VT Politics: Doug Racine is a Pander-Bear (Part One: Health Care)
January 11, 2010 | 8 Comments
Doug Racine, the milquetoast Democrat who failed to defeat Republican Jim Douglas in his first effort to be Vermont’s governor in 2002, is now trying again. It’s a lot different this time around since Racine is facing a Democratic primary with at least four other gubernatorial wannabes, a far cry from the red carpet and silver-spooned treatment he got from outgoing Democratic Governor Howard Dean and the party in 2002 (“here, you are the chosen one.”).
Racine seems like a nice enough guy. You know the kind: Rich kid working in daddy’s business with access to the kind of Rolodex that screams “political future.” And he’s parlayed his fine lineage into creating a rather impressive political resume, including stints as Vermont’s Lieutenant Governor and many terms in the State’s Senate.
The problem with Racine – well, other than he’s boring – is that he’s got a political backbone akin to over-cooked pasta (read: limp). To steal a great line from Ann Richards, that’s what happens when “you’re born on third base and think you hit a triple.”
Worse, instead of fighting for something he believes in, Racine panders to those he thinks will fall for his thinly-veiled pandering. In other words, all talk and no action – which explains nearly twenty years of political service with little more than platitudes to show for it.
Take, for example, the health-care debate. Racine has been the chairman of the Senate’s Health and Welfare Committee for years, years which have been rife with talk and an urgent need for action on the issue of health-care reform. But Racine has done little more than punt and otherwise pass the buck when meaningful reform (read: universal health care) came before his powerful committee.
But, Racine is quick to add, he “understands” the need for change. I doubt it. Because I doubt anyone in his family has ever faced the prospect of choosing between paying the energy bill, the grocery bill or the health care bill (but not all three).
Last year, Chairman Racine punted on the health-care issue by declaring that President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress would get the job done for us, a decision that has resulted in yet another wasted year since it’s clear whatever Obama/Congress does on health care won’t be nearly enough. Meanwhile, those of us without the luxury of “waiting” are now paying the 10% increases to our premiums this year – waiting always seems to work best for those with the most, huh?
This year, with his candidacy for governor in full swing, Racine is now talking tough again on health care. Single-payer advocates have convinced him to hold a hearing tomorrow night in Montpelier on the issue, and many have touted his willingness to hold the hearing as some kind of endorsement for meaningful health-care reform this year.
Not so fast, my friends. Because, while Racine is enjoying the fawning recognition from the health care advocates (naive, for sure), he’s making it clear that tomorrow night’s hearing and this year’s legislative session in general is meant to only “move the conversation forward” on the health-care issue. And when WDEV’s Mark Johnson asked Racine last week if any legislation was expected out his committee, Racine was quick to return to his noncommittal “move the conversation forward” goal.
For those asleep at the political wheel, “moving the conversation forward” is political speak for “jerking your chain.” And there’s nothing more that Candidate Racine wants to do than jerk your chain, Vermont voters. If it sounds a lot like the Obama candidacy, it should. Been there, done that.
But Vermont voters and health-care advocates need to smarten up on this one. Instead of rushing to embrace Racine’s hearings-to-nowhere we should be demanding that he commit to real and meaningful health-care reform this year – if not right now. What more do we need to discuss? How much more time and money are we going to offer to the health care criminals running the insurance corporations?
If Racine wants the support of health-care advocates, Racine should be forced to deliver the health-care goods. He is, after all, the Chairman of the Senate’s Health and Welfare Committee. And that doesn’t mean mere “conversations” (we’ve been doing that in this country since 1918 on health care), it means action – as in: votes, bills, and laws.
It’s really quite simple: If Racine, as the Democratic Chairman of Vermont Senate’s Health & Welfare Committee, can’t move forward with meaningful – and universal – health care coverage during this legislative session, he’s not fit to be the party’s gubernatorial candidate in November.
That’s the message health-care advocates should be bringing to the hearings tomorrow night. It would be a lot more effective than cheering Racine’s near-endless (and privileged) pursuit of mere “conversations.” Because it’s time for action. Now.
Rolling in Republican Love (and other lessons from Montpelier)
October 16, 2009 | 3 Comments
Rolling in Republican Love
I guess it was that August photo of Governor Douglas and me. Yeah, you remember that little bit of fun, don’t you? And about that announcement…
Because the Vermont Republican Party is sending Broadsides some link-love this week. In his email newsletter to the mouth-breathing core of the Vermont Republicans, Chairman Rob Roper opined a bit about the Montpelier money snafu and then all but invited himself onto my lap with these words:
The scandal prompted liberal blogger Michael Colby to write, “But the reality here is that Mayor Mary Hooper must go…. Because this mistake, its non-disclosure, and the awkward, unconvincing and - frankly - insulting manner in which Hooper has tried to spin it, is a huge mistake that will have a tremendous economic impact to Montpelierites. It’s sadly ironic that the “good liberals” in Montpelier have been deafly silent on what is already being called Hooper’s Watergate. That’s what happens when party loyalty usurps better judgment: you start to ignore gross neglect when “among friends.”"
It’s a good line — ignoring gross neglect among friends.
And if I were a good Republican, I would have charged him for using MY good line. But, being the good Republican that HE is, he didn’t offer a penny. Or something like that.
But really, what’s this “liberal blogger” shit? Watch it, Robbie, I’ve got a reputation to maintain – and it’s not as a liberal.
Which brings me back to my primary interest in covering this story: The hypocrisy of the starry-eyed party followers.
In this version of the never-ending story that blinders built, it happens to be that the Democrats are the “devils” and the Republicans are the “angels.” Thus, the Democratic faithful are ignoring it and their Republican counterparts are seizing on it as if the Holy Grail of political moments has been found (Read: We are superior because the other is stained.),
But-oh-how-quickly they could all be changing their tunes. Imagine, for example, if the Montpelier government was controlled by Republicans. Trust me, the little Dem yap-dogs over at places like Green Mountain Daily would be beside themselves. Conversely, the Repubs would be making excuses (They tried! They’re hurt!) or ignoring it.
