Cross posted at Rational Resistance

 In certain circles it is popular to talk about a parliamentary system as a corrective to the polarizing, winner-take-all system we have here. As we hear the complaint in some places, the two-paprty system silences or ignores minority viewpoints, and causes a conformity that favors middle-of-the-road, status quo politicians and shuns real change.

There are reasons to question whether a parliamentary system would solve these problems, or simply create bigger ones.

The New York Times Magazine carried an article a couple of weeks ago about Israel's system for determining Jewish identity. This is important primarily because, since Israel lacks civil marriage, the only way to get married is through a Jewish ceremony, and that, in turn, requires the parties to demonstrate their Jewishness. The article talks about how this has gotten harder and harder for a number of reasons, including the fact that the Jewish identification system has fallen under the sway of a more and more rigidly ultra-Orthodox rabbinical establishment. So rigid that one official is quoted in the article referring to a Conservative rabbi in America as a goy.

What does this have to do with a parliamentary system?

One thing the parliamentary fans say is definitely true. A parliamentary system, rather than silencing or ignoring minority views, includes them in the structure of government, and bestows upon them real power. In Israel, since neither of the two leading parties can command a majority, the only way either one of them can form a government is by allying itself with other, smaller parties. Over the years the strength of these ultra-Orthodox parties has grown, so that by this point they hold 18 of the 120 seats in the Knesset, and the government has obtained the favor of the ultra-Orthodox by appointing them to the rabbinical court, that has the power over marriage and divorce, and that, consequently, is charged with determining who is a Jew. And who they determine is not a Jew is a pretty long list, including lots of converts, lots of people who have trouble proving their identity through synagogue records of matrilineal descent, and lots of people from America, who often aren't considered Jewish enough.

If they want to do this, it's their country, I'll probably never even visit, so they can go ahead and do it.

On the other hand, picture a similar situation here, in which Jerry Falwell, James Hagee, and a handful of their buddies were so politically powerful that they could veto any marriage if they didn't approve of the couple, and they held this power in Democratic and Republican administrations because they hold the balance of power. So if you were Catholic, or Mormon, or Unitarian, or Jewis, or, god forbid, atheist, they could just deny you the ability to marry and there would be nothing you could do about it.

At that point you could say that we've opened up the government to a minority view, and they no longer feel marginalized, and maybe they even vote at a higher rate than we do because they feel that their votes count. I'd look at the same situation and say that the parliamentary system has given a small minority almost dictatorial powers. and I wouldn't like it.

So maybe this parliamentary thing isn't all its adherents say it is.

Dick Cheney pays George Bush $100 for an ole'fashioned Texas corn-holing and George is guilty of prostitution.  He committed a CRIME!!!

George Bush pays Dick Cheney $100 to do the neocon nasty (with his pacemaker turned up to 11) and Dick is guilty of prostitution. He committed a CRIME!!!

However, I pay both George & Dick $100 to fuck each other. Or I pay $300 to George and Dick and Joe Lieberman AND I then film George & Dick fisting and felching Joe who is now reaching around the aisle instead of across it.  I then sell copies of my magnum opus “George Dicks Joe,” say – for instance – through a website. I have just paid three people to have sex, I have filmed it, I will now be paid myself due to the fact that I PAID THREE PEOPLE TO HAVE SEX SO I COULD MAKE A MOVIE OF THE ENTIRE DISGUSTING AFFAIR and it is ALL FUCKING LEGAL and I have a tape to prove it!

Land of opportunity, Baby! See, in America, if someone pays for sex, it is a crime. If someone pays two, three or twelve people to screw and then sells pictures or movies of it, its commerce.  (Excuse me, “art“).

— It gets worse, after the jump.

