[Cross posted at Broadsides.org]

Well, imitating Bernie, that is. On the oil issue.

I’m speaking, or course, about Congressman Peter Welch’s “telephone town meeting” last night on the oil crisis; a phone version of what Senator Bernie Sanders did a few months back on the Internet. The political formula for these little stunts is to give the people – you know, those non-millionaires amongst us – a chance to spill forth with our pain regarding the absurdly high price of oil. And then our elected millionaires can put on their best face of concern and voice of empathy and proceed to get gobs of headlines regarding their willingness to hear our stories.

But wait, there seems to be something missing here. Oh yeah, the action, as in: These people of wealth, power and high-elected office that seem so interested in our sob stories actually doing something about the oil crisis.  There’s apparently no career safety in actually addressing these issues (it gets in the way of contributions and makes enemies amongst their ruling friends). But listening? That’s where it’s at, career wise.

And it’s all our fault, too. Because if we really wanted our elected officials to really care about us and address the issues that are putting a fatal pinch in our lives and livelihoods, we’d stop sending millionaires to represent us. I mean, come on, do you really think Peter-the-multi-millionaire can really feel our pain at the pump? Or even Bernie, for that matter, the man who has become one of the nation’s richest 5% during all that time he’s spent railing against them. I guess he’d call that his own brand of successful socialism – take from the government and give to himself.

The Vermont media buys these little political gimmicks like a giddy kid in a candy store. Take, for example, Josh O’Gorman of the Rutland Herald, who opened his fawning piece about Welch’s telephone conference call with a syrupy line about how the event joined “emerging technology with direct democracy.” Oh, come on – it was a friggin telephone conference call with our representative. Sorry, but I remember doing telephone conference calls 15 years ago.

And what’s this nonsense about “direct democracy”? Again, it was a conference call, whereby the people got to cry and Welch got to put on his most sincere sounding voice before returning to one of his dwellings and – I assure you – not having a nanosecond’s worth of anxiety about his energy bills. Remember, this is the guy who sends monthly checks to some hucksters who’ve convinced him that paying them will relieve him of his carbon guilt. Brilliant.

But if a telephone conference call can now be considered “direct democracy,” I would suggest that we’re in a lot more trouble than I thought. Or, should I say, enough trouble that the issue at hand – the oil crisis – doesn’t have an ice cube’s chance in hell of being solved. Besides, I always thought “direct democracy” had something to do with moving forward with decisions. You know, things like voting or taking other kinds of action. Yes, action, as opposed to mere listening and presenting crocodile tears.

Moreover, not one of the Vermont media’s lapdog-like pieces on Welch’s phone call with the masses dared to look back at the pieces they wrote last month on the congressman’s legislation regarding the oil crisis. The pieces wouldn’t have been hard to find. They were published across the front pages with headlines like “Welch Passes Bill That Provides Oil Price Relief.” Oh yeah? Well, way back then – in May! – Welch’s little gimmick to stop oil shipments to the national petroleum reserve was said by the congressman himself (and repeated by the cheerleading press) to lead to “immediate relief” at the pump. But everyone outside of the congressional and mainstream media clubs laughed at the proclamations – privately, of course, because no one called us for a comment.

And how did that “immediate relief” work out? The price of gas has risen by more than 20 cents a gallon since Welch’s bill was signed by President Bush. But you won’t read about this fact in Vermont’s mainstream media – they’re too busy touting Welch’s next gimmick.

The truth is, Welch, Sanders, Leahy and the Democrats have had two years of congressional control and they have done little but offer to “hear our pain” and do nothing about it. They heard us on our demands to stop the war. And they voted repeatedly to keep funding it. They heard our demands to bring the Bush regime to justice. And they served up worthless (and ignored!) subpoenas. They heard our demands for health care relief. And they did nothing. They heard our cries for energy solutions. And they asked us to put it in writing or participate in silly telephone conference calls.

