I’m just gonna put it out there, and I’m not the only one thinking it:

In 2010, Vermont will elect a Democratic governor. And it will most likely be one of these people:

There. You heard it here first. It’s a different world out there now. Dems are energized by new leadership in Washington and Montpelier, clear ideological battle lines are drawn with Douglas going on a full-bore attack against education and the environment, and high profile Democratic pols are falling all over themselves to step up to the plate (there are so many names being floated, I hope they are all kicking themselves for not stepping up so early last year when they could’ve cleared the field). Despite what has been repeated of late, Douglas showed weakness in the polls last year, as his positives (still in the 60’s) deviated from his re-elect numbers (in the low 40s), suggesting that – while Vermonters still by and large like him – beyond the GOP faithful, they question whether he is the right man for the job.

So – I’ve now heard seven names being bandied about. Some may simply talking about a run, some may still only be being talked about. One has announced (Racine), one has all but announced (Markowitz), another has an active Facebook group promoting their not-yet-campaign (Spaulding). But the game’s afoot already, regardless, and the dynamic will only help draw more clear lines of policy distinction between the Governor and the Governor-wannabes – something we’d all like to see.

One could spend a lot of bandwidth breaking out the dynamics, here, and no doubt we will. Looking at the crowd which includes Sen. Doug Racine, former Sen. Matt Dunne, SoS Deb Markowitz, Sen. Peter Shumlin, Treas. Jeb Spaulding, Sen. Susan Bartlett, and Leahy State Director Chuck Ross, it’s clear the first tier of advantage in any primary is going to those who have appeared on statewide ballots in the last decade, putting Bartlett and Ross at an immediate disadvantage. It’s also clear that an earlier start equals early momentum, as nobody is rolling their eyes at the early announcement by Racine or the early gathering of support by Markowitz anymore. And if nobody’s rolling their eyes, that means the new bar is set and the clock is ticking.

A crowded primary field will likely help Racine most of all. His base in Chittenden County has only grown and solidified since his return to the Senate, and having the lion’s share of the County that holds a quarter of the state population is a huge leg up. Markowitz, also, has significant appeal among women statewide, but that advantage is compromised dramatically if Bartlett is in the race – especially given her far more extensive policy resume. Dunne maintains a significant grassroots network across the state from his recent Lt. Governor run giving him a more scalable potential campaign that could take advantage of a crowded field or a spartan one.

There are those who stand to lose from a crowded field as well. Ross may be well known within the Party infrastructure, but the party infrastructure itself won’t be enough – especially when even that insider group is fractured. Bartlett, as a first time statewide balloteer, will have an uphill climb grabbing the spotlight. At first glance, Shumlin would be at a disadvantage too among so many pols with built-in followings, but Shumlin is so good on the stump before Democratic faithful, he remains an X-factor in any contest.

Possibly the one with the most to lose in a primary is Spaulding. The argument could be made that Spaulding would be among the strongest in a general election against Douglas, or some other Republican should Douglas choose not to run as many seem to think (probably wishful thinking on their part). A lot of Spaulding’s potential A-list support would go to the likes of Racine and fellow Montpelierite Markowitz, but more significant are potential challenges within the primary voting crowd. Spaulding riles the Democratic education establishment with some abandon, and he continues to lend his name (and therefore his credibility) to efforts like the annual symposium sponsored by the conservative flagship website Vermont Tiger, which only boosts their cred in the state to Democrats’ disadvantage. Things like that stick in primary voters’ craws. Still, he has oodles of time to turn around that dynamic if he makes a conscious decision to get on top of it.

So who is serious? We’ll know sooner rather than later, as at least one Democratic committee has an invitation to all would-be Democratic Governors to show up and make their cases as early as next month. With the race already underway, those’ll be invitations that serious candidates won’t be able to ignore.

All of this early positioning makes one particular policy change all the more critical, however. The legislature must roll the primary date back earlier in the year (June?) to make primaries and primary candidates viable in November elections. More on that soon.

(I’ll leave the sidebar poll up ’til sometime Sunday.)

It’s “Obama,” not “Obamer.”  Thank you.

If you're sick of hearing Douglas and the members of the legislature say there is no capacity to raise taxes to help meet our budget shortfall, raise your hand.

 That's what I thought: just about everyone. 

Next question: what do we do about it?

There's a new web page that starts to answer the question, to give Douglas the message that we read from Northfield Democratic chair Chris Curtis in the Free Press yesterday: “Somebody needs to explain to the governor that the word tax is not a four-letter word.”

The page is called Count me in, Vermont, and it's been started by Liz Schlegel, the chair of the Waterbury Democratic Committee. It starts out by asking a couple of very simple questions: how much would middle class Vermonters be willing to pay in increased taxes, and how much money could a small tax increase generate?

The answer may surprise you. Using data provided by frequent GMD contributor Doug Hoffer, the answer is millions, and not just a couple.