Repeat as necessary. And welcome to political dysfunction, Small Town America Style.
If you want to know how far from reality the Dem faithful will go in their current roles as the great ignorers of scandals (because they are the deeds of our friends), consider this obfuscating line of the moment being spewed by the Dem apologists: The Montpelier government HAD to keep the matter quiet because they didn’t want to jeopardize the secret re-payment plan (yes, the secret plan they made with the man who robbed them).
But wait. For that excuse to really work, the secret re-payment plan would have had to work. And it didn’t. Swing – and miss.
So, to recap, the Montpelier Democrats want you to back off because the plan was to protect the plan that did not work. Because if the plan was not protected, it would fail.
But it did.
And, worse, what was being “protected” was the silence. Let me remind you: Montpelier’s elected officials acted to hide essential information about a serious error from the citizens of the town.
It shouldn’t matter which party you voted for in the last election to know that the actions by Montpelier’s elected officials are unacceptable. Because there should be no secrets when it comes to our governing bodies – local, state or federal. And we must not allow petty party partisanship to cross-pollinate the stark differences between right and wrong.
But, for now, I’ll take the praise where I can get it. So thank you to my new Republican friends. The disgust with liberals can, indeed, make strange bedfellows.
VT Media Watch: The Lazy Press Bureau Boys
September 28, 2009 | 6 Comments
The Vermont Press Bureau’s “Capitol Beat” column in Sunday’s Times Argus made an effort to cover the Boots Wardinski campaign for lite-guv. Well, actually, effort might not be the right word since much of the piece is little more than a shallow cut and paste from Shay Totten’s Seven Days blog post on Friday. They did, however, manage to stick to the Bureau’s apparent unwritten rule to cover political campaigns without mentioning a political issue. High five!
But, seriously, at what point in the political campaign process are issues allowed to be covered? Apparently we’re not there yet. Because in the several hundred words they gave to Wardinski’s recent decision to run as a Prog in next year’s primary, they didn’t mention one issue, instead getting bogged down in rhetorical gamesmanship like this:
“No sooner did State Rep. David Zuckerman, a prog, say he might run for lieutenant governor as a Democrat – while hoping to win the Progressive primary as a write-in candidate — than perennial candidate and protester (or maybe it should be perennial protester and candidate) Boots Wardinski announced he was running, too.”
Cute.
But I’d call Boots a “constant” protester – ever seen how the fella lives? – and a regular political participant. You know, kind of like what we used to think of as a functioning citizen back in the good old days.
By ignoring the issues and labeling Boots as a “perennial” candidate, the Press Bureau basically gives itself a free pass to skip out on its job. High five!
Besides, don’t they know that snarky writing and skipping out on journalistic responsibility is for bloggers? Yo fellas, you’re reporters.
Interestingly, media bias also comes into play in the Press Bureau’s short piece on the Wardinski campaign. There are six other politicians and/or past candidates for public office mentioned in the article, but only Wardinski got the dismissive “perennial” tag. Um, how about Anthony Pollina? Or Martha Abbott? They’ve both ran for office on many occasions and are the in same position as Boots: On the outside looking in.
Worse, not only does Abbott get away with dodging the “perennial” tag, she also gets to accuse Wardinski of “marginalizing” her party’s statewide efforts. Despite being inadvertently funny (how do you marginalize a zero-percent success rate on statewide elections?), I think it’s Pollina who ought to be getting the blame for marginalizing the Progs. It was Pollina, after all, who’s lost every statewide Prog race he’s entered and then ditched the party last time around to “better his electoral changes.” Yo Tony, how did that work out for you? Ouch.
It’s also a shame that the Press Bureau allowed the Abbott dig to go unchallenged from Wardinski. But, then again, that would require actual reporting work and, damn it, it was a Friday deadline and it was a lot easier to cut and paste Totten’s work than to make a couple of phone calls. Three Penny Taproom, here we come! High five!
Elected politicians mentioned in the article who also dodged the “perennial” tag included Zuckerman and Peter Welch, two fellas who have certainly been constant candidates for years (Zuckerman) and decades (Welch). Of course, the use of the word “perennial,” based on the words definition, has nothing to do with success – only effort. Unless, of course, you’re a lazy political reporter who wants to signal a dismissive tone without doing your homework. High five!
Whatever.
At least they spelled Broadsides correctly.
Gay Marriage Vote Postmortem
April 9, 2009 | 2 Comments
First off, congrats to Vermont for successfully overriding Governor Jim Douglas’s veto of the gay marriage bill. It’s now law – officially kicking in on September 1st.
While the clear “winners” in this victory are the gay and lesbian couples who can now get married and – hopefully – aim to do better than the 50% failure rate of man/woman marriages, there were also a number of political winners.
Beth Robinson, for example, the head of VT Freedom to Marry Coalition, was simply superb. She kept her coalition on message and, most impressively, rose above the angry mob of gay marriage opponents who all but taunted them throughout the public hearings. How, for example, they could remain cool, calm and collected while their opponents compared gay love to man/horse love or man/boy love or father/daughter love is beyond me. But they did. And they deserve credit for it.
The other political winner is first-year House Speaker Shap Smith, my representative by the way. Smith and Senate President Peter Shumlin did a masterful job of orchestrating the timing and the logistics of this bill. But Smith’s job was a whole lot more difficult than Shumlin’s since the Vermont Senate is a whole lot more liberal and smaller (read: manageable) than the House.
As you’ll recall, Shumlin and the last House Speaker, Gaye Symington, tried to get bold with their “super-majorities” in the last session on issues like global warming and taxing the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant but Symington failed to deliver the House. The reason she failed became clear when she decided to challenge Governor Douglas for his job: Symington’s a terrible communicator and leader.