Worse, with each of their failures, they blamed the big, bad boogeyman, President Bush. But when we offered the solution of impeachment, they said it would be a distraction. From what? Please, tell me what this Congress has done since they dispatched with the “distraction” of impeachment?

Enough already.

I was kind of surprised to see Virginia Senator Jim Webb at the top of the GMD Veepstakes poll. True, he definitely has some attractive qualities as a potential candidate, some of his economic policies are truly populist, and him being on the ticket would most certainly fill in some of the support gaps where Obama is lacking. But Webb is no progressive, and he's got some views that might (and should) present a problem for women and persons of color. Jack has briefly touched upon this in a post below, but there's a bit more to this story. Go below the jump for more.

Webb is undoubtedly a better Senator than his predecessor, George “Macaca” Allen. And there'd be a certain amount of schadenfreude in Webb making it into the Veep slot, as Allen had presidential aspirations until his not-so-covert racism did him in. But I think there's a just a bit too much “good-ol'-boy” in Webb for him to get the gig, considering that a huge part of our country's problems lie in that attitude being prevalent for so long. Now, this has been discussed before, but Webb's a pretty “traditional” guy when it comes to gender-related issues. Granted, one can hope that with age, he's come around, but there's a lot to be gathered from his 1979 article in the Washingtonian, called “Why Women Can't Fight”:

Lest I be understood too quickly, I should say that I believe most of what has happened over the past decade in the name of sexual equality has been good. It is good to see women doctors and lawyers and executives. I can visualize a woman President. If I were British, I would have supported Margaret Thatcher. But no benefit to anyone can come from women serving in combat.

The function of combat is not merely to perpetrate violence, but to perpetrate violence on command, instantaneously and reflexively.The function of the service academies is to prepare men for leadership positions where they may someday exercise that command. All of the other accomplishments that Naval Academy or West Point or Air Force Academy graduates may claim in government or business or diplomacy are incidental to that clearly defined combat mission.

[snip] 

Nowhere is this more of a problem than in the area of women's political issues. Equal-opportunity specialists, women's rights advocates, and certain members of Congress have prided themselves on the areas of the military they have “opened up” to women. The Carter administration has come out in favor of “allowing” women to go into combat. These advocates march under the banner of equal opportunity.

Equal opportunity for what? They should first understand that they would not be “opening up” the combat arms for those few women who might now want to serve in them, but rather would be forcing American womanhood into those areas, en masse, should a future mobilization occur.

Now, personally, I'd like to see less men and women in combat, period. And undoubtedly, Webb is a creation of the military, male-centric culture, his views are hardly unique, and he has said that his views on that have changed.That's not justifying them. But I can hardly see how this will help him, especially as the party is working to pull disgruntled Hillary supporters back into the fold, in particular the ones who feel she was “robbed” of the nomination. The last thing needed right now is a man on the ticket who has more or less told women to “be in their place”, so to speak. And not just strategically… I don't think we need someone who harbors (or has harbored) that attidude in the #2 spot, becuse it's simply wrong.

Now, the Confederacy, and more specifically, how one interprets the aims, essence, and spirit of the Confederacy, has become a much more sensitive topic in recent years, and rightly so (heck, just look at what we've been talking about on GMD about the VT Neo-Confederates in our midst, lately). Often, when symbols of the Confederacy are under attack, or that notion that the “state's right” that it was all about was primarily the “right” to have slaves, the apologists can often try to paint it in the color of “preserving Southern pride and heritage”. Webb has written about the Confederacy over his career, and David Mark at the Politico has just done a piece regarding Webb's views on that subject, and how it may be a problem for him:

He has suggested many times that while the Confederacy is a symbol to many of the racist legacy of slavery and segregation, for others it simply reflects Southern pride. In a June 1990 speech in front of the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, posted on his personal website, he lauded the rebels’ “gallantry,” which he said “is still misunderstood by most Americans.”

Webb, a descendant of Confederate officers, also voiced sympathy for the notion of state sovereignty as it was understood in the early 1860s, and seemed to suggest that states were justified in trying to secede.

