I know, I know, we’re milking this O’Reilly thing here, but a recent alternate tape of his meltdown on Inside Edition years ago has just surfaced. Here’s what really happened:

from a Mexican newspaper advertisement (h/t Americablog)

I’m not a Star Wars fan but I got a good laugh out of this.

The Empire Strikes Barack on FunnyOrDie.com

Times-Argus readers are lucky to have sportsman Dennis Jensen on board. He follows the issues relating to hunting and fishing very closely with a sober attention to policy and detail, instead of the often hot-headed knee-jerk responsiveness that is often typical to the field. He also tells really good stories. His “Jensen Afield” column is something I look forward to every Sunday.

What's also really good about Jensen is in a field that generally leans conservative in terms of political leanings, he's been known to occasionally write some rather scathing pieces about the neo-cons and such (somehow still managing to fit it in the context of a hunting or fishing frame). I don't remember the specifics of it, but a few years back he wrote a piece calling out the chickenhawks and the folly of Iraq, and I believe he also gave some criticism to the readers who supported them. He doesn't seem to be afraid to call out the sportsman crowd when they act foolish, and he can do it with a measure of credibility, for his hunting credentials are impeccable. It's not like he's throwing shots from a position of self-righteousness from the other side of the fence or anything. He's just a smart guy.

It obviously struck a nerve, because he got quite a few negative letters to the editor after that one. It was great, because so often, in our diverse Vermont culture, with those ever-present woodchuck/flatlander or redneck/hippie dichotomies that still unfortunately permeate our thinking and biases, he was able to completely break through that one. Today Jensen wrote a good one skewering Douglas, among other things, using that photo-op of Douglas (that Nate wrote about here) out fishing on opening day and having someone else bait his hook for him.

Jensen had a bit to say about that… below the jump.     

In Douglas takes a new angle to fishing, Jensen starts off nice enough:

So it was such a pleasure to see a photograph of our very own governor, issued by the Fish & Wildlife Department, out there on opening day.

His presence, along the river bank demonstrates that Gov. James Douglas is very much like the rest of us. Just like the rest of us, he likes to “get down” on opening day and wet a line.

Uh.. maybe not. After discussing Douglas being apparently unable to bait his own hook, Jensen lets it fly:

What's the big deal?

Here's the big deal. I think this speaks volumes about what is wrong with the people we elect to lead us. We get had, again and again, by people in elected office who pretend to be something they are not.

If the governor can't bait his own hook, even as the cameras are rolling, then he is clearly pretending to be a fisherman. The question is, why? Why pretend to be something you are not?

I'll tell you why. It looks good. It makes him look like he's one of “us.” And looking good, saying the right things and acting “the part” is all that matters, when it comes to getting elected and re-elected.

And it's not just Douglas, a man who never met a photo opportunity he didn't like. The phonies can be found everywhere in politics and public office.

We elected a president who struts around like a cowboy who just jumped off the meanest bull in the rodeo.

He then takes on religious hypocrites, neocons, and the VT legislature in none-too-kind terms, but at the heart of Jensen's argument is the fact that we have politicians like this here in VT and abroad becuse so many voters have just become complacent, instead of “getting up, getting into it, and getting involved”, like James Brown once told us to do.

Now, no, that's not everyone.  You know that. And perhaps the ridiculously high turnout at the Dem primaries is indeed a good sign. But there's no doubt that many problems we have simply wouldn't be there if people were paying more attention than they are. Hence, we have many Americans agreeing with su on so many of the issues of the day, yet we end up with hard-right radicals continuing to run the show, becuse they play dirty, lie about their agendas, and appeal to America's worst instincts instead of their best instincts.

But aside from that, Jensen really gets to the meat about Douglas: his entire tenure seems to be one big giant photo-op. He's masterful at convincing people that he's doing something, when, other than standing in the way of progress and perpetually remiding us how bad of a place Vermont is, he's not doing anything. He pretends to be a leader. I wish someone would pick up that and run with it, because I'm a bit too old to be playing make-believe, let alone have the head of the state contiuously do it, and what's worse, make a career out of it.

