Lots to say about this latest ARG poll (via vt.Buzz), but one thing is starkly clear.

If Welch and Parker want to win, they must convince Democrats, yes Democrats, to vote for them.

If you’re only pulling two-thirds of your own party, you are in serious trouble.

And, if you’re interested in some of Mr. Butler’s work (and not easily offended), please listen to his song, The Hand of the Almighty[mp3].

"Name calling" is an overused phrase in the world of politics. Right up there with "finger pointing."

Both these phrases tend to be used when a candidate is trying to avoid a legitimate criticism. And it always makes the person who says them seem childish, whiny and evasive. As in ~Boo hoo, I don’t think the voters like this kind of name calling and finger pointing… Sniff sniff.~

But, what happens when a campaign actually does engage in literal "name calling?" In that case, then, it’s really the name caller who’s being childish. And maybe just a wee bit nervous, perhaps?

Like Jim Douglas’ new ad, for instance.

The ad, which is conveniently not mentioned on Douglas’ site, begins…

Some people make a name for themselves, and they call Scudder Parker Mr. Property Tax.  Why?  Because Scudder Parker has backed higher property taxes – even taxes like Act 60, the property tax that turned Vermont families against each other, and drove families and jobs out of state.  Now Vermont taxpayers have something else to worry about – now Mr. Property Tax wants to be governor.

Mr. Property Tax… Ha ha, that’s funny.  Except that, according the VT GOP’s own web site, this oh so clever nickname comes from a single article in the Rutland Herald from… 18 years ago!

Now, I never claim to have a great grasp of Vermont’s political history and I have never been privy (until recently) to even the slightest bit of "insider" gossip. But, all I can glean from this is that the "they" who call Parker "Mr. Property Tax" are today’s Vermont Republican Party and a headline writer in the late 80s. Pretty hokey name calling, eh?

The ad doesn’t get better. It continues…

And he’s working on making a few new names for himself – how about Mr. Income Tax?  Mr. Payroll Tax?  He just told Vermont Public Radio he wants just that – higher payroll and income taxes.  He said under his plan "everybody pays."  And even with prices at the pump over three dollars, he’s ready to raise gas taxes.  Mr. Property Tax. Mr. Income Tax. Mr. Payroll Tax. Mr. Gas Tax.  There’s just one name Vermonter’s shouldn’t call Scudder Parker – and that is governor.

The source for most of the claims here seems to come from Parker’s March 28th appearance [mp3] on Switchboard (referred to on the VTGOP site here), where he said the following…

Kinzel: And the way that you see that people will pay for their coverage is through tax revenues?

Parker: It’s a mix of using Medicare, Medicaid, other revenue sources that we have now, co-pays, and a fair tax structure, which really the Senate plan last year tried to do.  I actually believe that the theme of the Senate bill - the House and Senate bill - which is everybody pays what they can and gets and has access to service - is the right theme for Vermont.  I think this would be a more efficient way of doing that.

So, it’s not that Parker’s going to make "everybody pay" like some kind of dark villain. He was simply saying that "everybody pays what they can."

And Parker continues on to criticize Douglas’ health care plan which would have placed extra burden on business owners (my emphasis)…

Kinzel: So perhaps people would have a payroll tax the way that Medicare is run?

Parker: That’s right.  Payroll - income; you could find a balance of those taxes.  But really it’s not new money, it’s talking about fairly allocating the contributions.  What we have now is a system - and governor Douglas actually proposed to aggravate that system - in which the employers who cover their employees would actually get an increased cost or an increased burden imposed on them and the folks who don’t don’t have to pay.  That is nonsensical, that does not make sense - it makes for competitive disadvantage.  It’s anti-business.

Who’s really supporting policies that will drive "jobs out of state?"

Of course this is the old Good Cop/Bad Cop routine that Douglas/Barnett have profited from through the previous election cycles. And it’s high time they get called on it, too.

