(Cross posted at Broadsides.org)

You know, sometimes reality is just more entertaining than snarky blogging. And so it is now, as John McCain apparently tries to one-up Ronald Reagan by proving he’s bat-shit-crazy BEFORE being elected to the presidency. Suspend his campaign? Huh? And while you’re at it, John, why don’t you put a big bow on the idea along with a gift note to Obama that says something like: Congratulations, you win – I’m an idiot.

The Obama campaign must have been wetting themselves with excitement when the news of McCain’s latest mental meltdown came rolling in on their Blackberries. High-fives all around, for sure.

Because, as we know, the last piece of the Obama presidency puzzle was the one that seeks to prove that he’s “presidential.” And Obama was well on his way to doing that on his own by bending over for the bailout plan, defending his Wall Street investors (in the name of Main Street, of course – wink, wink), and perfecting that “look” of concern while saying absolutely nothing of substance in the process.

But then along came America’s favorite crazy uncle, Johnny McCain, with the news that he was suspending his campaign, rushing back to Washington and – once again – “putting his country before his campaign.”

In baseball terms, it was what amounted to the biggest, fattest, non-curving curve ball to be served up during a presidential campaign since – oh – Mike Dukakis donned that silly helmet and took a spin in that dopey tank.

Whack! And Obama hit it, easy as it was, by stating the obvious and, most importantly for his campaign, “looking” presidential: “Being president is all about handling many different issues at once.” But that wasn’t the hard part; that came when he had to contain his glee until he got out of eyesight and earshot of the media, whereby he certainly continued the high-fiving and celebration of the McCain gift that just keeps giving.

While the pundits talked themselves blue about the latest McCain weirdness, it was David Letterman who was truly nailing it on his Late Night comedy show. Having been dissed by McCain — as we all certainly know by now – Letterman let his snarky side shine by putting his finger on the real reason for the McCain campaign’s suspension: He can’t tend to his senate responsibilities AND continue to work 24/7 in his efforts to keep his veep candidate, Sarah Palin, absolutely and completely hidden.

Yep, John McCain can’t multi-task. And while he wants us to believe that he’s putting his country before his campaign, it’s the opposite that’s obviously the truth.  Because his campaign can’t take the “risk” of him returning to Washington while Palin takes the reins of the campaign.

Which begs the obvious question: If the McCain campaign can’t take the Palin risk, how can the country risk a potential Palin vice-presidency?  

Not sure who saw last night’s “Late Show with David Letterman” but McCain was supposed to be his guest. Low and behold.. he ditched him to go save the economy. Well Dave Letterman didn’t buy that… and boy did he let him know.

Network television late night hosts are known for being court jesters. This time Letterman wasn’t playing that role. Good for him. Enjoy!

Missed Votes by Member

• 64.1%
  • Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
    • Representing: Arizona
    • Votes: 412 votes missed (64.1%), 231 votes cast
• 48.4%
  • Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD)
    • Representing: South Dakota
    • Votes: 311 votes missed (48.4%), 332 votes cast
    • Note: Sen. Johnson suffered a brain hemorrhage on Dec. 13, 2006, and spent several months recovering. He has since returned to the Senate.
• 45.9%
  • Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)
    • Representing: Illinois
    • Votes: 295 votes missed (45.9%), 348 votes cast

( – promoted by odum)

The Free Press reported today that the Lydall will close its St. Johnsbury plant due to a slowdown in the auto industry.  As a result, 190 jobs will be lost. We can only hope the dislocated workers find new employment.

But this unfortunate incident illustrates a fatal flaw in the state’s main “tax incentive” program. Lydall was awarded $362,000 in tax credits by VEPC over the years. We have no idea whether the job growth during that period would have occurred “but for” the incentives. More importantly, the money spent (foregone tax revenues) is now gone and we have nothing to show for it. [Note: VEPC’s “clawback” provisions have not been very successful.]

Tax incentives are not long-term investments of public funds (like infrastructure, housing, or job training). When market forces lead companies to cut back or close taxpayers are left with no assets to build on for the future. Isn’t it (finally) time to rethink this?

or Don’t we want to keep the Gov. away from this story?  

Field & Stream named Douglas a fishing “villian” this month.according to the Times-Argus

“The Vermont trout opener reportedly found the governor on the river and in front of cameras – flipping his hook back to a Fish and Wildlife official, who dutifully baited it for him,” according to the magazine.

That is not exactly what happened, said Douglas spokesman Jason Gibbs.  

http://www.timesargus.com/apps… Its a long way from an issue but it is a basic illustration of how the Douglas team operates. If the work is dirty keep the Governor’s hands clean  

Two interesting things about this piece from the Rutland Herald:

Field & Stream named Douglas a fishing “villain” this month.

His crime? On opening day, Fish & Wildlife Commissioner Wayne Laroche gave the governor a hand with his fishing rod.

“The Vermont trout opener reportedly found the governor on the river and in front of cameras – flipping his hook back to a Fish & Wildlife official, who dutifully baited it for him,” according to the magazine.

This part is funny enough.  We’ve discussed this specific incident before, but the fact that Fish and Wildlife has gone after him for it is just hilarious.

