With the Religious Right a factor in each of my last three diaries, it seemed apropos to mention an interesting new blog set up by left-wing evangelical preacher (yes, you read that right) Jim Wallis that examines religion in politics. As part of the blog’s kickoff, Wallis (the author of God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It) has engaged in a civil back-and-forth with former Christian Coalition Golden Boy (and failed political candidate) Ralph Reed on the value and viability of the Religious Right today. Wallis and Reed are engaging in a fascinating exchange, a few choice bits of which I’ll excerpt below the fold.

A long overdue conversation, and an excellent use of the medium. I personally don’t agree with Wallis’s view of the world, but this is compelling stuff – and many of the blog comments are worth reading as well. Warning: there is plenty of material to make you really angry here, but it’s often very refreshing and politically encouraging. Wallis is a clear, no-nonsense advocate for evangelicals to look beyond the twin issues of abortion and gay rights which the GOP has manipulated into an exclusive political primacy in the eyes of Christian activists, to the intentionally excluded issues of poverty and environmentalism (to name only a couple).

And even on the hot button issues of gay rights and abortion, Wallis challenges Reed and other Religious Right activists to look beyond the politics of division and reach out to liberals to build proactive strategies to advance their beliefs, such as ways to make abortions less common, or means to address real threats to family stability by supporting married couples and families instead of mindlessly scapegoating gays and lesbians.

From Wallis’s first post:

I believe a debate on moral values should be central in American politics. The question is, of course, which values? Whose values? And how should we define moral values? The problem is when one side of the political spectrum (your side) tries to define values as meaning only two things – opposition to same-sex marriage and criminalizing abortion. And while those two have become “wedge issues” that your side has effectively used for quite partisan purposes, many of the pressing problems our society confronts have an essential moral character. Issues regarding the sacredness of life and family values are indeed very important, and need a much deeper moral discussion; but there is also a broader moral agenda that reflects all the values Americans care about.

Reed returned with:

Religious conservatives did not create this issue and did not seek it out to benefit the Republican Party; indeed, most of them were Democrats until the 1980’s. But the nation’s conscience is unsettled by one out of every three pregnancies ending in the death of an unborn child, and people of faith should address it persistently and prominently. And when the courts began to impose a redefinition of marriage, people of faith were right to speak out consistent with their beliefs and values.

In the end, what separates religious conservatives from their liberal coreligionists is not a broad versus a narrow agenda, but rather a liberal versus a conservative agenda.

Wallis again, in his next post:

The Religious Right has now lost control of the evangelical political agenda and here’s why.

One year after the television images of Katrina were seared into our minds, thirty-seven million Americans still live in poverty, left out and left behind. Globally, thirty-thousand children die needlessly every day from hunger and disease. Certainly poverty is a moral value, and it clearly is for a new generation of evangelicals.

Despite official indifference and denial, the future of our fragile environment is in jeopardy as global warming continues unchecked. Caring for the earth that sustains us is also a moral value which young evangelicals now call “creation care.”

Insisting on full humanity and dignity for all people by opposing discrimination and oppression for ethnic or racial reasons, whether intentionally or due to systemic structures, is a moral imperative. Racism, human rights, sex trafficking, and genocide in places like Darfur are all now clearly on the Christian agenda.

Twenty-six hundred Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis are now dead. Daily violence continues to spiral out of control. The cost and consequences of a disastrous war, that many now believe is a distraction from the real fight against terrorism, is a moral issue. And attacking the war’s opponents as appeasers does not answer the hard questions.

But you still don’t see many of the issues above on the political agenda of the Religious Right. In fact, some leaders of the Religious Right have tried to keep issues like the environment and poverty off the evangelical agenda for fear they would distract from same-sex marriage and abortion.

And the comments run the gamut, from the truly disturbing:

One more thing… Mr. Reed, you stated “In the end, what separates religious conservatives from their liberal coreligionists is not a broad versus a narrow agenda, but rather a liberal versus a conservative agenda.”

I disagree, and will offer this in support: “Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.
World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less…
Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.”

This is from George Grant’s book, The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action.

