Understand that I generally can’t stand political ads. They tend to be condescending or outright insulting, and often seem put together by people who couldn’t get work in Hollywood. But this one is pretty good, and will be extraordinarily hard for the Rainville camp to criticize without looking like ogres. Yeah, the production is a bit cheesy with the piano and all, but it’s easy to overlook that as the content (Peter discussing his work on health care in the context of his wife’s illness and eventual passing) is strong stuff, and Welch himself comes across very well in it.

My only complaint is one little line. I just think there should be a moratorium on all politicians using the line “and I won’t rest until… [fill in the blank].” These days, that one just pegs the cliche-o-meter.

Check it out at their site by clicking here. It really is a nice piece of campaign advertising and will go a long way towards defining Welch to the electorate (if they show it enough). Now it won’t stop Martha’s swift boat team from going right after Welch on health care (what he is pitching as his stength) in the most nasty, personal way they can – that is the Rove playbook, after all. Hopefully his campaign team will be ready to fire back quickly when that time comes. All in all, though, I continue to feel better and better about this race.

Some time back, I reposted the abstract of the prodigious energy plan proposed by several high profile bloggers such as Jerome a Paris. I also promised further diaries that highlighted the original thinking taking place in the blogosphere. The next obvious choice was this opus by blogger AmberJane laying out clearly why single-payer health care isn’t just affordable at the National level, but how it makes economic sense. Sure, Vermont just passed health care reform, but we know the Catamount plan is a blank check that will eventually need to be cashed, so the creative thinking must continue.

But rather than just reprint AmberJane’s plan, I encourage you to follow the link above. It’s impressive stuff. In the meantime, I think we should take a stab at it. I tend to concur with Bernie myself, that this is a change that needs to take place at the state level. The stumbling block always seems to be the implementation, that is – how do you get there from here? Activists tend to get bored with the details and take a “just do it” attitude, but when public policy meets politics, the means often becomes the end – and that end can be a big ol’ train wreck.

So in the “if I ran the zoo” file, here’s my uneducated, naive, idealistic, blah blah blah version of a roadmap. If you don’t feel like slogging through it, by all means skip past, but in the comments section please share how you would get from here to there on this – or any other issue near and dear to the progressive heart (renewable energy, affordable housing, world peace…you name it!).

Come on, let’s hear some good ideas. Email this link around to all the smart people you know and get them posting their good ideas or criticizing the ones shown here…

It’s likely there are many ways to get to single payer. Piloting a system with state employees and incentivizing others into it gradually, for example. However, there are a few cold political realities that must be faced to make something like this work. First, there can be little or no perception of tax increases, or any up-front increase on the burden of working and middle class citizens. Second (and most daunting), the bulk of the changeover must be complete within the two-year election cycle, so incumbents can feel confident they will have results to run on and not face a backlash in the midst of a painful transitional period (and yes, this is the opposite view expressed by many current legislators, I know).

The devil’s in the details, of course but in the interest of keeping all options alive, the following are five broad steps that, as part of a comprehensive reform bill, could facilitate the transition under these preconditions.

The basic premise is this: legislatively lock all current health plans and malpractice insurance plans into place during the transition period, gradually move all insurance reporting to a centralized state-based reporting/tracking/reimbursement system rather than having patient accounts systems and departments at every medical facility, then slide all current commercial planholders into comparable state-administered plans with the same premiums being paid directly to the state rather than the commercial payers. Then use the profit (and there IS profit under the current payment rates – plenty of it) from the premiums (along with taxes levied on larger employers that weren’t adequately covering employees already, as the Catamount plan does) to assume basic coverage for uncovered Vermonters. This gives you a dramatically larger revenue base from which to build a coverage pool for the uninsured, and sufficient resources to have the state implement it directly, rather than farm it out to a commercial payer. By the time the transition is over, we zero out remaining profits (the state shouldn’t be in the for-profit business) by passing on savings to the ratepayers, businesses, and physicians by actually bringing DOWN premiums.

That’s the abstract. Somebody gimme some money to fund a study and I’ll hash out the details. In the meantime, to flesh that out a little bit, I see it playing out in the following order of steps:

1. First, freeze all current private insurance plans with the understanding they will be discontinued within one year. Within that time, require all providers (doctors and hospitals) to convert to electronic medical records. The state should then enter into a partnership with an established commercial “practice management” software provider (no, it doesn’t have to be IDX!) to refit their system to centrally receive, convert and process insurance claims under all the current plans and communicate with the current payers. Collect all existing coverage information into a central database.

2. Once coverage and patient data is centralized, cancel all private insurance and assume the responsibility for all existing, catalogued plans at the state level. All providers will be submitting patient claims to this centralized system, but the insured and their employers will be paying the same rates and receiving the same plan. From the current health care consumer’s standpoint (both individuals and employers), transitioning them into the system should be seamless. There is, of course, profit taking in the system currently, so just transferring the system of premiums and provider recoupment to the state will also transfer those profits, helping to fund the system. The state should put some initial money into a pool to keep the system solvent long enough for the revenue to start flowing.

3. After a comprehensive analysis, settle on a system of a limited amount of coverage plans (much like a for-profit insurance company) that mirror Medicare and Medicaid plans for uniformity, since those forms are dictated to some extent by the federal government. Simplifying and streamlining plans to mirror the federal programs’ systems will also make it simpler for the newly created (and only modestly-sized) State Patient Accounts Division to be the go-between between Medicare and Medicaid eligible patients and the federal government for payment. Fold current users into the new plan that most resembles the commercial plan they are leaving behind and offer uninsured residents their choice of plans with a sliding-scale premium based on their ability to pay.