Smith, on the other hand, is at least able to both articulate a thought and also be persuasive enough to bring along enough votes to win the day. That’s refreshing. And it’s also exactly what’s needed in this rare time when the Democrats have veto-proof majorities in the legislature.
Now let’s get to the losers. The person put first on every such list so far has been Governor Douglas. And I agree, but for different reasons. The conventional wisdom says that Douglas lost because his veto was overridden. True enough. But, for me, Douglas is a real loser on this issue for doing what he always does with tough issues: Play politics while pretending not to. It’s about as transparent as transparent can get – but it doesn’t stop the Vermont’s lapdog media from regurgitating his dopey proclamations (i.e. “gay marriage is a distraction).
I think Douglas got exactly what he wanted out of this issue. He got it off the legislative radar in a non-election year by having his veto overridden and he got to throw a bone to his right-wing Vermont base and growing national Republican base by issuing his veto. Mission accomplished, indeed.
But he’s still obviously the biggest loser for playing the highest-stakes game of politics with an issue that is truly about civil rights, civil compassion and simply providing some joy in a time of great civil strife.
Remember, Governor Douglas’ primary opposition to the gay marriage bill was based on the fact that it was “a distraction” to the more pressing matters that were facing Vermont, particularly the economy. But let’s see if he speaks up to scold the right-wing gay-bashers who are now frothing at the bit over their calls for “revenge,” “constitutional amendments,” and promises to “repeal and revolt” over the legislature’s actions.
Speaking of the gay-bashers, let’s delve deeper into the loser list. Next up, Steve Cable of Rutland, the self-anointed leader of the “oh-my-god-we’ll-die-if-gay’s-are-legitimized” crowd. Here’s how Cable described the mood of his shrinking number of followers to the Vermont Press Bureau after finding out – once again – that they were losers:
“[They’re] blood shooting out of their eyes mad.”
Wow. That’s dramatic. But the real question is: Will Cable continue to quote the Bible in defeat as he did during the entire time during the battle? I guess not:
“This isn’t about moving on,” Cable said. “This is about getting even.”
I guess Cable’s Bible doesn’t include that whole “turn the other cheek” reference.
Speaking of the Bible, the other major loser in this fight was the “Rev.” Craig Benson, another Rutland man who apparently loves to spew hate in the name of the Bible. Please, can someone find the passage in the Bible that glorifies hate, paranoia, false-judgment, and mean-spirited revenge? Because the “Rev.” Benson can’t.
Instead, the “Rev.” Benson joins his fire-breathing hate-monger, Steve Cable, in declaring a massive miscarriage of justice by those seeking love and justice. Go figure. Specifically, Benson mashed his sour grapes with this nonsense:
“Our side was outspent 20-1…and, given that, we were lucky the vote was so close.”
Proof on the spending? None. And for those of us who were “lucky” enough to receive all those calls from the out of state gay-bashers, I’d seriously question his spending accusation.
But what’s easy to dispute is Benson’s laughable claim that the votes were “close.” Since when did votes of 23-5 in the Senate and 100-49 in the House get considered to be “close”? Those votes are what the sports world would call “blow-outs.” And they were.
We can only hope that in the election season of 2010 Jim Douglas will be forced to join Cable and Benson in their caves of irrelevance. There may not be term limits in Vermont but there are limits on how long bigots can swim against the stream of justice – just ask all those Republicans in the 1950’s and ‘60’s who opposed giving civil rights to African-Americans. Yes, indeed, Jim Douglas is our George Wallace.
But let’s end on the positive note: Vermont rose to the occasion and, like its stand against slavery in the 18th Century, Vermont will be forever recognized for its courageous stand. Congrats.
Mark Johnson: The Vermont Power Elite’s Toadie
March 10, 2009 | 7 Comments
I’ve been homebound a bit more than I’d like lately. First, with a hideous chest cold and now to avoid the soggy ground and attempt to get some inside work done. And being inside for me usually means being a slave to the radio – talk radio to be precise.
In Central Vermont, local talk radio means WDEV to me. But I’m not sure how much more I can take – especially in the morning – as Mark Johnson of the not-so-cleverly-named “Mark Johnson Show” seems hell-bent in his milquetoast pursuit of playing the media lapdog to Vermont’s power elite.
If you’ve ever listened to Johnson, you’ll know what I’m talking about: He approaches his media role not like a probing reporter but more like a member – if not a leading member – of an insider’s club of Vermont’s media, economic and political elite. In other words, Johnson takes the exact opposite path of what the late, great Joseph Pulitzer saw as the true goal of the “fourth estate’: To have no friends.
For two hours a day, five days a week, Johnson brings forth a steady stream of his fellow club members, exchanging pleasant guffaws with them and lobbing softballs in their general direction, seemingly not bothered by the shallowness of it all. It is, after all, what maintains his membership to the “club.” Because we all know the quickest way to get kicked out of the Vermont media and political elite is to actually ask some tough questions of your fellow members. Bye-bye invites to “Vermont This Week,” for sure. And so long to those 15-minute puff-pieces with Leahy/Sanders/Welch/Douglas where allowing them to regurgitate their talking points masquerades as an “interview.”
If Johnson ever does demonstrate disdain for anyone, it’s usually the poor fool who dares to call into his show and criticize the media. Johnson will not tolerate it. Never mind that the Vermont media is an atrophied shadow of what the media really should be (and getting worse by the week given the layoffs and cutbacks), Johnson will not let even the mildest media critique get by without either a hang-up and/or a stern rebuke.
Most recently, for example, the leader of the Vermont Senate, Peter Shumlin, was a guest on Johnson’s show to discuss the Democratic leadership’s decision to put gay marriage on its priority list for this current session. The all-too-frequent and curmudgeonly old-guy callers (do these guys ever work?) to his show bombarded Shumlin with the Republican talking points, declaring that the gay marriage issue was a “distraction” to the real matters (read: economic) facing the state.
