He's at it again.. I mean, seriously, why does he even live here? I was reading in the Tmes Argus today the latest about  Whinin' Jim – “High taxes, a big peeve, says Douglas” It's about his recent taxpayer-funded campaign “Set the Agenda” tour, in which he travelled around the state listening to 'ordinary Vermonters” about what was on their minds, and you guessed it, the constant scourge of the GOP – taxes, was at the top of the list, according to Whinin' Jim. It's more of what we've been hearing constantly from him as of late – variations on a theme, “How Lousy it is to Live in Vermont” or something. And Jim had some other things to say as well. Jump below the fold for the goods.

Now, I'm not diminishing the impact that high property taxes have on many of us in Vermont, in particular, working families. But I'm also really tired of Duglas continually harping on life in the state, while offering no real leadership of his own. In the article, Peter Shumlin summed it up like so:

“It's exactly the same agenda that Jim Douglas has laid out for the last five years,” said Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham.

Citing rising fuel, health care and other costs, Shumlin added, “Most Vermonters are finding life less affordable today than they did when Jim Douglas took office almost six years ago. It's time for him to start solving problems, not just talking about the problems.”

Indeed. Now, this is where it gets interesting: 

Douglas has said repeatedly in recent months that lawmakers spent too much time last year on issues like global warming and too little on reducing taxes, bringing more affordable housing and other bread-and-butter issues.

Apparently, the governor has failed to read the final report from the Governor's Commission on Climate Change, which was released today.

The first line of the report states, “The climate change crisis may represent the most important and comprehensive global challenge of our lifetime.”  It continues in the second paragraph, “Global climate change is occurring, and every Vermonter will experience its impacts on the quality of life for which Vermont is justifiably famous.  If properly seized, however,climate change action can provide an unprecedented economic development opportunity for Vermont.”

And by “unprecedented economic development opportunity for Vermont”, I don't think they're talking about those McJobs that Douglas is so fond of. As far as the legislature “spending too much time on the issue”, House Speaker Gaye Symington said this in her statement today:

The governor seems to be of two minds. On the one hand he dismisses the legislature's leadership on climate change as irrelevant to Vermonters' lives, and on the other, his own commission describes climate change as one of the most important challenges of our lifetime…

  Legislative leadership, on the other hand, is of one mind: climate change represents an extraordinary opportunity for Vermonters to save fuel costs and grow innovative businesses.  The Governor's commission makes it clear that “attainment of the state's ambitious goals requires the implementation of all the 38 Plenary Group options” , and where further analysis or refinement is needed, “we recommend that this additional work begin immediately.”

I hope the commission's report is a sign that the governor will begin to take climate change and the pressures on Vermonters' fuel bills seriously. I urge Governor Douglas to join us in implementing the recommendations of the Commission on Climate Change, several of which can be found as key elements in H.520, legislation he vetoed last session.

So perhaps the governor should start doing a bit more listening to his own comissions, eh?  I certainly hope that the legislature, in this next session starts to realize that leadership can often involve playing hardball. It's time to start playing hardball with Governor Douglas. He has no bold initiatives,and of course, nothing that will offend his business constituencies, a major obstacle to positive change. He seems to be able to politically survive merely by lack of strong political opposition and a rather non-threatening demeanor, not through any merits of his own (which is exemplified by the challenge of finding a good candidate to run against him). That needs to change. Sooner, not later. He can be beaten.

… in regards to the story that won't go away regarding the incredibly homophobic Donnie McClurkin, one of the performers at Obama's gospel concert rallies in South Carolina, an outreach to African-Americans of faith.

This thing keeps getting stranger and stranger. Some recent developments for those of you following this…

Obama still has McClurkin scheduled to perform. To somehow 'balance out' the homophobe, in some leap of illogic he's asked a gay preacher to come speak as well. A white one. And that has certain African-Americans in the LGBT community none too pleased, who are tired of comparisons of the gay cirvil rights battle to the African-American one.

