Pouring water from glass to glass.

Obama promised to reduce our troop commitment in Iraq.

And he did just that – down to 50,000 “non-combat” military personnel in Iraq from a high of about 180,000. Just as he promised. It was great how Obama managed to pull off this major troop reduction without a boatload of push back from the owners of our militarized economy.

But here’s the cute little twist: all Obama really did was pour water from one glass (Iraq) into another glass (Afghanistan).

That’s why the war-mongers aren’t raising hell, and that is why devout peaceniks such as Sanders, Leahy and Welch will still happily bring home the war pig bacon and lay claim to helping the economy, and that is why I’m not the least bit impressed with Obama’s military moves and that is why I’ll still not be supporting Obama on a political level.

The water levels are the same – the glasses are just different.

The “Plan”

It appears that Brian Dubie’s 10 point “plan” is not so much a plan but a series of talking points.  

A summary of the sort of “plan” we’re discussing:

The plan is:

1. Hold spending to affordable levels

Apparently this includes refusing to use stimulus money in the way it’s intended.

2. Provide tax relief for families and employers

Except that employers tell us specifically that they’d rather pay more taxes than pay for health care:

3. Laser focus on job creation

See above.  If businesses didn’t have to worry about health care, they’d have more resources to grow and create jobs.

4. Market Vermont’s strengths

Such as running an ad which claims that “Vermont ranks 47th best state for business.”  Way to market us.

5. Streamline permitting and regulation

Sidenote: “Streamlining” regulation is why the whole country is scared of buying eggs today.

6. Lower health care costs

By making it more difficult for people to sue doctors for malpractice.  Personally, when I was misdiagnosed to the degree that it caused me kidney failure, I think having the option to sue was a reasonable one.

7. Steady leadership for long-term challenges

I’ve worked in corporate America.  I know “quality” speak when I hear it.  It’s like doing Mad Libs at an Amway convention: “John chose to collaterize his long-term strategic assets to best compliment his portfolio futures.”

8. Build next-generation business infrastructure

Dubie’s been Lt. Governor for quite some time now.  Has he done anything in order to promote these goals?

9. Strengthen education and training

See the video at the beginning.

10. Power up our energy future

Awesome slogan!

Thanks be to Sts. Deb & Peter, the patron saints of lemonade

Should Matt Dunne and Susan Bartlett have been included in Team Recount-unity? Will it all be enough to keep Democatic primary voters’ enthusiasm up and tempers down? Is the motivation self-interest or team spirit?

These are quantum, unknowable questions that can, and will be debated. One thing that can’t be debated, however, is the unprecedented solidarity between the apparent winner, the second place finisher calling for a recount, and the third place finisher who is also entitled to a recount by virtue of the historically tight finish. And while the party-togetherness alone is nice, it is hardly the unprecedented piece of this. It’s the actual coordination, allowing the Shumlin campaign to move forward without worrying about damaging blowback from other candidate’s supporters – that’s the truly unique and extraordinary part.

In light of this, it is meet and right to honor and praise St. Deborah of Montpelier and St. Peter of Putney, the Democratic Party’s patron saints of lemonade.

Generous St. Deb & St. Peter, you gained this crowning grace with your act of self denial. By faithfulness in the bigger picture you were ready for your vital trial. Please teach us by your example and help to use the lemons of life so that we may not miss our chance for lemonade eternal. Help us, too, to watch and pray for ourselves and others. Amen.

GMD exclusive: Uncut Dubie campaign spot

Through an unusual set of circumstances Green Mountain Daily has obtained a sneak preview of some raw footage of what is believed the next RGA funded commercial in support of Brian Dubie’s candidacy. Insiders shown the ad speculate it will soon be released in co-ordination with his long awaited Ten Point Plan.  

In the un-edited spot, a fit looking Lt.Gov. stands beside an easel and helpfully points at his Ten Point Plan and expounds on his vision for Vermont’s future. The comprehensive list notes the importance of relaxation, grooming and positive attitude.

No doubt some of the less polished moments will be edited out of the final piece. However, this uncut version offers a unique glimpse into the campaign’s strategy for swaying voters with Dubie’s unadorned suggestions.

