vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

10.23.2007

An inconvenient vote

Looks like the friends and followers of Democracy for America aren't as impressed with Barack Obama as you might have thought.

The Burlington-based grassroots political action committee is running an on-line poll on its Web site asking folks to vote for who they'd like to be president, and Obama is running a strong second, behind Al "I'm not Interested" Gore. For a look at the results to date -- the "poll" is open until Nov. 5 -- click here.

It also looks like DFA is using the poll numbers to call on Gore to say whether he's in or out as a presidential candidate. DFA rules forbid it from endorsing someone who is not an announced candidate.

"Despite the fact that Al Gore has not announced that he will run and wasn't even included in the endorsement poll, DFA members have seized the power and written him in. With over 65,000 votes cast so far, the time has come for Vice President Gore to make a decision," Arshad Hasan, DFA's executive director, wrote in the e-mail.

Funny. I thought the former Veep made it pretty clear he's not interested in the post he sought (and some say won) in 2000. Even after he won the Nobel Peace Prize, that message was reiterated.

But then, in politics, you never say never.

-- Sam Hemingway

posted by vt.Buzz | 2:54 PM |

Comments:

Sam, you got any news to cover today? Or are you just going to dish up this crap?

Report on something that has some meaning, please.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:35 PM, October 23, 2007

Yawn.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:20 PM, October 23, 2007

If he can advocate against global warming while having a house that uses $30,000 worth of electricity a year, why can't he run for president without declaring himself as a candidate?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:20 PM, October 23, 2007

More lies.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:03 AM, October 24, 2007

Break-Dancing News!

Jim Douglas in the next 802 rappers video.

{insert standard rap beat here}

I'll ignore the issue and make it go the f away
Just so I can live to be guv another day.

People wonder how it is I'm always re-elected
I tell 'em "blame it on the Democrats; they leave their dogs neglected.

The people all around me, they always saying "yes"
I wonder sometimes how it is they gettin' dressed.

I'll end this little rap right now with a shout out to my homies
Don't believe my folks my peeps; they all a bunch of phonies.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:50 AM, October 24, 2007

I understand why you posted that anonymously.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:11 AM, October 24, 2007

People are urged to run all the time--it's not uncommon. Some have far fewer qualifications than Al Gore--take Rich Tarrant for example.
It's allowed

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:03 AM, October 24, 2007

"People are urged to run all the time--it's not uncommon. Some have far fewer qualifications than Al Gore--take Rich Tarrant for example.
It's allowed."

Exactly. Like Pollina, for example. He's run for Lt. Gov. and now wants to run for Gov., but he's never even been "fence viewer" or "tree warden" or town constable or justice of the peeace. Not to mention never served as a state rep. No elective office experience. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:29 PM, October 24, 2007

There are other ways to get relevant experience.

I wish we could get more people in politics who aren't carear politicians.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:35 PM, October 24, 2007

"I wish we could get more people in politics who aren't carear politicians."

I couldn't agree more. If you want an eye-opener, take a look at the background of the legislature...virutally no real experience in dealing with the issues that face the state. It's no surprise nothing of value comes out of the House or Senate.

We face real problems that take real skills to address. This crowd, try as they might, doesn't have the horsepower to do it....all the way from Gaye and Peter down to the local reps. Why do you think they entertain things like sweeping Global Warming studies, Gay Marriage proposals, and hosting Cindy Sheehan day in the Capital? It deflects the conversation from their inability to address the substantial issues.

It's time to bring in real professionals with real skills and abilities.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:53 AM, October 25, 2007

Pollina drinks a mean cup of coffee. Give him that much.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:54 AM, October 25, 2007

Gaye isn't a carear politician.

Welch is. Douglas is. Vince Illusi is. These are people who have spent all of their adult lives running for office.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:58 AM, October 25, 2007

"Gaye isn't a carear politician. "

Right she is a development coordinator at the Intervale. While it is a fine job, how does that position her to really tackle the issues of the state and lead Vermont towards a robust future?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:06 AM, October 25, 2007

She needs to step down - now.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:44 PM, October 25, 2007

Gaye has an extensive and distinguished resume.

If you aren't familiar with it, that's your own problem.

She'll step down right after our joke of a governor steps down.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:55 PM, October 25, 2007

I thought she was better than that - that sounds like playground politics!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:31 PM, October 25, 2007

Whats new!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:12 PM, October 26, 2007

Vermont's politics, at the state level, are always going to be dominated by a few seasoned pros.

