Because of timing and logistics, we weren’t able to have an online debate between the candidates for the Democratic nomination for Lieutenant Governor (as we did with candidates Dunne and Tracy two years ago). I have, however, sent a ten question email to candidates Tom Costello and Nate Freeman, and will post their responses Sunday morning. If both candidates do not return the questionnaire, we will post the response of the one that does. There hasn’t been much (any?) opportunity to compare and contrast the two candidates side-by-side in the press, so this should be a good opportunity for Democratic primary voters to see how these two pretenders to the Dubie throne stack up. (Just heard over the radio that VPR will be talking about these candidates on VT Edition today. Here’s a link.)

Between now and primary eve, we will run a Lite Gov preference poll on the top right.

VSEA's report on the duplicity replete in Douglas administration internal emails regarding the state layoffs is worth seeing in its original form, unedited and undigested through the press. Rather than comment extensively, I'm going to let it speak for itself below…

On July 9, 2008, VSEA sent public records requests to all secretaries, commissioners and human resources staff from the agencies and departments impacted by the 400 position cuts exercise.

We requested:

Copies of all written communications (letters, e-mails, faxes, documents, or any other reports) concerning-

-The Governor’s initiative to eliminate 400 state positions.

-The impact of this initiative on the services provided by the Department or Agency.

-The impact of this initiative on the operations of the Department or Agency.

-The impact of this initiative on the Department’s or Agency’s clients and employees.

-The possible or actual use of temporary or contracted employees to provide functions of the positions eliminated as a result of this initiative.

VSEA breaks out their report into thematic chunks. In the first below – transparency – the back and forth details the sort of thinking going on in regards to keeping the legislature in the dark over the personnel shell game underway. Notice how the lead figures in the adminsistration – Smith, Gibbs, McIntyre, etc – speak not only with contempt towards legislators, but discuss ways to camoflauge cuts so legislators won't notice that the department is losing social worker positions.

TRANSPARENCY

WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION SAID:

“Gov.Douglas has always been straightforward with Vermonters, and with the Legislature, about the challenges facing our state and the best way to address them.”

            Cynthia LaWare, Secretary of Human Services

            Burlington Free Press

            March 18, 2008

 
WHAT VSEA FOUND:

To: Mike Smith (Secretary of Administration), Tim Hayward (Chief of Staff)

From: Jason Gibbs (Communications Director)

November 3, 2007

“Have you had a chance to pass along talking points on the 400 positions to the Gov.? I would expect that the TVs will want to ask him about it today. Let me know if you want me to do that.”

 

            To: Jason Gibbs (Communications Director)

            From: Mike Smith (Secretary of Administration)

            November 3, 2007

“Don’t we want to keep the Gov. away from this story?”

To: Linda McIntire (Deputy Secretary of Administration), Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director), Tom Ball (Director of Labor Relations)

            From: David Herlihy (Commissioner of Human Resources)

            February 5, 2008

“I can hear Jeanette White now saying that she’s concerned because they don’t get frank input. Just an FYI so we don’t get caught off guard asking if we would agree to enhanced whistleblower protection. This bill is a nightmare.”

  

To: Mike Smith, Linda McIntire (Deputy Secretary of Administration), Robin Strader (Private Secretary, Administration)

            From: Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director)

            June 11, 2008

“If we can account for the savings target for AHS, (and I am sure we can) why don’t we abolish three of the long term vacant positions, and leave the social workers ‘on the books’ – they don’t need to fill them, but at least we are not abolishing social workers.”

 

 To: Gail Rushford (AHS Personnel Chief), Monica Hutt (DCF Senior Field Services Manager), Steve Dale (Commissioner, DCF), Linda McIntire (Deputy Secretary of Administration)

            From: Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director)

            June 24, 2008

“I know one of the options we discussed was to reclass the vacant social worker positions to Human Services Case Aide and Child Benefit Specialists…however, if we do that, the last person to fill the position will be a social worker, and my concern is that if legislators and VSEA recognize their names it will look like we are hiding the ‘fact’ that we gave up social workers. If it is not a concern that folks receiving this list will recognize Sarah Crosier, Sandra Crossman, Christine Dunn, and Mary Cameron as Social Workers/Domestic Violence Specialist, we can simply reclassify the positions.”