Grow up. Grow the fuck up.  This country is in the shitter and we are obsessed with a personal tidbit about a guy who has too much money, too much ego and a gullible wife — all of which is totally irrelevant to a n y t h i n g  –  t h a t  –  m a t t e r s.  Other than a penchant for getting laid (and there are worse “penchants”) he is doing a great job as Governor. He was doing a great job as Governor. He will no longer be able to do a great job as Governor. If grown-ups cannot get their leg over without the country coming to a halt, we are in worse shape than Elliot Spitzer's wedding china, much of which has hit the wall by now.

Perspective? 

We stopped the country, and no one was allowed to get-off, for two years at the end of Bill Clinton's 2d term of office. We have the world's most overbearingly military top-heavy resource-devouring engine of a nation. So what was the best use of our Government's resources during Clenis' second term?  We tried to shatter to pieces a constitutionally evolved republican form of government because Bill Clinton did what we all expected him to do the first chance he had to do it (and we voted for him twice just the same).

Next, we let three viciously corrupt & partisan Republican Circuit Court of Appeals judges place an equally corrupt prosecutor – Ken Starr a savage with ethical gangrene – loose on the trail of a bad-faith phantom case initiated by GOP fraud and lies. We risked the welfare of the entire nation and parts of the world too, for the prurient political entertainment of Republican hypocrites and criminals who faked outrage worse than a $5,000 hooker fakes an orgasm. 

Nobody bothered to notice we actually were at war in the summer of 2000 – 2001. We were happy to be titillated and stoopid. Still, virtually no one knew and most who knew (including the GOP Congress) did not care that we were at war. Instead, all summer and fall in 2001 it was Chandra Levy 24/7.  On September 12, 2001, the war was over. We had lost a huge battle the day before but the U.S. came out victorious — only to watch the Republicans go back and un-win a war we had just won by not realizing we were in it.

Where is our compass?

This country is going to hell and it has nothing to do with Clenis or Elliot Spitzer.  Spitzer is a hypocrite and I have zero sympathy for him. Shame on him for chasing prostitutes for prosecution as the State's Attorneys General. And shame on us for caring when he chases them for personal gratification behind the back of his long-suffering wife and in front of his humiliated family.

But so what? The man was getting the job done. He is an example of the type of Governor we need. The real problem is, we have a severe shortage of Governors like Elliot Spitzer, and we badly need more like him. Of course, I would not let the Putz date my sister, but I would let him run my state in a heartbeat. That's the point.

How the hell will the U.S. ever function if a person needs to decide between getting laid and getting the job done for the country? I do not care that Ike Eisenhower or John F. Kennedy or Franklin Roosevelt got their rocks off with women who were not necessarily going to show up on the family Christmas card. They got the job done. I don't care that the last liberal President we had (Richard Nixon) slept with his socks on and never did anything more salacious than play hands-up/hands-down with his wife in a dark room with drawn shades and sheets up to their earlobes. He was a paranoid crook and was just as likely to fire a missile from the roof of the White House as impose price controls or triple the EPA's enforcement budget. Like any President, I just do not care about whether he “did” or didn't” when he was off the clock. 

We are so screwed.

How the hell is this country ever going to function now that we have the most corrupt justice Dep't in our history? Republicans need to virtually advertise their felonies on the front page of the Washington Post to get the FBI's attention (Duke Cunningham etc.); but a Democrat like Elliot Spitzer warrants a wiretap and a full scale interstate entrapment sting operation because he take approx. $5,000 off the family budget (perfecrtly legal from what's been reported so far) through money transfers.  

Perspective? 

Ari Fleischer gets on his hands and knees to receive a nicely lubed immunity from prosecution. He proceeds to testify that as White House Spokesboy he committed treason. He admits under oath that he committed the very same crime for which the Rosenbergs were executed. The President and Vice President of the United States either conspired or were accessories after the fact to a felony that carries the death penalty. The result: our belovedly inept media cannot stop claiming that there was “no underlying crime” to Republican Scooter Libby's felonious surrender of classified information related to covert U.S. operation in the Middle East. Classified information that went directly into the possession of U.S. enemies.

