Hey folks. Looks like I missed Brattlerouser’s typo from the linkdump below, that has since been picked up by PoliticsVT. Cookout is SUNDAY not Saturday. I can’t post on the blogger-blogs such as PoliticsVT without a blogger account, I cant remember my blogger account password, and it won’t let me set up a new one without setting up a stoopid blogger blog. (&*^%in’ blogspot-blogsh*t)

*Ahem*

If someone has a blogger account and can zip over there and post a correction, it’d be super-swell-dandy. Double super-swell-dandy, even.

( – promoted by odum)

A 36 year old man from the village of Gilman in Essex County has been banished from his hometown for a period of three years, following a five month prison sentence. Francis Robb (who will be allowed to visit his mother on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and her birthday) was sentenced for retaliating against neighbors following repeated conflicts, including felony aggravated assault and a reported incident (denied by Robb) involving threats with a handgun. Fron the AP:

“Given Mr. Robb’s record of convictions and his menacing behavior toward some of his neighbors, it made sense to get him out of the picture for an extended duration,” [Essex County State’s Attorney Vincent] Illuzzi said in a prepared statement.

“The only other alternative would have been a longer jail sentence and I’m not sure the state’s taxpayers should foot that bill. The entire burden should rest on Mr. Robb,” said Illuzzi, who also serves as a [Republican] state senator from the Essex-Orleans district.

The Northeast Kingdom banishment decree comes from a plea arrangement and is attached as a condition of probation to the felony conviction. The AP piece leaves several questions unanswered, however, the essence of the story remains clear:

“It’s kind of a ‘get out of Dodge’ sort of thing,” said Illuzzi.

Robb’s lawyer, Peter Langrock of Middlebury bristled at the use of the word “banishment” and had this to say:

“You frequently have cases where someone is told to stay 500 feet away from (his or her victim). These people are next-door neighbors, so it made sense” to have Robb stay away from the village.

It’s worth taking a moment to consider just how weak the argument that banishment is no different than a restraining order really is.

First and most obvious, a restraining order is releative to a person or persons. Banishment is relative to a static, fixed point. If the interest is in protecting Robb’s neighbors, and this sentence is simply a restraining-order-on-steroids, what happens if the neighbors move out of Gilman? What protection do they have then?

Second, small as it is, Gilman is not a village simply of Robb and his neighbors. In the interest of letting the punishment fit the crime, why extend the restraining order to everyone in the town? If the authorities believe he is a threat to everyone and anyone, why isn’t he serving a longer jail sentence? Is the suggestion that he is a threat to people in Gilman, but not in Norton? Canaan? Based on what, exactly?

So it’s, at best, a goofy sentence, and quite possibly overly cruel (it’s certainly unusual), as it serves to arbitrarily seperate the man from his mother, who may well play a vital role in the support system that could be crucial for any hope of rehabilitation.

But it’s worse than that. Consider for a moment – is this a sentence likely to be handed down to a homeowner? Would a judge tell a middle or upper class person they had to abandon their property for a year and make their way elsewhere?

Of course not. Banishment is a punishment that will be exclusively applied against the poor, and could easily become another tool against the homeless.

And consider where this might lead. We often talk about “slippery slopes,” whereby an idea that might be appealing (as this one, in many ways, is) might project several steps forward into scary unintended consequences.

Well, we only have to project one step down this “slope.” After banishment will eventually come town laws refusing to allow individuals under banishment sentences on their streets (after all, no town wants their neighbors dumping their unmanageables on them). If this stands up to a legal test and catches on, it could be the beginning of a frightening new wave against civil liberties.

Of course it won’t be called banishment if that happens:

Langrock disputed Illuzzi’s characterization of the sentence. “It’s not banishment. Banishment is pejorative.

It’s perjorative, you see. It sounds bad. We wouldn’t countenence anything bad would we?

