The Vermont Lefty-Blogosphere has Arrived! Congrats to Philip Baruth’s Vermont Daily Briefing for overwhelmingly taking Seven Days’ Best Blog Daysie award. He’s off in Sweden right now… perhaps he was mistakenly anticipating a different award?

Big Polling News: If you haven’t caught it yet, the American Research Group has new polling results that still show Sanders and Douglas way out in front, but by smaller margins – particularly in regards to Douglas. The House race is a dead heat. The campaigns whose results are less than they expected are suggesting a flawed poll that doesn’t reflect their internal polling, and in the case of Welch, there seems to be second-hand confirmation of that.

Steve at Carpetbagger ponders why Greens would allow themselves to overtly exploited as GOP dirty election tools, as Nader was in 2000 and as the Green candidate for Senate in PA is right now – receiving as he is the lion’s share of his funding from right-wingnut Senator Rick Santorum’s funders. Some, such as Peter Camejo, Nader’s running mate in 2004, “said he believed in returning the money sent to the campaign from conservatives who wanted to exploit an ideological opportunity.”

There are many, many arbitrary and objectionable statements in Charity’s anti-choice manifesto anti-“pro-choicer” manifesto at She’s Right. Probably merits a whole post. I’ll get to that soon (Maybe? I hope? Somebody else wanna write one I’ll promote to the front? C’mon…). In the meantime, we’ll just take this quote –

Another sorry state is that so-called “women’s groups” are so caught up in protecting a woman’s right to have an abortion, that they have little-to-no interest in helping prevent women from getting into situations where they feel that they have to undergo a procedure that often leaves them emotionally scared for the rest of their lives.

– scratch our heads for a moment wondering where Charity (a delightful person) got her tunnel-visors, and then direct her to this link, and this one, and this one, and…well, you get the point.

What’s up with Rep Steve Green (D-Berlin)? Dude needs one of those Harry Potter Remembralls…

Also in Washington County, Rep Maxine Grad (D-Moretown) is reportedly none too happy that she will have a running mate. She has frustrated the Party in the past by pushing hard to maintain some sort of agreement with her seat mate (Republican Rep. Anne Donahue) whereby they each keep challengers to the other out of the race (although the Republicans broke it last time, which didn’t seem to bother either). This time, there is to be a Democratic primary, guaranteeing a full Dem slate for this 2-seat district – which is great. Although Grad has been a force for good in the legislature she is wrong wrong wrong on this “arrangement” that is anti-“little ‘d'” democratic, as well as contrary to the goal of promoting a progressive agenda in the Statehouse. The House Caucus and local Party should have no qualms in working around her if need be.

This sort of thing is always positive… Democrats and Republicans working together on a common problem. From a press release out of the Governor’s office last week:

Senate President Pro Tem Peter Welch, Speaker of the House Gaye Symington and Governor Jim Douglas today announced their appointments to the Next Generation Commission. 

The 9-member commission, the product of an agreement between the Legislature and the Governor, is charged with recommending how best to invest $5 million in programs to address Vermont’s emerging demographic challenges.  The commission will also develop a plan to encourage Vermonters to live and work in Vermont. 

Commission recommendations could include funding for scholarships, workforce development programs, trades training or other efforts to retain and recruit working-age Vermonters.

A great goal it is, keeping our young folk from fleeing the state, as they are in record numbers. And a terrific commission it is, as well. Some smart, high-powered people.

Unfortunately, there is one thing – and one thing only – that must be done to begin to stem the exporting of our youngest, best and brightest, and that is to put enough money into the higher education system to cut in-state tuitions by a good half. All the business handouts and loans and scholarships and initiatives they can dream up (already, Vermont students receive the greatest average state/local aid award) won’t amount to much until the tuition levels are brought down to a level at least comparable with other states’ (two years ago – the most recent report I found – Vermont was the costliest state for college tuition).

But funding for higher ed has slipped so far over so long, that doing so would entail a radical reassesment of fiscal priorities – something we’re not likely to see.

Author, radical political theorist and founder of “Social Ecology” Murray Bookchin passed away in Burlington yesterday at the age of 85.

