Both yours truly and occasional GMD front-pager mataliandy are among those tapped to (and have agreed to) be part of the Vermont Democratic Party “Platform Content Subcommittee.” Lamoille County Dem usual suspect John Bauer is taking point on the process, and apparently was intrigued enough by this diary from last week to reach out to we netroots-types.

For my part, I told John that including me would include an attempt to reach out through the blogosphere for as much input as possible, and this diary is part of that effort. It will be a clearinghouse for any and all input from all sources. Everything is on the table, and everything will be read and considered.

There will be a button on the left that will take users straight to this diary even as it falls off the front page. Also, to view the 2004 Platform (as well as those few comments that have already been made before the beginning of this more formal process), click on this link.

Thanks to Ian Carleton (VDP Chair) for going along with this. Let’s make this a true “Open-Source Platform.”

Click on “theres more” for the project timeline and comments…

8/11 deadline for comments

8/18 platform committee meeting

8/23 deadline for candidate comments

8/25 platform committee meeting

8/30 deadline for sending 06 proposed platform to State Committee

I obviously have strong feelings about what the VDP Platform is/should be, but will reserve them for the comments below.

Have at it, folks! You can’t complain about what’s in it after it’s ratified if you don’t take the opportunity to tell us what you think should be in there (well, you can complain, but…you know…)

This is hardly an issue I should be wading into on a Vermont blog, but as the Republicans through their talk radio mouthpieces such as Sean Hannity are filling local airwaves trying to suggest all the “blogofascists” like myself are Israel-hating, terrorist-coddlers, I figure it’s probably appropriate for me to author a diary on the current Middle East conflict (that – don’t worry – is guaranteed to make everybody mad…)

The “who’s the bad guy” game in discussions of the Israel-Lebanon escalation was predictable, but discouraging. It is the latest example of the intellectual cul-de-sac that so many in our country find themselves in due to the fallacious way we approach the abstract concepts of blame and responsibility.

It’s hardly breaking news that we live in a market culture. But more than that, we live in a culture that views the market as a moral, not just an economic infrastructure. As such, whether we realize it or not, we tend to consider even intangibles in terms of economics, of supply and demand. Market economics come down to math games that deal in commodities, and commodities are finite, measurable variables. If America consumes a quarter of the market’s oil supply, that leaves only three quarters for everyone else. It’s easy to understand and morally evaluate such figures.

But we dont stop with true commodities. That perspective is so pervasive throughout our culture (people are “human resources,” children are our “most precious natural resource”) that we do it reflexively when faced with the need to make even an abstract evaluation, such as a moral one. This leads to the strange, useless, and ultimately counterproductive arguments we see flying around the Middle East conflict.

Consider: During our saner, more considered moments, we would all agree that an unprovoked missile launch into a civilian population would be morally unacceptable. Yet user Ritter at DailyKos responds this way to the suggestion that Hezbollah should be condemned for their actions:

What Israel is doing now is executing a plan that has been in the making for a long time.

Nice real estate in South Lebanon, but in order to plant settlements you first of all have to occupy with the military and then plant settlements, as in the Golan Heights and the West Bank.

If Hezbullah hadn’t resisted and eventually expelled Israel from South Lebanon in 2000 there would now most certainly be Israeli settlements in South Lebanon, just like, as said before, the Golan Heights and the West Bank.

Forget about ‘proportionality’, this is all about land-grab. The invasion will follow shortly. They are not going to give up, especially with the US encouraging them.

We would also agree that breaking a promise to hold fire to allow civilians to escape and UN Humanitarian aid to those who need it would also be worthy of moral criticism. And yet this is how dKos user RichardR responds to the criticism of Israel’s actions:

And of course, the Anti-Semites see nothing wrong with Iran, Syria and Saudi  Arabia feeding sophisticated weapons to the terrorists who use them to murder Israeli civilians on a fairly routine basis, and in some case New Yorkers, Washingtonians and Londoners.

Like any sovereign nation, Israel has an obligation to secure and protect the safety and well-being of its people.  Hezbollah and Hamas need only stop the attacks and peace will be secured. Israel will withdraw from Lebanon and live in peace with a Palestinian state.  To argue against that is simply nonsense and nothing but Anti-Semitism.

Odd? Not really. Both are looking at moral responsibility as a finite commodity – as though “blame” were a pie that there were only so many slices of to choose from. From both of their perspectives, the “other side” long ago performed actions so morally egregious, that they became full owners of all the pie, leaving none left for themselves or any others – ever. Not only is this a simple and easy way to approach  the concept of responsibility, it frees one up to employ any actions one wants, without having to worry about getting any of that pie in the face.

Now when you think about it this way, it becomes ludicrous, but this is hardly the only example of the way we commodify blame. The moral crimes of the Soviet Union were constantly used to justify anything and everything the US might do in fighting its influence in the world. Republicans refer to the left as the “blame America first” crowd because, in their eyes, any attempt to accept responsibility for ills in the world is to diminish the responsibility of others, as there is only so much responsibility-pie to go around.

