Ugh. The Dems put this up recently.

It's all just a game for him, I suppose. Gotta pick the winner.

Guess who the losers are?

What's your take on this image? Pop over to the photojournalism analysis at BagNewsNotes and chime in. Happy Saturday!

(Terrific diary. I came upstairs to post about the Rich article myself, but this is much better than what I had in mind. – promoted by odum)

This is the Great Age of American Irony.  In the span of 24 hours, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and New York Times cultural commentator Frank Rice agree on problems and failures of democracy.  But, as usual, the ownership of culpability lies somewhere else.  

Following an unsuccessful meeting with Putin in Moscow, Condoleeza Rice addresses civic and human rights advocates in Moscow: 

Ms. Rice … indirectly chided Mr. Putin for overseeing a steady erosion of the independent media, the courts and the legislative branch.

“In any country, if you don’t have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development,” she said.

Opining along the same theme, Frank Rich references democratic failure in the wake of 9/11 leading to the Iraq War: 

Both Congress and the press — the powerful institutions that should have provided the checks, balances and due diligence of the administration’s case — failed to do their job. Had they done so, more Americans might have raised more objections. This perfect storm of democratic failure began at the top.

Both Rice and Rich agree that democratic institutions are crumbling and that it's time to go directly to “the people” in order to develop or restore the balance of powers.  In either case, it's difficult to imagine the people will be revolting.  That's not how democracy works.  It works through the process of representation, and that's the institution suffering the most, even here at home.

As for Condoleeza Rice, there really are no surprises in her pot-calling-the-kettle-black moment regarding the expansion of presidential powers in Russia.  But what of Rich's assessment of the American public?  Using the lens of a not-so-great 2006 Hollywood movie, he suggests that ordinary Americans are yawning over the scope and scandals of war contractors as if we have become apathetic “Good Germans”.    According to Mr. Rich, American's have let themselves become duped, numbed, or indifferent in respect to foreign policy.  If such a suggestion were to come from actor George Clooney, it would be reasonable to accept the comparison in context to Hollywood advocacy.  But coming from a New York Times commentator, the Good German theory falls flat under the weight of reality.

With 70% of the populace against the war, it's not like the American people are simply flipping from the front page to the Arts & Leisure section when we should be protesting in the streets.  Yet Rich waxes prosaic in an echo to the 2006 film starring Clooney, telling the American public that we are like the German people of the Nazi era, “lying to ourselves” in regard to our culpability as a whole.  From the perspective of the reader, Rich's inclusive use of the plural “we” comes off the page more like an accusatory “you”.  As in, “You are lying to yourselves.  You are culpable.  You are letting injustice occur.” 

It's not like Americans have rolled over and fallen asleep on the issue of foreign policy.  It affects families, the price of gasoline and building supplies, as well as our ability to travel freely and arrive as welcome guests in foreign lands.  We are paying attention every day.  We are actively engaged.  And it's not like there haven't been war protests, marches, or demonstrations even though such events are frowned upon by the American Elite as gestures unbecoming of decorum.  Such events are not covered by the yawning media.  Nonetheless, the American public uses it's power to the best of its ability.  Democratic Party success in 2006 constituted a mandate from the American public for a change of policy direction.  Anti-war advocates then asked for measures to be taken.  They proposed an impeachment process be initiated; they proposed a down vote on the war funding bill; they called for a strategic filibuster.  The media rolled over and fell asleep.  Our Legislative branch of government on both the state and federal level did not listen.  They responded by telling us to “wait for 2008.”  Yet Rich calls the American public to action on the 14th of October, 2007, as if so many Good Germans in the American public have done nothing at all.

The longer we stand idly by while they do so, the more we resemble those “good Germans” who professed ignorance of their own Gestapo. It’s up to us to wake up our somnambulant Congress to challenge administration policy every day.

One wonders what tipping point occurred for Frank Rich four years into an expensive, unnecessary war.  Did he finally get a chance to see George Clooney as an American war correspondent on DVD?   Was there something in the fresh autumn air that inspired Rich to see a new possibility for American policy makers to actually listen to their constituents?  Absent an obvious tipping point, it seems as if he writes from the dying embers of the fourth estate left to the business of stories and sentiment.  It seems as though he wants the American public to confess a silent partnership and clean up the mess of foreign policy even the New York Times helped funnel to the public in 2003.  Interestingly, a member of the American public challenged the Times way back then, on March 30th, 2003:

To the Editor: I find it hugely ironic that the most trenchant commentary on the president's manipulation of the media is found in Frank Rich's article ''They Both Reached for the Gun'' [March 23]. Instead of the National or Op-Ed pages, it is in Arts & Leisure. This seems consistent with the media's supine coverage of the war in Iraq and the events leading up to it.

