The knives are out. All that pent-up, barely contained loathing of Howard Dean by the DC Democrat set is all finding gleeful expression following his call yesterday for the Lieberman-driven, Obama-endorsed helth care “compromise” to be defeated. This is the bill that, in requiring that citizens pay for private health care with no public option and no price control, gives the insurance cartel (unrestricted as it is by anti-trust laws) free, clear, and unrestrained direct access to Americans bank accounts.

The resentment that has simmered for years towards Dean. Stemming from his failed upstart presidential bid, and growing exponentially during his grassroots-driven coup of the Democratic National Committee, it, of course, found expression in his being summarily closed out of the historic administration he was so instrumental in bringing to power. Now that he has shown the audacity to remove himself from the party line and start talking reality, the beltway crowd that can’t bring itself to say a negative word about Joe Liberman can hardly maintain their glee at castigating the good Doctor. It’s quite a sight. Here’s Sen. Jay Rockefeller:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) fired back at former DNC chairman Howard Dean on MSNBC today over Dean’s comment that the current health bill is not “real reform” — something Rockefeller said characterized as “irresponsible” and “nonsense.”

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said no “rational person” would want to kill the bill, prompting reporters to ask if Gibbs thinks Dean is “irrational.”

“I can’t tell what his motives are,” Gibbs responded. (For what it’s worth, Glenn Greenwald of Salon points out that Gibbs was the spokesman of a group that ran anti-Dean ads before the 2004 election.)

Not-so-subtle email from the DNC and Organizing for America:

Democratic senators across the country are currently fighting hard alongside the President to pass reform. They deserve our appreciation. Others are still trying to score partisan points rather than stand up for American families — and they need to understand that their constituents demand better.

President Obama himself resorting to desperate sounding, Republican style “mediscare” tactics:

“If we don’t pass it, here’s the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you,”… The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, “the federal government will go bankrupt.”

And possibly the biggest phony, corporate sell-out in the Senate still sporting a D after her name, Mary Landrieu:

Hell with ’em. This is a bill that will hurt more people than it helps, and that should be the only metric that matters.

Love him or hate him, you have to admit; if there’s one thing about Howard Dean, it’s that the guy is unintimidatable, for good or ill. As far as I’m concerned, right now that’s very, very good.

Call our Senators and tell them to back up Governor Dean. No public option? Then remove the individual mandate or no deal. Period.

Leahy contact:

Burlington office – (802) 863-2525   1-800-642-3193

Montpelier office – (802) 229-0569

DC office – (202) 224-4242

Sanders contact:

1-802-862-0697 – or – 1-800-339-9834 (In State Only)

Howard Dean has said it. Baruth has said it. Markos has said it. It seems to have dawned on everyone with the news this morning that nothing – nothing – progressive activists have fought for in the health care reform “compromise” that’s about to trump both the already passed (and currently being debated) Senate bill, as well as the House bill – will survive. All that will remain after all that work will be a bill essentially written by one man: Joe Lieberman.

And let’s be clear, he has done so with the full backing of the Obama administration. The denials trickled away as multiple sources confirmed that Obama attack dog Rahm Emanuel personally delivered marching orders to Senate Leader Harry Reid: give Lieberman whatever he wants. Consider this list from Firedoglake of what we’re looking to get:

1. Mandates every American buy expensive insurance from private companies without the choice of a public option

2. Severely taxes middle class health care plans, rather than wealthy individuals

3. Insurance premiums will increase in cost $1000 a year

4. Increased health care costs

5. Insurance companies will be exempt from anti-trust laws, inhibiting competition

6. A sweet, sweet deal for PhRMA with no ability to negotiate for Medicare drug prices

Monopolies granted on new biologic drugs so they will never become generics

7. NO public option

8. NO medicare expansion

I think many of us have independently had the epiphany today at all the bad news. For my part, I’ve been where I’ve been for months on this; a bill with an individual mandate and without a public option will make a bad system worse. I’d planned on writing this up this evening, and find myself just one of many, many voices spontaneously saying the same thing. The monstrosity barreling our way goes against Democratic Party principles. It goes against Republican Party principles. It is a Connecticut for Lieberman Party bill, recognizing only the “principle” of Joe exercising power, and Rahm getting some sort of twisted notch on his belt.

This is not better than nothing. This is worse than nothing. If the powers that be are determined not to deliver meaningful reform, then at least drop the mandates and some of the the regressive taxes and you’ll be left with a wimpy bill, sure – but that will be a bill better than nothing.

