I’ve found it difficult to chose between the great candidates running for governor, especially three that I think are excellent choices. I started out in Racine’s camp, even attended a supporters gathering. But as this campaign went on, I heard Dunne and Racine talking in terms of how they would navigate the waters, Shumlin sounds more like he will carve his own canal. Not the best analogy but that’s the sense I got.

With the political environment today being what it is, promoting things like internet for all, transparency, efficient government, etc is not going to cut it. We need someone to run on firm positions and win, then it will be possible to bring about the level of change we need.

In the VPR debate, I heard the other candidates take prudent, reasonable positions on what they would do as governor. Then Shumlin came in a laid out a vision:

Reduce the number of non-violent offenders in jail, redirect the money to early education, pass single payer health care, and relieve business of the burden of that cost and make VT a business mecca.

Boom.

Education, not incarceration. Shift money from the corporate interests of corrections and insurance companies, and reinvest it in getting our kids a solid educational foundation, universal health coverage, and a better job market. These have the possibility of making a real difference.

Using the rainy day fund, broadband for all, jump starts, etc… they are not enough at this point. Whatever is being proposed now, in the heady days of the democratic primary, this is the high water mark. Candidates who are running an essentially defensive position or a effective government approach have no vision to stand on going forward. Whatever hints we hear now will get’s diluted in the general election, unless there is a clear vision thrown down.

When you listen to the candidates, ask your self what exactly they are committing to, not what you are reading into the rhetoric.

As always in this primary, I have probably exaggerated the differences and some points to draw some distinctions. I think all 3 of these democrats would be great nominees.

I’ve appreciated the constructive exchanges in recent weeks. How refreshing to be choosing between a number of quality candidates, and doing so civilly? (Could we just get rid of the Republican party?)

That said, I’m really looking forward to Wednesday when we all get back on the same team.  

(Continuing our practice throughout the campaign, this candidate diary is promoted to the front page. – promoted by Sue Prent)

Green Mountain Daily Readers,

I wanted to extend a personal thank you for your engagement in the election process. I have enjoyed interacting with you all and also reading your posts. For those of you who have endorsed me or encouraged me or worked on my campaign, I thank you.

For those working on other campaigns, I thank you, too – it is important to participate and it has been inspiring to see so many Vermonters getting involved in this election at all levels.

My goal from the beginning was to run a grassroots, Vermont-style campaign, and that’s what I did. I am proud of that, and I know it was the right choice for me. Over the course of the last year, I have hosted or participated in over 200 events, houseparties, and forums, and I’ve had the chance to speak personally with thousands of Vermonters. Perhaps even more importantly, close to 600 volunteers have reached out to their friends, families, and neighbors through my campaign to ask what issues are important to them and to encourage them to get involved and to vote. This past weekend alone, we have called over 10,000 Vermonters – all with volunteer help. My campaign has not done any paid phonebanking. It has been Vermonter to Vermonter right from the start.

I know that together, we can make Vermont an even better place than it already is, and I look forward to working with all of you to turn that vision into action.

I hope that you will vote on Tuesday, and I would be honored if you would vote for me.

If you are still deciding, there is a lot of information on my website: http://dougracine.com/. You can also call my campaign headquarters at 802-655-1700.

I’d also like to extend an invitation to you all to join me at our Election Night Party at the Burlington Hilton in the Green Mountain Ballroom. All are welcome.

And, a reminder to join all of us at the Unity Rally at Noon on Wednesday at the Train Station – Main St. Landing in Burlington.

Thanks again,

Doug Racine

[Note: bumped back to the top to keep reminding readers that their vote today is important! ~ NanuqFC}

Whichever candidate you support, I have just one favor to ask, one reminder to offer: VOTE in the primary election.

The election is today, Tuesday, August 24.

Democrats, at least, will never have a better chance to pick a competent, principled candidate to carry us into the governor’s office.

And there are the down-ticket races, too:

Lt. Governor: between Steve (“fighting for the middle class”) Howard and Chris (“farm-to-plate”) Bray.

Secretary of State: Charles (“it’s a non-partisan office”) Merriman vs. Jim (“policy is important”) Condos.

State Auditor: Ed (“I’ve done this before and I can do it again”) Flanagan vs. Doug (“thorough and complete”) Hoffer.

Your vote will never matter more than it does in this primary election.

Whatever your choices — make them. Today. Please.