 

To: Joshua Slen (Director of OVHA), Erin Cody (Associate Medical Director), Nancy Clermont (Deputy Director of OVHA)

            From: Ann Rugg (Deputy Director of OVHA)

            January 7, 2008

“What do you mean ‘hold open’? Would they then be lost? Is this an exercise of appearances? And if so how long must the appearance last? What is the target for ‘months of vacancy savings’?”

 

 

            To: Linda McIntire (Deputy Secretary of Administration)

            From: Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director)

            November 26, 2007

“So, when I abolished the Commerce position I moved it to the pool, but I have a bad feeling about that…I think it might be perceived as a way to build up the pool for our usual nefarious purposes.”

 

To: Linda McIntire, Jim Reardon (Commissioner of Finance and Management), Susan Zeller (Deputy Commissioner of Finance and Management)

            From: Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director)

            March 13, 2008

“I was going to give HAC [House Appropriations Committee] the tracking sheet today – should I give them the second sheet with the $$ detail? I was not planning to, however, I am not sure we ever discussed what to give them”

 

To: Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director), Jim Reardon (Commissioner of Finance and Management), Susan Zeller (Deputy Commissioner of Finance and Management)

            From: Linda McIntire

            March 13, 2008

“They are like children – so give them the first sheet with the 1m savings – have them absorb that, then if they ask, hand them the second sheet – but they will be flipping it back and forth back and forth, trying to read it and you will lose them if they receive both at the same time.”

In the following section, you've ironically got Neale Lunderville (of all people) making a reasoned point and in the process putting the political nonsense to much of this excercise in arbitrary, PR-driven departmental hacking and slashing. Clearly, in the case of many of these cuts, taxpayers aren't going to be saved any money as outside consultants will simply have to be brought in to take up the slack.

CONTRACTORS/TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES

WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION SAID:

“This exercise is about saving taxpayer money. Our efforts to reduce the size of state government will be to no avail if money saved from such reduction is re-directed to contractors or if there is an explosion in the use of temporary employees.”

Mike Smith, Secretary of Administration

Memo to Agency and Department Heads

December 14, 2007

WHAT VSEA FOUND:

 
To: Bill Apao (Health Surveillance Director), Christine Finley (Health Field Operations Chief), Sharon Moffatt (Acting Commissioner of Health)

            From: Maureen Barnes (Human Resources Coordinator, DOH)

            April 18, 2008

“Chris indicated that you have a lab position and that the work of this position has been getting done by a contractor she suggests that you continue with the contracting and we will give up the position.”

 

        

To: Neale Lunderville (Secretary of Transportation)

            From: David Dill (Deputy Secretary of Transportation)

            April 24, 2008

“What we may have to face with the 09 cuts is the standard dilemma – some consultant work instead of staff – with an extra $10 M per year or work…”

 

            To: David Dill (Deputy Secretary of Transportation)

            From: Neale Lunderville (Secretary of Transportation)

            April 24, 2008

“Seems like a bad choice… If we are ramping up over the next 5 years, it’s going to be difficult to find position cuts and still get projects out… my gut tells me if we are gong (sic) to have a steady stream or (sic) new work, it would be more economical to fill positions and have the work done in-house.. we’d be sending lots of consultants’ kids to college otherwise!”

 

 

            To: Scott Rogers (AOT Assistant Director)

            From: Alec Portalupi (AOT Manager III)

            December 10, 2007

“With the loss of the Municipal Programs Manager position, we will have an immediate need to hire Bill McManis as a temporary employee to continue the processing of the various payments, tracking/processing of grant documents, and eventually closing out four separate FEMA declarations.”

 

To: Steve Chadwick (Admin Sevices Director, ANR), Brenda Berry (Assistant Director of Admin Services, ANR)

            From: Susan Zeller (Deputy Commissioner of Finance)

            June 2, 2008

“The loss of a Forester I position in Barre will be handled by a combination of shifting work and eliminating services. Since the incumbent was skilled in GIS activities, cutting back on the lease review burden from another GIS-trained individual by moving that work load to Waterbury will be suggested to help cover this work. The support services to the Washington and Orange County foresters that the position supplied will be eliminated. The state lands activities will be absorbed by the existing state lands staff as well as can be done. It will be suggested to the staff that they shift as much of the Recreation burden to the temporary Trails Coordinator as possible to mitigate this.”

