Say you’re a 14-year-old girl and you’re pregnant because your father raped you. And say that you live in a state that requires parental notification. Under a bill passed by the Senate yesterday it would be a federal crime for a supportive friend or family member to help you get the abortion you need, even if your life is at stake. That’s right, even in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother, a majority of the House and Senate have voted to allow parents, no matter how culpable or abusive they may be, to prevent pregnant minors from obtaining the health care they need.

It shouldn’t even be surprising that this bill is called the Child Custody Protection Act; their approach to naming legislation has long since become so cynical that it barely raises an eyebrow.

What I want to know is this: what to Tarrant and Rainville think of this legislation?

It seems that Richie Tarrant has two campaign themes: vacuous, soft-focus puff pieces; and the straight-on pander. We got an example of the pander yesterday when he held a press event to highlight his opposition to freedom of speech.

I’m talking about his support for the flag-burning amendment. As the story points out, for some time now Tarrant has been passing out American flags (how many of them wind up on the ground after parades, I wonder?) attached to Tarrant ads, but apparently that hasn’t gotten him enough attention so he held a press conference yesterday to make the point.

As you know, the flag-burning amendment was narrowly defeated last month, so we can’t afford to have one of Vermont’s Senate seats switch from principled opposition to Tarrant’s unprincipled pandering on this issue.

This might qualify as a personal journal entry.
I feel pretty alone as I write it.  There was a little piece of news which came by last week that had great significance to me, but which slipped under the radar of most political punditis.

Bernie Sanders, the “favorite” in the horse race for the open U.S. Senate seat in Vermont, filed as a candidate in the primary election … as a DEMOCRAT.  What does this mean?

Well, Bernie might be the best person to tell us all the ramifications but one ramification is very clear to me as an independent challenger for the seat:

  WE ARE LOSING OUR INDEPENDENTS IN CONGRESS!

Bernie can no longer claim to be an Independent.
He has taken a side.  I think it was the the correct action for him. It was something I challenged him to do in my ‘Open Letter to Bernie Sanders’  where I said:

4. Why do you vote with the Democrats and accept the endorsement of prominent Democrats but refuse to run as a Democrat?

Reference: http://metamind.us/m…

Bernie Sanders is currently the only independent in the House of Representatives.  James Jeffords is the only independent in the U.S. Senate.  Jeffords has already announced his retirement.
Sanders has announced his partisanship and the end of his independent status.

The way I see it BOTH of our independent politicians are “giving up” on independence.
They have joined the party game.

As an independent it is for me to do … to support independence from parties.  What does it mean to be an “independent” politician?

It means I am “outside the box” of the gang warfare. Parties are like gangs, each gange “certainly correct” that its ideology is the correct one. But it is all foolishness.  Both gangs believe in control, in dominance, in the idea that “politics is about who’s in charge?”

To me, this is all rubbish.  Nobody is in control.  Everyone has influence on the course of events and the destiny of humankind.  But nobody controls it.

The Republicans may espouse “free market idology” but they are as much the victims of money and its machinations as they are the controllers of it.
It seems to me that we want “something to believe in” because we are too insecure and cowardly to “stand alone in the winds of change.”

But courage is a virtue and parties diminish our courage.  It takes more courage to stand alone than to join a gang which is “certainly correct” in its ideological views.

What is correct?  It is “doing the right thing.”
It is virtue.  But virtue should be looked at as a toolbox of creative spirituality rather than a set of rules to be followed with religious conviction.  Virtue is not religion; it is philosophy.  It evolves as we evolve.  Virtues can be combined in many creative ways.  Virtue liberates us from ideology rather than confining us to it.  Virtue is the antithesis of ideology.

Once someone is “certainly correct” they can do great evil.  Look at what is happening today between Israel and Hezbollah.  Israel is  certainly correct, right?  So is Hezbollah.  How can this be?  Because neither side is practicing virtue any more.  None of them are correct.  They are all wrong.

One literal translation of “Israel” is “Upright with God” according to Wikipedia
( http://en.wikipedia…. )
The word “Hezbollah” means “Party of God.”

So who is correct?  It is difficult for me to call Israel “Upright with God” when their actions seem so out of balance with fairness, compassion, mercy  and justice.  If Hezbollah is a party, I fail to see what’s fun about it.  Dying for one’s beliefs is one of the most insane actions possible in my humble opinion.  They are only beliefs.  Change them.  Then change them back. Then change them again.  Good grief!  I think many of us are taking ourselves far too seriously.

What was your belief in God when you were a child?
Did you believe God was an old man with a big grey beard who lived in the sky?  What was your belief in God last year, five years ago, ten years ago and so forth?  Has your belief changed over the years?  Tell the truth.  Tell the HONEST truth.
Are you making it up as you go along?  Were you
correct when you believed these things before?  Are you now correct?  Are you sure?

This is the “nut” of the issue. 
Surely, we are certainly correct.
It’s too insecure for us to think otherwise.  What kind of politics can an “independent politician” have nowadays?  Uncertain politics, right?  Wrong.  I can have convictions as an independent politician and I do have convictions. 

One of my convictions is: “I MAY be wrong.”  That’s acknowledging my own ignorance, my own capacity for an incorrect, inferior, incomplete understanding of the issue.  That’s humility.  That’s wisdom. That is a virtue.  Ironically, it’s also a “more correct” position on political convictions.

I’m convinced that virtue is a good thing, but I’m uncertain about which virtue is most important at any given point in time.  Is it more important to pursue PEACE or JUSTICE?  Is it more important to be TRUTHFUL or REVERENT?  Is it more important to be PATIENT or ASSERTIVE?

Someone recently asked me “So what’s the best solution?”  I told him “Always ask the question: What would be better?”

That’s life in the “independent lane.”  I don’t  have a firm position on embryonic stem cell  research.  My position on the violence in the Middle East is “It’s all wrong.”  Focus on virtue and you will find better answers.  I am certainly correct.

Steve Moyer
Warren, VT
http://stevemoyer.us

New poll numbers from Survey USA:

Let’s just say these numbers are hardly welcome news for Scudder Parker’s campaign. Most disturbing (and aggravating), though, is how self-identified Democrats break out:

After a brief spike in SUSA’s last poll on Douglas’s disapprovals (37%), they’re right back down where they’ve tended to float for some time. In fact, this looks an awful lot like the numbers Clavelle was looking at two years ago, and at the time, the reasoning was that many weeniecrats… er… self-identified “moderate” Democrats, could not get past the “Progressive Pete” shingle that had hung outside the Burlington Mayor’s office for so long, and therefore tended to look more positively on the Governor than they otherwise would. Given that there is no one in the state with more solid Dem cred than Parker, the problem obviously runs deeper than that.

Despite the fact that he makes most advocates for traditionally Democratic or liberal issues pull their hair out, the public at large still likes the Governor. Over the years, Douglas has built a narrative of himself as an easy going, likable, moderate and competent manager. Although you could just about pick any issue near and dear to the left and find grumbling about the Governor from activists for that cause, the fact is that neither Parker, Clavelle or Racine has been able to make a compelling counter-narrative, which is what has to be done to turn things around for the Dems.

Now the last thing I would suggest is that Scudder is done for, even looking at such challenging numbers. He’s started getting good press and grassroots enthusiasm and anyone watching the Connecticut Senate race knows how quickly numbers can turn if the right elements come together. What I will say is that, at this stage, he needs some good fortune, and when running a campaign it’s always prefereable NOT to have to depend on good fortune. It’s all about keeping control of the variables.

Given that, here’s what I think it would take to defeat Douglas:

(DISCLAIMER: Everybody who is currently or has ever been involved in politics thinks they know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING. And that obviously includes me. It’s annoying, I admit, so I advise readers to take any pronouncements in diaries like this with the appropriate salt-grainage)

Campaign consultants and usual suspects are at a loss when theres a 30 point deficit against a popular incumbent. When I worked for the Clavelle campaign, we brought in a consultant who pointed us towards Brian Schweitzer’s first, unsuccessful campaign for Governor in Montana, where he very nearly closed that gap.

