As our December 6th meeting in Montpelier begins, down the street another meeting will end – the meeting of the House Democrats that will choose their new leadership. For Speaker, of course, the choice is down to two: Mark Larson and Shap Smith, with Smith the likeliest winner. After going back and forth (largely around concerns about his potential vulnerability in the district), I’ve decided to just come right out and say that I’m rooting for Smith.

I share with many folks the concern over whether Larson or Smith have the gravitas and presence to be an effective counter to Douglas. I also note that, as a progressive Dem, Larson is basically with me 100% of the time on issues, while Smith is somewhere in the 80s, percentage-wise. But I think the way Smith’s busted his butt to come from the back of the pack and be on the edge of winning this thing against all expectations (including mine) is a testament to the likelihood that many of us may have underestimated just how determined and focused he can be, and those are the qualities of a leader.

And there’s another plus to a Smith ascendence, one doubled if he’s joined by Floyd Nease in the Majority Leader spot. Smith and Nease are two political figures who are willing to engage with the growing new media in this state. They have, in fact, both participated in discussions on this site. A Smith/Nease combination would mean that we would be listened to, respected, and even acknowledged.

Are they going to agree with us all the time? Of course not. But this is democracy and that’s the way it goes. The important thing is – by accepting (if not exactly embracing) that our voices are part of the conversation, that democracy is enhanced and bettered, and it will stand in stark contrast to the previous Speaker who seemed loathe to acknowledge that we were even here.

Now, I know other front pagers will have different horses in this race, and I invite and encourage those folks to speak up, but I wanted to make sure and put this out there before the final decision is made on Saturday.

(Promoted not because I agree with the content, but because I agree that it’s an important issue. Jack – promoted by Jack McCullough)

It's easy to pile ill will on the Free Press and the corporate MSM, but in my opinion, Jack's “Great Timing, Freeps! as well as Shay Totten's, “Do You Want to Know A Secret?“ are inaccurate and off base. The bad news is that this issue is being watched nationally as we speak and this kind of misinformation shouldn't be passed along as a quick rip-and-read. 

My reasons why below the fold:

Many of us who read the news every day love to hate Gannett-owned Burlington Free Press.  It's easy to do.  It's a real-life example of corporate media controlling local and regional news.  In that frame of mind, however, it's easy to forget that the people who work there are real people, most of whom come to the profession because they love writing, just like we do.  They get paid, but not that well.  And most of all, they have a job to do and rules to follow.

More importantly, what's happening at the Freeps is just the tip of the iceberg in what we can expect to see in America's print newspaper industry.  Before the mortgage crisis, the crumbling of Wall Street and bailout of corporate America, the print newspaper business has been skating on thin ice with the rise of free online news.  Traditional newspapers had no choice but to offer free websites.  Family-owned New York Times tried to charge for op-eds a few years back and had to give up. Online news has created a dramatic downward spiral across the newspaper industry for the last 10 years.  If Congress is considering a bailout for Big Auto, it might be worthwhile to suggest a bailout for print news industry.  The 4th Estate serves the public interest and it, too, is too big to fail. 

There is no honor in finding fault or pleasure in cutbacks in the Burlington office.  We're talking about people feeling the harsh impact of reality facing the newspaper business everywhere.  These are people who help give GMDers and the news reading community information to feed on. Some of them are people who read GMD as part of the news feedback cycle or scoop-finding process.  We have a daily relationship with print newspapers and the businesses behind the news.  

Furthermore, cutbacks at the Free Press are not a Gannett-isolated issue. Vermont-owned dailies are running on thin ice, too.  If you know anything about print media and the negative economic impact newspapers have suffered from free online news — including a paper's own website — then it's pretty easy to guess that things are tough industry wide. It's not in the news, but the future of newspapers may require a whole new model if we want to see good reporting to continue. Morale is low across the nation for print journalists, and in fact, very few can be confident in their own job security whether they talk about it or not. My guess is that like most people, our Vermont journalist community prefers to not think about it at all.

Here are the reasons why “Do You Want to Know a Secret?” and “Great Timing Freeps!” are inaccurate and off base.  No hard feelings about it on my end, but what's been said needs to be corrected.