See, there’s lots of evidence to suggest that Tarrant’s poor showing compared to Rainville in Tuesday’s primary was directly related to Tarrant’s dishonest ad campaigns which turned off lots of voters.

So the Douglas campaign better be careful.

People might start to catch on that, like in the old routine, the Good Cop is not really above the fray. He’s just playing a role.

Bad headline, I know…

But, hey, Matt Dunne and T.J. Donovan both pulled off impressive victories in yesterday’s primaries.

And, since I think it’s clear they were favored by the 37 netroots activists in Vermont, I say their victories are our victories.

Or maybe not. But, I’d think one could argue that P.B.’s focus on both candidates helped them out a bit.

Winners: Matt Dunne, Matt’s kid, Shay Totten, Scudder Parker, Peter Welch

In other election news, Bernie trounced Craig Hill (despite Hill’s last-ditch campaign tactic of calling into the Randi Rhodes show this week. Big upset, there).

And it’s official: McMansion Country is Tarrant Country. The density of ugly Tarrant signs (even when softened by T.J. Donovan signs) on Spear St. can not be denied.

And Baruth claims all of this is a victory for the “devious Odum.” I have no idea what this means.

Oh yeah, and James Kochalka reminds us what’s really important (h/t to Simmon)…

OK, I’m a little late on discussing this, but…

Jamison Foser took a break for the August 18th weekly update from Media Matters, leaving it to Marcia Kuntz and Paul Waldman to connect some dots.

Using an analogy to Schrödinger’s cat — in the context of the British terror plot story of last month — they elegantly illustrate how media observers help shape public opinion. And, of course — as Bob Somerby would remind us — the role that the "observer" plays in this is rarely addressed by the media itself.

They write…

…The principle Schrödinger was illustrating is that — in quantum mechanics, at least — the act of observation itself inevitably affects the thing being observed.

We were reminded of the potential effect of Schrödinger’s principle this week. The nature of journalism is such that by casting their gaze upon an event, the news media almost inevitably influence how that event proceeds. By telling us what public opinion is, they influence how we think about our own beliefs and the place they hold among our fellow citizens.

And by telling us what is going to happen, they often make the very course of events they are predicting more likely. While reporters may not be comfortable with the idea, the truth is that self-fulfilling prophecies occur constantly in the news media. For instance, when reporters decide one candidate is the "front-runner," he gets the lion’s share of attention, which makes his victory seem likely, which better enables fundraising, which allows him to hire more staff and air more ads, and so on until that victory actually comes about. The candidate reporters choose to ignore as having little chance of winning will — precisely because the press ignores him — have little chance of winning.

The events of last week, in which British authorities foiled what they said was a plot to blow up airplanes with liquid explosives, seemed again ripe for the observer effect to come into play. The media immediately began to lay the groundwork by which their own patterns of interpretation would serve to create yet another self-fulfilling prophecy. Within hours of the arrests, the media proceeded with Pavlovian predictability to raise the question of whether the thwarting of the alleged plot would provide a boost for President Bush in the polls. Some went so far as to simply assert that it would.

They go on to illustrate three problems with the belief that this is an appropriate way for the media to cover important political events…

Problem 1: The prediction/assertion can be self-fulfilling

It’s simple. When the media assert that a particular event — in this case, the U.K. arrests — will drive up Bush’s poll numbers on the question of national security, they do several things: They suggest to the public that Bush played a significant role in thwarting the terror plot; they tell the public that his purported role is another example of his strength on terror; and they contribute invaluably to Rove’s plan to make this election year about the war on terror rather than about any number of other issues — including the Iraq war — that Rove has decided, probably correctly, poll even worse for Republicans. If, in fact, Bush’s poll numbers were to go up, in no small part because Americans are being told that Bush is strong on terror, that he played a vital role in averting the most heinous terror attack since 9-11, and that he is protecting them, the media would almost certainly tell themselves that they were right. The next time a national security-related event occurred, the media could have looked to this experience and said that "terror helps Bush." And, assuming this pattern held, they would be right again.