Now, the latest, which has undoubtedly finally, unequivocally put Obama off of my list, is this latest, which, more than anything else, illustrates the perils of trying to be all things to all people. The HuffPo discusses a letter from the Obama campaign signed by 16 black and LGBT leaders which is trying to garner support for this in the guise of Obama bringing the black and gay communities together:

First, Pastor McClurkin believes and has stated things about sexual orientation that are deeply hurtful and offensive to many Americans, most especially to gay Americans. This cannot and should not be denied.

At the same time, a great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkin's beliefs.  This also cannot be ignored.

Finally, we believe that the only way for these two sides to find common ground is to do so together. 

How's that sit with you? It's one thing to respectfully disagree with a bigoted viewpoint. A smart politician would find things that the larger religious community has in common, and focus on that. It's another to actually feature a performer who represents those views, and as I see it, is supposed to be an attraction to those who share those views? If he was trying to reach out to white religious voters by having a racist singer and an inclusive one, is that any different? I can understand Obama wanting to reach out to people of faith (although not entirely thrilled with it). But seriously, can he find no other way to appeal to those voters? Talk of Christian charity or something?

Now, in context, from things I've studied over the years, there is undoubtedly a homophobic slant to certain segments of the African-American religious community, as there is in those of white religious communities, as we know all too well. This was doomed from the get-go, and it seems like the campaign, in keeping with its 'all things to all people' philosophy, is struggling to find a solution, with each step pissing someone else off.  I could be wrong, but I still think this event isn't going to see the light of day, and it remains to be seen if Obama can recover from this.

Barack Obama and Hiilary Clinton have finally finished consulting with their focus groups and have offered lukewarm support of filibustering FISA if the telco immunity provision stays intact, as Kos is reporting. Clinton hasn't even read the bill yet, but promises to “study it very hard.”

The Obama campaign issued the following statement:

“Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it.”

Clinton said:

HRC: I am troubled by the concerns that have been raised by the recent legislation reported out of the Intelligence Committee. I haven't seen it so I can't express an opinion about it. But I don't trust the Bush Administration with our civil rights and liberties. So I'm going to study it very hard. As matters stand now, I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forward that would convince me differently.

Now, of course it's a good thing that they're finally on board and let's give 'em props on that, but more strongly worded statements would certainly inspire more confidence on the actual occurence of some follow through, And the fact remains that as 'front-runners”, they should have been running to the front on this issue instead of following Dodd and (gasp!) Biden.I suspect that if/when the filibuster occurs, they will both offer rather muted support. We shall see.

Also from Opensecrets.org…. A little different than the Vermont totals. At least Chris Dodd doesn't owe anything…

Democratic Candidates
Candidate	Home State	Q3 Raised	Q3 Spent	Total Raised	Total Spent	Cash on Hand	Debts
Clinton, Hillary	NY	$27,859,861	$22,623,680	$90,935,788	$40,472,775	$50,463,013	$2,347,486
Obama, Barack	IL	$21,343,292	$21,519,790	$80,256,427	$44,169,236	$36,087,191	$1,409,740
Edwards, John	NC	$7,157,233	$8,271,938	$30,329,152	$17,932,103	$12,397,048	$0
Richardson, Bill	NM	$5,358,585	$6,666,681	$18,699,937	$12,878,349	$5,821,588	$75,222
Dodd, Chris	CT	$1,522,061	$4,025,458	$13,598,152	$9,723,278	$3,874,874	$0
Biden, Joe	DE	$1,757,394	$2,635,896	$8,215,739	$6,329,324	$1,886,340	$128,210
Kucinich, Dennis	OH	$1,011,696	$888,774	$2,130,200	$1,803,576	$327,094	$0
Gravel, Mike	AK	$130,510	$99,866	$238,745	$207,604	$31,141	$64,716