Homeless man kicked off of Dubie campaign train while Dubie campaigns on “screw the poor” platform

The race appears to be promising in terms of symbolism.  Per today’s Rutland Herald:

A picturesque campaign tour by Republican gubernatorial candidate Brian Dubie through Vermont on Saturday on a set of antique train cars ran into an antique problem…

Brattleboro Police Officer Chad Emery said he was called in after a New England Central Railroad conductor in charge of pulling the pair of private rail cars on the campaign train’s journey down from St. Albans found a man inside the train carrying a blanket.

I’d say that given Brian Dubie’s 10 point economic “plan” pretty much throws kicks the indigent to the curb, this actually fits perfectly, especially given this comment:

Dubie’s campaign manager, Corry Bliss, said Democrats are trying to obscure their own history of imposing “higher taxes, new government programs and other gimmicks that hit like a lead balloon.”

“Peter Shumlin never lets the truth get in the way of his political agenda,” Bliss wrote in a campaign e-mail. “I guess the National Federation of Independent Business/Vermont hadn’t heard about his plan when they gave him a 0-percent rating on their newest legislative scorecard.”

The National Federation of Independent Business?  That’s the organization that joined a lawsuit to get health care reform declared unconstitutional.

Some more gems from the NFIB:

Card-Check Agreements

NFIB opposes efforts to make it easier for unions to organize within small businesses by mandating card-check agreements instead of private-ballot elections.

In other words, they support more opportunity to bust unions.

Expansion of Family Medical Leave Act

NFIB believes government mandates take away small employers’ and employees’ freedoms to negotiate the benefits package that best meets their mutual needs.

FLSA/Overtime Reform

NFIB supports updating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to give workers flexibility and to permit employers to reward workers financially for improving productivity and profitability.

When groups like this advocate for “freedoms” or “flexibility” they generally mean freedom to choose between doing what the company wants and getting fired or downsized and the “flexibility” to be classified as salaried employees in order to get extra work out of them without pay.

Federal Minimum Wage

NFIB opposes efforts to increase the federal minimum wage.

Well, of course they do.

Wave of Islamophobia Sweeping U.S. Is Repeat of Anti-Japanese Hysteria After Pearl Harbor

9/11/01 Has Been Called ‘The New Pearl Harbor’ for Today’s Generations of Americans, But Nearly Forgotten is the Wave of Anti-Japanese Bigotry That Swept the U.S. After 12/7/41, Leading to the Forced Removal and Internment of Upwards of 120,000 Japanese-Americans — Will America’s 1.3 Million Muslims Face the Same Fate?

File:JapaneseRelocationNewspapers1942.gif

Copies of a 1942 edition of the San Francisco Examiner announce with a screaming — and highly derogatory — banner headline the impending removal of thousands of Japanese-Americans from their homes and businesses in California and relocation to internment camps located in remote areas across the western U.S. As many as 120,000 Japanese-Americans were forcibly relocated amid a wave of anti-Japanese bigotry that swept the country following Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 have often been called “The New Pearl Harbor” for today’s generations of Americans. But a mounting controversy over plans to construct an Islamic center near Ground Zero has unleashed a wave of anti-Muslim passions across the country of a magnitude that, if it continues unchecked, could match the ill will toward Japanese-Americans during World War II. (Photo courtesy National Archives)

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EDT Tuesday, August 31, 2010)

By SKEETER SANDERS

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

— George Santayana

* * *

As controversy continues to build over the planned construction of an Islamic cultural center and mosque two blocks away from New York’s Ground Zero, there has been a dramatic spike in incidents of anti-Muslim bigotry in recent weeks, indicative of a wave of Islamophobia that is sweeping across the United States.

Opposition to new mosques isn’t limited to New York. There have been demonstrations and acts of violence against existing and proposed Muslim houses of worship from coast to coast — including a suspected arson fire Friday night at the site of a new Islamic center in suburban Nashville.

A spokesman for the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Department said that the blaze, which destroyed construction equipment at the future site of the Islamic center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, has been ruled as arson. Gasoline was poured over the equipment and ignited.

The Sheriff’s Department and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms — as well as the FBI — are jointly investigating the fire as a possible hate crime, according to Andy Anderson, special agent for the BATF.

