• GOVERNOR (Douglas vs. Parker)
• US HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES (Welch vs. Rainville)
• US SENATE (Sanders vs. Tarrant)

“for tonight, with your own eyes, you will see my soul.”

–From The Picture of Dorian Gray (Oscar Wilde)

In Oscar Wilde’s classic novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray, the portrait of the title character grows more hideous and disfigured with each act of immorality and evil, while Dorian Gray himself remains beautiful and ageless.

The concept’s application to elections seemed too perfect to ignore.

I am pleased to present, therefore, the Green Mountain Daily Dorian Grays; portraits of the primary combatants in this year’s elections whose visages will reflect every instance the candidate crosses the line into mudslinging nastiness over the coming months (click on the links at the top of this diary for the pages).

Now, I fully expect an aggressive, spirited campaign. As such, pointed, aggressive attacks on a candidate’s position (such as Scudder Parker’s energy statements) do not a blemish make. Neither does tackiness (Tarrant’s fake blog), or exuberant responses to negative attacks (such as those currently on Bernie’s blog), or expected and understandable sneakiness (Rainville’s press conference spy, spotten by Philip Baruth).

What does make a blemish? Deliberate lies about an opponent’s position, and campaign tactics designed solely to smear or otherwise demean an opponent. Real sleazy, dishonorable stuff.

And don’t think we’re going easy on the folks we support at GMD. When they cross the line, they’ll get a blemish as well. If you feel we’ve missed something or are being unfair, use the comments section provided for feedback (or any other discussion).

And return frequently (but don’t be surprised if there is some lag time before updates)!

Will Martha Rainville (R), go the Swift Boat Route on Peter Welch (D)? Will Welch cross the line in challenging Rainville? Return to this site over the election season as their portraits tell all…
Blemishes: None thusfar	Blemishes: None thusfar

(Yes – I photoshopped out – rather sloppily, I might add – Rainville’s uniform trappings from her photo. I don’t want to add to any exploitation of the uniform that’s going on)

House Speaker Gaye Symington has released the text of a letter sent to Governor Douglas following conversations with Tim Hayward, the Governor’s Chief of Staff. Symington:

I am concerned about the implications of the recent Supreme Court decision that invalidated spending and contribution limits in Vermont’s current campaign finance law.

It is my understanding that the Attorney General and Secretary of State concur that we now revert to prior law with, for example, $1,000 limits on individual contributions to campaigns per election. However, there are sure to be other opinions as to whether this is indeed the case, and that uncertainty could take months to resolve in the courts. This effectively leaves Vermont with no campaign contribution limits in effect for the 2006 election cycle. I believe that is not what any of us would want.

Symington draws hope from what she sees as daylight in the inconsistent opinions expressed by the majority Justices:

The decision clarified that the Supreme Court did not find contribution limits unconstitutional per se. They simply found that the limits, when combined with a lack of inflation adjustment and stringent limits on what a political party can contribute to a candidate, were too restrictive.

I would like to meet with you to explore the possibilities of your calling a special session to establish contribution limits as a stopgap measure.

Although the chances of a special session on the matter are slim, Symington and Welch have already made noises about a special session to deal with agricultural issues. Maybe if either issue alone isn’t sufficient impetus, the combination may gain momentum.

A few days ago I posted a diary praising Pat Leahy for his opposition to the flag burning amendment. In fairness, here’s what Jeffords said in the floor:

Sen. Jeffords’ Floor Statement on Flag Burning

Floor Statement of Senator Jim Jeffords, I-Vt.
On Constitutional Amendment to Ban Flag Burning

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to a constitutional amendment that would ban flag burning and other acts of desecration.

As I said during the recent debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment, I am very troubled by the priorities put forth by the Senate Majority. Our domestic programs are facing serious budget cuts; millions of Americans are without health insurance; gas prices are out of control — while our nation’s reliance on foreign oil shows no sign of easing up. And we still have no strategy for the war in Iraq.

However, the Senate Leadership has chosen to spend a portion of our limited days in session to bring up a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Once again, we seem to be searching for a solution in need of a problem, and I am afraid the reason we spend time on this topic is only for political gain.

