This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 20, 2008.
Election Reflection
In our lives, it is important to look back on past events and reflect on what has gone before, to learn lessons, to make plans for the future. In elections, time gives us a chance to do all that, but it also gives us a chance to do something just as important - hold recounts.
Or just counting in the first place. For days after the election, it looked clear that convicted felon, and Republican incumbent Ted Stevens of Alaska would be returning to the Senate, at least long enough for the Senate to expel him. But after 65,000 of 90,000 absentee ballots had been counted as of last Friday, the tide had turned and Democratic challenger Mark Begich had taken the lead.
In Minnesota, Democratic challenger Al Franken trailed incumbent Republican Norm Coleman by only 206 votes, out of 2.9 million cast. A recount is mandated by state law, and began yesterday. It will be next month, though, before the result is certified. Franken (actually running on the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party ticket because of some interesting historical quirks) was in Washington to work with the Democratic leadership, just in case the recount went his way.
In Georgia, there is little question about the vote count, but since none of the candidates got the required fifty percent, a run-off election is scheduled for the two top vote-getters, Republican incumbent (and plurality winner) Saxby Chambliss and Democrat Jim Martin. A key issue in the run-off campaign so far seems to be support for the Fair Tax, which Chambliss supports and Martin does not.
Speaking of run-off elections, thankfully, no such election will be needed here in Vermont. Here, if no candidate for governor, lieutenant governor, or treasurer gets fifty percent of the vote, the election is thrown to the legislature, with the top three vote-getters eligible for election.
For a while on election night, it was unclear if incumbent Republican Jim Douglas would be able to get the required fifty percent, but after all the votes were counted, he handily won and passed the threshold with 53.4%. It is not easy to unseat an incumbent in Vermont. Despite several hard challenges in both of their careers, Jim Douglas and his predecessor, Howard Dean, fended them all off.
Since Douglas did win the needed 50%, the more interesting aspect of the governor's race was the fight for second place. Though he eked it out by just 257 votes, Independent Anthony Pollina beat Democrat Gaye Symington for Douglas's leavings. His success in beating out Symington may or may not be helpful to Pollina, a well-meaning and well-spoken man who has made something of a career of being a spoiler and also-ran.
Seven Days columnist Shay Totten reports that some Democrats are pushing to allow Pollina to run against Douglas as a fusion candidate in 2010. It seems unlikely to me, barring a decision by Douglas not to run or a major scandal in the Douglas administration, that any challenger could possibly win. That might be their point - let Pollina take the fall for another loss.
In any case, we have at least a week or two before the next campaign season begins in earnest, so no decisions have to be made right now.
In terms of state-wide offices, the governor's race was the one the incumbent won by the lowest percentage. According to the Secretary of State, Lieutenant Governor Brian Dubie won with 55.0%; Secretary of State Deb Markowitz won with 70.8%; Attorney General Bill Sorrell won with 72.6%; Peter Welch was sent back to Congress with 83.2%; Auditor of Accounts Tom Salmon won with 83.8%; and Treasurer Jeb Spaulding won the highest percentage of all with 89.9%.
And, of course, Barack Obama won Vermont's three electoral votes with 67.4%. There were seven other major party candidates for President. Republican John McCain garnered 30.4% of the vote; the only other player to get at least a full percentage point was Independent Ralph Nader, with 1.02%.
For the country, this was, indeed, a historic election, and one which is not quite over in some states. Here in Vermont, though, it was more of the same, with incumbents enjoying the protection of their offices. It is not necessarily true that we've gotten the best that we could have gotten, but what is true is that we picked them.
Now our job is to keep an eye on them, and I hope you'll join me as we do just that.
-----------------------------
Notes:
Following the submission of this column, the victory of Mark Begich over Ted Stevens was confirmed. On November 20, Stevens made his final speech in the Senate and went home.