1.  Deleted.  I made an error here, as per my comment below.

2. “Do You Want to Know a Secret?”also offered information that doesn't bear relevance to the speculation that the Freeps would be spared from cutbacks and “Great Timing Freeps!” quoted the same information, passing on an inaccurate suggestion.  Here's the quote:

In fact, excluding Gannett papers in Guam and tiny Tulare, California, the Free Press ranks in the top five within the company’s Community Newspaper Division in terms of profit margin.

Here’s the skinny: According to the financials posted by Hopkins, the Free Press in the first three quarters of 2007 had ad revenue of $21.3 million and a profit margin of more than 36 percent. That translates into roughly $7.7 million in profit through the third quarter, and excludes the holiday ad spending frenzy reserved for the fourth quarter.

The fact that Burlington Freeps ranks in the top five of Gannett's most profitable Community Newspaper Division doesn't spare the office from layoffs. The profit margin from a small circulation daily doesn't go far to offset huge corporate losses.  There's no Point A to Point B line connecting Burlington's profits to Gannett's downsizing strategy, and no basis for suggesting Freeps may be spared from cutbacks.

3. Both “Great Timing Freeps!” and “Do You Want to Know a Secret?” suggest that Brad Robertson said something he clearly did not.

Robertson told “Fair Game” that he’s not ready to announce “anything that relates to layoffs” at his shop.

“Do You Want to Know a Secret” strongly implied that Robertson's response was suggesting that layoffs shouldn't be expected. This made for the central theme of “Great Timing Freeps!” suggesting that on Wednesday Robertson says, “No layoffs,” but on Thursday we hear, “Free Press lays off 9.” But Robertson didn't make any promises in Totten's Wednesday column.  He's quoted as saying he wasn't ready to announce anything on the subject. He couldn't if he wanted to; layoffs are an internal personnel issue that should be communicated internally prior to making public announcements. Wouldn't you want your organization to work through the process before going public with an official statement if your job might be on the line? Doing otherwise would be unethical and incredibly poor management.

4. The interpretation of corporate financial statements was wrong.

“Do You Want to Know a Secret?” was off base by suggesting that Free Press publisher, Brad Robertson, was trying to censor news when asking him to not disclose inaccurate information. Frankly, I think Robertson was extending a professional courtesy by suggesting Shay steer clear of a blog-posted corporate report. This kind of reporting can go either way:  would it be ethical for the Free Press to publish 7 Days internal financial statements?  I think Pamela and Paula would be calling Robertson pronto while finding and firing the person who leaked their private information.

Regradless, Robertson was correct in the first half of this quote:

Robertson says that, even if the 2007 financials are “authentic,” they do not reflect the Free Press’ local expenses, i.e., “capital/depreciation, loans/debt, taxes, donations, stock dividends, and the list goes on and on. “He is taking a report intended to do one thing and thinking it is telling him something else,” Robertson continued.”

We are one large company with many local outlets with costs expensed locally, regionally, and at corporate. I know of no report that gets him the answer he is saying is the reflection of the local property.”

Robertson was less than genuine when he said he, “knows of no report” that reflects the financials of the local office.  Such reports should be easily at his grasp.  But he's correct in pointing out that a Gannett 2007 financial statement posted in a blog report is not a good source of information to determine the financial status of the local property.  If you think you can find the real scoop, check out the post at Gannet Blog.  It's just a list of 

Shay Totten is one of a handful of Vermont's good investigative reporters and I send praise to him here on GMD and via email on a pretty regular basis.  However, it's reasonable and fair to say that business and finance are Shay's weak areas. We all have weak areas and it's what makes us human.  This is an example of how some of us, despite our best intentions, miss the mark from time to time.  Gannett's financial statements can't be used to determine the finanical status of it's owned properites individually.  

We all do the best we can with the information and time available to us. But the ramifications of what's happening at the Free Press are pretty huge and speculative reporting doesn't benefit anyone, anytime.  Vermont's journalism community is dwindling quickly, and some of the reasons are beyond the control of anyone, including decision makers at Gannett. Even those of us at GMD are suffering a loss today, as we do every day a newspaper takes a hard economic hit.