Oh, AND, by the way, you do know that Democrat Don Siegleman is in prison for appointing public servants to do public service.

Oh boy, we are so screwed.

Democrat Patrick Leahy continues to work front and center in the fight to maintain a FISA law that doesn’t provide blanket immunity for telephone companies (and the Bush administration?) from breaking domestic spying laws, despite the fact that the bill is now in the House (where House Dems are – for now – refusing to knuckle under). Leahy’s high-profile efforts put him in direct conflict with Senate Intelligence Chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) who, along with Dick Cheney, is the immunity provision’s chief cheerleader. In fact, Rockefeller continues to categorically reject the notion of any bill without immunity that may be bounced back to the Senate to be reconciled, despite House Speaker Pelosi engagement on the issue.

Leahy and Rep. Conyers (Chair of House Judiciary) have launched FixFISA.com, which is run through Leahy’s preferred Blackrock Associates which also maintains the web presence of his leadership PAC, GreenMountainPAC.com, which is hosted on the Get Active server. From the site:

We’re at a critical juncture. The House and Senate have passed different versions of the new FISA legislation, and we are meeting to resolve those differences.  The president and his Republican allies are using this opportunity to pressure our colleagues to give in and grant retroactive immunity.

That’s why we need your help, right now, to push back against the White House while the final FISA bill is being negotiated. Help us respond to White House scare tactics, preserve our civil liberties, and reject the Senate’s telecom immunity. Please use this online tool to write a letter-to-the-editor of your local newspaper to speak out and build grassroots support for fixing FISA the right way.

It’s a get-the-word-out tool – a pretty bare bones one at present, but slick nonetheless.

Because simple commentary will not suffice.

C’mon… you know you wanna…

I'm sure many of you rec'd the email from Ian Carleton regarding the upcoming Curtis Awards. At the bottom of the email is this note:

P.S. We will be announcing Award recipients in the next couple of weeks, but it is not too late to nominate a deserving individual. Please visit here for the details: http://www.vtdemocrats.org/page/s/nominations

The first people who came to mind were Jon Odum for maintaining this forum and David's son CJCurtis for revitalizing the Northfield Dems. Alas, another year, eh?

I'll have to admit, trying to think of a Vermont Dem whose efforts and accomplishments rose above and beyond in 2007 was something of a head-scratcher. But as Jimmy Neutron would say in a moment requiring an immediate moment of brilliance: Think! Think! …BrainBlast!!!

My nominee below the fold. I'm sure you have a nominee to offer as well, so go ahead and post 'em, then make sure you present that person to the powers that be.

First, the rules:

The awards recognize individuals involved in the political process in Vermont and nationwide. The Awards will also serve as a fundraiser for the Vermont Democratic Party. Awards will be presented to leaders who meet the following criteria: An individual who has demonstrated, throughout his or her public/professional career or participation in the political process, a dedication to the values of the Democratic Party, particularly with regard to upholding the legal, social, economic and political rights of the underrepresented. Nominees can be any of the following: A Vermont elected official (at any level, past or present) A Vermont political activist/volunteer A Vermont political contributor/fundraiser

Now, my nomination.

In my opinion, Howard Dean, a 2002 recipient of the Curtis Awards, should be recognized once again in 2008 for his work in delivering party renewal through his once controversial 50-State Strategy in the presidential campaigns. Howard Dean overcame a culture of insider DC culture to implement his plan with an outcome of success not only in 2006, but in the current primary season. Record numbers of Democrats are coming out to vote in every state. Dean's efforts are a dramatic change from the prior strategy to focus on “key” states, and given this historic primary of 2008, he has provided the funding and organizational infrastructure that will inevitably become a winning strategy for decades to come.

I am proud of our former governor for his accomplishments as DNC Chair, and I respectfully submit my nomination of him for the 2008 David C. Curtis Awards.

