Gotta say, this makes me crazy.

Looks like our Democratic US Representative hasn’t just dissed his own Party’s candidates, he’s doing it to candidates for the very body he recently led – the State Senate. Here’s a postcard from Republican Senator Phil Scott that’s been circulating in the county at this 11th electioneering hour, which is accompanied by comparable ads in Montpelier and Waterbury periodicals – possibly more (and yes, it sounds like it is an authorized use of the quote as I’m told party leaders just slumped their shoulders when confronted with it):

It’s bizarre and frustrating. Yes, Welch has formally endorsed the Democratic candidates, and yes he’s even doing some campaigning with them – but this is a freaking disaster. Dems had a solid chance of picking up a seat, as they came very close last time. This time, one of the Dem challengers looking to join incumbent Ann Cummings under the dome is from Barre Town (Laura Moore), which has been a virtual vote-black-hole for county candidates. With an eye towards breaking that trend, the future was looking rosy indeed until news that the Progressives were running John Bloch as well. Bloch will not do well overall, but he will perform respectably in Montpelier where he is a local face. Those votes will largely come at the expense of Moore, rather than repeat candidate Kim Cheney, who is also a Montpelier-area figure.

What that means is that this is going to be a nail biter after all – a nail-biter that could easily turn on only 50 votes.

And this postcard could easily – easily – be fifty votes. It will be fifty votes. There’s no two ways about it. Why Welch didn’t give him the quote but expressly restrict it to non-campaign use is beyond me.

And it doubly sucks because the Washington County Senate Candidates seem to be the Rodney Dangerfields of the Vermont Democratic Party. They also come out on the losing end of the VT NEA’s endorsements, as the union gave the nod to incumbent Dem Ann Cummings, but also Progressive Bloch and Republican Bill Doyle (who – incidentally – voted for the two-vote budget law, which was the litmus test cited in the passing over of Gaye Symington for Anthony Pollina, and that lack of consistency is telling).

The NEA thing is maddening. Cheney always comes within spittin’ range of winning and the former Attorney General is a solid lefty. Laura Moore is a total rising star and is even on her local school board. Being kicked to the curb by the teachers’ union in the face of a token “R” is pretty bad. Being shoved out in face of a “P,” on the other hand, is hardly a surprise, though, as the major unions are apparently working under a collective unspoken rule that any “P” on the ballot is an automatic endorsement. Honestly, if I were a Dem running for office and there was a Prog in the race, I wouldn’t waste my time with even talking with them about an endorsement any more.

Fortunately, most Dems are pro-labor without needing an official stamp of approval, but its bizarre that Vermont unions are willing to hang their hats entirely on individual Dems’ better selves.

But I digress. As a Washington County Democratic Party officer and former Chair, this stunt by Welch merits a big BIG response from self-identifying Dems. It could well be handing the Republicans a Senate seat at the expense of an ally. Outrageous. Honestly, I was shocked.

I encourage all to call Welch’s campaign office and give him a piece of your mind. From what I hear, this was borne out of cluelessness rather than untoward intent.

Let’s give him a clue.

(802) 658-0600

http://welchforcongress.com/contact

Something NOT about the guv's race…

There's been so much to digest and enjoy with the ever-expanding rightwing implosion. So many of us have waited so long for this, it's still “pinch me, I must be dreaming” for me sometimes. What makes it even better is the fact that for many of them, they seem to be completely incapable of any serious self-criticism or introspection… the dominating lizard brain simply seems to not allow it.

Many of the so-called “intellectuals” (who, I might point out, like Brooks, Noonan, and such are still consistently wrong on most things, but are at least able to use something more than monosyllabic words and grunting to communicate) are, if not jumping ship completely, seriously lamenting how the GOP has completely been taken over by the anti-intellectual fringe, those who have elevated ignorance and incompetence into signs of personal virtue. Christopher Buckley, son of Bill, founder of the con rag National Review, is actually voting for Obama now becuse the kooks have thoroughly taken over the party.

And it's going to get worse (actually better, from where most of us are standing).