Today I am not angry about the loss of 9 positions in Burlington. I find this news genuinely sad. We don't feel the loss felt inside the Free Press by those whose positions have been cut, or who have to say goodbye to friends who won't be reporting back tomorrow, or who are wondering when their time will come. When you pick up the Free Press in print form today, imagine for a moment what it might be like if the paper is no longer there.  Same goes for the Times Argus and Rutland Herald. If the print paper isn't there, you can bet the website will be gone, too.

2 days now until our upcoming strategy/brainstorming session (in Montpelier this Saturday, from 1-3 – I’ll post and email a map later today) among new media activists and other “Democratic stakeholders.” Again, if you plan on coming, please RSVP to (jodum at poetworld.net) as this is not a public forum per se – its a working meeting with the goal of brainstorming some specific strategies and moving towards implementing them to whatever extent we feel is manageable.

Moving on to a look at the next agenda item. It’s the biggie:

IV. Getting the left to stop fighting itself (at least long enough to get elected).

This, of course, is the Dem-Prog conundrum. The think that everyone seems to think this meeting is 100% focused on, and will likely take up the lion’s share.

With the size differential, the Legislative part of this problem is less widespread, and as such may be easier to brainstorm solutions and systems to implement those solutions. There will be challenges, though. How to approach conflicts in Burlington as compared to the rest of the state? If we are heading towards a paradigm that says Primaries are good things, is it possible to create localized primaries?

Statewide is obviously a different story – but what is the story? Is it about Democrats working with Progressives, or Democrats dealing with Anthony Pollina specifically? Is the solution a partisan merger – either encouraged or enforced from the grassroots? Is the solution to create – or simulate – a primary, either through IRV, opening up party primary ballots to allow candidates to appear on more than one? A regular runoff? Maybe just good ol’ fashioned organized grassroots and constituency group pressure on one or both parties?

Wherever the discussion goes, there’s no question that it will be informed by tonight’s Democratic/Progressive forum in Burlington, sponsored by 7 Days. A forum which everyone I’ve spoken to is expecting to become a food fight.

Of the four panelists, I suspect Dem Rep. Joey Donovan and Prog City Councilor Jane Knodell will be amenable to an exchange. Where I don’t know City Dem Chair Jake Perkinson, he would seem to be the partisan warrior sort, and Rep. David Zuckerman, I fear, has been looking for a fight.

Clearly I’m a partisan Democrat myself, and as a partisan Democrat, my perspective is not neutral. My concern, though, is that everyone will end up looking very bad. The Dems’ inclination will be to be dismissive and the Progs’ inclination will be to be holier-than-thou, and around we go.

As a Dem, a real test of whether or not there will be a real conversation from the Progressive side will be whether or not Rep. Zuckerman goes into what has been a favored question of his of late. It’s a question he asked multiple times when we were on the radio, and repeated on another blog as well as this one. Although I responded to it in the comments, he has repeated it on the Prog Blog since in his prelude to tonight’s event, so I think he’s committed to it, or chose to disregard the response on this site. It seems like a harmless enough question. Here it is from this site:

What are the key fundamental principles that Democrats (this means elected and serving) fundamentally believe in?  By this, I mean more than the platform.

The fact is, this question is a rhetorical trap. One designed to quickly define you as the right-wingers in a room full of leftists in an unfair – and inaccurate – way. It represents exactly the argument that we have to leave on the table if we can expect not to needlessly come into conflict (and therefore empower the right) in this state.

It is, in my eyes, akin in rhetorical quality to Sean Hannity’s frequent attempt to corner Democrats by asking them flat out if they want to be victorious in Iraq. It’s a question designed to put your opponent in a corner because its a question on your terms, that they can’t answer on those terms – and yet it sounds so simple. My hope – and request – is that Zuckerman choose not to go there. If he does, I would hope that Joey and Jake recognize it for the trap that it is.

Here are the problems:

First: its an explicit demand that Democrats justify themselves to Zuckerman before he will deign to continue the conversation. It is a precondition to negotiations that is, frankly, a little demeaning. If Dems could justify themselves in this way to Zuckerman’s satisfaction after all, he and other Progressives would likely be Dems. Any real discussion should stipulate that conversions are not happening.

Second: It preemptively rejects the answer to the question. The Platform is the Democrats statement of values. By rejecting it outright, he is not only demanding Dems justify themselves to him – he’s demanding they do so on his terms – and its unclear what those terms even are.

