(NOTE: What follows is a 2 AM philosophical, semi-cathartic ramble. If you know what's good for you, you'll avoid it utterly and move on to another diary)

So, we're at about 36 hours past the Welch Trial meeting. From the blogs, the emails, the radio callers and the general hubbub, the reaction from what organizers chose to make an attempt at a public tarring and feathering (instead of going the dialogue route) has taken a pretty definite shape: people of all political persuasions are expressing dismay (and even disgust) at how Welch was treated, and are reflexing defending him in the face of what Freyne called “macho bullying.” As Julie said, Welch has, for the moment, been largely innoculated from criticism in the eyes of most of the public who follow these things (even though he does deserve criticism for many of his votes recently). Nice job guys.

Raise your hand if you saw that coming. 

It sounds like many participants are questioning the wisdom of the ambush-style format, but its organizers aren't having any of it. In fact, if you look at Colby's website, the new defensive bunker-spin is that they single handedly brought up the issue of the war which had fallen off everyone's radar (say what??) and are preemptively taking credit for Welch's likely upcoming vote against any war funding without a timetable (which he already signed a letter months back promising he would do).

Raise your hand if you saw that coming as well. It's all enough to make a behavioralist out of anyone. 

Between this display and the debate over whether or nor Anthony Pollina should run for governor, and whether he should run under the Democratic Party label, observers are getting an unusual, often uncomfortable display of the breadth and contradictory quality of the left in Vermont. It's not a pretty site. 

We all know the range of creatures inhabiting the leftist ecosystem. On the shallow end are the weeniecrats moderates. The folks who would've been comfortable in NBC's The West Wing, where inhabitants prove their no-nonsense smarts by being anti-union, anti-welfare, foreign policy uber-hawks who really think somebody should do something about global warming.

Then you get into the land of economic liberalism, where you find a bit more thematic consistency, but a potpourri of stand-alone issues and degrees of ideological commitment. Some are strongly pro-union, some can't decide whether to allow themselves to support labor or whether it makes them sound dated to do so. Some make serious lifestyle changes to reduce their carbon footprint, some just give money to others to do it on their behalf. Some smoke, some think smoking is the bane of the Earth. Some own guns, most would rather see them all pulverized. Some consider themselves Democrats, some Progressives and some Independents. Many on the far end of conventional in this group borrow from completely differing radical traditions, and as such have virtually nothing in common.

As far as the more radical set goes, Marxists and anarchists aren't beating the hell out of each other anymore, but they still agree on very little – and the cafeteria radical set that fills in the gaps (the folks who don't have any ideology besides being really, really pissed off – usually at people that really aren't like them) just pull bits and pieces from either tradition like many of us might try on new shoes.

All told, the full range of folks in the ecosystem agree on virtually nothing – except a distaste for the right. 

All of this is hardly anything new, which begs the question; is this the way it always must be? Is this ecosystem set in stone, and the rules around it – the same rules that made the Welch situation and its aftermath so tragically predictable – immutable? Are we all really just slaves to social behavioralism?

Maybe, maybe not. But if not, the deviation has to come not at the macro level, but the micro. A new quantum mechanics of political interaction.

Quantum mechanics describe the interaction of matter at the level of the individual particle, rather at the macro level of the humanly tangible. At the quantum level, different forces are at play and the rules of nature change.

A quantum politics would keep things at the personal level, rather than the institutional or group level (that's not to suggest there's anything wrong with groups or institutions, just that there's more to politics than what Party or social club you belong to). It would increase the urgency of ending the war by keeping the discussion in terms of real people, real casualties, rather than political calculus and conventional wisdoms. It would also demand that citizens deal with their elected officials as real human beings, rather than pretending they are dehumanized corporate automatons not deserving of fundamental respect and dignity. In a state like Vermont, there may well be few enough of us to sustain a quantum politics.

The quantum is inherently fuzzy, and doesn't mesh well with absolute, immutable rules and expectations. This quantum, personal politics may be the  only meaningful antidote to the political behavioralism our society so often seems enslaved to.

But you have to want it to work, as there are too many forces at play that drive us apart.

Rage, for one. . As John Lydon said, anger is an energy – and he was right. It's an important energy, but its a dangerous one. Unchecked, rage leads to hatred, and hatred destroys the interpersonal bonds of a quantum politics. And nobody is immune to rage. Rage fueled the most embarrassing elements on display at the Welch meeting, and by metastasizing into hatred, it made dialogue impossible.

