The Barre/Montpelier Times Argus today looks at Governor Douglas's re-election outlook through the lens of a potential Pollina campaign, following his announcement-that-wasn't-an-announcement at the Progressive Party's reorganization. The early sign is that the media's extended endorsement of Jim Douglas that we have all come to expect is starting early:
Douglas continues to test the patience of the liberal electorate of Vermont, though there is no sign yet that erosion of support among the moderate middle has become a serious threat.
Unfortunately, this is the modus operandum for the Vermont media in all things gubernatorially electoral (say that 10 times really fast). The obvious way to interpret those numbers is that, while the moderate & independent voters still like Douglas, they are no longer automatically concluding that he is the right man for the job.
But such an obvious conclusion goes against the conventional wisdom, and you don't defy conventional wisdom, lest you lose standing among your peers. As a result, ignore the numbers and fall back on the mantra: Douglas is unbeatable, everybody except the far left wackos love him, the election is just a formality, why bother. Saying anything different is tantamount to going out on a limb.
And it's in this way that the media has made Douglas's re-election such an inevitability: they don't check into the process when Douglas is, predictably, 30 points ahead in internal polling early in the election season – preferring instead to laugh off the opposition. By not checking in, they leave that opposition futily twisting in the wind, looking for coverage. By the time the media actually engages, its relatively late in the process, the numbers haven't budged, so the new mantra is simply “look at how far ahead Douglas is so late in the process.” It's self-fulfilling and self-reinforcing, and the above quote, coming as it does this early and in the face of common sense, indicates just how determined the media will continue to be in this myopic narrative they're so comfortable promoting.
The trick, therefore, is for any campaign to work hard enough, early enough under the radar to start those polls creeping up in other ways. If that traditional 30 point lead that Douglas carries come summertime – when the press actually decides to start looking seriously at the election that's only a few months away – can be wittled down to 20 or tighter, the press might do a bit of a double-take and break open the narrative of inevitability that keeps them so dismissive of the Governor's challenges.
But the clock is ticking. Sure, it may be traditionally early for a formal campaign announcement, but the reality is that, in the last two cycles, we already knew for months before this time who the candidate was going to be, and their fundraising and organizational efforts were already well underway.
In other words, time's very much a-wasting, no matter what the “hear-no-evil, see-no-evil” crowd may suggest.
December 1, 2007 – Des Moines, IA, Brown & Black Forum
December 1, 2007 – Des Moines, IA, Heartland Presidential Forum
December 4, 2007 – Des Moines, IA, NPR News/Iowa Public Radio Debate
December 10, 2007 – Los Angeles, California, CBS
December 13, 2007 – Johnston, Iowa, Des Moines Register Democratic Debate
January 15, 2008 – Las Vegas, Nevada
January 31, 2008 – California
In the space of an hour this weekend, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, using some of their most pointed and forceful rhetoric of the campaign, framed the choice for Democrats deciding their party’s presidential nomination.
Clinton gave a strong speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner late Saturday. But Obama, criticized for occasional lackluster performances, delivered one of his most focused and powerful addresses.
In the view of many watching, he emerged as the oratorical winner at the biggest Democratic political event in Iowa before the state’s January caucuses.
His candidacy, Obama said, could produce a new Democratic majority capable of breaking the gridlock and polarization that have plagued Washington for a decade or more.
“The same old Washington textbook campaigns just won’t do it in this election,” he said. Seattle Times
November 19, 2007 – Meet the Candidate, Barack Obama, Clarion, IA
November 19, 2007 – Town Hall Meeting with Barack, Fort Dodge, IA
November 20, 2007 – Meet the Candidate, Barack Obama, Alton, NH
November 20, 2007 – Meet the Candidate, Barack Obama, Conway, NH
November 20, 2007 – Meet the Candidate, Barack Obama, Laconia, NH
November 20, 2007 – Michelle Obama, Orangeburg, SC
November 20, 2007 – Michelle Obama, Columbia, SC
November 30, 2007 – Barack Obama and Former Sec of Navy, Richard Danzig, Washington, D.C.
December 2, 2007 – Countdown to Change, Boston, MA
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? Why It’s Barack Obama Obama Shows Off Organizational Strength at JJ Dinner Transcriptof Obama Apperance on Meet the Press
obama on meet the press with tim russert, november 11, 2007, des moines, ia
Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday that if elected he will push to increase the amount of income that is taxed to provide monthly Social Security benefits.
Obama and other Democratic presidential candidates previously have signaled support for this idea.
But during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Obama said subjecting more of a person’s income to the payroll tax is the option he would push for if elected president.
He objected to benefit cuts or a higher retirement age.
“I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected,” the Illinois senator said.
