Gotta say, this makes me crazy.

Looks like our Democratic US Representative hasn’t just dissed his own Party’s candidates, he’s doing it to candidates for the very body he recently led – the State Senate. Here’s a postcard from Republican Senator Phil Scott that’s been circulating in the county at this 11th electioneering hour, which is accompanied by comparable ads in Montpelier and Waterbury periodicals – possibly more (and yes, it sounds like it is an authorized use of the quote as I’m told party leaders just slumped their shoulders when confronted with it):

It’s bizarre and frustrating. Yes, Welch has formally endorsed the Democratic candidates, and yes he’s even doing some campaigning with them – but this is a freaking disaster. Dems had a solid chance of picking up a seat, as they came very close last time. This time, one of the Dem challengers looking to join incumbent Ann Cummings under the dome is from Barre Town (Laura Moore), which has been a virtual vote-black-hole for county candidates. With an eye towards breaking that trend, the future was looking rosy indeed until news that the Progressives were running John Bloch as well. Bloch will not do well overall, but he will perform respectably in Montpelier where he is a local face. Those votes will largely come at the expense of Moore, rather than repeat candidate Kim Cheney, who is also a Montpelier-area figure.

What that means is that this is going to be a nail biter after all – a nail-biter that could easily turn on only 50 votes.

And this postcard could easily – easily – be fifty votes. It will be fifty votes. There’s no two ways about it. Why Welch didn’t give him the quote but expressly restrict it to non-campaign use is beyond me.

And it doubly sucks because the Washington County Senate Candidates seem to be the Rodney Dangerfields of the Vermont Democratic Party. They also come out on the losing end of the VT NEA’s endorsements, as the union gave the nod to incumbent Dem Ann Cummings, but also Progressive Bloch and Republican Bill Doyle (who – incidentally – voted for the two-vote budget law, which was the litmus test cited in the passing over of Gaye Symington for Anthony Pollina, and that lack of consistency is telling).

The NEA thing is maddening. Cheney always comes within spittin’ range of winning and the former Attorney General is a solid lefty. Laura Moore is a total rising star and is even on her local school board. Being kicked to the curb by the teachers’ union in the face of a token “R” is pretty bad. Being shoved out in face of a “P,” on the other hand, is hardly a surprise, though, as the major unions are apparently working under a collective unspoken rule that any “P” on the ballot is an automatic endorsement. Honestly, if I were a Dem running for office and there was a Prog in the race, I wouldn’t waste my time with even talking with them about an endorsement any more.

Fortunately, most Dems are pro-labor without needing an official stamp of approval, but its bizarre that Vermont unions are willing to hang their hats entirely on individual Dems’ better selves.

But I digress. As a Washington County Democratic Party officer and former Chair, this stunt by Welch merits a big BIG response from self-identifying Dems. It could well be handing the Republicans a Senate seat at the expense of an ally. Outrageous. Honestly, I was shocked.

I encourage all to call Welch’s campaign office and give him a piece of your mind. From what I hear, this was borne out of cluelessness rather than untoward intent.

Let’s give him a clue.

(802) 658-0600

http://welchforcongress.com/contact

(Semi-update disclosure…. I tweaked some text below to better make my point. Ah, the power of being a site admin…)

We needed a real poll and here it is, reflecting the change in the air that has been present ever since the Rasmussen fiasco of a poll gave Pollina a new boost. From WCAX:

The poll shows Republican Jim Douglas has 47 percent of the vote, Democrat Gaye Symington 24 percent and Independent Anthony Pollina a very close third with 23 percent.

So what’s with the big change? Although such generalizations are never absolute, there’s a real difference in the hardcore supporters of Symington vs. Pollina. Symington’s crowd really has its eyes on only one prize, and they’ve become utterly deflated as they’ve seen that gap continue to be so large. Morale is in the crapper.

Pollina supporters, on the other hand, are often just as passionate (sometimes more so) about beating Democrats as Republicans. So the then-illusory prospect offered to them by Rasmussen of beating the Democrat fired them up as much as anything. Morale is soaring, and what was illusory is illusory no longer.

And many in the neutral zone of the left are likely responding to that difference – exuberance versus glumness. Moths prefer the flame to the sad clown (is that a mixed metaphor? What is that?).

But I think it brings to light the Douglas strategy of late very, very clearly. A strategy conventional-wisdom-gurus Eric Davis and Garrison Nelson apparently haven’t figured out yet. And its smart.