As a veteran with 30 years in the United States Navy and United States Naval Reserve, I know the pride that members of the Armed Forces feel when they see our flag, wherever they may be in the world. I share the great respect that Vermonters and Americans have for this symbol. I personally detest the notion that anyone would choose to burn the flag as a form of self‑expression.

Members of the military put their lives on the line every day to defend the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. It is disrespectful of these sacrifices to desecrate the flag. However, in my opinion, our commitment to free speech must be strong enough to protect the rights of those who express unpopular ideas, or who choose such a distasteful means of expression. This concept is at the core of what we stand for as Americans.

Mr. President, I have given this constitutional amendment a great deal of thought. I must continue to oppose this amendment because I do not think that we should amend the Bill of Rights unless our basic values as a nation are seriously threatened. In my view, a few incidents of flag burning, as upsetting as they may be, do not meet this high standard.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Oh yes–there is nothing on Tarrant’s site about his position on this issue.

The dependable Vermont Guardian has more on the story broken by Freyne and discussed in this diary about Dan DiPietro, the active duty Guard IT Sprecialist who has been moonlighting for the Rainville campaign since last October. Although there is no more news on the possibility raised by GMD (that DiPietro may be the source of the National Guard phone lists seemingly being used by the Rainville campaign), they have another interesting wrinkle; namely, that DiPietro may be in violation of military regulations:

DiPietro’s employment appears to fall outside what is allowable under both the Army and Air Force regulations that govern Guard members.

Army Regulation 4.14 prohibits certain “types of personal relationships between officers and enlisted personnel … [including] on-going business relationships between officers and enlisted personnel … [such as] borrowing or lending money, commercial solicitation, and any other type of on-going financial or business relationship.”

A similar rule, Air Force Instruction 5.1.5, is even more blunt: “Officers Will Not Engage, on a Personal Basis, in Business Enterprises with Enlisted Members, or Solicit or Make Solicited Sales to Enlisted Members … .”

As the Guard lights a fire under the Corporal to get him to follow the rules and draw a line of seperation between his uniform and his partisan political activities (if that’s even possible), they might want to make sure he follows through:

DiPietro was instructed by Guard officials to take down references to the Vermont National Guard and the web design he does while on duty, said [Guard Spokesman Captain Jeff] Roosevelt.

“From the National Guard standpoint, regardless of who he is doing business with out there, when we saw he was using content of the Vermont National Guard for his business, we said he couldn’t do that,” Roosevelt said.

Although the front end shows materials dutifully removed, a little investigation still reveals lingering images such as this one, and of course, General Martha in uniform.

And after all, a picture says a thousand words…

Scudder released his energy plan today, stressing four key points:

Vermont Energy Empowerment Principles
• RELIABILITY: All Vermonters should have access to secure and reliable heat,
electricity and transportation, even in the face of external problems such as
market changes, supply disruptions or political instability abroad.
• SECURITY: All Vermonters (individuals, communities and businesses) should
be able to stay warm, keep the lights on, and get from one place to another
without having to sacrifice other basic needs.
• RESPONSIBILITY: Vermonters have the right to an energy supply that reflects
concern for economic strength, the environment and their communities.
• LEADERSHIP: Vermonters want to be innovators and leaders. They deserve a
Governor who will take the necessary actions to ensure affordable, reliable
and responsible energy that promotes a sound State economy.

This, of course, is way ahead of Douglas, who talks a good game but can barely be bothered to support Efficiency Vermont, which has been a model for efficient programs across the country. As Scudder put it in his remarks today, sure, we see Douglas at the ribbon-cuttings, but where is he when real vision is needed? Nowhere.

The timing of this is great.

For one thing, with legislation that was passed this year we have a chance to develop an energy affordability plan for low-income Vermonters. This legislation calls on the Public Service Board to “design a proposed electricity affordability program in the form of draft legislation.  The program shall be developed with the aid of an electricity affordability program collaborative.”

