I have been writing lately at bureaucracyblog.com about my experience over the last several years with the Office of Professional Regulation (OPR) in the Secretary of State’s Office (SoS). To summarize a complicated story in terms that most people in the U.S. would understand right now, my experience with OPR is very similar to what the fired U.S. Attorneys experienced with DOJ. It’s been a case rife with conflicts of interest, about which I’ve been a thorn in their sides for years with no one in authority paying much attention–until, perhaps, now.

I had lately been awaiting the decision as to whether the Karl Rove counterpart in my case would face formal charges and finally have to pay the piper.  That decision, like everything else with OPR/SoS these past many years, was delayed.  I finally received an update from the Office of Professional Regulation (OPR) in the Vermont Secretary of State’s Office (SoS)a couple of days ago.

It turns out that they had sent me two emails prior, but emails from addresses that once arrived without a hitch were apparently getting caught by my spam filter. I appreciate the initiative by Ed Adrian to call me to get an alternate email address and let me know of the problem. He and the OPR director, Christopher Winters, have confirmed that in the future they will send me hard copy updates, in addition to email, to make sure I get them.

The upshot of the update: standard operating procedure (SOP) at OPR has been sidelined in the case. I do not yet know whom I have to thank, but it appears someone at SoS/OPR has been listening. Here’s what I know:

Regarding the former chair of the Board of Psychological Examiners who acted as both prosecutor and “independent” expert witness, offered under oath an analysis based on a non-existent statute, and other similar unethical actions (cited in a formal appeal decision–see bureaucracyblog.com posts for links to documents), the OPR team that investigated the complaint against her went to the Board on January 11 to recommend dismissal of that complaint. Someone, most likely with considerable authority in OPR (and less likely but remotely possible, someone on the Board), seems to have brought some official pressure to bear on the Board.

The outcome, very different from SOP, was that the Board rejected the recommendation of dismissal and sent the matter back to the investigative team for further review to be presented to the Board again in another month or two. They will be getting a different psychologist, totally new to the case, to undertake the review and recommend for prosecution or dismissal.

That is as much as I know. Here is what all that suggests to me:

OPR investigative teams (ITs) are made up of a professional from the Board, an investigator, a unit administrator, and an attorney for the state. In order for any case to go forward to prosecution, both the lawyer and the professional on the IT have to agree that it’s warranted.  If one or the other disagree, the recommendation is to dismiss.  Since, in the case in question, the IT’s recommendation was to dismiss; and it was rejected by the Board and the matter remanded to the IT; and the IT is now to have a new psychologist assigned to it; all those things taken together suggest that the psychologist who has been assigned to the case for the past 21 months (and was presumably a factor in why the case lay dormant for 18 months) is likely possessed of a conflict of interest.

I could rail–and at some future date, in some private place, may well–about how OPR should have made sure from the outset that whatever psychologist they appointed to the IT was unfettered. But I’d rather attend to what’s happening now, or at least what is appearing to be happening now; and that is that someone or ones in OPR/SoS now seem to be policing the actions of those who act under their authority. That is a good thing.

The story continues and the ultimate outcome is still uncertain, but this is a welcome, and I think important, intermediate outcome. Granted that I could be entirely wrong about what seems to be happening. But if what is happening is truly that people in power are attending to preventing the unethical exercise of that power, that is a very good thing.

All of this still argues for the creation of a State Ombudsman in Vermont, and I hope soon to post an update about that effort.

I’m not happy about this. I’m sure I (and others) will have plenty to say about it, but for now I’ll just excerpt from Josh Marshall at TPM:

Seriously, why should John Edwards drop out of the race? I think his chances of winning the nomination at this point are quite slim. And I could understand if he wanted to drop out. But is there some reason he should?

…as others have noted, his campaign has had an effect on this race out of proportion to his poll support in as much as he’s forced the two other leading candidates to grapple with issues they would not have otherwise. And in this race specifically, there is at least a chance we could come into the convention with neither candidate having a majority of the delegates, in which case he might play the kingmaker.

