One Year After Being Elected the Republican Party’s First African-American National Chairman, Michael Steele’s Authority Is Still Under Fire From Hard-Line Conservatives — Now Steele’s Foes Are Claiming He’s Using His Post For Personal Profit, Charging Up to $20G in Speaking Fees

In the year since he became the first African-American to be elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele has had to endure one controversy after another — some of which were of his own making with his repeated episodes of off-the-cuff remarks. Hard-line conservatives — who never wanted him to be chairman in the first place — have constantly challenged his authority, succeeding in stripping him of powers that GOP national committee chairmen before him had long enjoyed unfettered. Now, midway through his two-year term, Steele’s future as party chairman is becoming increasingly cloudy, as he has come under fire for allegedly using his position for personal profit, charging up to $20,000 in speaking fees. (Photo courtesy ThePalmettoScoop.com)

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EST Monday, January 4, 2010)

By SKEETER SANDERS

When Michael Steele was elected the first African-American chairman of the Republican National Committee nearly a year ago, it had appeared at the time that the GOP — having suffered two consecutive shellackings at the ballot box in which voters shunned Republican  candidates the way Superman shuns kryptonite — had finally decided to make a clean break from the regime of conservative, white and mostly Southern males that had dominated the party for more than 30 years.

“We have been misdefined as a party that doesn’t care, a party that’s insensitive, a party that is unconcerned about minorities, a party that is unconcerned about the lives and the expectations and dreams of average Americans,” Steele told reporters in a news conference following his election.

“Nothing could be further from the truth,” he continued. “I’m saying enough’s enough, that day is over. This is the dawn of a new party moving in a new direction with strength and conviction . . . It’s time for something completely different.”

Steele vowed that under his leadership, “We’re going to say to friend and foe alike, we want you to be a part of us.” And, in a remark that some in the mainstream media interpreted as a warning to party conservatives, he added, “To those of you who will obstruct, get ready to get knocked over.”

Instead, it was Steele who got “knocked over” — again and again — by party conservatives in the most tumultuous tenure by a Republican national chairman in the party’s history.

Now, midway through his two-year term, Steele’s future as GOP national chairman is becoming increasingly cloudy. And the conservative GOP establishment, figuratively speaking, is out for blood — Steele’s blood.

STEELE’S PREDECESSORS RIP HIS RAKING IN AS MUCH AS $20G IN SPEAKING FEES

At least two of his predecessors, Frank Fahrenkopf and Jim Nicholson, have sharply criticized what they say is Steele’s attempt to personally profit from his speaking engagements at colleges, trade associations and other groups, raking in as much as $20,000 in honorariums, or speaking fees.

“Holy mackerel!” exclaimed Fahrenkopf in an interview with The Washington Times. “I never heard of a chairman of either party ever taking money for speeches. The job of a national chairman is to give speeches. That’s what the national party pays him for.”

As chairman, Steele earns an annual salary of $223,500.

Nicholson, also interviewed by the conservative daily, said the job “demands so much of your time that you can work 24/7 and not get everything done, so taking time out to speak for the benefit of one’s own bank account is not appropriate.”

Fahrenkopf served as RNC chairman under President Ronald Reagan from 1983 to 1989 and is now chief executive of the American Gaming Association, the national trade association for the commercial casino industry. Nicholson was party chairman from 1997 to 2000 and served as Secretary of Veterans Affairs under President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007. He is now a Washington attorney.

RIGHT-WING HARD-LINERS FOUGHT STEELE FROM THE START

That Steele would find himself embroiled in a controversy over getting paid for his speaking engagements is only the latest in a string of brouhahas that have marked his tenure as party chairman from the very beginning.

Even his election last January, hailed as a historic turning point for the GOP just days after President Obama’s inauguration as the nation’s first African-American chief executive, came after a campaign within the party riven with charges of racism — a contest that an Ohio state GOP chairman called “the dirtiest ever.”

Hard-line party conservatives — who never wanted Steele to be chairman in the first place — fought tooth and nail in a bitter, albeit unsuccessful, campaign to defeat him with nasty innuendo.

