No, they won’t. And the reason is simple: as demonstrated by decades of approval and cowardly acquiescence, the Democratic politicians in general approve of this.

We can be shot and killed, tortured with tasers, and beat for no reason … and the Dems will gather in corporate infested Pepsi Center (see here) to tell us how much hope we should have for change.

Myopic merriment … yeah … that describes it. Self indulgent, self (undeserved) congratulatory, and self delusional.

Real change comes from actions, and words based upon nothing mean nothing. To date the Democratic Party politicians have demonstrated they love big corporations and big corporate power (go Joe Biden), they love big military and big military spending (Obama’s own plan here), and while the claims are made to protect voters and voters’ rights past votes have put that to a lie.

So while the Colorado cops brutalize women dressed in pink and peaceful demonstrators and arrest them “before they could break any laws” (Protesters challenge Monday arrest by police in Denver, Denver Post story reprinted in Times Argus but not on web site, 08/27/08), Democrats will enjoy their corporate welfare inside the comfy environs of unreality.

To paraphrase dumbya Bush, “Nope, no change we can believe in under here.”

A few things I noticed reading today’s news:

I’m not linking to this one because it’s an AP piece, but apparently Pollina is in talks with one of his donors who happens to be a lawyer who wants to sue in federal court to overturn the campaign finance law.

Brattleboro suffered major flooding today:

There are two water mains on this stretch of Putney Road, one on either side. On the west side, the main dates from the 1940s, and is made of asbestos lined with cement. On the east side, installed in the late 1960s, is a pipe made of cast iron.

In other antiquated utility news, Vermont Yankee was evacuated Tuesday.  Per the Reformer:

At approximately 11:09 a.m. Tuesday, plant operators received a reactor building high radiation alarm, he said. At the same time, operators received a report that a technician had “misoperated” a valve in the reactor coolant water clean-up system, said Sheehan.

“They determined the radiation levels were consistent with those expected for a clean-up filter resin intrusion event,” he said.

Radiation levels were higher than normal for about 10 minutes before the began to trend downward, said Sheehan.

“The reactor building was evacuated until the radiation protection personnel could survey the building and release it for unrestricted use.”

According to Rob Williams, “We are looking into where and how the error was made.”  

Well that’s comforting.

Oh, and I hear Leahy gave some kind of speech yesterday:

( – promoted by odum)

Good catch by jvwalt regarding the slurs against Representative Floyd Nease and Democrats in general in yesterday's Rutland Herald.

The anti-Democratic policy slurs appeared in the Herald’s article about Governor Douglas’ latest anti-working family policy decision. In a nutshell, the Governor is hopelessly committed to keep spending taxpayer money on political/public relations staff while simultaneously cutting badly needed funds to support child safety/daycare help for working Vermonters balancing the burdens of family responsibility and working long hours during a Republican recession. See article. 

The Rutland Herald refers dismissively to Representative Floyd Nease, the Ass’t House Majority Leader, and other “Democrat lawmakers.”  Hmmmm?

Admittedly, this notoriously focus-group tested and Republican marketed type derision, when just a one-off thing, can sometimes be an innocent typo. If the person does it repeatedly, it is hard to see it as anything but a slur.

The Herald article goes pretty far into the muck . . . (more below)

UPDATE:  Rama emailed Peter Hirschfeld regarding his choice of words.  Mr. Hirschfeld tells Rama that:

I had no idea dropping the adjectival suffix was such a faux pas. I'm just a terrible grammarian who thought that if Republicans form the Republican Party, and Progressives form the Progressive Party, then Democrats form the Democrat Party. Kindergarten stuff, I know. It's embarrassing. In any event, my apologies for any perceived slight. I certainly didn't intend to “slur” the Party.

Fair enough & thank you Rama.

Hendrik Hertzberg explained the reasoning behind Republican-American's strategy of demonizing Democrats by their strategy of substituting the noun for the adjectival (Democratic) when refering to a person's or a policy's party affiliation:

    There is no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. “Democrat Party” is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but “Democrat Party” is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams “rat.” At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation. During the Cold War, many people bridled at obvious misnomers like “German Democratic Republic,” and perhaps there are some members of the Republican Party (which, come to think of it, has been drifting toward monarchism of late) who genuinely regard the Democratic Party as undemocratic. . . .  And no doubt there are plenty of others who say “Democrat Party” just to needle the other side while signaling solidarity with their own—the partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign.

    * * *

    In the conservative media, the phenomenon feeds more voraciously the closer you get to the mucky, sludgy bottom. “Democrat Party” is standard jargon on right-wing talk radio and common on winger Web sites like NewsMax*com, . . . William F. Buckley, Jr., the Miss Manners cum Dr. Johnson of modern conservatism, dealt with the question in a 2000 column in National Review, the magazine he had founded forty-five years before. “I have an aversion to ‘Democrat’ as an adjective,” Buckley began. . .

