As has been broadly publicized, the teabag crowd is planning for an encore performance:

Are you fed up with a Congress and a president who:

• …want to take your wealth and redistribute it to others?
• punish those who practice responsible financial behavior and reward those who do not?
• admit to using the financial hurt of millions as an opportunity to push their political agenda?
• run up trillions of dollars of debt and then sell that debt to countries such as China?
• want government controlled health care?
• want to take away the right to vote with a secret ballot in union elections?
• refuse to stop the flow of millions of illegal immigrants into our country?
• appoint a defender of child pornography to the Number 2 position in the Justice Department?
• want to force doctors and other medical workers to perform abortions against their will?
• want to impose a carbon tax on your electricity, gas and home heating fuels?…

…If so, help organize and/or participate in a Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party in your community on July 4.

No doubt local organizers will again attempt to suggest that their local events are in no way tied to or influenced by the national movement, with its clearly articulated conservative agenda and its plain genesis in the GOP media infrastructure. All those other demonstrations in other states, as well as the Fox News reports are simply coincidences. The fact that these demonstrations are petrie dishes for nasty displays of bigotry is either ignored or not their problem. The blatant hypocrisy displayed by the fact that none of these people got off their duff during the excesses of the Bush era? Well… they just don’t talk about that.

This is not to say there aren’t plenty of people involved who think they are doing the right thing, but there’s a point at which willful blindness does entail a degree of moral culpability. In this case the blindness comes with being used as meat puppets for a mega-corporatist agenda to reduce regulations and tax burdens on the biggest, richest exploiters in the nation – the very ones who bear ultimate responsibility for the financial cliff working people are in the process of being driven off.  

Listening to the self-promotional ads for the local “demonstrations,” though, one could be forgiven for concluding that organizers may be more interested in promoting themselves as celebrities than engaging with an economic reality that doesn’t fit into the neat little prepackaged box they’ve so happily allowed themselves to be handed.

If I sound upset about this I am, and for a particular reason. In scheduling these demonstrations around July 4th festivities, organizers are nakedly attempting to co-opt crowds that are not their own, in order to give the photographic and propogandistic appearence of a broader base of support. Since the turnout disappointed during their original displays, they are now seeking to indentify where the crowd is and moving their signs there, rather than try and draw crowds on their own merits.

What does this mean at a personal level? We on the left have, for our entire lives, put up with being called treasonous and unpatriotic for views that, from my perspective, are the essence of patriotism. 4th of July celebrations, however, provide a break from that. I can stand in a crowd, cheeringthe fireworks along with everyone else around me. The guy next to me might be the worst kind of bigoted, scary, fascist hate-monger – but in that shared moment, I don’t know and I don’t want to know.

But along come the corporate organizers of the national teabaggery, who see our nation’s birthday as every bit as exploitable as the willing, reactionary stooges they find so ready to promote their self-serving agenda on the ground. This 4th of July, rather than being content with coming together for that one fleeting time a year, teabaggers everywhere will crash celebrations of unity in order to pointlessly divide us to the best of their ability.

And they will all pat themselves on the back relentlessly for doing so.

Here’s the scoop from vtbuzz. Remsen doesn’t indicate whether or not GMD bloggers made it up.

With most observers assuming that Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin will join Senators Doug Racine, Susan Bartlett and (unofficially as yet) Secretary of State Deb Markowitz in the running for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, Racine continues his strategic campaigning (campaign staffer Mark Larson’s impact, perhaps?). His first big move was to start openly building bridges with Progressives, keeping Markowitz from owning the “electability” meme by framing it on finances alone. Now, with the goodwill and support among the GLBT community accumulated by Shumlin with his leading role on marriage equality and his recent boycott of a DNC fundraiser as an act of solidarity with gay and lesbian activists slighted by the Obama administration, Racine is moving to shore up his own bona fides among this important voting bloc. From a press release:

In an open letter to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Vermonters and their allies State Representatives Bill Lippert, Suzi Wizowaty and Steve Howard announced their decision to support Sen. Doug Racine in the 2010 Governor’s race today.

