Vermont Woman endorses the following candidates for United States Senate and House, Governor and Lieutenant Governor on November 7. Our decisions were formulated by one-on-one interviews conducted between June and August, in which we vigorously questioned each candidate about his or her position on a range of issues we believe are of utmost importance to our readers. (See September 2006 or visit vermontwoman.com for the summaries of those interviews). Since then, we have continued scrutinizing these individuals, analyzing their statements and actions as this endorsement committee has come to its final conclusions.
The endorsements that follow are intended to clarify candidates’ positions on matters of direct concern to our readers including, but not limited to: women’s health and reproductive rights, environmental protections, civil liberties, demonstrated and potential leadership, and the “war on terrorism.”
The ongoing war in Iraq (and the grim possibility of an attack on Iran) is one of the most critical issues in all of these races. If we are to send our children to war, there had better be a damn good reason. This war is not it.
We stand at a pivotal turning point requiring exceptional leadership to protect our environment from further degradation and move forward into a sustainable, renewable energy future.
The past six years have made painfully clear the need to safeguard against the abuse of power, particularly by the Executive Branch. Reclaiming the system of checks and balances at the federal level is essential and Vermont’s two national races are critical in this election.
It is important to vote for gutsy leaders with vision and creativity based on solid principles, who will fight like hell to keep our country safe and solvent. We also expect our elected officials to vigorously support policies that will provide just and humane opportunities for our poor and the middle class, not just the wealthy.
We want to elect those who will lead in a spirit of hope over fear.
Suzanne Gillis, Publisher
Margaret Michniewicz, Editor
Rickey Gard Diamond, Contributing Editor
Mary Elizabeth Fratini, Assistant Editor
U.S. Senate – Bernie Sanders
For his experience, his outspokenness, and his unwavering dedication to being a voice for the women of Vermont from Burlington City Hall in 1981 to the last 15 years in Congress, we endorse Bernie Sanders for U.S. Senate.
Congressman Sanders (I) has an indisputable track record in support of the women of Vermont, from his crucial support establishing the National Program of Cancer registries in the Center for Disease Control in the early 1990s to his more recent co-sponsorship of the Federal Freedom of Choice Act in 2004 and programs in Vermont, working to increase funding for women’s small business centers, and supporting the continuation of the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. He has also been a national leader in the fight to protect civil liberties from attacks under the guise of “national security,” a defendant of Congress’ role as a check on executive power, and an outspoken critic of the enduring economic inequalities in America.
In contrast, Rich Tarrant (R), while a successful business owner as co-founder of IDX, is vying for the highest elected seat in Vermont with no previous legislative experience at any level. Tarrant had no comment on the doctrine of pre-emptive war; will only take a specific stand on reproductive rights by repeating that Roe v. Wade is “the law of the land” (leaving serious questions whether he would vote to maintain or undermine that law); has no opinion on the Hyde Amendment or global gag rule restrictions on funding abortion services for recipients of Medicaid or international aid; and believes that civil unions should be extended to siblings. In the absence of any voting record, we found his general reluctance to engage with the nuances and principles of issues ranging from the Congressional balance of powers to reproductive rights, civil liberties, and national security very troubling.
Tarrant’s decision to go into public service after all these years as a business owner is laudable. We encourage him to run at the state level and develop experience in Montpelier to supplement his business acumen.
U.S. House – Peter Welch
In this race, and in this election, we believe a courageous, principled stand is paramount, and that Peter Welch (D) will best represent Vermont in the U.S. House of Representatives as a strong defender of reproductive rights, environmental protection, economic equality, and civil liberties.
Perhaps no race is more challenging for this newspaper than that between Welch and Martha Rainville (R) for Congress. Women represent just 15 percent of the U.S. Congress (compared with 27 percent in Afghanistan or 44 percent in Sweden, for example), and Vermont has the dubious distinction of having never elected a woman to national office. When the opportunity arises, as it has in this election, and a woman runs for national office, we of course take particular notice. There is nothing we look forward to more than to be represented in Washington by a woman we are confident will speak on our behalf.
When we interviewed then Adjutant General Martha Rainville for the October 2004 issue (see vermontwoman.com), she responded to tough questions about the Iraq War with strong support tempered by concern and compassion. We were impressed with her journey from jet mechanic to the first woman holding Vermont’s highest military office. During her tenure, Rainville led our National Guard with grace, dignity, and compassion during the most traumatic period of that body’s history (a period that regrettably continues today).
Rainville is running on a platform of professed integrity, determined to bring honor to the U.S. House of Representatives. As a candidate to speak for women, however, she has flinched on a number of issues.
Rainville is only marginally pro-choice. She supports parental notification laws, bans on selected abortion procedures, and limiting over-the-counter access to emergency contraception even to adults, despite the overwhelming objections by the medical community that such positions place women of all ages at risk.
In contrast, Welch’s legislative, not just rhetorical, record demonstrates consistent and principled advocacy for the women of Vermont during his five terms in the State Senate over the last two decades. He supports reproductive rights without qualification or condition, and doesn’t balk at describing the efforts of the current administration and Republican Congressional leadership as waging a coordinated and sustained attack on women’s right to refuse unwanted pregnancy. He supported a Vermont bill increasing access to emergency contraception and decried the FDA’s politically-motivated delay in making a federal decision on the issue.
