Jack McCullough Posts

Thanks to GMD regular NToddPritsky for cluing us in to this.

 I had never been to the Facebook page from the Rutland County Republicans before today, so I'm glad NTodd pointed out the kind of racist garbage they're posting. Here is their latest status update in its entirety:

 Just wanted to let you know - today I received my 2012 Social Security Stimulus Package. It contained two tomato seeds, cornbread mix, a prayer rug, a machine to blow smoke up my butt, 2 discount coupons to KFC, an "Obama Hope & Change" bumper sticker, and a "Blame it on Bush" poster for the front yard.

The directions were in Spanish. Watch for yours soon.

Fortunately at least one Republican has objected to it.

Thanks for showing us your true colors, Republicans! 

UPDATE: Any sensible person, being called on something like this, would be apologetic or at least take it down. These guys are digging in, saying that this is the kind of comedy that is "based in reality". 

Well, three actually.

As you know, we're all about electing more and better Democrats. Today's post focuses on the "better Democrats" side of the formula.

This week the Republicans in the House of Representatives, rather than try to do something productive for the country, voted for the thirty-second time to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And when I say "the Republicans" I mean it, because every single Republican in the House voted for the repeal.

What you might not know is that there were also five so-called Democrats who voted with them. If you're reading this the odds are that you're not eligible to vote for or against these guys, but if you are, please take my advice and vote against them.

The Filthy Five are: Dan Boren (Okla.), Mike Ross (Ark.), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Jim Matheson (Utah).

Boren and Ross are not running for reelection, McIntyre, Kissell, and Matheson are.

The reasons they voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act are pretty obvious: they're all in conservative districts dominated by Republicans, the voters in their districts voted against Obama in 2008, and they have little chance to get elected taking Democratic positions. So does that mean we should have a heart, recognize that they're doing the best they can, and just be glad there are D's holding those seats?

I don't think so. All of these guys voted against the Affordable Care Act when it was passed. Some of them have refused to endorse President Obama's reelection, are anti-choice, and have voted for things like a balanced budget amendment.

In other words, they're indistinguishable from Republicans of the most vicious stripe.

If you live in these guys' districts, do not vote Democratic.

Cross-posted from Rational Resistance:

There are plenty of places you can read about the decision yesterday on the Affordable Care Act, but there's one observation worth making.

Over at Slate Matt Yglesias has a story about Scalia's dissent (my very favorite sentence to read: Scalia, J., dissenting) and how he arrives at the conclusion that a number of ancillary provisions, such as a provision deregulating dental services,in the Act are also unconstitutional.

Some provisions, such as requiring chain restaurants to display nutritional content, appear likely to operate as Congress intended, but they fail the second test for severability. There is no reason to believe that Congress would have enacted them independently. The Court has not previously had occasion to consider severability in the context of an omnibus enactment like the ACA, which includes not only many provisions that are ancillary to its central provisions but also many that are entirely unrelated—hitched on because it was a quick way to get them passed despite opposition, or because their proponents could exact their enactment as the quid pro quo for their needed support. When we are confronted with such a so called “Christmas tree,” a law to which many nongermane ornaments have been attached, we think the proper rule must be that when the tree no longer exists the ornaments are superfluous. We have no reliable basis for knowing which pieces of the Act would have passed on their own. It is certain that many of them would not have, and it is not a proper function of this Court to guess which.

This paragraph is simply more evidence that everything Scalia does is unhinged from the Constitution.

Many states have a legislative rule or constitutional provision known as the title-object rule, which generally says something like "Every bill must be directed to a single object, which shall be expressed in its title". It is specifically intended to prevent Christmas tree legislation. Under this rule, legislators can be seen to adopt any legislative provision based on its own merits, not, as Scalia warns us, because they are "hitched" to another piece of legislation. You can agree or disagree that such a rule is a good idea, but it is beyond doubt that we have no such rule in the U.S. Constitution. Scalia is just making it up as a ruse to get rid of legislation he doesn't like.

As I say, unfettered by any pretense of constitutional reasoning.

So far the only thing making this year a lively campaign season in Vermont is the Democratic primary race between incumbent Bill Sorrell and challenger T.J. Donovan for Attorney General. It seems every week we're seeing a new endorsementor position paper from both camps, and the campaign so far has been relatively substantive.

Still, while making his pitch for change, it seems odd that T.J. hasn't made a big deal of his latest policy position, which Jane Lindholm broke on Vermont Edition last week.

As you probably know, Donovan has made prescription drug abuse the centerpiece of his campaign, arguing that the impact of prescription drug abuse on public safety is a mandate to take both criminal and public health approaches to the problem, and to make it a higher priority than garden-variety nonviolent crime.