“As legislators, and members of Vermont’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, we appreciate Doug’s leadership on issues that affect all Vermont families, including our families,” said Rep. Wizowaty…

…In their letter, the three legislators recount then Lieutenant Governor Racine’s early support for marriage equality.  In 1999, Hawaii had just overturned its decision on marriage, Vermont was still awaiting a decision in Baker v. State, and a mailing signed by Hawaiian legislators warning against marriage equality had just been sent to every Vermont home.  A scathing Free Press editorial at the time accused Lt. Governor Racine of being irresponsible and inviting “warfare within Vermont’s borders and unprecedented assault from without.”  

“In the face of this political risk, almost every major Vermont political leader remained silent.  Doug, however, publicly declared his belief that our families should be treated equally under the law,” states the letter from the legislators.

Hmm. “Almost every Vermont political leader.” A little poke at Racine’s rivals? Careful, folks.

Howard also gives Racine an early endorsement in Rutland County, providing a beachhead for more buzz outside his home region. Complete release is below the fold.

State Representatives Bill Lippert, Suzi Wizowaty and Steve Howard announce support for Doug Racine for Governor.

Tuesday June 30, 2009 Burlington VT:  

In an open letter to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Vermonters and their allies State Representatives Bill Lippert, Suzi Wizowaty and Steve Howard announced their decision to support Sen. Doug Racine in the 2010 Governor’s race today.

“As legislators, and members of Vermont’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community, we appreciate Doug’s leadership on issues that affect all Vermont families, including our families,” said Rep. Wizowaty.  “We need a governor who can bring Vermonters together to solve the real challenges facing our state.  Doug Racine is the person who can best do this.”

In their letter, the three legislators recount then Lieutenant Governor Racine’s early support for marriage equality.  In 1999, Hawaii had just overturned its decision on marriage, Vermont was still awaiting a decision in Baker v. State, and a mailing signed by Hawaiian legislators warning against marriage equality had just been sent to every Vermont home.  A scathing Free Press editorial at the time accused Lt. Governor Racine of being irresponsible and inviting “warfare within Vermont’s borders and unprecedented assault from without.”

“In the face of this political risk, almost every major Vermont political leader remained silent.  Doug, however, publicly declared his belief that our families should be treated equally under the law,” states the letter from the legislators.  “For doing so, he was resoundingly criticized by many.  We know that his critics were wrong, but we remember Doug’s courage in standing up for our rights.  When we needed Doug, he stood by us and our families.  And we are proud to now stand by him.”

“Doug’s leadership on our civil rights has been strong and longstanding.” said Rep. Lippert.  “As a member of House Judiciary Committee, and for many years the only out legislator, I know how important reliable allies have been to the fight for our civil rights.  From adoption rights to marriage equality, Doug has always been with us.  His leadership and commitment to our rights have made a real difference for our community.”

The three legislators made it clear though that their support was not just about Sen. Racine’s record of civil rights.  “While much appreciated, my support is not just because of Doug’s support for our community,” stated Rep. Howard.  “Doug understands the challenges of working Vermonters and gets the importance of re-building a strong economy.  We need better jobs.  Promises aren’t enough.  All Vermonters will benefit from the new style of leadership that Doug will bring to the Governor’s office.”

Rep. Bill Lippert represents Hinesburg and is the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee.  Rep. Steve Howard represents Rutland City and serves on the House Ways and Means Committee.  Rep. Howard is also a former Chair of the State Democratic Party.  Rep. Suzi Wizowaty represents the south end of Burlington and is on the House Health Care Committee.

For more information contact Mark Larson at mark.larson@dougracine.com or 355-4507.

Correction: Harlan Sylvester did not sponsor the fundraiser for Salmon, as was reported to me. Shoulda confirmed that before posting. My bad. -odum

Remember during the height of the budget conflict between the Legislature and the Governor when Auditor Tom Salmon Jr. attempted an ill-advised grandstanding stunt by inserting himself (rather inartfully) into the process? Salmon offered himself as mediator (having, of course, no qualifcations to serve in that capacity and stepping far beyond his purview as State Auditor) in the midst of a debate that legislative Dems were managing quite well without him. By trying to play the role of wise father figure and casting the debating parties as self-interested partisans who needed to compromise further than the Dems already had, Salmon played into the hands of Governor Douglas, who tried (and failed, thankfully) to use Salmon’s play to his own advantage.

