(It bears repeating that a diary like this does not necessarily express the opinions of any front pagers but me…) If you hadn’t noticed, I’m frustrated. Frustrated at the fact that a clear, viable candidate isn’t stepping forward to challenge Jim Douglas. Frustrated that an anti-choice, anti-gay rights, scandal-plagued Republican is getting promoted for the post by our Senate President Pro-Tem. Frustrated because too many people are pretending that a credible campaign can still be run in this state by deciding to jump in sometime next May. So my wild and crazy solution? Drag internationally known author, activist, and Middlebury College Professor Bill McKibben into the fray (yes, possibly running as an Independent), even though I’m sure he’d rather spend the winter cross-country skiing.

The fact is that, of the rumored candidates, Sorrell is probably just messing with people’s heads (either that or he thinks you can play by the old calendar), and Dunne needs to beat Dubie first.

But consider what a Bill McKibben campaign would look like.

First off, he isn’t just more credible on the issue that many believe (including possibly the Governor himself) that Douglas is most vulnerable on – he’s a global leader on the matter. Douglas would pull his smarmy patronizing schtick on the guy at the risk of looking like a real doofus.

And McKibben is more than just a high profile author, he’s become an international celebrity. The introduction of an international celebrity into the race would not only open up unparallelled financial support, it would also give the race instant attention and credibility from a Vermont press corps which routinely gives Douglas absolute deference, while dismissing his opponents out of hand.

McKibben would also be uniquely able to bring in new voters. And the international attention brought to such a race would shine a positive light on the state.

There’s also the matter of McKibben himself. His style is not unlike the approachable, folksy demeanor of Douglas himself, but without the smarminess. McKibben can also speak in easy, matter-of-fact terms about how a statewide effort to encourage local economies that are less dependent on petroleum can be an economic engine for the state, encourage job growth and save taxpayers money. The image of McKibben walking the state and talking to regular Vermont voters is an appealing one that should be concerning to Douglas.

Although he’ll be labelled inexperienced, Obama supporters know that this charge can be made into as much (or more) of an asset than a liability. McKibben can guarantee the state that he will surround himself with Vermont’s best and brightest to put his vision of government into action.

Anywa, I could go on, but I won’t because this isn’t a “draft McKibben” website – this is: mckibbenforgovernor.org. Check it out, and sign the petitions encouraging Bill to take the plunge and pledging support. I hope to blogify the site soon enough, so keep watching it (and let folks know)

Update, 10:46 PM… I am reminded by Steve Benen of many things, perhaps most significant is that the reality of the Turk-Kurd dynamic is just too much to blithely gloss over. I try to slide over it below (while acknowledging it) to make this whole piece more thematically tight, but that’s just ridiculous. Any new borders would have to include a Kurdish state. And any Kurdish state would incur the wrath of the Turks – but that’s still a scenario more managable than a Turkey-absorbed Kurdistan, so try this map instead. Eh, I’ll stick with state, local and national politics…

(Please note: I am not promoting this as the solution, merely…making conversation… those who read this site know that I am not a foreign policy guy.)

The trisection of Iraq into three states – one each dominated by Kurds, Shia and Sunnis – is a notion that never quite goes away, but is never quite seriously addressed either. Even it's high-profile proponents such as Senator Joe Biden hardly seem to mention it anymore. Iraq, which was carved into a state arbitrarily in the post-colonial era, never truly gained the sort of national identity that the secular baathists were trying to create, and it can certainly be argued that now is a less than ideal time to somehow make it work – especially since it's now being suggested that hardwiring these underlying divisions into the nascent, dysfunctional parliament may have only served to exacerbate the friction.

But it always does raise one question for me. If the geographic carving knife is on the rhetorical table, instead of making one problematic state building project into three, is it worth considering going the other direction? For example:

Problem:

Solution?

Again, I'm not proposing it, but it's an interesting point of conversation (including some very big associated problems)…

The big advantages are obvious; it becomes a Middle East management problem, rather than an American one. We’ve also traded in a crumbling, unstable non-state in the heart of the most volatile region in the world for more-or-less the old status quo, as far as stability goes – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan and Syria are stable and aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.