This thing should die. Senators Leahy and Sanders owe it to working and middle class Vermonters not to chain their limited incomes to the unchecked whims of the insurance companies. Both should step up and indicate that if the Lieberman bill comes to a vote, they will vote against cloture.

From the 'pedia:

In the Bizarro world of “Htrae” (“Earth” spelled backwards), society is ruled by the Bizarro Code which states “Us do opposite of all Earthly things…”

From former-national-big-name-newsguy-turned-local-columnist Barrie Dunsmore's scolding of “disillusioned Democrats” who have the gall to criticize the commander-in-chief:

This past week Henrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker summed up Obama's dilemma this way: “The plan does not, of course, guarantee success. The best that can be claimed for it is that it does not guarantee failure, as, in one form or another the alternatives almost certainly do.

Wow. The point of much of the argument against this surge (that comes from across the foreign policy spectrum… just not the punditry spectrum) is that precisely the opposite is true; we know precisely where this buildup will take us from looking both at the history of comparable conflicts in and outside the area, as well as looking at the recent history of this conflict. A massive buildup is, in fact, the only strategy that looks certain to fail.

“Me do same thing that hasn't worked even harder so it not work even more!”

Also from Bizarro World today:

The Legislature during the last session closed what was known as the “capital gains loophole,” a part of the tax code that previously exempted considerable portions of investment income from taxes. Supporters of the legislation said the loophole unfairly favored wealthier residents, as well as those who derive their incomes through investing rather than labor wages.

(Democratic State Senator Hinda) Miller though says that amid all the talk of fairness and equality, lawmakers lost sight of reality. “In this building there are a lot of judgments about what is fair,”… […]

“I am proposing smart taxes instead of fair taxes,” Miller says.

Ah, Bizarro World, you're such a silly place. “Fair is unfair. Fair is now bad word. Me want more boats and houses for friends when state can't pay for unemployment. Me think that better than fair.”

Me gonna throw up now.

Want to read some great journalism, important reporting, and insightful…er…insight (where’s my thesaurus)? Vermont’s traditional journalism pioneers Jon Margolis and Anne Galloway both make tremendous contributions this week. Margolis has a piece near-and-dear to my heart as it reflects a longtime GMD theme. Here’s Margolis:

In many states, as well as on the federal level, committees of the legislature or Congress can and do investigate the workings of the executive branch… by both culture and law, Vermont’s legislature appears to be one of the weakest in the country in its capacity to find out about what’s going on in the executive branch, much less to monitor it or to probe into possible incompetence or misconduct.

Galloway’s vtdigger has broken out the very anatomy (as she says) of the story Jack broke and has followed (the closing of the VSH Canteen) and in the process illustrates just how inefficient, confused, wasteful and arbitrary the Douglas administration is when it comes to handling taxpayer dollars:

(Secretary of the Agency of Health and Human Services Rob Hofmann) says closing the Canteen will save $100,000 next year, and he says this is a sizeable budget item in light of the administration’s call for 8 percent across-the-board cuts…

[…] Last Friday, DMH closed the Canteen. On Monday, DMH moved into its newly renovated office space at nearby Wasson Hall, which features new windows, repointed brick and interior renovations. The three-story structure is also getting a new slate roof… The price tag is $2.5 million, not including $47,000 for new hardwood furniture purchased from the Vermont Offender Work Program and a $33,000 contract…

And if that’s not enough…

Memos from the Department of Mental Health show that officials didn’t assess the impact of closing the Canteen on Vermont State Hospital patients until nearly a month after the decision to shut down the snack bar was finalized.

Veteran journalist Margolis is a one man act, and has already become a must read. The more ambitious news site vtdigger is Galloway’s nonprofit e-news endeavor, and it’s profile is growing in leaps and bounds. It won’t be long before the Times Argus rues the day it ever let her go. Both also are looking for online contributions to support what they do, and it would behoove folks with extra cash to help them out to keep this ball rolling. They are building new journalism models from the bottom up, which is what its likely going to take to save journalism, as opposed to simply retrofitting more traditional business models.

Both Margolis and Galloway were recently guests on Mark Johnson’s show as well. The complete podcast can be found here at Johnson’s site. One of the more interesting parts of the discussion (well, to me at least…) came when GMD’s Maggie Gundersen phoned in and spoke of her experience as a member of the “legacy media,” which also provided an opportunity to segue into a discussion of blogs in general.

