We know that GMD isn't your whole media diet, but this morning there are some new editorials and columns that merit your attention. 

First off, this week's Seven Days features a great column by Paul Heintzabout the race for State Treasurer.  We share his pleasure at the fact that Beth Pearce's campaign has gotten into gear, but what is really striking is this:

 Allow me to be the first reporter in Vermont to admit that I am in no way qualified to judge whether Beth Pearce is a good state treasurer. I have a hard enough time balancing my own checkbook.

And consider me guilty of Perkinson’s charge: I’m far more interested in covering the latest Wilton accusation than I am in Vermont’s nearly impeccable bond rating, for which Pearce can rightfully take a lion’s share of the credit.

But I consider myself a decent judge of integrity. And one thing I’ve found during this campaign is that Pearce appears to have a lot of it and Wilton does not.

 Even for people who don't pay much attention between elections to what the Treasurer does, this is a very powerful conclusion. I encourage you to read the entire column to get the full sense of where Paul's coming from.

On the national scene, it's no surprise who the people around here are supporting, but I have rarely seen the case made as clearly as in this week's New Yorker. I've seen people make sport of this editorial, joking that the New Yorker endorsement guarantees Obama's reelection (note that the GMD style book doesn't call for the New Yorker dieresis); although it's undoubtedly true that most New Yorker readers are Democrats, the substance is what is essential here.

The New Yorker editorial provides historical and cultural context, an appreciation of the dire situation facing the newly inaugurated President in 2009, and a recognition of the difficulties adhering to President Obama's reelection campaign. Nevertheless, the editorial also sets forth an effective rejoinder to the hateful comments of the “no difference caucus” whose voice is heard so commonly on the Left.

Really, Wendy? “News to me”?

Just a quick follow-up to jvwalt's piece about yesterday's debate for Treasurer. 

If you listened to the whole debate, or read today's story about it in the Free Press, you might have caught a very revealing exchange between the two candidates.

Remember, Beth Pearce is the incumbent State Treasurer and Wendy Wilton is the current Rutland Treasure. You know, the person in charge of staying on top of Rutland's finances.

Anyway, here's how the Free Press reports the exchange:

 Pearce countered that the financial sustainability of Rutland’s pension fund is even more uncertain, and that’s why the Vermont Municipal Bond Bank put the city on a watch list in June. 

“That’s news to me,” Wilton said when Pearce surprised her with a comment about Rutland’s watch-list status during the WDEV radio debate hosted by Mark Johnson.

 “That's news to me.” The person in charge of Rutland's finances doesn't even know that Rutland was on the state Municipal Bond Bank's watch list, and has been on that watch list since June.

 Whether it's a bad thing to be on the watch list may be open to question, but as an outsider I suspect that it's probably not a good thing, or at least not as good as not being on the watch list.

 I do know, though, that if you're the treasurer it's not a sign of competence to not know whether you're on the watch list or not.

Is this the level of competence Wendy Wilton plans to bring to the State Treasurer's office? 

We feel no compunction at giving the occasional poke to the Burlington Free Press when we think it's deserved, but there's no question that they still have the ability to commit journalism. In fact, although there are some adjustment issues in dealing with their new format, my sense is that it has given them the ability to do longer, more investigative reporting, and this is an important benefit.

If you missed the paper over the weekend you should go back and read this story about “excited delirium syndrome”,  the made-up malady that police use to evade responsibility when they kill people with Tasers or other action.

Actually, the story doesn't come down on whether excited delirium syndrom is made up, but the conclusion is pretty hard to miss.

For instance, it seems to be pretty hard to find someone who's not on the payroll of Taser International who even believes this condition exists. In fact, the expert that Taser pays to do these studies admits that  “It’s not easy . . . to diagnose excited delirium in arrest-related deaths. ” Apparently getting paid by Taser to find it and to lobby for excited delirium findings in Taser-related deaths makes it a little easier.

 As I say, it's worth reading the entire story.

Also, congratulations to Matt Ryan and the Burlington Free Press for their coverage. 