The result in Nevada must have been a sobering wake-up call. But I don’t see where insider know-it-alls get off saying he’s under some sort of obligation to ‘do the right thing’ and pack it in.

Tonight Anthony Pollina goes to bed with a decision to make.

Mr. Pollina is the one person in Vermont who is entitled to choose whether Jim Douglas is assured another term in office beginning in January 2009. Depending on whether Mr. Pollina decides to run with the left, or against the left, will determine whether Jim Douglas wins reelection — either by plurality if not slim majority vote.
 
Anthony Pollina owns the choice.  Depending on what Mr. Pollina does, Jim Douglas goes back into the Governor's office in 2009, or Jim Douglas faces a very good chance of being replaced by the most liberal and most progressive governor Vermont has ever had.
 
Even if, beginning in January 2009, the most liberal governor ever elected to serve Vermont is not Anthony Pollina, Mr. Pollina is still the one who is going to bed tonight deciding whether roughly half of us — i.e., the Vermont voters who want and who are likely to vote for a Democratic/Progressive nominee — will have the opportunity to make the choice to replace Jim Douglas.
 
In 2008, the Democratic primary is the functional equivalent of an instant run-off primary election. If Mr. Pollina joins his fellow travelers on the left side of the political spectrum in a September primary, the person emerging with the Democratic nomination will be the person who can otherwise expect to win the most “number one” and “number two” votes from that large and that potentially winning block of left/liberal/progressive voters who want to bring change to the governor’s office. The Democratic primary may not be the perfect vehicle and it’s certainly not Anthony Pollina’s favored vehicle to the governor’s office; but the fact is, it is the only path to a win in November.

For Anthony Pollina, or whoever wins the Democratic primary, there is a great opportunity too. The opportunity to run against an incumbent Republican Governor whose popularity is sagging and the opportunity to do so while holding the unified banner of the left.

I’m really not trying to bust on Mr. Pollina (seriously). Were I wearing the shoes of any of the potential contenders, or the incumbent for that matter, I would be doing (or at least considering) what is strategically in my best interest to clear the field of potential rivals to gain my best shot in November. Mr. Pollina apparently perceives his strategic short-term interest is best served by staying out of the Democratic primary. and running against an incumbent and an extremely progressive Democrat simultaneously in November. With the only chance to secure a victory for a progressive agenda in 2009 coming from a consolidated left (which can only come from a primary between those who want to represent the left), Mr. Pollina is also telegraphing a belief that his interests, and the best interests of a progressive agenda, are mutually exclusive.  He’s wrong.
 
It is time to cut to the chase on how we can elect a liberal/progressive Governor. The decision Mr. Pollina has and the opportunity he can give to the progressives and liberals who want a serious change in direction in the governor’s office looks something like this . . .  [after the jump]

Anthony Pollina holds the key to whether Jim Douglas is defeated in November. 

The question is whether Pollina will use his key to unlock a door for the left to challenge Jim Douglas or whether he will instead use the key to lockout any chance of replacing the current GOP Governor. 

Whether it is Anthony Pollina, John Campbell, Peter Galbraith or Doug Racine, Vermont can have the most progressive Governor of our lifetime (certainly in my almost three decades of voting) starting next January.  Any of these four will be more liberal than any Governor we have seen in Montpelier.

Also, consider the climate right now.  Jim Douglas is beatable.  Jim Douglas is vulnerable. 

Jim Douglas's reelect numbers are downright mediocre and subject to further downward adjustment. Jim Douglas's Republican Party, his Republican colleagues, and those Republican policies that they have forced on America, with Jim Douglas cheerleading the whole time for the most damaging agenda ever inflicted on the United States, have driven this country into a recession.

Jim Douglas is vulnerable because he has deliberately prevented the State of Vermont from protecting itself from the predictable and expected economic trauma of peak energy, poor infrastructure maintenance, global economic transformation and a healthcare crisis that brutally taxes our businesses while shackling the working class into downward mobility. These are problems that were on the radar when Jim Douglas took office, they are problems that his party – with his singing endorsement – has grossly exacerbated and they are problems he has ignored, made worse or shown he is unable or unwilling to fix.