It's been the conventional wisdom that when a party/faction loses as big as the GOP is expected to, they often lurch further to their extreme before settling into things. We're seeing this already. Just poke around the net, far and near, you'll read how McCain is losing because he's just “not conservative enough' or some other blather that is based on the erroneous assumption that we are not just a conservative nation, but a batshit-insane conservative one. If they had only cut more programs, bombed more countries, discriminated against more people, cut capital gains taxes more, if only… You get the point. It's ridiculous. They don't get it.

So I've been seeing a lot of articles like this one, and I get all giddy: Social Conservatives Fight for Control of Republican Party. They really don't seem to understand that humanity and society changes. It's why we don't burn witches anymore or think the sun revolves around the earth or that the earth is only 5-10 thousand years old (oops.. scratch that last one.. we're talking about social conservatives here). Young people, especially, who have gay friends and friends of every color seriously won't resonate with the messaging; they're more likely to be repulsed by it, actually. And so it goes:

In skirmishes around the country in recent months, evangelicals and others who believe Republicans have been too timid in fighting abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigration have won election to the party's national committee, in preparation for a fight over the direction and leadership of the party.

I'm surprised none of 'em have tried to blame the financial meltdown on gays getting married. I'm sure it's coming.

But, what's been really taking me to previously unknown peaks of giddiness is the ones like this that  I've been reading:Win or Lose, Many See Palin as Future of the Party. That's all fine and dandy, as it is ensuring the GOP remains a marginalized, fringe party for some time to come.

“She’s dynamite,” said Morton C. Blackwell, who was President Ronald Reagan’s liaison to the conservative movement. Mr. Blackwell described vying to get close to Ms. Palin at a fund-raiser in Virginia, lamenting that he could get only within four feet.

“I made a major effort to position myself at this reception,” he said, adding that he is eager to sit down with her after the election to discuss the future. Asked if the weeks of unflattering revelations and damaging interviews had tarnished her among conservatives, he replied, “Not a bit.”

Of course not. She's idiotic, corrupt, and incompetent, and she believes in the vengeful nasty God who protects her from witchcraft, hates gays, and cares more about the unborn than the already born (bomb 'em! starve 'em!), so she's exactly what the base is looking for. Let them groom her, get her to pronounce big words and learn where Moscow is. Maybe they can actually get her to read some books without pictures, too. I can't remember the article, but it was similar, and some spokesperson said something along the lines of, “People saw some interviews, and the reporters made it seem like Palin was really dumb”. Did you get that? It wasn't what she said that made us think she was dumb, it was the reporters telling us that made us think that. Okay.

Now, I don't even think she'd win the primary, because although they talk this stuff now, after four years of Democratic dominance, you'd think they'd catch on and not try to cast their campaigns as “the war on thinking”. Maybe the fear of an imminent attack by an Arabic gay army weilding aborted fetuses and mochachinos will shock them into a change in direction. Probably not. And if the Dems actually have some measure of success, forget about it.

It's really an epidemic, as Monibot's latest in the Guardian points out:

Ignorant politicians are elected by ignorant people. US education, like the US health system, is notorious for its failures. In the most powerful nation on earth, one adult in five believes the sun revolves round the earth; only 26% accept that evolution takes place by means of natural selection; two-thirds of young adults are unable to find Iraq on a map; two-thirds of US voters cannot name the three branches of government; the maths skills of 15-year-olds in the US are ranked 24th out of the 29 countries of the OECD. But this merely extends the mystery: how did so many US citizens become so stupid, and so suspicious of intelligence?

One theme is both familiar and clear: religion – in particular fundamentalist religion – makes you stupid. The US is the only rich country in which Christian fundamentalism is vast and growing.

There's a whole lotta stupid in this country, and Palin personifies that like no other mainstream candidate has before. So there is both sadness and joy in this. Sadness, in that it does a lot of damage to this country. Just look at the last 8 years. But there is also a joy in knowing that, since much of the success the GOP has had is due to this same anti-intellectualism, that they're not going to just cast it away any time soon. You betcha!

Well now ,how about this,more pleasantly surprising than early snow.It is a serious charge that needs to answered by the Governor,not just brushed aside.Maybe this will contribute some other questions about Gov.Douglas’s permanent PR campaign.

