Did you hear the one about Pollina endorsing Obama? Oh wait, that wasn’t a joke. Pollina was serious. Or should I say: calculating. And, once again, he’s hoping no one will notice his latest “do as I say, not as I do” moment.

But, first, it’s true: Anthony Pollina, the rather dusty stalwart of Vermont’s Progressive Party, put out a press statement a couple of weeks ago announcing his endorsement of Barack Obama for president. Hmm, let’s see, besides everything, what could be strange about Pollina, the “I’m no Democrat,” endorsing Obama, the Democrat?

Good grief, Pollina apparently has no shame. Because, as you may recall, Pollina is running for governor of Vermont as a decidedly non-Democrat against – yep – a Democrat, Gaye Symington, and a Republican, Jim Douglas. And it’s the same Pollina who also ran against Vermont’s last Democratic governor, Howard Dean, who now, interestingly enough, is Obama’s choice to continue running the entire national Democratic Party.

This is getting weird.

For those of us with a memory – or at least access to Google – we remember when Pollina was calling Dean and the Democrats a mere extension of the Republicans. And, I have to admit, it was the kind of rhetoric that made my heart go pitter-patter. But, because I was familiar with Pollina’s nonsense, I knew he didn’t mean it. And, of course, he doesn’t – and didn’t. Why else would he now be endorsing the Dean-led Democratic Party’s candidate for president?

Wait. Don’t answer that. Because I know the answer: Self-serving desperation. And therein lies the difference between truly inspiring third – and fourth and fifth – party challengers and the self-serving, ideologically-adrift retreads like Pollina.

But let’s back up. For non-comatose Vermonters, we know that Pollina is running for governor (again) under the banner of the Progressive Party, the folks who have sometimes, kind of, maybe (depending on the day and the circumstances) tried to make the case that Vermont needs a viable third party because the Democrats and Republicans are hopelessly and ruthlessly protecting a political status quo that isn’t serving the rest of us very well. Can you say “Iraq War,” “health care,” “global warming,” “alternative energy,” “economic justice,” “corporate oligarchy”? I knew you could.

But the problem with Pollina and the Progs is that they only spew that rhetoric – or even pretend to believe in it – when it appears to be politically convenient. And they’ll just as soon say that there’s no hope in getting anything substantive done within the Democratic Party before announcing that they’re either cutting a deal with Dems over which electoral races to sit out or, in the case of Pollina, endorsing a Dem for the highest of political offices: president. Go figure.

So, when it comes to their ever-changing opinions/relations with the Dems,  Pollina and the Progs either don’t believe their own rhetoric, don’t understand that they’ve created a paper trail of opinions (and campaigns) that we can see, or they think their supporters are fools. Or, I guess, it could be all of the above.

How, for example, can Pollina run for governor against Democrat Gaye Symington, claiming “major differences” with her, and yet also endorse Obama for president? What, exactly, are the “major” policy differences between Symington and Obama? I don’t see any, as a matter of fact. Both, quite frankly, are liberal Democrats. Neither supports universal health care. Neither supported an immediate de-funding of the Iraq War. Neither supports a complete and total roll back of the trade policies that have so dramatically damaged working families. Neither supported impeachment of Bush. And both enjoy a ringside seat to the power elite game of inside politics, footsie with corporate lobbyists, and an absolute allegiance to “the party” with little regard for what that means for the people.

But yet Pollina – and other Progs like David Zuckerman – have now made it a point to cast Symington as the mortal enemy and Obama as the savior. It makes no sense. Unless, of course, you consider political expediency.

Pollina & Co. are hoping that voters and the Vermont media will forget all that rhetoric he spewed about Dean when he ran against him in 2000. Just as they’re hoping that people will forget about their on again/off again charges that the Dems are too snuggled with power to really get anything done. But they can’t have it both ways – blasting them one second and endorsing them the next.

The reason Pollina is constantly pulling the Obama card is obvious: he’s desperate. He’s willing to say “never mind” to his rhetoric of the last ten years in hopes that he’ll be able to get onto the Obama coattails in November. But someone needs to remind Pollina that he’s a member of the Progressive Party and Obama (and his opponent, Symington) are Democrats. Hey Anthony, may I introduce you to Ralph Nader? He’s great. He believes what you says. Fights for it, too. Try it sometime. That’s the point of “third parties,” you know.

