More poll troubles. The release of the results is being delayed for a couple days (again). Apparently because they blew the question (yes… again).

Crap. Just consider this an open thread instead.

Way back in January, I linked to a Comedy Central blog post comparing the presidential primary candidates to superheroes… Hillary Clinton as the She-Hulk, John Edwards as Nightwing, etc…

Well, it's Sunday night, there's a bizarre playoff game underway, and I think its time to revisit the which-comic-book-hero-or-villain-is-your-favorite-politician, but Vermont flavored.

Sorry, its just how I kill time waiting for tomorrow's Rasmussen poll to come out… the following should be avoided unless you're enough of a geek to be entertained by it. I realize that probably only gets me Ed and Bill, but the rest of you can find something more important to do, I'm sure.

  Jim Douglas = The Chameleon

Yeah, I suppose this one is too easy, but whatever.

Chameleon's been in the professional supervillain business a looooooong time. Gets by by putting on whatever face he needs to meet his goals. You get the picture.

  Gaye Symington = Kitty Pryde (aka Shadowcat) of the X-Men

Super power is to make herself and things she touches insubstantial. It's a power that doesn't always come in handy, but she's also technically skilled and her teammates absolutely love her.

  Anthony Pollina = Underdog

 Noted for his style of oration, Underdog always swoops into a crisis with his trademark pronouncement “There's no need to fear, Underdog is here.”

Underdog causes a lot of collateral damage when he crashes in. When questioned about it in the cartoon series, he replied (according to Wikipedia):

I am a hero who never fails.

I cannot be bothered with such details.

Brian Dubie = Unus the Untouchable

An X-Men villain, Unus has no particular skills or talents, but only posseses an impenetrable force field of unknown energy that keeps him from being taken down. Has repeated issues with getting enough oxygen to his brain.

You don't see Unus very often.

 Tom Costello = The Red Bee

An attorney, not many people have heard of him (or have seen him since his heyday in the Golden Age). Doesn't bring a lot of firepower to the fight. Often dismissed as a C-lister.

Probably will only register a buzzing on Election Day, but you never know…

Jeb Spaulding = The Martian Manhunter

The member of the Justice League of America that people often forget to mention.

MM has oodles of power, but more often than not prefers to be back at the base manning the controls and sensors rather than getting into a slugfest.

  Deb Markowitz = Batgirl/Oracle

Isn't as active as she was when she first hit the scene as batgirl. These days, we usually only hear from her if someone needs to get some information.

Bill Sorrell = Sandman

An accident of fate put him where he is. Never sure whether he's going to be tough as stone or as permeable as sand.

Looking at his history, its not usually very clear whether he's going to be one of the good guys or one of the bad guys in any given adventure.

Tom Salmon Jr. = Man At Arms

Military guy. Usually off doing his job when the story is playing out.

…and then there's the Washington delegation…

Patrick Leahy = The Crimson Chin

Powerful guy. Stars in his own comic. Looked up to and admired as a role model by kids. Some of the time spent making big pronouncements about truth and justice would probably be better spent kicking bad guy butt, though.

Bernie Sanders = Zorro

Wealthy guy who spends his time defending the working people from an oppressive govenment, with a tendency towards the dramatic.

Peter Welch = Kid Flash

Newer hero on the block, but has been getting things done with blinding speed. Has seen his power wax and wane over the years. Faces a challenge distinguishing himself from his high-profile predecessor while trying to define himself as his own hero.

And of course, the big guy:

Howard Dean = Thor

Started off as a doctor, found himself elevated to supreme power. Left Earth to do battle with the gods in ragnarok. Fell in battle and the realm of the gods was devastated. Has been reborn as the king of Asgard where he's been shaking up the old status quo.

Doesn't get back down to Earth to mix with the mere mortals so much anymore, as the responsibilities of rebuilding a bigger and better Asgard have been keeping him busy.

