( – promoted by odum)

Good catch by jvwalt regarding the slurs against Representative Floyd Nease and Democrats in general in yesterday's Rutland Herald.

The anti-Democratic policy slurs appeared in the Herald’s article about Governor Douglas’ latest anti-working family policy decision. In a nutshell, the Governor is hopelessly committed to keep spending taxpayer money on political/public relations staff while simultaneously cutting badly needed funds to support child safety/daycare help for working Vermonters balancing the burdens of family responsibility and working long hours during a Republican recession. See article. 

The Rutland Herald refers dismissively to Representative Floyd Nease, the Ass’t House Majority Leader, and other “Democrat lawmakers.”  Hmmmm?

Admittedly, this notoriously focus-group tested and Republican marketed type derision, when just a one-off thing, can sometimes be an innocent typo. If the person does it repeatedly, it is hard to see it as anything but a slur.

The Herald article goes pretty far into the muck . . . (more below)

UPDATE:  Rama emailed Peter Hirschfeld regarding his choice of words.  Mr. Hirschfeld tells Rama that:

I had no idea dropping the adjectival suffix was such a faux pas. I'm just a terrible grammarian who thought that if Republicans form the Republican Party, and Progressives form the Progressive Party, then Democrats form the Democrat Party. Kindergarten stuff, I know. It's embarrassing. In any event, my apologies for any perceived slight. I certainly didn't intend to “slur” the Party.

Fair enough & thank you Rama.

Hendrik Hertzberg explained the reasoning behind Republican-American's strategy of demonizing Democrats by their strategy of substituting the noun for the adjectival (Democratic) when refering to a person's or a policy's party affiliation:

    There is no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. “Democrat Party” is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but “Democrat Party” is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams “rat.” At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation. During the Cold War, many people bridled at obvious misnomers like “German Democratic Republic,” and perhaps there are some members of the Republican Party (which, come to think of it, has been drifting toward monarchism of late) who genuinely regard the Democratic Party as undemocratic. . . .  And no doubt there are plenty of others who say “Democrat Party” just to needle the other side while signaling solidarity with their own—the partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign.

    * * *

    In the conservative media, the phenomenon feeds more voraciously the closer you get to the mucky, sludgy bottom. “Democrat Party” is standard jargon on right-wing talk radio and common on winger Web sites like NewsMax*com, . . . William F. Buckley, Jr., the Miss Manners cum Dr. Johnson of modern conservatism, dealt with the question in a 2000 column in National Review, the magazine he had founded forty-five years before. “I have an aversion to ‘Democrat’ as an adjective,” Buckley began. . .

     . . . among those of the Republican persuasion “Democrat Party” is now nearly universal. This is partly the work of Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz, the Johnny Appleseed of such linguistic innovations as “death tax” for estate tax and “personal accounts” for Social Security privatization. Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party. “Those two letters actually do matter,”  

The first time I see someone write this, it is not necessarily a slur unless the context makes it obviously so. Rather, it is a signal to keep an eye on the reporter/commenter etc. to see whether they are being objective or subversive.

In this particular case, the Herald reporter threw down the sign three times in the article.

This is the effect of “nouning” (if I may take verb privileges) an adjective

This is what the article says:

Efforts to trim $32 million from the state budget turned political Monday when a prominent Democrat lawmaker criticized Gov. James Douglas

AND

The public-relations positions funded via the executive branch budget have come under fire perennially from Democrat lawmakers.

AND Finally

“. . . the administration had already agreed to chop $500,000 in non-union salaries over fiscal years 2008 and 2009, largely in response to Democrat criticism over the number of public relations employees appointed by Douglas . . .”

Rather than use an adjective to describe the type of “criticism” (Democratic criticism) the type of “fire” (Democratic fire) or type of “lawmaker” (Democratic lawmaker), the article uses, one can only surmise deliberately based on the repeated hits, a dismissive slur against Rep. Nease.

At the same time, the Herald gives the Governor’s staff a free shot at Democratic motives for Nease's advocacy of placing a policy priority on maintaining what mild assistance to working families the State already has.  The forum the Herald gives for the Douglas administration to take shots at  Rep. Nease also come at the expense of – and as a substitute for – any visible attempt by the Herald to make the administration justify its spending priorities.  Nice.

