Thank you for the link to Bob Kinzel’s piece on the proposal to eliminate the 40% capital gains tax exemption. Peter Shumlin tried to talk seriously about the issue but Kinzel went into default mode (controversy is better than substance). He perpetuated the “tax burden” myth by quoting the Governor saying Vermonters are the most heavily taxed people in America. It is outrageous that a reporter on an NPR affiliate would be this compliant and sloppy. I wrote Kinzel a note (see below) and urge all of you to the same. We deserve better.

Doug Hoffer

“Your story about the proposal to eliminate the capital gains exemption quoted the Governor as saying that Vermonters are the most heavily taxed people in the country. The only measure that supports this assertion is based on per capita taxes (or taxes as a % of total income). There is no one in the phone book named per capita. It is an abstraction. As you well know,  VT’s graduated income tax distributes the so-called burden more fairly than most other states. This was illustrated nicely in Vol. 2 of JFO’s Tax Study. The facts don’t lie. So why do you (and other reporters) keep quoting the Governor when he is clearly misleading people? What ever happened to checking facts or holding elected officials to a higher standard when they make such statements? Media has to do more than simply repeat press release sound bites. It is a disservice and does nothing to advance the quality of the discourse. We expect it from the Free Press but it’s very disappointing for an NPR affiliate.”

[…]

I loved Election when it came out. It’s portrayal of a high-school election contest between an obsessive-compulsive, tense girl and a laid back jock was pitch perfect. When the folks at Slate V realized there were some parallels with the Democratic candidates, this video was born.

[…]

Came across the above via techPresident, posted by Joshua Levy, here; 1/18/2008; embedded vid via BrightCove, here.

Several other vids were posted within the same post, so make sure to follow the above link, yet for my part I thought this particular vid was both the best as well as funniest among those and, thus, received my full attention when I saw it.

(cross-posted to Norsehorse’s Home Turf, here)

With 59% of precincts reporting, C-SPAN is now calling the Nevada caucuses for Hillary Clinton.

Did Edwards skip Nevada? He's really nowhere. 

(UPDATE: But who really won? Obama got more delegates! Nevada is weird. American elections are weird. I'm going to bed.  -odum, 10:45 PM) 

I’ve heard that Jack McMullen is a pleasant fellow personally, but I’ve always wondered about his, well, intellectual prowess, shall we say. Coming to prominence as he did swooping in from Massachusetts to run against Senator Leahy, without even bothering to fully move to Vermont wasn’t perhaps the most well-considered decision. After a humiliating loss in his own primary to protest candidate Fred Tuttle, he strangely decided to run again against Leahy – and was soundly (and predictably) pummeled.

Today he’s back with an op-ed in the Free Press that is a little, er, embarrassing. His gripe? The Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG). Specifically? He is upset that they have views on issues. And that they advocate for them in the legislature. And then they keep advocating for them. And those views aren’t generally considered Republican ones.

He considers this “corruption.” Hoo-boy.

Now, VPIRG and its Democratic allies are back again. Why is VPIRG so determined to try to pass a campaign finance law of the type just declared unconstitutional?

Uhhh… for the same reasons they’ve supported previous campaign finance efforts, perhaps? Because they think they are the right thing to do? And because they are supported by members who agree?

Gimme a freaking break!

Does he mete the same criticism out to GOP anti-abortion activists who try, time and time again, to make progress on their issue, despite numerous failures at the Supreme Court level? In fact, given their change of fate with the Roberts court, Pro-Lifers are the poster children for sticktuitiveness on constitutional matters in public policy.

in recent years VPIRG has been, in reality, little more than a lobbying enterprise for special interests which, in large measure, fund it — primarily corporate wind power and alternative energy interests.

“Special interests,” of course, being the meaningless catch-phrase for any lobbying efforts that one does not agree with. I don’t even bother with the term myself, anymore, as it’s become utterly meaningless.

The campaign finance bill in question was sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Ed Flanagan, who is also a member VPIRG’s board of directors. In addition, Scudder Parker, who ran for governor as a Democrat last time around and has served as the Democratic Party chairman, is now a hired lobbyist for VPIRG. Senate leader Peter Shumlin has been referred to only half-jokingly as the senator from VPIRG. And the current Democratic chairman, Ian Carleton, has also worked with VPIRG. If the Legislature is looking for corruption or the appearance of corruption to fix, it should start by looking at VPIRG and its relationship to the Vermont Democratic Party.

McMullen’s definition of corruption: someone effectively promoting interests that don’t line up with his, and working with others who agree.

Or perhaps its just corruption if you work with Democrats.

In any event, I’m sure former VPIRG honchos such as Anthony Pollina and Peter Sterling will be intrigued to learn that VPIRG is just an organizational stooge of the Democratic Party.

