency at worst, and leaders looking at a base so jaded and cynical, they can't be counted on to support the leadership on policy. The relationship is still poisonous and the stakes high, as the leadership will need support, and we as activists, need them to be successful.

It won't be enough to simply call a truce, these two groups need to actively reach out to each other. The reason some of these issues reach the boiling point, causing activists to get in the legislators' faces, is that there's a sense that that's what it takes. The impeachment issue is a perfect example – activists were treated like morons. Shined on. Told there wasn't time, or that the committee process made action impossible, etc. It was incredibly patronizing and it served to ramp up tempers well beyond the boiling point.

And on the other side, plenty of impeachment advocates were not willing to accept any explanation for legislators not wanting to move forward besides complicity with Bush or utter cowardice. Simple disagreement was off the table.

In both cases, people felt they were above those on the other side. Activists came into any legislative contact believing themselves to be the most moral people in the room (sometimes the only moral people in the room), while legislative leaders believed themselves to be the smartest people in the room (sometimes the only smart people in the room).

With a dynamic like that, why bother?

So the dynamic needs to be scrapped, and that means there needs to be some reaching out – and given the power dynamic, it has to start with the legislature. They're the ones invested with the authority, after all.

If we're gonna play on the same team and have a winning synergy for an election year, everybody is going to have to work outside their comfort zones. For some activists, that means trusting that legislative leaders are on their side. For some legislative leaders, that means scrapping the bunker mentality and – most important – being willing to make some accomodation to the wishes of their constituents, or at least, deal with them as equals.

What does it mean to deal with someone as an equal?

Here's what I suggest:

Don't suggest activists are too dumb to “get” an issue. Don't make excuses that sound so paper-thin, it feels insulting to be expected to swallow them. Talk directly to people you have a developing conflict with (before it fully develops), instead of trying to get messages to them through intermediaries such as the media or “comfortable” constituency groups or individuals. Show us you're reasonable people, and honestly open to modifying your approach and your priorities without us having to get angry and make a big stink. Even if you don't agree with advocates at the end of the day, if you're genuinely open to the possibility of modifying your approach and your priorities, people are naturally empathic enough to sense that – and it makes all the difference.

And sure, take advantage of forums like this one. You're not “above” them any more than the rest of us are.

We'd like you to be leaders, sure – but the trust needs to be rebuilt before many of us are willing to be your followers. That means step one, is to be colleagues. Collaborators. Show us we're all on the same team by bringing us into the making of the game plan, and sitting down with us on the bench. It may be a drag sometimes, and it will certainly take you outside your comfort zone. But, frankly,your comfort zone is simply not our responsibility – and if you really believe that your comfort zone is so important that it trumps success, then you're probably in the wrong line of seasonal work.

It won't be easy, but if you want to be successful, you'll do it.

During the day, I'm basically a grunt worker for an advocacy group, and I don't diary about what they advocate. Seems disrespectful both to GMD readers and my employer. Frankly, as a hobbyist (at both this blog and through my involvement in my County Democratic Committee), policy matters aren't so much my bailiwick anyway – electoral stuff is. It makes for a nice personal symmetry that way, as my employer doesn't do the electoral thing at all.

So, wearing my electoral-observer hat, I can't help but look at the Climate Commission report, and the Governor's decision to ignore 90% of it, and wonder if the partisan electoral interests in the legislature and the Democratic Party structure aren't seeing what I'm seeing:

That is: George Bush's 9-11 Commission report. 

Bush was somewhat forced into creating the 9-11 Commission from public and Congressional outcry, and likewise chose to ignore 90% of it. In doing so, he created one of the most potent weapons to use against him – and that use came to a head when the Democratic Congress put him in a corner by working to pass legislation to enact all of the Commission's recommendations, leaving Bush caught between a rhetorical rock and a hard place. Now it's hard to believe that the Vermont legislative Democrats could muster the focus, leadership, teamwork and follow-through to create that sort of legislation around this commission.

But man, would it have the potential to turn the election year on its head if they did. I know I'd be breaking out the popcorn for a good show…

Happy Thanksgiving week, folks. Since this is a travel week, traffic will be down – which makes me want to save the hard-hitting stuff for next week when the audience is back.

But in the meantime, let's have some fun at Charity Tensel's expense. Charity's been picking on us a bit of late, what with slaps at my post knocking Rob Roper for calling Angelo Dorta a liar on the VTGOP site, and another about the National GOP's attacks on a ten year old boy and his family, but I've generally not hit back. But how about a volley, just as a topic for discussion.

Charity has been the longtime host of a public access, right wing TV show in the Burlington area. Here's what Public Access TV comes from:

In 1984, the Cable Communications Policy Act stated that local governments could require cable operators to provide one or more channels for public use. This is how public access television was born.

Ideally, I believe that government is best which governs least. 

In conversations about liberty and less government, someone inevitably brings up the big, bad Big Business. Obviously without government regulation, big business would take over the world. And since we can't vote Big Business out of office, we won't be able to do anything about it.

This is the justification for allowing the government power that it was not granted in the constitution

First, I have to point out, you will not likely find me with an inconsistent ideology. I am nothing if not consistent.