UPDATE: After Freyne picked up the plagiarism story (bullet 1 below), a storm has started. The Rainville web site is now down, presumably for damage control concerns, and they’ve fired a staffer over the matter already. Meanwhile, the Dems have already sent out a scathing press release. This one’s got legs, and it all came from the blogs. Stay tuned…

UPDATE 2: The second blogger on bullet point 2 isn’t quite as accurate as the first. A reader pointed out to me that the target of the post linked to was NOT convicted of anything, so I’m reflecting that below

I don’t get as many emails in my role as GMD admin as Freyne and Baruth do on their sites, but I get enough to see that the Vermont netroots may be maturing faster than I expected. Local e-activists have forwarded me the following links in recent days (and linking to other people’s stuff makes the lunchtime home-blogging so much easier):

• From last night:
  

  Doing simple Google searches I was able to find several items which
  Martha Rainville, a Republican running to fill the seat left open by Bernie Sanders’ senate run, quite directly stole from other politicians. I put them together and stuck them up on my rarely used blog…

  …Rainville stole a part of her energy policy from Hillary Clinton.

  She stole part of her press release on access to the federal budget from Jim Cooper, a Democrat from Tennessee.

  She stole part of her health care statement from Rick O’Donnell, a Colorado Republican.

  Here’s the link. She has done a terrific job, (and let me know that she was inspired to start searching from this GMD post about Rainville’s “borrowed” health plan) that deserves broader attention.

• A couple other GMD readers are looking at the Governor’s race. One frequent poster has set up a blogspot blog focusing on Gov. Douglas’s appointees. He states:
  

  Vermont Governor Jim Douglas has staffed high Vermont law enforcement with civil rights violators. Most notable is R.J. Elrick, Chief of the Vermont Police Academy, a convicted civil rights violator.

  Please note: as mentioned atop this diary, this post is apparently inaccurate, as there has been no civil rights conviction – he lost a lawsuit, but there were no criminal charges. Let’s all watch our words, folks…

• And finally, another emailer is re-circulating the rather needlessly smarmy, but interesting Clavelle TV ad which had Douglas, famously standing aside Dick Cheney and saying “Aren’t we lucky to have Geroge W. Bush in the White House?” Here’s the YouTube link
  

Impressive stuff, folks. It’s nice just to be able to pass on links to others’ work.

Political campaigns are, to an extent like stories. Part of the goal is to build narratives, both about your opponent and about yourself as a candidate. The Tarrant campaign for US Senate, which has become the Tarrant campaign to smear Bernie Sanders by any means necessary has come full circle as a narrative. I read the punctuation on the Tarrant story, which could also serve as its epitaph via Freyne. Just two words:

Brian Pearl.

I wouldn’t have thought that Pearl would come up twice in as many weeks on this site, because frankly I’d forgotten all about him – which is the point, really. As Freyne reported:

Richie Rich held a rare presser Saturday morning in front of B.J.’s Gun Shop on Industrial Avenue in Williston. Nice folks inside to chat with. Said Tarrant outside:

“Right now as you know we have in front of us an issue about the wilderness controversy. And I want to state very clearly that I stand behind the sportsmen. I think we have enough wilderness…

…Tarrant had a dozen “sportsmen” stand behind him, including former anti-civil union candidate for governor Brian Pearl. Pearl finished 10th in 2002 with 569 votes statewide.

Unlike the Parker for Governor campaign, which is facing similarly gloomy numbers, the Tarrant story has been told. A glance at the last WCAX poll shows that many more have heard of Tarrant – they’re just not buying. And the image from Tarrant’s desperate grasp for a genuine issue to run against Bernie with is both striking and terminal: this is the candidate of the Tarrant-Pearl wing of the Republican Party, which is barely viable enough to be considered a “wing” at all.

Pearl of course is “known” (and I use that word generously) for his quixotic attempt to defeat Howard Dean for signing the Civil Union law. Pearl is a delusionally self-important (and if you don’t believe me, listen to the Mark Johnson show, as he calls in to monologue constantly), virulently anti-gay arch-conservative who expected backlash against civil unions to catapult him into relevance. It’s no small irony, then, that he and Dean’s former aide Kate O’Connor – now working on the Tarrant campaign – are Vermont’s latest political “strange bedfellows.”

