Three things have happened: 1) The Senator was on the Tim Johnson radio show on WTSA in Brattleboro yesterday. A caller asked the Senator whether he would support the repeal of DOMA. The Senator reportedly said he would support repeal. 2) The Senator has released a letter explicitly indicating his intention to support the repeal of DOMA (excerpt below). 3) The Senator’s office has released a letter indicating he would support repeal of DADT (excerpt 2).

On DOMA:

As a Vermonter who has been married for 46 years, I am a great fan of the institution of marriage.  […]

I believe that all people should be treated equally and that the issue of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender rights — like the rights for women, racial minorities, and people with disabilities — is one of basic civil rights for all people.  Secondly, states, not the Federal Government, have traditionally set laws on marriage.  Just as Vermont passed a bill to recognize same-sex marriages, I believe that each state should retain authority to define marriage as it sees fit.  

Now that states that have voted to give full marriage rights to same-sex couples, the Federal government should not interfere with those laws.  Vermont and other states have chosen to give these rights to same-sex couples, and states should be allowed to do that. DOMA now can be used to withhold those rights in some instances, and I would vote to repeal it.

On DADT:

The current policy on service of gay and lesbian citizens is that they can serve as long as they keep their sexual orientation secret. […] This policy has resulted in the discharge of more than 10,000 [sic; the number is actually more than 13,000] well-trained, committed individuals due to their sexual orientation.  Instead, I believe each and every member of our military should be judged solely on their ability to get the job done for our country regardless of their sexual orientation.  

On March 3, 2009, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2007 was introduced in the House of Representatives.  This bill would repeal the current Department of Defense (DoD) policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces by prohibiting discrimination against any member of the Armed Forces or any person seeking to become a member.  […] This bill has been referred to the House Committee on Armed Services where it awaits further consideration.  Should similar legislation be introduced in the Senate, I plan to support it.

These statements didn’t come out of the blue. Local activists pushed to get the Senator to take a public stand ahead of the VDP State Committee’s endorsement vote for Leahy on July 18.

 

In the last two weeks an unknown but relatively substantial number of Vermonters – including VDP chairwoman Judy Bevans — have called or emailed the Senator’s office to raise the issue. According to state committee supporters of LGBT equality, without a public statement from Senator Leahy, there might have been as many as 18 votes against endorsement — * enough to derail what would otherwise be a foregone conclusion.* [corrected: if every voting delegate attended the meeting, there would be 47 votes; an endorsement requires 2/3 plus one or 32 votes; 47-18 = 29]

It became an issue because Senator Leahy voted for DOMA in 1996.

The statements are also happening within the context of the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor, a major priority for the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So far so good. Our senior Senator has promised to support repeal of two laws enacting official discrimination against Americans on the basis of their sexual orientation. So, for that matter, has the President. Let’s keep the pressure on so their statements are only the beginning of real action.

Cross posted from Rational Resistance:

Okay, here's another one: you wouldn't necessarily say that every time a Republican goes near a computer it helps us, but they really aren't helping themselves.

Here's a story from the Daily Beast about Audra Shay, a woman who's the leading candidate to be the national chair of the Young Republicans. (I know, I know, my mother always said there was no such thing.) On her Facebook page she starts complaining about Wal-Mart, and how they're helping the country go communist by supporting Obama's health plan, and people start making comments.

One of her friends posts this comment:

“Obama Bin Lauden [sic]  is the new terrorist… Muslim is on there side [sic]… need to take this country back from all of these mad coons… and illegals.”

Eight minutes later, Audra posts back: “You tell em Eric!  lol.”

Two of Audra's friend point out that there might be something wrong with endorsing this kind of racist statement, and Audra responds by defriending them. Then she claims that she wasn't responding to Eric's racist comment, but another comment he made an hour earlier.

Yeah, right.

So follow the links and read the whole story. She took down the page, but someone had already archived it, so the links take you right to the evidence.

Once again, I say, let's handcuff the Republicans to their computers. It can only help us.

Dr. Naylor will appear on our television show this Sunday, July 12 at 7pm.  The focus of the program will be GM’s bankruptcy, Senator Sanders’ S604, VT’s budget gap and Obama’s healthcare proposals.  In our phone conversation yesterday, he told me that he’s particularly interested in presenting a philisophical perspective on healthcare rather than economic; specifically that when a person’s fear of death meets a physician’s/insurer’s/policy maker’s greed, then the sky is the limit on price.  

The show can be watched LIVE on channel 15 in Burlington or LIVE online at http://asrblog.com/airtimes-in…

The call-in number is 656-0589

A dubious distinction.  The article (which I lifted from Huff Post) points out that, in underfunding our famous environmental regulatory system, the governor is, in effect, attacking the Vermont “brand” that makes our state and its products marketable to the rest of the country.  Some recovery plan!

Here is the link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business…

This is from the Public Service Board website.

“Public Hearings Scheduled:  

Docket 7530 In Re Petition of Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, to locate a new perimeter fence is scheduled for July 13, 2009, at 7:00 P.M., at the Vernon Elementary School Cafeteria, 381 Governor Hunt Road in Vernon.”

Entergy Nuclear wants to move the fence farther away from their leaking reactor because they can’t comply with radiation limits.

I say, sure, let ENVY move the fence. Move it to the other side of the Vernon Elementary School  — the school’s too close to the reactor. Shut down Vernon School and have Entergy build a new school where it’s safe. The radiation exposure limits are not set to protect growing children. The limits are based on damage to healthy adult men, not on the effects to more vulnerable people.

And if everything is so hunky-dorey at Entergy, why haven’t the radiation calculations from last year been released yet?

