From the Equal Time Radio (The Pollina Show)’s website:

Sunday, January 27 2008

Anthony has stepped down as host of Equal Time Radio to run for Governor of Vermont.

Hubbub is that activist Carl Etnier of the Vermont Peak Oil Network and Second Vermont Republic “sister organization” Vermont Commons may be picking up at least some of the slots. Might be a huge boost to the efforts of SVR to get back on the map, no?

On the other hand, it might also tie Pollina to SVR and their unsavory connections. We’ll see. Could be interesting. Could be completely not.

I used to be on the State Committee when I was Chair of the Washington County Dems – a position handled much more competently by current Chair Jack McCullough. Since I haven’t been a member, I rarely show up at meetings, as I find them difficult experiences. I inevitably witness things that will make me very proud of my Party, but then there are also always things that make me wince. Saturday’s meeting had many moments to be proud of: Jack’s FISA resolution, a tremendous reception to Windsor County States Attorney and marijuana-law reform advocate Bobby Sand.

But there were a couple of those wince moments.

Chair Ian Carleton proudly announced to the Democratic full house that Rep. Dick Marek was working with Republicans to right a great wrong through legislative action. You see, it was pointed out by some Democratic activists last year that the Democratic (and Republican) National Committeepersons (there are two: always one man and one woman), according to law (and as Carleton told the crowd “absurd as it sounds”), do not actually have a vote in their respective State Committees.

Well, hollllllllllld everything! Clearly, this injustice must not stand!

Oh, brother.

Given a political establishment which is always quick to tell activists that none of their precious, legislative time can be taken up dealing with their policy concerns, drafting, discussing and passing legislation (H.665) to give 4 people (who already number among the most revered in their respective political classes) a simple vote in their respective State Committees is more than a little tough to swallow.

I say this with all due respect to Rep. Marek, whose list of sponsored legislation otherwise reads like a snapshot of progressive priorities. Also, I mean no disrespect to the Democratic or Republican National Committeepersons (although it should be mentioned that the only reason activists brought up the matter last year was from a sense of frustration at what many saw as inappropriate influence over the Committee by National Committeeman Chuck Ross over issues such as the impeachment resolution) – but good lord, don’t we have more important things to do?

And its worse than that, actually. Fair or not (and its a bit of both) there is a sense out there that the Vermont Democratic Party is cliqueish and elitist, and is overly dominated by a political class that can be anywhere from dismissive to vindictive. When we are seen as rolling our eyes in response to (or actively inhibiting) issues that evoke strong passions and urgency, but we have to hop to when members of what is perceived as that elite are simply inconvenienced, it feeds that narrative more than passing a dozen good policy bills can un-feed.

We can huff and puff about how silly that is if we want, but it doesn’t change the reality, and its always a good political idea to have reality on our side.

UPDATE: I was just forwarded the text of last year’s State Committee resolution asking the law to be amended, as some read this diary feeling that it sent a message that this legislation came from out of the blue. I didn’t mean to suggest it had, merely that it puts our legislative priorities in a dim light that feeds a bad narrative of Democratic elitism. So long as activists continue to be told with some regularity that there’s no time for their priorities, I ‘ll stand by that opinion. (text of resolution follows)

Bland and Inners Resolution

August 29, 2007

WHEREAS, current Vermont State Statutes do not provide that the Party National Committee Man and Woman are voting members of the State Committee, and

WHEREAS, at the July 14th meeting the Vermont Democratic Party State Committee members voiced concern that the National Committee Man and Woman should be full voting members of the State Committee and that current State Statutes may interfere with granting them this right,

NOW THEREFORE, be it

RESOLVED that the Vermont Democratic State Committee transmit this resolution to the Speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives, the President Pro Tempore of the Vermont Senate, and the Chairs of the House and Senate Government Operations Committees, and

RESOLVED that the Vermont Democratic State Committee advocates that Vermont Statutes Title 17 Chapter 45 be amended so that the National Committee Man and Woman may be full voting members of the State Committee.

A moment during today’s hearings reviewing Dick Cheney’s EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson’s decision to reject California’s request for a waiver to implement tougher emissions standards, despite the consensus of EPA staff that the waiver should have been granted. The announcement of the rejection came the same day Bush signed the Energy Bill, and in the form of a press release entitled “America Receives a National Solution for Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” rather than following the protocol of including technical reasoning behind the decision (presumably because there was none). Johnson has said in regards to the decision that “the Bush Administration is moving forward with a clear national solution – not a confusing patchwork of state rules.”