Jim Douglas is vulnerable because he has ignored the social and economic costs of everything from the State's war on people who are addicted to substances to the never-ending destruction of Lake Champlain th. Shit, the guy loves to tell out-of-state businesses (i.e. job importers) how lousy it is to work in Vermont! The typical Republican approach is always that it is easier to save problems for the next generation if you can convince this generation that the problems are too hard, too expensive or just plain don't exists.  Health care and Lake Champlain are just two obvious examples of that
 
Jim Douglas is beatable because the left/liberals/progressives in Vermont are ready with their votes, their sweat, their money and their voices to elect a Governor who will honestly acknowledge the damage global warming will bring to existing Vermont businesses and Vermont’s traditional economic generators. The left/liberal/progressive Vermont voter is ready to mobilize and to move aggressively toward opportunities (clean energy) that prepare Vermont for changes in the near and distant future while admitting the problems (health care) that cannot be ignored for another wasted two-year gubernatorial term.
 
And with this opportunity for the left, for liberals, for progressives & Progressives and Democrats, the formula to victory is not even that difficult to grasp. First, only a candidate who represents all of us can beat the incumbent Republican. The only way to have one candidate to represent us, is to have a primary. It really is that simple. And there is one primary that will test the candidates, clear the field and give us all a candidate to support in November. It is, was and will be the Democratic primary. Until we are lucky and wise enough to have instant runoff voting, for the Progressives/Democrats, this is the closest thing we have. Candidates are not entitled to run the election they want, they run the elections they face. If Mr. Pollina runs outside of the Democratic primary, he is only running to see how high he can jump in November. If he wins the Democratic primary, then he is in the running to unseat Jim Douglas. Isn't that what this is all about?

And bullshit to anyone who says that healthy competition will hurt Pollina/Campbell/Galbraith/Racine. Think fighting it out until November will make things easier? The fact is, having at least two of these candidates spending the summer proving who can stand against Jim Douglas most effectively in the general election while simultaneously raising awareness about the problems with the Douglas administration, through the publicity of a primary, is the best thing that can happen to any of us.  Mr. Pollina is not going to win without the attention of a primary and then having the Democrats fall behind him if he wins, and the same goes for Messrs. Campbell/Galbraith/Racine. If he runs in the Democratic primary, Mr. Pollina deserves our respect and if he wins, I will convert that respect to aggressive support.

The table is set for 2008. A candidate who cannot win the Democratic primary in September can forget about winning the general election in November. It is the only contest that lets the most and potentially only viable candidate from the left clear the field for an unencumbered shot at the incumbent Republican. If he expects to take on Jim Douglas by waiting until November to beat him, while simultaneously taking on another left/liberal/progressive candidate, Mr. Pollina is not taking progressive and liberal voters as seriously as he takes himself. Don’t waste our time, our money or our effort. 

Anthony Pollina goes to bed tonight with a lot to ponder. He has a tough decision to make. He can fight the hard primary battle first that will build the only winning coalition available to him; and if he wins the Democratic primary in September, he has the most legitimate – and only – shot at statewide election since he first ran statewide as a Democrat in 1984. Mr. Pollina is taking a tough call to bed with him. Unfortunately, for Vermont’s Progressives & Democrats, if Anthony Pollina is sleeping easy, well Jim Douglas can rest easy too.

Mr. Pollina, time to wake up.

…this week, anyway.

At her core, Speaker Symington is a wonk, and she looks at governing from a wonk’s perspective. Senate President Pro Tem Shumlin is more of a podium-thumper and would like to shake things up a bit. Both approaches have limitations, and we’ve seen those limitations play out in sometimes spectacular form in 2007.

Looking at today’s events, though, one wonders if the two legislative leaders, instead of trying to be sure they’re on the same page, may be choosing to stick with their respective pages.

From a press release out of Senator Shumlin’s office:

Vermont lawmakers say Federal authority to call up National Guard for Iraq has expired

A bill introduced today in the Vermont House declares that the 2002 federal authorization to call up the State National Guard has expired,

and would set in motion steps to recall members of the Vermont Guard.

The Vermont bill would limit future Vermont National Guard service to state duties unless properly called into federal service.

In addition to the Vermont legislation, announced at a press conference today in Montpelier by Rep. Michael Fisher and Senate President Pro-Tempore Peter Shumlin, legislators in Maine (Rep. Ted Koffman), Minnesota (Rep. Frank Hornstein), New Hampshire (Rep. Charles Weed), Pennsylvania (Rep. Tony Payton), Rhode Island (Rep. David Segal), are working on introducing similar National Guard legislation. Legislators in six other states, notably Maryland and Wisconsin, are in active discussion about following suit.

And Symington? From the Times Argus (continued after the flip):

A dozen owners and managers of small and specialized Vermont businesses said the state should be taking care of infrastructure, including not just roads and schools, but high speed internet and health care, and leaving business to them.

And despite the cost of living and concerns about taxes and permitting, workers and entrepreneurs will come to the state for good schools and to work at things they believe in, the business owners said…

…Symington, a Jericho Democrat, has been talking over the last year to those who run and own new and mostly small businesses to see what the state is doing right in its approach to economic growth. The “Why Vermont Works” meetings – cumulating in a gathering last Thursday in the Statehouse – is something of a response to complaints by businesses about higher taxes and too much regulation.

I gotta tell you, I like what I’m seeing this week.

On the one hand, you’ve got Symington pitching the benefit of progressive policies to the small business set (such as the potential of government to take some of the responsibility for health care off their backs), bringing them into the process – and getting the message into the press as well.

On the other hand, you’ve got Shumlin advocating loudly and clearly against the war in what could end up being more than just a symbolic way.

In other words, they’re both doing what they like to do, and are inclined to be good at.

Representative Mike Fisher, who is among the most committed, no-nonsense lefties in any political party in the Statehouse has wrestled with Symington about taking on these issues, and had a similar effort shut down two years back. While it’s significant that he’s standing in front of reporters with the leader of the  other legislative body rather than his own (meaning that Symington likely hasn’t changed her feelings on such efforts), it’s equally significant that he’s doing it period – and with Shumlin, giving the effort a serious stamp of leadership-approval.

Is this a sign that the Democratic leadership is feeling a bit more pro-active rather than reactive? That instead of hunkering down hoping desperately to get through the session as quickly and painlessly as possible, maybe the reins are being relaxed, and a broader range of issues and approaches are now being tolerated?

While I wouldn’t want to see a free-for-all,  the demand/expectation that caucus members sing from the same playbook all the time dials us all down to the most timid (and terrified) common denominator.

Letting Fisher be Fisher, Shumlin be Shumlin, Symington be Symington, and other legislators be themselves is not necessarily a recipe for a breakdown of party discipline. In fact, it could be just what we (and they) need.

The final quarter of 2007 was a good one for Entergy Nuclear – even better than the previous one:

Entergy Nuclear earned $141.4 million, or 70 cents per share, on an as- reported basis and $159.8 million, or 79 cents per share, on an operational basis in fourth quarter 2007, compared to $57.7 million, or 27 cents per share, for as-reported and operational earnings in fourth quarter 2006…

…For the year 2007, Entergy Nuclear earned $539.2 million, or $2.66 per share, on an as-reported basis and $557.6 million, or $2.75 per share, on an operational basis, compared with $309.5 million, or $1.46 per share, for 2006 on both as-reported and operational bases.

Woo-hoo! Time to build some more pools in some executives’ fifth homes! Overall, Entergy looks good, but its clear that its Entergy Nuclear that looks financially great. Good thing they’re not worried about making sure the VY decommission fund is adequately funded, or some of those pools might have to be put off a month or two.

Warms yer heart, doesn’t it?

You're familiar with the argument about Anthony Pollina's candidacy, and whether he should get the support of the Democratic Party without running in the Democratic primary. His supporters point out that the law prohibits him from appearing on more than one party's primary ballot, so that if he runs in the Prog primary, which has been his home party for many years, he can't run in the D primary.