“That is the option that I will be pushing forward.”
Currently, only the first $97,500 of a person’s annual income is taxed. The amount is scheduled to rise to $102,000 next year. more
Democratic Caucus Goers Pick Obama, Edwards as JJ Winners
Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Scott Brennan called it “the most successful Jefferson Jackson Dinner in history,” but it was more successful for some candidates than for others.
After discussions with party insiders and people in attendance, the early consensus seemed to be that the candidates who have generally polled in the top three — Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama — all did well, with Edwards and Obama excelling in particular. Among the other three candidates — Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson — the crowd seemed to be moved the most by Dodd and Biden, but not enough to significantly affect their chances in January, interviews Saturday night suggested. Candace Opstvedt of Story City was an undecided caucus-goer, but not any longer.
“I am definitely leaning toward Barack after tonight,” she said after the long night of speeches and Democratic fundraising, including an auction. Undecided caucus-goer Jordan Oster, a Drake University student and a Des Moines native, thought Obama and Edwards made a definite impression on the crowd.
“It is yet to be seen if tonight can be considered a moment of shakeup, but I think it really goes to show that Edwards and Obama cemented their importance in the race,” he said. “Neither made direct reference to Senator Clinton, but without mistake many references were aimed her way.”
Oster said he thought Biden, Dodd and Richardson did well, but didn’t stand out. Iowapolitics.com
Can Obama Rock the Nomination?
What kind of question is THIS??? One word, yes. He showed it last Saturday night, at the JJ Dinner. The debate performance is now past and will forever be plagued with innuendo. He is stronger than ever in Iowa. And if people are fed UP, with partisian politics, gridlock, the same old thing. Then you know for sure, what time it is. It is change time.
youtube interview
Will Obama Turn Out Young Voters inIowa All TiedUp in Iowa Obama PhotoBlogLebanon, NH Obamaon Net Neutrality
UAW Region 4, Endorses Obama
UAW Region 4 Delegates Throw Support to Obama’s Campaign for PresidentDUBUQUE – Delegates of United Auto Workers Region 4, which includes 30,000 members and retirees in Iowa, voted today to support Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. The group announced its overwhelming support at the close of a weeklong conference where seven of the major Democratic presidential candidates addressed the group earlier this week.
“There are many talented Democrats in the presidential field this year, but Barack Obama is the leader who will bring the kind of change to Washington that America’s working men and women can believe in,” said UAW Local 442 (Webster City, IA) President Paul Erickson. “For the last two decades, working families have been able to count on Barack Obama to stand up for us and our values. We are supporting him, because we know he’ll do the same thing in the White House.” Time, DemDog
kos, on Obama’s Plan for Open Government StollerLeaning Obama Chris Bowers, Ok, it is Still a Close Campaign Barack Obama and the Illinois Death Penaltyby AdamB
Clinton Camp, Sure Do Not Care About Nor Believe in the Youth Vote
Yep. The Clinton Campaign has to be one of the more out of touch campaigns running. For the Clinton Campaign to tout the inevitability meme, this campaign does not understand what drives the youth. And to totally dis’ them as unimportant is even more laughable. I am sure no dissin’ will be going on in an Iowa barn on January 3rd, if these Facebook Caucus Goers decide to show up. Respect the youth. Respect the ones who are disenfranchised. Respect the lost Democratic Voters who want in again. Just respect the voters. Ok?
shoutouts: food prices up, by bink; i am starting to detest hillary clinton, the british observer; read, dengre; why an edwards fan thinks obama took jefferson-jackson; dl’s take on democrats preferring dems on iran; update on marlboro marine; foreclosures record high
icebergslim’s last word: obama and his supporters advocates.
Barack came from the Iowa JJ Dinner, with a speech that people are still talking about.
Then the debate.
Well, it was a sham. My opinion, as I do not speak or write for Obama Supporters Advocates. But, it was. Then we got the blistering report from an Obama supporter advocate who called them all out in her diary, no stone unturned, not off the beaten path, but blunt and precise. LV Pol Girl’s diary of the events surrounding the debate was simply titled, Las Vegas Disgrace. Was it Pulitzer Prize writing? No. Rhetorical Rhetoric? No. It was four simple paragraphs with an ending sentence that summed it all up what happened in Las Vegas, Nevada, at the CNN Debate. So, simple, that everyone has read this diary, passed it on, shaking their heads. And those that did not want it out had to sit, squirm, and take it.
Then Bob Johnson, comes on the scene. You really don’t know what to expect with him, but he ripped Steny Hoyer a new one with this diary, Hey, Steny… Butt out. I don’t know who Bob supports, but he was absolutely correct in this assessment of Hoyer going after Obama:
Oh, no. Steny thought it best to single out a candidate who he felt was bashing the current frontrunner:
“I’ve been disappointed,” Hoyer, 68, said in an interview on Bloomberg television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” scheduled to air tonight. “I think it will hurt the party.”