Here is another offensive and even more glaring example of a particular noun/adjective slur I’ve heard far too often. It is grossly bigoted as well. Take the following nouns (Democrat, Jew) and the following adjectives (Democratic, Jewish). Now, read the Herald’s dismissive sentences again (substituting a noun for the appropraite adjective) and see how this sounds:

Example 1:

Efforts to trim $32 million from the state budget turned political Monday when a prominent Jew lawmaker criticized Gov. James Douglas

AND

The public-relations positions funded via the executive branch budget have come under fire perennially from Jew lawmakers.

AND Finally

“. . . the administration had already agreed to chop $500,000 in non-union salaries over fiscal years 2008 and 2009, largely in response to Jew criticism over the number of public relations employees appointed by Douglas . . .”

Instead of, for example, “Jewish lawmaker” or “Democratic lawmaker,” the Rutland Herald gives us “[noun: Democrat, noun: Jew] lawmaker,” which reads just like the slur it is intended to be.  

The legacy media have tacked pretty far to the right for well past a generation now. The faux balancing in political reporting is particularly glaring when the “expression of contempt” is so, literally, black and white.

(This is a lot more important than my hummingbird photos. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Overheard in Montpelier — Jim Douglas to Anthony Pollina:  “Tony, here's $28,000, don't spend it all in one Party.”

Anthony Pollina's campaign is not handling his departure from the Vermont Progressive Party with the aplomb expected of a politician who has run in three statewide elections since 1984.  The current campaign finance flap was a foreseeable distraction, but he apparently had no pre-determined solution nor did he take proactive steps to stave off the problem before allowing a confusing political/financial/legal narrative to take hold.

The most important aspect of this story is also the most overlooked. No one seems to be discussing the fact that:

1. Mr. Pollina has broken no campaign finance law.

2. Mr. Pollina is under no legal obligation to return the notorious and controversial $28K.

3. Mr. Pollina may legally continue to collect contributions as an Independent in the same manner that he would have done as a Progressive.

Pretty crazy considering both his response to this affair and the press he has received as result.

My opinion (glad you asked)  Mr. Pollina owes Governor Douglas a big fat sloppy wet kiss because, thanks to the Governor, Pollina is not legally obligated to return a single penny. In fact, Vermont law does nothing to prevent him from going back to his contributors (caveat, good luck trying!) for more $$ — all thanks to Governor Douglas.

The fun stuff, below:

Anthony Pollina will be under extreme political pressure to return single source contributions in excess of $1,000. 

There has been an agreement among politicians to accept an informal campaign contribution ceasefire ceiling.  Face it; many of Vermont's large contributors have wholeheartedly endorsed this as well.  He will look really unsavory if he is the first person to exceed the politically and socially acceptable $1,000 limits just because (1) he can and (2) he forgot to consider the problem in the first place: oops!

Still the point is one of image not law. While burdened with a political and public relations obligation, Mr. Pollina does not face any legal obligation to return “excess” campaign contributions.  The State cannot prosecute Mr. Pollina nor can it hold him liable, fine him or otherwise put him in legal jeopardy since Vermont does not have a law on the books for him to violate.  The current “limits” folks are discussing are legally non-existent.  They are voluntary.  They reflect a mutual non-aggression pact to continue using the pre-Randall v. William Sorrell single source contribution limits.

Pretty neat trick, uh? 

This is how it works.  In April 2008, as the legislature was winding down the session, Governor James “Watch.Me.Starve.The.State-but-Piggy.Stuff.the.Snot.Out.of.My.Campaign.Account” Douglas vetoed the one piece of legislation that would have placed limits on contributions to gubernatorial campaigns.

This spring, our General Assembly passed S. 278. Senate Bill 278 fixed the problem created by the Randall v. Sorrell decision and replaced the campaign contribution limits the legislature had repealed in Act 64.

S.278 set a generally acceptable limit on campaign contributions and was the product of intense negotiation, compromise and acceptance by political parties, legislators and public interest groups. Among other things, it would have instituted a contribution limit of $1,000 per election cycle.  The exact language in S.278 that Governor Douglas vetoed read:

A candidate for the office of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, auditor of accounts, or attorney general shall not accept contributions totaling more than $1,000.00 from a single source or political committee for any election.