Nate Freeman Northfield, Vermont

( – promoted by JDRyan)

else the state might have to … well … enforce some environmental standards.

From the Burlington Free Press

The Vermont Natural Resources Council visited 29 randomly selected construction sites around the state last summer and found virtually all were not taking what are often simple measures to prevent erosion and control sediment, said Kim Greenwood, the council’s staff scientist who conducted the study.

Greenwood, a former staff member of the state Agency of Natural Resources, said the state also declined to punish violators, fining only two developers in the past eight years.

Agency officials defended the state’s stormwater program and said changes made in 2006 called for a period of education rather than enforcement.

Peter LaFlamme, director of the Department of Environmental Conservation’s Division of Water Quality, said last year the state increased its inspections of construction sites and once the rules are more well known the state will likely have tougher enforcement. The agency is establishing a new compliance and enforcement center that will establish standards for when to go after violators, he said. “We’ve worked with people in a cooperative manner,” he said.

My head hurts.

You may have seen this report in today's paper: 

Vt. delegation gets A+ for poverty votes March 11, 2008 By Dan Barlow Vermont Press Bureau Vermont's congressional delegation received extremely high marks for its voting records last year on poverty issues, according to a new report, just as most of those bills failed to get the support necessary to pass the U.S. Senate.

A 40-page report from the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law gave both U.S. Sen. Bernard Sanders and U.S. Rep. Peter Welch an A+ for their voting record while U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy received an A.

Vermont joined Hawaii, Massachusetts and Rhode Island as the only four states whose Washington delegation received all A marks on their voting record on poverty bills, according to the report.

 To see the full report, go here.

 I think this is great news, partly because it highlights the work of the National Center on Poverty Law, formerly known as Clearinghouse, whose publications I've been reading ever since I started work as a Legal Aid lawyer back in 1979.

What's more telling, though, is the next two paragraphs:

Yet, despite the fact that most of the members in the U.S. House and Senate received passing grades on their poverty voting records, most of these proposals did not muster up enough votes to actually pass both chambers, especially in the Senate where the threat of a filibuster from Republicans forced supporters to seek a minimum of 60 votes to end debate.

“That's something I don't think the America people understand,” said Sanders, who said Republicans are “obstructing” the work of the Senate. “A lot of these votes were not yes or no on the specific bill. They were yes or no to end a filibuster.” Poverty has not been an attractive issue for politicians to talk about in recent years, but the 2005 hurricane tragedy in New Orleans made people realize “we had taken our eyes off the ball for a few years,” according to John Bouman, the president of the Poverty Center, which released its report on Monday.

That's right. We have every reason to be proud of our delegation, but it's important to remember that what is blocking progress is the Republicans across the country.

Ronald Reagan and his war on the poor continues to rule the national scene. 

(FP’ing this because it’s very important that we call Governor Douglas on Monday and ask him to sign the bill. Spread the word, and major h/t to Rama for all the work he’s put into this. I added the phone #’s to the bottom of the post. – promoted by JDRyan)

(Cross posted from VermontIRV and mostly quoted from the Vermont Progressive Party)

From the Vermont Progressive Party newsletter:

Nothing is ever certain in the legislature, but after years and years, it appears the House is ready to pass IRV and send it to Governor Douglas for a signature.  Take a moment to contact your Representative and urge them to support IRV on the House floor.  Rep. Chris Pearson will present the bill on the floor. You can listen to the debate Thursday afternoon on VPR’s stream.

(from JD) – The governor’s phone number is 802-828-3333, or the toll-free in VT number is 800-649-6825. Please call on Monday.

The “Democrats for Pollina” website (such as it is) is up at http://democratsforpollina.com. Currently, it consists entirely of a list of presumed Democrats… for Pollina (duh). Some notable names on the list, including internationally lauded author and frequent GMD commenter Bill McKibben. There are also a lot of familiar Dem names on there. Janet Munt, of course. Also a lot of bona fide party names such as Rob Backus, Louise Coates, Peter Grant and others. A lot of folks who pass in and out of the whole Democrat thing, such as Alexandra Thayer and Dave Grundy. Some names I assumed were more independent sorts than Dems, such as Andrea Stander.

