I know it’s full-on rah-rah time around here with regards to your beloved Democrats – I mean, even Wes Hamilton has thrown himself into the mix – but I hope there’s also a little room for something a little closer to reality. And here’s something to ask ourselves as Vermonters: Is Pat Leahy all there? Or are we slowly working our way down the same path that saw Jim Jeffords be sent out to pasture a few years ago?

Personally, I think it’s fair to ask these questions. And here are a few tidbits to back up my concerns about Pat Leahy’s health and wellbeing.

This morning on the Mark Johnson show, Senator Leahy sounded confused on a number of occasions. While discussing Vermont Yankee, for example, Leahy repeatedly referred to the “Nuclear Regulatory Commission” (NRC) as the “NRSC.”

No big deal, really — if it was done once. But Leahy did it several times, all as part of a rather bizarre explanation to Johnson that he “didn’t have a position” on whether or not to close the Vermont Yankee. Johnson clearly sensed the oddity that Leahy didn’t have a position and kept pushing him on it. And Leahy kept insisting that the safety questions needed to be answered and that he had “asked the NRSC to look into it.”

After a commercial break, Leahy noted that he had been made aware of a mistake in his language, continuing: “I meant NRC, the National Regulatory Commission.”

Um, Senator, that would be (again): “The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”

Yikes.

A caller or two later wanted to know Leahy’s position on “Community Policing.”

Leahy’s initial response: “I don’t know about immunity policing.”

After Johnson informed him that the caller said, “community policing,” Leahy declared that he hadn’t heard of “community policing,” either.

“I’m shocked you haven’t heard of it,” said Johnson.

But then came the commercials, including one by Leahy and his wife about organic agriculture in which Leahy’s campaign makes the assertion that organic agriculture was started in Vermont and that Leahy’s efforts to standardize national organic standards led to a sort of exportation of Vermont’s organic agriculture.

Leahy’s wife even goes so far as to say that they wanted “the rest of the nation to have access to the same kinds of organic food that Vermonters had.”

First of all, the original existence of pesticide-free food happened long before Vermont learned to market itself. It was, after all, how ALL foods were grown before the domination of the petro-chemical giants decided to monopolize and otherwise industrialize the basic necessity of food – worldwide.

But even if you let Leahy off the hook on this rather nitpicking piece of evidence, he’d be snagged pretty well on the reality that the need and push for national organic standards had nothing to do with Vermont. For those of us involved in the organic standards battles of the 1990s, we know that the driving force behind them weren’t quaint Vermont organic farms – most of whom wanted nothing to do with federal standards – but, rather, the gigantic California organic farms, the increasingly monopolistic retailers like the anti-union “Whole Foods,” and the corporate food giants like Kellogg’s, etc. who were looking for regulatory cover to enter (read: control) the booming organics market.

But let’s live for a moment longer in the Leahy land of organic make believe. If, as the Leahy ad wants us to believe, that Vermonters were the creators and glorifiers of organic agriculture for the nation and world, how do you explain that the top three agriculturally related products in Vermont – Ben & Jerry’s, Cabot Creamery, and Green Mountain Coffee – are not even organic?

Leahy logic: Fail.

Worse, when activists like Food & Water made attempts to point out that Ben & Jerry’s farmers were (and continue to be) swimming in the use of the cancer-causing Atrazine on their non-organic feed corn, politicians like Leahy ran to their defense. Similarly, Leahy ran to the defense of the Cabot Creamery’s use of the Monsanto Corporation’s rBGH – a most non-organic practice, for sure.

Which is all to say: I think we need to be asking Pat Leahy about his recent health check-ups. Is he, for example, all there? Because his public pronouncements and mangling of the simple facts leads this voter to think otherwise.  

Democrats will have their backsides kicked hard this election because they bent over and started wincing in pain two years ago, apparently feeling that being kicked will be less painful than the hard work it takes to move society ahead. Meanwhile, Republicans have taken old themes (“StepNFetchit to Foreign Kings”, “Money is The God of Our Society”, and “Endless War and Torture”) and repackaged them, marketing them fearlessly and fearsomely as “The Way We Were.”

As someone who grew up in the shadow of the Vietnam war, I would like progressives to recognize that scripture is a record of our earliest efforts at sociology. I have found that religion has a face and two butt cheeks. The face sees a vision thousands of years ahead, things that could happen that would benefit humanity more than we can imagine. The left cheek, on the other hand, moons us, saying we should be different from those around us in ways that don’t make a difference, and be self-righteous about it. The right cheek also moons us, saying we can be as dreadful as every one else is, or even worse, and be completely self-righteous about it.

The right has become master of the two butt cheeks, and is mooning us for all they are worth.

We have to stand up for the thousand year vision of peace, justice and freedom, or we will lose our country and all that it stands for. It won’t be easy, with two cheeks of religion against us, but it has to be done!

There’s no doubt that Dick Cheney and his friends are willing to do most anything to drag us a few thousand years into the past.

The right has a powerful bait and switch going. Their appeal for a return to older behavior patterns is well thought out, and unified.

We’ve got to realize that there’s little comfort in knowing that we’re right, if we just stand by and let them do what they want. Dick wants us and all we stand for thrown in the path of the juggernaut of history repeated, not learned.

The three right wing themes I cited above can be turned back on the right wing, because they are fundamentally against American values, and go against our spiritual history.

There’s no doubt that the right will fight for their illusions with everything they have got. Our opposition must be determined to be heard, and unified around goals of peace, justice, and freedom.

Above all, we must communicate the vision that our problems are caused by the mistakes we make, and that our hope lies in rejecting the failed gods of selfishness, greed, and murder, and remembering our traditional American and Vermont values.

