According to Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent, Howard Dean will be advocating via an interview on Vermont Public Radio tonight that the U.S. Senate's health care legislation should be killed. Dean's decision, of course, is based on the news over the last 48 hours that Senator Joe Lieberman has apparently succeeded in his attempts to strip the Medicare buy-in provision from the bill.

Here's an excerpt from Dean's upcoming VPR interview:

“This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.”

Did you hear that Senators Leahy and Sanders? If not, let me repeat: Kill the bill. 

Call them to make sure they understand that, in this case, no bill is better than a meaningless bill.  

Senator Leahy's Office: 1-800-642-3193

Senator Sanders' Office: 1-800-339-9834

[Cross-posted to Broadsides.org]

By now, anyone who cares already knows that Montpelier’s city government came forward last week with the head-spinning admission that – whoops – they made a $400,000 error. And if that’s not bad enough, Mayor Mary Hooper and Town Manager Bill Fraser are also admitting that they have been purposely “not disclosing” this error to the town’s taxpayers for several years. Yes, years.

The Times Argus broke the story last week, right before – wink, wink – Hooper & Fraser, et al said they were about to go public with the information themselves. [Editorial assertion: Yeah, right.]

And the back-story is as dumb as it is simple: The town got goofy with digits and issued a check to a contractor for nearly $400,000 more than the correct $50,000ish owed to him. And the smarmy contractor cashed it, paid off a debt or two and then, when finally confronted more than a year later, said: “The money’s gone.”

Now, if this were happening to mere citizen mortals, this would be the point in the story where law enforcement was contacted and any and all legal measures were put into place to recover the money. No such luck here, because Hooper & Fraser et al decided to make their situation worse by “not disclosing” (read: hiding) it from the public AND entering a multi-year re-payment plan with a man who had already shown all his cards when it came to his ethics.

I know, let’s call it: “Operation: Dumb, squared.” Just because.

But the deed is done.

“Mistakes were made,” declared Mayor Hooper to WDEV’s Mark Johnson this morning, while in the midst of a rather Nixon-like ramble about “feeling bad,” “understanding the urge to feel bad,” and “feeling so bad that she feels like throwing up in the morning.” Um, too much information, Mayor.

But the reality here is that Mayor Mary Hooper must go. And probably Bill Fraser too. Because this mistake, its non-disclosure, and the awkward, unconvincing and – frankly – insulting manner in which Hooper has tried to spin it, is a huge mistake that will have a tremendous economic impact to Montpelierites.

It’s sadly ironic that the “good liberals” in Montpelier have been deafly silent on what is already being called Hooper’s Watergate. That’s what happens when party loyalty usurps better judgment: you start to ignore gross neglect when “among friends.” Ouch.

Imagine, for example, if a similar story was breaking statewide with regards to a Jim Douglas mistake. The response from the liberal Dems would be, “Outrage! Outrage! Outrage!” As it should be.

But when their own house starts to stink, they sound like little more than a field of crickets in response. Carry on, because there’s no one here but us crickets.

Let me repeat: Hooper must go.  

[Cross-posted to Broadsides.org]

Well, that was boring. I’m speaking, of course, of Brian Dubie’s announcement this morning that he’s seeking an electoral promotion from his current position of Lieutenant Governor to just-plain Governor. With all the flare that an email can produce, Dubie’s staff hit the “send” button and – voila! – the Dubester was in the race.

In political campaign circles that kind of announcement is what is technically called a “dud.” No, make that a big dud. Because Dubie had Vermont’s political and media elite almost wetting themselves in anticipation of his decision, and he squandered the anticipation by having a private moment with his webmail program. So let that be a lesson, Vermonters: When the heat is on, Dubie hides.

Dubie’s announcement went ripping through the media and Internet shortly after 9:00 am this morning. I got my first word of it via WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show, and then saw numerous Internet posts thereafter. But when WDEV’s Paul Beaudry stepped up to his “I’ll pay you for some airwaves” show at 11:00 he was acting as if he was sitting on a scoop.

“We might be breaking some very big news for you shortly, people,” Beaudry told his listeners. “News that you’ll probably be hearing here first.”

Um, Paul, everyone already knew. You dope. But it should give us all one more reason to file each and every one of his silly rants under the category of “delusional.” And that’s being kind.