MUSLIM TAXI DRIVER IN NEW YORK ATTACKED

Acts of violence against individual Muslims have also risen sharply — the most notorious such incident so far being an attack on a Muslim taxi driver last Tuesday night in New York. The driver, an immigrant from Bangladesh, was slashed by his knife-wielding passenger after he acknowledged being a Muslim.

Police arrested Michael Enright, 21, who had just returned from filming U.S. Mariens serving in Afghanistan and charged him with felony attempted murder motivated by religious bias in the attack on 43-year-old taxi driver Ahmed Sharif. Police said Sharif was slashed across the face, arm and hand.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg condemned the attack, telling reporters at a hurriedly-called City Hall news conference that it was “clearly motivated by anti-Muslim bias. . .This attack runs counter to everything that New Yorkers believe, no matter what God we pray to.”

ANTI-MUSLIM PASSIONS RAGING ACROSS THE COUNTRY

Much of the anti-Muslim passion is being fanned by conservative politicians and hard-line right-wing Christian evangelicals who consider Islam an “evil” religion and an “enemy of the Judeo-Christian way of life.”

Long before the controversy over the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” escalated into a major headline-grabbing battle over the right of Muslims in America to freedom of worship under the First Amendment, there has been a steady uptick in anti-Muslim sentiment across the country:

# Several Christian ministers in Sheboygan, Wisconsin led a noisy protest in May against a proposal to build a local mosque in a former health food store purchased by a Muslim doctor.

# Members of the right-wing Tea Party movement in late July insultingly brought dogs — much beloved by Westerners but considered unclean animals by Muslims — to picket Friday prayers at a mosque in Temecula, California, whose leaders want to build a new house of worship on a vacant lot nearby.

# Also in late July, trustees of a Roman Catholic church in the New York City borough of Staten Island rejected a proposal to sell a former convent owned by the parish to a Muslim group that wanted to convert it into a mosque, after word of the proposed sale was made public, sparking loud anti-Muslim protests by local residents.

# Muslim leaders in Bridgeport, Connecticut asked for police protection on August 6 after members of a right-wing Christian-supremacist group staged an angry protest outside a local mosque during Friday prayers, shouting hateful anti-Muslim invectives at the worshippers, and accusing their children of being “murderers” as they left the mosque. The protesters were members of the Texas-based Operation Save America — an offshoot of anti-abortion extremist Randall Terry’s Operation Rescue.

# And just last Tuesday, a zoning board in Mayfield, Kentucky reversed its decision to allow a group of Muslim refugees to use a local building as a mosque. The owner of a flower shop located next door to the building, a self-described evangelical Christian, said it might have been different if the building was to be used as a Baptist church.

AT HEART OF ISLAMOPHOBIC WAVE: 9/11, THE ‘NEW PEARL HARBOR’

By now, the source of the current wave of anti-Muslim bigotry sweeping the country should be obvious: The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 that destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, damaged the Defense Department’s headquarters at the Pentagon in Washington and killed more than 3,500 people.

The attacks, committed by 19 al-Qaida terrorists, was almost immediately considered an act of war against the United States by a foreign force on U.S. soil — the first such act of war since the Japanese attack on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7, 1941, which plunged this country into World War II.

Even this columnist, a New York City native whose stepfather was a member of the construction crews who built the twin towers when I was a kid, regarded the events of September 11, 2001 as a repeat of December 7, 1941 — the new Pearl Harbor for the present generations of Americans alive today — as I watched the full horror of the 9/11 attacks unfold on live television.

I even remember writing on a chalkboard in a now-defunct juice bar in my adopted hometown of Burlington, Vermont, the following message as I watched the destruction of the twin towers:

“Days of Infamy: December 7, 1941 — September 11, 2001.”

September 11, 2001 would, for my generation and for every generation of Americans alive today, forever live as a day of infamy, much as December 7, 1941 would live as a day of infamy for the World War II-era GI Generation — whom retired NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw dubbed “The Greatest Generation” — most of whom are no longer with us and the shrinking number of them who remain are now well into their 80s and 90s.