Maybe we’ll just call it a correctional time out…

At GMD, we have been known to comment on happenings in neighboring states. While Connecticut isn’t quite neighboring, it is New England, yet I’ve never quite felt it quite right to blog on the Democratic Primary there. However, recent events have put that race front and center among everyone who considers themselves a Democrat, as well as any who feel that the netroots are part of the antidote to the disease of entrenched power in Washington.

The Democratic primary, if you haven’t heard, pits long-time incumbent and former Dem veep candidate Joe Lieberman against political newcomer Ned Lamont. If you know this story, you might want to skip to the end. If you don’t, I’ll try to summarize the events that brought us to the point where Lieberman has now publicly announced his intention to bolt the party, and how (like it or not) this race has become the make-or-break battle for the soul (and future) of the national Democratic Party.

Frustration has long been simmering against Lieberman among liberal Dems, and particularly among the netroots, where the anger isn’t so exclusively ideological (more on that in a moment).

Although Liberman’s voting record isn’t so bad overall, there’s been a strong sense that liberal Connecticut should be able to do much better. When explaining their frustration, lefties most frequently point to Lieberman’s stance on the Iraq war, where he has staked a position to the right of most Republicans. In fact, Lieberman remains one of the the handful of the Bush Iraq policies most adamant and unapologetic supporters. Even as many Republicans have been forced to find cover and chastise the Bush administration fro screwing up, Lieberman is the poster child for the “everything’s going great, and the critics are undermining our troops and should shut up and support the President” school of political rhetoric.

Lieberman supporters try to cast the opposition as fixated on one issue, but the seething truly originates as far back as Lieberman’s embrace of the racist psuedo-science of Charles Murray’s infamous Bell Curve, along with his stance against affirmative action:

On March 9, 1995, in remarks at the National Press Club, as chairman of the pro-corporate Democratic Leadership Council, Lieberman denounced the case for affirmative action as “an un-American argument because it’s based on averages, not individuals,” and went on to praise Ward Connerly’s Proposition 209, the misnamed “California Civil Rights Initiative,” which outlawed affirmative action: “I can’t see how I could be opposed to it, because it basically is a statement of American values.” The year before, the New Haven Advocate’s excellent Paul Bass — who’s covered Lieberman for 22 years — wrote, “After meeting with racist scholar [and Bell Curve author] Charles Murray, Lieberman promoted Murray’s idea of taking children away from mothers on welfare and putting them in new government-run orphanages (rather than, for instance, boosting support for agencies seeking to keep together families in crisis).”

…and a little digging (especially in recent history) confirms that the ideological split goes deeper. FOr example, in defending his position that Catholic hospitals should be allowed to refuse emergency “Plan B” contraception to rape victims, Lieberman said “in Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital.” Some consolation, eh?

But at the end of the day, what finally put the Netroots over the edge is Lieberman’s eagerness to take every opportunity to appear on Fox News and the Sunday talk circuit specifically to attack and undermine his fellow Senate Democrats. The degree to which he has pursued this media strategy is truly unique, and it means he consistently places himself in positions to undermine Democratic efforts against the Bush regime on a host of issues (not just Iraq) more than he possibly could by simply being a conservative Democratic Senator. And this is how this one-time vice presidential candidate, dubbed “Loserman” (at the time) by the right, now counts Sean Hannity among his fans.

Which brings us to the big news from the other day (from GMD’s sister-site in Connecticut, My Left Nutmeg):

Joseph Lieberman will announce at his 1 pm news conference that he will pull petitions to begin gathering signatures for an independent run.
Furthermore, he will announce his intention to stay in the primary, but bolt the party if he loses.

No surprise to many of us. Joe is desperate to cling to power and the voters of his own Party be damned.

So that’s the thumbnail of the background. Lieberman is willing to scuttle the Democratic process in the Democratic Party, deliver a big “fuck you” to voters, and potentially give the Republicans their best chance to gain a Senator in Connecticut they may ever have. All to hold power at all costs.

Why does it matter to Vermonters, beyond the simple satisfaction it brings to see a weaselcrat like Joe brought to his knees by a grassroots/netroots driven campaign like that of challenger Ned Lamont?