But let’s get back to Dubie. This will be his last election because he will lose it. His political mentor, Governor Jim Douglas, decided to step aside because he knew he was facing a tsunami of challenges (and challengers) in 2010. Vermont’s economy is going to get much worse between now and next year’s election, layoffs will continue at an even more dramatic pace, and the Democrats – lame as they are – are throwing all kinds of money and talent at the race.

Douglas is no dummy. Dubie is. Because it’s almost as if Douglas stuck out his leg, tripped him, and then called out with a snicker: See you next fall (nyuck, nyuck).

The only chance Dubie has is if he can convince his old friend, Anthony Pollina, to recall – and repeat — their warm embrace on election night 2002. In case you forgot, that was the night Dubie first claimed his statewide title after a three-way race with Pollina the Prog and Peter Shumlin the Democrat. Strangely – and nearly unprecedented as far as I know – after Dubie’s victory was announced, Pollina walked to Dubie’s campaign headquarters to give him a big congratulatory hug. Weird.

One thing’s for sure, a major campaign with Brian Dubie as a key player will be an absolute hoot to follow. The guy’s a walking goofball – a strange combination of Gomer Pyle and Don Knotts. And that, my friends, is exactly why Dubie decided to hide in his office and make his biggest political announcement of his career via email.

But, sooner or later, Dubie’s going to have to take the stage. And I can’t wait.  

[Cross-posted at Broadsides.org]

The Vermont Press Bureau’s “Capitol Beat” column in Sunday’s Times Argus made an effort to cover the Boots Wardinski campaign for lite-guv. Well, actually, effort might not be the right word since much of the piece is little more than a shallow cut and paste from Shay Totten’s Seven Days blog post on Friday. They did, however, manage to stick to the Bureau’s apparent unwritten rule to cover political campaigns without mentioning a political issue. High five!

But, seriously, at what point in the political campaign process are issues allowed to be covered? Apparently we’re not there yet. Because in the several hundred words they gave to Wardinski’s recent decision to run as a Prog in next year’s primary, they didn’t mention one issue, instead getting bogged down in rhetorical gamesmanship like this:

“No sooner did State Rep. David Zuckerman, a prog, say he might run for lieutenant governor as a Democrat – while hoping to win the Progressive primary as a write-in candidate  — than perennial candidate and protester (or maybe it should be perennial protester and candidate) Boots Wardinski announced he was running, too.”

Cute.

But I’d call Boots a “constant” protester – ever seen how the fella lives? – and a regular political participant. You know, kind of like what we used to think of as a functioning citizen back in the good old days.

By ignoring the issues and labeling Boots as a “perennial” candidate, the Press Bureau basically gives itself a free pass to skip out on its job. High five!

Besides, don’t they know that snarky writing and skipping out on journalistic responsibility is for bloggers? Yo fellas, you’re reporters.

Interestingly, media bias also comes into play in the Press Bureau’s short piece on the Wardinski campaign. There are six other politicians and/or past candidates for public office mentioned in the article, but only Wardinski got the dismissive “perennial” tag. Um, how about Anthony Pollina? Or Martha Abbott? They’ve both ran for office on many occasions and are the in same position as Boots: On the outside looking in.

Worse, not only does Abbott get away with dodging the “perennial” tag, she also gets to accuse Wardinski of “marginalizing” her party’s statewide efforts. Despite being inadvertently funny (how do you marginalize a zero-percent success rate on statewide elections?), I think it’s Pollina who ought to be getting the blame for marginalizing the Progs. It was Pollina, after all, who’s lost every statewide Prog race he’s entered and then ditched the party last time around to “better his electoral changes.” Yo Tony, how did that work out for you? Ouch.

It’s also a shame that the Press Bureau allowed the Abbott dig to go unchallenged from Wardinski. But, then again, that would require actual reporting work and, damn it, it was a Friday deadline and it was a lot easier to cut and paste Totten’s work than to make a couple of phone calls. Three Penny Taproom, here we come! High five!

Elected politicians mentioned in the article who also dodged the “perennial” tag included Zuckerman and Peter Welch, two fellas who have certainly been constant candidates for years (Zuckerman) and decades (Welch). Of course, the use of the word “perennial,” based on the words definition, has nothing to do with success – only effort. Unless, of course, you’re a lazy political reporter who wants to signal a dismissive tone without doing your homework. High five!