Third and biggest: The question compares apples and oranges – to the apple’s advantage (or is that the orange’s?). The Progressives are simply a different organization that the Democrats. The Dems are one lobe of the two-party system – the “left” party. The dynamics of the two party system (which I believe are clearly hardwired) are such that the “left” and the “right” party are in constant flux. That, in a sense, they become institutional battlegrounds for what it means to be a “leftist” or a “rightist” in the country and the state. The question of “what are our values” is the perennial struggle within the party that theoretically finds expression through the platform and ripples out to the political dynamic and culture at large. Structurally, its not a question that you can answer in a soundbite, as its the process of asking that question that defines the party (and another reason why we could really use Progs’ help inside the party, but I digress…)

The Progressives, on the other hand, are both small, and not a part of the two-party system. They can structure themselves with a more traditional nonprofit style hierarchy and can define themselves with nonprofit style mission statements – which the Progressives do and even attempt to enforce among membership under their bylaws (something Democrats could – and would – never do). Now if Progs ever do supplant the Dems, they will find themselves in exactly the same position as the Dems and rapidly become the exact same party, just under a different name. But for now, they have the luxury of playing by a different set of rules entirely.

In other words, Zuckerman’s question could be answered by a soundbite from the Progs, but to be precise, the Dems have to answer more philosophically. Short of that, the answer is the Platform, or at least its abstract, which reads:

The Vermont Democratic Party believes the rights to health care, food, shelter, clean air and water, education, privacy, justice, peace and equality, to organize, and to speak freely are essential to a robust democracy. These rights are not negotiable. When any Vermonter lacks or is denied any of these basic essentials, the fabric of our community is torn and all of us are harmed.

We believe that all citizens have a responsibility to be informed, engaged participants in our democracy. As engaged citizens, we will work toward the establishment of economically and environmentally sustainable communities that regain and maintain the ecological health of our state and contribute to the health of our country and the planet.

We expect elected officials, their staffs and their appointees to govern compassionately, competently, and with fiscal integrity and transparency. We demand that all elected officials fully adhere to their oaths of office and defend the Constitutions of Vermont and of the United States at all times, using all lawful means available to them through their office. Based on the principles of the Vermont and U.S. Constitutions, we stand against torture, bigotry and discrimination, forced childbirth or sterilization, corruption, and the establishment of state-sponsored religion or religious doctrine.

We judge the success of a democratic society by how it treats its most vulnerable members. Therefore, in everything we do — every policy, law, and regulation — we must consider the effects of our actions on the lives and futures of our children and succeeding generations.

…and if he’s preemptively throwing that truthful response out, its simply not a fair or honest question.

So Dave, I’m asking you: don’t go there.

Jake and Joey: If he goes there, its just a rhetorical sucker punch designed to kick your ass. Don’t follow.

But if you must, the quick answer is therefore – “The Platform, and if that’s not good enough for you, well we’re just not going to meet with each others’ personal approval and we have to accept that if we’re going to move on.”

The more precise (but abstract) answer is: “What do we stand for? We are the party of the left in the political system, and we beat the hell out of each other every year to define what the “left” means for our state and for the country – and we could use all the progressive help we can get.”

And everybody – everybody – please remember that simply saying “now I’m not trying to suggest my opponent is a moron” and then going on to suggest your opponent is a moron does not inoculate you. There are no verbal inoculations, and whoever among you decides to try to go that route will come off looking like a grumpy child.

I’m not sure if there’s an opportunity for any good to come of this tonight, given the timing and the circumstances. I’d like to think there is. I just hope it doesn’t make things worse.

This couldn't have happened any better if they'd planned it.

Yesterday Shay Totten's column at Seven Days reported on the profitability of the Burlintgon Free Press for its corporate masters at Gannett: 

In fact, excluding Gannett papers in Guam and tiny Tulare, California, the Free Press ranks in the top five within the company’s Community Newspaper Division in terms of profit margin.

Here’s the skinny: According to the financials posted by Hopkins, the Free Press in the first three quarters of 2007 had ad revenue of $21.3 million and a profit margin of more than 36 percent. That translates into roughly $7.7 million in profit through the third quarter, and excludes the holiday ad spending frenzy reserved for the fourth quarter.

