On September 29, 1972, a passenger on the ferry to Martha's Vineyard recognized McNamara on board and attempted to throw him into the ocean. McNamara declined to press charges. The man remained anonymous, but was interviewed years later by author Paul Hendrickson, who quoted the attacker as saying, “I just wanted to confront (McNamara) on Vietnam.”

Sadly, the war criminal responsible for millions of civilian deaths and hundreds of thousands of military deaths, did not meet justice on that day. Rather, he died peacefully in his sleep this morning, a benefit that he denied to his victims. He did not perish in torment, his flesh consumed by the flames of napalm. He was not subjected to the Bell Telephone Hour like many of the prisoners of American forces, his testicles connected to a hand-cranked electrical generator. He did not spend months or years tortured as a POW.

No, McNamara lived to the comfortable age of 93. He had the opportunity to sell his memories for cheap absolution, while never truly acknowledging anything more than that mistakes were made. Mr. McNamara must not escape the lasting moral condemnation of his countrymen,” The New York Times said in a widely discussed editorial, written by the page’s editor at the time, Howell Raines. “Surely he must in every quiet and prosperous moment hear the ceaseless whispers of those poor boys in the infantry, dying in the tall grass, platoon by platoon, for no purpose. What he took from them cannot be repaid by prime-time apology and stale tears, three decades late.

McNamara was one of the so-called “Best and the Brightest” dissected by David Halberstam. Even the ultimate technocrat later admitted that before he helped launch the war of aggression against Vietnam he had no idea that the Vietnamese had been expelling invaders for a millenium. McNamara represented the arrogance embodied by that other ancient war criminal, Henry Kissinger: I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people.

In the end, of course, nothing McNamara, Kissinger, or any other American could do could mold Vietnam to fit American interests. There will be other days to wonder whether we will learn that same lesson in Iraq and Afghanistan. For now, we can join in Clarence Darrow's observation: I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.

In today’s Fair Game column, Shay Totten reports on two House districts now represented by Democrats where Republican operatives have been making mysterious calls. In the districts represented by Megan Smith (Killington, Mendon) and Robert South (St. Johnsbury), voters reported getting what were clearly push-poll calls. GMD reported the calls in Megan Smith's district last week, and now we know from Seven Days that it's happening in at least one other district. In both cases the questions on the so-called surveys were targeted to isues that would likely be sensitive to voters in those districts.

So what's the big deal? The big deal is that the Republicans admit that they're push-polling.

“The goals are pretty straightforward,” Vermont GOP chair Rob Roper says of the current poll. “We want voters to know how their representatives are voting on key issues, and we want to know if the voters agree or disagree with the way their rep voted.”

Usually, dirty tricksters try to keep it a secret, but here we have the chairman of the Vermont Republican Party openly admitting to push-polling.

Still, you might ask, what's the big deal? Well, in case you’re wondering, push polling is considered an unethical technique whereby a political organization makes phone calls, in the guise of conducting a poll, in order to disseminate negative information about an opponent. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll. Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent. They are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning.

The American Association of Public Opinion Research condemns push-polling:

A so-called “push poll” is an insidious form of negative campaigning, disguised as a political poll. “Push polls” are not surveys at all, but rather unethical political telemarketing — telephone calls disguised as research that aim to persuade large numbers of voters and affect election outcomes, rather than measure opinions. This misuse of the survey method exploits the trust people have in research organizations and violates the AAPOR Code of Professional Ethics and Practices.

 In other words, it's more than a year before the election and the Republicans are already admitting to campaign dirty tricks!

 Seem strange to you? Me too.

I honestly don't remember what I was doing forty years ago today, and I don't remember anything about this until I read about it later in the Voice. Still, as we look back, it's clear that the Stonewall riots were, in their own way, as significant as Rosa Parks refusing to get off the bus.

It's worth watching this video of people who were there.

Lazy reporting by the Burlington Free Press today on the issue of guns.

Front page, above the fold: 

Gun, ammo sales soar

Vermont follows national trend; buyers fear stricter laws

  What follows is almost five hundred words, plus pictures and graphics, on the apparent boom in sales of guns and ammunition, all starting “Soon after President Barack Obama was sworn into office”, and supported by interviews of gun selers and buyers, statistics, and this juicy quote:

 “Basically, they’re afraid of the Obama Administration coming up with stricter laws,” Jim Datillio, owner of Dattilio’s Discount Guns in South Burlington, said of his customers.

What's missing? How about any discussion of what Obama has said, either during his campaign or since he took office, about what he proposes to do about guns?

How about any discussion of how the NRA and other right-wing organizations have been pounding the “Obama's gonna take your guns” drum ever since he started running, and have never stopped?

I guess analysis and reality-based reporting would be too challenging for them. Maybe they figure it's “fair and balanced” to report on the myth that Obama is about to take people's guns away, but it would be biased to correct the myth.