In addition, while Rainville has said it is past time to revisit the military’s restrictions on service by LGBT individuals, ending discrimination in the armed forces based on sexual orientation or gender identity – she also supports the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Her opponent, however, believes that states should provide full faith and credit to the decisions of the other states.
Welch also spoke out early and strongly against the invasion of Iraq, as well as against the reported use or condoning of torture (which has been excused as “necessary” for not placing ourselves at a disadvantage in the “war on terror”).
Both candidates have pledged to combat global warming, but Welch has a more progressive platform for moving away from a reliance on fossil fuels – including the increase of fuel efficiency, repealing tax cuts given to oil companies last year, restoring royalties on resources extracted from public lands, and signing onto the Kyoto protocols. Rainville has spoken strongly in favor of a “commonsense, economically viable plan” to “curb America’s oil consumption”, but has failed to sufficiently explain what details such a plan might include.
While we do not dismiss Rainville solely on her party affiliation, the realities of a narrowly divided House of Representatives are inescapable and we cannot in good conscience endorse someone who will, certainly, vote to maintain the existing leadership in that chamber.
Governor – Scudder Parker
Jim Douglas (R) has a well-deserved reputation as a community-oriented governor, from his regular presence at a variety of business openings and award ceremonies, to his annual walk in the Race for the Cure. He was notably absent from two events in particular during the past session, however. Douglas skipped both the gubernatorial debate on women’s issues in 2002 and the more recent March Against Global Warming, held over the week of Labor Day.
Douglas’ absence at selected events is more than a scheduling conflict or a preference for preaching to the choir. The women’s debate, for example, is the only gubernatorial debate Douglas missed; the global warming march was held over the course of five days. It’s not just stonewalling in absence of a vision – the stonewalling is his vision.
We applaud Douglas for signing several progressive pieces of legislation over his tenure, including increased funding for Efficiency Vermont, over-the-counter access to emergency contraception, the Health Care Affordability Act, and appliance efficiency standards. We object to the fact that all he did was sign; Douglas’ leadership has been notably deficient in these and other reforms, particularly on health care where the threat of a repeat veto limited the discussions from the start.
We also disagree with Douglas’ support of parental notification laws; his opposition to the Farmer Protection Act; his refusal to call for the scheduled shutdown of Vermont Yankee in 2012; the lack of diversity in his gubernatorial appointments; and we are dismayed at Douglas distinguishing himself as the first Vermont governor to oppose civil rights legislation with his veto of the Gender Identity Bill this spring.
We believe that Scudder Parker (D) brings a truly progressive vision to the state’s highest executive office, one based in his more than two decades of experience as a legislator, regulator, and advocate in state government. Parker served four terms as a senator for the conservative Caledonia County, followed by 13 years as director of efficiency at the Department of Public Service. He helped create and launch Efficiency Vermont and funding programs for farm-based energy production and has spent year advocating for universal healthcare and increasing support for locally-generated renewable energy. Parker also supports women’s reproductive rights without reservation or qualification; he opposes new nuclear power or extending the operating license at Vermont Yankee; and supported both the Farmer Protection Act and Gender Identity Bill.
Vermont was once a national leader on health care, civil rights, agriculture, and energy issues but that mantle as fallen to other states under Douglas’ lack of leadership. Vermont Woman endorses Scudder Parker for governor because we believe he will steer Vermont towards creating meaningful reforms to improve the lives of Vermonters, rather than extending his own political future.
Lieutenant Governor – Matt Dunne
For his overall stand on issues, and his track record and tenure in the Legislature, we endorse Matt Dunne (D).
While there are differences between candidates Dunne and Marvin Malek (P), they are differences of degree. Both men unequivocally support women’s reproductive rights, oppose sending incarcerated women out of state to serve sentences, support the inclusion of educational and skills-based training in the 30-hour welfare work requirement, oppose renewing the license at Vermont Yankee, support the Gender Identity Bill, oppose the EPA’s rollbacks to the Clean Air Act, support locally-generated wind power in Vermont, oppose the Premises ID program, support the Farmer Protection Act, and support Election Day Voter registration and Instant Run-Off voting.
The only measurable differences are on health care and party politics, and they are marginal. Malek unequivocally supports a state level single payer universal health care system and believes that the Catamount Health Plan is NOT a step in the right direction, but is, rather, a political band-aid. Dunne also supports a state level single payer universal health care system and believes that Catamount is not a BIG ENOUGH step in the right direction.
While Barre-based physician Malek would undoubtedly bring a much-needed reality check to the ongoing conversation about healthcare reform in Vermont, he does not yet have experience in elected office and the political process. Dunne has served four terms as a representative and two as a senator. Those terms, including Dunne’s most recent seats on the Appropriations, Economic Development, and Administrative Rules committees, mean that Dunne has more than a decade’s experience in the day-to-day workings of state government.
We do not support the re-election of Brian Dubie (R) for lieutenant governor, primarily for his opposition to women’s reproductive rights. We also disagree with his opposition to the Farmer Protection Act and Gender Identity Bill, examples which cause us uneasiness with his overall vision for this state and all its citizens.
