It's ballot time, y'all, and the Edwards campaign is looking to get their man on the Vermont ballot. To qualify, he needs 1000 verified signatures. The goal, then, is to generate 2000 as a comfortable margin of error, given that many will inevitably be disqualified because the signer isn't actually a registered voter, they already signed another presidential ballot (you can only sign one in Vermont, which sucks, quite frankly…), or whatever…

As this is an all-volunteer effort in the state, there is a need for people to help circulate petitions. If you're a supporter, and can help, just leave a comment and I can look up the email address you registered with to get one sent your way.

I would remind folks that – like any national election – this aint just about the candidate. In fact, for me personally, its barely about the candidate at all. It's about responding to the clear, specific and aggressive progressive policy message Edwards has been delivering. We need to show the country that this sort of rhetoric wins elections. That a pro-labor, green, equal justice platform is what people want to hear – even expect to hear – and that other politicians should follow suit (and in doing so, move the center of debate in this country to the populist left). That's largely what the blogs themselves are all about, after all.

So, lemme know and I'll be in touch… 

Terri Hallenbeck seems shocked and horrified that political parties track which citizens vote, which ones (based on polling data and personal references) are likely to be sympathetic to their views, and which ones are most likely to tell their candidates to go to hell. Gimme a freaking break. I guess she had to write something about the Democratic Party reorganization meeting, since the rumors of a floor challenge to Chair Ian Carleton never materialized, and there was no further gossip on candidates for Governor.

Larry Flynt has endorsed Dennis Kucinich. This should create a new kind of hybrid spam, combining the two flavors that currently fill up my inbox.

Baruth continues to lead on the Vermont Yankee issue. It seems every star is starting to align against its re-licensing, as opponents apparently have enough momentum that Entergy and the Governor are taking notice. Time to start planning for a post-yankee energy future now.

Belated Happy 52nd birthday, Morgan.

If you’re not scared about the future yet, read this post from Alex at Rip & Read. Here’s a sample:

The report, according to the article by Arthur Max, postulates that a shift in the world’s climate will give rise to bitter and bloody conflicts for water resorces, a scrabble for land, as sea levels rise, increased immigration to the United States (and conservatives, take note, these immigrants will NOT be coming because we offer political freedom- but because they want our water and our dry land- it’s your worst xenophobic nightmare come to life), and a proliferation of new diseases born of malnutrition, and nasty diseases able to expand their range…imagine, the return of malaria to Pennsylvania…won’t that be fun?

Tongue somewhat-in-cheek (or perhaps not), Minor Heresies is concerned about the spiraling cost of, er, non-perscription drugs, and waxes analytical about its impact on aging baby-boomers and the prospect of Canadian marijuana “reimportation” given local crackdowns. Why should the political class in Vermont care?

Let me address political time-servers and aspirants directly, in words that even a campaign consultant can understand. These boomers have a political conscience. You know and I know that anyone with a political conscience would have to be completely stoned to vote for you. They won’t be, if the price of marijuana is not brought under control.

Heh.

Update: iBrattleboro surpasses 10 million pages viewed!!!!! That’s pretty good for a citizen journo site dedeicated only to Brattleboro topics. Chris Grotke has the story. Go iBrattleboro!!!!

The Barre/Montpelier Times Argus today looks at Governor Douglas's re-election outlook through the lens of a potential Pollina campaign, following his announcement-that-wasn't-an-announcement at the Progressive Party's reorganization. The early sign is that the media's extended endorsement of Jim Douglas that we have all come to expect is starting early:

Douglas continues to test the patience of the liberal electorate of Vermont, though there is no sign yet that erosion of support among the moderate middle has become a serious threat.

This, bluntly, is a bizarre statement.

The recent WCAX poll that continued the trend of putting his job approvals in the 60-plus range, but put his re-elect percentage at only 42% may not be proof positive of anything, but at the very least it qualifies as a “sign.” Apparently the Douglas team thought so, as it looks for all the world that someone from his camp called to have his scribes at WCAX change the headline to spin the surprising underperformance more positively.