What follows is Bernie trying to get a straight answer out of Johnson:

(Bumping back to the top… – promoted by odum)

UPDATE: The planned rollout has been completely flipped around. From TPM:

The first vote today will be on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s version of the surveillance legislation, which contains no retroactive immunity for the telecoms who collaborated with the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. That will be at two o’clock this afternoon. There is no agreement that such a vote meet a 60-vote threshold, so when the Republicans move to block that bill, the vote will be held on a 50-vote threshold. If they win that vote, then the bill will revert back to the Senate intelligence committee’s bill, which has a retroactive immunity provision.

After that will come a number of amendments, among them Sens. Chris Dodd’s (D-CT) and Russ Feingold’s (D-WI), which contains a provision to strip the immunity from the bill.

A new playing field – and its a sign that netroots calls and emails are having an impact! Keep it up, folks! Officially, its called “The Leahy Amendment”, and it may mean that maybe – just maybe – our Senators, as well as the other 98 – may now be able to protect our civil liberties in this instance WITHOUT resorting to a filibuster. There may be light at the end of this particular tunnel after all… (end update)

___

UPDATE 2: The “Leahy amendment” is defeated. Filibuster odds just went up.

___

UPDATE 3 (5:42 PM) As a cloture vote on the Intelligence bill (with telco immunity) was beginning, Reid and McConnell agreed to hold the cloture vote on Monday, with a likely final vote to be held on Tuesday.

Dodging the bullet? Obama and Clinton, who couldn’t be bothered to show up, but whose votes could be needed to prevent cloture. Stay tuned.

___

Retroactive immunity for telephone companies who have assisted with the illegal Bush wiretaps is back on the front burner in the US Senate.  

You’ll recall that the last time this issue came to the floor, courtesy of Majority Leader Harry Reid and in defiance of holds put on the bill by Senators Dodd, Feingold and others, that it was only withdrawn (temporarily) on the threat of a Hollywood-style, talk-it-to-death filibuster.

You will also recall that this bill was amended in Senator’s Leahy’s Judiciary Committee (through some unquestionably assertive action by Leahy that made us all proud) to remove the telco immunity, which would also, of course, incidentally prevent any meaningful investigation into Bush administration illegalities on the matter. Reid, although claiming to be against the immunity, has been in a pique ever since, ignoring basic Senate precedent and decorum to attack and undermine members of his own party in a way he has never pushed back on Republicans – all in an irrational insistence that the demands of Bush and Cheney be granted immediately, and without any mitigation. It has been an appalling display.

Let’s be perfectly clear: under the current order of business, the Intelligence Committee version of the bill WITH immunity WILL pass. When presented with the Judiciary version as an amendment after the the first bill’s introduction, stripping immunity WILL FAIL. This is reality, short of Reid deciding to back off and actually confront Bush (or one other possible scenario described below).

Supporting the Dodd filibuster may well be the ONLY means of stopping this thing. That’s reality, and we are supposed to be the “reality based community,” as I recall. It is a reality that will not be impacted one iota by any nice floor speeches or prepared statements. There may be one, and ONLY one, strategy in play in the Senate that has any hope of preventing retroactive telco immunity. Assuming (as I am) that it comes to that, Senators will either support that strategy or they won’t. In other words, they will either allow telco immunity, or they won’t.

Last time around, there was a handful of brave Senators who indicated they would support Dodd’s filibuster. On the minds of many Vermonters – as well as many across the nation in other blogs – were two questions: Why wasn’t maverick, independent Senator Bernie Sanders on that list? Why wasn’t Civil Rights champion (and Vermont ACLU “Civil Libertarian of the year”) Senator Patrick Leahy on that list? Sanders was supportive in a letter signed by 13 of his colleagues, but he stopped short of indicating his support for the filibuster.

My theory is, at the moment, they’re being cagey in the hope – possibly the expectation – that another amendment offered by Senator Feinstein of California may pass. It would let the FISA court play the role of gatekeeper for any lawsuits. That may not be an entirely unacceptable outcome.

But so far, this body of Republicans is very practiced in its own strategy of casual filibusters to kill anything reasonable that smacks of compromise – and of course, Reid does not force them to go through the spectacle of a full-out, talk-it-down filibuster, as he has promised to force Dodd into.