     . . . among those of the Republican persuasion “Democrat Party” is now nearly universal. This is partly the work of Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz, the Johnny Appleseed of such linguistic innovations as “death tax” for estate tax and “personal accounts” for Social Security privatization. Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party. “Those two letters actually do matter,”  

The first time I see someone write this, it is not necessarily a slur unless the context makes it obviously so. Rather, it is a signal to keep an eye on the reporter/commenter etc. to see whether they are being objective or subversive.

In this particular case, the Herald reporter threw down the sign three times in the article.

This is the effect of “nouning” (if I may take verb privileges) an adjective

This is what the article says:

Efforts to trim $32 million from the state budget turned political Monday when a prominent Democrat lawmaker criticized Gov. James Douglas

AND

The public-relations positions funded via the executive branch budget have come under fire perennially from Democrat lawmakers.

AND Finally

“. . . the administration had already agreed to chop $500,000 in non-union salaries over fiscal years 2008 and 2009, largely in response to Democrat criticism over the number of public relations employees appointed by Douglas . . .”

Rather than use an adjective to describe the type of “criticism” (Democratic criticism) the type of “fire” (Democratic fire) or type of “lawmaker” (Democratic lawmaker), the article uses, one can only surmise deliberately based on the repeated hits, a dismissive slur against Rep. Nease.

At the same time, the Herald gives the Governor’s staff a free shot at Democratic motives for Nease's advocacy of placing a policy priority on maintaining what mild assistance to working families the State already has.  The forum the Herald gives for the Douglas administration to take shots at  Rep. Nease also come at the expense of – and as a substitute for – any visible attempt by the Herald to make the administration justify its spending priorities.  Nice.

Here is another offensive and even more glaring example of a particular noun/adjective slur I’ve heard far too often. It is grossly bigoted as well. Take the following nouns (Democrat, Jew) and the following adjectives (Democratic, Jewish). Now, read the Herald’s dismissive sentences again (substituting a noun for the appropraite adjective) and see how this sounds:

Example 1:

Efforts to trim $32 million from the state budget turned political Monday when a prominent Jew lawmaker criticized Gov. James Douglas

AND

The public-relations positions funded via the executive branch budget have come under fire perennially from Jew lawmakers.

AND Finally

“. . . the administration had already agreed to chop $500,000 in non-union salaries over fiscal years 2008 and 2009, largely in response to Jew criticism over the number of public relations employees appointed by Douglas . . .”

Instead of, for example, “Jewish lawmaker” or “Democratic lawmaker,” the Rutland Herald gives us “[noun: Democrat, noun: Jew] lawmaker,” which reads just like the slur it is intended to be.  

The legacy media have tacked pretty far to the right for well past a generation now. The faux balancing in political reporting is particularly glaring when the “expression of contempt” is so, literally, black and white.

When I first heard the Obama slogan – “Change we can believe in” – I thought – Doesn’t that just hit the nail on the head! I want to yell out “I believe” every time I hear it.

Back in 2004, when I had the incredible pleasure of meeting Barack Obama several times at the convention in Boston and heard him speak a few times, I dared to hope that he might be our 2008 nominee.

(four years later, after the jump)

Considering he had yet to be elected to the U.S. Senate at the time, it was a wild wish. But when someone touches your soul the way Obama does, you dare to dream, you dare to hope.

Today is my third day in Denver, and I truly feel as though this Vermont delegation is participating in something so much larger than ourselves. I am sure the Obama campaign will go down in history as the time we started to take our country back. I have talked with labor leaders, environmentalists, teachers, health care workers and people of many more backgrounds. The sense of hope is everywhere.

People are talking in terms of “when” not “if.” Optimism is creeping back into our lives. People are finally able to sense the end of this nightmare called the Bush administration. I can’t wait to hear Obama accept the nomination on Thursday. I can’t wait to see him sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009.

During this exciting time, I will continue to restrain the urge to stand up and yell out “I believe”, but if I did here in Denver, everyone around me would probably just join in.

[GMD NOTE: Mary Sullivan, one of Vermont’s alternate Obama delegates to the Democratic Convention, is a former member of the Vermont House of Representatives. In the State House, she served as Chairperson of the Natural Resources Committee. In addition to chairing Natural Resources during the Dean years, she was a delegate to the Democratic Convention in 2004 pledged to Governor Dean. This is her first post on GMD and we hope she will send us more! — promoted by Caoimhin]

With apologies to Hillary Clinton on this night of unity.

Today was an interesting day. I wanted to get away from all the pandering pols, fatcats and speeches and check out Civic Center Park, where there was quite a bit of stuff going on from Recreate 68 as well as some other groups. I also toured the Colorado statehouse, which is like the Vermont Statehouse on steroids.

The protest scene in the park was quite diverse, with many groups: Code Pink, 9-11 Truth, No War in Iran, and many others. Public Enemy was rumored to give a free show that day, but unfortunately, it didn’t happen.  Tensions got heated every now and then but there wasn’t any violence on the part of the cops or the protesters.