4. Conduct a parallel process with physician malpractice coverage, with an eye towards a rapid phase in of premiums that truly reflect an overall revenue-neutral, cost/benefit survey on the real costs of supporting malpractice insurance based on historical projections of payouts (I guarantee you such an analysis focusing on Vermont and without a profit incentive or excessive overhead would generate a FAR lower premium for physicians – bringing down what is often cited as the number one spiraling cost on physicians end of the equation). Malpractice costs are an often overstated, but nevertheless very real source of spiraling costs. In fact it seems to be every bit the racket that much of the health insurance industry is. Taking over malpractice insurance at the state level and implementing it with a zero-profit, realistic cost-benefit analysis is therefore critical to the overall goal of controlling helath costs in the state so that any Vermont single payer plan can be predictable and sustainable. In the interest of bringing down costs, drug re-importation also becomes a priority, which is yet another way that implementing such a plan could put the state on a collision course with the feds. Sometimes it’s worth playing chicken though.

Once the data is centralized, a market “going rate” analysis can also be made of what current employers can reasonably be expected to pay into a system, based on a snapshot study of what businesses were paying into commercial plans at the time the transition started. A fair rate for a business premium can be based on this analysis, and should also be based on business’s ability to pay.

Finally, a generic “bare bones” coverage plan can exist for all those that aren’t reached to choose their own plan option (emergency cases), and charges to such patients can be submitted under a “dummy account” to the state, pending proof of residence (as defined by the legislature under the plan).

5. Savings from lower emergency room services, lower paperwork and administrative overhead (providers’ patient accounts personnel resources can likely be reduced by 50-100%) can be used to boost the coverage pool for catastrophic conditions and the sliding premium scale.

Under this approach, there are no new expense increases for the consumer – simply a redirection — and the draconian increases in coverage hitting individuals, employers, and local property taxpayers annually will all but vanish.

There would be bumps in the road of course, not the least of which being confidentiality and privacy concerns. But if nothing else, weary legislators and policy advocates could take heart from this example and not give into cynicism. Obviously working out the details and passing such a plan would be a Herculean task.

But not an impossible one.

Your turn. Tell me I’m nuts, or make your own plan. Let’s hear the plan for another one of society’s ills.

C’mon – let’s see what you’ve all got…

However you feel about third parties in general or the Progressives in particular (and GMD readers know this is a generally – if not specifically – Dem-oriented site, a la Daily Kos and MyDD… my personal reasoning can be found here), it’s hard to argue that they’ve suffered from a specific, classic radical mindset: let’s call it the revolution mentality. Despite all the talk of the grassroots, the Party has been looking at their development as an organization as a top-down enterprise. Throw a high-profile, unabashed lefty out there, the masses will simply rise up in support, and the evil Democratic Party will be supplanted once and for all.

Obviously this political “Field of Dreams” they’ve been trying to build hasn’t made the team magically materialize from the corn field.

But something is different this time. After a lot of noise last year about the prospects of Rep. Zuckerman and Anthony Pollina running for statewide office, neither has followed through (although it’s still possible Pollina will, but I doubt it). Instead, it’s looking like the Progressive Party may be heeding the advice that has perpetually followed it by focusing on following their local, truly grassroots victories with more local grassroots victories.

The Progressives have assumed for a while that the election of Bernie Sanders to the US House wasn’t a case of lightning striking, but a large scale acceptance of their agenda. This has made the statewide races their Holy Grail, but by formally coalescing into an organized Party (as opposed to seizing the opportunity to run more “Independent” candidates and take ownership of that powerful label), they’ve found themselves marginalized outside of specific districts.

In fact, the statewide races have become a bit of an albatross for them, as they peaked in the three-way Lietenant Governor’s of 2002 with Pollina’s 24% of the vote and a clean fracture of the left that put Brian Dubie into office and hung the “spoiler” label tightly around their collective necks. In 2004, when Steve Hingtgen ran against Cheryl Rivers – a Democrat who is as progressive as any Progressive – it just seemed like pure petulance.

But also in 2004, Progressives picked up state House seats in the Northeast Kingdom and Central Vermont, adding to their extra-Burlington foothold in Brattleboro. And now they are running genuinely viable House candidates in Vergennes, in retiring Rep. Rusten’s district in Windham County, and more. Add to that the rumor about Pollina, and it looks for all the world like a sea change in Progressive priorities has taken place. If they accept as a given that the they could run just about anyone for Attorney General and grab that 5% they need to maintain major Party status, it certainly could free up their time and energy for a bottom-up approach.

Interestingly, if that is what’s going on (and I’m just speculating, here), it may not only impact the political geography of the state, but the dynamics of the Progressive Party as well. The Progressives are very concerned about issue discipline among their ranks, writing restrictions into their bylaws requiring political uniformity, but we’ve already seen that as the Progs reach outside of their inner circle for candidates, this sort of rigid management starts to break down. Winston Dowland has deviated from the Party line more than once, and as Jack McCullough pointed out, Vergennes candidate April Jin may come front loaded with similar challenges.

At the end of the day, the paradigm shift taking place that could reshape the Progressives into a more formidable political force may also reshape it into something that may not exactly be what its inner circle had in mind.

But that’s Democracy for ya.

PS (perhaps an overly personal PS…): While writing this diary, ANONYMOOSE who pops in every now and then to bash Dems (as if we don’t do that enough around here…) apparently noticed the blerb from my last Vermont blog roundup that referenced Baruth’s report about Pollina considering a Chittenden Senate run. Of course the blerb lamented the fact that Progressives have historically had a few issues around residence matters and political office. User ANONYMOOSE was apparently so incensed, that after his “goodby cruel GMD” post, he fired off a missive to his allies, as I almost immediately received email from a prominent Progressive legislator entitled “full of crap.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – if the Dems went into the hissy fits when criticized the way the Progs do, I’d never get any sleep around here after the impeachment coverage alone, not to mention everything else. My correspondent is angry that I didn’t “name names” when I referred to a “couple Dems” who have been similarly guilty, and proceeded to wax victimized.

