I know it’s full-on rah-rah time around here with regards to your beloved Democrats – I mean, even Wes Hamilton has thrown himself into the mix – but I hope there’s also a little room for something a little closer to reality. And here’s something to ask ourselves as Vermonters: Is Pat Leahy all there? Or are we slowly working our way down the same path that saw Jim Jeffords be sent out to pasture a few years ago?

Personally, I think it’s fair to ask these questions. And here are a few tidbits to back up my concerns about Pat Leahy’s health and wellbeing.

This morning on the Mark Johnson show, Senator Leahy sounded confused on a number of occasions. While discussing Vermont Yankee, for example, Leahy repeatedly referred to the “Nuclear Regulatory Commission” (NRC) as the “NRSC.”

No big deal, really — if it was done once. But Leahy did it several times, all as part of a rather bizarre explanation to Johnson that he “didn’t have a position” on whether or not to close the Vermont Yankee. Johnson clearly sensed the oddity that Leahy didn’t have a position and kept pushing him on it. And Leahy kept insisting that the safety questions needed to be answered and that he had “asked the NRSC to look into it.”

After a commercial break, Leahy noted that he had been made aware of a mistake in his language, continuing: “I meant NRC, the National Regulatory Commission.”

Um, Senator, that would be (again): “The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”

Yikes.

A caller or two later wanted to know Leahy’s position on “Community Policing.”

Leahy’s initial response: “I don’t know about immunity policing.”

After Johnson informed him that the caller said, “community policing,” Leahy declared that he hadn’t heard of “community policing,” either.

“I’m shocked you haven’t heard of it,” said Johnson.

But then came the commercials, including one by Leahy and his wife about organic agriculture in which Leahy’s campaign makes the assertion that organic agriculture was started in Vermont and that Leahy’s efforts to standardize national organic standards led to a sort of exportation of Vermont’s organic agriculture.

Leahy’s wife even goes so far as to say that they wanted “the rest of the nation to have access to the same kinds of organic food that Vermonters had.”

First of all, the original existence of pesticide-free food happened long before Vermont learned to market itself. It was, after all, how ALL foods were grown before the domination of the petro-chemical giants decided to monopolize and otherwise industrialize the basic necessity of food – worldwide.

But even if you let Leahy off the hook on this rather nitpicking piece of evidence, he’d be snagged pretty well on the reality that the need and push for national organic standards had nothing to do with Vermont. For those of us involved in the organic standards battles of the 1990s, we know that the driving force behind them weren’t quaint Vermont organic farms – most of whom wanted nothing to do with federal standards – but, rather, the gigantic California organic farms, the increasingly monopolistic retailers like the anti-union “Whole Foods,” and the corporate food giants like Kellogg’s, etc. who were looking for regulatory cover to enter (read: control) the booming organics market.

But let’s live for a moment longer in the Leahy land of organic make believe. If, as the Leahy ad wants us to believe, that Vermonters were the creators and glorifiers of organic agriculture for the nation and world, how do you explain that the top three agriculturally related products in Vermont – Ben & Jerry’s, Cabot Creamery, and Green Mountain Coffee – are not even organic?

Leahy logic: Fail.

Worse, when activists like Food & Water made attempts to point out that Ben & Jerry’s farmers were (and continue to be) swimming in the use of the cancer-causing Atrazine on their non-organic feed corn, politicians like Leahy ran to their defense. Similarly, Leahy ran to the defense of the Cabot Creamery’s use of the Monsanto Corporation’s rBGH – a most non-organic practice, for sure.

Which is all to say: I think we need to be asking Pat Leahy about his recent health check-ups. Is he, for example, all there? Because his public pronouncements and mangling of the simple facts leads this voter to think otherwise.  

Brian Dubie is very proud of having his name attached to a 26-page document. Just ask him. He calls it his “Brian Dubie 26-page plan for the future.” It is 26 pages of pure plan. Read it. All 26 pages. Of plan.

And then, I guess, the Dubie campaign decided to make it a commercial:

Vermont’s Republican candidate for governor, Brian Dubie, was recently on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show. If you’re even remotely into Vermont politics, you must listen to this interview. It is, at the very least, very fine entertainment.

