(Cross posted on Broadsides.org)

Oh no, guess what? The liberals are nervous. Yep, the obedient lib-Dems are finally starting to realize that the little party they were having in the immediate aftermath of the Sarah Palin selection may have been a bit premature. Oops.

Liberals never learn. Dems can’t seem to win. And the two phenomena are as connected as John McCain’s eyes have been connected to Palin’s ass.

Drunk on their Obama Kool-aid, the lib-Dems have been putting together their fantasy cabinet selections, planning their election-night party plans, and trying to figure out whom to meet or whom to give money to in order to get some prized inaugural dance tickets. In their minds, this presidential race was over before they could even dismantle the faux-stage at their faux-convention.

Cue screeching car sound – as in: The rubber hitting the road.

Because the polling news hasn’t been good. While the lib-Dems have been blogging and pontificating themselves into a stupor over all the stupid stuff about Palin, the American people have been moving away from Obama and toward – say what? – the McCain/Palin ticket. And the movement has been significant enough for the likes of Kos, AmericaBlog  and Talking Points Memo – three leading liberal blogs – to use words like “panic,” “worried” and “overestimated” while describing the current state of affairs.  

Worse, the lib-Dems are refusing to look in the mirror while trying to come up with a reason for the Obama/Biden slip in the polls and the near-derailment in its messaging. Instead, they keep hitting the whining button and doing what they hate most in their conservative counterparts: Blaming the media and getting slimier and slimier with their personal attacks. Anything, in fact, but face the fact that their candidates and their party have all but abandoned “the issues” at the very moment when voters are beginning to ponder them.

If, as political scientists like to tell us, this is the time when voters start to pay attention, consider what they’re hearing from Obama and the Democratic Party:

* On the Iraq War, Obama was pushed into saying that the “surge worked beyond anyone’s wildest expectations” to the Fox News blowhard, Bill O’Reilly. Despite being an inaccurate – if not completely spineless – position, it effectively handed what was the number one issue directly over to Mr. Surge himself, John McCain.

* On energy issues, the Dems are in the middle of doing an about-face on offshore drilling. Instead of showing some spine and sanity in the face of the Republican’s new – and scary – hit chant of “drill baby, drill,” the Dems are flip-flopping like McCain on the issue and, according to The Hill, preparing to help pass new offshore drilling allowances.

* On health care, the Obama campaign continues to muddy and muddle through a confusing and all-but-impossible to understand “solution” that will allow the insurance companies and “the market” to remain in control. If it sounds a lot like the Hilary plan of 1993, well, it is. And we all know how that ended up – 15 long years ago. Thanks Dems. Sorry, but any health care plan from the Dems that doesn’t include the words “universal” or “single-payer” is just a pale imitation of the Republicans’ plan. In other words, not much change there.

And that’s what the lib-Dems don’t get: When you talk the talk of change, you’ve also got to walk the walk. Otherwise, you look like John Kerry or Al Gore. You know, two guys who took the voting public for fools by refusing to stand firm on their issues, changed issue-horses in mid-stream and, as a result, were both L.O.S.E.R.S.

Earth to the lib-Dems: This is no time to silence yourselves when it comes to the issues. This is the time to stand firm, talk tough and demand that your beloved Obama/Biden ticket listen to you. You know, kind of like the Christian right threatened to stay home unless one of their own was put on the McCain ticket. And then down came Palin.

Sadly – if not completely predictable – this election is starting to look like a rerun, complete with the liberal “shock, shock, shock!”

Yes, indeed: It’s the issues, stupid.

I began yesterday morning with a Democratic Brunch at the Ethan Allen Homestead in Burlington’s New North End with Democratic Candidate for Governor Gaye Symington and ended it listening to Senator Bernie Sanders speak to constituents on a boat-ride on Lake Champlain.

Senator Sanders, always concerned with Veterans affairs, shared news of the new GI Bill  (http://sanders.senate.gov/) while pointing out new key issues facing his Vermont constituents.

In these two very different events, both Sanders and Symington urged voters to create change with Obama.  Sanders spoke about serving on several committees with Obama, and his belief that Obama is the instrument of change we are seeking.  He stressed the fact that Obama would need to hear from Voters immediately following the election and continuously after his inauguration in order to fight the entrenched wealthy special interest groups that will be vying for a voice in Obama’s administration.

Symington urged Vermont voters to give “President” Obama the support to institute change by voting for candidates that will work with Obama here in Vermont to create change.  Her speech was fresh, energized, right on point, and not the worn-out stump speech candidates often fall back on at summer’s end.  No softballs were thrown here, and as, one observer said, “Gaye has finally found her song”.

Symington also spent time sitting down with prospective voters to answer questions and listen to concerns.  I sat with Greg Jenkins who drives one of those new mini all-electric cars.  Greg’s car costs a penny a mile in electricity to run and of course releases no pollutants to foul our air.  At our table, Symington began with a conversation about Greg’s car, moved on to energy planning issues and also spoke us about the challenges faced by friends, neighbors, and/or clients during these terribly trying economic times.  