The biggest problem is also the most tantalizing one – that Iran and Syria would have to be full partners. In fact, Iran in particular would be given a great big bonus in the form of much of the Iraqi oilfields they’ve coveted for so long, in the process of absorbing the mostly shia south (including critical Shia holy sites). This would not only make Israel uncomfortable, but neighboring Saudi Arabia as well, which has been leery of the influence of non-Arab Iran in the Middle East. Syria also would see a boost in stature. In fact, states like Jordan and Syria might want no part of such an arrangement, inheriting as they would the least commercially viable portions of old Iraq, but the argument could be made that they are receiving the lion’s shares of refugees already, so the infrastructure burden is largely foisted on them regardless, and the pot could be sweeteened with additional foreign aid.

But it’s tantalizing because it forces friend and foe to the table in the interest of making a stable situation for all. The battleground becomes the common ground.

Then there’s the other big problem – the north. It would be highly problematic for Turkey to functionally govern across its southern mountains, and the Kurds would be none too happy – explosively so. Turkey has repressed its own Kurdish population for some time, and native Turkish Kurds have responded violently. Indeed, this is the flip side of the biggest problem with the “three states” scenario promoted by Biden, as the Turkish military would not abide an independent Kurdish state on their borders that they would see as a safe haven and a base of operations for Kurdish resistance fighters in Turkey.

But there may be a window of opportunity for a change in the dynamic. The secular candidate for Turkey’s top political spot just lost while running on a platform meant to rally popular support around the idea of the Kurds as a threat. That political failure could open new discussions with Kurds and – again with promises of foreign aid – there may be an opportunity to discuss such a Kurdish province in the context of new human rights understandings.

Yeah, yeah I know – all this: not bloody likely.

But since the whole place is going to hell in a handbasket since we stepped in and busted it up – and there doesn’t seem to be anything to be done about it – might as well throw every option on the table, eh?

“Man,” I cried, “how ignorant art thou in thy pride of wisdom!” – from Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

Translation: the most dangerous thing in the world is being a smart guy who isn't actually as smart as he thinks he is.

Why? Hey, this is Frankenstein we're talking about – because you might end up creating monsters that come back to haunt you later. Today's example? This quote from the Burlington Free Press:

Kurt Wright is the man on the spot. He is the Republican City Council president of one of the most un-Republican cities in the country.

It's old news, but in light of recent conversations about backing anti-choice, anti-gay rights Republican Senators as de facto Dem candidates, it bears repeating. Rep. Kurt Wright is playing savvy politics in positioning himself as a real threat – not simply in the Burlington mayor's race, but for statewide office through his position as leader of the Burlington City Council. For those of you who don't remember, the reason he has that position is that a Democrat put him there, rather than see a Progressive get the position. This is what's known as cutting off one's nose to spite one's face – or possibly shooting off one's face to spite one's head.

Wright is well on the way to becoming the latest Frankencrat Monster. Also on the list is General Michael Dubie, brother of the other Dubie, who was promoted to the position of Adjutant General by the Democratic legislature, and wasted no time in speaking out against progressive legislative priorities vis-a-vis the VT National Guard and Iraq.

Think I'm being alarmist? When we don't challenge these guys and instead enable them or give them free passes, they come back bigger and better, even when we thought we were being clever when we did it in the first place. In 2000, the Democrats did not field a candidate for State Treasurer, allowing the Republican incumbent to walk in with a gazillion percent of the vote and build up a phony bipartisan feelgood narrative that made him into an electoral juggernaut.

If you're new to the state, the Treasurer's name was Jim Douglas.