To the truly clarifying:

If people believe they are cared about by ‘God’s’ alleged servants, then there would have been less abortions. To show ‘God’s love and care’ as servants of God are suppose to, the Christian Right should have been pro every government program that would aid single mothers. Or women, who would have been willing to leave the hardhearted husband who was forcing them to ‘abort.’

Instead, the Christian right’s version of so-called “Christianity” is to condemn those who do have babies while simultaneously mouthing off about being against ‘abortion’ of babies.

This is there “straw-man” deceit before God and humanity. It was the political football to promote right wing politics.

Fascinating, informative stuff, and definitely worth a serious look.

(Update: Okay, I went back to the blog “Green Mountain Hard RIght” that this diary refers to and found that there are TWO GMHR blogs run by the same person with a slightly tweaked computer pseudonym. Although one hasn’t been updated for a couple weeks, they seem to have been run in tandem for some time now. Weird. Here’s a link to the one that this diary refers to, and here’s the one linked to from She’s Right. Go figure.)

Via Freyne in Seven Days some time back:

[Rich Tarrant:] “Everybody has a right to express their views, but I think politicians, it says something about themselves based on who they ask to help them. That’s just the way it is.”

We’ve taken Rich Tarrant to task on numerous occasions for courting the Center for American Cultural Renewal/Vermont Renewal. This is a Vermont-based religious right organization that had references to gays as “fags” on their site and has used children as weapons to advance their theocratic agenda. Blier Watch – which is undergoing a renaissance of sorts and becoming less myopically (and at times, inappropriately) focused on the CFACR’s Executive Director – discovered a right wing blog entry containing a guest list from a more recent gathering of theocrats under the CFACR’s tent. Who showed up to see and be seen? From Green Mountain Hard Right (emphasis added):

When I arrived the usual crowd of right-wingers were assembled (mostly from Rutland County) as well as a few big wigs from the State GOP and candidates for high office. In attendance were Windsor County GOP Chairman Suzanne Butterfield, Governor and Mrs. Douglas, U.S. Senate candidate Greg Parke, Bennington County State Senator and U.S. House candidate Mark Shepard, Attorney General GOP primary opponents Dennis Carver and Karen Karin, Chittenden County State Senate GOP candidate Agnes Clift, and Brandon State Representative Joe Acinapura. Curiously there was no appearance made by Rutland County GOP Chairman Jonathan Wallace… former Adjunct General Martha Rainville decided to show up

One wonders if it bothers GMHR blogger vtpaleocon that many of those politicians who showed up to pay homage at the altar of the anti-gay religious right are not inclined to celebrate that relationship in the public eye.

(FYI: A “paleocon” is a slightly mushier term than neocon. The Paleocon patron saint is Pat Buchanan, and those who self-identify as PCs are often similarly ultra-socially-conservative (but economically populist), Vatican-II-rejectionist Catholics who gleefully recognize no line of distinction between their religion and their politics, and spend a great deal of time trying to cast this as intellectual virtue. They’ve never risen to be a potent political force the way the evangelically-driven Religious Right movement has, so they tend to piggy-back on their protestant frequent-soulmates… they also have a tendency to have some disturbing racial views if you dig below the surface, and BW in their post also track Green Mountain Hard Right’s links to some nakedly racist, white seperatist rhetoric that I had no idea were a part of that site.)

( – promoted by odum)

Yikes! This just came across my screen as a press release from Joe Merone at VPT with a note that Graff will step down from Vermont This Week at the end of the year.

No replacement yet.

Former AP Bureau Chief Graff Will Succeed Vachon as National Life VP – Communications

Montpelier, VT.  (September 18, 2006)  —  Chris Graff, the former Vermont bureau chief of the Associated Press, will join the National Life Group in December as vice president of communications. He will succeed Brian Vachon who is retiring from the position after 25 years with the company.
Graff, who worked for AP for 27 years, has also served as host of Vermont Public Television’s “Vermont This Week” for the past 14 years. He is recognized as one of the most distinguished journalists in Vermont. 
Vachon, who was the editor of Vermont Life Magazine prior to beginning his career at National Life, has been the primary spokesperson for the company for the past quarter century. His responsibilities, which Graff will assume when Vachon steps down at the end of this year, also include internal and external communications, government relations as well as public relation activities and programs.
“We genuinely appreciate everything that Brian has contributed to our company during his distinguished career,” said National Life Group’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Tom MacLeay.  “We are also extremely pleased to have someone of Chris Graff’s considerable stature and strong Vermont connections joining us and bringing his proven skills to bear for our organization.” 