Symington listened, and unlike many politicians, understood the questions.  Most importantly, after reviewing her record in the legislature, it is clear to me that Symington is capable of doing the hard work and planning necessary to rebuild Vermont’s economy and create a secure energy future.  

I believe I am doing my part to respond to Senator Sanders and Speaker Symington’s messages.  I support Gaye Symington as Vermont’s next Governor, and tomorrow in order to send committed, energetic, and solution-driven candidates to the Vermont Statehouse, I will also vote for Chittenden County Senate candidates Tim Palmer and Tim Ashe . You may read my posts on Palmer and Ashe later today.  And, please vote in tomorrow’s primary.

(Note: For a definition of what I mean by “Jim Dogs”, click here)  Montpelier’s free weekly, The Bridge, last week printed a look at the Democratic primary in District Wash-5, which covers the city. This, of course, is the race which pits sitting Representative Warren  Kitzmiller and Mayor Mary Hooper against also-sitting Rep. Jon Anderson. Anderson, a former Jim Douglas campaign contributor, was famously appointed to the position, against the wishes of the city Democrats, following the retirement of long-time Rep Francis Brooks.

The article spends a lot of time reviewing the first major action by Anderson following his appointment; his vote to uphold Governor Douglas’s veto – a vote which cemented his poor relationship with city Dems, as well as put him in the doghouse with the House Leadership. And if that relationship had any hope of improving, Anderson likely gave it another good kick in the head for the Bridge article (note: no link is available, as the Bridge has no online presence – emphasis added):

Anderson explains the vote as a matter of principle. He agreed with Governor Douglas on the policy question, and believed the Democrats were playing politics. Party leaders, he claims, told him that “we just want to make the Governor look bad.”

Oh, did they?

Let’s be clear, Anderson is dodging responsibility for sticking it to both the Dems and the Progs when the chips were down, not simply by dumping it back onto the leadership, but by calling them unprincipled political weasels in the process.

I wondered how they might feel about that, so I contacted Rep. Floyd Nease, who as Assistant Majority Leader in the House, acts as “Whip” to get the caucus together for important votes.

Nease was not pleased, and called Anderson’s comment “patently untrue,” calling Anderson and his actions a “great disappointment.”

A “he said, he said?” Not likely, as Anderson has reportedly suggested all sorts of explanations after the fact, this being the latest. Although he has explicitly denied it when being questioned by “colleagues” in the caucus, most insiders behind the scenes assume that Anderson’s vote was part of a deal with the Governor for the position.

And let’s be clear about another thing; that is, who was on the right side of “principle” in that override vote:

Thursday’s vote was 96-52 in favor of overturning a veto by the governor of a mid-year adjustment to the state’s budget. Douglas said he vetoed the bill because it did not include funding for a scholarship program he supported.

There’s the “principle over politics.” Douglas once again petulantly stood in the way of the most modest legislative action – a needed budgetary adjustment – because the legislature didn’t lie down and play dead over yet another of his phony pet projects designed to maximize sound bites while achieving nothing as public policy.

That’s some principle to stand up for.

While it’s true that he has been a pretty faithful vote since then, it’s equally true that a town like Montpelier can – and should – do better. Anderson knows this, and its why he has been openly courting self-identified Republicans in town to cross over into the Dem primary and vote for him.

The only question is whether he will bow out gracefully when Hooper and Kitzmiller beat him tomorrow, or if he will again ignore his Party’s decision to run as an independent.

Remember last year when Obama caught a raft of shit for saying he would go into Pakistan if necessary to fight al Qaida?

And who was giving him a hard time? The Republicans, of course.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Democrat Barack Obama on Friday for vowing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary as the Obama camp issued a strident defense of his plan.

But then, in another example of how the Bush administration has come around to follow Obama's advice, the U.S. is doing exactly that.

 All Things Considered, September 3, 2008 · Pakistan says U.S.-led forces crossed into its territory and launched an attack that killed at least 15 people. The target of the attack was a village in South Waziristan, which is a tribal area used as a base by the Taliban and al-Qaida.

So what have we seen? Timetable on getting out of Iraq? Check.

Attack al Qaida in Pakistan? Check.

How come the guy who isn't supposed to have the experience to run our foreign policy is always right all of a sudden?

If, like me, you were more interested in the RNC protests than what was actually going on inside the Xcel Center in St Paul, you probably missed McCain getting Barack-Roll’d, so here it is for you:

Primary Day is Tuesday and I thought it would be a good time to post this excerpt of my interview with Nate Freeman on VTblogosphereTV. The interview is nearly an hour because the guy running the board in the studio did not give us a timecheck. So when I went to do post-production, I was pretty sure I would be editing out boring or repetitive parts. But there weren’t any!



In this excerpt Nate discusses blogging, the Taylor St bridge video, the official reaction to it, our transportation challenges, and Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs). Coincidentally, He also discusses how text can be more difficult to access than video, so if your eyes glaze over reading policy positions, this interview may help you with decision making.