A study in contrasts in the US Senate race:

On the Republican side, Rich Tarrant has stepped up to the plate and listened to Vermonters on the important issue of the day. After being moved by the voices of the common folk, he has taken a break from push polling through a scandal-laden GOP hit firm and unveiled a bold public policy statement:

I’ve been listening to both sides, and although not all will agree, I’ve decided that my campaign will be using small signs more often than large ones. We will try to reserve the large signs for the sides of barns and large fields.

As a candidate for the U.S. Senate, I believe it’s important to listen to what Vermonters have to say, and as we move towards November I will continue to do just that.

A pronouncement worthy of Solomon, presented with an explicit message to Vermonters: this is how Senator Tarrant will do business. You don’t like the big signs? No problem, he’ll buy smaller ones. No, no…don’t thank him. While he may differ with most Vermonters on issues like abortion rights or illegal domestic spying, on the issues that matter, Rich is prepared to step forward and lead unambiguously. Vermont wants new signs? No sweat. After all, it’s only money.

Meanwhile in Washington, the Independent-slash-Progressive-slash-Democratic candidate was concerned with size as well – the size of the bandwidth pipe that may be left over for the rest of us after communications companies like Verizon successfully stripped out “net neutrality” from the Communications Bill. Bernie has stepped up as a leader in the fight to protect free speech and the internet as we have come to know it.

If you haven’t heard about the issue, here’s The Nation:

The First Amendment of the Internet – the governing principle of net neutrality, which prevents telecommunications corporations from rigging the web so it is easier to visit sites that pay for preferential treatment – took a blow from the House of Representatives Thursday.

Bowing to an intense lobbying campaign that spent tens of millions of dollars – and held out the promise of hefty campaign contributions for those members who did the bidding of interested firms – the House voted 321 to 101 for the disingenuously-named Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE). That bill, which does not include meaningful network-neutrality protections creates an opening that powerful telephone and cable companies hope to exploit by expanding their reach while doing away with requirements that they maintain a level playing field for access to Internet sites.

The bill drew overwhelming support from Republican members of the House, with the GOP caucus voting 215-8 in favor of it. But Democrats also favored the proposal, albeit by a narrower vote of 106 to 92. The House’s sole independent member, Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, a champion of internet freedom who is seeking his state’s open Senate seat this fall, voted against the measure.

Despite an intense lobbying campaign (led in part by former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry) designed to convince the suddenly-manifest grassroots movement against this effort that it’s all much ado about nothing, the fact is that the the corporations who stand to gain have a track record that speaks volumes:

Such corporate control of the Web would reduce your choices and stifle the spread of innovative and independent ideas that we’ve come to expect online. It would throw the digital revolution into reverse. Internet gatekeepers are already discriminating against Web sites and services they don’t like:

• In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
• In 2005, Canada’s telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.
• Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the “quality and reliability” of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose — driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace.
• In April, Time Warner’s AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com — an advocacy campaign opposing the company’s pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

This is just the beginning. Cable and telco giants want to eliminate the Internet’s open road in favor of a tollway that protects their status quo while stifling new ideas and innovation. If they get their way, they’ll shut down the free flow of information and dictate how you use the Internet.

It’s again important to note that plenty of Dems are voting in favor of this corporate stranglehold, but that support for neutrality also crosses party lines:

The fight over net neutrality now moves to the Senate, where Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan have introduced legislation to codify the net neutrality principles of equal and unfettered access to Internet content into federal law. Mark Cooper, the director of research for the Consumers Federation of America, thinks net neutrality will find more friends in the Senate, at least in part because the “Save the Internet” coalition that has grown to include more than 700 groups, 5,000 bloggers and 800,000 individuals is rapidly expanding.

Of course, this once again brings to light the main reason Bernie gets tagged as ineffective; he’s a good guy busting his ass in a sea of bad guys — and more often than not these days, the bad guys win. The solution is not to replace our principled representation in Washington with a member of the bad guy’s team, it’s to change the rest of Congress.

Concerned about Bernie’s effectiveness?

Sending him from the mob scene that is the US House to the Senate where he will be a full 1% of the membership all by his lonesome is a nice, mathematically verifiable way to dramatically increase it.

In the meantime, Vermonters have been treated to a weekend that provides a nice juxtaposition of the candidates for the US Senate, and what issues they consider important enough to get out in front on.

On May 12th, Media Matters sponsored a panel discussion called "Why Media Matters: The Role of the Media in the Democratic Process" which details the essentials of the differing perspectives of media critics and the members of the press who are on the receiving end of that criticism. Often a hot topic in netroots circles, to be sure.

Many of the arguments that I’ve heard from both sides were detailed and eloquently stated. And it provides a one-stop shopping spree for those of us like me who are obsessed with the discussion of — as Greg Sargent puts it the tagline of his blog Horse’s Mouth — the reporting of politics and the politics of reporting. Or, as Brattlerouser and Jamison Foser would remind us: It’s the media, you rather-less-than-super-sharp person.

Media Matters described the panel, moderated by Media Matters founder, David Brock this way…

 
 

Eric Boehlert is an award-winning journalist who has written  extensively about media, politics, and pop culture. His new book is Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush.

 

Kathy Kiely, Congressional reporter, USA Today

 

Lynn Sweet, Washington D.C. bureau chief, Chicago-Sun Times

 

Dick Polman, national political reporter, The Philadelphia Inquirer

 

Paul Waldman is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America. His new book is Being Right Is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success.

