Senator Sanders' pushback on the non-oversight exercized by the Bush Nuclear Regulatory Commision continues, with Vermont Yankee (and the dramatic collapse of its cooling tower) as Exhibit A. Bernie presented the now-famous photos of the collapse to today's oversight hearing of the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Energy, and in the process prodding NRC Chair Dale Klein to concede that Vermonters may be feeling a little less than warm and fuzzy under the commission's less-than-watchful eye.

Sanders is pushing legislation that would make safety reviews more frequent, and that would empower state officials to instigate them – for example, in a bullet aimed squarely at VY, a safety inspection would be triggered by a plant looking for permission to generate more power than it was originally designed to produce.

But Bernie knows the executive regime we're stuck with in Vermont, and as such, he's cast his proposed net a bit wider. From a Sanders office press release (thanks Will), emphasis added:

Under Sanders’ legislation, power plant operators seeking to extend licenses would be subject to special inspections at the request of the governor of a state where a plant is located, or by the governor of a neighboring state affected by a plant's operation.

Heh. Call it the “Jim Douglas clause.”

It may surprise some to read this here – but it shouldn't: Congress has no business telling Rush Limbaugh to shut up.

Last week, Senator Leahy and Representative Welch broke with Senator Sanders and brought several flavors of shame to the liberal community under one, all-encompassing umbrella – the vote to rebuke MoveOn. While first and foremost, I find the vote both bizarre and cowardly (for its myopic waste of time on the one hand, and the pointless “Sister Souljah”-style sacrifice of an ally deemed – apparently – disposable on the other), the fact is that it was also an affront to the tradition of free speech in this country. It's true (and important) that the naked attempt by the GOP to frame the anti-war public as crazy and uncivilized (an attempt that was successful only thanks to the assistance of Dems like Leahy and Welch) did not take any action to specifically disallow speech, but such action has a chilling effect nonetheless. As much as I took State Representative Dave Zuckerman to task for sending a chilling message, as an elected lawmaker, by accusing Stewart Ledbetter of “irresponsible journalism” for asking a question he didn't like, the MoveOn rebuke was far worse.

As Leonard Witt of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution said:

Congress did not pass a law “abridging the freedom of speech,” but I would argue they, in fact, did abridge our freedom to speak out by sending a message to We the People of the United States of America that we should not insult a general.

They did so on the floor of the Senate, the same place where they vote on laws, which could in the future strengthen or weaken the constitution.

The Congress of the United States should not be in the business of making those sorts of judgements and enshrining them historically and permanently in the Congressional record.

And that includes such judgements against Rush Limbaugh.

One of the most annoying aspects of the MoveOn vote was having to endure the sort of justification that lumped the MoveOn ad in with the GOP electoral smears of John Kerry and Max Cleland – a comparison belied by the fact that neither were mentioned in the language that was approved (and the fact that when a Senate floor amendment to include those two instances was rejected, Dems like Leahy and Welch voted for the MoveOn condemnation anyway). This has caused many, like Front Pager elwood at Blue Hampshire, to push for the following:

…fair is fair.

Draft-dodger Rush Limbaugh is calling American troops who oppose the war “phony soldiers.” Several elected Democrats have spoken out against this. That is not enough. Bring a resolution condemning Limbaugh to the floor immediately.

Denounce the Speaker if she stands in the way.

There cannot be an informal House rule that says progressive groups get condemned but right-wing media is exempt.

Sounds good. Feels good. And some are listening. From Greg Sargent (ht Steve B):

I’ve just learned that Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) will be introducing a resolution in the House of Representatives on Monday condemning Rush Limbaugh for his “phony soldiers” remark.

This is significant because it has the potential to dramatically up the stakes in this fight. If the Democratic leadership allows it to go for a vote, it will force all the Republicans in the House to either vote for it, against it, or skip the vote — and to pass judgment on the powerful conservative talk show host’s contention that troops who don’t support President Bush’s war policies are “phony soldiers.”

Putting aside for a moment that it'll never happen, the fact is that we shouldn't try, and if Leahy or Welch throw in with such an attempt to placate or otherwise throw a bone to their increasingly agitated, annoyed, and exhausted national base, it will simply add further insult to Constitutional injury.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Let's cut our losses and… er… move on.

Interesting news from Burlington-based True Majority:

We founded TrueMajority and TrueMajorityAction to offer an easy way for all those people out there who want America to be more just and compassionate to speak out. It really caught on, and turned into one of the largest online groups in America. But now, it’s time to take it to the next level.

As of this month, TrueMajorityAction is merging our operations with USAction, one of the pre-eminent field organizing progressive groups in America.

