Here's a doozy. Bush-supported Iraqi Prime Minister (such as the position is) Al-Maliki is bristling at criticism that he's inneffective and irrelevant – particularly the recent calls (from people like Hillary Clinton, Carl Levin and a bunch of Republicans) that he step down.

“There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages”

Okay, so far so good…

“for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin,”

Hm. Leaving out someone a little more obvious, aren't we?

But here's the payoff quote. Why should the criticism of Maliki stop? Because… 

“This is severe interference in our domestic affairs.”

Now just think about that one for a few minutes. 

From the “methinks thou dost protest too much” department…

I find it interesting that the Republicans are pushing so hard to give Democrats a black eye over the fact that the law has unexpectedly provided an opportunity for shady operators to access the personal financial information of Vermont taxpayers through Town Offices. Consider some of those shady operators who are swooping in, doing that vulture-thing (from VPR, emphasis mine):

 

There's disagreement among town clerks – and among state officials – about whether the income adjustment information should be public.
 
Secretary of State Deb Markowitz has said it should be kept private.
 
But Montpelier's clerk relied on advice from the (Douglas) Tax Department. So she released 24 pages of data to two individuals who asked for it. One of the requests came from the state Republican Party.
 

Uh-huh. I guess they were for it before they were against it (before they were for it, since the changes in the law that created the privacy loophole were approved with a bipartisan majority). Or maybe they want to exploit the privacy hole themselves and close it up behind them as soon as possible.

Real class act, the Vermont GOP… 

Well the press may not be taking this seriously (click here for the pictures, – they are pretty shocking – or just scroll down) but at least somebody is:

August 23, 2007

The Honorable Dale Klein
Chairman
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Chairman Klein:

We are writing in response to the alarming events that occurred at Vermont Yankee power plant on August 21, 2007.  It is our understanding that a non-safety related portion of one cooling tower cell at the plant collapsed.  We further understand from your staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that there was no threat to the public's health with this accident and that the plant began to power down to 40% immediately following the accident. 

We are concerned about the cause of this structural failure, especially about the implications for the cooling tower cell(s) that are related to the safe operation of the plant.  We understand from your staff that the licensee, Entergy Vermont Yankee, is currently examining this accident to determine the cause of the collapsed tower and whether there was any evidence of structural deficiencies prior to the collapse.  However, the NRC, has not yet committed to undertaking a thorough investigation of the safety related cooling towers cell(s) that are located on the same site and could potentially have similar structural issues.  We find this extremely troubling.     

We therefore request you undertake an immediate and thorough investigation to determine if there are similar structural deficiencies in any and all portions of the safety related cooling towers cell(s) at the facility.  Furthermore, we ask you to examine the structural integrity of the remaining towers and institute any additional precautions to prevent other collapses that would jeopardize the safety of the cooling towers and that could present a risk to the public's health or safe operation of the facility.  Finally we request an evaluation of any preventive actions that the licensee and/or NRC took in the past related to the safe and efficient operation of all of the cooling towers at the facility.

Please continue to keep us thoroughly informed as more information becomes available. We are committed to assisting Vermont and the NRC to ensure the safety at Vermont Yankee. We appreciate your timely attention to this issue. 

PATRICK LEAHY        BERNARD SANDERS              PETER WELCH

Douglas was practically sputtering with hackneyed, anti-Democrat talking points on VPR last night at the news that – after urging from the left going all the way back to the Brigham decision – Gaye Symington and other leading Democrats were actually considering an income tax to fund education. The words that cause the sputtering? Symington (from VPR – emphasis added):

“I think when you're looking at a proposal that eliminates the statewide property tax and with it the confusion of the CLA and has the potential to more clearly connect what Vermonters pay in school taxes to what they spend per pupil, I think there's a lot to be gained by making this change.”

Republicans sounded apoplectic, but all Douglas had to fall back on was an insulting generalized, anti-Dem attack:

“I don't think anyone believes that the architects of Act 60 are going to simply transfer liability from one tax to another.