Now, of course, Boehlert, Waldman and Brock represented the conventional wisdom of today’s active progressive media watchdogs. Kathy Kiely and Lynn Sweet provided the media insiders perspective. But Dick Polman was there as the media insider who backed up the critics’ claims.

The two sides, thought not mutually exclusive, boil down to this…

From the critics, Boehlert…

I think the press needs to be held accountable for what happened in  the 2000 campaign, and the 2004 campaign. And I think what’s happening  today in terms of not being fair with Democrats and not giving them,  you know, whether it’s keeping them off the Sunday shows, as Media Matters has documented, or lots of other ways.

They’ve held the Bush administration to a completely different  standard, and I think again, there was sort of a titanic shift when  Republicans came to town in how the press was going to deal with the  White House.

Polman adds this perspective from the trenches…

And when I finally got [a story about the Downing Street Memo]  in, we ran it on a Sunday, but we ran it on  page six, which of course, anybody that knows newspapers, or is within  the newspaper business — the left-hand side is six, and that’s not  considered a good page either. The right-hand side — you know, the eye  goes to the right when you open it up. So if you’re on page six, it’s a  bad page. I rarely, if ever, have been on page six. Ever. In the Sunday  paper. So it was very interesting it was for that story, and there was  no reference to it on the front page. It was just sort of stuck in  there in this little funny, space…

…now there’s so much sort of "bad news" or true news about intelligence  snafus and covering up stuff that didn’t go with the program and the  White House — there’s so much of it out there, that now it’s like it’s  almost not news. So you know, the paradox is that the White House in  some ways gets an advantage there, because you know, a lot of — a lot  of media won’t consider it to be news to report yet another person  coming forward. So I think all these factors come into play here.

But both Lynn Sweet and Kathy Kiely provide what seems to be the most common first kneejerk defensive response to media criticism, which doesn’t actually address the critiques… To me, this always seems simply a way to dismiss all this evidence as just tinfoil hat stuff from those annoying peasants with pitchforks out in flyover country…

Monolithically,  Sweet says…

…the media’s not monolithic, there is no we, it’s me. You know, I don’t  get my instructions from central — from the central office. You know,  here’s the plan today, what to do or not. And actually if you saw how  papers really get out each day, you’d be surprised that we — you know,  that everything comes together from the crosswords to the front page,  because it’s an incredible process. It is. So the kind of — with all  respects, when I get broadsides about the press, we’re talking about a  lot of different organisms that live independently…

Monolithically, Kiely adds…

…I can tell you from a first-person standpoint that the press definitely is not monolithic. In fact, if anybody tells you that there’s a media conspiracy, just know this — we should be so organized.

But, within some rather well-stated comments which provide a fuller picture of the daily lives of reporters, they ultimately come to kind of agree with the critiques (and echo the Daily Howler) and suggest that because of  reporters’ — as well as the minority Democrats — lack of subpoena power, it’s just too darn hard to challenge the Bush administration.

Which Brock couldn’t help using for this jab…

I think Lynn and Kathy have given us one of the stronger arguments I’ve  heard to turn over the Congress this Fall to the Democratic hands,  because then we’ll have a press that isn’t acting like lapdogs. 

But, whether one thinks corporate media is controlled by fat white men in closed rooms, or not,  Boehlert uses the lack of reporting on Stephen Colbert’s recent performance in front of Bush to say this (my emphasis)…

…if we have all these independent news organizations, how can they  routinely come to almost the exact same editorial decisions? A quick  point about liberal bias I stay away from it, too. I mean, if you think  about liberal bias, what — the argument is that essentially all  reporters are essentially Democratic operatives who purposely spin the  news in order to achieve a political agenda. That is probably one of  the most far reaching conspiracy theories ever hatched, and yet people  take it seriously. So thankfully, most people on the left do not  ascribe to any sort of conspiracy. It’s not a bias. People don’t do  this purposely because they’re all trying to advance the Republican  agenda.

My argument, and I think, other people, is there’s a mindset, and  there’s this group thing. And I understand it’s dangerous to, describe  all media outlets as the same, and you can’t. And yet you come back to  the same thing. Downing Street Memo. How could literally every news  organization in America know that that memo was out there? And every  news organization in America, for six weeks decide we’re not going to  print and we’re not going to talk about it.

And Kiely’s response?

I think one thing that a lot of people don’t understand who are in  politics who are advocates for a cause, which is wonderful. Reporters  generally aren’t like that. Reporters are people who psychologically  have a problem with commitment, and we love being sort of in the  middle, and looking at the one side and on the other side…

…I’m going to let Dick talk about the Downing Street Memo, because I  personally haven’t — that’s not my area of coverage and I don’t know  that much about it.

Boehlert responds…

The — Stephen Colbert and the Downing Street Memo may in fact be two  symptoms of the same thing. Which is that in both cases I said it was  part of I think the problem is that he made fun of the reporters, and  that may have made people a little unhappy. With the Downing Street  Memo, when you go back now and look at — do a critique of some of the  things that the Bush administration said in order to bring us into  Iraq, you are also doing a critique implicitly if nothing else, of the  press’s performance during that time. And I don’t think there are a lot  of reporters who are very proud of the — of their profession in  general regardless of what they wrote their organization did, who are  all that proud of how the press performed in the run up to the Iraq  war. And so when you start to go back and look at things like the  Downing Street Memo, or look at things like what Tyler Drumheller was  saying, I think it makes a lot of people uncomfortable because you’re  naturally raising those sorts of questions about why the press didn’t  do its job.