You know, kind of like the Rocky Horror Picture Show and all.

Dubie’s just whacked. And I mean that in a good and bad way. Sure, he might be fun to “have a beer with,” but let’s face it, the man is just off when trying to play politics.

Listening or watching Brian Dubie is like being forced to endure a bad imitation of George W. Bush. It’s just awkward.

But Dubie – like Bush —  seems to just chuckle his way through life, stalling and bobbing his way around anything that feels “off script” for him. And “off script” for Dubie has quite an expansive definition, including (so far in this campaign): Engaging in debates, answering the media’s questions at length (Dubie gave them 11 minutes at his last news conference), and taking talk radio phone calls.

Hmm. What’s that about Dubie and talk radio? According to Gonzo Vermont’s sources, when Dubie was scheduled to appear on Johnson’s radio program, the campaign had two major concerns: 1.) The length of the interview, thus the amount of time to force Dubie to think and talk on his own, and 2.) The callers.

The Dubie campaign handled the “two issues” by implementing a strategy that even Brian could understand: Stall/evade and have your friends call in.

Cool, as Dubie would say.

Dubie implemented the stall with near perfection. The campaign arranged it so Dubie’s appearance on Johnson’s show would be “just before” the release of the campaign’s much-touted “economic plan for Vermont.” By having the release of the report scheduled in another part of the state at about the exact time the Johnson radio show was to end, Dubie got to say something like this about four dozen times in the course of the interview (read: stalling): “Our economic plan will be released later today, and the details are all in it.  And I don’t want to steal its thunder here with you on the radio.”

Listen for yourself. And count how many times Dubie uses the release time/date of the report to evade any specifics about his economic plan and/or to dodge most anything he found to be politically uncomfortable.

Dubie’s little game of dodge ball continued when he met the members of the Vermont media at the plan’s official release and gave them exactly 11 minutes to ask questions about what he called (over and over again) a “very detailed plan.”

Well, certainly worth every bit of the 11 minutes he gave to the Fourth Estate to ask about it.

Ladies and gentlemen, meet “The Dubie Dodge.”

And it’s government funded! At least for the last eight years that Dubie’s been doing something – no one’s quite sure what – as our Lt. Governor.

Unless you drink the Red-State-Kool-Aid, it’s just weird. I mean, does Brian Dubie think we’re stupid enough to NOT notice his constant Dubie Dodges? I guess so. Over and over again.

But, then again, Paul Beaudry won the Republican nomination for Congress in Vermont. That should tell us a sweet something about the Vermont Republican crowd: Wrong & Proud! And the wronger, the prouder and the louder, baby – as Beaudry might say.

So Dubie stalled and evaded through the interview, embarrassingly so, killing time with his breathless proclamations about the release – oh the mighty release! – of his soon-to-be-released – OMG he said release again! – report. Got it.

And then the always-perky Mark Johnson (unless, of course, you dare to broach the subject of media sloppiness in Vermont) declared that it was time for listener phone calls.

The first caller was something like this: “Brian, you are running against the devil. Do you think that will be hard?”

Okay, okay, I’m paraphrasing. But I did run it through my Red-State-Voter-Translator.

But then the second caller had a probing question that went something like this: “Brian, your opponent is the devil. Does that scare you?”

Again, paraphrasing.

They were, of course, calls planted as firmly, deeply, and happily as the begonias on your porch. Which is fine, I guess, given the level of absolute ninniness of modern mainstream politics. Par for the course, as they say.

I’m still the idiot who believes there are other people out there like me who can smell the skunk that has settled so comfortably upon our body politic. Probably because I’ve always had a crush on Pollyanna. I was once certain, for example, that everyone was laughing hysterically like I was while watching a Bush debate. Any Bush debate.

The need for the Dubie campaign’s Mark Johnson strategy became apparent when Dubie went “off script” with his comments about the mechanically and politically bedeviled Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

“I’ve got two words for that,” Dubie said. “No, make that four words: Safety, trust, and jobs.”

Well, I guess if we let him count “and” as a word pertaining to Vermont Yankee, he got to four. Good luck with that.