AN EERIE ECHO OF AN UGLY CHAPTER IN U.S. HISTORY RIGHT AFTER PEARL HARBOR

It truly is unfortunate that there are fewer and fewer Americans of the GI Generation still living, for lost with their passing is the collective memory of one of the ugliest chapters of American history — one that the current wave of Islamophobia threatens to repeat.

That chapter is the even more virulent wave of bigotry against Japanese-Americans that swept the country in the months following Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor — bigotry so intense and widespread that it ultimately resulted in tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans forcibly removed by the federal government from their homes and businesses and sent to internment camps located in remote area across the western U.S.

The discrimination and hostility that German-Americans experienced during World War I was nothing compared to what Japanese-Americans would endure after Pearl Harbor. The Germans were white and European; the Japanese were neither. What happened to Japanese-Americans during World War II was — most historians today agree — one of the most blatantly racist episodes in the nation’s history.

And it was directed by none other than the man considered America’s greatest president of the 20th Century — Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

That the treatment of Japanese-Americans was motivated by anti-Asian racism was made clear by the uncovering of FBI documents from that era. From 1939 to 1941, the FBI compiled what the bureau called the Custodial Detention Index on U.S. citizens, “enemy” aliens and foreign nationals which might be dangerous. Interestingly, the so-called “enemy races” identified in the FBI’s files specifically excluded those of German and Italian descent.

ANTI-JAPANESE SENTIMENT RAN HIGHEST IN CALIFORNIA, HAWAII

Nowhere did anti-Japanese bigotry run higher than in California and Hawaii, where Japanese-Americans were most heavily concentrated. Unlike German-Americans and Italian-Americans, who numbered in the millions and were spread across the country, there were fewer than a half-million Japanese-Americans. The attack on Pearl Harbor led to fears that Japan was preparing a full-scale attack on the U.S. west coast, making Japanese-Americans — particularly the American-born, second-generation nisei — a convenient target for discrimination.

Japan’s rapid military conquest of much of Asia made their war machine appear to some Americans frighteningly unstoppable. Civilian and military officials had concerns about the loyalty of Japanese-Americans and considered them to be a security risk.

Upon examination of historical record, however, it became clear that these concerns often grew more out of anti-Asian racial hatred than any actual security risk, particularly since no such alarm was raised about German-Americans and Italian-Americans.

Nor was the racist sentiment one-sided. Japanese propaganda films captured after the war revealed an equally racist attitude by Japan against the mostly-white Americans — making it clear that each side saw the other as less than human.

Nonetheless, American attitudes toward the Japanese and Japanese-Americans in World War II stood in stark contrast to their attitudes toward Americans of German and Italian ancestry — even when compared to the prejudice toward German-Americans during World War I. Then-President Woodrow Wilson never issued an executive order for the detention of Americans of German or Austro-Hungarian ancestry during that war.

FDR ORDERS INTERNMENT OF UP TO 120,000 JAPANESE-AMERICANS

Thus, on February 20, 1942, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, ordering the forcible relocation of approximately 112,000 to 120,000 ethnic Japanese — 62 percent of whom were U.S. citizens — from their homes to hastily-constructed “war relocation camps” located primarily in remote regions, far from the country’s major urban centers.

Roosevelt’s order authorized U.S. military commanders to designate “military areas” at their discretion, “from which any or all persons may be excluded.” These “exclusion zones,” unlike the “alien enemy” roundups, were applicable to anyone that an authorized military commander might choose, whether citizen or non-citizen.

Eventually such areas would include both the east and west coasts, and about a third of the country’s interior — and were applied almost exclusively to all of those of Japanese ancestry, although there were many instances of Chinese-Americans also getting caught up in the internment. Indeed, the internments in California brought back memories of violent attacks on Chinese nationals and Chinese-Americans by white mobs in San Francisco in the late 1800s.

INTERNMENT PROVED IMPRACTICAL IN HAWAII

The internment order proved, however, to be impractical to enforce in Hawaii — despite the fact that Japanese-Americans there were closer to essential military facilities than most of their compatriots on the U.S. mainland. This was because Japanese-Americans were over a third of Hawaii’s population — and were too vital to the islands’ economy.

Instead, the whole of Hawaii — which, although a U.S. territory, was not yet the nation’s 50th state — was placed under martial law. The Army imposed a dusk-to-dawn curfew on the entire population of Hawaii except those on official business and compiled intelligence dossiers on nearly half a million Hawaiians.