He took particular exception to Illinois Senator Barack Obama’s assertion in a Las Vegas debate yesterday that Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton hadn’t given “straight answers” on “a host of issues.” Hoyer said that comment is “likely to get used by Republicans” in the general election.
What is this you ask? It is what politicians refer to as, “calling your chits in.” The old, “I helped you, raised money for you, now you need to help me.” In other words, the Clinton Camp needs to dirty up Barack Obama. The Clinton Camp need to reinforce that Obama is inexperienced, not ready. Obama should not challenge, nor question anything on Hillary Clinton. The GOP could use this against her. As if “girlfriend” has already been anointed and appointed.
Then your keepin it real voice of icebergslim, rolls into a Saturday with an aw, hell naw diary on our best friends at CNN. I don’t like to write on the weekends because I am usually compiling ‘This Week’, but when you get articles from NYT and L.A. Times sent to you about the debate, but more importantly how it is all connected up? What are you to do? I had to do what I do best. Clinton News Network = CNN.
Of course, Obama Supporters Advocates then had to read insinuations of a whisper campaign, against our candidate. Remember, it is all about making him dirty. But, we took solace to what Barack said in his statement.
“The item did not identify these ‘agents,’ nor did it reveal the nature of the charge. It was devoid of facts, but heavy on innuendo and insinuation of the sort to which we’ve become all too accustomed in our politics these past two decades. If the purpose of this shameless item was to daunt or discourage me or supporters of our campaign from challenging and changing the politics of Washington, it will fail. In fact, it will only serve to steel our resolve.
That paragraph, for me, said it all about Barack Obama.
It will only serve to steel our resolve.
That is what the other campaigns don’t get. But they will, starting in Iowa.
Yes, we are supporters of Barack Obama, but you are correct in your assessment, we are his ADVOCATES, first.
If you appreciate the weekly Obama Roundup, then Tip My Obama Jar!! Minimum five dollars. This contribution goes directly to the Obama Campaign. We are in the last stretch of fundraising, Quarter 4, it ends December 31st. Remember to make your contribution.
::
Lastly, a magnificent diary by femlaw titled, “Obama’s Field of Dreams (California & Iowa Edition)” This is a must read for all. If you don’t understand strategy and Obama’s passion for building from ground up, peep this. After the read, you will get it.
well, barack was in austin, texas telling them to get ready for change. and i am here to ask you, are you ready for it? always, remember to focus on obama, and not the drama….
The metaphorical imagery of bridge building is powerful stuff. If you think about it, though, building a bridge from one community to another doesn't have to be about bringing the people from both sides together to learn from each other and become something greater than the sum of the parts. A bridge could also be no more than the means for someone who thinks of themselves as an enlightened person from the village on the hill to get across the river to the village of unworthy slobs to tell them how it is.
Case in point: Probably like many of you, I'm part of a freecycle listserv. If you don't know about freecycle, it's awesome. Freecycle is “a grassroots and entirely nonprofit movement of people who are giving (& getting) stuff for free in their own towns. It's all about reuse and keeping good stuff out of landfills”. Click here to get hooked up with a freecycle group in your area (or help you get one started).
Recently, on the Montpelier freecycle listserv, some folks have been asking for and offering Shaw's “turkey points” – the points you receive from spending money at Shaw's supermarkets through which you can get a free turkey after you accumulate a certain amount.
Well, sure enough someone complained, and it didn't much questioning to determine that the complaint was coming from an anti-corporate ethic, and a desire to keep the freecycle list ideologically pure. Apparently similar things have happened on Chittenden and Franklin County listservs (and likely others).
Look, mega-corprorations create problems, there's no arguing that. If you're working towards local economies and against global warming, a place like Shaw's is the bad guy. When the dairy compact was first launched, Shaw's put anti-compact propoganda on it's milk coolers.
But its all too easy for people with a comfortable standard of living to make such demands and declarations.
The fact is, if you haven't been in the position of seriously having to cut coupons and scramble for special deals just to be sure the basic needs of you or your family are met, it hardly seems fair to demand others emulate your perhaps more enlightened (and expensive) lifestyle. If you have a good job, your spouse has a good job, you have parents who could bail you out if you were in danger of starving, or you married into money, you're just not in a position to make judgments about those who literally have no month-to-month safety net.