Republican Candidates
Candidate	Home State	Q3 Raised	Q3 Spent	Raised	Spent	Cash on Hand	Debts
Romney, Mitt	MA	$18,396,719	$21,301,756	$62,829,069	$53,612,552	$9,216,517	$17,350,000
Giuliani, Rudy	NY	$11,624,255	$13,300,650	$47,253,521	$30,603,695	$16,649,826	$169,256
McCain, John	AZ	$5,734,478	$5,470,277	$32,124,785	$28,636,157	$3,488,628	$1,730,691
Thompson, Fred	TN	$12,828,111	$5,706,367	$12,828,111	$5,706,367	$7,121,744	$678,432
Paul, Ron	TX	$5,258,456	$2,169,644	$8,268,453	$2,824,786	$5,443,667	$0
Brownback, Sam	KS	$925,745	$1,278,856	$4,235,333	$4,140,660	$94,654	$0
Tancredo, Tom	CO	$767,152	$1,209,583	$3,538,244	$3,458,130	$110,079	$295,603
Huckabee, Mike	AR	$1,034,486	$819,376	$2,345,798	$1,694,497	$651,301	$47,810
Hunter, Duncan	CA	$536,357	$618,117	$1,890,873	$1,758,132	$132,742	$50,000
Keyes, Alan	MD	$21,218	$10,139	$22,768	$10,139	$12,629	$12,876

What's your take on this image? Pop over to the photojournalism analysis at BagNewsNotes and chime in. Happy Saturday!

Well, I gotta say one theing about Obama. He's consistent, in the sense that you know he'lll propose something really good, such as the energy bill Vermonter let you know about this week, and then follow it up with something really bad (which must go with the territory of trying to be all things to all people).

According to the latest from David Sirota,  

Obama is the first presidential candidate to officially declare his/her support for the NAFTA expansion moving through the Congress. His announcement is not necessarily surprising, considering he was the keynote speaker at the launch of the Hamilton Project – a Wall Street front group working to drive a wedge between Democrats and organized labor on globalization issues. His announcement comes just days after a Wall Street Journal poll found strong bipartisan opposition to lobbyist-written NAFTA-style trade policies.

What's that about judging people by the company they keep? We're all expecting Hillary to follow suit, right? Who knows? Recently she actually said that trade agreements need to be reviewed and possibly amended:

Mrs Clinton said Nafta suffered from “serious shortcomings”. She also reiterated her pledge to incorporate strong environmental and labour protections in future trade deals – a measure most economists view as protectionist.

“I think it is time that we assess trade agreements every five years to make sure they’re meeting their goals or to make adjustments if they are not,” she said in a speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which stages the first caucus vote in the presidential nomination process next January. “And we should start by doing that with Nafta.”

Now, I'm not one to give Hillary much support, but it seems like Obama's trying to out-Hillary Hillary here. This one's a big slap in the face to labor, and it's not going to help Obama win any votes from the many people who have lost jobs due to these trade agreements. Maybe he's giving some of that hope he's known for to some big corporate types… they need hope too, I guess, considering the bloodbath that the GOP is going to feel in '08.  Needless to say, this is a black mark for the Obama campaign. Possibly not a fatal one, but it's not going to win him much support from working people.

crossposted at five before chaos

 Matt Taibbi's latest about the pathetic excuse of a candidate known as John McCain is a must read. It's interesting how far McCain has fallen, because if you asked me a few years ago who the GOP frontrunner was, I would have thought it was him. But I guess having your public persona being that of a constant dweller of Bush's nether-cavities has probably taken quite a bit of sheen off of that rose. You can only milk that Nam thing so much before many start waking up to the fact that there's something really wrong with you if you lived through something like that and are continuously promoting something similar, or worse. Leap below the jump to witness the atrocities…

Now, whenever I see anyone supporting the GOP candidates, especially enthusiastically, my first reaction is “Who are these idiots?” (and yes, I get that about a lot of Dem supporters, too). WEll, as Taibbi's dialog with several McCain supporters clearly illustrate, the answer is… idiots. Although it should be apparent, the emphasis on the money quotes are mine…