 

Repeatedly, Administration officials explicitly claimed that no actual services would be impacted by these job cuts. Behind the scenes the scramble tells a different story…

IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICES

WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION SAID:

“Coupled with strategic planning so that workloads are not simply shifted to other employees and public service is not diminished, this small decrease in the number of positions is doable.”

Mike Smith, Secretary of Administration

Memo to Agency and Department Heads

November 2, 2007

  

WHAT VSEA FOUND:

 

To: Emily Trutor (Admin Support Coordinator, DOH), Jenny Audet (HRIS Support Coordinator), Maureen Barnes (HR Coordinator, DOH), Linda Piasecki (ADAP Operations Chief)

            From: Barbara Cimaglio (Director for Drug and Alcohol Abuse Programs)

            June 25, 2008

“The volume of work that this Division handles has doubled in the last four years due to budget increases from the legislature and Governor. Yes (sic), the administrative support had been cut in half. We have been supportive and offered to take cuts as is our share. Yet, when we cannot complete the work we have been assigned, the services are not able to be delivered to a needy population.”

 

        

            To: Steve Dale (Commissioner, DCF)

            From: Jeff Cohen (Child Support Services Director)

            November 29, 2007

“In general we will need to redirect work to other units and staff members. Although we will try to mitigate the impact by changing some of our procedures and processes, we will likely experience an increase in delays and some complaints as well as some reductions in collections and performance.”

 

 

To: Gail Rushford (AHS Personnel Chief), Andy Pallito (Deputy Commissioner, DOC), Ira Sollace (Financial Director III)

            From: Rob Hofmann (Commissioner, DOC)

            June 3, 2008

“On the ‘work distributed to other staff’ certain tasks will inevitably & not surprisingly be delayed.”

 

To: Ira Sollace (Financial Director III), Andy Pallito (Deputy Commissioner, DOC), Jackie Kotkin (Corrections Field Services Executive Assistant)

            From: Rob Hofmann (Commissioner, DOC)

            April 28, 2008

“We will inevitably need to look at FY 2009 reductions elsewhere in P&P either for Pay Act or for the vacant position exercise.”

 

        

To: Gerry Myers (Commissioner, BGS), Paul Rousseau (BGS CFO)

            From: Tom Sandretto (Deputy Commissioner, BGS)

            December 21, 2007

“I think three of the positions selected were unfunded and another was in Print shop where we are trying to stop the hemorrhaging. If they want money, we will have to find other positions. That is difficult when we are dealing with internal service funds. Theoretically, savings in our programs result in savings to our customers as we are forced to deliver the same product as (sic) a lesser cost. Thus any money collection should come from our customers. If we have to hand over cash to the administration, then we must keep our rates high in order to deliver the cash. Follow this to conclusion and we will soon be billing customers exorbitant markups.”

 

       

            To: David Dill (Deputy Secretary of Transportation)

From: Mel Adams AOT Director of Policy and Planning)

April 30, 2008

“In light of the news that we will not have assistance with the QA/QC this summer, our users will see a substantial slowdown in the service. Our response to requests for video and help calls will likely suffer, and our ability to provide timely updates to the State highway system on VsisData will also suffer.”

 

 

To: Laura Pelosi (Commissioner, DEC)

            From: John Klimenok (Environmental Analyst V)

            July 3, 2008

“The four positions that were never filled were evidently important enough to be requested in the first place. The Essex and St. J offices REALLY need additional administrative staff, especially St. J. So, why are these positions no longer vital for the operation of our program? Guy Grenier has been asking for more help for years. Now, after that position in St. J was going to be filled, it has been taken away. I really feel for him and his office. I can understand his frustration with the way things are done. I know that tough decisions have to be made, but I have to question why the Secretary’s office needed more people and got them. Is the work that the newcomers to the Secretary’s office are/will be doing more important than the day-to-day work that the regional offices do?”

 

 

To: Kim O’Leary (AHS Principal Assistant), Linda McIntire (Deputy Secretary of Administration)

            From: Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director)

            June 27, 2008

“I am especially concerned with the line: ‘The skyrocketing cost of gasoline, home heating fuel and even food is resulting in increased caseload pressures across the agency, as our most vulnerable Vermonters face a true financial crisis.’ It seems to me this begs the question ‘Sooooooo, how can it be true that you are reducing positions and not impacting services?’… I think ‘mitigating the impact’ is going to be read to mean that there is or will be some level of negative impact on services.”

