From today’s Inside Track column by Peter Freyne (emphasis added):

The Future Governor? – Looking to the future this fine wintry afternoon in Vermont, we see the rising gubernatorial candidacy of the man who looks to have the best shot against Jim Douglas next November – Progressive Anthony Pollina.

According to reliable sources, Pollina for Governor campaign operatives have begun taking steps to recruit paid campaign staff and seek office space. Should become visible soon.

Sources say Pollina has been getting good results with his fundraising efforts and encountering plenty of enthusiasm and encouragement.

The recent floating of former Democratic Lt. Gov. Doug Racine’s name was less than a genuine trial balloon. Doug is not interested. Trust me.

Let’s be clear what Freyne is telling people they should trust; his keen political insights and journalistic instincts. That’s it.

Because if he had, you know, actually spoken to Racine, he would’ve heard a different story.

I have. At length. On multiple occasions, and as recently as three days ago. So have many others, including some people of financial and institutional significance within the Vermont left. The kind of people a pol like Racine wouldn’t jerk around.

Trust Doug – he’s interested.

Which begs the question as to why Freyne would put this out there without talking to Racine (or worse – perhaps he has talked with him and is simply dismissing what he was told – ouch) and getting the story straight.

I suspect the answer is in the first part of the excerpt. Freyne has decided that Pollina is the narrative this election. Whether he’s become enraptured with Pollina the way he so famously is with Bernie, or whether it fits into his “Vermont Dems are stupid” theme of late, it’s hard to say. In any event, it’s clear that actual Racine interest in the race would simply make for an inconvenient truth to this narrative.

The problem is, of course, that Freyne is the type of journalist/columnist that doesn’t simply report the news, he makes it, and in putting this out there, he has indeed made a big effect. In dramatically understating Racine’s engagement (and, you gotta then wonder, dramatically overstating Pollina’s (see below)?), he’s put Doug in a tough spot. Whereas before, he realistically had most of January in which to make his decision, Freyne’s “trust me” dismissal of his interest means he has to make his decision much sooner, or more people will simply write him off, preferring to “trust” Freyne’s sage wisdom. They’ll just move on.

(UPDATE 1: Well, well, well… Pollina’s off and running, it seems, although still not officially, apparently. That timing’s a bit too coincidental. Between the Pollina for Governor ad and Freyne’s timely assistance undercutting Racine, Team Pollina is likely trying to “shock and awe” him out of the race. Playing chicken, after a fashion. It’s a good strategy and may very well work.

Sigh. I was starting to imagine, you know, actually winning this time. Silly me.)

(UPDATE 2: I am reminded that this is not the first time Mr. Freyne has played a bit, ah – loose with the corroboration when it comes to promoting Mr. Pollina’s candidacy…)

(UPDATE 3: Holy crap! Now I’m told that this from a mid-November Inside Track (focused again on Pollina):

… was also “reported” without actually checking with Galbraith, who – I’m told from someone at the Democratic Party who spoke with him shortly afterwards – had not ruled it out at all. WTF?!?! I’ll try to corroborate with Galbraith today or tomorrow.)

We can all be glad that Chris Dodd had the courage to stand up to the President, the rest of the Senate, and his own majority leader to block the retroactive amnesty of the new FISA legislation. Here's a post that goes into detail about how it happened, and what it means for our political work.

                                                   

by Dan DeWalt

John Nirenberg, www.marchinmyname.org is walking from Boston to Nancy Pelosi’s Washington D.C. office, gathering support from Americans along the way to tell her to put impeachment back on the table.

I had the pleasure of joining him on December 15, in Westport and Norwalk Connecticut where, along with covering a few miles of Route 1, we joined vigils in each town. Westport has a long tradition of citizens holding vigils on the route’s bridge over the Saugatuck River. With a few notable exceptions, most of the folks braving the wind and cold that day were senior citizens, many having obvious difficulty navigating the uneven surface of frozen snow that covered the bridge’s sidewalks. Some of the women there were the very same who had laid down in their fur coats to shut down that bridge back in 1971, in reaction to Nixon’s mining of North Vietnam’s harbors. How many wearers of fur today would be willing to lie down in the street for a principle, bringing business as usual to a screeching halt?

Lately, the typical turnout for a Saturday has been hovering at around ten. Because some local folks had spread the word, and the local newspapers had given John’s march some coverage, the turnout on the 15th was closer to 50.  People were glad to hear about his march and inspired by his dedication and clarity of purpose.

