Every time we see a Janet Jackson boob or the FCC passes out fines, the Puritans and our puritan heritage.  Well, stop it.  It’s not their fault.  The Puritans were Congregationalists.  Orthodoxy and congregational governance don’t mix.  The famed Salem witch trials reflect the breakdown of Calvinist orthodoxy.  Every time you see a 2nd or 3rd Congregational church in New England, it’s because the founders broke from the first which had to add that number to its name. 

The so-called Puritanism arises mainly from evangelical protestants and conservative Roman Catholics.  The irony is that the so-called Southern Baptists are an enormous part of this cohort.  And they don’t know their own heritage!  If one looks at protestant governance, it is a continuum of devolution of Roman Catholic hierarchy ranging from Episcopal to the virtual anarchy of the Baptists who believed in the priesthood of the baptized.  The notion that a Baptist denomination could have disciplinary powers over its members or congregations is a true oxymoron. 

The lack of understanding of history is breathtaking.  From those who call themselves `conservatives,’ it is frightening and fascistic. 

I know we just got done with the 2006 election. (Well, almost.) Still, 2008 is right around the corner, which means we’ll be electing a new President, assuming the Supreme Court doesn’t decide to just assign one to us again.

As you start thinking about your favored candidates you might want to check out this handy site setting forth the major candidates’ or hopefuls’ positions on Iraq.

(Hint: it’s hard to feel too optimistic)

Americans really don’t understand constitutional government.  They have a simplistic view of constitutionalism based on a legalism that boggles the mind.  I say this because of my enormous respect for British constitutionalism that understands that a constitution is not just law but also custom and usage.

Hence lame ducks and dead ducks.  There is nothing as undemocratic as lame ducks.  I don’t mean the time when an office holder is not willing or able to run again, I refer to the time after an election takes place and before the newly elected take office.

In Britain, that period can be as short as a matter of hours. 
There is no reason whatsoever for there to be any delay other than delay caused by an undetermined result. 

And this leads to my point about constitutionalism.  Yes, the documents say that a new Congress doesn’t begin until January 3rd or a new President doesn’t get inaugurated until January 20th with similar situations in the states. 

In the British based systems, a electorally defeated  Prime Minister has the legal right to wait in office until the new Parliament meets and defeats him/her on the Throne Speech.  However, the custom and usage calls for resignation as soon as the results are clear.  Equally important, if there is a lame duck period, which begins when the election is called, the government can only act as a caretaker.  Good and democratic. 

For instance, nothing prevents a President ending his period in office from having his/her Vice President resign the day after the election and then under the 25th Amendment appointing the elected successor.

This would also have the enormous impact of reducing the bloated and redundant staff that enclose our elected leaders in bubbles.

Anyone running for office should be prepared to take over at a moment’s notice. 

We’re all pretty happy about the election results across the river in New Hampshire, but it’s not that long ago that the Republicans in New Hampshire, with help from the RNC, were deep into election fraud by jamming the Democrats’ GOTV effort with thousands of robo-calls. You’ll recall that it was so bad that James Tobin of the national Republican Party was charged, convicted, and sentenced to prison for the scheme.

Now the Democrats are suing the Republican Party for damages, arguing that the Republican phone-jamming effort trespassed on their personal property and deprived them of its value. There’s only one thing: the two parties have different views of the value of the damages the Dems suffered. The Republicans claim that their efforts only cost the D’s a few thousand dollars, about what it cost them to rent the phone service for the day. The D’s, on the other hand, say, “He, the whole point of all the money we spend on setting up our GOTV campaign is so that we can make GOTV calls on Election Day. If we can’t do that, we’ve wasted all of our investment in setting up the GOTV system. That’ll be four mill, please.”

It’s too soon to tell what will happen, but we’ll be following the story. Meanwhil, here’s hte link to the story in the Times Argus.

Meanwhil, down in the sunny South, remember Katherine Harris?

Yes, that’s her, the Bush hatchet woman with the scary makeup who made a fool of herself in her Senate run.

Well, when she ran for Senate her House seat was open, and in a hotly contested race the Republican who was running to replace, Vern Buchanan, her won by 369 votes.

But wait, it is Florida, and Katherine Harris’s home district, so it couldn’t be as easy as that, could it? No, indeed. In Sarasota County, which the Democratic candidate Christine Jennings carried, there was an undervote of over 18,000 votes. Missing voting machines, people being told their votes didn’t register, the whole litany of things that can go wrong with touch screen voting.

The recount’s over, Buchanan is demanding that Jenings back off, but it ain’t over yet, folks.