The problem with this was that Vermont is in no way, shape or form Montana.

In my experience working elections in Oregon and Vermont, if there is one way that the collective psychology of the electorate out west and the electorate here differ, it’s that there is a universal, deep-seated suspicion and resentment towards all elected officials out west. It’s a fundamental feeling that crosses party lines. As such, a 68% approval rating means something very different in Montana than it does in Vermont. In Montana, that approval rating is only skin-deep, and it takes very little scratching beneath the surface to start eroding that percentage and awaken that across-the-board cynicism towards electeds. In Vermont, it’s quite different. A 68% approval rating likely very well means that most of that 68% actually like the elected.

As such, although it may have seemed the logical campaign model to emulate under the circumstances, it was simply doomed to failure, and a 30 point deficit against a 60+ point approval incumbent in Vermont is inherently unwinnable under the accepted, professional campaign models.

Under these circumstances, I believe we should have gone against the counsel of professional consultants, contrary to the wisdom of most who consider themselves election professionals and adopted what I’ll refer to as an insurgent campaign model.

Without going into excessive detail, let me say that an insurgent campaign model is inherently more aggressive, more negative, and much more of a field-based model. During the campaign I heard from more than one “professional” the adjective “grassroots” dismissed as a throwaway euphemism for a losing, poorly funded campaign. Having worked on campaigns with a strong grassroots component, I take a certain umbrage to that characterization, but it’s an indication of the bias towards viewing campaigns exclusively as mass media affairs and candidates as cookie-cutter “product” among many Democratic Party veterans (an oversimplified, binary bias that causes us to lose elections, in my opinion).

Examples of insurgent campaigns close to home include Bernie’s first successful run for congress (although that’s a dangerously obsolete example to emulate), and more recently Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. Characteristics include:

1. Heavy emphasis on field. I believe that something akin to the Dean New Hampshire field model would have served Clavelle very well (more on that in a moment). Doing so would have necessitated an up-front investment in field at least double of that which we did.

You certainly see people (in general) out knocking on doors this year more than usual – certainly on both sides of the US Senate race. Still, “field work” remains the poor stepchild of political campaigns. this is a real shame because traditionally, the grunt work of grassroots organizing in the field has always been the left’s advantage – and to retake the Governorship will require a fully realized field-driven campaign.

2. An extended campaign calendar and high level of integration of field and fundraising.

3. A “pay as you go” model. Perhaps the most challenging of all aspects, it involves building a campaign plan that assumes financial support in the waning weeks before Election Day without a comfortable degree of certainty as to where the money would come from. Simply put, the up-front field investment is so do-or-die, it necessitates throwing a certain amount of caution to the wind in order to fund it.

4. Aggressive, “comparative” message. The opponent is identified in populist, simple, and moral terms as being out of touch in virtually every way and no opportunity is missed to demonstrate that.

5. Extreme Rapid Response. No charge or initiative of the opponent is left unchallenged or uncharacterized. In an insurgent campaign, the candidate him or herself responds directly to make the counterattack louder than the attack. If this comes from the candidate himself, it can be accomplished without simply seeming shrill, but it means that the candidate must have sufficient research to be prepared for anything, and be prepared on a day-to-day basis, through accompanying communications staff, to respond in a press conference setting within 4 hours to anything that may be tossed his way. This means that if the candidate is campaigning in Bennington for the day, fifteen minutes must be carved out of his schedule for a press conference in Bennington to respond to the salvo du jour from the incumbent in Montpelier.

6. “Movement” rhetoric. The message of the campaign must suggest a groundswell. In Bernie’s and Dean’s campaigns, the pronoun “I” was rarely heard. It’s always “we” and “this campaign.” The rhetoric of “I am ready to lead” must give way to the message of “we are ready to change things.”

So how is Scudder doing based on this checklist?

2, 3, and 4 are looking good. 5 has been sometimes excellent, and sometimes absent. Haven’t heard the movement rhetoric from #6.

But the most important point – #1 – has been lacking.

A couple weeks before I officially started with the Clavelle campaign, Tom Hughes at Democracy for America (who I had worked with during the ’02 campaign) asked me to meet with him. He wanted to lay out the New Hampshire Dean house party model of field organizing to me, in the hopes that I would adopt it for the Clavelle campaign. I was already favorably inclined towards the model, and seeing it laid out like that really sold me. Without belaboring the detail in a diary that is already way too long for any sane person to slog through, it is a truly brilliant approach. The house event – where a host invites a few true believers and many more fence sitters or completely un-engaged folks, plays them a short video of the candidate and his/her message, then facilitates a discussion about how the message applies to the individuals in attendence – breaks the traditional candidate-to-audience communication dynamic. Instead, the candidate’s message is introduced and the communication becomes person-to-person, with the candidate completely removed. The Dean model gets people talking to each other about themselves, and who doesn’t love to do that?

From each party, then, the new recruits go out and host their own parties. This house-party chain is punctuated by benchmark convention-style events that get the burgeoning fan club/local volunteer infrastructure together for combination revival meetings and volunteer duty-tasking.

It was a great system that too many people dismiss because Dean didn’t win. What they forget is that Dean went from nobody to being the guy to beat, and but for some missteps and a coordinated effort from some of the other candidates to take him down, he wouldve had the nomination, and it was this field strategy combined with the brilliant use of the internet that enabled it.

What the field strategy and the netroots strategy did in tandem was decentralize the campaign and allow it to take off (often beyond the control of the campaign itself) into a real movement. And in doing so, they demonstrated the crucial element of a modern field-focused campaign; that a field plan isn’t about what happens when a candidate is in town, it’s about what happens when the candidate is somewhere else.

And this is an understanding that Scudder’s campaign hasn’t demonstrated. The “candidate-in-residence” tours are great things, but if the campaign doesn’t actively translate them into ongoing grassroots action after the candidate leaves for the next stop, they aren’t getting much from them.

The Dean model is the best I’ve seen to accomplish this, but it does require an early start and a serious committment of resources, as coordinating such an “amway-style” campaign takes a lot of on-the-ground, hands-on management. Although Scudder got started early, he did not start such an active field development program – and that means he is not that much removed from where Clavelle was at this time.

Returning to the Clavelle comparison, I did leave my meeting with Hughes and immediately put together a scaled-down version of the New Hampshire Dean model as a proposal to the Campaign Manager. Although it was rejected, it’d be unfair to really assess any blame for that decision. The truth is, it was already June – only 5 months before the election – and the die was already cast. We were committed to a course of action and we had to simply make it work, or not. If Scudder doesn’t win, the next candidate will have to do all the things right that Scudder has done, but then give it that final extra critical component – the early, intensive committment to a full-blown, vibrant, decentralized and grassroots driven field campaign, probably starting no later than September or November of the year before the election.

When that happens, the movement becomes the counter-narrative to Douglas’s never-ending story, and the tale can be told from house party to house party…

I was recently in Virginia for a wedding and I had a conversation with my brother-in-law about what I thought of Howard Dean. He was asking me, and he didn’t express much surprise at my statement that I couldn’t stand him when he was governor because he was too conservative, even a DINO–my brother-in-law already thinks I’m a left-wing wacko.

No, what he was interested in was what I thought of Dean as national party chair, and the fifty-state strategy in particular.

I told him I’m in favor of it. I really do think that we need to reach out to people who should be our allies all across the country. In fact, we can’t afford not to. I told him how I really appreciated the principle behind Dean’s statement that we should be the party of the guy with the Confederate flag bumper-sticker on his pickup truck: not because we can support or even tolerate such expressions of racism, but because I think most of us agree that these expressions of racism are partly the result of feelings of frustration and marginalization that have come from economic inequality, lack of opportunity, and lack of access to real power.

My brother-in-law thinks this is a pipe dream. His reaction is that the South is gone for us, and there is no way we’re ever going to get it back.

A story in today’s Post demonstrates why that’s not true. The story’s called “Rethinking Red States”, and it shows what a big difference can come from even small realignments. Look at four Southern states: Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and North Carolina. As recently as 1994 the Democratic Party had the majority of the Senate and House delegations of these four states, and now we don’t. If we could get back to where we were in 1994 we would have a majority in the Senate and we would make steps toward taking back the House.

