I want to thank Tom Gilbert of Highfields Center for Composting for providing some corrections and clarifications to the original story, which I am adding as quotes in the appropriate passages.

Imagine you are a Vermont vegetable farmer.  You engage in “best agricultural practices,” manage nutrients responsibly and stay abreast of current thought on sustainable farming.  Now you want to move toward fertilizing your entire farm with compost from locally contributed food waste rather than chemicals.  ‘Sounds like you’re the kind of farmer who will get all kinds of support in his endeavors; but, as Franklin County farmer Richard Hudak recently found out, that isn’t necessarily the case.  

Having been approached by a group of Bellows Free Academy students to host a composting project that would utilize food-scraps collected by the group, Richard enlisted the aid of Highfields Center for Composting who enthusiastically signed-on.  I spoke with Highfields tech expert, Tom Gilbert, who explained what happened next.  The project obtained a permit from the Northwest Solid Waste District, and the Agency for Natural Resources (ANR) signed-off on it in February. Looking to dot his “i’s” and cross his “t’s” Richard decided to just run the whole thing by the Vermont Department of Agriculture as a final measure; and that is what unsealed a can of worms.

Apparently no one had approached the Dept. of Ag for a decision on composting before.

This is true of many farm operators composting agricultural materials, however in the past Highfields and other compost technical service providers have sought the Agency of Agriculture’s opinion on the agricultural status of various on-farm food scrap composting operations as part of our due diligence and we have been told that if the finished compost is principally for farm use, it is a legitimate agricultural activity.  With changes in Agency staff and legal council, apparently their internal opinion on this issue has changed.  In fact, we have worked with and helped permit on-farm composters who compost food scraps that have received cost-share funding from the Agency of Agriculture to build the composting sites.  The Agency’s own funds have helped to build facilities they are now determining are not agricultural.

 

People just…do it.  Richard might have had the same impulse, but he has suffered some harassment from neighboring property owners for standing in the way of a Walmart development that is proposed three-tenths of a mile from his farm.  He didn’t want to run into problems further down the road so he did the responsible thing and asked the Dept. of Ag to agree that composting represents an “accepted agricultural practice,” which, under Vermont law, would mean that it wasn’t subject to zoning regulation.

You can probably see where this is heading.  After reviewing the state guidelines, the Department of Ag returned the opinion that composting did not come under the heading of “accepted agricultural practices.”  It simply isn’t even mentioned.  

Incredible as it may seem, there is provision in the law for collecting cow manure from neighboring farms to spread on fields, so that practice is not subject to zoning regulation;

There is nothing in the AAPs to suggest composting food scraps is explicitly subject to zoning or not agricultural.  This is not a question of what the rules should say (though in the future they should certainly include these activities in an explicit manner), since the existing language adequately covers this practice.  This is a matter of interpretation, an interpretation that has changed at the Agency of Agriculture.  Compost is an agricultural product when made for and used on a farm.  The source of the material should not matter, unless it is potentially hazardous or inherently contrary to sustaining healthy soils. This scenario is seen in other farming practices.  For instance, if a vegetable grower would like to fabricate their own potting mix for starting seeds, an farming practice that no one contends with, they must import 50-100% of the materials they use, no of which (like blood meal) are more inherently agricultural in nature than food materials.  They must then take these materials and go through a fabricating process to produce the potting soil they will use.

however, at least in theory, composting of food scraps is!  This discrepancy obviously reflects the strong dairy bias that has traditionally dominated Vermont farming; but it is completely out-of-step with contemporary thought that has elevated sustainability issues and recognizes the greater nutritional efficiency of crop farming over animal farming.

From my conversations with Richard and Tom, I learned that 4% of global emissions are from nitrogen, a principle component of chemical fertilizers.  I also learned that, if all food waste in Vermont was composted, it would yield sufficient nutrients for 20,000 acres of farmland!

I spoke with Jim Leyland of the Department of Agriculture and he could offer no explanation for the omission of composting from Sec. 3.2 of the Vermont law defining “Acceptable Agricultural Practices.”  It appears to have been simply overlooked.

