Two weeks ago, I gave a house party for Peter Shumlin, the gubernatorial candidate I believe will best guide Vermont through the tough times ahead.  At the same time, I also committed to contribute $100 as one of the 1,000 Vermonters to say yes, we will support and contribute to whichever candidate wins the August 24 primary.  There are five main reasons I support Peter Shumlin for Governor:

1. Peter’s position on marriage equality.  As a Justice of the Peace, I experienced firsthand that civil unions were separate and unequal.  I admire Peter’s willingness to risk by fighting for landmark marriage equality legislation.

2. Peter’s position on the need for early childhood education.  Peter is dyslexic, my son is dyslexic, and as a teacher for seven years, I specialized in remediation for dyslexic students.  Peter understands the need for early childhood intervention in education.   Simply put, altering the course of a young life is easier than changing behaviors after someone becomes a teen or an adult.

3. Peter’s position on Vermont Yankee.  Behind the scenes and in the media, the Douglas/O’Brien team tried hard to thwart the Public Oversight Panel’s review of VY.  Peter fought hard behind the scenes to ensure that the legislative intent of Act 189 was met and that the Public Oversight Panel’s report was not emasculated.  

4. Peter works to move the legislative agenda by bringing diverse parties to the table.  This may not produce perfect legislation, but it ends legislative gridlock so common around the US.

5. Peter is a successful Vermont business owner.  I want a governor who knows how to create jobs in Vermont, grow businesses, and invests his own money in other Vermont businesses.

While the field of Democrats vying for Governor is the strongest in years, and all of them are well qualified, I believe Peter Shumlin has what Vermont needs in the tough times we face now.  

Interesting post just came up today on Seven Days regarding Susan Bartlett’s non-appearance at last night’s gubernatorial debate.  

Cathy Resmer’s post even shares Brian Dubie’s whereabouts.  

See it here:  http://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2010…

Apparently, the Democratic candidate for governor was scheduled to be at a gubernatorial candidate debate, and she passed up the opportunity to spend a few hours hanging out with members of the VTSDA and the Vermont Biosciences Alliance on the Spirit of Ethan Allen III. The event, incidentally, was sold out.

Check out the other people Resmer spotted on the lower deck:

State Auditor Tom Salmon, Lt. Governor hopeful Phil Scott, Secretary of State candidate Jason Gibbs, and Lt. Governor and gubernatorial candidate Brian Dubie among the attendees.

From the perspective of this committed Doug Racine supporter, the “cavalry” has arrived!

Progressives and independents will ultimately determine who serves as the next governor of Vermont.  To that end, Doug Racine has just achieved a significant leg-up over his Democratic competition.

Gathering at David Zuckerman’s Full Moon Farm in Hinesburg, Rep. Zuckerman and a group of high-profile Progressives, including Jerry Greenfield co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, announced their support for Doug Racine in the upcoming primary.

David Zuckerman, representative from Burlington, summed up his support by saying, “Doug has the integrity that is needed to build consensus. When you are working across party lines, honesty is what builds trust and creates the ability to work together.” Zuckerman also noted that “Doug led on the marriage equality issue before it was politically advantageous to do so.”

This new development puts considerable wind behind the sails of Racine’s campaign. Representing a broad base of working-class Democrats, Doug may come up a little short in the funding department, but the scope  of his grassroots support, standing ready to mobilize in the general election, more than makes up for any shortfall of cash!  

I might be wrong about this, but I think Matt Dunne just managed put a good scare into Dubie.  Check out these words from Dubie’s campaign manager Corry Bliss:

“We can only assume Matt Dunne is frustrated with the failings of his own campaign and is grasping at straws,” said Dubie campaign manager Corry Bliss. “[Dunne’s] campaign must be faltering, as he realizes his plans for raising taxes and creating dozens of new government programs are only turning voters away.”

Dubie’s been fairly quiet about his potential opponent this far.  Those words don’t read to me like someone confident.  Confident people don’t need to bluster about.  They read to me like someone who feels challenged and threatened.  

Bernie Sanders announced today that he’d managed to pull down a $500K grant for Vermont police.