Symington, the speaker of the Vermont House who is challenging the Republican incumbent this year, said her opponent was “exploiting” the taxpayers by not reimbursing the state of Vermont for his political campaign expenses.

The Democratic candidate for governor referenced a recent newspaper report that showed former Gov. Howard Dean reimbursed the state for thousands of dollars in campaign expenditures when he held office – but that the Douglas campaign has not followed that same standard.

“It is galling that at a time when an increasing number of Vermonters are losing their jobs, Jim Douglas is using Vermonters’ tax dollars to campaign to keep his own job,” Symington said during an afternoon press conference at Montpelier’s City Hall.

http://www.timesargus.com/apps…

Here’s my last dispatch before the election for Huffington Post’s Off the Bus. Hope you enjoyed. – Christian

Jack Shaheen, a sort of one-man anti-defamation league, is the author of the groundbreaking work “Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People,” which is also the subject of a documentary film. A former CBS News consultant on Middle East Affairs, Shaheen is one of the world’s foremost authority on media images of Arabs and Muslims. Other works include “Arab and Muslim Stereotyping in American Popular Culture,” “Nuclear War Films,” the award-winning “TV Arab,” and his latest is “Guilty: Hollywood’s Verdict on Arabs after 9/11.” In “Guilty,” Shaheen examines Arab images in more than 100 post-9/11 movies, and addresses other issues at play since 9/11 that affect public perceptions of Arabs and Muslims. OffTheBus caught up with Shaheen to discuss Arab and Muslim portrayals in the 2008 election and how an Obama presidency can make a positive impact.

The 2008 presidential election is forcing many Americans to deal with issues pertaining to Arab and Muslim culture. How has traditional media outlets handled the issue and what can we learn?

Jack Shaheen: From the beginning most media systems, print and broadcast, were content with the defamation of all things Arab. I say that because if you go back to when Hillary Clinton was being interviewed on “60 Minutes” and was asked if Obama was a Muslim or not. Clinton responded, “Of course not” rather than countering with, “No he’s not a Muslim. He’s a Christian. What if he were, so what?” She could have said what Colin Powell only recently said, which was, “If there’s a seven-year-old Muslim, a boy or girl out there who wants to be president, why shouldn’t they be?” Powell is the first major American figure to really spell this out. It took forever, but it shouldn’t have taken this long. Even before Powell spoke up, one had to credit Campbell Brown of CNN. She commented on it and said “So what if Obama were a Muslim or an Arab. It doesn’t make a difference.” Maureen Dowd wrote also wrote about in the “New York Times” but it was Powell who took it a step further. But by and large, there hasn’t been much said.

The other thing that concerns me is most major newspapers did not report about a DVD that was released and distributed (in key battleground states) to sway voters. “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” The DVD is as about as anti-semitic or anti-Arab as it can get. The fact that newspapers throughout the country (with the exception of the “Saint Louis Post-Dispatch” and others) accepted this DVD willingly without commenting on it, without bringing out the fact that it is one of the most racist DVDs ever released, this is something Goebbels would be proud of if he were alive today. There was very little commentary on that. I think it went out to 28 million homes throughout the country.

It’s time for more journalists to really address this issue and I’m hopeful that after the election this will come out and much more will be said. I think there’s a reluctance now because the McCain people and the conservative base has said, in affect, that he is a Muslim and an Arab. By writing about it and saying he’s not and so what if he is, might create more doubt and hurt Obama in the election. As far fetched as that may sound, I think that may be one of the main reasons why there’s been silence.

What do you make of Obama’s reactions to being called a Muslim?



He’s mentioned from time to time that Islam and Muslims are good. He hasn’t done it that often but he has done it to some extent, said that we should not target Islam and we shouldn’t target Muslims. He has not been as forceful as he could be, primarily because the fear that some people would perceive him as a Muslim and that in itself is a tragedy. If he were white and Muslim, that would be bad enough but because of his color and the fact he’s being tagged a Muslim is very difficult. It’s like “driving while black,” and God help him if he’s a black Muslim! So I think it makes it that much more difficult for Obama. I do think once he’s elected, this will be one of the items he will address. He is a unifier and he will somehow address this issue.

