Governor Shumlin has been signing quite a few bills of late, showing that a dose of the “one-party rule” so maligned by the party out of power can be effective. More on that list soon.

Interestingly, though, not every Democrat is singing kumbaya before the cameras – even if nobody’s lining up to throw tomatoes just yet. The back-and-forth reported on by VPR this week could be a foreshadowing of a greater, growing dynamic:

(Host) The Shumlin Administration is developing an environmental map of the state that will highlight good and bad places to site wind projects in the future.

[…] Agency Secretary Deb Markowitz says the goal is to provide wind developers with important information at the early planning stages of a project so that changes can be considered before the project is too far along in the review process:

[…](Kinzel) This approach doesn’t sit well with the chairman of the House Natural Resources committee – East Montpelier Rep. Tony Klein:

(Klein) “The mission of the Agency of Natural Resources is to protect Vermont’s natural resources it is not and has never been the mission of the Agency of Natural Resources to help developers or help anybody get their permits.”

On the merits, both parties have good points in this case. They are both right to speak up and make those cases. The new map will be helpful, and should be moved forward for all the reasons cited. Yet, this is not the first time we’ve heard fears the Shumlin administration may be inclined to give business interests primacy over environmental protection. As such, Klein does his job by firing a rhetorical shot across the bow.

But progressive Democrat Klein’s comments do not come from a vacuum. There are growing stories of traditional Democratic allies in the advocacy community being dictated to, dismissed, or even bullied if their agenda conflicts with the particulars of some of the administration’s fast-tracking priorities. Those stories have spilled into the legislature where there are murmurs that could be the seeds of real trust issues, as some Democratic lawmakers begin to have concerns about staying relevant before a Democratic administration which seems to be constructing a unique new political power elite class in Montpelier – one that does not include many (if any) legislators. It’s this environment that led to the comments from Klein.

Stay tuned.

By way of blogads, of all places, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, in quoting former carpetbaggerreporter and current Washington Monthly megablogger Steve Benen (he of Essex, Vermont), labeled him “The Smartest Politics Blogger in the Country” to her national viewership.

Way cool. This should be an excuse for me to repost the embarrassing rock-and-roll-guy picture from his past that I found on his Facebook page, but I’ll spare him. Instead we’ll show the more respectable one to the right (it’s respectable because he’s standing next to a gen-yoo-ine Vermont state Senator).

The latest from Mr. Class, Rob Williams, and the “racism, what racism?!?” cabal at Vermont Commons takes either real kahunas or a true disassociation from reality. In mocking Barack Obama, he’s taken to embracing the openly racist imagery of the Tea Party that has been roundly criticized by African Americans and, well… decent people of all political persuasions.

The picture on the left has been in circulation for some time, and it’s now Williams’s fave, as seen here and here, where he celebrates it with the comment “Barack Osama –> ain’t Photoshop great?”

It neatly and tidily combines all the scary non-whiteness into one, nice package with the President’s face. The Root, a WaPo publication focused on African American Issues, describes this particular image in its piece entitled “Evolving Images of Obama and Osama” as an “attempt to mobilize bigotry and fears about terrorism, Islam and bin Laden to delegitimize Obama as an American, a patriot and a president.”

This is the latest from the crowd that’s so above racism, they feel free to dub a hate group figure as their “philosophical guru,”, unapologetically publish League of the South leaders online and in print, has never apologized for publishing the writings of a neo-nazi sympathizer who warned Vermonters of the threat of “multiculturalists, feminists, gays, environmentalists, internationalists, secularists, and Holocaust promoters” (get it?) on the pages of their periodical (but quietly scrubbed it from the website when called on it), monthly post rants by a man who has no problem promoting his cause with leading figures in the racist movement or on talk shows affiliated with neo-confederate racists, who casually and routinely collaborate with racist organizations (including for the purposes of sharing and refining propaganda tactics), and who’ve even had the gall to invite them all up here to dirty up our own Vermont Statehouse. Par for the course.

And don’t look for any help from their enablers. Otherwise progressive folks like Will Lindner and Carl Etnier have no problem being associated – even promoting – this stuff. I guess it’s “none of their damn business” if their names could easily appear alongside the likes of neo-nazi sympathizer Robert Griffin, or that their reputations could be being put in the service of legitimizing calls for segregation in a new “Vermont Republic.”