Unfortunately, this is the modus operandum for the Vermont media in all things gubernatorially electoral (say that 10 times really fast). The obvious way to interpret those numbers is that, while the moderate & independent voters still like Douglas, they are no longer automatically concluding that he is the right man for the job.

But such an obvious conclusion goes against the conventional wisdom, and you don't defy conventional wisdom, lest you lose standing among your peers. As a result, ignore the numbers and fall back on the mantra: Douglas is unbeatable, everybody except the far left wackos love him, the election is just a formality, why bother. Saying anything different is tantamount to going out on a limb.

And it's in this way that the media has made Douglas's re-election such an inevitability: they don't check into the process when Douglas is, predictably, 30 points ahead in internal polling early in the election season – preferring instead to laugh off the opposition. By not checking in, they leave that opposition futily twisting in the wind, looking for coverage. By the time the media actually engages, its relatively late in the process, the numbers haven't budged, so the new mantra is simply “look at how far ahead Douglas is so late in the process.” It's self-fulfilling and self-reinforcing, and the above quote, coming as it does this early and in the face of common sense, indicates just how determined the media will continue to be in this myopic narrative they're so comfortable promoting.

The trick, therefore, is for any campaign to work hard enough, early enough under the radar to start those polls creeping up in other ways. If that traditional 30 point lead that Douglas carries come summertime – when the press actually decides to start looking seriously at the election that's only a few months away – can be wittled down to 20 or tighter, the press might do a bit of a double-take and break open the narrative of inevitability that keeps them so dismissive of the Governor's challenges.

But the clock is ticking. Sure, it may be traditionally early for a formal campaign announcement, but the reality is that, in the last two cycles, we already knew for months before this time who the candidate was going to be, and their fundraising and organizational efforts were already well underway.

In other words, time's very much a-wasting, no matter what the “hear-no-evil, see-no-evil” crowd may suggest.

The metaphorical imagery of bridge building is powerful stuff. If you think about it, though, building a bridge from one community to another doesn't have to be about bringing the people from both sides together to learn from each other and become something greater than the sum of the parts. A bridge could also be no more than the means for someone who thinks of themselves as an enlightened person from the village on the hill to get across the river to the village of unworthy slobs to tell them how it is.

Case in point: Probably like many of you, I'm part of a freecycle listserv. If you don't know about freecycle, it's awesome. Freecycle is “a grassroots and entirely nonprofit movement of people who are giving (& getting) stuff for free in their own towns. It's all about reuse and keeping good stuff out of landfills”. Click here to get hooked up with a freecycle group in your area (or help you get one started).

Recently, on the Montpelier freecycle listserv, some folks have been asking for and offering Shaw's “turkey points” – the points you receive from spending money at Shaw's supermarkets through which you can get a free turkey after you accumulate a certain amount.

Well, sure enough someone complained, and it didn't much questioning to determine that the complaint was coming from an anti-corporate ethic, and a desire to keep the freecycle list ideologically pure. Apparently similar things have happened on Chittenden and Franklin County listservs (and likely others).

Look, mega-corprorations create problems, there's no arguing that. If you're working towards local economies and against global warming, a place like Shaw's is the bad guy. When the dairy compact was first launched, Shaw's put anti-compact propoganda on it's milk coolers.

But its all too easy for people with a comfortable standard of living to make such demands and declarations.

The fact is, if you haven't been in the position of seriously having to cut coupons and scramble for special deals just to be sure the basic needs of you or your family are met, it hardly seems fair to demand others emulate your perhaps more enlightened (and expensive) lifestyle. If you have a good job, your spouse has a good job, you have parents who could bail you out if you were in danger of starving, or you married into money, you're just not in a position to make judgments about those who literally have no month-to-month safety net.