Shumlin hung in there quite admirably, trying – time and time again – to point out that the gay marriage bill wasn’t really taking up much time and, nevertheless, was merely one bill among dozens and dozens that the legislature was more than capable of considering.
But Shumlin crossed the Johnson line when he dared to venture into even the mildest of mild media criticism. “Well,” declared an almost exasperated Shumlin, “we held a press conference yesterday about our latest economic plan but you wouldn’t know it because the media didn’t cover it.”
“Wait, wait, wait,” interjected Johnson, “before you start criticizing the media…”
And Shumlin, being the good club member himself, knew that he had to back down, allowing Johnson’s rebuke to stand while shelving his very reasonable critique of the Vermont media and allowing its embarrassingly shallow coverage of the Statehouse go unchecked.
But Johnson’s at his all-time worst when he’s interviewing a fellow media club member. Take, for example, his interview today with WCAX’s Marselis Parsons. Johnson invited Parsons on after he read the news that Vermont’s own media dinosaur was considering retiring. The ensuing interview was little more than a mutual admiration love-fest: “Don’t you love what you do?”
Um, excuse me fellas, but you’re members of the media. So why don’t you loosen up your lover’s embrace long enough to ask a hard question in these incredibly hard times. You know, something like: How did the Vermont media completely blow it when it comes to the economic crisis? And why don’t we hold some of our life-long political figures accountable for fiddling while our economy burned?
Instead, we got things like: “Wow, you’ve been there for 42 years?” “I’ve only been around for half that time.” “Does it feel like it’s been that long?” “Tell me about your favorite interview?”
That, my friends, is how you remain in the club: lob softballs at your fellow club members, make no waves, and fantasize about all the accolades that might come your way after 42-years of doing little but shilling for the power elite. Oh yeah, Mark, you’re halfway there…
If Johnson ever does show disdain, it’s almost always for those who dare to criticize the media or hold Vermont politicians accountable. Instead of probing the power elite, Johnson acts as a firewall to seemingly protect them – thus assuring more bland interviews with his clubmates. “Tell me, Senator Leahy, how does it feel to be so powerful?” Yawn.
The only disdain Johnson ever shows is almost exclusively for those who dare to put a spotlight on the miserable state of the Vermont media. He simply won’t tolerate it. Much like he won’t tolerate any true people-based attempt to hold his poltical friends accountable for their dithering and/or outright assistance in bringing about the mess we’re currently in as a state and a nation.
Sadly, Johnson’s a proud member of the insider’s club and he’s not going to risk his next attempt to crawl into the laps of fellow members by – gasp! – asking some uncomfortable questions of them. There are rules, you know.
Johnson, of course, is no different than almost all of his fellow Vermont media brethren. They know how to keep buttering their bread, even if it means totally and completely bastardizing the real role of the media: Standing outside of the club so as to ask the tough questions and demand the real answers.
But one thing is for sure: Johnson gets his phone calls returned, especially when those on the other end know that little more than lobs will be coming their way. “Tell me, Senator Sanders, how does it feel to be so popular?”
Or maybe he’s just being honest because, after all, it is called the “Mark Johnson Show.” And it is, indeed, all about Mark Johnson and his cozy friendships with those who are willing to trade back-scratches and belly-rubs. Anything, that is, but make waves….
Sorry, Mr. Pulitzer, it’s a whole different era.
Food & Water’s Memory Lane: The Ben & Jerry’s Campaign
January 29, 2009 | 3 Comments
Well, what do you say we continue the walk down Food & Water’s memory lane? As some of you will recall, after we secured our “popularity” in Vermont by highlighting Cabot’s use of rBGH, we turned our attention to Ben & Jerry’s refusal to go organic – a stand that they still hold to this day. Hmm, is there another “victory” lurking? I doubt it.
Food & Water held several meetings with Ben & Jerry (yes, the individuals), in 1996 and 1997 in an effort to convince them to single-handedly revolutionize Vermont agriculture by beginning the transition to organic dairy production. At the time, hundreds of Vermont farms supplied the popular corporation with the cream they required to meet their growing needs.
But Ben & Jerry refused to budge, claiming that they “couldn’t figure out a way to maximize their profits” via organic production. And so we gave them one more chance: Begin to move toward organic or Food & Water would publicize the fact that, despite the corporation’s rhetoric, it was sanctioning the use of toxic pesticides that threatened Vermont’s environment and the consumers of its ice cream.
Ben Cohen’s initial response was to offer me a job in their public relations department. I refused. Then he took us to a closet full of Ben & Jerry’s paraphernalia and told us to take whatever we wanted. I remember he was particularly proud of the “hippie ties” – yes neckties – that were recently made in his and the Grateful Dead’s honor. Take whatever you want, he declared.
“Thanks,” I remember replying, “but we’ve told you what we want: We want you to begin moving your farm suppliers toward organic dairy production.”
“That’s not going to happen,” Ben replied.
And so, the campaign was on. And so, too, was the liberal elite pushback. Big time. Whatever.
Our first shot across the Ben & Jerry’s bow was an ad that featured a cartoon family in a Vermont-like setting with a giant ice cream cloud lingering over them. The headline was blunt: “Ben & Jerry’s want to save the world. But who will save us from Ben & Jerry’s?”
The text below explained Ben & Jerry’s refusal to go organic and highlighted the thousands of pounds of carcinogenic Atrazine that was used on the Vermont dairy farms that supplied cream to the ice cream mavens.
Sure, we got our asses kicked in the media and within the nonprofit and funding community. I can remember one call I got from a significant funder and friend of Ben Cohen’s who began her conversation with, “You can’t do this.”
“Why?” I asked.
“Because Ben’s a nice guy.”
Ben’s affability was never a part of the campaign, I pointed out to her. But I don’t think she ever heard me because the phone soon went dead, as did her support for our campaigns that she had previously declared as “visionary.” I’ll let you decide who went blind, however.