Nor should we expect any worries from organizations like the Vermont Natural Resources Council, Rural Vermont, or businesses like Northshire Books and Marlboro College who allow their ads to appear alongside these pieces in print. What do environmentalists, farmers and… er… readers (I guess) care about racism after all? And Rob is just sooo sweet! Of course, not that they’re paying for those ads – Williams simply hands them out from “anonymous” donors so that mainstream and legitimate businesses and organizations will attach their names to his operation and shield him from criticism.

Yuck. I feel like I need a shower every time this topic comes up.

I’m putting this up as a diary just because it’s an opportunity to again demonstrate that we disagree a lot on this site, and there is no GMD party line. I think that’s one of the things that makes this site cooler than the other dKos style sites.

While I agree with everything Jack says below, there is an overriding principle that he does not address: government transparency and the way we treat public documents.

As a matter of principle, I have always believed that all government documents and records should be open and accessible unless they impact some sort of operational integrity (of an operation underway, not one recently wrapped) or unreasonably impact personal privacy. Neither is the case here. That’s not to say that Jack’s points aren’t valid, but it’s the responsibility of government to protect our rights and protect our safety, even though doing both is always harder than picking one over the other.

If our principles of open government are to have any meaning, they have to apply even when it’s uncomfortable. Otherwise, we are essentially saying we’re all for open government records, unless we need to withhold them for the public’s own good.

That argument simply brings us full circle, leaving the concept of “our own good” to whoever is in power, and whoever supports them in power. And that’s not open government at all.

By way of dKos, this is weird. Here’s the Dalai Lama talking about the killing of Osama bin Laden:

in an appearance Tuesday at USC, he appeared to suggest that the United States was justified in killing Osama bin Laden.

[…] “Forgiveness doesn’t mean forget what happened. … If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures.”

Here’s a line emerging from Fox News. This is Andrew Napolitano from his wing-nut “news” show:

This business of the president deciding to kill people is very dangerous and very unlawful. Put aside that governmental assassination is a violation of the Constitution. Put aside that this killing was not in self-defense and was without a declaration of war. Put aside the law that the president may never order the killing of civilians-period. And put aside that governmental killing violates at least four treaties and three federal statutes.

Fox News is now concerned about treaties, and killing people, and the Dalai Lama thinks it’s not so bad, and… and… whoa, I’m getting dizzy.

It’s a question I hear asked more and more often from those who remember how the genesis of the Progressive Party had a lot to do with liberal frustration with the centrist administration of Democratic former Governor Howard Dean in the 90s. At the time, Dean had no interest in accommodating the left, and was even known to openly mock liberals who seemed politically stuck with him. The combination of ideological frustration and personal pique went a long way towards evolving Burlington’s “progressive coalition” into a full-blown Progressive Party.

So when Governor Shumlin digs in, particularly on his views on taxation and his seeming deference on many public policies to the very wealthy in the state, the question inevitably gets asked as to whether history will repeat itself, and whether Shumlin’s trickle-down intransigence won’t lead to a resurgent third-party movement (either a reinvigorated Prog operation or something new) and a new era of structural advantage to Republicans in major elections.

Given the history and dynamics of the state, I think the answer is “yes,” but not right away. The political/ideological construct Shumlin has very deliberately built to protect him from such challenges from the left (as well as from the right) will do it’s job for a while, but will prove unsustainable very soon. The question is – will it matter?

First of all, let’s say what everyone assumes, but often doesn’t want to say: Peter Shumlin’s agenda is built to get him re-elected, first and foremost. Sure, that sounds tacky and seems disappointing, but it is what it is. That’s not to say that it isn’t built on genuine opinions and ideology, but the key is that it’s “based on” them. Not as far off as, say, “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” was “based on” real events, but neither is it as close as, say “In the Name of the Father.”

Shumlin’s generally liberal-based calculus is also far superior to President Obama’s, which has failed miserably. The problem with “political triangulation” is that, when it goes wrong, everybody gets pissed off off at you, rather than being on your side. Obama has gambled on an owning of the mushy middle. Shumlin has taken a far wiser track.

There’s mumbling around the Statehouse that the only issues Shumlin cares about are pre-K, Vermont Yankee, and Health Care. I think you add ways and means (tax policy) to that, and you have a complete list. That’s because these issues are the ingredients to the Governor’s recipe for success. In fact, he has seemed concerned about other issues getting in the way of that calculus, reportedly showing anger to some insiders within the activist community who have created waves on social service issues during the session, for example.