Fine. You want specifics? Have some specifics. ALL of them.

Actually, I did misspeak. I only know of one Dem who was guilty of the same tackiness: It seemed Peter Welch was spending far too much time in Burlington during some of the period he was representing Windsor County. Consider your hand smacked Peter.

Some other things that seemed to be?

• It seemed that Martha Abbott was living in Jericho during some of the time she was a Burlington officeholder.
• It seemed that Steve Hingtgen had moved to Montpelier while he was still representing Burlington
• It seemed that Chris Pearson was living and working in the D.C. area when his name was put forward to replace Bob Kiss — at least according to his company’s website (yes, the website quickly changed when his name was being floated, but guess who has a cached copy?)
• It seemed that Emma Mulvaney-Stanak had changed her voter registration to Barre when her name was floated as a replacement for Kiss, and may have even voted for Burlington mayor under those circumstances causing one to wonder just what the laws on voter fraud look like.

Hands please: smack, smack, smack, smack, and I’ll withhold the Pollina hand-smack until we determine if the rumor proves true or not.

There. Full disclosure, just like you guys asked. Doesn’t that feel better now?

Sheesh. Get used to it. Smacking hands is part of what we do here. Whining about it will not make any diarist here less inclined to do so in the future. It’s a blog for pity’s sake. I printed my one-and-only mea culpa to you guys some time back already. Think I’m not being fair? Take it up with Sen. Welch, Rep. Symington, Rep. Sanders, Treasurer Spaulding, Secretary of State Markowitz, Sen. Leahy…etc etc etc.

Sometimes words are not enough. Words like hypocritical, scary, outrageous. Maybe the word sick is appropriate here. If so, it’s a sickness of pandemic proportions, coming soon to a church and a videogame system near you — whether you live in Alabama, or good ol’ Vermont.

So in these days of fanatical religious terrorism and a war launched to counter it, what can you say about a videogame where you control warriors that shout “Praise the Lord!” as they blow infidels away? Would you assume this is some sick Jihadist indoctrination medium from the mind of Osama Bin Laden?

You’d like to assume that wouldn’t you? Still, in this day and age, where there seems to be no level to which the Christian theocrats won’t sink, you can’t honestly say the following surprises you. In the ongoing saga of giving Christians a bad name, this comes from Talk2Action:

Imagine: you are a foot soldier in a paramilitary group whose purpose is to remake America as a Christian theocracy, and establish its worldly vision of the dominion of Christ over all aspects of life. You are issued high-tech military weaponry, and instructed to engage the infidel on the streets of New York City. You are on a mission – both a religious mission and a military mission — to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state – especially moderate, mainstream Christians.

Your mission is “to conduct physical and spiritual warfare”; all who resist must be taken out with extreme prejudice. You have never felt so powerful, so driven by a purpose: you are 13 years old. You are playing a real-time strategy video game whose creators are linked to the empire of mega-church pastor Rick Warren, best selling author of The Purpose Driven Life.

This from the people who regularly rail against anti-American and anti-Christian propoganda in Saudi and Palestinian schools.

The game, Left Behind: Eternal Forces, is based on scenes from the first four novels in the [book] series. The game was developed by a publicly-traded company called Left Behind Games, according to SEC records. The developers obtained the license from Tyndale House, the Christian publisher of Left Behind.

Tyndale also publishes Bringing Up Boys and The Complete Marriage and Family Home Reference Guide by Focus on the Family founder  James Dobson, PhD. Mr. Dobson has advised parents to monitor the amount of time children spend playing video games and “avoid the violent ones altogether.” But he has not yet stated his views on whether there should be an exception for video games that role play gunplay in the name of Christ, or of the AntiChrist.

Tyndale’s licensing of the project infuriated one of its authors, Jack Thompson, a conservative Christian attorney and outspoken critic of video game violence, who told the Los Angeles Times that he severed ties with his publisher in a dispute over “Left Behind: Eternal Forces.”

“It’s absurd,” said the video critic. “You can be the Christians blowing away the infidels, and if that doesn’t hit your hot button, you can be the Antichrist blowing away all the Christians.”

Think it’s just a couple whackjobs? Of course it isn’t. These folks have a theocratic, tax-exempt, nationwide network of churches at their disposal. More from talk2action:

Left Behind Games executives Troy A. Lindon and Jeffrey S. Frichner told the Los Angeles Times of their plans to build buzz for Left Behind: Eternal Forces by distributing 1 million sample discs directly through churches nationwide. This is a sign that their approach follows the same marketing strategy that Mr. Warren used to ramp up early sales numbers for his international best seller The Purpose Driven Life.

These are big players in the Theocrat promotional machine. People intimately connected to folks like Dobson, Falwell and Robertson — who, of course, have nothing to say on the matter.

Well, nothing fit for public consumption.

Don’t get me wrong – I believe the “videogames made my child a killer” argument is a ridiculous copout and not meaningfully supported scientifically.

But that’s hardly the point, is it? And besides, Grand Theft Auto is hardly offered to children as young as six years old as a sacrament.

A study in contrasts in the US Senate race:

On the Republican side, Rich Tarrant has stepped up to the plate and listened to Vermonters on the important issue of the day. After being moved by the voices of the common folk, he has taken a break from push polling through a scandal-laden GOP hit firm and unveiled a bold public policy statement:

I’ve been listening to both sides, and although not all will agree, I’ve decided that my campaign will be using small signs more often than large ones. We will try to reserve the large signs for the sides of barns and large fields.

As a candidate for the U.S. Senate, I believe it’s important to listen to what Vermonters have to say, and as we move towards November I will continue to do just that.