As we all seem to be having a crack at some final GOTV words, these are mine: support the good people who are down-ticket from Peter Shumlin, too.

I  just watched a rebroadcast of the candidate forum for Lt. Governor that took place in St. Albans a few weeks ago; and I’m so glad that I did! I had met Steve Howard and heard him speak briefly, taking away a favorable but indistinct impression.  It wasn’t until I saw his performance in that debate that I could really size him up in relation to Phil Scott, who also appears to be a nice enough guy.

It really is a shame that most voters will probably go to the polls having never heard a debate between these two.  Unlike the high profile Shumlin/Dubie show-downs which featured two strikingly different personalities sparring through a thicket of highly charged talking points, this forum was more of a relaxed conversation between two guys with very different perspectives who still seemed capable of sharing a cup of coffee later on.  

In the St. Albans forum, moderator Emerson Lynn adopted the annoying and odd habit of personally grilling Steve Howard on his responses to each question, occasionally to the complete exclusion of Candidate Scott.  Despite this disproportionate amount of adversarial attention, Mr. Howard rose to the questions with grace and authority, turning the two-against-one scenario to his distinct advantage.  Mr. Scott’s assertions on all issues seemed to be grounded less in fact than opinion and lacked a certain depth when compared to those offered so substantially by Mr. Howard. I was really quite amazed at how great was the gulf in capability between the two men as revealed in this exchange. It’s difficult for me to believe that the undecided voters who were present in the audience of that forum could reach any conclusion other than that Steve Howard would make an excellent Lieutenant Governor (or even Governor, should it come to that); and that Phil Scott would probably be a nice guy to have as a boss on a construction job.  

On another note, I have to say how happy I was to see that the Burlington Free Press finally did, in today’s edition, what every single newspaper in the state should have done weeks ago:  they published a factual “cheat sheet” for battle weary voters to scan for simply stated positions from both candidates (Shumlin and Dubie) on each of 14 distinct issues.  This was a godsend to Democratic phone-bankers today who could finally refer undecideds to a single neutral source for the rudimentary facts one should have in order to make an informed decision.  I rather doubt that the Dubie camp welcomed this straight-forward distillation of the candidates’ positions as we did, since they tried so hard throughout the campaign to distract voters from that very thing.

It’s been a rough and tumble road this time around, but now that election day is within sight there is a growing sense of excitement in the air that kind of reminds me of 2008 (bite your tongue, girl!) As has been remarked in other diaries on this page, volunteers are suddenly pouring out of the woodwork to participate in the GOTV effort.  Somehow, despite all of the poison emanating from the Dubie camp (or perhaps because of it) the league of liberal voters have come to life again. Happy Halloween!

(Was meaning to write a diary something like this myself, but been too caught up in everything else. Thank heavens we’re an open forum! – promoted by odum)

For the first weekend in a long time, I find myself with a Sunday evening and no papers to write, and so I hoped I could contribute something to the conversation around Vermont House seats that could change hands this Tuesday.  Last year, I came out with something I called the Vermont District Index, compiling election results from past several years to rank how Democratic or Republican a house district is compared to the state as a whole, based off the idea of the Cook PVI.

After reading Shay Totten’s piece on the house districts he and Eric Davis have their eye on, I thought I’d go through my database and break down those races a little bit further.  Needless to say, if the nitty-gritty of Vermont House races isn’t your interest, this piece probably isn’t for you, but there are a lot of exciting races happening down the ballot this year, and I’ve taken some time out to dive deeper into a few of them.

Join me in looking at Chittenden 3-4, Rutland-Windsor-1, Franklin-3, Caledonia-3, Orleans-1, Windham-1, Addison-5, Washington 3-1, Windsor-Orange-1, and Washington-1

Chittenden 3-4 (D+47)

Burlington

Represented by: Kesha Ram (D) & David Zuckerman (P-retiring)

This race is the one my model becomes useless for, because it doesn’t have any way of differentiating between Democratic and Progressive candidates.  After weighing a potential run for Lt. Governor and Chittenden State Senate, Zuckerman announced that he would not be running for any office this year.  Ram (full disclosure: I worked on her 2008 campaign) is finishing out her first term in the Statehouse after winning the seat in what was arguably the most heated campaign in the state last time around.

Former representative Chris Pearson, who came in 3rd in the 2008 race, is back again.  Diane Gottlieb, a longtime Progressive activist, is also on the ballot, though she appears to be serving as more of a sponge for Pearson, with her candidacy not even being mentioned on the Progressive website.  Ram’s running mate, Peg Single Boyle, had to win a tough primary to become the second Democratic nominee, and has waged a strong campaign alongside Ram.  Ultimately, it’s going to come down to whether or not Pearson has made significant inroads on his own – during his tenure in the House, he never had to win a contested election after being appointed to fill Bob Kiss’ seat.  

Rutland-Windsor 1 (R+14)

Chittenden, Mendon, Killington, Bridgewater

Represented by: Megan Smith (D)

Shay cited Smith has a vulnerable Democrat because of her votes on same-sex marriage and the veto override.  Rutland-Windsor-1 is ranked as the 41st most Republican seat in the House, and the 10th most Republican seat currently held by a Democrat.  In Smith’s 2008 campaign, she beat her opponent in all but one of the district’s four evenly-sized towns, racking up a 17 point edge in her hometown of Killington and trailing by 4 points in the most conservative part of the district, Chittenden.

Smith is saddled with a significant challenge in Jim Eckhardt, a small business owner and chair of the National Federation of Independent Business Leadership Council.  The two candidates have raised similar sums of money, Smith reporting $5535 and Eckhardt $5019, though Eckhardt retained a slight cash-on-hand advantage at the October 15th filing deadline.