Wednesday night was a crazy mix of dive bars and Gubernatorial candidates. I walked around the corner to bohemian coffee shop/restaurant Radio Bean to see my Argentinian friend Lucas on his last night in here Burlington. Noticing Peter Shumlin, Democratic candidate for Governor, across the bar, I realized this was the perfect opportunity to ask him a question his campaign staff had been unable to answer for me. Shumlin was on the move though, so I followed him to the OP, the dive bar next door. After letting my anthropological imagination devour the sight of a Gubernatorial candidate work the hipster, American Apparel clad, dive bar set for a bit, I dove in, asking his position on raising revenue via the Snelling Surcharge (a means of raising revenue by temporarily raising taxes on Vermont’s tip-top income earners to prevent the laying off of teachers, state workers, mental health employees and many other vital social services that keep our state running. Conservative deficit hawks like Republican Jim Douglas and Brian Dubie are quick to cut these middle class jobs in financial downturns, so as to preserve low tax rates for the ultra-rich).

Shumlin said that “we can’t squeeze VT’s most affluent much more,” that taxes on them have already “been raised from 6% to 10%.” I recounted to him how taxes on VT millionaires have been slashed from paying $150,000 on $1 million dollars in earned income in 1968 to under $60,000 on $1 million in 2010. Shumlin maintained those were federal taxes and re-iterated his original claim that the most affluent in Vermont can’t pay any more. Clearly at an impasse, we segued in a discussion lameness of DC Dems. Ironically, he mentioned how Dems on the Federal level need to tax the wealthy instead of just sitting their with their “[slang for male genitalia which I see no reason to repeat here] in their hand.” At about this point I realized close talkers, like Shumlin, make me really uncomfortable, especially when employing locker room vernacular. After he asked me what I do. I told him that for the past 8 years I worked in Mental Health, and that there was an awful “brain drain” effect due to stagnant wages and budget cuts, and that the suffering of our most vulnerable is going to increase until we raise revenue. He tried to find common ground around revenue shortfalls, talking about his own dyslexia, kids with learning disorders being disproportionately locked up and how he would free up some $60 million annually for mental health and other social services vis a vis releasing non-violent offender and de-criminalizing marijuana. Some ten minutes later it was all over, a very weird window into the final days of this seemingly endless Democratic primary.

I looked into tax rates to fact check Shumlin’s numbers. Here’s what I found:

   * The top marginal tax rate was reduced when state lawmarkers got rid of (most of) the 40% capital gains exclusion; overall, this change will result in some very high income Vermonters paying more but nothing like the 1960’s.

   * He was mistaken about the federal vs. state issue (those reductions resulted from changes in federal & state taxes but the result was a huge decline in state tax liability).

   * The key is how much they pay as a percentage of income (this is referred to as the effective rate); on average at present, the wealthy pay 5.3% for Vermont state income taxes; to say there is no more capacity is far from a fact, it’s an opinion. Shumlin was probably referencing the top marginal rate. One of my criticisms, among many, of the way Douglas talks about taxes is his constant flood of soundbites regarding Vermont’s 9 or 9.5 percent top marginal tax rate. Because it only applies to taxable income over about $347,000, many high income Vermonters pay less in income taxes here than they would in other states that have lower top rates that kick much sooner than Vermont’s. To see a Democrat seemingly taking a page out of Douglas’ middle class eroding playbook is disappointing to say the least.

All that said, as friendly and giving of his time Shumlin was I’m really troubled that he wouldn’t make the most affluent in our society share the burden equally in this worst economic crisis since 1929. What’s almost as troubling is the degree to which Shumlin misrepresented the taxes paid by Vermont’s most wealthy in order to close the door on a share-the-burden-fairly initiative like the Snelling Surcharge.

Perhaps not coincidentally Peter Shumlin would be directly be affected by the Snelling Surcharge, his federal tax return shows he and his wife had an adjusted gross income of an eye-popping $947,732 in 2009 (Burlington Free Press, 4/20/2010). The Shumlins’ annual haul is just a little less than 5 times the amount Google Exec, and fellow Gubernatorial candidate, Matt Dunne makes. According to the same article, the other candidates salaries range from $95,969-$198,435. Not to put too fine a point on Shumlin’s own vested self-interest in this, but he loaned his own gubernatorial campaign $225,000, or more money than any of the other candidates make in a single year. None of the educators or state employees I know, who have lost their jobs due to revenue shortfalls, can loan themselves a quarter of a million dollars to help themselves attain a new job. But then again, those individuals, and their corresponding professional organizations don’t support Shumlin’s candidacy. Instead they choose to support the one candidate from either party who has gone on record saying he would raise revenue to preserve vital social services, Doug Racine.

