Did you catch Douglas's complaints about the Vermont Yankee audit panel? I did, and you just have to conclude that they don't have any sense of irony.

The background: the Legislature created a new panel to look at Vermont Yankee and its operations.

Douglas got to appoint somebody, Gaye Symington got to appoint somebody, and Peter Shumlin got to appoint somebody.

Gaye appointed Peter Bradford, who used to serve on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Peter appointed Arnie Gunderson, a nuclear engineer (they don't give out licenses to operate a nuclear power plant out in cereal boxes) who got a lot of exposure when this picture was taken.

Naturally, Douglas attacks these two appointees because they're enemies of nuclear power.  

“These appointees today clearly have a bias against nuclear power,” said Stephen Wark, director of consumer and public affairs at the Department of Public Service. “This is not a referendum on nuclear power.”

Oh, but wait a minute, who did Douglas appoint? This guy:

 Not a familiar face? That's Larry Hochreiter, a professor at Penn State since 1997. Apparently a pretty smart guy. He's got a Ph. D. in nuclear engineering, he's a member of the American Nuclear Society. He undoubtedly knows a lot, probably including how to pronounce “nuclear” which gives him an edge over Douglas's buddy in the White House.

But, and you'll like this, you know what he was doing from 1971, the year he got his Ph. D., until 1996?  According to his resume he was a:

Senior and Advisory Engineer, Westinghouse Energy Systems Business Unit

And what do they do?

Westinghouse Energy Systems helped pioneer the commercial nuclear power
business and today holds the premier position for nuclear fuel, services and    
technology in the $9 billion annual global market.

 I'm not saying Hochreiter will be anything but professional and unbiased in this work. 

What I am saying is that Douglas has to be kidding if he thinks he can appoint a guy to this study panel who worked for the nuclear industry for twenty-five years, and then get away with attacking people who have sometimes been critical of nuclear energy for being biased. 

I won’t belabor the point with a rambling post, but there is a point worth making. Yes, Obama’s comments suggesting he is laying the groundwork for re-considering his Iraq withdrawal policy have been overstated and overblown. That’s a given.

But the explosion is not simply a media fabrication. Not this time. It’s psychological cause and effect in action.

Obama has been vaulting to the right since sealing the nomination, and on high profile issues. Trade, civil liberties, the church/state divide. On guns and the death penalty, he was already there, but those two issues look less and less like anomalies. It’s left many of us feeling defensive, a bit burned, and pinned into a corner. Any statement he makes on Iraq, health care or tax policy is going to be littered with potential mines given the mood.

And that’s the problem. Obama’s campaign has pushed the mushy idea of “hope,” dealing in policy specifics only when it has to. And its worked pretty well. Certainly he’s got the youth vote motivated like never before, and its due to that message and the well-crafted image of the messenger himself.

But by flip-flopping on issues like FISA and running to the right on issues he was, perhaps, a bit deceptively fuzzy on during the campaign, he risks opening the floodgates on the thing his style of messaging cannot afford: cynicism.

Cynicism is, arguably, the single most powerful force in American Democracy, in that it squelches turnout at the polls right from the get-go. When cynicism is in play, it is a counter-force to change, as it enforces the status quo by generating non-participation and leaving those who do participate with wretchedly puny expectations of those who they have to choose from.

The youth vote may have come over to Obama’s camp, but based on the history of past campaigns, they are likely teetering on the brink. A couple more nudges, and they’re likely to go back to where they traditionally go on Election Day – anywhere but the polls.

And again, this isn’t about people being stupid. You can’t berate them into sucking it up and voting in a way that so cuts against their grain. People are individuals, but they also work as members of groups, and social psychology is every bit as powerful as the psychology of the individual. When we spend all our time ranting about how we think people should behave at the polls, instead of worrying about how they will behave (an upper-middle class liberal specialty), we’ve lost already.

If the tenuous hope Obama has built starts collapsing, giving way to renewed cynicism, it could build on itself and spread across his base like a tidal wave. The McCain campaign knows it, and they’re trying to feed it. The intensity of the conversation in recent days is not a sign of collusion between the GOP and the media, its a sign that cynicism is still viable among the electorate – even (especially?) in regards to Obama – and risks spreading uncontrollably.

If Obama’s political wind-testing and shifting are all about political pragmatism, it is likely that he’s working from a narrowcast, simplistic, insider-driven view of what is “pragmatic,” as its suicide for a campaign built on “hope” to so cavalierly court a resurgence of the very essence of political anti-hope.

but still say “No thanks”.

(The following is copied from Huffington Post. I couldn’t get through to Obama’s site to get an “original”.)

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn’t have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush’s abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration’s program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That’s why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I’ve said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation (PDF) uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I’m persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe — particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I’ve chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as president — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I’m happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples’ attention on the abuses of executive power in this administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true — not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I’m not exempt from that. I’m certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as president of the United States — a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples’ business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That’s ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.

I put the flag out on our house early this morning, the 4th ,Independence Day .It’s the entire country’s flag after all .

It’s an understatement that there is much the country needs to put right ,but what a teacher I had years ago used to say to us students is true of this country “You all have great potential if you use it “. Although I think she loved the sarcasm too.

It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory.

 

John Adams,1776

GMD has it on good authority that former Rutland and Brattleboro State Rep. Tom Costello is about to announce his candidacy for Lieutenant Governor.

Costello is an attorney who served four years in the House representing Rutland in the late 1970's, and another six years representing Brattleboro in the late 1990's, chairing the Judiciary and General Affairs committees, but he's been out of elected politics since 2000.

Known for his strong personality, Costello promises to be a strong candidate, although the fact that he's been out of politics for so long, and that he's from Brattleboro, would suggest that he's got some work to do to raise his profile.

We don't have a confirmation from the candidate, but we'll be keeping our eyes open. If true, this would mean that we've gone from zero candidates to a pair, giving us a primary for Lt. Gov.

(I was just about to post about this.   – promoted by JulieWaters)

Douglas pied at the Montpelier July 4th parade (by, of all people, Santa Claus)!

…. I’ll hopefully have some pics by tomorrow for y’all.

Snippets from the

Times-Argus article:

Douglas was not injured in the incident and eyewitnesses said the pie appeared to be whipped cream only.

“He was unfazed” by the pie, (Douglas’ campaign manager) said. “He wiped off his face and kept marching.”

This is not the first time a Vermont politician has been attacked by pie-thrower.

During the 2006 campaign for U.S. Senate, Rich Tarrant was also hit with a pie while he marched in the Montpelier Fourth of July parade. It does not appear there were charges filed in that case, and the pie tosser was not identified.

In recent years, politicians, columnists and celebrities whose positions have come under scrutiny have been the targets of pie-throwers, including Microsoft’s Bill Gates, and New York Times writers Thomas Friedman, Ann Coulter, among others.

The high-profile prank is seen by some as a symbolic political statement.