What was the hidden announcement Thursday? In response to a question late in the interview, Donovan confirmed that  he supports decriminaliztion of marijuana. You should really listen to the entire interview, but I'll just give away the surprise and let you know that about 24 minutes into the show, Jane Lindholm specifically asks him "Do you support the decriminalization of marijuana?" and Donovan say, "I do, and here's why . . ."

This seems like a big thing for Donovan, with nothing but positives for the campaign. First, it's going to be a low-turnout election, attracting mostly the core Democratic electorate, which is undoubtedly more liberal than the population at large. Second, with support from the State Troopers Association and the Sheriffs' association,  Donovan isn't in danger of being painted as soft on crime. Third, challenging an incumbent means he needs to be aggressive and make big initiatives to  gain visibility and distinguish himself from Sorrell. The decriminalization statement is just the kind of thing that should help the campaign.

There's still nothing up on Donovan's web page, and although my e-mail in box is full of his communiques I haven't gotten a decrim e-mail yet, but watch the news to see this story develop.

I think it's Sorrell's turn. 

Thanks to Morgan for pointing me to this story from today's Burlington Free Press:

 Vermont State Police say a man has died after being tased by a trooper during a confrontation Wednesday afternoon in Bradford.

 http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120621/news07/120621011/vermont-man-dies-after-being-tased-by-trooper

It happened yesterday, and the State Police responded to a call indicating that someone was suicidal and was threatening to harm himself or others.

 Troopers arrived with guns drawn but switched from guns to the "less lethal" Taser. The story has it that the man was "advanc[ing] in the trooper's direction", although there was no indication that he had a weapon or attempted to assault the trooper.

 The autopsy is supposed to be done today, but I think we can all be glad that the state police were there to prevent this man from harming himself.

So I'm just curious: since the initial call came from Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, and since the victim was supposedly suicidal, what protection will mental patients at Central Vermont Hospital in Berliln have once the Berlin police get their Tasers?

As soon as Democrats started talking about the Republican war on women the Republicans trotted out their counter-meme that not only are the Republicans not engaged in a war on women but that is the Democrats, by advocating for women's equality and autonomy, are.

 I know, it's absurd on the face of it, but that's what they claim. But if it's not a war against women, what do you call what happened in Michigan this week?

  Michigan House Republicans blocked a state representative from speaking on the floor on Thursday after she referenced certain parts of female anatomy in a speech on an abortion bill.

 That's right. The House of Representatives in Michigan was debating yet another bill to cut back on women's abortion rights and a woman, Rep. Lisa Brown, dared to say: “Finally, Mr. Speaker, I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but ‘no’ means ‘no,’”

 For that she was barred from speaking on a subsequent piece of legislation.

 Probably my favorite comment in the whole debate was this, from a Republican House member:

  “It was so offensive, I don’t even want to say it in front of women,” one state representative said. “I would not say that in mixed company.”

 So yes, just to recap: we have a Republican dominated legislative body, debating what women can do with their own bodies, punishing a woman for mentioning her own body.

 Is there anything else we need to do to prove that this is a war on women?

This is very unusual.

've sued the government a lot of times, but I've never had this happen.

From the Chicago Tribune:

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s office concedes in a court filing today that the state’s ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional, according to a spokeswoman.

Two recent lawsuits against Cook County Clerk David Orr claim that not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Illinois Constitution.

The state’s attorney’s response, filed today, agrees with that claim.

The government pretty much always defends its practices. This is a big deal.

I was at a discussion board I freqeuent when someone asked why liberals always seem to be dissatisfied with America. Here's what I came up with.

Liberals were dissatisfied with America when we were ruled by a foreign king.

Liberals were dissatisfied with America when people were allowed to own other human beings as slaves.

Liberals were dissatisfied with America when unregulated markets allowed tainted food and dangerous drugs to be freely sold to the public.

Liberals were dissatisfied with America when women were denied the right to vote.

Liberals were dissatisfied with America when children could be forced to work instead of going to school, and when workers were forced to work seven days a week in unsafe working conditions.

Liberals were dissatisfied with America when workers who had lost their jobs had no income, and waited in bread lines for meager handouts to feed their families.

Liberals were dissatisfied with America when workers were fired for trying to join together to improve their wages, hours, and working conditions, and when they had no say in any of them.

Liberals were dissatisfied with America when workers retired into poverty.

Liberals were dissatisfied with America when black children were not allowed to attend the same schools as white children, but were relegated to inferior and poorly funded institutions.