…and one more look at the national, but as tickets, rather than individuals…

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: Mr. Fantastic and the Thing

John McCain and Sarah Palin: Absorbing Man and Titania

Okay, time to be honest. Tell me if you’ve heard this story: you knew “The Bailout” was a power grab, a bad idea, bad policy, fiscally irresponsible in the not-so-long-term, and a lost opportunity on several levels. But then when it went down unexpectedly in the House and you cheered, it was a slightly uncomfortable cheer. A cheer that came up from your throat, rather than your diaphragm, because it had a hard time getting past the knot in your stomach.

Was this hesitation and anxiety caused in part by mass media programming which caused you to doubt your perspective? Probably. Was it caused entirely by that? Maybe. Maybe not.

There were three modes of thinking out there on the issue: must pass now, must defeat at all costs and the third approach which was put into words by Paul Krugman who continues to be the standard bearer for liberal economics in the political media despite his high profile conflicts with Obamaphiles during the primary. Krugman’s feeling was that the bill was bad policy, but it was the only policy that had a chance of avoiding partisan wrangling long enough to gain passage in a timely enough manner to prevent a full-on economic meltdown which, let’s face it, we are not currently in (yet). A crisis, sure, but for now, the credit crisis is still an abstraction for the majority of Americans.

And this was the more intellectual process, colored as it was by jumping at shadows that may or may not have been there. There was the public as well. Sure the public was overwhelmingly against the bill on its merits, but paradoxically, the public reaction when the original bill was not passed was explosive. Minority Leader Boenher was, thankfully, such an unmitigated boen-head that he quickly got up in front of the cameras and whined about Speaker Pelosi being mean to them as his excuse for not delivering his share of the votes for passage. As a result, he moronically painted a big target on his head, and the blame for inaction swung into Capitol Hill as quickly and certainly as a wrecking ball taking the entire GOP caucus with it, while leaving the Dems unscathed… although there’s no question they felt the breeze as it went past.

So, under cover of the fig leaf of increased FDIC coverage, congressional oversight (HA! Sorry… hard to write those words with a straight face anymore), and supporting his Presidential candidate, Peter Welch voted for essentially the same bill he voted against – and for all the right reasons – earlier in the week.

But circumstances what they were, I’m not so much angry as I am disappointed. Welch got scared, plain and simple, and its easy to understand (and be sympathetic to) why he did. Not scared for his own seat – obviously that’s tied up – but scared for the economy (hard not to be) and scared of what that wrecking ball might do to his colleagues on its next pass. A brief reminder of why this was the wrong move on policy, and a deeper look at why it was wrong on politics – after the flip…

Now I could make the same criticism of Leahy, here, but Leahy’s vote was never going to be anything different. He is, in his way, deeply entrenched in the beltway conventional wisdom about such things. Part of that is a generational thing.

Welch, though, is forging his own path steadily, but not always decisively. It’s been so steady that its come to be hard to remember that he’s still only a freshman Congressman, but that occasional shakiness is a reminder.

And the path he is forging often mirrors largely what mainstream liberalism is becoming, rather than what it’s been, and that creates conflicts. Feedback. Welch’s approach has a streak of populism in it that wasn’t apparent in Leahy’s generation, and you can sense it at times in Welch’s rhetoric – but especially in those conflicts.

Let’s review in Welch’s own words what was wrong with this bill:

“First, the Paulsen plan does not offer a path to a strong economic future.  Quite simply, it is the biggest taxpayer bailout in American history.  It proposes to solve a problem caused by reckless borrowing and reckless lending by borrowing $700 billion more.

“Second, it is appalling that the plan is not funded.  It is yet another expense put on the taxpayers’ credit card.  Just as President Bush told us his tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would pay for themselves, and Secretary Rumsfeld told us the Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the Iraq war, now Secretary Paulsen is telling us he can sell toxic debt securities that Wall Street can’t.