If this is what they call democracy here at home, what do the R’s think qualifies as democracy in Iraq?

About, oh, fifty pounds or so ago, I was hiking for a week in Washington’s Glacier Peak Wilderness when my camping-buddy and I encountered a passing ranger who regaled us with tales of the silly questions tourists had asked him over the years. My favorite question was “at what altitude do the deer turn into elk?” It was worth a good guffaw, and these days I often think of that question when I hear discussions of Vermont’s political spectrum (there are shades of it in this PoliticsVT post). But the Vermont version is “How far to the left do Democrats go before turning into Progressives?”

If you’ll stop and think for a second, you’ll realize that this iteration of the question is no more valid than the first, and yet it has become the conventional-shorthand-wisdom in the Green Mountain state due to its casual simplicity (and the traditional media do tend to gravitate towards simplicity). I used to hang with the Washington County Progressive Coalition until I realized that they were committed as a group to the proliferating of the fledgling Progressive Party, and I’m far from alone in drawing that line. Much to the distaste of many in both camps, you don’t have to look too far before you’ll find plenty of Democrats who are every bit as left wing as any Progressive (some more so), but who simply make the considered judgment that third parties are not a viable option for meaningful social change. And yet, that convenient, shorthand characterization remains…

That convenience is the only reason (I believe) for the repeated characterization of this blog as “centrist.” I’ve heard it at least a half dozen times in the last month or so. Consider the “centrist” stances front pagers on this blog have taken since it’s inception on issues such as:

• Single-payer healthcare
• Instant Runoff Voting
• The Impeachment of George W. Bush
• Same-sex marriage
• Vermont’s immediate divestment from Sudan
• Hemp legalization

…and so on. Centrist!? Given that it’s practically the Progressive Party platform, I can only assume it’s simply that the “D” label on most of the front pagers here is shorthanding us as “centrist.” The truth is, the characterization used to bug me because it wasn’t true for one, and because it clearly served the Progs interest by creating a perception that lefties weren’t present or welcome among the Dems – which is also untrue.

But you know what? I’ve changed my tune. Everyone has their own reason for diving into the blog thing, but a big part of mine was to try to do my part to shift the political debate in a progressive direction after seeing it go so far to the right for so long. To the extent that may or may not be beginning to happen is for others to judge, but to that end I now welcome the centrist label. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still bogus, but who cares? If enough people think it, say it, and start to read it, maybe the perception will creep towards reality and will start coming true.

Because those li’l policy bullets above should be centrist, and if all the sentiments on this blog truly come to be viewed as centrist ones (and public policy starts to reflect that), we’ll all be a lot better off.

(I smell a cross-river barbeque in the offing… – promoted by odum)

Hello Green Mountaineers,

Now that the Granite State just underwent a kind of Republican Massacre, and folks are comparing our new shade of blue to yours, I thought I would let y’all in on a brand new venture of ours:

Blue Hampshire

(hey, we could have gone with “White Mountain Daily,” but that would have been a bit too cute, don’t you think?)

It’s run by me (Dean, AKA Yankee Doodler on my former blog, and Republic not Empire on DailyKos) Laura of Blue Granite, and Keener (AKA Mike) of NH-02 Progressive.

You may remember us as the ones who became obsessed with the Bass-Hodes race, and we even became part of the story when we were visited by a sockpuppet from Bass’ House office.  We also had a bit of fun highlighting Charlie Bass’ outrageous comments about Bernie and the “Sandernistas.”

Anyhow, Blue Hampshire is a soapblox site, so we now have a contiguous chain from you to us to Blue Mass Group.  We’ll be pretty busy over the next two years digesting our newly blue statehouse and Congressmen, our phonejamming scandal, the presidential primary, and one very vulnerable senator named Sununu.

Hope to see you all over the river at some point, and congrats on Welch and Sanders.

[Crossposted at What’s the Point?]

This argument is sooo 2005.

Darren Allen is a paid political reporter for an award-winning paper. John Odum is a private citizen who uses a particular software platform to do personal publishing.

Journalist vs. blogger? Or just human being vs. human being.

I mean, sure, it must be a little frustrating for hard-working professionals to see uncredentialed citizens slowly cutting into their audience and somewhat rarefied status. I get that, but, c’mon, it’s time to move on.

Just last night on Charlie Rose, before discussing how he enjoys the process of blogging, Brian Williams couldn’t help making what seems to be the contractual obligation to slam blogging (and YouTube) as somehow cutting into some cherished part of a disappearing American water cooler culture. His bosses made him do it, he said.