Part of the story behind Huckabee is the idea he keeps pushing that he's a conservative, but he isn't the mean kind of conservative you may be used to.

Still, if he's the nice, amiable type he wants you to think he is, what's he doing cozying up to the neo-Confederates down in secessionville?

COLUMBIA, S.C. – Mike Huckabee on Thursday dove head-first into the long-running South Carolina controversy over the Confederate flag, saying it should be up to the state to decide how or whether it should be displayed. The comments came at a rally in Florence, S.C., where the Republican presidential candidate attempted to separate himself from other contenders he said were “Washington insiders.” Saturday's South Carolina primary appears to be a two-man race between Huckabee and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., also is hoping to make an impact in the first-in-the-South primary. At the rally, Huckabee criticized those who “have been in charge of all the problems of this country and haven't fixed them.” “I'm the one guy running that doesn't have a Washington address, that hasn't been a Washington lobbyist or a Washington insider,” he said. His comments on the Confederate flag came as he bashed opponents in the anti-tax group Club for Growth. The organization has been campaigning against Huckabee, calling the former Arkansas governor a serial tax hiker. Huckabee said Arkansans wouldn't be swayed by out-of-state pressures, nor should South Carolina on the flag issue. “We tell them, you're going to tell us what to do with our flag? We'll tell you what to do with the pole,” Huckabee said. Huckabee would not say whether he thought it was offensive to fly a flag seen as a racist symbol to some and a sign of Southern pride to others. The matter should be left to the state, he said.

You probably know who David Goodman, Amy Goodman's brother, is. You might  not know that he lives in Waterbury, and is married to State Representative Sue Minter.

 Anyway, David Goodman spoke at Vermont's finest public library last week in their “Why I Love . . .” series, and his topic was “Why I Love Dick Cheney”.

I admit that I'm somewhat baffled, too. You can read an interview in which he mentions, among other things, Dick Cheney and his underling, George Bush. 

You can also check out a DVD of the lecture at the Kellogg-Hubbard Library. That's what I think I'll do. 

( – promoted by JulieWaters)

Dan Froomkin offers the latest storyline regarding 500 days of missing emails in the White House between 2003 and 2005  Spokesman Tony Fratto does an amzaing job of news bending in response to the question of the missing emails: 

Q: “So where are they?”

Fratto: “Where are what? . . . We have no reason to believe that there's any data missing at all — and we've certainly found no evidence of any data missing.”

Q: “So that would mean that if you were asked, you would be in a position to comply with a request to produce those documents?”

Fratto: “Yes, which documents?”

Full text on this subject below the fold. 

From WhiteHouse.gov: 

Q Tony, on the subject, could you address the missing White House emails and the law suit? It is a subject of reports this morning. Are there in fact the emails missing? What's the likelihood of their recovery versus the —

MR. FRATTO: I think our review of this, and you saw the court filing on this, and our declaration in response to the judge's questions — I think to the best of what all the analysis we've been able to do, we have absolutely no reason to believe that any emails are missing; there's no evidence of that. There's no — we tried to reconstruct some of the work that went into a chart that was entered into court records and could not replicate that or could not authenticate the correctness of the data in that chart. And from everything that we can tell, our analysis of our backup systems, we have no reason to believe that any email at all are missing.

Q So where are they?

MR. FRATTO: Where are what?

Q Where are part of —

MR. FRATTO: Which email? Look, no one will tell you categorically about any system — any system, whether it's your system at Bloomberg or our system here at the White House, past and present, categorically that data cannot be missing. All of our review of it and all of the our understanding of the way that the backup system works, it's a backup system that captures existing data, it captures things that are stored and archived. We have no reason to believe that there's any data missing at all — and we've certainly found no evidence of any data missing.

Q So that would mean that if you were asked, you would be in a position to comply with a request to produce those documents?

MR. FRATTO: Yes, which documents? I mean, if someone has a specific request for documents and they would like us to search for particular emails, of course we could search for emails — and we have. And we have been responsive to requests in the past.

Q And they have been produced? They do exist?

MR. FRATTO: We have produced emails upon request, either for our own internal review or sometimes in response to investigations that have taken place on the Hill. I mean, we have been able to go back and find email. The question is, have we been able to find a large mass of missing email? No, we have not located somewhere in the system the absence of something. We have not been able to note the absence of anything in our databases.*

Q You're saying they're there, you just haven't located them yet?

MR. FRATTO: No, I'm saying we have no evidence that shows that anything at all is missing. And you're saying, well, have you found the missing emails — and we say we have no evidence that anything is missing.

Q So you're saying that would include emails that were erased from the Republican National Committee system that was used by some White House officials?

MR. FRATTO: I can't speak to the RNC's system of archiving and storing email. All I can tell you is that the email on the White House computers, we have no reason to believe that any email or other data are missing.

Olivier.