Love him, hate him, or (sadly) don’t know him, it is impossible to dispute that Bookchin was one of the few truly original thinkers of the last century. Having grown to political maturity in the trenches of class conflict in the early 20th Century, Bookchin became rightfully disenchanted with the authoritarian Statism of the radical left and came to embrace the left-libertarianism associated with Social Anarchism (although he became concerned in his later years with the viabiity of the term “anarchism,” co-opted as it had become by seeming ethic-less, slash-and-burn activism). Bookchin’s utopian vision was far more appealing than the frighteningly authoritarian vision of the Marxists, but as communism and socialism occupied places on the active political spectrum, alternative communitarian visions that were based on true individual freedom and diversity (and were rightfully as leery of unchecked governmental power as they were of corporate power) fell by the academic and cultural wayside, much to the diminishment of political theory and discussion. There is no question that, in my opinion, Bookchin should be a far more recognizable name than the likes of the largely discredited Marx and Engels.

Most significant, though, was the philosophical structure from whence his political theory sprang. “Social Ecology” is a narrative, not just of human history, but of natural history. Bookchin’s embrace of political diversity and absolute Democracy sprang from a nature-based ethic. It was based on his observation that the pattern of nature from the moment of creation was one of ever-increasing degrees of diversity and complexity, and that human social evolution should fit into that narrative in order to be truly sustainable. Bookchin’s narrative sees human civilization and technology as a part of nature (which he termed “second nature”) – a view which often put him into conflict with “deep ecologists” who in contrast see a need for humanity to return to an arbitrary, inconsistent and romanticized hunter/gatherer period. Overall, Social Ecology provides a truly consistent, defensible, and appealing basis for an objective Moral Framework unattached (but not incompatible with) religion, and it is that framework which will likely have impact for years to come.

Closer to home, Bookchin’s radical politics (which could be described as “Green”, although he went to some effort to distinguish the different political “flavors” of Greens and disassociate himself with those he did not approve of) often put him in direct conflict with activists associated with the Progressives, whom he seemed to consider largely irrelevent at some times, or too socialist in character at others. As such, even in his adopted home of Vermont, his ideas found themselves elbowed out of the active political spectrum.

Bookchin’s work survives through his family, his many adherents, and the Institute for Social Ecology in Plainfield.

[crossposted on DailyKos and Rhetoric101]

A few days ago, nyceve wrote an excellent diary on the sad fact that it’s now economically more feasible for a person in the US to travel thousands of miles to a foreign country for medical care than to receive that care in this country.

We all know that this is because of a simple lack of leadership from those who feel none of the consequences from their lack of spine, or worse, from certain industries being treated as “more equal” than “we the people” when it comes to legislative representation.

So, perhaps the best way to stiffen some spines is to give them a taste of their own (lack of) medicine. Join me after the jump…

In the interest of fairness for all Americans, I present the:

Health Care Equity Act of 2006

  Whereas the members of the United States House and Senate have repeatedly proclaimed government-paid health care coverage to be an inefficient waste of taxpayer money, and

  Whereas the members of the United States House and Senate currently receive such inefficent and wasteful government-paid health care coverage, and

  Whereas the United States has incurred a budget deficit of [current $amount here], and

  Whereas in light of such a deficit, it would be irresponsible to continue to waste tax-payer money to continue to pay for such inefficient health care coverage, and

  Whereas it is unfair to continue to force the members of the US House and Senate to settle for such subordinate care when their health care interests will be better served by the free market,

  Therefore it is resolved that government-paid health care coverage be ended for all members of the US House and Senate beginning no later than 12:01 am, January 1, 2007.

While this is designed for the federal legislature, there’s no reason it couldn’t be tweaked for one’s state legislature and/or to include the “executive” and administration at each level.

Thoughts?

You know, I only have a brief window per day for blogging, and I had planned to talk about other things, but General Martha’s follies just keep coming…

Stung by the negative press coming from the revelation that Rainville in December accepted a $4000 contribution from a Florida contractor, and then only 5 months ago lobbied Senators Leahy and Jeffords for a 10 million appropriation, part of which would have gone to that contactor, Rainville is trying to push back. Her campaign has fired off a press release rebuttal full of quotes and citations and links going back seven years. All about what a big priority the so-called “Armory of the Future” Project at Norwich University was for Rainville, Leahy and Jeffords.