For my part, I felt it in the post-event discussion. My own rage at being targeted by event organizer Michael Colby with a months-long campaign of intimidation, insults and lies, designed to drive me off the internet by targeting, not only me, but my employer and my family (both through his Snarky Boy website and behind the scenes) was easily tapped into on hearing reports from the event. It's a hard thing to look in the face, and even harder to control. Political behavioralism would suggest I can't.

Quantum politics demands that I do. 

Rage can't be denied, but it can be appropriately channeled. The problem is, it doesn't want to be. It wants to explode. Channeling it is hard work, and people create lots of easy ways to avoid having to do the hard work of controlling their impulses. Rage has it's own special way:

It's called zealotry. 

In a previous thread, I commented that the difference between an advocate/activist and a zealot is that an advocate/activist tends to see themselves as the smartest and most moral person in the room. The zealot, on the other hand, see him or herself as the ONLY smart or moral person in the room.

And if you're the only smart one, the only moral one – what is the point of making a personal connection? Those around you are lesser beings, fully deserving of all your righteous fury and everything it's capable of.

And the rage perpetuates itself by being a force for isolation. As an increase in heat equates to a breakdown of bonds at the atomic level, so does it's political counterpart break down the bonds at the social-political level. Soon the world becomes us and them, with the population of “them” growing in direct proportion to the level of zealotry. Everybody who's against you is in it together. Anyone not as pure as you is as guilty as the worst perpetrator. And the cycle goes deeper and deeper and deeper.

In this way, even the most intelligent people can spin wildly off into an intellectual neverland, all because their zealotry and rage prevent them from turning their intellect towards themselves. Prevent them from engaging in the most fundamental of intellectual exercises: an analysis of cause and effect, of action and reaction – of the simple social equations necessary to define goals and actually attain them.

If there's one word that gets abused badly, it's the word democracy. It's also that word the gets the most abuse from the zealot (on the left or the right). Democracy, in a nutshell, is the law of “you win some, you lose some.”

To the zealot, democracy is a holy word that only means the elevation of themselves and their agenda.  Democracy means only one thing: victory. If a democratic process leads to defeat, it couldn't have been true democracy. It must mean somebody cheated.

In this way, the zealot completely misses the most fundamental element of democracy; the element of persuasion. Of working to win hearts and minds. To the zealot, the hearts and minds that matter are already with him, and the others are part of the grand conspiracy (and should be silenced or ignored).

These people are depriving themselves of participating in the most extraordinary aspect of true democracy; its transformative nature.

I don't know whether or not we can break out of the three-steps-forward-two-steps-back politics of behavioralist psychology and move to something better. I'd like to think we can.

But what I'd really like to think is that we could at least give it a good try. 

I'm way too tired to post today, but I wanted to call a discussion question…

Glenn Greenwald has stated, again, what we've all been thinking in light of the Mukasey nomination.

First off, let's acknowledge what a disgraceful display by Washington Democrats this whole vote was. All the Senators running for President managed to hide from the vote (and yes, I'm sure they all happen to have just dandy excuses, how-dare-I-complain), and you have the spectacle of the head of the DSCC up there saying that the now-Attorney General of the United States is “wrong on torture,” but he should be confirmed anyway. My god, are civilized people in generations to come likely to look back on someone like Schumer with anything other than absolute scorn and contempt after that? 

But Greenwald's point is:

   Every time Congressional Democrats failed this year to stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they “tried”), the excuse they gave was that they “need 60 votes in the Senate” in order to get anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general “60-vote requirement” for everything.

So why would 44 Democratic Senators make a flamboyant showing of opposing confirmation without actually doing what they could to prevent it?

So, the question is: with our Constitution in shreds, and our congressional leadership pacing nervously while the Republicans are dancing tangos on the pieces, are cloture votes now the only REAL votes that have any meaning on Constitutional matters (and don't try and tell me the Mukasey nomination wasn't a Constitutional matter)? Is it all or nothing on such votes, when dealing with the Bush GOP?

Should we even care about how our Senators vote, or otherwise speak out, if they aren't doing everything in their power – including filibuster – to protect us from things as serious as legalized torture? I'm having a hard time imagining how that answer could be anything but 'no.'

The newest star of the Vermont blogosphere doesn't have a blog (although he has been known to post a bit on less traveled sites). He's Doug Hoffer, go-to guy when you need a hard core, progressive policy wonk in Vermont.

