David, thanks so much for casting that 100th vote. You give everyone hope in a very tough time.

And yay to PFAW’s Young Elected Officials Program!!

David, congratulations on a stunning victory in the legislature this week. It meant a great deal to this community. I know I speak for everyone when I say “thank you.” Now, can you tell us how it happened? I know the pro-equality forces in the state Senate always had enough votes to override Douglas’ veto. But not enough members of the House voted for it, to override the veto. Please tell us, in as much depth as you can, what you did to cause the waters of the Red Sea to part?

Thank you Jane-
It was a real honor to be able to cast that vote. After so many years work by myself and so many others (including many for decades before) it was a great day for everyone

Thank you Howie

It was certainly a great moment for Vermont and one that I will always remember. I was in the Vermont Legislature when we passed Civil Unions…and in many respects that was a far more difficult bill to pass. It also was a day that I will never forget, because while civil unions has been proven to be not quite equal, it was monumentus at the time. No state had come close to such a bill.

As for this last push…credit goes to so many. Much of my work was in the lead up to the 96 votes for marriage we had before the Governor vetoed the bill (95 Thursday, plus an additional yes vote on Fridays final vote from a member who missed thursday) With the addition of the Speakers vote that meant we were at 97. So the question was how to get the final three votes? We also were not absolutely sure going into the weekend that we would hold the 6 Republican votes that we had. My work over the weekend was to touch base with some of those Republicans (as a third party Rep., I have a good repore with them as I am not the “opposite party”). It was really up to the Democratic leadership to swing 3 of the 11 who had voted no.

Two had promised to vote yes on Friday, but we lost one of them and as he was ill on Tuesday. So it was a big test for the new Speaker and new Democratic Leader (Shap Smith and Floyd Nease respectively). And they came through. It will probably be harder to override future votes as we will get fewer Republicans. But one of the subtle pressures that existed for the D’s was that all five Progressives had voted yes, the two Independents had voted yes and with 11 of their 95 voting no passage or failure was going to ride on their shoulders.

I know the leadership fully supported the bill, and worked hard for that very reason, but was not lost on anyone that this was going to be their first big test.

My work had been nine years in the making. First offering a marraige bill in 2000 after the Vermont Courts ruled we had to create equality. Then working with advocates over the years first to make sure civil unions did not get repealed (which almost happened), then to build the support for marriage one biennium at a time. While we only got 22 votes for a marriage amendment to civil unions, through the work of the Freedom to Marry grassroots group and my fellow lead sponsor Mark Larson, we got 55 other co-sponsors for the bill this year! Considering we were doing this by choice and not by court order, that was a huge success. It is rare for politicians to put their names onto bills that are controversial unless they know that they are going to pass. We knew we had a shot…but no one knew if it would go all the way!

During the last month, after the leadership had a press conference indicating that the Judiciary Committees were going to take action on the bill, it was daily conversations with legislators giving them information about how separate is not equal. How Civil Unions did not confer even every right that Vermont could confer (even with marriage we are short the 1400 rights under federal law), and even how it would be an economic gain for the state with increased wedding/tourism activity. It was a matter of conversation after conversation with some individuals who were willing to listen and think, but were having a hard time coming to “yes”. So it was delicate, provide information, but do not push too hard. Walk away…let the info sink in, come back to ask if there were new questions to be discussed. This went on for a full month. Thankfully we had gotten to 96 (and 97 with the Speaker) because of that work, as I am not sure how many more of those No’s the leadership could have swayed to “yes” in those final three days.

he does sound perfect. he could probably be used in a few other places. did the VT sup. ct. punt back to the legislature as to how it equality would become law? e.g. civil unions or marriage.

good for Vermont.

forget my prior post. was writing it when you were writing yours. answered my question. thanks.

In rereading your introduction, I realized that I left off one other critical area where Progressives have held a strong and clear position, Universal Healthcare (as in single payer…the terminology we are not supposed to use : )

David, do the Progressives just take seats away from Vermont Democrats or does the party ever win seats in GOP-leaning districts?