Here's the legislative provision of Title 17 in question:

§ 2353. Petitions to place names on ballot

(b) A person's name shall not be listed as a candidate on the primary ballot of more than one party in the same election.

 In the absence of this statutory provision, a candidate could decide to enter the P and D primaries, or even more, and run on all the tickets in which he or she won the primary.

The question I would like to raise today is: Would this be a good idea? Should we try to get the Legislature to repeal this provision of law? Are there harmful effects of this change that we would want to pay attention to before we pushed for a change like this?

On the face of it this change seems to make sense to me. On the other hand, I know there are people who pay a lot more to the mechanics and theory of elections and ballots than I do, so other people may have a more informed analysis than mine. 

Pollina:  Pure or Progressive? 

If Anthony Pollina, or any other candidate challenging the incumbent Republican Governor, cannot win the Democratic primary in September, forget about winning the general election in November. 

The Democratic primary is the only contest that will allow one of the potentially serious gubernatorial challengers to clear the field for a clear shot at Jim Douglas. Mr. Pollina cannot expect to beat Jim Douglas – AND another left/liberal/progressive candidate – by waiting until November to face the voters for the first time.  If he is unable to make his case to the progressive/liberal/left voters in September, then a wait-till-November campaign will be nothing but a vanity race that takes himself far more seriously than his campaign.

Mr. Pollina, don’t waste our time, our money or effort in November if you cannot make your case in September. It's that simple.  It may not be the best way (for you, not the left you claim to represent), it may not be the fair way (to you, not the voters), it may not be the preferred way (for you, not progressive voters), but it really is that simple.

For Anthony Pollina, or whoever wins the Democratic primary, there is a great opportunity too.  The opportunity to run against an incumbent Republican Governor whose popularity is sagging after winning and holding the unified banner of the left. It is a recipe for victory, and it is the only path to victory.

If Anthony Pollina runs (à la Bernie Sanders 2006) in the Democratic primary, he has a chance of beating Jim Douglas. He can win the governor’s office, but he will win it only by clearing the field in September and then taking the consolidated Progressive/Democratic block into the November election.

If Anthony Pollina runs (à la Ralph Nader 2000), then he has no chance of becoming governor. Jim Douglas will win a plurality or even a majority by default, apathy or inertia.

[This post is part I on the practical, mechanical and some historical context of the 2008 gubernatorial Progressive/Democratic primary election decision. Tomorrow in part II, I'll post on the politics of Anthony Pollina's decision]

After the jump, why the Democratic primary is the only path to the Governor's office for a Progressive/Democratic candidate.

We do not need to look back too far to see what is coming. There are two well-trodden paths for Mr. Pollina to follow. The question for 2008 is, will we see:

the “2006 Bernie Sanders” winning version of Anthony Pollina?

– or –

the “2000 Ralph Nader” spoiler version of Anthony Pollina?

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

In 2002, Mr. Pollina split the Progressive/Democratic vote approximately 40/60 with Peter Shumlin. That voting bloc represented almost 3 in 5 votes cast that year. Mr. Pollina's campaign strategy assured that Brian (“Mr. 41%”) Dubie became Lt. Governor despite an overwhelming 59-41 liberal/progressive preference over a squeek-under-the-door-Republican “winner.”

Today, Mr. Pollina is once again threatening the Progressive/Democratic block of voters that he will lose yet another election, in 2002 fashion, in November 2008.  It is no secret that he is trying to scare off a Democratic candidate from the fate of being pulled down with him.  Any serious Democratic challenger will weigh heavily the implications of wasting months and money for the privilege of being torpedoed by a less-than-serious vanity crusade and an end run around the only primary available to the left's voters.

If he is serious about running for Governor, Mr. Pollina will make the same correction in tactics that Senator Sanders made in 2006. Senator Sanders won the Democratic primary (w/ 94% of the vote in a four-way Democratic primary race, i.e., one Congressman vs. three putative Democratic pygmies). This was the first time in 24 years of statewide campaigns that Senator Sanders petitioned to be on the Democratic primary ballot. Even though he later declined the Democratic nomination after winning it, the formula paid dividends nicely.