TrueMajorityAction will continue to watch Congress for our members, and create quick “one-click” opportunities to speak up at critical moments. That’s worked great, our members say they love it, and we’ll work at online organizing as hard as ever. But now, as the online arm of USAction, they’ll also be able to offer ways for those online members to connect with neighbors who share their vision for America and carry that work into the “real world.”

True Majority's presence on the national scene hasn't been felt as much over the last year, but they're still a big internet-based organization with a massive list. Merging with US Action, which has always been a field organization (and a hardcore one, too – I cut my teeth as an old, pre-name change, Citizen Action canvasser in Maryland, and later as an organizer in Oregon… in many ways, they are the gold standard) could make them stronger than the sum of the parts.

Hey, if the Democratic majority in Vermont can't get its message together, maybe we'll slide by with more help like this from the GOP.

So, if its not yet evident, the reason you don't put a wingnut like Rob Roper (until recently, a regular fixture on Paul Beaudry's creepy “True North” radio show) in charge of something like a political party, is that they let their… enthusiasm… run roughshod over common sense. This brouhaha over Burlington's Intervale, and the attempt to paint Gaye Symington, David Zuckerman and Will Raap as anti-environemental hypocrites, was a very bad idea for the GOP, and although it has a lot of Dems concerned, I have little doubt that it's going to backfire on them.

Background, from the Herald/Argus:

When Burlington's Intervale Center was notified by the state this week that it had violated environmental rules and would have to do better if it is to stay open, the center promised to fix the problem.

The issue might have passed with little notice, but for one thing: House Speaker Gaye Symington, a Democrat, works for the center. Rep. David Zuckerman, a Progressive, farms a 16-acre plot there. And other political heavyweights on the left have been involved in greater or lesser ways in the development and operation of the center, established as an environmental and land protection showpiece.

Enter the GOP, stage right.

The environmental problems at the Intervale show that Symington, Zuckerman and other politicians on the left are not up to the task of protecting the environment, said Republican Chairman Rob Roper.

First of all, it's only going to help Symington, whose star hit rock bottom among many in the left last session. The inevitable bounce back has already quietly begun for her, and being thrust into the trenches with progressive darlings Zuckerman and Raap will only jumpstart that bounceback further. That's just action-reaction.

But who was this attack trying to convince? Sure, there'll be the charges of hypocritical-limousine-liberal… from all the people who make that charge every day, anyway. To everyone else? The issue is a serious matter but it's being dealt with in a professional manner. No jumping up and down refusing to address the problem, or claiming that environmental regulations are all communist, or threats to appeal or sue the state.

And this is already being seen as a cheap, mean-spirited shot to try and score points. That's a minus for the GOP. So we have nobody who's paying attention won over, or run off. His suggestion that the party of Rob Roper, Wendy Wilton and Paul Beaudry is better suited for environmental stewardship that the likes of Raap, Symington and Zuckerman is a pretty hysterical punchline – no doubt even to most Republicans.

To the people who only pay marginal attention, it gets this story out beyond Chittenden County:

over two decades the Intervale has taken 354 acres of largely abandoned land, made it productive and ensured it will remain farm land, Symington said.

“It was full of dumped cars and tires. Now there are productive farms and at-risk teens growing food that is served in the school cafeterias,” she said. “I am proud to be part of that work.”

Roper said he really likes the Intervale too. His family goes there to visit and buy vegetables, he said.

Gotta love that.

But what about the people who aren't paying attention?

All they're hearing is “farm – runoff – Intervale – Zuckerman – Gardner's Supply – Symington – waste.” Fuzzy, and a bit inconsistent, but positive. It almost allows Symington to share the spotlight of the poor, beset-upon Vermont farmer.

Thanks for turning on that light, Rob.

I'd bet good money that the only way this becomes a public relations problems for Symington and Zuckerman is if they somehow make it one.

…uh, okay – that part worries me.

And it should worry us all, as Speaker Symington already has this little gem in the press reports (emphasis added):

“Rob Roper's job is partly to embarrass me,” Symington said.

That's right. The 'm' word – me. Symington is already retreating into making it about herself, which is the complete opposite of the right way to handle this, and on so many levels, it'd take a dozen blog posts to fully cover all of them.