Well, as with the repetition of his casinos-on-the-ski-areas notion, Salmon seems recklessly oblivious to bad buzz, and is at it again. Last week he sent an email to Senator Shumlin, Speaker Smith, Secretary of Administration Neale Lunderville and Douglas Chief of Staff Tim Hayward trying to shove his way into the Joint Fiscal Office’s process of identifying cost savings by suggesting he might be cheaper than the consultants budgeted into the process. In the email, he reportedly demands to know what the status of the process is, as well as any so-dubbed bi-partisan crisis planning (?) underway.

O-kay. A politician with clear and rather blunt political ambition would be a better arbiter than neutral professionals with hands on experience in such matters. Frankly, I’m finding myself a bit concerned about Salmon’s perspective on reality.

After all, it was only last week that he indicated to Totten that he wanted to run for Governor in 2012. I suppose he’s not planning on being too helpful in putting a fellow Democrat into the office over Douglas next year?

So this guy, whose here-I-come-to-save-the-day schtick has already worked against his party’s legislative leadership this year, whose stated ambitions imply he might be less than enthusiastic supporting their electoral interests (as in, getting a Dem Governor) next year, and who has stated his intention to run against the current Governor next cycle… this guy is supposed to be taken seriously by all parties as a mediator or arbiter (or is it manager?) of this process? Is he nuts?

Or if not nuts, maybe just smug. Last week he had a fundraiser held for him by that reportedly included financier Harlan Sylvester – he of Democratic boogeyman fame. Sylvester is the conservative, so-called “Democratic” moneyman who was a supporter of Howard Dean, but dumped the Dems for Jim Douglas rather than back Doug Racine in 2002, who he saw as too liberal. Perhaps Salmon has decided that he’s been knighted by Sylvester, so everything else is just a formality? If so, he is – like so many others – comically overestimating Sylvester’s impact. We do still have quaint little things called elections.

Speaking of which, Salmon might want to bear something in mind; it’s only summer of 2009. There’s still plenty of time for a primary challenge this cycle to emerge.

I’m really not sure the best way to meaningfully, constructively and effectively deal with this – but we’d better figure out something.

Required viewing from Rachel Maddow:

Here’s something else to look for on the July campaign finance filings under “consulting.”

Democratic Rep. Megan Smith, whose district spans Bridgewater, Chittenden, Killington, Mendon, is the subject of robocalls into her towns attacking her votes on taxes, the state budget, and lifting Pre-K caps (pesky kids).

Interestingly, the calls show up on caller ID as from a number in the Washington DC area: 202-747-7306. There is no answer when the number is called back. Not only has the phone number been associated on the web with calls against a Democratic-Party-associated judge in Pennsylvania, as well as in support of former Republican US Representative Melissa Hart, also from PA (h/t/ Barlow).

But sharp-eyed readers will recognize it as the phone number behind some of the anti-marriage equality robocalls in Vermont earlier this year.

So the question then is, why? The timing doesn’t seem very useful. It is rather a long time between now and election day, and robocalls are getting to be a touchy subject among many in Vermont and are generally being approached with more care of late, rather than less.

The possibilities that jump to mind are that its a) message testing against a “live” target, or b) something funded by the local-level GOP. Robocalls are amazingly cheap, so it wouldn’t take much fundraising to make it happen (and local organizations can be a little more impulsive than their larger-scale, professionally staffed counterparts). If so, given that these calls apparently represent a go-to firm for state Republicans, its likely being at least coordinated at the State Committee level through our pal Rob Roper.

The question is, then, are these calls happening in any other districts against any other incumbent Dems (or Progs, for that matter). Anybody hear anything? Better yet, anybody record anything?

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

I was fortunate enough to speak briefly with Senator Leahy about the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court during a break in floor activity on Tuesday, which happened to be the day of the renewed GOP attack on the nominee.