And we don’t stop there. Frighteningly, we commodify even our most basic rights as well. How many times have we heard in response to liberal concerns about the death penalty and the rights of the accused countered with “what about the victim’s rights?” In a sense, this is an attempt to establish a “right of vengeance” for the aggrieved, but it’s based on the argument that there is a finite “rights-pie”, and that by giving a slice to a bad guy, you leave fewer slices for the good guys.

At some point, we must acknowledge that approaching abstractions such as blame and human rights as commodities is not only wrong, it quickly perpetuates and enflames conflict. One person’s rights do not diminish another’s, and those real points where individual rights come into conflict, the rights of the community also come into play and must be dialectically reconciled, which is a very different thing than doling out shares of dessert. The concept of trading off our rights for security and peace of mind should be considered a logical absurdism given that we’re clearly not talking about livestock or stock shares.

And responsibility is responsibility. It is not cattle futures. Sure, we make mitigating judgments of a given situation based on other factors, but those judgments are in the context of the blame we assess for a specific action, not whether or not there are still enough “blame credits” in circulation.

Hezbollah is responsible, and should be morally condemned for lobbing rockets into Israel, killing civilians.

Israel is responsible, and should be morally condemned for a disproportionate response that is killing children.

…and as we go back in the long, revolting history of the Israel-Arab conflicts, each side should bear the full moral condemnation of the world community for each objectively immoral act they have committed. Until we step back and start making these clear, moral assessments, untethered by ridiculous notions of who is “more awful” or how many bodybags one side is now morally allotted to fill based on the transgressions of the other, it is going to get worse and worse and worse… and we will ALL bear some of that responsibility.

The Vermont Lefty-Blogosphere has Arrived! Congrats to Philip Baruth’s Vermont Daily Briefing for overwhelmingly taking Seven Days’ Best Blog Daysie award. He’s off in Sweden right now… perhaps he was mistakenly anticipating a different award?

Big Polling News: If you haven’t caught it yet, the American Research Group has new polling results that still show Sanders and Douglas way out in front, but by smaller margins – particularly in regards to Douglas. The House race is a dead heat. The campaigns whose results are less than they expected are suggesting a flawed poll that doesn’t reflect their internal polling, and in the case of Welch, there seems to be second-hand confirmation of that.

Steve at Carpetbagger ponders why Greens would allow themselves to overtly exploited as GOP dirty election tools, as Nader was in 2000 and as the Green candidate for Senate in PA is right now – receiving as he is the lion’s share of his funding from right-wingnut Senator Rick Santorum’s funders. Some, such as Peter Camejo, Nader’s running mate in 2004, “said he believed in returning the money sent to the campaign from conservatives who wanted to exploit an ideological opportunity.”

There are many, many arbitrary and objectionable statements in Charity’s anti-choice manifesto anti-“pro-choicer” manifesto at She’s Right. Probably merits a whole post. I’ll get to that soon (Maybe? I hope? Somebody else wanna write one I’ll promote to the front? C’mon…). In the meantime, we’ll just take this quote –

Another sorry state is that so-called “women’s groups” are so caught up in protecting a woman’s right to have an abortion, that they have little-to-no interest in helping prevent women from getting into situations where they feel that they have to undergo a procedure that often leaves them emotionally scared for the rest of their lives.

– scratch our heads for a moment wondering where Charity (a delightful person) got her tunnel-visors, and then direct her to this link, and this one, and this one, and…well, you get the point.

What’s up with Rep Steve Green (D-Berlin)? Dude needs one of those Harry Potter Remembralls…

Also in Washington County, Rep Maxine Grad (D-Moretown) is reportedly none too happy that she will have a running mate. She has frustrated the Party in the past by pushing hard to maintain some sort of agreement with her seat mate (Republican Rep. Anne Donahue) whereby they each keep challengers to the other out of the race (although the Republicans broke it last time, which didn’t seem to bother either). This time, there is to be a Democratic primary, guaranteeing a full Dem slate for this 2-seat district – which is great. Although Grad has been a force for good in the legislature she is wrong wrong wrong on this “arrangement” that is anti-“little ‘d'” democratic, as well as contrary to the goal of promoting a progressive agenda in the Statehouse. The House Caucus and local Party should have no qualms in working around her if need be.

This sort of thing is always positive… Democrats and Republicans working together on a common problem. From a press release out of the Governor’s office last week:

Senate President Pro Tem Peter Welch, Speaker of the House Gaye Symington and Governor Jim Douglas today announced their appointments to the Next Generation Commission. 

The 9-member commission, the product of an agreement between the Legislature and the Governor, is charged with recommending how best to invest $5 million in programs to address Vermont’s emerging demographic challenges.  The commission will also develop a plan to encourage Vermonters to live and work in Vermont. 