Steele was forced to face down vicious accusations — often made anonymously — that he did not possess a true conservative philosophy and that he was actually a social liberal, citing Steele’s past association with the Republican Leadership Council, which he co-founded with former New Jersey Governor Christie Todd Whitman.

A moderate who served as the head of the federal Environmental Protection Agency during Bush’s first term, Whitman’s outspoken support for abortion rights infuriated many social conservatives.

STEELE BLASTS LIMBAUGH, THEN APOLOGIZES AFTER TALK-SHOW HOST ‘WHACKS’ HIM

Then there was the memorable back-and-forth in March between Steele and right-wing radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh — whom many Democrats and liberals believe is the real boss of the GOP — when Steele criticized Limbaugh while appearing on CNN’s now-defunct “D.L. Hughley Breaks the News” on February 28. “I am the leader of the Republican Party,” Steele told Hughley. “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. His whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it’s incendiary. Yes, it’s ugly.”

Limbaugh roared back on March 2 with a blistering smackdown of Steele. “It’s time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do, instead of trying to be some talking-head media star,” Limbaugh thundered. “If it’s your position as the head of the Republican National Committee that you want a left-wing Democrat president and a left-wing Democrat Congress to succeed in advancing their agenda . . . I think you have some explaining to do. Why are you running the Republican Party?”

And Steele’s response to Limbaugh’s verbal whacking of him? Appearing March 4 on Sean Hannity’s Fox News Channel show, Steele said he had a private conversation with Limbaugh and denied that his comments on CNN were intended as an attack on talk radio’s undisputed godfather.

“It’s all good. . .We’re past this,” Steele told Hannity. “It was clearly a misunderstanding. My intent was never to go after my friend. I like Rush. He’s an important conservative voice for our party and for 20-plus years, he’s been holding that line.”

STEELE FORCED TO GIVE UP POWERS OVER SPENDING OF REPUBLICAN PARTY FUNDS

Although they failed to block Steele’s election as GOP chairman last January, party conservatives have waged an unrelenting war to undermine his authority in the year since — and partially succeeded.

Steele was forced last spring to sign a secret pact with party conservatives in which he agreed to submit to controls and restraints on how he spends millions of dollars in party funds and contracts. For decades, the RNC chairman enjoyed almost unrestricted authority over how to spend the party’s funds.

The so-called “good governance” agreement imposed restrictions on Steele’s authority to conduct the Republican National Committee’s business — including contracts, fees for legal work and other expenditures. Steele agreed to cede some of his authority after several conservative committee members threatened a “no-confidence” vote against the chairman at a special RNC meeting in Washington that was scheduled to convene in late May.

GOP CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS WARN STEELE TO ‘BACK OFF’ ON POLICY

Steele’s style as party chairman has even ruffled the feathers of Republican leaders of Congress — so much so that they told him in no uncertain terms in a closed-door private meeting in September to quit meddling in public policy matters.

According to Politico.com, citing several sources, the GOP congressional leadership issued their blunt warning to Steele amid a heated discussion at the Capitol Hill office of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) “about the roles of congressional leadership and Steele.”

The Republican congressional leaders were furious with Steele for proposing a “health care bill of rights” for senior citizens without consulting them. They told Steele point-blank to concentrate on the governors’ races in New Jersey and Virginia and other political matters and leave the policymaking to the GOP lawmakers.

That didn’t sit well with Steele, according to the sources, who said he was responding to questions asked of him about where the Republican Party stood on a variety of issues and that he was determined to continue fighting and aggressively defending the party.

FLAP OVER SPEAKING FEES COULD BE THE FINAL STRAW

The controversy over Steele’s speaking fees could end up jeopardizing his chances of being re-elected GOP national chairman a year from now. According to The Washington Times, Steele charges between $8,000 and $20,000 per speech, plus first-class travel and lodging expenses.