This seat looks like an incredibly difficult Dem hold – Bridgewater is the only Democratic center to try and boost turnout in and all four towns have voted Republican by significant margins in the past two gubernatorial races.  While all four of the towns have voted slightly more Democratic over the past two cycles, Smith may be one of the few representatives who “pays a price” for giving us two big votes this past session.

Franklin 3 (R+4)

St. Albans City

Represented by Kathleen Keenan (D) & Jeff Young (D)

While Keenan, who’s been serving since ’89, is certainly safe, freshman representative Young slipped into the house by a four-point margin in 2008 and was unable to stay out of the headlines last session.  Young initially voted against same-sex marriage, but then voted to override Douglas’ veto on the grounds that it would help him become a more effective legislator in the future.

That legislative future is now in doubt. Young hasn’t filed a single financial disclosure report this cycle, while a Republican challenger Dustin Degree, had raised $2755 at last notice.  This seat sits right in the middle on the spectrum of house seats, and while reliably a vote for Douglas, has been safely Democratic at the national level for the past decade.  It’d be a shame to lose a seat that should be safely Democratic, so I have to hope that what Young has lacked in fundraising, he’s made up for in work on the ground.

Caledonia 3 (R+21)

St. Johnsbury

Represented by Gary Reis (R) & Bob South (D)

Where as Franklin-3 is a seat we shouldn’t be losing, Caledonia-3 is one that we should just be thankful to hold in the first place.  South’s seat is the 3rd most Republican that Democrats currently hold, and the 21st most Republican in the entire House.  St. Johnsbury elected two new representatives in 2008, and all four candidates came within five percent of each other.  

It’s clear that South is aware of the difficult of his position, and has brought in a decent fundraising haul to keep himself afloat, raising $2790 by the Sept. 15th deadline, far outpacing Reis ($1193) and the two other challengers who don’t appear to have raised serious funds.  

But South has to contend with his 2009 vote to override the Governor’s veto on same-sex marriage, a vote that likely riled constituents.  South’s district was targeted by the Vermont Republican Party’s poling during the marriage debate, where they found only 31% of the district in favor of passing the law.  South faces an uphill ideological battle, but if he goes down on Tuesday it won’t be for a lack of trying.

Orleans 1 (R+25)

Brownington, Charles, Derby, Holland,

Represented by: Bob Lewis (R) & Scott Wheeler (R-retiring)

Talk about digging deep.  If Democrat Lisa Erwin-Davidson is able to capture this open seat, she’d claim the 14th most Republican seat in the House.  Following Wheeler’s retirement, the Democrat has put herself in a good position to snatch the second seat, staying even in fundraising with incumbent Lewis.

She’ll face an uphill battle at the ballot box though.  In 2008, both Republicans finished within a point of each other, a solid 11 points ahead of each of the Democrats.  60% of the district is composed of Derby, where Douglas underperformed in 2008 compared to the rest of the district.  There’s no real Democratic base to draw from in this district, and the roughly ten percent of the vote that comes in from Morgan (R+35) will bend heavily Republican, so it’s going to take a real across the board effort for Erwin-Davidson to sneak into this seat.

Windham 1 (R+1)

Guilford, Vernon

Represented by: Patty O’Donnell (R-retiring)

Windham-1 represents one of the best pick-up opportunities for Democrats this cycle.  Outgoing representative Patty O’Donnell had been serving in the 3rd most Democratic district represented by a Republican.  Keep in mind that though the district bends slightly more Republican than the state as a whole, Vermont is Democratic enough that this seat should be reliably Democratic – Kathy Pellett and Martha Heath sit in similarly Democratic districts.

Both the Republican, Mike Hebert, and the Democrat, Richard Davis have raised over $2000, with Hebert possessing a $600 edge in fundraising.  They’ll have to contend with one of the most ideologically interesting districts.  Guilford (D+18) and Vernon (R+22) split the district 50/50, forcing the candidates to win over two towns with completely opposite ideologies. Case in point: Vernon swung for Obama by only 7 Votes and saw Douglas run up a 30 point margin over Symington and Pollina, while in Guilford Obama racked up a 50 point margin and Symington and Pollina combined for a 30 point edge over Douglas.  

It’ll be interesting to see the different results in the two towns once they are finalized, but this is a seat that Democrats should be able to pick up if Vermont bucks the national trend and votes Democratic on Tuesday.

Addison 5 (R+1)

Bridport, New Haven, Weybridge

Represented by: Chris Bray (D)

If Windham-1 is a seat Democrats should pick up, Addison-5 is one they should hopefully be able to hold.  Just slightly more Democratic than the seat in Windham, Chris Bray’s failed Lt. Governor bid has opened up a seat for Republicans to try to capitalize on.

This match-up will be a re-match of the 2000 race in this seat, between former representative Harvey Smith and Democratic business leader/educator Spencer Putnam.  While Smith won round one, and served until Bray unseated him in 2006, Putnam isn’t taking chances this time. Having raised just shy of $10000, Putnam has built up a $6000 fundraising advantage over the former representative, and has waged an aggressive campaign.  Smith enjoys a name recognition advantage, but as long as Putnam keeps things even in Bridport, he should be able to bring this race home.

Washington 3-1 (R+14)

Barre City

Represented by: Paul Poirier (I)

Porier’s race is probably the most intriguing to me on the ballot this year.  Towards the end of the 2009 session, Poirier announced he was leaving the party to more effectively represent organized labor in the House.  While there were rumbling that this might be to ward off a Progressive challenger, nothing materialized, with only Republican opposition to oppose.