Nor do I have much faith in the Progs to handle this. I find myself thinking back to when Anthony Pollina was found to have violated the letter of the campaign finance law he had helped craft. For those of you who don't remember, he didn't go “oops, sorry, my bad” and play the we're-all-only-human route of humility. No, he went ballistic and sued everybody (including in essentially dropping a SLAPP suit on the ED of the Dems at the time by name  – not through his title, just him, as a private citizen), then tried to get the law tossed before being scolded out of court by Judge Sessions. Sure, that was a long time ago, but Zuckerman's quantum leap earlier this week to a charge of “irresponsible journalism” at the word that Stewart Ledbetter was simply doing his job as a reporter shows that its still incredibly easy to press many Progs' buttons.

Who knows, maybe Roper is more clever than I think he is, and figures with a little nudging, Symington and Zuckerman will fly off and make themselves look bad for the media and the public.

If that is his call, let's all hope it's a bad one.

Everybody get out yer Sunday best for the Head of Homeland Security's li'l Vermont flyby. This'll be the closest to a Bush visit outside of Cheney's brief stop inside a fenced-off area of the Burlington airport some time back (where Douglas famously declared “aren't we lucky to have George W. Bush in the White House!”).

Now that was a fun demonstration. Ah, good times…

I haven't heard anything official, but its a safe bet that someone will be on hand to make some displeasure known. If you want to join the fun, grab a sign, a bullhorn, or some stilts and head on out. The Dems' press release says WIlliston, but the AP report says “Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles office on Burlington's North Avenue.” I don't have a when, so if somebody knows something more specific, please put it in the comments (and I or another front pager will try to update this diary)  UPDATE: Freyne sez 2:20 in Burlington.

Vermont has overwhelming Democratic majorities in the state House and Senate. 4 of six statewide, constitutional offices are held by Democrats. Democrats (in reality, if not name) control each of Vermont's seats to the national Congress.

But no Democrat has stepped up to the plate to even make meaningful noise about running for Governor. It's an embarassment.

For months, people have been warning that somebody needs to get off the dime on this (even while resentment has been growing at the prospect of an avalanche of A-list Dems who will likely go what they see to be the easy route – stepping up for the office when Douglas eventually steps down voluntarily – instead of stepping up now when their party and their state need them). For months people have been warning that if a Dem doesn't announce, Anthony Pollina (the former Progressive Party candidate for all things statewide who seems to have no interest in doing anything other than starting at the top), would get out in front and label the Dems weak, ineffective, and try to turn the “spoiler” argument on its head. By the end of the summer I've said…

Well, the summer's over:

Pollina plans to hold a series of meetings around the state in mid October to gauge support for a gubernatorial bid. If there's strong grassroots support – it's likely that he'll run.

It's nothing short of appalling that a Dem hasn't stepped up and at least rattled the cages about running. Matt Dunne is the only candidate mentioned, but he is deferring on making a decision until November, by which time the egg will already be on the Dems' collective faces (and frankly, the fact that he's waiting until so close to year's end suggests that his decision will be to run again for Lt. Governor).

I find myself embarassed as a Democrat – especially since so many of us have been screaming at the party to avoid this very scenario for months.

At this point, the only other name bouncing around the rumor mill is, once again, Leahy staffer, former state Representative and all-around Democratic go-to guy Chuck Ross. Ross evokes strong feelings on every side of Democratic circles, as he is largely credited (blamed?) with virtually single-handedly scuttling the original “Rutland Resolution” on impeachment that percolated through the grassroots before landing in the lap of the Democratic State Committee. Ross is, however, one of the few names in Vermont who could mount a serious financial challenge to Douglas, and it's likely that the liberal wing of the party would rally behind him and eschew Pollina given some basic fence-mending and earnest bridge-building.

But whether its Chuck, Matt, or Champ the Lake Monster – whoever ithe Dem candidate is to be – he or she has an extension until mid-October (from the sound of the above report) to get in clearly, with their head held high, and avoid starting out in the hole in a race that's going to leave room for few – if any – missteps.

Please – let's not start the whole thing with the biggest misstep of all: letting the Democratic rank-and-file down by playing elections catch-up and leaving us all feeling a bit humiliated.

The in-the-works “State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)” bill which would famously expand health insurance coverage to children nationwide, also now stands to protect Vermont children from a Bush administration rule change which would deny Dr. Dynasaur coverage to thousands of Vermont children. From a joint press release from the offices of Leahy, Sanders and Welch (emphasis added):

Using SCHIP funds, Vermont’s Dr. Dynasaur program now offers comprehensive health coverage to children from households with incomes up to 300 percent of poverty — $61,950 for a family of four.  Eleven other states also offer coverage to kids from middle-income families.  The legislation will cover an additional 4 million children nationwide – several thousand more in Vermont — on top of the 6 million currently in the program.  It will also sideline a pending Bush Administration rule change, announced Aug. 17, that threatens to cut coverage for millions of kids now covered under SCHIP.  That change would tighten restrictions on states like Vermont that cover children above 250 percent of the federal poverty level.  In Vermont, the new rules would mean more than 2000 kids would lose their health coverage.   