But O’Connor and the handful of “anybody-but-Bernie,” self-identifying “Democrats” who continue to try desperately to prop up Tarrant as a moderate alternative to the firebrand Sanders can deny reality no more. Not only did the Democratic State Committee unanimously endorse Bernie, but the Democratic electorate damn near did too, handing Bernie 95% of their vote, and leaving Tarrant Dems not simply outside the mainstream of their party, but virtually outside the entire party itself. Tarrant has become so poison, that even the GOP itself has distanced itself from their one-time zillionaire superstar. In fact, now that Tarrant has come full circle – from his early courting of the Religious Right Flagship Organization in Vermont, the Center for American Cultural Renewal/Vermont Renewal, right back to the Religious Right’s signature whackjob still in circulation (Pearl), the Tarrantcrats find themselves with one destination:

On the political fringe, right next to Brian Pearl.

Retired Lt. General William Odom is the former head of Reagan’s NSA and as an author and Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, is widely viewed as one of America’s leading geopolitical/military analysts. He has risen to popularity in anti-war circles for his no-nonsense criticism of Bush’s military adventures. Here he is, via AfterDowningStreet, from one of the “basement” hearings the Democrats are forced to hold, given that the GOP Congressional leadership in Washington refuses to perform any formal oversight of their emperor:

Odom again spoke about what would happen when/if the United States pulls out. The aftermath is going to be great, he said. It was going to be great the day you went in, but the longer you wait the greater it will be. And, Odom added to noticable effect, this will be the greatest strategic defeat in American history.

Rep. Hinchey asked Odom “How do we get out?” Odom’s reply came without a pause: “Well, the Constitution gives the House the right to impeach.“

Always trust yer Od(o/u)ms.

Burlington’s CCTV channel 17 and Candleblog’s Bill Simmon are looking for volunteers to (hopefully) put together a live blog project for citizen comments on Election Day through laptops available for comments at key polling places in Burlington. Sounds like fun, but they’ll need help to pull it off. I will probably be live-blogging from the Democratic HQ that day, but if any GMD-reading, so-called “blogging experts” want to help support it on site, put it in the comments and I’ll point you to Bill. Maybe if enough folks are interested, itcan expand from just Burlington.

The Vermont Business Coalition PAC is turning into a major embarassment for the Chamber of Commerce and the Vermont GOP for being such a shamelessly transparent and poorly-coordinated front for Republican partisan interests. Nobody’s coming through on their pledges, and major players like UVM and VSAC are pulling out of the Chamber entirely as a result. Meanwhile, a veritable who’s-who of business interests is scrambling to put as much distance between them and this fiasco as possible. This has definitely become a net loss in electoral and political clout for all the Keystone Konservatives who were responsible for putting this comedy of errors together.

Morriseau to Rainville during the last US Congressional debate: “You do have a duty to disobey illegal orders. You don’t send troops to an illegal war, I don’t give a damn if it was George Bush who told you to do so, General Rainville!” Heh.

The renewed Blier Watch blog continues to draw direct lines between the Vermont GOP and the religious right (as personified by the Vermont Renewal group). Rainville and Douglas have knelt before the altar of the theocrats, and BW now draws a direct line between the same group and VT GOP Chair Jim Barnett.

And in the “in case you missed it while we’ve been obsessing on national issues” department:

Rich Tarrant has triggered the “millionaire’s amendment” to the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan campaign finance law by spending such a colossal amount of money on himself. Bernie can now return to major donors and ask for more above and beyond the standard limits. Gotta wonder if there’s going to be a “Tarrant recession” in Vermont after he gets his butt kicked in November and his steady, massive infusion of capital into Vermont’s economy moves back to Florida.