That being said, it doesn’t make Poirier’s road back to the statehouse any easier.  His district sits on the far end of Republican districts represented by a liberal, and in 2008 he was only able to manage a 51-49 win. Republican challenger Leo Valliere has doubled Poirier’s fundraising, having already spent more than Poirier has raised all cycle.  While Poirier has picked up endorsements from all across the spectrum including Barre Mayor Thom Lauzon, losing the Democratic label on the ticket could cost him some votes.  Poirier’s aware of the risk however, and made some waves earlier this fall by taking the odd step of hiring Amy Shollenberger as a paid campaign consultant in a state legislative race.  He’ll need all the strategic support he can get if he plans on serving an eighth term in Montpelier.

Windsor-Orange 1 (R+11)

Tunbridge, Royalton

Represented by: David Ainsworth (R)

Ainsworth must feel like he got incredibly unlucky with his challenger this year.  While his seat is by no means safely Republican, in a year that’s supposed to be exciting for the party it is the kind of seat you don’t have to worry about.  Unfortunately for them, parties usually don’t have to prepare for a challenger like Sarah Buxton.

The former Dean administration senior staffer and congressional campaign manager Buxton has raised over $13000 in her challenge, pushing Ainsworth into a difficult place.  Ainsworth narrowly edged his Democratic opposition 51-49 in 2008, and with this kind of challenge, it’s hard to see how this seat will stay Republican, especially in two towns that have steeply trended Democratic over the past decade.

Washington 1 (D+6)

Fayston, Waitsfield, Warren

Represented by: Adam Greshin (I)

Right-leaning independent Greshin faces a challenge from Democrat Mac Rood in what should be a safe Democratic district.  There is only one Republican in a district more Democratic than Washington 1, and Greshin’s 52-48 edge in 2008 doesn’t leave much room for error.  That being said it hasn’t seemed to bother the incumbent, who has been outraised four to one this cycle, with his only contribution coming from his own checkbook.

The independent label may have protected Greshin from anti-Republican sentiment last cycle, but Democrats will benefit from (at least) a much closer gubernatorial race in a seat where they have waltzed to victory in the past, as well as the presence of Anthony Pollina on the ballot, who did well here in 2008.  Rood’s funding edge and party label will probably be enough to reduce Greshin to a one-term legislator.

UPDATE: I’ve added a few more that were asked about in the comments, though the analysis is a little lighter than the ones above.

Windsor 4 (R+3)

Hartland, West Windsor

Represented by: Steve Adams (R)

With Adams retirement, his 2008 challenger John Bartholomew stands a good chance to pick up a seat in this swing district.  Bartholowmew only lost by around 80 votes last time around, carrying West Windsor but losing by ~100 in Hartland, and so with the incumbent out of the way, it should be his race to lose, especially given that he’s outraised his opponent by around 800 dollars.

In terms of its makeup, the district has taken a serious Democratic turn over the past decade – both towns just barely pulled the lever for Gore in 2000, while giving nearly 70% to Obama in 2008.  They haven’t warmed up to Dems on the statewide level yet however, with Douglas always carrying comfortable margins around +15. This is the fifth most Democratic seat Republicans hold, and is 2nd to Patty O’Donnell’s Windsor-1 if you only look at single-member seats.

Windsor 6-2 (R+3)

Hartford

Represented by: Charles Bohi (D) & John Clerkin (R-retiring)

This seat is virtually identical in partisan makeup to Windsor 4, so there’s not too much to discuss there.  Democrats narrowly missed out on this one in 2008, with the 3rd place Democrat only 1.9% behind Clerkin.  Both sides are fielding a full slate, so that advantage won’t exist, but this is as good of a pick-up opportunity as any given how few seats are left for the Dems to snatch up.

Chittenden 7-1 (D+0)

Colchester

Represented by: Jim Condon (D) & John Zenie (D-retiring)

The only way Dems should lose this seat is if their candidate doesn’t want it that badly.  Condon is certainly safe, but his ticketmate Erin Bessy has done herself little good, only raising $400 over the course of the campaign.  The Republican opposition isn’t blowing anyone out of the water – Bob Bouchard is waging somewhat of a campaign having raised just over $1000, but the other Republican nominee looks like a standard case of a sponge.

To give you an idea of where this seat rests on the spectrum, it’s right next to my district, Chittenden 6-2 (D+0), in Essex Junction, and Kurt Wright’s seat in Chittenden 3-1 (D+1). A win for Bouchard would seat him in the 3rd most Democratic district represented by a Republican.

Thanks to everyone who stayed with me through my analysis, hopefully it sheds a little more light on what should be some of the most interesting House races of the night – though I am sure there will be a handful of surprises I haven’t looked at.  And as for the VDI, following the conclusion of the 2010 election, I hope to update the database to reflect this year’s results, and find a place for the rankings online, so that it can be available for anyone to look at whenever they choose.  In the meantime, if you have questions about specific districts, let me know in the comments.  And given that we’re close to election day, I just want to make one last campaign pitch – if you’re voting in Chittenden County on election day, make sure you make one of your State Senate votes ends up with Philip Baruth.  It’s not every day you get to vote for a candidate that you  know will be accessible and transparent, and I’m proud to have him to vote for in my first “real” election.

No one can prove that these radiation-linked cancers have a connection to VT Yankee.  But that's not the point.  The question is: What is the wise course for public policy?

Three types of cancer which have been found to have strong links to nuclear radiation are high in VT.  In skin cancer VT is number one in the nation in data combined between 2002 and 2006, male and female.  In thyroid cancer, women in VT have experienced a 400% increase in the years from 1996 to 2005, which is twice the national rate of increase among women overall.  In pediatric cancer (cancer of all types in children ages 0-19,) VT is number one in data combined from 1999 to 2005. (The charts for this data are linked at the Dennett campaign website because direct links are not possible to the charts at the Centers for Disease Control website, only to the main search page.  The data for thyroid in VT women is in an internal document of the VDPH which has not been released to the public.)