So besides the groupthink, what’s really at play here? Paul Waldman speculates on what might be a  bit of self-loathing and projection by members of the  news media concerning the idea of Democratic elitism.

Eric talked about this whole liberal bias critique that the right  has thrown at the media for a few decades now. What you hear them say  is that reporters are a bunch of out-of-touch liberal northeastern  elitists. Now, as it happens, that’s largely true. The irony though is  that that doesn’t mean that Democrats get better coverage, and  progressives get better coverage. In fact, a lot of the times it’s just  the opposite, and to illustrate that I’m going to tell you a little  story that Media Matters uncovered a while back.

As a reporter I may as well say who she is — Candy Crowley from CNN was giving a speech right after the 2004 election, talking about the  election and her coverage. And she told a story about how she was in  Iowa in the early part of the campaign with John Kerry, and they sat  down at a diner to have lunch, and the waitress came over and asked him  what he wanted. And Kerry asked if they had green tea, and the waitress  said no, we only have Lipton’s. And he said okay, I’ll have Lipton’s.  And as Crowley told her audience she informed the Senator that if he  wanted green tea, he was going to have to bring his own to Iowa. And  probably a lot of other places in the — in the country. And she said  that she remembered this, it stuck with her because it just showed what  an out-of-touch elitist Kerry really was.

Well, when Media Matters checked this out, they found out  that she was a little bit mistaken. First of all, green tea accounts  for about 20% of Lipton’s sales in the United States. And if you’re in  Dubuque, and you want some green tea, you can get it at that snobby  elitist grocery known as K-Mart. (Laughing)

So what does this tell us? Well, first of all, it tells us that the  out-of-touch elitist in this case was the reporter. But that didn’t  mean that it manifested itself in scorn for the people of Iowa. No. It  manifested itself in scorn for John Kerry, because he supposedly was  the out-of-touch elitist. And so what do you see kind of running  through so much coverage of social issues and politics when it comes to  these sorts of questions? It’s the idea that places here there are a  lot of Republicans are truly American. Places where there are lot of  Democrats, are not so much.

So, what does this mean for Vermont? Does the same kind of elitist clubbiness exist here?

Since odum’s "Vermont’s Own Tony Snow?", I’ve been trying to answer this for myself. But, because there is so little political reporting in Vermont — from so few reporters — I’m not sure I’ll be able to. (Though I am keeping score on Darren Allen‘s snark to see if it is more commonly directed left or right. Jury’s still out.)

But, I thought the exchange I had with Peter Welch during some live-blogging on Blog for America, was interesting…

I asked this question:

In your view, how does Vermont media compare to the national media in  terms of these kinds of hurdles to getting a Democrats message out? (It  seemed to be a major problem for Peter Clavelle.)

His response was simply:  "Governor Dean is the guy to ask how the Vermont media compares to the national media!!"

Reading way more into that comment than perhaps is warranted, I took his comment to mean a few things…

One, it was a way to say ~Hey Dean supporter person, I’m on your side… Dean was railroaded!~ But I also felt that it reflected the small town civility (or perhaps arguably small town clubiness?) that likely exists in the tight circle of Vermont politics. Or maybe the same concern national Democrats seem to have; that directly confronting the mechanisms of press coverage is political suicide. Or both.

Anyway, there’s lots and lots more great comments in this discussion. And though my obvious bias is for the critics, the reporters are quite honest about how the day to day operations of a news organization. If you get a chance, you would be well-served to read the whole thing.

[Crossposted at What’s the Point?]

Just a quick note to share the news of two important rallies in Vermont this weekend:

  PEACE MARCH & ART EXHIBIT: Saturday, June 10; 3 pm- Peace March; 4 pm- Art Exhibit; State House Lawn.

  VT SPEAKS UP: RALLY TO STOP GENOCIDE IN DARFUR: Sunday, June 11; 2 PM; City Hall Park, Burlington.

Iraq isn’t strictly a local Vermont story, but the front page of today’s http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=NEWS01 carries two stories that  fit together to show what’s wrong with the Bush Administration’s policies in Iraq.

First, we have the story that about 375 Vermont National Guard members are on their way back from Iraq. This is obviously good news, and we are glad that they will soon be reunited with their families.

Second, and also good news, is the well-deserved death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

So what’s the problem, you say? Well, it’s something you didn’t read in the Free Press, or in most of the other MSM coverage of Zarqawi’s death, but it’s crucial to what’s happening in Iraq today. You see, we had a chance to get Zarqawi way back in 2002. “Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

The reason was simple: taking Zarqawi out of the picture would have taken him off the table as a rationale for invading Iraq. “People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

Think what that would have meant:

Nicholas Berg, Eugene Armstrong, and other Americans beheaded by Zarqawi: maybe they’d still be alive today.

The suicide bombings around Iraq that Zarqawi organized, and the hundreds killed: maybe they never would have happened either.

And that invasion of Iraq, the one sold to us and to the world based on claims that Iraq was supporting terrorists: well, we know the story about chemical and biological weapons was a lie, we know the story about support for terrorists was a lie, and we know it took a hard sell to get Congress to approve military force. It’s hard to say that this one piece of evidence would have made the difference, but you never know.

