Before we begin, let the playwright interject: Why, dear Odum, do you keep deleting my access to your beloved website? That seems very, very illiberal at best. But, then again, you would have fit right in when the liberals of your time spit upon the radical anti-slsavery crowd and — lest we forget — the good Democrats who thought Rosa Parks was “overstepping” her bounds. Change sucks. Give it up, white boy.

And now, the play:

Lead character: Odum

Secondary characters: People who think like Odum (otherwise they wouldn’t be allowed onto Odum’s website).

Opening scene: People gather to celebrate anything worth celebrating, mostly just the happiness of knowing they’re not victims of working class wages. These are modern liberals, you know, folks who are connected enough intellectually with the history of social and political change but disconnected enough to avoid the pain that comes with the connection, if you know what I mean. Let me be more blunt: They attend fundraisers for the wealthy guys who talk about wanting to make it better for the poor guys. There, are we clear now? Whew.

The first scene involves the mighty-liberal Odum deciding to start a Vermont website that will give all his liberal, privileged friends a place to gather on an Internet medium that the people they want to help don’t otherwise have the time or resources to gather on. He’ll have, for example, the liberal Bill Simmons, from the swanky condominiums of Burlington, join him for all kinds of smart talk about homelessness. As long as, of course, none of those “folks” will intrude on Bill’s abode at the Ledgewood Condominiums. It’s one thing to talk about the poor and the underclass, but it’s a whole other thing to let them into your condo! Liberals do have their limits, you know?

Besides, ponders Bill, “ can they be trusted when I leave for a few hours to attend the Ned Lamont fundraiser? I mean, come on, it would be a total fucking drag to come home to a house full of slovenly pigs after I pitched in my two cents –er, make that $50 – to support a millionaire for Congress.  I have, after all, my principles.”

You go, Bill. But, better yet, you just keep giving us the weather and other distractions on your website. It’s your strong suit.

Oh shit, I forgot about the play we were in the middle of. Damn. This always happens to me after a few beers with the boys. Let’s get back on track.

The second character is “Vermonter,” a man so insecure with his social standing that he posts a picture of what he’d like to be himself on his website.Vermonter is so confused that he uses a name like “Vermonter,” a certain and see-though indication that he’s trying to be someone he’s not. He obviously feels guilty about something – a common affliction in the circle of Odum’s friends. On one occasion, for example, Vermonter will scream to high heavens about Joe Lieberman being nothing but the devil in Democrat’s clothing, but then, in the next moment, just as seriously declare that Hillary Clinton has a “good heart.”

Yeah, let’s just hope Vermonter has a good therapist. Or maybe – even better yet – he’s got a good trust fund. Because he’ll need either – or both – to get through this cognitive dissonance.

The final character in this play is Ed Garcia. Ed is banking on one and only one quality: The seemingly ethnic quality of his name. He’s clearly hoping that a man named “Garcia” will be given a free pass in the liberal community of Central Vermont. He hasn’t, after all, proven much in his arguments. And he’s been more than willing to fire his punitive pistol at anyone who dares to utter an alternative opinion to his mighty hero, Odum.

And so the play begins. The curtain is drawn. The poor souls who made it all happen – the workers, that is — are chased away with the hissing sound normally assigned to pigs, and Odum, Vermonter and Ed Garcia take the stage. And the dialogue begins:

Odum: Thank goodness, we’re alone.

Vermonter: Amen, Father Odum. This is what I wanted, some alone time with you and –well— also a link to my miserable website.

Odum: Don’t worry, my brother, a link is granted to you. You have clearly proven your willingness to drink from the Odum cup of liberalism.

Vermonter: Oh, great Odum, how can I thank you?

Odum: It’s simple, Vermonter. I need only one favor. I ask that you don’t say a word of displeasure toward my rather unsightly fondness for “Charity” of the rightwing blog, “She’s Right.”

Vermonter: But, Odum, she’s in favor of everything we oppose, things like taxes on the rich, environmental regulations, and even an end to the war on Iraq.

Odum: I can’t hear such dissention. I am the Lord of this website and I will not tolerate such intolerance. Charity has an ass the size of mine – I mean – an ass the size I like, and I will not tolerate any further condemnations of her. In fact, from here on out, I declare that Charity and her rightwing drivel shall be declared to have a link to our vaunted site.

Vermonter: But?

Odum: No but. Be it declared.

Simmons: I know I’m getting in on this a bit late, but I’ve been at a condo committee meeting and I’m so thrilled to give you, Odum, my news.

Odum: It better be good, CandleBoy, because, remember, I got 7 more votes than you did in the Seven Days Whatever Contest.

