The following comes from something I received from a regular reader; a forwarded email from a former business associate of his wife’s who moved to Alaska with his family from Vermont about two years ago. Apparently a lot of folks back here in Vermont have been asking this ex-Vermonter-current-Alaskan his opinion of Sarah Palin, and this is his response.

It’s not what you’d expect. Much of it is very positive (and he’s clearly not a GMD style progressive, especially given his “PS” at the bottom), but the writer leaves no question as to how he stands on the ticket (I’ve removed all but the first name of the author).

Most of the letter is below the fold. Interesting stuff.

Greetings from Palin Country, where all the women are pro-life, the men wear

goatees and all the teenagers are above birth control.

I’ve received quite a few emails asking about Gov. Palin. Some of the below

you may have already read but here’s my local take.

Sarah is a smart, tough gal.  She’s not to be underestimated and will do

very well staying on message.   She’s not afraid to buck convention, has had

famous battles with the AK GOP chair and has come out against Sen. Stevens

(more on this later) and Rep. Young, telling them to come clean with the

public.  I believe she is focused on putting people first and is fairly

pragmatic in getting the job done.   Her approval ratings are in the

nineties.  The Anchorage Daily News has a term for it: Sarah-Love.

I thought she would be a terrible governor, would cave to the oil industry

and be out of her element.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  She

has done a terrific job and will probably do very well on the campaign

trail.

The media reports that she is a reformer and in many ways she is.  But one

must put this in context: Almost a quarter of our 2006-2007 legislative body

is in jail, under FBI investigation or waiting for trial under various

corruption schemes revolving around the oil services company, Veco.  Two

thirds of our Congressional delegation will soon by convicted felons.  Under

these circumstances, anyone would be considered a reformer. But to her

credit, she’s cleaned up Juneau (but not Juno as evidenced by her daughter)

and socked it to the oil companies for locking up the natural gas reserves

and bringing in TransCanada to build a pipeline.  She’s probably the first

governor in 25 years that truly understands urban and rural Alaska.  Let’s

hope she finishes her term.

She has clearly energized the Christian Right and if she pulls in any

disaffected Hillary voters, then those voters get what they deserve.  If

politics has become about voting for a pretty, useful product then McCain

should have considered picking the iPhone as his running mate.

In so many ways, she is America and in that sense this is a brilliant move

by McBush, er, I mean McCain.   As an Alaskan, I am simply stunned by the

decision and find it surreal that I’m now reading about Wasilla, the

culturally devoid, redneck capital of the world, in the New York Times.  I

am truly blown away by this series of events and where it may lead this

country.

Does any of this qualify her to be VP or President? Absolutely not. Only a

disillusioned, hate-radio listening, GOP-loving, Jerry Falwell worshipping

person would think otherwise.   I am getting a huge kick out of the

experience by association qualifications:  She’s head of the AK National

Guard, her son is in the Army and Alaska is close to Russia, therefore she’s

nearly the next George Marshall.   Feel free to use this stupid logic in

your life.   Want to be a surgeon but didn’t go to medical school?  No

problem.  If you have ever been to a hospital, know how to spell ‘virus’ and

have experienced any illness, proceed straight to your local medical

facility and start treating patients.

Let’s hope during the VP debates or on Meet the Press, she is asked to point

out on a map the Republic of Georgia, to name and pronounce correctly Iran’s

President and to outline a Russian containment policy (and you thought the

Cold War was over, didn’t you?).   Or perhaps explain how she’s going to

work with the Chinese to help disarm North Korea, pressure Pakistan about

the tribal lands and to name the new Japanese Prime Minister.

McCain doubled down with Palin but it’s hard to imagine a more reckless

choice.  I find it incredible that GOP operatives are now saying she is just

as qualified as some of the other governors McCain was considering.   That

may be true but why was he even considering other non-qualified candidates?

Are they saying that the GOP has no qualified VP candidates?   Gee, maybe

look to the Senate, or the House or even some of the Bush leftovers.  Isn’t

there anyone in the GOP qualified to take over when Johnny misses a few

heartbeats?   But this is a classic GOP move: Create false choices and then

call us unpatriotic for questioning their ideology.  It worked a charm for

Iraq.

