One of the last gasps of the recent presidential election:

Todd Palin Found in Contempt

JUNEAU, Alaska (Feb. 7) – Alaska legislators are still sweeping up after last fall's abuse of power investigation into Gov. Sarah Palin, but they insist the fireworks are over.

• This week’s Tottentastic: Shay’s list of seven gubernatorial wannabes includes Windsor Senator John Campbell but not Chuck Ross, as my list did. Ross is a perennial rumor, and it will likely go no further than that, but I’d be equally surprised if Campbell steps into this dynamic primary field. Wouldn’t surprise me at all to see him go for the Lite Gov spot though, even though many folks believe that Tom Costello will make another run at it himself.
• Also on Totten-reported gubernatorial news is the tidbit that Deb Markowitz has retained Jason Powell, the Vermont Director for the Obama campaign, to run her campaign for the state’s top spot. Interesting, if true, as nobody riled both campaign staff and the activists in the greater Dem infrastructure more than Powell. He was a bridge burner among the very people Markowitz will depend on in a primary like few I’ve ever seen. Her potential primary opponents may see this as good news, frankly.

  Why the choice then? Speculation centers on Carolyn Dwyer, who has emerged as a primary ally of Markowitz’s, according to reports. Powell, along with his partner, former Coordinated Campaign Director Kristina Althoff (with whom he was seen as a sort of “team” with and who similarly got on the bad side of many in the CC and the party infrastructure), did make a point of staying on the good side of the Team Leahy crowd – including Dwyer – even as they ran afoul of many of the grunts and the rank-and-file. During the campaign season, the atmosphere at the Party became so toxic that Chair Ian Carleton was reportedly forced to parachute in for an intervention of sorts. Sources suggest that Althoff, who was brought on as “interim” Director at the VDP, withdrew from consideration for the permanent top spot after former coordinated campaign staffers were polled as to whether or not they could work for her again. No word on what the results were…

  In any event, Powell’s new position suggests that his relationship with many who call the shots is still solid, which likely means Althoff’s is as well. Given this – and given that Dwyer has already stepped up to run Senator Leahy’s re-election campaign – don’t be surprised if Althoff gets tapped to run Peter Welch’s re-election campaign, given the strong influence Leahy folks have in Welchworld.

• I’m an agnostic sort, but seeing cancer survivor Ruth Bader Ginsberg (and way-old John Paul Stevens, for that matter) hold out as long as she has on the Supreme Court so she can be replaced by President Obama and not Bush makes me wonder if the country hasn’t received a little help from on high.
• At the outset of the session, I was getting very mixed signals from leader-types in the two Houses of the Legislature regarding the path of the same-sex marriage bill. Talk in the House seemed to be of continuing to “lay the groundwork” for the future, while talk in the Senate was of moving relatively quickly and decisively to get it done. Given that the new House bill has an eye-popping 59 co-sponsors, I suppose the Senate approach is carrying the day. Expect to see action on the bill this session (and check the link for a pic of and a quote from GMD’s NanuqFC, aka Euan Bear, holding a sign that makes the point perfectly).
• Finally, I poked my head in briefly at the Seven Days mayoral debate this week. It was in the schnazzy filmhouse at Burlington’s Main Street Landing before a mostly full-house, there was a live simulcast and liveblogging and twittering and texting of questions and big giant projections and lots of cameras and promised podcasts and tigers and bears, oh my. The Seven Days crowd is using their not inconsiderable resources and really taking this new multimedia technology thing and having a field day with it, bless their hearts. It’s great to watch.

  Funny thing is, I was actually in town discussing the mayoral debate that GMD will be co-sponsoring with Democracy for America (and possibly another org or two). Look for details on that in the next couple days. I guarantee you it won’t be such a high-tech, belled-n-whistled event, but it should still be fun.

Find a friend .Jason Gibbs,Governor Douglas’s Eagle Scout and new head of Vt.State Parks, overreached and got kicked off of Facebook .They didn’t look kindly on his spamming individuals to “become supporters of the state parks ” So much for his diversity of outreach activities skills.

Gibbs explains that he sent messages to his Facebook friends to encourage them to become “supporters of the state parks.” That was a violation of the Facebook’s anti-spamming rules, he was told in a message from Facebook, and he was thus suspended from the Facebook world.

Gibbs said he has asked the Facebook people when can he get back on. He’s awaiting word.

Meanwhile, his wife has launched a petition drive to restore him to Facebook.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…

Announced earlier today by UVM: your new 2009 commencement speaker, Howard Dean…

http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmpr/?Pag…

I’d call that an upgrade.  

The new Entergy Yankee PR campaign has it’s work cut out .Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier,may be holding Entergy Yankee’s feet to the fire on the issue of the decommissioning fund .It is reassuring to read of a legislator proposing something that will take Yankee to task for not following its original agreements,before it is too late .An action like this coupled with the statewide publicity that could surround the discussion of Yankee’s future  at 40 + towns on Town Meeting day may complicate the new PR job

………. Rep. Tony Klein, D-East Montpelier

said Thursday that the company should be required to stock up its trust fund to begin immediate shutdown at the facility if lawmakers or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission orders it to do so in three years.