“Since the administration first proposed its Wall Street bailout, I have heard from thousands of Vermonters concerned about their hard earned tax dollars rewarding Wall Street’s reckless behavior.  Vermonters are furious about the financial crisis and they have every right to be.  They bitterly resent being asked to pay $10,000 each for a $700 billion Wall Street rescue.”

“Chairman Frank, Chairman Dodd, and House and Senate leadership did a good job making a bad proposal better, but it is still a bad plan.  I cannot in good conscience vote for a fundamentally flawed plan that puts so much financial risk on the backs of the already stretched middle class.

“There are responsible ways to accomplish stabilizing our markets without leaving the middle class holding the bag.  Many of us proposed to pay for an economic stability plan by establishing a financial stabilization escrow account paid for by a small transaction fee on security trades.  This would protect the taxpayer and give any plan the financial muscle required for success.

“Instead, total responsibility for this crisis is transferred to the middle class.  The risk of this proposal is simply too great.  The burden on Vermonters is simply too heavy.  Vermonters should not get caught in the undertow of greed on Wall Street.

“Resolving our economic problems will take more than a quick-fix, taxpayer funded bailout. It will take a return to the core truth Vermonters know: our economic policies must focus on building and preserving our middle class.  We must reward work and entrepreneurship, not speculation, market manipulation and corporate self dealing.”

At the end of the day, this was a case of again being afraid of doing what should be done. Afraid that it wouldn’t pass and a little bit of that lingering self-doubt about the value of these liberal economic convictions folks on the left spout. Generations of GOP nonsense have been internalized by many in the Democratic caucus, as well as the greater community, and its going to take far more deprogramming to remove those doubts.

And of course, we’re all limited by that god-awful mantra that is so often repeated by so many on the left (particularly, in Vermont, Gaye Symington). That abyssmal Otto Von Bismarck quote that “politics is the art of the possible.” All that quote has ever amounted to is politicians giving themselves permission to either give up or sell out (the former being what Welch did in this case). It says that real leadership, aspirations and transformative goals are not to be bothered with because we have to live in the world of what is “the possible” – usually as defined by the opposition.

Yuck.

What should he have done? Well, on GMD there were several opinions. Some were all for the bailout. CL wanted to see the money spread out evenly among everyone for across-the-board generalized economic stimulus. A lot of folks were advocating for a grassroots-only approach to relieve individuals from those “toxic” bad, unfulfillable debts. For my part, I would’ve liked to have seen a combination of the grassroots approach, but I also felt that there was an urgency in play that would not allow for a purely “trickle up” approach to prevent further deterioration of those global economic players in such a way that wouldn’t harm everyone at any rung of the ladder, so I would’ve liked to have seen the grassroots efforts combined with direct investment into some of these failing institutions, giving taxpayers controlling interest (as with AIG) while pumping in enough capital to keep the wheels turning and allow the bottom-up approach to work. It’s hardly anything inventive I”m talking about here – pretty straight-up liberal economics (and again, from someone who doesn’t really know what he’s talking about…. this economics stuff just ain’t my bailiwick…. but it seems to make sense). Of course, such an approach would mean playing veto chicken with the administration, but I think the promise of capital would’ve motivated Wall Street to force Bushco to blink on this one.

But aside from that, Welch had – as all elected officials do – a political calculus to make, and I believe he made the wrong call, here.

Welch had cover to make either an up or down decision for a couple reasons: one, he’s not in a race this year. But two, his constituents are divided – not between pro-business or so-called “anti” business either. The fact is that even the Vermont Chamber of Commerce was divided on this.

So in terms of politics, he had nothing to lose, frankly. People were going to laud him for making a “tough decision” either way – and about the same amount in either case.