Commission recommendations could include funding for scholarships, workforce development programs, trades training or other efforts to retain and recruit working-age Vermonters.

A great goal it is, keeping our young folk from fleeing the state, as they are in record numbers. And a terrific commission it is, as well. Some smart, high-powered people.

Unfortunately, there is one thing – and one thing only – that must be done to begin to stem the exporting of our youngest, best and brightest, and that is to put enough money into the higher education system to cut in-state tuitions by a good half. All the business handouts and loans and scholarships and initiatives they can dream up (already, Vermont students receive the greatest average state/local aid award) won’t amount to much until the tuition levels are brought down to a level at least comparable with other states’ (two years ago – the most recent report I found – Vermont was the costliest state for college tuition).

But funding for higher ed has slipped so far over so long, that doing so would entail a radical reassesment of fiscal priorities – something we’re not likely to see.

Author, radical political theorist and founder of “Social Ecology” Murray Bookchin passed away in Burlington yesterday at the age of 85.

Love him, hate him, or (sadly) don’t know him, it is impossible to dispute that Bookchin was one of the few truly original thinkers of the last century. Having grown to political maturity in the trenches of class conflict in the early 20th Century, Bookchin became rightfully disenchanted with the authoritarian Statism of the radical left and came to embrace the left-libertarianism associated with Social Anarchism (although he became concerned in his later years with the viabiity of the term “anarchism,” co-opted as it had become by seeming ethic-less, slash-and-burn activism). Bookchin’s utopian vision was far more appealing than the frighteningly authoritarian vision of the Marxists, but as communism and socialism occupied places on the active political spectrum, alternative communitarian visions that were based on true individual freedom and diversity (and were rightfully as leery of unchecked governmental power as they were of corporate power) fell by the academic and cultural wayside, much to the diminishment of political theory and discussion. There is no question that, in my opinion, Bookchin should be a far more recognizable name than the likes of the largely discredited Marx and Engels.

Most significant, though, was the philosophical structure from whence his political theory sprang. “Social Ecology” is a narrative, not just of human history, but of natural history. Bookchin’s embrace of political diversity and absolute Democracy sprang from a nature-based ethic. It was based on his observation that the pattern of nature from the moment of creation was one of ever-increasing degrees of diversity and complexity, and that human social evolution should fit into that narrative in order to be truly sustainable. Bookchin’s narrative sees human civilization and technology as a part of nature (which he termed “second nature”) – a view which often put him into conflict with “deep ecologists” who in contrast see a need for humanity to return to an arbitrary, inconsistent and romanticized hunter/gatherer period. Overall, Social Ecology provides a truly consistent, defensible, and appealing basis for an objective Moral Framework unattached (but not incompatible with) religion, and it is that framework which will likely have impact for years to come.

Closer to home, Bookchin’s radical politics (which could be described as “Green”, although he went to some effort to distinguish the different political “flavors” of Greens and disassociate himself with those he did not approve of) often put him in direct conflict with activists associated with the Progressives, whom he seemed to consider largely irrelevent at some times, or too socialist in character at others. As such, even in his adopted home of Vermont, his ideas found themselves elbowed out of the active political spectrum.

Bookchin’s work survives through his family, his many adherents, and the Institute for Social Ecology in Plainfield.

You know, I only have a brief window per day for blogging, and I had planned to talk about other things, but General Martha’s follies just keep coming…

Stung by the negative press coming from the revelation that Rainville in December accepted a $4000 contribution from a Florida contractor, and then only 5 months ago lobbied Senators Leahy and Jeffords for a 10 million appropriation, part of which would have gone to that contactor, Rainville is trying to push back. Her campaign has fired off a press release rebuttal full of quotes and citations and links going back seven years. All about what a big priority the so-called “Armory of the Future” Project at Norwich University was for Rainville, Leahy and Jeffords.

All well-documented, well-sourced, and well, irrelevant. It’s a defense in search of an argument, and only reinforces what Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said about the whole tawdry business:

“it certainly raises questions in my mind about whether she understands what ethics in government is all about.”

Check out the press release below…

From Camp Rainville:

Setting the Record Straight

Norwich Project Was Longtime Rainville Priority
Efforts Were Praised By Leahy & Jeffords

See Also Attached Letter from Ric Brahman of the Applied Research Institutes at Norwich University Timeline of the “13 Year Life of the Norwich Armory”

The Norwich “Armory Of The Future” Project Was A “Top Priority” For Gen. Rainville As Far Back As 1999.  “The armory — the top construction priority of Vermont Adjutant General Martha Rainville — would implement a new concept for Army national guard training facilities, allowing low-cost computer simulations and video-teleconferencing capabilities for soldiers, combat vehicle crews and battle staffs.”  (Sen. Leahy press release, 8/19/99, accessed on Leahy’s website, http://www.leahy.sen…)