A pronouncement worthy of Solomon, presented with an explicit message to Vermonters: this is how Senator Tarrant will do business. You don’t like the big signs? No problem, he’ll buy smaller ones. No, no…don’t thank him. While he may differ with most Vermonters on issues like abortion rights or illegal domestic spying, on the issues that matter, Rich is prepared to step forward and lead unambiguously. Vermont wants new signs? No sweat. After all, it’s only money.

Meanwhile in Washington, the Independent-slash-Progressive-slash-Democratic candidate was concerned with size as well – the size of the bandwidth pipe that may be left over for the rest of us after communications companies like Verizon successfully stripped out “net neutrality” from the Communications Bill. Bernie has stepped up as a leader in the fight to protect free speech and the internet as we have come to know it.

If you haven’t heard about the issue, here’s The Nation:

The First Amendment of the Internet – the governing principle of net neutrality, which prevents telecommunications corporations from rigging the web so it is easier to visit sites that pay for preferential treatment – took a blow from the House of Representatives Thursday.

Bowing to an intense lobbying campaign that spent tens of millions of dollars – and held out the promise of hefty campaign contributions for those members who did the bidding of interested firms – the House voted 321 to 101 for the disingenuously-named Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE). That bill, which does not include meaningful network-neutrality protections creates an opening that powerful telephone and cable companies hope to exploit by expanding their reach while doing away with requirements that they maintain a level playing field for access to Internet sites.

The bill drew overwhelming support from Republican members of the House, with the GOP caucus voting 215-8 in favor of it. But Democrats also favored the proposal, albeit by a narrower vote of 106 to 92. The House’s sole independent member, Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, a champion of internet freedom who is seeking his state’s open Senate seat this fall, voted against the measure.

Despite an intense lobbying campaign (led in part by former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry) designed to convince the suddenly-manifest grassroots movement against this effort that it’s all much ado about nothing, the fact is that the the corporations who stand to gain have a track record that speaks volumes:

Such corporate control of the Web would reduce your choices and stifle the spread of innovative and independent ideas that we’ve come to expect online. It would throw the digital revolution into reverse. Internet gatekeepers are already discriminating against Web sites and services they don’t like:

• In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
• In 2005, Canada’s telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.
• Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the “quality and reliability” of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose — driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace.
• In April, Time Warner’s AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com — an advocacy campaign opposing the company’s pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

This is just the beginning. Cable and telco giants want to eliminate the Internet’s open road in favor of a tollway that protects their status quo while stifling new ideas and innovation. If they get their way, they’ll shut down the free flow of information and dictate how you use the Internet.

It’s again important to note that plenty of Dems are voting in favor of this corporate stranglehold, but that support for neutrality also crosses party lines:

The fight over net neutrality now moves to the Senate, where Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan have introduced legislation to codify the net neutrality principles of equal and unfettered access to Internet content into federal law. Mark Cooper, the director of research for the Consumers Federation of America, thinks net neutrality will find more friends in the Senate, at least in part because the “Save the Internet” coalition that has grown to include more than 700 groups, 5,000 bloggers and 800,000 individuals is rapidly expanding.

Of course, this once again brings to light the main reason Bernie gets tagged as ineffective; he’s a good guy busting his ass in a sea of bad guys — and more often than not these days, the bad guys win. The solution is not to replace our principled representation in Washington with a member of the bad guy’s team, it’s to change the rest of Congress.

Concerned about Bernie’s effectiveness?

Sending him from the mob scene that is the US House to the Senate where he will be a full 1% of the membership all by his lonesome is a nice, mathematically verifiable way to dramatically increase it.

In the meantime, Vermonters have been treated to a weekend that provides a nice juxtaposition of the candidates for the US Senate, and what issues they consider important enough to get out in front on.

UPDATE: Ack! In my Daily Kos duties and wild travelling over the past few days, I made a goofy cut-and-paste error and named the wrong Martha below (which is very embarassing given that I KNOW the one I put in there…sorry MH, feel free to give me hell for it if you’re reading) Thanks for ANONYMOOSE for pointing it out, even if you got yer feelings hurt by having yer team’s knuckles rapped. Oh, the humanity…

Some quick stuff for readers to check out. I’m a little checked out myself and will continue to be for a few days, as I’ve agreed to help out with the “diary rescue” front page feature at Daily Kos while the usual suspects are at the Vegas convention.

Over at Vermont Hum, poster anonymous (widely presumed to be Haik Bedrosian) is defending GMD’s honor in a back and forth with conservatives about the Tarrant push-poll piece. In the battle-of-the-anonymouses over there, the right winger posts “Actually, the story makes it pretty clear that no one knows who’s behind the polling, if it actually took place.”

Look again Sherlock. It says the “VT GOP and/or the Tarrant Campaign.” In other words, the Republicans are behind it (my “Tarrant Democrat” refused to confirm or deny it, as a matter of fact — oh, and check out the VDB follow-up piece that makes a star out of my friend Wendy while comparing me to rust, but in a good way).

Baruth has had a great week, and has posts here and here tracking the rumor that Anthony Pollina is shopping for a residence in Burlington to run for Chittenden County Senator. Love ’em or hate ’em, it’s clear the Progs don’t worry too much about residence when targeting elected office (what with residence questions around officeholders Steve Hingtgen, Martha Abbott, Chris Pearson, potential officeholder Emma Mulvaney-Stanak and now Pollina…and yeah, I know there were questions around a couple Dems, but ye gods, dudes — that’s a hefty proportion of your lineup, there!)

Peachy. Bernie’s doing the tacky give-teenage-volunteers-a-laptop-and-call-them-interns thing too, just like Tarrant. Just brilliant. It looks bad when the good guys do it too, Bernie.