All well-documented, well-sourced, and well, irrelevant. It’s a defense in search of an argument, and only reinforces what Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said about the whole tawdry business:

“it certainly raises questions in my mind about whether she understands what ethics in government is all about.”

Check out the press release below…

From Camp Rainville:

Setting the Record Straight

Norwich Project Was Longtime Rainville Priority
Efforts Were Praised By Leahy & Jeffords

See Also Attached Letter from Ric Brahman of the Applied Research Institutes at Norwich University Timeline of the “13 Year Life of the Norwich Armory”

The Norwich “Armory Of The Future” Project Was A “Top Priority” For Gen. Rainville As Far Back As 1999.  “The armory — the top construction priority of Vermont Adjutant General Martha Rainville — would implement a new concept for Army national guard training facilities, allowing low-cost computer simulations and video-teleconferencing capabilities for soldiers, combat vehicle crews and battle staffs.”  (Sen. Leahy press release, 8/19/99, accessed on Leahy’s website, http://www.leahy.sen…)

Ø  Senators Leahy and Jeffords were Fundamental in Securing $8.65 million in Federal Funds for the Project.  “President Clinton has signed into law an annual military construction budget, including $8,652,000 sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy and Sen. Jim Jeffords, for construction of a modern new “armory of the future” at Norwich University in Northfield, for use by the Vermont Army National Guard. The senators had included the project in the Military Construction Appropriations Bill for federal fiscal year 2000, which the President signed Tuesday.” (Sen. Leahy press release, 8/19/99, accessed on Leahy’s website, http://www.leahy.sen…)

Ø  Sens. Leahy And Jeffords Praised The Norwich Project And Gen. Rainville For Her Leadership:

o  Leahy:  “General Rainville wants to keep our top-rated guard at the forefront in readiness and in skills, and this facility will help keep our guard prepared.” (Sen. Leahy press release, 8/19/99, accessed on Leahy’s website, http://www.leahy.sen…)

o  Jeffords:  “This new armory will be a national model and put the Vermont Army National Guard at the cutting edge of new training technology. The facility will give our guard the tools they need to continue their outstanding service into the next millennium.  I salute General Rainville and all the members of the guard for their efforts to protect citizens of our state and our entire nation.”  (Sen. Leahy press release, 8/19/99, accessed on Leahy’s website, http://www.leahy.sen…)

Ø  Sens. Leahy And Jeffords Reiterated their Praise at the Opening Ceremony of the Center in 2003:

o  Leahy “This is a major advance for Vermont’s Army National Guard. General Rainville wants to keep our top-rated guard at the forefront in readiness and in skills, and this facility will help keep our guard prepared.” (http://www.norwich.e…)

o  Leahy “This will be a place where members of the Guard and the entire military are going to train using some of the most state-of-the-art, advanced simulators in the world … this is going to strengthen the university, and it’s going to strengthen the Vermont National Guard.” (http://www.norwich.e…)

o  Jeffords:  “It gives us a glimpse of the future. This is a prototype — an example of what other readiness & regional technology centers will look like. But there were no blueprints. The (Vermont) National Guard and Norwich University are pioneers.” (http://www.norwich.e…)

Rainville Continued to Work with Sens. Leahy and Jeffords Over Several Years to Win Support for the Readiness and Regional Technology Center and the National Guard Virtual Low Cost Infrastructure Pilot Program (N-VLIP)

Ø  “The Congressional Adds requested are directly related to Home Land Security, Emergency Operations, Information Operations, Counterdrug Operations and Combat Readiness for our individual soldiers and units. … We also support the National Guard Virtual Low Cost Infrastructure Pilot Program request for $6,000,000 in Army National Guard Operations and Maintenance.” Letter to Leahy and Jeffords, March 11, 2004.