Here’s the idea: Vermont Yankee demonstrates that he is a man of conviction who fights for what he thinks is right and can stand up to bullies. Health care shows him as a forward looking visionary. Pre-K shows that he is compassionate, family-focused and engaged with issues traditionally considered in the “women’s” sphere. Tax policy shows the rich Republican set that they have nothing to fear from him, and that he’s part of the club. Add to that marriage equality where he shows he’s a social live-and-let-live-er, and you’ve got the whole picture.

The fact that these things may not seem to be traditionally politically compatible (government run health care and tax cuts for millionaires?), just makes it better – that’s mavericky. The difference between being a political maverick and a political schizophrenic is whether or not your differing views fit together with themselves, or if they’re just a flailing, random assortment. With Shumlin, each paints a part of the picture, so they fit together nicely. Hence, Shumlin is already creating a powerful legacy of his identity as a chief executive which will serve him well in the history books, or in any further political ambitions.

This is why we on the left are wasting our time trying to appeal to Governor Shumlin on rational grounds to reconsider his approach to taxing the rich, or to dial back his decidedly Reaganesque rhetoric on state revenues and the need to protect our handful of millionaires from having to pay more in taxes than they feel like. We may have a strong intellectual argument, based on studies, letters signed by Vermont rich folk, records showing the real immigration patterns of the wealthy, etc – but the fact is that Shumlin’s view is not based on intellect at all. It is, in the end, a vital piece to the political narrative he has built for himself, and he is ready to deny the reality on the ground unto eternity to continue cementing that identity.

He’s also got his political base structurally tamed. The progressive left is often depicted as a disjointed collection of single issue causes, but the fact is there’s a hierarchy to that cause spectrum – and universal health care sits squarely on top. So long as that is in the balance (and so long as the left feels Shumlin is genuinely working towards it – which he clearly is), there will be no challenge from the left. There may be talk based on tax policy, or other issues, but it will not gel into an actual challenge.

So in the short term, Shumlin is secure from a ballot-splitting renewed Progressive Party, or Green Party, or whatever. His first – and most critical – reelection effort (2012) will be a clean D vs R, as Health Care will still be unfolding.

But that won’t last. This is where the partial shelf life of Shumlin’s carefully built political identity kicks in. Shumlin can’t drag out the health care implementation because the left will smell a rat. Dragging it out will also threaten his “gets things done” bragging rights.

And again, Shumlin is no political sociopath. His political identity-construction, as I said, is based on real beliefs, and he does genuinely feel that health reform is critical for the state – particularly for the state’s business climate. He wants to get this done.

But once it is done, many on the non-Democratic left will give freer rein to their anti-Dem feelings and will find enough simmering frustration on the tax issue – as well as the numerous, cumulative cuts in social services necessitated by Shumlin’s stubborn refusal to progressively raise state revenues, that they will finally begin to coalesce around alternatives.

The Shumlin folks will be shocked, horrified, angry. How could the left turn on the guy who brought them universal health care, they will ask? In asking they will make the classic Democratic political mistake of focusing exclusively on how they feel groups of human beings should behave, rather than how they actually do behave. That’s when they will start to feed the process by scolding the malcontents for acting the way humans always act, much like scolding a fish for swimming. Those malcontents will not like being scolded for behaving in ways that feel natural (because they are natural), so they’ll get madder and pull a few more people to their side – and the whole cycle of trying unsuccessfully to shoehorn a third party into a hardwired two-party system goes around again (sometimes I think all Democratic Party strategists – particularly the self-appointed ones – should be forced to get social psychology degrees).

And the time will come when we all will wish that the momentum to IRV hadn’t been so thoroughly crushed by the god-awful Kiss administration in Burlington. Of all their sins, knocking election reform back 30 years is, IMO, by far the greatest…

But I digress.

So that’s when the third party comes back. Will it be the Progs? Frankly, the Progs may well not exist by then at the rate they’ve been imploding. The Progressive Party is not on the favorable end of the bell curve of mortality.

But it will be many of the same faces, simply rebranded. And it will again never attain more than 10-12% of any statewide vote. It will ignore the lessons of the recent Pollina elections that running as an independent or a Dem would get them far more of the vote. The pointless demonizing of the Democratic Party (which is no more or less inherently problematic than any other political institution) and the human urge to make clubs will drive these folks to form the next sometimes-major party.