Kinda disturbing, surreal painting of Rumsfeld on display at What’s the Point by an Iraqi artist.

Cool Blue takes Leahy to task for not taking King George’s word that everyone held in Guantanamo is a murderous terrorist and should be allowed to rot with no contact with the outside world. Hard to imagine what it must be like to have such absolute, unwavering faith in the purity and infallibility of your chosen political holy men, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Over at Rational Resistance, Jack wonders what Bush could possibly mean when he suggests immigrants should “learn American values” given that Bush himself has stomped on all of them.

And if you get Channel 17 in Chittenden County, I’ll be on the local media show at 5:25 PM on Tuesday June 13th talking about…well…political blog stuff, I guess… along with Haik Bedrosian of Burlington Pol, Darren Allen of Hall Monitor (and that reporting gig he’s got), and somebody else whose identity I couldn’t figure out from the confirmation email we all got. Probably one of the conservative crowd. It’s a call-in show, so call in at 862-3966. We’re encouraged to recruit callers, but I’m too lazy for that. I’m sure it will make for thrilling viewing. Especially the car chase.

Here’s what has been said by Vermont politicians about the fag bashing, sorry, debate in the US Senate over the (thankfully) failed Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage:

Rich Tarrant:  “We believe it’s the role of the states”

Peter Welch: “This question is rightfully left to the states,”

Martha Rainville: “I don’t see the need to amend the United States Constitution to dictate to the states the laws of marriage”

Patrick Leahy: “For 225 years we’ve left it up to the states to define marriage,”

Bernie Sanders: “Marriage historically has been left to the states.”

If none of our esteemed leaders is capable of saying it, allow me:

The “marriage amendment” should be defeated because it is wrong. Immoral. Bigotry. Not because it should be “up to the states” to decide which citizens they’d like to stomp all over. Or because of the abstraction of “enshrining discrimination in the Constitution.” As Senator Feingold said: “I support gay marriage. If two people care enough about each other that they want to get married, they ought to be able to.” Period. They oughta put this guy in pill form and start prescribing it to certain Vermonters. Even better? Try this clip of Jon Stewart putting the screws to Mister “Virtue”, Bill Bennett.

I expect this crap from the knuckle-draggers like Tarrant & company, as they want to try to pass as civilized before the electorate. A nice warm place in the history books is waiting for that crowd.

But everybody who knows better and couldn’t bring themselves to come out and speak the truth because they might lose Kevin Blier’s vote should be ashamed of themselves.

A few days ago, it came to my attention that there was an individual publicly promoting the candidacy of Rich Tarrant who was a prominent member of a not-insignificant Democrat-oriented organization with national ties. As you might expect, my jaw hit the keyboard (resulting in quite a jumble of characters).

So, I went into “raise holy hell” mode with this person, whom I have had peripheral professional acquaintance with, and emailed the individual to give them a chance to refute the charge before I unleashed the blogs of war (full disclosure: my first campaign job upon arriving in Vermont fresh after being an Oregon Democratic delegate was with the Sanders campaign in the mid-90s). When this person informed me they no longer held the position of prominence within the organization, it was clear that this wasn’t a “federal case,” so I pulled the plug on the angry expose I was drafting for GMD, DailyKos, MyDD, and everywhere else I was going to crosspost it for the purpose of getting the parent organization’s (and possibly the DNC’s) attention.

As such, I have no further intention of “outing” this person, but the resultant email exchange did give me a glimpse into the mind of such a “Tarrant Democrat” (oxymoron?) that is worth examining. And for the gossipy-minded – sorry; all names and points of reference that could be used to identify the source or get her or him in any trouble have been expunged. Lest I be accused of being unfair, I am reprinting emails in their entirety (without identification). As you’ll see, the writer is articulate and impassioned, and makes their case clearly. If anything, one could argue I’m making myself look bad by coming off as such a grouch. All told, it could be said that I’m giving the Tarrant faithful a free chance to make their pitch to the Democratic left, here.

Judge for youself (and I would ask that any theories as to who this person is be kept to yourselves – please don’t post them)…

My initial email was pretty blunt. I was rapidly transitioning from shocked to really pissed off:

If it IS you, I feel obliged to come at you with everything I can muster on Green Mountain Daily and its associated national blogs, with an additional bullseye on the [privacy snip] and the National [privacy snip] for abiding an officer siding with the GOP’s anti-choice, pro-religious right, pro-Bush candidate. I thouht in only fair to give you a heads up as well as a chance to tell me I’m making a terrible mistake. I sure hope I am (and if I am, you should know someone is trying to make you look bad out there).

Annoyed as I was, I honestly still expected a response telling me I was completely wrong, and expressing at least as much outrage as I was. No go:

John, I respect you, your opinion and all the hard work you do for the
Democratic Party. However, I cannot support Bernie. I am one of MANY
Democrats, I can assure you. The fact of the matter is that I feel that
Bernie has done little for the state and I want a fresh voice in
Washington. The man has tried, I know, and I respect his willingness to
make an effort on behfalf of us all — however, I think its time for a
new voice. Rich is, from what I have seen and heard [privacy snip] – a moderate. He will not be beholden to special interest like
Bernie may be, and is very respectful towards people.

I am a staunch supporter of Peter Welch having given much money to his
campaign [privacy snip], I have given to Scudder’s
campaign on a $5 contribution. I fought for Jan Backus, I fought in the
field for Hinda Miller, and I have always followed the Democratic
Legislature. [privacy snip] they respected my
point of view. [privacy snip] in addition [privacy snip] encouraged me to follow my heart and my conscience. I
simply do not believe that Bernie is the right man for the job. He has
spent 15 years in the House and accomplished little.