So it looks mostly legit, but should be read with a skeptical eye. I was surprised to see author and activist Brian Tokar on the list, for example – not because he’s such a dyed in the wool Dem… quite the contrary. He’s a Social Anarchist. That’s…er… quite a fudge factor for the Dem label, there…

WCAX on the DFP press conference:

Monday morning, Democrats for Pollina– a citizen group of Vermont Democrats– announced they are launching a write-in campaign to place Anthony Pollina on the Democratic ballot this fall…

“…It’s about time that the two entities got together behind a single candidate and given the circumstances this year, I think the Democrats and Progressives have a great opportunity to elect a governor. We ought to get behind Anthony,” said Harvey Carter

What’s interesting about this, is that the report doesn’t say “write in” campaign on the ballot, it says a write-in campaign “to place Anthony Pollina on the Democratic ballot.” Interesting if true, and not a misprint, as Pollina would have to consent via signature to allow himself to appear on the ballot, as Bernie Sanders did – which is frankly what so man of us have urged him to do. We clearly need a primary to avoid a 3-way in November, and if it takes semantics to get Pollina to agree to honor one, I suspect most Dems would be okay with that. In fact, such a de facto Prog-Dem primary may be a critical part to any chance of winning.

And if this is the word, don’t count out the possibility that Pollina may well intend to follow through with it. This is no rogue group, it’s an arm of the Pollina campaign (although organized as a separate PAC). Emails went out promoting the press conference from Progressive Representative David Zuckerman, after all.

The question then will be, should activists step up and push this all the way? The logic is sound – and in fact, is only consistently sound if a comparable push would be undertaken to put Galbraith on the Progressive ballot after he formally announces – with an agreement from both candidates to honor the results if one is eliminated. I’m sure the Prog powers-that-be squealing would rival what is likely to be the inevitable Dem powers-that-be squealing, but that’s the powers-that-be’s jobs.

As a postscript, it’s worth noting the not-so-cryptic announcement/threat from “Snarky Boy” Michael Colby, both on his own site, and on the GMD sidebar as “LeftField” that “A true progressive needs to challenge Pollina in the Prog Party primary so his followers will have to focus on their own party’s efforts rather than soiling that of the Dems…And I think I know someone who’s interested..”. One may assume that this suggests his intent to jump into the Progressive Gubernatorial primary, but it’s more likely that he’s referring to his mentor, perennial Liberty Union candidate Boots Wardinski. Wardinski has had a negligible effect on statewide ballots, but the relatively small Progressive ballot (especially if there are Pollina supporters crossing over to support him on the D ballot) might provide a greater opportunity for impact. It’s hard to imagine him having any serious effect, though, given the reverence Pollina is held in by even the least partisan Progressives.

[Crossposted to Broadsides.org]

Please, can anyone out there other than the fawning Vermont media think anything other than “loser” when the name Anthony Pollina is mentioned? I can’t. And for good reason, too. He’s a loser. He loses elections (many of them). He loses in his issue efforts (many of them). And he even loses in court when – oddly – he challenged his rare victory with campaign finance reform. I guess it must have felt weird for him to actually win something so he went to court to fight it. Good for you, Tony. Keep that record clean.

We all know about Pollina’s electoral losing. He’s something like 0-for-5. But Pollina seems to get energized by losing the way most politicians are energized by winning. The average politician, for example, begins with a lower office, wins, aims higher, wins and so forth. Not Pollina. He aims high, starting with a run for Congress, loses, and then just keeps aiming high for jobs like governor (a couple of times) and keeps losing. What’s worse is that each time he loses – and loses big – Pollina acts like he won. “Wow, I’m up to over 20% of the vote! Wait’ll next time!”