(NOTE: If you've noticed diaries appearing and disappearing, it's because I'm seriously bungling the “draft” vs. “live” diary feature today… woops…)

Governor Douglas's administration has stated that they believe most of the now-defeated (by his hand) H.520 (the “global warming” bill) can be implemented through the executive branch – even the efficiency utility piece that was so controversial. Well lo and behold, the Public Service Board has reported back that, no, they have no such authority and would require legislative action (duh) to proceed. What's absolutely jaw-dropping is the statement from Commissioner of Public Service David O'Brien:

The administration was never against evaluating in broad terms how best to improve the efficient use of heating fuels by Vermonters, O'Brien said. Instead, his and Douglas' concern about the energy bill was the speed with which an entirely new program was being implemented, he said.

“We were hesitant and cautious … most of our real concern was how fast this was moving along,” O'Brien said.

Oh – THAT was the problem? That's the story now? Puh-leeze!

I know this administration rewrites history fairly casually, but this is a new extreme. So now the problem is the timetable… what was it then? Ah yes… taxes taxes taxes:

Governor Douglas has been the most outspoken critic of the Democrats' global warming fix, labeling it “Shumlin's Tax” in honor of the Senate's Democratic leader, Peter Shumlin of Windham County. Ad the governor has been doing an effective job of redefining the major environmental” bill of the 2007 legislative session as a “tax” bill. And being “Mr No New Taxes” is precisely how our governor wants Vermont voters to view him.

“There they go again,” is the constant Douglas refrain as he continues to effectively paint the Democrats as the raise-your-taxes party. H 520, he says, “is a terrible message to send to the business community.”

…and of course, when word was out that Legislative leaders would agree to suspend the rules and remove the Yankee tax – all they needed was a teeny bit of Republican help, history changed again (emphasis added)…

But Douglas said he objects to the creation and structure of the heating fuels efficiency program, not just its funding source. Both would have to be eliminated to gain his support, said the governor, who has offered a competing plan.

“I have two problems with the bill,” Douglas said. In addition to the tax it establishes an “untested bureaucracy that is not well thought-out and is expensive.”

And now we hear it was just the timetable all along. Uh-huh. Anybody else feel insulted?

Douglas has an astonishing history of flip-flopping all around on issues, depending on how he feels he can score electoral points, and the media have always let him get away with it. “Governor Flip-Flop” is a far more effective mantra than “Governor No” in my opinion – and at least as accurate.

But the question remains as to where exactly he's coming from? I have no doubt that, if he could, he would have implemented by executive fiat some form of the efficiency utility program just to stick it to the Dems and take credit. Which begs the question again as to why he vetoed the bill and rejected the offer of removing the funding source? Sure he got a contribution from Entergy's PAC last election, but it was a paltry $400.

Once again, Douglas seems to have no core values. He takes credit for anything done in Montpelier that gets positive attention, whether or not he opposed it from the outset. More than once, this approach has left members of his own party hanging out to dry – and the results of the last couple legislative elections have been a testament to that.

But largely due to a cowed/charmed media and a ridiculously short election calendar, voters (particularly moderate Dems) let him get away with it over and over and over again. SO much so that he clearly feels free to casually and brazenly flip-flop on a dime at this point, confident that there will always be just enough self-dubbed moderates that will shuffle zombie-like into the polls and vote yet again for him in clear opposition to their own self-interest, that he never need worry about his job security.

If we don't get a Dem candidate stepping up to the plate soon who will run an earlier, more ground-based campaign than we've seen before (and than election “professionals” are programmed to consider “proper”), it will be a failure of monumental proportions to the rank and file.

Step up to the plate, folks. Now.

Some things that could merit a full diary (and probably should), but I'm not up for writing four posts:

Brattleboro residents protest police torture. That's what we're talking about here – torture. The activists who were tasered by police were engaging in a nonviolent protest, and were no threat to the police, others or themselves. They were passive. What – did painfully shocking them make them easier to carry away? Please. These officers used the tasers like cattle prods. The only difference between shocking them to get them to move and breaking their knuckles or burning them with a hot iron towards the same purpose is that the tasers did no permanent damage (which is a gold standard for some torture techniques). It's high time we all called this incident what it is – police torture.