Both Margolis and Galloway to large extent “get it” that blogs and new media sites are something different, something meaningful and not to be feared. They also have a sense of what traditional media practitioners sometimes do to fuel the new media fire – specifically the tendency to create false dualities to give the appearence of being evenhanded.

There is still some oversimplification at play, though. Suggestions (it may not be in the excerpted portion below) that journalists have to stay somehow in between the political ideological poles walk a bit close to the notion that good journalists have to either have no opinions, or must only be political centrists. You also hear some oversimplification in the false equivalence between GMD and VT Tiger, simply because one is “left” and one is “right” and both use the medium of the world wide web. I daresay there is no left wing equivalent to VT Tiger in Vermont, as there is no right wing equivalent to GMD. The two sites are very different in goals, approaches, functionality, and everything in between.

But it’s still great stuff, and that 6-minute-or-so segment is excerpted at this link (dang thing won’t embed right):

CLICK HERE TO HEAR CLIP

Remember when Senators Leahy and Sanders cast two of the only votes against the craven, legislative mugging of ACORN that terrified Dems joined Republicans in enacting? At the time, Leahy commented “Just as I would be against banning other specific organizations on the right or on the left from applying for competitive grants, I believe it is harmful, even though popular, to approve an amendment like this.” And beyond being a matter of principle, it was a matter of basic Constitutionality, as our founding document prohibits Congress from singling out a single organization for petty punitive action in this way.

You may also remember a couple voices in the legacy media that just couldn’t believe Sanders and Leahy (Welch, unfortunately, snatched up a pitchfork and joined right in, much as he did with the congressional censure of MoveOn after Republicans didn’t like their ads). They couldn’t get their brains around it.

Remsen at the Free Press:

What were they thinking? Vermont Republican Party Chairman Rob Roper called the pair out of touch with common sense… Expect to see and hear about the votes Sanders and Leahy made for months — maybe years to come.

The Caledonian Freakshow Record:

Challenge Leahy and Sanders on this vote. Please don’t let it be said that Vermont has become so liberal its senators get a pass when they stand in opposition to morality and honesty.

Yesterday’s word? The ACORN-bashing law was tossed out prevented from being implemented by a judge. Why? Duh, because it’s an unconstitutional “bill of attainder.” Just as everybody who stopped for ten seconds to think about it said at the time.

So, what on Earth were Sanders and Leahy doing voting the way they did? As should’ve been obvious to folks like Remsen at the time, in voting against a plainly unconstitutional partisan hit job, they were doing their jobs.

The $400,000 overpayment to Scott Construction by the city of Montpelier and the subsequent decision by City officials to keep the goof quiet has been a source of much political sturm und drang in the capital city, and has already led to at least one announced challenger to incumbent Mayor Mary Hooper. While the concerns generated by the lack of conspiracy transparency will likely remain in play, the original issue (the money thing) looks to be solved. From the city:

The City of Montpelier will be paid in full for the loss it incurred from an overpayment to the Scott Construction Co, Inc of Newport. This morning officials from the Vermont League of Cities and Towns Property & Casualty Insurance Fund (VLCT-PACIF) informed the City Manager and Finance Director that the City’s insurance claim in the Scott Construction matter would be honored and that the City would be covered in full. While full details of this decision have not been received from the insurer, the amount of reimbursement is expected to be the $397,079 awarded to the city in a court judgment against Scott Construction, Inc. on June 16, 2009. This claim was originally denied in January of 2007.

The moral to the story is – once again – transparency, transparency, transparency. With the original issue now handled, the only issue that remains is the trust gap brought on by the city officials themselves.

Still, unlike their counterparts in Burlington facing their own financial scandal, Montpelier’s mayor and city council have proactively contained much of the public resentment through accepting responsibility with appropriate humility, as well as opening up the process to full public scrutiny. What difference that makes at the ballot box remains to be seen.

Peter Shumlin’s been out preaching the good word of marriage equality in New Jersey, where legislative sponsors of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage are doing a delicate procedural dance to maximize it’s chances for passage. Shumlin’s open letter appeared in GMD’s Soapblox/50-state-blog-project sister site, Blue Jersey:

Senators,

As you consider a vote to extend the civil marriage laws to include same-sex couples, let me offer my two cents, based on our own experience here in Vermont:  Just Do It!