Not to be outdone on the recount front, Vermont got in on the action. The seventh place candidate in the Chittenden Senate race, Denise Barnard, requested a recount of that county's ballots. Barnard had assumed she had come in sixth on Election Night, but several miscount issues led to Tim Ashe taking that position. The recount, scheduled to start on December 3, is scheuled to take seven to ten days. There was also a recount in the House race in Milton scheduled for one day of work.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Watching our political future
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 6, 2008.
Watching our political future
Congratulations have to go out this week to Barack Obama, Jim Douglas, and Brian Dubie. I'll write further about the national, state, and local races next time, because only after due time has passed can we truly analyze the patterns and trends that emerge from this election.
I will report, instead, on two profound experiences I had this past week.
The first had to do with that quintessential civic duty - voting. I write, though, not of my own experience in the voting booth, but instead of the experiences I had watching some of our children vote. On Tuesday, in the Williston Central School gym, the upper and lower houses in that building lined up one by one, throughout the course of the day, to participate in Vermont Votes for Kids.
In this mock election, lower house students, those in grades one through four, voted for the top of the ticket - president, governor, and lieutenant governor. Upper house students, in grades five through eight, voted for president and all statewide offices.
Results were not available as of this writing, but I participated in the counting of votes for one upper and one lower house. The results I saw predicted the results of the real election - Obama was selected by a wide margin, as was Douglas, and Dubie.
Unlike in an actual election, though, we did count ballots before all were cast, and that allowed me to witness some surprises and come backs. Notably, at one point in the gubernatorial race, Independent Anthony Pollina was far beyond Democrat Gaye Symington and knocking on Douglas's door. Democrat Tom Costello actually pulled up even to Republican Dubie in the lieutenant governor's race at the mid point of one tally. In both cases, the final tally was closer to the real vote tally, but it was fun to watch nevertheless.
I also noticed prevalent ticket splitting. The choices of Obama, Pollina, and Dubie were actually quite common, and I wondered how many of these kids' parents had spoken out loud about their choices, around the dinner table or in the car, running errands and driving here and there. Did they hear the arguments for and against the candidates that they presented, or did they listen to their lessons and to the candidates themselves, and make up their own minds?
It is an individual question, the answer to which I may never know. I do know, however, that my own kids did not mirror all of my own choices, and I take some pride in that. They heard me, time and again, argue for my choices, but in the end, they made their own choices, just as they should have. My daughter now, more than ever, looks forward to the next presidential election, where she will be old enough to cast her first vote. I only hope that at that time, she retains the lessons she has already learned, thinks for herself, weighs her options carefully, and makes up her own mind.
The other experience took place in the gym my wife and I frequent, and extended over the course of several days. In the gym, we're all more concerned with building muscle and losing weight than anything else, but on Saturday and again on Tuesday, political discussions were intermixed with the warm ups and cool downs.
What I felt here was the complete and utter lack of ambivalence. In prior years, it was inevitable that some of my acquaintances would say that they didn't plan to vote. This year, however, I cannot recall discussing the election with a single person and hearing that suffrage rights would not be exercised.
Each day, stories were traded among those who had voted early, and once the Obama supporters and McCain supporters had made themselves known, there was good-natured ribbing about our respective choices. This was encouraging to me - that despite some of the negative campaigning that we've been subjected to over the past few months, we can come together and enjoy a good laugh. There was also universal respect from both sides for the supporters of the other side, and that gives me hope that as time passes and wounds heal, we will all be able to come together to overcome the issues that we face as a state and a nation.
I've always felt that this nation, these United States, is the best example of what we humans can accomplish when we work together. My hope has yet again been renewed, and I look forward to watching us as we take one more step in our ongoing political evolution.
Watching our political future
Congratulations have to go out this week to Barack Obama, Jim Douglas, and Brian Dubie. I'll write further about the national, state, and local races next time, because only after due time has passed can we truly analyze the patterns and trends that emerge from this election.
I will report, instead, on two profound experiences I had this past week.
The first had to do with that quintessential civic duty - voting. I write, though, not of my own experience in the voting booth, but instead of the experiences I had watching some of our children vote. On Tuesday, in the Williston Central School gym, the upper and lower houses in that building lined up one by one, throughout the course of the day, to participate in Vermont Votes for Kids.