Q Yes, I want to follow up on that, I've taken a real sky view of this particular story, but — so it was wrong to say a few months ago that there were possibly millions of emails missing?

MR. FRATTO: I think those charges came from outside the White House. I think that's the charge of one of the —

Q One of your colleagues addressed those from the podium and suggested that that was accurate — again, I'm taking —

MR. FRATTO: I'm not sure what was said on that. I can tell you today, though, that we have no evidence and we have no way of showing that any email at all are missing.

Meet the Front Pagers:

Jack McCullough Co-founder Jack McCullough is a lawyer who lives in Montpelier, Vermont. He is involved in mental health advocacy and local and state politics. He is also the current Chair of the Washington County Democratic Committee and the Montpelier Democratic Committee.

Julie Waters was an environmentalist, a gay rights activist and a general supporter of the rights of everyone to live well.  She was also an avid bird photographer and musician who did other work (primarily consulting and teaching) to fund her hobbies. Our Julie left this world for whatever lies beyond it on April 8, 2012. Her presence here will always be greatly missed.   Examples of Julie's photography and music can be found at her web site: juliewaters.com

Sue Prent Sue Prent was born in Chicago in 1950. Together with her Canadian-born sculptor husband Mark, she has lived in Montreal, Berlin Germany and finally settled in St. Albans in 1987.  Together, they own and operate a fine art molding and casting business there, make a little art and mostly manage to tread water.  Sue is a confirmed believer in social responsibility and environmental stewardship.  She is proud to be a member of the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth.

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

JD Ryan, formerly known as, "That guy with the crazy hair at the DNC " is one of those not-a-Democrat front pagers Odum warned you about. Has a penchant for bad Italian Western movies, outdated music, going into abandoned mental asylums, activism, and general rabble-rousing, all of which he torments people with on a regular basis over at Five Before Chaos.  Also prone to funky bass playing and atheistic rantings. Do not take with other medications, strong side effects may occur. Not as crazy as Ed Garcia (see above), nor is his resume as remotely interesting as any of the other GMD FP'ers.

Da Rules (largely lifted and re-worked from Daily Kos, 'cause who wants to re-invent the wheel?):  

Green Mountain Daily was started by progressive activists in the Democratic Party, and maintains that focus. It is our intention to promote both left-minded policies and candidates. It is believed that no institution can be healthy without a capacity for rollicking self-criticism, and part of the purpose of this site is to provide such health to the Democratic Party for its own good. We're all sure it will thank us for this some day.

On the other hand, the criticism of Republicans is not done for the health of their institution, but rather to try and do our small part to protect the state and the world from utter destruction at their hands. Perhaps they'll thanks us some day too, but we won't wait up.

The current crop of front pagers includes some who do not consider themselves Democratic Party activists, and the site remains open to all, but don't expect a parade if you've come to evangelize about the evils of all those who call themselves Democrats. You're liable to get back as good as you give, no matter how much you might chose to whine about it. In other words, if you can't take it, don't shovel it.  Please remember this is not a newspaper, public park, government service or political party. That means there are rules. If you dont like them, you are encouraged to start your own blog. There are lots of free ones.

So, here's how it works:

How can I post here? First, you need to create an account. You can post a comment immediately after logging in with the password you receive from your registration email, but you have to wait a day before posting a diary.  

The User Menu When you log in, you'll notice a user menu on the top of the right-hand column. There are links for creating your own diary, as well as going to your own user page, where you can create a profile for yourself that can be as detailed or as skimpy as you like. Explore the links and you'll find that most of the options are reasonably intuitive to someone accustomed to using computers and interacting on the web. For technical tips, see "Technical tips" below (well.. as soon as I write those up – they're not quite available yet)…  

The front page The first thing that you see when loading the site is the front page. Most of the stories on the front page are written by designated front page posters, but we frequently "promote" good user diaries to the front page, especially when we're all feeling to lazy to write anything. On the right hand side, you'll see the "recent diaries" column, which is where user diaries appear. If you are logged in and you click on a link opening up a user diary, you'll have the option of recommending it via a button on the right hand side. Recommended diaries get highlighted a bit higher on the page and do not scroll off as new diaries are written, giving them special emphasis for a few days.  Most of the action takes place inside of diaries where the user comments appear.  

Comment ratings: Comments can be individually rated logged in users on a 1-4 scale, with 1 being "unproductive" and 4 being "excellent", with the rest covering the range in between. If a user receives a small handfull of "excellent" ratings, they become a "trusted user" and have the abilit to rate comments with a zero, or "troll rating." This is a rating reserved for comments which are not designed to add to the discussion, but serve to disrupt or derail it, usually (but not exclusively) by calling other posters names, posting defamatory material, etc. If a comment receives a handful of troll ratings, it becomes "hidden," causing it – along with any responses – to be visible only to trusted users.  Troll ratings are not to be handed out because of disagreement with a posters ideas, for retribution for other ratings or conflicts, because of personal dislike of a poster, or because somebody was simply being crude in a jovial way, with no intention of offending.  