And Rep. Joyce Errecart (R-Shelburne) went for the other canard: fear –

I think it would be just devastating to Vermont's economy

It's GOP orthodoxy to oppose income-based taxes, even though it represents a common sense approach to most people. Republicans believe they stifle economic growth more than other taxes, such as property taxes, sales taxes, etc. The truth is, of course, its clearly easier to make an income tax progressive and based on the ability to pay – which makes it more difficult for Republicans to eke out rhetorical advantage in debates and protect their upper income constituency.

The conversation is an important one to have, though, not just as a matter of good policy, but for the positioning it provides for the 2008 elections – as well as the long-term psychology of Democratic lawmakers (more on all this below the fold)…

First, consider what is being discussed. From the Times Argus:

The proposal being considered by members of the House Ways and Means Committee would only change “homestead” property taxes on primary residences. Other land, houses owned by nonresidents and business property, would continue to be taxed under the property tax system.

That leaves several thorny issues to be worked out before the proposal would be considered by the full House Ways and Means Committee or the General Assembly at large.

One is a mechanism to prevent renters from paying taxes on their income in addition to covering property taxes on their homes through rent. Renters could conceivably get a credit for rent they pay or be exempt from the income tax, said Rep. Shap Smith, D-Morrisville, chair of the subcommittee.

The important principle is that education taxes should be based on people's ability to pay them, Smith said. “People do not believe the property tax does that,” he said. “People are sitting on land that has an immense amount of value but their incomes haven't changed.”

Smith is no wild-eyed lefty, and his support is indicitive of the wide range of support the proposal could have. Even more so is the support from Republicans such as Rep. Bud Otterman (R-Topsham) from VPR again:

It more nearly is assessed on the basis of ability to pay than any of our other taxes. I would say I don't think property tax is based on ability to pay. In fact, I think it's quite regressive, especially in the lower income brackets

Obviously. And it's nice to see that some Republicans aren't so mired in GOP hegemony to see that. Douglas's response to Otterman is to treat him as he treats Democrats – by belittling him as a dupe or a Democratic stooge, in order to reframe the debate where he is more comfortable (from the Times Argus):

“This is a Democrat majority and a Democrat idea,” insisted Jason Gibbs, spokesman for Douglas. “Unfortunately, they have co-opted” any Republicans who support the idea, Gibbs said.

Policy aside, this proposal has tremendous potential to reframe what Douglas has made the cornerstone of his rhetoric in a way that favors Democrats. Dems get mired in convoluted explanations of convoluted policies so often, it's become routine. What is often absurd is that the convoluted policies often serve to rhetorically or bureaucratically circle the more obvious, simple answers. For years, proponents of decoupling statewide education funding from the often financially arbitrary and regressive property tax have been assured that, with all the income sensitivity provisions, the statewide property tax already had many of the qualities of an income tax, so why change?

Of course that also begs the question, why not?

I think the reason for that has been in large part some bad psychology on the part of Democrats. We have allowed ourselves to be beat up so long and so relentlessly by the GOP and the media on fiscal issues, that many Dems (especially self-dubbed moderates) have internalized that criticism. They feel drawn to progressive policies and lean towards a general Keynesian economic perspective, but when they get into positions of power, they doubt themselves.

I think there is some sort of hegemonic, media-driven neurosis that says the closer you are to laissez-faire economics, the more of a grown-up you are. Dems who have internalized this nonsense are easily cowed when they start creeping towards economic progressivism by a few “tut-tuts” from the pundits or from Republicans. They craft convoluted ways to get to many of the same places that straightforward policies would get you to more quickly, efficiently, and more reasonably because they feel comfortable hiding in the minutaea of complex policies. They can then reinforce this pattern by patting themselves on the back for being the only people expert enough to truly understand the policies.

Poppycock (or bullshit if you prefer).