Rusty Houser likes McCain's stance on the war; when I ask  him why we are in Iraq in the first place, he tells me, “To get rid of Al  Qaeda.” When I point out that Bush himself has admitted there was no connection  between Iraq and Al Qaeda, Houser shrugs. Bush, he assures me, “doesn't  always let people know what he knows.”…

Another McCain supporter named Johnny Mack who is pushing “No Surrender”  petitions at a VFW appearance in Anderson says he didn't know that there was no  connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the war, but that doesn't matter,  because “I'm just a dumb country boy” who nonetheless knows of “secret  reasons” for the war from his time running nightclubs in the Midwest, where he  learned “things I can't disclose.”

A third supporter, Lynn Fowler, says she agrees with McCain's assessment  that we need to fight the terrorists in Iraq because otherwise they will come  here. “I never understood that one,” I say. “If the terrorists want to fight us  here, how are we stopping them from coming by going to Iraq? Are we tying up the  air-traffic controllers or something?”

She frowns. “They are here,” she says. “They're all around us!  They have prayer mats in schools! In New York, there are taxi drivers who won't  let you in their cab if you're carrying alcohol!”

You know, the next stop for a Muslim cabbie who won't let you bring alcohol in their cab (does that really happen?) is usually a stop at the local bomb store (which of course, is hidden in a secret wall behind the local mosque). I mean,these people are in serious tinfoil hat territory, no?  Now, lest you think this is something unique to the reddest of states, or something, not so. Just have a look at how former plagiarist/hack/Rainville toady/Green Mountain Daily 'innocent victim” Christopher Potter Stewart is still so enraptured with oozy man-love for McCain, unabated, as he was plugging the hopeless one mercilessly last year. Why, as recently as this last September, he issued this mildly braindead proclamation:

First, we believe that John McCain is the most qualified of all the presidential candidates to “sort out” American policy in Iraq when the troop surge is up in April.

Remember, to most conservatives, believing something is true is evidence that it's true. Facts need not apply. We can apparently see this qualification in McCain's continuous embrace of the Bush agenda. Brilliant. Stay in New Hampshire, Chris. Please. Or go work for Joe Lieberman.

Well, then… no sooner do I write that post taking Obama to task for lots of talk and little action, and lo and behold, he actually does something besides give nice speeches. He just blocked the nomination for a new FEC head, the ominously named Hans von Spakovsky. Hat tip to the Senator for standing up.

Derailed FEC head nominee Hans Von Spakovsky had this to say – O-baa-maaa!

Brad Blog has the details, Obama's statement: 

“His record of poor management, divisiveness, and inappropriate partisanship makes him an unacceptable nominee to the FEC,” Obama had previously said. “I am particularly concerned with his efforts to undermine voting rights at the Civil Rights Division during his tenure at the Department of Justice.”

Apparently Obama threw a wrench in the works of Harry Reid's deal with  Mitch McConnell that would have allowed four nominees through the Senate on a voice vote. I mean, c'mon, really, Harry, why are you making this easier for the GOP when you should be kicking their teeth in right now? And Barack, was that really so hard? Now if you could just show that same kind of backbone on the war, you might start winning over some of us skeptics. 

Also, more on this at TPM and Roll Call.

crossposted on five before chaos 

I'm pretty sour on the Obama campaign at this point of the juncture. I'm baffled about the hype. Liberal white guilt? Some so beaten by 7 years of Bush that they latch on to anyone selling “hope”? People that buy into the “American Dream” b.s. rhetoric? And Obama supporters are undoubtedly the most uncritical supporters of any candidate on this side of the aisle The guy can do no wrong in their eyes. It's ridiculous, like he was Jim Jones or something. I tend not to like candidates that have that cult of personality thing going on, because if he wins, and pushes through bad legislation or ideas, his most ardent supporters are going to go along for the ride, unquestioning. We already have that with Bush. I don't want it with Obama.