Cathy at 802 notes the benchmark that's passed in the media world – the end of the New York Times's online subscriber pay wall. She adds the following from an appearence with WCAX's Marselis Parsons:

 (Parsons) was complaining to our audience about how people today want to get information “right now” and “for free.” As if that were a bad thing. When he was done talking, I said something along the lines of, “Well, yeah, I do want my information right now, and for free. And I'll get it, too, because that's how we're all going to have to evolve.”

If you haven't checked out the Vermont Democrats website in a while, get over there. They have absolutely turned it around from the most boring thing on the web, into one of Vermont's most interesting. It's become a daily read for me, (which I never thought would happen – even when I used to run it myself!). And it's not just the comprehensive, wide-ranging news service that collects media bits from around the state, it's the original content as well (“Jim=McJobs” heh. heheheheheheh.) 

MoveOn reminds us that Congressional screw-ups need not be permanent. Somewhere between horrified and enraged that this Congress just capitulated completely on wiretapping (where the HELL were Pelosi and Reid???)? Feeling conflicted, in that – on the one hand, our Vermont delegation is on the side of the angels on this, but on the other hand, it means we have nobody's office to egg? Well, MoveOn has started a campaign to make them un-do what they have wrought. Go sign up! And click after the fold for links on this shameful turn of events, by way of MoveOn…

The New Dominion is a fledgling Virginia magazine/website with circulation around the state. It describes itself as “a quarterly news journal … (offering) readers in-depth coverage of issues in local and regional politics, society, economic trends, pop culture, sports and more.” Arguably, GMD front pager kestrel9000 (aka Ed Garcia) fits into any of those categories (well, that is if harassing Republicans can be considered a sport). From the latest issue:

People never look the same in person as you would assume they would by listening to them on the radio, but Eddie Garcia comes closer to the image that I’d had in my head than most – average height, slight build, understated, casual dress, words coming out of his head and mouth 1,000 miles a minute, like he’s had way, way too much of the caffeine.

Heh heh. You go Ed. More of my favorite bits from the piece below the fold…

“The way you phrase that sounds as if you’re proceeding on the assumption that I have adjusted (to life in Virginia). I haven’t. And I don’t see how it’s possible,” Garcia says.

Life in Vermont, his most recent tour stop before Virginia, was even more like home than Northern California.

“Our whole life was different. For instance, in Bennington, our house was like a social center. We had a bunch of friends, most of them younger than us, and the issue used to be, How are we going to get these people out of here on Friday nights so we can get the kids to sleep now?” Garcia says.

heh heh again.

Which isn’t to say that his blogging hasn’t led management at Magic 95.5 to their own rubber rooms from time to time.

“You can’t please everybody all the time. You can’t do it. So we’re not even going to try,” says Joe Collins, the program director at Magic 95.5, who has taken more than his share of calls from listeners irate over a particular Garcia rant on the air.

Garcia admits to wanting to push buttons in that respect.

“I perceive this country to be in a crisis right now,” he says. “We have a president who has defied the will of the American people, defied the results of the election, is not supporting the troops, is denying them the money they need to complete the mission. Very realistic timetables, flexible withdrawal dates were set, and this guy is just stomping his foot and throwing a tantrum like a little spoiled child – and he’s going to do whatever the heck he wants.

“I think George Walker Bush is probably the most impeachable president in the history of this country – him and (Vice President Dick) Cheney both. And I frankly will not be silent. I say as much as I can get away with. And I’ve been chewed out for it more than once,” Garcia says.

It’s not just conservatives who are in Garcia’s crosshairs. No, Fast Eddie gets “hacked off,” as he told me between oldies, at liberals and local Shenandoah Valley Democrats just as easily – and readily.

woo-hoo!

“I’m sick of his left-wing views on the radio,” a listener complained to Magic 95.5 program director Joe Collins in January – after Garcia dedicated his daily “Top 5 at 5″ list to “America at War,” finishing up the selections of oldies but goodies with John Lennon’s “Give Peace a Chance” and The Rolling Stones’ “Sympathy for the Devil.”