[…] I have no doubt that for some of you, this vote seems scary.  Fear is the opposition’s strongest weapon at this point.  I promise you-if you do the right thing, you won’t regret it.

Kudos also to Republican Senator Diane Snelling for testifying in favor of marriage equality in the New Jersey legislature.

You might’ve already read about this (the Shumlin piece, anyway) in vtbuzz, whose link to Blue Jersey proves that, yes, the Free Press will acknowledge the blogosphere – just not in Vermont. Heh.

In re: Mr. Salmon… When you’re working on as many things as 7 Days’ Shay Totten is, sure you’re gonna get dinged more at a site like this – but you’re also gonna get more kudos, and kudos are what’s in order today. Totten has reportedly been shaking just about every bush imaginable for info on our soap operatic state Auditor Tom Salmon. What he found most recently may not end up getting as much press as a DUI – but it should.

Turns out Salmon has been using state funds to purchase a camera and have staffers video his public appearences. That would just be tacky, and a bit narcissistic, in and of itself – but it seems he also used the state-owned equipment and state employee staff time to record his big campaign fundraiser that included the likes of desperate-to-stay-relevant Burlington moneybags Harlan Sylvester. And that’s against the rules, at the very least.

“If I ever get to the big office, I’ll tell you right now, I’m going to be about reform and honesty and commitment, and I appreciate your help with me getting there,” Salmon told the crowd of supporters. “I may raise $200,000 as auditor, and if I have anything left it will be for the next pursuit and I hope you will help me get there.”

One thing might get in the way: Taping a political speech with a taxpayer-purchased camcorder may violate state rules and regs.

Here’s what it says in the state personnel manual: “An employee shall not use State property or equipment for his private use or for any use other than that which serves the public interest.”

There’s also Bulletin 5.62, which reads: “Employees shall not use, or attempt to use, state personnel, property, or equipment for their private use or for any use not required for the proper discharge of their official duties.”

Salmon defended himself with more insipid attempts at folksy straight talk. This guy is an embarassment and clearly doesn’t give a rats ass about professional ethics.

Bernie & Colbert on capitalsim (weren’t some commenters lamenting the lack of a critique on capitalism? Well, here y’are…. we aim to please…)

As the Cold War between the Burlington City Council and the Mayor over financial decision making and transparency has (predictably, but avoidably) turned into a debate over the very viability of Burlington Telecom, the next wave of public pressure and bad press may be approaching.

First comes the news, first reported in the Free Press, that usual suspect Republicans Gene Shaver and Fred Osier have filed a lawsuit against the city on the matter, claiming (from the filing):

This is a taxpayer suit to recover approximately $17 million in city funds which

were borrowed and not repaid by Burlington Telecom (“BT”) to the City of Burlington’s pooled cash management system within 60 days, and have not been repaid to date.[…] Plaintiffs seek an order requiring Defendant to promptly repay such funds with interest to the pooled cash management system; an accounting to determine how the funds were spent and exactly what amount is owing; and an injunction to prevent Defendant from taking any further actions with respect to BT which would place taxpayer funds at risk…

Although the lawsuit doesn’t seem likely to go anywhere, it does amount to a fairly comprehensive bill of particulars against the Kiss administration, and its very existence will increase the pressure. All of which again proves that Kiss, with the backing not only of the Council Progressives but the State Progressive Party itself, have gift wrapped an early Christmas present to Republican opponents of Burlington Telecom by digging in, refusing to acknowledge any screwups, and instead making the whole dustup about BT itself, rather than honestly and honorably confronting charges of misconduct. It took a lot of blind, foolish pride to goeth before this particular fall – however far the fall turns out to be.

But the more interesting bit comes from the media. There has been some behind the scenes muttering about the possibility of Freedom of Information Act requests (demands?) for the business-related particulars of BT’s finances and business plan (the information that Kiss is guarding closely and only releasing in the most limited capacity to the City Council on the condition it not be shared with anyone). Turns out, though, that Shay Totten of 7 Days already has made such a request – but by way of Council President Bill Keogh. This week, he requested copies of all communications between Keogh and the Public Service Board from October 1st through this week, but also “pro forma” financial documents submitted in open session (why stop at the executive session door? Let the sunshine in, I sez… sounds like there’s still room for another request…).

It’s worth noting, too, that not all the requests are being honored. Materials the city deems relating to “trade secrets, litigation records, contract negotiation records, and) preliminary to determination of policy records” were not turned over.