In this mock election, lower house students, those in grades one through four, voted for the top of the ticket - president, governor, and lieutenant governor. Upper house students, in grades five through eight, voted for president and all statewide offices.
Results were not available as of this writing, but I participated in the counting of votes for one upper and one lower house. The results I saw predicted the results of the real election - Obama was selected by a wide margin, as was Douglas, and Dubie.
Unlike in an actual election, though, we did count ballots before all were cast, and that allowed me to witness some surprises and come backs. Notably, at one point in the gubernatorial race, Independent Anthony Pollina was far beyond Democrat Gaye Symington and knocking on Douglas's door. Democrat Tom Costello actually pulled up even to Republican Dubie in the lieutenant governor's race at the mid point of one tally. In both cases, the final tally was closer to the real vote tally, but it was fun to watch nevertheless.
I also noticed prevalent ticket splitting. The choices of Obama, Pollina, and Dubie were actually quite common, and I wondered how many of these kids' parents had spoken out loud about their choices, around the dinner table or in the car, running errands and driving here and there. Did they hear the arguments for and against the candidates that they presented, or did they listen to their lessons and to the candidates themselves, and make up their own minds?
It is an individual question, the answer to which I may never know. I do know, however, that my own kids did not mirror all of my own choices, and I take some pride in that. They heard me, time and again, argue for my choices, but in the end, they made their own choices, just as they should have. My daughter now, more than ever, looks forward to the next presidential election, where she will be old enough to cast her first vote. I only hope that at that time, she retains the lessons she has already learned, thinks for herself, weighs her options carefully, and makes up her own mind.
The other experience took place in the gym my wife and I frequent, and extended over the course of several days. In the gym, we're all more concerned with building muscle and losing weight than anything else, but on Saturday and again on Tuesday, political discussions were intermixed with the warm ups and cool downs.
What I felt here was the complete and utter lack of ambivalence. In prior years, it was inevitable that some of my acquaintances would say that they didn't plan to vote. This year, however, I cannot recall discussing the election with a single person and hearing that suffrage rights would not be exercised.
Each day, stories were traded among those who had voted early, and once the Obama supporters and McCain supporters had made themselves known, there was good-natured ribbing about our respective choices. This was encouraging to me - that despite some of the negative campaigning that we've been subjected to over the past few months, we can come together and enjoy a good laugh. There was also universal respect from both sides for the supporters of the other side, and that gives me hope that as time passes and wounds heal, we will all be able to come together to overcome the issues that we face as a state and a nation.
I've always felt that this nation, these United States, is the best example of what we humans can accomplish when we work together. My hope has yet again been renewed, and I look forward to watching us as we take one more step in our ongoing political evolution.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Evaluating the local races
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 23, 2008.
Evaluating the local races
I've had a hard time deciding for whom to vote for governor.
This may come as somewhat of a shock if you've read these words over the past few months. It would not be inaccurate to call me a Democratic Party partisan. But I try not to make decisions purely based on party. And this year, there are three good choices. What's a partisan to do?
I'll circle back to the governor's race - first, I want to offer my support for local Democrats Terry Macaig and Jim McCullough. McCullough is a long-time resident of Williston and a long-serving member of the legislature. Though he may score low on some business group's scorecard, I'm confident that he knows what business needs from Montpelier and will work to that end.
Macaig is also a long-time resident and shares many of my own views on local issues, notably on mandatory minimum sentences and on Vermont Yankee. These are important issues that will need to be worked out carefully and thoughtfully, and I'm confident Macaig will be an important part of that process.
As far as the Senate goes, my family has a personal relationship with Diane Snelling, and I do plan to give her one of my votes. From the Democratic column, I have long experience with Ginny Lyons, Ed Flanagan, and Doug Racine. I still have some thinking to do on my final two choices for Senator.
Guiding those choices will be my goal of maintaining a Democratic majority in the statehouse. However, I think it is good to have a robust and vocal opposition, so I don't want to see the Republicans and Progressives trounced.