Let the games begin. This might be the most interesting 60+ days in politics

my generation will experience. Here’s hoping sanity prevails and Alaska

remains off the map.

-Jim

P.S. Prediction:  Stevens gets convicted but still wins the Senate seat.

The recent charges against him has only increased his visibility and

recognized worth to the State of AK.   I swear, I may even vote for the guy.

If so, I’ll turn in my Democratic card to Chairman Wooster.

Despite the primary outcome, our campaign is not over.  It is time to face brutal reality here on GMD that, if we do nothing significant prior to the general election, we may have Jim Douglas as our governor for another two years.

What can you do about it?  Why should you do anything about it?  

Because if there is only one thing we all agree on, it is that Jim Douglas has given us nothing more than something to complain about.  

Do you want Jim Douglas to be in office another two years?  This is not a question about our candidate or any other candidate on the left nor the dynamic between them.  However, we simply do not further the liberal cause by nit-picking the most likely candidate to beat Jim Douglas this close to the general election.

Do you want Jim Douglas to be in office another two years?  If not, start hammering as hard as you can on him.  After all, this is our job as the grassroots/netroots of the Democratic party.

If you cannot muster your energy to generate a loud rebellion against the Douglas incumbency in the waning days of this election cycle, you must want Jim Douglas to hold us back another two years.  

With your help, I have just concluded a campaign I am very, very proud to have run.  But so long as we are facing the possibility of another Douglas administration, my campaign to call out Douglas/Dubie is far from over.  I will not quit my campaign to speak clearly and loudly against Jim Douglas, and I hope my commitment will help inspire yours. 

We are vigorous in our debates against each other.  We need to turn that energy outward today.  If there is one thing we can all agree on, its that another two years of a Douglas/Dubie administration is not acceptable.  Whining on November 5th will not create the change we need.

Let's get to work.  Write a letter to the editor.  Produce a video and post it.  Hold your friends and colleagues accountable to voting for change.  If you need an idea, inspiration or organizational direction, contact me.  Any time, day or night.  

Let's ge to work.

Nate Freeman

888-244-2401

NateFreeman@gmail.com

( – promoted by gnome)

Shay’s article this week in Seven Day’s brings up a couple of new questions about Douglas’ PR team and his campaign but no one mentions Jason Gibbs “other role”.

Douglas could really save Vermont some money if he spoke for himself more often.  But if Vermonters are going to continue to foot the $1,000,000 (million) bill for his public relations team they should at least expect them to stick to official government business.

So my question is, after tax payers pay $1 million for “official” spin-doctors, should they also be paying Jason Gibbs for “political campaign” spin that should be paid for by Douglas’ campaign?

Jason Gibbs, Gov. Douglas’ official spokesman, is quoted in all kinds of articles in ways that are simply not appropriate. It is interesting to see the increase of Gibbs’ quotes on political matters since James Barnett left as head of the Vermont Republicans.

If you remember, Gibbs and Barnett were part of the campaign team that got Douglas elected to begin with. After Douglas’ election they both had roles; Gibbs spun everything legislative and Barnett attacked everything political.

Since Barnett left, however, the press continually asks Gibbs to comment on political matters and Gibbs is a very good political attack dog in his own right.

Gibbs in the past has taken vacation days near the ends of campaigns to work on Douglas’ campaign, which I suppose is OK, but what about the rest of the year? The campaign finance reports show Douglas has plenty of money to pay for a “campaign spokesman” from his huge out-of-state corporate donors.

As a matter of fact, most gubernatorial campaigns have dedicated spokespeople paid for by the campaign (separate from the campaign manger). Douglas has NOT since his first governor’s race. Wonder why… because the taxpayers are picking up the bill.

Recently, a Republican congressmen from Idaho got in trouble for something very similar: “The dual employ of Hoffman as an official spokesman for Sali’s congressional office and as his campaign spokesman is unusual and inappropriate.” Idaho Press-Tribune

Just because Gibbs doesn’t have the title of “campaign spokesman” doesn’t mean he isn’t…

How long, and how much money, will Gibbs and Douglas get away with this “double dipping” of taxpayer money for his campaign?