Ø  Senators Leahy and Jeffords were Fundamental in Securing $8.65 million in Federal Funds for the Project.  “President Clinton has signed into law an annual military construction budget, including $8,652,000 sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy and Sen. Jim Jeffords, for construction of a modern new “armory of the future” at Norwich University in Northfield, for use by the Vermont Army National Guard. The senators had included the project in the Military Construction Appropriations Bill for federal fiscal year 2000, which the President signed Tuesday.” (Sen. Leahy press release, 8/19/99, accessed on Leahy’s website, http://www.leahy.sen…)

Ø  Sens. Leahy And Jeffords Praised The Norwich Project And Gen. Rainville For Her Leadership:

o  Leahy:  “General Rainville wants to keep our top-rated guard at the forefront in readiness and in skills, and this facility will help keep our guard prepared.” (Sen. Leahy press release, 8/19/99, accessed on Leahy’s website, http://www.leahy.sen…)

o  Jeffords:  “This new armory will be a national model and put the Vermont Army National Guard at the cutting edge of new training technology. The facility will give our guard the tools they need to continue their outstanding service into the next millennium.  I salute General Rainville and all the members of the guard for their efforts to protect citizens of our state and our entire nation.”  (Sen. Leahy press release, 8/19/99, accessed on Leahy’s website, http://www.leahy.sen…)

Ø  Sens. Leahy And Jeffords Reiterated their Praise at the Opening Ceremony of the Center in 2003:

o  Leahy “This is a major advance for Vermont’s Army National Guard. General Rainville wants to keep our top-rated guard at the forefront in readiness and in skills, and this facility will help keep our guard prepared.” (http://www.norwich.e…)

o  Leahy “This will be a place where members of the Guard and the entire military are going to train using some of the most state-of-the-art, advanced simulators in the world … this is going to strengthen the university, and it’s going to strengthen the Vermont National Guard.” (http://www.norwich.e…)

o  Jeffords:  “It gives us a glimpse of the future. This is a prototype — an example of what other readiness & regional technology centers will look like. But there were no blueprints. The (Vermont) National Guard and Norwich University are pioneers.” (http://www.norwich.e…)

Rainville Continued to Work with Sens. Leahy and Jeffords Over Several Years to Win Support for the Readiness and Regional Technology Center and the National Guard Virtual Low Cost Infrastructure Pilot Program (N-VLIP)

Ø  “The Congressional Adds requested are directly related to Home Land Security, Emergency Operations, Information Operations, Counterdrug Operations and Combat Readiness for our individual soldiers and units. … We also support the National Guard Virtual Low Cost Infrastructure Pilot Program request for $6,000,000 in Army National Guard Operations and Maintenance.” Letter to Leahy and Jeffords, March 11, 2004.

Ø  “The Congressional adds contained herein are directly Homeland Security, Emergency Operations, Information Operations, and Combat Readiness for our individual soldiers and units. … In addition, we support the National Guard Virtual Low Cost Infrastructure Pilot Program request for $10,000,000 in Army National Guard Operations and Mantenance.” Letters to Leahy and Jeffords, February 2006

Ø  N-VLIP Was Up and Running in April 2005

o  “On April 29, 2005, 64 Norwich University ROTC students were recognized for their role in testing virtual tank training systems developed by Raydon, Inc. The students, all members of Armor Company, put a total of 1,147 man-hours into the 16-week project, which was part of the National Guard’s virtual low-cost infrastructure pilot program (N-VLIP).” (http://www.norwich.e…)

o  “A collaboration between Norwich University, the Vermont National Guard, and RAYDON, Inc., the success of the IGT experiment bodes well for future projects of this nature.”This was a true team effort and has set the stage for continued collaboration well into the future,” said Colonel Gately.” (http://www.norwich.e…)

Ø  Leahy was instrumental in securing the funding for N-VLIP

o  “In his remarks, (Norwich University) President Schneider also acknowledged the role of Senator Patrick Leahy in making the N-VLIP project a reality. “Without his leadership to recognize the potential of this technology to increase soldier readiness, we would not have been able to complete this project.”” (http://www.norwich.e…)

Ø  Rainville Supported Projects Not Companies

o  Rainville to the Associated Press: “I supported projects throughout my tenure as adjutant general that were needed for soldier and airmen proficiency. The projects contained in that letter are valid projects. I don’t and didn’t in that letter support a specific company.” (http://www.rutlandhe…)

Ø  The National Guard Bureau Awards Federally-Funded Contracts

o  “Vermont National Guard Col. Michael Gately, the chief administrative officer at the Northfield armory, known formally as the Readiness and Regional Technical Center, said Thursday that only a portion of the $10 million request would have gone to a software vendor and he didn’t know if Raydon would be chosen, as it has been in the past. That decision would be made by the National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon, he said.” (http://www.rutlandhe…)

So the money was related to a project that had been going on for a while. So Rainville liked the project. And so did Leahy. And so did Jeffords.

And so what?

Jack Abramoff may well have liked Indian casinos. Maybe some of his favorite Congressmen did too.