I’m guessing that when Pollina secures his next, great loss this November he’ll be so damn energized by it that he’ll probably launch a bid for the presidency in 2012. And that could be the best thing that could happen to Vermont’s Progressive Party. Because, let’s face it, Pollina’s been sucking a lot of energy out of their movement with all this losing. Worse, it’s preventing a whole new breed of Progs from stepping up and taking a fresh shot at one of the offices that Pollina keeps sacrificing to the Republicans.

It would also be nice if Pollina would stop “saving” Vermont’s dairy farmers. Because let’s look at that track record. In the 1980s, when Pollina started saving them, there were more than 3,000 dairy farmers in Vermont. Today, after more than 25-years of Pollina fighting for them, there are about 1,100 of them left. Thanks, Tony! Sure, it’s totally and completely unfair to blame him for the dramatic drop. But it’s certainly fair to ask him why – given these facts – he’s so proud of his dairy work?

About the only real progress made in the dairy industry in Vermont over the last 25 years has been the advent and growth of organic dairying. And – as if to protect his losing record – Pollina has had NOTHING to do with it. Pollina’s new Vermont Milk Company, for example, even shuns organic. Oh yeah, feel the progressive vision. And pass the pesticides…

Today, a group of so-called Democrats are gathering in Burlington to launch a skimpy little website called “Democrats for Pollina.” It’s a not-so-veiled attempt to “prove” that Pollina is getting gobs of support from mainstream Dems in his Prog bid for the governorship. The group is officially launching a “write-in” campaign for Pollina in the Democratic primary in September. Since Pollina will be on the Prog’s primary ballot, he can’t be on the Dems’. But he could – if he won as a write-in – don both labels in the general election. If, that is, the Dems let him get away with it. Fat chance.

This all kind of reminds me of the announcements last week by Hillary Clinton that she would welcome Obama to be her running mate. It’s the kind of thing that forces that cocked puppy head look that says: Huh? And I’m not sure if it’s more arrogant or ignorant for a person running behind to offer a lesser job to the front-runner.

In Vermont, of course, the early polls show Pollina being in the place he’s always in: third amongst three. Or, for those of us outside Pollina’s groupie shadows, it’s usually called LAST. What’s worse, Pollina was a good distance behind what the pollsters only identified as a “Democratic candidate” since a Dem hasn’t announced – yet. Look Mom, I’m literally losing to a no-name! Good job, Tony. Now get to your room and re-arrange your Buffalo Bills memorabilia….

But that won’t stop Pollina and his groupies who can’t stop losing to think that they’re somehow entitled to a Dem Party primary endorsement via a write-in campaign. Chris Pearson, a Prog who has actually gotten elected and a Pollina sidekick, told the Free Press that Pollina won’t enter the Dem primary officially because “that’s what Peter Clavelle did and it didn’t work.” But then Pearson goes on with this: “People know (Pollina) as a Progressive and for him to suddenly run as a Democrat doesn't pass the straight-face test.”

Well, yeah. But it also doesn’t pass the smell test for Pollina and his fumble-fingered handlers to think Vermont voters are stupid enough to fall for this write-in nonsense. Let me get this straight: It looks funny to have Pollina get the Dem primary endorsement by earning it with his name on the ballot but it’s fine for him to be sneaky by coordinating the write-in effort for it? Give me a break.

And there we have it: The mush that is the Pollina political spine. If he believed his and his party’s own rhetoric, he’d be announcing that he doesn’t want the Dem’s endorsement – no matter how it came. Instead, he’s taking us all for fools as he skips down this silly little write-in route.

Of course, there’s one way to put an end to all of this: A true progressive needs to challenge Pollina in the Prog Party primary so his followers will have to focus on their own party’s efforts rather than soiling that of the Dems.

And I think I know someone who’s interested. Stay tuned.