Liberals were dissatisfied with America when the poor and elderly could not afford medical care.

Liberals were dissatisfied with America when minorities could be denied equal access to employment, housing, and public accommodations.

Liberals were dissatisfied with America when corrupt Southern politicians beat and imprisoned black Americans who tried to register to vote.

Liberals were dissatisfied with America when our leaders used lies and fabrications to convince us to embark on wars of aggression against countries and people who posed no threat to us.

Liberals were dissatisfied with America when people with disabilities were denied educational and job opportunities.

Liberals were dissatisfied with America when patriotic Americans were denied the right to serve their country because of their sexual orientation.

Liberals are dissatisfied with America when we see that not all families are treated equally.

Liberals are dissatisfied with America when we see that the share of income received by the highest one percent of the population is higher than it has ever been, and when the chance that a person born into a lower income family has less opportunity than ever for an affluent or middle-class life.

Liberals are dissatisfied with America when we see that millions of our fellow Americans still cannot afford basic health care.

Liberals are dissatisfied with America when we see that banks that defrauded millions of their life savings and took their homes away are propped up with our tax dollars, while the wealthy speculators who caused the crisis have not been brought to justice.

Yes, there are still many reasons for liberals to be dissatisfied with America. Fortunately, there are also many of us who continue to work for the day when this great country will fulfill its promise to all Americans.

Congratulations are in order for Allen Gilbert, the executive director of the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. At a banquet last week Allen was honored with the Matthew Lyon Award for his lifetime commitment to the First Amendment and the public's right to know the truth in Vermont.

Gilbert, himself a former reporter and editor for the Times Argus and Rutland Herald (pre-strike, for those with a long enough memory for that), has been in the forefront of the fight for government transparency in Vermont. As the Bennington Banner reports:

 Vermont Press Association President Maria Archangelo, publisher of the Stowe Reporter and Waterbury Record, said Gilbert has been on the front lines in fighting for greater public access to government records, for public disclosure about police misconduct, and for blocking efforts to hide the cause of death on public death certificates in Vermont.

"Allen has been a key figure in tracking what the Legislature has been doing, especially dealing with transparency in Vermont government," Archangelo said. "He is a big reason that Vermonters now have a new public records law, replacing a statute that was one of the weakest in the nation. " While the Vermont Press Association and the ACLU don't always agree, it's important to acknowledge Gilbert's extraordinary work through the years as a journalist, as a government official, and with the ACLU, Archangelo said.

In other work, Gilbert was probably most visible this year as the field general who led the campaign to defeat the legislative proposal to allow the State Police access to prescription drug records, remaining at his post on the House gallery even as the closing speeches were being given at the end of this year's legislative session. 

And who was Matthew Lyon, you ask?

 Lyon also has the distinction of being the only person to be elected to Congress while in jail. On October 10, 1798, Lyon was found guilty of sedition, in violation of the Alien and Sedition Acts; which prohibited malicious writing of the American government as a whole, or of the houses of Congress, or of the President of the United States. Lyon was the first person to be put to trial for violating the acts on charges of criticizing Federalist president John Adams for his pretense of going to war against France.

Here at Green Mountain Daily, government transparency and robust dissent are very important, so we congratulate Allen for this well-deserved honor.

Congratulations are in order for Allen Gilbert, the executive director of the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. At a banquet last week Allen was honored with the Matthew Lyon Award for his lifetime commitment to the First Amendment and the public's right to know the truth in Vermont.

Gilbert, himself a former reporter and editor for the Times Argus and Rutland Herald (pre-strike, for those with a long enough memory for that), has been in the forefront of the fight for government transparency in Vermont. As the Bennington Banner reports:

 Vermont Press Association President Maria Archangelo, publisher of the Stowe Reporter and Waterbury Record, said Gilbert has been on the front lines in fighting for greater public access to government records, for public disclosure about police misconduct, and for blocking efforts to hide the cause of death on public death certificates in Vermont.

"Allen has been a key figure in tracking what the Legislature has been doing, especially dealing with transparency in Vermont government," Archangelo said. "He is a big reason that Vermonters now have a new public records law, replacing a statute that was one of the weakest in the nation. " While the Vermont Press Association and the ACLU don't always agree, it's important to acknowledge Gilbert's extraordinary work through the years as a journalist, as a government official, and with the ACLU, Archangelo said.

In other work, Gilbert was probably most visible this year as the field general who led the campaign to defeat the legislative proposal to allow the State Police access to prescription drug records, remaining at his post on the House gallery even as the closing speeches were being given at the end of this year's legislative session. 