She took a political contribution from someone with a financial interest in legislation before congress, turned around and lobbied to get that legislation passed weeks later. Period.

That. STINKS. And it’s all only made worse by the fact that it during the same time that she was running up more money for her “exploratory committee” than the spirit of the law allows, while exploiting her uniform for maximum political advantage with the assistance of the Rutland Herald.

All this press release does, by completely avoiding that fundamental issue, is further prove that either:

a) Rainville doesn’t understand the most basic ethics of government

b) she doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the most basic ethics of government, or

c) she thinks that the public will be too stupid to care that she doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the most basic ethics of government.

This is not how an honorable politician conducts herself. Logically, we’re stuck with one of these above explanations. Now which one goes best with a member of Congress representing the people of Vermont?

I tell you, this one’s gotten me so mad, I almost missed the pushback on the other Keystone Kampaign revelation of the week. From the Burlington Free Press:

Republican House candidate Martha Rainville on Thursday disputed claims by a former aide to Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., that in early 2005 she considered running as a Democrat against Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt.

“I would never have run against Jim Jeffords,” Rainville said

Rainville said she had no knowledge — then or now — about whether Shailor had called Albee or what they talked about. “I can’t recollect a conversation I was not a part of,” she said. Rainville said she has not discussed Albee’s claim with (Campaign operative and longtime aide to Rainville Judy) Shailor.

Shailor, speaking after the news conference, also said she could not remember who initiated the phone call. “I don’t remember who called first,” she said. “He did call me at times.”

Albee, however, insisted he had never before — or since — talked with Shailor. He said he did know at the time of the 2005 phone call that Shailor was a Vermont National Guard colleague of Rainville’s, as well as a past Republican political campaign operative.

“I remember this phone call like it was yesterday, because it was so jarring,” he said.

Shailor shrugged off Albee’s allegations as an effort by “outside interests” to cast a negative light on Rainville’s campaign.

“It’s very unfortunate,” she said. “Someone is trying to stir up trouble. I don’t see why it’s a story at all.” (emphasis mine)

…and that is why you fail…

UPDATE: PoliticsVT weighs in on the issue. Now I know the secret li’l group of bloggers over there represent a range of political ideologies, all in the interest of being perceived positively by all sides, but the following from their post:

Legally, Rainville has broken no laws nor caused any harm. However, Democrats were quick to take on Rainville for a “lapse in judgement” since Rainville has been campaigning on a platform of ethics in Congress.

However, Rainville and a number of groups such as Washington for Common Cause and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington stated that she was not only a candidate but also a Major General in the National Guard. Her responsability as Adjutant General was still on her radar as she passed the reigns over to current Adjutant General Michael Dubie.

In many ways, she was a “hybrid.” She was both a candidate and a military officer.

…is a problem. It provides no link to back up the clear suggestion that these nonprofit watchdog organizations have somehow given her a pass due to her “hybrid” role.

That’s a pretty nervy claim to make without justification, especially when you consider that, at this point, the definitive piece on the matter is the AP article from Wilson Ring that ran in the Herald and Times Argus, which includes the following:

There was nothing improper about the campaign donation or Rainville’s subsequent request for funding. But experts in political ethics say it showed poor judgment.

“This is a time when we are trying to clean up politics and here we have someone who is a little tone deaf,” said Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor who is the executive director of the nonprofit group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Nothing is going to happen to her legally, but it certainly raises questions in my mind about whether she understands what ethics in government is all about.”

This is hardly a supportive statement. In fact, the message from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics is precisely the opposite of that implied by the PoliticsVT piece. And Common Cause?

Mary Boyle, the press spokeswoman in Washington for Common Cause, said the issue highlighted the problem Rainville had as she tried to run a political campaign while still serving as adjutant general.

“She was kind of straddling two worlds. As a candidate running for office you don’t want the perception of any kind of questions like this raised by writing a letter in support of a campaign donor,” Boyle said. “It could make people ask why. Was she doing it because she was doing a routine part of her job or was it to reward a big donor?”

They are clearly frowning on the “problem” of Rainville trying to have it both ways.

Again, I know PoliticsVT tries to be popular with all sides, but this smacks of deliberate misrepresentation, and I don’t think that should be tolerated by those members of “The Capitol Bureau” that played no part in the post’s authorship (or by the blogosphere at large, frankly).

C’mon, folks. You’re better than this.

UPDATE II: Hmm..it seems a regular poster at PoliticsVT – “Demguy” – is trying a little misrepresentation of his own in order to stir up a fight. He says:

However, I think Odum has mis-represented you guys by keeping out vital parts of the entry that back up your claim. I read the same article and I believe that your argument was that she straddled both worlds. She can’t have it both ways and it made her look bad now.

At the end, you said Rainville’s actions were “questionable at a time when corruption in Washington has been a highlight of most US House and US Senate races.”