And now we know why stalling and evading is important to the Dubie campaign when they let the Loose Cannon (aka: Dubie) roam into the scary waters of having to think on his feet.  

Brian Dubie will be the gift that keeps giving this campaign season. Or, as Brian would say, there are four words for why you should vote for him: Laughter, entertainment, and amusement.

Cool.

[Cross-posted at Broadsides.org]

I went to Walden on Sunday to pick wild apples and swim.

On the way, just outside of Hardwick, I noticed I was following a big, shiny black van with license plates that said: GOVERNMENT. It was also sporting a “Vermont National Guard” decal.

I knew where they were going:  To home of the Walden man, Tristan Southworth, who died last week in Afghanistan as a member of the Vermont National Guard.

And I guess I’m getting old, too. Because calling the 21-year-old Tristan “a man” seems odd. He did, after all, only just become legal to buy a cold can of beer at the same Hardwick Quick Stop that I stopped at on Sunday afternoon.

Tristan’s home is about a half mile from our camp in Walden. Or about a mile from the home we lived in for nearly a decade while dutifully serving our Walden Time.

Walden, of course, is wicked cold, isolated (No store! No post office! And nobody seems to notice!), and economically challenged. It is, therefore, prime recruiting ground for young men and women like Tristan who are looking for some way to “stick around.”

Frankly, we should be ashamed of what we are offering our youth.

Imagine, for example, if a young man like Tristan was offered a chance to serve the country by helping to truly protect it from the real boogeymen: poverty and its sinister and willing accomplice, greed.

Sticking with that theme, consider these words from the Vermont National Guard’s mission statement:

[To] p rovide to the State of Vermont trained and equipped personnel to protect life and property, preserve the peace, order and public safety. Add value to our communities by involvement in local and state programs.

Please, which part of this mission involved sending a Walden boy to Afghanistan?

I only met Tristan once, as far as I can remember. He was a little boy, probably about six. His mom was friends with Steve Hale, a friend of mine too, the fella who first called me,  “Moike.”

Steve was about as local Walden as local Walden can be. But we hit it off really well. We organized the “locals vs. the flatlanders” softball game. Yes, game. Because, quite frankly, we (flatlanders, duh) were so bad that it was hardly worth the effort.

Steve invited the Southworth family to be on his side. And that’s when I met Tristan.

Like I said, I didn’t know him. But following the government van to Tristan’s house on Sunday made me want to try and remember him.

I gathered apples throughout the day, looking down the hill toward Tristan’s house from time to time. You could hear the cars coming and going.

It was a rare but perfect Walden day: sunny, warm, no bugs and the water looked thick in the late-summer light.

I picked apples. I swam. And I thought.

The best I can report is: This sucks.

We were fooled. We refuse to admit that we were fooled. And we continue down a national warpath that is killing thousands of U.S. citizens like Tristan and hundreds of thousands of Afghanistan and Iraq citizens, many innocent civilians.  

Until we realize that war is the most pathetic and misguided place to channel our so-called patriotism, we will continue to be fooled. Time after time.

Worse, many good Democrats will be fooled again tonight by President Obama’s speech to the nation regarding “the end of the Iraq War.” They will allow themselves to feel better about the new rhetoric and the timelines. Oh, the timelines!

But they will be fooled. Because from the moment President Obama says that, “the combat mission is over,” there will still be 50,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq and twice that many “military contractors.”

“Wink, wink, nod, nod,” is what Obama is offering the nation tonight.

Because he can. That’s what we, the people, tolerate: Strong leaders! And liars! Well, as long as the liars are on “our team!”

Sadly, the script for tonight has already been written – and well-rehearsed: The Good Democrats will cheer that “their man” has a plan for calling war something not so unpleasant and The Good Republicans will jeer since “their man” isn’t able to do the same (and better!), damn it.

Did you detect the difference? Good. Keep it in mind in November. Or not.

Otherwise, just keep saying this to yourself in the mirror whenever you hear “the parties” speak: Keep fooling me. Bring it. I like it. Over and over. Go team. Better than YOUR team.