Baruth is starting a weekly column in the Vermont Guardian. He joins Freyne and Resmer in print… even Charity has a TV show. Where’s our traditional media outlet? How can GMD close the media gap? Maybe we’ll get into video games…

Uberblogger Steve Benen of Carpetbagger finally gets some local props via Cathy Resmer. You go Steve. You and Eve should stop by and post on Vermont stuff sometime. We’ll bake ya a cake.

All Wildernerss, all the time. Whodathunk Douglas would’ve gotten enough of a black eye from his attempt to kill the Wilderness Act (and go to war with Vermont’s Washington delegation) that he would’ve felt the need to backpedal? What clearly started as an in-your-face show of power hasn’t quite worked out that way. Check this great op-ed by Bill McKibben, who is getting a lot more deeply involved in local politics these days, which is great news. Kudos to Bernie to kicking butt and saving the day on the bill. Much as the Tarrant crowd will try to make lemonade out of the demonstration of Sanders’ effectiveness, you know Rich can’t be too happy with the Governor this week.

And Jim Jeffords made his final address to the US Senate this week in Washington. What is there to say but “thanks, Jim.” I remember having my little public access camera and scamming my way past the security guards checking press credentials during Jeffords’ Burlington announcement that he was leaving the GOP. I got to set up right next to Candy Crowley of CNN. Ah, heady times…

The US Senate says torture (including rape?) is in, habeas corpus is out if the Bush Administration decides you are an “enemy combatant.” I’m beyond expecting than any of the cheerleaders of this dark age, bloodthirsty crowd would be concerned about the “inalienable rights” our founding fathers spoke of, but given the administration’s track record of holding and torturing people who have nothing to do with terrorism, you’d think they’d at least be concerned about some of their own constituents.

But oh – I forgot – they never make those kind of mistakes with non-brown people, so who cares?

Embracing torture and scrapping habeus represents the most significant victory of the “hate America” crowd. These are people for whom our Constitution is anathema. They cloak themselves in nationalistic rhetoric and furor, but it’s a different nation they are proud of. The one they are trying to create.

Don’t believe me? Our nation’s organizational document is the Constitution. It defines what America is and how it’s run. It’s a document they despise so much, they never miss an opportunity to try and change it to their own liking. Consider:

• Their proposed flag-burning amendment
• Anti-choice amendment
• Forced school prayer amendment
• Anti-gay amendment
• A right-to-vengeance amendment

I mean, they hate this document.

And when they don’t want to rewrite it, they just ignore it. From gleefully stomping all over congressional oversight responsibilities and promoting singular, monarchical powers vested in a god-king, to threats to the independent judiciary from the leaders of the GOP.

The effort to destroy America and build something different took a big step forward today. Strategically, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid blew it, reportedly agreeing to withhold a filibuster attempt (despite Senators such as Feingold indicating they’d support one)in exchange for freedom to offer amendments on the floor (none of which succeeded). It is a failure in judgement of potentially apocolyptic proportions for this country.

But we should remember not just the fanatics who gleefully pushed this atrocity through, but their enablers as well. If the Ds retake the Senate with their help, it will indeed be a bittersweet victory (but yes…sigh…still a victory for sure).

“This bill is everything we don’t believe in,” -Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

“This is basically the legalization of the Jose Padilla treatment” – Glenn Greenwald

UPDATE I: Here’s the Dem hall of Shame:

Tom Carper (Del.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Frank Lautenberg (N.J.)
Bob Menendez (N.J)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Ken Salazar (Co.)
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)

…and the whatever-the-hell-he-is Hall of Shame:

Joe Lieberman (Conn.)

The usual crowd that lets us down, although I was surprised to see Rockefeller on that list and shocked to see Lautenberg. Menendez is in a tight race (the GOP’s best potential pick-up) and now deserves to lose.

The other 32 Dems, joined by Chafee (R-RI) and Jeffords voted in favor of morality and the Constitution.

UPDATE II: Check Freyne for a great piece describing Leahy’s lone-voice-in-the-wilderness, quixotic (but noble and appreciated) attempt to stop this travesty.

Guess we have to hope for another SCOTUS ruling. Hardly a safe bet.