I can’t say I am perfect, but I appreciate it.

What the Supreme court stated in the Baker decision in Dec of 1999 was that our Vermont constitutions “equal benefits” clause was being violated.

They told the legislature that we needed to rectify it, but did not say how to.

It was then an immediate discussion for the next four months that took over the whole building.

We have lived with the now famous Civil Unions for the last 9 years and through that experience learned how it was technically not equal under the law as well as how “separate but equal” still also carries stigmas that needed to be removed.

Welcome to FDL David.

Why is it that Vermont seems to grow so many progressive voices (with the occasional reactionary thrown in for reminders)?

As Progressives we started in Burlington in areas where the Democrats had been strong. But through the last few cycles we have won seats where Republicans or very conservative DEmocrats had been dominant. Last biennium when we had 6, 3 were from “liberal” disricts and 3 were from “conservative” districts. Two of those had never had a Democrat as a Representative.

Just as Bernie Sanders has appeal across the historical divide, Progressives have typically focussed on populist economic issues and that resonates.

Had we not kept two of those three seats this last fall…Marriage would not have passed.

Thank you and thanks to Vermont!

How does your governor feel today, do you suppose, having stood astride the Town Clerk’s doorway and shouted, “Stop!” — to no avail. Did he think he could get his veto sustained? Will he have a national future among the GOP right wing now?

Can you please explain any process open to the right-wing now that marriage equality is the law? Does your state have ballot initiatives? What should we watch for now?

And finally, when do the marriages begin?

Thanks again for chatting today and for your fine leadership.

As a technical note, there is a “Reply” button in the lower right of each comment. When you click “Reply” it pre-fills the commenter name and number that you are replying to.

The past two weeks have been really something for this 62 yearold gay activist to see. 38 of those years (and counting) have been spent with the man the state of California says I can no longer marry (we were making plans but missed the dealine) What do you think of California’s chances of giving me my rights back in light of Iowa and Vermont?

Well marriage IS an economic issue.

that’s what happened in NJ (Was verrry disappointed the NJ supremes didn’t just say the right to marriage belonged to everybody) and that’s what the legislature there has done. what are some of the ways civil unions fall short? why is marriage necessary (aside from just being the right thing)?

dakine01-

I am not sure where you are from…but I think a lot of folks are not as familiar with the history of the New England States as we all get put together as a weird enclave :) over there.

But there is a long standing thought across many spectrums up here of live and let live. While it was still controlled by R’s up until the 60’s, and really even until the 80’s. It was a different kind of R than seams to dominate the country today. They were/are fiscally frugal and in some ways more truly conservative than the neo-cons. And into that was mixed a group of back to the landers in the 50’s 60’s and 70’s. Now that they are a longstanding part of the comunities across the state, the small scale of our towns has helped open up peoples thoughts.

ALso…we are the most secular state in the country…that probably helps

There is some thought that Gov. Douglas has national asperations and since he has been codling with Obama a bit that he needed to satiate the right wing for any national aspiration to have a chance. But really…I think he personally just could not handle it. It made him “uncomfortable” for lack of a better term.

As for constitutional amendment…not going to happen. Vermont is one of the hardest. It needs a 2/3 vote in the senate, then a majority in the House, then a new biennium and majority in each chaber, then the next general (4-6 years out) it takes a majority of the general population.

Not going to happen.

I am hopeful for California to reverse course…but I have been so focussed on Vermont that I do not know the inner plans for the organizers in California or what the pulse is on the ground..soryy

Speaking of back to the landers, do you have any feelings about the letter that the Mid America CropLife Association (Dow and Dupont) sent Michelle Obama chastising her for starting an organic garden instead of one that uses chemicals?

Marriage is very much an economic issue. Sorry if i mis-wrote.

As for what is different…there are two specific examples for Vermontes that wil change.