Simmons: You should know me better than that, Sir Odum, because I am nothing beyond my loyalty to you, my condo community, and the belief that – well—fucking over those who can be so easily fucked over should be fucked over.

Garcia: Hey, I heard that!

Simmons: Heard what?

Garcia: You spoke about fucking people over.

Simmons: But not you, Ed. Certainly not you. That’s why we’ve given you a password and the privileges to fuck others over on our site.

Garcia: Cool. Carry on, then.

Odum: Thanks, Ed.

Vermonter: I’m most concerned that Snaky Boy is going to make us look like fools. I mean, we keep proclaiming our concern to the important issues of the day but then we also keep going on vacation. I don’t think it looks good.

Odum: I’m sorry, I missed the last thing you said, my cell phone connection is terrible down here in the Vineyard. But I can’t seem to find enough Hillary t-shirts for the kids.

Garcia: You’re where, Odum?

Odum: Never mind. I’m in Randolph, Ed. I’m taking the kids through a corn maze. Yeah, that’s it, a corn maze in Randolph.

Vermonter: But I thought you were going to meet me and my boyfriend at the Tiki Beach Pub later?

Odum: What the fuck, Vermonter, knock it off. I’m speaking in code to give the old slip to Ed. Get real.

Garcia: You guys are SO Vermont.

Odum and Vermonter (in unison): You bet!

Odum: And the plan is simple from here on out: attend the fundraisers, attack Snarky Boy, and keep the bullshit piled from here to eternity.

Vermonter: You forgot something.

Odum: What’s that?

Vermonter: Go Welch and go Parker!

Odum: Who?

Vermonter: OUR candidates!

Odum: I was kidding.

Garcia: Who?

Odum & Vermonter: Shut up and attack Snarky Boy.

The End.

P.S. For those wondering, the author of his play is Snarky Boy, a person banned from this site because — well — I’ll let you ask Odum and his pals for that explanation.
Support the troops, bring them home now!

As Rich Tarrant continues to bash Bernie for voting against intelligence appropriations, this item appears in the Washington Post.
Turns out that the FBI has blown $170 million dollars on a computer upgrade that is completely unusable. 

Sound intelligent to you?  Me neither. 

But it appears to be okay with Rich Tarrant who, capitalizing on last week’s terror threat in the UK, seems to be advocating any government appropriation for any intel project – even if CIA Chief Porter Goss voted against it.

You all know that’s the party line these days. Republican party, that is. The Republicans and their mouthpieces in the press can’t keep from talking about how Ned Lamont’s historic win in Connecticut shows that the anti-war, anti-American radical fringe have taken over the Democratic Party. Exhibit A, of course, is the photo of Ned Lamont flanked by Jesse Jackson and all-purpose loudmouth Al Sharpton.

Sure enough, anyone who would associate with these types must be beyond the fringe, outside of the mainstream, Right?

So how do Lieberman and his supporters explain the fact that he contacted Sharpton to ask for his support and was turned down?

The not-so-fine folks at Green Mountain Daily have banned me from their site. Imagine that. Boy, that took them several days longer than I predicted. Pussies. But beyond the Snarkmaster’s banishment, there are bigger issues here, especially the issue of the fright of liberals to embrace the tolerance they preach.

GMD proclaims to be liberal but they’re pretty quick to banish the thoughts and opinions of anything that veers from their proscribed little view of Democratic thought. They argue, for example, that Ned Lamont is close to the second coming of Christ but scream holy hell about anyone criticizing Hillary Clinton, questioning media monopolies, or – god forbid – swearing. GMD is about everything that is wrong with liberalism in Vermont: they love activists and renegades from afar but shit their pants when it comes to their doorstep. Lamont for Connecticut? Great. But criticism of Welch in Vermont? How dare you.

They’ll get what they deserve: more milquetoast Democrats promulgating more ridiculous reforms like the meaningless health care bill passed in the last Democratic-led legislative session. And they’ll continue to applaud mediocrity, because mediocrity is all they know.

Like the Democrats nationwide, the Vermont Democrats are unable to be real or speak the truth. They’re stuck in some obnoxious paradigm that tragically affixes them to the quicksand of deceit. They start out with ideals but turn to mush when it’s time to fight for those ideals. They talk the talk of change but chicken out when it’s time to walk the talk of change. They preach tolerance but practice censorship. They worship change but cling to the same old, same old.

And if you don’t believe me, consider these two less-than-dynamic names: Scudder Parker and Peter Welch.