The VT Democratic Party released this video today slamming Whinin’ Jim’s stimulus plan… Has he stimulated you yet?

It's been a frequent observation here on GMD and elsewhere about how much Jim Douglas is really one of the worst spokespeople we currently have to promote the state of Vermont, simply because he seems to never miss an opportunity to let everyone know how awful it is to live here. It seems that not a day goes by where he's complaining about the tax burden, the regulatory climate, and a plethora of other things. I often joke that even though things are pretty decent for me personally, I'm thinking of moving away just because Douglas' blather is rubbing off on me, and maybe things are pretty bad for me here and I just haven't figured it out yet. I can't think of a better way to attract businesses and skilled workers than to tell them how bad it is here, can you?

In yesterday's Seven Days, Jon Margolis took a look at this phenomenon echoed by Douglas and his allies, and came to the conclusion that it's a big lie. Go below the jump for more.

Margolis op-ed' piece is called “What's So Bad About Vermont?”  Like many of us, he's made that same observation:

You’ve no doubt noticed how awful life is here in Vermont. Awful and getting worse, what with wages so low and prices so high — especially the sale price of a nice house, or the rent on a decent apartment. You’ve noticed because the newspapers and the radio and television keep telling you. Across the political spectrum, important people keep proclaiming our woes, especially Gov. James Douglas, who has made “affordability,” or lack thereof, the dominant theme of his tenure.

Then there are all these fancy reports concluding that Vermonters are in a terrible fix, barely able to survive after paying their bills or — increasingly — unable to pay their bills. These reports come from prestigious organizations. They are artfully bound and printed, and have well-designed graphs and full-color illustrations. They are chock-full of statistics. They have endnotes. Ergo, they must be true.

Or so seems to be the assessment of Vermont’s news media, which transmit the conclusions of the reports, usually on the front page or at the start of the broadcast, as though they were unassailable truth.

They are not. They are politics.

He then points out the falsehoods in the myths, such as that we have an ever-shrinking population, or the BIG doozy we hear all the time: we're the most heavily taxed state in the nation. The latter is a good example of how out-of-touch Douglas is (as he was last year when he was complaining the legislature “spent too much time” on global warming while at that very same time his own commission on climate change was practically screaming how important it was and the challenges and opportunities it presents). Once again, the state's very own Joint Fiscal Office's tax study (h/t to Doug Hoffer) last year blew that one out of the water. From page 7:

Summary Findings – Individual Taxpayers
The individual taxpayer case studies suggest that among the 12 comparison states Vermont as a highly progressive overall state tax structure. This is largely the result of relatively low taxes on lower-income taxpayers and relatively higher taxes on upper-income taxpayers in Vermont. Driving this finding is the individual income tax, which comprises a majority of the overall tax liability calculated for most taxpayers. Although many of the other comparison states have progressive tax structures, Vermont’s tends to be the most progressive. Washington and Florida demonstrate the most regressive traits of state tax systems among the comparison states. The trend for some states is less obvious, most likely the result of mixed tax policy goals and actions. The difficulty in drawing unambiguous conclusions when analyzing comparative state and local taxation is among the most important findings of this study and is illustrated by the fact that for each of these conclusions, outliers among the case studies contradict these assumptions. Key findings are summarized below:

• Total Tax Liability – For 19 of the 24 individual tax case studies, Vermont ranked ninth or lower in total tax liability among the 12 comparison states. The highest Vermont rank was sixth out of 12 for three of the cases.
• Income Tax Liability – Income tax levels for Vermont taxpayers ranked in the middle or lower half among the comparison states for nearly all of the case studies. Vermont ranked sixth or lower among the 12 states in income tax liability for 20 of the 24 case studies. Theonly cases where Vermont ranked higher than sixth are those where most of the states
have tax liabilities that are nearly identical, and the rankings are not indicative of significant differences between the states compared and analyzed.
• Sales and Use Tax Liability – Vermont ranked ninth among the 12 comparison states in sales and use tax liability, up from 10th a decade ago. Although Vermont’s tax rate fell in the middle of the 12 comparison states, its low actual liability is due in part to a relatively smaller tax base and limited use of local option sales taxes.