Whatever.

At least they spelled Broadsides correctly.  

[Cross-posted (obviously) at Broadsides.org]

While Vermont’s current Lieutenant Governor, Brian Dubie, dithers to and fro about his re-election plans and other oft-mentioned possible candidates like Rep. David Zuckerman put out political feelers by asking questions about themselves in the third-person (i.e. “What should David Zuckerman do?”), Newbury’s Boots Wardinski is cutting to the chase: He’s in. Period.

But wait. There is one wrinkle.

In an exclusive phone call with Broadsides.org, Wardinski announced that he’d be seeking the office of Vermont’s number two job in the Progressive Party’s primary in September 2010.

“I know what I want. I know where I stand. And I know how to use first-person pronouns, as in: I’m running for lieutenant governor of Vermont in the Progressive Party’s primary because I firmly believe in alternative parties and my stand on the issues.”

When asked for specifics, Wardinski rattled off a list of political stands that included the immediate shutdown of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, universal health care coverage for all Vermonters in a publicly-funded system, a halt to public employee layoffs, and an immediate withdrawal of all Vermont service members currently fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and “who the hell knows where else.”

“See, being specific isn’t hard,” declared Wardinski. “I just wish my opponents would do the same by stopping their media games and starting a substantive debate on the issues. If Brian Dubie and David Zuckerman don’t know what to do, they should step aside and let those who believe in what they’re doing – and thinking – lead.”

Wardinski is a horse logger, landscaper, farmer, maple sugar maker, and political activist in Vermont, where he’s lived for nearly thirty years. He currently serves as the president of the Capital City Farmers’ Market in Montpelier, the founding co-director of Horse Loggers for Peace in an undisclosed location, and a member of Veterans for Peace.

Wardinski has been arrested on numerous occasions in acts of civil disobedience, including actions against continued funding of the Iraq War (before it was popular), against the use of genetic-modified organisms (GMO’s), and against military recruitment of Vermont’s citizens.

Political observers may wonder why Wardinski is entering the Progressive Party’s primary after being a key historical figure – along with Bernie Sanders — in Vermont’s Liberty Union Party. The answer, according to Wardinski, is simple:

“I truly believe in alternatives – many alternatives! – to the two-party duopoly that has a stranglehold on our state and national political system. And when I saw that the Progressive Party’s Zuckerman was beginning his game of footsie with the Democrats, I knew someone had to step up and demonstrate that those alternatives have to be celebrated, not co-opted. Unlike Zuckerman, I believe what I say about the two-party hegemony that has led to wars, a lack of health care, and the gross inequality between the rich and poor.”

Wardinski is referring, of course, to the reports being circulated by Zuckerman himself that he is considering a complete abandonment of his previously held positions regarding alternative parties by entering the lt. governor’s race as a Democrat.

“Zuckerman’s basically issuing one, big ‘nevermind’ to his constituents,” said Wardinski. “I guess that’s what it takes to be a Democrat or Republican. You know, just like Obama was going to ‘stop the wars.’ Nevermind, indeed.”

Broadsides attempted to contact uber-Vermont political commentators Eric Davis and Garrison Nelson for a comment on Wardinski’s announcement but we were informed that they “were napping.” [Editor’s note: Poor fellas, they must be tired from trying to make the bland seem so relevant for all these years.]

Wardinski promised to be making an announcement about his campaign staff in the very near future. Stay tuned.

[Cross-posted at Broadsides.org]

Geez, Shay Totten’s love affair with Congressman Peter Welch is the blogging gift that keeps giving this week. Less than forty-eight hours after his fawning print piece on Welch hit the newsstands, Totten went to the Seven Days blog to make sure that we all know that his journalistic pimpmanship will be there for the good congressman whenever he calls (or issues a news release).