“He’s insulting the veterans, and now he’s playing satanic music!” the caller continued, before raising issue with Garcia’s on-air defense from several months before of a liberal activist who had been roughed up by a staffer of former senator George Allen.

I almost wonder if Garcia isn’t somehow bothered by this – if he isn’t energized by the occasional outburst from the political right, if he wonders if he might be getting stale, and that’s why people aren’t calling anymore.

I mention this to him – and the cauldron reignites.

“This is the fourth state that I’ve lived in – and the politics of division, the hatred, the pointing the fingers. Democrats are traitors, homosexuals will destroy your marriage, the Muslims will kill you when you sleep – and people take this seriously. I find it disgusting. It’s revolting,” Garcia says.

“It goes against everything that I believe in, everything that I was raised to believe was right, proper, true and correct. Bigotry and hatred in this area seems to have a license – and all I can do is stand against it.

“If there are consequences, then there are consequences – but I am who I am. I have my values, and I compromise them for no one.”

Well said, Ed.

People are starting to go gonzo over Senator Shumlin's. – er… “odd” – notion that Republican Senator Vince Illuzzi is the man that Democrats should support as an independent challenger to Jim Douglas. And the damndest people seem to be picking up on the idea. Allow me to do my part with a bucket of cold water.

First of all – full props to Illuzzi for many of his stances. He often votes in seriously un-Republican ways on environmental matters and on bread-and-butter Dem issues such as the minumum wage. He also broke ranks and supported Peter Welch for Congress (although he supported Ruth Dwyer for Governor). This isn't a guy who's going to win any popularity contests among the GOP faithful.

But all of this smacks of desperation – especially at this point in the process. People want so badly to retire Jim Douglas that many are falling into the trap of trying to think “strategically” about who some self-identifying Republicans would allow themselves to vote for. I would remind folks that we suck at that, and we do much better when we put forward clear, ideologically consistent candidates that do not appear to be doing too much triangulation (and as you'll see below the fold, Illuzzi is quite a triangulator). I firmly believe that the fault of Racine, Clavelle and Parker were in their campaigns, rather than their qualities (although the Prog label might have doomed Clavelle with a wide swath of the electorate from the beginning).

In any event, it behooves us to look clearly at who we'd be voting for if we backed a GOP maverick in lieu of a Dem in the election. If you're concerned about civil rights, campaign finance laws and abortion rights (for starters)… you might want to take a look below the fold…

There was a profile of Illuzzi in the Boston Globe magazine back in 2001, and not only does it lay out some concerning quotes and perspectives, it also makes for some interesting juxtaposition against his voting record (h/t to poster “anonymous” at vtbuzz who compiled most of the legislative links). One curious thing to consider is just how so many different people – even of similar political ideologies – see such completely different things when they look at him.

His enemies contend that it is this willingness to throw his weight around that explains his clout in the Legislature. “People are afraid to cross him because he has this reputation that he'll stop at nothing to get revenge,'' says one former official, and even Senator Elizabeth Ready, a Democrat who is one of Illuzzi's closest friends, says, “He doesn't forget the people who have hurt him.''

But Racine, who often disagrees with Illuzzi, finds him tough but not venge- ful. “He does push the limits here,'' Racine says. “He's always testing. But he's flexible and reasonable.''

Others say Illuzzi succeeds in the Legislature because there, if not everywhere, he is a straight shooter. “The thing about Illuzzi is that he does what he says he'll do, and he doesn't do what he says he won't do,'' says a senior member of Vermont's tiny legislative staff. “He's a man of his word.''

That is not a universally accepted judgment. “Vince Elusive'' is one of his local nicknames, and, in fact, it is sometimes hard to tell just where Illuzzi fits into the political spectrum.

But what's more concerning is his storied history with the legal establishment and the extraordinary fodder it would make in a statewide campaign, where he would be introduced to voters outside his district for the first time:

Zipping northward from his home near Montpelier for his first day on the job, Illuzzi got a speeding ticket. The next day, Null wrote to Washington County's state's attorney that Illuzzi had been going so fast only because he was “responding to an emergency call regarding a homicide investigation.''