Pollina knows that he probably won’t be made to feel embarrassed by his Obama endorsement. First, the sleepy Vermont media probably won’t figure out the oh-so obvious contradictions and, secondly, he knows that Obama won’t be bothered by a visit to Vermont – a visit that would certainly feature him with other Democrats like (ahem) Symington.

Poor Pollina. He’s seems really, really confused.

Well, imitating Bernie, that is. On the oil issue.

I’m speaking, or course, about Congressman Peter Welch’s “telephone town meeting” last night on the oil crisis; a phone version of what Senator Bernie Sanders did a few months back on the Internet. The political formula for these little stunts is to give the people – you know, those non-millionaires amongst us – a chance to spill forth with our pain regarding the absurdly high price of oil. And then our elected millionaires can put on their best face of concern and voice of empathy and proceed to get gobs of headlines regarding their willingness to hear our stories.

But wait, there seems to be something missing here. Oh yeah, the action, as in: These people of wealth, power and high-elected office that seem so interested in our sob stories actually doing something about the oil crisis. There’s apparently no career safety in actually addressing these issues (it gets in the way of contributions and makes enemies amongst their ruling friends). But listening? That’s where it’s at, career wise.

And it’s all our fault, too. Because if we really wanted our elected officials to really care about us and address the issues that are putting a fatal pinch in our lives and livelihoods, we’d stop sending millionaires to represent us. I mean, come on, do you really think Peter-the-multi-millionaire can really feel our pain at the pump? Or even Bernie, for that matter, the man who has become one of the nation’s richest 5% during all that time he’s spent railing against them. I guess he’d call that his own brand of successful socialism – take from the government and give to himself.

The Vermont media buys these little political gimmicks like a giddy kid in a candy store. Take, for example, Josh O’Gorman of the Rutland Herald, who opened his fawning piece about Welch’s telephone conference call with a syrupy line about how the event joined “emerging technology with direct democracy.” Oh, come on – it was a friggin telephone conference call with our representative. Sorry, but I remember doing telephone conference calls 15 years ago.

And what’s this nonsense about “direct democracy”? Again, it was a conference call, whereby the people got to cry and Welch got to put on his most sincere sounding voice before returning to one of his dwellings and – I assure you – not having a nanosecond’s worth of anxiety about his energy bills. Remember, this is the guy who sends monthly checks to some hucksters who’ve convinced him that paying them will relieve him of his carbon guilt. Brilliant.

But if a telephone conference call can now be considered “direct democracy,” I would suggest that we’re in a lot more trouble than I thought. Or, should I say, enough trouble that the issue at hand – the oil crisis – doesn’t have an ice cube’s chance in hell of being solved. Besides, I always thought “direct democracy” had something to do with moving forward with decisions. You know, things like voting or taking other kinds of action. Yes, action, as opposed to mere listening and presenting crocodile tears.

Moreover, not one of the Vermont media’s lapdog-like pieces on Welch’s phone call with the masses dared to look back at the pieces they wrote last month on the congressman’s legislation regarding the oil crisis. The pieces wouldn’t have been hard to find. They were published across the front pages with headlines like “Welch Passes Bill That Provides Oil Price Relief.” Oh yeah? Well, way back then – in May! – Welch’s little gimmick to stop oil shipments to the national petroleum reserve was said by the congressman himself (and repeated by the cheerleading press) to lead to “immediate relief” at the pump. But everyone outside of the congressional and mainstream media clubs laughed at the proclamations – privately, of course, because no one called us for a comment.

And how did that “immediate relief” work out? The price of gas has risen by more than 20 cents a gallon since Welch’s bill was signed by President Bush. But you won’t read about this fact in Vermont’s mainstream media – they’re too busy touting Welch’s next gimmick.

The truth is, Welch, Sanders, Leahy and the Democrats have had two years of congressional control and they have done little but offer to “hear our pain” and do nothing about it. They heard us on our demands to stop the war. And they voted repeatedly to keep funding it. They heard our demands to bring the Bush regime to justice. And they served up worthless (and ignored!) subpoenas. They heard our demands for health care relief. And they did nothing. They heard our cries for energy solutions. And they asked us to put it in writing or participate in silly telephone conference calls.

Worse, with each of their failures, they blamed the big, bad boogeyman, President Bush. But when we offered the solution of impeachment, they said it would be a distraction. From what? Please, tell me what this Congress has done since they dispatched with the “distraction” of impeachment?

