Per today’s Rutland Herald:

Entergy Nuclear unveiled a new public relations campaign Thursday as Vermont regulators and the Vermont Legislature will consider the future life of Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

The advertising campaign also comes on the eve of the company’s expected release of its contract offer to Vermont utilities for power from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.

And, of course, there’s this.

Williams refused to say how much Entergy Nuclear was spending on the print and television ads, but said the ads would begin running in statewide media this week.

What gems?  What words of wisdom are part of Vermont Yankee’s campaign?

Well, they warn us, without VY, “electric rates could rise” and we could experience “vulnerability to fluctuations in the regional power market.”

Wow.  I had no idea.  With VY, electric rates never rise, and we’re never vulnerable to fluctuations in the regional power market.  It’s very nice of them to tell us this.  Without the money they’ve spent on this ad campaign, I might never know how much I love Vermont Yankee.  I even went to their website and filled out a form, explaining why I support VY.

I wrote that all the good VY does gives me a warm glow inside.

(cross-posted at Broadsides.org)

Vermont’s Senator Bernie Sanders spoke for months about his “historic” efforts to get a vote on a single-payer health care bill in the Senate. While we all knew the outcome was going to be a rather miserable failure, it was a tiny crumb being flicked to those of us who still believe in both real solutions to the health care crisis AND the possibilities of democracy.

Sanders was correct to intuit that this kind of vote is essential to keep a movement alive, offer some hope, and simply record the moment in history. The entire effort is about seeing where we stand, knowing how far we have to go, and putting both the general public and the electoral elite on notice that we know where we’re going.

Historically, similar “failed” measures were introduced to end slavery, to give women the right to vote, to provide equal rights to minorities and – yes – to end wrong-headed wars. An effective movement must know which side everyone is on, and such votes – albeit failures – provide that organizational and motivational insight.

Bernie had all of this in mind while he talked the talk in the months preceding the historic single-payer health care vote. Because Bernie knows his history, and he also knows – like the rest of us who utilize common sense know – that a single-payer health care system provides the only path to justice.

“The upcoming vote on my single-payer health care bill will be an historic moment in the halls of Congress,” Bernie declared recently on a national radio talk show. “While I know it will fail, it is essential to bring it forward, have the debate, and record the vote so that we can continue to build the movement and move toward single-payer as our ultimate goal.”

Well, Bernie had his moment yesterday. And, as we all know now, he quit on us.

Specifically, Bernie pulled his single-payer initiative from consideration after the Republicans went grade school on us by demanding that the 700-page amendment be read in its entirety. It was estimated that the reading would take about 12 hours of the Senate’s time. After about three hours, Bernie came to the floor of the Senate and announced that he was withdrawing his single-payer initiative and, thus, killing the “historic” vote.

Why? Because, as Bernie explained, he didn’t want to hold up the business of the Senate. And what, exactly, was the next item on the Senate’s agenda? Yet another Defense Department appropriations bill. Hmm, sounds like a good reason to stall to me…

But the real reason, of coarse, is that Bernie was getting his arm twisted by the spineless Democratic leadership, a group of sheep who seem only interested in perfecting the not-so-fine art of losing.

When Bernie took the floor to announce his decision to pull his amendment he was “outraged,” and then spilled forth with some fine rhetoric about all the ills of our political system, the obstructive nature of the Republicans, and then some more outrage piled upon the outrage.

But it was Bernie’s – and only Bernie’s – decision to kill his initiative and, as a result, the “historic” moment that he had been promoting. So, sorry, if there was outrage to be had, it should have been spread evenly amongst the childish Republicans and Bernie-the-quitter.

Sadly, the whole affair could be chalked up to yet another example of the Democratic Party’s (yes, Bernie caucuses with the Dems) willingness to lead its followers to political slaughter. Obama’s done it with the Wall Street bailouts, his refusal to close Gitmo, his foot-dragging on Iraq, his surge in Afghanistan and his near-complete failure of leadership on the health care issue (to name a few). And the Democratically-controlled Congress has followed suit with its own bait and switch nonsense like the one perpetrated by Bernie: “Come, my followers, let’s make history. Oh, nevermind.”