What’s most tragic, however, is that GMD thinks it’s following in the netroots tradition of liberal Internet activism like the national sites they so want to emulate, sites like DailyKos and MyDD. But what they don’t understand is that these sites don’t censor and these sites have a significant audience – and these conditions are NOT mutually exclusive. GMD’s national godfathers created the audience and then wielded their power, whereas GMD has tried to wield their power WITHOUT their audience (just look at the same 7 participants!). Worse, they’ve dutifully disdained anyone who has visited their site with a thought outside their stultifying little constrictions of thought. Sound familiar? Yep, it’s the same notions that have kept the Democrats in the powerless position they’re in.

The Snarky Boy went onto the GMD site to see if there was hope. Unfortunately, the Snarky Boy has learned that there is no hope for GMD in their current mindset. Oh sure, the same old folks will heap praise on them and exchange links with them, but those are the same old folks who thought Howard Dean was a liberal while governing Vermont and that Gaye Symington’s ridiculous health care compromise meant anything other than two-more-years for Jim Douglas.

GMD, unfortunately, is like the dog that chased cars. They tried and they tried until, finally, they were run over. They thought they won, but everyone else saw how obviously they lost.

Fine, GMD, kick me out. I knew you would. But while you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face, consider this: Without me, your site got as boring as the candidates you support.

Get real. Sleep well.

Yep, it’s apparently true. Check out this column from Maureen Dowd that appeared in today’s New York Times.

Camus Comes to Crawford
By Marueen Dowd

Strangely enough, we find two famous men reading Albert Camus’s “The Stranger” this summer.

One is Jean Girard, the villainous gay French race car driver hilariously played by Sacha Baron Cohen (a k a Ali G and Borat) — the sinuous rival to Will Ferrell’s stocky Ricky Bobby in “Talladega Nights.”

Girard, a jazz-loving, white-silk-scarf-wearing, America-disdaining Formula Un driver sponsored by Perrier, is so smooth he can sip macchiato from a china cup, smoke Gitanes and read “L’Etranger” behind the wheel and still lead the Nascar pack.

Frenchie contemptuously informs “cowboy” Bobby that America merely gave the world George Bush, Cheerios and the ThighMaster while France invented democracy, existentialism and the ménage à trois.

The other guy kindling to Camus is none other than the aforementioned George Bush, who read “The Stranger” in English on his Crawford vacation and, Tony Snow told me, “liked it.” Name-dropping existentialists is good for picking up girls, as Woody Allen’s schlemiels found, or getting through the clove-cigarette fog of Humanities 101. But it does seem odd that W., who once mocked NBC’s David Gregory as “intercontinental” for posing a question in French to the French president in France, would choose Camus over Grisham…

…If there was ever a confirmation of Camus’s sense of the absurdity of life, it’s that the president is reading him.

[We needed that.]

Philip Baruth provides some explanation (along with his usual nod to mysterious dark forces at play) for the odd disappearance of PoliticsVT from the Vermont blogosphere today…

He quotes an email he received from one of the Dead Governors…

We have a very, very serious problem right now here at the Capitol Bureau. While Isaac was on vacation yesterday in Michigan, his laptop computer was stolen. The problem is very very serious because not only does the computer have all his banking, real estate and computer information but it is also where all (or most) of the information regarding our blog was stored.

Man, that hurts. And it hurts us all.

Please don’t stay dead for long, ye Governors.

UPDATE: Baruth’s reporting that the Dead Guvz are back up in a slightly new location.

Don’t forget to update your bookmarks and blogrolls (or to check the date on your dinner rolls, too, while you’re at it.)

Sometimes I can’t resist reading the opinion pieces in the Burlington Free Press. My wife is much more disciplined than I am: she knows they’ll just piss her off. I should know it too, but I read them anyway.

So the other day I caught this gem on syndication from the Washington Post.

It’s more about the defeat of Joe Lieberman in Conecticut, and they’re following along with the Republican Party line. I swear, you would think the memo went out not just to the party apparatchiks but also to their mouthpieces in the media.

So the line is this: Defeating Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary was Stalinism. Yes, you got that right: Like Stalin, the operatives who ousted Lieberman are determined to remove dissidents from The Party.

So believe it or not, voting for the candidate of your choice is the same as carrying out show trials and mass executions. Didn’t know you had it in you, did you?

As the story progresses we see a couple of different, and mutually inconsistent lines, unfold.

First is the Lamont=Stalin line. Voting against the incumbent is a purge, and shows how the wild-eyed radicals have taken over the Party.

Second is the idea that this development is great for the Republicans, exactly what they were looking for. I don’t know about you, but the squeals like a stuck pig that I hear coming from the Republicans don’t sound like cheers.