Someone in such a position who asks for “turkey points” because they truly need them should not be made to feel small for being poor, and probably does not need a lecture on why they should pay a little more money (that they don't have) to buy a free range turkey from a local farmer. Freecycle is a fantastic invention – an online community that not only redistributes resources based on need and keeps crap out of landfills, but builds a genuinely diverse community by bridging class and cultural communication gaps through the medium of the internet. Stepping into that process and demanding the community precisely mirror an ethic that comes from a couple rungs up on Maslow's hierarchy (especially when there is no conflict in play with the stated intent of the community – in this case, reusing stuff and keeping it out of landfills) is simply an attempt to colonize the resource at the cost of people who really need it.

And of course, this sort of thing happens all the time on the left.

On a larger scale, it happened with the Vermont impeachment movement. Lots of us came together because we agreed it was time to get rid of George Bush. When a few decided they weren't content with such a big tent, and instead insisted the group manifest their own particularized ideology, it largely dimisnished in size, utility and effectiveness. It's a common story.

Sometimes creating common ground doesn't have to be a means to end, it's an end in itself. If you can let it be, you may find that, organically, people can come to amazing things in their own way, and in their own time a lot more reliably than if you try and seize the podium and lambaste them with your own personal gospel, no matter how right (or righteous) you may be.

No opining to do on this, other that a big “woo-hoo!” From TPM:

…aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have confirmed to me that the version of the FISA bill that was just reported out of the Judiciary Committee does not — repeat, does not — contain retroactive immunity for the telecom companies. 

And a source close to Reid says that this is “most likely” the version that the Majority Leader will file a motion to proceed on.

It's a bit of a concern that Reid's person is leaving wiggle room, given that Reid seemed ready to declare war on his own caucus of late, all in the defense of a major campaign contributor.

How did it go down?

Senator Patrick Leahy, the chair of the committee, essentially went around Specter's amendment and moved to have a vote to report the bill out of committee without any telecom immunity in it. That passed along strictly party lines. And that's where we are.

Nice work, Senator. You did us proud today.

This one aint easy, which likely means it's gonna be a complete empty vessel into which kneejerk Welch defenders will project the positive, and kneejerk Welch bashers project the negative. For the rest of us, welll…

First the positives. Number one is the fact that Welch voted against the motion to recommit, which could have set up a clean appropriation for the war, like last time. Technically, this is a bill with a timeline, requiring Bush to start pulling troops in thirty days, and to have it done by December of 2008, so Welch is making good on his word. It's also important to note that they gave Bush way less money than he wanted. This bill squeaked by, 218-203. With the exception of Kucinich, the bill had the support of the anti-war leaders in the House:

“This bill is not perfect,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a Democrat from California. “It is the boldest step yet, however, and we must support it.”

Now the negatives: The “out by” date of December 15, 2008 is a deadline without any teeth. And the firm call for Bush to start drawing down troops within 30 days? Well, this news from yesterday puts a perspective check to that:

The return of the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division — currently operating in the Diyala province — is the beginning of the force adjustments that are part of the troop drawdown that President Bush announced in September 

So technically, Bush is already there. Sounds an awful lot like status quo.

The reality: Bush is gonna veto it. It doesn't matter that it's a fluff piece that only challenges him in the most technical of senses, rather than meaningfully. It becomes almost a low-grade punt that keeps us all at the same place, with the issue still in play. The big test will now be how the House responds to the veto – whether or not crossing the decider (and what will likely be a positive public reaction) boosts them up to send something back with more teeth (and perhaps pick up a few more votes), or whether they simply throw up their hands and say “we tried” once again.

We'll see. In the meantime, this bill will have the unique quality of both giving the Welch-haters ammunition to continue attacking him, and his defenders ammunition to stick up for him.

For the rest of us, the holding pattern continues, as nothing has changed…yet.