GORDON AUBRECHT
Delaware, Ohio

Democracy is at risk when we forget it's basic premise of Representation, Checks and Balances, and public engagement.  Condoleeza Rice may chide Vladimir Putin all she wants, and Frank Rich can goad the American public.  But as long as our administration, our legislative branch, the White House, and even the New York Times refuse to take a good hard look at their own culpability and begin reporting, representing, and responding to the American public's dissatisfaction and lack of support for foreign policy and this war, then modern democracy will indeed be subject to failure here in the land where it was born.

Respectfully Submitted,

Nate Freeman

Northfield, Vermont 

(Bumped to the top, cause I’d love to see Doug in charge… – promoted by odum)

OK, like Odum I’ve been lying awake at night thinking to myself, “Which Dems can run for Gov in 2008 and beat Douglas?” I’ve run a lot of candidates through my internal self-polling mechanisms with varying levels of success.

There’s one candidate that I keep coming back to.

The best democratic candidate to run in 2008 and take the Governor’s seat is Doug Racine.

The main arguments for Racine have already been articulated here.

In August, cjcurtis wrote:

In 2002 Douglas’ margin over Racine was 45%-42% and the contest was decided by the legislature. Racine was a statewide office holder and well known to Democrats over the years. He took on and prevailed over perhaps the best known incumbent Lt. Governor in Vermont history in Barbara Snelling. Clearly he had the near universal support of the party. As a result he gave Douglas a run for his money.

And back in April Odum wrote:

In fact, if you look at the realities of numbers and statistics, of the current crop of Dem pols, the one on paper who would have the best shot is former multi-term Lieutenant Governor and current Chittenden Senator Doug Racine. Think about it – voters outside his district know him, and have elected him to statewide office despite the none-too-insignificant anti-Burlington-area feelings out there in greater Vermont. And of course, there’s the fact that he’s the only Dem who’s run against Douglas for the top spot that made a respectable showing (only losing by 3 points – and then, thanks to Con Hogan who apparently pulled virtually zero R votes).

I think these are solid and compelling reasons why Racine is the best candidate we have to beat Douglas.

Racine is currently co-chairing (w/Rep. Ann Pugh, D-South Burlington) the Vermont Child Poverty Council, a new legislative creation with the ambitious goal to find solutions that would cut the state’s poverty numbers in half in 10 years.

Poverty, income disparity, or economic opportunity to put a positive spin on it, is an issue that undermines much of our political discussion today. Although it sometimes remains unspoken, it directly or indirectly affects everything from education to healthcare to the reasons we go to war.

And it’s becoming a bigger issue in Vermont where we saw the second-greatest jump in income disparity in recent years in the United States. Vermont is now 31st out of the 50 states in one common measure of income disparity, but it was 47th as recently as 1989.

(OK, enough with the poverty stuff, I recently posted on this with zero comments so it seems to be a non-starter)

Like a certain presidential candidate that I tend to favor, Racine finds himself now in a position to champion economic equality. I’m not sure if it can be turned into a winning campaign focus, in either race, but I have gained respect for the people who recognize the importance of the issue.

Doug, just say the word and I’m on board for Racine 08.

Neither the GOP nor the Democratic faithful can be doing backflips these days. Tonight is the night of the big Democratic Party Autumn harvest fundraiser at the Old Labor Hall in Barre, where many were hoping to see some sort of great unveiling of a candidate to run against incumbent Governor Jim Douglas. Could still happen, I suppose, but nobody's holding their breath.

In fact what some from the liberal wing of the Party are doing is turning their frustration towards organizing, with reports of progressive Dems quietly having conversations about drafting a candidate themselves, rather than continue feeling humiliated by the lack of one. There are also murmurs of a floor challenge to Chair Ian Carleton during reorganization if no candidate has emerged by then. Tough stuff, but it's clear a lot of folks are choosing activism as an alternative to despair.

But on the other hand, how rough must it be to be a Vermont Republican these days? Sure, Douglas has got the Dem field cowering – but he is an electoral juggernaut who has trounced his last two opponents and has held elective statewide office since time immemorial. Peter Welch, on the other hand, is but a lowly freshman US Representative who has only been on one statewide ballot successfully…

While elected with a comfortable margin, it was hardly a landslide, and the guy has received almost daily taunts suggesting he'll be only a one-termer.

And yet, who have the Republicans got to take him on?

Exactly. Bupkus.

The rumors of Jeff Wennberg came and went quickly with nothing of substance to back them up. the only muttered hope of the Grand Ol' Party would seem to be former Auditor of Accounts Randy Brock, who has enough of the green to bankroll himself.

But he's hardly a stellar candidate, and is likely smart enough to steer clear, given that Welch has been busting his butt to stay in the media, to keep in steady contact with constituents, and is earning a reputation as the hardest working freshman in Washington – and is going to put any opponent at a serious fundraising disadvantage. The RCCC is abysmally low on money and has way too many vulnerable incumbents, so its likely a candidate would not get any national help in what's shaping up to be another Democratic electoral landslide.

Just recently added to the mix is a recent email that went out to Welch supporters from “Campaign Manager Carolyn Dwyer,” suggesting that the same, highly-lauded election team may be back in the mix for round two. That probably doesn't make potential chalengers feel any better.

So yeah, I'm pissed about the whole Governor thing as a D…

 …but hey – at least I ain't an R.

I just got this note from the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force:

Dear Julie,

Please email Congressman
Peter Welch to thank him for his co-sponsorship of the
gender-identity-inclusive ENDA.

Congress is on the verge voting on the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill co-sponsored by
Vermont Representative
Peter Welch that would prohibit employment discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation and gender
identity.  Congressional leaders are seriously
considering pulling back the fully-inclusive ENDA, substituting
in its place a bill that does not protect transgender
Americans or people who don’t conform to gender
expectations.  The unified outcry from the gay,
lesbian, bisexual, transgender and allied communities has been
striking– and leadership has delayed its move to make the
substitution.  We have the chance to prevent this
critical non-discrimination bill from itself becoming a
vehicle of discrimination. 

Please, take 30 seconds to send a quick e-mail thanking Peter
Welch for his co-sponsorship of the
gender-identity-inclusive ENDA, to encourage him to stand
firm against any attempts to water down this bill, and to let
him know that you do not support a bill that would exclude many
in our own community. 

 

Contact
Peter Welch today!

 

Thank you for taking action!!

 

Robyn Maguire

Field Director

I’m a fan of Barney Frank and, more often than not, I think he’s on the right side. In this particular case, however, I think he’s made some tragic missteps. I’ll explain more below the fold.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with what’s been going on lately, there’s been a push for decades now to get Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) passed into law. ENDA would outlaw discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation and gender presentation. This would go along with similar protections from discrimination on the basis of race or religion.

In recent weeks, there’s been a push to remove gender presentation from the bill. While on the surface that may seem like decent strategy, it comes with multiple problems, outlined quite clearly Lambda Legal:

[removing gender identity] “diminished the bill not only by excluding transgender people ? a consequence we oppose in itself. The cut also made the bill far weaker by denying protection of the earlier version to those who may not identify as transgender but who are discriminated against because they are perceived as gender nonconforming. Lesbians, gay men and bisexuals frequently are perceived that way.”

This has led to a fairly nasty and divisive fight. From my point of view, the infighting is nasty and unproductive, but so is the splitting ENDA into separate bills, one with Gender included in the language and one without. Watching this unfold has been both politically and personally brutal, but I’m really glad to see Welch step up to the plate and do the right thing.

The way I see it, this bill will not, under any circumstances, become law with the current administration occupying the White House. I’d personally rather we fail while trying to do the right thing than fail while trying to do the compromise. Then we can spend the next year doing education to get everyone up to speed on why the bill as originally presented is crucial and how much of an open gap in protection the other version leaves.

I know Welch gets a lot of crap from us and the progressive community in general, and I think some of it’s justified, but it’s also important to highlight when he does the right thing.

Someone made a good suggestion of writing about why you suport your candidate instead of always attacking Obama for the toothless positions he keeps taking (sorry, just can’t seem to stop myself…)

From a recent Edwards’ speach in Iowa:

When economists say that trade helps our economy overall, we need to be honest about the fact that it does not help everyone. The true measure of our economy isn’t found only in the size of our GDP or the level of corporate profits – it’s whether middle class families are doing better or worse.