And, whatever you do, don’t admit that Tristan in Walden had absolutely no business being in Afghanistan doing what he was dutifully doing for a U.S. military/industrial complex that is being led by a man from one party while the members of the “other” party happily play along.

Ah! Two-party bliss!

The same two-party bliss that led to the policies that took Tristan Southworth from the wilds of Walden to the all-too-different wilds of Afghanistan.

Support the troops? Hear, hear, cried the party faithful. Both parties.

Whatever you do, don’t spoil the mood.  The two-party mood, as in: Support the Troops! (Read: And the absolutely incomprehensible and simply unsupportable reasons to support the mission that these troops are – wink, wink, nod, nod – trying to carry out.)

Got that? Good.

But the truth of the matter is: Tristan Southworth should have been picking apples with me on Sunday in Walden.

Which is to say: Stop the wars. Now.

Rest in peace (yes, peace), Tristan.

[cross-posted at Broadsides.org]

 

Watch it, folks, it’s being enforced. The GMD Patriot Act, that is. And, in case you didn’t get the memo, it goes like this: Behave or be banished. And by “behave” that apparently means not asking uncomfortable war questions of our beloved candidates.

Meet Petey. The first victim — oh, how liberal of him. Petey got banned here for a period of time that has become a bit wishy-washy. But never mind about the length of the banishment, because Petey also got the entire archive of his illustrious time here at GMD deleted. Whammo.

Bad, Petey, bad.

There will be back and forth about this and that, but…censorship is censorship. I offer this musical moment in support of Petey.

After the snoresville race for Vermont governor between Gaye Symington (Dem) and Jim Douglas (Rep) in 2008, politically-hungry Vermonters thought we’d be getting a good dose of juicy red-meat politics with the news that five – count ’em, five! – Democrats would slug it out for this year’s primary. Even Team Democrat, that nest of ninnies who can seemingly be led anywhere and hope-hypnotized into believing anything as long as there’s a bogeyman or woman in the room (McCain! Palin! Nader! Boo!), convinced themselves that a five-way was going to be “exciting” and “invigorating!”

Well, we’re now just two weeks away from the primary and…well…welcome back to snoresville – Vermont style. And here’s who to blame for all the boredom:

1). The candidates themselves. Each and every one of them has been nothing but bland. Instead of trying to rise above the hum of boredom, each seems to be trying to out wallflower the other. “You think Doug’s boring,” Peter, Deb, Susan and Matt seemingly call out, “listen to us!” Zzzzzzzz….. “Jobs, blah, children, blah, energy, blah.”

Oh my, please, tell me again how you are all in favor of jobs, children, Mother Earth and the firm belief in all-things-Vermont! Because I can’t get enough. Not.

Instead of being invigorated, the winner of this bore-fest is going to have to have a session or two with the defibrillator. Wake up! Because there’s a right-winger in aw-shucks clothing waiting for you in the general election.

2.) The Media. Let’s face it, the Vermont media has been like deer in headlights when it comes to this race. Overwhelmed by having to cover five people, they’ve apparently decided to not really cover any of them. I’ve heard several of them lament over and over again “how difficult” it is covering five viable candidates. Oh, poor babies….but, if you’d really like to try difficult, try the unemployment line. Please?

Unfortunately, the Vermont media’s “overwhelmed” mood has translated to coverage that is almost exclusively dedicated to press releases and statements from the campaigns. In other words, forget the digging, the muckraking, the probing and the – shock! – investigating. Because none of that is happening on the Vermont media’s watch. Cue 6-year-old whining voice: “We…don’t…have….time.”

This morning, for example, the guest on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show was Louis Porter of the Vermont Press Bureau (I should also add that the guest host in Mark’s absence was the entirely sleepy Peter Mallory – oh Mark, stop leaving the microphone to that dolt!). Mallory yawned out a couple questions about the governor’s race, to which the equally sleepy Porter snored this bit of (non)wisdom and honesty: “The race has been fairly uneventful. I mean, we’ve been reporting on their press releases and statements and all but…”

Earth to Porter: The race has been sleepy because those covering it have been asleep. And since when did reporters pride themselves on doing little more than regurgitating campaign statements? [Flashback with Porter substituted for Bernstein: “Well, Nixon said he didn’t do it.”]