The National Life Group is a growing and diversified family of financial service companies made up of its flagship company, National Life Insurance Company which was founded in Montpelier, VT. in 1850, as well as Sentinel Asset Management Inc., Equity Services, Inc. and~National Retirement Plan Advisors Inc. all of Montpelier; and Life Insurance Company of the Southwest of Dallas, Texas. 

It’s an oft-heard line that Vermont Republicans are different. That they are more moderate or libertarian on social issues, less strident on economic issues, and not comfortable with the theocratic ambitions of many of their counterparts in other states.

Wanna play a little game? Go poke around the Vermont Republican Party website. I mean, really get into it. You might be surprised at some of the things you see in public print for all the world to see, under a “Vermont” GOP banner bearing the smiling image of our supposedly “moderate” Republican officeholders.

Questioning the patriotism of war critics? Go to the Vtgop.org page at http://www.vtgop.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=1654 and read:

Democrats are so antiwar they come close to supporting our enemies.

Don’t associate the holy war on gays and lesbians with today’s Vermont GOP? Check http://www.vtgop.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=1657:

Our party recognizes the need for action here and is unwavering in our support for a ban on gay marriage, homosexual adoption and homosexuals being allowed to be foster parents

While the Governor was making news calling for investigations into NSA wiretapping, at http://www.vtgop.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=420 you can find this:

Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media were quick to attach adjectives like illegal and unlawful to a program that the president had authorized for the purpose of preventing another catastrophic terrorist attack on American soil. Reactionary Democrats invoked, as they always do, the name of Richard Nixon and even broached the subject of impeachment.

And if you want to see a legislator attacked for voting to uphold the seperation of church and state, go to http://www.vtgop.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=881.

What you’ve probably noticed, if you’ve clicked on some of these links, is that all these lead to press releases from other states, that are viewable on the Vermont Republican Party website. It seems that the majority of the GOP web pages in the country are working off the same server and web system (click on the link for my point, here…)

If you want to play, alter the last series of digits in the URL (for example, change ‘ID-1654’ to ‘ID=1655’) and see what you come up with. There are a lot of common themes – most particularly the fear of Nancy Pelosi and the term “San Francisco values” (check here, here, and here, for a few). My favorite? After hearing all the whining about “class warfare” around complaints about gazillionaire Rich Tarrant self-funding his campaign, take a look at this page (http://www.vtgop.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=22) for an example of Republicans using the exact same rhetoric against a Democratic opponent.

The point I’m trying to make is not to hang these specific press releases around VT-GOP Chair Jim Barnett’s neck, but to highlight what, in light of these links, is probably already obvious; the fact that the Vermont GOP is hardly an independent entity at all anymore. If Rainville’s just-released health care “plan” that virtually plagiarizes George Bush’s January state of the union address – as well as the shoddy treatment of Sen. Mark Shepard in his Party’s US Congressional primary – didn’t already make the point, then treat yourself to a little website tour.

The days of the Vermont Republican Party (as an institution) being actually run out of Vermont are in the past. This is just a particularly illustrative way of making the point that the VRP HQ is now a fully owned subsidiary of Geroge Bush, Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert.

If you believe otherwise, you’re just fooling yourself.

I recently received again and from a different source an e-mail that lists out separately the winners of Noble prizes that are jewish compared to a listing of those that are “muslim” – actually those that are arabs.  Apparently this list, which shows about an 18 to 1 ratio of Jewish winners to muslim winners, is making its way around the Internet.  I had ignored it the first time, but seeing it the second time, though I am neither jew nor muslim, I had to respond.

First I tried to be ironic: 
  I don’t get the point the list is trying to make.  Is it “Muslims are stupid and Jews are smart?”Or is it “Jews publish in European languages that are widely read, but Muslims publish in languages and alphabets that the Nobel Commission doesn’t understand?”  Or is it “Jews contribute and Muslims don’t?” Or is it “Jews excel in categories that the Nobel Commission values, while Muslims and other ethnic groups excel in categories that are valued by other types of organizations?” Or is it just flat out bigoted Muslim bashing? 