But here’s the thing: it won’t happen until after Shumlin has won re-election the first time, and in the process marked the Governorship as his for as long as he wants it, due to Vermonters’ particularly pronounced deference to incumbency. It will impact other races, sure, but SHumlin will be secure.

Three steps forward, two steps back, as we creep into the future. Thus has it always been, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing or a good thing – it’s just a thing thing.

Still, wouldn’t it be nice if Governor Shumlin dropped the calculus and just lead, without political consideration? Sure, the stakes would be higher – he may lose some control of his legacy, and his future value as a candidate would be less certain – but he (and the state) could score big.

If he did, he could be the Governor who broke this goofy kabuki dance on the left, rather than simply leading us into the next pass through the same cycle. And that would be a cool legacy from where I’m sitting.

(Because Caoimhin’s comment deserves to be fleshed out a bit… crossposted at Huffington Post)

It’s good to see that Osama bin Laden has been neutralized as a political force. Who would argue that that merits a celebration? Bringing Bin Laden to justice would also be worth celebrating, but it’s not clear to me that that’s what happened.

Maybe he went down shooting as we’re told, in which case there was no other way this could play out (don’t get me wrong – I’m not the conspiracy-theorist sort at all, just a bit…. jaded, I suppose). And certainly, a full-on trial would’ve been the security nightmare for the ages (although it’s hard to imagine that it ever would have come to that, given the Obama’s administration’s complete abdication of a constitutional criminal justice regime and his embrace of the Bush ends-driven military model).

But it’s also clear beyond question that a world without Osama bin Laden is a far better place under any metric than a world with him. So let’s go with that. And during this day of celebration, I think it’s time for a pop quiz on what we’ve learned:

Question 1. As it turns out, Osama bin laden was living in a:

A. Secret cave on the Afghan-Pakistini frontier.

B. Terrorist training camp.

C. Constantaly on the move under cover of darkness among sympathetic tribes.

D. His 1 million dollar home in the Islamabad suburbs.

A. Iraq (where a war with a pricetag approaching $1 trillion dollars was undertaken to attack al qaida).

B. Afghanistan (where a war, with a pricetag slated to reach nearly $500 million by year end, was undertaken to attack al qaida).

C. Pakistan.

A. As many as (approximately) 188,000 international troops at any given time, deployed in a regime-changing landwar over 8 years, resulting in nearly 4800 coalition casualties with far more wounded.

B. As many as (approximately) 120,000 international troops at any given time, deployed in a regime-changing landwar over 10 years, resulting in approximately 2200 casualties with far more wounded.

C. A surgical strike by a small special ops team with minimal casualties over a 45 minute operation.

A. “If only you would slay the wicked, O God! Away from me, you bloodthirsty men!” Psalm 139:19

B. “As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from their ways and live.” Ezekiel 33:11

C. “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles.” Proverbs 24:17

D. “Hey John, after you take revenge on that Pontius Pilate guy for nailing me to this thing, make sure you get the boys together for a serious street party.” John 19:25

If you really must have a wedding fix this morning, consider one of the following after the flip (or add your own)…

You know, there are moderate Republicans. There are even socially liberal folks who consider themselves Republicans due to their financial misconceptions or some sense of family or social-group loyalty. Not so many these days, but they’re out there – largely in Vermont, but still.

These must be bittersweet days for that crowd. The massive pendulum-power surge of their party is underway nationally (joy!)… but in the process, many of their party-mates around the nation are feeling unencumbered by the need to look civilized due to the euphoria of their newfound power. Here are some examples via TPM. One:

Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern (R) says that she’s seen “a lot of people of color who didn’t study hard because they said the government would take care of them.”

…Kern also claimed that “gays are infiltrating city councils” and gay people are “the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat.”

Two:

“I gotta tell you something: if you support Medicare the way it is now, you can kiss the United States of America goodbye,” (GOP US Congressman from Florida Allen) West said

And then, of course, there’s this guy:

“Today I am very proud of myself because I have accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish.”

Hey Moderate Rs: is it really worth empowering these types of people with your dollars, your votes, and your institutional allegiance? Really?

Senator Sanders hit the national airwaves hard yesterday, with a stint on the Rachel Maddow Show and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Here are a couple videos for those who missed it (sorry, can’t help the ads in these network embeds)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy