Report: Brattleboro police chief needs to go

September 21, 2007
 

Associated Press

    BRATTLEBORO — Rank-and-file police officers have lost faith in their chief and patrol captain, and the two leaders should be dismissed or reassigned, a consultant has told town officials.

“It does not seem to me that the majority within the department have faith in the current chief's and patrol captain's abilities to resolve current issues and set the stage for future success,” wrote Tad Dwyer, an organizational consultant based in Keene, N.H. “This would make it very difficult for them to succeed within the police department, at least in those roles.”

The report doesn't address the chief's emulation of Reddy Kilowatt, but it's hard to believe that the trigger- and Taser-happy practices he has fostered had nothing to do with this. 

I don’t post as much about racial issues as I might here and I feel as though I’m already late to the game on this one, but I don’t see anyone else having posted about this so I think it’s worth some discussion.



So picture this scenario: a group of black kids decided they want to sit under a tree that’s on the traditionally “white” side of a high school. When asked if it’s okay, the Vice Principal tells them they can sit wherever they like. Shortly after, several nooses are hung from the tree.

Over the next few months, there are a series of racial incidents. In one case, a group of black kids is charged for theft when they wrestle a white man to the ground and take his shotgun away. This is immediately after they’d been in an argument with him and he ran back to his car to grab his gun.

This all ends in an incident in which six black kids are arrested, called “criminals” because of a fight at their high school which leaves a white kid unconscious.

This is contemporary. This is all within the last year.

This was what led to one of the biggest civil rights marches this country has seen in a long time.

What did we do during this monumental act?

We bitched about Patrick Leahey voting for the condemnation of the moveon.org ad.

I’m sort of disgusted with myself for not having posted about this sooner. I’m really of disgusted with myself for not having had it clear in my head just how important this is.

( – promoted by odum)

Driving to Shelburne today on a delivery, I was once again sadly amazed at the translucent gray haze obscuring the view of Camel’s Hump, Mount Mansfield, and the entire Green Mountain Range. Down in the valleys the diminishing quality of Vermont’s air is less evident, but the view to the hills is difficult to miss.  It’s also hard to miss the “Very Unhealthy” red zones representing pollution on ANR’s Air Quality Index map:

http://www.anr.state…

What’s particularly interesting is that the air quality monitoring locations in Burlington, Rutland and Brattleboro are all situated at elevations less than 600′ above sea level.  Bennington sits at 709′ and Underhill at 1291′, but when you glance to either the hillsides where people live, or to the ANR air quality map, the evidence of unhealthy air is staring you right in the face. Today, the Taconics, the Greens, and the Northeast Highlands have an AQI index exceeding 200, landing in the category of “Very Unhealthy”.  Even with lower elevation monitoring stations, Air Quality Advisories have been issued three times this year. 

In my opinion, and only partially verified, the primary source of air quality degradation results from eased emission standards for coal-burning plants in the Midwest.  No matter where this pollution is coming from, it seems as though the fact of diminishing air quality would be of high concern not only to ANR, but to the Department of Health and the Department of Tourism, and that some legal action might be taken on it.  I’d be curious to learn if anything is being done, or can be done due to the hurdles of interstate law or the Clear Air Act.

Despite various myths, pollution is not caused by humidity, nor is it only present on hot days.  It is only with complacency that one could say, “Our air will always be clean,” especially since on this very day, a thick, “Very Unhealthy” cloud rises up the hills. 

What do you think?  How is your view of your favorite mountain? 

Nate Freeman

 Loading ...

Even the casual observer will notice that Peter Freyne at Seven Days has had little good to say about Speaker Symington and Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin. Hey, we've all had complaints – he's hardly alone in that. But Freyne may be seeing so much red when he looks at those two that he's losing perspective.

First was his reaction to the gay marriage commission, in which he mocked the two Dem leaders mercilessly, but couldn't squeeze out a single comment on the merits of the issue (despite his tireless support for civil unions). The latest is this week's column reporting that Shumlin is pushing Progressive Anthony Pollina to get into the Governor's race. It quotes Progressive Rep Dave Zuckerman as saying that  “'He came up to me at an event in Montpelier,' said Zuckerman, 'and said we’ve really got to talk about how we’re going to get rid of Jim Douglas, and I think Anthony Pollina should really consider running.'” The account mentions a follow-up conversation, and Shumlin's desire not to go public during his “calculating.”

Well, Sen. Shumlin remembers things a bit differently. From his recollection, it was Zuckerman who brought up Pollina. While Shumlin recalls being complimentary of Pollina (and has since reached out to him to mend long-broken fences), he says he has long maintained (to “anybody who will listen”) that Pollina could not take the middle, and would therefore lose such an election.

Who would Shumlin really like to see run? Says Shumlin: “I have told anyone who will listen that the best candidate, in my judgment is Matt Dunne.” (and Dunne verified Shumlin's encouragement in an unrelated conversation with me a ways back).

It doesn't make very thrilling copy, or very juicy political theater, but it does make a lot more sense, no?

Still a matter of hours after we couldn't get a vote on habeus restoration and Jim Webb's amendment to help American combat troops, we do seem to allow  something truly monumental to come to a vote and pass overwhelmingly – that is, saving the nation from a newspaper ad from two weeks ago. Chris Dodd said it best about today's vote:

  “It is a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq.

And it's a sad day in Vermont when our senior Senator votes to prop up the GOP on this meaningless, propgandistic bullshit stunt. Honestly, I feel ashamed. As MoveOn says on their website, Leahy and the Senate “just told you to sit down and be quiet.”

In case you missed it, Kinsley at Time pretty much sums it up: 

Goodness gracious. oh, my paws and whiskers. Some of the meanest, most ornery hombres around are suddenly feeling faint. Notorious tough guys are swooning with the vapors. The biggest beasts in the barnyard are all aflutter over something they read in the New York Times. It's that ad from MoveOn.org — the one that calls General David Petraeus, the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, general betray us. All across the radio spectrum, right-wing shock jocks are themselves shocked. How could anybody say such a thing? It's horrifying. It's outrageous. It's disgraceful. It's just beyond the pale … It's … oh, my heavens … say, is it a bit stuffy in here? … I think I'm going to … Could I have a glass of … oh, dear [thud].

As Kinsley continues “The fuss over this MoveOn.org ad is something else: it is the result of a desperate scavenging for umbrage material… The constant calls for political candidates to prove their bona fides by condemning or denouncing something somebody else said or to renounce a person's support or to return her tainted money are a tiresome new tic in American politics.” 

Yeah. Almost as tiresome as when an otherwise brilliant Senator buys into the whole nonsense and boosts its effectiveness and credibility with the not-tuned-in public. Yuck. Even Senator Clinton voted the right way on this (although Obama missed it, and pissed off people like Stoller – he's suggesting in response that skipping out on the vote was a virtuous act).

Wanna do something? Go sign MoveOn's petition refusing to back down. If you want to revisit the offending ad and see how tame it is compared to routine GOP attacks, click below the fold.

UPDATE: Finally found out what happened to Biden on this. He just bagged the whole day of votes. Figures.

Here's the MoveOn NYT ad text:

 

General Petraeus or General Betray Us?

 

 

 

Cooking the books for the White House

 

(Click here for the thinking behind the ad)

 

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress“ in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.”
  Washington Post, “Battling  for Iraq,”  by David H. Petraeus.  9/26/04 (see below)

 

And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq , said ”We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.”
  The  Australian, “Surge Working: Top US General,” by Dennis Shanahan.  8/31/07

 

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that  the surge strategy has failed.
  GAO report,  9/4/07
  NIE  report, 8/23/07
  Jones report, CSIS,  9/6/07

 

Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count.
   “Time  to Take a Stand,” by Paul Krugman.  9/7/07    

 

The Washington  Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the  head — not the front.
  “Experts  Doubt Drop in Violence in Iraq,” by Karen DeYoung. 9/6/07 l

 

According to news reports, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we’ve been there.
  The  Associated Press, “Violence Appears to Be Shifting from Baghdad.” 8/25/07
  National  Public Radio, “Statistics the Weapon of Choice in Surge Debate,” by Guy  Raz.  9/6/07
  Associated  Press, “Key Figures About Iraq Since the War Began in 2003.”  9/5/07

