( – promoted by odum)

It’s time to wrestle with the big question on everybody’s mind of late; that is, who – after two landslide victories in his back pocket – is going to step up and challenge Governor Douglas in next year’s election for Governor? It’s a question with some urgency, as whoever is had better get moving in late Spring/early Summer, or they shouldn’t even bother. The Dem candidate needs to look to models like the NH Dean Presidential campaign to build a groundgame unlike one any of their statewide candidates have been willing to put the resources behind before, and the biggest resource in such an equation is time. Just to make it harder, they should expect to do so with little help from the state party and zero help from the national one, as it will be considered a terrible investment (although they’ll still be expected to raise scads into the Dem Coordinated Campaign, unfortunately… but that’s an issue for another diary).

So, who do you think? Contrary to people’s assumptions, there’s been nothing to indicate that any of the Dem elected big-dogs want to go head-to-head with big Jim – and yes, that includes Shumlin and Symington. Shummy may have it on his mind, but he’d probably be more inclined to join the inevitable stampede for the office that will ensue the day Mr. Douglas decides he’s done. People are wondering about Matt Dunne, particularly Peter Freyne who, rather inexplicably, referred to him has Douglas’ “worst nightmare.” Dunne has the advantage that neither Parker nor Clavelle had – that he’s now been on a statewide ballot and the voters have therefore been properly introduced – but I’m among those that think it’s hardly enough. What I’m hoping to see is Dunne refine his style and campaign strategy and take another run at Dubie. With that challenge hanging out there un-met, it’s hard to believe he’d be considered a viable candidate.

In fact, if you look at the realities of numbers and statistics, of the current crop of Dem pols, the one on paper who would have the best shot is former multi-term Lieutenant Governor and current Chittenden Senator Doug Racine. Think about it – voters outside his district know him, and have elected him to statewide office despite the none-too-insignificant anti-Burlington-area feelings out there in greater Vermont. And of course, there’s the fact that he’s the only Dem who’s run against Douglas for the top spot that made a respectable showing (only losing by 3 points – and then, thanks to Con Hogan who apparently pulled virtually zero R votes). But Doug is the Rodney Dangerfield of Vermont politics. There’s this idea out there that he’s not interested in or capable of engaging in “serious” rough and tumble campaigning. There was even subtle eye-rolling that fed that insider-narrative as a result of his last Lite Guv run when he became the first (and only, I believe) candidate ever to win a statewide election in any state with a publicly-financed operation.

So the narrative is unfair and largely driven by “conventional wisdom” insider snootery, in my opinion. But having said that, I don’t think he’d be the candidate either – at least not this time.

So who, then?

Being out of the elections business has allowed me the glorious freedom to lose the political gamesman/tactician and re-embrace my inner idealist, but I’ll admit that the big statewide races still being out the tactician in me. I can’t help it. Tactically speaking, it’s likely that most folks on the Dem political bench would get waxed by Douglas unless they were inclined to really, really take some risks and think outside the box. That aint gonna happen with this bench. And I still believe that Progs statewide peaked with Anthony Pollina’s third place showing with a mere quarter of the vote his last time out for Lite Guv.

So the Dem candidate is going to have to be from outside the standard political ladder – but is going to have to be someone who can go a long way towards funding the run him-or-herself, or through his-or-her connections. Worse case scenario says I’m describing a Tarrant-style “vanity” candidate, but best-case means some genuine fresh blood.

And yes, this leads you right to the business community via campaign contribution lists that give you some sense of what business leaders are liberal and politically minded. There are some interesting names on some of these lists, such as the Blittersdorfs of NRG Systems fame and success. With the wind power boom on the edge of happening, though, it’s hard to imagine either of them breaking now for a statewide political run. Also, there’s that pesky Chittenden County factor again.