But a lot of the activist set on the left that so viscerally despises Welch for seemingly pathological reasons found itself in a state of shock this week. Why? Because a lot of genuine leftists who are also among the non-Welch-basher crowd were genuinely surprised by his vote against the first bill. They had been so often told by the basher-crowd that Welch was the embodiment of all things evil and corporate, that they honestly didn’t think him capable of agreeing with them on anything they considered meaningful. I heard so much positivity directed towards Welch this week from the solidly left crowd, that it was clear there was a fundamental realignment of their perspectives underway – and that would be a good thing. The left crowd is where most of the activist energy is, and when Welch does stretch beyond his own freshman years and develop into the longer-term incumbent Representative that he will become, he’s going to need their help to get things done.

Then, of course, there’s the cynical reality that this bill – one fundamentally the same as the one he initially opposed – was going through with or without him.

Crass as it may sound, Welch had nothing to lose and plenty to gain by not getting the creeps and changing his mind. Unfortunately, now folks will simply remember that when the biggest economic crisis in decades reared its head, and the worst President in history insisted once again on ramming through a “solution” that would only create other problems, Peter Welch was simply against it before he was for it.

A few years back, I remember Peter Welch speaking to the crowd at the David W. Curtis awards where he commented (to much applause) that “good policy is always good politics.”

Where I don’t necessarily concur with that as an absolute axiom, I do wish in this case he had heeded his own advice.

Gaye Symington surprises with an uncharacteristically hard hitting, anti-corporate statement in response to the bailout failure. While Peter Welch and many other US House liberals voted bravely (and I believe correctly) against the package (and are now likely understanding the true meaning of the expression “be careful what you wish for” as all hell breaks loose), Symington comes out with a powerful slam that ties the Republican corporations-over-all agenda that got us into this mess around Jim Douglas’s neck and staples Entergy to his forehead in the process.

From the PR:

This weekend I saw one estimate of the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror at $790 billion. That puts in

perspective the cost of the bail-out being discussed in Washington and it’s no wonder that Americans are balking, and the initial vote

failed in the House this afternoon. Remarkably,  in only a couple of weeks we are being asked to take on another liability that approaches in scale the cost of the conflicts that have diverted resources from our national priorities – our roads, schools and energy future.

In the wake of this collapse and bailout, Vermonters are asking “how did things get to this point?” While there are undoubtedly many complex factors that led us here, there’s a basic philosophy in gear that puts too much trust in large private interests over the public good.

Unfortunately, this “corporate America knows best” worldview is not just on display in Washington. Our own Governor has in several important instances shown the same blindness to the dangers of this philosophy.

If Governor Douglas had had his way, our lottery system would have been placed in the hands of Lehman Brothers, a Wall Street firm that no longer exists. When Jim Douglas proposed this idea last year, I questioned the wisdom of it and called in experts for a second opinion. It was clear from their testimony that the Governor had placed far too much trust in the numbers and logic of Lehman Brothers, and we were able to set this scheme aside and get back to considering more sensible policy options.

We also see Jim Douglas placing far too much trust in the owners of Vermont Yankee. Entergy has proposed to spin off five aging nuclear power plants under a new owner that will be heavily in debt. A majority of Vermont legislators, and senior officials in Massachusetts and New York where Entergy’s plan would have an impact, agree that this is a strategy to enrich the executives and stockholders of Entergy and it could cost states and their taxpayers dearly if this smaller company fails.

The decommissioning fund is hundreds of millions of dollars short of what is likely going to be needed to fully clean up after Vermont Yankee when it closes. That shortfall had been estimated to be at least $400 million before recent turmoil on Wall Street.

The Vermont legislature passed a bill that would have required Entergy to live up to its original promise to fund that clean-up if it goes ahead with corporate re-structuring. Jim Douglas vetoed that bill, leaving Vermont taxpayers potentially on the hook for another large bill unless we can trust Entergy to do what’s right for Vermonters, over the interests of their bottom line.

Well, all across America today we can see the results of that kind of poor judgment and misplaced trust.