 

We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.
  Newsweek,  “Baghdad’s New Owners,” by Babak Dehghanpisheh and Larry Kaplow, 9/10/07
  Ibid from  the AP, “Violence Appears to be Shifting From Baghdad”
  McClatchy,  “Despite Violence Drop, Officers See Bleak Future for Iraq,” by Leila Fadel.  8/15/07
  The  New York Times, “More Iraqis Said to Flee Since Troop Rise,” by James Glanz and  Stephen Farrell. 8/24/07
  Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows; Iraq  is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war.
  We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American  troops.
  The  New York Times, “Petraeus, Seeing Gains in Iraq as Fragile, is Wary of Cuts,”  by David Sanger and David Cloud, 9/7/07
  The  Washington Post, “Petraeus Open to Pullout of One Brigade,” by Robin Wright and  Jonathan Weisman.  9/7/07.

 

But we won’t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.
  The  Hill, “Rep. Schakowsky: Petraeus hints at decade-long Iraq presence,” by  Patrick FitzGerald.  8/10/07
  Today before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is  likely to become General Betray Us.

You wouldn't know it to look around you, but the Vermont political landscape seems to have been turned on its head. As subtle as it may seem, the reality could be earthshaking if it holds up. For context, this is me from a GMD diary, waaaaaaaayyy back in February of '06:

Why the Democrats lose control of issues in the media is a topic of much debate. In my view it comes down to one thing: the Democrats see policy and politics as distinct. the Governor doesn't. Frankly, the Governor doesn't seem to have much interest in policy. He seems to leave that to his lieutenants.

Now, you've got to feel for many of these Dems. In fact, I suspect they are not much different then most of the Republican congresspeople in this way (the difference of course being that the Republicans in the House and Senate do not have the responsibility of playing the role of opposition to the Governor). They share the public's distaste for politicking, and they don't really want to engage in it any more than they have to. What they want to do is make policy — you know, the cool stuff. And again, who can blame them? They do what they can to divorce the two by placing the politicking in a box marked “election season,” and they try not to think about it any more than necessary until then (and even then, they often try to create rationales for why they don't really have to do it — rationales that often sound something like “in MY district we dont like that sort of thing” or, “I just dont think running elections right is the Vermont way”…but thats a topic for another diary…).

And because they dont like it and they want to avoid it, two things happen. ONE: They don't accept (as Douglas does) that, like it or not, you are ALWAYS running for re-election, and so is the other side. Now, there are certainly plenty of organizational doings going on behind the scenes in Democrat land, but they are all primarily support work for Election Time. Candidate recruitment, research, checking in with your infrastructure, developing lists — great stuff, but its the prep work for politicking rather than the politicking itself. There is still — even with all this good behind the scenes stuff going on — a tendency to want to compartmentalize politicking into “election season,” and that just doesn't work anymore.

TWO: When it comes time to really play politics, they get uncomfortable, stiff, long-winded and meandering. And it's because they just don't like it. Why was Peter Shumlin always so good with the press and on the stump? He really dug that stuff. Most of his Democratic compatriots really, really don't. And you never get very good at something you don't like to do.

So what's changed? Maybe nothing – but maybe everything. Below the fold for a very, very good sign (and I think we all could use one)…

Here's more of my original point:

A key moment where the Dems lost traction last year was also an incredibly illustrative example of what I'm talking about. When Douglas called the legislature back into session last year to address the VSC contract, the Democrats blinked. Obviously, that was going to play badly in the press, but both sides had the sense to realize this was a high tension, high-stakes moment, and the opportunity was there to set the tone for the post-legislative war in the press. Dueling press conferences ensued, with Douglas doing his usual song-and-dance, while a couple doors over, Speaker Gaye Symington and Peter Welch addressed the cameras.

It was hard to watch. Symington and Welch stammered, they squirmed. Even when they spoke with committment and authority, two things were evident: one, they really didn't want to have to do this. Two:

They hadn't prepared (or perhaps “they hadn't been prepped” is fairer).