Harry Sandler, whom the paper identified as a person who manages some of Steele’s bookings for the American Program Bureau, a private booking agency, said that the GOP chairman usually charges between $10,000 and $15,000 per speaking engagement.

Sandler said Steele was paid about $15,000 for a speech in September at Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Arkansas. Steele has an upcoming speaking engagement at DePaul University in Chicago, for which he will be paid $12,500.

Steele’s office sought to downplay the controversy. An RNC spokeswoman dismissed it as “silly,” claiming that many past party chairmen — both Republican and Democrat — “have regularly received outside income.”

But coming just weeks after yet another feud within the party — this time over a leaked proposal by conservatives to pull the financial plug on Republican candidates who don’t support core conservative party principles, including opposition to abortion and same-gender marriage — it’s now an open question as to whether Steele can win a second two-year term in 2011 as GOP national chairman.

That, of course, assumes that he even wants to keep the job. Especially after he told CNN commentator Roland Martin on his weekly syndicated TV show “Washington Watch” in November that that he’s experienced fear from white Republicans because he’s black.

Responding to Martin’s criticism of white Republicans as being “scared of black folks” and that he faces a tough job at drawing black voter support for Republicans, Steele acknowledged that “I’ve been in the room and they’ve [white Republicans] been scared of me and I’m like, ‘I’m on your side.'”

With all the grief that Steele is getting from party conservatives, one wonders how much longer he’ll remain on their side.

# # #

Copyright 2010, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.

Standing at the beginning of a new year and a new decade (OK, technically the new decade starts in 2011, but whatever…) is a time for reflection, renewal – and most importantly, awards. Yes, everybody has an award for awards season, which seems to begin around about mid-December and continue til the Oscars.

So we at GMD can recognize a good bandwagon when we see one. We decided we needed our own awards that recognize the many levels and flavors of failure in the Vermont political scene.

And like many other annual awards, ours will be named after our first overall grand prize winner whose infamy would be, shall we say, not so much appropriate fodder for a 60 Minutes expose, as for a primetime sitcom.

For being a stunning political trainwreck of legendary proportions, our first annual overall achievement award could only go to Auditor Tom Salmon Jr.

Salmon, of course, needs no introduction. Politically, he was already an uncoordinated mess (hobbling into office only by way of herculean efforts from the State Democrats, making a fair amount of rookie mistakes, allying with Governor Douglas and working against his party’s leadership and fundamental political philosophy, etc.) before he finally jumped ship to the GOP to the collective cheers of Vermont Democrats.

Of course, that’s when the fun really began. Since then, there was the news about his own financial problems (not great for the man picked to watchdog the state’s books), his use of state personnel and resources to follow him around and make videos of his speeches (including at campaign fundraising events), the rambling, self-aggrandizing speeches, his embarassing attempts at folksy witticisms…. and, oh yeah, the DUI.

With early signs that there will be plenty more to come, Tom Salmon is clearly the gift that keeps on giving. Could there really be any other winner of the Overall Achievement Award for 2009?

And as the first overall winner, the GMD achievement awards are now and forever to be known as the Salmon Awards.

But fear not, dear reader. There are more, oh so many more Salmon awards to be handed out. Please join us below the fold for the winners in the other categories…

The 2009 Canned Salmon Award – Suzanne LaBombard

The Canned Salmon award finds a deserving recipient in former Isle La Motte Town Clerk and Treasurer, Suzanne LaBombard who was sentenced to 90 days in the slammer for embezzling $100,000. from the town treasury back in 2007. Ms. LaBombard’s crime was made all the more intriguing by the fact that her father, Richard LaBrecque, who also happened to be the town lawyer and a selectboard member, reportedly gave her $150,000. to turn over to the Town to make things right again. “No backsies,” was the Town’s ultimate response. Even though her former boyfriend, James Senesec, was also a selectboard member, there are just some little indiscretions that stubbornly refuse to go away. And what was it that compelled Ms. LaBombard to go rogue? Apparently, a big chunk of the money paid for her daughter’s wedding in 2006. No news on how that rather expensive marriage is working out.