It took some real doing for Shay to get the information, as the people at the Free Press were very tight-lipped about their financial condition, going so far as to tell Shay that they wanted him not to print the financial information he had found. And, on the subject of the recent layoffs, they said:

The axe could begin to fall again this week at some of Gannett’s dailies, but not, apparently, at the Free Press. Robertson told “Fair Game” that he’s not ready to announce “anything that relates to layoffs” at his shop.

 Well, maybe he wasn't “ready” to announce anything earlier this week, but what appears in the pages of the Free Press today?

The Burlington Free Press will lay off nine employees and eliminate five open positions publisher Brad Robertson said today.

Robertson declined to identify the laid-off employees at this time; the work force reductions included newsroom staffers.

 So let's just put this together: Gannett across the country is facing financial hard times. The local Gannett outlet is one of their five most profitable operations. We know that they've already shipped some functions, like customer service, out of state. And still, they cut more staff here in Burlington.

In other words, Vermonters' job losses are boosting the bottom line here and supporting corporate losses in other parts of the country.

Nice job, Freeps.

Full disclosure:  this is a gratuitious plug for both Pamela Polston at 7Days and Shoreham Uncovered in its effort to raise money for the local library.

Plus, it's too damn fun!

3 days now until our upcoming strategy/brainstorming session among new media activists and other “Democratic stakeholders.” Again, if you plan on coming, please RSVP to (jodum at poetworld.net) as this is not a public forum per se – its a working meeting with the goal of brainstorming some specific strategies and moving towards implementing them to whatever extent we feel is manageable.

Yesterday I rambled a bit on the first discussion item to little response from readers. Betcha looking at the next agenda item – if only one aspect of it – will get a bit more feedback…

III. Avoiding the candidate vacuum of the last cycle. Do we need new faces if we can’t get the old ones off the dime?

Early signs are that this may – or may not – be such a problem this year, at least for the Governor’s race.

Now I remain dubious about early speculation and early trial balloons, as we don’t want to get caught with our pants down and end up with nobody, so the last thing we should be doing is waiting for the whims of chance. But if there are names being bandied about, it changes the dynamics of our discussion quite a bit.

After the flip, I’ll focus on the early names/faces/balloons/wild-speculations that currently seem to be floating about for the Governorship, and some names might surprise you…

There all all kinds of names floating around this year.

Of course the big news last week was that State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding is considering a run for the top spot. It’s pretty common knowledge that Jeb would like to be Governor some day, but he was also at the top of the list of potential candidates who wanted to wait until a Jim Douglas retirement, rather than run against the reigning electoral champ. It sounds as though he is either getting tired of waiting, or perhaps he’s banking on Jim Douglas retiring, taking a shot at the Presidency of Middlebury College, or possibly making another run for US Senate (although it seems likely that Patrick Leahy will stick with the job and wait for his chance to Chair the Appropriations Committee).

By way of inference, one has to assume Matt Dunne and Doug Racine are possibilities. Neither was intimidated out of consideration by the prospect of running against Jim Douglas last time, and so it follows that neither would be this time. Racine made serious moves towards a run at the end of ’06 but decided he wasn’t prepared for another 3 way split like the one that cost him his first time out. With another addition to the family, Dunne likely decided the time was wrong. But still – if it was worth considering then, it seems likely they’re considering it now. Since his return to the Senate, Racine, of course, has become a huge vote-getter in the populous, more conservative Burlington burb-towns where we often lose statewide races.

Other names that are floating around include State Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Bartlett of Lamoille County. Bartlett has long been eyed by many as a strong candidate, since she has historically been one of the most effective voices countering the Governor this decade. The big challenge for her would be name recognition, as this would be her first run on a statewide ballot, and first runs historically don’t work out in this state.

There are, of course the perennial rumors about Leahy State Director and Democratic National Committeeman Chuck Ross which I’ve now heard from three different sources. Seems like we hear the Chuck Ross rumors every time, though, so he either has a perennial trial balloon he launches, or there are some folks who really, really want him to run and who float his name every cycle.

And finally, although I’ve heard of nothing that has come from her, its clear that a lot of Secretary of State Deb Markowitz’s friends are urging her to throw her hat in the ring as well.

