Daily Archives: March 13, 2009

Committee to consider early primary:

The Senate Government Operations Committee on Wednesday March 18 at 9AM room 4,

Change in Primary Date.

 http://www.leg.state.vt.us/sch…

Democrats crowd race for governor cried the headlines last month,in stark contrast to last year’s never ending wait for candidates to up their courage and enter the fray .This year we seem to have an abundance courageous Democratic candidates ready to take on Governor Douglas(should he run ).Maybe an earlier primary date could help energize the party and give some organizational breathing room before November rolls around .

Lies my newspapers told me …

and lies my radio and my tellie and my internet also told me. Actually it’s lies people who know better told me. Actually this is more about those in the middle, the “reporters” and pundits, and what they’re willing to do.

Secrets, secrets everywhere

Spreading lies with those that share

Brother, do you have a dime to spare?

‘Cause the liars left my cupboard bare

And now the whole issue ……………..

For openers here’s a link to the Cramer V. Stewert clip from last night … Stewart to Cramer: ‘It’s not a f**king game’, Raw Story, 03/13/09.

I think two things bear emphasizing from the above: Cramer is putting himself forward as an honest broker and adviser while he is simultaneously depending upon the same financial industry he “reports” on for his livelihood; and Cramer openly admits he has had corporate CEOs lie to his face, but I don’t find any record of him making that statement during his own show (I could be wrong, but I’ve watched his show once in a while and have seen no indication he would do such a thing).

In this Washington Post story (Intelligence Pick Blames ‘Israel Lobby’ For Withdrawal, 03/12/09), we see a perfect example of reporters hiding their sources EVEN WHEN THE SOURCES ARE PROVIDING PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION!

For example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), often described as the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, “took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it,” spokesman Josh Block said.

But Block responded to reporters’ questions and provided critical material about Freeman, albeit always on background, meaning his comments could not be attributed to him, according to three journalists who spoke to him. Asked about this yesterday, Block replied: “As is the case with many, many issues every day, when there is general media interest in a subject, I often provide publicly available information to journalists on background.”

That doesn’t seem too sinister, until one reviews just where all this anonymous sourcing leads us to.

Remember when the cheney/bush administration uncorked every public relations weapon they had to pursue and persecute Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, Valerie? Remember how virtually all the reporting that came from anonymous sources variously described as “ex congressional staffers”, “highly placed administration sources” and the lie really all came from the most partisan actors in DC? (cheney, Liddy, Addington, Fleischer, Rove and a couple others)

Did any single one of those reporters deem it important to tell us their information could be tainted because of the radical partisanship of those “sources”? No … at least until the “reporters” were put under oath by a federal prosecutor who had no fear of jailing the “reporters”. (I could go on a loooooooong roll about the NYT’s Judith Miller and how she acted with alacrity as cheney’s conduit of misinformation to the American public regarding Iraq.)

And bear in mind almost everything reported from the above mentioned partisan sources was found inaccurate at best and direct lies at worst.

What I’m describing is a lack of principle. None of the many “reporters” mentioned or alluded to above would have voluntarily told us the reality behind their “reporting” without threat of legal consequence or the very public beating of John Stewert (thank you John).

Flip back to 1996. Republican John Carrol was running for Lt. Governor with a campaign based mostly on his alleged understanding of business and creating a business friendly atmosphere in Vermont (the more things change the more they stay the same, etc).

Carrol came on my radio show, and I proceeded to do my usual shtick: give my guest a platform to speak their piece while I offered up questions I thought would illuminate what was being said.

Because Carrol was running as one who understood and thus could help small businesses I asked him some questions about his own background in this area. You see, Carrol had had a construction company that had gone under, and the Rutland Herald had written a good sized story about how Carrol’s business had not been able to meet payroll or pay bills.

I understood very well that businesses go down the drain on a steady basis, so I was going to offer Carrol a real softball question: I wanted to ask him what he had learned form his own bankruptcy that could be passed on to others.

But I never got past the confirmation that he gone bankrupt. Carrol exploded in denial of any bankruptcy ever, he was red in the face with anger, he was a large (not fat) man and was physically leaning in to me as he castigated me for making things up. When I pursued the question he compared what I was doing to the old style of asking if someone had stopped beating his wife.

Fortunately for Carrol, and unfortunately for me that day, I had left the copy of the Rutland Herald article at home … I couldn’t confront him about his deliberate lie to my audience and me on that Friday.

And then came Monday.

I showed up to my show with the article. I read it on the air. I informed folks I didn’t like guests lying to them or me. I made sure I called Carrol a liar, and I did it publicly … because that’s what he did, and because he did it with such certitude, I applied the word directly to him in a personal manner.

Over my time as radio host I had one other incident where I had to come back and tell the audience I had done a little research and it was obvious a specific guest was lying to them.

I just wonder why that expectation of honesty and willingness to hold folks accountable for their words seems to be so limited in the arena of public news gatherers and pundits.

Apparently, Jim Douglas can only do one thing at a time

Per today’s Rutland Herald:

Douglas said several of the bills lawmakers have outlined as their top priorities are unnecessary distractions from work on economic development and balancing the state budget. Among those bills are a gay marriage measure and a bill that would restrict drivers from having pets on their laps, according to the governor.

[…]

He also questioned the worth of some of the other priorities set out by lawmakers. Same-day voter registration and a bill requiring that the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant put more money into a decommissioning fund are not as important as economic development and budgetary issues, he said.

So let me get this right?  With a staff the size of the Governor’s, he apparently can not focus on more than one piece of legislation at a time?  Or maybe it’s just that discussion of same sex marriage is somehow debilitating:

“I’d love to discuss the economy but whenever people talk about same-sex marriage, I’m temporarily blinded!”  I can, actually, sympathize with that, because I have the same problem whenever someone mentions K-Fed.

What’s more, putting a little time into same-sex marriage is focusing on the economy:

A few hours after Douglas critiqued the lawmakers for their priorities, supporters of the gay marriage bill released the results of a study about the potential economic benefit of the measure.

“Thousands of couples traveled to Vermont when civil unions became available in 2000,” one of the researchers, M. V. Lee Badgett, said in a statement. “Marriage will attract even more couples, as recent experiences in California demonstrate, and Vermont is a likely tourist destination for many of those couples.”

Maybe we need to show Jim that gay people could be a good donor base.  How fast do you think his opposition would end then?