They were winging it, pure and simple. They were so clearly ad libbing that Welch allowed himself to get dragged into a bizarre digression with Peter Freyne of Seven Days about whether referring to a Dem officeholder as “Democratic” or “Democrat” was a key part of the grand right-wing conspiracy or not. Sure, I think the GOP-ers use “Democrat” as an epithet that rhymes with “bureacrat,” but was that really what they called a press conference for, and is it really a good idea to get into a back and forth argument with a reporter about it?

Within weeks, Douglas was around the state making his opponents issue into his issue. At the same time, the Speaker was making sure Democratic County committees had videotaped copies of her press conference to watch.

Do I think Rep. Symington thought she and Welch were so great that the legions of Dems assembled should bear witness? Not at all. I think the video dissemination just shows us once again that Symington, Welch, and most of the other Dems would rather think about policy that politics. Who cares about the style of the thing, the point is that she and Welch discussed policy.

The unspoken assumption here, is that politics are unnecessary — even unseemly — when you're in the right. That intelligent people of good will, if they take a moment to listen to you, can't help but agree. It's a nice idea. It truly, truly is, and it's an idea that honorably motivates many folks to run for office.

But it sure as hell doesn't win these policy battles (or in the long run, elections).

At this point, those sentiments are hardly revelatory for GMD readers. But bearing that in mind, let's take a look at what's going on now, with the session again looming.

Well, Douglas recently went out on tour again. His “tell me what you really think of the legislature” tour, playing to a handful of usual suspect GOP malcontents, and falling flat in the press with a great big dull thud.

Now when was the last time that happened?

In contrast, what are we hearing in the press about the Dems of late? How about the Rutland Herald…

January's Legislative session is still months away, but through study committees and fall meetings lawmakers are now laying the foundation for what will happen then, Speaker of the House Gaye Symington, D-Jericho, said Friday.

Legislators held a joint House and Senate hearing on education on Thursday and similar meetings on energy and transportation will be held next week.

At the top of their list when they return full-time next year will likely be energy efficiency legislation, measures to encourage affordable housing, and consideration of how to fund the state's transportation infrastructure.

And as far as tours go, the Governor may not be getting any ink, but another tour is:

The Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection – or the Gay Marriage Commission as most people outside of Montpelier are calling it – has scheduled the first few public forums on the issue.

Commission members will meet for a short organization session at Johnson State College on Oct. 10 at 5:30 p.m. Following that, in the Bentley Auditorium at the college, the commission will hold its first forum from 7-9 p.m.

Again, however you may feel about the issue, the fact that its out there is putting the Dems in the driver's seat. And in the face of the previous press, the Governor's attempts to generate anti-gay gripes under the pretense that gay marriage is a non-issue look pretty thin.

But let's make no mistake about it: the Dems in the media driver seat going into the session is unheard of in recent years.

If these folks can keep this up, we may all be in for some very pleasant surprises come 2008.

What with the developing story about highly-paid mercenary outfit, Blackwater USA, possibly getting banned from Iraq as a result of yet another report of un-provoked brutality, I thought it would be a good time to dust off this oh so special episode of George Bush: A Man in Control.

In this installment, he’s asked (in April of ’06, I think) what the legal status is for security contractors in Iraq.

And as we’ve come to expect, Bush is fully informed. Or as informed as we might expect him to be…

Since, in June 2003, the CPA issued Memorandum 17 [PDF] which helped ensure that contractors in Iraq would not be subject to Iraqi law, one wonders how he could have missed it.

Simple mendacity or lack of situational awareness is always the question with Mr. Bush, is it not?

(Amen! – promoted by JulieWaters)

Since the Republicans largely boycotted a scheduled event at Morehouse College, there has been some discussion floating around about how the “Party of Lincoln” has “turned its back” on black voters. Schwarzenegger gave a speech to that effect to Republicans in California a week or so ago.

I am here to tell you – it ain't so. The Republicans have leaned heavily on blacks and other minorities because they have based their agenda on the votes of the white backlash ever since the days of the civil rights movement to create the party that they are today. It was the evil genius of George Wallace that took the southern racist reaction to civil rights campaigns and draped it in the white sheets of states' rights, “drown-it-in-the-bathtub” small government, anti-gun control, white evangelical christianism, using racism as the subtext. Wallace's approach was adopted by Barry Goldwater at the 1964 Republican convention. Black delegates were systematically harassed and expelled. Jackie Robinson, a lifelong Republican, said that at that convention, he could understand what it must have been like in Nazi Germany.