By vetoing the legislation, however, Governor Douglas prevented any statutory limit on campaign contributions to gubernatorial (or any) candidates. The legal ceiling on campaign contributions to gubernatorial candidates — rather than being statutorily capped at $1,000.00 — remains well in excess of this.  In fact, there is no limit. Governor Douglas can harvest contributions far in excess of the $1K & $2K individual offerings he already has sloshing around in his campaign slop bucket.

Governor Douglas's veto has forced the most wide-open campaign contribution (non)limits in the country and with hardly a peep out of anyone. Come late August, September or October, he can call on his donor base for unlimited funds to cluster bomb Vermont airwaves with standard issue GOP dissembled cookie-cutter media fear & slime, and there is no legal recourse against him doing it either.

The Process, How We Came to this Point: 

Prior to 1998, Vermont law mandated “No candidate shall accept contributions totaling more than $1,000 from a single source.” 3 V.S.A. §2805 (pre-1988 language)

In 1997, our General Assembly repealed the $1,000 campaign contribution limit. In its place the legislature adopted a new law mandating a $400 single source contribution limit. This is the key to the whole mess. The legislature passed and the Governor signed legislation REPEALING the $1,000 contribution limit that Mr. Pollina is being pilloried for “violating.” The replacement statute became effective in November 1998 after that year's election. 

Since passage of Act 64, there is not $1,000.00 contribution limit under Vermont law.  The $400 limit “on the books” (as they say), was tossed by the Supreme Court as part of an overall unconstitutional campaign finance scheme. To this day, if one looks-up the statutory contribution limits in Title 17, the only language “on the books” states:  A candidate for the office of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, auditor of accounts, or attorney general shall not accept contributions totaling more than $400.00 from a single source, political committee or political party in any two-year general election cycle. Oops! That's not very helpful now is it?  Oh well, the rest, as they say, is history.

The unrepaired language residing in Vermont's campaign finance statutes are a meaningless relic waiting for a legislative update without a gubentorial veto. So what is the contribution limit to a gubernatorial campaign?  The simple, and legally correct answer, is that there is no limit.

So WHERE DOES one find the so-called $1,000 single source contirbution limit that Mr. Pollina allegedly violated? The short answer is nowhere, but there is still more to the story than that.

Faced with this problem – i.e. no contribution limits – and after being shot down in Randell v. William Sorrel et al. (which, BTW, cost Vermont taxpayers a few $million in legal fees that the courts required State to reimburse the plainfiffs for violating their free speech rights), the Attorney General decided to implement a new limit on campaign contributions. With a straight face, he declared that Vermont's contribution law “reverts” to the old repealed law when the Court stikes down the law currently residing in the Vermont Code.

“Uhh” you may be asking?

This “reversion” concept, while not recognized in law, or fact, nor in any way enforceable, and without any historic precedent, has nonetheless been the basis of the informal campaign finance cease-fire practiced by MOST candidate thus far. (Aside – at least one candidate violated it intentionally in 2006 to make this very point). Asst. Attorney Gen. Mike McShane was quoted in several Vermont papers saying the A.G.'s office would sit back and wait to receive a complaint before “investigating.” I suspect that one reason the State might not be jumping to bring a case against anyone who breaks the $1,000 “limit” is this one little problem: THERE IS NO LAW on the books to violate. Hello!

Reality check: If the State were to charge someone with violating a contribution limit, the first thing a judge asks is “what statute did the defendent violate?” To which the prosecuter from the AG's office would respond, “it's our position *cough* that the defendent violated 17 V.S.A. §2805(a), which the legislature repealed in 1997. In front of most judges I know, that response will go over like a fart in church. The next thing the judge will say (and if s/he is lucky, the only and most polite statement a prosecuter can expect to hear) is “case dismissed.”

Back to Mr. Pollina. There are many problems with Anthony Pollina’s campaign. The fact that he will be lucky to garner the same 9.5% of the vote he received when he last ran for Governor is problem numero uno. 

His biggest problem is ditching the Progressive Party. We have heard many reasons why he did that. Personally, (among other reasons) I think he did it to preserve a face-saving option to drop out of the race. As an Independent, he can bail after the primary without leaving the Progressives saddled with a headless horseman candidate still on the ballot riding into November. He has a drop-out option as an Independent free agent that would otherwise be a painful option to exercise as the Progressive nominee.

This latest campaign finance flap, however, is a big distraction. It represents a painfully difficult choice rather than a legal liability.