But irony was lost on my reader, so here it is in plain speech:

It does not surprise me that this is getting circulated at a time when the Israelis are being accused of war crimes in Lebanon for their indiscriminate attacks on civilians there.  According to Reuters, “Killed in the conflict were 1,187 Lebanese civilians and 44 Israeli civilians.. Almost one third of the Lebanese civilian casualties were children under 13 years of age.” (That actually puts the multiplier at
27 to 1).  I realize that Hizbollah’s hands are not clean either.

To me the message that such a list sends is that a Jew (read “Israeli”) is somehow worth about 18 times more than a Muslim (read “Arab.” Of course,  most Muslims are not Arabs). In other words, the real subtext message here is that Jews are  more “valuable” than Muslims, and this superiority means that a dead Muslim is worth about one-fifth of a dead Jew – sort of a Dred Scott calculation. The bad things that follow from accepting that kind of thinking  range from genocide through ethnic cleansing to apartheid, to Nuremberg Laws, second-class citizen status and other forms of discrimination.  Ask Nelson Mandela.

The folks at the controversial blog Blier Watch are back with a splash. It seems the long-elusive missing link between Vermont and the felonious New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal, whereby Republicans intentionally jammed the GOTV calls of the Democratic Party (former NH GOP Executive Director Chuck McGee went to prison for it), is – Kevin Blier. According to NH’s Union-Leader, Vermont’s local Religious Right wannabe-big dog (Blier heads the Center for American Cultural Renewal – you know, Rich Tarrant’s crowd) was very much in the know:

In the FBI interview report (also from the Talking Points Memo Document Collection) the then Executive Director for the NH Republican State Committee, Charles “Chuck” McGee, “believes that he told… Kevin Blier,” among others who McGee called his confidants, “about the idea” to jam the phones at NH Democratic Regional Offices for the purpose of disrupting their communications on the forthcoming Election Day (see pgs 4 & 6 of the FBI interview docs).

Blier has disputed the testimony, while trying to dismiss the nasty affair as “nothing more than a high school prank gone bad.” Watch yourself, Kevin. Juries seem to disagree.

Baruth nails the Dubie campaign to the wall on the timing of the announcement of his mini-deployment to Iraq. It’s a pretty damning piece pointing out, among other things, that there was a responsibility to inform Speaker Gaye Symington that she was on deck if something should happen to the Governor. Can’t let a little procedural issue like that stand in the way of bumping your political opponent from the headlines, I suppose.

With John McCain’s visit to Vermont now past now almost past (woops) – and every Republican except for Rich Tarrant included as part of the hooplah- it’s clear that this is just one of the many ways the state GOP is trying to put as much difference between themselves and the infamously nasty campaign of the ex-IDX gazillionaire. (Here’s a link to vtbuzz’s piece on it). Not a bad idea, considering how often “Tarrant” and “Rainville” were mentioned in the same breath during primary coverage.

New Poll. Also via vtbuzz, ARG has another poll out, and this one is all over the map. Taken with their last one which also showed unexpected spreads, you’ve gotta wonder a bit about these guys. They’re showing Welch 3 points up, Bernie only 15 points up, and Douglas up by 27 (ARG’s last poll showed Douglas up by only 11). Bernie’s campaign says their internal polling shows them 41 ppoints up on Tarrant.

And finally, Baruth was on the Mark Johnson Show this week, talking mainly about blogging (thanks for the on-air hat tip, PB). My favorite part (besides the Salem Witch Trials reference), was the phone-in by Brian Pearl.

Pearl started in, referring to Philip in the third person (apparently only Mark Johnson is worthy of his direct communication), saying he’s “never heard of him before.”

When Baruth didn’t quite catch his name and politely asked Pearl to repeat it, Pearl clearly took umbridge. His response:

“Brian Pearl.

I’m Brian Pearl.

This is Brian Pearl.

If you don’t know who I am, then you don’t know as much about Vermont politics as you think you do.”