Mr. Porter: You could at any moment, after all, ask a question or do some digging that could make the race mighty interesting. And, trust me, as one of five reporters in the state, you’ll get your calls returned. How about you try to take a little control of the situation? You know, like asking them questions and probing beyond the boring, same-old, same-old campaign-speak?

If you can’t think of anything, try this: Ask them how they feel about the wars since they are, after all, seeking to become the Commander-in-Chief of the Vermont National Guard, a force that now has over 1500 Vermonters serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or ask them how, as Democrats, they may disagree with the Obama administration? Or how they disagree with Leahy and Sanders? Or why they support yet another “study” of our health care system when so much of the public is already demanding the answer (read: single payer)? Or how the use and promotion of recreation vehicles (snowmobiles and ATVs) fits into their energy conservation programs? Just saying.

Or, better yet, we-the-voters could start demanding some answers to the questions outside the campaigns’ press releases. Peter Buknatski’s been doing just that here at Green Mountain Daily. Every time one of the Dem candidates posts one of their campaign statements, Buknatski’s been asking them about the wars. The total and complete silence (from the candidates and Team Democrat) should tell us all something: We’re about to be fooled again.

Unless, of course, we’re not. Cue: Alarm clock. Wake up, Vermont.

[Cross-posted at Broadsides.org]

The U.S. military brass stepped up to the microphones yesterday to bitch-slap WikiLeaks for its now infamous release of 90,000+ top-secret documents involving the missteps, misdeeds and ill-begotten notions that have fueled the tragic-comedy known as Operation Fuck Shit Up in the Name of Revenge in Afghanistan. Okay, that’s not really the title. But it should be.

First up was Robert Gates, the Bush-league hold-over as the head of the Defense Department (oh baby, feel the “change”), proving once again that there really is no difference in the two parties when it comes to wars, economic hegemony and a near-complete inattention toward anything or anyone that does come bearing boatloads of cash and/or connections.  

Here’s what Gates had to say:

“The battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners, and may well damage our relationships and reputation in that key part of the world. Intelligence sources and methods, as well as military tactics, techniques and procedures, will become known to our adversaries.”

That’s what those of us outside of the mainstream ninniness would call: A whole hunk of bullshit. But let’s take it piece by stinking piece.

First, let’s consider Gates’ concern for things that are “dangerous for our troops.” With all due respect Mr. Republican/Democrat Gates, it is the decision to have the troops in Afghanistan that is making things “dangerous” for them. Otherwise, they’d all be stateside helping us with hurricanes, oil spills and otherwise just shining unused missiles and changing the oil on unnecessary planes, tanks and the like.

Sorry, WikiLeaks didn’t stoke the war flames, whip the country into a flag-waving and magnet-bearing bunch of slobbering revenge seekers, or manipulate intelligence (sic) data to make it all seem like “getting the bastards” would be quick and easy. Yes, indeed, some of us do remember Gates’ first boss, Bush, making the war on Afghanistan and the search and capture of Bin Laden seem like a quick and clean episode of Gunsmoke (“Dead or alive,” baby).

Besides, if keeping the troops out of conditions that are “severe and dangerous,” there’s an obvious solution: Bring them home now. In fact, that’ll even amount to one of those win-win scenarios the politicos like to talk about because it’ll also make the new villain in town, WikiLeaks, obsolete with regards to Afghanistan because…well.. we won’t be there. Na-na-na-na-na.

Gates then attempts to blame WikiLeaks for potentially damaging “our relationships and reputation in that key part of the world.”

It’s okay if you’re finding your head cocked sideways like a confused dog after reading that. Because that means you’ve still got your thinking cap on. Congratulations. But, on the other hand, if you find yourself nodding in agreement like the two-party leaders who contrive this kind of nonsense, well, there is no hope for you. So, write “stupid” on your forehead so we can recognize you in public, do not reproduce, and stay away from sharp objects (you know, like anyone over three-years of age and all).