It seems that one of my own guys is taking the author of this post to task because they have a difference of opinion than his own.

Now why would I possibly take issue with that premise? Obviously what I took issue with was…well…the part that I said I took issue with, that is, implying that Common Cause and CREW we’re being all understanding and granting her special status that limited her culpability. That is the clear implication of that particular section. And that is clearly what I explicitly objected to.

Again, why would I possibly take issue with the premise that Rainville screwed up? It is..well..my premise as well, yes?

Perhaps the question is, why would “Demguy” try to clearly mischaracterize my point? Well that’s easy – he’s not a Democrat Ah, the joys of web “anonymity.”

Posts here and here  demonstrate that he is a Tarrant supporter. Could he be the Tarrantcrat I agreed not to out or his brother – both of whom post on these blogs.

Nope. Because I know my mystery Tarrantcrat supports Peter Welch, at least. Not this guy. Here’s another post:

I’m a Democrat and I fully support Martha Rainville. She will make a fantastic Congresswomen and will bring a voice of moderation and strong values to the debate in DC.

His only post about Scudder Parker I could find was a comment that his press release on energy didn’t “make any sense.”

In any event, he doesn’t seem to support any Democrats at all, and he’s promoting an agenda to keep the US Congress firmly in Republican control, so he has about as much business calling himself a “Dem” as I do calling myself a ham sandwich. Clearly, this is a Republican operative out doing his thing and without enough integrity to represent himself honestly.

Pretty typical, sadly.

Wow. I mean, wow.

One would think after Rainville’s history of shooting herself in the foot so often early in her run for US Congress on campaign finance issues (and getting caught repeatedly talking out of both sides of her mouth) that the parade of indiscretions and foul-ups must surely have peaked by now. One would be very, very mistaken:

Less than two months after receiving $4,000 in political donations from a Florida software developer (in December of 2005), then-Adjutant Gen. Martha Rainville asked Vermont’s two U.S. senators for help on a $10 million appropriation that may have benefited the man’s business.

“This is a time when we are trying to clean up politics and here we have someone who is a little tone deaf,” said Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor who is the executive director of the nonprofit group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Nothing is going to happen to her legally, but it certainly raises questions in my mind about whether she understands what ethics in government is all about.”

This one, plus the cumulative effect of her now storied history of screw-ups, has even got my jaw hanging open. Does she have no sense of political ethics, or does she simply think they don’t apply to her?

Up until this point, the narrative from Welch supporters has been about sending a progressive legislator to Washington to stop the Bush agenda. Given the parade of incompetence, duplicity, opportunism and sleaze that the Rainville campaign has become, it’s time for a new narrative:

This person should not hold political power. Period.

Being formally organized in more than 15 towns, and having statewide candidates that received at least 5% of the popular vote last election, the Progressive and Liberty Union Parties have both earned so-called “major party status” under Vermont law. One of the effects of such a classification is the requirement that candidates for state office be picked through a primary. This of course requires the Secretary of State to print lots and lots of ballots to accomodate any possible number of voters that may choose to vote in these Parties’ primaries at every Vermont polling place. And printing costs money. From VPR:

(Markowitz) “It costs just in paper alone just in the printing costs alone about $50,000 for every ballot that has to be printed. There’s additional costs for the programming costs of the optical scan machines in the communities that have them. So the costs associated with each primary ballot is pretty significant for the state. And the question is, is there a significant benefit to the parties? Is there a significant benefit to the public?”

SoS Markowitz is mistaken. The question is, “should a law that provides for the fair, impartial administration of the democratic process be reconsidered over money?”

Probably not – especially when the amount in question is only $100,000. This is a seriously slippery slope. Progressive Party standard bearer Anthony Pollina:

“They’re thinking of democracy in terms of the cost of printing ballots and we’re thinking of democracy in terms of public participation.”

He’s right. Markowitz’s proposal…

… a two tiered major party system. This could be done by increasing the number of towns that a party has to be organized in from 15 to perhaps 50.

…predicated on concerns about the printing costs rather than any sense that there is anything wrong with the system, would make for a very dangerous precedent that could be easily used to justify doing away with paper ballots altogether – among any number of other scary things.

Short of a fiscal catastrophe (which $50,000 per party hardly qualifies as), the only reasons to consider monkeying with the implementation of democracy are considerations of the implementation of democracy… not considerations of cash.

Thursday, Martha Rainville will try to regain the ground she lost by her mushy, try to please everyone non-opinion on global climate change by holding a press conference at the Williston park-and-ride on energy at 11:00.

Unfortunately, what any press in attendence (Fox Ne-er, I mean, WCAX notwithstanding) will likely be more interested in asking her about is this little revelation:

Long before she dipped her toe into the political waters as a Republican, Rainville in early 2005 sought out top Democrats to back her planned bid as a Democrat against Sen. Jim Jeffords.

At the time, February 2005, Jeffords was still expected to run for reelection, and he was beginning to rack up endorsements from some of Vermont’s top politicians, both Democrats and Republicans.