 

       

To: Scott Johnson (Field Director, DCF)

            From: Patrick Flood (Commissioner, DAIL)

            May 19, 2008

“The number of positions required to be reduced is 250, but I don’t know how we are going to deal with no pay act. We have to find it somewhere.”

 

        

            To: Joan Senecal (Deputy Commissioner, DAIL)

            From: Veda Lyon (Adult Protective Services Program)

            April 30, 2008

“And quite honestly – I find it disturbing that at least initially, it seems Patrick/central AHS may be giving little or no consideration to the work load issues that we have dealt with (I have for three years, and Daniel, coming on board this past year) and are soon going to have to face given that  a) with reorg, CDU lost two or three positions but retained the same amount of work – grants, etc, while adding some new programs; and b) we will have even fewer staff with coming staff reductions this next FY.”

Below is the most compelling piece, where what was supposed to be a collaborative, positive process between the Pavilion offices and the agenciesis clearly a politically driven, whip-cracking, get-with-the-program-or-else process (with a little gleeful union busting thrown in at the end).

PROCESS

WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION SAID:

“The Department of Human Resources and Finance and Management have been reviewing your organizations’ missions, potential retirement opportunities and staffing levels and have established what I believe are reasonable targets for each of your departments and agencies.”

Mike Smith, Secretary of Administration

Memo to Agency and Department Heads

November 2, 2007

       

WHAT VSEA FOUND:

 

            To: Cindy LaWare (Secretary of Human Services)

            From: Linda McIntire (Deputy Secretary of Administration)

            November 14, 2007

“Gail indicated that you want to better understand “the numbers” re the targets, etc. and do not want to attend tomorrow’s meeting until you better understand them. Mike set this meeting up because word has come back here that you have been complaining about your targets to other departments and he needs to understand why you are not on the team re this project. No commissioner of secretary has done this, in fact, we have been pleasantly surprised that everyone so far has embraced the project- some have even proposed additional opportunities for next year. Although initially I was willing to talk to about methodology and have Molly attend the first part of the meeting tomorrow, I am informing her not to be here as this will NOT be a meeting about methodology or numbers.

I have not brought this to Mike’s attention – but, in short, you need to be here tomorrow and be prepared to talk about being part of the team. See you then.”

 

        

To: Linda McIntire (Deputy Secretary of Administration)

            From: Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director)

            February 20, 2008

“I am not sure that they are close to making final decisions, apparently the departments are ‘squabbling’ and behaving like siblings over the reductions, which makes it difficult for the agency to make final decisions.”

 

 

To: David Dill (Deputy Secretary of Transportation)

            From: Tom Trahant (AOT Human Resources Chief)

            May 9, 2008

“We are engaged in a challenging relationship with DHR on numerous issues and it is my belief and one that is shared by others both here and at DHR that in the not too distant future (after the fall election) we (HR) very well may be engaged going full tilt utilizing all of our resources dealing with what we predict will be a very aggressive approach to staffing stabilization. The current vacancy ‘cost avoidance’ we believe will not result in the anticipated savings in personnel costs. It is likely to be accomplished through a RIF’s process at some level done in concert with a reduction of OT, controlled fuel cost, less vehicle usage and the like. Our concerns are based on past experience in similar situations.”

 

 

            To: Linda McIntire (Deputy Secretary of Administration)

            From: Tom Pelham (Commissioner, Tax Department)

            January 6, 2008

“This seems a bit inconsistent with our discussion that we would get some credit in this process for our past efforts….keeping in mind that in 2004, our position count was 195. Our budget target for 2009 as sent to us by Jim’s shop is fine, but reducing our position count in 2008 by 4 on top of what we’ve done in the previous years and what we’ll be expected to do in 2009 seems a bit harsh.”

 

        

            To: Linda McIntire (Deputy Secretary of Administration)

            From: Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director)

            March 10, 2008

McIntire: “What are your biggest concerns right now?”

Paulger:

“#1. Lack of progress in showing reductions: AHS not giving up anything yet, and not planning to until June; ANR’s reluctance to give up anything now.