Not many specific practices are detailed explicitly in the AAPs.  In fact, the AAP definitions of acceptable practices only include 118 words – in no way possibly conveying all of the possible activities on a farm.  As a result much interpretation is required to render an opinion on how a wide variety of practices might fall within the definitions.  Composting food scraps can easily be included in interpretations of the existing language – this is a choice on behalf of the Agency, their hands are not tied.

Recognizing the value of sustaining Vermont’s agricultural heritage,  the law specifically states that towns cannot establish rules that will limit accepted agricultural practices.  So a housing development cannot spring-up next door to an existing farm and raise objections to the smell of manure. However, until the legislature moves to specify composting as an “accepted agricultural practice,”  any farmer who chooses to employ this environmentally responsible practice, is potentially liable for censure by local zoning.   You might well be asking what town in its right mind would challenge such a practice, but anyone whose ever scrapped with the power elite in their little town can tell you what potential for abuse lies in the hands of it’s zoning board.

Memo to the Legislature: please fix this, tout suite, before anyone else falls down the rabbit hole!

Political observers the last few days have been asking how a Democratic candidate for state Senate can justify supporting the candidacy of Brian Dubie for governor.

Our view is that you can't defend the indefensible.

Laura Day Moore, who was one of three Democratic candidates for Senate from Washington County in 2008, and is one of five candidates running for the nomination this year, has been the subject of questions and criticism ever since the latest campaign finance reports came out, showing that she has contributed $450.00 to Brian Dubie's campaign. (scroll down to page 40 of the report to see her listing.)

Click to access 71510dubieb.pdf

Moore is an articulate, energetic candidate with experience as a local school board member who has been active in the Washington County Democratic Committee. She also had a key role in organizing the gubernatorial candidates' forum at Barre Town Elementary School this spring. You know, the one that Dubie chickened out of attending at the last minute.

At GMD we don't generally endorse candidates in the primary. We do, though, seriously question how a Democratic candidate, running in a Democratic primary, can put money in the pocket of the Republican candidate for governor. What we know about Dubie indicates that he is, if anything, even more conservative than Douglas, even more beholden to the big-money interests who run the Republican Party, and way too conservative on social issues, like choice, even for many Republicans. 

In short, Dubie stands for everything that Democrats oppose, and opposes everything that Democrats stand for. In our view, and the view of most Democrats, a vote for Dubie would be a vote to extend the Douglas-Dubie policies of attacking social services, attacking and weakening our education system, attacking Vermont's workers, balancing the budget on the backs of the neediest Vermonters, neglecting the environment, and continuing the failed policy of economic growth by badmouthing Vermont and shoveling tax breaks to employers to create jobs they probably would have created anyway.  

So what's Laura Moore doing supporting him?

GMD asked her, and here's what she said:

Some voters are asking me why I made a campaign contribution to the lone Republican candidate for Governor, Brian Dubie.   Some of the voters who have asked me this question clearly see this as a ‘litmus test’ as to whether or not I am deserving of their vote on the Democratic primary ballot.  I disagree with this litmus-test way of thinking.

 The real reason I even found myself in a position to write a check to Brian Dubie has nothing to do with politics or my views on specific issues or my support (or lack of support) of Brian’s views on specific issues but everything to do with my personal life.  My partner is a long-time Republican who is a senior adviser on the Dubie campaign.   Because of his work, I have accompanied him to various events and gatherings.  Likewise, my partner has attended many Democratic events with me, and has made contributions to Democratic candidates.

Not only have a number of friends and supporters inquired about my donation to the Lt. Governor but also a few have said that they question their support for me because of it.  I find this hyper-partisan attitude harmful to the political process and deserving of further comment.

It must not matter to these critics that in the past three years, I have made greater contributions to each of Deb Markowitz, Barack Obama, Peter Welch, Patrick Leahy, the Democratic National Committee, the Vermont Democratic Party and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee than I have contributed to the Dubie campaign.  In addition, I have donated significant amounts to Peter Shumlin, various down-ballot Democratic candidates, and politically active, left-leaning organizations.   The total of these contributions dwarfs the contribution that I made to Friends of Brian Dubie.  