Cross posted at Rational Resistance.

As we remember George McGovern, I am struck by a quote from his book What It Means To Be a Democrat.

As quoted in the Times, McGovern says: 

 “We are the party that believes we can’t let the strong kick aside the weak,” Mr. McGovern wrote. “Our party believes that poor children should be as well educated as those from wealthy families. We believe that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes and that everyone should have access to health care.”

With the country burdened economically, he added, there has “never been a more critical time in our nation’s history” to rely on those principles.

  There is no question among the writers and readers here that the Democratic Party does not always live up to its ideals. There are some who seem to take particular pleasure in pointing out our shortcomings, while ignoring those of the Republicans. Nevertheless, the reason the Democratic Party can be challenged for failing to live up to its ideals is that the Democratic Party has ideals. When our party disappoints us it is because we know it's capable of more than it sometimes achieves.

When we work here for more and better Democrats George McGovern is the kind of Democrat I, for one, am thinking about.

The BBC and the Times are both posting stories this week about a dramatic development in Cuba. The country is moving away from its status as a closed society and dropped the requirement for exit visas for Cubans wishing to move away or simply to travel abroad.

From the BBC:

Cuba has announced it is removing the need for its citizens to obtain exit permits before travelling abroad.

State media said the move, to come into effect on 14 January next year, would “update” migration laws to reflect current and future circumstances.

Cubans currently have to go through a lengthy and expensive process to obtain a permit and dissidents are often denied one, correspondents say.

The move is the latest in a series of reforms under President Raul Castro.

Cubans who have permanent residency on the island will also be allowed to stay abroad for up to 24 months, instead of the current 11, without having to return to renew paperwork.

And from the Times:

The new policy – promised by President Raúl Castro last year, and finally announced in the Communist Party newspaper – represents the latest significant step by the Cuban government to answer demands for change from Cubans, while also maintaining a significant measure of control.

…

But the new law gives Cubans leeway to stay abroad longer, letting them remain outside the country for two years before losing their rights to property, citizenship and benefits like health care, an increase from 11 months under the current policy.

Analysts say the government is encouraging more Cubans to travel so that they can go earn money elsewhere and return, injecting capital into the island’s moribund economy. Whether that creates a temporary – or permanent – mass exodus, Cubans and experts say, will be determined by how many people have the means and passports to leave, and which countries welcome them.

Obviously this isn’t everything. For instance, the law will retain restrictions on emigration for people, such as doctors and other professionals, who are considered too valuable to the population to be allowed to leave.

Nevertheless, this is a move in the direction of greater freedom and fewer legal restrictions.  Although it has been obvious for years that our half-century long state of economic warfare against Cuba has utterly failed to produce positive change, this change in Cuban law creates a political opportunity for the administration to make a reciprocal move in Cuba’s direction. If you assume that the rational and humane choice, a complete end to the embargo, is not a possibility, a related move, such as eliminating travel restrictions, could and should be initiated as soon as possible.

 How about an announcement on November 13? It’s our turn.

Didn't live blog, but there are still some points to make.

1. Obama obviously did way better than the first debate, and to this observer he won both on style and substance.

2. Not sure how the interrupting, which both candidates did, will play.

3. Will someone finally point out the economic illiteracy of Romney's continued harping on small business owners who don't want to add employees because it will make their taxes go up? Businesses are taxed on income, not revenue. Whatever fraction of their increased revenue they spend on new salaries isn't part of income, so it isn't taxed at whatever the higher marginal rate is.

4. Economic illiteracy, part 2: marginal tax rates apply to the next dollar, not to all the earlier dollars. Thus, if Obama gets a higher tax rate for households over $250,000 in income that doesn't increase the tax rate on all the dollars below $250,000. If your pretax income goes up your after tax income goes up, even if a larger share of that next dollar goes to taxes.

5. I wish Obama had said more clearly that on the question of increasing income equality for women the Affordable Care Act prohibits discrimination against women in insurance premiums. 