A VERY quick Google search shows these examples:

“There's a real possibility he may decide to support one of those individuals,” Gibbs said. (Reference to who Douglas may support for Republican President)

Douglas isn't committing to McCain, at least not yet, spokesman Jason Gibbs said today, but he has “great admiration and respect” for him.

Douglas spokesman Jason Gibbs confirmed a report in the Valley News of Lebanon, N.H., that said Douglas would announce his support of McCain at an event on Monday in Hanover.

“We are seeing the Republican Party unite around McCain because he is the most prepared to lead the nation on day one,” Gibbs said.

“I honestly believe Senator Shumlin is going to have a race on his hands,” Gibbs said. (Reference to Rep. Pillsbury thinking about running for Senate)  

But Douglas' spokesman, Jason Gibbs, said Pollina's plan to eliminate the loophole and then spend the money saved in doing so was, in effect, a tax increase. (In response to a political attack from a political opponent)

 Loading ...

As you probably know by now, ABC's Charles Gibson, the hack/anchorman whose performance at the ABC Clinton/Obama debate was so pathetic that he was actually booed by the audience, is getting the first interview with Palin. One can more than likely expect nothing but fluffy, softball questions with no follow-ups, delivered with that serious “I'm a real journalist” face that Gibson puts on that is usually enough to convince the clueless that it's a “hard-hitting” interview.

It really seems like the Alaskan media seems to be doing the actual hardest-hitting journalism when it comes to the idiocy/corruption/incompetence of Sarah Palin. Why not? They know her better than anyone, aren't trying to fulfill some pundit-psychological need, and the “hockey mom” nonsense probably isn't as alluring in a state where every other mom is probably a hockey mom.  The Anchorage Daily News put out a tough op-ed yesterday listing off the questions that should be asked of Palin (but probably never will, as they are both relevant and complex, something she more than likely can't handle). Jump below the fold for more, as well as a question for you, dear readers, about “issues”.

Two of the questions from the ADN:

• As governor of Alaska, you have not pushed for laws or regulations that put your personal views on abortion, same-sex marriage and creationism into public policy. As vice president, will you push to outlaw abortion, restrict same-sex marriage and require the teaching of creationism?

• You present yourself as a Republican maverick who took on your own party's corrupt political establishment. In November's election, your party is running an indicted U.S. Senator, Ted Stevens, who is awaiting trial on charges he accepted more than $250,000 of unreported gifts from the state's most powerful lobbyist. Will you vote for his opponent? Will you urge Alaskans to help you change Washington and vote him out of office? If not, why not?

These are the kinds of questions we need asked (and the questions of this depth should bE asked of all of the candidates – in the meantime we're going to have to settle for “Does your preacher love America? Do you like donuts?“) Don't hold your breath, because any journalist that would ask them wouldn't be able to get within 100 feet of Smilin' Sarah.

And that brings me to my other notion: why Americans continue to fall for the fluff instead of the substance. By and large, we're a pretty ignorant lot, even many who feel they are well-informed. And, no, it's not just the conservatives, even though they've done a masterful job of elevating anti-intellectualism as a form of personal virtue. 

Yesterday at Five Before Chaos, I did a “Dumb American Voter Linkdump”, as there are several new books out upon the matter. Voting really is an emotional, not intellectual excercise for most Americans. And my friend Scherpschutter, who lives in Belgium, summed up the problem nicely:

In the US (and Italy) this general conscience seems to have imploded: both the left and the right have their own set of values, completely different from each other. We are good, They are bad. In such a situation an accusation of fraud, corruption or whatever isn’t harmful: it comes from a bad person, who is trying to hurt me, a good person. That is a dangerous, very harmful situation.

There's a lot of wisdom to be had there, and it does indeed explain it to an extent.

Another angle: LeftField's diary “It's the Issues, Stupid”, brought up some valid points, about how Obama's losing ground because he's not taking a bolder stand on the issues. I can agree with that sentiment, but on another level, it's not working for me, simply because it's assuming we have an informed electorate that is voting based on “the issues”. We don't. But they sure are flocking to get those Kawaski eyeglasses that Palin wears. Good to know we're paying attention to the things that matter.