While nothing can be proven in terms of cause and effect, it is reasonable to say there may be a connection.  More worrisome, however, is an apparent effort by the VT Public Health Department and the present attorney general,  who has a public health guardianship function, to hide the problem.  Attorney General Bill Sorrell, in a debate last month said with regard to cancer in VT, the state “does not have a bad story to tell.” (about 26 minutes into this VT NPR audio.)  

And although defenders of Yankee point out that cancer rates are lower right next to the plant than in some counties further away, it is well-known that radiation is wind and water-borne, and does not conform to any localized pattern of illnesses.

The official report by which the health department evaluates radiation-related cancers is the annual Yankee Surveillance Report.  The 2008 VT Yankee Surveillance Report states: “The incidence rates for invasive thyroid cancer and leukemia is not different from Vermont, Windham County, or the U.S. white population.”  

2008 Vermont Yankee Surveillance Report

However, VT has experienced increase in thyroid cancer in women which is double the national average between the years 1996 to 2005.  As the below data shows, thyroid cancer in VT women has increased 400% between these years (from 15 cases per 100,000 in population in 1996 to 66 in 2005) while nationally the increase has been about 200% in American women (from 10.4 per 100,000 in population to 17.7.)  The document is one which is closely held by the Department of Public Health, in its own letterhead, obtained and released by a VT nurse to the Dennett campaign.  (Note the yellow highlighted column for “U.S. Women should be “rate” and not the upper confidence level.)

The health department seems to reach its own conclusion by citing the data for both men and women, which pulls the average down.  When the data for women is examined separately, we see women in VT have shown an extraordinarily high increase in the thyroid cancer rate, double the national increase.

The passage stating that “the rate of cancer incidence in the six towns near Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Brattleboro, Dummerston, Guilford, Halifax, Marlboro and Vernon) is lower than rates in Windham County, the State of Vermont, and the United States white population as a whole.”  This seems to imply that if radiation were a danger, cancer rates would be higher near the station.  But this is not a valid conclusion, as it is well-known that radioactive particles follow wind and water patterns, and radiation-caused cancers can be found in locations which are distant from the plant.  Over a small geographic area, there is little direct correlation between distance from the radiation source and cancers.

On pediatric cancer the 2008 Surveillance Report states: “The pediatric cancer incidence rate in Windham County…was calculated and is not different from Vermont and the United States white population as a whole.”  

2008 VT Yankee Surveillance Report

But between 1999 and 2005, VT had the highest incidence rate of pediatric cancer (all cancers in children between ages 0 to 19) in the nation.

Pediatric cancers, VT, source: Centers for Disease Control

The 2008 Surveillance Report makes no mention of skin cancer, another type of radiation-linked cancer.  But between 2002 and 2006 VT has the highest incidence in the nation.  New Hampshire, which also borders Yankee, is number two.

Vt skin cancer, source: Centers for Disease Control

On Cancer and Radiation

The American Cancer Society (ACS) explains “ionizing radiation” from gamma rays which are emitted by nuclear reactions:

“Ionizing radiation has enough energy to knock electrons off of atoms or molecules. This is called ionization. Ionized molecules are unstable and quickly undergo chemical changes.  If ionizing radiation passes through a cell in the body, it can lead to mutations (changes) in the cell's DNA, the part of the cell that contains its genes (blueprints). This could contribute to cancer, or to the death of the cell. The amount of damage in the cell is related to the dose of radiation it receives. The damage takes place in only a fraction of a second, but other changes such as the beginning of cancer may take years to develop.”

The ACS further notes:

“most scientists and regulatory agencies agree that even small doses of ionizing radiation increase cancer risk, although by a very small amount. In general, the risk of cancer from radiation exposure increases as the dose of radiation increases. Likewise, the lower the exposure is, the smaller the increase in risk. But there is no threshold below which ionizing radiation is thought to be totally safe”

The gubernatorial candidates previously took opposite positions on the closing of Yankee, with Democrat Peter Shumlin saying the plant should be decommission in 2012 as now scheduled, and Dubie wanting to give Yankee a new lease on life, citing its 600 jobs.  The statewide candidate pushing hardest for closure, Attorney General candidate Charlotte Dennett, has made it her business to press the cancer issue as an argument for closing the plant, based on sheer prudence.  When nothing can be proven but a pattern can be seen with worrisome, known correlations, she argues that it is simply better to err on the side of caution.

On the heels of the new Rasmussen Poll with a 50-45 lead of Shumlin for likely voters, Shumlin did two stopovers this afternoon; one in Springfield and then the next in Brattleboro.  We did canvassing in Brattleboro so we could get to the rally in the afternoon.  

Shumlin was in incredible form today, but I’ll start with the other two speakers.  Steve Howard opened.  I will say that I’ve never seen Howard speak before and he’s quite good, and I wish that were more reflected in the polls.  He’s a good guy and right on the issues, but doesn’t seem to be able to get that reflected in high numbers in polls, which I have trouble understanding.  Howard gave a great short and quick stump speech and then introduced Vermont’s favorite Congressman, Peter Welch:

Welch spoke briefly, and without a lot of depth, but it was an introduction and that was appropriate.  I got to meet him briefly after, which was very nice.  In person, he’s a very kind and attentive man, but in the meantime, he was introducing the man we all believe should be our next governor.

And then came Peter.

Peter was on fire today– going after Dubie and his campaign tactics, without for a moment being hostile about it, but drawing stark and clear contrasts (I have a couple brief video clips to post after they’ve uploaded).  On VY, on choice, on jobs, on health care.  