Entergy has less than half of the necessary funds in the account right now to shut down the plant and clean up the site. Since buying the facility in 2002, the company has not added any money to the fund.

The new arrival in Vermont,Entergy’s Vice President,for something,Jay Thayer makes this curious claim  “the original agreement with Vermont regulators when they purchased Vermont Yankee in 2002 was that the company could use the so-called “safe storage” approach to decommissioning.”



Douglas’s man at the Vermont Public Service board O’Brien stands up for Entergy and kicks the deadline far down the road into the future “Our position is that the fund should be capable of decommissioning the plant by 2032,” .

http://www.timesargus.com/arti…

President Barack Obama’s choice to head the CIA said on Thursday he would support “limited” prosecution of any agents who deliberately violated the law in interrogating terrorism suspects.

. . .

Panetta said he considered “waterboarding” to be torture, but did not support prosecuting agents who relied on high-level legal guidance allowing such techniques.

. . .

Panetta said he would if necessary ask Obama to allow harsher interrogations than those covered by the Army Field Manual, which the president last month set as the government standard. The manual bans techniques such as waterboarding.

“I would not hesitate,” to seek broader interrogation authority, Panetta said, adding “I think that this president would do nothing that would violate the laws that are in place.”

(Obama CIA pick may back “limited” abuse prosecution, Reuters, 02/05/09)

I love it when those pulling the strings talk about torture and legality in the same sentence, and yes they are serious.

Nope … no change from Obama here!

What is marriage equality?  

Before I became a Justice of the Peace, I thought civil unions were the cutting edge answer that gay and lesbian couples desired.  

I have been active in my church, and my husband and I just celebrated our 30th wedding anniversary in January.  We also spent we spent five years as a presenting team for Christian Marriage Encounter*, so I believe that I have a clear understanding of the depth of commitment required in a marriage.  

I originally ran for Justice of the Peace because I wanted to be able to perform civil unions as well as weddings, and I was just reelected as a JP.  I am proud that Vermont took that bold cutting edge step of creating civil unions for same sex couples in spite of all the negative rhetoric during the legislative process.  

Each one of the almost 40 weddings and civil unions I have performed during the past two years has been an eye opening and touching event.

I was only halfway through my first season of performing civil unions when I began to feel that something was sadly wrong with our system.  The couples for whom I performed civil unions were as deeply committed and as deeply in love as the heterosexual couples for whom I performed weddings.  While civil unions were a giant step forward for Vermont and the country, civil unions are entirely separate and certainly not equal to marriage.

I am not here to argue what traditional definition of marriage has or has not been.  During different times in history a marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, while in the polygamous societies that exist in some of our allies cultures and right here in the US in some Mormon sects, marriage is between one man and several or many women.  

I am here to talk about marriage as a union between two adults.  

A few months back, while I was out walking my dog, Steve stopped me, and said he wanted to chat.  He said that he had noticed I was a JP and had a question for me.

“What do you think of civil unions and the possibility of gay marriage,” Steve asked.

I took a deep breath.  While we have been casual friends for almost four years, I know he is very active in the Roman Catholic Church and recently lost his wife following a long illness.  

Nervously, I said I have come to believe marriage equality is the direction in which we must move.  The couples for whom I am performing civil unions are as deeply in love and committed to each other as the couples for whom I perform weddings. I believe, however, the issue is quite simple, “separate but equal” is never equal.  

Steve smiled.  “Thank you,” he said.  “My daughter is a lesbian.  I love her.  I want her to have the same rights as every person.”  

Right now in Vermont, those same rights do not exist.  Civil unions do not afford couples the same legal and financial protections that a marriage does.  It is discrimination.  Growing up in the 1950’s and 1960’s I met many couples who raised their children without the emotional support of their families or communities simply because the couple was mixed ethnically, religiously, or racially.  Those times must be over.  I have friends here in Vermont who were not accepted as grandchildren by the one half of their family only because one of their parents was French Canadian, so they were considered “foreign”.  

It is quite simple.  Stop the discrimination and move away from fear and hatred.  This is not a moral issue.

As someone who has been married for 30-years, I find it encouraging and refreshing to know that once again others value the commitment of marriage.  That commitment should be available for every adult, whether they are of different religions, ethnicity, races, or sexual orientation.

I urge you to come to the Statehouse tomorrow for Freedom to Marry visibility day.  Meet many committed couples and many other Vermonters who support them.  Please join with us to let our governor and legislators know you support equality in marriage.  

If you can’t make it to the Statehouse tomorrow (Friday, February 6, 2009), please call, email, and write to the governor and your legislators.  Visit Vermont’s Freedom to Marry site for more information: http://eqfed.org/vfmtf/events/…

Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin agreed that it is not a question of yes or no in a July 2007 interview with Burlington Free Press reporter Terri Hallenbeck.  

“Shumlin said same-sex marriage legislation is inevitable. “It’s not a question of yes or no. It’s a question of when,” he said.”

That quote was almost two years ago.  The time is now.  