Are we going to do this?

We don’t know yet. Still, it’s important to realize that we don’t need to take over Mississippi, Alabama, and the other states of the Deep South–really dominate the region, the way the Party used to–to improve our position on the national scene. We can get some of these seats back, and we need to do just that.

What does this tell us in Vermont?

Look around the state. In Washington County, for instance, we have several legislative races in which the Republicans aren’t fielding a candidate; there are one or two where the Republicans have a candidate and we don’t. I’m sure the same thing is true across the state, even if there are some write-ins to fill the slots.

My point is that we have to do more than win our local races. Even in uncontested House districts we have important Senate elections to win. Even in safe Senate districts we’re running statewide elections for Governor, Lite-Gov, Senate, Congress, and the other statewide offices. What we need to do in Vermont is the same thing Dean has shown us we have to do nationwide. It’s not a fifty-state campaign in Vermont, it’s a fourteen-county campaign.

Hard work wins elections. The R’s haven’t forgotten that, and we sure can’t afford to.

( – promoted by Vermonter)

I really couldn’t decide what to write about…

Should I highlight the delicious news that John McCain’s much-anticipated, much-desired (by some) appearance in Vermont – a robo-stop stump speech for Martha Rainville – had been dashed by inclement weather?

Or, the bizarre fact that one of the medical centers in Montreal is known by its acronym, C.H.U.M. (the Centre Hopital de l’Université de Montréal)?

I mean… Chum?!

I was in Montreal this weekend, and passed by a CHUM entrance sign on St. Denis, with its kinda cool, hip logo…

And I thought, c’mon, of all things you might choose to call a medical facility, I don’t think chum is the one I would have gone with!

And, hey… Montreal is a bilingual city, whether it wants to admit it or not… So language can’t fully explain this perverse, dark, macabre  gallows humor, can it?

What, did they mean chum as in pal?

Please.

But, then I thought, John McCain is kinda like chum for the supposed “centrist” voter.

So, maybe I could combine the two things that inspired me this weekend…

You know, McCain as chum for the ones who thinks criticizing the President is ~just not appropriate during wartime,~ despite the fact that they disagree with virtually every decision he’s made…

You know, the Lieberman Democrats…

And the part of Barack Obama that makes some of us cringe, sometimes…

The ones who think The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Chris Mathews are above reproach…

The “swing” voters who actually voted for Bush in 2004, despite the fact that they disagreed with virtually every decision he made…

The ones who think the media-generated middle American worldview must be accepted, not re-shaped, regardless of what they themselves believe…

They eat the McCain chum with gusto.

And they voted for Douglas in 2004, too…

So how could I ignore the missed visit after hearing that Rich Tarrant was trying to muscle his way into the McCain appearance?

(Cuz, no matter what the personal tiff was between two political operatives, that’s what was going on here, I think. It’s just that McCain’s official staff would have handled it more graciously than did the hired hand.)

After all that – and after all the hope the Rainville camp must have had for the glow of McCain to reflect on Ms. Martha – the tempetuous weather (and the lame Rutland airport) conspired to thwart all their best intentions…

It may not be nice, but it was hard not to gloat just a little.

And, who knows, this may mean a trip by McCain in late October, when Martha Rainville might actually be able to benefit from it.

So CHUM or chum? Who could choose?

Who could choose between sick doctor humor and taking just a bit of time to shine a little light on what must feel like a tragic turn of events to those who so desperately wanted a piece of the McCain magic.

Not me.

But, remember, come late October, McCain may just end up being the chum that keeps on giving.

[Crossposted at What’s the Point?]

(UPDATE: I am informed that Vermont statute requires platform conventions be held “On or before the fourth Tuesday in September in each even numbered year”… so much for waiting for after the election! IMO, this was a big screw-up not getting this done and squared away in June or July… perhaps the VDP staff can delegate it to some eager consultant to put together)

The Democratic Party is required by statute to have a delegate convention this year to draft a new Party Platform. The Republicans are moving ahead full steam on theirs, while the VDP has been slow to get the train going, but rumors are that they’ll be shooting for September.

My own advice would be for them to put it off until after the election. Doing these things earlier in the summer guarantees that they will not distract or detract from the upcoming elections, but going forward at such late a date strikes me as dangerous for the strict message control needed at the height of campaign time, especially since its likely that rank-and-file Dems will bring up controversial issues such as Presidential Impeachment (sigh…that holding this President accountable would be controversial…but I digress…)

Back in 2000 when I worked for the VDP, I launched a feature on the Party website called the VDP iPlatform, whereby users could use a simple but cute little form to transfer sections of the previous platform into a personal document, make their own suggested changes, and forward them to the Party for consideration (with the option of leaving them posted for all to see). Ideas were then forwarded through the Executive Director to the Party’s Platform drafting committee.

Unfortunately, Vermont wasn’t that…er…”web-engaged” six years ago, so I believe we ended up with 3 submissions. Still, it was a principle that was fun, and in the same spirit, I’m going to copy the 2004 VDP Platform below. Without any nifty scripting to spice it up – just text – you’ll have to rely on good ol’ fashioned cutting and pasting, but I encourage folks to do what we tried to do in 2000. Take sections and remake them how you feel they should be made. Add sections, delete sections, modify sections, applaud the existing wording of sections – or simply critique the whole thing.

(For my part, I found the document surprisingly good… but I’ll admit, I expected to see a lot of vagueries and rhetoric, so the meat that was present came as a pleasant surprise…)

2004 Vermont Democratic Party Platform
As approved by the 2004 Platform Convention, September 26, 2004

PREAMBLE

Vermont Democrats base our beliefs on the principles that define and unite our society: democracy, individual liberty, and equal treatment under the law as guaranteed by the United States and Vermont Constitutions, equal opportunity for everyone to achieve and to prosper, personal responsibility, respect for all families, the importance of community, and the preservation of civil society.

1. FEDERAL POLICY

In the past four years decisions at the Federal level have begun to have dramatic negative impact on Vermont and Vermonters. It is beyond the scope of this platform to address all policy issues at the national level that affect Vermonters. However, the following policies at the federal level are of dramatic and urgent concern and affect our ability to shape a constructive future for Vermont’s people.

a. Tax Cuts/Deficit:

Tax cuts under the Bush/Cheney presidency have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest citizens and corporate taxpayers. These tax cuts have helped turned three years of Clinton surpluses into federal deficits as far as the eye can see. The tax cuts and resulting deficits are being used to justify cuts in vital programs from transportation to antiterrorism efforts; from health care to affordable housing.

We support reversing the federal tax cuts, especially for the wealthiest taxpayers, and returning to a policy of fiscal responsibility. We support full funding for programs that support working Vermonters and the vulnerable in our society. We recognize the need for investment in the infrastructure that is vital to economic well-being.

b. The War in Iraq:

We strongly condemn the deceptions and false claims that were used to justify the war in Iraq, and the failure of the Bush Administration to understand the history and the cultural and religious forces at work in that region. We support an active policy to include the United Nations Security Council and other United Nations member states concerning future actions in Iraq. We advocate that the financial and political commitment to stabilizing and securing Iraq be a joint and cooperative effort by members of the United Nations Security Council and other United Nations member states.

