Finally, A Poll On Secession in Vermont That We Can Use...
... or, "Second Vermont Republic Fails To Get On Any Town Meeting Ballots Despite Its Assurances To The Contrary"
Yesterday, AP's John Curran had a story on the failure of Vermont's secessionist tag team, the Second Vermont Republic and Vermont Commons', to get a secesssion question on even one of Vermont's Town Meeting ballots.
This is more significant than it might appear from the spin Rob Williams tries to give in the Curran story.
"The message is that the idea of Vermont independence is a new and radical idea, and it's not an idea people are going to come to easily," said Williams, of Waitsfield. "We're under no illusions. It's a difficult idea to accept. Once you sort of acknowledge that it's a viable option, people are willing to explore it.SVR has repeatedly promoted a poll that it has yet to admit to Vermonters that it commissioned and that it claims showed 8% support among Vermonter voters for secession in 2006.   SVR also claims that the support increased to 13% in 2007 for that same group. (Readers should take note of the fact that I've discovered Thomas Naylor has "disappeared" numerous posts on his website that I've cited here, such as those having to do with his phony polls except for this last embedded reference to it, his failed legislative team, and others.)
"But this is our first year of getting this going,"
"Once you sort of acknowledge that it's a viable option, people are willing to explore it?"Let's see, when voters are asked, "Should Vermont secede from the United States and become independent?" and supposedly 8% and then later 13% of them answer yes, that isn't an indication of acceptance or support for the idea as "a viable option?"   Come on.   That kinda spin must make even Rob dizzy.   When you then take into account that in Waitsfield, the community that must be considered VTCommons' base of support both in terms of advertising support for its publication and in fund raising, Williams (who has family serving in town government) was unable to gather the 5% of signatures of registered voters needed to get a secession question on the Waitsfield Town Meeting ballot.   Hell, apparently he couldn't even get 3% of the town's registered voters to sign his petition.   Other calls to Thomas Naylor's or his SVR Legislative Team leader Peter Moss' hometowns, Charlotte and Fairfax, failed to reveal any effort whatsoever to get a secession question on their own Town Meeting ballots.
Last month, in answer to my question to him about their progress in putting the secession question on Town Meeting ballots, Moss told me in writing that,
"Yes, some towns have secession resolutions on the town meeting ballot."No doubt the lying could be chalked up to a typical politician's machinations in pursuit of objectives that have little public support, but is lying really the best method to advance such objectives in the face of such underwhelming support?   The more Vermonters come to know this present crop of secessionists and its supporters, the less likely it is that Vermonters will find their style acceptable and worthy of support.   That the leaders at SVR and VTCommons are dishonest can not be denied, but will Vermonters be any less inclined to repudiate their agenda when they learn that at least one blogger for VTCommons finds segregation (euphemistically called "homogeneous communities") acceptable, even a desireable consequence of secession?
Perhaps it's the self-delusion and not just the political dishonesty that caused Rob put this "best face" post up on the matter.   Complete failure to meet any of the legislative goals set for the 2008 Town Meeting can't be considered a good start for 2009.   More bullshit won't make the SVR Legislative Team look any better.   You see, when I asked Moss if there were any who were running for office this year as committed secessionists he answered,
"Yes, a few have registered for membership. We are a long ways from 50% + 1 we need for a binding secessaion declaration, but we are working at it."Care to say who these candidates are?   Rob?   Peter?   Tom?   Anyone?
And please, don't tell me that they're anonymous for now.
UPDATE: JD Ryan at fivebeforechaos has more on Naylor and Williams' slouching towards secession.   The idea of a real discussion about secession is being explored at Green Mountain Daily, as well.   That'd be a refreshing change from the lies and delusions floated by the SVR and VTCommons crowd.
UPDATE (2/16): The Anti-Neo-Confederate makes mention of this post here.   I strongly urge those interested in revelations about the neo-Confederate movement outside of Vermont to check it out.