I wasn’t sure whether to laugh or cry.

Nah, not really… I laughed. So here’s a Pearl poll below (extra points if you can say “Pearl Poll” ten times really fast):

 Loading ...

The war and national defense are the biggest issue this year, right?

And Martha Rainville has the most experience in national defense, right?

So maybe, when she goes to speak, people should ask her about this:

  * Fully two-thirds of the active U.S. Army is officially classified as “not ready for combat.”

  * Thousands of white supremacists may have been able to infiltrate the military due to pressure from recruitment shortfalls.

Here’s her latest response to the situation at the DoD:

While Rainville has conceded that Rumsfeld has made mistakes, she said there needs to be a bipartisan effort to set a new course, and firing Rumsfeld will not help that effort.

“Secretary Rumsfeld has made many mistakes in the planning and implementation of military operations in Iraq. There have been serious failures that have hindered progress from the beginning,” said Rainville in a statement. “Now is not the time for partisan gamesmanship; it is time to exercise true leadership by working together to forge a rational policy that will allow us to finish our mission in Iraq and bring our troops home with honor.”

How is this going to help anything?

And, in contrast to what the R’s keep saying, how is continuing to do what isn’t working a plan?

I don’t know why the Rainville campaign sends me press releases, but keep ’em coming, I sez. The one I just received trumpets Rainville’s “health care plan.” It took me about 30 seconds of looking at it before I realized I’d heard it all before. Where and when, you might ask?

Why, George W. Bush’s January 31st State of the Union Speech, naturally.

The closer I looked, the clearer it became that there isn’t really an original thought in the document. Bush and the National GOP – as they have with Social Security Privatization – continue, year after year, to push the same, oft-rejected and discredited health care policies figuring they’re bound to get through eventually. The health care policy proposals in the 2006 SOTU were just that – all a rehashed mishmash of previously defeated Republican initiatives.

The fact that our supposed “independent thinking” Republican candidate for the US House just obediently took her party-line dictates from the GOP leadership in Washington doesn’t surprise me one whit. What surprises me is that her campaign seemed to make no effort whatsoever to hide this dutiful obedience. Follow me on the flipside to see just what I mean…

Now you gotta love the internet. It makes research really fast because there’s often someone who’s already done it for you. In this case Medical News Today, which compiled reports and analysis of the health care elements in Bush’s 2006 SOTU from USA Today, NPR’s Marketplace, the Washington Post and other sources. Beyond that, all I had to do was some poking around a few other news sites and Senatorial web pages.

Don’t they know we’re gonna check this stuff??

So anyway, let’s compare the rhetoric and proposals from the Rainville press release (I can’t provide a link, because it’s not on her website yet) with the rhetoric and proposals from the State of the Union speech:

Rainville:

Encourage and Expand Health Savings Accounts. The American consumer should be a significant part of health care reform. The economic incentive of Health Savings Accounts means that Americans will seek out the highest quality, lowest cost providers.

Rainville’s targeted tax incentives would help ensure that the smallest businesses could offer health insurance – in the same way that larger businesses currently do.

Her proposal calls for a maximum tax credit of $1,500 for single coverage and $3,000 for family coverage.

Bush, via Medical News Today:

“We will strengthen health savings accounts by making sure individuals and small business employees can buy insurance with the same advantages that people working for big businesses now get” (Appleby, USA Today, 2/1).

In addition, the proposal would allow employers to contribute greater amounts to HSAs for individuals with chronic illnesses and would provide refundable tax credits of $3,000 for families of four with annual incomes of $25,000 or less to help purchase coverage and make contributions to accounts (AP/Long Island Newsday, 2/1).

Same numbers, even. Not even tweaked for Vermont.

And it continues. Rainville:

Promote Small Business Health Plans, also known as Association Health Plans. Rainville’s proposal supports Association Health Plans (AHPs). AHPs allow small businesses to pool their resources by joining together to purchase health insurance for their employees.

Bush (via MNT again):

Bush also proposed several plans that have previously failed in Congress, such as a proposal that would allow small businesses to form association health plans.

And why did it fail? Because it was a dangerous idea:

The National Governors Association, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and the BlueCross BlueShield Association oppose AHPs because they are exempt from many state laws that regulate health plans and require them to provide certain benefits (New York Times, 2/1).

