(I don’t know if I personally agree with everything in here (at least 90% I do…maybe 100%…thinkin’ about it…), but it’s too good and thoughtful a diary not to promote – all points are very well taken. – promoted by odum)

Now that our hangovers have partially cleared from the Ned Lamont victory parties, I think it’s time to consider what the Joe Lieberman loss means for the hundreds of other elections in November, especially the biggies right here in Vermont. Sure, getting Lamont to finish off Lieberman once again in November is a laudable goal, but it won’t mean squat if Lamont is just ONE more voice in a Congress filled with Lieberman-like politicians.

Nationally, of course, euphoria is in the air among the antiwar and netroots movements – deservedly so, too. It’s been a while since we got to celebrate anything. And it sure would be nice to be celebrating again on November 8th to the news that Lamont will be joined by dozens of newly elected officials who will stand up to Bush, work to immediately stop the war, and really work toward a broad progressive agenda.

In Vermont, it looks like it will be a mixed bag in November. Bernie Sanders is seemingly getting a cakewalk of a race thanks to Rich Tarrant’s blatant ineptitude and rather creepy sense of entitlement. But the other big races are distressing.

Take, for example, the race to fill Sanders’ seat in the House of Representatives. I cannot understand how Peter Welch is running neck and neck with Martha Rainville, especially when viewed through the Lamont lens of current affairs. Vermont is clearly one of the most antiwar states in the nation. And yet a National Guard general – the woman who so proudly sent hundreds of our neighbors to the war – is doing extremely well in her inaugural race for elected office. What gives?

In Connecticut, Lieberman got bounced by his own party because he VOTED in favor of the war. But here in Vermont, the person most responsible for CARRYING OUT the Bush war agenda by training and sending troops, Martha Rainville, is doing quite well in the polls at this point in her race.

The same could be said for the Vermont races for governor and lieutenant governor. Republicans Jim Douglas and Brian Dubie have been staunch supporters of the Bush war on Iraq, and yet they are both in what appear to be easy races for re-election. Again, if we break out our Lamont lenses, we have to scratch our heads and ask “what gives?”

For me, the answer is quite simple: Vermont Democrats are not making the war THE ISSUE. And, worse, those of us in the netroots and grassroots movements are letting them get away with it. We’re cheering Lamont from our desktops in Burlington, Montpelier and Brattleboro but apparently not learning much from it.

The beauty of the Lamont campaign was the clarity of his message. He didn’t like Bush’s war and he wasn’t afraid to not only say so but also promise to do something about it. Moreover, Lamont made people think Lieberman and Bush were one in the same. And he stayed on that message until his victory party on Tuesday night.

This is exactly what Welch must begin doing to Rainville, Scudder Parker must do to Douglas, and Tracy/Dunne must do to Dubie. But when this strategy is mentioned to political insiders they nervously point to Douglas’ last campaign against Peter Clavelle.

“Clavelle tried that,” one Democratic strategist told me recently. “And look where it got him.”

But that was also two years ago and a lot has happened in those two years, most notably the Lamont phenomena. Bush’s approval ratings have also plummeted in those two years – especially in Vermont – and the anxiety and opposition to the war have risen dramatically. Moreover, Bush was on the ballot two years ago, giving the Rove-led Republican machine plenty of money, time and exposure to spread their nonsense, manipulate the news, and otherwise defend and promote themselves. In other words, I’d argue that it’s a hell of a lot easier to run against Bush when Bush isn’t running.

Clavelle also ran a terrible campaign. He was slow to respond to important developments; he ran as if he was owed the job; he had considerable baggage from his shifting party allegiances; and his message was anything but clear and consistent.

And, let’s not forget, Parker isn’t Clavelle – yet. I believe Parker has a much better chance of connecting with people because I think he actually likes people. I’ve spoken to many people who have almost reluctantly attended one of his living room events around the state and they all seem to come away with the same feeling: They like him.

Now it’s time for a message. And his message has got to be the war. It’s easy to connect Douglas to Bush’s war. He’s been supporting it and defending it all along. Douglas, in fact, couldn’t even get himself to criticize the Bush administration’s handling of Abu Ghraib. I mean, come on, connecting the Republican Douglas to Bush and his war would be a hell of a lot easier than what Lamont just pulled off with Lieberman.

The same should hold true in Welch’s race against Rainville. Given Rainville’s direct link to the war it should be even easier. But – as the polls currently prove – Welch isn’t exactly setting Vermont voters’ hearts on fire. Welch clearly doesn’t have the same charm or people skills as Parker, but he’s got a dream opponent in the new Lamont political landscape.