And with no invasion of Iraq we wouldn’t have to read about Vermonters being separated from their families. And we wouldn’t have those families worrying about whether their loved ones will be coming home.

UPDATE: Ack! In my Daily Kos duties and wild travelling over the past few days, I made a goofy cut-and-paste error and named the wrong Martha below (which is very embarassing given that I KNOW the one I put in there…sorry MH, feel free to give me hell for it if you’re reading) Thanks for ANONYMOOSE for pointing it out, even if you got yer feelings hurt by having yer team’s knuckles rapped. Oh, the humanity…

Some quick stuff for readers to check out. I’m a little checked out myself and will continue to be for a few days, as I’ve agreed to help out with the “diary rescue” front page feature at Daily Kos while the usual suspects are at the Vegas convention.

Over at Vermont Hum, poster anonymous (widely presumed to be Haik Bedrosian) is defending GMD’s honor in a back and forth with conservatives about the Tarrant push-poll piece. In the battle-of-the-anonymouses over there, the right winger posts “Actually, the story makes it pretty clear that no one knows who’s behind the polling, if it actually took place.”

Look again Sherlock. It says the “VT GOP and/or the Tarrant Campaign.” In other words, the Republicans are behind it (my “Tarrant Democrat” refused to confirm or deny it, as a matter of fact — oh, and check out the VDB follow-up piece that makes a star out of my friend Wendy while comparing me to rust, but in a good way).

Baruth has had a great week, and has posts here and here tracking the rumor that Anthony Pollina is shopping for a residence in Burlington to run for Chittenden County Senator. Love ’em or hate ’em, it’s clear the Progs don’t worry too much about residence when targeting elected office (what with residence questions around officeholders Steve Hingtgen, Martha Abbott, Chris Pearson, potential officeholder Emma Mulvaney-Stanak and now Pollina…and yeah, I know there were questions around a couple Dems, but ye gods, dudes — that’s a hefty proportion of your lineup, there!)

Peachy. Bernie’s doing the tacky give-teenage-volunteers-a-laptop-and-call-them-interns thing too, just like Tarrant. Just brilliant. It looks bad when the good guys do it too, Bernie.

Kinda disturbing, surreal painting of Rumsfeld on display at What’s the Point by an Iraqi artist.

Cool Blue takes Leahy to task for not taking King George’s word that everyone held in Guantanamo is a murderous terrorist and should be allowed to rot with no contact with the outside world. Hard to imagine what it must be like to have such absolute, unwavering faith in the purity and infallibility of your chosen political holy men, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Over at Rational Resistance, Jack wonders what Bush could possibly mean when he suggests immigrants should “learn American values” given that Bush himself has stomped on all of them.

And if you get Channel 17 in Chittenden County, I’ll be on the local media show at 5:25 PM on Tuesday June 13th talking about…well…political blog stuff, I guess… along with Haik Bedrosian of Burlington Pol, Darren Allen of Hall Monitor (and that reporting gig he’s got), and somebody else whose identity I couldn’t figure out from the confirmation email we all got. Probably one of the conservative crowd. It’s a call-in show, so call in at 862-3966. We’re encouraged to recruit callers, but I’m too lazy for that. I’m sure it will make for thrilling viewing. Especially the car chase.

Here’s what has been said by Vermont politicians about the fag bashing, sorry, debate in the US Senate over the (thankfully) failed Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage:

Rich Tarrant:  “We believe it’s the role of the states”

Peter Welch: “This question is rightfully left to the states,”

Martha Rainville: “I don’t see the need to amend the United States Constitution to dictate to the states the laws of marriage”

Patrick Leahy: “For 225 years we’ve left it up to the states to define marriage,”

Bernie Sanders: “Marriage historically has been left to the states.”

If none of our esteemed leaders is capable of saying it, allow me:

The “marriage amendment” should be defeated because it is wrong. Immoral. Bigotry. Not because it should be “up to the states” to decide which citizens they’d like to stomp all over. Or because of the abstraction of “enshrining discrimination in the Constitution.” As Senator Feingold said: “I support gay marriage. If two people care enough about each other that they want to get married, they ought to be able to.” Period. They oughta put this guy in pill form and start prescribing it to certain Vermonters. Even better? Try this clip of Jon Stewart putting the screws to Mister “Virtue”, Bill Bennett.

I expect this crap from the knuckle-draggers like Tarrant & company, as they want to try to pass as civilized before the electorate. A nice warm place in the history books is waiting for that crowd.

But everybody who knows better and couldn’t bring themselves to come out and speak the truth because they might lose Kevin Blier’s vote should be ashamed of themselves.

Cross-posted at Beyond VSH

Here’s a new story from today’s Vermont Guardian:

VERGENNES — Mayor April Jin is tossing her hat into the electoral ring, running as a Progressive this fall for the city’s seat in the Legislature.

Do you remember the last time Vergennes was in the news? I do. It was when the local community mental health center was proposing to open a new facility to provide residential and mental health services to people diagnosed with mental illness who don’t need to be confined to a hospital. It wasn’t that long ago, just last November.

I also remember what the open-minded folks of Vergennes did: they got the mayor and council to pass a resolution opposing the siting of such a facility in the City of Vergennes. Nevermind that the very building that was going to be used was already appoved to house a nursing home with twice as many residents, a mental health facility is apparently different.