We offer our support and appreciation to the men and women and their families who have served and are now serving in Iraq. We advocate that all military personnel and veterans be recognized for their courage and service and that they be provided with full medical, emotional and financial support.

c. Outsourcing:

The Vermont Democratic Party calls upon its Congressional delegation to oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and similar trade agreements until a new trade policy that protects the environment, workers’ rights, and the health of local communities is adopted at the Federal level.

d. Environment:

The Bush Administration record on the environment is a disaster for the United States and Vermont. A firm commitment to cleaning up our air, water, and land and to addressing global climate change is essential. Strong environmental protection is vital to a healthy economy.

e. Energy:

The Bush/Cheney energy policy reflects the positions and interests of fossil fuel corporations. There must be a commitment to sustainable energy investment, energy efficiency, and developing the distributed and renewable energy resources that can make our energy more affordable, our nation more secure and our economy stronger in the 21st century.

f. Health Care:

The Federal government should support the provision of health care as a right for all Americans. It should support states in developing innovative strategies to provide quality, affordable universal health care. It should provide for the safe re-importation of prescription drugs, and encourage reasonable and affordable pricing of drugs for all Americans.

g. Affordable Housing

The Federal Government should restore cuts made by the Bush/Cheney Administration in funding for Section 8 and other programs to subsidize low-income housing.

h. Education:

The Federal government should fully fund its long-unfunded mandate for special education. It should encourage innovative state approaches to promoting improved education, school accountability, and most importantly, educating students to be informed, thoughtful citizens, innovative and productive workers, and caring members of their communities..

No Child Left Behind should either be abandoned or revised to make it useful to schools and fully funded.

2. BUILDING HEALTHY COMMUNITIES:

We believe that the areas of education, health care, housing, and other essential human services need to be considered as essential components to build healthy communities in Vermont. In these areas, the issues of funding, access, quality and effectiveness are all intertwined.

a. Children and Childcare:

The future of Vermont resides in our children. All programs, policies and regulations should be viewed in the context of how they will affect Vermont’s children. In order to allow parents to work, and in order to build a better future for our children, we will implement programs that promote the delivery of affordable, quality childcare.

b. Education:

Education builds the future for Vermont and all Vermonters. It is our best investment. has All children have the right to have an equal opportunity to a quality education, regardless of where they live. We support strengthening education programs for early childhood; we support affordable and accessible higher education; and we support continuing education for adults. We endorse strategies to provide choice among secondary schools in public education that preserve community-based schools. In accordance with the Vermont Constitution, public funds must be used solely to support non-sectarian schools.

c. Health Care:

Vermonters have the right to accessible, quality, affordable health and dental care, mental health care, long-term home and institutional care, and substance abuse treatment. We are proud of the success Vermont has had under Democratic leadership in extending health care services to most Vermonters, especially our children.

Mindful of the continuing lack of a satisfactory health care system in our country, we believe that Vermont should take the lead in reducing costs and improving services by instituting a universal health care system based on the following principles:
·Every Vermonter covered without regard to age, income, employment, or medical condition.
·All appropriate and necessary services covered including prescription drugs and long-term care.
·Free choice of health care providers.
·Cost to consumer based on ability to pay.
·Accountable to the public for financial performance and for quality of service.

We must also continue to pursue ways to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

d. Crime Prevention:

We must continue to protect our communities and provide safety for our citizens. We support programs that prevent crime through education, drug treatment, prevention and deterrence.

e. Housing:

Safe and affordable housing is one of the fundamental building blocks for our healthy communities. We will promote the construction of affordable housing, support the construction of housing accessible to the elderly and people with disabilities, and work to uphold minimum housing standards throughout the state.

f. Human Services:

We have an obligation to all Vermont families and to all Vermonters to provide services that protect their well-being and preserve their dignity. We are proud of our many successful community-based services for Vermonters: early childhood education and health programs, Parent-Child centers, our network of mental health services, programs for older Vermonters, programs for people with disabilities, and community action programs. We will work to constantly improve the responsiveness and quality of Human Services programs.

*3. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY: *

We believe that economic opportunity issues should be treated comprehensively, with business, government, labor and environmental groups working together. A healthy economy is necessary to support jobs and businesses, and to generate the public and private resources that make Vermont a special place to live. We believe that we must employ an economic strategy that incorporates our Vermont values and that seeks to build economic opportunity for all Vermonters. We recognize that addressing the health care crisis in Vermont is a critical part of a sound economic development strategy.

a. Economic Development and Job Creation:

Business, government, higher education, labor and environmental groups have the responsibility to work together to create the climate needed to foster economic development and the creation of well-paid jobs, including high tech jobs. We must support the development and growth of businesses of all sizes, but we must particularly work to develop the small businesses that are closely committed and connected to Vermont. We will implement programs that encourage the growth of business and job opportunities in the areas of the state where the local economy is struggling.

b. Agriculture and Forestry:

Agriculture and Forestry are vital components of not only our economy, but also our communities and our culture. We will implement programs that help to provide economic stability, that encourage diversification, that promote value-added enterprises and that foster environmental responsibility. In addition, we are committed to the continued viability of the family farm.

c. Diverse and Sustainable Economy:

Vermont already has a diversely developed economy. This diversity makes our economy more stable in the long run, instead of subject to the booms and busts of mill-town economies. We will continue to broaden the spectrum of economic sectors, and encourage the growth of entrepreneurial enterprises that create opportunity, meaningful work, and wealth. We will create strategies for future business development based upon a sound understanding of the forces that affect our economy..

We recognize the need to limit the growing power and economic concentration of multinational corporations, especially media conglomerates, in public life and enhance competition through active enforcement of antitrust laws and other measures.

d. Infrastructure—Transportation, Telecommunications and Energy:

Wise investment in infrastructure will produce a stronger economy in the future. We must maintain our transportation network and expand alternative and public transportation options. We must provide the mechanisms/incentives that will develop broadband telecommunications services throughout the state.

Vermont should develop a sustainable, affordable, renewable and efficient energy mix that will create jobs, help insulate Vermonters from fossil fuel price fluctuations, improve our environment, and strengthen our economy.

e. Job Training:

With the global economy in a constant state of flux, the need for employable skills is constantly shifting. In order to have a skilled workforce that will attract quality businesses with well-paid jobs, we will encourage and enable public and private investment that will provide job training to Vermonters.

Colleges and universities have the potential to be the engine to propel our society into greater prosperity. Further, they are important to local economies throughout the state. We must make a stronger effort to support these institutions and their students.

f. Livable Wage and Equal Pay:

Vermont employees are entitled to a livable wage. Consequently, we support an increase in the minimum wage with regular cost of living updates. In addition to wages, we recognize that childcare and health care benefits are important components of compensation. We also believe that equal work should be recognized with equal pay.

g. Regulatory Review:

We support the review of economic development programs in order to assess the successful components, to provide accountability, and to streamline the processes that are needlessly cumbersome and bureaucratic. We support the consideration of specific government organizational changes that will create links among agencies where there should be close working partnerships in policy and economic development.

4. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS:

Our laws and social institutions should protect individual rights and equality regardless of race, religion, national origin, gender, age, marital status, health status, sexual orientation, or disability.

a. Reproductive Education and Choice:

We support the right of all to receive complete and accurate information on family planning, pregnancy services, and the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. We remain committed to the universal right of women of all ages to make personal, confidential decisions regarding abortion and other issues related to reproductive health, free from harassment and interference.

b. Workers’ Rights:

Ensuring the rights of employees in the workplace is an appropriate and necessary function of government. We support worker’s right to organize a union, bargain collectively for pay and benefits, work free from discrimination, and work in safe, healthy and fair conditions. We support Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

c. Civil Unions:

We continue to support Vermont’s Civil Unions law. We support full and equal rights for gay and lesbian couples.

d. Equality Before the Law:

This national goal, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, remains unrealized. We support equal rights amendments to the Federal and Vermont Constitutions.

e. Native Americans:

We support measures to ensure the dignity, individuality, and cultural distinctiveness of Vermont’s Native American peoples. We also support efforts to resolve the complex legal and public policy questions related to formal recognition of tribal status by the state.

f. Respect:

Respect for the dignity of others is a fundamental building block of healthy communities and a healthy society. We support programs aimed at instilling this principle at all levels, including those to combat sexual, racial, physical, cultural, and emotional harassment in our schools and workplaces.

5. SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT:

Effective environmental protection includes both respect for private property rights and a keen awareness of the public value of a healthy environment in enhancing our economy, public health, and quality of life.

a. Sprawl:

Our goal is to preserve Vermont’s unique working landscape and quality of life while encouraging economic vitality in community centers. We support measures intended to: discourage wasteful land consumption; increase public awareness of the environmental costs of sprawl; promote downtowns and village centers; provide more transportation and housing choices; and conserve valuable farmland and forestland.

b. Environmental Protection:

We support the fundamental goals of Vermont’s land use planning laws and other foundations of environmental law such as the Endangered Species Act, which are aimed at preserving Vermont’s quality of life, the biodiversity of its ecosystems, and the purity of its air, soils, and waters. Accordingly, we also support the designation of a core ecological area within the Champion Lands.

c. Regulatory Process:

Environmental regulations must be enforced fairly and intelligently. We will work to ensure that state agencies are empowered and encouraged to work with businesses to help them comply with necessary regulations as efficiently and inexpensively as possible.

d. Sustainable Business:

We endorse the view that economic development can be carried out in harmony with effective environmental protection. As a first, obvious step toward these goals, we will ensure Vermont should make every affordable effort to attract and encourage environmentally friendly and sustainable businesses such as community-supported agriculture, environmental tourism, energy efficiency, renewable energy, organic farming, green building design, and sustainable forestry.

e. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs):

We believe that biotechnology, like other revolutionary scientific discoveries in human history, holds great promise in a wide range of applications. Because this technology has the unprecedented ability to alter the very structure of life itself, and because credible scientific voices have raised cautionary concerns, we believe that proponents of this technology should bear the burden of proof that GMOs will not harm human health or the environment. This approach allows Vermonters the potential benefits of biotechnology, while protecting both Vermonters and the environment from potential risks.

6. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT:

Democrats believe that government should be effective and responsive in protecting and enhancing the public interest. Government cannot and should not try to be the answer to all problems, but open democratic government is essential to protecting and enhancing the public good. Government can provide the context in which communities flourish, individuals grow and gain opportunity, and creative responses to our physical, social and personal needs are supported. Government provides basic services, and should do so with efficiency and fairness. It provides protection, stability, justice and equal opportunity.

a. Sound Fiscal Policy:

Sound fiscal policy is vital to the thoughtful and responsible operation of government and maintenance of social and environmental programs. The Vermont Democratic Party is the party of fiscal responsibility, with a proven record of sound fiscal policy. We have put in place many protections against revenue shortfalls. Sound fiscal policy is based on fair taxation—reasonably progressive overall, all forms of wealth taxed at moderate rates. We must be willing to keep spending restrained, and to use resources to avoid harmful cuts when revenues are down. Our social programs must live within the resources of Vermonters through good economic times and bad.

b. Understand and Address the Major Cost Drivers:

We need to look at the areas of big government spending to find real economies and efficiencies. Too often government is saddled with “picking up the costs” that other sectors of the economy are unwilling to bear. We need to consider whether there are “least cost” ways of meeting transportation needs, whether prescription drug costs can be lowered, and whether, more generally, the big driving costs such as health care need a whole new approach, both to provide better service and to manage costs. Obviously the goal in a number of these efforts is not just to lower costs, but to find better service at lower cost.

c. A New Approach to Managing State Government:

Democrats believe in consistent, fair enforcement of regulations on the books and in continued improvement in coordination among state agencies. We believe that a top-to-bottom “performance review” of the functions of state government is necessary in order to find creative, smart new ways to make government run more efficiently on the resources we have. We believe that Vermont state government needs to work closely with town government.

d. Support for Campaign Finance Reform and Public Financing of Campaigns:

Democrats took the lead in passing the Campaign Finance law that has been upheld by the decision of the Second Circuit Court in a remarkable landmark decision. We should expand public financing law to include House and Senate legislative races, along the lines of the Maine model.

e. Voting Rights:

We support measures to encourage maximum voter participation. The Democratic Party supports a change to the Vermont Constitution that will promptly accomplish the election of a governor, lieutenant governor, or treasurer, and fairly reflect the will of the electorate if no candidate receives a majority of the votes.

We support full paper trails to verify voter choices in any electronic or “touch-screen” voting devices.

f. Transparency and Responsibility:

Concentrated economic power is inimical to democratic self-government. We support transparency in government and limiting the influence of large corporations and other entities in endangering the public interest.

« Previous Next »
2004 Vermont Democratic Party Platform
As approved by the 2004 Platform Convention, September 26, 2004
PDF VERSION
PREAMBLE

Vermont Democrats base our beliefs on the principles that define and unite our society: democracy, individual liberty, and equal treatment under the law as guaranteed by the United States and Vermont Constitutions, equal opportunity for everyone to achieve and to prosper, personal responsibility, respect for all families, the importance of community, and the preservation of civil society.

1. FEDERAL POLICY

In the past four years decisions at the Federal level have begun to have dramatic negative impact on Vermont and Vermonters. It is beyond the scope of this platform to address all policy issues at the national level that affect Vermonters. However, the following policies at the federal level are of dramatic and urgent concern and affect our ability to shape a constructive future for Vermont’s people.

a. Tax Cuts/Deficit:

Tax cuts under the Bush/Cheney presidency have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest citizens and corporate taxpayers. These tax cuts have helped turned three years of Clinton surpluses into federal deficits as far as the eye can see. The tax cuts and resulting deficits are being used to justify cuts in vital programs from transportation to antiterrorism efforts; from health care to affordable housing.

We support reversing the federal tax cuts, especially for the wealthiest taxpayers, and returning to a policy of fiscal responsibility. We support full funding for programs that support working Vermonters and the vulnerable in our society. We recognize the need for investment in the infrastructure that is vital to economic well-being.

b. The War in Iraq:

We strongly condemn the deceptions and false claims that were used to justify the war in Iraq, and the failure of the Bush Administration to understand the history and the cultural and religious forces at work in that region. We support an active policy to include the United Nations Security Council and other United Nations member states concerning future actions in Iraq. We advocate that the financial and political commitment to stabilizing and securing Iraq be a joint and cooperative effort by members of the United Nations Security Council and other United Nations member states.

We offer our support and appreciation to the men and women and their families who have served and are now serving in Iraq. We advocate that all military personnel and veterans be recognized for their courage and service and that they be provided with full medical, emotional and financial support.

c. Outsourcing:

The Vermont Democratic Party calls upon its Congressional delegation to oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and similar trade agreements until a new trade policy that protects the environment, workers’ rights, and the health of local communities is adopted at the Federal level.

d. Environment:

The Bush Administration record on the environment is a disaster for the United States and Vermont. A firm commitment to cleaning up our air, water, and land and to addressing global climate change is essential. Strong environmental protection is vital to a healthy economy.

e. Energy:

The Bush/Cheney energy policy reflects the positions and interests of fossil fuel corporations. There must be a commitment to sustainable energy investment, energy efficiency, and developing the distributed and renewable energy resources that can make our energy more affordable, our nation more secure and our economy stronger in the 21st century.

f. Health Care:

The Federal government should support the provision of health care as a right for all Americans. It should support states in developing innovative strategies to provide quality, affordable universal health care. It should provide for the safe re-importation of prescription drugs, and encourage reasonable and affordable pricing of drugs for all Americans.

g. Affordable Housing

The Federal Government should restore cuts made by the Bush/Cheney Administration in funding for Section 8 and other programs to subsidize low-income housing.

h. Education:

The Federal government should fully fund its long-unfunded mandate for special education. It should encourage innovative state approaches to promoting improved education, school accountability, and most importantly, educating students to be informed, thoughtful citizens, innovative and productive workers, and caring members of their communities..

No Child Left Behind should either be abandoned or revised to make it useful to schools and fully funded.

2. BUILDING HEALTHY COMMUNITIES:

We believe that the areas of education, health care, housing, and other essential human services need to be considered as essential components to build healthy communities in Vermont. In these areas, the issues of funding, access, quality and effectiveness are all intertwined.

a. Children and Childcare:

The future of Vermont resides in our children. All programs, policies and regulations should be viewed in the context of how they will affect Vermont’s children. In order to allow parents to work, and in order to build a better future for our children, we will implement programs that promote the delivery of affordable, quality childcare.

b. Education:

Education builds the future for Vermont and all Vermonters. It is our best investment. has All children have the right to have an equal opportunity to a quality education, regardless of where they live. We support strengthening education programs for early childhood; we support affordable and accessible higher education; and we support continuing education for adults. We endorse strategies to provide choice among secondary schools in public education that preserve community-based schools. In accordance with the Vermont Constitution, public funds must be used solely to support non-sectarian schools.

c. Health Care:

Vermonters have the right to accessible, quality, affordable health and dental care, mental health care, long-term home and institutional care, and substance abuse treatment. We are proud of the success Vermont has had under Democratic leadership in extending health care services to most Vermonters, especially our children.