Jim Douglas has to explain to Vermonters why – after all we’ve seen in the past several months – is he is still taking the side of Entergy instead of protecting Vermont taxpayers? Jim Douglas is taking the same gamble in trusting Entergy to handle the decommissioning funds properly as he did in trusting Lehman Brothers to handle our lottery system.

When I’m Governor, I won’t take that kind of gamble. I do not share the Republican philosophy that corporations always know best. I will do everything in my power to stand up for Vermont taxpayers and ensure that Entergy pays to clean up after itself

Geez. Get a load of the Times Argus editorial today. Wow. It coulda come off this site…

In fact, it appears that McCain now will do or say anything to get elected. Even conservative columnists such as George Will and David Brooks have expressed dismay at the lack of integrity displayed by McCain during the campaign, his willingness to lie and alter his persona as the need arises.

The lies from and about Sarah Palin, his running mate, are now well known, such as her statement that she opposed the so-called Bridge to Nowhere. But in the McCain camp lying is now an acceptable campaign tool…

…Anything can happen. Democrats should not be optimistic. Lies about Obama have permeated the Internet, and McCain’s smear machine is working overtime. But there was that poll result. That, too, is a fact.

Now if we could just get them to stop making excuses for Jim Douglas election cycle after election cycle…

I’m not surprised to see that the general feeling among the public is that Obama took the night. The pundits, of course, weren’t sure where to go, given the dearth of “knockout blows” or any truly memorable soundbites. As such, they crept out with a generalized “its a tie” narrative (its safe) until the public feedback from instant polls started coming in, after which they could comment on that. And based on that, its becoming more and more presented as an Obama win.

As someone who wants Obama to win, I share the frustration of many that Obama left bread and butter issues largely on the table and let McCain guide the direction of debate. I also agree that the obvious PR tactic of agreeing with McCain on many occasions was possibly a well too frequently returned to.

But the fact is, this was Obama’s best debate yet. During the primaries, Obama was not a good debater. There were times when he was even poor. This weakness was mightily exacerbated by the fact that he is such a good orator, and people (bloggers and pundits included) tend to conflate the two skills, given that they both involve public speaking. As such, expectations were always high for Obama, so when he didn’t do so good… well…

But he was good last night. Very good. Great? No, he’ll never be a great debater in the major-media-stage sense, but if he can keep his performance at this level, he’ll be fine.

McCain, on the other hand, delivered a sub par performance. McCain also is not a great debater in this setting. His extreme stiffness, inappropriate tendencies to smile and weird deer-in-the-headlights expression can be a bit disturbing. But McCain always did well in the primary debates because he always injected his comments with an off-the-cuff sounding dose of biting humor. In this way, he always won the war for the soundbite in all the post-debate coverage, and consistently saw his numbers climb from the basement in which they’d lived for so long last year.

In other words, McCain always got a leg up – not from substance – but from the peripherals. Last night, the humor was gone from McCain’s peripheral toolset. All that was left was a sort of bitter, angry condescension that seemed to be kind of omnipresent and free-floating. It was very off-putting.

Next time, though, funny McCain will return, and we’ll likely be greeted with a chorus of pundits talking about a “new, reinvigorated McCain” as they’ll repeatedly play his calculated jab-joke-du-jour while celebrating his return to form. That will make it all the more critical that Obama not return to form as well…

More and more people are questioning the unprecedented $700 billion corporate bailout we’re likely to see from Washington. Again, few but the most hardcore economic-social darwinist set would argue that there isn’t a genuine crisis unfolding, but the question is where and how the government should involve itself (especially given legitimate questions about exactly what this magical $700 billion number is actually covering).

But I noticed a fundamentally different opinion than what we’ve been hearing tucked away on the letters page of the NY Times this week:

It seems to me that the (top-down) approach is all backward: the plan of Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. is meant to stem the cascading defaults in derivatives and similar securities whose complexity no one fully understands and whose total dollar amount is still a mystery.