Today, Hawaii is the only state in the U.S. that has a majority-Asian population. Slightly more than 50 percent of Hawaii’s residents today are of Japanese ancestry — including U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye — a highly-decorated World War II veteran — and U.S. Representative Mazie Hirono.

In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government. The legislation stated that government actions were based on “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.” Over $1.6 billion in reparations were later disbursed by the U.S. government to Japanese-Americans who had either suffered internment or were heirs of those who had suffered internment.

WILL HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF WITH AMERICA’S 1.3 MILLION MUSLIMS?

With the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II all but faded from the collective American memory, there is a real danger that this dark chapter of American history, as the Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana warns in his famous aphorism quoted at the beginning of this column, could be repeated — this time against America’s estimated 1.3 million Muslims.

The open hatred that the 9/11 attacks have generated against Muslims ignores the fact that, of the more than 3,500 people who were slaughtered at the hands of the 19 al-Qaida terrorists, there were dozens of victims who were themselves Muslims — including Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old New York City police cadet who was also a part-time ambulance driver and a medical student; and Mohammed Jawarta, who worked for MAS, a private security firm.

Let’s not forget that among the nation’s 1.3 million Muslims include a significant number of celebrities, including three-time heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali; basketball Hall of Famer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar; the reigning Miss USA, Rima Fakiah — even though she has herself come out against the proposed Cordoba House Islamic Center; actor/comedian Dave Chappelle; Aasif Mandvi, of the faux-news comedy “Daily Show;” and composer A. R. Rahman, a frequent visitor to the U.S. from India who’s best known for scoring the music of the Golden Globe and Oscar-winning film, “Slumdog Millionaire.”

WAVE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA A DANGEROUS PRECURSOR TO OUTRIGHT FASCISM

The strong, passionate feelings expressed by the loved ones of the more than 3,500 people murdered by the 9/11 terrorists are something that has to be taken seriously. But the voices of the relatives of the 9/11 victims have, unfortunately, been joined by an ugly chorus of anti-Muslim bigots and extremely arrogant WASP evangelicals who believe that all non-Christian people of faith are condemned to go to hell for praying to a “false god.”  

That this chorus is disregarding the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion to ALL Americans — including the nation’s Muslims — is an obscene affront to the very foundations upon which this country was built — and to which I, as a member of a faith minority myself (I’m a Wiccan) — must raise my voice in protest.  

It is also a dangerous descent into an ideology that this country sent up to 12 million of its bravest to fight against in World War II.  

That ideology is fascism — the belief that one race or one religion or one ethnicity or one nationality is superior to all others and/or that all others are evil. What some Americans are saying about Muslims today is little different from what Hitler and his Nazis said about Jews in Germany more than 70 years ago.

Even Japanese-American survivors of the World War II-era internment see dangerous parallels between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, with some survivors warning within days of the 9/11 attacks that what happened to them could happen to American Muslims.

Santayana is right. Those who cannot remember the past truly are condemned to repeat it.

# # #

Copyright 2010, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.

Unity 2010: The Tour Continues (updated with video)

Video of today’s press conference is here, linked from the 7 Days Blog:

This video does not include the Shumlin component so if anyone has that, please let me know and I will include that as well.

Press release has been moved below the fold.

This just in:

AUGUST 30, 2010

CONTACT: Alexandra MacLean

Shumlin Campaign Manager

1-802-272-0443

Amy Shollenberger

Racine Campaign Manager

1-802-793-1114

Paul Tencher

Markowitz Campaign Manager

1-401-965-3761

Democratic gubernatorial candidates, Peter Shumlin, Doug Racine and Deb Markowiz will hold a press conference today at 2:30 to respond to Brian Dubie’s economic plan.  The candidates will hold the press conference at Dealer.com in Burlington.

What: Peter Shumlin, Doug Racine and Deb Markowitz to hold press conference to respond to Brian Dubie’s economic plan

Where: Dealer.com, 431 Pine St. Burlington

When: Today, August 30 at 2:30

It’s a good thing these events are so unusual…

…’cause otherwise I’d be concerned.  Thanks to Larry Smith, Director of Communications for Vermont Yankee, for making us all feel better:

Operators at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant declared an Unusual Event at 7:05 p.m., Sunday.