To top that off, low-income energy guru Roger Colton has released his annual study on the home energy affordability gap. For people who are used to thinking of Vermont as a forward-thinking, progressive place, this study should be a real wake-up call, because in home energy affordability , whether you define it in terms of the percentage of people at or below 185% of poverty who can afford their energy bills, or the percentage of income that a family at 50% of the poverty level spends on energy (69.3%), Vermont is dead last! 51 out of 50 states. That’s right–you name your favorite state to compare Vermont to and they’re better than we are on this life-and-death issue.

Here is the PDF of the Vermont-specific data, and I urge you to look at it. It’s hard to ignore the fact that we need to take strong action or we might as well go back to the days of freezing the old people for the winter.

The national issue for the Republicans has been illegal immigration. In a political environment that has turned sharply against them, the GOP and their allies (witting and unwitting) in the traditional media vaulted the issue from the simmering back burner to the front (and, to an extent, have since lost control of it, given the recent disposition of the matter in Washington).

But it’s an issue that Rainville and Tarrant have not been able to exploit, given the low priority Vermonters place on the matter. Given today’s news, however, they are no doubt taking a second look:

DERBY LINE, Vt. –Two New York men have been charged with smuggling 21 illegal aliens into Vermont from Canada.

Border Patrol agents said they stopped two vans carrying 21 passengers on Sunday. The passengers were from Afghanistan, Guyana, India, Mexico and Pakistan, and did not have the proper documents to enter the United States, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office.

Despite all the concerns (some legitimate, some not) expressed about terrorists sneaking in, much of the illegal immigration debate has always truly been grounded in the xenophobia and prejudice against “browns” that has historically followed the issue (how else to explain the continued obsession with the southern border, despite more practical and historical concerns about terrorists sneaking through from the north?). Expect this latest news to open up a renewed attempt by Tarrant and Rainville to tap into that fear and xenophobia – and in the process exploit the plethora of national GOP talking points and support available on the matter that have been up until this point utterly irrelevant.

Will it pay off for them? We’ll have to wait and see…

The Republican editors of the “Caledonian-Record” in St. Johnsbury are not enamored with ex-General Rainville. Maybe they should have looked at the photo accompanying yesterday’s profile of Martha in the “Bennington Banner.” It showed her in camo fatigues holding a baby. What, no apple pie?

However, the Banner’s text was rife with exact quotes. Martha’s mouth is her worst enenmy. She sounds muddled and mediocre when she speaks. Worst of all, according to the St. J. tabloid, she’s MODERATE!!!

http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/editorials/story/15c37141e:

Why Won’t Martha Debate?

– Mark Shepherd is a Republican state senator from Bennington who is running for Congress. He wrote an open letter, which we published, to Martha Rainville, who claims to be a Republican and who also is running for Congress, asking her why she isn’t willing to debate him throughout the state on the issues in these months before the primary elections. Ms. Rainville has refused to debate him more than three times before then, this in face of dozens of candidate debates last time around.

Why is Rainville refusing to debate Shepherd? Could it be that she, having been anointed by Jim Barnett and the State Republican Committee as their official candidate for Congress long after Shepherd announced his intentions, is afraid of exposure to a seasoned office holder who understands the issues and can articulate them very well? Could it be that she doesn’t really want Republican voters to find out that her political positions might reveal her to be a Peter Welsh look-alike, if that is what she is? Could it be that she, being military and apolitical all of her career and already having suffered from foot-in-mouth disease several times, doesn’t want to take the chance of more gaffes? Or, could it be that she, knowing that the GOP power structure anointed her, essentially, because she is a pretty face, is content to limit her public exposure to that?

Barnett and the GOP State Committee betrayed rank-and-file Republicans and usurped their right to choose by, arbitrarily and a priori, shoving Mark Shepherd aside and elevating Martha Rainville. Were they afraid that he, who doesn’t have a pretty face, might defeat their darling in the primaries? Apparently so, else they would have allowed a race, and she would now be elaborating upon her declaration of being a Republican.

A lot of Republicans are not happy about what they did. It smacked of smoke-filled rooms and arrogance. If Martha wants to get their votes, she had better debate Shepherd whenever and wherever. To date, we see little light between her positions on issues and Peter Welch’s.