And that brings me back to the gubernatorial race. Because I see positives about all three candidates, it has been a process of elimination to come to my decision.
Anthony Pollina has good ideas and he is articulate. I used to hear him on the radio during lunchtime drives, and remember nodding in agreement as he spoke. But in the end, I think his position on Vermont Yankee is dangerous for the Vermont economy, and I fear his health care plan. I would be comfortable voting for Pollina for lieutenant governor - but not for the state's highest office.
Jim Douglas has some good ideas, to be sure. He opposed an increase in the gas tax, his e-State initiative is a positive plan for our future, and he supports Vermont Yankee. However, his refusal to support a clean-up fund for Yankee is troubling, and I disagree with his continued support for unnecessary road projects in Williston and Bennington.
Gaye Symington has a leg up on Douglas because of her party affiliation, and I agree with most of her published positions. I fully support Symington's plan for Vermont's infrastructure. The money we would spend on the Circ and on the Bennington Bypass could be put to much better use elsewhere, improving what we already have.
However, I fear her support for Yankee is limited to the plant's decommissioning. I think Yankee needs to be a centerpiece of our energy plan and we need to work closely with Entergy to that end.
But the biggest reason I have had such a hard time getting behind Symington fully is a basic belief of mine - that the separation of powers is critical to making sure good laws are made. There are so many problems in Washington right now that I think we need to have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president. I'm a bit afraid of what could happen if the Democrats are flush with power at the state level, though.
So that's it. Do I support Douglas knowing I disagree with him on several key issues, but also knowing that for bills to become laws, they will have to be reasoned compromises? Or do I support Symington, knowing we agree on most issues, but fearing that the checks and balances of our system are in jeopardy when there is little need for compromise?
After some considerable soul-searching, I have decided to support Symington. We have tough times over the horizon, and I think that with the fourth estate keeping a close eye on our state government, the Democrats can pass laws that benefit the state without burdening the taxpayers. I urge you to support Symington, too, and give her a chance to steer us through the coming storm.
Evaluating the local races
I've had a hard time deciding for whom to vote for governor.
This may come as somewhat of a shock if you've read these words over the past few months. It would not be inaccurate to call me a Democratic Party partisan. But I try not to make decisions purely based on party. And this year, there are three good choices. What's a partisan to do?
I'll circle back to the governor's race - first, I want to offer my support for local Democrats Terry Macaig and Jim McCullough. McCullough is a long-time resident of Williston and a long-serving member of the legislature. Though he may score low on some business group's scorecard, I'm confident that he knows what business needs from Montpelier and will work to that end.
Macaig is also a long-time resident and shares many of my own views on local issues, notably on mandatory minimum sentences and on Vermont Yankee. These are important issues that will need to be worked out carefully and thoughtfully, and I'm confident Macaig will be an important part of that process.
As far as the Senate goes, my family has a personal relationship with Diane Snelling, and I do plan to give her one of my votes. From the Democratic column, I have long experience with Ginny Lyons, Ed Flanagan, and Doug Racine. I still have some thinking to do on my final two choices for Senator.
Guiding those choices will be my goal of maintaining a Democratic majority in the statehouse. However, I think it is good to have a robust and vocal opposition, so I don't want to see the Republicans and Progressives trounced.
And that brings me back to the gubernatorial race. Because I see positives about all three candidates, it has been a process of elimination to come to my decision.
Anthony Pollina has good ideas and he is articulate. I used to hear him on the radio during lunchtime drives, and remember nodding in agreement as he spoke. But in the end, I think his position on Vermont Yankee is dangerous for the Vermont economy, and I fear his health care plan. I would be comfortable voting for Pollina for lieutenant governor - but not for the state's highest office.
Jim Douglas has some good ideas, to be sure. He opposed an increase in the gas tax, his e-State initiative is a positive plan for our future, and he supports Vermont Yankee. However, his refusal to support a clean-up fund for Yankee is troubling, and I disagree with his continued support for unnecessary road projects in Williston and Bennington.
