( – promoted by odum)

I probably should just let this roll, but I can't.

The Article was yet another spin job job by the press in support of Douglas in spite of the facts.

Positive headline.

Moderate opening paragraph.

He either has no idea how to implement new policy, or he is so in the bag of traditional fossil energy groups. Wolfe said the governor has ignored the vast majority of the group's recommendations, which he contends could be implemented immediately.

"He is … ignoring and marginalizing his climate change commission," Wolfe said. "If Gov. Douglas thinks this is leadership I guess I own a different dictionary."

I think the whole thing is a giant scam.

Like many things that Jim Douglas proposes, it can't hurt anything.

"It is just more of what we have come to expect from (Douglas). Endless delay, no action," McKibben said. "There was a strong and interesting global warming bill on the table last year and there was money to pay for it."

In McKibben's view other states like California, Florida and Massachusetts are ahead of Vermont and pulling farther away.

"They are getting all the industries of tomorrow. We are just suckers. We get stuck with all the industries of the last century or the century before that," McKibben said.

"The idea that this is all we have to do …. is ludicrous," he said. "It is going to take work and it is going to take money."

Efficiency Vermont, which runs the current electrical efficiency program in Vermont, is working, McKibben said.

"We should turn them loose on every other form of energy in the state, starting with home heating oil," McKibben said.

"I think his basic idea is the rest of the country is going to pay Vermont because we happen to have trees," McKibben said. "That is just a fantasy land."

Who do you like so far?

 Loading ...

Vote Now!

With the first votes for the presidential nomination officially starting in less then 90 days, it’s time for DFA members to make sure America knows where we stand.

Vote for your candidate right now and let your voice be heard!

http://www.Democracy…

Is there a consensus candidate that can get more then 66% of your vote and earn the DFA endorsement? Will Senator Obama beat Senator Edwards again by just a few percentage points? Will Senator Clinton pass up Congressman Kucinich and move into the top three? Will our members still vote to draft Al Gore even this late in the race?

Help us answer all these questions by getting out the vote for your candidate right now!

On November 6, exactly one year from Election Day, we will announce your winner and ask all of our members to join the winning campaign¹. Please vote today:

http://www.Democracy…

You already have access to videos recorded by five of the candidates created just for DFA members on Iraq and Global Warming². Over the next three weeks…

( – promoted by odum)

The Rutland Herald had an article today about 2 possible Dem candidates for Governor; Peter Galbraith and John Campbell. This post is to discuss Galbraith.

I don’t know anything about him. Your turn.

OK, I googled him and see he will probably be pretty effective at keeping VT out of a war with Iraq, or say… Newfoundland.

I did find one YouTube clip of him to put a face with the name.

Did he give a big speech or forum in VT recently? I also see that he has a number of upcoming VT appearances:

KEENE, N.H., 10/11/07 – Keene State College will launch an Annual Genocide Awareness Lecture Series on Monday, October 22, with Peter W. Galbraith’s “Preventing Genocide in the 21st Century: Lessons from Iraq, Bosnia, and East Timor,” at 7:30 p.m. in the Mabel Brown Room.

Peter Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia under President Clinton, will offer his views on the current conflict in Iraq in a talk at the Middlebury Union High School auditorium on Nov. 7. His talk, “The End of Iraq,” is part of the Vermont Humanities Council’s first Wednesdays lecture series and takes place at 7 p.m.

That Middle East stuff is all well and good, but can he pronounce Calais?

(Bumped to the top, cause I’d love to see Doug in charge… – promoted by odum)

OK, like Odum I’ve been lying awake at night thinking to myself, “Which Dems can run for Gov in 2008 and beat Douglas?” I’ve run a lot of candidates through my internal self-polling mechanisms with varying levels of success.

There’s one candidate that I keep coming back to.

The best democratic candidate to run in 2008 and take the Governor’s seat is Doug Racine.

The main arguments for Racine have already been articulated here.

In August, cjcurtis wrote:

In 2002 Douglas’ margin over Racine was 45%-42% and the contest was decided by the legislature. Racine was a statewide office holder and well known to Democrats over the years. He took on and prevailed over perhaps the best known incumbent Lt. Governor in Vermont history in Barbara Snelling. Clearly he had the near universal support of the party. As a result he gave Douglas a run for his money.

And back in April Odum wrote:

In fact, if you look at the realities of numbers and statistics, of the current crop of Dem pols, the one on paper who would have the best shot is former multi-term Lieutenant Governor and current Chittenden Senator Doug Racine. Think about it – voters outside his district know him, and have elected him to statewide office despite the none-too-insignificant anti-Burlington-area feelings out there in greater Vermont. And of course, there’s the fact that he’s the only Dem who’s run against Douglas for the top spot that made a respectable showing (only losing by 3 points – and then, thanks to Con Hogan who apparently pulled virtually zero R votes).