One final thought. Off the bat, I said that Mr. Pollina owes the Governor a big fat wet sloppy kiss (I say it again here for those lucky enough to have purged that image from their minds, sorry!). Still, I'm not sure who should be giving who the reach-around on this one. If Mr. Pollina decides to breach the gentleman'sperson's agreement on $1,000.00 single source contributions, what then? The Governor had his reasons for vetoing the contribution limit in the first place *wink**wink*. Even though Mr. Pollina's campaign is going nowhere, think of the precedent it will set if he keeps the money. Think of the cover this gives the Governor to go nuclear on the money front. Once our little(former)Progressive boy pulls his finger out of the money dike, where do you think the river of big money contributions will flow?

I have a feeling the Douglas campaign will not demagogue the Pollina campaign's latest screw-up.  I also have a feeling the Douglas campaign sees this for the opportunity that it is.  

Will the press ask the candidates whether they will pledge to continue respecting the informal and non-binding $1,000 ceiling?  Will Governor Douglas make a pledge to hold the line or will he make a “I will follow the letter of the law” non-answer if asked?  We'll see.

NOTE:  Vermont's election laws (Title 17) can be found HERE.  The specific section — 17 V.S.A. §2805(a) — that was overturned by the Supreme Court is HERE.

 Loading ...

No one is ever going to ask us to publish a “Bloggers of GMD Swimsuit Calendar,” —

However

— for those of you who just CANNOT see enough of other people's wedding albums or the grade school graduation pictures of your co-workers' children —

Well

— do I have a treat for you, below the fold! 

Dateline: NorthBeach, Burlington 28 Hamburger Summit June '08.

Thanks John & Philip.

It was nice to see GMD friends as well as many other “More & Better Democrats” folks (including some M&BD who call themselves Progressives) I've known from weeks to years.

The best part of the day was meeting folks in person and for the first time, including:

Nate Freeman

NanuqFC (the person I definitely want with me if I am ever shipwrecked, lost in the mountains or otherwise far from civilization as nightfall and the elements begin to challenge my survival).

Undamned Yanke,

Christian Avard and

Linda in the Northeast Kingdomdom

There was good food, cold beer, plenty of fun & entertaining discussions including lots of

POINT

and COUNTER-POINT.

It was also nice to see Gaye Symington attending the Hamburger Summit.  Unfortunately, for all the pictures I took, the one I needed to take was the one of our Speaker and Anthony Pollina exchanging salutations. Naturally, I picked the most inopportune moment possible to be collecting my second (more or less) beer; and I therefore do not have today's money shot – guess you kinda' had to have been there.

*    *    *

This is what I did see. Now … look closely at this next photograph.

You will likely marvel at the expert craftsmanship displayed in the manner I seamlessly photo-shopped Kaiser Sose out of this picture (and right before JD gave him the goose too).

*    *    * 

Really good host, but will someone please teach Philip how to cook, the guests are coming in any minute. 

We all know the drill, each year it's hairier and scarier!

*    *     *

The bottom line? Between bouts of imperfect weather, the kids enjoyed swimming, the beach and lake surrounds. It was a fun crowd and a good day to be liberal and outdoors.

— Lastly (how can I forget!) the elusive Madame Heutefeu, who has not posted anything at GMD for months  managed a quick appearance. She did not stay long, but it is always nice to see her when she drops in to say hi. Maybe we can convince her to post her to post more often?

One more time, thanks to Philip, John, & to everyone who was responsible for the food. J.D., don't forget about the oak tree, I'm expecting you.

Let's do a bonfire next time.

R.I.P. George

Nobody (I mean NOBODY) gave us the low-down on the “bullshit department” like George Carlin.

Thank you George, I miss you already.

— 

Folks, please post your favorite Georgisms.

 Loading ...

First the GOOD NEWS . . .

The Supreme Court affirmed yesterday, in Boumediene v. Bush, that the United States Constitution, or some semblance of it at least, still exists in theory.  After years of the President of the United States refusing to acknowledge the fact that the Constitution guarantees the right to habeas corpus, the Supreme Court held that the President and Congress do not "have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will." (The Court is of course correct and this fact is an obvious one. However, the behavior of these two branches of government explain the "in theory" of the sometime rule-of-law government that has developed on our generation's watch).