Enough already.

My friend, Boots, tells me that I shouldn’t be paying attention to the media this time of year. It’s an unnecessary distraction to the “real work” that needs to get done. He’s right, of course. But I can’t help it. As soon as the Vermont chapter of Media Anonymous opens, I promise to be the first to sign up for the ten-step program to rid myself of the sheer ninniness of it all. “My name is Mike, and I am addicted to pop-news.” Please, can’t someone help me?

But, for now, I’m just stuck on yet another media bender – taking it in and annoying the hell out of everyone around me for repeating it as if it matters. Of course, it’s all the worse because I’m living in what has to be the most barren media environment in the U.S. Opening a Vermont newspaper – even the so-called “alternatives” – is like walking into an ice cream shop and seeing nothing but vanilla. Eat it. It’s all they’ve got.

The closeness and coziness between the anemic Vermont media and the power elite – you know, the elected officials, the business leaders and the moneyed few – is as close and cozy as it comes. That’s why they so often – and seamlessly – shift roles. One day, for example, Anson Tebbits is reporting on the state for television and radio stations and the next day he’s working for the state — and yet still on the radio and television. Similarly, one day Chris Graff is leading Vermont’s Associated Press and the next day he’s the vice president of communications for National Life – and yet still in the news talking politics.
And those are just two examples of the many, many switcheroos that Vermont journalists of late have made, going from reporting on the state and business to working for the state and business (and sometimes switching again).

There’s a simple formula for “succeeding” in the little club known as Vermont journalism: Don’t rock the boat. Sadly, for those of us with quaint memories of a press corps that acted like watchdogs – not lapdogs – this means little, if any, investigation. It means mere press releases from Sanders, Leahy, Welch, Douglas, National Life, GE, General Dynamics and IBM, etc. become instant “news.” Print ‘em. Don’t research ‘em. Don’t ask questions about ‘em. Just print ‘em and then enjoy the friendly handshakes and job offers down the road.

And with no one in the media willing to launch serious investigative pieces or dig deeper than the cheerleading-like content of the press releases they’re fed daily, Vermont remains stuck in a self-fulfilling prophesy that leads us to no where other than the same re-election celebrations for the same old politicians.

Take Congressman Peter Welch, for example. There’s much talk now about how this first-term congressman may not be facing a “credible” (read: media anointed player) opponent. And while Welch and the Dems are telling themselves that this is all because he’s done such a “great job” and the “Republicans are a mess,” the bigger reason is that it’s really hard to challenge an incumbent politician in Vermont while the media acts more like their press secretary than a watchdog.

Welch’s people have been glad-handing the Vermont press of late with the happy little stories about how “successful” he’s been in his first term. And the Vermont press has been dutifully purring at his ankles by regurgitating the planted “success” stories nearly verbatim to how they’re delivered. Welch, for example, points to his coziness with the House leadership – especially Pelosi. And the Vermont media reprints it, without questions about what he’s traded away for that coziness or what the drawbacks might be (ahem, for example, his early agreement to side with Pelosi and vote to fund the war).

Similarly, the Vermont media slobbered all over themselves when covering Welch’s bill to stop oil shipments to the nation’s petroleum reserve. For days, we were serenaded with stories about Welch’s “effectiveness” and his ability to “address” the oil crisis. We even got quote after quote from Welch declaring that the passage of his bill would lead to an “immediate” drop in gas prices.

It was bad enough that the media largely ignored the voices of those who – at the time it was going down — declared the whole thing a political stunt. The shipments to the oil reserve, they correctly declared, had nothing to do with today’s skyrocketing gas prices. The Vermont media, however, couldn’t let those facts get in the way of their “Welch is effective” meme.

But it’s even worse now that those same members of the media haven’t revisited the story to see that the price of gas did not drop as Welch declared it would. It has, in fact, gone up. Please, don’t hold your breath for the headline that declares, “Welch Energy Bill Did Nothing.” Because Welch isn’t putting out that press release and, worse, the Vermont media isn’t bothering to investigate it.

The same thing could be said of Welch and the Iraq War. This was, as you’ll recall from his campaign two years ago, his “number one issue.” Well, how did that work out? Other than funding it before getting extreme heat from his constituents, Welch has done little on the war other than ignoring it of late. And the Vermont media plays along, penning articles about his “successful” first term without even mentioning the war.