And who was Matthew Lyon, you ask?

 Lyon also has the distinction of being the only person to be elected to Congress while in jail. On October 10, 1798, Lyon was found guilty of sedition, in violation of the Alien and Sedition Acts; which prohibited malicious writing of the American government as a whole, or of the houses of Congress, or of the President of the United States. Lyon was the first person to be put to trial for violating the acts on charges of criticizing Federalist president John Adams for his pretense of going to war against France.

Here at Green Mountain Daily, government transparency and robust dissent are very important, so we congratulate Allen for this well-deserved honor.

Local activist Marilyn Hackett was successful this week in her long-running suit seeking an injunction against the conduct of an official prayer at the Franklin Town Meeting.

Rejecting a number of bogus procedural challenges and some equally spurious arguments by the town, the Franklin Superior Court ruled that including prayers at the beginning of a town meeting violates the Vermont Constitution's prohibition on compelling anyone to "attend any religious worship, finding that "The court rejects the town's suggestion that the history of prayer at town meeting renders it non-religious and concludes that the prayers at issue constituted `religious worship'".

The court also ruled that the prayer at town meeting violated the constitutional provision that "nor can any person be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of religious sentiments, or peculia[r] mode of religious worship." The court held that to establish a practice that required Ms. Hackett to remain outside of the meeting room while part of the meeting was being conducted, simply because the town insisted on the prayer, would deprive her of the right to attend the entire meeting.

The town's argument that the prayer does not constitute religious worship is of particular interest here. Whether it's "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance, "In god we trust" on coins, or religious invocations at the opening of sessions of Congress, those who want to impose their religion on others are fond of arguing that these are not true religious statements, but simply neutral acknowledgements of the religious beliefs of the majority of the population. One wonders, of course, why the religionists fight so hard to keep them if they are not there to express their religious beliefs, or whether they would so willingly accept a change to "under allah" or "In allah we trust".

As a result of its decision, the court granted Ms. Hackett a declaratory judgment that the town's practices have violated her constitutional rights, granted her a permanent injunction prohibiting the prayer at town meetings, and will be holding another hearing to determing whether to award her damages. The full decision can be read at the ACLU web site.

Congratualtions to Marilyn Hackett, the ACLU, and ACLU volunteer attorneys Bernie Lambek and Julie Kalish! 

[UPDATE: I had dinner Friday with the plaintiff, Marilyn Hackett (and a dozen other Franklin County lefties, Democrats and Progs at our regular "first Friday" beer and burgers drop-in confab).

Hackett also said that the reporter for the Associated Press, among other media representatives, asked her what religion she "is." "I refused to answer. I told them that that is irrelevant, that the whole point is not to mix religion and government, and it doesn't matter what religion I might practice," she said. ~ NanuqFC]

Philip Baruth and the St. Albans Messenger are reporting that Sara Kittell will be stepping down after seventeen years representing Franklin County in the Vermont Senate.

Because of her committee assignments first in the General Affairs and Housing and then in the Health and Human Services committees I had the chance to work with Sara on a number of bills. I was always impressed by her instinctive empathy for and understanding of tenants, people labeled with mental illness, and others who are structurally powerless in our society. This is something that you don't necessarily see among everyone, even Democrats, and even people who come around to support you intellectually. In fact, it's rare.

There's one story, though, that really says all you need to know about Sara. David Moats, Pulitzer Prize winning writer from the Rutland Herald, tells it in his book Civil Wars: A Battle for Gay Marriage. In 2000, after the Vermont Supreme Court's Baker decision, when civil unions were the big issue in the Legislature, things were really ugly. Legislators who were known or suspected of supporting civil unions were getting threatening calls and even messages from constituents telling them that they would be going to hell; good legislators lost their offices in the Take Back Vermont backlash because of their support for civil unions. Then as now, Democrats had a strong majority in the Senate, and since Sara comes from a conservative county the Senate leadership went to her and told her that there were plenty of yes votes in the Senate, they didn't need her vote, so it would be okay if she voted no to avoid the almost certain personal attacks and potential loss of her seat. Sara knew what was right, and she was right there voting yes no matter what the cost. She later told a colleague, Mark McDonald, another civil union supporter, that it had never occurred to her to do anything else.

She was reelected anyway, but she certainly didn't know that at the time. This was a true profile in courage.

I'll miss Sara when the Senate returns next year.

The State Committee of the Vermont Democratic Party met yesterday in Randolph, and probably the issue that drew the most interest was the endorsement of candidates for statewide office.

On yesterday's agenda were requests to endorse Doug Hoffer in his second run for Auditor of Accounts and TJ Donovan for Attorney General.