“Most Southern soldiers viewed the driving issue to be sovereignty rather than slavery,” he said. “Love of the Union was palpably stronger in the South than in the North before the war — just as overt patriotism is today — but it was tempered by a strong belief that state sovereignty existed prior to the Constitution and that it had never been surrendered.”

Now, I can't profess to know what is in Jim Webb's heart, but that his statements don't exactly make this Yankee feel all tingly inside. Now, those of you who were paying close attention to the Second VT Republic controversy (or if you pay attention to hate groups in general) may be familiar with the name of Edward H. Sebesta, author of the Anti-NeoConfederate Blog. Sebesta was interviewed for the article, and found Webb's statements troubling:

Edward H. Sebesta, co-author of the forthcoming “Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction” (University of Texas Press), said Webb’s views express an unhealthy regard for a political system that propped up and defended slavery.

His book, in fact, will cite Webb as an example of the mainstreaming of neo-Confederacy ideas into politics…“I don’t think people have thought through the implications of how his ideas have racial overtones, even if they are inadvertent,” Sebesta said.

Let me emphasize here, it's not just about “how it's percieved”. Political junkies know all too well how the perception game, when played sucessfully, can mask a less-than-well-intentioned agenda. Now, I'm not saying Webb is a racist or anything along those lines. I don't think he'd be a good choice in the end, not just because of the perception issue, moreso that I believe Webb, populism aside, is a bit too traditional in  attitudes that American needs to be changing, and would not sit well with Obama's “change” mantra, for better or worse. We don't need more good 'ol boys at the top of the ladder.

I suppose the last thing you want me to write about is another impeachment diary, right? Well this one merits special attention.

Dennis Kucinich is forcing a vote today on articles of impeachment.

Call Nancy Pelosi at (202) 225-0100

Peter Welch at (202) 225-4115

Go to C-SPAN.org for live coverage of and give us some updates. Let us know how the calls go or if you hear any new information.

It may have no shot but it’s nice to see it in the limelight again.

SPREAD THE WORD!

BTW, here’s my latest on Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christian-avard/impeachment-the-election_b_106401.htm

So, Symington did say she was running for Governor – right??

I dunno. At the Curtis Awards, where Madeleine Kunin basically announced Symington’s campaign for her, Kunin mocked those who were complaining that Symington was entering the race on the late side. She naturally got many cheers within the Democratic-bubble of a room.

But bubble it was, and in terms of campaigning, its a bubble Symington hasn’t yet shown much interest in leaving. Building a statewide campaign means building a functional, hyper-active, statewide nonprofit instantly – and with a built in, non-negotiable mission benchmark in November. It’s a big undertaking that takes time. And it takes lots of money. And raising money takes time. When Kunin mocked those that were saying “hurry up” to Symington and the Democratic Party, she was really mocking the realities of the space-time continuum. To great applause, no less. But that has always been the Democrats (and Progressives, for that matter) greatest problem; the unshakable certainty that they have it all figured out, and all the tsk-tsking is just coming from naive people who aren’t as in the know.

Well, here’s a bubble-popper: It’s only 4 months and 23 days until the election.

Symington has been an unmatched talent for building up the House Democratic caucus with relentless campaigns of small scale, neighborhood-esque “house party” events that focus on the personal scale with committed Dems and bring others in. It’s a terrific strategy, and one that could translate terrifically into a grassroots oriented, statewide campaign…

…if this were a year ago.

But its way too late for that. With this little time left, this is an earned/paid media campaign, whether she likes it or not, and first and foremost, the media needs to see that you’re serious. A “Symington for Governor” race car does not show anyone in the media (or the public) that you’re serious. That you’re capable of winning, or that parting with some of their hard-earned money in an economic meltdown is anything more than flushing it down a black hole. And yet the Symington for Governor website shouldn’t even count as a website. Even Douglas’s, which hasn’t been updated for a month has more going on.  Contrasted with the fantastic Pollina website, its disgraceful.