From the week of Feb. 8-15, 2005, Rainville and Judy Shailor, Rainville’s top aide at the Vermont National Guard who would later help launch her campaign committee, made it clear that Rainville wanted to move into politics — as a Democrat.

This runs counter to the narrative Rainville often tells publicly — that it was the Democrats who approached her, and she rebuffed their advances.

Of course it was only this May at the Republican statewide gathering in Barre when she said the following to the assembled crowds.

Rainville also mentioned she had been recruited by “influential leaders” of the Democratic Party and had “politely declined” their invitation. “Their principles,” said Martha, “are simply not my principles.”

No argument here, given that her principles seem to be shameless opportunism and duplicity.

New poll numbers from Survey USA:

Let’s just say these numbers are hardly welcome news for Scudder Parker’s campaign. Most disturbing (and aggravating), though, is how self-identified Democrats break out:

After a brief spike in SUSA’s last poll on Douglas’s disapprovals (37%), they’re right back down where they’ve tended to float for some time. In fact, this looks an awful lot like the numbers Clavelle was looking at two years ago, and at the time, the reasoning was that many weeniecrats… er… self-identified “moderate” Democrats, could not get past the “Progressive Pete” shingle that had hung outside the Burlington Mayor’s office for so long, and therefore tended to look more positively on the Governor than they otherwise would. Given that there is no one in the state with more solid Dem cred than Parker, the problem obviously runs deeper than that.

Despite the fact that he makes most advocates for traditionally Democratic or liberal issues pull their hair out, the public at large still likes the Governor. Over the years, Douglas has built a narrative of himself as an easy going, likable, moderate and competent manager. Although you could just about pick any issue near and dear to the left and find grumbling about the Governor from activists for that cause, the fact is that neither Parker, Clavelle or Racine has been able to make a compelling counter-narrative, which is what has to be done to turn things around for the Dems.

Now the last thing I would suggest is that Scudder is done for, even looking at such challenging numbers. He’s started getting good press and grassroots enthusiasm and anyone watching the Connecticut Senate race knows how quickly numbers can turn if the right elements come together. What I will say is that, at this stage, he needs some good fortune, and when running a campaign it’s always prefereable NOT to have to depend on good fortune. It’s all about keeping control of the variables.

Given that, here’s what I think it would take to defeat Douglas:

(DISCLAIMER: Everybody who is currently or has ever been involved in politics thinks they know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING. And that obviously includes me. It’s annoying, I admit, so I advise readers to take any pronouncements in diaries like this with the appropriate salt-grainage)

Campaign consultants and usual suspects are at a loss when theres a 30 point deficit against a popular incumbent. When I worked for the Clavelle campaign, we brought in a consultant who pointed us towards Brian Schweitzer’s first, unsuccessful campaign for Governor in Montana, where he very nearly closed that gap.

The problem with this was that Vermont is in no way, shape or form Montana.

In my experience working elections in Oregon and Vermont, if there is one way that the collective psychology of the electorate out west and the electorate here differ, it’s that there is a universal, deep-seated suspicion and resentment towards all elected officials out west. It’s a fundamental feeling that crosses party lines. As such, a 68% approval rating means something very different in Montana than it does in Vermont. In Montana, that approval rating is only skin-deep, and it takes very little scratching beneath the surface to start eroding that percentage and awaken that across-the-board cynicism towards electeds. In Vermont, it’s quite different. A 68% approval rating likely very well means that most of that 68% actually like the elected.

As such, although it may have seemed the logical campaign model to emulate under the circumstances, it was simply doomed to failure, and a 30 point deficit against a 60+ point approval incumbent in Vermont is inherently unwinnable under the accepted, professional campaign models.

Under these circumstances, I believe we should have gone against the counsel of professional consultants, contrary to the wisdom of most who consider themselves election professionals and adopted what I’ll refer to as an insurgent campaign model.

Without going into excessive detail, let me say that an insurgent campaign model is inherently more aggressive, more negative, and much more of a field-based model. During the campaign I heard from more than one “professional” the adjective “grassroots” dismissed as a throwaway euphemism for a losing, poorly funded campaign. Having worked on campaigns with a strong grassroots component, I take a certain umbrage to that characterization, but it’s an indication of the bias towards viewing campaigns exclusively as mass media affairs and candidates as cookie-cutter “product” among many Democratic Party veterans (an oversimplified, binary bias that causes us to lose elections, in my opinion).

Examples of insurgent campaigns close to home include Bernie’s first successful run for congress (although that’s a dangerously obsolete example to emulate), and more recently Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. Characteristics include:

1. Heavy emphasis on field. I believe that something akin to the Dean New Hampshire field model would have served Clavelle very well (more on that in a moment). Doing so would have necessitated an up-front investment in field at least double of that which we did.