And by hard core, I mean hard core. As in, the guy other hard core wonky types such as former Representative and Act 60 architect Paul Cillo look to when they need someone to do some heavy lifting.

In recent years, Hoffer has been taking full advantage of the small pool that is Vermont. By being smart, persistent, efficient and omnipresent, he has become to the left what John McLaughry pretends at being for the right. Unlike McLaughry, though, Hoffer actually does the work, as opposed to regurgitating canned, simplistic and intentionally myopicly dogmatic drivel from the Heritage Foundation and it's allies.

In a political environment where most self-proclaimed lefties have internalized the corporate line, and mope around in a funk of fiscal and ideological self-doubt, Hoffer has the tools and the wherewithal to virtually single-handedly stand up for Keynesian economics – and manages to do so in a way that seems open-eyed and common sensical, rather than doctrinaire. If you haven't heard his name, trust me, you've heard of his work. He was behind the recent study that showed Vermont taxes as among the most progressive, dropping a bomb right into the Republican election narrative. Here he is at uber-wonk Paul Cillo's counter-Ethan Allen Institute, Public Assets Institute. Here he is with Cillo putting the McJobs facts to Douglas's job growth claims. And here he is all over the freaking place at the interfaith/labor/community coalition site High Road Vermont.

The problem with Hoffer's work has been the problem with intellectual leftism in general; that is, it'ss a total “if you build it, they will come” presentation. Some great position papers, a chat with a reporter or two and a pretty website – followed by no attention whatsoever and little counter to the effect of politics on public policy.

But Mr. Hoffer has taken his show on the blog road lately in, what to a policy professional, is the most mundane and low-brow of media; blog comments. And in the process, he's been not only stirring up quite a few online kerfuffles, but in the process is beginning to make quite the name for himself…

His favorite points of contact are in the sites rigged for anonymous posting that do not require registration. You know, the ones where you often think you might want to get in on the discussion, before you reconsider the wisdom of diving into such a mosh pit of anonymous nastiness, insults, vulgarities and dueling poster-outings.

Hoffer, however, is fearless, and dives right in (generally) with aplomb.

Here he is going after usual suspect right-wing automaton “bubba” at vtbuzz recently:

  Doug Hoffer  said…

“a small, struggling state with an aging demographic, a rising tax burden…”

I guess you didn't read the figures I provided on manufacturing job losses in the states that have “lured” big foreign auto plants. You guys still don't get it. As much as you want to bash VT, it's not just us.

The “aging demographic” is a reality in many states, not just VT.

A “rising tax burden”? I guess you didn't read the JFO tax study. And please don't tell me about how it doesn't include property taxes. Find me another state where the education property tax is based on income.

“Narrow minded isolationist points of view” did not got us to where we are today. Huge job losses all over America are the result of many factors having nothing to do with what happens in VT. In fact, the architects of NAFTA and other “free” trade agreements have helped create the situation – and that includes lots of Republicans and Democrats. Are they all isolationists?

bubba  said…

Hoffer's figures on manufacturing state that they are from the “last” recession. Is that the one Bush inherited from the Clintons or some other? In any case, NAM web site does list Manufacturing employment gains/losses from 2001-2006. A few: Alabama +42.4%; Vt: +13.8%; Tennessee: +29.9%; MS: +8.9%. You can find all the others at their web site. Just a note to show how far off Hoffer can be!

 

  Doug Hoffer  said…

Bubba – I'm glad that you did some research. Good start. But you didn't do it right. Information from the NAM is not official; it's a lobby group after all.

The ONLY source for jobs data is the U.S. Dept. of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statstics (BLS – every state uses exactly the same methodology). You will not find a reputable economist who uses anything else (unless they're paid lobbyists and then they're not reputable).

The figures I provided are correct. Please check these sites if you don't believe me. And if you prefer 2001, that's fine with me. They STILL show manufacturing job losses in every state I listed. I used Sept. to Sept. because that is the most recent data, but the annual data tells the same story.

Alabama
http://data.bls.gov/…
Kentucky
http://data.bls.gov/…
Mississippi
http://data.bls.gov/…
S. Carolina
http://data.bls.gov/…
Tennessee
http://data.bls.gov/…
Vermont
http://data.bls.gov/…

Furthermore, it is clear that you misread the NAM data. The figure you provided is NOT for jobs. Read it again. It says “manufacturing share” – not job growth. The figure you / they presented does NOT mean manufacturing jobs grew 42.4% in Alabama from 2001 – 2006.