All along the route folks who have been moved to join him, briefly giving themselves a chance to act, have greeted John. Large events are spontaneously springing up in his path. On Wednesday, December 19th, from 4:30-6:30, John will be joined by Elizabeth Holtzman and Clarice Torrence at St. Mark’s church in NYC. Scores of volunteers have been spreading the word, trying to reach activists, everyday citizens and media outlets. These efforts are just as important as the support being offered along the road itself.

Time and time again news editors and producers have told us that impeachment is a dead issue and a non-story. In fact, when we try to make the case that the American peoples’ call for impeachment is growing ever louder in spite of being out of range of the media radar screen, we are told that we are self-centered and even “nasty” for having the temerity to not meekly disappear when ignored. They are not willing to acknowledge the power that their news coverage has to manipulate public opinion.

By consistently ignoring or downplaying the peace movement and marches, the Iraq veterans who are speaking out against the war, the true cost and casualties of the war, and grass roots movements like those that have been keeping the call for impeachment very much alive and growing, mainstream media (including NPR) has helped convince a majority of Americans that it is no longer worth their time or effort to even cast a vote at the ballot box.

This of course is right where they want us, safely removed from the equation that leads to prosperity for the very few who now hold the power. And while an extra forty or so protesters on a bridge in Westport CT do not pose a threat to this status quo, hundreds and thousands of citizens joining John along his route would begin to send a different message.

Let’s swell the numbers of those who are reaching out to local and national media outlets of all kinds, demanding that they start covering the stories that represent what the people of this nation are about, the stories that represent what this nation could become with an informed and demanding populace, stories like John’s that not only tell about an American of conscience, but about a Constitution in crisis as well.

Congress has been bought and is almost hopelessly controlled by corporate interests. Media companies also have been largely brought under corporate control. But there are many journalists who operate within this dreary atmosphere who still have an interest in telling compelling stories. But they rarely stick their necks out to report on stories that have been deemed “dead” (like impeachment) unless there is a repeated drumbeat of requests and reminders coming their way from many different sources.

This is what we need to do as citizens, and we need to do it now. Just days ago, three members of the House Judiciary Committee wrote an op-ed explaining why Cheney impeachment hearings should be started at once in the House. It is a clear and unequivocal document. It also has the distinction of not being able to find a significant American newspaper willing to publish it. Congressman Wexler had to publish it on his impeachment website. The government does not need to enact censorship when the media does it for them without prompting. We citizens must take it upon ourselves to harangue, browbeat and boycott the advertisers of media outlets that follow only the conventional wisdom of what constitutes news.

We need to force the media to report on the stories that reflect the rest of us, the vast majority of this country that have been left out of the decision making, and who do not endorse the current policies of criminal war, corporate power and a runaway executive branch of government. For when we start to hear about all the others like John Nirenberg, who are working for change and saying no to the corrupt system that is strangling our society, we start to believe again that there could be hope for America. We need to raise the stakes for ourselves and move from the passive vigil on the sidelines to being an active participant in the trenches. And the trenches have to range beyond the landscape of the Internet. We all need to invest time and effort in the tangible world of newspapers, television, radio, and human interaction in the streets and town halls in order to bring people back to the commonweal that they have abandoned out of lassisitude and despair. The majority of Americans are not with the Republicans or the Democrats. The majority has decided that voting is a farce and they won’t participate. We need to give them something to believe in again. And that does not come in the shape of a new politician to lead us out of the night. We need to believe in ourselves once again. To believe and understand that like John Nirenberg, we can make a difference simply by deciding to act.

P.S. I think that Vermont progressive Dems and others should pat themselves on the back for helping our D.C. delegation to finally say no to Iraq war funding. Let’s keep the pressure on.

While the mystery of where Bernie and Leahy were on the Dodd FISA filibuster remains (JD has the list of Senators who came through that we should be sending our emails of gratitude to), what’s not a mystery is where our Senators stand on funding the War in Iraq without a timetable for withdrawal.

Bernie:

“This bill contains $40 billion for Iraq operations with no strings attached to be used as President Bush wishes with no accountability for when our involvement in Iraq will end.  With expenditures of $12 billion a month, it is now estimated that the total cost of our Iraq involvement will end up being more than $1 trillion. I cannot support providing more money for continuing our ill-conceived and tragic presence in Iraq with no requirement for when our redeployment will begin, when it will be concluded, and what our future course in Iraq will be.  This war has been a disaster from day one.  It is time to bring our troops home.”

Leahy:

We’ve been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II.  It’s time to bring our brave men and women home and let them be with their families.

Together with Welch, I imagine Vermont is the only state in the nation with a Washington delegation united on the right side of this issue. That’s something to be proud of. This war would end if enough of our Senators and Representatives voted the way our folks did.