It has always seemed to me that the reason we haven't had this discussion sooner, is it hits this very wall of liberal self-loathing. It also explains why so many discussions like this have to seemingly be validated by the agreement of at least some Republicans, such as Otterman. As far as the media is concerned, that makes it “Grown up” to talk about. Unfortunately, many Democrats feel the same way.

It also explains why ideas like this can often come from Republicans like Otterman, as they're not clouding their perspective with self-loathing.

But here we are, the discussion is on the table – put there squarely by head Democratic wonk Gaye Symington herself. This is a very, very good sign.

Hopefully they'll throw into it with both feet. If they're simply dipping their toes in to test the water, they'll snap them back at the tried-and-true castigations of the Governor, rather than look less than grown up.

If they take the plunge, though, they'll quickly find that saying “eliminate the statewide property tax” and “tax only those that can afford it based on how much money they make” are a lot more resonant on the stump than trying to explain the nuances of convoluted tax policy (or worse, not even trying and instead simply saying “trust me”).

And its that prospect that's got the Governor apoplectic.

I got into it last week with a couple Obama supporters, one of whom had an interesting criticism of GMD. It's a variation on one I've heard a lot – that is, that we're so negative at GMD. My response is that we're not a cheerleading site as a whole, and that the success of the blogosphere has been twofold (in my opinion, and to reduce it to the simplest possible terms): one – that we turn out support (votes, money, volunteers) for our candidates to win elections (largely by working around the traditional media to bring information that would otherwise be ignored or belittled front and center for discussion and dissemination), and two – that we act as a gauntlet by which our candidates are made better.

It's the second one that brings out the so-termed “negativity.” The political blog movement has placed high expectations on our candidates in terms of issues, candor, strategy and style. In the process of acting and speaking on those expectations, we squeeze out some, but make the others stronger. I think the reality of the last national election is not simply that more voters turned out to do more work for candidates, it's that many of the candidates themselves were a notch or two better than we've become used to seeing – and I give a lot of credit for that to the national blogs and their impact on the process.

It's also true that blogs are all about subjective biases. This is “What I Believe” writ large, and as such there is no requirement that we give every candidate equal time. Still, out of curiosity, I went back and searched for every time a GMD front pager has made a reference to one of the “big three” in the Presidential race, and categorized those references as “positive,” “negative” or “bland” (by which I mean it was matter of fact, and without characterization – implied or otherwise). References that defended the candidate from attacks – or which cast a political attack as a bogus “hit job” were dubbed positive (even if they were crude, as kestrel's “Why I Love Hillary” diaries were). Here was the breakdown:

Obama— Positive: 12, Negative: 15, Bland: 11 (Total: 38)
Clinton— Positive: 3, Negative: 12, Bland: 5 (Total: 20)
Edwards— Positive: 4, Negative: 1, Bland: 5 (Total: 10)

Is that the spread you'd expect? It's clear that Obama gets the most digital ink, as he has more Positves, Negatives AND “Blands” than the other two combined. Edwards is the only one with more “blands” than anything else, which is interesting. Hillary has a 4-1 Negative-to-Positive ratio, and Obama has the most even spread overall. Gravel, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, and Kucinich have all been mentioned, but so rarely its hard to create a real spread (and they're all over the map in terms of positive/negative).

What do folks think (and what are the implications if Clinton pulls this out and gets the nomination)?

Obama to call for the lifting of sanctions on Cuba. It does seem like Obama has been finding some nerve lately. This bodes well for his campaign, and for the whole field of debate.

Following up on Jack's diary about the refusal of the Anti-Defamation League to recognize the Armenian Genocide so as not to enflame political relations between Turkey and Israel – it seems the New England Director of the ADL (rightfully) broke with the National office on the matter – and was promptly fired for doing so. The ADL's defense of itself has been poorly considered, and prominent members of its New England board have already resigned in the face of anger and sadness from many in the Massachusetts Jewish community. Still no national press on this, though – only the Boston Globe seems to be following the story.