A lot of names early on, which is a great sign. The question is, who is going to stay in the mix? Spaulding and Markowitz seem to have little enthusiasm for taking on Douglas (Markowitz was also encouraged to run last time by folks such as Madeleine Kunin, according to hubbub), so if Douglas confirms, they may or may not try it this time around. The fact is that both would be stronger campaigners if the seat was open. This may be unfair, but down-ticket statewides may well start at a disadvantage when running against Douglas, as they often tend to be convinced that they know how to win based on their experiences getting elected to such offices, and often resist advice. The reality, of course, is that running for Governor is a completely different endeavor – and running against a seasoned pro like Douglas is even more challenging still. The challenge with either of them would be to ensure they don’t fall into that trap.

Then there’s the Primary factor. One of the reasons to float ones name early, as Spaulding has done, is to hopefully clear the field and discourage challenges from within the Party. Historically, the VDP has been loathe to have Primaries and tries to avoid them at all costs. But an appeal to Leahy to play the heavy and broker a pick behind the scenes will likely not work out so well during a year he has his own election to look at – and besides, we may well be (thankfully) past the time where such efforts make a difference.

So who might be put off by a Primary? I expect Spaulding and Markowitz would see it as a disincentive. If Dunne decides to get into the mix, he’s be particularly formidable in a Primary context and obviously has no qualms about running in one. I think with Racine and Bartlett its harder to say, and while one might say that Ross would likely to get lost in a shuffle of far bigger Democratic names, it also might give him a chance to raise his profile earlier in the election cycle and make inroads with Party faithful and non-Dems alike.

And I’m stepping in firmly against tradition to say that I would welcome a Primary. I think it would be helpful. It’d force the candidates to get out early and often, and pull press and public attention, interest and enthusiasm far sooner than usual (since nothing else seems to do that). I think we’d have a shot at replicating some of Obama’s success nationally with a scaled down repeat of his protracted Primary. SUre it means the money from the National Dems would be locked up in escrow (if it would come at all), but it’s time we all learned that the National Dems are simply not going to send a candidate going up against Douglas money before the end of the summer anyway, so let’s not kid ourselves. If the candidates in Democratic Primary were to strategically plan high profile forums around the state (and I mean high-profile… debates at County Committee meetings don’t count… the State Party itself should engage in the process and create/broker real debates in real public venues with real press coverage over as long a period as possible to generate attention), the winner would come out in a very strong position, compared to the recent previous attempts.

And then, of course, there’s the Pollina factor. Although it would seem insane for him to run again, I think that’s simply his gig. He has been reportedly making noise about running in a Democratic Primary, though. If he’d done so last time, he would’ve had a decent chance. This time, though, his chances have to be lower – both because of Dem rank-and-file polarization, as well as the fact that his percentage went down against Douglas/Symington as compared to Dubie/Shumlin, putting his viability into further doubt.

And given history, the question of “would he run as a third candidate anyway” seems tantamount to “Is the Pope Catholic?” Clearly, he is never going to be any less likely to run on any given election cycle than any other election cycle, and given that his base is feeling energized from beating the Democrat (or “useless turd” as one enthusiastic follower sees it) by 200 votes (some Symington poll visibility in Montpelier on Election Day morning might’ve changed that narrative right there), he’s gotta be considered a likely factor.

So – would he run in a Dem Primary if he didn’t think it would be handed to him? WOuld he honor the results?

And if not – can we essentially create a primary through IRV, a traditional runoff, allowing the same candidate to appear on more than one Primary ballot, or some other option?

That’s the question, iddinit?

( – promoted by odum)

So who’s more dangerous to society? A man armed with an uncooked cream pie, or a drunk with a loaded gun pointed at someone’s head?

That’s not a rhetorical question: according to Judge Brian Grearson it’s the pie man.

(my emphasis)

If Thomas Coffey hadn’t served his country with distinction during a military career that has spanned nearly two decades, the Waterbury man would almost certainly be serving time in jail today.

But he’s not, because Judge Brian Grearson concluded during a Tuesday morning sentencing hearing that if Coffey hadn’t served his country, he may never have done anything to deserve jail time in the first place.

Coffey, 40, is a decorated war veteran who was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder after returning from his latest tour in Iraq two years ago. His charges stem from an incident where he walked into a crowded barroom in Montpelier last New Year’s Eve with a loaded semi-automatic pistol tucked in the waistband of his pants.