But if everything is somehow tied one way or the other to the original subprime loans, whose amounts and terms can be ascertained, then why does not the government simply guarantee those loans so there will be no defaults to set off the myriad triggers of the financial doomsday machine Wall Street created?

Granted, it would be bailing out a bunch of poor people who should have known better, but at the same time it will be bailing out a bunch of rich bankers who probably did know better, so no one can claim unfairness. And, in the end, people get to keep their homes, living the American dream while also reducing the foreclosure sales that are causing declines in real estate values for all homeowners.

Moreover, the stock markets will then stabilize, preserving trillions of dollars in wealth accumulation. So the taxpayers foot the bill, but they also benefit.

But, hey – why should anybody care what this naive shlub says? He’s only “a partner of M & A International (Brussels), which advises companies and private equity firms on acquisitions in Europe.” I mean, don’t they speak French in Brussels?

Word has been circulating for many days now that former Seven Days columnist Peter Freyne is very ill. Details are sketchy and unconfirmable, but the word is clearly out at this point. We certainly have no interest in compromising Peter's privacy by forwarding unsubstantiated rumors. All of us at GMD, however, very much want to wish him the best and encourage other Vermonters to think of Peter and send him whatever thoughts/prayers/strength you can.

In a very real way, Freyne, through his long-running Seven Days column, is a godfather of Vermont's liberal blogosphere. Best wishes, then, from all your unruly godchildren, Peter. Hang in there and get well soon.

Sláinte mhaith! 

In my opinion, the likelihood of no candidate for Governor crossing the 50% threshold looms greater every day, meaning that the final decision goes into the Legislature’s hands. The two greatest impediments to convincing the Legislators to consider awarding the Governorship to the number two vote-getter in a close race – thereby respecting a voting majority’s rejection of incumbent Jim Douglas against the context of a split on the left are the Democratic Legislators and Anthony Pollina. That looks like it may be changing.

It’s common knowledge that Pollina and the Progressives were looking to such a scenario in his previous runs this decade – in 2000 and 2002. And yet, when asked about the topic this election season by Mark Johnson who was clearly on a tear to try and discredit the notion, he not only pulled a 180, but a full scale historical retcon when he said:

“The other thing is when you talk about, well, the legislature may elect the person who came in second – thats not a good signal to democracy, frankly. I don’t – I don’t – think – if that’s the strategy, then I think Vermonters ought to understand that the strategy is that Gaye Symington plans to come in second and expect the legislature to elect her. Boy I wouldn’t want to be the governor who came in second, to tell you the truth.”

Why the complete flip? I think this next line tells us:

“And the other thing is that that is totally contradictory to everything the Democratic Party said back in 2000 and 2002, when they made everyone commit to the idea that the highest vote getter should be the one who the legislature elects – that the highest vote getter should – and I agree with that, frankly. I don’t have a problem with that. But it would be interesting to me if now they would change their tune and say now – everybody – the legislature should elect the one who came in second.

I don’t know – to me thats exactly why – thats why I’m running, ’cause to me thats the kind of games that get played around politics which are why people dont pay attention and don’t get involved and not a good idea.”

As you can see, his continuing answer just turned into another garden-variety opportunity to criticize the Democratic Party. It seems likely that he saw the question as a chance to beat up on Dems, and who cares if, to do so, he had to contradict himself. Pollina has a hard time containing himself from rising to that that kind of bait – apparently even when doing so means a flip flop that works clearly against both his best interests as a candidate and those of Vermonters.

BUT…

…of the many things discussed in the VPR debate tonight – including many things of more substantive policy importance – the three candidates were asked where they stood on this very issue. Did Pollina respond as the candidate from 2000-2002, or was it the I-oppose-this-and-have-always-opposed-this/we-have-always-been-at-war-with-Eurasia Pollina of earlier this year?

Nope. His response was non-committal. Said he’d leave that up to the legislature, should it come to pass.

Now that’s progress. Time to work on the Legislature…