Are the Netroots getting impatient with Senator Leahy? This front page diary at dKos is very ho-hum about our senior Senator's most recent deadline for subpoenas information and its apparent two week grace period. Speaking of Leahy, I've put up a poll as to whether or not readers think he deserves credit for Rove's abandoning the ship, as Watercloset suggests. UPDATE: Kagro X registers his frustration as well at dKos.

Is Brian Dubie sucking up to Bill O'Reilly? That's what O'Reilly claims, and the Democrats are all over it. Can't appease a bully that way, Dubes – it only makes 'em get worse.

Belated congratulations to Dem consultant and political usual suspect Matt Levin on his wedding last week. (With his family in town, if you were in the Montpelier area last week and thought you saw Rep. Sander Levin or Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, you may not have been imagining things).

(I unexpectedly ended up back on Martha's Vineyard this weekend, but I had a chance to get in a quick diary…)

Even casual readers have probably gathered that the Gubernatorial race is stressing me out. The old election calendar in Vermont, which says you can kick it around the first part of the election year and not come out as a candidate until April or May, is a ticket to utter and complete failure for so many reasons. At the top of that list is that, to be taken seriously by the Press Corps who loooooove Jim Douglas, you have to come into the traditional election period already with a big head of steam (read: money, enthusiasm, poll numbers and momentum) which requires an early start (like, NOW) to a serious ground game. But the lack of a candidate has created a vacuum. Shumlin and others have tried to fill the vacuum with Republican Senator Vince Illuzzi. Given that the A-listers on the political bench refuse to consider taking on Douglas, I've been trying to fill the vacuum from completely off the bench with our international superstar, Bill McKibben.

But the other option is to look deeper onto the bench, which could open up more potential names (none of them well known across the state, but that doesn't seem to be an option, frankly. Whoever goes for is going to have to make themselves known to the state before the traditional beginning of the campaign season – next summer – to have a chance). Among those names are Democratic women, who many feel would be a more ideal foil to Jim Douglas's condescending campaign stylings.

Click after the fold for some possible female candidates from deeper on the Dem bench. Feel free to add your own thoughts or candidates in the discussion, and take a minute to fill out the poll of who you think might be a viable candidate…

The first place to look is on the list of Senators, given that they come with a bigger geographic constituency. Those Senators that have to struggle to get in every time are probably not the safest bets. This would leave off Sara Kittell of Franklin County, and unfortunately Susan Bartlett of Lamoille, who is one of the sharpest and most skilled legislators we have. Neither would necessarily deliver their own county to the Dems, however, and would face a strong likelihood of being replaced by an R, so I hesitate to encourage either to consider such a promotion.

Then there are some safe Senators who likely own their seats who don't seem to have the fire in the belly for such a run. Ann Cummings of Washington County seems to fit right where she is. Ginny Lyons of Chittenden also, even though she is one of the most reliable progressive voices. Then there is Hinda Miller, who very likely was on a statewide trajectory until she hit a wall in the form of Bob Kiss and the Burlington mayoral race.

Jane Kitchel of Caledonia County has a solid resume for the position, but hasn't held her seat in the swing county long enough to seem solid – and again, her departure would likely turn the seat back into the red column.

For a few others who haven't held the positions for long, the story might be different. Jeanette White of Windham County holds a seat that would not turn over to GOP hands. White is well liked by the liberal base but doesn't immediately strike one as the sort that is looking beyond her county's borders. Fellow Senators Alice Nitka (D-Windsor) – and particularly Claire Ayer (D-Addison). Nitka is relatively quiet, but served several terms as a state Representative from a swing, gold-town dominated district before moving up to Senator. In that position, she had to stay friendly with a variety of constituencies – including ski resorts, frustrated antiAct 60 types, and the hunter/sportsmen crowd that she is still tight with. Ideologically, that's put her on shaky ground with many issues near and dear to the left, but she has shown unquestionable ability to make cross-ideological friends. Not necessarily a real go-get 'em type, though.