I think these are solid and compelling reasons why Racine is the best candidate we have to beat Douglas.

Racine is currently co-chairing (w/Rep. Ann Pugh, D-South Burlington) the Vermont Child Poverty Council, a new legislative creation with the ambitious goal to find solutions that would cut the state’s poverty numbers in half in 10 years.

Poverty, income disparity, or economic opportunity to put a positive spin on it, is an issue that undermines much of our political discussion today. Although it sometimes remains unspoken, it directly or indirectly affects everything from education to healthcare to the reasons we go to war.

And it’s becoming a bigger issue in Vermont where we saw the second-greatest jump in income disparity in recent years in the United States. Vermont is now 31st out of the 50 states in one common measure of income disparity, but it was 47th as recently as 1989.

(OK, enough with the poverty stuff, I recently posted on this with zero comments so it seems to be a non-starter)

Like a certain presidential candidate that I tend to favor, Racine finds himself now in a position to champion economic equality. I’m not sure if it can be turned into a winning campaign focus, in either race, but I have gained respect for the people who recognize the importance of the issue.

Doug, just say the word and I’m on board for Racine 08.

Someone made a good suggestion of writing about why you suport your candidate instead of always attacking Obama for the toothless positions he keeps taking (sorry, just can’t seem to stop myself…)

From a recent Edwards’ speach in Iowa:

When economists say that trade helps our economy overall, we need to be honest about the fact that it does not help everyone. The true measure of our economy isn’t found only in the size of our GDP or the level of corporate profits – it’s whether middle class families are doing better or worse.

A sure sign that our trade and economic policies are seriously out of whack is our trade deficit. Our nation’s imports have increased by a staggering 50 percent in the past 15 years, and instead of a trade balance, the United States now has the largest trade deficit in the history of the globe – and it just keeps growing. Last year, our current account deficit was more than $850 billion, which is a staggering 6.5 percent of our nation’s entire GDP, and our trade deficit with China alone was $233 billion. That means that we are consuming billions of dollars more in imported goods than we produce – and we are borrowing heavily to pay for them.

Behind all these numbers and statistics are the faces of millions of Americans forgotten in our trade deals. Well, I can tell you that I will never forget them. I saw what happened when the mill that my dad worked in all his life, and that I worked in myself when I was young, closed and the jobs went somewhere else. It wasn’t just devastating to our community economically — it was devastating to the pride and dignity of the people who worked hard every day trying to make a better life for their kids.

Let me tell you, if a CEO thinks the right thing to do is to ship American jobs overseas, to destroy families and communities, then I challenge him to go and look those workers in the eye and have the guts to tell them to their face that they can’t compete. I’ve stood with these workers all across America – and let me tell you, they can compete, because they are the best workers in the world.

The trade policies of President Bush have devastated towns and communities all across America. But let’s be clear about something – this isn’t just his doing. For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA, promising that they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities. Instead, too many of these agreements have cost us jobs and devastated many of our towns.

NAFTA was written by insiders in all three countries, and it served their interests – not the interests of regular workers. It included unprecedented rights for corporate investors, but no labor or environmental protections in its core text. And over the past 15 years, we have seen growing income inequality in the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

Well enough is enough. Americans have paid the price long enough. We need to change our fundamental approach to trade. We need to make American values the foundation of our trade deals, and we need to put workers back at their core.

Draft Bulworth, anyone?

( – promoted by odum)

In case you missed the actual debate, you may not know how the Dem candidates all (except Gravel)answered Tim Russert’s question, “Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?”

While the media, and the Republics, candidates, and some netrooters have painted some or all all these responses as “refusing to get all troops out of Iraq”, the reality seems very different to me.

See reality, below.

Excerpts from the transcript of the debate:

OBAMA: If there are still large troop presences in — when I take office, then the first thing I will do is call together the Joint Chiefs of Staff and initiate a phased redeployment. We’ve got to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but military personnel indicate we can get one brigade to two brigades out per month.

I would immediately begin that process. We would get combat troops out of Iraq. The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect U.S. bases and U.S. civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq.

CLINTON: Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack; it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting.
…
there may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at Al Qaida in Iraq. It may require combat, special operations forces or some other form of that. But the vast majority of our combat troops should be out.

EDWARDS: I will immediately draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat troops out of Iraq until all of our combat troops are, in fact, out of Iraq.
…
I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that (protect the embassy and humanitarian workers), 3,500 to 5,000 troops.
…
I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq.