It was incredibly refreshing to find a politician willing to be so directly and openly left wing and progressive in his expression of his ideas and policies.  In a climate when so many Democrats are running from their record, this is someone who openly embraces it and loves to talk about it.  I’ll also note that I’ve argued with Peter.  He’s fun to argue with because he stands his ground, but listens and thinks about what you have to say.  I’m looking forward to having a governor who isn’t about personal grudges and quiet agendas hostile to the very ideas of government itself, and it’s clear that this is a man who’s not about the ideology, but about the people, not about the grudges but about getting the job done.  

And I’ll just say, at the risk of y’all getting sick of hearing it from us, this takes work, and if you want this to happen, you have to help.  You have to talk to people you know, and explain to them what’s right about Shumlin (Jobs.  Education.  Choice.) and what’s wrong about Dubie (take your pick) and make it clear how important this is.

A couple very quick video clips:

Aggressive tactics for the Final Approach.

On Saturday Team Dubie headed out to areas of the state they are likely to win. While rallying the base it seems they have cast aside any subtle efforts at persuading un-decided voters and are now going for the hard sell. Dubie’s green shirts are vowing to visit 100,000 homes with a mildly aggressive final message.

Dubie said, “We have a simple message. ‘Knock, Knock. Are you for Brian Dubie?’”

 

Activity during the final week of October’s campaign has seen a libel suit filed against Dubie for Governor among other RGA campaign related legal battles that have heated things up even further.  Dubie has received a raft of criticism from friends and foes about the damage nasty campaign tactics have had on his “nice guy” reputation. In rebuttal his staunch ally Barre Mayor Tom Lauzon had some supportive comments yesterday. Appearing at a rally on a cold and rainy day clad only in a jacket, he was asked if he was cold. The Barre mayor claimed to be warm and toasty

“…I’m basking in the glow of the Brian Dubie campaign,”  

Is there a light under that Dubie bushel after all?

Continuing his glowing praise and maybe in a muddled attempt to address questions about the Lt Governor’s character as presented by his campaign tactics Lauzon made this claim:

“Character is defined by what you do when the camera isn’t on you.”

Kind of an odd observation from the mayor that once, during a meeting (off camera) threw a city councilman’s cell phone across a room hard enough to shatter it.

So we will have to take his word for this one, it’s a judgment call based on character.  

The so-dubbed “youth vote” is always a big goal of elections. A lot of effort is pumped into turning out college age voters, and yet year after year they are among the lowest demographic to get to the polls. Two years ago it was a different story, as the Obama candidacy energized the young in a way we haven’t seen. This year, however, a lot of observers  are already concluding that 2008 was an anomaly, and that we should all expect that turnout rate to slide back to its historic levels.

If that worries you, take a look at these pictures (after the flip) from the Green Vote Bomb at UVM a few days ago, in which over 200 students registered and gathered over 100 vote pledges and early ballots in a single day!

A lot of people are working very hard to keep those numbers up.

(If you haven’t yet, be sure you go to the online GOTV tool at votegreengov.org! Use the tool to find your green voting friends and neighbors and send them a personalized email urging them to vote!!)

Note: I originally was writing this as a comment and realized it was involved enough to be a stand alone piece.

Something which separates us from the right wing, which does a fairly good job of clamping down on criticism of its own, especially in Vermont (can you imagine anyone here ever even daring to primary Douglas from the right?), where the tea party has little statewide power (the crazies couldn’t even successfully get rid of Kevin Mullin, and that’s in Rutland) we’ll be watchdogs for a Shumlin administration.  

I very much want Shumlin to win.  I’ve heard stories about him, some of which might be true, and some of which most definitely aren’t.  

I don’t care, because we’ve got a Vermont media which is already kind of hostile towards him and will be quite willing to go after him whenever he does something improper.

But more importantly, we’ve got us.  We’re the angry mob that’s going to push him hard to hold him to his promises and make him live up to the expectations he’s created, and we are not going to have any patience for him if he starts to waver.

The right won’t police their own, because first and foremost, they’re invested in power.  We’re not.  We’re invested in results and being relatively powerless ourselves, we’re invested in what happens to those on the low rungs of the social ladder.

So yes, there are people who talk (accurately or not) about Shumlin’s lack of ethics, but we’ve seen Dubie’s willingness to blatantly lie in the middle of debates in the full light of day.  I do not want to contemplate what will happen once he’s got the protection of the office of Governor and a full phalanx of communication people paid for by the state of Vermont.  

I know people who just don’t like either candidate and it depresses them.  Seriously?  Suck it up.  I supported Clinton, and he signed the freakin’ Defense of Marriage Act.  Politics isn’t pretty.  But it is important.  You don’t like either of them?  Grow up.  You don’t need to like them.  You just need to know who’s going to do the best good for your state, for your community.

I don’t care if he’s a panderer (and if he is, at least he panders to the right side: you wouldn’t get Dubie supporting same-sex marriage or the closing on schedule of VY, even to pander).  I don’t care if he’s “ethically challenged.”  (name me one single politician running for governor anywhere who isn’t).

If you take this seriously, and you’re left wing in any sense of the word, you know that’s not Dubie and you know it’s going to be him or Shumlin.  So yes, if we had IRV, you could do this differently.  But we don’t, at least not today, and we have an actual clear and simple choice to make: you can make a protest vote (or not vote at all).  That only serves to marginalize your interests further and leaves you with the functional result of being no different from having stayed home.

Or you can be an adult, support a candidate that not only has good ideas and has actually successfully gotten things done in Montpelier, even if there are things about him you seriously dislike, or you can (functionally or actually) just sit it out.