Mike Smith, the Secretary of AHS at the time, said that this resolution was outrageous, stigmatizing, exclusionary, and discriminatory.

And whose signature was the first one on that resolution? April Jin’s, as if you didn’t know.

Mike Smith was right. In his press release he said, “If this had been a plan for a residential or respite facility for those suffering from some physical illness, I expect that the Mayor and City Council would not have issued the same statement.
. . . We should not allow the subtle signs of discrimination to drive public policy, or prevent us from doing what is right, as we care for the most vulnerable among us.” He didn’t wait around to condemn this. The Vergennes resolution was November 29 and Mike Smith’s press release was December 1. I’ve always appreciated how quickly he stood up to bigotry when he saw it.

Interestingly, what Mike Smith, a Republican, said is more in line with the Progressive Party principles than what Mayor Jin did. Here’s what the Progressive Party says about people with disabilities:

Seniors and people with disabilities should be able to participate fully in society without economic deprivation or social isolation.

I’ve never met April Jin. I don’t know anything more about her than what I’ve read. What I do know is that when the time came for her to stand up to bigotry she failed that test, and stood with the bigots.

A few days ago, it came to my attention that there was an individual publicly promoting the candidacy of Rich Tarrant who was a prominent member of a not-insignificant Democrat-oriented organization with national ties. As you might expect, my jaw hit the keyboard (resulting in quite a jumble of characters).

So, I went into “raise holy hell” mode with this person, whom I have had peripheral professional acquaintance with, and emailed the individual to give them a chance to refute the charge before I unleashed the blogs of war (full disclosure: my first campaign job upon arriving in Vermont fresh after being an Oregon Democratic delegate was with the Sanders campaign in the mid-90s). When this person informed me they no longer held the position of prominence within the organization, it was clear that this wasn’t a “federal case,” so I pulled the plug on the angry expose I was drafting for GMD, DailyKos, MyDD, and everywhere else I was going to crosspost it for the purpose of getting the parent organization’s (and possibly the DNC’s) attention.

As such, I have no further intention of “outing” this person, but the resultant email exchange did give me a glimpse into the mind of such a “Tarrant Democrat” (oxymoron?) that is worth examining. And for the gossipy-minded – sorry; all names and points of reference that could be used to identify the source or get her or him in any trouble have been expunged. Lest I be accused of being unfair, I am reprinting emails in their entirety (without identification). As you’ll see, the writer is articulate and impassioned, and makes their case clearly. If anything, one could argue I’m making myself look bad by coming off as such a grouch. All told, it could be said that I’m giving the Tarrant faithful a free chance to make their pitch to the Democratic left, here.

Judge for youself (and I would ask that any theories as to who this person is be kept to yourselves – please don’t post them)…

My initial email was pretty blunt. I was rapidly transitioning from shocked to really pissed off:

If it IS you, I feel obliged to come at you with everything I can muster on Green Mountain Daily and its associated national blogs, with an additional bullseye on the [privacy snip] and the National [privacy snip] for abiding an officer siding with the GOP’s anti-choice, pro-religious right, pro-Bush candidate. I thouht in only fair to give you a heads up as well as a chance to tell me I’m making a terrible mistake. I sure hope I am (and if I am, you should know someone is trying to make you look bad out there).

Annoyed as I was, I honestly still expected a response telling me I was completely wrong, and expressing at least as much outrage as I was. No go:

John, I respect you, your opinion and all the hard work you do for the
Democratic Party. However, I cannot support Bernie. I am one of MANY
Democrats, I can assure you. The fact of the matter is that I feel that
Bernie has done little for the state and I want a fresh voice in
Washington. The man has tried, I know, and I respect his willingness to
make an effort on behfalf of us all — however, I think its time for a
new voice. Rich is, from what I have seen and heard [privacy snip] – a moderate. He will not be beholden to special interest like
Bernie may be, and is very respectful towards people.

I am a staunch supporter of Peter Welch having given much money to his
campaign [privacy snip], I have given to Scudder’s
campaign on a $5 contribution. I fought for Jan Backus, I fought in the
field for Hinda Miller, and I have always followed the Democratic
Legislature. [privacy snip] they respected my
point of view. [privacy snip] in addition [privacy snip] encouraged me to follow my heart and my conscience. I
simply do not believe that Bernie is the right man for the job. He has
spent 15 years in the House and accomplished little.

[privacy snip]

It is a shame because we have worked together and I thought that my
fellow Democrats would respect my point of view. [privacy snip] invoked this
little piece of advice to me after Kate O’Connor [spoke with] me:

“Those who you consider to be your friends will respect your opinion.
Those who you worked with in the past will respect your opinion. Those
who do not are not your friends, and that is the crappy party of
politics.”

Honestly John, this is my business and no one else’s. and
I would appreciate it if you please back off. I respect you enough to
ask for you to be respectful of my privacy and of my family, who have
urged me to do this. [privacy snip] I respect your point
of view, but I will ask you to please respect my privacy, my business
and my family. Attacking me is a direct attack on me and my family and
my name.

People already know about this. Attacking me will not solve the
problems that our country faces. Destroying my future as a Democrat and
possible leader does not solve the problem. It adds to the problem as
to how polarized our country is. I am a moderate/centrist Democrat. It
will fall to people like me [privacy snip] to solve the problems
that we are facing and bridge the gap between the conservative and
liberal wings of both parties.