The notion that Douglas is afraid of Pollina is something I can hardly type without cracking up. Republicans are the last people who think Pollina could ever be elected Governor – especially over Douglas (hey, don’t shoot the messenger, here…). But they are concerned about the prospect of their man Jim losing in the Legislature. If he comes in under 50%, there are lots of Democratic legislators just itching at the chance to vote him out. Trust me.

But here’s the thing: they know if Symington doesn’t come within 10 points of a victory, Dem legislators will be hard pressed to justify electing her. And I think its safe to say that neither Symington nor Pollina will be willing to help give the other public support and cover under such a sceario if they come in at number 3 (which is revolting, frankly).

So they’ve figured out the obvious – Symington’s support is inversely proportional to Pollina’s. Therefore, if they don’t consider Pollina a threat, and Symington has to be kept as far out of range as possible, ignoring Pollina becomes just plain stupid. Run against both of them, equating them and raising Pollina’s profile – insure a low split. The most basic of math, and way too easy. If they were scared of Pollina, they wouldn’t be running these kinds of ads, they’d be hitting him on the Milk Company and the Campaign Finance flip-flops. They’d be mean.

This stuff? Well look at the reaction. It’s just pumping Pollina up.

The only – and I mean only – way around this is if Symington and Pollina make a pledge now to throw in with the number two in the legislature and start priming their voters and nervous legislators for the possibility. That becomes a net plus for us because if either of them were running at Douglas head on, it seems highly unlikely that they could keep him below 50% on their own. Both of their negatives are too high.

Fat freakin’ chance of that happening, though.

This is just fluff, but I thought it might be fun to share. PoliticsHome.com is an elections news aggregator site run out of England which has a page tracking the US Elections. As part of that, they have a panel dubbed the Online100, which is a combination of left, right, center and “non-aligned” participants in the greater blogosphere (including major media blogs). Everyday they ask us a couple questions and post the survey response. Today, they asked us the “big” question, and here's the just-released result:

The Blogosphere Predicts:

5% margin of victory to Obama
Electoral College: Obama 338, McCain 200

The PoliticsHome.com Online100 Panel, the daily poll of leading online voices in the United States, has issued its prediction of the Presidential Election result next week.

Each member of the panel was asked to predict which candidate will win, and by what percentage margin. The average prediction was then calculated at 5%. The panel was also given a list of each of the potential battleground states and asked to predict the winner. The majority winner for each state was taken as the result.

Well known names on the Online100 panel include Arianna Huffington, Karl Rove, Joe Klein, Joe Trippi, Gerard Baker, Mike Allen, Mark Halperin, Mark Blumenthal, Charles Johnson, Dana Milbank, Jonah Goldberg, John Fund, Jake Tapper, Chuck Todd, Marc Ambinder and Andrew Sullivan. The survey is anonymous and PoliticsHome does not release individual results.

The Online100 panel consists of 100 leading online voices, weighted evenly between right-leaning, left-leaning and non-aligned, and contains a spectrum of voices from the online mainstream media, big national blogs, and statewide blogs. PoliticsHome launched in the United States in August in association with Pollster.com.

The Electoral Map: Blogosphere Predicts

The panel sees Obama winning the popular vote by a five percent margin, and it sees him coverting that margin into 338 electoral votes, 68 more than the needed 270, and 52 more than the 286 won by Bush in 2004.

The panel presented a list of 19 contested states and were asked to choose who would win on November 4th: “Toss up” or “don't know” were not options.

The panel predicts Obama will win 11 out of 19 states still in play, with McCain prevailing in Indiana, North Carolina, Missouri and West Virginia. However, Obama sweeps the battleground states of Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico; five states carried by President Bush in 2004.

ONLINE100: STATE BY STATE PREDICTION
BATTLEGROUND STATE	PREDICTION
COLORADO	DEMOCRAT
FLORIDA	DEMOCRAT
GEORGIA	REPUBLICAN
INDIANA	REPUBLICAN
IOWA	DEMOCRAT
MINNESOTA	DEMOCRAT
MISSOURI	REPUBLICAN
MONTANA	REPUBLICAN
NEVADA	DEMOCRAT
NEW HAMPSHIRE	DEMOCRAT
NEW MEXICO	DEMOCRAT
NORTH CAROLINA	REPUBLICAN
NORTH DAKOTA	REPUBLICAN
OHIO	DEMOCRAT
PENNSYLVANIA	DEMOCRAT
SOUTH DAKOTA	REPUBLICAN
VIRGINIA	DEMOCRAT
WEST VIRGINIA	REPUBLICAN
WISCONSIN	DEMOCRAT

From the Symington campaign:

Democratic candidate for Governor Gaye Symington raised $116,931.47 since the last filing report was submitted in September. The report also shows expenditures of $272,338.99 for the period, and cash on hand of $42,928.55

For the campaign to date, the total raised is $491,301.75 and total expenditures are  $448,373.20

There have been 2,082 total contributors, 89% of whom live in Vermont.