The Unusual Event was declared due to a loss of some control room alarm circuits… Plant maintenance and engineering technicians investigated the… problem. During the event, the plant was at 100 percent power and was stable, Smith stated…

Update: even the state police don’t want to be too close to VY, in a report on their attempt to find a new barracks location:

According to a 2008 report issued by the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Buildings and General Services, both the Rockingham and Brattleboro barracks are “worn out, under-sized and have outlived their useful lives.”

The report found that sites near Exits 1, 2, 3 and 4 would not work because of their proximity to Vermont Yankee. In case of an emergency at the nuclear power plant, a command center near Yankee might have to be evacuated.

What comes next (updated with major unity letter from Peter, Doug and Deb)

Major Update on what just happened:

  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

   AUGUST 29, 2010

   CONTACT:

   Alexandra MacLean

   Shumlin Campaign Manager

   (802) 272-0443

   Amy Schollenberger

   Racine Campaign Manager

   (802) 793-1114

   Paul Tencher

   Markowitz Campaign Manager

   (401) 965-3761

   Burlington, Vt – Gubernatorial candidates, Peter Shumlin, Doug Racine and Deb Markowitz sent the following e-mail to their lists of supporters today.

   Dear Vermonter,

   As we prepare for the recount process we wanted to share with you our plan to ensure that no matter what the results of the recount are, we will beat Brian Dubie in November.

   With the unofficial results showing Peter winning by 197 votes, we all agree that he should continue to campaign as the presumptive nominee.  We’ve also agreed to campaign together while the recount takes place.  Our vision for Vermont is dramatically different than Brian Dubie’s and as this process unfolds, it is critical that Vermonters understand the contrast between Brian’s vision and our own.

   We will all be working together over the coming days to ensure that the recount process happens as quickly and effectively as possible so the nominee has as much time as possible to beat Brian.  In addition, the three of us will continue to work together to ensure that fundraising, staffing and other efforts essential to the campaign continue.

   In many ways, this may have been the most extraordinary primary in the history of Vermont.  All five candidates articulated their vision for Vermont without disparaging each other.  The reason that roughly 75,000 Vermonters turned out to vote is because they were energized by these positive visions.  Whatever the results of the recount, the Democratic nominee will have this energy, passion, and excitement behind them as they take on Brian Dubie.

   Thank you for all of your support.

   Best,

   Peter, Doug, Deb

Racine has requested a recount.  At this juncture, there are several possible outcomes.  This piece outlines my perspective on the possible outcomes, and what we need to do to maintain our best chance of Democratic victory come November.

First, regarding the recount itself:

It’s easy to object to a recount and explain why it’s a bad idea.  It’s easy to sow discord over it because some people truly do resent it.  Others think it’s a bad idea, politically, for a variety of reasons.  They may or may not be wrong, but that’s become irrelevant at this point.

Here’s what’s important to remember: the campaign for the Democratic nomination is over.  The votes have been cast.  The decision has been made.  That decision will be known for certain in the not too distant future, but there’s nothing we can do to change it in any form at this point.  

So we have options.  We can discuss whether or not the recount is a good idea.  We can complain about it or praise it.  We can argue over it.  But that ship has sailed, and, honestly, come November 3rd, no one will care what we say now about it.  Some of us will be able to say “see!  I told you it was an awful idea” or “I was right!  The recount helped us in the end.”  

Right here, right now, I, personally, would like to focus on the things that we can change, the things we can do, and where to go from here.

So let’s talk about the things to look out for:

When the nomination was undecided for President in 2008, there was a concerted effort on the part of Republicans to sow discord and disarray among Democrats, exploiting anger between the groups.  I don’t need to tell anyone this, but sometimes we need reminders.

Expect this.  Expect a media narrative that this is bad for Democrats.  It doesn’t matter whether you agree with it or if it’s right.  This narrative would have come no matter the situation, no matter the outcome.  Expect people to come to groups such as ours, pretending to be Democrats, trying to make us fight one another.  

But also expect real Democrats with real anger over this to be coming here to have their say about this as well and expect to have difficulty telling the difference.