How, exactly, can Welch’s first term be considered a “success” when he’s failed so miserably on the war issue? I can hear the good Dems out there answering that question this way: What’s one congressman supposed to do about the war? Well, that “one congressman” ran an entire campaign based on his number one priority being to stop the war. And he failed. Or, if you’d rather, he lied to us in 2006 about his commitment and abilities to “stop this war.”

Funny, isn’t it, that while the Dems are laughing at what a mess the Republicans are in because they can’t find a credible opponent to Welch, the Republicans are laughing at the Dems for not being able to find a credible opponent to Lieutenant Governor Brian Dubie? But the reason neither one is facing any real re-election opposition has nothing to do with their parties. It has everything to do with the fact that Incumbents are King (or queen, Ms. Markowitz) in Vermont.

And all they have to do is thank those purring reporters at their feet for their seemingly lifetime jobs. Each knows where their bread is buttered. Eat up.

There’s something missing in the Vermont Progressive Party’s platform. In fact, it’s also missing from the platform of Progressive Party gubernatorial candidate Anthony Pollina. And it’s no small matter – it’s the Iraq War.

Go and look for yourselves. I did, and I didn’t find one word about the Iraq War or its many associated ills even mentioned in either platform. Moreover, I did a word search in the Progressive Party’s 27-page platform and absolutely nothing turned up when I searched for “war,” “Iraq,” “peace,” “national guard,” or “soldiers.” Nothing. Zero. Not even a mention.

To be fair, I also did a similar search of the Vermont Democratic Party’s platform. And, frankly, I was pleasantly surprised to find a whole host of references to those very same search words. The word “peace,” in fact, was in the platform’s very first paragraph. But the Vermont Democratic Party didn’t just drop the peace words, they made sense with them. For example, consider this paragraph that appears under the headline, “The War in Iraq:”

a. We condemn the false claims that justify the war in Iraq, and the failure of current foreign policy to consider the historical, cultural and religious forces in the region.

b. We are committed to a sensible and clear strategy to bring those who still serve home from Iraq quickly and with dignity.

c. We are committed to an active policy to cooperate with other nations to support a financial and political commitment to stabilizing and securing Iraq.

d. All military personnel, veterans and their families must be recognized for their courage and service and are entitled to full medical, emotional and financial support.

See? That’s not real hard, is it? Or controversial, for that matter, since nearly 80% of Vermonters want an end to the Iraq War.

Why, then, would Vermont’s Progressive Party and its perennial candidate of choice, Anthony Pollina, refuse to even acknowledge the war in their platforms? In a word: Politics. Or, if you’d prefer a few more words: A failure to lead.

Back in late-2001 when this nation was in its bloodthirsty post-9/11 rage, the nascent Progressive Party set the stage for ignoring the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq by resorting to parliamentary maneuvers to squelch efforts by party activists to pass a resolution condemning the deafening drumbeats of war at the time. At its November 2001 state party convention, a resolution condemning the war talk was first passed by those in attendance. But then Progressive Party leaders, led by then-Representative Carina Driscoll, quickly maneuvered to “table” the resolution and – with breakneck speed – succeeded in killing it.

I remember it well. Because I was there. And I remember the confusion amongst those in attendance when one moment we thought the Progs were about to do the right thing by opposing the Bush war machine and then the next minute being undercut by underhanded maneuvers that effectively ended the debate.

At the time, I was a columnist for Seven Days so I approached Anthony Pollina and asked him about why the party leaders killed the anti-war resolution.

“We want the party to focus on statewide issues,” Pollina told me at the time. “9/11 and the response to it isn’t a Vermont issue.”

It was a mantra that the leaders had apparently agreed upon because they all repeated the same line as I made my way from one leader to another – from Driscoll to Ellen David-Friedman to Chris Pearson. They were in lockstep: The Progressive Party would not lead on the war issue – nor would they even mention it.

After the Party’s convention, Pearson sent out an email update to the Party faithful, declaring that there was “relief” amongst many that the Progs didn’t take a stand on the upcoming wars. The apparent “relief” they were feeling was about not wanting to “marginalize” itself from the voting population before Pollina was about to launch a run for lieutenant governor.

And so the war silence began for the Progs. Worse, that silence continues to this day.