#2. Alternate plans (VSEA/Leg)

#3. Legislature feeling sorry for, and perhaps trying to ‘help’ departments who have had a double hit (Education – claiming they gave up needed funded positions, vacant for an average or 2 years, PLUS getting a high reduction)

#4. Departments trying to add positions (another request for a JFO position from Military came in today)

#5. Dealing with endless requests for information”

 

        

To: David Beatty (Budget and Management Analyst), Linda McIntire (Deputy Secretary of Administration)

            From: Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director)

            February 25, 2008

“I am copying Linda McIntire because I am beginning to wonder if I have all of this wrong? Maybe I do not understand what we are really doing, and/or maybe I have F&M’s role wrong? Maybe I am just way off base with everything, especially the ‘real savings’ thing, and I’ve been out making a fool of myself?”

 

 

To: Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director), Linda McIntire (Deputy Secretary of Administration), David Herlihy (Commissioner, DHR)

            From: Harold Schwartz (Human Resources Administrative Services Director)

            January 29, 2008

“Linda, per Molly you indicated that you wanted to know the impact of the 400 position reduction on union dues. I obtained data from Jeanette on the latest pay period dues collection. There are about 5,700 dues paying members, and almost 1,000 agency fee folks. Annually, between the two, the union collects just over $1.9 million. Per the job reduction analysis I performed last fall in order to allocate job decreases for the purpose of bargaining, my estimate was that of the 400, 284 would be bargaining unit positions. At 11.55 in dues per pay period, the amount the VSEA would be losing annually, by the end of FY09, would be 284 x 11.55 x 26 = about $85,000. If all 400 jobs were bargaining unit positions (unlikely), the figure would be about $120,000. So, for orders of magnitude, I would say about $100,000 give-or-take, would be the amount of dues the VSEA might lose.”

 

 

To: Harold Schwartz (Human Resources Administrative Services Director), Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director)

            From: Linda McIntire (Deputy Secretary of Administration)

            January 29, 2008

“Thx – just something to keep in our back pocket – VSEA will have tough decisions to make, too…?”

I used to tell people that if somebody in state government ever really crossed the line, I could always “go nuclear;” that is, make a public records demand for a massive state email dump. As state mail through state servers on state equipment, written and sent on state time, it seemed a slamdunk. Imagine what awaits; legislators inappropriately interacting with lobbyists, people in the Governor’s office doing campaign work, or illegally colluding with commercial or political interests over issues such as Vermont Yankee or the Intervale.

Really, the mind boggles, and the reason I always thought of it as “going nuclear” is that, once the floodgates were opened by somebody making a large-scale high profile request, it seemed likely that others would jump on board creating not merely potential political tidal waves, but possibly technical/logistical ones as well. Certainly there are people I know connected to the state who have shuddered at the prospect for years, now.

Well, the Vermont State Employees Association either just came to the realization that this strategy was possible, or simply decided that they were tired of sitting there with their finger on the button while the Douglas Administration continually screwed them over, year after year. VSEA, of course, made their request, Douglas tried to push them back with stickershock, but the nuke went off yesterday:

Internal e-mails on a continuing round of state government job cuts show high-ranking administration officials worried about protecting Gov. Jim Douglas and saying members of a key House committee are “like children.”

The Vermont State Employees’ Association, the state workers’ union that has criticized the Douglas administration’s staff reductions since they were announced last November, on Wednesday released some of the results of a public-records request for correspondence about the reductions…

…But the e-mails show that internally, another priority was keeping Gov. Jim Douglas out of political trouble over the issue…

…Another e-mail, dated Nov. 14, has McIntire sending Human Services Secretary Cynthia LaWare an electronic scolding before she is to receive one in person the next day from Smith.

“Mike set this meeting up because word has come back here that you have been complaining about your (staff reduction) targets to other departments and he needs to understand why you are not on the team re this project … (Y)ou need to be here tomorrow and be prepared to talk about being part of the team. See you then.”

VSEA is supposed to advocate aggressively and forcefully for their rank and file, and good for them for doing so, especially given the fact that they haven’t always done so to their members’ satisfaction.

But there’s no denying that crossing this line has the potential to bring a lot of sunshine to corners of state government (in every branch) that have never been near any of the windows before. Start the popcorn!