I’ve been torn between voting for Shumlin and Racine for months now. They both share many of the strengths I’m looking for in moving Vermont forward after eight years of Jim Douglas. Both would close Vermont Yankee and enact single payer health care. After going to debates, scrutinizing their campaigns in the media, I never thought my decision would be made amongst the buzzing neon, pint glasses and popcorn of my neighborhood dive bar. This beer soaked tableau almost certainly wasn’t the setting Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis was thinking of when he made the famous quip that States were “the laboratories of Democracy.”  Then again, here in in this small state of 621,760, the first one to outlaw slavery, and the first to sign civil unions into law, perhaps it isn’t entirely surprising after eight long years of Jim Douglas’s slash and burn economic agenda, people are ready to push politicians for economic justice from dive bar to Statehouse and back again, and I’ll gladly raise a toast to that.

While there is strong support for Deb Markowitz, Peter Shumlin and Matt Dunne among some Democratic primary voters, the weakness for these three is they are each drawing from the same types of voters, whereas Doug Racine — and while there may also be some overlap there as well — is also drawing from different types of voters who are less likely to vote for Markowitz, Shumlin and Dunne.

In addition, with a lot of people when they say who is among their top two or three candidates, Racine oftentimes is one of them and the same can not always be said for the other candidates as well, so he enjoys both broader and deeper favorables; plus Shumlin has high negative ratings when it comes to unfavorables, etc.

When eating lunch the other day and without my bringing up the subject at all, someone started talking about how they were still undecided about whom to vote for in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, yet seemed to be leaning toward voting for Doug Racine; when we spoke further, they made clear they did not think much of the other four candidates, yet also felt they needed to do more homework before voting. Today this same individual made it clear they will indeed be voting for him.

Another person also recently mentioned to me out of the blue how they had been undecided on who to vote for in the race for Governor and had culled it down to being between Doug Racine and Peter Shumlin, however seemed to feel they have decided to vote for Racine, but did not sound solid yet.

These are only two small examples, however I am hearing or have read much the same type of things from others here and there across the state.

Likewise (i.e., just as will be the case for Racine of course), depending on who turns out to vote and how many voters end up voting in the Democratic primary, I see Susan Bartlett as a possible wild card who could do much better than most political pundits and members of the press are assuming.

Therefore I would not be surprised to see a very close race with Racine, Markowitz and Bartlett among the top three, with Racine edging out a win.

Most people tend to vote for the candidate, not for how much money or endorsements a candidate has  raised or mustered.

By the way, in case anyone is interested, read a compiled listing of the responses from each of the five Democratic Gubernatorial primary candidates concerning addressing homelessness as well as affordable housing across the state, here.

Morgan W. Brown

Montpelier

This is it. If you haven’t already, make sure you run over to Facebook and sign up for the 1000 Vermonters for Change group, where we have amassed tens of thousands of dollars in pledges to be sent the day after the primary to whoever wins. This is a way to do our part to offset the financial drain of the August election. We’re not making it to 1000, but factoring in those non-Facebook users who have also pledged, we’re up to 340 pledgers equaling $34,000!! Here’s the link.

And again, here is the online GMD poll for your preference in tomorrow’s primary. We’ve only had a hundred 350 500 or so of our 6000+ weekly readers vote, so don’t forget to jump in. We’ll post the results tomorrow (Monday) and see who the choice of the GMD community-at-large is.

If you’d like to check out the GMD admin’s picks, here are links to the folks who have taken a stand:

• Sue Prent for Doug Racine.
• Caoimhin Laochdha for Deb Markowitz.
• Maggie Gundersen for Peter Shumlin.
• Julie Waters expressing how many of the rest of us feel.
• kestrel9000 has stated he supports Doug Racine, but hasn’t put a diary.

This survey is currently closed. Please contact the author of this survey for further assistance.