Of that, $100K is to go to a continuation of funding for the School Resource Officer Program, a federal notion from the Clinton era that places a police officer in a public school setting. Sanders claims that:

“This program […] is an important outreach tool that helps deter crime. These officers bridge the gap between law enforcement and students, promote positive attitudes towards law enforcement; prevent juvenile crime by helping students formulate an awareness of rules, authority, and justice; and instruct students how to avoid becoming a victim through self-awareness and crime prevention. “This is a very successful program that has already placed officers in school systems around the state of Vermont,” Sanders said. “This funding will help to place additional school resource officers in Vermont schools.”

I’d love to see some data to support his claim that “this is a very successful program” — I’m not finding any public reports or evaluations of the project. I’d also be curious what metrics Sanders would use to measure the success of something like this.The few media reports of SRO activity offers no real clue — the only significant story relates the 2007 panic attack in when a School Resource Officer “discovered”  that teenagers in Middlebury were using the legally available herb salvie to get a mild high  (laugh if you must, it’s here).

The ACLU examined the SRO program in CT in 2008 — findings and recommendations here. It was a mixed review, at best.

Just as we’re increasingly moving our cops into a more confrontational role (e.g. by giving them tasers so they can feel more at ease using almost-lethal force with their customers), the SRO program seems to be a sign of what the ACLU describes as “a tendency to criminalize  and legalize  infractions that might otherwise have been dealt with  administratively.”

I’m sure a compassionate and considerate police officer can do wonderful things with troubled kids on the verge of getting marginalized because of petty crime and social dysfunction, but so could a councelor or extra teacher’s aide. And just as with the widely criticized and largely ineffective D.A.R.E. youth drug prevention program, the notion that cops are suited at all to educate kids is questionable at best.

I appreciate that Sanders has to look for money where it’s available, and at a time where the only federal budgets with any heft seem to involve surveillance and/or brute force, it’s understandable that he’d end up landing a grant for the Vermont police. but I’d like to think that Sanders would really prefer teachers and parents teaching kids how to conduct themselves and stay out of trouble.

Of his key selling points, “promote positive attitudes towards law enforcement” and “formulate an awareness of rules, authority, and justice” sound a lot more like wish list bullet points from the the Orwellian dream world of the federal government.

(note: Julie posted a diary about Dean’s comment as I was writing up mine – she brings up some great points about idiocy, but I think there’s something else worth mentioning – JD)



We all know the typical Republican playbook by now: come up with some sexy wedge issue that has nothing to do with the lives of 99.9999999% of the population, but get it out into the right-wing noise machine so it dominates the news cycle ad nauseum and tears away millions of Americans from Dancing With The Stars long enough to vent their poutrage. Then that becomes the story.

Nothing in recent memory has stuck in my craw and reminded me how America really is becoming Redneck Nation more than this “Ground Zero Mosque” nonsense. I’ve never seen so many politicians squirm, equivocate, and pander over something so inconsequential. The meme du jour: “they have the right to, but they shouldn’t”.  The latest purveyor of this crap? Howard Dean.

More below the jump.

It’s not just the teabaggers. A lot of polling is suggesting that Americans don’t want the Cordoba House built. And that’s just ducky, because oddly enough, there’s also a majority of people who believe they have the right to.

So, of course, we’re seeing politician after politician follow that same course of action: say they have the right to, but they shouldn’t. Obama came out a few days ago with a strongly worded statement reminding people about that pesky Constitutional protection afforded all religions. Given all his disappointments of late, it was refreshing. But, alas, in typical Obama fashion, there was the pander to the right wing, the very next day – they have the right to, but shouldn’t. The POTUS himself telling people that they shouldn’t exercise their constitutionally protected rights, as though they’re some kind of nuisance or triviality. And this guy’s a constitutional scholar. Beautiful.

Yesterday, it was Harry Reid. Today, Nancy Pelosi gave a similar twisted statement. Now, looking at what we’ve seen so far from the party in power, that kind of capitulation seems to be par for the course. So I’m not surprised. Not pleased, by any means, but not surprised.