In NY they only recognize marraige. Therefore, a couple who lives in Vermont with a civil union with one earner working in NY does not have their benefits go their spouse. With marriage they will.

The second example is national comanies that self insure. The boilerplate language is that they cover married spouses. So if a national company does not take the legal time to add civil unioned spouse to those covered then they would not have been covered. With marraige that all goes away.

Of course…there are still 1400 responsibilities and benefits that the Federal government has that only recognize marraige…but we are all workign on and hopeful that Obama will reverse DOMA

As for economics, there was a study done by the williams institute that showed that Vermont stood to gain $30 million in economic activity and 700 hospitality jobs and $3 million in tax revues over the next three years if we changed our law to marriage.

Gov. Douglas is all about the economy and how this was a “distraction and waste of time”, and yet this is a zero cost economic stimulus. When I presented that fact to his economic development people as they testified in the Ways and Means committee they indiacated they had not seen the study. Two days later they still had not read it…that shows how they think.

way off base. As an organic farmer I know that folks can produce good food without constant applications of their chemicals. Also…at least with people around me, a lot of folks in light of the economy and even harking back to 9/11 are re-evaluating their lives and realize that maybe working their life into a situation with a job, but also some time for family/garden/slow food/dinner all together, etc. etc. is a good way to go.

It is remarkable though how much power those companies have and it will be interesting to see what they do next

David, do Progressives in the legislature ever butt heads with Democrats? Or are the two parties just working together in harmony all the time for the benefit of ordinary Vermont families?

One of the important things that I think is a signal from our passage of marraige after living with Civil unions for 9 years is that we discovered that no matter how well civil union laws are crafted, they are still not equal. Some of knew that at the time (22 of us voted for a marriage amendment in 2000), but now it is proven. So we are signalling to other states that are considering how to grant equal rights that marriage is the only way to do it.

Hopefully NJ will see that light someday soon as well.

How’s that Universal Health Care thing workin’ out up there? Are there lessons for the rest of the country now that the battle is starting to heat up?

Excellent news about the process. Terrible news about your governor. Politicians who register their own “discomfort” are, if karma is any guide, very likely to have a family member, staffer, or donor come out to them, and soon.

Would that your governor would see the light. Like many others, it will probably take someone very close to him to come out, someone he’s been “comfortable” with for a long time without knowing the friend’s terrible secret.

Straight allies like you are among our bravest and best challengers of the status quo. Have you ever had your own sexual orientation challenged by a wingnut, due to your support of marriage equality?

There is a decent amount of both. It really depends on what the issue is and which Democrat is involved.

When the Democrats take positions that are to the “left” end of their political spectrum we work well withthem. When they go back to the middle (this is not one of those thimes thankfully) we are the group that voices they are straying from what they say their platform is.

In those cases they do not like what we do. They can control the members of their own party (through kind of a “families don’t air thier greivances in public kind of way”) but they have no control over us.

A good exapmle would be recently the Governor proposed filling a $17 million hole in the budget (January) by cutting 600 state employees. There are a myriad of reasons this is a bad idea…I wont get into them now. And the D’s sadi that was bad too. But the budget that we just passed came out of the approporations committee with a $14 burden on the state employees. The State workers had come to the tabel willing to take a pay freeze and other benefit cuts totalling $8 million…but the budget put them in squeeze.

SO I voted no and stated why. The next day, Dems offered (And I co lead sponosred) an amendment to th ebudget to put more of the burden on the administrative positions not the foront line workers. It passed and I then voted for the budget.

I have also been vocal that we need to raise more revenues than they have been willing to. And this is a challnege for them because all of the cuts that are being made. Our Progressive voice is giving a voice to those areas that are being challenged by first the Governors budget and then the following Democratic PArty budget.

At this point the claim is that there is no money to try to go for univeral healthcare (as there was when Dean was governor and he rejected it). Most are saying we need to wait for the feds to grant us waivers or even better, create block grants for a few states to cover the cost of transitioning to universal healthcare…so right now most advocates are listening to the idea of what is politically possible and eveyrone is fighting to keep what we have.