Someone in such a position who asks for “turkey points” because they truly need them should not be made to feel small for being poor, and probably does not need a lecture on why they should pay a little more money (that they don't have) to buy a free range turkey from a local farmer. Freecycle is a fantastic invention – an online community that not only redistributes resources based on need and keeps crap out of landfills, but builds a genuinely diverse community by bridging class and cultural communication gaps through the medium of the internet. Stepping into that process and demanding the community precisely mirror an ethic that comes from a couple rungs up on Maslow's hierarchy (especially when there is no conflict in play with the stated intent of the community – in this case, reusing stuff and keeping it out of landfills) is simply an attempt to colonize the resource at the cost of people who really need it.
And of course, this sort of thing happens all the time on the left.
On a larger scale, it happened with the Vermont impeachment movement. Lots of us came together because we agreed it was time to get rid of George Bush. When a few decided they weren't content with such a big tent, and instead insisted the group manifest their own particularized ideology, it largely dimisnished in size, utility and effectiveness. It's a common story.
Sometimes creating common ground doesn't have to be a means to end, it's an end in itself. If you can let it be, you may find that, organically, people can come to amazing things in their own way, and in their own time a lot more reliably than if you try and seize the podium and lambaste them with your own personal gospel, no matter how right (or righteous) you may be.
Despite better education and more awareness within the general population, a pervasive bias remains against people with mental health problems.
Suffering from mental illness too often means suffering from prejudice or discrimination as well. The systemic biases in our communities and institutions exacerbate the very illness afflicting those who most need support and understanding. Prejudice and lack of access to care are another set of roadblocks for people struggling with acute and/or chronic serious mental health problems.
It is an all-consuming task, for many who have mental problems, to cope with their disabilities and work toward maintaining or preserving – to the full extent they can – a functional life. This burden frequently falls on the family and loved ones who help to care and take responsibility for those with mental/behavioral health and personality disorders.Now, throw in the added burden of prejudice, neglect, a judgmental community that fails at its duty to be a support system (or to allow a support system to be in place), and life for the mentally ill is one nasty uphill fight.
If you haven't guessed already, this is about the U.S. war on Iraq . . .(more below)
This past week, police officers acting on behalf of the United States of America arrested Army Sergeant Brad Gaskins.
I do not know the legal background to this case, but the fact that Sgt. Gaskins has suffered severe disability from two combat tours in Iraq is not in dispute.The United States arrested him for being AWOL after he sought treatment for his mental illness. The treatment he sought and needs is unavailable to him in the overstretched, understaffed, unprepared and ill-equipped health care system that is responsible for U.S. solders and marines.
SYRACUSE, N.Y. (AP) — A soldier who served two combat tours in Iraq was arrested Wednesday. . .
. . . Sgt. Brad Gaskins said he left the base in August 2006 because the Army wasn't providing effective treatment after he was diagnosed with PTSD and severe depression.
“They just don't have the resources to handle it, but that's not my fault,” Gaskins said.
Tod Ensign, an attorney with Citizen Soldier, a GI rights group that is representing Gaskins, said the case is part of a “coming tsunami” of mental health problems involving Iraq and Afghanistan vets.
Last month, the Veterans Administration said more than 100,000 soldiers were being treated for mental health problems, and half of those specifically for PTSD. . .
So here's the problem.The U.S. government, unable to treat seriously ill soldiers, is criminalizing their illness.This is where the mental/behavioral health and physical injury prejudices come into play.I acknowledge not knowing the specific medical and legal details of Sgt. Gaskins' case. However, regardless of the specifics of Sgt. Gaskins plight, his case is one more blatant indictment of the United State's and especially the current administrations', pattern of neglect and betrayal of our all volunteer recruited military.Compound this continuing mistreatment of our soldiers and marines, with the historic and systemic prejudices surrounding mental illness; and a pre-existing medical double standard becomes a societal and governmental double betrayal as well.
Sgt. Haskins arrest is one example demonstrating the ways in which the physical/mental health double standard has eaten its way into the Pentagon and is one more way in which we are disgracing our troops.
Imagine, for a moment, a soldier with shrapnel in her brain who faces a lifetime of paralysis if she does not find a neurosurgeon to remove the shrapnel.Then imagine the Army will not provide a surgeon trained or capable of removing the shrapnel in order to save this soldier from a lifetime of disability and suffering. Forced to accept only one acceptable option, the soldier leaves the base infirmary and goes AWOL. The soldier then ends up at Mass General, Dartmouth or a local community hospital where a surgeon can salvage her future.
Unfortunately, for our hypothetical soldier with the shrapnel in her brain, a local TV crew shows up at the hospital parking lot to tell the story (like the media did with Sgt. Gaskins) of her combat injuries and the military's unwillingness to provide critical treatment for her.Now, imagine as she is going through her pre-operative tests, the MPs arrive and arrest her: putting her in shackles and walking her out of the hospital still wearing a surgical gown. Preposterous? (I hope you said “yes” although what is preposterous any more).That is the attitude feeding our double standard because it is truly difficult to see much difference in the level of outrage either type of case should generate.
