(Johnson): From the Democrats one of the scenarios they’re already throwing out is that if you’re in the race that you could help keep Jim Douglas below 50%, the race gets into the legislature – even if Gaye Symington is in second place, they can argue that all of your votes would’ve gone to her. what’s your reaction to that?
(Pollina): Well, 2 things…
(snip – where Pollina repeats the Progressive mantra that they are Northeast Kingdom powerhouses. An assertion that is overstated, as I demonstrate in this diary – but he includes a more personalized analysis of his own performance compared to other Progs, which certainly has merit, and probably deserves a whole ‘nuther diary to analyze properly – click on the audio link below for the full response)
… the other thing is, see they’re locked into this thing thats it about Progressives vs Democrats, they don’t understand that its about appealing to voters its about creating jobs, its about fixing roads, its those kinda things. so they’re caught up in a politics as usual kinda game which i don’t really have a lot of patience for anymore.
…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.
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. Sorry – don’t get me excited about this kinda stuff (laughs)
Well, well. Once again, I feel so darn “reached out to” as a Democrat.
The righteous outrage, matching interviewer Johnson’s incredulity! How dare those Dems? What nerve!
Again, the problem here is that “the Democrats” aren’t floating this idea. And again, everyone I’ve talked to close to the Symington operation and the Party (with the exception of the personal opinion of one Party staffer who has nothing to do with these decisions) have rejected this notion. It’s a notion being “floated” by this blog. We were doing what we always do – trying to change things.
For the first response to Pollina’s indignation, let me present – from earlier in the same interview – Anthony Pollina:
Chalk up another “do as I say not as I do” moment for a longtime politician who, despite all the defeats and disappointments – and despite all the pretense (from his supporters, moreso than him) of moving beyond the past and working together,
is chronically incapable of letting an opportunity to collectively condemn “the Democrats” go by.
This is why he still cannot lower himself to ask for Democrats (and others) to support him. Here’s the rest of the above quote, with emphasis added:
If you like what you hear coming out of Montpelier, if you like all the bickering – you know, he said this and he said that, or she said this and he said and lets all argue about it – if you like all that then you will not vote for me. But if you really would like to change the attitude about state government and looking for some different ways to move forward, then you will support me, so thats where we’re at
“You will.” “You will not.”
That’s not an ask, that’s a command.
And in that imperious moment, we are reminded that Pollina’s biggest impediment to rising above a third place electoral footnote is one person: Anthony Pollina.
Despite the history and experience, Pollina is absolutely committed to playing the role of fringe candidate.
If there is one quality that defines all fringe candidates, whether left right or just zany, it’s a sense that the normal rules don’t apply to them. That they can do and say anything they want, give free rein to any impulse they have, unquestioningly confident as they are in their own righteousness – and equally certain that any who would question that almost supernatural certainty are not simply agents of badness, but are in league with all the other agents of badness.
It is the cosmology of a 1950’s era Superman comic book.
Now this is not to say that all Progressive Party politicians have the fringe psychology at work, but it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that Pollina does. It has certainly been on display in the past – most recently the infamous campaign finance debacle of 2002, where Pollina and his associates brazenly broke the rules of the very public financing law that he helped pass. Rather than respond with humility, Pollina went ballistic – first accusing one Democratic insider of a grand conspiracy (“I smell Dean! I smell Leahy!” he was quoted as ranting at that Dem privately), before suing everyone who was near the initial letter of complaint or the enforcement of the law in an all-out, scorched Earth strategy to destroy the very law that stood in defiance of his own defiant willfulness.
But many of us can’t help but keep listening. Policy is important to me, and although he hasn’t always been consistent in his support of progressive policies on Iraq, civil unions and the environment, his rhetoric is solid, and when he sticks to issues he is a solidly compelling pitchman. Hence my own suggestions to his surrogates over a few months on what I believed he needed to do to be successful and show dubious voters like myself that he had, indeed matured.
But its been clear in recent months that Pollina still feels entitled to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, whether or not its consistent, accurate, fair or reasonable – feeling no compunctions about doing so after the fact – and remains openly scornful of those who might, y’know, expect a little more integrity from their candidate (even if he is commanding that they vote for him).
The inconsistent rhetoric above is only the beginning. In that same interview, Pollina made a point of stating that he had never “run” (quote) the Vermont Milk Company, and that he had never claimed that he had. When an annoyed caller phoned in, reading the following from his campaign website (emphasis added):
Anthony Pollina, 56, has a variety of professional experience that combines to make him an effective and unique leader. In 2003 he was approached by a group of dairy farmers interested in working together to keep farming viable. The result was the Vermont Milk Company – a farmer controlled ice cream, cheese and yogurt plant. Anthony ran the start up until 2008.