He was not. In short order, the Vermont Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Illuzzi for “requesting that his employer fabricate a story aimed at persuading another prosecutor … or for acquiescing in the false report.'' Not a great career opener.

Less than a year later, Illuzzi allowed the police to interview an accused person whose lawyer was not present even though Illuzzi knew that the fellow had a lawyer. Then he never got around to giving the lawyer a report or telling him what happened. The result was another Supreme Court reprimand, but a private one this time.

In 1983, Illuzzi – no longer a prosecutor but a senator and a lawyer in private practice – got his second private reprimand for “knowingly concealing facts or making a false statement'' when he implied to the court that his client remained in the poky even though he had been released pending trial on other charges.

And in 1989, he broke a rule often broken, especially in rural areas: He communicated directly with an insurance company in a personal injury case, even though the company was represented by a lawyer. 

After other, more personalized conflicts with a rival attorney, Illuzzi's story continued:

In the summer of 1993, Collins's investigation concluded that Illuzzi had violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and moved to suspend his law license. Illuzzi fought all the way to the state Supreme Court, but the justices ruled against him, determining that “his conduct was aimed at interfering with a pending legal proceeding.'' On September 1, 1993, his six-month suspension went into effect.

There's more. During his suspension, Illuzzi apparently continued to represent clients. The first letter of apology he promised to write to Suntag somehow never got sent, and the next one, which Illuzzi insisted had been mailed, never got to the judge, who had not changed either office or home addresses for five years. The third letter made it.

His combined transgressions cost Illuzzi 4 years of enforced hiatus from the practice of law, and the bar counsel (no longer Wendy Collins) moved to have him disbarred. But on March 19, 1998, more than a month after his latest suspension expired, a hearing panel unanimously recommended that Illuzzi be reinstated as a member of the bar.

The Supreme Court sat on the recommendation until July, and some Vermont lawyers are convinced that the justices accepted the recommendation only out of fear. In Vermont, all judges must undergo periodic “retention'' review by the Legislature, and the retention votes for all five Supreme Court justices happened to be on this year's legislative schedule.

I mean, seriously – these are campaign commercials that write themselves.

Then there are the actual issues…

From the 2001 Globe piece again:

He is an abortion-rights advocate, he's against the death penalty, and if two guys want to marry each other, “It's OK with me.''  

Apparently he changed his mind since 2001's article, as he's since co-sponsored a parental notification bill, voted against civil unions, and even co-sponsored a baby DOMA “marriage amendment” to the Vermont Constitution that says in it's title “That marriage is a special label for a partnership between a man and a woman”.

In more recent history, he voted to uphold the Governor's veto of modest campaign finance regulations during the just passed veto session. He did vote for the global warming bill – and again, props to the Senator for that – but only after getting approval on an amendment that watered it down, by inserting a questionable opt-out clause allowing “the secretary of natural resources, on application from an affected party, to extend the implementation date of the rule if the available technology cannot satisfy the air quality standards in the rule“.

Another vote of interest to lefties might be his cosponsoring of the Gun Ownership Protection Act: “This bill proposes to prohibit the state and municipalities from suing a firearms manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer without the approval of the general assembly.”

Look, I'm not trying to beat up on the guy. If he's the candidate for you, by all means start stuffing envelopes.

I just think, if you consider yourself a progressive or liberally minded voter, you should probably take a second look.

I'm traveling at the moment, so I don't have much time to blog, but I wanted to make sure and give a shout-out to Philip Baruth, whose Vermont Daily Briefing has, for the second year in a row, won the Seven Days reader poll for most popular (political) blog. Hip! Hip! (Yee-ha!)

Many people I've talked to feel that the recently passed veto session was, for all intents and purposes, the real start of the 2008 Governor's race. Sure we don't have a candidate yet – and, well… that's a problem, no doubt – but it feels for all the world like the race is on nonetheless, and we can at least be laying the groundwork for a successful run by…well, by somebody. And a little encouragement might get a wavering candidate in. A usual Vermont short election calendar serves incumbents – especially the incumbent Governor – so why wait?