Had a similar feel to Darren Allen’s recent backhanded article on local blogging. One choice quote:  "Yes, it’s a small audience, but it’s an influential one. As anyone who’s part of it will tell you."

Essentially, according to Allen, blogs are pretty much irrelevant, but his is the most popular one.

Now, I don’t know Darren Allen or Brian Williams. They may be very nice guys. But, I’m afraid that Messrs. Allen and Williams need to accept that the cat is now yowling way outside of the bag.

The media landscape has changed. And likely for the better.

Jay Rosen, the NYU journalism professor (and, by the way, the father of Zack Rosen, Dean for America staffer and co-creator of CivicSpace, a mostly open-source campaign-in-a-box software suite), wrote persuasively in January of 2005 that the argument, Bloggers vs. Journalists, is over.

Rosen writes (after the jump)…

  If my terms make sense, and professional journalism has entered a period of declining sovereignty in news, politics and the provision of facts to  public debate, this does not have to mean declining influence or reputation. It  does not mean that prospects for the public service press are suddenly dim. It  does, however, mean that the old political contract between news providers and  news consumers will give way to something different, founded on what Curley  correctly called a new “balance of power.”
 

Others have seen the change coming. In a 2003 report, New Directions for News said, “Journalism  finds itself at a rare moment in history where … its hegemony as gatekeeper of  the news is threatened by not just new technology and competitors but,  potentially, by the audience it serves.” The professional imagination in Big  Journalism wasn’t prepared for this.
 

Armed with easy-to-use Web publishing tools, always-on connections  and increasingly powerful mobile devices, the online audience has the means to  become an active participant in the creation and dissemination of news and  information.
 

Meanwhile, the credibility of the old descriptions is falling away. People  don’t buy them anymore. In 1988, 58 percent of the public agreed with the  self-description of the press and saw no bias in political reporting, according  to the Pew Research Center. (And that was regarded as a dangerously low figure.)  By 2004, agreement on “no bias” had slipped to 38 percent. “The notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to  me at least, worth holding onto,” wrote Howard Fineman of  Newsweek, Jan. 13. “Now it’s pretty much dead, at least as the public sees  things.”

This past spring  at the Charlie Ross panel discussion at UVM, Howard Fineman reminded us that during the "golden age" of the Walter Cronkite water cooler years, things weren’t necessarily so golden — when the editorial slant at virtually every news organization was determined by the New York Times.

Fineman said, ~You have to ask yourself, when Cronkite said "And that’s the way it is," was it really the way it was?~ Though I wouldn’t have predicted it, Fineman seems to truly understand and appreciate the positive aspects of the emerging user-driven dynamic.

But, today’s press professionals should be able to take solace in the knowledge that they are not alone in slowly losing their status.

As VDB pointed out following the anti-Dean Carville freak-out…

  It’s hard to imagine the post-election Carville/Dean story coming  together without some strong shared need on the part of James Carville  and Anne Kornblut, the journalist behind the New York Times piece.
 

That  point can be broadened without losing its force: Carville’s general  prominence in the days following the election has much to say about the  momentary intersection between his needs and those of the mainstream  media.
 

The best way to summarize that shared need is as follows:  Carville needed to remind the world that he is a professional political strategist, and the mainstream media needed to remind the world that they are professional journalists — and for both, credentials are the key to professional status.
 

Carville and Anne Kornblut share the spotlight as bona fide members of interlocking, complementary professions.
 

Why  the pressing need to stress credentials, for political strategists and  media regulars? Because the real wave this election wasn’t the  Democrats inundating the Republicans.
 

It was the uncredentialled swamping the credentialled.

So, as Rosen says — as does Chris Anderson in the Long Tail — when given the choice of a single source for news, entertainment or political strategy vs.  an almost infinite array of choices, consumers choose the latter.

And that’s the way it is.

Statehouse hubbub: No changes expected in the House Dem Leadership, but the hubbub is that GOP Rep. Steve Adams of Hartland will be making a move for Minority Leader, and that current Leader Peg Flory will be backing off. Interesting, if true. I like Adams a lot, actually. He’s a good guy and a free-thinker who doesn’t limit himself to partisan orthodoxy. He was, however, one of the leaders of the spectacularly ineffective revolt and repeal electoral gimmick that seemed to make up the entirety of the state GOP’s collective legislative elections strategy (along with those obnoxious last-minute postcards). Gotta feel bad for the guy, left to try to pick up the slack for Barnett’s disinterest in the local races. Whether or not the R&R schtick left a lingering bad taste in the Dem caucus’ mouth could go a long way to determining interparty cooperation this time around, especially with Adams at the helm.