Totten’s blog piece was little more than a full-throated rehash of the news release that Welch’s office issued regarding the education bill that the House voted to past last week. But what’s not mentioned in the blog entry is that the education bill in question also contained the amendment to de-fund ACORN – an amendment that – unlike Leahy and Sanders – Welch voted in favor of. Yes, Welch voted with the rightwing lunatics and wishy-washy middle to de-fund ACORN based on the very serious (and well-publicized) allegations of wrongdoing by its staff members. Again, Totten didn’t do his homework. Because while the rest of the media across the nation focused on the very newsworthy ACORN section of the education bill, Totten completely ignored it. Instead, letting Welch all but hijack his keyboard so that lines like this could be delivered to his Vermont readers:

Vermont students will receive $60 million more in Pell Grants, and an additional 2,985 students will be eligible over the next 10 years, according to figures released by US Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT). Welch successfully amended the bill Thursday morning to ensure that non-profit lenders like VSAC can continue providing ancillary services such as college counseling, career placement, financial aid and financial literacy. It also ensures that borrower services – for example, delinquency prevention and default aversion – are allowed uses of the new State Innovation Completion Grants. “I am pleased that my amendment will help VSAC continue its critical outreach services, which have helped so many Vermonters take advantage of higher education and the opportunities that come with it,” said Welch in a statement.

Great. But what about the ACORN part of the bill? It wasn’t even mentioned. I guess that can happened when you’re too dizzy from all that spin, huh Shay?

Interestingly, Totten made quite the story out of the fact that Vermont’s Senators Leahy and Sanders did the right thing earlier in the week by voting against the Senate version of the bill to de-fund ACORN. So, in case you’re keeping track at home, Totten’s rules on covering Vermont incumbents goes something like this: Promote, promote, promote. And never criticize.

While going back to check Totten’s story about the Leahy/Sanders “no” votes, I noticed that he had gone back to “update” it to include the news of the Welch ACORN vote. Thus, buried deep down below several other blog posts and at the bottom of that particular post was this “update:”

After several requests from Seven Days, Rep. Peter Welch today explained his vote to ban the low-income advocacy group ACORN from receiving federal funds. “The actions taken by ACORN employees reveal a disturbing and intolerable pattern of abuse of taxpayer dollars. The organization must be held accountable – and Congress must get back to work on reforming our health care system so that all Americans have access to quality and affordable health care.”

And that’s it. No further comment from Totten on the matter. Sorry, but this is getting weird. If Totten and Seven Days are going to get all fawning over Leahy and Sanders’ votes to stop the de-funding of ACORN, one would expect a finely honed jab or two toward Welch for his completely wrong-headed opposite vote. Instead, all we get is a reprint of a Welch statement. Worse, it’s a statement that would be about as easy as watching the weather change in Vermont to pick apart.

Here, let me show you: If Welch believes that “a disturbing and intolerable pattern of abuse of taxpayer dollars” is reason to cut off federal funding to an organization without even a hearing, why doesn’t Welch cut off funding for the Abu Ghraib-occupying Department of Defense? Just saying.

And why let Welch get away with his topic-changing nonsense about getting “back to work on reforming health care”? Ever chew gum and walk at the same time, Congressman? Besides, Welch has already announced that he’s not going to fight for single-payer or universal health care coverage, so why let him get away with a statement that pretends he’s in favor of full “access to quality and affordable health care”? Because supporting a health insurance corporation reform plan – which he’s hinted at doing – is anything but accessible or affordable. Been there, done that.

If Totten and Seven Days had any alternative gumption left in them, the headline today should have been: Welch Sides with Glenn Beck Nation, Votes to De-fund ACORN. Shame on them all.

[Addendum: A reader wrote in earlier today to Broadsides to draw attention to a story by Anne Galloway at VTDigger.org regarding Welch’s propensity to secure military contracts for Vermont businesses. It is, indeed, a great story. In fact, it’s a great contrast to Totten’s fawning coverage of Welch. Read it.]

[Cross-posted at Broadsides.org]

Shay Totten of Seven Days has been known to document the shady revolving door that goes from political job to journalism job (and vice versa) in our small town known as Vermont. I guess he should know about the phenomena from experience since he has, after all, gone from journalist to employee of former Auditor Liz Ready and then back to journalism. Dizzying, I know.

Totten appears to be keeping the revolving door between covering politicians and working for them well-greased if you consider his recent sloppy kiss of an article that he wrote about Vermont’s lone congressman, Peter Welch (“The Man of The House.”).

The headline should give you a hint about how far over Totten bent to supply Welch with nothing but accolades and applause lines. But the article is worse if, like me, you find yourself hoping that Totten and Seven Days would deliver on their “alternative media” tagline. No such luck here.