Look at the tables. On the left it shows 299,800 jobs in manufacturing in July. That is correct – it's from the BLS (see the site noted above). But if you look at the site, it shows that manufacturing jobs in July 2001 were 322,000. That's a loss of 22,200 jobs (7.4%). You thought that NAM said it was a gain of 42.4%. that's absurd. Do you see it?

In fact, the NAM site only says “manufacturing growth” – so we don't know wxactly what it means. I suspect they are refering to the growth of manufacturing GDP as a % of total state GDP (unadjusted for inflation to make it look bigger – that's a trick used by lobby groups like the NAM).

Bottom line: As I stated, manufacturing jobs in Alabama (and all the other states discussed) is down. That's a fact.

I appreciate that you tried to nail me, but you got it wrong. You really need to let go of your belief that I misstate the data. I never do that.

BTW – The remarks in the previous post about the need for and value of investing in people is right on. That is a much better way to use public funds then wasteful tax credit giveaways to large corporations.

 “Bubba” collapsed almost immediately, falling back on his mantra  of dogmatic conservative talking points as a life raft.

It didn't help.

  bubba  said…

“Giveaways” to companies such as Nissan, Toyota, Honda, etc. have proven so far (BMW i think is now in S. Carolina over 20 years) to boost the economy of the states a great deal. Auto makers are only one example of what can be done if a state is business-friendly. You cannot imagine what a Nissan plant does for Mississippi, or a Hyundi parts plant for Georgia. The WRONG way to go about it is to be so anti-business like Dean and pals, then panic, and end up giving a special deal to less-than-legitimate outfits like Husky, who I imagine got away with exaggerating claims of employment. In any case, no matter what the shortcomings of the free enterprise system,if left alone, it benefits workers far more than a bunch of Montpelier environmentalists, social engineers, and paid book-cookers spending taxpayer dollars trying to figure out how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. As a final comment (only here) I saw where some writer stated that the JFO was an “independent” group! Sure, like CNN is “Fair and Balanced”!

6:30 PM, November 03, 2007

 

  Doug Hoffer  said…

Nice

When you are proven wrong, you revert to Rush-speak.

Is it so hard to just admit that you were wrong?

Go ahead, admit that the “Leftist” hired gun was right. If not – in the face of inescapable facts – you have nowhere to turn but the same old tired Right Wing baloney.

Are you willing to learn something or are you so stuck in the ideology that you can't see the truth?

You said that “Giveaways to companies such as Nissan, Toyota, Honda, etc. have proven so far (BMW i think is now in S. Carolina over 20 years) to boost the economy of the states a great deal.”

B____hit. Refute the facts or just shut up.

Chuckle. And so it goes. Hoffer actually works with and understands what the numbers are saying, as opposed to just some other guy with a chip on his shoulder and access to Google. Making him even more of an asset to the Vermont left is his apparent equal comfort working with the Peace & Justice Center, archetypal Vermont Dem Paul Cillo, and posting on the Prog Blog.

But he doesn't just swoop in to set people's numbers straight. H e also gets into the knock-down-drag-outs on rhetoric and general viewpoints. He and “the other 'Vermonter'” got into a back and forth that ended with this uncharacteristicly deferential comment by Freyne Land's “Vermonter:”

First, I acknowledge that you are a good debater and I appreciate that.  We disagree, but hat's off to you anyway.

Second, I'll just have to disagree with your belief that the Governor's events are lowly PR events and the Senator's are (apparently) altruistic “community outreach” events. One is venal and the other is high-minded? Sorry, I don't buy it. Different style, but same intent and same result. I also can't believe you would say that Bernie's events aren't covered. One cannot pick up the Freeps without reading about another so-called town meeting or media event by Bernie. You can't.

Third, you say that the editorial positions of the two largest media outlets in the state have been openly anti-Bernie for years. That may be historically true for CAX, but I think the case of the Freeps is much grayer, to say the least. Certainly in recent years. The Freeps covers him all the time. And leaving aside the Freeps and CAX, at least be honest and ackowledge that the “one reporter” is pro-Bernie. He reports on his doings in generally positive, if not glowing, terms almost every week.

Finally, I'll acknowledge that in my frustration I have lashed out against Bernie and the blog host. I apologize to Bernie and Peter. You may be suprised that I actually agree with many of Bernie's policy positions, if not his style.