The 2009 Sockeye Salmon Award – Mayor Thomas Lauzon

If not for the truly extraordinary efforts of our State Auditor, its likely that the awards would have been named for Barre Mayor Thomas Lauzon. Sadly, the Mayor has to settle this year for a lesser – but still notable – honor.

This past Summer at a community Heritage festival, the mayor squared off in a padded ring to challenge the chairman of the town’s select board. Standing on foam pedestals they attacked each other with Nerf paddles. The Mayor took the bait and scuffled his way to several broken ribs. The Times Argus described the action: Sensing the match slipping away, Lauzon lunged toward Selectman Blow, hoping to topple his adversary, but whiffing instead and breaking his ribs when he slammed into the Selectman’s pedestal.

The Mayor shook his opponent’s hand and headed to the ER.

It was a modern day Nerf version of the historic fist fight that decided the name of Barre. It is possible he was only wishing to relive his Fourth of July parade tackle of Governor Douglas’ cream pie assailant.

Most recently, the Mayor made news by pitching a town official’s cell phone across a meeting as it vibrated. “Your phone was vibrating so I took care of it for you,” he said without elaborating. The GMD Salmon Award committee is recommending keeping an eye on Lauzon for future Sockeyes.

The 2009 King Salmon Award (tie) – Thomas Tremblay, commissioner of public safety, and Jonathan Wood, secretary of the agency of natural resources.

The 2009 “King Salmon” award recognizes two of the most haughty, imperious and royally autocratic conspirators against the rule-of-law currently residing in Vermont’s bureaucracy.  Thomas Tremblay and Jonathan Wood showed no qualms about putting their personal, political or ideological agendas above their oath-of-office to uphold Vermont’s laws.

In recognition of their “I am King” demeanor, GMD recognizes Tremblay who decided that he would re-write Vermont’s Sex Offender Registry law to cover the people or various types of offenses that he preferred the law and the legislature include.  After a quickly resolved lawsuit in Washington County Superior Court, Commissioner Tremblay was exposed as the first and most flagrant violator of Vermont’s new Sex Offender Registry law, and the department of public safety was forced to comply with Vermont law and forced to comply with the new Sex Offender Registry statute rather than King Tremblay’s naked skirting of the law.

Commissioner Tremblay’s Sex Offender Registry transgressions merit only a tie for 2009, however, given the competition he faced from ANR Secretary Jonathan Wood.  Secretary “King Salmon” Wood didn’t just re-write a law he didn’t like, Secretary Wood changed the language of a statute that read “ATV riding is prohibited in designated natural areas and Vermont State parks” to “gunning your ATV in designated natural areas and Vermont parks is just fine when & where I say it is.”  

The 2009 Poached Salmon Award – David O’Brien

Poached Salmon Award goes to Public Service Commissioner David O’Brien who chummed up with Verizon Telecomm and gave it the green light for a final rape and pillage before it sucked the marrow out of Vermont’s telecommunications infrastructure and left a rotting carcass of a business for rate payers and Fairpoint to patch together.

Commissioner O’Brien’s clueless behavior and inability to understand the rudimentary aspects of running a business did not start in 2009, but we saw the O’Brien bankruptcy of Fairpoint come to fruition in 2009, which is why he receives GMD’s Poached Salmon Award. Fairpoint’s “Bankruptcy by O’Brien Blueprint” crashed onto Vermont’s telecomm future in 2009 because the Commissioner was so gung ho to let Verizon leave Vermont and take a run up the river with the value of hundreds of million$ of Vermont rate payer assets.  What Verizon took in equity was just as bad as the tens, if not hundreds, of millions of $$ Verizon left behind in unsatisfied liabilities to ratepayers, who had been paying years of monopoly rates for upgrades that Verizon never implemented.  It was an arrangement that was economically unfeasible from the beginning. Fairpoint’s failure was predicted and predictable and Commissioner O’Brien not only stood by and did nothing, he actively gave the store away to his friends at Verizon – one of the most notoriously rapacious criminal enterprises in the country.  By the end of 2009, it was finally clear to everyone that Vermont rate payers had been poached and all David O’Brien is getting is this stinking Salmon Award.