It was said at the GOP convention that “this campaign isn't about the issues, it's about character”.  I suspect, given the tendencies of the electorate, that it really wouldn't matter if it was. 

So, there is indeed a huge challenge for the Obama team. Calling McCain's lies out as they occur is only going to go so far, as huge swaths of the public fall for that “if you repeat a lie enough it becomes true”. So, putting aside Dem capitulation, similar positions on some things, and all those other factors, how do we proceed?  What does one do when “talking about the issues” doesn’t matter?

So, readers, there's the big question I'd like you to answer. Also, I'd be interested in reading your questions for Sarah Palin, as well.

I had heard a lot about Cindy McCain’s difficulties with prescription drugs, but never realized that she was the subject of an investigation that looks like it was squashed by John McCain:

http://openleft.com/showDiary….

Addiction is a horrible thing and I never held it against Cindy that she has struggled with it.  However, the allegations of a cover up here are pretty serious, potentially  criminal.  

Crossposted to Daily Kos

Seven years ago, I watched in horror as the events of September 11, 2001 unfold from the comfort of my home.

The horror I experienced had a little to do with the planes themselves.  The deaths were tragic, horrendous and inhuman.  

But through that directly personal and human horror, I had a much worse feeling down in the pit of my stomach, one that unfortunately came true in so many ways.

The deaths were tragic, but I feared more for the loss of my country, my rights and the sense of security I felt here.

I’m not talking about physical security.  That’s a relative concept.  Living in Southeastern Vermont, I felt no less in danger from external violent forces than I had the day before.

I’m talking about the security that comes with living in a free and civil society.  I’m talking about the security that comes with having the rights of habeus corpus, due process and the right to an attorney.

Our country has failed us on these fronts, and in doing so may have achieved a goal which terrorists would have been unable to accomplish on their own, to destroy us from within.

They’d done this under the auspices of a single phrase, repeated again and again:

911.

911.

911.

This is not a day of memorial.  It is not a day of reckoning.  

911 has been transformed from a day of tragedy to a crass political marketing tool.  It has been bled dry of meaning.  It has been stolen from those of us who respect and mourn for the loss involved and its meaning has been twisted into a single simple statement:

Republicans will protect you.  Democrats will throw you to the wolves

Or, more succinctly:

Four more years!

Four more years!

Four more years!

And, of course:

Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but today is a day I want to reclaim.  

I watched in horror from the comfort of my home, but the horror was real.  I’ve watched in horror for the last seven years as we’ve capitulated, time and time again, on FISA, on Iraq, on patriotism, on honesty, on truth and on justice.  

This.  

Can.

Not.  

Stand.

So today is a day that has no meaning for me any longer, but I desperately want to reclaim its meaning.  I want it to be a day when we remember what we lost, not just on the front of death and despair, but on the fronts of wisdom, common sense and personal freedom.

September 11th, 2001, was a day that everything changed for us.  It’s the day that Republicans were given a green light to pull out every underhanded, fear mongering trick in the book, and too many of us let them do so.

September 11th, 2001, was a day that everything changed for us.  It’s the day that we started down the path of allowing ourselves to justify torture, to detain people indefinitely for questioning, to give any right-wing politician the excuse for any anti-immigrant agenda they saw fit to enact.

September 11th, 2001, was a day that everything changed for us.

Let’s make September 11th, 2008 a day that we start to change it all back.

John McCain is a serious man who promised to wage a serious campaign. Win or lose, will he be able to look back on this one with pride? Right now, it's hard to see how.

CORRECTION: Initially credited to the Wall Street Journal 

Per today’s Rutland Herald:

A high school social studies teacher is suing a grade school in his town over a $1,400 line item in the school’s budget that he says goes to a cause he doesn’t support – lobbying state legislators for public education causes.

[…]

The money is relayed to the VSBA in the form of a $1,400 fee, a part of the voter-approved school budget, according to the complaint and educators involved in the case.