The first phase of the Republican effort to scuttle Sotomayor’s nomination has, in a sense, collapsed in on its own weight. Jump started by the much-maligned hit piece from Jeffrey Rosen that played crudely to gender stereotypes without any meaningful corroboration, the Republican media hit machine (in particular Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh) turned the dial up to 11 almost instantly in an outrageous display of sleaze and name-calling. They went so over the top so quickly, that the whole effort seemed to stumble among Republicans in the Senate as well as the public at large.

But earlier this week on the Senate floor, phase 2 began. Led by new Senate Judiciary ranking member Jeff Sessions of Alabama (who himself was rejected for a federal judgeship by the Senate back in 1986  for being, as Senator Kennedy described him at the time, “a throwback to a shameful era which I know both black and white Americans thought was in our past” for his characterizations of groups such as the NAACP as un-American), this new round of attacks seems to be attacking on more fronts than the crude race-baiting and gender stereotyping that characterized phase 1, yet still seems on the edge of falling right back into those same, ugly memes.

Senate Democrats, led by Vermont Senator and Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, have wasted no time in pushing back. For his part, Leahy seems to relish the opportunity. He is clearly in his element in such a debate, but one has to wonder if the timing is especially opportune. After all, Leahy was a leading voice against the extra-judicial excesses of the Bush administration for years – and has advocated for a process through which some of those excesses might be brought to light. Although he is clearly a big supporter of our new President, it must be frustrating to see the new administration unexpectedly eager to continue many of those policies on the one hand, and uninterested (if not outright opposed) to any kind of truth and reconciliation process targeting the previous regime. Given all this, might a Supreme Court nomination that he can really take the lead on in the Senate be just what the doctor ordered?

Whatever the case, Vermont’s senior Senator directly addressed the attacks on Sotomayor’s character and stated unequivocally that she will come through the process and reach the Court. The text of his comments after the flip

Leahy wasted no time (or words) laying out the motives for the over-the-top Republican attacks on Sonia Sotomayor, which now include her position on gun rights, the “empathy” thing, her involvement in the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund – even attempts to tie her to the mortgage crisis.

Leahy: “They had fundraising letters going out even before she was nominated. You had immediately Rush Limbaugh, on television, saying she was the equivalent of the head of the Ku Klux Klan. And Newt Gingrich… saying that she was biased and bigoted and so on, or words to that effect… I think a lot of the Republican Senators I’ve talked with are embarrassed by this and want nothing to do with it. She’s going to be confrmed. I expect she’ll be confirmed by a comfortable margin.

I look at today when a number of law enforcement groups endorsed her. Of course, (Manhattan district attorney) Bob Morgenthau strongly endorsed her, and talked to law enforcement and others who were with her when she was a prosecotor and said she was extraordinarily well prepared and very tough.

They didnt think that a weekend spent in Vermont was quite the punishement they’d like to give me.”

odum: “It seems clear that Senator Jeff Sessions is going to be a very, very different ranking member than Sen. Specter, with whom you seemed to put a lot of effort into having a good working relationship. He has a different approach to politics, he’s been described as an ideologue by critics. You’ve worked with hard-right counterparts in the past – such as Orrin Hatch – but Sessions would seem to present unique challenges that might take you out of your preferred modus operandi…”

Leahy: “…I’ve had periods of being chairman and ranking member as Specter has. Of course Specter and I first knew each other when we wer both prosecutors. I was State’s Attorney in Chittenden County, he was District Attorney in Philadelphia, so we’ve known each other for years. He’s a cancer survivor, my wife’s a cancer survivor, they’ve talked about this, they’ve had long talks about cancer treatment. One year he was given a cancer group’s hero award, she presented it – next year she was given it and he presented it, so we have that kind of personal relationship.

Now obviously I cant tell him what to do, but I have told everyone that I’m not going to set different rules for her than we had for (Chief Justice) John Roberts, and I’m not going to sit and let her be a punching bag for week after week after week without being able to respond.