How to get kicked off the site Troll rating vindictively is considered ratings abuse, and can be grounds for banning from the site. Receiving excessive troll ratings on multiple comments indicates a desire to disrupt conversation, and can also be grounds for banning. Posting defamatory material can also lead to a user being banned. If a banned user creates a new user ID and attempts to return, they could also be subject to banning (although if you're actually trying to participate in discussions,we'll probably look the other way on that one)

ON THE REPRODUCTION OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: Unless you're satirizing (making a "transformative" use), it is against fair use laws to reprint in toto a news piece, or any other copyright-protected article on the web. Such diaries or comments will be removed. Repeated violations may subject a user to banning. Click on this link for details.

From a Vermonter in London: I was sitting in the pub today, having lunch and reading the Times, when I read the following in the Times of London:

Barack Obama received a boost to his presidential campaign yesterday when one of the most senior Democrats on Capitol Hill endorsed him, a rebuke to Hillary Clinton and further evidence that members of the party’s old guard are ready to desert her. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a 34-year veteran on Capitol Hill, said that his support for Mr Obama was like backing John F. Kennedy for President. His move follows the endorsement last week of Mr Obama by John Kerry, the Democrats’ candidate in 2004.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3206400.ece 

I've always known that Europe takes our election cycle quite seriously, but it's a little surreal to see it up close. Glad to see St. Patrick gets good press here, too.

When it comes to the conventions in 2008, people won’t be electing their candidates.  Delegates will.    The delegates are representatives of political parties and their candidates, and given how delegates split, parties can easily end up supporting people who have received less than 40% of their party’s voters.  

Much of this delegate system is set up in the early stages of the system, without allowing many of the states to vote, providing a system in which a select few states very early in the process get to make crucial decisions as to who the final nominee will be.  This can result in nominees choosing poor early candidates which look good on the surface, but don’t result in someone who can easily make it through to the final election.

So instead, I present a simple proposal: eliminate primaries, and eliminate the power of individual parties to choose for the American public who will be nominated.

Instead, let’s go with a fairly easy solution: instant runoff voting (1-2-3) voting.  

Let’s not eliminate candidates based on early mistakes and stumbles or amount of money they’ve raised at crucial points.  Instead, let’s go with as many candidates who want to run, who can afford to get their names on the ballots and, come election day, do instant runoff voting.  

The process is simple:

Let’s assume that you have the following slate of candidates:

Rudy Guiliani

John Edwards

John McCain

Hillary Clinton

Mitt Romney

Barack Obama

Ron Paul

Dennis Kucinich

Fred Thompson

Duncan Hunter

Cynthia McKinney

Alan Keyes

(I probably missed someone.  Please, if I missed your candidate, let it go)

So when it comes to voting, we don’t do a primary system.  Instead, we do our usual voting process, but instead of going with just selecting our favorite candidate (thus risking a John McCain 23% of the vote “victory”), we instead put in our choices as follows.  In my case, this would probably be:

1. John Edwards

2. Barack Obama

3. Hillary Clinton

So, on election night, the results of the 1st choices come in the following order:

1. Hillary Clinton (22%)

2. John McCain (19%)

3. Barack Obama (18%)

4. Mitt Romney (15%)

5. John Edwards

6. Ron Paul

7. Dennis Kucinich

8. etc…

Now… with no one getting over 50% of the vote, we go through an elimination process: remove any candidate with less than 15% of the vote and try again, moving 2nd and/or 3rd to the top.  

This has several advantages: first, it leaves us the ability to choose less popular candidates (such as Dennis Kucinich) without feeling as though we’re throwing away our votes, because our second choice candidate can get the chance when our 1st choice doesn’t make the cut.

This also has the advantage of creating consensus candidates; for any candidate to win, s/he has to appear on the top three of a lot more people than just the simple majority winner.

There are certainly problems with IRV, but they are more technical than problematic (what percentage is the cutoff, how many rounds do we do; do we eliminate one candidate at a time, or just eliminate anyone below a certain threshold, how many choices to we get to make: 3?  4?  5?).  

As things stand, however, we end up in the situation where any candidate has to pass a test not just with voters, but with party elders who can have a powerful influence on the process (especially with the superdelegate system that the Democrats have worked out under the old guard).  

But imagine, though, if 50% of the country was voting Democrat but had trouble deciding between the three candidates; instead of ridiculous infighting over who our nominee would be, we’d all get to choose our sequence between the top three of our favoring without having to worry about which of our candidates would more easily beat John McCain.  

I don’t know that this is a perfect solution, but it’s got to be better than what I’m seeing today.