From Monday’s WCAX poll (emphasis mine):

Note that No Opinion and Do Not Recognize are lumped together under the heading No Opinion…

…A. The first name is _________. do you recognize that name?
B. (IF YES) Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of _______?

From Freyne in print today (emphasis mine again):

yours truly was the only reporter to show up for Candidate Parker’s 9 a.m. presser at Democratic Party Headquarters, where he played his new radio spot and took questions.

You do the math.

In truth, it’s hard to be sure.

The Vermont political calendar is in flux these days. Election season starts far, far earlier on the one hand, but most casual observers still don’t really check in until October. The Tarrant for Senate campaign has tried to break out of that cycle (and its obvious benefit to incumbents) through advertising, running more ads than any Senate campaign in the country, but that strategy seems to have largely backfired. Whether it’s because voters don’t want to think about these things before October, or simply because the ads are so distasteful is hard to say.

Despite this fact, the campaigns have to start early – to raise money, test messages, lay the institutional groundwork and ideally build a field campaign (although everyone still waits too long on that one, as a robust, proactive field operation is still considered lower priority to most insiders).

However, although candidates and insiders have expanded their election calendar, most Vermonters-at-large haven’t, at that makes the late season dynamics hard to read. Although structurally not significantly different than the Clavelle campaign (and at roughly the same point in the polls from this time two years ago), the Scudder Parker campaign has all of a sudden created quite a stir among the media and we political junkies. In fact, the stir was teed up by the strategically incomprehensible decision by the Douglas campaign to run insulting attack ads against Parker. This caused many folks to sit up and take notice (even if they were scratching their heads), and set up Parker perfectly for his superior debate performances. Parker more than made up for his shaky and often underwhelming vocal timbre with direct, specific surgical strikes in these forums that have been the most effective rhetorical jabs Douglas has ever had to grapple with – and Douglas’s reaction belied how unaccustomed he is to such treatment.

Nevertheless, it’s very hard for those of us who have been following this race for some time to discern whether or not Parker is scoring points with the greater populace. To us, this is the latest chapter of a months-long narrative that suddenly has the makings of an underdog story like “Rocky.” But most folks are only just checking in, and are only just now building their own narrative of the race. To them, Parker is likely appearing as a genuine challenger as a result of the attention, but there has not been an opportunity as yet to build real momentum. In other words, there’s likely buzz, but not necessarily progress.

With such a short window of opportunity against so popular an incumbent, there may simply not be the time to build any momentum. Still, thanks to his debating skills and with the help of the Governor himself, Parker does have a genuine opportunity to build that momentum that he didn’t have before. Whether six weeks is enough time is hard to say. Small states like Vermont can turn on a dime, but they usually don’t.

Still, against the changing character and schedule of Vermont elections, we are still to an extent in uncharted territory. We’ll have to see what the next weeks (and debates) bring. Played right, who is to say the buzz couldn’t snowball (please pardon the mixed metaphor, there…)?

The bipolar ups-and-downs of the political landscape have dropped us in the ditch again. This time, as has been talked about here, due to the apparently complete impotence of Senate Democrats to even meaningfully try to stop the retroactive legalization of torture (and presumably, the retroactive legalization of the wiretaps through Sen. Specter’s legislation) after foolishly and shamefully allowing themselves to be sandbagged on the issue by supposed “maverick” Republicans such as Sens. Graham, Warner, and as usual, McCain. Georgia10 at dKos weighs in eloquently:

It would be effortless for us to take our ball and go home.  We have every reason and right to wonder why the hell we should do anything for a party that seemingly lets torture and wiretapping slide (not to mention one that has dropped the ball on several other issues, from Iran to Iraq).

But this late in the game, like so many other frustrated Democrats, I refuse to quit. 

So we will work. Over the next several weeks, we will sweat. We will write.  We will walk around neighborhoods until our feet are sore and cold call until our voices crack.  We will show the GOP what a pissed-off Democratic base can accomplish.

But elected Democrats–listen up. 