The bill also heads off, at least for six months, another recently announced Bush Administration rule change that would prohibit states from using Medicaid funds for rehab services for K-12 students with disabilities, which would put Vermont on the hook for potentially another $20 million per year.

As has been widely covered, Bush is making a show of his intention to veto the bill (well, unless fellow Republican and Bush state campaign Chair Jim Douglas can use his election-touted clout with the administration to get him to consider…to consider…oh never mind, I'm cracking up even as I type it…). Based on recent history, one would expect that he will veto it, and Congresional Democrats will just mope ineffectively in response (that'll show him).

There is some talk, however, of pushing on this bill the way many of us wanted to see the Iraq withdrawal-deadline bill pushed – simply passing it over and over again until he is either shamed into passing it, or enough Republicans are shamed into voting to override. We'll see…

Oh boy! Hooplah!

For those just tuning in: first Freyne reports that Progressive Rep. Dave Zuckerman sez “He (Peter Shumlin) came up to me at an event in Montpelier…and said we’ve really got to talk about how we’re going to get rid of Jim Douglas, and I think Anthony Pollina should really consider running.””… then I report that Shumlin sez “From his recollection, it was Zuckerman who brought up Pollina….Says Shumlin: 'I have told anyone who will listen that the best candidate, in my judgment is Matt Dunne.' (and Dunne verified Shumlin's encouragement in an unrelated conversation with me a ways back).“… then Stewart Ledbetter on Vermont This Week (in a reference to “dueling blogs”) sez “maybe the story that Shumlin was pushing Anthony Pollina is simply not true”… then Freyne sez “Maybe the Moon is made of green cheese?“… then Freyne goes to Zuckerman who sez “I respect Stewart Ledbetter… but that's irresponsible journalism.”

Ahhh, so many sezzes, so little time!

Truthfully, “irresposnsible journalism” is a whopping big charge. Especially when we're not simply talking about journalism. We're also talking about blogging, gossip and even interpersonal relationships, inasmuch as they relate to who believes whom.

But first of all, let's talk about journalism.

Let me start by agreeing with commenters at Freyne's site. Zuckerman is a totally decent guy, and I can't possibly believe that he's lying. And although I was called “naive” for believing Shumlin, I've known the guy (not well, granted, but nevertheless…) for years, and he's never lied to me, or said anything to me that I have reason in retrospect to consider may have been a lie. Does that make me “naive,” as a commenter suggested? Who knows, but I'd rather be naive than be an asshole, and I'd have to be an asshole to arbitrarily doubt his word to me at this point.
  
This is where we get to the difference between hubbub and journalism, and why “he said-he said” situations like this are dangerous to report on, especially when you only have in hand one of the “he's” doing the “saying” and no independent corroboration. IMO, Freyne was definitely on shaky ground publishing this to begin with, especially when you consider we're talking about two different people's reminiscences of brief conversations from months ago. It's as likely a scenario as any that they both honestly and earnestly remember the conversations differently.

(For my part, all I can say is what I said already – that Shumlin's “retort” to me was consistent with what I've heard from him in the past, and consistent with what I'd heard from Matt Dunne… kneejerk Shumlin-bashing should not be a replacement for objective consideration of the merits and the foundations of a tiff like this). 
  
But Freyne is not simply a journalist, he is also a blogger. And those are very different animals, playing by different rules. Bloggers can go up with rumor or hubbub, and often do. Blogs – “web logs” – are simply online diaries meant to spur discussion – and rumors are obviously a valid point of discussion for online communities of interest. You throw it out there and let the readers hash out the viability and credibility, which is the process that has – in fact – been in play between Freyne's site, this one, and the various comments at both, and what the “duel” which-is-not-a-duel is a glimpse into the process of.
  
But then, Freyne's report played out in his print column, rather than his blog. Does that change the implications?
  
Maybe, but I doubt it. After all, does anybody doubt that Freyne is becoming the human twilight zone between blogs and journalism? That role makes his media somewhat interchangable.
 
Either way, the guy's in an awkward spot as Vermont's official journalist-columnist-blogger hybrid, but he seems to generally handle it well, so I won't take him to task.
  
But there's one person I will take to task a bit, and that's Rep. Zuckerman. His suggesting Ledbetter was practicing “irresponsible journalism” was, I think… well… irresponsible.