If/when this Feinstein compromise fails, Dodd will go to his only option – America’s only option – and filibuster. Will Leahy and Sanders stand with him when that happens?

As far as Leahy goes, it sounds like he has different priorities. From his remarks today (in what Greenwald calls an “obviously scripted” dialogue between himself, Reid, and GOP Leader McConnell) on the floor (emphasis added):

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have a number of Members who are supposed to go to the Davos economic summit tomorrow night, and I would note I have talked with Senator Bennett of Utah, who is the senior Republican on that trip, and the trip that is set to leave tomorrow night will not. We will put it on hold until Thursday, to determine whether we can leave on Thursday.

If I could have the attention of the majority leader for a moment. I appreciate the majority leader has been very clear. I happen to concur with him that this is important and we should finish it. All we want to do is to know how it will go. There is a Judiciary Committee amendment to the bill. I would not anticipate taking a great deal of time on that, but I think the distinguished majority leader is doing the absolute right thing.

Let’s be clear. From both Sanders’s and Leahy’s offices, I’ve gotten well-spoken, clearly worded comments against telco immunity. Here’s Leahy from last October:

A retroactive grant of immunity or preemption of state regulators does more than let the carriers off the hook.  Immunity is designed to shield this Administration from any accountability for conducting surveillance outside the law.  It could make it impossible for Americans whose privacy has been violated illegally to seek meaningful redress.

In fact, you can get similarly well-written, no-nonsense statements from Senator Reid’s office.

But, as before, neither will even acknowledge the possibiity of a Dodd initiated filibuster, let alone give a clear answer as to whether or not they will support it. This despite Dodd’s own clear statement:

“If after debate, the Senate appears ready to pass legislation granting telecom providers retroactive immunity I will use any and all legislative tools at my disposal, including a filibuster, to prevent this deeply flawed bill from becoming law.”

At this point, we have only Leahy’s above floor statement. And that doesn’t look good.

It’s clear from the media reports that, for whatever reason, it is Dodd that is earning the scorn of his colleagues, rather than Bush and Cheney who are pushing this abominable provision.

Perhaps someday Sanders or Leahy can tell us the reason, as they don’t seem in any hurry to back him up.

Sanders:

http://sanders.senate.gov/comm…

Washington Office:

332 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510-4503

Phone: (202) 224-5141

Fax: (202) 228-0776

Main District Office:

1 Church Street, 2nd Floor

Burlington, VT 05401

Phone: (802) 862-0697

Fax: (802) 860-6370

Leahy:

http://leahy.senate.gov/contac…

Washington office

433 Russell Senate Office Bldg

(at Constitution and Delaware)

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

(202) 224-4242

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

__

As supplementary information, here’s the prodigiously-cited comment Greenwald links to that does an amazing job laying out how bad this bill is:

So to try to help counteract the latest White House PR push for immunity for their well-heeled secret corporate surveillance partners, here’re a few reminders and links about the core provisions of the amendments to FISA (beyond the brazen immunity provisions) that will be on the floor of the Senate this Thursday, in spite of Chris Dodd’s hold on the Intelligence Committee bill, courtesy of “Majority Leader” Harry Reid:

These two bills (the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committee FISA bills) are about (in addition to immunity in the Intelligence bill’s Title II) “Link Analysis” and the “largest database ever assembled in the world” – as indirectly confirmed by the House Judiciary Committee’s report on its FISA bill “RESTORE,” which cited the following two news articles as describing activity that the RESTORE Act (and thus obviously the two Senate bills) would permit:

…The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans – most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made – across town or across the country – to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

[snip]

The usefulness of the NSA’s domestic phone-call database as a counterterrorism tool is unclear. Also unclear is whether the database has been used for other purposes.

[snip]

For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest’s suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general’s office. A second person confirmed this version of events. – Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY, May 11, 2006

Http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

…Matt Blaze, a professor of computer and information science at the University of Pennsylvania and a former researcher for AT&T, said the telecommunications companies could have easily provided the F.B.I. with the type of network analysis data it was seeking because they themselves had developed it over many years, often using sophisticated software like a program called Analyst’s Notebook.

“This sort of analysis of calling patterns and who the communities of interests are is the sort of things telephone companies are doing anyway because it’s central to their businesses for marketing or optimizing the network or detecting fraud,” said Professor Blaze, who has worked with the F.B.I. on technology issues.