Shortly after the launch of our Ben & Jerry’s campaign, I was invited to speak at an anti-nuke rally in Brattleboro. The person inviting me, Deb Katz of the Citizens Awareness Network, wanted me to be a part of the rally but was nervous about the fact that Ben & Jerry’s had not only given money for the event but the two of them would also be speaking.
“I want you to speak, too,” Katz told me. “But you have to agree that you won’t mention Ben & Jerry’s.”
I told her I’d think about it. And after about ten minutes of thinking about it and laughing rather hysterically with my trusty colleague at the time, Michele Kirchner, I called Katz back: “It’s a deal.”
You see, we made a quick plan. Sure, I’d appear at the rally – right before Ben & Jerry – and I wouldn’t “mention” the company.
And now, for the “rest of the story,” below is an excerpt from an article from the Boston Globe’s Sunday Magazine that featured the work of Food & Water. It was written by Sally West Johnson, who followed me around for days while researching her piece, including a trip to the Brattleboro anti-nuke rally. You can read the entire piece by clicking here.
We had fun. Because, as my activist mentor, Wally Burnstein, taught me: What’s the point of activism if you’re not having fun? Indeed. And people often thought we were devastated by the attacks we were so often under. Hardly. We were laughing. We believed in what we were doing and we were determined to have one hell of a good time in the process.
Here’s the Boston Globe’s description of our day at the Brattleboro rally:
Michael Colby’s time in the sun has arrived, and he’s ready for it. Striding up to the stage on this warm August afternoon, Colby, executive director of a political action group called Food & Water, has a small paper bag clutched in his left hand and mischief in his gray-blue eyes.
Colby is a scheduled speaker at an antinuclear gathering on the Brattleboro Common, a rally organized by the Citizens Awareness Network, based in Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts, and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, in Washington, D.C.
He is well known in the leftist community for his sharp tongue and his no-sacred-cows approach to politics. In an age when much of mainstream political activism has adopted the vocabulary of mediation and compromise, Colby is a pit bull — one with wit, but a pit bull nonetheless.
His bark and his bite have drawn him national attention, including appearances on three network evening news shows, CNN, ABC’s 20/20, and Phil Donahue’s talk show.
Lately, one of the targets of Colby’s bark has been Ben & Jerry’s, the Vermont ice cream makers who are known for their liberal activism.
Colby’s Vermont-based group demanded that Ben & Jerry’s stop buying milk from farmers who feed their cows grain treated with the herbicide atrazine, a suspected carcinogen.
Ben&Jerry’s argues, as do a number of environmental watchdog groups, that atrazine in cattle feed does not show up in the milk supply and that organic corn, raised without weed-killing chemicals, is too expensive to find a market.
Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, the founders of Ben & Jerry’s are at the rally today to join in the antinuclear speechmaking, and the organizers have extracted a promise from Colby that he will not say anything about Ben, Jerry, or the atrazine controversy, but will stick to nuclear reactors and nuclear waste.
Colby takes the stage along with his assistant, Michele Kirchner. He opens the bag, extracts a pint of nicely softened Chubby Hubby, one of Ben & Jerry’s best-known flavors, pulls out a spoon, and begins to eat.
“Doing bad and feeling good about it,” Colby intones between bites of ice cream. This is a phrase that appears often in the Food & Water advertising campaign against the ice cream maker, and many of the 100 or so activists in the audience appear to know that. Others seem intrigued.
“Doing bad and feeling good about it,” Colby says again, pausing for another spoonful of Chubby Hubby. “Doing real bad, and feeling real good about it.”
With that, his microphone goes dead. The audience begins to buzz; people ignore the next speaker’s arrival, flocking to Colby and Kirchner as they descend the steps at the back of the stage.
Was Colby deliberately cut off, people want to know. Yes, he was. Well, why? Doesn’t he have aright speak his mind? Colby now has the platform he was looking for, albeit not an official one.
“Six hundred farmers are using a carcinogenic herbicide,” Colby tells the crowd gathered around him offstage, “and Ben &Jerry’s won’t stop buying the milk made by cows that
eat that corn.”Debbie Katz, president of the Citizens Awareness Network, defends the decision to shut Colby down. “We said that going after Ben & Jerry’s was unacceptable, and he agreed three times not to do that,” she says. “His issue is real and should be brought up in a different forum — just not here.”
Others aren’t so sure “I don’t believe in censorship,” says Bill Addington, an antinuclear activist who has come from Texas to speak against the location of a low-level nuclear waste dump - a destination for Maine and Vermont nuclear waste — in the remote Texas town of Sierra Blanca. And Mardie Ratheau, of Brattleboro, calls the episode a “serious infringement” of Colby’s right to free speech.
It has been a moment of pure street theater: short, punchy, and effective, just the way Michael Colby likes it.
The Pollina Campaign (Now & Forever), R.I.P.
August 20, 2008 | 4 Comments
Oh my, it’s nice to see Vermont’s liberal elite finally catch up to the obvious conclusions reached years ago here: Anthony Pollina is a loser. Duh. I mean, how many elections does he have to lose or otherwise foul with his disastrous decision-making before the scarlet “L” is permanently attached to his political being? Well, this is his fourth and, let’s hope, his last.
Pollina, as news reading Vermonters know by now, is in the middle of yet another one of his bizarre political tantrums, whereby he proves that the only “p” that matters to him is the “p” in “Pollina,” not principles. This time Pollina is once again shit-canning his “Mr. Campaign Finance Reform” label to – say what? – obliterate any and all of Vermont’s campaign finance laws. In other words, if he’s going to lose, he’s going to make sure all of Vermont loses, too. Oh boy, that’ll show ‘em!
This latest Pollina mess was created when he made the me, myself and I-based decision to turn his back on his Progressive Party and, instead, run as an “independent” for governor. But, much like he bungled the management of his Vermont Milk Company, Pollina botched this move, too, by failing to note that the fundraising rules were a whole lot different for so-called independents. Specifically, according to the Secretary of State’s interpretation of the rules, independents can raise $1,000 per contributor/per election and major party candidates get to raise $2,000.