I’m not holding my breath that Parker, Welch or Dunne/Tracy will heed any of this advice. But I don’t think any of us should let them off the hook as easily as we have been. As the Lamont campaign proved, the power of the netroots, the blogosphere or whatever else you want to call it is here and it’s real.

Sure, let’s celebrate the Lamont victory. But let’s also work to bring it all home, right here in Vermont where we all live (and vote).

( – promoted by odum)

Today’s Times-Argus features an op/ed by Rep. Thomas Koch, a Republican member of the Vermont House of Representatives,  castigating liberals for being illiberal. Koch highlights a number of recent acts of civil disobedience by Vermont rabble-rousers as evidence that liberals don’t believe in liberalism anymore because we dare to break a few rules (and laws) here and there. Whatever.

It strikes me as hilarious that people like Koch – and many of the liberals he and I both dislike – have apparently forgotten how social and political change has taken place in this country. Name, for example, any major social or political change that wasn’t accompanied by some good old-fashioned civil disobedience. It hasn’t happened.

Beginning with the founding of this nation, substantive change has always been accompanied by acts of civil disobedience. Slavery. Women’s suffrage. Civil rights. Vietnam. Granted, civil disobedience wasn’t the ONLY ingredient to the change, but it was a necessary ingredient – kind of like the flour for bread.

And to ignore this history of social change is to deny the very founding ideals of this nation. We were being pushed around and we fought back – not with mere polite requests to the King of England, but with “illegal” and – gasp! – “illiberal” acts.

Thank goodness the Koch’s of the world were overwhelmed by the reason and the passion necessary to overcome the past ills that have plagued this nation. And, hopefully, they’ll be overwhelmed once again (and again and again) as new ills and injustices are confronted.

Memo to Koch: Read some history for crying out loud.

P.S. My favorite line in the Koch editorial is this one: “Amid the yelling and the consequent arrests, the demonstrators precise message was lost…” Hardly, the “precise message” was splashed across every newspaper in the state and on every television and radio broadcast in the state — and beyond. If Negroponte’s little party hadn’t been crashed, few in this state would have known of his visit or his hideous past.

It must be election season in Vermont because everyone is jumping at the chance to throw money at the state’s dairy farmers. Even our “I hate government spending” governor, Jim Douglas, has stepped up to the plate with a program that will provide millions to the struggling dairy farmers. But can you say: too little, too late. I knew you could. Because that’s exactly what all the “look at me, I’m helping dairy farmers” proposals amount to. And, worse, I guarantee that after November’s elections all these crocodile tears for farmers will be long gone.

Anthony Pollina and Vermont’s Progressive Party have what should be the best shot at addressing the issue of the struggling dairy industry in Vermont. He has, after all, proclaimed it as his top priority for over 15 years (how’s that going, by the way?). But, like most of the Prog proposals, their plan for helping diary farmers seems timid, tepid, and just a smidgen better than what the two-party duopoly is proposing. Ugh.

To be specific, Pollina and the Progs have rolled out their traditional rhetoric about the need for a “state-sponsored” milk processing plant and a renewed (and renewed and renewed) call for state institutions to purchase Vermont milk products. On paper, it all sounds hunky-dory. But why can’t these folks ever get anything off of the paper and into reality?

If, as they argue, the milk processors are the ones reaping so much benefit from the toil of the farmers, why is Pollina & Co. having such a hard time raising the capital to start their own processing plant? They’ve put this issue on the table for years, first trying (unsuccessfully) to get the state to pony up the money for it two years ago. Then they declared in a huff that they would fund it privately. Again, how’s that going?

It would be much more satisfying for Vermont’s supposed “other” party to avoid the rhetoric and get to what’s really wrong with Vermont’s dairy industry. And what’s that? Well, for starters, industrial agriculture. The dirty little secret in this whole debate is that Vermont dairy farmers CAN’T compete in the market they’re playing in. It’s impossible. Period. Vermont doesn’t have the flat land or the climate to compete with the mega-dairies of the south and west.

But Pollina’s love affair with the notion that he’ll be elected SOMEDAY for SOMETHING prevents him from casting aspersions at industrial agriculture. Remember, he was the one who condemned attacks on Cabot when they were gleefully using Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone (rBGH) and poured cold water on the spotlight activist groups attempted to put on Ben & Jerry’s use of toxic pesticides (fundraising always seems to trump principles in the Prog camp).

Go ahead, folks, keep pitching your pennies at the poor farmers. But, sooner or later, we’ll all have to get at what’s real with this issue: capitalism and small dairy farming doesn’t mix.

Until then, enjoy the show – and don’t forget your hanky.