We won’t be doing it for this Democratic Party.  It’s not for the preservation of today’s Democratic Party that we fight. We don’t want today’s party. 

We do it for the birth of a new Democratic Party. We’re going to work our asses off for Jim Webb, and John Tester, and the other candidates who if elected will usher in a new era in Democratic politics.

Today, we forge on. But we will never forget.

Seat by seat, complacent Democrats will be challenged.  Every primary will be a Connecticut primary.  Every passive Democrat will be actively and aggressively challenged, not just on election day, but throughout the year. 

Those who have abandoned fundamental Democratic principles–those who have abandoned basic American principles–will be abandoned themselves. 

It won’t happen in one election cycle. It won’t happen in two or three.  But eventually, we will reclaim our party, because we are Democrats.  The party isn’t made up of just the handful of currently elected Democrats and their incestuous clique of astonishingly incompetent consultants.  We’re the party, and from now, there will be no quarter for Republican-lite.  There will be no sympathy for incumbents who feel entitled to Democratic seats.  We’re taking it back, today and every day until we get the Democratic Party America needs and deserves.

I would add that we need to remind ourselves that we have little choice in the matter.

There is no magic bullet for fixing things. This takes commitment. It’s a long haul. I was going to write at some point on how the discussion at Charity’s blog on whether or not conservatives should dump the GOP was just their iteration of the perennial discussion on the left, but it’s obviously never long before that conversation comes around again on this side of the fence – and sure enough, the understandable third-party rumblings are increasing again in light of this week’s events.

There are two points I’d like to make, here. The first is that, active as we may be, we still seperate ourselves from the process through our rhetoric, and I think that’s a mistake. Google the phrase “the Dems” and the first ten hits you’ll see all use the term as a pejorative. And these are hits from across the political spectrum. Likewise, if you google “the Republicans” you get a mix – mostly simply analytical pieces.

I think this shows us we need to watch our rhetoric, as we on the left are every bit as guilty of creating a permanent association between “the Dems” and “bad” in people’s minds as the GOP is. It’s clear why that happens – self-identified Democrats don’t have a sense of party identity that folks who identify as Republicans, Progressives or Greens do. For most D’s under 50, the party is simply a means to an end, rather than a deep-seated part of our identity (I know that’s the case for myself and most people I know). As such, it becomes easy and natural to cast “the Dems” as “the other” when we’re actually pissed off at “Senate Democrats” or “House Democrats,” rather than the folks who showed up for the JP caucus in our town. But like it or not, the term “the Dems” is all-inclusive, so how we use it matters.

And we know how we use it. We only talk about what “the Dems” are doing when we’re mad at them. But when Conyers and company offer an impeachment resolution, we never say “the Dems are offering an impeachment resolution.” In fact, we say “the Dems are stopping them” when some of their colleagues express disapproval. Why does one set of elected Democrats get “tarred” with the term “the Dems” when the other does not? Because we use it as a pejorative.

My point, if it’s not painfully obvious yet, is that if we only ID the Dems when we’re mad, it 1) artificially seperates us from them — heck, as Georgia said, we at the local level are more “the Dems” than the electeds are. And 2) it feeds a narrative that benefits the other guys – that “the Dems” are some cosmic force for evil ONLY. If that gets out from every direction, it’s gonna drive down voter turnout.

So I think we have a responsibility – if we’re going to cast D electeds as “the other” by talking about “the Dems” (which I don’t, but it seems inevitable), that we have to carrot AND stick them – yell when we should, but also make a point to PRAISE when we should (just like raising a child, you could say). Otherwise, we end up supporting the GOP propoganda subconsciously, and we dont want that.

So we have to just hang in there. Run for office. Keep blogging. Keep writing letters. We’re pushing a boulder, not turning on an appliance…which brings me to my second point.

Building a third party as a solution to this dynamic just defies logic to me. It is the ultimate “magic bullet” solution. Trying to get around the long haul that is before us by taking our toys and going to play with a cooler, smaller crowd.