Please respect my opinion, my name and my privacy. You’re a good man
who has done much for the party. Please don’t attack me because of my
choice. I would like to point out that Ed Flanagan worked for George
Aiken and Howard appointed a Republican Attorney General (Jeff Amestoy)
to the Supreme Court. Remember, he was Chief Justice.

I hope you understand and respect my decision.

Again, the snipped portions included a mention that this person no longer held a position of responsibility and institutional credibility intimately tied to the Democratic Party, so it seemed inappropriate to go after him. I wasn’t going to simply let it sit there, though. I was ready to argue!

There was so much to refute in there. Particularly the one referencing the “many Democrats” who share his views. Remember- the Democratic State Committee unanimously endorsed Bernie. Dean was pushing his candidacy well before that. And polls still show Tarrant 35 points in the hole, so there are simply not many Vermonters supporting Tarrant, let along those who self-identify as “Democrats.” Now I certainly know many Dems who have carried a grudge against Bernie for some time due to his years of nasty, simplistic, rhetorical assaults on all those who consider themselves “Democrats” – but on the other hand, folks who have been watching him have seen that sort of generalized condemnatory rhetoric fade over the years. In addition, all the folks I know (including some users of this blog) were able to seperate their personal distaste from the obvious, critical need to pull together and keep the GOP from holding control of Congress in the face of all that’s happening nationally and internationally under the Bush regime. In fact, they find it a no-brainer.

It seemed to me that this person was either in denial, or living in a bubble that begged to be popped:

Hey, if you’re no longer [associated with the prominent Democratic-related organization], then it’s not a
“federal issue,” and I wont make it one. If you were an officer, it would be
a very VERY big deal. In fact it would make some jaws drop (it did mine).

I would, though, love to see you try to explain your position to Nancy
Pelosi, Barney Frank, John Conyers, Sander Levin and all the rest of the
Dems that Bernie has been caucussing with for the past decade and a half why
you’d prefer to see the GOP stay in power in the Senate rather than support
the colleague they’ve worked with for so long. Believe me, everywhere
outside of Vermont, Bernie has been considered in all ways that matter a
Democrat for many, many years.

Flanagan and Dean’s association with Republicans did not have the
implications for the nation and the world that supporting GOP control of the
Senate does. Don’t even pretend they’re equivalent. If you were also
supporting Douglas, I might see some ideological consistency there, but
you’re not, so you’re decision is hard to respect, and just seems
self-destructively inconsistent and arbitrary, or possibly personal in
nature.

What I didn’t say is that this person should try asking Dean and Flanagan if he made a valid comparison. I think we all know what the answers would be.

Thanks for your thoughts. I respect your opinion even though I
don’t agree with it. I was offered an opportunity to get involved in a
US Senate campaign. There is no Democrat running, and therefor, I see
no point in supporting a man who has trashed our party for years and
years. I understand where you are coming from and why you were
concerned. [privacy snip]

I think it may be hard for you to understand where I am coming from.
Bernie has a radically different ideology than mine. I am very centrist
and Rich touches on a lot of the issues that I care about. Special
Education, for example.

Furthermore, I understand that you may have trouble excepting that a
Democrat is supporting Rich. But you know what? A lot of Democrats are.
Moderates, for example. This is no different than Vince Illuzi
supporter Peter, except that he is a Republican supporting a Democrat.
If there was a Democrat running for the US Senate, I would be working
on that campaign. However, there isn’t one. I DO NOT have to be loyal
to Bernie. He is NOT a Democrat, as he has so nicely put it for the
past 30 years.

In addition, I don’t think its fair for you to say that my decision is
“self-destructive,” “inconsistent,” “arbitrary,” and “personal.” I did
this because I thought I could help elect someone that I believe in.
You believe in Bernie, that is why you support him. I believe in Rich,
that is why I support him.

That is very unfair language to use in this case. I made a choice
because I looked at both candidates, I gave them each a fair hearing
and I sided with a guy that I can relate to better.

I do have principles. That is why I am not supporting a man who has
spent years trashing our Party. And you know what, I am not the only
one. I have morals, reasons and beliefs. The fact of the matter is that
I have served the Party in many capacities and will continue to serve
it. Vermonters break their ballots all the time, I cite Douglas and
Dubie as examples.

I don’t think we will be able to convince each other either way.
However, I do appreciate you taking the time and sharing your thoughts
with me about this issue. They are all legitimate thoughts. However,
you need to understand that I have a RIGHT to support who I want, when
I want. No one, not even my parents have EVER questioned who I can and
cannot support. Democrats and Republicans. This will be the first time
I cast a vote for a Republican, and I am proud of it. Why? Because I am
not doing it to be self-destructive, inconsistent, arbitrary and so on.
[privacy snip]

So, if I ever serve in the Legislature or on a
local board, I will know that I can work with anyone because I worked
with people that I don’t necessarily agree with but can understand
their point of view.

I am sorry that you have that opinion of me now. It’s very short
sighted, but I respect that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail in this race and in this country.
Believe me, my opinion of you will not change. You’re still a hard
working guy trying to make some good out of what Bush and Cheney are
doing in Washington. Most of all, you are speaking out. That’s what’s
important. I’ll keep reading your blog.