Here's the list of upcoming public hearings on same-sex marriage. Please try and make as many as you can, and bring as many people as you can. Bring your whole family (and please come back and write a user diary on how it went – I'll make sure to promote it to the front page).  For details, check out the Freedom To Marry website. 

Sanders has also come out against it, as did Rep. Welch some time back.

Now it may be that the time will come to pressure Leahy and Sanders to support a filibuster, which will likely be the only meaningful vote on whether or not a Senator is truly opposed, given an issue like this (and given that this will probably go through the Judiciary Committee, given that it already has the support of the west-coast Lieberman, California Senator Dianne Feinstein). But we're not there yet. (ht Kagro X)

UPDATE: Well, well – according to MoonWomyn in the comments, Leahy is indeed being non-committal, and his statement to VPR should be parsed with a fine toothed comb (see below). I should say he probably should be getting the calls to his office after all, given this news. Click on the image for a link. 

Now that I'm entering a strep-throat induced, feverish haze, I can see everything more clearly.

I'd never seen a picture of former Ambassador, former Vermont Democratic Chair, current foreign policy expert/author, and potential candidate for Governor Peter Galbraith before the one Freyne posted at his site:

And I've finally figured out where I've seen him before (click on the link) 

Okay, maybe not an exact match, but you see what I'm sayin.

I can just see the debates.

Governor Douglas's dictate that the duly elected Windsor State's Attorney be condemned and ignored in the interest of political grandstanding is creating some attention from legislators in the area – most notably from Senator John Campbell, who is considering challenging the Governor in '08.

If you missed the story, Jack discusses it here last week. This is how it was reported by Ross Sneyd at VPR:

Martha Davis was accused of cultivating marijuana. Game wardens say they seized 2½ pounds of pot and found 32 plants.

But the Windsor County state's attorney, Robert Sand, decided not to pursue a felony case. Instead, he referred Davis to court diversion.

So, Davis will have to go through substance abuse counseling, pay some fees and possibly perform community service.

Once those requirements are fulfilled, Davis will be free of the criminal justice system – and will have no criminal record.

First off, this is all legal. Nobody with a firm grip on reality is arguing that Sand overstepped his statutory authority, merely that they don't approve of his decision. A brave and common sensical one, frankly. But the implications of Douglas directing the State Police to bypass Sand and refer drug cases directly to the state Attorney General is an extraordinary example of executive meddling in the judicial process to score political points.

Once again, It's Douglas playing by the Bush playbook, this time concerning seperation of powers.

Windsor County legislators are kicking back with a letter to the Governor (which he'll probably use to scrape mud off his shoes), but also one to Attorney General Sorrell, urging him to…

 

 …exercise your office's discretion to ignore Governor Douglas' directive… We suggest this out of concern for electoral integrity, seperation of powers, prosecutorial discretion, the nonpolitical integrity of our judicial system, and the value of the Court Diversion program.
 

…while reminding Sorrell and the Governor that Sand is a popular elected official who receives strong support from the electorate. The letter stops short of calling the directive a stunt, but it's implied in the criticism of Douglas's:

 

…apparent lack of a sense of proportion. Vermont has recently experienced its worst week of violent crime in our history…. it is preposterous that the Governor would choose to focus, not on these problems, but on the routine decision to send a non-violent first time offender to Court Diversion.

No doubt you'll be shocked to hear that not a single Windsor County Republican legislator signed the letter (they would be Representatives Richard Hube, John Clerkin, David Ainsworth, Dennis Devereux – and most notably, House GOP Leader Steve Adams). What's more interesting is the absence of two Democratic names from the letter: Rep. Harry Chen and Sen. Alice Nitka. Chen is a tough one to pigeonhole, but Nitka does historically get very concerned about what Republican voters think of her. Perhaps a little polite encouragement to support the effort of their colleagues is in order (Sen Nitka's email here (see comment below) and Rep. Chen's email here).