[privacy snip]

It is a shame because we have worked together and I thought that my
fellow Democrats would respect my point of view. [privacy snip] invoked this
little piece of advice to me after Kate O’Connor [spoke with] me:

“Those who you consider to be your friends will respect your opinion.
Those who you worked with in the past will respect your opinion. Those
who do not are not your friends, and that is the crappy party of
politics.”

Honestly John, this is my business and no one else’s. and
I would appreciate it if you please back off. I respect you enough to
ask for you to be respectful of my privacy and of my family, who have
urged me to do this. [privacy snip] I respect your point
of view, but I will ask you to please respect my privacy, my business
and my family. Attacking me is a direct attack on me and my family and
my name.

People already know about this. Attacking me will not solve the
problems that our country faces. Destroying my future as a Democrat and
possible leader does not solve the problem. It adds to the problem as
to how polarized our country is. I am a moderate/centrist Democrat. It
will fall to people like me [privacy snip] to solve the problems
that we are facing and bridge the gap between the conservative and
liberal wings of both parties.

Please respect my opinion, my name and my privacy. You’re a good man
who has done much for the party. Please don’t attack me because of my
choice. I would like to point out that Ed Flanagan worked for George
Aiken and Howard appointed a Republican Attorney General (Jeff Amestoy)
to the Supreme Court. Remember, he was Chief Justice.

I hope you understand and respect my decision.

Again, the snipped portions included a mention that this person no longer held a position of responsibility and institutional credibility intimately tied to the Democratic Party, so it seemed inappropriate to go after him. I wasn’t going to simply let it sit there, though. I was ready to argue!

There was so much to refute in there. Particularly the one referencing the “many Democrats” who share his views. Remember- the Democratic State Committee unanimously endorsed Bernie. Dean was pushing his candidacy well before that. And polls still show Tarrant 35 points in the hole, so there are simply not many Vermonters supporting Tarrant, let along those who self-identify as “Democrats.” Now I certainly know many Dems who have carried a grudge against Bernie for some time due to his years of nasty, simplistic, rhetorical assaults on all those who consider themselves “Democrats” – but on the other hand, folks who have been watching him have seen that sort of generalized condemnatory rhetoric fade over the years. In addition, all the folks I know (including some users of this blog) were able to seperate their personal distaste from the obvious, critical need to pull together and keep the GOP from holding control of Congress in the face of all that’s happening nationally and internationally under the Bush regime. In fact, they find it a no-brainer.

It seemed to me that this person was either in denial, or living in a bubble that begged to be popped:

Hey, if you’re no longer [associated with the prominent Democratic-related organization], then it’s not a
“federal issue,” and I wont make it one. If you were an officer, it would be
a very VERY big deal. In fact it would make some jaws drop (it did mine).

I would, though, love to see you try to explain your position to Nancy
Pelosi, Barney Frank, John Conyers, Sander Levin and all the rest of the
Dems that Bernie has been caucussing with for the past decade and a half why
you’d prefer to see the GOP stay in power in the Senate rather than support
the colleague they’ve worked with for so long. Believe me, everywhere
outside of Vermont, Bernie has been considered in all ways that matter a
Democrat for many, many years.

Flanagan and Dean’s association with Republicans did not have the
implications for the nation and the world that supporting GOP control of the
Senate does. Don’t even pretend they’re equivalent. If you were also
supporting Douglas, I might see some ideological consistency there, but
you’re not, so you’re decision is hard to respect, and just seems
self-destructively inconsistent and arbitrary, or possibly personal in
nature.

What I didn’t say is that this person should try asking Dean and Flanagan if he made a valid comparison. I think we all know what the answers would be.

Thanks for your thoughts. I respect your opinion even though I
don’t agree with it. I was offered an opportunity to get involved in a
US Senate campaign. There is no Democrat running, and therefor, I see
no point in supporting a man who has trashed our party for years and
years. I understand where you are coming from and why you were
concerned. [privacy snip]

I think it may be hard for you to understand where I am coming from.
Bernie has a radically different ideology than mine. I am very centrist
and Rich touches on a lot of the issues that I care about. Special
Education, for example.

Furthermore, I understand that you may have trouble excepting that a
Democrat is supporting Rich. But you know what? A lot of Democrats are.
Moderates, for example. This is no different than Vince Illuzi
supporter Peter, except that he is a Republican supporting a Democrat.
If there was a Democrat running for the US Senate, I would be working
on that campaign. However, there isn’t one. I DO NOT have to be loyal
to Bernie. He is NOT a Democrat, as he has so nicely put it for the
past 30 years.

In addition, I don’t think its fair for you to say that my decision is
“self-destructive,” “inconsistent,” “arbitrary,” and “personal.” I did
this because I thought I could help elect someone that I believe in.
You believe in Bernie, that is why you support him. I believe in Rich,
that is why I support him.

That is very unfair language to use in this case. I made a choice
because I looked at both candidates, I gave them each a fair hearing
and I sided with a guy that I can relate to better.

I do have principles. That is why I am not supporting a man who has
spent years trashing our Party. And you know what, I am not the only
one. I have morals, reasons and beliefs. The fact of the matter is that
I have served the Party in many capacities and will continue to serve
it. Vermonters break their ballots all the time, I cite Douglas and
Dubie as examples.

I don’t think we will be able to convince each other either way.
However, I do appreciate you taking the time and sharing your thoughts
with me about this issue. They are all legitimate thoughts. However,
you need to understand that I have a RIGHT to support who I want, when
I want. No one, not even my parents have EVER questioned who I can and
cannot support. Democrats and Republicans. This will be the first time
I cast a vote for a Republican, and I am proud of it. Why? Because I am
not doing it to be self-destructive, inconsistent, arbitrary and so on.
[privacy snip]

So, if I ever serve in the Legislature or on a
local board, I will know that I can work with anyone because I worked
with people that I don’t necessarily agree with but can understand
their point of view.