I have voted on every member of the US Supreme Court. And I’ve been here for all the hearings, not only for the ones who are there, but some of the ones who are no longer there like Justice O’Connor and Chief Justice Rehnquist. I voted on his nomination as Chief Justice, not as Justice, but – I have a rule that I will not meet the special interest groups of the right or the left when it comes to a Supreme Court nominee. I remember some of the groups on the left picketing in front of my office because I was going to support David Souter. They said we can’t have a right winger like him. Well, the same groups would love to have him stay (laughs). So I have to make up my own mind. And I will. And I only half-joke about being up in Vermont and working on the break. Our house is really kind of a nice quiet place to work. I dont have the phones ringing, I don’t have distractions, I can be in my chinos and a t-shirt…”

odum: “Sounds like blogging.”

Leahy: “Yeah- cup of coffee and my pajamas.”

odum: “It seems like there’s a real potential here for hearings to become a real watershed event on race and gender in America. With Sessions his history with racial issues on the one hand, it just seems like both Sotomayor and Sessions have the potential to become almost archetypal figures of the past vs. a more multicultural future, which could make these hearings into a real cultural arena. Do you think there’s the potential for the hearings to play out that way?”

Leahy: You may have – I think its possible Senator Sessions will surprise people.

Well, we’re going to give people a chance to see – this is going to be a fair, its going to be a complete hearing. And it will wrap it up.

…and no, I can’t say with any certainty why. From his column this week:

So who started the GMD rumor? GMD bloggers?

The line refers first to the buzz that Senator Ed Flanagan was eyeing a Lieutenant Governor’s race. Totten continues from there, euphemistically piling onto the other rumors mentioned on this site – that Dubie is considering not running and Barre Mayor Lauzon is considering running in his stead, that former Vermont CARES Director Tim Palmer is considering a run – with phrases like “aren’t entirely accurate” and the like.

In an unhappy email exchange with Mr. Totten over the matter, he simply avoided the matter with a mocking insistence that he hadn’t actually used the l-word. Honestly, one of the last things I care to engage in since I’ve become a grown-up is strange, petty little word-parsing games. Totten sent a thesis message loud and clear: Euan and I (and by extension everyone on the site?) just make shit up. He went on to present his supporting “evidence.”

Obviously, I’ll let Euan respond herself, but for my part, a response to such an outrageous charge is clearly called for.

Everyone here at GMD – or any other comparable, equally masochistic I-don’t-get-paid-for-this-so-why-do-I-put-myself-through-it hobby – have different motivations. For me, I realized recently that I have a deep, primal loathing of bullies. More often than not, GMD has been my way to stand up to the bullies and sometimes – if I’m very lucky – get them to back down.

But regardless of our individual motivations, we take this very seriously.

When I go up with a rumor, I’m clear about it. I characterize it as “rumor” or “buzz” or “hubbub” to be clear that’s what I’m talking about. If I feel even more solid, I won’t label it at all. I consider it reportable if I hear it from three different sources – or if I get it from a source that I consider super-credible. On the Lauzon/Dubie issue, I was not the first front pager to hear that statehouse rumor – but I did get it’s veracity confirmed by one of those super-credible sources. With Palmer as well, I wasn’t the only front pager who was aware of the rumor, but I did get it confirmed from a credible source who had, in fact, heard it from the source. The Flanagan buzz came from Euan first (I only posted it before she did because she wasn’t near a computer and put it out there for the group to post), and she has revealed that her sources were, again, super-credible. Euan, of course, is a former editor of the late publication Out in the Mountains, so suggesting she is making things up in print is even more outrageous.

Seriously, folks. We’ve been around for years, now. Our information almost always pans out, and if something doesn’t add up, we come out and say so.

In this case yesterday, Totten’s column spurred a flurry of emails among front pagers. After another round of laying out of the sources of the collected buzz to each other, the suggestion was made that we return to these sources and push to get them on the record. But these sources – and others – only passed along the information with the understanding that they wouldn’t be connected to it. If we go running to them and lean on them to give more just because a bully is kicking sand in our faces, we will simply lose their confidence in the future – and rightfully so.

Here’s the thing; Totten is no political novice. He knows how rumors work. They wouldn’t be “rumors” if the subjects were prepared to go public. They would be headlines. When he asks, they dodge – naturally. To use this as evidence to an accusation of lying is bizarre. He knows how it works. He chose to pretend he doesn’t in order to perpetuate a smear to tens of thousands of his readers.