In case you missed it, and for other reasons why you should support Marriage Equality read Caoimhin Laochdha’s earlier post: Marriage Equality — Friday at the State House

 http://greenmountaindaily.com/…

In past generations, religion, ethnicity, or race were real barriers to marriage while today it is sexual orientation.  

When I was in college in early the 1970’s, one of my roommates got married.  She was Protestant and her husband to be was Roman Catholic.  His family was horrified that she was not Catholic, but they were so committed as a couple that she took classes and converted to the Roman Catholic faith.  She was a straight “A” honor student, working to put herself through college with an assortment of scholarships, grants, and aid packages, and doing community service work in her free time?  Oh, by the way, the couple grew up in the same hometown and had similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds, which certainly should have been cause for an easy transition.

Finally, the wedding day arrived.  My roommate was a beautiful bride, the service was lovely, and was equally a celebration of my roommate’s conversion to Catholicism.  I imagined that the groom’s parents were overjoyed.  As the bridal party walked to the front of the church, the groom’s parents and his younger siblings walked up to the altar.  I thought it was touching that the whole family laid flowers at the statute of the Blessed Virgin Mary, until the family rose and exited out the back of the church.  In a heartbreaking slap against this couple’s marriage, the groom’s family did not attend the reception.

Whether the issue is religion, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, marriage should not be used as a tool to withhold acceptance into community and equality in society.

Lately, I have heard some people say that in this time of economic crisis we cannot afford to waste our time on anything but Vermont’s budget.  I disagree.  In this time of economic stress and chaos, it is more important than ever to put family first by emphasizing marriage and family unity no matter what the religion, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation of the couple wanting to commit their lives to each other.

The first time I ran for JP, I was aware that some JP’s were simply “unavailable” for civil unions.  While the law specifies that one may not discriminate, it was easy for some JP’s to say I am on vacation, I’m working, I have guests coming from out of town, my child has a sports competition that day, or I am already booked for a wedding or another civil union, so please find someone else.  The only problem being that oftentimes there are simply not enough available JP’s, especially during Vermont’s high season for weddings.  So I ran for JP, was elected, and available to perform both civil unions and weddings.

*Marriage Encounter (M.E.) is a religiously-based weekend program designed to help married couples improve their marriage, grow closer to each other, and improve commitment to each other.        

In this morning’s BFP, buried on page 5b is a tiny half-column announcing that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has given Vermont Yankee “permission to use money set aside to dismantle the plant to pay for the storage of high-level radioactive waste.”

It goes on to say that federal regulators reported Tuesday that “a preliminary investigation by…Entergy found radioactive contamination at the plant.”  Wonderful.

Per today’s Rutland Herald:

Gov. James Douglas alone would hold the purse strings to nearly $50 million in federal money under a Senate-added provision to the congressional stimulus plan.

Senators included the clause at the urging of U.S. governors, who have sought wider latitude in dealing with vast state budget shortfalls.

“Under the Senate bill, the state of Vermont could expect to receive about $125 million over the next two years to help plug important budget holes in education, public safety, economic development and human services programs,” Sen. Patrick Leahy said in a statement Wednesday night.

sigh.

This isn’t a done deal, and there needs to be pushback against this.  There is currently some pushback from Shumlin:

“It would be the Legislature’s position that the Constitution requires any appropriation of funds from the federal government to go through the appropriation process,” said Shumlin, a Putney Democrat.

Okay, not so much “pushback” as “gentle nudge back,” but still…

Something old could be new again .Democrats are breaking out of the Douglas budgets cuts only mindset and finding alternatives .This one is particularly interesting because of it’s pedigree.Douglas keeps repeating that raising taxes during a recession will make it deeper and longer yet in 1991 this in combination with other actions was the bi-partisan form of dealing with that financial crisis. I don’t know if Douglas actually supported this action back in 1991 or not.It would be an interesting turn of events for Douglas to have to veto this if it moves forward and comes to that .  

MONTPELIER – A Democratic lawmaker wants to revive the income tax increase that the late Republican Gov. Richard Snelling persuaded lawmakers to enact to help the state cope with a 1991 financial crisis.

Rep. Michael Fisher’s call for consideration of new revenues to help solve the state’s financial crisis comes as the current governor and Legislature have learned that revenues declined precipitously in January – down about $13 million more than economists projected just a few weeks ago.

The plan Fisher resurrected would raise about $40 million, he said. “I’m calling it the Snelling surcharge because it’s not really my idea,” Fisher of Lincoln said. “The bill is really identical to what Snelling did in 1991.”



The legislation would impose a 3-percent surcharge on incomes between $46,700 and $171,950, 6 percent on incomes between $171,500 and $307,050 and 9 percent above $307,050. Fisher offered examples of the tax that would be added: An individual making $46,700 would pay an extra $50. A couple with the same income would pay $66. An individual earning $70,000 would pay $92.

Governor’s Douglas spokesperson responds “For lawmakers to try to apply an 18-year-old patch over a current crisis is really ignoring the uniqueness of this economic downturn,” Dennise Casey said. “It is irresponsible to ask more from Vermonters when they are earning less – especially when we know there are areas of state government that regardless of the economic downturn are growing at unsustainable levels.”

http://www.burlingtonfreepress…