• Where’s the money? Interested persons looking into the Primary for Montpelier’s House Seat were surprised to find that former Douglas contributor and Jim-Dog Dem Jon Anderson apparently did not file a campaign finance report last week. Statute requires candidates to file if they have collected or spent more than $500 in a reporting period, and with Anderson’s campaign mailings continuing to hit, it seems likely that the limit was reached. Eeeeeenteresting. Something we’re not supposed to see, perhaps? Slow train gets to the station after all: As of this morning, the reports were all available –  Blue-to-bluer Challenger Mary Hooper has raised $1790.30 and spent $1537.48; Rep. Warren Kitzmiller has raised $2493.23 and spent $2013.80; and Anderson has spent $5385.46 and loaned $4665.46 to himself, with no other contributions listed.
• A “soulmate” for Welch: At the final day of the Convention, I was seated behind most of the Delegation where, unlike at the Pepsi Center, Vermont had more seats than it needed and Iowa didn’t have enough. As such, I offered the seat next to me to an Iowan I came to realize was a US Congressman – specifically freshman Representative Dave Loebsack. Rep. Loebsack was a personable, unassuming fellow and had a few things to say about Vermont, as well as a couple prominent Vermonters:

Yep, its true. There are a lot of good posts today, and I don’t wanna bump ’em any further down the page, so click on “there’s more” if you’re curious.

Here’s the email:

The United States Library of Congress has selected your Web site for inclusion in its historic collections of Internet materials related to Election 2008. The Library’s traditional functions, acquiring, cataloging, preserving and serving collection materials of historical importance to the Congress and to the American people to foster education and scholarship, extend to digital materials, including Web sites. We request your permission to collect your web site and add it to the Library’s research collections. We also ask that we be allowed to display the archived version(s) of your web site.

The following URL has been selected:

greenmountaindaily.com

With your permission, the Library of Congress or its agent will engage in the collection of content from your Web site at regular intervals over time. The Library will make this collection available to researchers onsite at Library facilities.  The Library also wishes to make the collection available to offsite researchers by hosting the collection on the Library’s public access Web site. The Library hopes that you share its vision of preserving Internet materials and permitting researchers from across the world to access them. If you agree to permit the Library to collect your Web site, please click the following link to signify your consent. This link also includes a separate consent for permitting the Library to provide offsite access to your materials through the Library’s Web site.

(snip)

Our Election Web archives are important because they contribute to the historical record of our national elections, capturing information that could otherwise be lost. With the growing role of the Web as an influential medium, records of historic events could be considered incomplete without materials that were “born digital” and never printed on paper. The Library has developed three previous Election Web Archives, in 2000, 2002 and 2004. These Election Archives are available along with our other Web Archive collections through the Library’s Web site (http://www.loc.gov/webcapture/).   For more information about these and other Web Archive collections please visit our Web site.

If you have questions, comments or recommendations concerning our Election 2008 Web Archive project, please e-mail the Library’s Web Capture team (snip).

Thank You,

Web Capture Team

Library of Congress

Washington, D.C.

Cool, huh?

Tim Ashe is a Democratic Party candidate for State Senate in Chittenden County. He is also currently a Progressive Party elected official, serving since 2003 on the Burlington City Council.

What gives?

According to Ashe, simple pragmatism. Seven Days broke out the candidacy in its issue last week and surfaced some points of interest.

Making his political positioning especially dexterous, Ashe is also seeking the Progressive nomination for a Senate seat as a write-in candidate. But because running as a Prog would perpetuate the partisan divide he’s trying to bridge, Ashe said he would decline the party’s endorsement and sit out the November general election if he does not gain Democratic backing in the September 9 primary.

“The third-party box isn’t something I’ve ever been comfortable with,” he said. Unlike many fellow Progs, he added, “I’m not obsessed with the concept of a third party per se.”

If Ashe looks at political parties as a means to an end, that’s nothing I, for one, would argue with. Many in the Democratic and Progressive Parties see their respective institutions as ends in themselves, and it’s that kind of parochialism that mediocrity thrives on. Clearly he does not share the view that I (and some others on this site) espouse; that the system is hardwired in such a way that it will only accommodate two parties, but neither, it would seem, is he doctrinaire about the 3rd party in which he’s been successful.

But to some, it smacks of a threat. From the same article:

Democratic State Senator Jim Condos of Chittenden County said he is troubled by “what looks to be a Progressive move to hijack the Democratic Party.”