As to the claim that he didn’t actually use the word “liar,” well, he’s also a professional writer, and no amount of smug word-parsing changes the message that he very specifically and intentionally communicated.

As I said, I can’t say why Totten would smear us in print like this. Yes, there is some personal history there, including a breach of personal trust on a pretty spectacular scale (especially when you consider that a journalist deals in the currency of trust and confidentiality). Perhaps a story that will get told one day.

But let’s be serious. GMD has thousands of weekly readers, Totten has tens of thousands. GMD is a completely amateur, volunteer-driven labor of love, Totten works for a professional operation. Euan and I are those dreaded pesky bloggers, sitting around doing this in front of the TV (okay, Euan was also a professional journalist – an editor, even), while Totten is the serious professional and expert.

The other little irony here is this: Totten seems to have gotten himself into a bit of a pot/kettle, “glass houses” position. Last month Seven Days ran a very long article about Ed Flanagan in the Senate, and whether he is too disabled to serve based on the sequelae of his motor vehicle accidents. They caught some heat for that article, not least because it was, shall we say, very lightly sourced. They had their reasons for running the story they ran, even without sources willing to go on the record, and they’re entitled to use their news judgment for that.

But that’s what we do, too. We report the facts we have, we report on the buzz when in our judgment the buzz is a legitimate news story, and the result is that GMD is recognized nationally as required reading for people who want to know what’s happening in Vermont politics.

So we bug him. Or at least we do from time to time. Fair enough. We bug a lot of people. It’s what we do.

But choosing to sink to the level of bully? That’s low. And it should be beneath him.

About a month ago, in the midst of a frustrated picque, I launched the Facebook group 1000 Vermonters for change. Y’all remember that, right?

The big dynamic that works against us in trying to take the Governorship is, as often mentioned, the primary election, coming so close as it does to the general – especially if you feel, as many of us on the left and engaged with the netroots do – that a primary contest is an absolute necessity to put together the voter interest and media attention necessary to win in November, as well as to have an opportunity to choose the best candidate, rather than have one chosen for us by the political illuminati (such as they are) or simply by default. And one way that it hurts us is by leaving little time for raising competitive funding after spending on a primary battle.

So, here’s my solution. I’ve created a Facebook group: 1000 Vermonters for Change. My goal is to get 1000 people to join over the next year – 1000 people who commit to sending a $100 contribution to whoever wins the Democratic primary, the day after the primary election. That’s $100,000 and its a pretty big boost.

Well, I’m thrilled to report that we’re already over 20% of the way to our goal, with well over a year to go. The group’s membership continues to tick upward steadily, and currently stands at 210 members. Add in the 4 who indicated they were signing up but don’t have Facebook user accounts, and its at 214. That’s already $21,400 pledged to the winner of the Democratic primary the day after that winner is chosen, all to help do what we can to mitigate the drawbacks of a primary, leaving us to benefit from the necessary advantages that such a contest provides.

Good stuff. And thanks to everyone who has stepped up to the plate thusfar. Hopefully we’ll see some of you at the big Hamburger Summit next weekend in Montpelier (aka the “Bloggers Barbeque,” which isn’t just for bloggers, y’know.)

…and the latest buzz to reach my ears is that former executive director of Vermont CARES Tim Palmer is also talking to folks about jumping into the Lieutenant Governor pool. Is this becoming a free for all? Palmer, who has run unsuccessfully for State Senate at least three times since 1998, would have an awfully rough time establishing statewide name recognition with the heavy hitters he’d likely be facing, but could conceivably compete for Chittenden primary voters against Flanagan (if he also gets in), which would be good news for Floyd Nease (who is definitely in).

He’s gonna have to get “timpalmervt.com” unhacked, though (probably shouldn’t check it out to see what I mean…there might be something malicious… currently, it bears the message “Team Users : CIGLIK – Real_Karizma – GiX – NiqhT – inSuLiN_20mg – XJaDeX – BY K@RT@L – REDWHiTE- Zombie – G@MMBeT”).