The Court reached the only defensible position available to it. This case was, literally, a constitutional no-brainer, which is a big part of the problem. A razor thin majority willing to affirm fundamental aspects of the Constitution in the waning days of the Bush administration is a good thing – sure. However, the context of the ruling is more evidence of . . . the bad news . . .

Now the BAD NEWS — We're Really Screwed, America, Face It.

It took the United States Supreme Court 134 pages to explain that a basic, fundamental protection against government tyranny cannot be whimsically cast aside by a lawless President, a timid Congress and an uncritical nation. (Hint, if you want to read a really good distillation of the Court's decision – or any Supreme Court decision – the Supreme Court Reporter includes a "Syllabus" prefacing the Court's order. The Syllabus preceding the Court's habeas decision is only 8 pages and is found at the beginning of the .pdf)

It has been three years since an astounding majority of Congresspeople, all sworn to uphold the Constitution, passed the law that purported to overturn (or to "suspend" indefinitely) Article 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The current Congress has impotently allowed a subversive statute that undermines our Constitutional heritage and basic civil liberties to remain on the books and to be implemented by the Bush administration in bad faith. In Congress, there is little enthusiasm for defending the Constitution or putting up even a token fight to protect liberty under the Capitol dome.

It will take an aggressive Congress to perform the hard work of fixing the damage created by eight years of Mister Bush and twelve years of class-warrior congressional Republican police state corruption. The Supreme Court's decision is one more reminder of what we have not seen from Congress for years. Unfortunately it is also a reminder, now more than ever, of how much faith we need to place in Congress, going forward, despite that institution's betrayal of the American people since it surrendered, on its own behalf, to the President in 2001, and surrendered, on our behalf, to a gang of 20 Saudi criminals shortly thereafter.

The Supreme Court is in pretty bad shape too. Four Justices of the Supreme Court, and countless judges in the lower federal courts too, are aghast at the notion that the Constitution applies to brown people. It is bad enough they must condescend to acknowledge ("extend" they will tell you) the rule-of-law to the rich & white of the Republican elite. However, recognizing that the rule of law must ultimately be applied to those kidnapped and tortured by a criminally driven administration obviously burns their throat raw. The right wing result oriented judicial activism that has been rampant for a political generation is alive and well and will continue for the foreseeable future. 

Analysis of the opinion after the jump – 

Kudos to John for earning us a place at the Democratic Convention; and as Jack already posted, you can hear a podcast from his whirlwind plublicity tour here.

So much for sucking up to the boss, here is where I go out on a limb, attack and publicly critique him by saying that I agree with everything said in the interview except the opening premise as quoted in the podcast.

Brace yourselves. 

At the beginning of the podcast, John is quoted as saying bloggers are not going to be “objective” in sending posts from the Convention. I understand the meaning of that statement, but I believe the point is that bloggers such as John who are posting from the Convention will not be “neutral.”

For a long time now, I have been attacking the mainstream press for not covering this administration properly, for being intimidated and cowered into a submissive neutrality. They are so wrong they have forgotten who they are.

The job of the press is not to be neutral, it is to be objective. There is an enormous difference.

Here's neutral: The Jedi rebels say the Death Star is a peril to the universe, but Darth Vader assures the universe that the empire is trying to protect us from the insurgent terrorists that seek to do us harm.

Here's objective: It's called the Death Star. Its objective is complete control. Darth Vader's tactics are brutal and dictatorial.

But, of course, it's even worse. The headline today would read: Vader Says He Will Keep Us Safe.

That's no joke. Watch me flipping out over a USA Today headline that says almost exactly that here.

He also makes a brilliant argument here, which should be journalism 101 for any reporter (and “Understanding The Press 101” for every consumer of information). His observation demonstrates what has become the complete flip-side to the diet served by each of the major networks and virtually every national broadcaster. 

If the media reports on a story objectively and it does damage to the Republicans, that is not a bias. That is a sad day for the Republican Party. The truth hurts. Of course, the same is true of the Democratic Party.

So, if people weren't rescued for five days in New Orleans, it is not biased to report the Bush administration didn't show up. They didn't. It would be folly to report that some say the administration did a terrific job in rescuing people in an effort to appear neutral. . .

It is not biased to say that Iraq is undergoing tremendous civil strife. It is not biased to say the administration claimed the Iraqis would throw roses at our feet. . . .  Though reporting these facts might not be neutral to the administration, it certainly is objective.