Gaye Symington has a leg up on Douglas because of her party affiliation, and I agree with most of her published positions. I fully support Symington's plan for Vermont's infrastructure. The money we would spend on the Circ and on the Bennington Bypass could be put to much better use elsewhere, improving what we already have.
However, I fear her support for Yankee is limited to the plant's decommissioning. I think Yankee needs to be a centerpiece of our energy plan and we need to work closely with Entergy to that end.
But the biggest reason I have had such a hard time getting behind Symington fully is a basic belief of mine - that the separation of powers is critical to making sure good laws are made. There are so many problems in Washington right now that I think we need to have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president. I'm a bit afraid of what could happen if the Democrats are flush with power at the state level, though.
So that's it. Do I support Douglas knowing I disagree with him on several key issues, but also knowing that for bills to become laws, they will have to be reasoned compromises? Or do I support Symington, knowing we agree on most issues, but fearing that the checks and balances of our system are in jeopardy when there is little need for compromise?
After some considerable soul-searching, I have decided to support Symington. We have tough times over the horizon, and I think that with the fourth estate keeping a close eye on our state government, the Democrats can pass laws that benefit the state without burdening the taxpayers. I urge you to support Symington, too, and give her a chance to steer us through the coming storm.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Great Debates
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 9, 2008.
Great Debates
Televised debates in U.S. presidential campaigns have a long and storied history. Over time, it is not the substance of the debates that we remember but instead the one-liners and the blunders.
Classic gaffes include George H.W. Bush's impatient glances at his watch during a 1992 debate with Bill Clinton and Al Gore's creepy hovering during a town-hall style debate with George W. Bush in 2000.
Classic one-liners abound, but Ronald Reagan supplied two memorable ones in a 1980 debate. His reprimand of "There you go again" when Jimmy Carter criticized Reagan's position on Medicare is often replayed, as is his rhetorical question to the viewing audience, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
It would be a stretch to say that a gaffe in a debate is a death sentence to a campaign or that a great one-liner could seal the deal, but these, along with the other trivialities from the campaign trail, can add up to enough of a nudge to push fence-sitters into one camp or another.
So it is with this knowledge of debates past that I have watched the last three debates, looking for the critical mistake, the classic zinger. So far, though, the debates have been very even.
For the first debate, John McCain supplied plenty of drama, keeping everyone guessing if he'd even show up, given that he had nonsensically "suspended his campaign" so that he could work on the economic bail-out bill. Barack Obama vowed that he would appear at the University of Mississippi for the debate whether McCain showed up or not. In the end, McCain did appear, revealing the "suspension" as mere melodrama.
As I watched, I was impressed by most of the answers that both candidates gave, though I cynically let pass the answering of the question they heard rather than the one that was asked. Post-debate polls asking "Who won?" indicated a preference for Obama among undecided voters, but only just barely - McCain and "Neither" were both close behind. Given that the debate's primary focus was on foreign policy, seen as a McCain strong point, that Obama held his own was seen as a big plus by many pundits.
Going into last week's Vice Presidential debate, many were expecting Sarah Palin to stumble. Considering her mangled answers to such softball interview questions as "What newspapers do you read?" it was easy to expect a stumble. But by only answering the questions she wanted to, Palin was able to keep an even keel, even managing to wink at the camera a few times.
Joe Biden, known for being pedantic and verbose, managed to keep those impulses in check and avoided boring the audience to tears. He ended up being very eloquent and even folksy, threatening to take that mantle from Palin. Though a CNN poll indicated a Biden win, Palin did better than expected, which was seen as a plus for her ticket.
In the days since the VP debate, the McCain campaign has been reeling from declining poll numbers in battleground states, and as a result, it has decided to turn negative. Red flags starting going up in the blogosphere, and McCain's own words from his 2000 campaign emerged: "If all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you're not ready to articulate it."