There was one demonstration that got a bit violent yesterday. The Denver Daily News has the scoop on that here.

I put together a slideshow for you all here. Be sure to view in fullscreen and turn on the info, too.

UPDATE: For my 10 minute video recap, as well as my taco experience that would be a vegetarian’s worst nightmare, pop over to Five Before Chaos.

Per the Kids are Priority One Coalition:

The projected revenue for the rest of the state’s 2009 fiscal year (which just began July 2008) is lower than the estimates used when the legislature approved the state budget in May. Experts project a $24 million shortfall in the General Fund. As a result, some changes need to be made in order to prevent deficit spending. Neither the Douglas administration nor the legislators will consider additional revenue-raising measures or using rainy day funds (funds set aside for a specific purpose) until later in the fiscal year. Instead, the Governor has proposed cuts in General Fund spending–recommended without the benefit of public input.

This is a rerun of what we saw a few months ago.  We’ve blogged about this extensively, so I’ll just recap:  the plan is not to cut such expenses as Douglas administration spokespersons.  It’s to cut human services.  

Again.

So let me make this simple: there is no legitimate need for Jim Douglas to have multiple spokespeople.  Those are well-paid positions which provide no public service, but do help the governor self-promote.

Another thing we do not need is to move money from the Catamount fund to mitigate cuts in the early childhood education budget.  

These budget proposals screw the poor for the sake of the convenience of the Douglas administration.  This is pathetic.  It is amoral.  

It is horrendous.

One of Odum's videos describes the subject of condom distribution, and of course it deserves some kind of response, both fun and critical.

On the fun side, I'd like to go back to my earlier comment that Republican's long-term political strategy seems to be to make more babies than Democrats and then teach their kids their despicable ways.  Political Darwinism at it's finest.  Democrats and liberals need to counter this with one of two tactics.  First, we can match baby for baby in the same way the US and Soviet Union matched nuclear warhead for nuclear warhead.  Second, we can surround the Republican convention as well as other national, state, and local events with a ring of condom distributors.

On the critical side, too many of these videos are bringing little information about the convention itself and too much Vermont-focused or self-focused gossip.  

Hey, it's cool.  But show us something we can't see at home.  Interviews with Leahy, Kunin or one's own self are fun and all, but it can also come off as pictures from the family vacation.

That being said, it also looks like some organizers or Dem hierarchy folk may be limiting what you can actually point your cameras at.  It seems a bit ironic given the veneer of openness.  Although a well-intentioned video might become campaign fodder for McCain et all.

Keep up the good work, crew.

Nate

It was a full house at the breakfast hosted by Senator Leahy’s Green Mountain PAC this morning. One person I caught up with was former Governor Kunin who has been blogging herself during the convention at the Huffington Post. To my delight, her reports are among the best I’ve seen… really good stuff. I asked her how it felt to be a blogger…

Quick note: There’ll be other stuff soon – written and video, including some video not well suited to the little zannel widget above, such as an anti-war demonstration I was fortunate enough to encounter. There was, reportedly, tear gas fired at protesters last night while I was elsewhere, but details seem to be sketchy.

Also a quick thanks to Julie and others for keeping the local focus while we’re off running around confused in the wild, wild west.

Not sure if anyone saw today’s broadcast of Democracy Now! but their convention correspondent Jeremy Scahill caught up with our congressman, Peter Welch. Scahill asks him about his support for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her inability to support impeachment. Here’s the exchange they had.

JEREMY SCAHILL: While the hype inside the Pepsi Center is mostly about Barack Obama, many in the social justice movement have criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Perhaps the most frequently invoked of these criticisms is that of her statement upon taking over as speaker in 2006, when she said that impeachment of President Bush was off the table. We put that question to Representative Peter Welch of Vermont.

REP. PETER WELCH: The issue here is accountability. And you’ve got to be candid with the American people. Congress voted with the President to go to war. So they don’t have great standing in second-guessing at this point. We’ve got to bring the troops home, is my view. Secondly, on the whole wiretapping, which is the other area that is of enormous concern to me and many Americans, Congress voted to give the President that authority. So, frankly, I think people can be looking not just to impeachment, but to putting pressure on their members of Congress to use the power of the purse on the war to cut off funding and to use the power of the vote to demand we protect constitutional rights and not re-pass FISA, as Congress recently did.

JEREMY SCAHILL: I think some can reasonably say there’s been a serious failure of leadership from Nancy Pelosi on some of the key issues for the antiwar movement, civil liberties community. It seems like the House caves on almost all of the major issues of the Bush administration’s agenda.

REP. PETER WELCH: Well, Pelosi has voted against the war. Pelosi voted against the FISA-the original FISA legislation. I happen to think Pelosi’s doing a terrific job. And the original Congress, when they voted to support the war, it was a catastrophic mistake for this country. They got a lot of bogus information from the President. But the members of Congress who took the time and had the courage got it right. Pelosi was one of them.

Naturally, this pisses me off. But did any of us really expect Welch to respond differently? I didn’t think so.