They don’t want a movement. They want a nice, pliable butch of donors willing to get giddy during campaign season long enough to “hope” and vote for change. And if you dare to call their bluff, they’ll scream “Nader!” and/or “Palin!” until their own failures get lost in the rhetorical haze.

Shame on Bernie for so perfectly joining the quitters (once again). Because a real “independent” wouldn’t have so blatantly betrayed the moment of history he dangled in front of the single-payer movement. All for – what!? – saving a few hours of the Senate’s time? So they could rush to throw more money at the Pentagon? Good grief.

With apologies to “The Who,” we were, indeed, fooled again.

Damn.

Bernie says it below. What’s unclear is whether he’s simply talking about his vote on the legislation itself, or his vote for cloture against the filibuster. Obviously Sanders has been a leading voice demanding that every member of the Democratic caucus at the least allow an up or down vote and refuse to take part in a Republican filibuster, but its precisely because the so-called “centrists” ignored that voice that the bill has been made into the worst-of-all-possible-worlds bill. Will Bernie feel the need to unilaterally disarm in this manner, given how its played out?

TPM reporting seems to suggest that Sanders is referring to cloture, but I haven’t heard that definitively in his own words. I’ll see what I can find out.

Be sure and call Bernie and tell him you support him on this: 1-802-862-0697 – or – 1-800-339-9834 (In State Only)

Plan By Federal Government to Purchase Underutilized Maximum-Security State Prison in President’s Home State Is Attacked By Republicans as ‘a Threat to U.S. Security’ and By Rights Advocates as ‘Continuation of Unconstitutional Bush Policy’ — But Welcomed By State Officials as a ‘Much-Needed Boost’ to Job-Starved Local Economy

(Photo: U.S. Department of Defense)

The controversy over what to do with the estimated 240 remaining terror suspects now being held at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp (above) — which President Obama pledged to close by the end of the year — remains a red-hot political controversy that flared anew this week after the Obama administration announced that it was purchasing an underutilized maximum-security state prison in Illinois to house the detainees. the announcement triggered sharp criticism form both sides of the ongoing debate over Guantánamo Bay, with conservatives blasting the plan as posing a threat to the safety of Americans and human-rights advocates denouncing it as a continuation of former President George W. Bush’s policy of indefinite detention that violates the U.S. Constitution and international law.

Posted 5:00 a.m. EST Thursday, December 17, 2009)

The controversy over what to do with the estimated 240 remaining terror suspects now being held at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp (above) — which President Obama pledged to close by the end of the year — remains a red-hot political controversy that flared anew this week after the Obama administration announced that it was purchasing an underutilized maximum-security state prison in Illinois to house the detainees.

The announcement triggered sharp criticism form both sides of the ongoing debate over Guantánamo Bay, with conservatives blasting the plan as posing a threat to the safety of Americans and human-rights advocates denouncing it as a continuation of former President George W. Bush’s policy of indefinite detention that violates the U.S. Constitution and international law.

You can read the full story HERE.

The knives are out. All that pent-up, barely contained loathing of Howard Dean by the DC Democrat set is all finding gleeful expression following his call yesterday for the Lieberman-driven, Obama-endorsed helth care “compromise” to be defeated. This is the bill that, in requiring that citizens pay for private health care with no public option and no price control, gives the insurance cartel (unrestricted as it is by anti-trust laws) free, clear, and unrestrained direct access to Americans bank accounts.

The resentment that has simmered for years towards Dean. Stemming from his failed upstart presidential bid, and growing exponentially during his grassroots-driven coup of the Democratic National Committee, it, of course, found expression in his being summarily closed out of the historic administration he was so instrumental in bringing to power. Now that he has shown the audacity to remove himself from the party line and start talking reality, the beltway crowd that can’t bring itself to say a negative word about Joe Liberman can hardly maintain their glee at castigating the good Doctor. It’s quite a sight. Here’s Sen. Jay Rockefeller:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) fired back at former DNC chairman Howard Dean on MSNBC today over Dean’s comment that the current health bill is not “real reform” — something Rockefeller said characterized as “irresponsible” and “nonsense.”

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said no “rational person” would want to kill the bill, prompting reporters to ask if Gibbs thinks Dean is “irrational.”