One name that leaps out at me is Bob Stiller, founder of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters. GMC is based in Waterbury (one of those swing towns) and the company is well-regarded by almost everybody as a success story and as a fair trade promoter. Stiller has not been shy about supporting Dem candidates and the business-leader-gone-politico schtick has definite crossover appeal. His involvement in the promotion of meditation might get him some wannabe-Governor-Moonbeam jibes, but it might make some other groovy lefties less nervous about promoting a big business guy.

But in truth, I’m just musing, here. I don’t know the guy at all. Never met him. He might be a disaster. Maybe he has a speaking voice like Pee Wee Herman. Who knows?

The point is that now’s the time, and everybody I know is scratching their heads.

Ideas?

A couple days ago, I put up a diary targeted towards Dems about how grassroots movements like the “Rutland Resolution” wave and the netroots explosion – despite their frustrations – are something to feel good about institutionally. That they are signs of growth. But given the day’s events and in recognition of the many non-Dem (even anti-Dem) readers, let me broaden that pep talk a bit.

First and foremost, you did great. Really. Today’s skirmish didn’t go as hoped, but looking at the roll call, it really looks like (with a few odd exceptions on the edges) the Vermont elected left heard you, and more than just heard you – they agreed. Truth to tell, there were few individual Representatives who were feeling scared or intimidated in their own districts and altered their votes accordingly – the reality is (again with a couple exceptions), those sixty votes were sincere. Through persistence, you broke through the firewall erected to keep you from getting near them, and they stood with you.

And as a matter of reality, none of this was supposed to happen. No House vote, no Senate vote (let alone an overwhelming Senate victory). At the time, some of us were concened that the Senate bill was not a joint resolution, but because of that, the House couldn’t shoot it down. The fact is that the Senate Resolution will be sent to Washington. The first and only such resolution like it in the nation. The reverberations are still echoing from that specific victory, and the overall victory you have achieved (an imperfect victory, but a victory nonetheless) will continue to fuel enthusiasm and activism on the issue at the national level with renewed focus and enthusiasm. We all go into the next stage victorious against all predictions, and all of you who worked on it – Dems, non-Dems and anti-Dems alike – should feel great pride and joy. You won. And that’s a fact.

That’s people power for ya.

Roll call below the fold.