6. Kind of baffling that Romney went to talking about his desire to represent 100% of the people in his closing. It just opened the door for Obama to talk about Romney's attack on the 47%. 

What a difference a weekend can make.

Just think, last Friday a pro-health-care group, Vermont Leads, was getting all kinds of criticism because they held a rally at a park near Lenore Broughton's house in Burlington, and then walked down to her house to deliver an invitation to discuss single payer health care. After all, this was seen as the kind of thing we just don't do in Vermont, although we put up a spirited defense here at GMD. Over at The Scoreboard, Seven Days reporter Paul Heintz called it “pretty shabby”, saying, “There are better ways to make your point than to hassle someone at their house.“

Well, things are looking a little different today. The campaign finance reports are out and they show that Miss Daisy has dumped another $548,000 into the Vermonters First bank account, for a total so far approaching three quarters of a million dollars.

I don't know if there are any formal rules to this, but if you can afford to write a check out of your personal fortune that is greater than the per capita income of twenty-three individual Vermonters (or, if you'd rather think of it this way, more than a dollar for every man, woman, and child in the state), I think it has to be recognized that you're now playing in the big leagues.

Or, to put it another way, if you're shelling out that kind of cash to buy elections in Vermont you've officially signed up to be a public figure.

Cross posted from Rational Resistance: 

We've written about this before: a local resident, Marilyn Hackett, successfully sued the town of Franklin and this year won an injunction preventing the town fathers from beginning their annual Town Meeting with a prayer.

It was a heroic effort and the news reports at the time documented the abuse she was subjected to based on her willingness to stand up for her principles. Perhaps most shockingly, one of the suggestions from the town was that if she doesn't like the prayer she just shouldn't show up at Town Meeting. That's right, in the view of some of her fellow townspeople it would be reasonable to condition her right to participate in the governance of her town on her acceding to their religious views.

Today the Burlington Free Press has an update, and guess what: bigotry and intolerance are still rampant in Franklin. I think the article is behind their paywall, but here are a couple of key quotes:

“It’s almost like a joke — a cheap shot — to try to knock that thing out of there.”

“I said right from the beginning to have an outsider come into town and all of a sudden she’s changed the way Franklin runs its Town Meeting,” Hartman said. “I think it’s awful.”

“If she (Hackett) was somebody who wanted to be a part of that town, she could’ve overlooked that.”

In addition, the story by Sally Pollak makes clear that Marilyn Hackett continues to be harassed, including by students at the school where she works in nearby Richford.

What do we learn from this episode? A few things.

First, if there were any doubt, today's story illustrates just how brave someone has to be to stand up for principle, especially in a small town.

Second, it confirms the heroism of Marilyn Hackett.

Finally, everything in this story demonstrates how important it was for Marilyn Hackett and the ACLU to bring this case. It's not the people who go along with the majority, who hold popular opinions, who need the Constitution's protection. It is the minorities, people who can't get their way without the protection of the law, the courts, and civil libertarians.

TJ may have lost the Democratic primary for Attorney General, but he's being totally smart for the future.

 Did you see his latest mailing? It starts with a nice picture of TJ and his lovely family, like so:

 And he uses the e-mail to convey a message of support for Bill Sorrell.

Here's what he says:

 Bill Sorrell Needs Our Help

 Dear Jack,

A little over a month ago my campaign to serve as your Attorney General came to a close, but the issues important to my campaign, and which I care deeply about, continue to impact the lives of Vermonters. 

Issues ranging from how we effectively battle our state’s prescription drug epidemic and aid those suffering with mental illness and addiction issues to fighting for equality in the LGBT community and for the rights of migrant workers who labor in our fields.  

The debates Bill Sorrell and I engaged in surrounding these and other issues only reinforces my belief that Vermont needs a Democrat in the office of Attorney General. And in a few short weeks, we will have the opportunity to cast our ballots to ensure this is the case.   

Vermont needs a Democratic attorney general who will fight the Vermont Yankee appeal and use every legal means necessary to ensure Vermonters have a real say in our energy future.