Is this bigotry a stand-in for anti-black racism? Or is this kind of bias against Obama due to his marginal past associations with Islam, his being a child in Indonesia, etc.?

I think it’s both. I think many people don’t want to say they’re not voting for him because he’s black. No one likes to admit they’re prejudice. You talk to a bigot and say “you’re bigoted,” they’re going to say, “no I’m not.” We don’t like to admit that. But it’s safe to say “I won’t vote for him because he’s a Muslim” or “I won’t vote for him because he’s an Arab.” You can get away with that even in liberal circles. So in an a way, Arab and Muslim have replace the n-word. You can get away with it. Just like movies and television shows that target Arab and Muslim-Americans as terrorists. These portrayals have worked their way into the psyche of many Americans.

Has either candidate contributed to the bigotry?

I think McCain contributed to it (when the McCain supporter) asked if Obama was an Arab and he said “no, he’s a decent man.” What he should have said is “No, he’s not an Arab or a Muslim-American. But if he was, so what? He’s a decent human being… just like most Arab and Muslim-Americans are.”

The Internet in general has helped democratize media coverage. Do you believe that it has made some impact in bringing about appropriate portrayals of Arab and Muslim-Americans?

That’s a difficult question. I follow mainstream more than I do the Internet. I still believe that mainstream media rules the day. I certainly think the Internet has helped Obama, but I also think it reinforced the attitudes of those who would swear on the Bible that Obama is a Muslim or an Arab. I think Huffington Post is a great Web site. Many of my friends go to it. I think that’s helped a lot. But I think people go to the Web looking for sites that reinforce their beliefs. I really believe change will have to come from the top. The only person to speak out with any eloquence has been Powell. What he said has to be expanded. We can’t let these comments filter down into yesterday’s news. It just has to stay alive.

I am optimistic. In time, I think Obama will address this. Given his world views and approach to issues, eventually it will be OK for someone to say “Oh, you are a Muslim” or “Oh, you are an Arab.” Eventually it will be acceptable and embraced in a small town when someone says “Gee, they’re building a mosque” instead of saying “Oh my God, no.” They will say “Gee, isn’t it wonderful to have a mosque next to a synagogue and next to a church?” This is America, this is what it should be. We need leadership that will take us to that point. We don’t need another scapegoat. We have vilified so many people for so long with blacks, Asians, Jews, and others. It’s time we stop vilifying all things Arab and all things Muslims. I’m confident that Obama will do his best to change this.

My Turn: Douglas disappoints on energy efficiency

By Jack McCullough • October 29, 2008

More energy efficiency news should have Vermont voters looking hard at the Douglas administration. Unfortunately, it doesn't make Douglas look good.

If this sounds familiar, maybe it's because you read it here a couple of weeks ago. As much of a colossal media titan as Green Mountain Daily is, I'm glad to get the added eyeballs that the Free Press delivers.

(This flew under the radar yesterday…. but still important.   – promoted by Christian Avard)

Financial problems may yet get the old nukes. Enexus the Entergy shell company that Vermont Yankee would have been part of is now on hold .Money is too tight and the markets uncertain.The current upheaval on Wall Street also substantially shrunk the decommissioning fund Entergy is supposed to maintain for the future.One wonders how fast Enexus might have crumbled in the recent mayhem in the money world.How’s a giant out of state company to run it’s five aging nuclear plants at a profit if it can’t spin them off into a protective shell ? Put them in a shell the liability stays in and the profit flows out .

Alex Schott, spokesman for Entergy in New Orleans, said Tuesday that Wall Street uncertainty led the company to put the creation of Enexus Energy Corp. on hold, but he stressed the company was still pursuing regulatory approvals.

Entergy still needs the approval of the Vermont Public Service Board and an administrative law judge in the state of New York before the plans go ahead.

Entergy had announced the spinoff a year ago, initially calling the new company SpinCo. The project has run into strong opposition in Vermont, especially in the 2008 Legislature, which raised questions about the financial stability of the proposed new company, especially in light of the fact that Vermont Yankee’s decommissioning fund was still underfunded

Gov. James Douglas vetoed a bill that would have required Entergy to either fully fund the cleanup fund, which is anywhere from $400 million to $600 million short of estimated costs, or provide a guarantee that it would.