This:

Schumer said that the DSCC “fully supports” Sen. Joe Lieberman in his primary bid, and he refused to rule out continuing that support if Lieberman were to run as an independent.

There were degrees of independence, Schumer said. “You can run as an independent, you can run as an independent Democrat who pledges to vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader.”

Schumer said he had neither sought nor recieved assurances from Lieberman that an independent bid would not ensue if Ned Lamont tightened the noose

What this means is that the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is refusing to say whether or not he will support the rightfully chosen Democrat in the Connecticut Senate race.

Just take moment and let that sink in. It is truly extraordinary. And it is completely intolerable.

And Schumer is not alone:

It hasn’t taken Lamont long to unnerve the Democratic establishment. (CT Democratic Sen. Chris) Dodd, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and ultimate party loyalist, refuses to give an unqualified answer to whether he will support the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.

What this energing sitution does is crystallize in such a tangible form what the netroots and the rise of “people-powered” politics is fighting against: the fraternity of entrenched power for entrenched power’s sake.

To many’s surprise, the first out of the gate to say what should be obvious is Hillary Clinton:

“ALBANY, N.Y. – Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a longtime supporter of Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Tuesday she will not back the Connecticut Democrat’s bid for re-election if he loses their party’s primary.

Of course, there isn’t necessarily a lot of love lost between Liberman and the Clintons after Joe very publicly called Bill to the mat for his sexual indiscretions (and, of course, how he continues to be Bush’s #1 Democratic fan:)

Ahem.

But it does signal that it’s time to take a stand. This situation, for better or worse, has become the defining flashpoint for the soul of the Democratic Party at the national level. It is time for all Democratis Senators, and those who aspire to the Senate, to stand up and be counted, and that includes Leahy and Sanders. The question is; do you stand with your Party, the voters, and the principles of a fair Democratic process…?

…or do you stand with Joe, Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer?

It’s time to remind the DSCC who they’re working for:

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Phone (202) 224-2447

And for an answer from Bernie and Leahy:

Leahy:

Burlington office
199 Main Street, 4th Floor
Burlington, VT 05401
(802) 863-2525
1-800-642-3193 

Montpelier office
P.O. Box 933
87 State Street, Room 338
Montpelier, VT 05602
(802) 229-0569 

Bernie:

Burlington, Vermont
1 Church St. 2nd Floor, Burlington, VT 05401
Phone – 802-862-0697 In-State 800-339-9834
Fax – 802-860-6370

Brattleboro, Vermont
167 Main Street, Suite 410 Brattleboro, VT 05301
Phone – 802-254-8732 Fax – 802-254-9207

UPDATE: Sheesh, I’ve never had to update a diary only a few minutes after posting it before. From Raw Story:

In a serious blow to Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s (D-CT) reelection campaign, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is likely to back the winner of the Democratic primary in Connecticut, meaning that Lieberman may be left without national allies for campaign money.

A senior Democratic party official confirmed that the DSCC is unlikely to back Lieberman should he lose the primary to Ned Lamont, a more progressive contender in Connecticut who has garnered support from bloggers and has catalyzed his campaign around Lieberman’s aggressive position on Iraq.

Hunh. The DSCC supporting the Democratic candidate. To think that this is news…

I still wanna hear it from Schumer.

UPDATE II: Kos is now keeping a “where do you stand” tally, now that Sen. Salazar has said he will support Liberman regardless of the primary.  I’m hoping some enterprising GMD reader with more time on their hands will check with our folks and report back so we can update the list over there…

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Our little community blog hasn’t even reached it’s 6-month birthday, but already we’ve had a big impact. GMD has provided lefty Vermonters:

• A way to move and effect political debate
• A place for truly open political discussions (no matter who finds them annoying!)
• A clearinghouse to discuss items of interest that the Traditional Media may not be covering
• A place to organize and gather support for campaigns and grassroots efforts
• A place to create your own soap box and get your opinion out there

Through the Seven Days best blog award — voting for which closes today at 5:00 PM – we have an opportunity to have an even BIGGER impact. I went back and forth over whether or not to actively lobby readers to join the balloting, and I suppose I gave in to my baser self…

…but the truth is, a win would make a strong statement about the power and engagement of the activist left in Vermont. It would also signal that the Vermont left-blogosphere has come into it’s own, and that this powerful tool (the web) is now alive and well for liberal campaigns and causes statewide. The snowball effect that has already begun would only increase, and the payoff could be apparent as soon as the November elections.