To date, six Vermonters have returned from the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq in body bags. But the Progressive Party apparently still doesn’t believe it’s a “Vermont issue.” Moreover, according to the Policy Priorities Project, Vermont tax-payers have coughed up more than $680 million to fund the Iraq war, while Vermont’s Progressive Party or favorite son, Pollina, won’t even mention the war in their platforms. They’d apparently rather express “relief” in ignoring it.

Unfortunately, ignoring the war is a privilege many of us can’t share with the Progressive Party’s leadership. The six Vermonters who lost their lives can’t ignore it. Their families can’t ignore it. Those of us with an understandable sense of outrage over the Bush administration’s lies and deceit while marching us to war can’t ignore it. And those of who can think of much better ways to spend the $680 million can’t ignore it, either. Indeed, nearly 80% of Vermonters don’t want to ignore the issue of the War on Iraq – they want it ended, and ended now.

The Progressive Party’s “duck and cover” approach to the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq is in direct contrast to the rich history of bold leadership that has been found in alternative parties in this country. Its silence on the number one issue of the day should tell us a lot about the current leadership of the Progressive Party and its apparent “relief” in not leading.

Vermont’s Progressive Party should be ashamed of the deaf ear it’s turned toward the most pressing issue of our time. Because there’s nothing “progressive” about avoidance.

–

This is what dissent looks like:

Wow. Thanks for all the feedback on yesterday’s post. And while I understand that most of it came in the form of private emails and calls, I’m going to be counting on you – my fellow dreamers – to come out of the closet and get on this bandwagon soon. This little populist train is revving up and ready to climb some mighty big hills – hills that include a real health care revolution, some sanity to the tax and spend policies at the Statehouse, a new respect for the natural beauty and fountain of possibilities that exist within Vermont’s environment and landscape, and a real and open discussion about supporting Vermont’s soldiers now serving in Iraq by bringing them home NOW.

It’s about dreaming. Moreover, it’s about making the dreams of the people becoming the realities of our elected officials – the way it should be. For far too long, the dreams of the people have been routinely extinguished by the dullards who dominate our government. And they’re not unrealistic dreams, either. The people want some economic security in the form of fair taxation, a sane heath care policy, a dedication to keeping Vermont’s landscapes both working and clean, and a simple comfort in knowing that hard working families will be rewarded, not ignored and/or threatened.

Imagine – or dream, if you will – if our government acted with the same kind of haste and determination for working families that they acted with when it comes to Wall Street corporations. Bear Stearns finds economic trouble and the federal government rushed in with $30 billion to prop its buyout up. But, here in Vermont, the same economic downturn leads Vermont’s super-majority-Democrats to announce that they have to remove health care reform from the table this year. Got that, folks?

Worse, the hierarchy of Vermont’s Progressive Party has forced itself into a self-induced state of silence on these important issues because its perennial candidate, Anthony Pollina, is too busy courting those same Democrats than highlighting the important policy differences between them. The result? We, the people, lose once again.

Sorry, but how many elections – both statewide and nationwide – are we going to be told to just “sit tight” in silence while the “big-wigs” work it all out for us. “Shhh,” they say, don’t rock the boat on the war, on impeachment, on health care, on justice, on stopping torture, on stopping illegal wiretaps, on protecting our resources, on crying foul with corporate bailouts, on the oh-so-tiring double and triple talk of it all. Yes, be silent people, because “they” are working on it.

How’s that silence working out for you?

This is not the time for silence amongst the people in Vermont or all across this nation or this world. It is a time to speak out. To be heard. And to make demands. It’s democracy time, folks, rev up your tongues and your pens and your votes. If anything must be silenced, it is the lullabies of the power elite.

When Peter Shumlin and the Democrats hum the tune of “no health care reform this year” into your ear, resist it and speak out. When Gaye Symington offers her soothing apologies for the complete two-year failure of the super-majority she wields in the Vermont House, demand solutions or her seat. And when Governor Douglas announces – as he did yesterday – that he’s giving money to the Von Trapp’s to fix their barn roof, ask him why they get a new barn roof and we get to turn back the bed sheets at their inn? Enough with the silence. Enough with the lullabies. Because naptime is over. Oh yeah, it’s morning time in Vermont’s democracy.

Let’s speak up. And speak out. Let’s not be afraid to dream. And let’s not be afraid to let the purveyors of the politics-as-usual know that our passions and our ideals will not be extinguished by their games or their deals.

We’re fully capable of keeping score at home. And, frankly, we’re tired of losing.

Indeed, come dream with me.