Such “analysis is extremely powerful and very revealing because you get these linkages between people that wouldn’t be otherwise clear, sometimes even more important than the content itself” of phone calls and e-mail messages, he said. “But it’s also very invasive. There’s always going to be a certain amount of noise,” with data collected on people who have no real links to suspicious activity, he said.

[snip]

But critics assert that the further the links are taken, the less valuable the information proves to be. – Eric Lichtblau, the New York Times, September 9, 2007

Http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/washington/09fbi.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Both articles were cited in Footnote #27 of the House Judiciary Committee report on RESTORE, released October 12, 2007:

Http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110_hr3773rpt_judiciary.pdf

This is not about the ‘foreign to foreign on a U.S. wire’ problem that has been used as justification for these revisions/eviscerations of FISA – that issue is separately addressed and resolved in these bills. This is a brand new world of spying being authorized by Congress against innocent Americans (under Title I of the Senate bills) without any meaningful Judicial Branch check. New corporate and government spying authority which is being accompanied by a simultaneous effort to hold immune from lawsuits the cooperating corporations, that would block off Judicial Branch review to prevent the Supreme Court from having an opportunity to rule that these spying authorities openly violate the Fourth Amendment.

http://intelligence.senate.gov…

This is collusion between the Executive and Legislative Branches of government to end-run the Constitution, and to try to avoid any check from the Judicial Branch which would stop and reverse this deliberate invasion of our privacy and knowing violation of our Constitution.

It always blows my mind how readily leftists create more problems for themselves. It’s a quality I tend to ascribe to Democrats, but the carnival-like drama of the search for gubernatorial candidates demonstrates that its a failing of Progressives as well.

We’re experts at creating Frankenstein monsters for ourselves, and this story is a story of Frankensteins. The shared creation, of course, is Governor Douglas himself, who was allowed to develop a head of electoral and popular steam that led him into the Governor’s office by being allowed to run unchallenged as Treasurer.

But the Dems and the Progs are both dealing with their own monsters made manifest in each other, because both seem all too content to leave their political fortunes to the forces of nature – and nature abhors vacuums, as I’ve said many time before on this site.

It was the vacuum created by the lack of a Democrat making serious movements last year that enabled Pollina to swoop in so easily and readily. Pollina becomes the Dems Frankenstein monster.

But the lack of any effort to meaningfully reach out to the Democratic grassroots to shore up the support Pollina claimed to want also left a vacuum just hanging out there. If Pollina had paid more than some occasional, casual lip service to the idea of repairing long-burnt bridges, there would have been no room for what we’ve heard and seen today – Peter Galbraith, for all intents and purposes, being anointed the Democratic party nominee.

And so, Progressives have seen the Dems’ Frankenstein monster with one of their own. There will be lots of grumbling from both sides now, while observers of all political stripes will merely be left to chuckle about how predictable this has all been. In any event, the game’s afoot – and now that the players seem to be on the board, the details become a lot harder to second-guess. I just got in from hearing Galbraith address the Democratic caucus – not quite announcing his campaign, but pretty close (sound familiar?). It’s easy to see the problems presented by such an electoral neophyte, but I suspect that Progressives, Republicans and frustrated Democrats underestimate him at their peril.

Whatever happens next, this all sure is interesting.

I caught the last part of tonight’s South Carolina debate (meaning I missed the apparent fireworks). The supposed free-for-all portion, and I find myself of several contradictory minds on it.

It strikes me as the most substantive and the most nauseating of the debates all at once. The candidates are being given more room to speak in something besides soundbites, and are demonstrating that they are all articulate, intelligent people. Of course, we’re also getting to see just how annoying they can be. Edwards strikes me as the least annoying, and that’s undoubtedly largely due to the fact that I’m more drawn to him politically, but I think there’s a little more to it. Edwards is being far more focused in his rhetoric (if not his attacks), clearly because, as the underdog, he needs to be surgical. As a result, we’re seeing less of the “real” Edwards (whatever that may be – and that’s certainly a question open to debate).

Obama and Clinton are both running as front runners in a sense, and as a result showing us a bit more of their actual personalities. This may well endear themselves to their targeted swing voters, but it really aint working for me. Obama seems as smug and rambly as ever, and in fact seems annoyed at having to share the stage with people he seems to look down on. Clinton is doing a better job hiding her tendency to scold, but it’s obviously coming out in all its unpleasant glory from time to time. It would be interesting to see what sort of annoying personality quirks would be eking out from Edwards if he weren’t having to (largely – but not entirely-  successfully) play it so rigorously disciplined.