Much stuff to think about again, but some common themes: that this person is part of some invisible wave not registering in the Party infrastructure or the polls. That they “have a right” to their opinion (which is what you tend to hear when someone feels rhetorically cornered – that being confronted with the need to defend awkward conclusions or stances is an assault on their right to have them).

But mainly what we see is a continued attempt to rationalize by comparing apples to oranges. What about what so-and-so did? I’m no different! If Illuzi is supporting Welch, that’s a valid comparison, but I’m not really sure what difference that makes.

Now obviously this person has a right to whatever opinions they want, and equally obviously I wasn’t going to change their mind. I kept trying though. Me:

< You're still a hard
working guy trying to make some good out of what Bush and Cheney are
doing in Washington. >

This would seem to be the point of disagreement.

I am not trying to “make some good out of what Bush and Cheney are doing.” I
am trying to stop them. I don’t think there is any good to be made from
ignoring 750 laws, grand scale domestic spying, torture, suspension of
habeus sorpus and the basic rights of the accused, the destruction of
Constitutional checks and balances, all in the name of advancing a religious
right agenda (which your candidate supports, by the way, as one of the first
groups he sucked up to was the Christian right, gay-bashing anti-civil
rights Center for American Cultural Renewal/Vermont Renewal, where he was
“well-received” according to reports…and of course his reported refusal to
consider grants from his foundation to pro-choice groups).

I don’t think there’s any way to make some good come out of this sort of
slash and burn theocratic, statist Republicanism. If you really do, I think
you’re in for a rude shock and a truckload of “I told you so’s.”

quickly postcripted with:

Just a PS — I used “arbitrary” because you also purport to support Scudder.
I challenge you to find meaningful points of policy deviation between him
and Scudder.

I used “self-destructive” because it’s clear you have ambitions to run for
office, and you’re going to have a hard time getting a Democratic nomination
as a Tarrant [supporter], as well as a hard time getting a GOP
nomination as a “RINO.”

Finally, I will never understand the logic of objecting to “a man who has
trashed our party for years” but supporting a man who, if elected, will
trash oir party’s values and effectiveness for years. The only possible
rationale I can see, since it fails the simplest of logic tests, is that
there’s something “personal” at play.

Which is what I still believe. That this is at the heart of the “Tarrant Democrat” (to the extent such a creature exists) mindset; the personal.

The first manifestation of the personal is simply feeling so insulted by Bernie over the years, they’re mad. This is a significant subset of the self-identifying Democrats (I say self identifying because, again, we have no party registration in Vermont) that also refused to vote for Peter Clavelle last time. These folks are not all intractable, though, as the excesses of the Bush GOP have forced many to look past their own hurt feelings to what’s best for the state and the nation. And believe me, I’m not trying to be patronizing here. Anger is a powerful energy. It takes intellect, perspective and courage to choose to slog your way across the chasm even though the bridge was burnt years ago. The folks who are seeing past that hurt are patriots.

Although my email penpal makes references to this type of Dem, I believe she/he reflects the other “personal” reasoning driving the Tarrantcrat. This is the Dem set who consider themselves socially “enlightened,” but also fancy themselves upwardly mobile professionals. Uber-capitalists like Tarrant are role models, and gadflies like Bernie are problems. Now it’s possible to envision an activist government that protects people victimized by forces beyond their control and still be enamored of the vast accumulation of wealth, but it’s more complicated. It’s harder. People like Warren Buffett and George Soros find themselves on the same side of Bernie’s politics with surprising frequency – even on many economic policy matters – but not always, and very often, Bernie’s rhetoric calls on even rich liberals to account. In my limited experience, those who can’t get past this rhetoric – or can’t get beyond their infatuation with the Tarrants of the world – will take the slightest excuse to work against their own stated values (even their own self-interest) and cast such deviation as a virtue. As a statement of intellectual independence.

And maybe it is. Or maybe it’s just rationalization. Or confusion.

As the definition of “liberal” has deformed and melted in the mainstream media, so has the definition of “moderate.” Essentially, you can be considered a moderate if you truly are a moderate, or if you – like Tarrant – are simply flailing. This gives Tarrantcrats the intellectual cover you see quoted so vigorously above. But is Tarrant really a moderate? Despite his new push to claim the “moderate” label by retrofitting his opinions and flying to the left of Bernie himself by advocating an expansion of Medicare to ALL uninsured, GMD readers should recall his early pandering to the anti-gay religious right, and his refusal to allow his Foundation to grant to “organizations that advocate or support abortion.“…and most recently that he is in favor of the Bush administration’s illegal domestic spying program.

In any event, my correspondent responded:

I think I wasn’t clear enough. Or my language was all screwed up. I
meant to say that you were trying to speak your mind of the crap going
on down in DC, and put things into perspective.

Honestly, I do not have any ambitions for office in the near future. [privacy snip]

you are preaching to the choir here. I don’t like
Bush and Cheney any more than you do. However, as I see Rich talk to
people — I trust him. I like Bernie as a person, but I don’t want him
in the Senate. Period. Personal is my own beliefs. I don’t like how the
Party has ignored moderates. I don’t like how the Party has supported
someone who is working with us out of a need, rather than a belief that
we are the right party.