Ø  “The Congressional adds contained herein are directly Homeland Security, Emergency Operations, Information Operations, and Combat Readiness for our individual soldiers and units. … In addition, we support the National Guard Virtual Low Cost Infrastructure Pilot Program request for $10,000,000 in Army National Guard Operations and Mantenance.” Letters to Leahy and Jeffords, February 2006

Ø  N-VLIP Was Up and Running in April 2005

o  “On April 29, 2005, 64 Norwich University ROTC students were recognized for their role in testing virtual tank training systems developed by Raydon, Inc. The students, all members of Armor Company, put a total of 1,147 man-hours into the 16-week project, which was part of the National Guard’s virtual low-cost infrastructure pilot program (N-VLIP).” (http://www.norwich.e…)

o  “A collaboration between Norwich University, the Vermont National Guard, and RAYDON, Inc., the success of the IGT experiment bodes well for future projects of this nature.”This was a true team effort and has set the stage for continued collaboration well into the future,” said Colonel Gately.” (http://www.norwich.e…)

Ø  Leahy was instrumental in securing the funding for N-VLIP

o  “In his remarks, (Norwich University) President Schneider also acknowledged the role of Senator Patrick Leahy in making the N-VLIP project a reality. “Without his leadership to recognize the potential of this technology to increase soldier readiness, we would not have been able to complete this project.”” (http://www.norwich.e…)

Ø  Rainville Supported Projects Not Companies

o  Rainville to the Associated Press: “I supported projects throughout my tenure as adjutant general that were needed for soldier and airmen proficiency. The projects contained in that letter are valid projects. I don’t and didn’t in that letter support a specific company.” (http://www.rutlandhe…)

Ø  The National Guard Bureau Awards Federally-Funded Contracts

o  “Vermont National Guard Col. Michael Gately, the chief administrative officer at the Northfield armory, known formally as the Readiness and Regional Technical Center, said Thursday that only a portion of the $10 million request would have gone to a software vendor and he didn’t know if Raydon would be chosen, as it has been in the past. That decision would be made by the National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon, he said.” (http://www.rutlandhe…)

So the money was related to a project that had been going on for a while. So Rainville liked the project. And so did Leahy. And so did Jeffords.

And so what?

Jack Abramoff may well have liked Indian casinos. Maybe some of his favorite Congressmen did too.

She took a political contribution from someone with a financial interest in legislation before congress, turned around and lobbied to get that legislation passed weeks later. Period.

That. STINKS. And it’s all only made worse by the fact that it during the same time that she was running up more money for her “exploratory committee” than the spirit of the law allows, while exploiting her uniform for maximum political advantage with the assistance of the Rutland Herald.

All this press release does, by completely avoiding that fundamental issue, is further prove that either:

a) Rainville doesn’t understand the most basic ethics of government

b) she doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the most basic ethics of government, or

c) she thinks that the public will be too stupid to care that she doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the most basic ethics of government.

This is not how an honorable politician conducts herself. Logically, we’re stuck with one of these above explanations. Now which one goes best with a member of Congress representing the people of Vermont?

I tell you, this one’s gotten me so mad, I almost missed the pushback on the other Keystone Kampaign revelation of the week. From the Burlington Free Press:

Republican House candidate Martha Rainville on Thursday disputed claims by a former aide to Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., that in early 2005 she considered running as a Democrat against Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt.

“I would never have run against Jim Jeffords,” Rainville said

Rainville said she had no knowledge — then or now — about whether Shailor had called Albee or what they talked about. “I can’t recollect a conversation I was not a part of,” she said. Rainville said she has not discussed Albee’s claim with (Campaign operative and longtime aide to Rainville Judy) Shailor.

Shailor, speaking after the news conference, also said she could not remember who initiated the phone call. “I don’t remember who called first,” she said. “He did call me at times.”

Albee, however, insisted he had never before — or since — talked with Shailor. He said he did know at the time of the 2005 phone call that Shailor was a Vermont National Guard colleague of Rainville’s, as well as a past Republican political campaign operative.

“I remember this phone call like it was yesterday, because it was so jarring,” he said.

Shailor shrugged off Albee’s allegations as an effort by “outside interests” to cast a negative light on Rainville’s campaign.

“It’s very unfortunate,” she said. “Someone is trying to stir up trouble. I don’t see why it’s a story at all.” (emphasis mine)

…and that is why you fail…

UPDATE: PoliticsVT weighs in on the issue. Now I know the secret li’l group of bloggers over there represent a range of political ideologies, all in the interest of being perceived positively by all sides, but the following from their post:

Legally, Rainville has broken no laws nor caused any harm. However, Democrats were quick to take on Rainville for a “lapse in judgement” since Rainville has been campaigning on a platform of ethics in Congress.