But the other part I find interesting is how Jason Gibbs, who is serving as an official state-paid spokesperson for the governor, seems to be jumping in as a campaign spokesman here:

“The governor enjoys fishing a great deal, and as often as his schedule permits,” Gibbs said. “The Fish & Wildlife official was simply being helpful and polite. The untold part of the story is that the governor had baited his hook before this particular action and, in fact, had not only baited his hook hundreds of times, but has also baited the hooks of his sons, who he has enjoyed bringing fishing, as most fathers would.”

Hey, who needs campaign finance reform when you can get the taxpayers to pay for your surrogates?

Story in Wednesday’s edition of the Valley News (Lebanon, NH) comparing LIHEAP eligibility standards in New Hampshire and Vermont. Guess what? Vermont’s standards are significantly more restrictive!

The big drawback: Vermont imposes an asset test for eligibility for home heating assistance. Anyone with more than $5,000 in assets (excluding home, car, and life insurance policies) is just too darn rich to get help. Makes sense, no?

“This wasn’t meant to be an asset tested program. It was meant to provide support for low-income people,” said Philene Taormina, director of advocacy for AARP in Vermont. “We would like to see the asset test removed, absolutely.”

Taormina said the test unfairly targets the elderly, who are often on fixed incomes but may have savings accounts or family property that can’t be liquidated. Two years ago, she was part of a group that lobbied to have the asset test dropped from state law. Instead, Vermont legislators raised the cap from $2,000 to its current level of $5,000.

Now, that’s a relief. So how does the Douglas Administration explain this?

Those who run Vermont’s Fuel Assistance Program, though, call the resource limit a necessary iniquity, because it allows bigger payouts to the people who need them most.

(Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume they didn’t actually use the phrase “a necessary iniquity.”)

“Vermont has the highest dollar amount of benefit of anybody in the country,” pointed out Steve Dale, commissioner of the Vermont Department for Children and families.

It’s true, sez the Valley News; Vermont’s average payout was more than twice as high as NH’s. But does that compensate for the following?

As of now, its eligibility requirements are stricter than any other state in New England. Only four states in the country, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Michigan and Nebraska, have tighter income cut-offs.

And you thought Vermont was a liberal state.  

(This WAS good!

– promoted by Christian Avard)

I can’t help but wonder if this latest stunt (and that’s exactly what it is) by Pappy McCain (“canceling the debate”) is really the beginning of the end, like jumping off of the Titanic or something. Not to be a concern troll, becuse anything that improves his odds of losing is undoubtedly a good thing, but jeezuz, this is stupid by any stretch of the imagination. It boggles the mind. Obama should go to the debate anyways and debate a picture of McCain (like Ed Flanagan did with his run against Jim Jeffords years ago – I know, he lost…). It’d look like this:

UPDATE: John Cole knows why:

McCain’s entire campaign is composed of lobbyists, and they need to be in Washington to get their cut of the $700 billion.  They can’t miss this shot at the trough.

In my opinion, the likelihood of no candidate for Governor crossing the 50% threshold looms greater every day, meaning that the final decision goes into the Legislature’s hands. The two greatest impediments to convincing the Legislators to consider awarding the Governorship to the number two vote-getter in a close race – thereby respecting a voting majority’s rejection of incumbent Jim Douglas against the context of a split on the left are the Democratic Legislators and Anthony Pollina. That looks like it may be changing.

It’s common knowledge that Pollina and the Progressives were looking to such a scenario in his previous runs this decade – in 2000 and 2002. And yet, when asked about the topic this election season by Mark Johnson who was clearly on a tear to try and discredit the notion, he not only pulled a 180, but a full scale historical retcon when he said:

“The other thing is when you talk about, well, the legislature may elect the person who came in second – thats not a good signal to democracy, frankly. I don’t – I don’t – think – if that’s the strategy, then I think Vermonters ought to understand that the strategy is that Gaye Symington plans to come in second and expect the legislature to elect her. Boy I wouldn’t want to be the governor who came in second, to tell you the truth.”

Why the complete flip? I think this next line tells us:

“And the other thing is that that is totally contradictory to everything the Democratic Party said back in 2000 and 2002, when they made everyone commit to the idea that the highest vote getter should be the one who the legislature elects – that the highest vote getter should – and I agree with that, frankly. I don’t have a problem with that. But it would be interesting to me if now they would change their tune and say now – everybody – the legislature should elect the one who came in second.

I don’t know – to me thats exactly why – thats why I’m running, ’cause to me thats the kind of games that get played around politics which are why people dont pay attention and don’t get involved and not a good idea.”

As you can see, his continuing answer just turned into another garden-variety opportunity to criticize the Democratic Party. It seems likely that he saw the question as a chance to beat up on Dems, and who cares if, to do so, he had to contradict himself. Pollina has a hard time containing himself from rising to that that kind of bait – apparently even when doing so means a flip flop that works clearly against both his best interests as a candidate and those of Vermonters.

BUT…

…of the many things discussed in the VPR debate tonight – including many things of more substantive policy importance – the three candidates were asked where they stood on this very issue. Did Pollina respond as the candidate from 2000-2002, or was it the I-oppose-this-and-have-always-opposed-this/we-have-always-been-at-war-with-Eurasia Pollina of earlier this year?

Nope. His response was non-committal. Said he’d leave that up to the legislature, should it come to pass.

Now that’s progress. Time to work on the Legislature…