A sure sign that our trade and economic policies are seriously out of whack is our trade deficit. Our nation’s imports have increased by a staggering 50 percent in the past 15 years, and instead of a trade balance, the United States now has the largest trade deficit in the history of the globe – and it just keeps growing. Last year, our current account deficit was more than $850 billion, which is a staggering 6.5 percent of our nation’s entire GDP, and our trade deficit with China alone was $233 billion. That means that we are consuming billions of dollars more in imported goods than we produce – and we are borrowing heavily to pay for them.

Behind all these numbers and statistics are the faces of millions of Americans forgotten in our trade deals. Well, I can tell you that I will never forget them. I saw what happened when the mill that my dad worked in all his life, and that I worked in myself when I was young, closed and the jobs went somewhere else. It wasn’t just devastating to our community economically — it was devastating to the pride and dignity of the people who worked hard every day trying to make a better life for their kids.

Let me tell you, if a CEO thinks the right thing to do is to ship American jobs overseas, to destroy families and communities, then I challenge him to go and look those workers in the eye and have the guts to tell them to their face that they can’t compete. I’ve stood with these workers all across America – and let me tell you, they can compete, because they are the best workers in the world.

The trade policies of President Bush have devastated towns and communities all across America. But let’s be clear about something – this isn’t just his doing. For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA, promising that they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities. Instead, too many of these agreements have cost us jobs and devastated many of our towns.

NAFTA was written by insiders in all three countries, and it served their interests – not the interests of regular workers. It included unprecedented rights for corporate investors, but no labor or environmental protections in its core text. And over the past 15 years, we have seen growing income inequality in the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

Well enough is enough. Americans have paid the price long enough. We need to change our fundamental approach to trade. We need to make American values the foundation of our trade deals, and we need to put workers back at their core.

Yesterday I put up a post about the people in New Hampshire who were just arrested after holing up in their compound in New Hampshire to avoid going to prison after they were convicted of tax fraud.

 Now it turns out that we have people like that on this side of the river, too. I just came across a decision from a tax appeal to the Washington Superior Court earlier this year. In this appeal the taxpayers were arguing that they had no income, because the only definition of income is “corporate gain”, and since they are not a corporation, they have no income.

Appellants argue that federal income is “corporate gain,” and therefore excludes personal income for services, such as those performed by Appellant James Henry in his work as a contractor. Appellant James Henry is not a corporation, they reason, so he cannot have corporate gain, and so he cannot have taxable income “under the laws of the
United States.” Appellants rely on Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), which addresses a somewhat different legal issue. When taken out of context, the statements Appellants use appear to have a meaning that supports Appellants’ position, but this court has reviewed the applicable law on point.

As you might think, the Superior Court rejects this argument, finding that the law defining income is broad enough to encompass everything they get, including the payments they receive as building contractors.

This doesn't look like a case where people are getting sent to prison, but look around–the loonies are out there. 

Latest Delegate Count from http://www.usaelecti…

Interesting to see Edwards’ position in the winner-take-all calculation.

Last Updated: 10/10/07

Calculated based on winner-takes-all for all states.
Democrats
Clinton  3289.0
Obama  208.0
Edwards  0.0
Richardson  38.0

Republicans
Giuliani  2414.0
McCain  193.0
Romney  240.0
Huckabee  47.0
F. Thompson  618.0
T. Thompson  0.0

Calculated based on proportional distribution of delegates per state.
Democrats
Clinton  1419.2
Obama  711.6
Edwards  442.2
Richardson  125.3

Republicans
Giuliani  960.7
McCain  480.4
Romney  449.2
Huckabee  134.8
F.Thompson  537.3
T.Thompson  5.5

Calculated based on percentage of total delegates.
Democrats
Hillary Clinton  36.6%
Barack Obama  18.4%
John Edwards  11.4%
Joe Biden  2.2%
Bill Richardson  3.2%
Dennis Kucinich  1.3%
Al Gore  1.9%

Republicans
Rudy Giuliani  24.2%
John McCain  12.1%
Mitt Romney  11.3%
Fred Thompson  13.5%
Mike Huckabee  3.4%
Ron Paul  1.6%
Newt Gingrich  2.0%