(The “muting”/copyright issue here is troublesome, and this interview makes for a good case-in-point. – promoted by odum)

Hi All I just posted the very final last Gubernatorial candidate clip and was very proud of myself for getting it up before the Primary. Here it is but don’t bother watching, because the audio has been disabled:

The Culprit apparently is not YouTube but WMG (Warner Music Group), so I can lay any conspiracy theories about YouTube/Google muting Pete Shumlin to rest!

So here is some background I learned from Wikipedia:

In December 2008, negotiations between WMG and YouTube broke down.[42] As a result, Warner Music Group has continuously blocked or muted videos on YouTube that feature music recordings belonging to its labels or to its publishing arm, Warner/Chappell Music, citing copyright infringement. Although the majority of the blocked videos are not official content of WMG, they include WMG recordings in a minor way normally covered by Fair Use.

So Youtube has a dispute form and here is my submission:

2. This video uses copyrighted material in a manner that does not require approval of the copyright holder. It is a fair use under copyright law.

I am using 40 seconds of audio from 2001: A space Oddyssey backed with a Beck song (with my own video and graphics) as an outro, and you muted the whole interview with VT gubernatorial candidate Pete Shumlin. The primary is Tuesday, and I have given all of the Democratic candidates a non-commercial forum to discuss their positions. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Statement of Good Faith

I have a good faith belief that the material was disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification, and that I am not intentionally abusing this dispute process.

I will try to get the offending audio removed and re-uploaded by Primary Day, but I was hoping to get up the Donny Osman clip up by then too. I guess I’m glad it’s a rainy day, I have some work to do here.  Maybe the audio will return after they consider the dispute claim.  

Doug Hoffer has been endorsed over Ed Flanagan in the Democratic primary for Auditor by all five Democrats vying for the gubernatorial nod. This has special significance given that three are current colleagues of Flanagan in the Senate (Bartlett, Racine, Shumlin).

This should surprise no one, as I can’t find anyone endorsing Flanagan.

Which is very sad. This entire primary campaign of Flanagan’s seems like an unfortunate chapter in a truly historic political career, as it seems he is running only to defiantly maintain political relevance in the face of scandal.

None of which is to say that, given his statewide name recognition as a former Auditor, he still isn’t capable of winning the primary on that name recognition. We’ll see.

The bigotry and intolerance demonstrated by the mainstream of the Republican Party–Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Rudolph Giuliani, Rick Lazio, et al., has come to Vermont.  The Times Argus reports today that the assured Republican candidate challenging Pat Leahy for Senate has jumped on the bandwagon.  

Len Britton, a Windsor County businessman looking to unseat Sen. Patrick Leahy in November, issued a campaign missive Tuesday denouncing the proposed mosque as a “slap in the face” to victims of 9/11. He called upon Leahy to do the same.  “Construction of the mosque in such close proximity to Ground Zero is incredibly insensitive to the victims’ families,” Britton said in the release.

 Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming that Len Britton is a bigot. I don't know him personally, and the odds are I never will. Given the way his campaign is going–out of money and running a deficit–it's just as plausible that he's merely an opportunist.  

And what about that new kind of Democrat (i.e. the kind of Democrat who signs petitions and votes for Republicans), Dan Freilich?

According to the Times Argus, here's where he comes down:  

Daniel Freilich, Leahy’s opponent in the Democratic primary next Tuesday, said people have a right to build a mosque on private property, but that he understands why some would find it so objectionable.  “Victims at least might not be ready for it and … it could be potentially painful,” Freilich said.

Everything the opposition does makes Leahy look better and better.

The Times Argus has a profile of the Washington County Senate primary today. It gives a good basic overview of each of the candidates.  

With longtime incumbent Sen. Phil Scott, R-Montpelier, running for lieutenant governor this year, Washington County voters will elect at least one new senator in November. Although the other two incumbents – Cummings and Sen. Bill Doyle, R-Montpelier – are both running for re-election, only Doyle is assured that his name will be on the ballot when the general election rolls around.  

Doyle, like fellow Republicans David Harrington of Barre Town and Ed Larson of Montpelier, is essentially running unopposed next Tuesday. All three candidates will advance, as will three Democrats who survive Tuesday's primary.  

In addition to Cummings, the list for Senate includes Montpelier resident Kimberly Cheney, Laura Moore of Barre Town, Donny Osman of Plainfield and Anthony Pollina of Middlesex.

What about where you are? Any interesting local primaries of interest? For instance, I’ve seen a smattering of letters to the editor on one of the side judge races–anything of interest there?