Hm. If by “hijack,” one means run as a Dem, get elected by Dems as a Dem, and participate in the political process as a Dem, I suppose myself, Condos, and everyone else with a ‘D’ by their name is guilty of hijacking. Last I saw, that’s usually called “Democracy.”

Look, this is exactly what a lot of us would like to see happen, and given his progressive record on the issues, he would likely be on my short list if I were a Chittenden County voter. I don’t see how we can complain that people like Ashe are working against our mutual interests by staying away from the Democratic party, and then castigate them when they engage with a straight face. I suspect what at least partly is in play is institutional “pecking order”; an implicit sure we want you to come over, but you should take your place in the back of the line. Yuck. And if by being afraid of “co-opting,” there are Dems who are saying they don’t want to see the Party moved to the left, well obviously I have no patience for that either.

In other words; welcome aboard, Tim.

(Side note… there are some interesting, even extraordinary statements in the article from Progressive Party Chair Martha Abbott that get us into a whole ‘nuther topic that’s equally worthy of discussion… more on that soon)

In more evidence that Palin was a last minute, minimally-vetted choice to be John McCain’s running mate, bloggers are just scratching below the surface to find that her political allegiances likely include the Alaskan Independence Party, yet another partner organization of the Second Vermont Republic (shown here on the list of allies complied by Kirkpatrick Sale’s “Middlebury Institute”). In fact, Dexter & Lynette Clark, listed as Vice Chair and Chair, respectively, appear on SVR’s roundly criticized “advisory board,” viewable here.

Details below the fold with some You Tube clips of SVR Advisory Board member Dexter Clark praising Palin as an ally and (until recently) a member, as well as discussing the need to infiltrate the major parties (and major hat tip to Liz Arnett at dKos for turning these up).

At about 6 minutes into the following clip from the recent AIP Convention: “Our current governor who I mentioned at the last conference, the one we were hoping would get elected, Sarah Palin, did get elected… and there was a lot of talk about her moving up. She was an AIP member before she got the job as mayor of a small town… but to get along, to go along, she eventually joined the Republican Party.”

Here’s another clip where the SVR Advisory Board member states that secession organizations need a “plan,” which apparently includes getting involved in the major political parties such as Palin has done; “the problem remains you have to be at the table in the existing political realm – you have to a demipublican or a republicrat is what we call it…”

(Note reference to the “secessionist conventions” held in “cities with brick buildings”)

Clearly, this is a more interesting group as a standalone entity than the League of The South, and in fact in the second video, you’ll hear much of the anticorporate rhetoric consistent with SVR and VT Commons. Nevertheless, their beachhead into mainstream politics (and the Vice Presidency) is a creationist, anti-choice social mega-conservative, which puts the values and goals of the organization into a disturbing light. Here’s Palin’s “welcome” message to the AIP’s convention:

I don’t know what can be concluded from any of this at this point, but the connections are interesting and certainly eyebrow raising. What an odd choice.

At the Big Tent in Denver, Markos Moulitsas of “Daily Kos” fame made plenty of copies of his new book, Taking on the System, available. I’ve been reading my copy on my trip back to Vermont (I am actually writing this diary from O’Hare in Chicago).

It’s a good read. Markos is an excellent writer (lord knows he gets enough practice). It lacks citations, which drives me nuts, but I’m getting a lot out of it. Most of the book is an exercise in breaking out the transformational power of new media into its constituent parts and providing successful case studies of each (and not always political case studies as Markos sees a lot of parallel institutional change in, for example, the music industry).

Markos casts himself and the netroots movement as the next step in Saul Alinsky-style activism, disarming the critcism from the more reactionary set (many of whom cite Alinsky – to whom Taking on the System is dedicated – as an inspiration themselves) with Rules for Radicals quotations such as “we will start with the system because there is no other place to start from except political lunacy”. It should be mentioned that Markos casts himself in such a role without ego, as he is uniquely able to speak about himself and his contribution objectively, almost clinically so. It’s refreshing.

But here’s the discussion: Markos observes in the prologue that the rapid democratization of media and (by extension) other power institutions has left the “traditional gatekeepers” (largely the traditional media) and the political “elites they guard” with a choice:

Some are embracing this democratization, welcoming the new participants. Others are simply tolerating the interlopers, acknowledging the process as an inevitable evolution in our culture. Then there are those digging in their heels, and fighting a losing battle to protect their domain.