On the Senate side – after the Shumlin re-ascendence, Senators Claire Ayer (Addison) and Mark MacDonald (Orange) are vying for Majority Leader, as Senator Campbell will not be looking for the position again.

Philip Baruth is Vermont’s King of All Media. The star of bloggery, literature, radio, TV and print (and people ask me if I ever sleep) has added a new one: uh… web-based-audio-political-sketch-comedy. Go listen, and comment here cuz Philip doesn’t do the comment thing.

Hit a nerve over at Hall Monitor, despite the fact that a quick survey of Darren Allen’s mentions at this site run about 5-to-1 positive. Ah well, can’t have ’em all, DA (although I probably shouldn’t purport to be the last straw for the Allenmeister, as teastiles’ surgical post made me sound like a semi-literate oaf). Gotta thicken that skin, pal.

( – promoted by odum)

Stewart Ledbetter will be the host of Vermont Public Television’s weekly
news program, “Vermont This Week,” starting next year.  A regular panelist
on the show for many years, he will assume the host chair with the Jan. 5
program.

Ledbetter has more than 23 years’ experience covering Vermont news, 22 of
them at WPTZ NewsChannel 5.  He has been a news anchor, news director and
is now the senior political reporter for WPTZ.  He will continue in that
position. 
Chris Graff has hosted the program since 1992, beginning when the
program’s founder, Jack Barry, retired.  Graff is leaving at the end of
December to become vice president of communications for the
Montpelier-based National Life Group.

“Vermont This Week is special, and it’s an honor to follow Chris as host
of VPT’s signature public affairs program,” Ledbetter said. “It is a
unique window into our quirky politics and bedrock institutions, seen
through the eyes of some of Vermont’s best journalists.  I’m very happy to
continue the tradition into a second quarter-century of the program.”

Since 1982, “Vermont This Week” has brought journalists together in a
roundtable format to provide analysis of state news.  Now in its 25th
year, the program is seen Fridays at 7:30 p.m. and Sundays at 11:30 a.m.
Recently, it became available as a podcast.

Joe Merone, executive producer of the program, said, “When Jack Barry
started `Vermont This Week,’ he wanted it to be a forum where journalists
could explain not just what happened but why.  The program Jack and Chris
built gives viewers information that helps them participate in the civic
life of our state.  We strive every week to produce a show that would make
Jack proud.”

Haven’t been doing a good job on the newslet items lately, as it’s been all exposition and essays (except for Brattlerouser, of course)…

Terri Hallenbeck has a good read today about the state of the state GOP. It’s Douglas, Dubie, and that’s about it. Who brought them to this predicament? Why, outgoing Chair/ED Jim Barnett, of course. Despite people like Freyne characterizing his move to the McCain campaign as a step up in rank, and a stepping out in glory, it is clearly a horizontal move that gets him out ahead of the daggers that were being sharpened by the GOP rank and file (and for the record – I told ya so…).

Darren Allen gets caught mid-cycle. Usually he pens an editorial that pisses off the right, and then plays good “I’m-not-the-liberal-media” columnist by publishing roughly three consecutive “balancing” pieces that engage in some sort of neener-neener-neener-ing of Dems that’s usually only halfway thought through. Today seems to have him stuck in mid-cycle, offering a neener mixed in with a self-contradictory acknowledgement of the obviously appropriate call by Thomas Salmon Jr. for a recount in the Auditors race (137 votes, folks). Not sure what this means for next week’s Allen column, given that his cycle is slightly off it’s track now.

Dean, addressing the Association of State Democratic Chairs on the recent squawking of James Carville via the NYT: “It was a great win for what I call the new Democratic Party. The old Democratic Party is back there in Washington, sometimes they still complain a little bit.” Heh.

Shumlin Mark II is all about Global Warming. Good to hear. Via Freyne.

The Progressives wrapped a post-campaign gathering discussing the first cycle in a while in which they didn’t grow in some quantifiable fashion. Although it’s unlikely the Progs have plateaued, their primary rhetoric – that there is no difference between the Dems and the GOP – likely has (given that it’s become plainly absurd on its face), which is probably the message to take away from the election. The trick will be convincing some of the die-hard “smash-all-Democrats” regulars (such as Pollina) to focus more on the proactive and visionary and less on the “smash” if they want to regain some of their momentum next time. Interesting (if flawed… more on that later this week) piece at PoliticsVT.

Oop! Gotta go. Kid’s waking up… Ths week I promise at least 3 posts that will really piss people off. Keep watchin’…