Conservatives often complain that liberals want equality of results rather than equality of opportunity in social programs. They say . . . the best we can do is equality of opportunity for everyone in society [but] when it comes to the press, they don't want equality of opportunity, they want equality of results. They don't want fair coverage, they want coverage which shows two equal sides no matter what actually happened.

I fully trust that GMD's Denver posts will be “objective.” I fully expect that they will also be partisan and that there will be no pretense of neutrality in anything coming down from on mile-high Denver.

(We need to keep the focus on the Bush/McCain/Douglas connection. – promoted by Jack McCullough)

The following post about John McCain is taken from a post by Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake.com

No John McCain Myth Left Behind

What do you do for an encore once your Googlebomb project causes Michelle Malkin to unleash her legion of shrieking howler monkeys on you?  Well if you're Chris Bowers, you set your sights on John McCain.

When it comes to being a pandering, obedient Republican ready to rubber stamp anything George Bush demands, when it comes to a knee-jerk reflex to uncritically endorse every failed right wing policy no matter how badly discredited it is and no matter how badly if affects working Americans, John McCain is a regular “party-first & conscience -last” old-school pandering politician. 

Want to help spread the word?  According to Pew, the number one way voters use the internet is to search for candidate information.  Ergo, it makes sense to try and embed hyperlinks of telling McCain articles across the internet in order to raise their Google ranking.  So here we go:

 1 — McCain: US economic woes 'psychological'

2 — McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist 

3 — Bush, McCain plug Social Security 

4 — McCain blasts Obama's and Clinton's attacks on NAFTA 

5 — McCain in NH: Would Be “Fine” To Keep Troops in Iraq for “A Hundred Years” 

6 — McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

7 — Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition

8 — McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

9 — McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy 

There you have it.  You can blogroll them, put them in your sig, add them in comments, or link one every time you use McCain's name.  Or his “huggy bear” image.

You can read Chris Bowers and his terrific explanation of how this works and the project's objectives.

The following post about John McCain is taken from a post by Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake.com

No John McCain Myth Left Behind

What do you do for an encore once your Googlebomb project causes Michelle Malkin to unleash her legion of shrieking howler monkeys on you?  Well if you're Chris Bowers, you set your sights on John McCain.

When it comes to being a pandering, obedient Republican ready to rubber stamp anything George Bush demands, when it comes to a knee-jerk reflex to uncritically endorse every failed right wing policy no matter how badly discredited it is and no matter how badly if affects working Americans, John McCain is a regular “party-first & conscience -last” old-school pandering politician.  Want to help spread the word?  According to Pew, the number one way voters use the internet is to search for candidate information.  Ergo, it makes sense to try and embed hyperlinks of telling McCain articles across the internet in order to raise their Google ranking.  So here we go:

 1 — McCain: US economic woes 'psychological'

2 — McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist 

3 — Bush, McCain plug Social Security 

4 — McCain blasts Obama's and Clinton's attacks on NAFTA 

5 — McCain in NH: Would Be “Fine” To Keep Troops in Iraq for “A Hundred Years” 

6 — McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

7 — Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition

8 — McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

9 — McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy 

There you have it.  You can blogroll them, put them in your sig, add them in comments, or link one every time you use McCain's name.  Or his “huggy bear” image.

You can read Chris Bowers and his terrific explanation of how this works and the project's objectives.

Why is Bob Kinzel hinting that Anthony Pollina will announce he is running for Lt. Governor?

Pollina will announce his decision tomorrow afternoon.

(Kinzel) When Pollina announced his gubernatorial campaign several months ago, there was no Democratic candidate in the race.

But that situation changed last month when House Speaker Gaye Symington entered the contest.

Progressive leaders won't comment about Pollina's future political plans except to say that their candidate would address this issue in Burlington on Thursday afternoon.

Initially, Pollina said that Symington's presence in the race wouldn't affect him. But Middlebury College political science professor Eric Davis says Symington has sapped a lot of energy and money from the Pollina campaign.

(Davis) “It's become clear in the last months since Speaker Symington declared her candidacy that she has the strong and enthusiastic support of the Democratic Party. And whatever hopes Anthony Pollina might have had of receiving organizational and financial support from Democrats in the fall campaign have all but evaporated.” 