In Vermont we have approximately 93-94% covered by some sort of insurance…but it is still questionable in terms of underinsured etc.

The Governor has indicated he “knows” gay and lesbian people.

But no, my orientation has not been called into question by any of the opponents.

One of the thigns that really backfired for them is that they used many of the same arguments against marriage as they used against civil unions. Lots of fear, issues about children needing a mom and a dad., pedophelia concerns etc.

Those were summarily dismissed by both fact and experience. With Vermonters living with Civil Unions for 9 years those myths were all dispelled.

With adoption rights dating back to 1993 the parenting issue was long gone.

In fact…we had a great public hearing where a 12 or 13 year old testified about her two moms and why did she have to hide that or be different with her firends. This would help her. IT was very moving..I can not do it justice through a keyboard.

Is there a video of that girl talking at the hearing?

Back to the Dems and Progs getting along. It tends (for the most part) to be a one way street in the electoral scenario. Especially statewide office.

In some house races our candidate is clearly strong early and so they work something out locally where the D’s write our candidate in and they run as D/P

But statewide it is far more tense. Just last election we had a major 3 way battle for Governor (our candidate ended up running as an I and came in second). But it was a strange build up. We had stayed out of the races for Governor during Douglas runs (2002, 2004, 2006) and the D’s coudl not win. We supported the D publically etc (even in 2002 when a person ran on the P ticket even though we liked the D running because he was towards our positions on the issues).

For the 2008 race, all the statewide D’s in other offices indicated they were not going ot run for various reasons…but the real reason was that folks thought that Douglas was unbeatable. In fact, one possible contender told me he thought Anthony Pollina (who ended up coming in second and had run before (2002) for LG and got 25% in a 3 way race) would be the strongest challenger to Douglas if the D’s could get behind him.

But when he started talking about running (May 2007) the D party immediately started floating various names just to keep momentum from going his way. We still raised $100,000 (which is a ton of money for us) and that really got their attention. Eventually (May of 2008…way too late) the Speaker of the House (who had earlier indicated she woudl not run) entered the race. And we had a three way mess. The two of them both got 22% +/- with Anthony in second and Douglas sailed in with 55% of the ovote. Of course our candidate spent approx $250K and the D had almost $500K so per dollar we did much much better.

I hope Vermont’s civil unions experience will be instructive for other states. Many in our movement have seen it as a necessary bridge to acquainting citizens with gay families in their communities, PTAs and homeowners associations. As folks have seen that the sky doesn’t fall when LGBT families are afforded some recognition, it becomes easier to move to full marriage equality.

On the other hand, in New Jersey civil unions have failed. Corporations and HMOs worked hard to exclude the civil-unioned from their “marital spouse” clauses, and in other ways it has become clear that the civil union is an unacceptable separate-but-unequal government recognition.

Do you think all states will need to go through the civil union “phase” or will smart legislators learn from Vermont — and now New Jersey — that half-measures, while good at softening up opposition, really aren’t a good long-term substitute for full marriage equality?

It’s odd that in 1936 only two die-hard Republican states voted against re-electing FDR. Even the home state of his opponent– Alf Landon’s Kansas– voted for Roosevelt. The two die-hard bastions of conservatism, both of which apparently were untroubled by the GOP obstructionism of the New Deal, were Vermont and Maine. Now Vermont has the most progressive electorate in America– and the best U.S. Senator. How the hell did that happen? Was it demographics or hard work?

I am sure the whole ublic hearing is available. Every TV station including public television was there. You can either find it at VPT.org or at the freedom to marry website (www.freedomtomarry.org I think)

You should be able to see/hear the whole thing (VPR.net might have it audio as well). You can see how the different sides presented themselves.

It was an amazing evening of the Pro side telling personal stories and the con side with religious vitriol or just plain way off base accusations.