I agree with Liz. I like to pay taxes, and I think there are a lot of people who, even if they don't affirmatively like it, accept that paying taxes is the duty we gladly take on as the price of living in a civilized society.

Now what we need to do is let our elected representatives know. Get the petition, print it out, and get your friends to sign it.

We interrupt the liberal-love-fest with this bit of news: Obama Orders First Air Strikes. Funny, but the starry-eyed masses don’t want to deal with this quite yet. But it’s true: Obama drew his first blood on his first week with his hand on the trigger of the world’s most bloated military enterprise. The result: At least 14 civilians dead, mostly women and children. So much for that bullshit rhetoric about “extending a hand.”

But the liberals gently sleep through the news of it all, still marshmallow-brained over the fuzzy-Obama-ness-of-being. Some things never change.

I found myself at a party over the weekend and mentioned these air strikes on Pakistan. The folks in attendance treated the news as if I were a leper: “Get away from me, I’m still celebrating,” their looks and body language told me. That’s what happens with false idols. You start to ascribe qualities to them that are as far-fetched as Santa coming down the chimney.

But this is certainly one more step in Obama’s great plan to assure the still-ruling right wing that everything will be okay under his regime. The killing will continue. The Wall Street bailouts will continue. Health care will continue to be a privilege. Capitalism is king. And the undertow of society can join the fucking Army if they want a job. Brother, can you spare some change?

Please, go to the link above and watch the video of the Pakistani people protesting the Obama administration’s missile strikes on their homes. And then, please, put away your delusions and get to work.

Or, since I know it’s all the rage on this site, ask yourselves this: What would Rosa Parks do? [Hint: She wouldn’t ignore it.]

News from Alaska … could this be about our new found best conservative friend Sarah Palin?

an eruption may be imminent

last erupted during a five-month period

“There was steaming through pre-existing holes, but there were no new holes. … and there was no ash on the snow cover,” he said.

The crew members smelled sulphur as they flew over

(source)

Can there be no (re)doubt about it?

but any level of torture is.

The other day I had a visit from a state game warden. Because the bird food that was being put out behind our house was also attracting deer, the wife and I were told we had to stop.

It’s called feeding the deer. It’s a bonafide crime in Vermont to feed deer with a few exceptions, and now that we’ve received a warning a violation will result in a criminal citation.

So when I read of some schmuck like Senator Schumer of NY saying “If there are egregious cases [of torture], I don’t think you can say, blanket, no prosecutions,” Schumer told Fox’s Chris Wallace Sunday morning. “If there are egregious cases, yes, you have to look at them.” (source) I shake my head in disbelief.

In my life torture is a much more serious issue than feeding white tailed deer in one’s backyard … but in the twisted minds of the likes of Schumer (and apparently a lot of the DC DemRepup elites) that isn’t the case at all.

There’s been a sizable population in the United States who stood up and said torture is immoral and illegal no matter the plaintive excuses made by those who approve of it. The torturers were warned long ago.

And now Mr Holder’s nomination for Attorney General is being held up apparently because he won’t say he won’t pursue prosecutions against cheney/bush administration officials who, among other illegal acts, engaged encouraged or approved torture.

We could go through a list of illegal activities by the cheney/bush admin. It ranges from lying to congress about Iraqi WMD to criminal negligence regarding Hurricane Katrina to cheney shooting another hunter in the face.

But unlike me, these cretins from the last administration and their still extant legions of apologists and fellow torture approvers feel they’re above not only the law but any sense of decency.

And reading that some Democratic Senator like Schumer is talking about looking into only the egregious examples of torture (yeah … still trying to figure out what would be egregious and what wouldn’t) makes my sick.

It’s time to put torture on equal footing with feeding the deer … if somebody is reasonably suspected of participating in it, planning it, approving it, ordering it or any other action that falls under the rubrics of direct action or conspiracy … they should be prosecuted.

Wow!  This is hugely good news.  I’ve always wondered how a born-again christian like George Bush could justify trashing God’s creation…

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01…

One thing that bothered me about the pre-inauguration concert last weekend was Samuel L. Jackson's speech, and how he characterized Rosa Parks's refusal to give up her seat. It's a comforting myth: the unobtrusive, non-troublemaker who was just too tired to get up and move to the back of the bus on her way home from work.

Today, On the Media carried a story that clearly contradicts the accepted myth. In fact, Rosa Parks is what we raise our children to be, and what we expect of ourselves: a committed, active citizen, organized with her fellow citizens to change what was wrong.

I don't know about you, but the truth enhances, and doesn't not diminish her,  in my eyes.

Harry Truman in a “bipartisan” moment with Lauren Bacall, a staunch liberal Democrat. This is about as “bipartisan as Harry got.”

Last week was exhilarating for Democrats and, judging by the international media, for people all over the planet who have suffered for nearly a decade from the misguided and often criminal policies of George Bush and his terribly inept administration.