Claire Ayer, on the other hand, is a different story. Ayer was on the edge of a leadership position in the Senate caucus before Campbell and Shumlin worked out their deal, and likely stands to move up if Shumlin faces a mutiny after the next biennium. Ayer is highly charismatic, has been a solid legislator, and gets in front of many issues near and dear to the base. She is also very sharp and well-liked by many and of all the 'B' listers on the bench is one with some of the clearest 'A' list potential. Coming from solidly Democratic performing Addison County, Ayer could make a difficult statewide run without leaving the seat in jeopardy (as Nitka probably could as well).

Moving on from the Senate, the House doesn't yield the obvious options. There are some potential rising stars there, but for the most part, the Representatives seem very much a part of their districts, and in most cases it's hard to imagine them campaigning beyond them, or having any interest in doing so. Even Majority Leader Carolyn Partridge (D-Windham) who is a talented legislator, politically seems very Windham-4. Janet Ancel also has the resume, but it's still a controversial resume after her time at the tax department that she needs to develop more in the legislature. This is not to say that some of them wouldn't be great Governors (I would love to see a Mitzi Johnson administration…), but I'm just not seeing it.

One exception might be Johanna Leddy Donovan of Burlington who has certainly put in the legislative time, has developed the credentials, and as such could deliver Burlington and much of Chittenden County. Sue Minter of Waterbury is another who has all the right stuff as far as smarts and charisma and communication skills and is someone who should be considered a rising star – but likely hasn't put in the time in the electoral world to justify such a jump as truly viable.

Another name from way off the bench who recently popped up in the context of the Vermont Obama fundraiser is Jane Watson Stetson. Stetson has been a Democratic regular for a long time, and is one of the go-to funders for Democratic candidates. Campaign finance laws being what they are (or rather, what they aren't) the wealthy, charismatic and socially active/conscious Stetson could jump start a dark horse campaign with her own money and connections, and if she sold herself correctly to the public could potentially work up a head of steam and interest between now and next summer. Obviously, she hasn't got the experience and comes with no constituency – as opposed to the other names who have a constituency but would have a devil of a time raising the money. The question is, which handicap is more limiting – and that's a tougher question to answer than it may seem at first glance.

So there are a few names to jumpstart the conversation. Any others? Below is a vote-as-many-times-as-you-want poll as to who you might consider a viable candidate for the top post.

 Loading ...

Back in April, GMD front pager Brattlerouser posted the following:

In a Lost TV exclusive …

Insiders at Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection told Lost Nation TV that the former vice president and Oscar winner will announce his candidacy for president sometime between August 18th and 21st.

I called Editor Jack McEnany to confirm and he said, “yes.”

To nobody's surprise, the report wasn't taken seriously, but B'rouser had some compelling connections. And since then, this tidbit from the Taipei Times made the rounds, round-about June 27th (emphasis added):

Former US vice president Al Gore will not be able to make it to Taiwan this September to address the issue of global warming, Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Tien Chiu-chin (???) said yesterday. Tien, who invited Gore to visit Taiwan to promote awareness on global warming, told reporters yesterday that she received an e-mail from the Harry Walker Agency, which has the exclusive right to arrange Gore's speeches, saying that Gore had canceled all his scheduled events in the next six months. The visit to Taiwan had been postponed to next year, she added. Tien said the reason for the cancelation was that Gore was considering a presidential bid.

Curious (see update below). There is some renewed mumbling among the netroots in places such as HuffPo and dKos. It's possible they've all read the reports and have them in the back of their minds. It's also possible there's something in the air they're all picking up on.

In any event, Brattlerouser's time window begins anout 2 hours from now. I know I'm watching (poll after the fold):

 Quick Update first – Al Gore's people denied the Taipei Times bit back at the end of June. I missed that at the time, sorry…

 Loading ...

Here's the original vision, from the diary that announced the contest:

GMD will have a contest: make your own internet ad that tells voters why its time to stop voting for Jim Douglas and submit a link in a user diary,  or just via email to me (check my profile). We'll get them all posted and let people vote on their favorite. It could be video, or just straight audio, if you're more into the radio thing.