Earth to Gates (but I know you already know this): The problem with our country’s reputation in “that key part of the world” is because we’ve been fucking carpet bombing it in our effort to “bring the wars to them,” killing hundreds of thousands of its citizens, destroying its infrastructure and environment with little more than a Jethro-like “oops” in response, and – oh yeah — supporting an equally-wrong-headed regime in Israel.

Yeah, that’s it. Or, in other words: It’s NOT WikiLeaks, you dope.

Next up came Admiral Mike Mullen, who was apparently there to provide all the same kinds of nonsense but with a military uniform on while he said. Oh, that’ll show ’em. Yes, sir, we are stupid and your medals are lovely. Whatever. Drop down and give me 15 years of schooling and don’t come back until you’re not a fucking moron, Admiral Mike.

But here’s what Mullen had to say:

“Mr. Assange [the WikiLeaks’ leader] can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.”

If I was a glass half full kind of a guy, I’d be thrilled to hear a military man like Mullen actually express concern about someone having blood on their hands. But, then again, if I’m a person with a pulse and a mere modicum of knowledge about…um… reality, I’d know that if the subject was “blood on their hands,” I wouldn’t be highlighting it if I was a leader of a military regime that is seemingly hell-bent on being the king-pin of blood letting.

Again, there have been hundreds of thousands of people killed – most being innocent civilians — as a result of the U.S. governments ill-fated, illegal and simply wrong-headed decision to wage wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq BEFORE WikiLeaks said a peep about any of it. So, if I were you, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullens, I’d probably want to shut the fuck up when it comes to the whole “blood on their hands” stuff.

Besides, blaming WikiLeaks for the mess of Afghanistan is like blaming Woodward and Bernstein for Watergate. It’s just stupid.

But, sadly, there will be many who will play along with the numb-headed tunes of the two-party war machine. They’ll be waving their flags, praising the troops, cheering their “team,” ignoring the facts, and proving, once again, that ignorance is, indeed, bliss.

Thank you, WikiLeaks, for providing the lifeblood of democracy: Information. There can never be enough.

If you want to know your chances of having your political dreams become a reality, ask yourself this: How much money have you given to your politicians lately? If, like me, the answer is “zero,” well, to paraphrase a GMD-front-pager: sit down, shut up and enjoy the show. And if you just gave a little, enjoy the show from the back of the line.

Ah, but if you’re lucky enough to “max out” with your political contributions, you don’t just get to enjoy the show, you get to run it.

Right now in Vermont, political pundits are not-so-hard at work reporting on the lowest common denominator of politics: The money. And almost all of the coverage goes something like this: He’s got more. She’s got more. He’s got less. She’s got less.

Well, to be fair, you also have sleepy folks like Eric Davis, Chris Graff and Kristen Carlson serving us up “analysis” like this: “Having more money means being able to buy more things.” Wow. Thanks.

But there’s almost no effort put into shining a spotlight on the insidious nature of all this money (and attention) being put into this unseemly side of politics. There’s very little attempt to uncover the obvious favors and policy bending done for the donors by the politicians. Nor, with the exception of Totten and the News Guy, is there a discussion about Vermont’s embarrassingly lax campaign finance laws.

Isn’t this the time to be putting these office-seekers on the hot seat with regards to their positions on issues like campaign finance reform? And, in the case of a gubernatorial election field filled with lifetime politicians, shouldn’t we be asking them why they’ve dithered, dathered and/or simply failed to address this most important issue in their years of public service?

As the system stands now, we – the people – should interpret headlines about Dubie raising a million dollars and his Democratic challengers raising a million and a half dollars as follows: Dubie Owes $1 million in Favors, Dems Owe $1.5 Million in Favors. Because that – sadly – is the reality in today’s politics. Yes, even in Vermont.

The duplicitous nature of the money-in-politics game is best exemplified by the illogical partisan nonsense spewed by the cheerleaders of the two-party duopoly. It goes like this: Your money is bad, but our money is good. And, sadly, this works to both fuel the game further and, perhaps worse, continue to distract from the real issues that need to be addressed.