The real legislative debate to find is also from the first day we debated it two thrsdays ago (3rd?) The speaches were absolutely amazing. I actually had a speach and did not read it as we had won the day and mine was more of rebuttle to the other side if they charged…which they did not.

I am hopeful that for the most parts the failure of civil unions (subtle in VT and more obvious in NJ) will allow other states to jump over it to marriage. With Mass, Iowa etc. I am hopefull that we will move forward with marriage. The DC council helpd.

I am keeping my fingers crossed that in the next year or two Obama will work to reverse the Feds on DOMA…but it might be after (if) he gets re-elected in 2012 before he does it. That will be a big indicator.

I moved here in 1989 to go to school (UVM). So in some respects I don’t know the answer.

However, one arena that people may be unfamiliar with Vermont is that we have some of the most relaxed gun control laws out there.

Even Bernie won his seat to Congress nearly 2 decades ago almost due to the gun lopbby. THe Republican (Smith) had gotten the NRA endorsement in 1988 and won, but he voted wrong on a measure in DC and they then backed Bernie…the wacko from the peoples republic of Burlington. The rest is history.

So I believe that some of it is quirky and some of it is hard work.

It used to be that the Governor of Vermont was always a Republican and there was a general rule that the Governor would simply alternate between coming from the east side of the green mountains or the west (the spine runs up the state dividing us in half). So, like every state…there are traditions and sometimes they are broken.

Did any of Vermont’s congressional delegation contact you about the victory? In Iowa all the DC-based Dems (except Congressman Loebsack) seemed very tentative and nervous and worried that the decision on same sex marriage would be a wedge issue that would hurt them. So their responses were defensive and not very satisfying.

A small factoid…in the whole country there are approximately 7500 people who serve in Houses and Senates in the 50 states. All but about 30 are D’s or R’s.

With 5 Progressives and 2 Independents in Vermont we are the extreme abnormality to thos numbers.

This last fall, a Progressive city councilor from Burlington ran for the Vermont Senate (through the D primary) and won as a D/P

Unfortunately this last fall we lost 1 incumbent and one Progressive challenger for an open seat, both to Republicans with the P only 100+/- votes behind and the D quite a bit farther behind (for example R = 1000 +/-
P = 900+/- and the D = 500-600 +/-) Both seats were areas where normally very very conservative D’s had served. Sadly…the P incumbent was even one of the stronger votes on overrides of teh Gov. veto’s lat year when the D’s from his area voted to sustain the Gov. vetoes!

If those two had won, or the D’s had been willing to be more cooperative, then we would have more easily won the override (and my vote would not have been number 100), and we would have more chance of future overrides this session on nuclear power, the budget, raising the income tax (progressively), etc. But now..those battles are not as likely to be won bcause the 6 R’s wont vote for those other measures and the D’s will not be able to get all themselves on board (there were 11 taht voted against marraige and 1 was sick and three swithced to yes to get us to an override numebr).

This time around (unlike with civil unions) the delegation was more outspoken about their positions on marriage. Our Congressman (Peter Welch) and Bernie (SEnator Sanders…but up here everyone calls him Bernie) were clear that it was time for marriage. Sen. Leahy was conspicuously silent on the issue saying it was up to the state to decide. Many were dissappointed with that. But up here is called “Saint Patrick” and the Dems will barely ever criticize him.

This might be a good moment to point out again that Vermont’s Progressive Party doesn’t get support via ActBlue, which is only for Democratic Party candidates. So… if anyone wants to say thank with a donation, here’s the place to do so.

Now that you’re on House Ways & Means, is there something on tax policy that you have a chance to accomplish in Vermont that will accrue to the benefit of working families?

It is a challenge to be an effective and growing third party anywhere. As many know…the electoral system is stacked against it.

One thing that we do here is pick our battles (electorally) and try to push the envelope and be cooperative (when we can) as well.

It has been a tightrope walk. More recently we have seen more push to try to defeat us and get us to go away by some in the D party, when at the same time…it is clear that the Dem party has been moving left in part because of our existence and their need to cover their flank as opposed to taking the votes for granted.