Now, I have no illusions about the relatively small pool of readers of this site. None of us on the front page are expecting hundreds of entries. So we'll allow plenty of time for the contest. Get your entry in by the first of November, and we can announce the winner exactly one year before election day. That's three whole months, folks. Plenty of time to get creative!

Thing is, I recently received word that one entrant is working on a campaign ad for the contest – but its targeting Lieutenant Governor Brian Dubie, rather than Governor Jim Douglas. So rather than stifle creativity, I'm officially opening it up to any and all statewide races! Of course, at this point, that means an ad focusing on either Douglas or Dubie only – but hey – maybe somebody else will announce their intentions before the November 1st deadline.

The games afoot! Get those creative juices goin!

UPDATE 2: See? See?! I just saw the Times Argus this morning! I’m telling you, its already happening! Arrrrrrrrgggggghhh!!!!!!

UPDATE: Okay, there’s been a promise extracted from me to stop beating up on Illuzzi in regards to a Governor run. Again, I give the guy lots of props for some of his stances, but I think folks were detecting that I was really beating up on those that promote the idea of a run by proxy. But I’ve said my piece and I’ll shut up now…

Given Bill McKibben's enthusiastic comment on this site in regards to a potential Illuzzi for Governor campaign, I feel a new need to nip it in the butt (sorry Bill…).

Here's how I see an Illuzzi campaign playing out. The GOPers stay loyal, as they always do, except for a few in the northeast kingdom. Outside of Caledonia and Orleans Counties, the average voters in the state gets introduced to Illuzzi by news coverage and campaign ads that detail his run-ins with, and casual dismissing of, the law (and as a lawyer, no less – which'll make it worse). They are horrified.

Meanwhile, the Progs absolutely do not let the opportunity pass, as they would never back Illuzzi, and see this as a perfect example for them to prove once and for all that there's no difference between the two major parties. They run somebody – an 'A' lister – quite possibly Pollina himself, who from what I've heard, was an inch away from running for Governor last time. Lefties abandon the Dems in droves rather than back an anti-choice, anti-gay rights Republican with a history of defying legal orders.

Pollina does a bit better than he did against Shumlin. He comes in at about 28%. Douglas's 60% stays solid, as the moderate Dems and Indys that always break for him are afraid to go with Illuzzi because they don't trust him. Illuzzi comes in third in a three way race at 22% and Douglas wins again.

But how would a McKibben for Governor campaign make up the 20% Parker shortfall? Well to quote myself from below…

McKibben offsets about 5% of that 20% with new voters and new interest. He offsets another 5-10% by getting over the name-recognition gap that stymies challengers – especially when they start so late. A McKibben campaign – started early enough – would bring in scads of money that would provide enough resources to get him properly introduced to Vermonters – and the earned media coverage given his celebrity would be far more advantageous than with Racine, Clavelle or Parker. Lefty enthusiasm drives up turnout, which buys you another 2 or 3 points.

Of the remaining 2-7%, you look at persuasion – and Douglas has opened a wide vulnerability on the energy front, on policy (the Dem proposals are money savers for taxpayers and small business) and on character, as an unabashed flip flopper speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

Most of those “moderate” voters are often not so much genuinely politically moderate, as they are politically indifferent. And as such, they vote on character by default – or what they perceive as character. And the flip-flopper narrative is an absolute character-voter-no-no. I believe that can buy you another 5% or more.

Finally, there's the small minority of genuinely intellectual moderates. Many of those voters who see themselves as pragmatic are being swayed by global warming and energy issues, and would rather vote for an intellectual, international leader on the issue than someone who is looking more and more like a global warming denier wrapped in a political opportunist. Their support buys you another 2-3%

See? No problem Bill. We’ve gotcha covered. Jump on in, the water’s fine! Go and check out the draft Bill petition for a little encouragement!