Notice, for example, that regulars at this site have understandably denigrated Brian Dubie for having contributors that may have “dealings with the State” (um, who doesn’t?) but then turn around and cheer their candidates’ money gathering as a mere “show of support.” Frankly, it’s juvenile.

For a sobering reminder of what the impact of money in politics is, take a minute to watch the Bill Moyers video below. And then help start to change the dialog, beginning with a renewed and centrally-focused commitment to the issues, only the issues, and nothing but the issues. Sure, money is included in that – but only in the negative.

(Cross-posted at Broadsides.org)

Doug Racine, the milquetoast Democrat who failed to defeat Republican Jim Douglas in his first effort to be Vermont’s governor in 2002, is now trying again. It’s a lot different this time around since Racine is facing a Democratic primary with at least four other gubernatorial wannabes, a far cry from the red carpet and silver-spooned treatment he got from outgoing Democratic Governor Howard Dean and the party in 2002 (“here, you are the chosen one.”).

Racine seems like a nice enough guy. You know the kind: Rich kid working in daddy’s business with access to the kind of Rolodex that screams “political future.” And he’s parlayed his fine lineage into creating a rather impressive political resume, including stints as Vermont’s Lieutenant Governor and many terms in the State’s Senate.

The problem with Racine – well, other than he’s boring – is that he’s got a political backbone akin to over-cooked pasta (read: limp). To steal a great line from Ann Richards, that’s what happens when “you’re born on third base and think you hit a triple.”

Worse, instead of fighting for something he believes in, Racine panders to those he thinks will fall for his thinly-veiled pandering. In other words, all talk and no action – which explains nearly twenty years of political service with little more than platitudes to show for it.

Take, for example, the health-care debate. Racine has been the chairman of the Senate’s Health and Welfare Committee for years, years which have been rife with talk and an urgent need for action on the issue of health-care reform. But Racine has done little more than punt and otherwise pass the buck when meaningful reform (read: universal health care) came before his powerful committee.

But, Racine is quick to add, he “understands” the need for change. I doubt it. Because I doubt anyone in his family has ever faced the prospect of choosing between paying the energy bill, the grocery bill or the health care bill (but not all three).

Last year, Chairman Racine punted on the health-care issue by declaring that President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress would get the job done for us, a decision that has resulted in yet another wasted year since it’s clear whatever Obama/Congress does on health care won’t be nearly enough. Meanwhile, those of us without the luxury of “waiting” are now paying the 10% increases to our premiums this year – waiting always seems to work best for those with the most, huh?

This year, with his candidacy for governor in full swing, Racine is now talking tough again on health care. Single-payer advocates have convinced him to hold a hearing tomorrow night in Montpelier on the issue, and many have touted his willingness to hold the hearing as some kind of endorsement for meaningful health-care reform this year.

Not so fast, my friends. Because, while Racine is enjoying the fawning recognition from the health care advocates (naive, for sure), he’s making it clear that tomorrow night’s hearing and this year’s legislative session in general is meant to only “move the conversation forward” on the health-care issue. And when WDEV’s Mark Johnson asked Racine last week if any legislation was expected out his committee, Racine was quick to return to his noncommittal “move the conversation forward” goal.

For those asleep at the political wheel, “moving the conversation forward” is political speak for “jerking your chain.” And there’s nothing more that Candidate Racine wants to do than jerk your chain, Vermont voters. If it sounds a lot like the Obama candidacy, it should. Been there, done that.

But Vermont voters and health-care advocates need to smarten up on this one. Instead of rushing to embrace Racine’s hearings-to-nowhere we should be demanding that he commit to real and meaningful health-care reform this year – if not right now. What more do we need to discuss? How much more time and money are we going to offer to the health care criminals running the insurance corporations?

If Racine wants the support of health-care advocates, Racine should be forced to deliver the health-care goods. He is, after all, the Chairman of the Senate’s Health and Welfare Committee. And that doesn’t mean mere “conversations” (we’ve been doing that in this country since 1918 on health care), it means action – as in: votes, bills, and laws.

It’s really quite simple: If Racine, as the Democratic Chairman of Vermont Senate’s Health & Welfare Committee, can’t move forward with meaningful – and universal – health care coverage during this legislative session, he’s not fit to be the party’s gubernatorial candidate in November.