Ledbetter is not a blogger, or a blogger-journalist hybrid, he is simply a journalist, pure and simple. When confronted with a contradiction like this, it is his job – his responsibilty even – to address it as dispassionately and objectively as he can- and that means laying all the possibilities out there. When two people say contradictory things, its always an objective possibility that one may not be right (especially when one of the suggestions seems, on its face, to defy the journalist's own experience or the prevailing wisdom).

A political officeholder making such an inflammatory charge to a journalist simply for asking one of the obvious questions for the purposes of a discussion among journalists could have a chilling effect on the practice of his 1st amendment responsibilities as a member of the press.

So, I've given buddies of Rep. Zuckerman ammunition to be mad at me if they really want to be, but the truth is, I think the “irresponsible journalism” line was just an off-the-cuff comment that wasn't meant the way someone like me might be afraid it could be. To repeat – as I already said Zuckerman seems like a totally straight shooter.

Honestly, I think we just have a cascading of off-the-cuff comments and fuzzy recollections of a months old exchange. Enough for some entertaining back and forth, but I think the story played out a while ago.

Being recently added to the mighty GMD blogroll, Bosox Wally (aka Will Wiquist) was apparently so intimidated, he had to drop everything and run to DC to be Bernie Sanders' new Press Secretary.

Ah how far our little Wally-Will has come since his days as part of three person Field staff for the Democratic Party Coordinated campaign back in 2000 As I said back then, if the 2000 campaign had been a sitcom (and I actually did write a sitcom pilot script based on that experience, but lost it in a computer crash before I could submit it anywhere… and that's just as well), then Will, Spike and Mike (the Field team) would have collectively been our Kramer (and if that's not a stellar endorsement, I don't know what is – Will, I'd be happy to write that up a reference letter for you…)

And among his first official actions will undoubtedly be to send me an email expressing his disappointment in GMD over, what I suspect is an upcoming blog post from a front-pager-who-will-not-be-named that is likely to be critical of Bernie. Heh.

Have fun Will. Don't forget us little people, as Bernie's staff curently does (his office is the only member of our Washington delegation that doesn't include GMD on press lists for releases… mmble, grmble...)

Happy Sunday, all! Well, it had been a few weeks since the last time, so Vermont and Vermonters were overdue to be the target of Bill O’Reilly’s scorn. It was a low-grade eruption only – a mere passing mention by Bill-O’s standards, but it did remind us that we are never far from his heart.

But the truth is, there are a lot of compelling reasons why O’Reilly should consider moving beyond his “objections” with our lovely state and ponder relocating to the Green Mountains instead!

Here, then, are the top ten reasons Bill O’Reilly should pack up the loofahs and move to Vermont (after the flip):

10. Keith Olbermann doesn’t live here.

9. Wouldn’t have to pay so much to have ex-Rutland State Senator (and current Rutland City Treasurer) Wendy Wilton or True North radio host Paul Beaudry videoconferenced into your show so they can do their best to insult and smear Vermont before a national audience.

8. Burlington’s WCAX is apparently hiring, and no doubt Marselis Parsons would jump at the chance to bring in a media professional so practiced at the Fox News “fair and balanced” school of journalism (Freyne from ’04:  “Sunday’s was the fourth show since last September that featured a Dem in the guest chair… Meanwhile, 19 “Quote Me” programs since last fall have quoted Republicans…You do the math.”).

7. Your ongoing amusement with Tasers (and “Don’t Tase me, Bro” entrepeneureal bumper stickers) are a perfect match with Vermont law enforcement’s new you name it, we’ll tase it approach (peaceful protesters, dogs, whatever) and could help the push to bring them to even more of our towns!

6. With gay marriage back in the Vermont spotlight, and a lot of Vermonters feeling confused about how and why it’s being brought up now, we need you to cut through the discussions and tell us, in your words – “what this gay marriage thing is all about,” (apparently, it’s all about giving Vermonters the opportunity “to marry a goat.” Who knew?)

5. Since we’re about as far away from Mexico as you can get in the continental US, there’s less chance you’ll need to worry about Mexicans “clustering” and “changing the tempo” of your neighborhood.

4. Next time you wants to bash, er, pick a fight with Bill Lippert, you can just drive over yourself, rather than paying a lot of money to send a lackey.

3. All our permissive judges will probably go easy on you the next time you get a sexual harassment charge.

2. Thanks to all the groovy-crunchy people living here, Vermont has Natural Food stores everywhere, which means a steady supply of falafel for all your future dates.

…and the number one reason Bill O’Reilly should move to Vermont…

1. As the whitest state in the union, you won’t have to worry about running into so many of those black or brown people (even if some of them can really surprise you from time to time by acting so much like regular human beings).