However, Rainville and a number of groups such as Washington for Common Cause and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington stated that she was not only a candidate but also a Major General in the National Guard. Her responsability as Adjutant General was still on her radar as she passed the reigns over to current Adjutant General Michael Dubie.

In many ways, she was a “hybrid.” She was both a candidate and a military officer.

…is a problem. It provides no link to back up the clear suggestion that these nonprofit watchdog organizations have somehow given her a pass due to her “hybrid” role.

That’s a pretty nervy claim to make without justification, especially when you consider that, at this point, the definitive piece on the matter is the AP article from Wilson Ring that ran in the Herald and Times Argus, which includes the following:

There was nothing improper about the campaign donation or Rainville’s subsequent request for funding. But experts in political ethics say it showed poor judgment.

“This is a time when we are trying to clean up politics and here we have someone who is a little tone deaf,” said Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor who is the executive director of the nonprofit group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Nothing is going to happen to her legally, but it certainly raises questions in my mind about whether she understands what ethics in government is all about.”

This is hardly a supportive statement. In fact, the message from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics is precisely the opposite of that implied by the PoliticsVT piece. And Common Cause?

Mary Boyle, the press spokeswoman in Washington for Common Cause, said the issue highlighted the problem Rainville had as she tried to run a political campaign while still serving as adjutant general.

“She was kind of straddling two worlds. As a candidate running for office you don’t want the perception of any kind of questions like this raised by writing a letter in support of a campaign donor,” Boyle said. “It could make people ask why. Was she doing it because she was doing a routine part of her job or was it to reward a big donor?”

They are clearly frowning on the “problem” of Rainville trying to have it both ways.

Again, I know PoliticsVT tries to be popular with all sides, but this smacks of deliberate misrepresentation, and I don’t think that should be tolerated by those members of “The Capitol Bureau” that played no part in the post’s authorship (or by the blogosphere at large, frankly).

C’mon, folks. You’re better than this.

UPDATE II: Hmm..it seems a regular poster at PoliticsVT – “Demguy” – is trying a little misrepresentation of his own in order to stir up a fight. He says:

However, I think Odum has mis-represented you guys by keeping out vital parts of the entry that back up your claim. I read the same article and I believe that your argument was that she straddled both worlds. She can’t have it both ways and it made her look bad now.

At the end, you said Rainville’s actions were “questionable at a time when corruption in Washington has been a highlight of most US House and US Senate races.”

It seems that one of my own guys is taking the author of this post to task because they have a difference of opinion than his own.

Now why would I possibly take issue with that premise? Obviously what I took issue with was…well…the part that I said I took issue with, that is, implying that Common Cause and CREW we’re being all understanding and granting her special status that limited her culpability. That is the clear implication of that particular section. And that is clearly what I explicitly objected to.

Again, why would I possibly take issue with the premise that Rainville screwed up? It is..well..my premise as well, yes?

Perhaps the question is, why would “Demguy” try to clearly mischaracterize my point? Well that’s easy – he’s not a Democrat Ah, the joys of web “anonymity.”

Posts here and here  demonstrate that he is a Tarrant supporter. Could he be the Tarrantcrat I agreed not to out or his brother – both of whom post on these blogs.

Nope. Because I know my mystery Tarrantcrat supports Peter Welch, at least. Not this guy. Here’s another post:

I’m a Democrat and I fully support Martha Rainville. She will make a fantastic Congresswomen and will bring a voice of moderation and strong values to the debate in DC.

His only post about Scudder Parker I could find was a comment that his press release on energy didn’t “make any sense.”

In any event, he doesn’t seem to support any Democrats at all, and he’s promoting an agenda to keep the US Congress firmly in Republican control, so he has about as much business calling himself a “Dem” as I do calling myself a ham sandwich. Clearly, this is a Republican operative out doing his thing and without enough integrity to represent himself honestly.

Pretty typical, sadly.

Both the Free Press and the Times Argus carried the same story about Douglas’ position on energy efficiency this morning, but the headline writers at both papers create a pro-Douglas spin that gives the exact wrong impression to headline-only readers.