Pollina stepped in the campaign finance doo-doo when he began his race for governor as a major party candidate, thus begging for the $2,000 checks, but then dissed that party for a run on his own. But wait. What about the thirty-some-odd folks who ponied up more than $1,000 to his campaign? Send the money back, says the Secretary of State. No way, says Pollina. And let the mess begin.
While Pollina certainly has a legitimate grief that the law as interpreted by the state is unfair to independents, he also should have made sure he knew the rules before playing the game. But that kind of sloppiness is par for the course for Pollina’s political career (quick, name something he’s actually succeeded at…time’s up).
But there are far bigger issues here than Pollina’s latest tantrum. By declaring that the Secretary of State’s interpretation of the rules are not accurate, Pollina is saying that there are no campaign finance rules due to the fact that – buckle your seatbelts, folks – the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Vermont’s campaign finance law and Governor Jim Douglas vetoed the Vermont legislature’s attempts to remedy them.
The result? Pollina thinks anarchy should rule, as in: There are no rules. But the Secretary of State’s office thinks that the previously enacted rules should be enforced, as in: $2,000 contribution limits for major party candidates and $1,000 limits for independents.
The supreme irony in Pollina’s current self-serving position is that he’s taking one, big almighty dump on his previously proclaimed principles by now declaring that there are no rules when it comes to raising political capital. Hmm, let’s think for a second: Whom might that help most? The rich? The powerful? The well connected? Yes. Yes. And yes. But, to Pollina, there’s nothing as easily dispensable as a principle in the path of his quixotic pursuits of (said with frustration and clenched teeth): Just. Winning. One. God. Damned. Race.
So, in other words, if Pollina fails to read the rules before making a decision, to hell with the rules! Worse, if his challenge to those rules means empowering those with all the power already, so be it. Because this is about the big “P”: Pollina, and only Pollina.
Shame on him.
And shame on the Attorney General’s office, too, for repeatedly making public comments that they would need to “receive a complaint” before looking into this matter. You’d think that an official declaration by the Secretary of State’s office would trigger an investigation. Hello? Do you folks ever talk?
But, worse, while speaking with the Attorney General’s office this morning, Assistant Attorney General, Mike McShane, admitted to me that due to the “increased attention” this matter was getting that they may be looking into it “eventually” anyway. In other words, unless the press and the blogs pay enough attention to an opinion issued by the Secretary of State’s office, the Attorney General’s office will ignore it? Give me a break.
So, in order to put an end to the nonsense between these two state agencies, my partner in crime (or, in this instance, my partner in crime prevention), Boots Wardinski, submitted the letter below to the Attorney General’s office. At the time the letter was faxed, I was informed that it – the letter – would be the official “trigger” to an investigation of this matter. Pathetic? Sure. But, oddly enough, necessary as well.
The letter:
August 20, 2008
Mike McShane
Assistant Attorney General
State of Vermont
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05609-1001
Dear Mr. McShane,
Please consider this letter an official citizens’ complaint regarding the political fundraising of Anthony Pollina, a publicly declared “independent” candidate for governor of Vermont.
As you know, the Secretary of State’s office has requested that the Pollina campaign return all contributions of more than $1,000 in order to comply with what it considers to be the current law. To date, the Pollina campaign is refusing to return the money.
As concerned citizens of the State of Vermont, we offer this citizens’ complaint regarding the fundraising actions of the Pollina campaign and its apparent disregard for the law as interpreted by the Secretary of State’s office.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Michael Colby & Boots Wardinski
Money & Politics
August 7, 2008 | 6 Comments
It’s all the rage to talk about money and politics. But I think we’re focusing on the wrong end. Sure, we should keep track of the donors to political campaigns. But I think it’s just as important that we begin to ponder the wealth of those seeking our publicly-funded political offices.
Take Vermont’s campaign for governor, for example. Our sitting – and I do mean sitting – Governor, Jim Douglas, recently announced that he and his wife, a dental assistant, are worth more than $2 million and have no debt. The peculiar thing about this Republican’s amassing of wealth is that he’s spent his entire professional career as a “public servant,” working in various elected government jobs since he graduated from Middlebury College 30-some years ago. So you have to wonder how seriously we have to take Douglas when he spills forth with his “big, bad government” mantra. I guess what he really means is that government is “bad for thee, but not for me!” Two million dollars worth – and counting.
Douglas’ Democrat opponent, Gaye Symington, is also a millionaire many times over. She’s just trying to be coy by not including her husband’s wealth in the financial filings she recently handed over to the Vermont press. Her husband, Chuck Lacy, was one of the original honchos at Ben & Jerry’s back when the company’s stock was being handed out like candy and those at the top – like Lacy — walked away with more loot than they knew what to do with. So much loot, in fact, that folks like Lacy started their own charitable foundations to give gobs of it away. Nice work if you can get it.
Without her hubby’s millions, Symington declared a personal worth of close to $400,000. But you’ve got to be more than a hypocritical fool (or, for that matter, drinking way too much Dem Kool-Aid) to buy her argument against releasing their joint financial information.
“I’m running for office,” Symington declares, “not my family.”
Okay, Gaye, fan the flames of interest all you want but that kind of lameness isn’t going to make the issue – or the millions of dollars — go away. Besides, I’ll bet you won’t be distancing yourself from “the family” when the photo-ops, the door knocking, the advertisements, the advice, and the support come into play, huh? Of course not.
The simmering issue of Symington taking Vermonters for fools by refusing to release her joint financial picture should be dispensed with by two recent political examples: Hillary Clinton released joint financial statements in her run for president; and national Democrats made a huge issue of the McCains’ refusal to release joint financial statements. Checkmate, Gaye. Release them or prepare yourself for more questions.