All of that is okay.  What, however, is dangerous is turning it into an opportunity for the rest of us to start bashing our candidates in the process.  There is potential for harm in this, because it does sow discord, whether intentional or not.

I say this and some of you will use this as an opportunity to vent anger.  Do that or not, but keep in mind the bigger picture.  We have a Democrat to elect in November.  

In the meantime, those of us who do not have an axe to grind over this have an obligation to speak with kindness and clarity, without attacking one another.  We can disagree without fighting.  We can dissent without dismissing.  We can discuss without damage.

When this is all over, we will have one of three outcomes.  Either Shumlin will win, Racine will win or, in a move that will completely amaze everyone, Markowitz will win.

In any case, some people will be disappointed, but they’ll have felt at the end of this that their voice was heard and know their vote was counted.  They’ll end up as supporters of the final winner if we can keep the campaigns as cordial as they have been prior to the vote.  

This means not rising to bait.  This means thinking about what we post– not self-censorship but just thinking of intent.  When we post something that’s an attack on a candidate or his or her supporters, are we doing so to validate or own egos?  Are we doing so to be defensive and/or aggressive?  Or, instead, are we doing so to benefit the campaigns?  Again, I’m not saying what people should or should not do except to say that we need to be conscious of what we are doing and think about it clearly.  

I say all this because I’ve already seen hostile comments from supporters of both Racine and Shumlin, about each candidate and/or his supporters.  These have come up here and on the candidates’ Facebook pages.

All I’m really asking is “what’s the point?”  As I said, the campaign is over.  Arguing the relative merits of a Shumlin vs. Racine choice is no longer of value.  In any case, 3/4ths of the Democratic electorate refused to support your candidate and they had reasons for making the choice they did.  Whoever comes out on top here, doesn’t just want that other 75%.  She or he desperately needs it.

So this is what can happen in the meantime:

The candidates themselves can reach out to one another.  They can work together and with their own supporters to encourage them to support the winner.  They can show great respect for one another throughout the process.  And they can agree as a group to go after Brian Dubie.  

One vulnerability that exists right now is that if any of the candidates goes after Dubie directly, taking the fight to him, it will seem presumptuous, like they’re declaring victory before it’s over.

You need to be presumptuous to run for Governor.  You need to be a little arrogant.  It’s okay.

So let’s have them all do it, hammering him constantly over the next three weeks.  And I don’t just mean Shumlin and Racine.  I mean Markowitz, Dunne and Bartlett.  I mean they need to be playing up why Dubie is bad for Vermont.  If all five are doing it, there is no room for anyone to look presumptuous.  And if they all do a great job of it, we’ll all be more comfortable with who the nominee is, even it wasn’t our first (or 3rd choice).

But we need to be doing this too.  And we’re especially poised to do this because we have nothing to lose and, quite frankly, we can be mean in ways the candidates never can.

We can muckrake.  We talk about this:

MONTPELIER – Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie received a helping hand in his gubernatorial bid from Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell Monday, who hosted a major fundraiser for the Vermont Republican in Washington, D.C.

He also got a barrage of criticism from Democrats for appearing with a man who once said that working women and feminists are “detrimental” to families and has recently rescinded a state policy against discriminating against gays and lesbians.

“It’s not suprising that one of the most conservative governors in America is helping out Brian Dubie,” said Alex MacLean, the campaign manager for Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin. “Brian Dubie is far too conservative for Vermont.”

in ways that are far less polite than our candidates need to be.

So here’s my question, to every one reading this:

What are you going to do next that increases the chances that we end up with a Democrat in the Governor’s office come November?  

Thanks, Martha Abbott!

I think we should take a moment to commend  Martha Abbott for taking one for the team; the “team” being Vermont’s best interests. Today’s Free Press carried a gracious “My Turn” by the withdrawn Progressive candidate for Governor, including the following comments:

I will decline the Progressive nomination for governor, a nomination I sought in order to ensure that the Progressive Party would not have a candidate in that race this year.  Someday there will be a voting system that will give Vermonters a real choice between more than two candidates in the general election.  But we are not there yet.  We have a lot of work to do together.

As an unaffiliated, small “p” progressive, do I hear an “Amen” from anyone in the choir?