Still massaging the data at the Dept of Health?

Or did Gov. Douglas lay off too many people?

CIA Director Leon Panetta told the House Intelligence Committee that the agency had misled and “concealed significant actions from all members of Congress” dating back to 2001 and continuing until late June, according to a letter from seven Democrats on the panel.

The letter was dated June 26, two days after Panetta appeared before a closed door session with the committee and it asked that the CIA chief “correct” his statement from May 15 that “it is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress.”

(Panetta Admits CIA Misled Congress on “Significant Actions”, CQ Politics, 07/09/09)

Per today’s Rutland Herald:

In a repudiation of the state’s handling of wastewater treatment plant permits, an environmental court judge has tossed out an approval granted to the Montpelier facility.

There are significant potential long-term implications as a result of the ruling for all wastewater treatment plants that discharge into the Lake Champlain watershed – which includes two-thirds of the state and the majority of Vermont cities from Rutland to Burlington.

Judge Thomas Durkin, appointed by Gov. James Douglas, ruled that the Agency of Natural Resources had not done enough analysis of the impact of the plant on Lake Champlain before granting a permit renewal to the city of Montpelier.

This is kind of big.  Not only does it put every other plant producing similar pollution on warning that they may have to upgrade, it strikes a major blow against the laissez faire attitude towards pollution shown by the Douglas administration.  

 My apologies here .As GMD fact check points out I do not know my  NRG(NRG Incorporated ) from ENT(Entergy) and jumped foolishly to some very mistaken conclusions here .I intend to put much greater stock in fact checking and patience in the future ….BP

According to reports the deal making is heating up in the nuclear sector as Chicago based Exelon upped it hostile take over bid for Entergy .However Wednesday Entergy rejected the $8billion stock bid from the hostile suitor ,but also said “it is still open to any proposal that properly accounts for its fundamental value and extraordinary growth prospects.”

A hostile takeover allows a suitor to bypass a target company’s management .I didn’t even know Entergy was dating. I must read all the wrong Vermont papers to have just discovered all this by accident or maybe it just isn’t a big game changer .It certainly sounds newsworthy.

Exelon Corp  said it plans to hold a conference call on Thursday morning to discuss its hostile takeover bid for independent power producer NRG Energy Inc Exelon, the largest nuclear power company in the United States, in October offered 0.485 of one of its shares for every NRG share. It has nominated a slate of directors to stand for election at NRG’s annual meeting………..

But the bid has become the subject of much speculation as NRG’s stock price has risen above Exelon’s offer price. Analysts have suggested that this means that Exelon would have to materially raise its bid to win NRG shareholder support.

Several arbitrageurs — investors who speculate on companies involved in ongoing deals — suggested that Exelon might simply try to talk NRG’s share price down or its own share price up. But another did say that it would be unusual for the company to hold an event if it did not plan to change its bid.

Naturally this raises a ton of questions about how the deal will effect Vermont Yankee and its pending license extension. Who might get custody of poor little debt ridden potential spin-off Enexus? An Exelon Entergy mash-up would create a most formidable corporate foe for the state to deal with on the regulatory level. Another question that springs to mind is has this on-going threat of a hostile takeover already been a factor.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/…

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/…

http://www.reuters.com/article…

The Markowitz campaign sent out a fundraising email this week that focused on her announcement of support for the “public option” under consideration in the national health care reform debate, and contrasting that with Jim Douglas’s opposition.

I agree with Governor Dean when he said the only way we can really reform the health system, increase access and bring down costs is to give Americans a choice between a public and private system.  

But Jim Douglas disagrees – he’s putting politics ahead of our priorities.

Politically, this may be a good fundraising technique, if many VT voters share her favorable view of the public option then highlighting the difference between her position and the Governor’s makes sense, and mentioning Dean will probably help too. It’s also sticking with the high road in terms of campaigning against Douglas rather than against other Dems. Might help to activate the base and bring in some cash, so I’ll give it a passing grade for short-term political effectiveness.

more…

But for the long-term, I’m not crazy about this move. Coming out strongly in favor of an issue that has only national application and has no real relevance to the governor’s office does nothing to build a mandate. If we have learned anything in the past few months, it is that any meaningful progressive legislation is only possible by stating clear, basic principles, not by wishy-washy, please-everybody rhetoric.

Markowitz has still not made enough clear statements of principle in my opinion, to make up for her lack of voting record on issues of substance. I hope she will still take the opportunity to do that in the campaign, but this was not an example of visionary leadership.

My hope is that a healthy Democratic primary will produce a general election candidate who has made a strong case for progressive positions, and can carry that message and momentum to victory and can legislate from that platform.

A candidate who runs a safe campaign designed mainly to appeal to moderates may possibly get elected, but he or she cannot turn around after the election and legislate progressively, despite their true intentions, real or imagined, without having created that mandate in the election. Taking a moderate approach to win the election means that we get a moderate mandate.

This primary is a rare chance to do better than that in Vermont, and I hope we will take advantage of the moment.

Receently, Senator Jim DeMint(R) of South Carolina attempted to attach Senator Sanders’ full bill S.604 as an ammendment to HR2918, a $3.1 billion bill entitled the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act.  The purpose of Bernie’s bill is to audit the Federal Reserve since it has been unauditable since its creation in 1913, yet the Senate Democrats blocked a vote on this amendment, claiming a rule violation that states the Senate cannot legislate on an appropriations bill.  Thankfully, Senator DeMint continued to press the issue, pointing out the many other GAO audits that the Democrats had put in the bill, which the Senate President was forced to agree were in violation of the same rule.  

The full video can be watched here.  Go Bernie!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…