RICHARDSON: my position in bringing all troops out of Iraq is to end the war.
…
I would bring them out through roads, through Kuwait and through Turkey. It would take persuading Turkey. The issue is light equipment. I would leave some of the light equipment behind.

(My Note: I have read many Richardson supporters’ posts that claim he means keeping troops to protect the embassy, but that embassy soil is US soil so those don’t count.)

DODD: I will get that done.

BIDEN: I would make a commitment to have them all out if there is not a political reconciliation, because they’re just fodder.

KUCINICH: I know that we can get out of there three months after I take office or after the new president takes office if one is determined to do that. And I want to make it clear that the plan includes ending the occupation; closing the bases; bringing the troops home…

Here’s my personal distillation:
Obama – most out, keep some counter-insurgency troops

Edwards – no combat troops, leaving leeway for protective troops

Clinton – most out is a “goal”, keep some combat troops

Richardson – trying to create an issue by saying zero but doesn’t really mean it

Biden – get them out if my plan doesn’t work

Kucinich – solidly pro-peace

Dodds – said what he needed to to get Russert off his back

The media coverage has absolutely trashed the Dem candidates on this issue, and it’s been fueled by well-intentioned anti-war progressives who want to try to get candidates to super-duper promise that they will really end the war. I understand the need for that, but the general perception is evolving that Dems are not even against limiting US involvement in this war, really, and that will cut heavily into our electorate in Nov 08.

Washington Post:
Wanted: Democratic Straight Talk on Iraq
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, September 28, 2007
“Yes, you heard it right: At the Dartmouth College debate Wednesday evening, not one of the three leading Democratic candidates could pledge that all U.S. combat troops would be out of Iraq by the end of his or her first term as president.”

The NY Times:
Candidates Hedge Bets on Iraq Withdrawal
September 26, 2007
By JEFF ZELENY and PATRICK HEALY
“The three leading Democratic presidential candidates refused on Wednesday night to promise that they would withdraw all American troops from Iraq by the end of their first term, saying in a televised debate here that they could not predict the future challenges in Iraq.”

All these candidates look weak, maybe you think they are, but I see at least some candidates who are giving pretty good specifics on fundamentally ending this war. Can we get that message out to voters?

( – promoted by odum)

A few quotes from an excellent editorial in the Times Argus

Economic inequality is growing faster in New England than in any other region of the nation. That’s according to a report by two economists from New Hampshire in a publication of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

…

So it’s true: The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. Economic disparities are so great, according to an article in the The New Republic magazine, the concentration of wealth in America today is comparable to the concentration in the Moghul Empire of India in the 16th century.

…

At the federal level, tax cuts for the very rich have widened inequality on the theory that helping the rich get richer allows them to employ more people to build their mansions and trim their hedges. It is not an accident of nature that our economy has worsened the economic plight of a majority and enriched the very richest. It is how our policymakers have designed the system. The question is how much longer the majority will allow those policies to widen the gap between rich and poor.

I think Jim = McJobs would say, “Mission Accomplished”

From an email I got today from the Obama campaign:

The next president must end the war in Iraq, refocus on Afghanistan and the Taliban resurgence, and pressure Pakistan to root out al Qaeda once and for all.

Most importantly, the next president must make sure that Osama bin Ladin and al Qaeda’s core leadership are captured or killed. If Pakistan or any other nation won’t act against bin Ladin and his cohorts, we will.

Sign on to my plan and spread the word:

http://action.barack…

The time has come to turn the page on a failed approach.

The next President of the United States must commit to getting our troops out of Iraq and taking the fight to the terrorists.

We must reinforce our mission in Afghanistan with additional troops. We must press Pakistan and President Musharraf to close down terrorist training camps and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a safe-haven.

If Musharraf acts, we will stand with him. But if Pakistan will not act against Osama bin Ladin and the terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans, we will.

These are achievable goals, and when I am president we will wage the war we need to win with a comprehensive strategy.

Read the plan, declare your support, and spread the word that it’s time to change direction.

His link to donate if you are inspired by this militaristic message is cynically entitled:

http :// action. barackobama. com / newleadership

New leadership?

more..

This is the candidate who is running solely on the premise of being different, and for change. This is a total cave-in to the usual and customary powers that be in politics who demand the same old tired saber-rattling to get elected. And if you vote for him, or support him, you are now supporting the status quo.

Yes, I’m talking to YOU!

We already know that no matter who gets elected, except maybe if it were possible for Kucinich to get in somehow, there will not be much in the way of real change. Candidates who are caving already, in the damn primary, fer crissakes, will NOT bring substantial change to this country.

With this email, I am now official putting Obama in the same litter box as Hillary on my personal scorecard. I’m moving him from “neutral” to “against” in the primary, but would support if nominated.

How does your card look?