Howard Dean, who, in his post-presidential candidate phase has surprisingly often bucked the Dem establishment, jumped on that bandwagon today, too (emphasis mine):

“I’ve gotta believe there has to be a compromise here,” Dean said during a radio interview. “This isn’t about the right of Muslims to have a worship center, or Jews or Christians or anybody else to have a place to worship, or any place around Ground Zero. This is something we ought to be able to work out with people of good faith. And we have to understand that it is a real affront to people who’ve lost their lives — including Muslims. That site doesn’t belong to any particular religion, it belongs to all Americans and all faiths. So I think a good, reasonable compromise could be worked out, without violating the principle that people ought to be able to worship as they see fit.“

It’s an affront to people like Sarah Palin, who can’t tell the difference between the Muslim terrorists and, uh… moderate American Muslims (or the the English language and whatever that gibberish she speaks, for that matter). And Dean fails to see the gross error in his last statement… if they’re caving to public opinion, they’re obviously not “worshiping as they see fit.”

Is the other mosque that’s four blocks from the WTC an affront to those lost their lives? Should we tear that down? What about the titty bars? The porn store?

Dean goes on to basically lay bare and apply the strategy that we’ve seen from most of the national Dems since who knows when:

I think the people who are trying to build the mosque are trying to do something good. But there’s no point in trying to do something good if it’s met with enormous resistance from a lot of folks.

Sound familiar? There’s no point in trying to do something good if it’s met with enormous resistance from a lot of folks. Should be in the party platform at this stage of the game, no? That would have worked out real well for, say, ending slavery, or passing the Civil Rights Act, right?

We’re dangerously straddling the notion of turning into a nation of mob rule, not to mention one where the double standard runs rampant. How would Catholics react if major politicians came out and said that no churches could be built within two blocks of any place children congregate? Or, if Greg Palast aptly noted,

Given that white Christian supremacist Tim McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building, shouldn’t we ban white churches from Oklahoma?

Now, mind you, I’ve never been a Deaniac or anything, but I found myself surprised that one of the few Dem critics of Dem policies and strategies so quickly, and clearly used the exact same strategy that’s going to ensure Republican gains in the fall. I appreciate the honesty, Doc, but standing up for principle would’ve been much nicer.

With everyone and the janitor’s cat suddenly having a heartfelt and profound opinion on the Cordoba House Community Center (aka the Al Queda Rec Center & Ground Zero Mosque) it’s just all over the map.

Howard Dean, once upon a time smart, progressive and considerate guy, has decided to sign up for an empty slot on Team Clueless Bigots with his claim that:

This isn’t about the right of Muslims to have a worship center — or Jews or Christians or anybody else — to have a place to worship, or any place around Ground Zero. This is something we ought to be able to work out with people of good faith. And we have to understand that it is a real affront to people who’ve lost their lives, including Muslims. That site doesn’t belong to any particular religion, it belongs to all Americans and all faiths.

That was in a conversation with Dan Goodman on WABC earlier today (Politico covers it here). Okay, Howard. let’s start with some definitions.

“This is something we ought to be able to work out with people of good faith” — who is “we” Howard, why are “we” working this out? There’s a process for this sort of thing, and not surprisingly, perhaps, it involves the zoning board for lower Manhattan, not the former governor of Vermont and his fellow travellers in speculation and random fabulation about affronts and good faith.

“That site” — what exactly are you talking about? How many blocks is your particular “muslim-free safe zone” from ground zero?

And “affront to people who’ve lost their lives, including muslims”? Well, if they’re dead, they probably don’t give a shit, Howard, and as for their next of kin, how can you claim to know what affronts them? Are you channeling or is this just wild conjecture to get some air time? You may be affronted, along with random wingnuts across the entire nation, most of whom didn’t lose anybody on 9/11, but all of whom seem awfully affronted. That doesn’t mean we need to care what some random teabagger from San Diego thinks is or isn’t an affront.

And, no offense, but it doesn’t necessarily matter if the widow of a 9/11 victim is affronted. This is really not something that can or should be put to an emotional vote — either there’s a rational, sane, logically compelling, legally sound reason for denying the Cordoba House their project site, or there’s not, in which case you and thousands of others may well be affronted, but that really shouldn’t impact the project.

All of which brings me to part two of today’s interesting times: Bush lawyer and all-around conservative hard-ass, Ted Olson, who lost his wife in 9/11, comes out in support of the Cordoba House project’s right to build:

I do believe that people of all religions have a right to build edifices or structures, places of religious worship or study where the community allows them to do it under zoning laws and that sort of thing. And that we don’t want to turn an act of hate against us by extremists into an act of intolerance for people of religious faith. And I don’t think it should be a political issue.