You can connect the underlying racist dots from there to Nixon's southern strategy in 1968, Reagan “democrats”, the war on drugs (crack gets more punishment than coke), welfare reform (“welfare Cadillac”), and the Willie Horton ad, and the transformation of the word “liberal” into an epithet (Wallace did that.) With changes in generations and demographics, the approach is now being extended to cover the new “others of color” – (Arab) Muslims and (Latino) immigrants.

Republicans have put racists into high judicial position to reinforce these views, including Chief Justice Rehnquist, who was a Goldwater protégé and supporter of his 1964 campaign, and wrote numerous opinions arguing against racial justice, school integration, voting rights, and later worked for Attorney General John Mitchell of Watergate fame.

Chief Justice Roberts was Rehnquist's law clerk. While less overtly racist than his predecessor, Roberts has continued to interpret laws that buttress the white sheet that covers so many Republican policies, generally limiting the reach of Federal power, except when that reach undermines civil liberties that can protect the rights of individuals. It is easy to forget that before the Civil Rights Act and Voting Act, state law was flagrantly used to attack and suppress the civil rights movement. In today's environment, Martin Luther King would probably be in Guantanamo instead of Parchman, and the Constitutional rights that eventually led to Federal intervention to integrate the nation would have been waved aside under charges of terrorism and insurrection. Bull Connor and the southern sheriffs would have supported KKK policies even more freely in Selma, Birmingham, and Oxford, protected by a Supreme Court and Justice Department that defends state's rights against human rights.

So let's not pretend that the Republicans are the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt; those days have been gone since 1964. But they do embrace the objects of their enmity, because they need them to scare the white folks. Without black and brown folks, most of their agenda is empty.

I guess I just don’t understand Peter Shumlin anymore. I suppose I never did. I can come up with one “unified field theory” for the “Shumlin whiplash” effect described by Philip Baruth (first we oppose the Governor’s education scheme, then we’re putting it into legislation at the last minute – first we’re hammering Vermont Yankee on their sweetheart tax deal, then we’re taking a pass – we can’t even discuss the gay marriage issue in the session, then we’re all for it – impeachment, well…). All I can figure that makes sense is that he has poor impulse control. That instead of having all these conversations in his head – y’know, the kind of back and forths that we all engage in – he’s playing them out in the wide open for everyone to ride along with.

(Let me be perfectly clear about something. Although I have no doubt I irk him, I’ve always liked Peter a lot. I’m not one to personalize these sorts of concerns, and I’ve never doubted that his heart is in the right place. I just want badly for him to be successful and effective. We all need him to be. Symington as well. Those who get understandably frustrated need to realize there are no pretenders waiting in the wings come January, so to advance our agenda, we have to make these two relevant and impactful, sometimes despite themselves)

The latest from Shumlin is another big, Jon Stewart-style “whaa…?” According to Freyne, the same Shumlin who has been pushing the notion of Republican Senator Vince Illuzzi running for Governor is now encouraging Progressive Party standard-bearer (and old Shumlin electoral nemesis) Anthony Pollina to get into the race (lemme hearya say “whaaa…?”)

Freyne:

Progressive State Rep. David Zuckerman of Burlington told yours truly that Shumlin first broached the subject of a Pollina nomination last April.

“He came up to me at an event in Montpelier,” said Zuckerman, “and said we’ve really got to talk about how we’re going to get rid of Jim Douglas, and I think Anthony Pollina should really consider running.”

Rep. Zuckerman said Sen. Shumlin also called him a couple months later.

Shumlin “was still interested but didn’t want to be public about it, since he’d been doing so much public work about getting Vince [Illuzzi] to run. Shumlin was calculating and trying to figure out who the best candidate to beat Jim Douglas would be.”

Jane! Stop this crazy thiiiiing..!!!