Consider this —
In 1988, Congressman Jim Jeffords' soon to be vacated congressional seat was Burlington Mayor Bernie Sanders’ for the taking. All Bernie had to do was accept a victory in the Democratic primary. At the time, he was a successful and popular Burlington Mayor who ran a losing but energetic and inspiring Gubernatorial campaign two years earlier against incumbent Madeleine Kunin and Republican Peter Smith. Mayor Sanders had a Democratic primary nomination and a congressional seat with his name on it, if he could just get over the thought of petitioning to be on the September primary ballot.

Conversely, in 1988, Jim Jeffords’ soon to be vacated congressional seat was a known GOP hold if Bernie Sanders chose purity and politics over pragmatism and the progressive cause. What did he do? Well, rather than accept the Democratic primary nomination and a seat in Congress, Mayor Sanders accepted an 8,000 vote defeat at the hands of a 41% land-sliding Republican, Peter Smith. I still weep each time I read it. I still weap each time I read it. (warning pdf).

In 1988, Mayor Sanders chose not to vie for the Democratic nomination.  The voters of Vermont awarded, and split, 57% of their vote between two liberal candidates.  A grateful Peter Smith (R-VT) skated to Congress with less than a static baseline 41% of the GOP vote. Smith skated simply because a popular and well-known Burlington Mayor could not find it in himself to consolidate the liberal/progressive left voting bloc and accept the Democratic nomination. Mayor Sanders became Congressman Sanders in 1990, but only with an open and consolidated field on the left. With no Democratic-Independent/Progressive vote to split, Mayor Sanders was the one who coasted into Congress as Peter Smith received essentially the same vote (40%) in 1990 as he did in 1988.

The difference two years made: 1990 was a two-person race between Bernie Sanders and Peter Smith. There was no Democratic-Progressive vote to split for the benefit of the Republican incumbent.  Bernie garnered 56% of the vote – the exact same voters who split two years earlier in 1988 between the Independent Mayor and the Democratic nominee, while Peter Smith stayed static at 40%.

Fast forward.  The dynamic does not change but the stakes in 2006 were as high as they have ever been. Vermont had two open and contested congressional races. Congressman Sanders was not going to risk a repeat of his 8,000-vote loss in 1988 to a 41% Republican. With every Senate seat a critical race, there was no point in risking a nominal Democratic nominee siphoning a few nominal percentage points. Worse still, a senate seat was most certainly not worth taking the risk that a serious Democrat, albeit with no serious chance of winning, might siphon 10% or 20% points off the p/Progressive & Democratic vote in November.

To win, Congressman Sanders therefore dispatched any puritanical scruples about contaminating himself with the great unwashed vying for the Democratic nomination (and considering the field in 2006, that characterization is kind). Party purity did not seem so important when there was an office to be won rather than a personal scruples (which were totally irrelevant to voters in the first place) to uphold. Congressman Sanders wisely chose to run a purely progressive race; he ran a substantive issue oriented campaign that drew a clear distinction between his progressive values and those of his callow GOP Bush-enabling opponent. Senator Sanders’ campaign overflowed with substance, which overshadowed his participation in the (whew) Democratic primary.

In 2006, Bernie Sanders was serious about winning. In 2006, Bernie Sanders, who had never before petitioned to put himself on the ballot as a Democrat, did so for the sake of his constituents, for the sake of his campaign and to make sure he would win. It was the only reasonable choice; in fact, it was a requirement to insure that he would advance the progressive agenda into the Senate.

The dynamic has not changed in two years or twenty years.  Only the office and some of the players. Mr. Pollina has been down this road before and we've seen what happened to him we know what will happen if he runs a wait-till-November to consolidate the Progressive/Democratic voter. 

If Anthony Pollina cannot or will not run in the September primary, he is not a serious candidate. Period.

[Tomorrow, the political factors of Mr. Pollina's decision and why he, or any other winner of the September Democratic primary, is in a great position to win the gubernatorial contest]

From the Equal Time Radio (The Pollina Show)’s website:

Sunday, January 27 2008

Anthony has stepped down as host of Equal Time Radio to run for Governor of Vermont.