Hmmm?

Kinzel goes on to report that that Peter Shumlin thinks (correctly) that Democrats will support Pollina in a Lt. Governor bid and Eric Davis states the obvious that Anthony Pollina is running a third place race for Governor, which everyone knew from the beginning.  He finishes with:

(Kinzel) It's also possible that Pollina will use his press conference to renew his candidacy for governor. Democratic leaders don't know what he's going to do and Progressives aren't telling.

UPDATE:  Meg Brooks fuels even more questions than answers when explaining, to Nancy Remsen of the Free Press, that the purpose of today's news conference is “to share how we processed [Gaye Symington's entrance into the Gubernatorial race], put an end to speculation and lay out a path to winning elected office in Vermont.”  When asked which “elected office” that would be, Brooks did not answer. Why, would a campaign manager not acknowledge the office for which her candidate is running? 

Either the Pollina campaign is coyly setting-up the Vermont Press Corps for a serious All*Star Punking in Burlington today, or Anthony Pollina is setting his sights on Punking Brian Dubie. 

So where does that leave us? Well, the speculation about the speculation, is below — (and so is the answer)

Anthony Pollina has two excellent opportunities at this point in the election cycle (although he has chosen door number 3, below). 

1. Run in the Democratic primary for Governor.  Without a primary to clear the field and singularly lead the progressive/liberal voting bloc, Anthony Pollina will ONLY be building on his 9.5% showing from his last gubernatorial run. With a victory in the Democratic primary, Pollina walks away with a built-in 45% that any winner of this year's Democratic primary winner will receive by virtue of being the Democratic/Progressive nominee for Governor. This is a winnable race for Gaye Symington or Anthony Pollina as a gubernatorial primary winner.  A primary battle will help the liberal candidate immensely in drawing attention to a race the GOP incumbent is trying to keep as low key as possible.

For liberals, the race for Governor is a race to September.  ?

Absent a primary (the functional equivalent of IRV for liberals & progressives) Anthony Pollina Will.Not.Win.The.Race.4.Governor. He must clear the field on the left and winning the Democratic nomination is the only way to do that. He needs the Democrats. Simple math, simple politics, simple fact.  Gaye Symington needs Pollina in the Democratic primary if either of them is going to have a chance at winning the governor's race, and Anthony Pollina needs a Democratic primary victory if he wants a chance to be Governor. Simple math, simple politics, simple fact.

Anthony Pollina needs the Democrats and the Democrats need him. Likewise, the Republicans need the Progressives and the Democrats to run in separate primaries and split the vote.  Avoiding a primary in September means avoiding the State House in January for Symington and Pollina.

Alternatively —

2. He may announce that he is running for Lt. Governor.   At this point, it will be hard for any Democrat to join in the race given the political machinations leading to a switch in races.  (Remember Peter Shumlin took one for the team in 2002 and remember how HE was rewarded! Not to worry about that type of situation this year, I bet.).

Advice to Anthony, however, run as a Democrat this once. Your best showing was as a Democrat (almost 40%) against incumbent Jim Jeffords and you've averaged less than 17% of the vote in your two state-wide races (2000 & 2002) as a Progressive.

I'll put a “Progressive Democrat for Pollina” sticker on my rig tomorrow if you make that winning choice. Until we have IRV, which will be a boon for liberals and Progressives and most of all for Vermont, let's work on controlling the State House rather than just running for it. 

Then again, and the winner . . . .

3. Anthony Pollina may do just what Bob Kinzel said in his CYA finish to his story “renew his candidacy for Governor.” Won't that be fun.

So where are we? 

Today we were graced with the opportunity to see a seasoned Pol, someone who has campaigned in three decades and two centuries, Punk the press into showing up for a midday new conference. And what was the benefit to the press? Simple, they were on hand to hear the candidate for governor announce that he is, well, still a candidate for governor.

Hope nobody from the fourth estate called in sick today. 

My first political memories are of the events of 1968.  Of all the things that could spark these memories, who could imagine it would be anything as cynically manipulative as Senator Clinton using it as a rationale for continuing a campaign past the point of losing.

                    June 1968 

 . . . The hope and the triumph of spirit . . .

 . . . followed by the pain and the loss . . .

Using Robert Kennedy's assassination as a mental image, as a prop, for her rhetorically empty questions is offensive. 