But he does, and it’s because he’s playing a fundamentally different game to a narrow slice of voters, wIth this word from TPM:

Will John Edwards manage to win a single contest in all of Campaign 2008? Even his aides don’t think so, according to the New York Times… It’s looking like Edwards’ goal now is to pick up enough delegates to force a brokered convention, where Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would have to make some kind of deal with him.

If this is true, Edwards is no longer playing to win, he’s speaking to progressive issue voters with a simple plea: if you stick with me, I can represent your issues at a brokered convention in a muscular way. He is, in a sense, saying that he will continue to play the role he has already played in the overall election (TPM again):

“You have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election,” (Martin Luther King III) wrote to Edwards. Look, this is true. When the history of this race is written, it will register that Edwards had a salutary effect on the debate during this campaign on multiple issues, poverty only being one of them.

For someone (like me) who votes on the issues more than on the candidate, it’s a compelling argument for sticking with him.

(Bumped to keep at top of page for today. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Another Martin Luther King Jr. day in Vermont. The one day out of the year when we Vermonters seem to allow ourselves to talk about race.

Or at least some of us. Even when discussions of King have arisen since I’ve moved here, they’ve almost always focused on his statements on class, rather than racial justice. And Dr. King’s thoughts on that subject were profound and well-spoken, of course.

Still, it seemed clear to me a long time ago that, given the opportunity, liberal Vermonters will invariably avoid discussions of race. Even when those issues are staring us in the face.

Consider the recent reports on improving the prison system. From the Rutland Herald:

Four Democratic leaders of the Vermont Senate said their plan to restructure major parts of the state’s prison system is still a work in progress, but that it could end up saving the state millions of dollars in a few years.??The proposal calls for the closure of Waterbury’s Dale State Correctional Facility, the renovation of St. Albans’ prison into a women-only facility, and using Windsor’s prison as a home for low-risk offenders and those with drug or alcohol problems.

But nowhere in these discussions does anyone address the most shocking statistic in our prison system – one that should shame all of us.

According to the Sentencing Project’s data from 2005, Vermont is 4th in the nation in incarceration rates for African Americans (only following South Dakota, Wisconsin and Iowa). Even more damning – when looking at the ratio of white incarceration rates to black incarceration rates, Vermont comes in second only to Iowa. And there’s no sugarcoating the numbers:

In seven states – Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, Wisconsin,

North Dakota, and South Dakota – the black-to-white ratio of incarceration

is greater than 10-to-1.

In some states – Vermont, Wisconsin, South Dakota – the more

than ten-fold difference in rates of incarceration is largely due to a

high black rate of incarceration, double that of the national

average.

There is no way you can account for this disparity, even taking into account class, without looking at some ugly realities. Consider issues in Burlington:

As Vermont’s minority populations expand, citizens are complaining with increasing fervor about being racially profiled by local cops.

…and Brattleboro…

BRATTLEBORO – Racial or ethnic minorities in this southern Vermont town have had a disproportionate amount of contact with local police, and more than 80 percent of respondents to a survey released Monday said they believe racial profiling is a problem.??The 2-year-old survey was based on interviews with one-fifth of the community’s minority residents conducted by ALANA Community Organization in late 2004.??About 79 percent of minority households interviewed for the survey reported having contacts with members of the Brattleboro Police Department in the prior year.

These numbers were recently brought to my attention by a local African-American activist who was bemoaning the challenges of being black in lily white Vermont, currently the whitest state in the union. In a state where people consistently use terms like “The Vermont Way” to suggest a monolithic cultural identity, it is especially challenging for people who clearly are different from the overwhelming majority to find themselves reflected within that monochromatic “way.” How could it not be?

And yet we do not talk about race. We don’t make it an issue, because we don’t want it to be an issue. In many cases it simply takes us good liberals out of our comfort zone, and for many of us coming from outside the state, Vermont is all about comfort zone. How many of us from elsewhere have really asked ourselves if any of our relief upon discovering the Vermont “lifestyle” isn’t at least somewhat rooted in the relief of coming to a place where so many people talk, walk, think – and yes, look – just like us? Almost everywhere I’ve lived, I’ve had my built-in prejudices challenged every day – and that’s a good thing. A healthy thing.