That’s the message health-care advocates should be bringing to the hearings tomorrow night. It would be a lot more effective than cheering Racine’s near-endless (and privileged) pursuit of mere “conversations.” Because it’s time for action. Now.

(cross-posted at Broadsides.org)

Vermont’s Senator Bernie Sanders spoke for months about his “historic” efforts to get a vote on a single-payer health care bill in the Senate. While we all knew the outcome was going to be a rather miserable failure, it was a tiny crumb being flicked to those of us who still believe in both real solutions to the health care crisis AND the possibilities of democracy.

Sanders was correct to intuit that this kind of vote is essential to keep a movement alive, offer some hope, and simply record the moment in history. The entire effort is about seeing where we stand, knowing how far we have to go, and putting both the general public and the electoral elite on notice that we know where we’re going.

Historically, similar “failed” measures were introduced to end slavery, to give women the right to vote, to provide equal rights to minorities and – yes – to end wrong-headed wars. An effective movement must know which side everyone is on, and such votes – albeit failures – provide that organizational and motivational insight.

Bernie had all of this in mind while he talked the talk in the months preceding the historic single-payer health care vote. Because Bernie knows his history, and he also knows – like the rest of us who utilize common sense know – that a single-payer health care system provides the only path to justice.

“The upcoming vote on my single-payer health care bill will be an historic moment in the halls of Congress,” Bernie declared recently on a national radio talk show. “While I know it will fail, it is essential to bring it forward, have the debate, and record the vote so that we can continue to build the movement and move toward single-payer as our ultimate goal.”

Well, Bernie had his moment yesterday. And, as we all know now, he quit on us.

Specifically, Bernie pulled his single-payer initiative from consideration after the Republicans went grade school on us by demanding that the 700-page amendment be read in its entirety. It was estimated that the reading would take about 12 hours of the Senate’s time. After about three hours, Bernie came to the floor of the Senate and announced that he was withdrawing his single-payer initiative and, thus, killing the “historic” vote.

Why? Because, as Bernie explained, he didn’t want to hold up the business of the Senate. And what, exactly, was the next item on the Senate’s agenda? Yet another Defense Department appropriations bill. Hmm, sounds like a good reason to stall to me…

But the real reason, of coarse, is that Bernie was getting his arm twisted by the spineless Democratic leadership, a group of sheep who seem only interested in perfecting the not-so-fine art of losing.

When Bernie took the floor to announce his decision to pull his amendment he was “outraged,” and then spilled forth with some fine rhetoric about all the ills of our political system, the obstructive nature of the Republicans, and then some more outrage piled upon the outrage.

But it was Bernie’s – and only Bernie’s – decision to kill his initiative and, as a result, the “historic” moment that he had been promoting. So, sorry, if there was outrage to be had, it should have been spread evenly amongst the childish Republicans and Bernie-the-quitter.

Sadly, the whole affair could be chalked up to yet another example of the Democratic Party’s (yes, Bernie caucuses with the Dems) willingness to lead its followers to political slaughter. Obama’s done it with the Wall Street bailouts, his refusal to close Gitmo, his foot-dragging on Iraq, his surge in Afghanistan and his near-complete failure of leadership on the health care issue (to name a few). And the Democratically-controlled Congress has followed suit with its own bait and switch nonsense like the one perpetrated by Bernie: “Come, my followers, let’s make history. Oh, nevermind.”

They don’t want a movement. They want a nice, pliable butch of donors willing to get giddy during campaign season long enough to “hope” and vote for change. And if you dare to call their bluff, they’ll scream “Nader!” and/or “Palin!” until their own failures get lost in the rhetorical haze.

Shame on Bernie for so perfectly joining the quitters (once again). Because a real “independent” wouldn’t have so blatantly betrayed the moment of history he dangled in front of the single-payer movement. All for – what!? – saving a few hours of the Senate’s time? So they could rush to throw more money at the Pentagon? Good grief.

With apologies to “The Who,” we were, indeed, fooled again.

Damn.