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081029/NEWS/810290299/1003/NEWS02

It’s illustrated extremely well in the thread on this blog The latest WCAX poll: Symington and Pollina tied (and Douglas’s strategy revealed?).

Go ahead read it: the thread devolves into blaming Pollina and shouts to close down dissent and discussion … all because Pollina is obviously doing just as well, and maybe better, than Symington in the latest polling.

That is fear you read in that thread … the same thing the Republican Party has thrived on for decades, kept the Democratic Party compliant to the Repubs for decades, and helped do such as pass the misnomered PATRIOT Act and Military Commissions Act … oh … things like this:

“I asked him if he had a badge and he pulled out a white and blue laminate card with his name on it,” Griego. “It wasn’t even a badge, but it said ‘Al Romero, private investigator.’ He came in and he started asking me about my grandmother and I was trying to tell him that she didn’t live here. He’s like ‘OK, so let me just write some stuff down.'”

Griego said that Romero asked her questions about her grandmother’s voter registration card; her grandmother lives in a trailer down the street, but receives her mail at the house, she said.

“It freaked me out when he got upset, when I did tell him that, regardless of what happens, my grandmother is voting and it’s OK for her to vote.”

“He tried to tell me to tell her to be careful when she’s voting. He was trying to tell me stuff to scare her from voting.”

Bojorquez also said her mother felt wary about the visit.

“My mom is confused because she doesn’t understand why she’s being put through this because she voted. She doesn’t trust anybody anymore,” Bojorquez said, requesting that her mother’s name not be published again.

(GOP lawyer refuses to deny private eye visits, New Mexico Independent, 10/23/08)

(Thankfully ACORN is not full of fear and apparently is responding … see this Huffington Post story.)

AND FOLKS HERE WANT TO GIVE IN TO THAT????

The last time I checked my vote belonged to me. Not Pollina, Symington, Douglas, any of you or anybody else. Oh … by the way … about your vote? That’s yours!

Please do as you wish with it. I may disagree with your decision to vote for Symington or Douglas or someone else, but I respect your right to do so. I may disagree with your reasoning, and I certainly have no problem engaging in discussion or argument about your reasoning, but I will not try to shut you up.

And I will not become fearful because of your decisions to act in a manner you see most fit.

(PS. Did you ever consider this is exactly the reaction someone like Douglas would hope to see from the ranks of the Democratic Party faithful?)

(Semi-update disclosure…. I tweaked some text below to better make my point. Ah, the power of being a site admin…)

We needed a real poll and here it is, reflecting the change in the air that has been present ever since the Rasmussen fiasco of a poll gave Pollina a new boost. From WCAX:

The poll shows Republican Jim Douglas has 47 percent of the vote, Democrat Gaye Symington 24 percent and Independent Anthony Pollina a very close third with 23 percent.

So what’s with the big change? Although such generalizations are never absolute, there’s a real difference in the hardcore supporters of Symington vs. Pollina. Symington’s crowd really has its eyes on only one prize, and they’ve become utterly deflated as they’ve seen that gap continue to be so large. Morale is in the crapper.

Pollina supporters, on the other hand, are often just as passionate (sometimes more so) about beating Democrats as Republicans. So the then-illusory prospect offered to them by Rasmussen of beating the Democrat fired them up as much as anything. Morale is soaring, and what was illusory is illusory no longer.

And many in the neutral zone of the left are likely responding to that difference – exuberance versus glumness. Moths prefer the flame to the sad clown (is that a mixed metaphor? What is that?).

But I think it brings to light the Douglas strategy of late very, very clearly. A strategy conventional-wisdom-gurus Eric Davis and Garrison Nelson apparently haven’t figured out yet. And its smart.

The notion that Douglas is afraid of Pollina is something I can hardly type without cracking up. Republicans are the last people who think Pollina could ever be elected Governor – especially over Douglas (hey, don’t shoot the messenger, here…). But they are concerned about the prospect of their man Jim losing in the Legislature. If he comes in under 50%, there are lots of Democratic legislators just itching at the chance to vote him out. Trust me.