Okay.  So.

A Fair Haven high school instructor is suing the school, forcing them to waste time and money, in order to overturn a line item that was part of the school’s budget that was voted on by the taxpayers.

Why not just sue the voters?

( – promoted by odum)

I just got back from Chandler and the NEA sponsored Gubernaterrible bedate. I was hoping to like Symington, figuring a small live audience would improve her comfort level but she just seemed to not be present. She had to ask more than once what the question was, thought it was her turn for a rebuttal when it wasn’t, and then passed when she given the opportunity to rebut the next round. So my advice for Symington would be be ready when it is your turn and don’t make whether it is your turn or not a central theme of the debate. I have seen some painfully amateurish productions at Chandler before but that involved amateurs. I must say it got to a point where she was beginning to win my sympathy, not unlike a middle school theatrical production gone awry.

Douglas suffers from the exact opposite malady. He is such a smug jerk that, although he is polished and speaks in clean paragraphs (in sharp contrast to Symington’s halting delivery), he is entirely an unsympathetic character. He has this incredibly obtuse way of taking sole credit for everything that he has signed that has come out of the Legislature and then follows with a drolly disingenuous snipe at any and everything the legislature has failed to do. Yes he said Gaye was for the two-vote mandate for school budgets before she was against it and yes he relabeled her just announced Bridge to Opportunity pilot… wait for it…. the Bridge to Nowhere. It’s hard to be snotty and dull at the same time but this guy is a master.  

I tend to think of Pollina as the stereotypical perennial third party candidate and was expecting to have my prejudices reinforced. But I must say he was the hands-down winner.

He was specific in regards to policy, rhetorically on point, and rebutted his opponents in the moment in ways that showed he was thinking on his feet. Now debating skills do not translate into governing skills, but I left the hall having a good sense of what his priorities would be as Governor. Job creation through improving our sorely neglected transportation infrastructure. Paid for with bonds funded by closing a capital gains tax loophole– I think I have that right. He thinks we can do in-state single payer health care. He spoke about his experience as a teacher and school director in ways that strengthened his points. He was clearly against the two vote mandate, calling it anti-democratic, and along with Symington did not see a regional or statewide teacher’s contract as any kind of solution. He would use the rainy day fund to make sure no one freezes this winter. He was clear and memorable. I didn’t take notes but between Symington’s equivocating and Douglas’ droning, he was the hands-down winner of the rumble in Randolph.

I did not stay for the last few minutes, so maybe something happened to change this assessment, but I had seen enough. I still dont know who I am voting for, but if Symington wants to hire a public speaking coach, she could not do better than to see  if Anthony would be interested.  

I have the full official report of Montpelier's polling, and I think some of the numbers are interesting.

 First, we had about a 25% turnout in Montpelier, which is probably to be expected considering the high interest in the contested House race. There were 1339 Democratic ballots voted, 129 Republican, 13 Progressive, and only 1 Liberty Union.

On the Democratic side we had two races for multi-seat districts: House and Senate. You already know what happened in the House race. Given that fewer votes were cast in the House race than in the uncontested Senate and statewide races, I don't see evidence of a lot of Republicans crossing over to bullet vote for Jon Anderson. In the Senate there was quite a spread, with incumbent Ann Cummings getting 1013 votes, veteran candidate Kim Cheney getting 800, and new candidate Laura Moore coming in third with 667. Laura is still on the general election ballot, but she'll obviously have to goose her visibility in Montpelier to be a contender in November. We also had 36 write-in votes, including two for Robb Kidd. (Way to go, Robb!)

On the Republican side there were only 139 votes cast, which isn't too surprising since there were no contested races. One thing that was interesting was that there were 32 write-ins for House, and only 19 of those were for Jon Anderson (along with 3 for Mary Hooper and 7 for Warren Kitzmiller). That suggests to me that there was no coordinated write-in campaign to put Jon Anderson on the general election as a Republican–if there had been, all he needed was six more votes.

 Oh, and the Progs and LU? Did someone forget to tell them there was an election?

 So, now that the primary's over, any predictions on whether we'll see any Independent or Republican House candidates?