And don’t be too quick to assume it’s a great idea because some insurers don’t like it. They don’t like the uncertainty, to be sure, but the fact is that these AHP’s present unique challenges to state plans, where real progress is being made. Remember: this is Bush we’re talking about…

But wait, there’s more… Rainville:

Free doctors from frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits. Rainville’s proposal supports capping non-economic damages at $250,000.

Bush (via MNT):

Bush also proposed a plan to cap damages in medical malpractice lawsuits and limit the number of lawsuits filed (Baker/Fletcher, Washington Post, 2/1).()

Hm… but where does that $250,000 number come from? Oh yeah…

July 9, 2003 — Senate Democrats won their fight Wednesday to bottle up legislation that would put a $250,000 cap on damage awards in medical malpractice cases, all but dooming a measure that President Bush had made a priority.

Democrats countered that rising premiums were not to blame and said the bill would punish individuals already grievously impaired by medical errors while protecting groups such as the American Medical Association, HMOs, drug companies and the manufacturers of medical devices.

“Time and time again this Senate races to protect special interest groups and forgets the families and children and elderly people across America who are the victims of this wrongdoing,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Rainville:

Bring Modern Technology to health care administration.  America is a world leader in medical technology. But when it comes to our medical records, billing and prescriptions, which is most cases still rely on paper, our health care industry is stuck in the past.

Bush:

Bush in his speech proposed to increase use of electronic health records and “other health information technology to help control costs and reduce dangerous medical errors.”

Rainville:

Make health insurance portable so when people change jobs they can take their insurance with them.

Bush:

In his speech, Bush also proposed to allow individuals to take HSA coverage with them when they change jobs (USA Today, 2/1).

MNT’s proffered analysis?

According to the Post, the proposals are “modest” at a time when 45 million U.S. residents lack health insurance (Balz/VandeHei, Washington Post, 2/1).

She tried to spice it up a little (like a plagiarist sprinkling in a few new phrases) by:

1. Rainville: “Encourage healthy decisions and personal responsibility.”

Okay. Sounds good. What else you got…?

2. Saying she’ll “fix Medicare Part D” (Bush in the SOTU “avoided any reference” to the problem-ridden, Bush behemoth that is Medicare Part D)

3. “Provide Vermonters the option of buying health insurance from out of state companies where there may be more choices and cheaper health insurance options”- not explained in the press release, but it sounds an awful lot like “kill community rating” from the federal level, which would, of course, get us farther from true health care equity by again leaving high-risk patients to fend for their own.

Big improvements. I feel healthier already.

So gven that Rainville’s plan is simply the Bush plan, let’s take a listen to what Democratic leaders have to say about Rainville’s bold policy proposals (MNT, emphasis added):

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine (D) delivered the Democratic response to the State of the Union address and said that “there’s a better way” to address the issue of health care than Bush proposed.  For example, Kaine said that many states “have set up simple ways to help our seniors purchase safe, American-made prescription drugs from other countries at a fraction of the price they would pay here” through reimportation programs, adding, “The administration actually fought against that Democratic effort!”  (Hardy, Knight Ridder/Richmond Times-Dispatch, 2/1). 

Other Democrats questioned the likely effectiveness of the health care plans that Bush proposed.  Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) said, “He’s had five years to get it done.  Where are the big ideas?  We’ve heard the rhetoric before.” 

Many Democrats criticized his proposal to expand HSAs.  Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that the proposal will not reduce health care costs or expand access to health insurance and might increase the budget deficit. 

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) said, “The cure (Bush) prescribed tonight will only make a bad situation worse” (Klein, Boston Globe, 2/1). 

Rep. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said, “American families are already struggling to pay for health care costs, and this proposal is a step backward because it will increase their costs, not lower them” (USA Today, 2/1). 

Kennedy added, “Like the fiasco of his plan to privatize Social Security, his health savings accounts are a windfall for Wall Street and other special interests and a nightmare for the vast majority of families.  The obvious answer is to make Medicare available to all” (Koffler et al., CongressDaily, 2/1). 