Almost all of this has been done with volunteer efforts and onl one staff person. During the last four years with Deans 50 state strategy (which we think some of his grassroots experience comes from watching what we did while he and Clinton were the lead D’s throughout the 90’s) there were 4 or 5 paid D staffers. That really put us at a disadvantage. We also lost a Progressive seat in Burlingotn this last election because of the Obama wave. My districtmate lost to someone who said she believed in everything the same as us, but could do a better job. She was graduating from UVM, (the district I represent includes the university community) and had a picture of herself with Obama from when he visited the state two years earlier. In the whole state there were only 30,000 new registrations (voter) and ovr 10% of them were in our district. With only about 4000 people voting in our races, 3000 NR’s is a ton. She rode the wave and took him out.

These kinds of situations make us less willing to extend as many olive branches in the electoral arena…

Thank you….it seems you wrote that kind note as I was writing a little plug myself.

We have done all of this on a shoestring, each dollar really goes that much farther when our efforts are motivated by issues and passion and the other parties have become reliant on bigger money. So anything folks can do to help us is really appreciated. In Vermont the maximum is $2000, except from national parties (which we do not have) so we can not funnel big donations through that loophole and we get by with folks helping in whatever way they can.

Thakn you-

Well..the tax question is one that we working hard on.

Vermont has one of the most progressive income tax sytems in the country. We also have a reasonable progressive hybrid for our property tax system for our schools. It is a statewide prop tax assesment with a local modifier based on local votes for the schools. We then have anincome sensitivity adjustment for those that have less than $90K income. which sets the tax based on ability to pay (approx 1.8-2%…usually far far less than the traditional prop tax would have been).

But one thing I have been working on is getting a total look at our tax structure and we are creating a “revenue” department as opposed to a “tax” department (its all in the language) This coming friday we are also going to hear form an economics expert from the Gund institute at UVM that I set up to come in. Their work is pulling back to a macro economic level and re-evaulating our manufacturing based tax system and looking at it from a new light in terms of services as well as other bottom lines (environment, social jsutice etc). So that discussion should be very interesting. It is probably a multi-year effort…but it is getting started.

David, I was on the phone for the past two days speaking with political activists and some legislators and party people in Arkansas. Blanche Lincoln, a very conservative Democratic senator, thinks the appropriate response to the recession and the economic hardship Arkansas working families are going through, is to fight like a maniac to get rid of the estate tax and to agree to join a GOP filibuster of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Everyone in Arkansas I spoke to said basically the same thing: if you screw with her all that will happen is that a worse Republican will get in and it could destabilize the entire Democratic Party in the state. So frustrating!

Also…I might add that out Unemployment Insurance fund is floundering becsuse our “no new taxes” governor did not make adjustments for the last 6 years and insead of the fund growing..it slowly declined. So now we are in a place where they are proposing cutting benefits (good timing…not) as well as raising the employer taxes (good timing as well..not), and we are really in trouble on that one.

Of course this admin is far more about cutting the benefits (slowing the spending in our economy as well I might add). This is really going ot be one of the biggest battles we have this session

The estate tax is one of the most frustrating battles that the Democrats nationally caved on under Bush. What joke. We are now seeing shrinking budgets (Vermont looks to lose another $3 million this year as the exclusion goes to $3.5 million). We actually proposed keeping it at $2 and we will be voting on that this coming week.

As we look at the estate tax (and in Vermont the continuing cap gains loophole of 40% exclusion) they are incredibly beneficial to the very few very wealthy. Vermont is no different than the rest of the country where 90% of the wealth generated during the last 5 “boom’ years went to only about 5% of the population.

The whole Reaganomics thought process is coming crashing down. Sadly..through the 90’s there were opportunites to change it and they (D’s) just kept going along with the deragulation that has gotten us stuck in the current recession

We tried to get card check passed here in Vermont (D’s control the Senate 23-7 and the House 95-46-5 (P) – 2 (I) and we can not do that. We managed to get it through the House last biennium…but it did not get out of the Senate (if my memory is correct).