Since House and Senate members are "citizen legislators" facing re-election every two years (like their statewide executive branch counterparts) the issue du jour is always going to get their attention, and tougher issues that would require political risk to forge solutions for are likely to be avoided.

With "citizens" as the rank-and-file, ambitious professional politicians like Shumlin, Illuzzi, Liz Ready, Ralph Wright, and yes, Douglas easily rise to leadership roles because they know how to play the game better.

It also leaves the lawmakers in a position where they have to rely on experts to inform them about complex issues, and that means two primary sources:

The career staff at the Joint Fiscal Office/Legislative Council, who, as state employees, are naturally inclined towards Democratic and Progressive policies and;

Lobbyists, who are the de facto "staff" for the citizen legislature.

Unless you change some of the variables in this equation, e.g. longer terms, more permanent staff for the Legislature, or real salaries for lawmakers that will create a professional political class in Vermont, the dynamic is unlikely to change, IMHO.

Not that I necessarily think it's a bad thing. It does act as a check against radical legislation from the right or left, and that kind of stability is a positive thing, particularly for the economy.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:16 PM, October 27, 2007

What that says to me is that the Legislative leadership in Vermont will continue to be dominated by people who can afford not to have a job and who therefore know nothing about running a buiness and making a payroll.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:37 PM, October 27, 2007

You got that right!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:43 AM, October 28, 2007

That's exactly the point. In VT, there are minimum professional standards for beauticians, auctioneers and tatto artists but there is none for our legislature.

If you want to scare yourself read the professional backgrounds of the members of the legislature. It's loaded with retirees, small shop owners and farmers. None that clearly seem to have the background needed to lead the state into the future. It really is time to change the system to something more effective and able to address the issues of the state.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:29 PM, October 28, 2007

I agree.

But on the other hand I would not pretend to have the answer. 1. I'm not sure we would want to abandon our citizen legislature history, and 2. we can't afford to have a professional legislature with salaries that would rival good salaries in the provate sector.

I agree we have a problem, but I don't have the answer.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:56 PM, October 28, 2007

I don't have all the answers either but one thing I do know is if you do the same old thing, you get the same old result.

Many here push doing the same old thing as we don't want to abandon our rich history.

It is time to invest in our state...for meaningful things. From my perspective its investing in the development of a robust growing state economy and investing in attracting the skills and talents we need to give us a talented and properly experienced public sector.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:51 AM, October 29, 2007

Can't argue with that.

Talk to Douglas, Symington, and Shumlin about that and see what happens . . .

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:26 PM, October 30, 2007

what should i expect?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:13 PM, October 30, 2007

I'd expect Douglas to agree with you; his positions on economic development and jobs have been pretty consistent and in the same vein since he got elected, and when he was building his cabinet he was pretty forthright about the challenges of trying to lure private sector talent to serve in state government.

Gaye and Peter? I don't know where they'd come down on the issue of pay for government officials but I'm dubious they'd oppose any effort to raise it. At least, after Democrats control the executive office.

On the issue of jobs and growing the economy, I think you'd hear a different story. They're beholden to the environmental, conservation, and preservation lobbies. That means they have to use the code words: "sustainable" economic growth, and "smart growth" when it comes to housing.

That means heavily regulated, and VERY SLOW growth. Like we've had for the past 20-30 years or so. It means that for every buck you spend on affordable housing, another buck goes to "conserving" land from development, thereby driving up the cost of housing for working and middle class Vermonters who don't qualify for subsidized affordable housing.

That's the funny thing, a lot of the same people who talk about "preserving Vermont's rural landscape" and "rich history" are the same ones who support Instant Runoff Voting; single payer health care; and increased centralization of power in the education/political establishment.

They're very progressive (small-P) on those issues, but home ownership for working class Vermonters? Letting in businesses that create jobs that really pay a "livable wage" like they advocate for? They suddenly become highly attached to "traditional settlement patterns" and "Vermont's environmental tradition."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:27 PM, October 30, 2007

Congrats and thanks for one of the few thoughtful replies on this board.

Here's the pity... from my perspective everyone recognizes the problem but there is such bitterness and an underlying desire to point the finger of blame, that it is nearly impossible to agree on a constructive plan out of this mess. I think we would be happier with total failure as long as there is someone to blame than we would be with modest success if it is led by "the other side"

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:30 AM, October 31, 2007

That is right on!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:18 PM, October 31, 2007