How often do we enlightened white folk in the Green Mountains find our prejudices – the fear of “the other” we all have as our human birthright – so challenged?

And what happens to us as individuals if we remove ourselves from those daily challenges?

By extension, then – what happens to us as a people?

And there is no limit to how vigorously will we defend our comfort zones, once we have settled into them. Pride, denial – these are the tools we use to project those things in human nature that aren’t pretty onto others. It’s so easy to settle in among like-minded, like-looking people and decide that prejudice is a problem of the less-enlightened. We can even come to define prejudiced as something inherently the opposite of ourselves. And when that happens, real trouble can start all over again.

I experienced this, of course, when I blogged on the Vermont connections to the neo-confederacy movement, specifically to the League of The South, classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The LoS, of course, is a radical white supremacist organization whose founder, leaders and members have spoken out against segregation, mixed marriages, etc. Some of these same members, of course, maintain close ties with the Second Vermont Republic – serving in official capacities on their Board of Advisors, and given a platform to spread their message through SVR’s so-dubbed  “sister organization,” Vermont Commons. Although I, and anonymous blogger “Thomas Rowley” are referred to as having “exposed” SVR and VC, or making “allegations” – the truth remains, of course, that we merely shared our distaste for what these organizations themselves made no secret of. The result was a campaign of intimidation against me, as well as threats against the family of SPLC Spokesperson (and Vermont native) Mark Potok.

But what I found was odd at the time I now consider the real scandal to the whole ugly affair; the fact that these ties were in the open for all to see, and yet few cared. Worse than that, some who consider themselves to be among the Vermont left embraced these organizations.

I was dumbstruck at the time, and attempted to reach out to anti-racism and pro-diversity organizations in the state. What I discovered was that the ones I found were all virtually useless. The high-profile Peace and Justice Center in Burlington, while purporting to maintain a racial justice program, had none to speak of. UVM based organizations might as well not have existed. I approached three and heard back from one person, who basically told me “well, gee, that sounds terrible.” And of course, the media was mostly AWOL.

In addition, since these revelations, high profile Vermont activists continue to add their names – and by extension their own reputations and credibility – to this developing Vermont Neo-Confederate movement.

And developing it is trying to do in two ways: one, by regaining some semblance of credibility through bringing in other, untarnished activists.

And two: by dropping any pretense of their allegiances. SVR Founder and VT Commons guru Thomas Naylor has been shamelessly appearing nationally with League of the South founder Michael (“Southern culture under attack today is the Anglo-Celtic culture of the South . . . People should be free to socialize or not socialize within or without various ethnic groups with no government intervention…Parents ought to set up their own neighborhood schools and pay for them. They ought to be able to say who comes and who doesn’t.” ) Hill, and has been gleefully labelled “a good confederate” by hate radio celebrity James Edwards during his repeated appearances on that show, lending his name by association to the most horrific kind of race hatred and anti-semitism routinely displayed on their website.

And in the latest travesty, a week ago today – one week before the rest of the nation was to celebrate the life, death and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. – Naylor has his friends from the League of the South on display in Vermont for a so-called “North South Secession Summit”, culminating with a banquet in Montpelier.

Can’t beat that for timing, eh?

At the end of the day, there is one inescapable paradigm in this state. We have so little acknowledgment and understanding of our own built in prejudices, both individually and institutionally, that we don’t address them. And in not addressing them, we have let them fester in our midst. The very people that King’s efforts were successful in taking power from, many supposedly enlightened Vermonters are giving power back to – by lending to them their own reputations, resources, platforms and credibility. And those that work to continue King’s legacy – such as the Southern Poverty Law Center – are being treated by these Vermonters the way the racists have always treated people who theaten their power; with scorn and derision.

Only now, these racists have many of the supposedly enlightened white folk of Vermont backing them up.

Meanwhile, from recent news reports, it would seem that hate crimes in Vermont are once again on the upswing, and African Americans in the state can expect to be incarcerated at better than 4 times the per capita national rate.

Coincidence?

Dr. King, we’ve still got a long, long climb ahead of us…

I’ve heard that Jack McMullen is a pleasant fellow personally, but I’ve always wondered about his, well, intellectual prowess, shall we say. Coming to prominence as he did swooping in from Massachusetts to run against Senator Leahy, without even bothering to fully move to Vermont wasn’t perhaps the most well-considered decision. After a humiliating loss in his own primary to protest candidate Fred Tuttle, he strangely decided to run again against Leahy – and was soundly (and predictably) pummeled.