Hubbub is that activist Carl Etnier of the Vermont Peak Oil Network and Second Vermont Republic “sister organization” Vermont Commons may be picking up at least some of the slots. Might be a huge boost to the efforts of SVR to get back on the map, no?

On the other hand, it might also tie Pollina to SVR and their unsavory connections. We’ll see. Could be interesting. Could be completely not.

First, as though we didn’t already have plenty of evidence to support this Study: Temps affect waters:

A state study of the watersheds of the West, Williams and Saxtons rivers in the southeastern corner of the state shows the biggest environmental problem appears to be increased temperatures, a planner with the Agency of Natural Resources said.

Marie Levesque Caduto, a watershed coordinator with the agency, said Friday the study is one of 17 being conducted on the different watersheds in the state.

The article doesn’t go into real detail, but refers to the importance of cool temperatures to the creatures living inside the rivers, not just the fish, but the creatures the fish eat as well.

The article itself doesn’t necessarily attribute this to global warming, but it’s obvious that this is a contributing factor, along with other factors, noting that:

it was not just the large ponds or lakes behind the flood control dams, which act as giant heat sinks, but that all along the rivers people are cutting trees and shrubs along riverbanks, eliminating its shade which is important not just to fish, but the tiny invertebrates they eat.

The second article is interesting.  It discusses not just phone polling, but what people think after getting some education on the topic.  The results of this sample group were (again, from the Rutland Herald:

strong support for wind and other forms of renewable energy, sharp divisions about nuclear power with high concern about radioactive waste, and very high concern about greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation.

This is not rocket science.  We can make wind power happen in Vermont, and we can find ways to make it happen in ways that greatly improve the quality of our environment.

Vermont’s been very resistant to wind power in some circles.  When I bring it up, it often ends up in this morass of people who claim I’m trying to destroy their mountains, mixed with other people who insist that I’m stupid to ignore the obvious benefits of nuclear power.  You get the idea.  

Vermont has large sections of farm land in very wide-open windy spaces along Lake Champlain.  I suggest that we offer subsidies to some of those farmers (many of whom are struggling to make ends meet) to use portions of their land for small-scale wind projects, designed to bring wind power to their own communities.  I also propose that ski resorts be used as test sites, putting wind turbines at the tops of mountains which have already been converted to commercial use.

I also propose a major investment in hiring researchers to find ways to make wind power more efficient, less damaging to the immediate wildlife and safe for any flying creatures that come near the turbines.  This multi-tiered approach could greatly reduce our dependence on nuclear power and power supplied by Hydro-Quebec.  It combines renewable energy with local economy in ways which are completely win-win.

(I think this is worthy of a response from Welch – promoted by JulieWaters)

U.S. Rep. Peter Welch came to the Democratic State Committee meeting Saturday to ask for the Committee’s endorsement for the ’08 congressional race. However, knowing that there are serious concerns among some Committee members about his vote to condemn MoveOn.org for exercising its free speech rights by placing an ad in a newspaper, he didn’t take questions or comments from the Committee members. Additionally, abstainers from the vote to endorse were not permitted to state their reasons for abstaining, as is customary.  

If Rep. Welch can’t dialogue with dissenters within his own party, how can we ever hope that he will be able to stand up to the Republicans in Washington, who are busy at every turn trying to undermine the Constitution and weaken our Civil Liberties? The steamrolling through of an endorsement without being willing to publically address the MoveOn vote does not do justice to the Democratic Party’s commitment to democracy on the national, state and local levels. We can do better than that.

A short discussion with the Committee of the reasons for his defense of his vote, and of some of his friends’ reasons for their strong opposition and concern about it, could have left him in a stronger position as he heads back to Washington; knowing that we will have his back if he stands strong for the Constitution and Civil Liberties. It was a mistake, in my opinion, to not allow discussion of this at the State Committee meeting – to not be willing to take our questions publically. It makes me afraid that he will not stand up enough in Congress to protect the Constitution in these perilous times. I hope I am wrong.