People generally understand and are less likely to “stigmatize” traumatic head injuries and their corresponding disabilities than the mental health trauma suffered by soldiers such as Sgt. Gaskins.To the soldier facing the consequences of either trauma, the responsibility of the United States to the people we recruit to serve in our military is no different. How short we fall from that responsibility is apparent when the United States arrests a sick soldier rather than treats him.It is a further apparent when we allow the Pentagon to criminalize illness rather than treat it.
Sgt Gaskins' case is a gross betrayal by the United States of its soldiers and marines. It is also a symptom of a bigger problem faced by veterans. The example of his situation sends a message from the Pentagon and the administration to the tens of thousands of soldiers and marines who are receiving either substandard care, or not receiving any care. And this is the message: “We know you're in bad shape and we know you hurt.Now you know that we can make it much worse for you too.”
Every day, the United States War on Iraq proves there is no shortage of ways for the U.S. to shame itself in the eyes of the world, in the eyes of our soldiers and in the eyes of history.
It appears we have shamed ourselves in the eyes of Sgt. Gaskin as well.
The picture here is a light drawing I created Tuesday night. It’s not a Photoshop effect; it’s me waving a pair of light wands around for a long-exposure shot. Clicking on the picture brings you to a whole set of thumbnails of light drawings.
Take the phrase REMAKE RAILROADING THEFT. Rearrange the letters of that phrase to form the names of two well-known artists;
Take the phrase GREGORIAN JUNGLE HOOP. Rearrange its letters to form a famous group;
Look at the following:
CIDER LIE EVIL LIME EVER ONCE
You have three clues as to the answer. One clue is an anagram. An other is the same structure of consonants and vowels. The third is the same number of letters in each word. The trick is figuring out which is which;
Same sort of puzzle as #3:
HOC JAM FELIX MOMENTS I CRY MAD HOE STRAP
Note– spoilers may appear in the comments section. Read them at your own risk.
(Host) The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant does not have enough money to dismantle and remove the reactor when its license expires in five years. But Yankee executives and state officials say they're not concerned. They say the plant can be safely closed and protected for decades, until the there's enough money to pay for a full decommissioning.
VPR's John Dillon reports:
(Dillon) Vermont Yankee's license expires in 2012. And lawmakers in southern Vermont want to know if there's enough money set aside to take the plant apart and dispose of it safely.
Senator Peter Shumlin represents Windham County.
(Shumlin) The notion that that plant, after it's shutdown, has to sit there for 50 or perhaps 60 years in order for them to build up enough money to take it away is both frightening and absolutely shocking to most of us.
(Dillon) David McElwee is a nuclear energy engineer for Entergy Vermont Yankee. He says there isn't enough money now for decommissioning in 2012. And he said Entergy has not added any money to the $431 million decommissioning fund since it bought the plant five years ago.
(McElwee) Only if it was required to meet minimum NRC requirements would Entergy have to put money into the fund.
(Dillon) McElwee says the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows plants to be mothballed for decades prior to actual decommissioning. The process is called Safe Store. McElwee says there are two advantages to Safe Store. First, it allows the decommissioning fund to grow over time. And second, the radioactive material on site becomes less dangerous.
(McElwee) So Safe Store allows for less worker exposure because materials decay over time, and less cost to dispose of them because they'll be less material to be disposed of as radioactive waste.
(Dillon) Officials at the Public Service Department – which represents ratepayers – are not worried about the decommissioning fund.
Steve Wark is a department spokesman. He says the fund was not intended to pay for full decommissioning when the plant's original license expires. He said the fund should have enough money a decade later – by 2022.
(Wark) That said, if for some reason 2012 is the date where Vermont Yankee no longer operates, the Safe Store method is a completely feasible way of dealing with the waste.
(Dillon) The NRC allows a plant to be in the Safe Store mode for up to 60 years. But the prospect of delayed decommissioning does not please Shumlin. He says the federal government's failure to site a high level nuclear waste dump already means that Yankee will have to store radioactive waste on site for decades to come.
(Shumlin) It's a shock to us to learn that we may also be stuck with an aging plant that's been shutdown … It's a pretty upsetting concept to hear that Entergy assumes that we all understand that we may have the carcass sitting there because we don't have the money to take it away.
(Dillon) Shumlin and other lawmakers have asked state auditor Tom Salmon to investigate the decommissioning issue. Salmon said he is just in the initial stages of gathering information.
For VPR News, I'm John Dillon in Montpelier.