In his two-page feature, Totten waxes poetically about Welch’s great accomplishments with regards to the health care debate and his (cue laugh track) anti-war stance. But when Totten isn’t serving up his own chapped-lips for more Welch kisses, he serves up one quote after another from Welch’s friends and colleagues who (guess what?) have nothing but praise for Welch’s “skill, temperament, experience, and interpersonal skills.”

Please, get a room.

Quoting all this praise isn’t a bad thing in and of itself. It only becomes a glaring problem when you realize by the end of his article that Totten hasn’t quoted one, single person who has anything critical to say of Welch and/or his record. Not from the right. Not from the left. No one.

But let’s step back and look once again at the issues Totten-via-Welch are declaring to be Welch’s great successes.

First up: health care. How is it that Welch can be “succeeding” in the health care debate when it’s so obvious that real health care reform (read: single-payer and even the so-called public option) is off the table? Smells like a failure to me.

And how about the wars? Totten gushes about how Welch “was a vocal critic of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan when he ran, and won, in 2006.” But then Totten refuses to report how Welch has voted repeatedly since being elected to fund BOTH wars.

Laughingly, Totten lets Welch off the hook by serving up his old and tired claim that he supports “timelines” for withdrawal of troops when he votes to appropriate more money for the wars. But how’s that strategy working out for him? Well, in 2007, Welch insisted that his vote for more Iraq war money at the time would lead to an end to the war by September 2008. Yes, September 2008.

But Totten doesn’t bother to trot out these kinds of facts or take a minute or two to contact someone who could provide him with an alternative view. Instead, Totten declares Welch victorious with his war stance – never mind the facts.

Worse, Totten lets Welch spit this line out without any opposing view: “The major thing in electing Barack Obama was to bring our troops home.”

Who amongst the sane – let alone the “alternative media” – believes that Obama is trying to “bring the troops home”? None that I know of. In fact, nearly two thousand Vermont National Guard troops are about to be deployed for Obama’s wars in the next couple of months, a deployment that is the largest in the state’s history. Moreover, there’s talk of a troop surge in Afghanistan and hemming and hawing amongst the Obama Defense Department about meeting the absurdly slow (and largely mythical) troop withdrawals from Iraq.

So how is it that Welch is succeeding here? Because, once again, it sure smells like failure to me.

Totten’s article on Welch should be considered “exhibit A” on how members of Congress can continue to be popular while the Congress itself is detested by the populace. It’s because members of the local media – alternative or otherwise – serve up nonsense about “their” congressman succeeding despite the obvious facts to the contrary.

If Congress is so clearly bungling health care and the wars, how can Welch be succeeding? When Welch delivers on his campaign pledges to provide single-payer health care and END the wars, then we’ll trot out the “success” word. But, for now, Welch is little more than a political loser.

Tottten won’t say that – not if he wants that revolving door to keep spinning in his favor. Too bad.

[Cross-posted to Broadsides.org]

But, first, let’s begin with a simple multiple choice question:

Guess which constituencies have NOT been invited to the Obama White House?

A. Wall Street Criminals.

B. Health Insurance Industry Crooks.

C. Single-Payer Advocates.

D. Anti-War Leaders.

E. Military Industrial Complex Thieves.

Oh wait, maybe I didn’t word that very fairly. Whatever.

Time’s up. The answer is “C” and “D.”

Didn’t fool you, huh?

And if you’re wondering where the change is, try this: Insert hand into pocket and shake. No, no, not there. Yeah, there – where the change is. Feel it, baby. And then weep.

But now, as of today, we have a whole new right-wing constituency that is being fawned over by Obama himself: NASCAR nation.

I’m guessing that Team Obama was going down its list of whom it hasn’t abandoned yet and determined that the eco-global-warming-anti-noise folks hadn’t been properly poked in the eye yet. Solution? Invite NASCAR to the White House. Done – poke provided.

But Obama didn’t just invite the gas-hounds to the people’s house, he also spewed his own verbal petroleum out in a way that should have made Bill McKibben wonder why he lectured his global warming groupies to stick with the good Democrat. I mean, consider this quote from Obama today as he stood with NASCAR drivers in the White House driveway:

One of the core values of the NASCAR community is the belief that service isn’t just something you do once in a while when it’s convenient. It’s a way of life. That’s the face of America that you show to the world.