But here’s the thing: they know if Symington doesn’t come within 10 points of a victory, Dem legislators will be hard pressed to justify electing her. And I think its safe to say that neither Symington nor Pollina will be willing to help give the other public support and cover under such a sceario if they come in at number 3 (which is revolting, frankly).

So they’ve figured out the obvious – Symington’s support is inversely proportional to Pollina’s. Therefore, if they don’t consider Pollina a threat, and Symington has to be kept as far out of range as possible, ignoring Pollina becomes just plain stupid. Run against both of them, equating them and raising Pollina’s profile – insure a low split. The most basic of math, and way too easy. If they were scared of Pollina, they wouldn’t be running these kinds of ads, they’d be hitting him on the Milk Company and the Campaign Finance flip-flops. They’d be mean.

This stuff? Well look at the reaction. It’s just pumping Pollina up.

The only – and I mean only – way around this is if Symington and Pollina make a pledge now to throw in with the number two in the legislature and start priming their voters and nervous legislators for the possibility. That becomes a net plus for us because if either of them were running at Douglas head on, it seems highly unlikely that they could keep him below 50% on their own. Both of their negatives are too high.

Fat freakin’ chance of that happening, though.

This is just fluff, but I thought it might be fun to share. PoliticsHome.com is an elections news aggregator site run out of England which has a page tracking the US Elections. As part of that, they have a panel dubbed the Online100, which is a combination of left, right, center and “non-aligned” participants in the greater blogosphere (including major media blogs). Everyday they ask us a couple questions and post the survey response. Today, they asked us the “big” question, and here's the just-released result:

The Blogosphere Predicts:

5% margin of victory to Obama
Electoral College: Obama 338, McCain 200

The PoliticsHome.com Online100 Panel, the daily poll of leading online voices in the United States, has issued its prediction of the Presidential Election result next week.

Each member of the panel was asked to predict which candidate will win, and by what percentage margin. The average prediction was then calculated at 5%. The panel was also given a list of each of the potential battleground states and asked to predict the winner. The majority winner for each state was taken as the result.

Well known names on the Online100 panel include Arianna Huffington, Karl Rove, Joe Klein, Joe Trippi, Gerard Baker, Mike Allen, Mark Halperin, Mark Blumenthal, Charles Johnson, Dana Milbank, Jonah Goldberg, John Fund, Jake Tapper, Chuck Todd, Marc Ambinder and Andrew Sullivan. The survey is anonymous and PoliticsHome does not release individual results.

The Online100 panel consists of 100 leading online voices, weighted evenly between right-leaning, left-leaning and non-aligned, and contains a spectrum of voices from the online mainstream media, big national blogs, and statewide blogs. PoliticsHome launched in the United States in August in association with Pollster.com.

The Electoral Map: Blogosphere Predicts

The panel sees Obama winning the popular vote by a five percent margin, and it sees him coverting that margin into 338 electoral votes, 68 more than the needed 270, and 52 more than the 286 won by Bush in 2004.

The panel presented a list of 19 contested states and were asked to choose who would win on November 4th: “Toss up” or “don't know” were not options.

The panel predicts Obama will win 11 out of 19 states still in play, with McCain prevailing in Indiana, North Carolina, Missouri and West Virginia. However, Obama sweeps the battleground states of Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico; five states carried by President Bush in 2004.

ONLINE100: STATE BY STATE PREDICTION
BATTLEGROUND STATE	PREDICTION
COLORADO	DEMOCRAT
FLORIDA	DEMOCRAT
GEORGIA	REPUBLICAN
INDIANA	REPUBLICAN
IOWA	DEMOCRAT
MINNESOTA	DEMOCRAT
MISSOURI	REPUBLICAN
MONTANA	REPUBLICAN
NEVADA	DEMOCRAT
NEW HAMPSHIRE	DEMOCRAT
NEW MEXICO	DEMOCRAT
NORTH CAROLINA	REPUBLICAN
NORTH DAKOTA	REPUBLICAN
OHIO	DEMOCRAT
PENNSYLVANIA	DEMOCRAT
SOUTH DAKOTA	REPUBLICAN
VIRGINIA	DEMOCRAT
WEST VIRGINIA	REPUBLICAN
WISCONSIN	DEMOCRAT