The gist of the story is that in the pending Public Service Board proceeding to decide on the funding level for Efficiency Vermont, while the Douglas Administration has submitted a proposal for a modes increase in funding, the administration’s own experts have determined that a much greater increase would be cost-justified, and if all cost-effective efficiency investments were made we could achieve dramatic reductions in the rate of electricity use.

Here’s a quote from the story: The department’s consultant, GDS Associates Inc., said it would be cost-effective to increase the efficiency budget to $35 million a year. During the next 10 years, it said, that investment would save Vermonters $964 million off their electric bills — a three-to-one return on investment.

Under this scenario, GDS said, Vermont’s electrical usage would be reduced by about 19 percent over what would otherwise be its projected 2015 consumption, GDS said.

In other words, by arguing for an increase that is smaller than would be economically justified, the Douglas Administration is walking away from hundreds of millions of dollars in savings.

But what to the headlines say?

Times Argus:
Douglas calls for more energy efficiency

Free Press:
Douglas aides call for more efficiency.

Sure, there is a technical sense in which those two headlines tell the truth, but the impression they give is not only false, it is contradicted by the story the headlines introduce.

I know the reporter doesn’t write the headline, but it wouldn’t be a bad thing for the person who actually does write the headline to understand what the story says, would it?

Have you bought gas lately? Or gotten an electric bill? Or shopped for next year’s fuel oil?

One of the things that Douglas’ supporters like to say is that he supports energy efficiency in general, and Efficiency Vermont in particular. While it is true that he did speak when Efficiency Vermont won an award from the Kennedy School a couple of years ago, the following press release from VPIRG documents what Douglas’ opposition to efficiency programs is costing Vermonters:

Nearly $1 billion dollars worth of savings are on the table according to an updated Department of Public Service study related to energy efficiency, and the Administration is walking away .

Montpelier, Vermont –  Environmental and consumer advocacy groups blasted Governor Douglas for missing an opportunity, according to his own administration’s analysis, to save Vermonters money and reduce the state’s electricity needs.  An updated report done by the Department of Public Service identified nearly $1 billion dollars worth of savings for Vermonters if just under $35 million dollars is invested every year in energy efficiency.  But, in a new filing sent to the public service board today the Governor supports only a nominal increase of 4.7 million in the 2007 efficiency budget leaving behind millions in energy savings.  Doubling the budget is required to reach the $35 million dollar investment and they have gone less than half the way.

Ten months of detailed analysis done by the Department of  Public Service  concluded that Vermont could reduce its electricity demand by 19.4% over the next decade and reduce Vermonter’s electric bills by investing more in energy efficiency.  “The State is walking away from efficiency and affordable energy,” said Sandra Levine, attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF).  “Efficiency is the lowest cost and cleanest energy resource.  The State should be doing all it can to use more efficiency and avoid more expensive power and more pollution.  Vermont should not leave half the savings still on the table,” she added.

Over the next decade Vermont will loose 2/3 of its power contracts as Vermont Yankee’s license expires and the current stable power contracts with Hydro Quebec end.  With this reality in mind the state legislature in 2005 instructed the Public Service Board to invest in efficiency measures that would lower Vermonter’s electric bills and reduce the amount of power the state’s utilities have to buy from the volatile and expensive power market in New England.

“First the Governor is opposed to wind power, then the Governor suggests that we need to be considering a coal or natural gas plant for Vermont and now the Governor is walking away from reducing our electricity demand when his own department’s analysis says it could save Vermonters nearly $1 billion dollars.  We could create a clean energy future but not if we continue down the path we are on right now,” said James Moore, clean energy advocate for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG).

Ultimately the Public Service Board will decide how much money will be invested in efficiency.  Levine commented that while disappointed with the Governors recommendation, “We are confident that the public service board will follow the law and set a more aggressive budget that will save all Vermonters from higher electric bills.” 

###

You can contrast this with Scudder Parker, the Democratic candidate, who has a well-thought-out energy plan that grows out of his years of experience overseeing energy efficiency programs in Vermont.

We have a choice this year, and we can’t afford to stay with Douglas.

Wow. I mean, wow.