**************************
Nov. 15, 2007
Mark Johnson asks a question on the adequacy of decommissioning fund:
Commissioner O’Brien: …we’ve spent a lot of time looking at the decommissioning fund. We’ve got a report coming out at the end of the year, or early part of 08 – on the status of the decommissioning fund. [And] we’re looking at it very closely, as the State Nuclear Advisory Panel. The fund is not sufficient to decommission the plant immediately or in 2012; but it is not intended to be so, as a practical matter. I will say that the owner of the plant – ENTERGY – would like to, whether it is 2012 or 2032 that it ceases to operate – they would like the plant to sit in what is called SAFESTOR mode for a number of years before it’s ultimately dismantled. Truthfully, that’s not my preference. I would rather see the plant dismantled as soon as possible after it ceases to operate. That’s what they did in Maine – if you looked at the Channel 3 coverage, that is what you are seeing – a Greenfield site where a nuclear plant used to stand. I think that is what’s fair for the community down there and for the State. But it’s not immediately our decision – it’s an NRC decision, essentially, you know, signing off on what the licensed operator wants to do. In fact we’ve spent a fair amount of time talking with Entergy and looking at the options. I would say that we’re going to spend a lot of time talking about this before we’re done. David O’Brien, PSD Commissioner Mark Johnson radio show (excerpt)
Let’s face it, Democrats have three possible gubernatorial candidates: Sen. John Campbell, (former) Sen. Matt Dunne, and (former) Ambassador Peter Galbraith.
Sen. Dunne has some statewide name recognition after last cycle’s run for Lt. Governor.But rather than jump to the next level, he should challenge Dubie again.Dunne closed well in that race last cycle, and without a primary (hopefully), Dunne will give Dubie all he can handle. Furthermore, by not jumping into the governor’s race, Dunne will avoid the only consistent criticism levied against him – that he’s too ambitious. (By the way, when did having ambition become a negative?When someone has the ambition to serve his community and improve the quality of life for current and future state residents, how is that not a positive?)
Sen. Campbell’s potential candidacy seems a better reflection of his lack of upward mobility in the Senate than his statewide prospects.Sure, the Democrats would support him, but he wouldn’t excite the activist.He doesn’t have any statewide name recognition (although state senators never seem to accept this reality), and probably couldn’t raise the type of money necessary to unseat an incumbent.Plus, he’s a member of the state legislature (though he would doubtlessly resign as majority leader if he ran) coming off a disappointing session.Granted, Vermonters seem to like the job the Dems are doing at the State House more than the governor would have us believe, but with the press’ habit of mistaking Jason Gibbs’ press releases for the Gospel, Sen. Campbell would have a hard time pointing to a record of recent accomplishments.
Of course, there’s the theoretical possibility of a unity campaign behind Anthony Pollina – but that’s not going to happen.He’s burned a lot of bridges among Democrats, and his statewide track record won’t inspire any confidence.That said, he deserves credit for laying the ground work to allow the Progs to line up behind the Democratic nominee.
I save Peter Galbraith for last, but not to suggest he should be the nominee by process of elimination.Galbraith may not have the statewide name recognition of Matt Dunne (although his name will probably “ring a bell” with a lot of people), but after that, there is much to like about his potential candidacy.For starters, he is incredible intelligent, well spoken, and (from all reports) a genuinely nice guy.His knowledge of state issues would probably have to be improved, but there’s no reason to think this acclaimed author would have any trouble getting up to speed.He has political experience as ambassador to Croatia, but can’t be characterized as a career politician.He’s recently book on the war in Iraq will endear him to the many Vermonters who believe the war was a mistake (incidentally, while the governor may not have much to do about Iraq policy, who wouldn’t relish the contrast between Galbraith’s crystal clear stance on Iraq and Douglas’ political dodges?).And perhaps most importantly (sadly), Galbraith is well-connected enough to raise the kind of money (and hire the quality staff) that will be necessary to really challenge Douglas.
Peter Galbraith would be an out-of-the-box nominee, which is exactly what the party needs to shake up the race.No matter who runs against Douglas, it will be an uphill battle; but unlike the other contenders, Galbraith could change the dynamic of the race.
On August 18th, 1950, Pete Seeger was called to testify before the House Unamerican Activities Committee. But first, just because it’s amazing, here’s Pete Seeger on the Smothers Brothers show from 40 years ago.
The relevance? I’ll get to it, after the fold.
First, a sidenote: I do not sing, because I know my strengths and I know my weaknesses. But I’m an evil genius with the guitar and stick to the things I know. But the title of this diary is still appropriate because Seeger never gave up on his music or his activism.
Seeger’s been a protester and an activist for his entire life, and that activism got him blacklisted in 1950’s. When he was called before the House Unamerican Activities Committee, he gave them quite a run, being serious, while still being funny, and refusing to ever give them a thing they wanted, without ever being anything but civil and polite.