Speaking of spousal wealth, the newly declared “Independent” in this campaign, Anthony Pollina, announced that he and his wife (emphasis on “wife”) are worth around $800,000. But if you look more closely at the filing you’ll see that there’s a pot of gold on his wife’s side that is just waiting to be handed over whenever it’s needed. Their joint income of around $90,000 last year included $30,000 in income derived from her family’s Maryland-based businesses. Hmm. Again, a nice job if you can get it. Or, in Anthony’s case, marry into it.
But the bigger issue here – for me, at least – is the wealth of these three media-appointed “leaders” in the campaign for governor. Compared to the average Vermont family, these folks are financial kings and queens. And the same is true when you take a gander at the financial pictures of our federally-elected threesome – Senators Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders and Congressman Peter Welch (all are millionaires).
When, exactly, will the comparatively extreme wealth of our elected officials and mainstream challengers become an issue? How long will we kid ourselves into thinking and believing that people with such wealth, and, as a result, a built-in disconnect with the economic pains that the rest of us are feeling, will do anything of substance to “change” the system? Hey, it’s worked for them.
None of the aforementioned politicians – or, in the case of Pollina, a wannabe politician – ever have to worry about that pit in their stomach when they go to the mailbox and are greeted by bills that they don’t have the money for. They don’t have to fret about health insurance or even trying to get an appointment to see a doctor (tried that lately?). They don’t sweat with the mental calculations that the rest of us sweat over as we shop for such extravagances as, say, food. They don’t stop filling their gas tank at half-full because that’s all they can afford. And they don’t worry about their retirement, unless, of course, you don’t count the worry of “which house?” or “which boat?”
But yet we continue to elect one wealthy person after another to help us deal with the issues that have made them wealthy and made the rest of us struggle. Nail, meet the hammer, and enjoy the pain.
Personally, I’ve had enough of the crocodile tears from the millionaire politicians. They can’t “feel” our pain. They’ve only been profiting from it.
Sure, let’s get money out of politics, as they say. And we can start by getting the moneyed-elite out of our political offices. Enough already.
Quick, Someone Get Pollina That Credit Card
August 1, 2008 | Leave a Comment
Yikes. Given the recent financial disclosure submitted by one-time Democrat, one-time Rainbow Party, two-and-a-half-time Progressive Party and now half-time Independent candidate, Anthony Pollina, we now know why he put his silly little credit card idea so front and center in his campaign for governor: The poor lad is out of cash. Yo Tony, credit or debit?
Yesterday marked the financial disclosure-filing deadline for any statewide candidate who has spent or raised more than $500. And the paperwork submitted by the mainstream media’s top three gubernatorial candidates – Pollina, Gaye Symington and Jim Douglas – looked remarkably like the candidates themselves. Pollina’s was pathetic (only $20,000 left), Symington’s was bland, and Douglas’ was what one would expect from a spoiled incumbent Republican (loaded).
Other than the fact that it looks like another cakewalk for an incumbent in this election, the news from the filings should focus on what losers the left is putting up against Douglas – especially in a year in which St. Obama is expected to mop up in Vermont. Pollina, for example, was a distant third in the race for the cash, despite the fact that he was the first to announce his candidacy, didn’t have a job to distract him from his run, and had made the claim last January that he had raised more than $100,000 at that point. If we take his $100,000 claim to be true, that means Pollina only raised about $60,000 in the seven months since then. Ouch. So he either lied back then or he’s been pathetic since then – choose one.
Now that he’s losing the campaign cash war, Pollina will soon be playing the campaign finance reform card. And while I’m all in favor of reining in the money chase, I think it’s more than ironic that it was Pollina who was (falsely?) thumping his campaign war chest last December while trying to scare away any Democratic Party challenger. Way back then, amassing and trumpeting great campaign wealth was essential for Pollina. But now that he’s getting his financial clock cleaned by both of his main opponents, money is bad, bad, bad for politics. In Pollina’s Hypocrisy We Trust.
My guess is that Pollina will seek to stop the bleeding to his already seriously damaged political reputation and drop out of this race before he has to officially file as an Independent in September. Between now and then the writing will be on the wall: The money will be drying up, the polls will be dismal, and he’ll get all kinds of pressure from the liberal elite to bag it or never come calling again. From my perspective, his new and phony “Independent” label was his first step out of the race. And it will make his last step – an endorsement of Symington – much easier in September. Remember, Pollina is pals with – and a financial grantee of – Symington’s husband, Chuck Lacy. We shall see.
—
Speaking of Pollina, congrats to Shay Totten of Seven Days for being the first Vermont journalist to jump into the smarmy waters of Pollina’s Vermont Milk Company. Via Blurt, Totten reported on the latest round of layoffs at the company and the dairy company’s continued financial strain. Totten also made note of the fact that Pollina changed his official campaign biography with regard to his relationship to the company after news of its failure to pay farmers came to light. Pollina’s original bio declared that he “ran the company.” But after the financial shit hit the fan, Pollina changed his bio to read that he was merely on the board of the company. Nice.
Louis Porter of the Vermont Press Bureau tried to follow Totten’s lead with his own version of the story in the Time Argus/Rutland Herald. But Porter – not surprisingly – took the tepid route and ignored Pollina’s biography fudging and, instead, let Pollina’s mismanagement be explained away by the tough financial times for everyone. Well, that ignores the fact that there are many food/ag entrepreneurs in the Vermont Milk Company’s Hardwick region who are flourishing (and growing) in these tough economic times. Look, for example, at Vermont Soy, Jasper Hill, High Mowing Seeds and the Food Venture Center – they’re all booming.
Sorry, but the problem with the Vermont Milk Company was that it had a dinosaur-like business plan being “run” by a political debutante with no business experience. Remember, it shunned organic in a time when organic is king in the marketplace. And its first big product was an overly plasticized “single-serving” shot of a – say what? – creamie. Yes, I just wrote about the Vermont Milk Company in the past tense. Because, it’s over up there. The only thing keeping the doors open for now are the secret Pollina contributors who were rushed in to keep it open until after the election.