The first question posed by this path seems obvious; who do you expect to recruit for this third party? All the same people who identify as Dems now, right? No? Are they to just stay home and stop voting? If you do want their help, how will any of the dynamic we’re seeing play out be any different if we’re all calling ourselves the Green-Progressive-Labor-Pure Party? It’ll still be the same bipolar system made up of the same people, and we’re still gonna have to push that boulder.

If you think the Green-Progressive-Labor-Pure Party can exist in tandem with the Dems and GOP, you’re ignoring history. Every time another party has come on the scene, it has been at the expense of an existing one. Many of the third-party sorts simply don’t understand how TRUE their own rhetoric actually is. The problem with the system is that its a two-party system — not merely a system that just happens to have only two parties, as they seem to act like they really believe. We’re in a hardwired governmental bi-polarity – the party of the independently elected executive on the one hand, and the executive’s collected opponents on the other. Thats why it always has and always will sugar out to two, which is why we will ALWAYS have this problem in this system of government.

The best the Progressive-Green-Labor-Pure party can ever hope to acheive is to gradually supplant the Dems. If they get that, we’ll be right back where we started and no closer to a solution — meanwhile, in the 20 or 30 years it takes them to supplant the Dems, the GOP will have free rein in a way even more draconian than anything we’ve seen to date – and the environment, for one, won’t be able to take that.

I have kids, and as such I have to look their future square in the eye. I honestly can see nothing to be gained from a third party, and everything to be lost. If there were an opportunity to change the system into a parliamentary one where multiple parties could thrive, I’d be right there with that. If there were an opportunity to simply abolish parties, I’d probably be there with that. In other words, if there were an opportunity for truly meaningful, radical change, I might just sign on.

Trying to just add a party in a two-party bipolar system is not radical though. It just demonstrates a lack of understanding of the system and amounts to rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic while handing the bridge over to the Republicans. And given the state of affairs on the planet, the Titanic has already hit the iceberg and is sinking fast. We have no time to play faux-radical games with cool third parties just to find out it was a big waste of time when the boat goes under. We have to face the problem head on and stick with it until its solved, instead of trying to look for a magic bullet. You can’t fix the boat with a bullet. It takes a lot of slow, hard work and there’s just going to be no way around that if we’re serious about making things better.

There are no words:

Click on the image, get over there and make sure your volume is on.

The latest press release from the General:

The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker of the House of Representatives
235 Cannon House Office Building
Washington , DC 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker,

As you are aware, the cornerstone issue of my candidacy for Vermont ’s U.S. House seat is real ethics reform in Congress. I believe that Congressional ethics is a non-partisan issue and I look forward to working with both parties in Congress to strengthen existing rules.

Congress must prove it is serious about honesty, integrity and accountability in Washington . Therefore, I am asking you to expel Representative Bob Ney from the House of Representatives immediately.

Representative Ney will plead guilty to federal corruption charges on October 13. His behavior has proved him unworthy of the public’s trust. By expelling Representative Ney from the House of Representatives you will send a strong message that the leadership of Congress condemns any unethical behavior by members regardless of party affiliation.

I hope that you will act swiftly to resolve this matter.

Sincerely,

Martha T. Rainville

And what a limb it is that Martha has gone out on. Calling for an admitted corrupt felon to be thrown out of office. What’s next for this maverick (who not too long ago had no qualms about accepting money from, shall we say, the “ethically challenged”)? Perhaps tomorrow, she’ll send a press release expressing the opinion:

• …that Stalin was a bad man.
• …that puppies should not be thrown in front of oncoming trains.
• …that alcohol should not be served to first graders.
• …that torture is wrong.

Do’h! Well… maybe that last one has some, y’know…wiggle room. From Vermont Woman:

She categorically condemned the use of torture, but when asked if she believed that the U.S. had participated in or condoned torture since 9/11, she said that all she knew was in the newspapers

…and a couple paragraphs down the page…

“But I think we need to be careful, as we enter a new era [where] the threat is coming from very amorphous terror groups, that we don’t, by instituting the Geneva Conventions itself, put ourselves at a disadvantage.”

She’s really getting the hang of this politician thing, isn’t she?