At the Denver convention – both on the ground with the Vermont delegation and in reviewing the coverage back home – JD, Christian and I were witnessing all three of these reactions. Most prominently (I believe) on display was the “tolerating” process of simply dealing with these changes as an inevitability. But each of the other reactions Markos lays out were clearly in play as well.

Rather than give you my opinion, I’d like to hear the opinion of GMD’s readers. Among the Vermont “gatekeeper” and “elite” set, who do you think is welcoming the new paradigm, who is simply accepting it and trying to make the best of it, and who is digging in and pushing back?

It’s been an adventure. I wish I could say that entirely in the positive sense of the word, but it’s definitely a good thing that I was here. There are a lot of comments I could make, but I’m tired. And I walked more yesterday than I have since the Step It Up walk. Ouch.

It should be said that as amazing as the show was inside (and by “amazing” in this post, I’m referring to my amazement that nothing went wrong), the logistics outside were horrific, and there were a lot of angry people walking for hours and miles to get in, or being funneled out exits way to small to accommodate gazillions of people. The crowd I was with actually pushed over the temporary fencing and made their own way out, and in true bleeding-heart liberal style, many lingered for a while to help the elderly or unsteady climb over the concrete barrier to exploit the hole created in the fence line and (thankfully) escape.

I staggered around after my own escape and got lost, wandering through a very large housing project. I was hoping to catch up with fellow Vermonters as I’d felt a bit cut off from them in the evenings, what with the logistics of taking the bus out to the place I stayed Tuesday and Wednesday nights – the condemned home of a medical marijuana growing renter who was in the process of being evicted (and who’d just had most of his plants stolen), and for whom I had to knock with a secret code to be allowed entry so he’d know I wasn’t the cops. More on that later… or not.

So I caught up with some of the younger delegate set at the hotel the delegation had been staying at, but… er, well… the phrase “fifth wheel” comes to mind, so I quickly set off in search of more suitable downtime environments, finding bloggers JD Ryan and Philip Baruth  having drinks with Senator Shumlin. I settled in, and I think it was the most relaxed I’ve been all week.

So a collection of videos follow below the fold, but first here’s Stevie Wonder and dancing Vermont legislators from Mile High Stadium…

Here’s a particularly effective street theater demonstration from Iraq Veterans Against the War. Unfortunately, I didn’t video the best part – where they “roughed up” a faux detainee, but this should give you the flavor.

Here’s a sense of some of the sheer scale of what was up, including the logistic nightmare of getting in out of the stadium (including the aforementioned downed fence and mass escape at the end).

Here’s the reaction of some of the Vermont delegation to Obama’s appearance on the stage, as well as some comments afterwards.

…and in a final reminder that Vermont is the Rodney Dangerfield of states, here’s a screen capture from an MSNBC slideshow of the night. Note the description below the picture…

It’s about people.

When you look at the scene that I’m sitting in the middle of (and I know, its never the same from the outside as the inside – it cant possibly be) there are a lot of reactions you could have. But the first test in determining how you will react comes down to a simple question:

Do you like people?

There are facts that simply cannot be disputed. One fact is that Barack Obama is having a tremendous effect on people. On many many millions of people. There are few people this side of the Pope who could fill a stadium like this, and that means something.

Now people take on a collective identity when they get together on such a large scale, and unquestionably that can be a scary thing when what draws them together is destructive. But this astonishing collection of people from a wide swath of backgrounds (there are a lot of local people filling up these seats, obviously from many, many social, economic and cultural backgrounds) are coalescing around this guy not out of anger, or out of blaming somebody else for their problems, or out of any desire for revenge or desire for empire building or anything of the like. These people are happy. They’re smiling, not sneering.

Right or wrong on individual policies (and lord knows the stadium runs the gamut on that front), these people are here for all the right reasons, and that matters. These are people being people in an undeniably positive sense of the word – because they all want to make the world a better place, not just for themselves, but for everybody, and it is Barack Obama, whatever his flaws, that is inspiring so many, many people in such a positive way.

If somebody can’t grant that simple credit to a man who is the clearly most historically significant African American leader in decades, I’ve got to wonder if you just don’t like people.

(NOTE: I can’t sustain a connection long enough to upload big files like pictures, but I’ve got some good stuff that will go up later – including a Stevie Wonder and dancing legislators vid)