At first he argued with the caller, then dismissed her by saying it “didn’t matter” (unfortunately, the MJS podcast cuts off the last several minutes of the interview, including this call). But what is just as significant that here, 4 days after the interview, he has not felt any need to alter the website to conform with his new version. To him, it really doesn’t matter.
And therin lies the problem. Straightforwardness and consistency does matter, and I, for one, would consider it a big problem if someone who wants my vote really finds those things that expendable.
Nor does reality matter, apparently. In his dismissal of the legislative scenario, Pollina noted above:
Boy I wouldnt want to be the governor who came in second, to tell you the truth.
This is certainly not the hubbub that was going around at the time. Conventional wisdom was, as Jack opined in this comment:
Back when he was running for Lite Gov they were sure that he was going to come in second, Shumlin would finish third, and that he would win in the Legislature.
In fact, consider the absurdly contradictory impulses at play above. First Pollina says:
the Democratic Party… made everyone commit to the idea that the highest vote getter should be the one who the legislature elects
Followed only 7 words later by…
I agree with that, frankly. I dont have a problem with that.
So which is it? The big bad Democrats “made” you do it (how does that work, exactly?), or is it something you “had no problem with”?
Now I don’t think the problem is that Pollina is intentionally bullshitting, I think its – again – Fringe Candidate Syndrome; that he gives into every impulse without questioning himself (such as the decision to accept a 6-figure anonymous bailout of the VT Milk Company, or his chastising Ian Carlton for communicating with him “through the media” by sending a letter to the, er, media, for example). His impulse one minute was to bash the Dems with a “Mom, he made me!” style line, and his next impulse was to bash the Dems for supposedly suggesting the legislative option. Doesn’t matter that they were in direct contradiction.
It’s a sense of entitlement, such as this brazen contradiction on display from the same interview. First this:
(Pollina): I’m still open to the conversation as to how we replace our governor.
(Johnson): Would that conversation include you stepping aside?
(Pollina): No.
Then this:
(Pollina): Conversations as you know – they gotta go both ways. A conversation is back and forth, not just forth and no back.
Apparently it depends on who’s conversing.
Just a bad day? Don’t bet on it. After all, it was less than two months ago when we had this via Philip:
Pollina: …when we talked about making the statement that I was going to be a candidate and then trying to raise the money, and then opening a bank account, all of that – at every step in that early process, we actually kept the Democratic party informed. We literally called them up to say, “We’re opening a bank account today,” or “We’re gonna do this today.”
To which Pollina’s former VPIRG colleague, VDP Chair Ian Carleton responded:
Over the course of Mr. Pollina’s candidacy the VDP has received only one “heads-up” phone call from his campaign – when Pollina’s colleague Chris Pearson called to say that Pollina was going to file paperwork with the Secretary Of State’s office disclosing that he had raised in excess of $500. No other such communications took place.
Neither Pollina nor anyone on his behalf ever called the VDP to let us know that he was “opening a bank account today,” as Mr. Pollina claims in the interview, nor was any such call made about “trying to raise the money,” as Pollina also states.
Nor, for that matter, did anyone on Pollina’s behalf call the Democratic Party to let us know Pollina was going to declare his candidacy at the Progressive State Committee meeting last fall. For Pollina to represent that he or his campaign kept Democrats apprised “at every step in that early process,” is far from accurate. None of the specific examples Pollina provides ever took place.
Now if you presuppose a grand conspiracy, I suppose you can conclude that this is actually a complex web of carefully plotted out lies and schemes to get Pollina to serially exaggerate, misstate and contradict himself. A conspiracy that this blog must be at the center of. All to stop the people’s champion from rising to power on the shoulders of his silent legion of supporters.
Of course, that would make you an idiot.
The fact is, Pollina’s deficit has never been a problem with the issues, it’s been a deficit of trust. That he looks, not like a left-wing visionary, but a holier-than-thou Dem-basher who thinks he’s above the rules and who eschews impulse control.
I didn’t accept the Facebook invitation to the “Run Gaye Run” group because I wanted to avoid any firm commitment to a candidate before the Primary (one might say, to make it easier to harass them all equally – Lord knows we’ve all been rougher on Symington over the years on this site than anyone else on the left – Pollina included – by a long shot).
But when faced with a choice of two lefty candidates with similar views – one of whom I trust, but who more often than not lets me down in terms of strategy and political savvy – and another who I don’t trust at all (and who remains untested and unproven in an elected setting) – I will always choose the one I trust.
And I will not be voting for Anthony Pollina this year, because I don’t trust him.
And let the message again go out to Pollina, Symington, Douglas and everybody else; this is the blog age. And that means that the era of being able to say whatever you want without being held accountable for your words is over.