It's time we all did what so many in the rest of the country have done (and what kestrel9000 is doing in Virginia, until such time as he finally gets a job up here that allows him to move back to Vermont where he belongs) – that is, make our OWN media. Blogs, sure. If you're at all inclined, you oughta have one, but what I'm really talking about is A/V! Time to get out the cameras and/or microphones and start following Republicans to public meetings and events. Ask the tough questions, get them on record and put it out on the intertubes as a permanent record. Ask them how they voted on the global warming bill, death with dignity, campaign finance. Ask how they feel about gay marriage, IRV, the RNC hiding from a subpoena behind “executive privilege.” Ask them in front of GOP crowds. Get a hold of a video editor and add your own music and effects, or just post it raw. Nobody's gonna do this for us, folks, so lets start to kick it up a notch.

To that end, 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 favoritte. 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! We'll post updates and reminders from time to time, and I'll add a link to this diary at the top of the page so new readers can be brought up to speed.

So what are you waiting for?

If you read more than just the Vermont blogs, you've undoubtedly heard about Bill O'Reilly's jihad against DailyKos, attempting to label it a “hate site.” If you missed it, there isn't much to the narrative; O'Reilly thinks he can bully Kos out of existence by using troll rated comments to rationalize the harassment of a “Yearly Kos” convention sponsor (Jet Blue) out of the program. In that he has been partially successful, but of course this has done nothing but fire up the netroots crowd who are not only (of course) finding more objectionable user comments on O'Reilly's own site (as well as targeting his sponsors), but have also begun to get organized and coalesce into a netroots driven, rapid response, anti-Fox truth squad. O'Reilly's return volley has been simply to become obsessive in his attacks on dKos by trying to brings his TV guests into the fight, demanding they join him in comparing bloggers like us to nazis, the Klan, Mussolini, Al Capone, etc.

But thereisnospoon is now reporting that the battle has been joined by Sean Hannity (Hannity, for those who don't listen to talk radio or watch Fox, is the slightly dumber version of Rush Limbaugh who doesn't talk about himself as incessantly). Hannity is now attacking The Huffington Post on air, again based on comments users have posted on her site (and again, there are even nastier comments on Hannity's own site).

This begs the question as to whether or not we're seeing the beginnings of an all-out proxy war between the two major political parties being waged by their media manifestations.

If we are, you couldn't pick better avatars. The blogs are a decentralized phenomenon frequented by an astonishing number of people across the country that mushroom independently, but function in loose, almost communitarian concert. There is no head to cut off that would cause the body to fail. Fox, on the other hand, is not just a corporate entity, but an old-school corporate behemoth still run as an institutional totalitarianism by the legendary media mogul, Rupert Murdoch. In the short term, you have to give the advantage to Fox in terms of sheer media power, but in the long run it's hard to imagine any force outside of a complete governmental crackdown that could ever do more than annoy the blogosphere. Fox, on the other hand, is comparatively vulnerable – especially when you consider that they are a media force in ratings decline, while the blogosphere continues to grow. Fox's widening of the war is clearly an act of unmitigated hubris that – in an example of an exceptionally unbusiness-savvy strategic decision – places only itself at risk.

Still, it's interesting to wax futuristic when you look at this. Could we be looking ahead into the partisan wars of the future, here? As the major parties come to have more in common with media organizations, could this be a glimpse into the next evolution of the parties themselves, rather than simply their proxies? It would be an interesting sort of instiutional sci-fi indeed to glance decades ahead to see the Democratic party essentially merging with the netroots, and the GOP becoming a right-wing traditional media machine like Fox (even more interesting when you consider that the head of Fox is not an American citizen)? Would such an evolution lock in the current power structure, or break it open? Would the lines between a netroots-Democratic Party and the greater inhabitants of the American left blur enough to recreate the party as home for disenfranchised lefties (and even Greens)?

Yeah, yeah. All sci-fi, I know, but fun to ponder all the same. I sense a novel here (Philip, let's talk…)