Posted by: vermonter | Oct 28, 2007 5:20:58 PM

Yeah, you won't see that too often.

Unfortunately, we need to appreciate the show while we can, as Hoffer will likely burn out quickly if he continues to engage in that sort of debate.

Further down the same thread, though, is this smackdown of conservative activist and blogger Curtis Hier repeating Douglas talking points:

Curtis

According to the data, Jim does not equal jobs.

Private sector job growth has been significantly lower in the last three years than in the 1990s. [Note: I focus on private sector job growth because state economic development policy is not directed to and has little impact on public sector jobs.]

Not only is Vermont's annual rate of private sector job growth weak compared to the `90s (0.6%), but it is only half the national rate of 1.2%. And Vermont's rate has been lower then the U.S. rate for the last 3 years. Since September 2004, U.S. private sector jobs have grown 5.3% while Vermont's rate was 1.5%.

Furthermore, a significant percentage of the jobs being created are low wage (which the state Dept. of Labor fails to tell you each month in their press release on unemployment and the labor market).

Obviously, The Gov. is not responsible for the large economic forces beyond our control, but his policies are not helping.

Posted by: Doug Hoffer | Nov 1, 2007 7:16:02 AM

Doug,

Our latest unemployment rate is at 4.0 percent, which puts us at 19th and below the national unemployment rate. Your job growth comparison is based on the net number of private sector jobs. Our labor force in Vermont is shrinking as Vermonters are retiring and there aren't younger workers to take their place. Governor Douglas has been trying to address that.

Furthermore, I am concerned that the public sector is growing so much and the private sector is shrinking. (From my perspective as a teacher, it seems like everyone in town is becoming an instructional aide here at school.)We can't pay for that forever. I feel that the Republicans would do a better job of addressing that problem. I'm wondering why you picked September 2004.

Posted by: Curtis Hier | Nov 1, 2007 7:47:01 AM

Curtis

The unemployment rate sounds great but it's been below the national rate for the last 30 years and, therefore, has nothing to do with Jim Douglas' policies. And for the record, it's 4.2%, not 4%.

Furthermore, the median number of private sector jobs created annually in the `90s was over 4,000. In the last three years, the figure is under 1,300. These figures don't lie.

I picked September because it's the last month available to show year – to – year figures. That's exactly what the Dept. of Labor does every month.

Moreover, I track these numbers for my work and it doesn't matter what month you pick. Job creation is – and has been – anemic since the last recession.

As for Republicans doing a better job, we have had a Republican governor for the last 5 years. It is HIS Dept. of Economic Development carrying out HIS policies. Furthermore, with very few exceptions, this is the same pattern in most other states (regardless of the party in power). The Gov. is attempting to use old “tools” to solve new problems. It's not working.

And of course we've had a Republican President for the last 7 years, with a Republican Congress for most of that time. U.S. job creation is also anemic.

It's not about Jim Douglas per se. He just represents old thinking that is out of step with new realities.

Posted by: Doug Hoffer | Nov 1, 2007 8:06:06 AM

So Hoffer continues to provide content that is often more informative and useful than the entries he's commenting on. Very cool, and as I said, we should enjoy it while we can, especially after this comment:

I understood blogs to be free of the corporate filter that determines most of what we see & hear. That people could speak their minds freely. Those two criteria are met.

But I didn't expect this level of personal antagonism, anger or pettiness. 

Posted by: Doug Hoffer | Nov 7, 2007 9:08:19 AM

Heh. 

Welcome to the blogs, Doug.

Now somebody pass me the popcorn. 

( – promoted by odum)

A couple of issues near and dear to the hearts of Vermont activists are playing out (or beginning to).

First is the aftermath of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's move to do what so many Vermonters wanted Rep. Peter Welch to do – sort of. As everyone has no doubt heard by now, Kucinich called the impeachment question on the floor of the House (where motions on impeachment are considered privileged and must be addressed). Yay Dennis, except, well – it was a call for the impeachment of Cheney, which seems to me to miss the target politically and ethically. Long past are the bygone days where people on the left wondered whether President Bush was no more than an ineffectual empty suit. Cheney may be his most crude, effective and brazen hatchet man, but he is still a hatchet man – a mere symptom of the problem that is Bush himself.