(And does anybody else feel that the blanket “trade secrets” excuse is weak? This aint the secret recipe for Coca Cola here. And yes, I know Comcast is among the evilest of evil companies, but – “trade secrets?” C’mon. The flavor of the fiber? Everybody knows the goals, here, and the technology is hardly unique. But I digress…)

The document dump could make for some interesting coverage, given that 7 Days, after doing much of legwork breaking the story, has since been positioning itself in fairly brazen opposition to the City Council’s efforts to wrest both information and control of the process from the Mayor’s office. Stay tuned.

From a presumably final press release:

Catamount Tavern News, founded over 7 years ago in August of 2002 by the new defunct Green Mountain Collective, is, perhaps, the longest running ‘underground newspaper’ in Vermont history. The publication saw its first print edition of 350 copies in the winter of 2003. The paper initially billed itself as an “anarchist publication”, and was the official Vermont newspaper of the Northeast Federation of Anarcho-Communists from 2003-2006.  For a time, it was the only statewide newspaper in Vermont. However, over the years, the publication evolved into a broader platform for left wing social and political perspectives, be they anarchist, anti-war, socialist, Progressive Party, or counter culture in nature.

Xavier Massot provides these final credits in an “obituary”:

I guess some names should be mentioned  as notables to the CT News effort, they are (in no particular order): David Van Deusen the monomaniacal editor guy, Jeremy Kaplan who was there in spirit if not occasional form, Jeremy Ripin the good natured photo dude, Lady the original editor and crossword puzzle gal, Sean West for editing for a while, Beth Cate for copy editing, Wes Hamilton for generally making the NEK deliveries (even if he did miss a few), Traven Leyshon for all the articles he was roped into writing, Jonah Banis who wrote the hunting column for a spell and was good to drink beer with,  the three girls who lived in a shack on the compound and managed to neither kill each other nor escape the CT News communal stapling and folding process, and Thor the dog who provided emotional support even while sleeping.

Is this a sign that the era of printing or photocopying, stapling, and setting independently made publications by the doors of friendly institutions is over, replaced instead by a proliferation of websites? Is that a good thing, a bad thing, or just a thing?

UPDATE: This hubbub sounds likely to amount to wishful thinking on the part of some conservatives, as other insiders say that Mazza would never consider such a run – especially against Republican Senator and Lite Gov candidate Phil Scott, who is one of his best friends in the Senate.

---

Well-placed rumors have it that there may be some coalescing of conservative Democrats behind a Lieutenant Governor run for Grand Isle Senator Dick Mazza.

The conservative Mazza often runs afoul of the progressive wing of the party, but in recent years has even been known to act as a proxy for Governor Douglas within the caucus, placing himself in opposition even to the more middle-of-the-road Dems. Rumor is that he’s being encouraged to run by conservatives and traditionalists in the party structure who would be loathe to see Progressive David Zuckerman get the party’s official nod in the Democratic Primary.

While Zuckerman was well-received at the Washington County Democratic Committee, his (shall we say) oft-spoken distaste for the Democratic Party as an institution and “the Democrats” as a collective still rings fresh in the minds of many hardcore partisans. If anti-Zuckerman Dems are coalescing, one questions whether they could generate enough pique to scuttle the enthusiasm from those primary voters who see Zuckerman’s primary ambitions as a way to bring the left somewhat closer together.

Such a dynamic would also turn a primary run into even more of a rhetorical tightrope walk for Zuckerman, as Dem opponents will be looking for any turns of phrase that could be read as contemptuous of the very primary voters he would be trying to court.

If the rumors are true, it might also make those other Democrats considering a run – Rep. Steve Howard of Rutland and Tim Palmer of Burlington – feel a little like chopped liver. Howard’s odd history with the Party (presiding as Party Chair over an intra-Party schism in the 90s that seriously damaged the party’s finances) may tend to prevent many of the long-time Dem regulars from quickly moving to back him, although if he mobilizes his support effectively in Rutland County, that history will become moot. Palmer, on the other hand, seems to be doing no more than throwing out the possibility among his circles in Burlington, rather than taking any affirmative steps to create a campaign and work against his significant name recognition deficit. As such, he’s not currently taken seriously as a candidate by anyone I’ve spoken to. He clearly needs to step up right now, if he’s at all serious.

(Quick PS… I, like others, am assuming that Ed Flanagan won’t be running. Totten has reported that Ginny Lyons is considering a run, but I haven’t heard anything more about it.)