Member  –  Vote

Acinapura of Brandon  No 

Adams of Hartland  No 

Ainsworth of Royalton  No 

Allard of St. Albans Town  No 

Ancel of Calais  Yes 

Anderson of Montpelier  Yes 

Andrews of Rutland City  No* 

Aswad of Burlington  Yes 

Atkins of Winooski  No* 

Audette of S. Burlington  No 

Baker of West Rutland  No 

Barnard of Richmond  Yes 

Bissonnette of Winooski  No 

Bostic of St. Johnsbury  Absent 

Botzow of Pownal  No 

Branagan of Georgia  No 

Bray of New Haven  No 

Brennan of Colchester  No 

Browning of Arlington  No 

Canfield of Fair Haven  No 

Chen of Mendon  No 

Cheney of Norwich  Yes 

Clark of St. Johnsbury  No 

Clark of Vergennes  No 

Clarkson of Woodstock  No* 

Clerkin of Hartford  No 

Condon of Colchester  No 

Consejo of Sheldon  No 

Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford  Yes 

Corcoran of Bennington  No 

Courcelle of Rutland City  No 

Davis of Washington  Yes 

Deen of Westminster  No 

Devereux of Mount Holly  No 

Donaghy of Poultney  No 

Donahue of Northfield  No 

Donovan of Burlington  Yes 

Dostis of Waterbury  Yes 

Edwards of Brattleboro  Yes 

Emmons of Springfield  Yes 

Errecart of Shelburne  No 

Evans of Essex  Yes 

Fallar of Tinmouth  Yes 

Fisher of Lincoln  Yes* 

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City  No 

Flory of Pittsford  No 

Frank of Underhill  No 

French of Randolph  Yes 

Gervais of Enosburg  No 

Gilbert of Fairfax  No 

Godin of Milton  No 

Grad of Moretown  Yes* 

Haas of Rochester  Yes 

Head of S. Burlington  Yes 

Heath of Westford  No 

Helm of Castleton  Absent 

Hosford of Waitsfield  Yes 

Howard of Rutland City  No 

Howrigan of Fairfield  No 

Hube of Londonderry  No 

Hudson of Lyndon  No 

Hunt of Essex  No 

Hutchinson of Randolph  Yes 

Jerman of Essex  No 

Jewett of Ripton  Yes 

Johnson of South Hero  Yes 

Johnson of Canaan  No 

Keenan of St. Albans City  No 

Keogh of Burlington  No 

Kilmartin of Newport City  No* 

Kitzmiller of Montpelier  Yes* 

Klein of East Montpelier  Yes 

Koch of Barre Town  No 

Komline of Dorset  No 

Krawczyk of Bennington  No 

Kupersmith of S. Burlington  No 

Larocque of Barnet  No 

Larrabee of Danville  No 

Larson of Burlington  Yes 

LaVoie of Swanton  No 

Lawrence of Lyndon  No 

Lenes of Shelburne  Yes 

Leriche of Hardwick  Yes 

Lippert of Hinesburg  Yes 

Livingston of Manchester  No 

Lorber of Burlington  Yes 

Maier of Middlebury  Yes 

Malcolm of Pawlet  No 

Manwaring of Wilmington  No* 

Marcotte of Coventry  No 

Marek of Newfane  Yes 

Martin (Cynthia) of Springfield  Yes 

Martin of Wolcott  Yes 

Masland of Thetford  Yes 

McAllister of Highgate  No 

McCormack of Rutland City  No 

McCullough of Williston  Yes* 

McDonald of Berlin  No 

McFaun of Barre Town  No 

Milkey of Brattleboro  Yes* 

Miller of Shaftsbury  Yes 

Minter of Waterbury  Yes 

Mitchell of Barnard  Yes 

Monti of Barre City  No 

Mook of Bennington  No 

Moran of Wardsboro  Yes 

Morley of Barton  No 

Morrissey of Bennington  No 

Mrowicki of Putney  Yes* 

Myers of Essex  No 

Nease of Johnson  Yes 

Nuovo of Middlebury  Yes 

O’Donnell of Vernon  No 

Obuchowski of Rockingham  Yes 

Ojibway of Hartford  Yes 

Orr of Charlotte  Yes 

Otterman of Topsham  No 

Oxholm of Vergennes  No 

Partridge of Windham  Yes 

Pearson of Burlington  Yes 

Peaslee of Guildhall  No 

Pellett of Chester  No* 

Peltz of Woodbury  Yes 

Perry of Richford  No 

Peterson of Williston  No 

Pillsbury of Brattleboro  Yes 

Potter of Clarendon  No 

Pugh of S. Burlington  Yes 

Randall of Troy  Yes 

Rodgers of Glover  Yes 

Scheuermann of Stowe  No 

Shand of Weathersfield  No 

Sharpe of Bristol  Yes 

Shaw of Derby  No 

Smith of Morristown  No 

Spengler of Colchester  Yes* 

Stevens of Shoreham  No 

Sunderland of Rutland Town  No* 

Sweaney of Windsor  Yes 

Symington of Jericho  Presiding 

Trombley of Grand Isle  Yes 

Turner of Milton  No 

Valliere of Barre City  No 

Westman of Cambridge  No 

Weston of Burlington  Yes 

Wheeler of Derby  No 

Winters of Williamstown  No 

Wright of Burlington  No* 

Zenie of Colchester  Yes 

Zuckerman of Burlington  Yes* 

* Member explained vote on floor. See the House Journal for the date

Nope. No joke. No sarcasm. All true. Keep reading and I’ll make my case.

This is not another diary about impeachment. I’ll be honest, it’s getting to where even I scroll past those (meaning no disrespect to anyone, but one every couple of days would seem to be more than enough, barring any breaking news…). Still, I will use the whole issue to illustrate what I’m talking about because it does so very well.

Now that the whole impeachment thing is front and center, the traditional media are, typically, getting the backstory completely wrong. Since the VT Senate resolution, I’ve heard on at least three separate occasions how this is the latest victory in a movement that began Town Meeting Day. In fact, the whole impeachment thing has consisted of two distinct “movements”, each of which started well before Town Meeting Day of 2006 and have continued in a methodical and considered fashion since. What happened in the Vermont Senate was, after a long courtship, the final successful merging of the two into one.

And it is the one that I was initially involved in – the effort to promote Jeffry Taylor’s “Rutland Resolution” that swept the Democratic Party Infrastructure last year before running into a wall erected by the surpisingly motivated elected leadership at the meeting dubbed the Randolph Massacre. It was this Resolution that focused on the Vermont legislature and put the “Jefferson’s Manual” into public consciousness (while Dan DeWalt was spearheading the non-party-bound Town Meeting resolutions targeting then-US Rep. Sanders). After the “massacre,” proponents kept the matter alive in Montpelier with the help of Rep. Zuckerman (P-Burlington) and a score of other Dems and Progs at the Statehouse, as well as good ol’ online activism.

(It should be noted that Rep. Zuckerman has always stayed very sensitive to concerns that the whole affair not collapse into yet another P vs. D thing, and has demonstrated that sensitivity and wisdom in his recent comments on the Senate resolution, sharply distinguishing himself from others who may have had nothing to do with the whole issue, but who now may see it as an opportunity to try and dishonorably swoop in and score some cheap, partisan points).

The point is that people who are complaining constantly about how “the Democrats” are no damn good and the Party is just a corporate flack are not seeing the forest for the trees; the original “Rutland Resolution” movement as a local example and the explosion of political blog activism on the national scale are Democratic Party phenomena.

That’s not to say they haven’t spread beyond that. To be effective, the “Rutland Resolution” impeachment movement needed to merge with the non-partisan Town Meeting movement. The left political blog phenomenon is still dominated by Dems, but others have emerged.

But the point is that they started from the Democratic Party grassroots – and the combination of creativity, vision, determination, commitment and empowerment implicit in each should make two things clear: one, that this is not your parents’ Democratic Party, and two, that it’s a Party very much in flux.

Political Parties, despite their rhetoric, have generally been (beyond the most local level) top-down affairs. There are those who call the shots by virtue of their offices (or their proximity to offices) and the ones who nod deferentially. Most of the nodders can find themselves migrating towards the higher strata if they have enough sense of self and ideas of their own to slide into leader roles (although that sense and those ideas can’t conflict *too* much with those already in the drivers seats).

Given that lefties tend to be a grumpy lot, this paradigm tends to create flashpoints and conflicts. In the Dem context, those flashpoints can lead often to one of three things:

• Some passionate lefties taking it on the chin and coming back, but jaded and with significantly muted vigor and vision.
• Some passionate lefties deciding “to hell with it all” and leaving the political realm entirely.
• Some passionate lefties deciding that it all sucks and they just want to start their own party.

This third one is particularly interesting because it perpetuates a mirrored dynamic between the Democratic Party and left-wing third parties, whereby the Dems tend to have all the people who actually understand how government works and know how to shape progressive policies, but have little or no actual visionary leaders, while the third-parties are peopled by often impatient, wannabe leaders all slamming into each other but with very little mechanical understanding of government between them.

What it also leads to is everyone intensively demonizing everyone else to such an extent they can’t even see straight anymore.

But I digress again; the point is that we’re seeing leadership, vision and creativity coming from grassroots Dems across the country and running up into that same old top down leadership structure we see in the Democratic Party (as well as the Republican and Progressive Parties). But instead of hitting the ceiling and shattering into the three pieces outlined above, these kinds of movements are proving more cohesive than much of the infrastructure they’ve come into conflict with. They hold on, and in holding on they grow, until they begin to transform the entire Party as an institution.

And that transformation manifests in a lot of ways. Everything from pushing the counter-beltway Howard Dean into the DNC chairship, followed by bloggers actually defeating entrenched old-school veterans for seats on the Democratic National Committee, all the way to the “50 State Strategy”‘s recent electoral successes and the steady, undeniable shift in the public policy debates to the left in the last year.

The point is that if anyone can look at what’s been going on in public debate locally and nationally in the last couple years and try to say that all the world’s problems are because of “the Democrats,” then that person is either a fool, or is being willfully ignorant as to who “the Democrats” are.

As much as we all tend to wax worshipful of autocratic or dictatorial institutions, the fact is historically that they never last. Democratic institutions on the other hand do. Things are changing in the institution that is the Democratic Party. More and more D’s are seeing the Party as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself, the way too many Republicans and Progs see their own Parties. But the most important change has been the development of that most critical of elements to a truly Democratic institution: that is, the capacity for self-criticism, self-examination and self-adjustment. With these come real strength and the ability to grow.

Which is exactly what we’re seeing: growth. The Democratic Party is the first American Political Party to enter institutional adolescence. So long as we don’t get scared and go hide in the closet, that means we can be the first Party to reach political maturity as well.

Okay, we’re back. Not sure what happened – maybe we’ll never know. As you can see, the data is intact, but the formatting is toast. It’s going to be a couple days at least before I can devote the time to fixing it. Right now I have to make the blogads and some sort of logo a priority.

Arg.

Well, he doesn’t use that word, but he might as well have, regarding potentially damaging emails the administration claims to have lost. Powerful stuff, but again – is there anything anyone can do about it?

What’s in a domain name? Every now and then I bounce around the whois databses and see who’s grabbed what domain. It’s generally a disappointing time-killer. One interesting item that did pop up is that “DouglasforSenate.com” has been reserved by GOP activist Oliver Olsen. Is the Jamaica selectman and Revolt and Repeal enthusiast simply a hopeful guy, or is the Governor actually considering a rematch with St. Patrick in a few years? Maybe Olsen is just squatting in the hopes of a payday (he has been sitting on it for a while – we’ll have to see if he renews when the rights to the name are up on the 21st of this month)

The other domain oddity is that “shumlinforgovernor.com” has been grabbed – but not by Peter Shumlin. Whoever is sitting on this one has hidden their identity behind an anonymous, identity-hiding proxy service called Domains By Proxy. This is also the service Michael Colby used to register his Snarky Boy domain name in an attempt to keep his anonymity. Coincidence…? Mmmmnyehhh – could be, wabbit… rumor is that Colby Boy has been engaged in his media comeback in order to set up a statewide run of some kind himself. Maybe he wants a leg up on the competition?

A fellow blogger had to point my attention to it this evening, as I had just skimmed by it, but sure enough, it sure looks for all the world like Peter Freyne is blaming the sexual-indiscretions-with-a-subordinate scandal that led longtime Burlington City Attorney Joe McNeil to resign on – well, on McNeil’s wife:

it seemed to the old Irish-Catholic boy in me like a case of another old Irish-Catholic boy, determined to publicly transmit a very up close and personal message to the wife of all these years:

“Hey, Honey, I’m getting some!!!”

So – am I reading this correctly? Is Freyne brushing this aside as ‘ok’ because a fellow Irishman has a right to have an affair in order to send a message to his wife that she’s not putting out enough to suit him? And an affair with a subordinate? Half his age? Holy crap that’s offensive, Peter…

PS – Check out Rednalsi’s Vermont trivia post. Big fun. Here’s the link.

According to Freyne and others, the Democratic leadership in Montpelier is placing an absolute value on consensus policy making. This is reflected in rhetoric from the top and is heard in individual committees. This is more and more frequently being presented as the reason that the Dems, with their overwhelming majority, aren’t putting out any hard-hitting, progressive proposals (or immediately back off from them when resistance is met).