Today he’s back with an op-ed in the Free Press that is a little, er, embarrassing. His gripe? The Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG). Specifically? He is upset that they have views on issues. And that they advocate for them in the legislature. And then they keep advocating for them. And those views aren’t generally considered Republican ones.

He considers this “corruption.” Hoo-boy.

Now, VPIRG and its Democratic allies are back again. Why is VPIRG so determined to try to pass a campaign finance law of the type just declared unconstitutional?

Uhhh… for the same reasons they’ve supported previous campaign finance efforts, perhaps? Because they think they are the right thing to do? And because they are supported by members who agree?

Gimme a freaking break!

Does he mete the same criticism out to GOP anti-abortion activists who try, time and time again, to make progress on their issue, despite numerous failures at the Supreme Court level? In fact, given their change of fate with the Roberts court, Pro-Lifers are the poster children for sticktuitiveness on constitutional matters in public policy.

in recent years VPIRG has been, in reality, little more than a lobbying enterprise for special interests which, in large measure, fund it — primarily corporate wind power and alternative energy interests.

“Special interests,” of course, being the meaningless catch-phrase for any lobbying efforts that one does not agree with. I don’t even bother with the term myself, anymore, as it’s become utterly meaningless.

The campaign finance bill in question was sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Ed Flanagan, who is also a member VPIRG’s board of directors. In addition, Scudder Parker, who ran for governor as a Democrat last time around and has served as the Democratic Party chairman, is now a hired lobbyist for VPIRG. Senate leader Peter Shumlin has been referred to only half-jokingly as the senator from VPIRG. And the current Democratic chairman, Ian Carleton, has also worked with VPIRG. If the Legislature is looking for corruption or the appearance of corruption to fix, it should start by looking at VPIRG and its relationship to the Vermont Democratic Party.

McMullen’s definition of corruption: someone effectively promoting interests that don’t line up with his, and working with others who agree.

Or perhaps its just corruption if you work with Democrats.

In any event, I’m sure former VPIRG honchos such as Anthony Pollina and Peter Sterling will be intrigued to learn that VPIRG is just an organizational stooge of the Democratic Party.

Meet the Front Pagers:

Jack McCullough Co-founder Jack McCullough is a lawyer who lives in Montpelier, Vermont. He is involved in mental health advocacy and local and state politics. He is also the current Chair of the Washington County Democratic Committee and the Montpelier Democratic Committee.

Julie Waters was an environmentalist, a gay rights activist and a general supporter of the rights of everyone to live well.  She was also an avid bird photographer and musician who did other work (primarily consulting and teaching) to fund her hobbies. Our Julie left this world for whatever lies beyond it on April 8, 2012. Her presence here will always be greatly missed.   Examples of Julie's photography and music can be found at her web site: juliewaters.com

Sue Prent Sue Prent was born in Chicago in 1950. Together with her Canadian-born sculptor husband Mark, she has lived in Montreal, Berlin Germany and finally settled in St. Albans in 1987.  Together, they own and operate a fine art molding and casting business there, make a little art and mostly manage to tread water.  Sue is a confirmed believer in social responsibility and environmental stewardship.  She is proud to be a member of the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth.

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

JD Ryan, formerly known as, "That guy with the crazy hair at the DNC " is one of those not-a-Democrat front pagers Odum warned you about. Has a penchant for bad Italian Western movies, outdated music, going into abandoned mental asylums, activism, and general rabble-rousing, all of which he torments people with on a regular basis over at Five Before Chaos.  Also prone to funky bass playing and atheistic rantings. Do not take with other medications, strong side effects may occur. Not as crazy as Ed Garcia (see above), nor is his resume as remotely interesting as any of the other GMD FP'ers.

Da Rules (largely lifted and re-worked from Daily Kos, 'cause who wants to re-invent the wheel?):  

Green Mountain Daily was started by progressive activists in the Democratic Party, and maintains that focus. It is our intention to promote both left-minded policies and candidates. It is believed that no institution can be healthy without a capacity for rollicking self-criticism, and part of the purpose of this site is to provide such health to the Democratic Party for its own good. We're all sure it will thank us for this some day.