Here are the answers to Senator Clinton's own questions and statements from the Argus Leader editorial board interview on May 23, 2008, (below).

“It is unprecedented in history” (Senator Clinton's statements and rhetorical questions from the Argus Leader interview, in bold).

— Except for the precedent that the candidates who don't have enough delegates or won't be able to win enough delegates always drop out.

“There has been an urgency to end this“

—  No, there has been an unwillingness by you to acknowledge that it ended.

Asking me to stop “it's historically unprecedented.”

 — Except that, historically, the candidates without enough delegates to win the nomination generally drop out or at least throttle back into a token campaign mode until they give that final (farewell) speech at the convention. Note: We reserve the primetime privilege for team players like Gary Hart and Mo Udall, not the incendiary dividers such as Pat Buchanan (remember the 1992 GOP convention!) and Hillary Clinton.

“I don't know why people have been trying to push me out of this.”

— Except that you have been wrong on Iraq, you have been spineless when it comes to standing up to the Pentagon and Republican war and crime machine, and you are not liberal enough to tackle the systemic and foundationally corrupt economic policies that are shrinking the middle class and destroying the U.S.'s ability to survive in a rapidly changing global economy.

“I don't understand it.“

 — We know

“We all remember that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated, in California, in June.”

 — Yeah.  As I recall, Richard Nixon won the White House that year. He also rallied racists and fanned the fear of foreigners to justify an escalation of U.S. killing in Vietnam and Cambodia.  I'm not hearing a strategy that I like from you.

“I find it a bit of a mystery.“

— It shows.

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination until June after the California primary.”

 — At which point all the other candidates in 1992, who found themselves in the same position that you are in today and who did not have the delegates to win the nomination, threw in the towel. All the remaining Elvis-es had left the building. [btw. Big Dog had it handily in the bag in April '92 after winning the NY primary. Tsongas did not last through May '92, when it became “official”]

“There is a lot of speculation about why it is [that I'm being asked to drop-out]”

 — But no one really needs to speculate to realize that Senator Obama, for all practical purposes, won the nomination by Super Tuesday. Oh, and BTW, no one really needs to speculate that Senator Clinton lost any legitimate claim to deserving the nomination after spending five years defending the need to go, or the reasons the U.S. went, to war with Iraq 2003.

“I don't know why it is, but I don't want to attribute motives to people because I don’t really know (laughs).”

— Here's my motive: I do not want you to be the nominee. I'm just not that into you.

Here is another motive of mine. The Democratic Party, the rank and file, the national media, your husband and a boatload of wealthy backers put you on a pedestal.  They gave you a bully pulpit, a megaphone, political capital and built-in access to the American people. You have stood in front of the cameras, in front of the nation and you have stood at the crossroads of history as the United States made one terrible foreign, military, domestic, national security, fiscal, energy, health care and trade policy mistake after another.

Instead of using your position to lead, you used your position to stay in your position.

You continually tried to stay in the lead rather than leading.

You squandered every political gift and opportunity WE gave you.  You squandered every political gift and opportunity WE trusted you to use. We trusted you to take those political gifts and those opportunities to make a difference and exert influence and stand up and fight. People have both killed and died for the opportunity to lead that you have squandered over the past 7 years.  Month after month during this campaign you promised leadership if we elected you but still you were unwilling to lead your Senate colleagues or your country toward the promise of a better America during all those Bush war years in the Senate.

You ask, “why are people “trying to push me out of the race“? Really want to know? We have watched you run in place for 7 years. It is time for you to stop.

You have been running in place and talking about how you will lead (“on day one”) in 2009, but we have needed leadership for seven years now and you were not there for us.  We were desperate for leadership in 2002 and 2003. For the last five years while you campaigned, Congress has rolled over and forgotten America and the Constitution.  Where have you been?

                                    *   *   *

Senator Clinton, a few minutes after Senator Robert Kennedy (clip at 8:30) was murdered, a man stands at the podium of the Ambassador Hotel pleading with the crowd, “will you please clear the room.”

“There's an exit on this side of the room, will you please clear the room.”

Senator Clinton, now we are asking you — “will you please clear the room.”  “You can help us most by clearing the room.” 

Senator Clinton, please clear the room and stop rubbernecking at history. The rest of us need to move on.