Let’s hope one of those more competent and visionary Hardwick-area foodies can at least take over the facility once the Vermont Milk Company officially becomes another casualty of the Pollina touch.
Pollina to the Public (once again): Nevermind
July 22, 2008 | 5 Comments
The mood of the day in the Vermont media and blogosphere was one of shock, shock, shock over the announcement that the Progressive Party’s leader and co-founder, Anthony Pollina, decided to ditch his own political party and, instead, run as an independent for the position of Vermont’s governor. But none of us should have been shocked, especially if we’ve been following the whiplash-like switchbacks and flip-flops of Pollina’s rather miserable political career. If there’s anything Pollina does better than losing elections (o-for-whatever since the 1980s), it’s waffling, meandering and otherwise just floundering in the shallow end of his ideological pool.
Instead of being shocked, we all should have felt a little sheepish about watching the latest political wreckage of the latest Pollina campaign. I know, I know, you don’t really want to look at the wreck but you just can’t help it – especially with the Vermont media covering it as if it somehow matters.
Pollina’s bizarre yet predictable dissing of the political party he had only moments before anointed as “the answer” to Vermont’s political troubles is what we can only hope will be one of his last political acts. It reeks of desperation. You know, kind of like one of those “hey, look at me” antics of the ornery child in the corner – anything for just one more moment of attention.
If Pollina were to pull these kinds of stunts in most any other political climate besides the sleepy and incestuous political climes of Vermont, he would have been relegated to the laughing stockpile many elections cycles ago. Instead, in the comfy cocoon of the Vermont media and political elite, Pollina has been able to keep his name in play despite mountains of desperation, piles of losses, and a mere small valley of supporters. Hey, it sure beats Jersey, huh Tony?
For me, the worst part of the these all-too-frequent Pollina flip-flops is his apparent disregard and even disdain for his followers (few as they may be at this point) – all while parading in a charade of “caring for the little guys and gals.” Pollina, for example, is known for getting up on his high-horse and spewing his mostly borrowed rhetoric for causes such as campaign finance reform, fighting for farmers and building alternative political parties (yes, he said “parties”). But when it gets hot in Pollina’s political kitchen, he more often than not runs for the back door, leaving his guests with little but his stale rhetoric to pick over as they realize their “leader” has left the building.
Remember, Pollina loved campaign finance reform when he was rolling in $300,000 of the state’s money but suddenly found it objectionable when it didn’t fit his latest political goals. Similarly, Pollina loved to rail against the big, bad corporate dairies that were ripping off small farmers until, that is, he started his own dairy corporation and began ripping off small farmers. And now Pollina wants us to somehow ignore nearly a decade of his rhetoric about the essential importance of building his Progressive Party.
Pollina’s political career could be summarized as one, big “nevermind.” Emily Litella’s got nothing on Tony.
The most laughable spin of Pollina’s latest “nevermind” moment is his campaign’s assertion that his sudden adoption of the “independent” label will somehow amount to his reincarnation as what must be the immaculate conception of Bernie Sanders’ political son. Give me a break. Sure, in the shallowest of shallow interpretations, Pollina running as an “independent” is similar to Bernie’s many, many runs as an “independent.” But, other than the use of word “independent,” the similarities stop there.
First of all, Bernie won elections. And, more importantly, Bernie won LOCAL elections and built a formidable movement based on his political consistency (“people are suffering…”) and local election victories to vault him to where he is now.
Sorry, Tony, but you would have never seen Bernie Sanders touting a silly “credit card” as even the most remotest of “solutions” to Vermont’s economic woes. Earth to Tony: When the state wants a “certain percentage” of our purchases, we call that a “tax.” And, currently, the state is getting 6% off of every purchase. Besides, there is absolutely nothing “progressive” about promoting “credit” (read: debt) as a solution to our state’s economic woes. But I’ll bet those Republicans that the Pollina campaign claims to be targeting will love the idea of debt. Bush does.
While Pollina is aiming for the Sanders’ mantle, it would be more accurate to equate him with the Democratic fink known as Joe Lieberman. Yeah, you know, the guy who loved the Democratic Party’s warm glow when he was its vice-presidential candidate or getting its institutional support when fending off the liberal Ned Lamont, but just as quickly turning his back on it when he thought it would be best for him, and him alone.
The ugly truth in this latest Pollina “nevermind” is that he lied to his supporters and to the people of Vermont. He baited us with a decade of rhetoric about the importance of his “third party” and then switched when he thought it was best for him, and him alone. Worse, Pollina invoked the rhetoric of being against “party in-fighting” while, at the same time, managing to diss all parties – including his own. Go figure. Or, rather, nevermind.
Last Sunday, Pollina sat and watched as Peter Diamondstone of the state’s other major party, Liberty Union, got handcuffed and arrested for trying to participate in the first debate of gubernatorial candidates. Pollina said nothing. He refused to defend him. Instead, Pollina sat silently on his hands as he watched Diamondstone be forcefully removed and arrested for trying to bring his views forward, all the while knowing that the next morning he would be abandoning his own “major” party.
That, my friends, should tell us a lot about Anthony Pollina’s character. Please, oh please, let this be Pollina’s last campaign.
Don’t worry, Tony, we’ll remember you with your own favorite word: Nevermind.
Recent Comments
- Sarah Palin on Boy Done Pondering
- Jim-Carrey-Wat.jpg – ImageChan | Jim Carrey Celebrity Monitor on Boy Done Pondering
- New England Patriots have a busy day in shaping 2010 roster – ESPN … | New England Patriots NFL Announcer on Boy Done Pondering
- Sarah Palin on It’s Sugaring Time
- mentor? on It’s Sugaring Time
- dilldawg on It’s Sugaring Time
- Worcesterite on Life in a Slushie
- Sarah on Life in a Slushie
Posts