More than likely he was too busy complaining to bother reading it. Not only are we not the highest, we have one of the most progressive tax structures in the country (which will always give the folks at VT Tiger something to whine about). Hardly sounds awful to me,

Now, back to Margolis. He's not dismissing the fact that life is not increasingly harder for a number of Vermonters. But the point he makes is that it's getting that way everywhere in this country, and for Douglas and his ilk to pass it off as some problem unique or more prevalent in Vermont is a lie:

Asked for evidence that Vermont is less affordable than other states, Jason Gibbs, the governor’s spokesman, obliged with emailed links to several government and private studies about health care, taxes, housing, utility rates and the economy. The information was interesting and informative. It did indicate that some necessities cost more in Vermont than in much of the country. But not all of them, and these costs are usually not higher than elsewhere around our region.

The Northeast is generally more expensive than most of the rest of the country. It’s old. It’s cold. It’s crowded. Its people believe in, and insist on, a fairly high level of public services. Nothing in the information Gibbs sent me provided a persuasive case — much less conclusive proof — that Vermont is unusually unaffordable because of anything the state government does or doesn’t do.

In fact, the preponderance of the evidence — the statistics on economic growth, median income, poverty rates, health coverage and education levels — suggests that Vermont is one of the more prosperous and livable states.

There' definitely an agenda here, but it's not about “affordability”. As Margolis reveals, its about loosening regulations. It's either always about that or lowering taxes, consequences be damned. No wonder Douglas is endorsing John McSame… his economic plan is more of the same-ol' same-ol' GOP groupthink that's helped decimate the middle-class for the last 20 years. 

Now, regardless of the prospects of the next guv's election, we need to keep hammering these points home. Jim Douglas is out-of touch (except, of course, with certain business interests), pushing the same old failed policies from the GOP playbook, is creating horrible PR for the state, and at the heart of it, cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

According to Colbert, he’s got “huevos rancheros”. Colbert was quite funny, going on about “dribble-down” economics and “the market will take care of poverty”. Bernie was… Bernie. All in all, it was a great forum for Bernie to get his message out there.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t get the embed to work, but you can watch it here.

UPDATE: kestrel has it working, it’s in the comments.

I'm not kidding. 

More info on them here, if that's your thing. Wonkette had a great description of the McCain bear:

And the John McCain bear glows a corpselike, pearlescent white and needs its diapers changed thrice daily.

The Clinton campaign is denying accusations that they darkened the photo of the Obama bear…

Fans of the early, early days of rock 'n roll might recall the Platters' 1955 hit, “The Great Pretender”:

“Oh yes, I'm the Great Pretender, pretending that I'm doing well.

My need is such, I pretend too much. I'm lonely, but no one can tell…”

Well, it seems we've found a variation on this could be making the rounds as Gov. Whinin' Jim Douglas' new campaign song:

 “Oh yes, I'm the Great Preventer, preventing what would do us well.

My need is such, I prevent too much. life in Vermont is hell…”

My apologies to the Platters there, but as you probably know by now, the Guv. vetoed the recent Instant Runoff Voting bill, as expected. Gotta keep those damn lib'ruls in check – it's his life's calling, you know (well, that and telling everyone else how miserable life in Vermont really is). 