“I can’t tell what his motives are,” Gibbs responded. (For what it’s worth, Glenn Greenwald of Salon points out that Gibbs was the spokesman of a group that ran anti-Dean ads before the 2004 election.)

Not-so-subtle email from the DNC and Organizing for America:

Democratic senators across the country are currently fighting hard alongside the President to pass reform. They deserve our appreciation. Others are still trying to score partisan points rather than stand up for American families — and they need to understand that their constituents demand better.

President Obama himself resorting to desperate sounding, Republican style “mediscare” tactics:

“If we don’t pass it, here’s the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you,”… The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, “the federal government will go bankrupt.”

And possibly the biggest phony, corporate sell-out in the Senate still sporting a D after her name, Mary Landrieu:

Hell with ’em. This is a bill that will hurt more people than it helps, and that should be the only metric that matters.

Love him or hate him, you have to admit; if there’s one thing about Howard Dean, it’s that the guy is unintimidatable, for good or ill. As far as I’m concerned, right now that’s very, very good.

Call our Senators and tell them to back up Governor Dean. No public option? Then remove the individual mandate or no deal. Period.

Leahy contact:

Burlington office – (802) 863-2525   1-800-642-3193

Montpelier office – (802) 229-0569

DC office – (202) 224-4242

Sanders contact:

1-802-862-0697 – or – 1-800-339-9834 (In State Only)

A man who needs no introduction (I actually forgot to state his name in the intro) takes us back in time to the bloggers’ summit of December 6, 2008. Initiatives started there include moving the primary date to earlier in the year, creating a structure so that the state Democratic party can be more responsive, and designing a way to help the gubernatorial primary winner get over the finish line financially. Watch below to find out the present state of these initiatives.

In terms of financial support, John created the Facebook group 1000 Vermonters for Change. The goal is to commit 1000 people to give $100 to the winner of the Democratic primary on the day after the primary election (presently slated for September 14, 2010). So take a look at your wallet and then take a look at your least favorite candidate for Democratic nominee. If you can see yourself writing them a check in the fall to help them reclaim the Governor’s office, join the group and take the pledge. If you are not on Facebook, John is keeping a tally of the total which  today looks like 244 in the Facebook group, plus 5 more he’s gathered through email. Remember he launched this back in May when we had no idea how strong the field would be.

So if you haven’t already, take a minute in this season of giving and do something concrete to make 2010 a better year.

We've covered this story before: the Douglas Administration wants to open public lands to ATV's, while 1005 of the environmentalists in the state oppose it. For months (since just after the Legislature adjourned, actually) they've been going back and forth on the Douglas ATV rule, and for at least a couple of months it has looked very tough for the administration.

Yesterday they voted, and it was a unanimous vote against the rule.

First, here's another view of what's at stake. Here's what the hiking trails you now enjoy might wind up looking like if the rule goes into effect:

The vote was unanimous. Nobody on the committee agreed with the Douglas interpretation that says that the executive has essentially unlimited power to pass rules without a grant of authority from the Legislature.

Back in November in these pages Caoimhin Laochdha eviscerated the administration's argument, and now that analysis has the support of a joint legislative committee. Next stop: consideration by the full Legislature next month.

The action by the committee doesn't stop the rule from going into effect, but it does strip the rule of the presumption of validity it would otherwise have in the event of the (inevitable) chalenge in court.

Does this portend more trouble for the administration when the Legislature reconvenes in January? We can only hope.

Cross posted from Rational Resistance:

I never have, but I am frequently told by people who do, even liberals or leftists, that there is a clear distinction between the Journal's right-wing editorial pages and it's balanced, objective news coverage.

No more.

According to a story in yesterday's Times,

I can't say I'm surprised. Truly, I was always skeptical of the idea that the Journal was a good, objective paper over the years. Now, with the takeover of the paper by Rupert Murdoch, there is no room for doubt.

Romenesko reprints the response from the editor of the Journal, but the perspicacious reader will spot a non-denial denial, no?

If there were some inaccuracy in the Times story you'd think he'd point out where it is, wouldn't you?

That's what I thought.