Yet for some, my contribution to the Lt. Governor’s committee negates the relevance and importance of these other, very substantial financial commitments.  The simple fact is that these Democratic donations reflect my political beliefs.  However, can I say that all the candidates or organizations that have received my financial support met a 100% litmus test warranting my support?  The answer is clearly no.  In light of the serious issues and problems facing our communities, our state and our country, I find any sort of litmus test to be troubling and unproductive.  

 Do I consider myself a Democrat?  Yes, a life-long one.  Am I a strictly partisan Democrat?  No.  I remember well the first time I ever voted for a Republican:  1990 for Bill Weld when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts against John Silber.  I had very clear and strong reasons for casting that vote and can recall them clearly even now.  Since then, I have also voted for Jim Jeffords in 2000.  And, although we do not yet know who the Democratic nominee for Governor will be this year, I do not see any scenario under which I would vote for Brian Dubie.  

 I have equally strong memories of the first campaign I ever worked on:  George McGovern, even though I was not old enough to vote.  More recently, I worked tirelessly for Barack Obama.  I made my first donation to the then Senator Obama in April 2007 – long before there was any clear momentum toward his candidacy.   By September 6, 2007, I had donated the maximum allowed by law to Obama’s primary race. On numerous occasions, including primary day, I traveled to New Hampshire to work to get Obama elected.  

 

Yet, I had fellow Democrats – women – question my support.  They asked how I could, as a woman, support Obama instead of Hillary Clinton?  This blind litmus test was deeply offensive to me. 

 

Candidates very rarely, if ever, offer complete synchronicity with any particular voter’s views and beliefs.  Most often, responsible voters learn about a candidate’s views on a number of relevant issues and then make an informed judgment about who to support.  I do not believe that Democrats have the corner on all the right answers any more than I believe that every candidate who chooses to run for public office and calls himself or herself a Democrat is deserving of my vote.

 In reflecting further on my interaction with the Lt. Governor during this campaign, I will add that I enjoyed my conversations with the Lt. Governor and found his aspirations for public service to be genuine.  We engaged in respectful, detailed and thoughtful conversations on a number of issues, including the environment and women’s issues.  Clearly the Lt. Governor and I do not agree on all issues.  However, I appreciate and value the belief in treating each other with respect even in areas of difference.

 I grew up in the home of a minister/civil-rights activist and pubic schoolteacher.  My father worked with Martin Luther King, John Lewis, Jesse Jackson and Cesar Chavez and many others to guarantee civil and human rights for everyone.  Some of my earliest memories of my community service involve working in California as my parents assisted Cesar Chavez in organizing grape and lettuce boycotts to firmly establish the United Farm Workers Union.  My Democratic roots (and my commitment to equality) run deep.  So too, do my roots run deep in cherishing the value and importance of how we treat one another – even when we disagree.  I believe I have modeled my life – personally, professionally and in my public service – as a reflection of this framework. 

 I regret that anyone may choose not to support my candidacy for the Vermont State Senate because of how I have chosen to live my life. But I do not regret how I have chosen to live it.  

(Promoted as part of our ongoing policy of promoting serious candidates for statewide office in Vermont. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Yesterday morning, I once again stood up for Vermont values when confronted by criticisms from Vermont’s right-wing community. This is the type of strong leadership we need when facing Brian Dubie’s conservative base this November.

During an interview on the Mark Johnson radio show yesterday, I took on a barrage of questions from conservative Vermonters attacking my position on a woman’s right to choose.

These questions came shortly after a discussion about Facebook where I argued that candidates such as Brian Dubie who have radically conservative social views – like opposing a woman’s right to choose – will frequently attract like-minded people to social media platforms. We’ve already seen conservative politicians like Sarah Palin gain significant net-roots support from these groups and it’s clear that Dubie is starting to benefit from the same “tea party” community.

While I reaffirmed my long-held and unwavering position on trusting women to make the best decision about their bodies, I also called out Brian Dubie during the broadcast for holding the opinion that women should not be able to choose even in the case of rape or incest.

It’s clear that Dubie’s social views are too conservative for Vermont and that his positions on women’s rights run contrary to the values of most Vermonters. A Governor can have great influence over access to health services despite what might be in legislation and given the efforts to undermine Roe v. Wade in other parts of the country, we cannot afford to have Dubie take Vermont backwards.