You certainly see people (in general) out knocking on doors this year more than usual – certainly on both sides of the US Senate race. Still, “field work” remains the poor stepchild of political campaigns. this is a real shame because traditionally, the grunt work of grassroots organizing in the field has always been the left’s advantage – and to retake the Governorship will require a fully realized field-driven campaign.

2. An extended campaign calendar and high level of integration of field and fundraising.

3. A “pay as you go” model. Perhaps the most challenging of all aspects, it involves building a campaign plan that assumes financial support in the waning weeks before Election Day without a comfortable degree of certainty as to where the money would come from. Simply put, the up-front field investment is so do-or-die, it necessitates throwing a certain amount of caution to the wind in order to fund it.

4. Aggressive, “comparative” message. The opponent is identified in populist, simple, and moral terms as being out of touch in virtually every way and no opportunity is missed to demonstrate that.

5. Extreme Rapid Response. No charge or initiative of the opponent is left unchallenged or uncharacterized. In an insurgent campaign, the candidate him or herself responds directly to make the counterattack louder than the attack. If this comes from the candidate himself, it can be accomplished without simply seeming shrill, but it means that the candidate must have sufficient research to be prepared for anything, and be prepared on a day-to-day basis, through accompanying communications staff, to respond in a press conference setting within 4 hours to anything that may be tossed his way. This means that if the candidate is campaigning in Bennington for the day, fifteen minutes must be carved out of his schedule for a press conference in Bennington to respond to the salvo du jour from the incumbent in Montpelier.

6. “Movement” rhetoric. The message of the campaign must suggest a groundswell. In Bernie’s and Dean’s campaigns, the pronoun “I” was rarely heard. It’s always “we” and “this campaign.” The rhetoric of “I am ready to lead” must give way to the message of “we are ready to change things.”

So how is Scudder doing based on this checklist?

2, 3, and 4 are looking good. 5 has been sometimes excellent, and sometimes absent. Haven’t heard the movement rhetoric from #6.

But the most important point – #1 – has been lacking.

A couple weeks before I officially started with the Clavelle campaign, Tom Hughes at Democracy for America (who I had worked with during the ’02 campaign) asked me to meet with him. He wanted to lay out the New Hampshire Dean house party model of field organizing to me, in the hopes that I would adopt it for the Clavelle campaign. I was already favorably inclined towards the model, and seeing it laid out like that really sold me. Without belaboring the detail in a diary that is already way too long for any sane person to slog through, it is a truly brilliant approach. The house event – where a host invites a few true believers and many more fence sitters or completely un-engaged folks, plays them a short video of the candidate and his/her message, then facilitates a discussion about how the message applies to the individuals in attendence – breaks the traditional candidate-to-audience communication dynamic. Instead, the candidate’s message is introduced and the communication becomes person-to-person, with the candidate completely removed. The Dean model gets people talking to each other about themselves, and who doesn’t love to do that?

From each party, then, the new recruits go out and host their own parties. This house-party chain is punctuated by benchmark convention-style events that get the burgeoning fan club/local volunteer infrastructure together for combination revival meetings and volunteer duty-tasking.

It was a great system that too many people dismiss because Dean didn’t win. What they forget is that Dean went from nobody to being the guy to beat, and but for some missteps and a coordinated effort from some of the other candidates to take him down, he wouldve had the nomination, and it was this field strategy combined with the brilliant use of the internet that enabled it.

What the field strategy and the netroots strategy did in tandem was decentralize the campaign and allow it to take off (often beyond the control of the campaign itself) into a real movement. And in doing so, they demonstrated the crucial element of a modern field-focused campaign; that a field plan isn’t about what happens when a candidate is in town, it’s about what happens when the candidate is somewhere else.

And this is an understanding that Scudder’s campaign hasn’t demonstrated. The “candidate-in-residence” tours are great things, but if the campaign doesn’t actively translate them into ongoing grassroots action after the candidate leaves for the next stop, they aren’t getting much from them.

The Dean model is the best I’ve seen to accomplish this, but it does require an early start and a serious committment of resources, as coordinating such an “amway-style” campaign takes a lot of on-the-ground, hands-on management. Although Scudder got started early, he did not start such an active field development program – and that means he is not that much removed from where Clavelle was at this time.

Returning to the Clavelle comparison, I did leave my meeting with Hughes and immediately put together a scaled-down version of the New Hampshire Dean model as a proposal to the Campaign Manager. Although it was rejected, it’d be unfair to really assess any blame for that decision. The truth is, it was already June – only 5 months before the election – and the die was already cast. We were committed to a course of action and we had to simply make it work, or not. If Scudder doesn’t win, the next candidate will have to do all the things right that Scudder has done, but then give it that final extra critical component – the early, intensive committment to a full-blown, vibrant, decentralized and grassroots driven field campaign, probably starting no later than September or November of the year before the election.

When that happens, the movement becomes the counter-narrative to Douglas’s never-ending story, and the tale can be told from house party to house party…