I am sorry that you have that opinion of me now. It’s very short
sighted, but I respect that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail in this race and in this country.
Believe me, my opinion of you will not change. You’re still a hard
working guy trying to make some good out of what Bush and Cheney are
doing in Washington. Most of all, you are speaking out. That’s what’s
important. I’ll keep reading your blog.

Much stuff to think about again, but some common themes: that this person is part of some invisible wave not registering in the Party infrastructure or the polls. That they “have a right” to their opinion (which is what you tend to hear when someone feels rhetorically cornered – that being confronted with the need to defend awkward conclusions or stances is an assault on their right to have them).

But mainly what we see is a continued attempt to rationalize by comparing apples to oranges. What about what so-and-so did? I’m no different! If Illuzi is supporting Welch, that’s a valid comparison, but I’m not really sure what difference that makes.

Now obviously this person has a right to whatever opinions they want, and equally obviously I wasn’t going to change their mind. I kept trying though. Me:

< You're still a hard
working guy trying to make some good out of what Bush and Cheney are
doing in Washington. >

This would seem to be the point of disagreement.

I am not trying to “make some good out of what Bush and Cheney are doing.” I
am trying to stop them. I don’t think there is any good to be made from
ignoring 750 laws, grand scale domestic spying, torture, suspension of
habeus sorpus and the basic rights of the accused, the destruction of
Constitutional checks and balances, all in the name of advancing a religious
right agenda (which your candidate supports, by the way, as one of the first
groups he sucked up to was the Christian right, gay-bashing anti-civil
rights Center for American Cultural Renewal/Vermont Renewal, where he was
“well-received” according to reports…and of course his reported refusal to
consider grants from his foundation to pro-choice groups).

I don’t think there’s any way to make some good come out of this sort of
slash and burn theocratic, statist Republicanism. If you really do, I think
you’re in for a rude shock and a truckload of “I told you so’s.”

quickly postcripted with:

Just a PS — I used “arbitrary” because you also purport to support Scudder.
I challenge you to find meaningful points of policy deviation between him
and Scudder.

I used “self-destructive” because it’s clear you have ambitions to run for
office, and you’re going to have a hard time getting a Democratic nomination
as a Tarrant [supporter], as well as a hard time getting a GOP
nomination as a “RINO.”

Finally, I will never understand the logic of objecting to “a man who has
trashed our party for years” but supporting a man who, if elected, will
trash oir party’s values and effectiveness for years. The only possible
rationale I can see, since it fails the simplest of logic tests, is that
there’s something “personal” at play.

Which is what I still believe. That this is at the heart of the “Tarrant Democrat” (to the extent such a creature exists) mindset; the personal.

The first manifestation of the personal is simply feeling so insulted by Bernie over the years, they’re mad. This is a significant subset of the self-identifying Democrats (I say self identifying because, again, we have no party registration in Vermont) that also refused to vote for Peter Clavelle last time. These folks are not all intractable, though, as the excesses of the Bush GOP have forced many to look past their own hurt feelings to what’s best for the state and the nation. And believe me, I’m not trying to be patronizing here. Anger is a powerful energy. It takes intellect, perspective and courage to choose to slog your way across the chasm even though the bridge was burnt years ago. The folks who are seeing past that hurt are patriots.

Although my email penpal makes references to this type of Dem, I believe she/he reflects the other “personal” reasoning driving the Tarrantcrat. This is the Dem set who consider themselves socially “enlightened,” but also fancy themselves upwardly mobile professionals. Uber-capitalists like Tarrant are role models, and gadflies like Bernie are problems. Now it’s possible to envision an activist government that protects people victimized by forces beyond their control and still be enamored of the vast accumulation of wealth, but it’s more complicated. It’s harder. People like Warren Buffett and George Soros find themselves on the same side of Bernie’s politics with surprising frequency – even on many economic policy matters – but not always, and very often, Bernie’s rhetoric calls on even rich liberals to account. In my limited experience, those who can’t get past this rhetoric – or can’t get beyond their infatuation with the Tarrants of the world – will take the slightest excuse to work against their own stated values (even their own self-interest) and cast such deviation as a virtue. As a statement of intellectual independence.

And maybe it is. Or maybe it’s just rationalization. Or confusion.

As the definition of “liberal” has deformed and melted in the mainstream media, so has the definition of “moderate.” Essentially, you can be considered a moderate if you truly are a moderate, or if you – like Tarrant – are simply flailing. This gives Tarrantcrats the intellectual cover you see quoted so vigorously above. But is Tarrant really a moderate? Despite his new push to claim the “moderate” label by retrofitting his opinions and flying to the left of Bernie himself by advocating an expansion of Medicare to ALL uninsured, GMD readers should recall his early pandering to the anti-gay religious right, and his refusal to allow his Foundation to grant to “organizations that advocate or support abortion.“…and most recently that he is in favor of the Bush administration’s illegal domestic spying program.

In any event, my correspondent responded:

I think I wasn’t clear enough. Or my language was all screwed up. I
meant to say that you were trying to speak your mind of the crap going
on down in DC, and put things into perspective.

Honestly, I do not have any ambitions for office in the near future. [privacy snip]

you are preaching to the choir here. I don’t like
Bush and Cheney any more than you do. However, as I see Rich talk to
people — I trust him. I like Bernie as a person, but I don’t want him
in the Senate. Period. Personal is my own beliefs. I don’t like how the
Party has ignored moderates. I don’t like how the Party has supported
someone who is working with us out of a need, rather than a belief that
we are the right party.