One would think after Rainville’s history of shooting herself in the foot so often early in her run for US Congress on campaign finance issues (and getting caught repeatedly talking out of both sides of her mouth) that the parade of indiscretions and foul-ups must surely have peaked by now. One would be very, very mistaken:

Less than two months after receiving $4,000 in political donations from a Florida software developer (in December of 2005), then-Adjutant Gen. Martha Rainville asked Vermont’s two U.S. senators for help on a $10 million appropriation that may have benefited the man’s business.

“This is a time when we are trying to clean up politics and here we have someone who is a little tone deaf,” said Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor who is the executive director of the nonprofit group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Nothing is going to happen to her legally, but it certainly raises questions in my mind about whether she understands what ethics in government is all about.”

This one, plus the cumulative effect of her now storied history of screw-ups, has even got my jaw hanging open. Does she have no sense of political ethics, or does she simply think they don’t apply to her?

Up until this point, the narrative from Welch supporters has been about sending a progressive legislator to Washington to stop the Bush agenda. Given the parade of incompetence, duplicity, opportunism and sleaze that the Rainville campaign has become, it’s time for a new narrative:

This person should not hold political power. Period.

Being formally organized in more than 15 towns, and having statewide candidates that received at least 5% of the popular vote last election, the Progressive and Liberty Union Parties have both earned so-called “major party status” under Vermont law. One of the effects of such a classification is the requirement that candidates for state office be picked through a primary. This of course requires the Secretary of State to print lots and lots of ballots to accomodate any possible number of voters that may choose to vote in these Parties’ primaries at every Vermont polling place. And printing costs money. From VPR:

(Markowitz) “It costs just in paper alone just in the printing costs alone about $50,000 for every ballot that has to be printed. There’s additional costs for the programming costs of the optical scan machines in the communities that have them. So the costs associated with each primary ballot is pretty significant for the state. And the question is, is there a significant benefit to the parties? Is there a significant benefit to the public?”

SoS Markowitz is mistaken. The question is, “should a law that provides for the fair, impartial administration of the democratic process be reconsidered over money?”

Probably not – especially when the amount in question is only $100,000. This is a seriously slippery slope. Progressive Party standard bearer Anthony Pollina:

“They’re thinking of democracy in terms of the cost of printing ballots and we’re thinking of democracy in terms of public participation.”

He’s right. Markowitz’s proposal…

… a two tiered major party system. This could be done by increasing the number of towns that a party has to be organized in from 15 to perhaps 50.

…predicated on concerns about the printing costs rather than any sense that there is anything wrong with the system, would make for a very dangerous precedent that could be easily used to justify doing away with paper ballots altogether – among any number of other scary things.

Short of a fiscal catastrophe (which $50,000 per party hardly qualifies as), the only reasons to consider monkeying with the implementation of democracy are considerations of the implementation of democracy… not considerations of cash.

Thursday, Martha Rainville will try to regain the ground she lost by her mushy, try to please everyone non-opinion on global climate change by holding a press conference at the Williston park-and-ride on energy at 11:00.

Unfortunately, what any press in attendence (Fox Ne-er, I mean, WCAX notwithstanding) will likely be more interested in asking her about is this little revelation:

Long before she dipped her toe into the political waters as a Republican, Rainville in early 2005 sought out top Democrats to back her planned bid as a Democrat against Sen. Jim Jeffords.

At the time, February 2005, Jeffords was still expected to run for reelection, and he was beginning to rack up endorsements from some of Vermont’s top politicians, both Democrats and Republicans.

From the week of Feb. 8-15, 2005, Rainville and Judy Shailor, Rainville’s top aide at the Vermont National Guard who would later help launch her campaign committee, made it clear that Rainville wanted to move into politics — as a Democrat.

This runs counter to the narrative Rainville often tells publicly — that it was the Democrats who approached her, and she rebuffed their advances.

Of course it was only this May at the Republican statewide gathering in Barre when she said the following to the assembled crowds.

Rainville also mentioned she had been recruited by “influential leaders” of the Democratic Party and had “politely declined” their invitation. “Their principles,” said Martha, “are simply not my principles.”

No argument here, given that her principles seem to be shameless opportunism and duplicity.