Labor is a big area where Progressives have made substantial inroads over the last decade. Thankfully the D’s are getting better as they realize the voting block and issues that they are supposed to represent used to include labor.

Just two years ago however, they passed a very anti school package that made passing school budgets much more difficult and reduced local control at the same time. They caved to the Governor who believd in capping our local school budgets failling to recognize that the reason for increased budgets was healthcare costs and energy costs.

But the R mantra of money money money, was not well fought back by the Speaker and President PRo tempore and in the end they stood side by side with the Governor to pass this terrible bill.

Whenever they do that they give him power and make him look moderate and they lose any reason for their historic base to get excited. Sometimes the D’s efforts to stay moderate to win the “middle” leave them with nothing.

I wish they would just choose, be the middle or be the left, but don’t try to be both

The reason I mentioned Blanche Lincoln (and the estate tax) though was because of the politics involved and I was hoping you might have some advice about how progressives should proceed in Arkansas. Is it worth getting stuck with a Republican wingnut for 6 years to get rid of her?

That is a big one. I toyed with running for Congress 4 years ago as Bernie was moving on to run for the SEnate. A reasonable D (not great…but on the better end of the spectrum) decided to run and in the end, I decided to stick with state government.

The US senate is a big gamble. On the other hand…if the Southern D is voting with the R’s most of the time anyway…then why not?

I think progressives (whether D, green, Prog, other) need to really look at some of these situations and think long term. If there can be something or someone to rally around who can do a good job of articulating a message and redefining tthe issues then I think thit should be seriously considered. But that race needs to be run with a many year idea in mind. Can it help build the progressive movement in the long run?

It is certainly worth exploring…we will never make progress without some risk

I am also willing to discuss this with some of the folks from Arkansas if you want to connect us.

I know that there are folks in a few other states, Wahsington, Minnesota, others who have inquired about how we have built what we have here in Vemront. We are willing to help with advice and wish we could help with economic resources…but we are barely keeping ourselves afloat financially.

It takes really motivated people who can articulate messages well.

Also…I would advise folks to get onto local school boards, commision seats, councils, and mayoral situations before going big (unless you are already famous). Their ability to counter with the spoiler argument as well as the inexperienced argument are hard to overcome without some “credentials”

OK– a Green polled very well against Senator Pryor last year– 20%, with almost no financial backing.

One other issue that we have implemented in Burlington and are trying to get implemented statewide is Instant Run-off Voting.

We have had it for two Mayoral elections and it has worked extremely well (not just because progressives have won). The turnout has remained high in the run-off rounds and the voters have generally liked it.

I spoke to the one state legislator the Greens elected. The guy is a boilermaker and a union shop steward. Really cool guy but he’s not looking to take on Blanche or jump into national politics in any way. Arkansas is a very difficult state for progressives. But… at one time, so was Vermont. What do you think your own next step will be?

Thank you so much for sharing your time with us today. I have to run, but I didn’t want to leave without saying how much I appreciate what you did this week. My fiance and I have been engaged since February 13, 2004 (San Francisco’s Winter of Love) and we are very excited to marry, once California returns to its senses.

You touched many lives this week, far beyond Vermont’s borders.

That is a great place to start! For anyone other than a D or R to poll at 20% without a campaign is truly amazing.

Generally third party candidates have a heard time breaking out of the single digits.

If Pryor can get out early and raise some money (sadly that is what the media pundits use to guage support) and can keep the campagn focused on populist economic issues then anything is possible.

Sounds a little bit (albeit only a little bit) like what happened in California when Republican Congressman Darrell Issa decided he wanted to be governor. He sank $5 million of his own dough into a petition drive to oust Gray Davis so he, Issa, could then run for governor. However, by the time the recall drive had succeeded in toppling Davis, the national GOP had forced Issa to bow out of the governor’s race, so his $5 million was wasted. (It would have been fun if he’d been allowed to run — he would have got his butt kicked. Which is, of course, why he wasn’t allowed to run.)