The 2009 Filleted Salmon Award – Jonathan Leopold

Burlington Mayor Bob Kiss’s Chief Administrative Officer, Jonathan Leopold, has never been Mister Popularity within many local political circles, but he vaulted to a whole new level in 2009’s still-developing brouhaha over Burlington Telecom’s funding.

It’s old news these days; Leopold cut a $17 million loan from the City’s general funds to Burlington Telecom (the city-run telecom entity) without seeking approval from the Board of Finance or City Council. As a result, BT is now violating its “certificate of public good” issued by the state by not repaying the loan within 60 days. By hiding the information from the city council, Leopold appeared to be placing himself above the rules and beyond any accountability. While Kiss and his diminishing number of allies on the council have tried to provide cover, Leopold has been in open, public contempt of the very letter and spirit of governmental transparency and accountability.

In the process, Leopold and Kiss have turned a public tussle into a full-on maelstrom, and where Burlington Telecom was in no real political danger when it all started, Leopold’s pathologically arrogant pride has thrown so much gasoline on the flame as to leave BT’s future in jeopardy.

And as a side result, Leopold has been so pilloried by newspapers, websites, and watercooler conversations of every political stripe that only his most diehard, partisan-warrior defenders have not developed a less-than-glowing perception of the long time public servant. As such, he is really the only possible recipient of the 2009 Filleted Salmon award.

The 2009 Chum Salmon Award – Mark & Todd Smith

For consistently tossing plenty of foul, messy, raw meat chunks into the water to attract sharks and generate a wingnut feeding frenzy, the chum salmon award goes to Caledonian Record Publishers Mark & Todd Smith. The Record’s editorial page is a daily thing to behold. From gleefully calling for liberals to commit mass suicide (har-de-har), to a semi-coherent call-to-arms against the creeping hordes of Greenpeace, the Record’s constant reactionary apoplexy makes it something more akin to Michael Savage than Fox News. As such, we expect this to be the first of many Salmons it will receive in the years to come.

The 2009 Smoked (Out) Salmon Award – Major Thomas L’Esperance

Back in March, Governor Douglas announced the promotion of Major Thomas L’Esperance to the post of Director of the Vermont State Police. At the time, Douglas called L’Esperance “a proven leader, a trusted public servant, and he models the spirit of law enforcement cooperation that is essential for the future success of policing in Vermont.”

As readers of this site may remember, that law enforcement “spirit” apparently includes a disregard for personal privacy, as well as reserving the right to expand police powers when deemed convenient (and being, shall we say, less than forthcoming when asked about it by the media). L’Esperance was the key spinmeister during the 2007 Pharmacy Record-Fishing Scandal, in which State Police were approaching Vermont pharamcies and demanding they dump mass presciption data on an entire class of medicines in defiance of both state and federal law.

GMD was the first to break the news, and L’Esperance (who was reportedly involved with the implentation of the “fishing derby,” although that can’t be independently confirmed) quickly hit the Mark Johnson Show, where he denied it was a systemic issue, insisting it was simply a “training issue” and an isolated case. That was just before lobbyist Anthony Otis (whose clients include the Pharamacists’ association) phoned in to correct the Major, informing him and the radio audience that at least two other incidents across the state had been identified. L’Esperance did the radio equivalent of a deer in the headlights routine, and by the end of that same week, the State Police held its “mistakes were made” press conference and stopped the practice.

Although the pharmacy issue was two years back, L’Esperance’s promotion in 2009 makes him an easy choice for the Smoked (Out) Salmon Award.

The 2009 Steelhead Salmon Award – Washington County Sheriff Sam Hill and His Mystery Deputy

In early December, a Washington County sheriff’s deputy accidentally fired his gun in a Barre courthouse. Washington County Sheriff (What in) Sam Hill has not released the name of the deputy ’cause, you know, its all so embarrassing.