While Dubie thinks he and the state know better than women and their doctors, I will ensure Vermont does not slip backwards into his conservative social agenda. The small radically conservative community in Vermont has clearly been activated and motivated by Dubie’s campaign but we cannot let them be the voice of our state. To win in November we will need a candidate who will not shy away from such attacks and will fight for the values that are core to our tradition as Vermonters.

I am eager to continue standing toe to toe with Brian Dubie on these important issues this fall and to ensure Vermont’s values are upheld, not erased by the opinions of a vocal minority.

 Yesterday’s Shumlin vs. Dubie dust up over Entergy’s Vermont Yankee future isn’t that shocking. Lt.Gov. Dubie quickly sliding toward forgiving Yankee for all its sins was almost inevitable.

What’s below the surface may be telling a story too.  

Dubie is quoted on VPR saying  

“The legislative appointed Public Oversight Committee put out a report yesterday that … said that if there's a culture of safety that management would embrace – oh absolutely, I totally agree with that – and if investments are made that, are continued to be made in VY, the legislative appointed POC saw no reason that VY couldn't operate past 2012."

(emphasis added)

One panel member noted the committee, unlike Dubie’s characterization, is a joint process between both the legislature and the Douglas administration.

Here is what Douglas’ commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service had to say about the group early on

"This is a process that we all agreed should happen, including the governor and the Legislature,"

 

I attended the Vermont State Senate debate on the re-licensing of Entergy’s Vermont Yankee and was particularly struck at the time by the Lt.Gov.’s apparent unfamiliarly and unease with his role as president of the senate. Several people commented that he acted unprepared, as if it was his first day on the job although he had held this position for four terms, almost eight years. That impression is part of the growing sense that Dubie is not now and never was “ready for prime time,” as apparently recognized by some in the press.  

An example on the flip.

Performing a compassionate public service intervention that a less charitable publication might not be bothered with, the Times Argus today takes time to patiently alert Brian Dubie to what should be obvious to a candidate for governor.

An election campaign is when statements such as Dubie’s inevitably come under minute parsing, with all shadings analyzed and all possible meanings teased out.

And  

Dubie can expect more close parsing of his words as the election season continues. He is not as politically shrewd and verbally agile as Gov. James Douglas, and his Democratic opponent can be expected to pick up on any effort to spin a story to his liking.

It is possible Dubie is strategically downplaying or ignoring Governor Douglas' role in the panel. However given his historic reluctance to debate and having mostly limited his campaigns to proven friendly venues (and Facebook) it is easy to picture a candidate only lately getting up to speed and cramming for his finals.  

(Promoted per our policy to front page major statewide office seekers – promoted by GMD)

I have some very exciting news to share with you.  Our campaign has received the official endorsement of the Professional Firefighters of Vermont!  After a thorough review of all of the candidates running for Lt. Governor, the firefighters have unanimously endorsed my candidacy.  

Matt Vinci, the President of the Professional Firefighters of Vermont said, “My members across the state have a great working relationship with Steve, he has been there to support the issues that impact how we deliver emergency services across Vermont, he shares our values and he has a history of fighting for us”.

I am happy to share the news of the Professional Firefighters endorsement with you today.  I am deeply honored to have their endorsement; they are a great organization and I wholeheartedly support their heroic work in our state.  As Shay Totten noted in his Seven Days column today, the Professional Firefighters have never backed a losing campaign in Vermont.

The Firefighters join the Vermont State Employees Association and the Vermont AFL-CIO in supporting my bid for Lt. Governor.  I greatly appreciate the support of these groups and I would like your support as well.

 

To reveal new truths and new realities about the war, … you take a risk as an American when you do that. At most you’re informing your fellow Americans. It’s up to them to make a choice – to pay attention, to do something about it. … And the risk that you take when you do that, is that you’ll learn something ultimately about your fellow citizens that you won’t like to hear. And that is, that they hear it, they learn from it, they understand it, and they proceed to ignore it. Daniel Ellsberg, from an interview with Studs Terkel, 1972

The release of over 90,000 documents related to the Afghan War puts us back here again. What will we do?