He's positioned himself as the 'change' candidate, yet just about everything he talks about is middle-of-the-road, and play-it-safe. I really don't think the word “bold” is in his eloquent vocabulary. And that's what irks me so much… at this point in the game, we need a fighter, not someone who tries to be everything to everybody. There's a war going on here, and I'm not talking about Iraq. So the only thing he's got going for him in my eyes is that he's not Hillary Clinton. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

I've been trying to avoid writing about the Presidential election, at least in terms of the Dems, because although the roster is certainly a bit stronger than it was in recent elections past, I still think they're all a bunch of corporatist hacks to varying degrees. I suppose that they'd be an improvement over what we have now, but I'm not expecting any substantial move forward from any of them. Just look at Hillary's new healthcare plan… it still includes the insurance companies as a major player. That's like having guys who still beat their wives working on a task force to stop domestic violence.

Anyways, back to the hype. What prompted this little tirade is something in the WaPo this morning, about Obama going out and touting his antiwar speech from 2002. Now, Obama seems to forget that he's also a Senator, and is in a position to raise a lot of hell, should he find that spine of his that is seemingly absent. He also fails to realize that by doing something bold in the Senate now, whether it be forcefully introducing some antiwar legislation or filibustering the living shit out of some toothless proposal, he will force the other candidates to step up their antiwar positioning as well.

This 'don't have the votes' crap is getting old. Although it may be true, there is no reason to give up the fight, because the more attention brought to it, the more the GOP owns the war, and therefore, the bloodier the bloodbath in November. This is incredibly significant, because there are two other candidates, Dodd and Clinton, who are active members of the Senate. It'd be so nice to see them trying to outmaneuver each other in the Senate to be the most antiwar candidate. Obama talks a good game about how he'll end the war, if elected. Why do we have to wait? He has the power to throw a major wrench in the works and change the dialog, right now. But that requires courage, something that doesn't seem to be in Obama's character at this particular time. He's too busy enthralling his uncritical supporters and trying not to offend anyone. Audacity of hype, indeed.

I found an interesting tidbit in the Las Vegas Sun this morning. You may remember hearing a few weeks ago how Pat Leahy was going to possibly hold up the Attorney General confimation hearings for Michael Mukaskey until White House Counsel Fred Fielding accommodates his concerns about the president's controversial eavesdropping program and interrogation methods with captured terrorist suspects. Well, it looks like that game plan has changed:

But his[Leahy's] letter to Mukasey conveyed a lost hope for getting those answers from Fielding, and implied a willingness to move ahead with hearings. Democratic and Republican officials widely expect Leahy to schedule the proceedings as soon as Oct. 17, after an additional private session with Mukasey…

“Regrettably, the White House has chosen not to clear the decks of past concerns and not to produce the information and material it should have and could have about the ongoing scandals that have shaken the Department of Justice and led to the exodus of its former leadership,” Leahy, D-Vt., wrote to Mukasey in a letter first obtained by the Associated Press. “Those matters now encumber your nomination and, if confirmed, your tenure.”

Anyone getting tired of the tough talk then subsequent backdown? Mukasey will answer some questions, dodge some others,  will clear the Judiciary Committee, and will be the next AG. What's really irksome is that since the Dems have taken the majority, aside from a few gestures from Reid, there hasn't really been the “dramatic showdown” on, well, anything. It blows my mind that the GOP, even in the minority, is really controlling much of the agenda. Even if there is another GOP bloodbath in '08, part of me wonders if, through sheer force of will, they'll still be controling things to a certain extent. Of course, the complicit media doesn't help things (just look at the way the MoveOn was covered vs. Rush's latest outburst of public flatulence), but it sure would be nice to see a fight for a change, a real fight, not one of tough talk and zero follow-through.