…ahem…

On the one hand, you’ve got to admire Shumlin’s selflessness. This goes completely against the nasty narrative of Shumlin being all about Shumlin. It’s gotta take a lot of humility to make such a call and put such a suggestion out there, given his history with Pollina. Anyone fixated on that narrative of the guy is going to be forced to re-evaluate it, unless they are determined to carry a chip on their shoulder.

On the other hand… well… sheesh. Y’gotta wonder if Shumlin has so lost faith in his own party that he assumes anybody but a Democrat can defeat Douglas. That’s a serious institutional self-loathing message there, and people are going to start questioning whether the guy is serious about his party, or if he’s casting himself as a party of one.

But what about the merits of a Pollina run? Clearly in a three-way race, Pollina comes in third (unless that three-way is Douglas-Pollina-Illuzzi, in which case he comes in a distant second). We have the historical data on that, and the dynamics – if anything – are less favorable to third parties now than they were closer to the turn of the millenium.

Pollina as a unity candidate is a different story, though – and one not without precedent. The legendary Dem-basher himself ran under the Democratic banner waaaaay back in the eighties (and that didn’t go so well).

Nevertheless, I don’t see it.

Don’t get me wrong. I wish it were a viable option. I worked on Peter Clavelle’s campaign, and a big reason I was an early booster for the Mayor’s candidacy was precisely to build a bridge between the Dems and Progs. Clavelle was a far better candidate for that in the sense that he had built bridges between the Progs (and himself) and Democrats – even among the center-right, who respected his tremendous success in Burlington. His executive experience was second to none among possible contenders. Still, a big part of the problem was that the “Prog” label proved to be more of an albatross than I’d ever imagined. There were a lot of dug-in, hardcore moderate Dems who simply wouldn’t consider him, and he could never bridge the trust issue with them. In the end, he very nearly split the difference between Pollina’s strongest statewide result and Democrat Doug Racine’s previous contest with Douglas.

In terms of final election numbers, for a Prog he ran spectacularly well. For a Dem, he ran poorly. The rest is history, but it’s history that would likely be a Pollina campaign’s best-possible-case scenario.

Then there’s the fact that I doubt he’d do it. Let’s put aside for a moment the intractable moderate Democrats (read: Weeniecrats), and look at the mainstream left only; that is, Progressives and liberal Dems.

Pollina is a partisan warrior, and would be thrilled to have the left unite under his banner – but make no mistake, it would be a Progressive banner, and that would then limit him further. If he could be talked into splitting the difference (so to speak) and running as an Independent, he’d have better chances.

The problem is that liberal Dems and Progs have very different reasons for not being each other. This is a generalization, of course, so bear with me, but I thnk there’s truth in it. Dems (again, I’m talking liberal ones at this point) are usually “not Progs” for pragmatic reasons; the spoiler argument, their analysis of the political system, etc.

On the other hand, Progs are usually “not Dems” for moral reasons; Dems are bad guys, no different from Republicans, corporate stooges, etc.

I’ve found its a lot easier to talk people around their preconceived notions of pragmatism, as its an intellectual process. If you can convinvingly change the equation, you can change people’s minds.

Talking people out of their preconceived morality is a whole ‘nuther kettle of fish. As such, I suspect liberal Dems will be much more open to the idea of someone like Pollina running with their institutional support than Pollina will be about running (at least partially) under their institutional banner.

I’d like to be wrong about that. And these are obviously generalizations. Clavelle took the leap 100%, but Clavelle has always been less partisan, ultimately seeing political parties as a means to an end. That sounds crass, but it’s not. I think it’s proper. There’s nothing sacred about the Democratic Party in my eyes – it is simply my reasoned opinion that, under our political system – it remains the only meaningful electoral vehicle for promoting progressive change. I have no problem saying that the Democratic Party is, for me, simply a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.

To many Progs – and I suspect Pollina is among them – the Progressive Party (and its “ultimate campaign finance reform goal” of supplanting the Democratic Party) is not a means to an end, but constitutes an end in itself.

And that makes for a big, big cavernous divide between the liberal Democratic left and the Progressive Party faithful.

I checked the NY Times this morning and guess what?  They've gotten ridden of their annoying Times Select (paid service for access to interesting articles and columns)!!!  Now I can get annoyed by Thomas Friedman again!!!