Perhaps trying to counter his own "lack of vision" critique, McCain came out swinging in Tuesday's debate. While he roundly lambasted Obama for new spending proposals, McCain surprised everyone by proposing a mortgage bail-out plan that is bound to cost more hundreds of billions of dollars.
Obama, who watched McCain speak throughout the debate with the bemused look of someone comfortable with his positions on the issues (and his positions in the polls), again held his own in a format that was predicted to play to McCain's strengths.
After all was said and done, one CBS "instant poll" of undecided voters found that Obama again came out only slightly ahead of both McCain and "draw". While surely discouraging for McCain, such results only lend credence to Obama's articulated positions.
With one more debate to be heard, there is still time for a slip-up or a home run. History shows it might not make much of a difference - but that's not to say they won't keep trying.
Great Debates
Televised debates in U.S. presidential campaigns have a long and storied history. Over time, it is not the substance of the debates that we remember but instead the one-liners and the blunders.
Classic gaffes include George H.W. Bush's impatient glances at his watch during a 1992 debate with Bill Clinton and Al Gore's creepy hovering during a town-hall style debate with George W. Bush in 2000.
Classic one-liners abound, but Ronald Reagan supplied two memorable ones in a 1980 debate. His reprimand of "There you go again" when Jimmy Carter criticized Reagan's position on Medicare is often replayed, as is his rhetorical question to the viewing audience, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
It would be a stretch to say that a gaffe in a debate is a death sentence to a campaign or that a great one-liner could seal the deal, but these, along with the other trivialities from the campaign trail, can add up to enough of a nudge to push fence-sitters into one camp or another.
So it is with this knowledge of debates past that I have watched the last three debates, looking for the critical mistake, the classic zinger. So far, though, the debates have been very even.
For the first debate, John McCain supplied plenty of drama, keeping everyone guessing if he'd even show up, given that he had nonsensically "suspended his campaign" so that he could work on the economic bail-out bill. Barack Obama vowed that he would appear at the University of Mississippi for the debate whether McCain showed up or not. In the end, McCain did appear, revealing the "suspension" as mere melodrama.
As I watched, I was impressed by most of the answers that both candidates gave, though I cynically let pass the answering of the question they heard rather than the one that was asked. Post-debate polls asking "Who won?" indicated a preference for Obama among undecided voters, but only just barely - McCain and "Neither" were both close behind. Given that the debate's primary focus was on foreign policy, seen as a McCain strong point, that Obama held his own was seen as a big plus by many pundits.
Going into last week's Vice Presidential debate, many were expecting Sarah Palin to stumble. Considering her mangled answers to such softball interview questions as "What newspapers do you read?" it was easy to expect a stumble. But by only answering the questions she wanted to, Palin was able to keep an even keel, even managing to wink at the camera a few times.
Joe Biden, known for being pedantic and verbose, managed to keep those impulses in check and avoided boring the audience to tears. He ended up being very eloquent and even folksy, threatening to take that mantle from Palin. Though a CNN poll indicated a Biden win, Palin did better than expected, which was seen as a plus for her ticket.
In the days since the VP debate, the McCain campaign has been reeling from declining poll numbers in battleground states, and as a result, it has decided to turn negative. Red flags starting going up in the blogosphere, and McCain's own words from his 2000 campaign emerged: "If all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you're not ready to articulate it."
Perhaps trying to counter his own "lack of vision" critique, McCain came out swinging in Tuesday's debate. While he roundly lambasted Obama for new spending proposals, McCain surprised everyone by proposing a mortgage bail-out plan that is bound to cost more hundreds of billions of dollars.
Obama, who watched McCain speak throughout the debate with the bemused look of someone comfortable with his positions on the issues (and his positions in the polls), again held his own in a format that was predicted to play to McCain's strengths.
After all was said and done, one CBS "instant poll" of undecided voters found that Obama again came out only slightly ahead of both McCain and "draw". While surely discouraging for McCain, such results only lend credence to Obama's articulated positions.
With one more debate to be heard, there is still time for a slip-up or a home run. History shows it might not make much of a difference - but that's not to say they won't keep trying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)