Third, although I guess they’ve downplayed this line since the election, is the idea that Lieberman is really a real liberal, more liberal than Lamont, and he’s the guy to support if you want the real Democrat.

Who are these guys to be telling us what to do in our party?

I thought the purpose of elections was to vote for the candidate you agree with, and against the candidate you disagree with. Next time around maybe we should ask permission before we go into the voting booth.

Here’s what I’m sick of hearing: “I don’t vote for the party, I vote for the person.”

We hear it a lot in Vermont, and I think that people usually mean it when they say it. The problem is, it’s a stupid thing to say. If you don’t know what political party a candidate is a member of you don’t know enough to vote for him or her. You don’t know how they will vote on some of the most crucial votes: majority leader, Speaker of the House, control of the body. You don’t know where they will look for guidance, where they will get their aides or draw from for their political appointments. You don’t know the overall agenda they will be pursuing and who will help them get there. No office holder can know everything, so they will inevitably defer to the party on a myriad of decisions.

You may think you’re voting for the person, but you’re voting for the party.

It’s important, and we’re seeing it a lot this year.

First we have Connecticut. Joe Lieberman was a lifelong Democrat, and he’s trying to pretend that he still is. It was the Democratic Party that helped him get elected to Connecticut Attorney General, and U.S. Senate, and that put him on the ticket as our candidate for Vice President. It was Democrats across his state and across the country that gave money for his campaigns, raised money for his campaigns, knocked on doors, made phone calls, and put him where he is today. Yet somehow he thinks he’s bigger than the party. He thinks the party owes him, but he has it backwards. He owes the party for all the years the party supported him. He ran for reelection in the primary, nothing wrong with that, but running in the primary means you’re offering yourself as the party’s choice. They vote for you, you’re the candidate of the party, the party will work for you and hopefully try to get you elected; they vote against you and someone else is the candidate. The voters made their choice, but that’s what they’re supposed to do. He owes it to the party to accept the decision of the voters and get out of the race. He hasn’t done it yet, but I still think there’s a chance he may.

As I said, he owes the party, but he hasn’t repaid the party’s support. He supports Bush’s war, like some other Democrats. Unlike most other Democrats, though, he refuses to even look at the possibility he might have been wrong. He’s also taken Bush’s position in trying to dismantle Social Security, which is pretty much a bedrock principle for Democrats. He has also taken every chance to attack the party, and to repeat the Cheney line that anyone who questions the President is a traitor.

We have a little different situation here in Vermont. The Progressive Party grew out of the Progressive Coalition, the original Sanderistas who elected Bernie mayor back in the 1980’s (even before I moved to Vermont!), but Bernie has been very consistent in running as an Independent, not a Progressive.

He hasn’t claimed to be bigger than the party, but he definitely stakes out a position outside of any party. In years past he attacked the Democratic Party, but I haven’t heard as much of that since he got to Congress. Maybe the fact that he caucuses with the Democrats is part of it. Or maybe he sees that he really does fit in the Democratic Party of John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, and Paul Wellstone.

I remember when Bernie ran for Congress. I’m not talking about the first time, when he and Paul Poirier split the center-left vote, but the second time, when he won. I remember clearly having lunch with a group of colleagues and commenting that he was creating a problem for the Democratic Party, because if he got elected to Congress as an independent it would be impossible for the Democrats to ever run a candidate for that seat, and that’s exactly what happened. In a state that has become increasingly Democratic, he was an obstacle to one of the top slots in the lineup. Still, it was in the interest of the party to support him, or to not oppose him, because the positions Bernie takes are Democratic Party positions. When his ideas advance, Democratic ideas advance. It’s a benefit, but it’s come at a cost.

I’ve been a justice of the peace for years. One of the things we do is count ballots every election day. It’s mostly done by machine, but we have to hand count the write-ins. Every year we’ve had to count a lot of write-ins for Bernie in Montpelier, because people always write his name in on the Democratic ballot. I’m sure it’s enough to get him on the ballot on the Democratic line, but every year he declines to run as a Democrat.

This year it’s different. This year he filed a written consent with the Secretary of State, agreeing to have his name on the Democratic primary ballot. He’s going to win, no doubt about it. He’s also been campaigning with the D’s, supporting our candidates, and the party has been supporting him. We decided early on not to run a candidate against him because we know that a three-way race is the only way the Republicans can take the seat.

But he’s on the Democratic ballot, not because of write-ins but by his own choice, he’s going to win the primary, and he should do the same thing Lieberman should do: he owes it to the people who have supported him for decades to accept the decision of the voters and accept the nomination of the party.

Stay on the Democratic ticket, Bernie.