As Julie Waters wrote at the time, “Sheriff’s deputy brings personal gun to work.  Decides to take it to work because he’s on a motorcycle and can’t secure it properly.  I’m guessing the rest of the story goes something like this: Sheriff’s deputy, thinking gun is unloaded, decides to play with it in courthouse. Hijinks ensue.”

As far as Sheriff Hill was concerned, the whole silly business only merited a week long suspension for a little safety training. Presumably a two week suspension would have necessitated the involvement of a grenade.

The 2009 Pink Salmon Award – Rep. Sonny Audette

South Burlington Democratic Representative (King) Sonny Audette voted against marriage equality in the Vermont House. A devout Catholic, the longtime lawmaker indicated that he felt torn between what he saw as his religious duty and, let’s face it, what conscience clearly indicated was the right thing to do. After the veto, Audette was the first to express great umbrage at the way the Governor handled (bungled) the announcement of his intent to veto, suggesting that he would likely vote to override simply to rap Douglas’s knuckles.

But the pressure mounted from all sides on Audette. On the big day itself, though, he was generally expected to vote for the override, which was likely going to rise or fall on his single yea-or-nay.

And then he called in sick.

Audette claimed his gout was acting up. But even though word was out that he was going to vote to override, he told the Free Press that he would’ve voted to uphold the veto. So not only does he call in sick for the highest pressure vote of his career, he tries to find a way to get credit among both camps for being on their side through it all.

You be the judge. Thankfully, his vote wasn’t necessary, and history was made. For his conveniently gout-driven “Schroedinger’s vote,” Rep. Audette gets the 2009 Pink Salmon Award

Governor Douglas has amazingly declared himself to be free from political motivation!  From today’s Times Argus article about the dynamics of the upcoming legislative session;

Gov. James Douglas predicts that his decision not to seek re-election will simplify the politics of the legislative session. "The legislative majority has no reason to ascribe any political motive to anything I say or do," he said. "I hope it will mean legislators will act solely in the best interests of Vermonters."

“So he changed his skin then and there, and the Leopard was more excited than ever: he had never seen a man change his skin before…Oh, now and then you will hear grown-ups say, 'Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the Leopard his spots?' I don't think even grown-ups would keep on saying such a silly thing if the Leopard and the Ethiopian hadn't done it once — do you? But they will never do it again, best Beloved. They are quite contented as they are.” – From Kipling’s How the Leopard Got His Spots.

It is after all only a fable told to children.    

Hello One and All:  If you’re still concerned about the lopsided way that we fund health insurance, and the colossal mess that is the health care bill in Washington, come to the statehouse on January 6th and join the Vermont Worker’s Center (VWC) and let our legislators that we elect know that we are furious and want a just and sane health care system.  Below is the who, what, where, when, how of it.  There is also a hearing on January 12th, where people can testify about their suffering in our sick system in front of the Health and Welfare Committee and Doug Racine and Steve Maier.    

Huge Statehouse Event to Kickoff New Legislative Session

Thousands of Vermonters Say: Healthcare Is A Human Right

WHEN:     12 noon, Wednesday, January 6, 2010

WHERE:   Cedar Creek Room, Vermont Statehouse, Montpelier

WHAT:     Postcards signed by over four thousand Vermonters calling for action of single payer healthcare bills and supporting healthcare as a human right will be delivered to the leadership of the Vermont Legislature.  Receiving the cards will be Speaker of the House Shap Smith, Senate Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, and Senator Doug Racine and Rep. Steve Maier, who both chair of the Healthcare Committees in the Senate and House.

BACKGROUND:   In 2008, the Vermont Workers’ Center launched the Healthcare Is A Human Right Campaign and on May 1, 2009 organized a “Healthcare Is A Human Right” Rally at the Statehouse which drew over twelve hundred participants and was the largest weekday rally in the state’s capitol history. Over the past few months the campaign has organized a series of nine People’s Forums on Healthcare across the state with over 70 state legislators and more than 800 people participating to date. At the December 1st Chittenden County People’s Forum in Colchester, Senator Racine announced that joint hearings on single payer bills H.100 and S.88 will begin on January 12 and the VWC is organizing hundreds of people to attend. On January 10, the last People’s Forum on Healthcare is being held in Vergennes for Addison County legislators, including Rep. Steve Maier, Health Committee Chair.  