More below the jump… 

In yesterday's Times Argus, Curtis Fisher of Common Cause Vermont ably eviscerated Douglas' “logic” for vetoing the bill, basically exposing the governor's b.s. and hypocrisy for exactly what it is:

If Douglas was so concerned about the constitutional implications of IRV (specifically the one-person, one-vote issue), then why did he sign the Burlington charter change allowing its use in the mayor's race? If he genuinely believes IRV to be unconstitutional, then he was negligent in signing the first IRV bill. If not, he has disingenuously used the Constitution as cover for his irresponsible veto.

Douglas then notes a legal opinion by the attorney general that questioned (incorrectly, I believe) whether instant runoff voting could be used for electing the governor, lieutenant governor and treasurer without first amending the state Constitution. Douglas ignores the fact that 1. this legal opinion also states that “A constitutional amendment is not legally required for the other statewide offices…”; and 2. this bill does not even address those offices! Douglas suggests that advocates pursue a state constitutional amendment to obtain IRV in Vermont after stating that he believes IRV runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution. Voters should be insulted by this political doublespeak coming from the governor.

Finally, Douglas outrageously asserts that “it is mathematically impossible for the candidate chosen by the IRV process to receive a majority of first votes cast.” This is nonsense, as most candidates elected using IRV in the United States in recent years won more than 50 percent of the first-choice votes. Either the governor didn't read the bill he vetoed, or he is blowing smoke to confuse the public.

So Gevernor Douglas is a also a flip-flopper, as well as an impediment to progress. He knows damn well that in many cases the only way a Republican in this state can get ahead in any kind of three-way race is to keep things the way they currently are, marginalizing the majority that is often expressed by the Dems and the Progs.

It is very important that wheneve we talk of Governor Douglas, we use these words that present an accurate assesment of what he really is, to rough up  that 'likeability' veneer that has served him so well in his reign. Flip-flopper. Obstructionist. Out-of-touch. Standing in the way of progress. You get the picture. I'm sure you can think of a few more.

It's high time that the Dems and Progs in the legislature twisted some arms, and handed the Great Preventer the veto override he desperately deserves. The previous attempts to stand up to Douglas have been rather uninspiring, but perhaps with Symington and Shumlin eyeing the higher offices, they might find the necessary backbone. We shall see.

 Loading ...

A few months ago, two incidents involving the inappropriate use of tasers by law enforcement came home to Vermont, when police tasered two non-violent protesters in Brattleboro and a teenager at Brattleboro Retreat. These incidents prompted an outcry that prompted A.G. Bill Sorrell to conduct an investigation into the incidents. He released a statement today, as reported in today's Times Argus:

“I'm sorry to report that the Brattleboro police blew it in both cases,” Sorrell said during a press conference in Montpelier Monday.

Sorrell said the protesters, Jonathan Crowell and Samantha Kilmurray, posed no threat to either the officers or the public and that police failed to exhaust alternate options for de-escalating the situation.

“They should not have Tased the two protesters even one time, let alone multiple times,” Sorrel said.

He went on to also say that tasers are still a valuable tool for law enforcement, and refused to comment on the medical/health risk elements of tasering, and also suggested that law enforcement agencies should have written policies in regards to taser use. This does not go far enough, according to the VT ACLU:

The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, Alan Gilbert, applauded Sorrell's call for use-of-force policies governing the use of Tasers but said the attorney general should have been more forceful in his recommendations. “The report says law-enforcement agencies are advised to have written protocols governing Taser use. We feel really strongly that the protocols should be required,” Gilbert said.

Gilbert also advocated for a statewide Taser-use policy to be used by all police departments. That very idea was in fact put forward by Sorrell at the outset of his investigation. However Sorrell said that upon review, Taser policies are best left to the communities in which they are used.

Regardless of Sorrell's reluctance to make policies compulsory, the silver lining in all of this is that due to the heavy-handed inappropriate actions of the Brattleboro police, and the ensuing negative publicity, hopefully these kinds of actions will not be so prevalent in the future. Or one can hope, at least.