On the other hand, the criticism of Republicans is not done for the health of their institution, but rather to try and do our small part to protect the state and the world from utter destruction at their hands. Perhaps they'll thanks us some day too, but we won't wait up.

The current crop of front pagers includes some who do not consider themselves Democratic Party activists, and the site remains open to all, but don't expect a parade if you've come to evangelize about the evils of all those who call themselves Democrats. You're liable to get back as good as you give, no matter how much you might chose to whine about it. In other words, if you can't take it, don't shovel it.  Please remember this is not a newspaper, public park, government service or political party. That means there are rules. If you dont like them, you are encouraged to start your own blog. There are lots of free ones.

So, here's how it works:

How can I post here? First, you need to create an account. You can post a comment immediately after logging in with the password you receive from your registration email, but you have to wait a day before posting a diary.  

The User Menu When you log in, you'll notice a user menu on the top of the right-hand column. There are links for creating your own diary, as well as going to your own user page, where you can create a profile for yourself that can be as detailed or as skimpy as you like. Explore the links and you'll find that most of the options are reasonably intuitive to someone accustomed to using computers and interacting on the web. For technical tips, see "Technical tips" below (well.. as soon as I write those up – they're not quite available yet)…  

The front page The first thing that you see when loading the site is the front page. Most of the stories on the front page are written by designated front page posters, but we frequently "promote" good user diaries to the front page, especially when we're all feeling to lazy to write anything. On the right hand side, you'll see the "recent diaries" column, which is where user diaries appear. If you are logged in and you click on a link opening up a user diary, you'll have the option of recommending it via a button on the right hand side. Recommended diaries get highlighted a bit higher on the page and do not scroll off as new diaries are written, giving them special emphasis for a few days.  Most of the action takes place inside of diaries where the user comments appear.  

Comment ratings: Comments can be individually rated logged in users on a 1-4 scale, with 1 being "unproductive" and 4 being "excellent", with the rest covering the range in between. If a user receives a small handfull of "excellent" ratings, they become a "trusted user" and have the abilit to rate comments with a zero, or "troll rating." This is a rating reserved for comments which are not designed to add to the discussion, but serve to disrupt or derail it, usually (but not exclusively) by calling other posters names, posting defamatory material, etc. If a comment receives a handful of troll ratings, it becomes "hidden," causing it – along with any responses – to be visible only to trusted users.  Troll ratings are not to be handed out because of disagreement with a posters ideas, for retribution for other ratings or conflicts, because of personal dislike of a poster, or because somebody was simply being crude in a jovial way, with no intention of offending.  

How to get kicked off the site Troll rating vindictively is considered ratings abuse, and can be grounds for banning from the site. Receiving excessive troll ratings on multiple comments indicates a desire to disrupt conversation, and can also be grounds for banning. Posting defamatory material can also lead to a user being banned. If a banned user creates a new user ID and attempts to return, they could also be subject to banning (although if you're actually trying to participate in discussions,we'll probably look the other way on that one)

ON THE REPRODUCTION OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: Unless you're satirizing (making a "transformative" use), it is against fair use laws to reprint in toto a news piece, or any other copyright-protected article on the web. Such diaries or comments will be removed. Repeated violations may subject a user to banning. Click on this link for details.

During a phone call with the press twenty minutes ago, US Senator Patrick Leahy announced he is endorsing Barack Obama for the Democratic Presidential nomination. This is the latest in a string of high-profile endorsements for Obama in recent days, and is particularly significant given Leahy’s high national profile, and his position of leadership as Chair of Senate Judiciary.

It also seems to be part of an Obama strategy of rolling high-profile endorsements that have a cumulative impact. It’s true that any one endorsement is only worth so much, but a steady flow of them would seem to be greater than the sum of the parts. Brilliant.

Clinton still holds the lead in superdelegates, but Leahy just did his part to close the gap.

UPDATE: Welch follows suit. From his office:

“I have great admiration for all the Democratic candidates in the race. But it is Barack Obama who has brought new energy into the political process, inspiring all Americans to believe that it is possible to restore America’s promise at home and in the world.   Senator Obama’s campaign and his remarkable personal journey are helping us reach across a partisan divide and renewing a sense of hope and possibility in our country that we can shape our future by working together and by emphasizing what unites us, not what divides us. Barack Obama embodies the type of leadership America needs to overcome our many challenges.”