[…]
MR. TAVENNER: You said that you would tell us about the songs. Did you participate in a program at Wingdale Lodge in the State of New York, which is a summer camp for adults and children, on the weekend of July Fourth of this year?
(Witness consulted with counsel.)
MR. SEEGER: Again, I say I will be glad to tell what songs I have ever sung, because singing is my business.
MR. TAVENNER: I am going to ask you.
MR. SEEGER: But I decline to say who has ever listened to them, who has written them, or other people who have sung them.
MR. TAVENNER: Did you sing this song, to which we have referred, “Now Is the Time,” at Wingdale Lodge on the weekend of July Fourth?
MR. SEEGER: I don’t know any song by that name, and I know a song with a similar name. It is called “Wasn’t That a Time.” Is that the song?
CHAIRMAN WALTER: Did you sing that song?
MR. SEEGER: I can sing it. I don’t know how well I can do it without my banjo.
CHAIRMAN WALTER: I said, Did you sing it on that occasion?
MR. SEEGER: I have sung that song. I am not going to go into where I have sung it. I have sung it many places.
CHAIRMAN WALTER: Did you sing it on this particular occasion? That is what you are being asked.
MR. SEEGER: Again my answer is the same.
CHAIRMAN WALTER: You said that you would tell us about it.
MR. SEEGER: I will tell you about the songs, but I am not going to tell you or try to explain-
CHAIRMAN WALTER: I direct you to answer the question. Did you sing this particular song on the Fourth of July at Wingdale Lodge in New York?
MR. SEEGER: I have already given you my answer to that question, and all questions such as that. I feel that is improper: to ask about my associations and opinions. I have said that I would be voluntarily glad to tell you any song, or what I have done in my life.
CHAIRMAN WALTER: I think it is my duty to inform you that we don’t accept this answer and the others, and I give you an opportunity now to answer these questions, particularly the last one.
MR. SEEGER: Sir, my answer is always the same.
MR. SEEGER: I shall he glad to answer about the song, sir, and I am not interested in carrying on the line of questioning about where I have sung any songs.
MR. TAVENNER: I ask a direction.
CHAIRMAN WALTER: You may not he interested, but we are, however. I direct you to answer. You can answer that question.
MR. SEEGER: I feel these questions are improper, sir, and I feel they are immoral to ask any American this kind of question.
MR. TAVENNER: Have you finished your answer?
MR. SEEGER: Yes, sir.
MR. TAVENNER: I desire to offer the document in evidence and ask that it be marked “Seeger exhibit No.4,” for identification only, and to be made a part of the Committee files.
MR. SEEGER: I am sorry you are not interested in the song. It is a good song.
MR. TAVENNER: Were you present in the hearing room while the former witnesses testified?
MR. SEEGER: I have been here all morning, yes, sir.
MR. TAVENNER: I assume then that you heard me read the testimony of Mr. [Elia] Kazan about the purpose of the Communist Party in having its actors entertain for the henefit of Communist fronts and the Communist Party. Did you hear that testimony?
MR. SEEGER: Yes, I have heard all of the testimony today.
MR. TAVENNER: Did you hear Mr. George Hall’s testimony yesterday in which he stated that, as an actor, the special contribution that he was expected to make to the Communist Party was to use his talents by entertaining at Communist Party functions? Did you hear that testimony?
MR. SEEGER: I didn’t hear it, no.
MR. TAVENNER: It is a fact that he so testified. I want to know whether or not you were engaged in a similar type of service to the Communist Party in entertaining at these features.
(Witness consulted with counsel.)
MR. SEEGER: I have sung for Americans of every political persuasion, and I am proud that I never refuse to sing to an audience, no matter what religion or color of their skin, or situation in life. I have sung in hobo jungles, and I have sung for the Rockefellers, and I am proud that I have never refused to sing for anybody. That is the only answer I can give along that line.
Think for a minute about this: here’s a man with everything to lose. A working musician who knew who and what he was facing and just decided he was going to do exactly what the right thing was. What’s more, he did it with humor, with passion, with grace and with dignity.
Can you imagine going before Congress and offering to sing for them when they ask you about a song, and when they question your patriotism, telling them you’re sorry they’re not interested in the song?
Seeger, Arthur Miller, and six others were indicted for contempt of Congress by an overwhelming vote in the House of Representatives. In 1961 he was found guilty of contempt and on April 2 he was sentenced to ten years in prison. The following year his ordeal ended when the case was dismissed on a technicality.