I’m not going to get into a policy discussion with you because we are
too firmly  in our two camps. And you know what, this kind of debate is
healthy. It’s healthy even though Bernie says he supports Dairy Farmers
but votes against them in favor of Sugar producers because they gave
him moolah. Don’t believe me, check it out. He voted against Amber
Alert even though both Leahy and Jeffords voted for it. I have never
heard a religous statement come out of Rich’s mouth or a single ultra
conservative statement out of a campaign worker in this office.

If I do run for office, people will judge on my merits and my ideas.
They will judge as to what I can bring to the table and not this
rhetoric that people like to use. People respect me in [privacy snip]
because I am young but also because I can look at both sides of an
issue and most of all, I respect other peoples points of view.

In addition, I don’t think you can analyze why I support Rich because
honestly — IT’S NO ONE’S BUSINESS WHOM I SUPPORT. But if you want the
honest truth, I support Rich because I like his stances on education
and the economy. In addition, I think that Rich is a fair guy who is
respectful to me. When people [privacy snip] were giving me a hard time
a couple days ago about being a Democrat, Rich [privacy snip] told them that it was people like me who were going to be able to
bridge the gap of the two parties. Rich is campaigning on that.

honestly, you make great points and I understand where you are
coming from. I am voting for Scudder because I believe that Douglas is
an overtly political and sneaky Governor. Scudder is a guy I can trust,
he is honest and he has good policies on energy. In addition, I don’t
think he (Douglas) is a very good Governor. Period. Just like Bernie is
one of the most ineffective US Reps in the country. 339th in power and
-1 in effectiveness and influence! He’s only got one bill passed in 15
years. You can’t defend that. Even when the Democrats controlled the
Congress, he had the chance. He had his chance, he didn’t come through
and now its time for others to have a shot.

Let’s look at it this way. Both our candidates have their short
comings. They’re human. I accept that. Also, never even think again
that I will be a RINO. That’s just not cool. I will never run as a
Republican. If I ever do run, I will run as a Democrat. You can work
against me if you want, but your efforts would be best suited elsewhere
in electing Democrats across the state rather than going after a
moderate Democrat who votes for the person and could help elect
Democrats in the future. I’ve worked my ass off for the Party, John —
give me some slack.

At this point, despite the eye-rolling statements about her/his opinion being “nobody’s business” even though she/he was out there publicly espousing them very forthrightly, I was actually starting to have some fun, although my penpal still wasn’t, it seemed. I thought we might just be at this back and forth all summer, and I was up for it.

Then I got the call from my friend about the Tarrant push-poll smearing Bernie. I got mad again and sent one more email:

Just heard [Tarrant is] push-polling. Nice, ethical guy [privacy snip] there.

In the past, my penpal was very quick to respond, as all the above correspondence took place over the course of a day.

After that last one, it’s now going on three days without a response.

You may have noticed the site was down for several hours this afternoon. I’m told from the Soapblox crowd that it’s because of the increased traffic related to the Tarrant push-poll story below. A readership spike sounds like a great reason to be down to me, but I noticed I couldn’t get any of their other sites (such as My Left Wing) either, and the site meter shows..well, only half-a-day’s worth of hits, so I don’t know what was up.

A controversial Utah firm frequented by the GOP and implicated in scandal is push polling this evening for Rich Tarrant in Vermont.

Push polling, if you don’t know, is the practice of “polling” with loaded questions (“Would you vote for candidate X?” “Would you vote for candidate X if you knew he beat his wife?”). It is universally considered a sleazy, dirty campaign trick.

Callers are receiving “survey” calls asking them their opinions in the US Senate race, US House race, and then their general opinion of Governor Douglas. Callers are then asked if they’ve seen and approve of Rich Tarrant’s television ads.

Finally, if the recipient indicated support for Bernie, they are asked if they would still support Bernie after knowing he “voted to not allow rape victims to know if their assailants are HIV positive?”

This sort of polling is a smear, plain and simple. Bernie has one of the most pro-women voting records in the House and Tarrant knows it. This is another example of the GOP strategy of trying to take down a target by aiming at their strengths (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, anyone?).

Although the caller wouldn’t identify herself to my source, caller ID revealed that the polling firm is Venture Data out of Salt Lake City. Venture is a usual suspect go-to firm for Republican push calls, having a track record in such states as Wisconsin, Washington and Missouri.

In Missouri where they were nabbed red-handed, the company had the nerve to deny it rather spectacularly:

On its Web site, Venture Data says it “has never conducted nor participated in what is commonly referred to as ‘push polling,’” a position company general manager Jeff Call reiterated.

“If we were involved, I can guarantee it was not a push poll,” he said.

Currently, it’s website has a link about “push poll” questions right on it’s front page. Apparently, it’s a very touchy subject. The website states:

We recognize that in the heat of highly charged election campaigns tempers will flare and accusations of impropriety are likely to fly.

In light of this, we want to make it clear that Venture Data L.L.C. has never conducted nor participated in what is commonly referred to as “push polling.” Our activities are strictly limited to conducting telephone survey research wherein we gather the opinions of a limited number of representative voters and deliver that data to our clients. We adhere to strict methodological standards.

In fact, the firm was embroiled in controversy a few years back when Pennsylvania Republican House Majority Leader John Perzel used his taxpayer-funded expense account to have Venture (and many other firms) do a hit job on a Democratic target:

Perzel paid $42,000 to Venture Data, a Salt Lake City polling firm, in December. His spokesman said pollsters called 800 Pennsylvania residents and asked them “public policy” questions, but that spokesman would not release the actual questions.

Jeff Call, the company’s general manager, did not return numerous phone calls seeking comment

This is the kind of mentality we’re dealing with. If you can’t make your case on the issues, resort to sleazy character assasination and deny, deny deny. In the end it doesn’t matter because they assume the electorate is just too stupid to notice or care that they’re being manipulated in such a craven way.

And mark my words, this will only be the beginning.