Mindful of the continuing lack of a satisfactory health care system in our country, we believe that Vermont should take the lead in reducing costs and improving services by instituting a universal health care system based on the following principles:
·Every Vermonter covered without regard to age, income, employment, or medical condition.
·All appropriate and necessary services covered including prescription drugs and long-term care.
·Free choice of health care providers.
·Cost to consumer based on ability to pay.
·Accountable to the public for financial performance and for quality of service.

We must also continue to pursue ways to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

d. Crime Prevention:

We must continue to protect our communities and provide safety for our citizens. We support programs that prevent crime through education, drug treatment, prevention and deterrence.

e. Housing:

Safe and affordable housing is one of the fundamental building blocks for our healthy communities. We will promote the construction of affordable housing, support the construction of housing accessible to the elderly and people with disabilities, and work to uphold minimum housing standards throughout the state.

f. Human Services:

We have an obligation to all Vermont families and to all Vermonters to provide services that protect their well-being and preserve their dignity. We are proud of our many successful community-based services for Vermonters: early childhood education and health programs, Parent-Child centers, our network of mental health services, programs for older Vermonters, programs for people with disabilities, and community action programs. We will work to constantly improve the responsiveness and quality of Human Services programs.

*3. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY: *

We believe that economic opportunity issues should be treated comprehensively, with business, government, labor and environmental groups working together. A healthy economy is necessary to support jobs and businesses, and to generate the public and private resources that make Vermont a special place to live. We believe that we must employ an economic strategy that incorporates our Vermont values and that seeks to build economic opportunity for all Vermonters. We recognize that addressing the health care crisis in Vermont is a critical part of a sound economic development strategy.

a. Economic Development and Job Creation:

Business, government, higher education, labor and environmental groups have the responsibility to work together to create the climate needed to foster economic development and the creation of well-paid jobs, including high tech jobs. We must support the development and growth of businesses of all sizes, but we must particularly work to develop the small businesses that are closely committed and connected to Vermont. We will implement programs that encourage the growth of business and job opportunities in the areas of the state where the local economy is struggling.

b. Agriculture and Forestry:

Agriculture and Forestry are vital components of not only our economy, but also our communities and our culture. We will implement programs that help to provide economic stability, that encourage diversification, that promote value-added enterprises and that foster environmental responsibility. In addition, we are committed to the continued viability of the family farm.

c. Diverse and Sustainable Economy:

Vermont already has a diversely developed economy. This diversity makes our economy more stable in the long run, instead of subject to the booms and busts of mill-town economies. We will continue to broaden the spectrum of economic sectors, and encourage the growth of entrepreneurial enterprises that create opportunity, meaningful work, and wealth. We will create strategies for future business development based upon a sound understanding of the forces that affect our economy..

We recognize the need to limit the growing power and economic concentration of multinational corporations, especially media conglomerates, in public life and enhance competition through active enforcement of antitrust laws and other measures.

d. Infrastructure—Transportation, Telecommunications and Energy:

Wise investment in infrastructure will produce a stronger economy in the future. We must maintain our transportation network and expand alternative and public transportation options. We must provide the mechanisms/incentives that will develop broadband telecommunications services throughout the state.

Vermont should develop a sustainable, affordable, renewable and efficient energy mix that will create jobs, help insulate Vermonters from fossil fuel price fluctuations, improve our environment, and strengthen our economy.

e. Job Training:

With the global economy in a constant state of flux, the need for employable skills is constantly shifting. In order to have a skilled workforce that will attract quality businesses with well-paid jobs, we will encourage and enable public and private investment that will provide job training to Vermonters.

Colleges and universities have the potential to be the engine to propel our society into greater prosperity. Further, they are important to local economies throughout the state. We must make a stronger effort to support these institutions and their students.

f. Livable Wage and Equal Pay:

Vermont employees are entitled to a livable wage. Consequently, we support an increase in the minimum wage with regular cost of living updates. In addition to wages, we recognize that childcare and health care benefits are important components of compensation. We also believe that equal work should be recognized with equal pay.

g. Regulatory Review:

We support the review of economic development programs in order to assess the successful components, to provide accountability, and to streamline the processes that are needlessly cumbersome and bureaucratic. We support the consideration of specific government organizational changes that will create links among agencies where there should be close working partnerships in policy and economic development.

4. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS:

Our laws and social institutions should protect individual rights and equality regardless of race, religion, national origin, gender, age, marital status, health status, sexual orientation, or disability.

a. Reproductive Education and Choice:

We support the right of all to receive complete and accurate information on family planning, pregnancy services, and the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. We remain committed to the universal right of women of all ages to make personal, confidential decisions regarding abortion and other issues related to reproductive health, free from harassment and interference.

b. Workers’ Rights:

Ensuring the rights of employees in the workplace is an appropriate and necessary function of government. We support worker’s right to organize a union, bargain collectively for pay and benefits, work free from discrimination, and work in safe, healthy and fair conditions. We support Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

c. Civil Unions:

We continue to support Vermont’s Civil Unions law. We support full and equal rights for gay and lesbian couples.

d. Equality Before the Law:

This national goal, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, remains unrealized. We support equal rights amendments to the Federal and Vermont Constitutions.

e. Native Americans:

We support measures to ensure the dignity, individuality, and cultural distinctiveness of Vermont’s Native American peoples. We also support efforts to resolve the complex legal and public policy questions related to formal recognition of tribal status by the state.

f. Respect:

Respect for the dignity of others is a fundamental building block of healthy communities and a healthy society. We support programs aimed at instilling this principle at all levels, including those to combat sexual, racial, physical, cultural, and emotional harassment in our schools and workplaces.

5. SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT:

Effective environmental protection includes both respect for private property rights and a keen awareness of the public value of a healthy environment in enhancing our economy, public health, and quality of life.

a. Sprawl:

Our goal is to preserve Vermont’s unique working landscape and quality of life while encouraging economic vitality in community centers. We support measures intended to: discourage wasteful land consumption; increase public awareness of the environmental costs of sprawl; promote downtowns and village centers; provide more transportation and housing choices; and conserve valuable farmland and forestland.

b. Environmental Protection:

We support the fundamental goals of Vermont’s land use planning laws and other foundations of environmental law such as the Endangered Species Act, which are aimed at preserving Vermont’s quality of life, the biodiversity of its ecosystems, and the purity of its air, soils, and waters. Accordingly, we also support the designation of a core ecological area within the Champion Lands.

c. Regulatory Process:

Environmental regulations must be enforced fairly and intelligently. We will work to ensure that state agencies are empowered and encouraged to work with businesses to help them comply with necessary regulations as efficiently and inexpensively as possible.

d. Sustainable Business:

We endorse the view that economic development can be carried out in harmony with effective environmental protection. As a first, obvious step toward these goals, we will ensure Vermont should make every affordable effort to attract and encourage environmentally friendly and sustainable businesses such as community-supported agriculture, environmental tourism, energy efficiency, renewable energy, organic farming, green building design, and sustainable forestry.

e. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs):

We believe that biotechnology, like other revolutionary scientific discoveries in human history, holds great promise in a wide range of applications. Because this technology has the unprecedented ability to alter the very structure of life itself, and because credible scientific voices have raised cautionary concerns, we believe that proponents of this technology should bear the burden of proof that GMOs will not harm human health or the environment. This approach allows Vermonters the potential benefits of biotechnology, while protecting both Vermonters and the environment from potential risks.

6. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT:

Democrats believe that government should be effective and responsive in protecting and enhancing the public interest. Government cannot and should not try to be the answer to all problems, but open democratic government is essential to protecting and enhancing the public good. Government can provide the context in which communities flourish, individuals grow and gain opportunity, and creative responses to our physical, social and personal needs are supported. Government provides basic services, and should do so with efficiency and fairness. It provides protection, stability, justice and equal opportunity.

a. Sound Fiscal Policy:

Sound fiscal policy is vital to the thoughtful and responsible operation of government and maintenance of social and environmental programs. The Vermont Democratic Party is the party of fiscal responsibility, with a proven record of sound fiscal policy. We have put in place many protections against revenue shortfalls. Sound fiscal policy is based on fair taxation—reasonably progressive overall, all forms of wealth taxed at moderate rates. We must be willing to keep spending restrained, and to use resources to avoid harmful cuts when revenues are down. Our social programs must live within the resources of Vermonters through good economic times and bad.

b. Understand and Address the Major Cost Drivers:

We need to look at the areas of big government spending to find real economies and efficiencies. Too often government is saddled with “picking up the costs” that other sectors of the economy are unwilling to bear. We need to consider whether there are “least cost” ways of meeting transportation needs, whether prescription drug costs can be lowered, and whether, more generally, the big driving costs such as health care need a whole new approach, both to provide better service and to manage costs. Obviously the goal in a number of these efforts is not just to lower costs, but to find better service at lower cost.

c. A New Approach to Managing State Government:

Democrats believe in consistent, fair enforcement of regulations on the books and in continued improvement in coordination among state agencies. We believe that a top-to-bottom “performance review” of the functions of state government is necessary in order to find creative, smart new ways to make government run more efficiently on the resources we have. We believe that Vermont state government needs to work closely with town government.

d. Support for Campaign Finance Reform and Public Financing of Campaigns:

Democrats took the lead in passing the Campaign Finance law that has been upheld by the decision of the Second Circuit Court in a remarkable landmark decision. We should expand public financing law to include House and Senate legislative races, along the lines of the Maine model.

e. Voting Rights:

We support measures to encourage maximum voter participation. The Democratic Party supports a change to the Vermont Constitution that will promptly accomplish the election of a governor, lieutenant governor, or treasurer, and fairly reflect the will of the electorate if no candidate receives a majority of the votes.

We support full paper trails to verify voter choices in any electronic or “touch-screen” voting devices.

f. Transparency and Responsibility:

Concentrated economic power is inimical to democratic self-government. We support transparency in government and limiting the influence of large corporations and other entities in endangering the public interest.

I don’t usually make a whole diary entry just pointing out how good another blog post is. Nor do I usually spend a lot of time on stuff that’s not Vermont-specific. But sometimes, you’ve just gotta. From SusanG at Daily Kos:

Would you hire a babysitter who hates children and thinks they should be eliminated? Or who declares for years in your hearing that children are irritants who should be starved to be small, unseen and mute?

Would you hire cops who think laws are stupid and useless and should be abolished?

Would you hire a conductor for your orchestra who believes music itself an abomination?

Then why would you hire – and you did hire them, America; they are your employees, after all, not your rulers, despite their grandiose pretensions – members of a political party who think government is useless, ineffective, bloated and untrustworthy?

You’ve hired for your kitchen the chef who spits in your food because he despises preparing meals.

You’ve hired for your yardwork the gardener who sets out to kill your roses to demonstrate his assertion that they will die in your climate.

You’ve hired for your office the accountant who’s staked his career on proving no accurate books can be kept.

In electing Republicans, America, you put people in charge of institutions they overtly, caustically loathe and proudly proclaim should not exist. Good thinking, USA, and stellar results: Katrina, Iraq, Medicare D, trade and budget deficits, mine disasters and on and on and on….

If you put people in charge of running a project they are ideologically committed to proving a failure, it will fail.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. But hey, I’m a Democrat. You know, one of those people who think universal quality public education is a massive good to society, that maintaining our highways and levees and bridges and dams is part of what makes this country great, that paying first-responders and nurses what they’re worth helps guarantee our public health and safety, that providing for fellow citizens who fall on hard times is not only the ethical thing to do, but the pragmatic one, ensuring that this country does not incubate a permanently inflamed and disgruntled underclass ready to drop a match on a pool of social gasoline.

Read the whole post here.

From the Martha’s Vineyard Times:

With customers flowing into Menemsha’s fish markets in search of the freshest fish and the up-Island charter fleet leaving the harbor to hunt for big striped bass, Mark Younger and his father James set out chairs behind Larsen’s Fish Market and pulled in big fish after big fish at all hours of the day right from the dock. The biggest fish was 55 inches long and weighed a whopping 47 pounds.

Day after day another man fishing from the dock caught nothing. What was the secret? The Vermonters had stumbled upon bait that was irresistible to striped bass…”Farm-raised salmon,” he said matter-of-factly. Had that come from an Islander I would have laughed. Had I been having a conversation standing in a Vermont general store I would have suspected he was putting me on. But talking to this Vermonter on the phone, I knew he was telling me the truth…

…Mark said he is planning to return to the Vineyard this fall to fish the Derby with his family and co-workers.

“We are all going to be there,” said Mark. “So tell ’em they got to make room on the dock, the Vermonters are coming.”

‘Nuff said (and before you ask, no I am not a native Vermonter or a Massachusetts-ian, er, Masssachusetteser or whatever. I was born in the state that brought you the St. Albans Raid…)

Lots more news (more political than this) after the link…

“Shut the hell up.” Geez… I’m guessing by now that everyone’s seen the piece from PoliticsVT quoting these words from an unnamed Vermont GOP insider to the McCain consultant who has been behind the pushback on Tarrant’s attempt to muscle into the Arizona Senator’s Rainville campaign appearence. Zow (and I’m not saying that over the out of control run-on sentence, either).

Looks like the National Dems take our US House race as seriously as we do. Welcome support, but there’s no doubt Welch staffers are probably wishing they hadn’t raised a fuss about Rainville’s $21,000 national GOP support just days before today’s news that they’ll be getting over half-a-mil from Washington broke. Ah well. In any event, it’s nice to have the national Ds taking little Vermont seriously for a change.

After all the set-up for a major GOP challenge to Deb Markowitz, what we get is… the Essex Town Clerk? From what I remember from my brief experience at the SOS office (which, believe me, I try not to remember…), Cheryl Moomey was one of the more positive and engaged clerks with Markowitz’s office. This announcement makes me wonder, then, if she isn’t being exploited as a Jim Barnett sock puppet at the expense of her own reputation.

You know what I think when I put the tinfoil hat on and start moonbatting? I wonder if Neale Lunderville hadn’t been eyeing a race, and left his post with Douglas a few months back to consider a run at her. As a database guy with political ambition, I just wonder if he wasn’t dying to run on the statewide checklist issue, but did some polling, found out he didn’t have a chance in hell, and came back to Douglas’ office as the new Secretary of Transportation at the exact time that petitions were due to be filed for Vermont elections. This would make Moomey a last minute ballot-line-filler only.

Do I have any reason to believe this? Of COURSE not, but since it’s a blog, I can say whatever I want. In any event, having no experience beyond the technological and the political, Lunderville may find himself wishing he’d kept his old job if anything serious goes wrong that requires his agency’s attention. If that happens, we’ll all be hearing a lot of “Heck of a job, Lundy” jokes…

And finally, you may have noticed that, for the first time, every single post on the front page of GMD has my byline on it. That’s because of a strange illness that lurks in the blogging community. Anytime a prolific Vermont blogger agrees to help provide front page content to GMD, after about a week they all but stop blogging. After holding out for months, it seems even Jack may have come down with this dreaded plague. We hope a cure is found soon, as you all really don’t want to be stuck with only me on the front page at this site, day in and day out.

BTW, if anybody has any good suggestions for a name for this affliction, by all means post away. And consider this an open thread. Any and all topics.

I don’t know about you all, but I’m getting mightily annoyed by these “polls” and the constant hand-wringing over them. A terrific piece in the VT Guardian brings the issue front and center, and is putting folks on record. Although I am glad to see it, I’ve had some conversations with insiders that have made me sick of the whole topic, and I think Vermonters should have ZERO tolerance for this kind of crap from either side (more on that in a moment).