 

Here's a letter to the editor in today's Times Argus that is revealing of the attitude of the Boy Scouts of America:

My partner and I [have lived] in East Montpelier for over ten years. We have two children and full-time jobs. We attend school and community events, we vote on Election Day and we pay lots of taxes. We even attend church. 

When this couple met with their local Cub Scout leader to introduce themselves and to volunteer to help with the countless tasks running a Cub Scout “pack” entails, you would think they'd be greeted with open arms, right?

No, there's a catch. Because the parents were a lesbian couple the local leader told them they could not help with leadership because “we wouldn't want you pushing your lifestyle on the boys” and he crossed our names off the volunteer list.

The bigotry by the Boy Scouts is no surprise: that's what they do; they exclude atheists, they exclude gays and lesbians, and the list of people they exclude probably goes way beyond what i'm even imagining.

What's as disturbing here, though, is the comments from Times Argus readers. We have the temptation to feel smug, what with marriage equality and the BFP naming Beth Robinson Vermonter of the Year, but this is a real reminder of the bigotry in our midst. 

Remember when the cheney/bush administration was prepping us to attack Afghanistan? (Didn’t take much, did it?) Remember who we were going after? (Clue: it wasn’t the Afghan people.) Remember how our blood enemies were Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar?

Think about Iraq and who we were told we were going after … Saddam Hussein. And every time the US government wants to go after Iran, it’s Ahmadinejad or the Revolutionary Guard. Our now ongoing pissing contest with Venezuela … it’s about Chavez.

Wars are sold on personifications of “the other side”. The war loving industries realize none of us are going to throw on body armor, jump into tanks or drop bombs from airplanes just to kill John and Jane Doe from another nation.

A big bad boogey man has to be created … a personal enemy that can be so reviled no evil is too bad to befall them. Then, and only then, will the great United States rise to the level of killing John and Jane Doe and their kids.

CNN, in reporting on the recent suicide bombing against a CIA military post in Afghanistan, brought this whole concept down to it’s most (in)human level:

A U.S. intelligence official on Thursday vowed that the United States would avenge the attack.

“This attack will be avenged through successful, aggressive counterterrorism operations,” the intelligence official vowed.

(Source: 2 killed in Afghanistan bombing were security contractors, CNN, 12/32/09)

This is how wars are really fought. Not by the grandstanders such as cheney or obama, but by those who’ve been convinced there’s a personal side to this … something that can bring out such anger that mass destruction and misery and death can be justified as the appropriate means to an end … retribution.

In the CIA’s case we’re supposed to accept that people who die ostensibly protecting the civilians around them  are now going to be subject to more war from the US and allies because those who were ostensibly there to protect the civilians were harmed or killed in the process. Think about our domestic police. If you or I were gunned down, do you think we’d get the same response that a gunned down police officer would receive? Hell, our lives are literally at risk simply because police perceive a possible threat from us! Sounds like driving too close to a US military convoy in Iraq, doesn’t it? It’s no accident we have a war on drugs and crime and such.

Violence perpetrated by governments on their own behalf has always been of the type that wants no response. When a United States or Iranian police officer beats you with a baton just because you were engaging in non-violent demonstration, don’t respond … that’s assaulting a law enforcement individual.

And with acknowledged war as opposed to domestic government enforcement (although the lines are blurring by the day) the level of violence increases in both the response and speed of response.

But first we need to have those reviled enemies. Don’t have a properly reviled figurehead? Hell, bin Laden hasn’t been pursued simply because he really isn’t needed … all the war lovers need is those billions or anti-western, Islamic radicals who are out to destroy Christianity.