The pundits tell us that there’s nothing new here. Really?

• Our money that is going to Pakistan is being funnelled to the Taliban in Afghanistan. That’s old news?
• The Taliban have weapons that can down US helicopters with deadly accuracy. That’s old news?
• We have killed or wounded far more civilians – women and children – than previously reported. That’s old news?
• The military has special forces units that specialize in “neutralizing” our enemies (and sometimes our allies). That’s old news?

I guess so, because our Congress just authorized more money for this quagmire.

I listen to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! – not always the most uplifting hour of news, but because of listening to her show I do know that a lot of what is in these documents is not new news. But for the majority of Americans who have been spoonfed the sanitized version of what is happening in Afghanistan, this is their wake up call.

Our congressman – Peter Welch voted no on the recent authorization. Did yours?

Please find out. If they did vote for the authorization, call their office and find out why. Make them accountable for the fact that we are sending our treasure – money, materials, men and women (with over 1200 casualties) – half way around the world – for what?

To all the pundits out there who see nothing new here, a question. These documents paint a bleak picture of what’s going on over there and “winning” (whatever that means – see a discussion about this by James Fallows here) seems an impossible task. So, why do the pundits and our elected leadership keep pretending that winning is possible?

Jon Taplin on his blog writes:

I hope President Obama spends a good bit of his vacation reading the reports in detail. When he finishes, the realization that “victory in Afghanistan” is a mirage that has been chased by many an empire, but secured by none.

Let’s not ignore the 200,000 page elephant in the room this time around. Pay attention, do something about it.

(Promoted as our policy to front page major statewide office seekers – promoted by GMD)

Thank you, GMD, for posting the recent article about Jim Condos’s and my dust up.  You’ve done all of us — including Jim and me — a service by putting this issue on the table.  One word of criticism: Jim’s and my argument isn’t ugly, it’s valuable democratic (small d) debate.

So what is the debate?  From Jim’s standpoint, it is whether I am a True Democrat or whether I am some sort of political opportunist.  To be clear, I am a True Democrat.  I hold strong, liberal views on social justice issues important to the Democratic Party.  I vote for Democratic candidates for policy offices in accordance with these views.  I contribute to these candidates.  I attend party functions.  I support the Party and its platforms.

But my liberal views have no bearing on or role in the functions of the Secretary of State’s office, which is a service, not a policy, office.

So what is really the debate? From my standpoint, the debate is whether my fellow candidates understand the nonpartisan nature of the Secretary of State’s office.  Let’s turn first to Jason Gibbs.

Jason has taken a recent tack of vigorously attacking Deb Markowitz for minor issues surrounding the delivery of ballots from printers to town offices.  Jason’s sniping, however, tell us more about his partisanship than Deb’s tenure as Secretary of State.

In a nutshell, Jason doesn’t know what he is talking about.  If Jason had any knowledge of how the office worked, he’d know that there are ALWAYS issues with getting the ballots out because of their complicated and technical nature.  For example, Jason’s mentor, Jim Douglas, had number of problems over his tenure with the ballots, misprinting names of candidates (thereby requiring mad dashes by staff to various polling booths), misidentifying candidates’ places of residence, and the costly, wholesale revision of ballots after they had been sent to the printer’s.  In Jim’s case, as in Deb’s, there were no problems with the system, there were just the realities of organizing and distributing roughly 492 different sets of ballots for every primary election on a limited state budget.  

We all know that if Deb were a Republican, or if Douglas were still in that office, Jason would never have mounted attacks because these attacks have nothing to do with an individual’s performance.  Jason is quintessentially partisan and has no business, really, running for the office of Secretary of State.

So what about Jim Condos? Is he as partisan as Jason?  Probably not; but he’s pretty partisan.  Two quick examples relating to Jim:

At Caledonia County  Democratic Party meeting on April 25, Jim and I both spoke for a few minutes. Jim told the crowd that we are on the eve of reapportionment and intimated that we Democrats must make sure to protect our interests. When it was my turn, I criticized Jim’s statements.  A Sec of State candidate has no business — even in the primary — in playing party politics on reapportionment, IRV, single payer health care, or any other policy issue.