I’m not going to get into a policy discussion with you because we are
too firmly  in our two camps. And you know what, this kind of debate is
healthy. It’s healthy even though Bernie says he supports Dairy Farmers
but votes against them in favor of Sugar producers because they gave
him moolah. Don’t believe me, check it out. He voted against Amber
Alert even though both Leahy and Jeffords voted for it. I have never
heard a religous statement come out of Rich’s mouth or a single ultra
conservative statement out of a campaign worker in this office.

If I do run for office, people will judge on my merits and my ideas.
They will judge as to what I can bring to the table and not this
rhetoric that people like to use. People respect me in [privacy snip]
because I am young but also because I can look at both sides of an
issue and most of all, I respect other peoples points of view.

In addition, I don’t think you can analyze why I support Rich because
honestly — IT’S NO ONE’S BUSINESS WHOM I SUPPORT. But if you want the
honest truth, I support Rich because I like his stances on education
and the economy. In addition, I think that Rich is a fair guy who is
respectful to me. When people [privacy snip] were giving me a hard time
a couple days ago about being a Democrat, Rich [privacy snip] told them that it was people like me who were going to be able to
bridge the gap of the two parties. Rich is campaigning on that.

honestly, you make great points and I understand where you are
coming from. I am voting for Scudder because I believe that Douglas is
an overtly political and sneaky Governor. Scudder is a guy I can trust,
he is honest and he has good policies on energy. In addition, I don’t
think he (Douglas) is a very good Governor. Period. Just like Bernie is
one of the most ineffective US Reps in the country. 339th in power and
-1 in effectiveness and influence! He’s only got one bill passed in 15
years. You can’t defend that. Even when the Democrats controlled the
Congress, he had the chance. He had his chance, he didn’t come through
and now its time for others to have a shot.

Let’s look at it this way. Both our candidates have their short
comings. They’re human. I accept that. Also, never even think again
that I will be a RINO. That’s just not cool. I will never run as a
Republican. If I ever do run, I will run as a Democrat. You can work
against me if you want, but your efforts would be best suited elsewhere
in electing Democrats across the state rather than going after a
moderate Democrat who votes for the person and could help elect
Democrats in the future. I’ve worked my ass off for the Party, John —
give me some slack.

At this point, despite the eye-rolling statements about her/his opinion being “nobody’s business” even though she/he was out there publicly espousing them very forthrightly, I was actually starting to have some fun, although my penpal still wasn’t, it seemed. I thought we might just be at this back and forth all summer, and I was up for it.

Then I got the call from my friend about the Tarrant push-poll smearing Bernie. I got mad again and sent one more email:

Just heard [Tarrant is] push-polling. Nice, ethical guy [privacy snip] there.

In the past, my penpal was very quick to respond, as all the above correspondence took place over the course of a day.

After that last one, it’s now going on three days without a response.

You may have noticed the site was down for several hours this afternoon. I’m told from the Soapblox crowd that it’s because of the increased traffic related to the Tarrant push-poll story below. A readership spike sounds like a great reason to be down to me, but I noticed I couldn’t get any of their other sites (such as My Left Wing) either, and the site meter shows..well, only half-a-day’s worth of hits, so I don’t know what was up.

( – promoted by odum)

The demonstration against John Negroponte at the St. Johsnsbury Academy this morning was unhindered by rain or hecklers and we had a fine, peaceful turn out. I am posting here the speech I gave which is but a poor sample of the many moving and articulate statements that were made. I would like to thank everyone who came out, as well as the respectful police presence and the Academy for their restraint. I would also like to congratulate the class of 2006 on their launch into the world and encourage them to stay active, aware and vocal.

I do not come today to cast aspersion on John Negroponte as a father or supporter of the Academy, for these qualities are not in question, nor are they relevant. I would, however, like to express my congratulations to all of these fine graduates of the class of 2006, even those angered or distressed by my presence today.

In this, as in all graduating classes, are many proud and admirable parents who could provide insightful, inspirational and unique counsel to these students. Why choose one whose advice comes from a history of conspiracy, amorality and dishonesty?

Because of Mr. Negroponte’s “special project” Battalion 316, and the human rights abuses he condoned while Ambassador to Honduras, the United States stands condemned for international terrorism in the World Court. Because of his perpetuation, before the United Nations, of administration lies, many of our brave young people in the armed forces are being sent to fight an illegal and unjust war in Iraq. Because of his support of warrentless wiretapping and domestic spying programs, Mr. Negroponte has stripped all Americans of their rights and privacy, treating us with contempt and suspicion.

This is the man who has been chosen by the St. Johnsbury Academy to lead the young people of our community toward their bright futures. Under such guidance, they too may become the agents of murder, lies, greed and corruption.

The Academy is guilty of the sin of omission in failing to inform their students of the truth about former Ambassador Negroponte’s career. Furthermore, they are providing a poor example for these graduates in refusing to allow any criticism of Mr. Negroponte or his record.

The price of greatness is responsibility. If Mr. Negroponte or the Academy that implicitly endorses him refuses the responsibility of critique, then they forfeit any greatness that may be due them.

This school has shunned discourse and balanced information. This school has denied constitutional rights. This school offers as a role model a man whose record has been in question since before these graduates were born. Any such institution is more than shameful. Any such institution is un-democratic, even un-American.

John Negroponte is no more a criminal today than he was yesterday. But the Academy is more deplorable on this day than I have ever known it to be.

My name is Berrian Eno-Van Fleet, graduate of St. Johnsbury Academy, class of 1999.