In any event, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland moved quickly to table the motion, but was stymied by a block of Democrats joined (ultimately, after some vote-switching) by Republicans who thought a public debate over the merits of ditching a vice president whose approval rating is nearly in the single digits would somehow embarass his critics more than his defenders (this is bizarro world, isn't it?). The motion was not tabled, but, after getting the dissident Dems marching to his drum, was then quickly sent by Hoyer to the Judiciary committee where the profoundly disappointing Chair, Rep. John Conyers, will simply stack it to die along with the other Kucinich impeachment resolution gathering cobwebs in that committee.

But the question on everyone's mind is – will Kucinich simply bring it to the floor again (and aim at Bush next time)? By House rules, it remains a privileged motion that must be considered. If Kucinich is serious, he could well bring it to the floor on primetime every day of the session. He's gotten gobs of good feedback on this, so activists are watching and waiting…

Second is Rep. Welch's moment of truth on Iraq funding that is now on on its way.

Welch has gone through a process which many Vermont activists (myself included) have found rather frustrating in terms of Iraq Warfunding (and I'm not refering to the bizarre, Welch-is-personally-responsible-for–Iraq crowd who seem so obsessively fixated on him, or who see piling on him as a means to other political or personal ends). Welch has moved through a series of steps on his dealing with Iraq much like the stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and now, acceptance. While he's done them all within the course of a year (which is fast in Legislative time), it has been frustrating to watch him go through such a process to end up where he reasonably should have been years ago (and where many of us thought he already was when he was elected); at a point where he's prepared to stop playing political games and refuse to continue funding of Bush's Middle East adventure.

Some time back, Welch joined other frustrated members of the Progressive Caucus in signing a letter saying enough is enough – that they would no longer follow the Democratic leadership (intent on biding its time until next year's election, apparently) and would simply vote against any and all funding for the Iraq War without firm withdrawal timetables. The Welch-haters, naturally, didn't care that he'd made the very commitment they were demanding, and have even continued to circulate angry emails that simply state (in the face of reality) that he hasn't signed the letter, and castigate him for it. Whatever.

But the point is, the moment of truth is nearly here. From AlterNet:

In the next few days, a Congressional conference committee will likely pass the largest defense spending bill in the history of the United States. Despite Democratic lawmakers' promises to stop issuing blank checks for war, the bill does not call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq or Afghanistan, nor does it prevent military action against Iran.

If Welch means what he says, he can likely hardly wait to cast his vote to get the Welch-haters to shut up (they won't, of course, as he has somehow acheived almost mystically evil stature in their eyes. Why is beyond me, but that's a matter better addressed by social psychologists). If he doesn't (and I can't see why he wouldn't, as he seems to be playing out a fairly consistent pattern), he's gonna rightfully catch holy hell if he flubs this.

Stay tuned.

Here's a quick Vermont political checklist of endorsements (on the left side of things, at least) for President. These are the names I could find easily, so feel free to add or correct in the comments and I'll try to update this at the end of the day.

I find this sort of thing interesting, not so much as it regards the candidates, but in terms of the insights it provides into the actual endorsers. 

I'm sure there are more names out there. Anybody?

A big welcome to Earth to Hayden Avery Baxter Avard, who arrived yesterday (Friday November 2nd). Brattlerouser says: “He's healthy, 21 inches and weighs seven pounds, 11 ounces (that's  right, 7-Eleven!!!!).”

Ah, kids these days. Congrats to Mom and Dad. We expect to see the kid online by the age of 4, since it's clearly in his blood.

Boo-yah!

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Friday he won't support Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, potentially derailing his confirmation over complaints that he hasn't taken a full enough stand against torture.

“No American should need a classified briefing to determine whether waterboarding is torture,” said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vermont. He planned an afternoon news conference to make the announcement in Burlington.

TPM is tracking the yeas and nays here. Right on, Pat & Bernie (and major  thanks to Kagro X for continuing to be a national leader on this).

Okay, okay… sheesh, I figured everybody'd be all over this poll. Guess it's up to me (for the record, over the last 24 hours, I have finished this post twice only to have the app crash on me and lose all my work… ARRRRG!!)

No two ways about it: the recent WCAX gubernatorial poll is huge. Here are Jim Douglas's re-elect numbers:

42 percent said they'd vote to re-elect Jim Douglas.

33 percent said they'd replace him.

25 percent said they were not sure.