Yes, that’s right: Ted Olson, lawyer to the rich, obnoxious and very powerful, turns out to be more level-headed, compassionate and rational than Howard “screaming progressive” Dean from the great Socialist state of Vermont. Because while they both say essentially the same vague stuff about freedom of religion, Olson rightly leaves it as a straightforward zoning issue, while Dean has to go all finger wagging on us and add the bit about “the evil mooslims should just go away if they know what’s good for them”. That’s his fail.

Go figure.

I expect this sort of nonsense from Republicans.  I don’t expect it from Howard Dean:

I’ve got to believe there has to be a compromise here. This isn’t about the rights of Muslims to have a worship…or Jews or Christians or anybody else to have a place to worship, or anyplace, or Ground Zero. This is something that we ought to be able to work out with people of good faith, and we have to understand that it is a real affront to people who lost their lives, including Muslims. That site doesn’t belong to any particular religion, it belongs to all Americans, and all faiths, so I think a good, reasonable compromise could be worked out without violating the principle that people ought to be able to worship as they see fit.

GOODMAN: You’re calling for a compromise, so are you calling for the mosque to be moved?

DEAN: Well, I think another site would be a better idea, again, but I’d look to do that with the cooperation of the people who are trying to build the mosque. I believe that the people who are trying to build the mosque are trying to do something that’s good, but there’s no point in starting off and trying to do something that’s good if it’s going to meet with an enormous resistance from a lot of folks.

Dude.  Seriously?

1. It’s not a mosque;
2. it’s not at ground zero;
3. no one objecting to “the ground zero mosque” who actually knows anything about it is acting in good faith.

If there’s one thing that offends me more than bigotry it’s idiocy.

Update: Per Talking Points Memo, referencing Sam Stein’s followup:

Dean says the Cordoba House proponents are being inflexible. And maybe they are. But he also makes clear that he takes “the congregation at its word that it is a moderate congregation trying to heal the wounds of 9/11.” Only there’s no congregation. It’s a investment group (Soho Properties) and a Muslim non-profit (the Cordoba Initiative) trying put this together. Ahh, never mind. But he does point out that “best way to heal the wounds is not to have a court battle, but to sit down and try to work things out.” Good point, only there’s no Court battle. It’s done. They got the approval. Maybe someone will get Mayor Bloomberg ginned up about Muslim plot to make us all eat Halal food. But there’s no court battle.

Doing your homework. What a concept …

[Facepalm]

(Markowitz responds to a commentary from earlier today.  Promoted as part of our standard policy regarding seekers of statewide office. – promoted by JulieWaters)

A lengthy essay posted this morning raises what its author calls “serious concerns” about the health plan I announced earlier this month. The only ones with concerns about my proposals should be pharmaceutical companies and the insurance industry – the real players in our current bloated and wasteful health care system that has anything to lose by keeping things the way they are. I may not have sat through committee hearings in the State House, but I have spoken with doctors and other health care professionals throughout Vermont and they tell me insurance forms not only increase costs for doctors and consumers, they are also being used to confuse patients and deny legitimate claims. My experience is just different than those in this Democratic race. I don’t believe all of the answers to our problems lie in Montpelier. In fact, they rarely do.

Specifically, this morning’s post accuses me of failing to understand “that there already is a national billing standard and creating another ‘standard’ would either be unenforceable, or worse, would actually add to the administrative burden if enforced.”

My proposal involves building on the already standard Medicare and Medicaid forms and creating and enforcing uniform standards or their use. This is not just a good idea, it is the law. The health care reform bill passed by Congress and signed by President Obama earlier this year requires the adoption and implementation of uniform standards for the electronic exchange of health information by 2013. My proposal involves making Vermont one of the test labs for this program. The GMD essay assumes that the federal government would never agree to this. In fact, Washington is already looking for places to create pilot programs as a first step toward implementing the law nationwide. Vermont is the perfect size for such a pilot program. Therefore, Vermont’s request for a waiver to establish such a program, far from being a waste of time, is something the system actually requires.

In Vermont, all of our insurance companies use separate forms. Doctors and patients must fill out maze-like paperwork to get reimbursed for care. My proposal is simple: If you want to do business in Vermont as an insurance company, you will use one standardized form.