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) said, “The president’s proposals for health savings accounts are tilted toward the rich.  They give disproportionate benefits to wealthy people and do almost nothing for low-income people” (New York Times, 2/1).

Next press release, please…

[Crossposted at What’s the Point?]

"Name calling" is an overused phrase in the world of politics. Right up there with "finger pointing."

Both these phrases tend to be used when a candidate is trying to avoid a legitimate criticism. And it always makes the person who says them seem childish, whiny and evasive. As in ~Boo hoo, I don’t think the voters like this kind of name calling and finger pointing… Sniff sniff.~

But, what happens when a campaign actually does engage in literal "name calling?" In that case, then, it’s really the name caller who’s being childish. And maybe just a wee bit nervous, perhaps?

Like Jim Douglas’ new ad, for instance.

The ad, which is conveniently not mentioned on Douglas’ site, begins…

Some people make a name for themselves, and they call  Scudder Parker Mr. Property Tax.  Why?  Because  Scudder Parker has  backed higher property taxes – even taxes like Act 60, the property tax  that  turned Vermont families against  each other, and drove families and jobs out of state.  Now  Vermont  taxpayers have something else to worry about – now Mr. Property Tax  wants to be  governor.

Mr. Property Tax… Ha ha, that’s funny.  Except that, according the VT GOP’s own web site, this oh so clever nickname comes from a single article in the Rutland Herald from… 18 years ago!

Now, I never claim to have a great grasp of Vermont’s political history and I have never been privy (until recently) to even the slightest bit of "insider" gossip. But, all I can glean from this is that the "they" who call Parker "Mr. Property Tax" are  today’s Vermont Republican Party and a headline writer in the late 80s. Pretty hokey name calling, eh?

The ad doesn’t get better. It continues…

And he’s working on making a few new names for himself – how  about Mr. Income Tax?  Mr. Payroll  Tax?  He just told Vermont Public Radio  he wants just that – higher payroll and income taxes.  He  said under his plan "everybody pays."  And even with  prices at the pump over three  dollars, he’s ready to raise gas taxes.  Mr. Property  Tax. Mr. Income Tax. Mr. Payroll Tax. Mr. Gas Tax.  There’s  just one name Vermonter’s shouldn’t  call Scudder Parker – and that is governor.

The source for most of the claims here seems to come from Parker’s March 28th appearance [mp3] on Switchboard (referred to on the VTGOP site here), where he said the following…

Kinzel: And the way that  you  see that people will pay for their coverage is through tax revenues?

Parker: It’s  a mix of using Medicare, Medicaid, other revenue sources that we have  now, co-pays, and a fair tax structure, which really the Senate plan  last year tried to do.  I actually believe that the theme of the Senate  bill – the House and Senate bill – which is everybody pays what they can  and gets and has access to service – is the right theme for Vermont.  I  think this would be a more efficient way of doing that.

So, it’s not  that Parker’s going to make "everybody pay" like some kind of dark villain. He was simply saying  that "everybody pays what they can."

And Parker  continues on to criticize Douglas’ health care plan which would have placed extra burden on business owners (my emphasis)…

Kinzel: So perhaps people  would have a payroll tax the way that Medicare is run?

Parker: That’s  right.  Payroll – income; you could find a balance of those taxes.  But  really it’s not new money, it’s talking about fairly allocating the  contributions.  What we have now is a system – and governor Douglas  actually proposed to aggravate that system – in which the employers who  cover their employees would actually get an increased cost or an  increased burden imposed on them and the folks who don’t don’t have to  pay.  That is nonsensical, that does not make sense – it makes for  competitive disadvantage.  It’s anti-business.

Who’s really supporting policies that will drive "jobs out of state?"

Of course this is the old Good Cop/Bad Cop routine that Douglas/Barnett have profited from through the previous election cycles. And it’s high time they get called on it, too.

See, there’s lots of evidence to suggest that Tarrant’s poor showing compared to Rainville in Tuesday’s primary was directly related to Tarrant’s dishonest ad campaigns which turned off lots of voters.

So the Douglas campaign better be careful.

People might start to catch on that like in the old routine, this Good Cop is not really above the fray. He’s just playing a role.