Forget the idea that if 2 billion Muslims really wanted to do us in, they’d be doing a much better job of it … we’ve got the frame for personification of “the other side”, and “the other side” is evil enough to justify any means to the end of … ?????????.

And you know what? To the Afghani or Iraqi people who never attacked the United States this is personal … up close personal in a way very few of us in the United States have been exposed to. Every child murdered by a war machine, every family slaughtered by a 500lb bomb, every parent gunned down because of how they drove when near the invaders is personal. We make it so with our fictional personifications.

Here we are now how many years later? Still fighting the wars that were started to get Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

At least it’s working out for the war lovers.

this year it’s “ClearLane.”

Just over a year ago. BP wrote up a piece about the “‘oatmeal-like’ mixture” being used by the Vermont Agency of Transportation.

This year, it’s ClearLane, which residents of Burlington have claimed causes physical pain to their dogs.  

Do we need to start issuing safety warnings when we de-ice our roads?

The Burlington Free Press has made its choice for Vermonter of the year. Nominated multiple times, Beth Robinson deserves the honor, for her patient persistence for more than a decade in achieving marriage equality for same-sex couples (although she never lets that sort of thing go to her head).

She founded an advocacy organization, wrote grants, established political action committees, raised money, organized hundreds of volunteers and a dozen or so staff (varying from none or one up to maybe a dozen at the end), recruited and ably inspired all of them to make concrete change happen that helped Vermont realize America’s promise of equality for ALL.

Given the Free Press’s determined (even belligerent)  editorial silence back when the civil union debate was occurring, their recognition of Beth as Vermonter of the year is a stunning turnaround, an honor well-deserved.

It’s a holiday, and we know what that means: You’re not at the office reading Green Mountain Daily.

Still, this is an opportunity to look back at 2009 and talk about what was important in the political world, both in Vermont and the rest of the country; what we covered on GMD and what we might have missed.

I’ll throw out a few ideas to get things started.

Vermont adopts marriage equality. After taking the lead with the creation of civil unions, Vermont had fallen behind other states in the recognition of same-sex marriage, and this is the year Vermont took the step to full marriage equality.

Douglas vetoes overridden–twice. After being virtually unstoppable despite an overwhelming legislative deficit, this is the year that Democrats, Progressives, and Independents, particularly in the House, were able to get together to override two important Douglas vetoes, on marriage equality (with the help of some Republicans) and the Big Bill.

Five candidates emerge to run for governor. After a lackluster 2008 campaign, in which the Democrats were barely able to field a candidate, five credible Democratic candidates are in the hunt to succeed Douglas. Susan Bartlett, Matt Dunne, Deb Markowitz, Doug Racine, and Peter Shumlin have either officially announced, or are actively campaigning. All are political veterans; almost all have run statewide campaigns before; who will make it to November to challenge Lite Gov Brian Dubie for the top job?

Your thoughts?

Sittin’ here typin’ on my computer, when the phone rings. It’s Barbara, calling from ICF Macro, asking for my participation in a brief survey on current issues in Vermont.

So, what issues did she want to discuss? Only one issue, actually.  

The entire survey centered on the Brooke Bennett murder, the circumstances surrounding it, and the appropriate punishment for Michael Jacques. (The survey presumes his guilt, of course.) From the tone and direction of the questions, the aim was to elicit respondents’ attitudes toward the death penalty — in the context of Vermont’s most notorious murder case in years.  

I’m afraid I wasn’t very helpful to ol’ Barb. I couldn’t recall many details of the case, because it happened so long ago. And on whether he should get the death penalty, my answer was an unfun (but legally correct) “That depends on what he’s convicted of.” This answer was clearly not on her checklist; I had to repeat it a couple of times, and she didn’t quite know what to do with it.

ICF Macro, by the way, appears to be a straightforward research/survey/information/consultancy outfit. (As far as I could tell from five minutes of Googling.)

Which brings us to the question: as a campaign year is about to begin, who is looking to make political hay out of the abduction, rape, and murder of Brooke Bennett?