Somewhere along the line – perhaps it’s a class/cultural thing – straight-up democracy became unseeemly. Consensus – everybody coming together on something they can all agree on – is the order of the day. While consensus may be grand for small groups, it’s worse than dysfunctional for larger ones, and poisonous for institutions such as our legislature which are designed to be democratically governed. Here’s the late left-libertarian theorist Murray Bookchin on consensus:

consensus silenced that most vital aspect of all dialogue, dissensus. The ongoing dissent, the passionate dialogue that still persists even after a minority accedes temporarily to a majority decision, was replaced in the Clamshell by dull monologues — and the uncontroverted and deadening tone of consensus. In majority decision-making, the defeated minority can resolve to overturn a decision on which they have been defeated — they are free to openly and persistently articulate reasoned and potentially persuasive disagreements. Consensus, for its part, honors no minorities, but mutes them in favor of the metaphysical “one” of the “consensus” group.

The creative role of dissent, valuable as an ongoing democratic phenomenon, tends to fade away in the gray uniformity required by consensus.

His point (or part of it) is that there’s nothing wrong with being a democratic minority. In fact, there is great honor in it. It is from today’s minorities that tomorrow’s majorities often spring. We don’t need to be protecting the feelings of those that are likely to come out on the losing end of a vote. Good for them for expressing their opinions! Maybe next time, their arguments will take the day.

It’s a good system (democracy), and if after consideration, there are legislators who find it unseemly or hurtful, and still feel the need to protect people from it, I’d ask that they respect those of us who are committed to it and proud of it, rather than attempt to remake it in their own images.

I don’t think they’ll find any consensus on doing so, after all.

Blue Hampshire reports that the New Hampshire House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed a law legalizing Vermont-style civil unions for same sex couples. The vote was a resounding 243-129. This dramatically makes the point of how much our neighbor is turning “blue” of late. The bill will now go to the Senate where it should pass in the chamber which has a 14-10 Dem advantage. Where it faces an uncertain future is at Democratic Governor Lynch’s desk, as he is in no hurry to deal with the issue. So far his office has been vague and noncommittal.

“So,” you may say to yourself, “the granite state is finally catching up with Vermont.”

But you would be wrong in a very fundamental way; that is, that this bill was NOT passed because a court order forced it upon them. That’s right – No. Court. Order.

Why did they do it then? Why take on a piece of progressive legislation if you don’t absolutely positively have to? And that the Governor doesn’t want to sign? I mean, who else will the lefties vote for anyway, right? Don’t our silly neighbors understand that they may lose Republican votes by doing this?

I suspect they do, and they did it anyway. How can we possibly explain that?

Anyone? Bueller…

Continuing our two days (three was just too much) of job assessments of our elected leaders, today focusing here in the state…

Peter Shumlin, the once and current President Pro Tem of the State Senate and Senator from Windham County has been very high profile since his return, to no one’s surprise. He’s put climate change issues at the top of the agenda and been a much greater presence in the role than was predecessor Peter Welch was. On the other hand, while being great on rhetoric, he often is criticized for being too hesitant to challenge the Governor (or his fellow Dems) on issues that are progressive priorities, such as gay marriage.

What do you think? Comments and poll beneath the fold (remember, you need to register as a user to vote, if you haven’t already):

Continuing our two days (three was just too much) of job assessments of our elected leaders, today focusing here in the state…

Rep. Gaye Symington has been on the hot seat like no other politician in the state of late. The general criticisms have been of her apparent unwillingness to challenge the Governor and the GOP on progressive priorities. Others say that her determination to work collaboratively whenever possible make the policy machinery run more smoothly and efficiently. After last week, where she seemed on the edge of losing control of the caucus over education funding, the Speaker has regrouped and is reportedly is back in control.

What do you think? Comments and poll beneath the fold (remember, you need to register as a user to vote, if you haven’t already):