The video clip above is from Seeger, years after these events. Blacklisting, contempt charges, threats, intimidation, and yet still…
I saw Pete Seeger at Clearwater a few years ago. A tall, skinny, grizzled old man without the voice he used to have and without the banjo chops or the vocal resonance he once had, but still present, powerful and magnificent.
Seeger is pushing 90, but his voice, his power, his resonance make a difference today.
Even something as simple as coming onto a prime time TV show and singing about war and being accurate about war and what people are like during it, paying attention to history– I don’t think we see much of that any longer and it’s something that saddens me– it’s not just that Seeger’s anti-war: he’s anti war, and incredibly articulate about it.
And Seeger’s refusal to bow to HUAC– this is relevant, because he was willing to stand up to them and take the challenge directly to them. He refused to plead the fifth in front of HUAC. He instead pled the 1st: freedom of speech and freedom of association. This was a much bigger challenge to the committee than simply refusing to self-incriminate. As Jim Musselman put it:
…Everyone else had said the Fifth Amendment, the right against self-incrimination, and then they were dismissed. What Pete did, and what some other very powerful people who had the guts and the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the committee and say, “I’m gonna invoke the First Amendment, the right of freedom of association….” “
“…The case of Seeger v. United States… changed my life, because I saw the courage of what he had done and what some other people had done by invoking the First Amendment, saying, “We’re all Americans. We can associate with whoever we want to, and it doesn’t matter who we associate with.” That’s what the founding fathers set up democracy to be. So I just really feel it’s an important part of history that people need to remember.”
What we do today can cause ripples into the future. The rights we stand up for today can influence the next generations, and the cowardice we show today will affect our children and our grandchildren.
What Seeger showed us was that any one of us can challenge the power of the system around us. Any one of us can stand up and say “we have the right to be who we are, speak to the issues that are relevant to us and the government has no business intervening in any peaceful act.”
Seeger may not be with us a lot longer (like I said, he’s 88), but he’ll be a part of my life long after he’s gone.
The first videos of last Sunday's controversial meeting with Peter Welch have been put up on YouTube. Go below the jump for more…
The first three videos are up, they are videos of the three speakers that opened the meeting. The first is from Dottye Ricks of Military Families Speak Out. For me, her angry, moving speech was the high point of the meeting for me:
The next is from Judy Sargent of Marshfield:
Finally, Will Allen from Thetford, of Farms, Not Arms.
I am hoping that more videos will be posted shortly, in particular the confrontation with Welch. With all the various takes on what happened and who antagonized who, it is important that those who were not there will get to see and decide for themselves. Thank you to whoever posted these.
Visit VermontIRV at http://www.vermontir… for more on instant runoff voting. Vermont is a three party state. It's that simple. The Vermont Progressive Party is just as capable of seeing their candidates get elected or make solid showings as are the Democratic and Republican parties. The “spoiler” charge is not a legitimate argument against a strong non-Democratic/Republican challenge.
Because of this we are going to see more and more vote splitting and elections being won by candidates with far less than a majority vote. Vote splitting occurs when generally like minded candidates share a pool of voters who disagree on relatively few topics. The non-majority winner occurs when three or more strong candidates are on the ticket and there is no requirement to reach more than 50% of the vote to win.
We've seen what happens WITHOUT instant runoff voting in recent years in races that ended with non-majority winners for Governor , Lt. Governor and State Auditor.
We need instant runoff voting, and that's where you come in. Connected, Vermont (http://www.connected…)is currently working with an ad-hoc gathering that includes Common Cause, Fair Vote, League of Women Voters and others. We ALL want to see S.108 (a Vermont bill that will institute IRV for the federal House and Senate races) passed into law THIS YEAR.
In today's (11/16/07) Times Argus the ugly spoiler charge was leveled via a letter to the editor in what is surely just the beginning: “My heart sank when I saw that Anthony Pollina plans to run again for governor. With a great candidate like Peter Galbraith, the Democrats have a real chance of unseating Douglas and Pollina can do nothing but act as a spoiler. The few Progressives with whom I am still speaking seem to have a blind spot on this question and cannot believe that voting for Pollina is just a way that the self deluded vote Republican. If the Progressives want to do something really progressive they should back and vote for Peter Galbraith.”
I am not a member of the Progressive Party, but I take great umbrage at this “vote Democratic or you're voting Republican” stance.
Your letter to the editor is desperately needed! Letters to the editor are well read and very influential on your community. You can make a huge difference by writing a one, two, three or more paragraph letter. Using your own words you can tell your community how you feel about instant runoff voting and why. You can inform the folks around you that we already have S.108 passed by the Vermont Senate and waiting on passage by the House and Governor.
Do you have questions that will help you put a letter together? Great … reply to this post with your questions, comments or whatever. I'll be more than happy to either find you help or help you myself.
Loading ...