Vermont’s Chief Technology Officer and Tiger blogger declares we can gain both efficiency and effectiveness in Vermont. The change comes with what appears, on its face to be a re-launching  of Jim Douglas’s January 2007 E-State Initiative. You may recall the original E-State plan was going to totally “E” Vermont by 2010 (sixteen days left). This time around, the initiative is freshened and fluffed-up by federal stimulus funding and uses the continuing economic crisis as motivation.   It’s may be a complicated plan though because the details are being kept secret.

We administration officials didn’t give the reporters the specifics they’d like to have – and I’m not going to do that here. Plans are not done; legislators not briefed; specific legislative proposals not written;……….

Ever the modern technology salesmen, he does helpfully remind us of the wonders we may see. He points out wondrous changes this past decade the airline industry made using the technology of the World Wide Web for ticket bookings.  

We now have examples of how industries like airlines have used the web to dramatically change customer service both to reduce service costs AND to empower customers. Some readers may remember when you went to a travel agency to get paper tickets which were written by hand before you could fly anywhere

His pep talk is finished off with several obligatory warnings that raising taxes is not an option, as doing so “…. will quickly get us less income as taxpayer flight accelerates.”  And only a state employee pay cut will make state employees be part of the solution.  

Kudos to Senator Ginny Lyons (D-Chittenden) for striking yet another blow against developer-driven sprawl!  As reported in today’s Free Press, Sen. Lyons yesterday disclosed the contents of a 49-page bill that proposes to restructure the Act 250 permit process, eliminating the role of the Agency of Natural Resources in that process, and effectively “streamlining” it for speed, cost-efficiency and effectiveness.

This bill represents the first attempt in decades to do something definitive about the permit process…It is time to focus on better protecting our natural resources and to achieving our goals of concentrated development surrounded by a working landscape. – Sen. Lyons

Sen. Lyons’ bill would seem to be the streamlining rewrite of Act 250 that Gov. Douglas has been whining for since he first took office;  but, no. When contacted by the Free Press for comment, his spokesperson, Denise Casey apparently expressed concern with

…any permit reform led by the Democratic supermajority…

and added that

These environmental organizations are impossible to please.

Oh, dear;  those “environmental organizations” she refers to must be the same ones that routinely draw attention to the decline in the water quality of Lake Champlain since the Douglas administration came to power.  

Undaunted by evidence to the contrary, according to the Free Press, Casey  still chose to

defend(ed) the governor’s environmental record citing his focus on programs to reduce pollution of Lake Champlain.

Go figure?

Vermont’s current permit process governing land-use is a multi-tiered system, requiring that a project be reviewed and approved at the local level; obtain permits addressing environmental and other concerns from divisions of the VT. Dept. of Environmental Conservation; and then, once all those permits have been issued, if the scale and potential impact of the project are great enough, undergo yet another level of review under Act 250.

As itemized in the Free Press article, the effect of Sen. Lyon’s proposal would be to:

.Abolish the Agency of Natural Resources, the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Environmental Court and the Natural Resources Board.

.Replace them with a Department of Environmental Quality headed by a full-time, five-person Environmental Council.  The departments of Fish and Wildlife, and Forest and Parks, would become freestanding departments.

.Send all environmental appeals to the new Environmental Council.

.Consolidate all state environmental permits into the Act 250 development review process.

.Broaden the categories of persons who may take part in contested permit cases.

.Allow appeals of growth-center designations and aspects of municipal and regional plans.

The last two items are of special interest to me.   As a member of the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth, I have first-hand experience of how difficult it is to secure a voice in the current permit process.  We have devoted thousands of hours of amateur effort and received an even greater number of hours in contributed professional assistance through the efforts of the Vermont Natural Resources Council and Preservation Trust of Vermont, just so that our significant concerns about a proposed Walmart box store in St. Albans could be presented  within the Act 250 review process.   Why should it be so arduous for citizens to participate in shaping their own communities?

It is to be hoped that uncoupling the state permitting process from a system that lends itself to politicization will better serve the interests of the people, both in terms of efficiency and upholding the true intent of Act 250 which is to preserve our environmental heritage.  While this bill is not expected to come to the floor in the 2010 session, it is encouraging to hear that the important work has begun.