A Google news search of the last month turns up 318 hits for the search parameters “Jim Douglas” and “Vermont.” For “Gaye Symington” and “Vermont” I get 94. Sure, you can blame the power of incumbency – but in a google search like that, its not just the quantity… its the particulars. I see Symington hitting the Governor on the cleanup of Lake Champlain, but little else. And Douglas has since responded overwhelmingly to Symington’s response, and has been seemingly left with the last word, for now. Windfall profits tax for oil companies? The coverage is all Douglas and Bernie (of all people). Groundwater? Douglas. Yankee inspection bill? Douglas. Hemp, for Christ’s sake? Douglas.

If there are press releases that are countering this Douglas messaging, I sure aint seeing ’em.

At this late stage, if the Symington message machine can’t find a way to generate content on every issue with Douglas’s name on it that gets front page treatment, and not leverage media relationships to be sure her name gets included (and, for that matter, start taking more direct ownership of some of those headlines herself), she’d better get on it quickly.

If Symington is to have any hope at all, there is one thing that she has to have in play: rapid response. She needs to respond quickly to everything, and in such a way that puts Douglas on the defensive. There has rarely been a moment during her Speakership where Symington was not on the defensive, and it will work even less well in this setting. Stop worrying about “fun.” Scudder Parker’s bicycle powered campaign float was “fun.” Wanna know how many votes it got him?

Zero.

And if we’re really into tracking these things, I bet it wouldn’t be too hard to turn up some votes that it cost him.

Democrats have traditionally been god-awful at rapid response in this state. Why? Because we’re such experts. We understand messaging so well, we get that communication is a precious commodity. We ration out our bits to the press only under much careful consideration, refinement, meetings, emails and hyper-message targeting – and pat ourselves on the back for our skills.

And then we lose and wonder why.

The Sanders campaign virtually invented rapid response in Vermont, but the Dems never figured out its power until the Welch campaign, which reaped huge dividends in the media from running a professional, high-speed response operation.

Here’s a hint: quality is important, but is no less important than quantity. In fact, I think its less so. Better to look like youre doing too much to the media than too little, because once those reporters decide you’re not doing anything, you’re done for.

It’s only 4 months and 23 days until the election., folks. 4 months and 23 days.. There’s no explaining, processing, outsmarting or snarking that deadline away.

Cross posted from Rational Resistance:

I've been saying and writing that Jim Webb seems like the logical choice for Obama's Vice Presidential candidate. He has a military background, he's from the South, he even served in Reagan's cabinet. On the face of it he would seem to bring a lot to the ticket.

Well, maybe not so fast. Tim Noah has a piece in Slate today arguing that Webb would be a terrible choice for the job. He starts out with the fact that his prior sexist writings would likely alienate Clinton's supporters, even though he no longer supports the views he expressed, and goes on from there.

I encourage you to read it.

( – promoted by odum)

A surprise article in the Lobbying section of The Politico says elements of Vermont health care plan are being studied. Historic background of the ups and downs of the various efforts are given. I hope they pick the parts that work.

Wondering what health care might look like in an Obama administration?

Check out Vermont.

Two years ago, the Vermont Legislature approved an initiative moving the state closer to universal health care coverage. The scope of the plan, hampered by a recent Bush administration funding flip-flop, bears some similarity to Barack Obama’s health care proposal: no mandates, income-related subsidies, and savings through expanded prevention and wellness programs.

….The health care overhaul passed in May 2006 with the votes of all the Senate Democrats and five of the nine Republicans.

Not everyone was happy with the plan. The state Chamber of Commerce objected to the tax increases. And progressive groups didn’t like that the plan relied upon private insurance programs, rather than setting up a single-payer system.

…But today, even the strongest advocates are frustrated with how their plan has been implemented. So far, only about 5,000 people have enrolled in Catamount, far fewer than the 25,000 eligible for the program. Advocates blame the low enrollment on the bad economy.

http://www.politico.com/news/s…