At a Franklin County Democratic Party meeting on February 22, in an apparent attempt to downplay the value of having a lawyer in the office of Sec of State, Jim stated: “there’s a legal way to do things and there is a common sense way to do things and sometimes the right way is in the middle.”  As I pointed out to the handful of people at the meeting, that’s just plain wrong. The legal way is the right way. Constitutional officers in particular must adhere to the law.

Over the life of this campaign I’ve spoken to a lot of Democratic Party members about the need to keep the Secretary of State quintessentially non-partisan.  The vast number of the Democratic faithful understand that and would, I am certain, vote for a non partisan Republican over a partisan Democratic, if such a situation arose.  That’s another reason to honor the Democratic party.  Its members put principle ahead of ideology.

What do we want in a Secretary of State?  Isn’t it objectivity, nonpartisanship, reasoned advice?  What party has more of that than another?  The work of the Secretary’s office has nothing to do with parties, and if we saw a Secretary like Katherine Harris favoring one party or the other, wouldn’t we start talking impeachment?

The Washington Post reports today that the House passed another appropriation for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, this time for $37 billion.

The House on Tuesday approved spending an additional $37 billion on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, overcoming the opposition of some Democrats who have concluded that the Afghan conflict is unwinnable.   

We've noted Peter's war votes before, but I think it's important to note that, once again, Peter Welch has voted against continuing the funding for the wars.

You can see the roll-call vote results here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll474.xml

To Representative Welch: thanks for keeping the faith with your Vermont voters! 

(Promoted as our policy to front page major statewide office seekers. – promoted by JulieWaters)

On August 24th, Vermont voters will cast their ballots to determine each party’s nominees for the fall campaign. Most of the attention for the primary election is focused on the Governor’s race; however, voters deserve information about the race for every elected office.

The Office of Secretary of State is tasked with key responsibilities including overseeing elections and campaign finance regulation, lobbyist disclosure, maintaining the state archives, professional regulation, and corporate registration.

I am running to be Vermont’s next Secretary of State because I have the experience and knowledge to keep the office running smoothly and to make important improvements. My combined business and elected experience includes managing, policymaking, business operations, and service to Vermonters.  

I know how to get things done. I have worked for over 30 years in the business sector, along with over 20 years of elected local and state government experience. I have a strong working relationship with many Vermonters across the state.  

I served for 18 years on the South Burlington City Council, and 8 years as a Chittenden County Senator. This experience has given me first-hand knowledge of the needs and challenges facing our local communities. In the Senate, I chaired the Government Operations Committee, tasked with overseeing the Secretary of State’s office. This experience has given me the knowledge and ability to start working hard on my first day in office.

During my many years of elected service, I was an effective advocate on issues that are important to Vermonters, including ensuring open and transparent government, promoting accountability from public officials, improving our election process, and strengthening campaign finance laws. These are the key issues that I will prioritize as the next Secretary of State.

Another important priority will be overhauling the Secretary of State’s website. Deb Markowitz did a great job creating an online presence for the office, but we need to take it to the next level. I propose creating a “one stop shop”, web-oriented business registration to help our business community and entrepreneurs do what they do best – create jobs! Creating an easy, step-by -step online business registration process will be more efficient, and save time for Vermont’s business community.  

I will also work to create a searchable online database for campaign finance and lobbyist disclosure, including an online filing system for these reports. This will ensure Vermonters know who is contributing to their elected officials, and what these officials are spending their campaign funds on. This is a very important issue, and my office will treat it as such.

I will also work to implement the Public Records Commission’s recommendations fully. Since 2006, I have supported the position of a Public Records ombudsman to review denials of Vermonters’ public records requests, and I would strengthen the penalties for those who wrongly deny these requests.

Open government is good government.

I have a proven record of results and the experience necessary to make a difference. I hope I will earn your support for the Democratic nomination for Secretary of State on August 24th.

I am ready to be Vermont’s next Secretary of State.  

Jim Condos served on the South Burlington City Council and as a Vermont State Senator and is running for Secretary of State. He can be reached at jim@jimcondos.com or visit his website at www.jimcondos.com.