So, I hope you’ll consider stopping by and voting. Here’s the link:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=191372308619

When you get to the actual ballot, make sure you put in GreenMountainDaily.com, rather than just “Green Mountain Daily.” Thanks!

From Bloomberg via Americablog:

The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.

The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation’s largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages.

“The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,” plaintiff’s lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. “This undermines that assertion.”

Iraq, the “Unitary Executive,” the illegal domestic surveillance. All planned from the beginning, all part of the “new American Century” envisioned by the neocon club.

Now try and tell me with a straight face that this latest news surprises you. What will surprise me is if the Douglas administration investigations – prompted by Scudder Parker’s attempts to make this an issue in the gubernatorial race – will ever get to this, the obvious heart of the matter…

I had the radio tuned to WSNO in Central Vermont, which is the local home to the right-wing hate, er…talk radio regulars. It was about 5:00 PM and I was listening to Hannity (he who is like Rush Limbaugh without the pills and with even fewer IQ points), who was at the time loudly promoting the Republican theme that the NY Times staff should be imprisoned for treason for reporting on the excesses of the Bush administration. Imagine my surprise at the commercial break to hear the following:

The Sean Hannity show is sponsored by the Barre Technical Center

The Barre Technical Center, as it’s website says, is “considered an extension of the curriculum of Cabot, Harwood, Montpelier, Spaulding, Twinfield and U-32 high schools.” This means that taxpayers of all stripes are feeding into this school from these towns, and ultimately from across the state through the State Education Fund.

Now consider what your tax dollars are paying to support:

HANNITY: Here’s what is bothering me, John. Barack Obama said, quote, “We are helping the insurgency,” unquote. John Kerry himself said American soldiers need not be getting — going into the homes of Iraqis terrorizing women and children. Harry Reid said our presence is a problem, we’re an occupying force. This is almost now coming out on a daily basis, these attacks against our brave men and women. (link)

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a classic example of modern liberalism. Hatred, hatred, hatred for Bush and anyone associated with him. Throw him in jail! He testified four times before the — all right, I’m going to ask you again, [caller]. Do you really want to convict somebody on the idea that he just testified four times before the grand jury? I ask you again, what evidence do you have — you’re so certain that Karl Rove leaked. Where’s the evidence?(link)

LEWIS: You know, I saw kind of a different protest out there. There were a lot of things going on. It really affected me to see so many Iraq veterans out there marching in front of the White House, talking about their experiences and why they’re disillusioned with this policy. You know, it’s —

HANNITY: All right, Ted, I honestly, I’m not really — I don’t care about your thoughts. You can tell them to Alan. I’m not asking you that.
(link)

Hannity has “pledged that stopping Hillary Clinton from becoming president of the United States would be a major focus of his program,” according to a June 20 article on conservative website NewsMax.com, a promoter of Klein’s book. Similarly, a spokesman for Sentinel, the book’s publisher, has said that “he hoped that The Truth About Hillary would do to Clinton what the Swift Boat Veterans bestseller did to [Sen. John] Kerry.” (link)

O’DONNELL: Oh, my God, Sean, don’t you see the pictures from Abu Ghraib?

[crosstalk]

HANNITY: Where’s the evidence?

O’DONNELL: Hello?

HANNITY: There was underwear on the head of one of them. We’re not raping and killing anybody. (link)

HANNITY: Amnesty International is a radical left-wing group. (link)

…and that’s nothing. go to Media Matters and do a search on Hannity and you’ll get far more than outrageous statements. You’ll see a list of outright lies and personal smears all in the unwavering service of the Bush administration, and at the expense of truth, as well as the good name of any who would question him

And he is sponsored by the Barre Technical Center.