Before the night was over an intoxicated Coffey would draw the .45-caliber pistol and place its barrel behind the left ear of another Charlie-O’s patron with whom he had exchanged threatening glances.

(Judge: Vet was scarred by war, Times Argus, 12/03/08)

The pseudo-Santa who slopped Gov. James Douglas in the face with a faux pie during this year’s Independence Day parade in Montpelier copped a plea in Barre on Wednesday.

Judge Brian Grearson sentenced Matthew Manning, 23, to spend five days on a supervised work crew as part of his sentence after considerable debate about the impact of his actions.

. . .

Grearson, who described the incident as both “serious” and “reckless,” agreed. He suggested Manning’s actions had “a ripple effect” in Vermont – a small state where the highest elected official is extremely accessible and has historically felt comfortable participating in parades with minimal security.

(Gubernatorial pie thrower gets five days on work crew, Times Argus, 11/27/08)

***Sigh*** and I had started to think there was some intelligence and common sense regarding weapons since Vermont’s Supreme Court recently ruled that a hunting “accident” was still a crime of negligence.

From Twitterings by Townsend, the daily blog of the executive editor of the Burlington Free Press, recounting a visit to the editorial board by Peter Shumlin:

Since all meetings of the Free Press editorial board are on the record, we were told but only one area “where the state made promises it cannot keep: Catamout Health is a wonder program we cannot afford…I am not saying I am going out there to say we get rid of Catamount. But we have to talk about it.”

From the Platform of the Vermont Democratic Party:

 Health Care

1. We believe that every human being must have access to appropriate, quality medical care.
2. We are committed to reducing costs and improving services within a system where every Vermonter, without regard to employment, has access to health care, required prescription drugs, and long-term care. The system must offer a choice of health care providers, who are accountable to the public for quality of service, and patient fees must be based on ability to pay.

 Now I've been critical of Catamount more than once in these pages, but even I would say that Catamount Health is better than nothing for those Vermonters who rely on it. For some it is literally the only shot they have at getting health insurance.

So tell me this: what is the Democratic President Pro Tem, who has run for statewide office in the past and presumably has designs on higher office, doing talking about even the possibility of throwing those people overboard? We already know that Douglas is going to be attacking all kinds of human services programs, and we know that there will be a big fight to keep them. Still, don't you think we're starting off behind if our own leaders are saying things like this?

This is the sound of me beating a dead horse.  Governor Douglas does a lousy job for Vermont.  Jim=Jobs(FOR HIS CRONIES).  How many of us are better off now, heck, even as well off as when he took office?

Douglas bashing is easy, and I’m a great fan, don’t get me wrong.  But how productive is this in the long run?  I think this is where the Governors race this year bogged down.  The democrats were able to paint Douglas in a negative light, but unable to make their candidate a better, more logical choice.

The fact is he’s our Governor, unless we come up with the votes to override his veto, we have no choice but to work with him.  He’s going to run our state into the ground unless he gets some help.  Our roads will crumble, the budget shortfalls will be huge.  He needs to be met at the table with ideas, and if he chooses to reject them, that will be his undoing.

No democrat thus far has been willing to assume a true leadership role or be a leading voice in challenging the governor.  Not on his failures, but with new, well thought out ideas.  The person Vermont is comfortable getting behind to move our state forward, and pull Vermont out of this slump.  

If this person already exists I apologize.  It’s just that I’ve never seen any media coverage of you, or heard any of the great things you say we need to do.  Where are you?  We could really use you……..

• Pete Miss: (Get it? Like “Peat Moss” Get it? Oh… never mind.) Got my Peter’s scrambled the other day. It wasn’t Peter Shumlin who let Matt Dunne’s gas guzzler tax wallow in Senatorial oblivion, it was Peter Welch. Shumlin II: The Return hadn’t come to the Montpelier theater yet. Woops. Sorry Pete. Don’t mean to make you feel like the Rodney Dangerfield of Vermont politics. I promise next time we beat you up, it’ll be for something you actually did.

  And to the rest of you all – you just let me get away with anything, doncha?

• Not a correction per se, but in the getting-up-to-date department: I mentioned in my diary this morning that the VDP Voter File had lost a meaningful amount of data, while speculating that it should be easily fixed, if it hasn’t been fixed already.

  Apparently it has been. There ya go.