Elections – Secretary of State: A bizarre war of words has erupted in the Democratic Primary for Secretary of State between candidate Charles Merriman of Middlesex and non-candidate Jake Perkinson, Chittenden County Democratic Party Chair, and supporter of Merriman’s opponent, former Chittenden Senator Jim Condos.

It began with Merriman’s appearence on the Mark Johnson Show last week, where he made the following, almost inconceivable statement as a candidate in the Democratic Party primary, looking for Democratic Primary votes:

“I should have run as an independent. You know it was… um… I thought about

it and frankly I ran as a Democrat because I figured I had a better chance of

winning than if I ran as an independent. If I get in, I’ll run as an independent next time.”

What’s followed is a bit of a Democratic Party tempest. First came an email signed by Perkinson and Middlesex Town Dem Chair Taryn Moran, that included the quote, the audio clip, and the following:

As both a Middlesex (Charlie’s home) Town Democratic Chair and a Chittenden County Democratic Chair, we were shocked when we heard this, and find it extremely disappointing that he is only using the Democratic Party to satisfy his personal ambition. Then after the election, should he win; he would turn around and abandon the Democratic Party. He wants to use all of our hard work and our good name to win, but he won’t work to build the party.

We hope you know that you will not get that type of attitude out of Jim Condos.[snip] …it is incredibly expensive to run statewide, if you could make a donation of $25, $50, $100, or more to Jim’s campaign it would go a long way to show the voters that Jim Condos is the best candidate in this race.  

Merriman – and one other County Chair – immediately pushed back. More on the flip.

Next was this email that went out to Democratic circles from the Windham County Chair:

To whom it may concern,

I cannot speak to the content or context of Mr. Merriman’s interview. I am however, very surprised that a County Chair or even a Town Chair would publicly do a fundraising campaign for any Candidate in a Statewide Primary race. I am sure we all have our favorites in many races, but this is a very slippery slope in which you descend. One that I can assure you Windham County will not follow. I can only assume that your individual committee’s have approved this letter, as you have signed on their behalf.

Windham County Democratic Chairman

Lamont Barnett

Then came this clearly angry email to the media from Merriman:

Dear Newspaperpeople:

I am forwarding you an email which went out today from two Democratic Party Chairs.  The email criticizes me as a false Democrat, based on my unwavering belief that the office of the secretary of state must be — above all else — nonpartisan. The email seeks support for Jim Condos.

Unwittingly, the email authors have done me a service.  They have perfectly described a major difference between Jim and me. Jim is, first and foremost, a partisan Democrat. When the issue is close, and the choice is between reading and applying the law (something I, as an attorney, am competent to do and Jim is not), or siding with the policy goals of the Democratic majority in the Legislature, Jim will side with the policy goals of the Democratic majority in the Legislature.

That is not the way the office should be run.  To their credit, most members of the Democratic party with whom I have spoken eschew partisanship in the office, even if it is “their” partisan.  They understand that the office must be, above all else, nonpartisan.

Jim is a Democrat who favors first the party. I am a democrat who favors first the rule of law.  In light of this stark difference between the two of us, I am hopeful your paper will endorse my candidacy for Secretary of State.

Best regards,

Charlie

Charles L. Merriman

Candidate,

Vermont Secretary of State

Finally, there was an email from Condos to the media. Rather than distance himself from a burgeoning internal fracas, Condos invited the media to involve him more deeply, and again forwarded the same clip, which suggests a closed loop with Perkinson and Moran from the outset:

I would be more than happy to speak with you on this email from Mr Merriman if you would like to contact me…

Also, Mr Merriman conveniently deleted an audio of his comments on the Mark Johnson show – it is attached.

JIM

There is certainly a lot to consider here. The question of “what on Earth was Merriman thinking” during his Mark Johnson Show comments tends to get trumped by the question of “what on Earth was Merriman thinking” went he sent that email, which did him no favors. One also wonders why Condos and his supporters would let loose in such an aggressive – and to many, off-putting manner – in a primary that, by all current indications, has already likely become his to lose? And what were Moran and Perkinson thinking in signing their titles on such an aggressive primary advocacy letter, invoking their respective offices and bringing their full committees into the affair in the process?

Strange is the thinking in the political bubble, sometimes.