Doing this is especially important because, as a study published in the June 2010 issue of the respected medical journal Health Affairs found, “excessive administrative complexity costs physicians nearly 12 percent of their net patient service revenue.” The article proposes simple billing and paperwork reforms that would meet the mandates of the new law and, in the process, save both doctors and their staffs many hours per week. The resulting efficiencies, if implemented nationwide, could save Americans $7 billion in annual health care expenses. This is what we mean when policy wonks talk about ‘bending the cost curve’. It is exactly the sort of reform that must be implemented nationally if we are going to fix our health care system, and for which Vermont is an ideal laboratory.

Furthermore, this standardization of paperwork is only the beginning. The Health Affairs study focused only on billing issues in doctors offices, but notes that the savings it foresees there will ripple through our entire health care system.

Make no mistake: Vermonters cannot afford to keep things the way they are. I have long said that I support a health care system where everyone pays for care and everyone receives care. Streamlining the maze of paperwork now associated with health care is not only the best way to begin cutting costs – it is an absolute necessity. My proposal will make Vermont a national leader in this effort rather than simply throwing up our hands and declaring the current system bad but inevitable as both Brian Dubie and the original poster do.

Here is the real question Vermonters, and all Americans, must face going forward: are we willing to work together, take on the insurance companies and build a health care system designed to put patients, rather than corporate interests, first? If the answer is yes, then we should be look for creative solutions for containing costs and embrace the opportunities afforded by health care reform for Vermont to become a national leader. Doing that will require careful study of professional data like the study in Health Affairs, not simply declaring that the insurance industry’s way is the only way.

(This doesn’t convince me but I can see how it might convince some.  Thanks for the effort. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Peter Shumlin

by Ed Weissman, Dorset

I support Peter Shumlin for Governor.  I’m telling you why.  This is written, in part, to persuade Julie Waters to come to a decision and vote for Peter.

We have a fine slate of candidates in the Democratic primary for Governor.  As I recently wrote in the Rutland Herald, this primary cries out for approval voting in which voters can for as many of the candidates of whom they “approve.”  At the end of the day (next Tuesday, in fact), only one of the five can be the candidate for Governor.  It should be Peter.

It was Peter as Senate President and House Speaker Shap Smith who made it all but impossible for Governor Douglas to run again.  They did so with what was, in effect, a double vote of non-confidence.   Of course, Vermont doesn’t have a parliamentary system though it should.  But the successful votes to override Douglas’ vetoes of marriage equality and the budget put Jim Douglas on notice that he could not continue to govern.  

Douglas’ veto of marriage equality ignored Vermont’s DNA which began with equality.  On the budget, Douglas could no longer deliver the lower taxes and regulatory wiggle room that his big bucks supporters wanted.  

Marriage equality may well be a “motherhood” issue for most Democrats and some Republicans, but it was Peter, and only Peter, who moved the issue from the back of the bus to the front of the queue.

That is leadership, that is governing, that is more revealing than a thousand sound bites and a flurry of focus groups.

With Douglas out, the Republicans have the Brian Dubie.  Brian has money mainly because he can draw on the resources of the anti-choice, theocratic and homophobic religious right.  Like Western European Communists during the Cold War, Brian won’t talk about his hidden agenda.  They denied being puppets of the Kremlin.  He doesn’t talk of the “family values” crowd who pulls his strings.

This election will focus on two Brian Dubies, the one you see and the one you don’t see.  Peter has the skills to force both of them out in the open.  Who is Brian Dubie?  For me, he’s a dumbed-down Isaac Tichenor. Tichenor is the “Jersey slick” (so-named be Ethan Allen) lawyer who rode into office in Vermont on the heels of the repressions of the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790’s.  What else does Brian Dubie have to offer.  He can fly a plane!  He can drive a car!!  He can, on occasion, walk upright.  

Peter is the only candidate who has shown he can deliver, in fact and with courage.  He check-mated Douglas out of office.  He can deliver a vibrant sustainable economy, 21st century communications and energy.  He understands that water, and preserving what we have in Vermont, will be a central issue in the next years.  The issue is government that works.  Peter Shumlin knows how that is done.

Watch Peter govern.  See him campaign.  Listen to him speak.  Peter Shumlin delivers.