I haven’t talked to anyone there (yet), but I’m going to hazard a guess that one might get an earful about “reaching out to working class parents and families.” If that is the rationale, let me just say as a product of a working class family that I would find any such patronizing characterization of working class people as jingoistic, venom-spewing hate mongers as personally insulting as well as demonstrably inaccurate.

But even if it were true, who cares? Hannity doesn’t simply cross a line into a class of propoganda that shouldn’t be funded with my taxes, he leaves the line in the dust.

If you agree that your tax money should never, ever be used to prop up the National Republican attack-and-smear noise machine, here is the way to contact those who should hear from you:

Superintendent’s Office
120 Ayers Street
Barre, Vermont 05641
1-802-476-5011

Three announcements to make before I let any more time go by:

• The DorianGrays: Inspired by Oscar Wilde’s classic Picture of Dorian Gray, GMD has a new feature that will track two things over the coming months. First – any nasty campaign tricks that come from the major candidates for the most contested statewide offices in Vermont, and second – the ongoing excesses of the new US Supreme Court, following the capitualtion by several Democratic Senators on the unsuccessful Alito filibuster attempt.

  Confused? Curious? Click on the DorianGrays button atop the page, or just use this link. A work in progress, to be sure.

• Seven Days’ Blog Contest: I’m not going to go over the top pimping this (I don’t think…maybe I’ll send an email to registered users…hmm…), but the annual “Daysies” are including a “best blog” category. Please consider GMD — or Jack’s blog, or Vermonter’s, or Mataliandy’s. Too bad ya can’t vote for more than one. Here’s the link to vote Make sure you use the blog’s URL (web address) rather than it’s name, whether you’re voting for this one or another.
• …and it’s high time for a formal introduction of your GMD team. Along with myself, sharing front page duties are bloggers Jack McCullough and Ed Garcia (otherwise known to Kossacks as kestrel9000). Also providing occasional content is Vermonter, even more occasionally gnome, and taking over the linkdump/newsdump responsibilities is Brattlerouser. Mataliandy‘s life has not allowed her to do the front page thing, but she may still pop in from time to time.

…and of course, we will continue to front page user diaries when the cosmic forces tell us to, as well as occasionally entice a guest superstar blogger or two. Thanks for all the attention, folks! I think I speak for all when I say we’re having a blast!

• GOVERNOR (Douglas vs. Parker)
• US HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES (Welch vs. Rainville)
• US SENATE (Sanders vs. Tarrant)

“for tonight, with your own eyes, you will see my soul.”

–From The Picture of Dorian Gray (Oscar Wilde)

In Oscar Wilde’s classic novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray, the portrait of the title character grows more hideous and disfigured with each act of immorality and evil, while Dorian Gray himself remains beautiful and ageless.

The concept’s application to elections seemed too perfect to ignore.

I am pleased to present, therefore, the Green Mountain Daily Dorian Grays; portraits of the primary combatants in this year’s elections whose visages will reflect every instance the candidate crosses the line into mudslinging nastiness over the coming months (click on the links at the top of this diary for the pages).

Now, I fully expect an aggressive, spirited campaign. As such, pointed, aggressive attacks on a candidate’s position (such as Scudder Parker’s energy statements) do not a blemish make. Neither does tackiness (Tarrant’s fake blog), or exuberant responses to negative attacks (such as those currently on Bernie’s blog), or expected and understandable sneakiness (Rainville’s press conference spy, spotten by Philip Baruth).

What does make a blemish? Deliberate lies about an opponent’s position, and campaign tactics designed solely to smear or otherwise demean an opponent. Real sleazy, dishonorable stuff.

And don’t think we’re going easy on the folks we support at GMD. When they cross the line, they’ll get a blemish as well. If you feel we’ve missed something or are being unfair, use the comments section provided for feedback (or any other discussion).

And return frequently (but don’t be surprised if there is some lag time before updates)!