In the wake of a primary defeat, John Tracy should take heart from the resurgent political careers of Doug Racine and Peter Shumlin, both virtually guaranteed a return to the Vermont Senate after November. Shumlin and Racine, like Peter Welch, have proven that there is political shelf life in Vermont – if you are politically savvy in the choices you make. The same will prove true for the former House Majority and Minority Leader if – and only if – he can acquire or “borrow” some of that political savvy.

Tracy is a very good, decent person. He is also an example of an interesting (and not uncommon) animal in Vermont politics; an extraordinary legislator and public servant who is not an extraordinary politician.

As anyone will tell you, Tracy is a hard worker with a keen mind. Whether or not one approves of the Catamount Health Plan, it’s a fact that Tracy, after it became clear that the House’s “plan A” for a single-payer approach was DOA, attacked the health care crisis with focus, passion and intellect – this despite his lack of any practical background on the issue to bring to the table. What he did bring to the table was a unique ability to work with other elected officials and bring them to agreement across wide ideological chasms. Clearly a fiery partisan, Tracy nevertheless has a well-deserved reputation as a lawmaker everyone can work with, as his friendly and comfortable style of communication make him among the most likable people you’re likely to meet.

And as “political product,” his personal story is electoral gold. A Vietnam combat vet, strong family man and plenty of working class cred combined with a style on the stump second to none in Vermont.

All things being equal, this guy should be able to walk into any electoral office in the state, and yes that includes the Governor’s. What holds him back, I believe, are two things:

1. He doesn’t really “get it” on how to win any but the most local, face-to-face elections, and –
2. He thinks he does.

John Tracy needs to stay in politics. The state needs him. And he needs to continue to look beyond Burlington and rise beyond the B-town, insider, P vs. D firestorms that he has often found himself in the middle of. But to do that, he needs to admit he has a problem: that he needs to find some people who understand how to win elections larger than a state House race and put himself in their hands.

Tracy has deferred for too long to the likes of his close friend, former State Representative and recent peeping tom Alan Bjerke on matters electoral. To most who’ve worked with him, Bjerke is a perfect reverse political barometer. What he thinks is a good idea, is in fact a good idea’s polar opposite. It is Tracy’s deference to Bjerke that resulted in an unbroken string of talented political operatives who have worked for the House Democratic caucus either being cast aside, or running away screaming. It is no coincidence that things turned around electorally when Rep. Gaye Symington took control of the elections operation.

The bad habits Tracy picked up from Bjerke were more than apparent in his recent loss. The “if you build it, they will come” political campaign. Rhetoric creeping out from behind the scenes of the Tracy camp that he shouldn’t “peak too early” well into the Summer, when many were wondering just what it was he was doing. And the weak attempts to make Dunne’s support by 21st Century Democrats an issue – a negative message tested as far back as June on this very blog by a poster who I will not name, but who did a very poor job covering his electronic tracks that easily revealed a direct connection to the Tracy campaign.

Add to this the very basic misunderstanding that by not appearing to work as hard and in as high-profile a way as Dunne outside Chittenden County, the Tracy campaign only fueled the narrative fire that folks in Burlington consider themselves seperate – even above – the rest of the state. I have heard from more than one voter that they felt a bit put off that Tracy didn’t seem to feel the need to work as actively for their votes as Dunne did, and seeing little-to-no Tracy campaign presence at polling places here in Washington County only reminded folks of that on their way in to vote.

So my strong suggestion to John Tracy, a man I respect and like very much, is this: take some time off, but not too much time. Pick a target for next election and plant your flag among the party faithful early.

But most important, reach out to those who have proven they know what they’re doing in a statewide (or even countywide) election. Really listen to them. Accept that there are things you can learn from them. And when you find a team that works, defer to them in their areas of expertise. What they will say will often not be what you want to hear (especially as regards fundraising), but let them do their thing. I’m not suggesting you go with a team of cookie-cutter hacks, but political savvy and creativity is starting to have a bit of a rebirth on the left, and there are a lot of very talented people who understand the old rules well and are ready to make some new rules who could very well help to make you the next Governor, if that was the path you were to choose.

Catch your breath, but don’t be too long, John. We need you back in the game.