Huh?

Sorry, but the only “core values” I can think that belong in the same sentence with the term NASCAR are things like: Racism, waste, drunkenness, obesity and ignorance. Well, I do think it’s pretty cool when they shave the number of their favorite driver into their back hair.

Oh wait, did I say, “racism, waste, drunkenness, obesity and ignorance?” Oops, I forgot, in modern political speak that translates to: Votes.

In fact, the more I think about it, maybe they’re all Democrats. They do, after all, seem to have a lot in common. NASCAR fans and Democrats, for example, love to sit on their asses and watch their “leaders” go around and around and, in the end, get nowhere.  Worse, they all still cheer as if they won. Fuck yeah.

But Obama stretched it more than a bit too far today when had this to say about NASCAR races:

Families can go to the track and they can see these great racers and enjoy a good family event that lasts for a while, and it’s affordable. But part of it is also the fact that I think racing teams themselves are a family, and it’s a reminder that the guy behind the wheel is not the only person involved in this thing. That it takes a pit crew, and it takes the engineers back at the shop.

Oh no, Mr. President, your ignorance scar is showing. Pandering will do that, you know.

Because if you’d managed to check, NASCAR races are not family events and they’re certainly not “affordable.” Unless, of course, you consider $100 tickets affordable and viewing fat, toothless, drunken bastards with exposed ass-cracks as big as the ozone hole a good family event.



Oh Reverend Wright, where are you when we need you? I’m sure you could have set the Good Brother Barack straight on this one.

But then, as I studied the picture of the NASCAR drivers posing with Obama, I realized what the attraction was: the corporate logos. Of course.

But at least the NASCAR drivers are honest about the game they’re playing. When they get media face time they appear with corporate stickers all over them and gush about the great “Dupont, Shell, Exxon, Coke, Budweiser, etc.”

If Obama was that honest, he’d be similarly decked out in corporate logos when dismissing meaningful health care reform or bending over for the military industrial complex while escalating wars.

Once again, it’s the corporations, stupid.

Maybe NASCAR’s onto to something: Honesty.

Pass me a beer.

[Cross-posted at Broadsides.org]

Well, not literally. Because liberals don’t fuck. They donate. Sperm. To people they’d apparently rather not meet (or fuck). But they’ve convinced themselves that it somehow feels better this way. For a while. Until, that is, they realize that those to their right and – most assuredly — to the their left – are having more fun. And then they bitch and moan. Which, I guess, helps them forget that they don’t fuck.

See, I’ve got it all figured out.

—

I’m speaking, of course, about the liberal whine-fest going on about the right-wingers who are daring to show their passion in public by standing up and speaking out about the Democrats’ new “health-insurance reform” plans. Sure, these right-wingers need to be dissed for the nefarious ways in their thinking (earth to wingers: your arguments are half-baked at best). But your passion is pretty cool.

And, unfortunately for those of us who believe in real and total – gasp! – socialized medicine for every man, woman and child in this country (you know, kind of like Canada), the right-wingers are kicking some activist ass, forcing the health-care reform possibilities to slip in the same ditch they died in back in 1992.

But since the liberals hate passion, they’re counter strategy for the moment is to diss passion, wag their fingers in rebuke, claim American democracy is based on “civility” (try telling that to the Iraqis, Afghanis, et al), and otherwise sit wringing their hands in a fit of nervous and judgmental nothingness. You can’t do that!

Um, liberals, they CAN do that. In fact, they ARE doing that. And – again unfortunately – they’re winning by moving the heath-care debate into the nebulous never-land of complete and utter nonsense. Why do you think your almighty savior, Obama, hasn’t uttered the words “single-payer” since before he needed your vote? Or, for that matter, why do you think Obama’s new goal is to simply “reform the insurance industry?”

Let me answer those questions: Because the right-wingers are showing passion and the liberals are busy crying foul over the display of passion. Losers.

I really love it when the liberals are declaring that the passion being shown by the wrong-headed rightists is being orchestrated by an “organized movement.” And what’s the problem with that? Yo liberals, try it sometime. But, be careful, you might find that you have to actually stand up and speak out for something other than Team Democrat at election time. Oh no, there go the cocktail party invitations and 4-star ratings at your favorite ninny-liberal blog!