The swearing in of Barack Obama and the departure of the Connecticut Cowboy from our public affairs was something long anticipated, and, after our long dark winter, as welcome as the return of springtime and birdsong, at least in these quarters.

The Republican smear machine however, wasted no time in cranking up to its full powers of bloviation. Their program of attacking nearly every move Obama made and every statement he uttered, began seconds after his swearing in and I’m sure will continue unabated in the immediate future. Here’s hoping that they are afforded every opportunity to quibble and obstruct, to grouse and whine, as a minority party for decades to come.

The moaning and squawking over the slightly bobbled recitation of the oath of office, a gaffe that was meaningless and easily ignored by people who have something other than chowder between their ears, was, in Republican circles, fanned into a twenty four hour cause celebre by the fulminating heads of Fox Noise and soon picked up on the other “open all night,” “all the news that fits,” networks.

The storm so roiled the calm in our national teapot that Obama’s advisers encouraged him to retake the oath, which he did in a private and sparsely attended ceremony in the White House a day later.

All seemed well with the republic until Glen Beck pointed out that Obama had not sworn the oath with his hand on a Bible,” I checked” Beck chirped, “We have never had a president sworn into office without a Bible,”

Beck’s research into the matter was apparently less than skin deep. Ali Frick at Think Progress quickly countered with this:

“Beck is simply wrong. As Slate recently reported, official records kept by the Architect of the Capitol show that Teddy Roosevelt did not use a Bible in 1901; and Lyndon Johnson is rumored to have used “a Catholic missal aboard Air Force One after Kennedy’s assassination.” According to his own letters, John Quincy Adams placed his hand on a constitutional law book rather than the Bible.”

Beck’s investigations didn’t include the “actual Constitution” which clearly states that no religious test for public office shall be required, thereby making the Bible, or any other religious text, token, amulet or magic charm unnecessary. It seems that the “Constitution” so often quoted in Beck’s parallel universe simply doesn’t contain an Article six.

The constitution and strict adherence to the rule of law seemed much on the minds of Republicans this past week, a surprising fact after eight years of their support of a President who famously referred to the document as “just a goddamn piece of paper” and spent much of his two sad terms trampling it underfoot with nearly unanimous republican complicity.

The party that hocked the future of our great grand children to the Chinese, set the world aflame and proved itself completely incapable of anything resembling competent governance during its twelve years of majority now seeks to instruct the new president, who hasn’t yet had time to sort out his new key ring, exactly how things ought to be run.

John Boehner in the House and his counterpart, Mitch McConnell, the replacement for Ted Stevens as the face of irascibility in the Senate, quickly assembled on deck a dozen or so other loose cannon to obstruct the disbursal of the next round of TARP funds and fight against Obama’s stimulus package. Forget the fact that they tripped all over themselves to approve the bailout of banks and brokers under the recent stewardship of jolly King George.

Following their obscene treatment of American automakers and labor they are now delaying the approval of Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary because of her support for American Labor and, worse, her support of the “Employee Free Choice Act,” which corporate America is spending vast fortunes to defeat and I assume  Republicans are opposed to out of something more tangible than conservative principle.

They are the same old Republican Party, prowling the mall like jackals or perched buzzard like on the fences waiting for any opportunity to transfer public wealth to the ruling class, any chance to create greater disadvantage for the working class.

The landscape that Republicans envision when they speak of “America” is one far different than that seen by the average Democrat. I for instance see no beauty in long lines of the unemployed waiting for a job at minimum wage or less. To a Republican that is an idyllic image, warming to the heart.

Harry Truman once said:

The Republicans believe that the power of government should be used first of all to help the rich and the privileged in the country. With them, property, wealth, comes first. The Democrats believe that the power of government should be used to give the common man more protection and a chance to make a living. With us the people come first.

In my opinion Obama would be wise to ride his mandate, to maintain the strong cyber link to the body politic and use it to pressure the Democratic majority in the direction it would travel naturally were it not for the corrupting influence of corporate money. I would urge our new President to lose some of his zeal for the grail of “bipartisanship” and simply take his case to the people, and, like an old fashioned Democrat, govern in their name.

Harry also said this:

“I don’t like bipartisans. Whenever a fellow tells me he’s bipartisan, I know that he’s going to vote against me.”

Bob Higgins

Worldwide Sawdust

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Pope Benedict Saturday rehabilitated a traditionalist bishop who denies the Holocaust, despite warnings from Jewish leaders that it would seriously harm Catholic-Jewish relations and foment anti-Semitism.

 Elan Steinberg, vice president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, told Reuters: “At a time when the Vatican should have sided with the victims it acted instead to desecrate their memory.

“This was an act of moral debasement unworthy of a moral institution. For this Vatican political expediency trumps ethical and human considerations,” he said.