The Guardian piece uses the latest poll as a springboard:

People interviewed by the Guardian said they were asked if they would be “more or less inclined to vote for Peter Welch if you knew he supported a Hillary Clinton-style health care program that takes away your choice of doctor and puts it in the hands of bureaucrats?”

Another question was, “Would you be more or less inclined to vote for Peter Welch if you knew he didn’t let his principles get in the way of making money?”

Another asked if people knew that Welch supported raising taxes, but twice failed to pay his own property taxes on time.

What does Rainville have to say about this?

She said she was unaware of the poll’s existence, and said if the questions were misleading or inaccurate, she would ask them to stop. But she declined several times to say whether she thought some of the questions, which several reporters repeated for her, were negative.

“I don’t see the health care question as attacking my opponent,” she said.

“I have said that I am not going to send negative mailings and intend to keep it that way,” Rainville said. “I expect more polls from a number of groups … . This race has the potential to become overwhelming to people.”

She said she has no control over what others do in the race, and can only control what her campaign does.

Of course who is Rainville using for her “message testing?” Venture Data, previously hired by Tarrant, as we discussed here, has a long history of sleazy push polling and even involvement in scandal. Not an outfit you want to use if you want to come up smelling like roses.

Shay Totten in the Guardian piece talks to industry “insiders” who are very careful to put a hard and fast definition on the term “push poll.”

A spokesman for one of the nation’s top polling firms, Zogby International, declined to comment on the nature of the questions asked in the Vermont polls, but did offer some insight on polling in general, and testing negative messages.

“First, it is completely legit to test messages. Huge corporations do it before a product rollout or to figure out why something isn’t selling, etc, and pols do it, too. It is almost irresponsible not to test how various messages are going to be received by a target audience. However, there are some strict guidelines by which we abide when we message test for political clients,” said Fritz Wenzel, Zogby’s communications director.

“If the client also wants a horserace measurement, we always ask that first, before introducing any information about the race or candidates. We will also ask that later to see how certain messages may have affected the views of respondents, but we never, ever represent that second, third, fourth, or fifth horserace question as the ‘real’ horserace question, because it is a skewed measurement of public opinion based on issues injected into the respondent’s head. It is not a fair representation of public opinion at large,” Wenzel added.

…and obviously this sort of response is to be expected, as they are going to be self-serving in their responses. That’s neither good nor bad, it just is. Ask a trial lawyer what tactics cross ethical lines and you’ll get an answer laden with technicalities designed to front load as much wiggle room as possible into their professional conduct, as opposed to asking the question of an outside observer. This is no different.

Interestingly, though, he allowed for this caveat:

Wenzel said the public may not discern a difference between testing a negative message and a push poll, but in his line of work there is an important difference.

Given that there, in reality is no hard-and-fast definition of a “push poll,” it’s a little bit ridiculous that Wenzel believes he can parse it so finely. In the next sentence, we see why:

“It is important to note that professional pollsters don’t really do push polling, anyway.

“Professional pollsters don’t really do push polling.” I suppose push polls have all been a figment of everyone’s imagination. Like the unicorn. Unless he is suggesting that non-professional – as in, volunteers or campaign staffers – are doing them. Of course, then he adds:

Remember that push polling is a practice employed by campaigns to change significant volumes of minds by poisoning them toward one person or another, or perhaps against an idea, proposal, or political party

“Significant numbers.” This is a narrative I encountered as I made some calls of my own. There are unconfirmed rumors of Dem push polls as well (and if I get confirmation, I’ll let you know). Asking about them, I had an interesting exchange with a campaign staffer.

“So what’s with this rumor about a push poll? Are you guys doing that?”

I was greeted with exasperation and was immediately told I didn’t know what a “push poll” was. This from a guy who was probably about 4 years old when I was working on my first campaign.

But I let him escalate for a minute or so, just to hear what he would say.

It’s “message testing.”

It’s “too early” to be a push (what is this, February? Gimme a break.)

Eventually he got to:

Our state is “so small” that to be real “push persuasion” it would “have to cover the whole state.”

This had crossed into serious goofy land. I asked him who he thought he was talking to. Persuasion has to cover the whole state (I used to be the data guy, so I ran all the Dem persuasion universes in my state for years)? That’s ridiculous. By that definition, no Dem candidate in the state had ever done any type of voter persuasion at all. EVER.

“No” he said, not just any “persuasion” but a “push.” You have to do it with many more people because a “push question is just so absurd that people aren’t going to buy it.”

“Are you kidding?” sez I. “The point of a push is that it’s so crude any halfwit can understand” and will then talk it up.

His retort: “Whatever, you can call it whatever you want. Everybody else is calling it a push poll, so you might as well. Goodbye, John.”

And I was hung up on.

A lot of things going on here. First of all, there is no other kind of persuasion that supposedly “has to be done statewide” to be effective. With persuasion, you target a demographic you want to effect, tailor a message and then tailor the list of the audience. To arbitrarily say that push-persuasion should be any different is goofy. You want to make a call accusing your opponent of being a white supremicist to push a negative smear, you dont target white supremicists because you’ll increase their turnout. There is no persuasion of any kind that can not (and should not) be fine tuned. Period. Everybody knows that. Sometimes Republican candidates that have more money than God and crappy voter lists don’t care and target the world, but it’s not smart, and you don’t see as much of that outside the Tarrant campaign.

So pollsters, party insiders of ALL stripes, etc, have taken a colloquial, non-technical term and slapped an absurd degree of definition on it so they can effectively define themslves and their responsibility right out of it.

But the problem is, they’re only talking to themselves when they do this. Because in politics, as I’ve said before, perception is reality.

So what’s the perception of what a push poll is?

From Wikipedia:

A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. Push polls are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. The term is also sometimes used incorrectly to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants.
The mildest forms of push polling are designed merely to remind voters of a particular issue. For instance, a push poll might ask respondents to rank candidates based on their support of abortion in order to get voters thinking about that issue….

…Perhaps the most famous alleged use of push polls is in the 2000 United States Republican Party primaries, when it was alleged that George W. Bush’s campaign used push polling to torpedo the campaign of Senator John McCain. Voters in South Carolina reportedly were asked “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”, an allegation that had no substance, but planted the idea of undisclosed allegations in the minds of thousands of primary voters[1]. McCain and his wife had in fact adopted a Bangladeshi girl.”

Closer to home? Totten’s piece again:

“We’ve heard enough from voters that they don’t like it and that they think it’s not playing fair, and at some point the candidates and campaigns are going to have to take that into consideration,” said (Vermont Secretary of State) Markowitz.

Zogby, Rainville, Dems-in-denial, meet perception.

Meet reality.

Now, it’d be a mistake to say all political professionals are circling the wagons on this. One current and one former political consultant I spoke with agreed these were clear pushes (including the heretofore only rumored one on the Dem side). One went so far as to say that any kind of “legitimate” negative message testing should be kept completely out of the public and only done within focus groups. – if they truly are message tests.

What disturbs me the most is that this defensive denial, excessive language parsing (and then being hung up on by someone I used to work with) is a sign that the insular, beltway-style dynamic of, as one person I spoke with described it, the “bunker mentality” is at play in Vermont.

You’ll recall the Dem insider said “Everybody else is calling it a push poll, so you might as well.” Clearly they’ve been getting flak about it, and if you really wanna dig in and try to gin up some technicality to lord over the poor slobs as to why a cigar isn’t a cigar, you’ll be patting yourself on the back for your expertise all the way to a defeat in November.

So, what, then, is a push poll?

Welch’s campaign has also paid for polls, and tested “negative” messages. The difference, said Welch’s campaign manager, Carolyn Dwyer, is that the questions were based on issues and facts, not designed to trigger an emotional response.

Bingo. It doesn’t get simpler and clearer than that. Every political pro in the state should have Dwyer’s description in big bold letters above their desks.

And in case you’re curious, no, the rumors I heard have nothing to do with the Welch campaign. And taking Dwyer at her word, I’m confident that will continue to be the case.