I’m voting on Tuesday.  I love early voting in principle, but for me, I have a kind of an undeservedly romantic notion about voting.  We almost always vote on election day, and kind of enjoy standing in line with people who are doing the same.  I’m not voting for the man I think would be the best possible Governor for Vermont.  I’m voting for the man who’s a hell of a lot better than the remaining options, because I’m old enough to see where things stand and know just how important this is.

How about you?

(Nicely written. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Long-time readers know me.  My original signature line was something like “proud to be GMD’s token libertarian-socialist” (as a play on long-time commentator Charity’s line “proud to be GMD’s token conservative”).  For those who don’t know me: the first diary I ever wrote was one taking Odum to task for a piece he penned critical of our overtly conservative mainstream press yet dismissive of the anti-capitalist left.  In short: I am an anarchist lurking and participating amongst you all- but I make no secret of it and am glad to have received a modicum of respect from some of you along the way.

I won’t bother with an explanation of my self-described “libertarian-socialist” politics (as that can be a lengthy conversation in its own right) except to basically clarify for those of you totally shocked by the term (because I’ve learnt that that happens frequently): “libertarian-socialism” is often used interchangeably with “anarchism” but hoping to avoid all the BS associated with that word.  It connotes a belief in the Absolute freedom of the individual, but places the individual in the context of (and there for responsible to) the community around him/her.  I hope for the complete deconstruction of the State, but not for the rampant whim of corporations (ie, “libertarianism” as presented by the political right) but instead to be replaced by the directly democratic notions of “the people”.  The vast majority of those who share similar political and social beliefs as I are strictly anti-electoral; why I personally deviate from that stance is probably a matter for another time and place.  Anyway…

I’m writing now to present an argument why other anti-capitalists in Vermont (be you Marxist, green “anarchists”, or like me, quasi-living nineteenth or even twentieth-century Russian or French or Spanish-style communists) should consider the Democrats for at least a few of the state-wide tickets this coming election day.

We’ll start with the governor’s race.  I have never voted more to the right of the Progressive Party in the Vermont governor’s race.  Mostly, I’ve cast my ballot for the Liberty Union candidate, though the Progressive Party candidate has a few times gained my vote.  This particular election, however, is noteworthy.  I will be voting for Peter Shumlin.  

Not only is it true that our strong tradition of not removing incumbents is finally irrelevant because Jim “Doesless” Douglas is stepping aside, but we are certainly at a very important juncture in our history.  The Douglas Administration’s modern-Republican styled decimation of state-services is at a critical juncture, the next century of our electrical consumption is at an unprecedented crossroads because of VT Yankee, and in the face of a national “jobless economic recovery” we’re faced with the crucial task of deciding whether to forge ahead as a state which follows the national model of supply-side tax cuts to those who are more than capable of paying or the internationally-accepted demand-side tax cuts for those who are in need of putting cash in their pockets in order to survive and (hopefully) prosper.

The opportunities for increased self-sufficiancy (as in the purchase of the dams on the CT River) as well as economic equality (as in a progressive tax system) or environmental protection (like a sincere commitment to renewable energy or an earnest protection of our environmental regulations) or a blind eye to inequality (as in marriage rights for our LGBT community) have all been lost or compromised under the Douglas Administration; and will not only continue to be so under Dubie, but in fact continue to get much, much worse.

I am no apologist for Mr Shumlin.  I personally find him to be a slimy, smarmy politician who sees what’s politically expedient and pounces on it.  And let me be frank here: he is well-known amongst the insiders to be, shall we say, less then subtle in his approach towards any even mildly attractive woman.  In my own sole personal interaction with the man, he completely made-up a personal history with me in order to forge a personal connection and camaraderie; In any other moment I would certainly not be voting for him, and would at the least not be suggesting that others do either.

Yet the stakes are so high, at this moment, that Vermont can not risk the potential ramifications of a Dubie Administration.  It is truly a moment in time when the “lesser of two evils” is by far a step towards the greater good (more on this at the end).

Jim Douglas has been a horrible and dangerous Governor for Vermont because he’s extremely politically savvy (a 30+ year career politician who year after year wins by painting himself as an “outsider” against the evil “politicians” and “bureaucrats”?), politically wrong (supply-side economics is barely a legitimate theory anymore anywhere except in the US), and an asshole (just ask any of the thousands of Vermonters who’ve lost their jobs on his watch).  Yet Dubie is demonstrably worse: he (or his handlers) is just as savvy (hard working good ol’ boys across the state love him and accept him as “one of them” despite the fact that he couldn’t fall a tree with a sharp ax if you paid him twice as much as any logger makes to do so), he is even more politically wrong than Douglas (when is that last time abortion was a questioned right in this state? does our newspaper record even go back that far?), and he’s an even bigger asshole than Douglas ever was- I mean, one of Vermonter’s biggest points of pride has been the way we do politics and political campaigns way different than the lower 47- yet Dubie started and has continued to push a political campaign that looks frighteningly like what the rest of American has- lies, smears, distorted facts, outright lies, a short-term vision in the name of profit and at the expense of our children’s future, and un-accomplishable promises.

Personally, I’ve lived-out the Douglas Administration thinking “well, we’ll get through this, and then we’ll have something better and move on”…. yet Dubie somehow threatens to bring us even further into the abyss of supply-side (read: take care of the rich first and foremost) economics and make-sure-government-intrudes-on-your-right-to-decide-what’s-best-for-you-and-your-family” (abortion, privacy, free speech, etc) small government.  There is nothing reasonable about watching Brian Dubie become governor, except for the nihilists among us.