Actually, just another excuse to post this picture:

Lots and lots and lots to report. Here's a smattering:

• If you've been wondering where Julie's been lately, she's having some serious health issues and today went into what may be the first of a few surgeries. Doesn't sound like anything life threatening (besides the risk of surgery in general) as long as she's treated, but very significant nonetheless. So, send healthy thoughts and we'll try to keep you all up to speed with her condition.
• Funny math. At the end of debates, Anthony Pollina has been suggesting that if everyone who voted for him in '02 (when he came in third with about 25%of the vote) were to vote for him again this time and bring one friend, then he would win. I suppose he figures 25% plus 25% equals 50% but… well… you see where I'm going with this. The number of voters is likely to be markedly higher this year than in 2002, so all 25%s are not created equal. Pollina got 56564 votes in '02…. double that and you get 113128.

  Of 418718 voters on the checklist, 56% voted, or 232993. At the Presidential Primary this year, 46.6% of 421987 voters turned out, which is nearly 20% up from the 27.8% in 2004, giving you a sense of the increased enthusiasm. If that enthusiasm increases the turnout in November "only" 10% to 66% (which is, I think, a likely minimum increase), that would come out to 284876 voters as measured against the voter registration count from the September primary of 431631 (which will in reality be markedly lower than the final registration totals). This will give Mr. Pollina a maximum vote percentage under this scheme of 39.7%, and almost certainly lower – perhaps significantly so. Maybe if all those '02 voters bring 2 or 3 people…

• In other Pollina news, the Prog-turned-Indy is making extraordinarily good use of the Facebook social networking site. He's seriously maximizing its potential to do some viral organizing by aggressively “friending” new people (even me, for god’s sake… does that count as “reaching out” to a dubious Democrat?) and keeping the communication steady and personalized, rather than making it blandly institutional in flavor, keeping with the feel of the Facebook system (at least to all appearances – and its the appearances that matter in this game). Kudos.
• Over in Symington land, the hits on Douglas have been coming daily, along with doses of policy for those looking for a little more meat. Here's the YouTube video from her press conference at Flatbread in Burlington rolling out her economic development ideas:

• Lastly, Democracy For America has weighed in with another anti-Douglas ad, and this one is a big improvement over the first, VT Yankee-based one. DFA has invested a significant amount in this race on Symington's behalf, including this ad which is part of a $40,000 media buy. We'll see if it pays off:

Wince: 

Senate Democrats on Tuesday subpoenaed Attorney General Michael Mukasey for testimony and documents about the Justice Department's legal advice to the White House on detention and interrogation policies since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., complained to Mukasey that after five years of efforts to glean the information, the committee still has seen only a fraction of the documents it is seeking. “There is no legitimate argument for withholding the requested materials from this committee,” Leahy wrote in a letter to Mukasey that accompanied the subpoena.

The document compels Mukasey to appear before Leahy's panel on Nov. 18 and bring with him documents from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel concerning the legality of White House policies toward military detainees.

You probably didn't hear about this, did you? Wasn't that long ago when a congressional subpoena of a major administration figure would've been front page news and pundit fodder for days – even weeks. Now? Nothing. Because it means precisely nothing, so where's the news? This congress will not play the kind of hardball needed to make these things worth the paper they're printed on. They're committed to the honor system in dealing with a dishonorable President who couldn't care less – as has been shown now over and over and over again.

The Democratic leadership in Washington has opted instead for a political Waiting for Godot strategy of just sitting tight until an Obama administration arrives, restores honor in the executive branch, and by extension restores their relevance for them. In the meantime, what should be a major event is a complete non-event.

Please, Senator – as a longtime and sincere supporter, I'm begging you – don't bother with any more of these “subpoenas.” They're… well, a little embarassing.

As dramatic as Colin Powell’s endorsement was, the more interesting endorsement that’s come down the pipe in the last couple days is that of neoconservative bigdog Ken Adelman (I know Jack refers to him as a paleocon, but I don’t think he’s a paleocon, especially given his buddy list… will check it out). Adelman goes way back with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc., and he has been consternated over what he calls the mismanagement of the Iraq War. When pushed by George Packer of the New Yorker, Edelman indicated that he has concerned by McCain’s questionable temperament, and by his lack of good judgment – in particular as demonstrated by the choice of Palin to join him on the ticket. Adelman:

“That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office-I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign-Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.”