I've subscribed to a daily newspaper my entire adult life, but the Free Press doesn't make it easy.

UPDATED: Vermont Newsguy also covers this here.

Sanctimonious? Check.

Family values? Check.

Busted? Check.

 It's not just liberals, even conservative pinheads like Fred Thompson (R., Law & Order) are using the Sanford scandal to make political hay. Somehow I got on Fred's e-mail list (okay, who's been sabotaging my e-mail account?), but sometimes it's good for a laugh. After all, if it weren't for Fred Thompson I wouldn't know the true message of l'affaire Sanford: We need term limits. 

But guess what, Fred: Sanford is already term-limited. Placing any bets on whether he'll make it to 2010?

And the Vermont angle: Who's worse for his state–Sanford in Buenos Aires, or Douglas in Montpelier?

Friday, June 26, is your last chance to case your vote for Green Mountain Daily for Best Political Blog in the Seven Days Daysies survey.

You probably know about the Daysies: they're the way Seven Days recognizes the best of Vermont, especially Chittenden County, as selected by their readers.

The format's a bit different this year, but the idea's the same: vote your choice of the best stores, restaurants, theaters, and, yes, BLOGS.

There's a catch, of course. It's nothing as tricky as Catch-22. (“That's some catch, that Catch 22.”) It's just that you have to vote for at least 25% of the categories (24 votes) for your vote to count.

But you can do that. You live here, you go out, you watch TV. You can do it.

So hop on over to Seven Days and vote for your friends at GMD. Just make sure you do it by 6:00 p.m. Friday.

Some days it seems that we could set up a whole separate section here, maybe call it “Yankee Watch”. At the risk of piling on, there's another story today.

It was less than a month ago that Douglas vetoed the legislation to require Vermont Yankee to maintain financial assurances for its eventual decommissioning:

“Rather, H.436 threatens our economic recovery by unnecessarily increasing electric rates for consumers and businesses.  Further, this legislation substitutes an objective process with political calculations, it breaks a promise made by the state of Vermont to a private entity and it exposes taxpayers to certain litigation.”

 Today it turns out that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency actually responsible for the safety of nuclear power plants (or, in the parlance of the Douglas administration, an “outside agitator”), takes a different view.

MONTPELIER — The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will notify the owners of Vermont Yankee and 25 other nuclear plants today that they have shortfalls in money dedicated to dismantling the reactors once they're no longer operating.

And who had it right on this issue?

Well, in addition to the General Assembly, it was GMD's own Maggie Gundersen:

Governor Douglas would rather add a tax burden of $1,000 to each and every Vermonter (yes, every man, woman, and child) than to tell ENVY it is time to fill the fund.

 So as Maggie said last year, read the table, read the news, and then repeat after me. “Thanks, Jim.”

It's great to see good, progressive legislators getting exposure. Sue Minter's been in the legislature for five years now and she has really distinguished herself. Here's a piece from the Waterbury Record about Sue and her work.

“Sue is a very passionate legislator,” said Tom Stevens, a Democrat elected to replace Dostis last fall. “She cares deeply about what she is working on, (and is) diligent in research and professional in demeanor. I know when I hear from Sue on news from her committee that the information is going to be good, well-thought-out and accurate.

Minter’s hard work has paid off, Stevens said. Her name has been floated for leadership positions in the House, and she is now on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, the key budget committee.

Follow the link for the rest of the story.

Good going, Sue. 

Yes, it's time once again to cast your vote in the Seven Daysies competition.

 As you know, the Daysies are the reader's choice competition for the best of Vermont, conducted by our friends at Seven Days, where, in all seriousness, you can read some of the best political and cultural reporting in Vermont. GMD has been honored with the second-place rating in each of the last two (or is it three?) years, and we're in the running once again in the category of Best Political Blog.

Naturally, we think we are the best political blog in Vermont. We're also pathetic enough to really want to win, so if you're inclined to do so, we'd appreciate your vote.

For your vote to count you need to vote in least 25% (24) of the categories, but there are plenty of categories and businesses that are worthy of your vote.

The deadline's June 26, but why wait?

In case you missed it Sunday, NPR ran a story about the national battle over bribes payments by drug companies, and the legislation proposed to control them. As part of the story they interviewed Peter Shumlin , President Pro Tem of the Vermont Senate and potential gubernatorial candidate, about the legislation just passed by the Vermont Legislature.

 The Vermont Legislature recently passed the strictest bill to date, and it is expected to become law next month. Vermont state Sen. Peter Shumlin, who sponsored the bill, says the state is trying to take a leadership role in what he calls a national problem.

 Longtime observers of the Vermont scene are well aware of Shumlin's ability to score headlines around here. It's great to see him, and Vermont, getting national coverage for being out ahead of the rest of the country. We covered this bill back at the beginning of the session, so it's good to see that they got this one passed.