The Lieutenant Governor’s Race.  Ugh.  Let’s be frank: Phil Scott is a shoe-in to win this race.  His Dem opponent (Steve Howard? I’m not even sure if that’s him name) has done a terrible job putting himself out there, and anyone who knows me would certainly describe me as a political junky.  Yet Scott is a moderate Republican who will sit tight as Lt Gov (an almost totally meaningless and perfunctory position) until the Gov seat opens back up and he can run for that.  The only reason I’d urge you to vote for the Dem (whoever he is) in this race is because Scott is really bad news: make no mistake, a “moderate Republican” like Scott is about as good as a pimple in the space between your ass and your nut sack.  He’s a big business/industry insider who thinks corporate “good” is the best way forward on all fronts.  If I were the state Dems, I’d hire a full-time person to start working now to dig up dirt on this guy in hopes of finding a way of derailing his eventual gubernatorial campaign, because he’s nothing more than a Douglas (mainstream national Republican)-style politician who will destroy our social safety net for the benefit of his corporate pals.

Secretary of State.  Jason Gibbs, the GOP candidate, is a Douglas Administration lackey with the morals of a turd and the stink of a turd’s fart.  He embodies the very worst that human-kind can throw into the political arena.  Kick-backs for insiders and friends, direct lies to the press spun as “true enough”, opportunism… people like Gibbs infiltrating the VT political landscape is a direct assault on everything it means to be a “Vermonter”, almost regardless of what you want to define that as.

State Auditor.  This is the biggest no-brainer.  Even if I didn’t have incumbant Tom Salmon’s track record of using state equipment (illegally) for campaign purposes, even if there weren’t a long history of his using his office for inappropriate projects, even if major state employee fraud didn’t happen on his watch (and even if he didn’t try to pass the the buck on responsibility for such crimes); even if he didn’t get a DUI and then try to use his title to worm out of the charge, even if he wasn’t a complete and total fucking lunatic most likely suffering from some form of PTSD and in need of major psychiatric counciling, I’d still be urging everyone I could find to vote for Doug Hoffer.  Mr Hoffer is by far the most qualified candidate for political office that I’ve ever seen run in my entire life.  Regular readers of GMD are well-versed in Doug’s thoughtful, fact-based comments here.  Even as a non-office holder, what he has contributed to the good of Vermont, working Vermonters, and most importantly, the accountability of the State is incalculable.  Doug Hoffer is so amazingly qualified and is so inscrupuably dignified that I regret not having taken the time to personally volunteer for his campaign- and I vow in the future (I’ll pray for a future Hoffer campaign though I’ve never prayed for anything- once- in my entire life) to take time to volunteer to ensure he’s elected to whatever office he decides he wants to run for, whenever he wants to run for it.

The anti-capitalist arguments against me.  These arguements boil down to two different approaches: “I’m voting for this Third Party person because they most represent my beliefs” or “voting only helps legitimize/recognize that which is illegitimate; namely, electoral politics in general (The State).”  Hey, I have strong sympathies towards both these opinions and have argued for them both in the past.  But at the end of the day (on Tuesday, November 2, or there about) the simple fact of the matter is that Peter Shumlin or Brian Dubie will be governor of Vermont, and either a Democrat or a Republican will be elected to each of the down-ticket positions as well.  Absolutely nothing– including the most dramatic scenarios imaginable (nuclear bombs, 100-year storms, alien invasions, zombie attacks) will change that fact.  Which means as anti-capitalists (or, for that matter, radicals of either side) we have three choices: abstain, vote third party, or hold your nose and vote for one of the two possible winners.

Folks, believe me, if there were a possibility of another option, I’d almost certainly be all about it.  And in general, I’d prefer not to live my life holding my nose.

But at this moment in time Vermonters have a unique opportunity to forge ahead of the rest of the country, and we should seize it.

As far as voting for third parties:  we may walk out of the voting booth feeling good to have voted for someone who best represents our own opinions, but when we lay down to sleep at night, the fact that can’t escape our hearts is that we voted against the better (not best) in favor of giving a chance for the worst.  There is plenty of evidence (in Vermont) that a well-run campaign by a strong candidate can buck the two-party system; yet that is not the case in any of the state-wide races in Vermont this year.  There is a statistically 0 (zero) chance of a third party candidate winning.  Does your self-satisfaction really trump the disastrous realities of the GOP ticket?

A vote for a third party candidate this time around is the same as abstentionism.  The libertarian left (anarchism, anti-state communism, et al) has a long and proud history of abstentionism.  I do not need to thoroughly take-up the matter here.  I will say, however, that any electoral tactic (including abstentionism) is only and always effective as part of a mass movement; we anarchists lack such popularity at this time (and hey, to all you cynics: such was not always the case and I’ll guarantee it won’t continue to be such!).  Abstaining in order to go home and feel good about your own personal choice is the same as voting third party: it accomplishes absolutely nothing at the end of the day except make you feel good about yourself.

As a parent, I can see that my own personal ideals are easily trumped by the need to ensure the best possible outcome.  On this matter, there are generally two schools of thought: incremental (and very relative) gains, or “it’s gotta get real bad before people take action to make it better”.  

While once I was patient enough for the latter, with a child in my care, I cannot risk the possibilities of what may come from it.  My beliefs and ideals have not changed an iota- but my tolerance for rightward shifts of the State has.  I hope to raise my child to always be true to her beliefs and that which is important and meaningful to her- yet I hope also to teach her the difference between ideology and pragmatism.

It’s a fine line that, perhaps, before any of us pass on we may finally understand.  Nonetheless, for now, in Vermont, in 2010, it means no Republicans should be given a chance to take state-wide office.  Regardless of who wins, it is our moral job to push, fight, and demand more for ourselves than we have.  The battle neither begins nor ends with the elections- yet the outcome of the election is painfully important.