I had the opportunity to hear a bit of Vermont’s Senator Bernie Sanders on the radio this afternoon. He was huffing and puffing about the right-wing passion and, while admonishing them, he actually declared that “American democracy is based on civility.”

Sorry, but you have to be neck-deep in liberal bullshit to believe this. And you’d also have to be totally and completely devoid of any understanding of American history, too. Because there was nothing very civil about the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the war on the Native Americans, the fight for rights for women and minorities or, for that matter, the fights for workers’ rights. People died for these causes. So stop getting your panties in a fucking wad about some dopes who stand up and speak out of turn at a meeting.

But we all know why they’re pissed. Because they’re afraid of passion. They’re afraid to risk anything for their beliefs. And they’re devoid of the ability to do much of anything politically other than bet it all on some election-day fantasy involving the “next best hope.”

Yeah, it must suck to be a liberal. So much rhetoric, so little action, and so many other people to blame for your inaction.

Go forth and agitate. You know, like Malcolm X, John Brown, Scott Nearing and Emma Goldman.  

[Cross-posted at Broadsides.org]

The news of Vermont State Senator and Lieutenant Governor candidate Ed Flanagan being accused of masturbating at the Burlington YMCA continues to rile the waters of Vermont’s media (just take at look at the comments in my previous post).

This morning, I had the opportunity to hear WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show, in which the host of the show decided to unleash an editorial castigating the Burlington Free Press and the rest of the Vermont media for its poor handling of this issue. Specifically, Johnson was annoyed by the fact that the Free Press didn’t include specific information about Flanagan’s “brain injuries” that would have, in effect, both convicted and defended Flanagan of the alleged behaviors. Johnson, for example, cited a website that documented the “inability to control personal desires” as a symptom of the brain injuries that Flanagan is apparently a victim of.

“Why,” Johnson asked, “didn’t they at least quote from this website?”

Well, Mr. Johnson, because Flanagan is denying the allegations. And, in a news story, it’s just supposed to be about the facts as they exist at the time the facts are being written.

Here, for your reading pleasure, is my letter to Mark Johnson:

Hey Mark,

Your commentary today regarding Ed Flanagan was off base for a couple of reasons. The news story in the Free Press that you were upset with was, indeed, a “news” story. Thus, it is supposed to rely upon the facts as they exist at the time of the writing. And those facts are (as they continue to be): Flanagan has been accused of lewd acts (yes, masturbating in public is a lewd act) and Flanagan is denying it. Given those facts, even mentioning his car accident is a bit far afield. Flanagan is, again, denying it.

In your commentary today, you took the Free Press (and the Vermont media in general) to task for not citing brain injury experts or websites to help “explain” Flanagan’s condition and, as a result, the alleged actions. But if the media did what you are suggesting they do — and what you did today on your show — they would be both convicting Flanagan and defending him. Those are not the roles of the media — unless, perhaps, we’re talking about the editorial page.

Flanagan has had many opportunities to address this issue and not once has he cited his brain injury. Instead, he has totally denied these allegations and declared his intentions to continue to seek higher office.  Thus, in the strict “who, what, where and why” of news journalism, his accident and his injuries from it are not relevant to this allegation.

If, however, Flanagan, his family, or his lawyer or spokesperson made a statement regarding his brain injury in relation to this allegation then the story and the role of the media would certainly change.

I know you don’t want to go here but I can’t help but thinking that your verbal editorial today had much to do with the cozy relationship between what I’ve often referred to as the “power elite” in Vermont. Specifically, your Flanagan editorial today seemed like an inappropriate rush to defend a fellow member of the political, economic and media “elite.”

If, as you seem to be suggesting, the Vermont media should be including possible explanations for alleged behavior that is being denied in their news stories, I’d invite you to set up shop at the Barre courthouse some morning and offer some commentary on all the possible defenses and explanations for those being paraded in front of the judge. If you followed your Flanagan rationale, I bet it would sound something like this: “Oh, there goes Joe Vermont, he’s pleading not guilty to DUI but we all know he comes from five generations of alcoholics…”

It’s a very slippery slope, indeed.

All the best,

Michael Colby

[Addendum: In another thread, Doug Hoffer asks people to “back off the armchair diagnoses” with regards to this case. Agreed, if it also includes those who are convicting and/or defending Flanagan because of his apparent brain injuries.]