Interestingly, this was also a major complaint of Powell’s during his endorsement. Powell, of course – for whatever his faults – is not a neoconservative. In fact, he has been famously loathed by the neocons, and its easy to infer from press smatterings that this affection has been returned in kind.

But this common ground is no coincidence, as the neocon wing of the GOP and the pragmatic centrist wing have the same enemy; the theocons, popularly known as the religious right. While the Palin pick was a bone to what the media repeatedly calls “the Republican base”, really it was a bone specifically to the fundamentalist base, leaving the other lobes of the GOP base left out. To many of these jilted basers, Palin was the last straw, in what has become a huge heaping stack of such straws ever since the breakdown of the Reagan-era marriage of convenience among the conservative lobes. To them, Palin is a smack in the face. She is nakedly unqualified for the position, and that appeal to the theocrats would then seem to be the only thing that mattered in her selection. That sent a message to many other hard-right types that they were out – that fundamentalist appeal is truly the only thing that matters in the modern Republican Party – and that they were now simply a captive constituency.

Now to some, it doesn’t matter. The most parochial of neocons only care about whether a candidate is going to take us to war with Iran – and regardless of other concerns, McCain most assuredly will – with Palin eagerly alongside. But to Adelman and others, enough is enough. He, the pragmatist Powell, and an increasing number of Republicans have decided to draw the line for influence, if not control, in the conservative movement, and they’ve decided that the centrist Obama is not so appalling to them that they can’t stomach putting their feet down in the context of the Presidential election when the fundies’ control and credibility is seeming increasingly tenuous with Palin turning out to be such a drag on the ticket.

The peculiar result is that Obama has been drafted in a sense as the warrior proxy of some members of a different, disenchanted Republican base threatened by the theocons. He stands in as the last defense against a complete takeover of their party by religious fundamentalists. Obama is their line in the sand, and as such, the Democratic nominee finds himself at the nexus of a perfect storm that will help blow him into office.

That’s not to say the poll numbers won’t still tighten. They will as McCain falls back on ads and robocalls that will increasingly emphasize Jeremiah Wright. But the storm wont blow over. Those numbers will narrow, but they will harden, and all things being equal, the future is only looking better for Obama.

It was late. I couldn’t sleep. I had my laptop.

(UPDATE: Woops… didn’t see that CarbonCopy already has a diary up on this… go visit his, too)

Sessions has ruled, and goes with Pollina’s first argument – the least radical one:

U.S. District Court Judge William Sessions III wrote that Pollina was a Progressive Party candidate when he collected contributions of more than $1,000 from supporters – and therefore can keep the funds even though he is now running as an independent.

Sessions criticized the offices of the Vermont Secretary of State and the Vermont Attorney General for an interpretation of the law in a “very limited way that is not supported by a plain reading.”

While the end result is no surprise (many of us argued that, when it came down to a fight, Pollina will not have to give the money back), in arguing what Markowitz and Sorrell have presented as the law on its own merits, the issue of whether or not there even is a law seems to have been sidestepped – for now. What that means in the short term is that Pollina gets his money and the barn door has not necessarily been thrown open for Jim Douglas to rake in bazillions and point at Pollina for having opened the door for him.

Although Sessions’ comments are, it must be said, strange. To say that Sorrel’s arguments are not supported by a “plain reading” of the law seems a little bizarre. $1000 per election (primary and general). Pollina is engaging in 1 election, hence a $1000 limit. That’s about as plain and simple as it gets. Sessions suggests that the “plain reading” would seem to allow for candidates to put out a press release claiming they’ll be running in a primary, collect the extra money, and then the next day say “oops, changed my mind.” By any reasoned standard, it would seem that the only objective measure of whether or not someone is participating in a given primary is whether or not they participate in a primary. Let x = x and all. Clearly Sessions is working from a more intangible definition of what a primary is than the traditional one – an election with ballots that include the names of participants. Weird.

Not only is that a bizarre definition of plain reading, its an equally bizarre projection onto the legislative intent behind the law (that’s not really a law, but as I say, that li’l bullet was dodged).

Still, when all is said and done, its probably the least harmful decision that could’ve come down the pipe, despite the surreality of the decision itself. I’d like to think this will all get straightened up for next time – but not if its Jim Douglas back in charge, as he’s the one who set the stage for this in the first place, likely hoping to be able to raise even more scads of cash if he felt the need. Unfortunately for Douglas, this ruling means that, if he does want to start raking in dough and play chicken with the gentlemen’s agreement that seems to be in play around our mirage of a campaign finace law, Sessions’ ruling means he won’t get to have Anthony Pollina be his stalking horse for the inevitable fireworks that would follow.