Roper & company are trying to be blase about it, but this is a dramatic sea change. At this point in the last two cycles, Douglas's re-elect numbers were in the 60's. What's more ominous for the GOP is the significance of that number, which they no doubt recognize: 42%. It's roughly the mean, historical, hardcore GOP voting block that their statewides can depend on cycle after cycle. That's what he's down to, in terms of firm support.

To prop up his undefeatable image, Douglas has countered the bad news by touting the alternate job-approval poll: 

16% percent of Vermonters say Governor Douglas is doing an excellent job. 38% a good job, with only 5% of people not sure how he's doing.

But when you put these numbers together, you've got a clear picture; the “nice guy” Douglas image is still intact, but moderates and independents are no longer confident that he's the right man for the job. It's probably not helping him that he's been using his so-called “listening tour” to TELL voters (through the media) what's important to them, rather than – y'know – listening. That only widens the perception that he's out-of-touch.

And if you think they're not scared, consider this: The original title of the WCAX web piece on the poll was  “Questionable fourth term for Douglas.” If you'll notice, it now reads “2008 Governor's Race Starts To Shape Up“. The station reportedly responded to a reader's question about the change, saying they had received “internal and external complaints” about the original headline.

Now come on. Do you think if you or I had complaints about the message sent by a news headline that the Douglas communication offi- er, I mean WCAX – would give us the time of day? No freaking way. That was political damage control, pure and simple.

This race is winnable – and they know it.

Also of interest in the poll were the numbers for other potential contenders. The Dems who've made it clear they're not interested predictable polled in the crapper (and Campbell and Galbraith were not included). Among the two remaining names who actually are considered possible contenders: 

Of the eight choices, Democrat Matt Dunne and Progressive Anthony Pollina were the only ones with more than 10 percent — Dunne with 22 percent, Pollina with 12 percent.

Interesting.

The selling point of a Pollina candidacy from his supporters is largely that his name recognition and grassroots support start him off with the strongest base and make him the most credible alternative, but Dunne starts off at almost double his numbers.

Which means, once again, all eyes are going to be on Dunne. If he has been leaning away from a run for the top job, prefering for round 2 against Dubie, he's got to be reconsidering the question. And those pushing for a Dunne/Pollina ticket, might want to consider the reciprocal.

The game's afoot!

Believe it or not, I'm conflicted about the “Vote for the Scariest Jim Douglas” contest on the Vermont Dems website.

On the one hand, it seems a little … I dunno. Unprofessional, I guess. In the literal sense of the word, more than the pejoritive. Like something we bloggers would do. I was recently dismaying the lack of decorum on the state GOP website for calling NEA Chief Angelo Dorta a liar. This, although it avoids any invective harsher than “hypocritical,” still seems a bit – I dunno, untoward.

On the other hand, have you folks read that list?! It's the best, most comprehensive checklist of the reasons not to vote for Jim Douglas I've ever seen! For that reason alone, it should be required reading. The Dems website has been terrific for months, but that one page is the best resource I've seen yet (although it would be significantly improved with some linked text pointing surfers to details).

So I dunno. Does the strong, comprehensive messagng outweigh the neener-neener-factor? Does the neener-neener factor matter? Maybe the Party sites should be acting more like blogs (or maybe it's not a matter of should or shouldn't, maybe it's just a matter of inevitability)

Senator Leahy is concerned:

Based on an initial review of (Attorney General nominee Mukasey's) response to the letter, I remain very concerned that Judge Mukasey finds himself unable to state unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal and below the standards and values of the United States

The concern is based on Mukasey's non-response to the waterboarding question. TPM characterizes it this way:

Mukasey explains that he can't definitively say that waterboarding is torture because 1) he doesn't know whether it is in use, or whether a similar technique is in use, 2) he doesn't want any public statement of his on the issue to place any interrogators in legal jeopardy, and 3) “I would not want any statement of mine to provide our enemies with a window into the limits or contours of any interrogation program we may have in place and thereby assist them in training to resist the techniques we actually may use.”

So we have an AG nominee who is hedging on whether or not torture is “torture,” and therefore may or may not support the Bush administration's fetishistic embrace of it as legal.

So we're all concerned. Not over Mukasey's answers, which most observers, I suspect, fully anticipated. What concerns us is whether or not Leahy and the other Judiciary Committee Dems will look the other way on this guy, once again hoping that a strong expression of concern will be enough to protect Americans from these people (while really scary threats – like a MoveOn ad, require the US Senate to take a stand).