Thank you Teddy-

good luck out there. I hope we have reinvigorated folks after the terrible setback last fall.

I have been encouraged to run for a variety of offices. And it quite an honor and responsibility to be asked to do so.

It is tough as a young elected official to balance family and politics (and in my case our own expanding family business…farming). So I am trying to weigh the options.

One Democratic County chairperson recently indicated that they would like to see me run for Governor (not in 2010, but 2012 assuming the D does not win). Others are pushing me to run for the State Senate (about 150,000 constituents instead of the 9,000 I have now).

All are possibilities. All have challenges. In many ways this would be the year for me to do it as I have received much more attention as a leader on the marriage issue than I ever expected. On top of that, I have really good ties to various labor unions and a number of universal healthcare advocates and the environmental community. It would really make for a great unifying race. But I also love my daughter and wife and the farm…so I am trying to figure out the balance.

Either run for something bigger, run for the House one more time then take a 10 year break (family and farm) and get back in. But I also want to make sure we keep the momentum of biulding a viable option for voters so that politics can get back to where it once belonged…with more engagement of citizens

Serving in a state as small as Vermont, where citizens have direct contact with us is really an amazing thing. I don’t know what it would be like in a state like California or Texas or NY.

Everyday walking around Burlington (our largest city at 38,000) and selling at the saturday farmers market (where I am talking politics for 6 straight hours while doing vegetable math in my head making sales), getting to talk with people and receiving input makes politics enjoyable here.

It’s a shame Congress couldn’t give that extra congressional seat to Vermont instead of Utah

We are fortunate to have as much power as we do considering we only have 1 congressman and the 2 senators. But you are absolutely right.

In some ways the system is archaic. In other ways..it helps a small state like ours.

One of my good friends is working on the issue of National Popular Vote (NPV) to reduce the inequity of the Presidential races. They currently focus on a handful of “swing” states, regardless of size. With NPV the election will be back in the hands of the people…some progress is happening there too. We are hoping to pass it in Vermont and join several others that have moved in that direction. It will be interesting to see whether our Governor will sign it. He vetoed it last year.

How does he even get elected in Vermont? He sounds like a complete nightmare

We have redisctricting coming up in Vermont after the next election cycle. It appears that with the Republicans out of control of the HOuse (as they were last time we did redistricting) that Burlington or at least this county, will gain a seat that was denie it with gerrymandering 8 years ago.

True…but he has held statewide office since the 80’s and at that time Vermont was not so blue.

He has a photographic memory…if he meets you once…he remembers your name and what kind of dog you had. probably 1/4 of the state has shaken his hand. People here keep folks in office unless they really gum things up. He is a ho hum chummy kind of guy so they keep voting for him.

I am not sure they will this time though. Even the business community is beginning to wonder about his leadership with the laize faire (sp?) attitude that he brings to office. Time is not on his side. I think this issue of marraige equality also has been damaging to him. I think he missjudged this one.

I sure hope so…he has really impacted our state in a terrible way.

Thank you Howie and everyone else who chimed in (and read).

It has been a great discussion.

Contact me anytime at dzuckerman@leg.state.vt.us

David,

Any Tea Parties in your neighborhood this next week? Do you have to deal with many of those “crazy” folks?

David, thanks for spending the time with us. I hope we’ll see you back here again… and again. And thanks for what you and your colleagues did this week

Generally my district is overwhelmingly supportive on this issue. A recent, non-scientific, poll showed 80-90% support for marriage.

I also have a decent relationship with those that are opposed to my position on this and abortion (often the same people) because I have always respected them with my time and discussion.

Being so small, and my patience to discuss issues rather than blow them off has made this kind of situation much less antagonistic for those that are not on our side of the issue.

It takes great patience…but it is worth it in the long run

You bet, back to my daughter and the plants in the greenhouse that need some water on this beautiful sunny day! (here).