The Hoffer endorsement was pretty straightforward, and nearly unanimous (there was one "no" vote). Doug spoke to the committee and expressed his desire to be the guy who actually wants the office he's running for, unlike Tom Salmon, who seems to be interested in just about everything except doing the job he was elected to do.

The bigger question was the endorsement of TJ Donovan, and that's probably what brought the press out (Andy Bromage from Seven Days was in the front row). Part of the question was that there was a motion to endorse TJ, but there was no motion before the body to endorse Bill Sorrell, who was also in attendance. Consequently, some members raised the question of whether we should endorse one candidate, and what that would mean for the candidates and the message it would send to the public.

This all arises from the peculiar endorsement rules for the State Committee. Our bylaws provide that we can endorse more than one candidate for a single office, and we have done that in the past. For instance, in 2010 all the Democratic candidates for governor received the endorsement.

Still, the question was whether endorsing one candidate in May and another candidate at our next meeting, probably in July, would send the signal that the party is favoring Donovan over Sorrell.

To be absolutely clear, that's just wrong. Many speakers specifically said they were voting to endorse Donovan yesterday and they intended to endorse Sorrell at our next meeting.

On the other hand,this is more evidence that TJ has gotten his campaign organized ahead of Sorrell's. They were both present with their teams at yesterday's meeting and at last week's David Curtis Award dinner. Yesterday they both gave good speeches that were well received, and they are both lining up lists of important and prominent Democratic supporters.

Still, The fact that he got his petitions in first seems to be an indication that Donovan recognizes that he has to work hard to unseat an incumbent.

Does that mean it's a sure thing? Absolutely not. For one thing, it's always hard to defeat an incumbent. For another, TJ indicated yesterday his support for the drug database access bill that never became law this year. He argued that the bill was not the civil liberties nightmare its opponents painted it to be, but his support of this legislation may cost him support among the Democratic base.

This should be an interesting race.

Finally, one last observation: I always enjoy going to these meetings at Randolph Elementary School because of the great, large-scale student artwork on display, and yesterday was no exception. Randolph, like so many Vermont schools, clearly understands that schools are more than just test-taking machines.

Support for marriage equality has been growing faster than any other civil rights issue that I can think of.

Now, fresh off President Obama's announcement of his support for marriage equality, we learn that his Defense Department has decided it will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

From the Vermont Freedom to Marry Coalition:

 On Wednesday, a Veterasn Affairs Department legal memo announced the VA’s refusal to defend the “Defense of Marriage Act” in veterans benefits cases.  The VA will not fight Fifth Amendment claims based on equal protection under the law brought against DOMA, says the memo signed by VA Counsel Will Gunn on behalf of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki.

So who's left to defend DOMA? It's John Boehner's BLAG, spending taxpayer money on things that are apparently more important than economic recovery or benefits for poor people.

People obviously need to keep the pressure on,but this is another sign of President Obama making the personal operational.

MONTPELIER, VT.  Today, Vermont Democratic Party Chairman Jake Perkinson, heralded the historic news that the President Barack Obama supports full civil rights for all Americans and affirmed his belief that marriage equality should be available to all people.  The President said today "I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."  

Chairman Perkinson stated "President Obama's statements this afternoon in support of marriage equality mark a watershed moment in this deeply important civil rights issue."  Vermont is one of the few states in the union that permits same-sex marriage and has been at the forefront of this issue for over a decade.

Chairman Perkinson continued, "I am personally gratified that the President has made clear that his personal view is that it's wrong to prevent couples who are in loving, committed relationships, and want to marry, from doing so. This is a great step forward for civil rights in the United States and I am proud that the President is leading on this issue just as many courageous people in Vermont, including our own Governor Shumlin, and others elsewhere, have done before him."

The Obama Administration's consistent record in support of the LGBT community also includes:Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell; Ending the Legal Defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); Signing Historic Hate Crimes Legislation:  Ensuring Hospital Visitation Rights for LGBT Patients and Their Loved Ones; Preventing Bullying Against LGBT Students; Developing and Implementing a National HIV/AIDS Strategy; Expanding Access to Health Coverage;  Addressing Health Care Disparities; andTaking Steps to Ensure LGBT Equality in Housing and Crime Prevention.

###

ABC News and CNN are reporting that Michele Bachmann, shown here ripping pages out of our version of universal health care, has received citizenship in Switzerland.

Don't worry about losing her from Congress, though. When asked if she was going to run for office she said yesterday that that would have to wait until she is fluent in Swiss.*

*Not intended as a factual statement.