Luckily, though, recent polling has suggested that this "observer" effect of the media has been stifled because of the public’s now consistent distrust and lack of confidence in the Bush administration.

Problem 2: The prediction/assertion is made possible by bad or no reporting

If there’s a flaw in our analogy to the "observer effect," it is that it presumes that observation — or, in this case, reporting — is actually occurring. But in order to assert, or even suggest, that the U.K. arrests would give Bush a boost, the media necessarily eschewed reporting, because reporting — learning facts, getting different points of view, analyzing the findings — would have obliterated their premise. In suggesting or asserting that the U.K. arrests are helping or will help Bush, the media are not reporting; they are repeating. That Bush is strong on terror. That Bush played an important role in thwarting the attacks. That Bush’s policies have made us safer. That, to paraphrase Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Republicans make our country safer.

We are not saying that any of those statements is false. We are merely saying that in simply asserting that the public will view Bush more favorably as a result of the U.K. arrests, the media must withhold from viewers and readers — and presumably themselves — contrary evidence and contrary viewpoints.

And they go on in that section to make the case that more aggressive reporting would make this Bush bounce speculation impossible to justify…

In suggesting that the public will view Bush more favorably, the media must also ignore or disparage a report by NBC that the Bush administration rushed the Brits into making the arrests before they were ready. For their audience to be adequately frightened by the imminence of the threat and appropriately grateful that it was thwarted, the media must also ignore the same NBC report that none of the suspected terrorists had bought plane tickets, and that several lacked passports.

And, finally, they discuss the third problem, which I’ve already mentioned above (my emphasis)…

Problem 3: The prediction/assertion is apparently wrong

If professional pride isn’t enough to dissuade the media from repeating Republican spin on an issue as serious and consequential as national security, perhaps this will be: The media’s predictions are wrong. Polling conducted after the U.K. arrests doesn’t bear out the claims of a Bush bounce. As Media Matters wrote:

An August 12 Newsweek poll found that while approval of Bush’s handling of terrorism and homeland security went up from 44 percent in May to 55 percent, Bush’s overall job-approval rating went up only 3 points — from 35 percent in May to 38 percent, within the poll’s margin of error. An August 14 CBS poll found that approval of Bush’s handling of terrorism and Bush’s overall approval rating remained unchanged from July. An August 15 Gallup poll found that Bush’s approval dropped three points from July — 40 percent to 37 percent, within the margin of error — and did not ask about his handling of terrorism. The August 16 Zogby poll put Bush’s approval rating at 34 percent — a 2-point drop from the previous poll, and within the margin of error. The August 17 Pew poll put Bush’s handling of "terrorist threats" at 50 percent — up 3 points from June, within the 4-point margin of error. — while his general approval rating rose 1 point over July’s figure to 37 percent.

Pollsters John Zogby and Andrew Kohut had an explanation for the numbers, which should come as no surprise, except maybe to the media who predicted otherwise: As Media Matters pointed out, they both argued that the U.K. terror arrests had a negligible impact on public opinion because the Iraq war weighs far more heavily on the public consciousness. It remains to be seen whether the media will consider the public’s concern with the disastrous situation in Iraq in making predictions in the future, or whether they will disregard the ample evidence of that preoccupation, as they continue to disregard much of significance on the question of our national security.

All of which is to say that every prophecy need not be self-fulfilling, and though it may not occur in physics, in politics sometimes the thing being observed — the public, in this case — is smart enough not to go along with what it is being told it will do.

So, what really wise and clever thing do I have to say to tie this all in to Vermont politics?

Um… I dunno.

But, I did think that Darren Allen’s reporting of the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post’s political blogs’ takes on the Vermont election was interesting in their collective lack of understanding of Vermont politics (the Big Media outlets, I mean, not Allen).

After hightlighting that the WSJ is already saying that (based on a single suspect poll) there is "doubt on Republican claims that they’ve got a shot at capturing the Vermont House seat", Allen writes…

In any event, the Washington Post doesn’t seem to agree with calling the race all but unwinnable for the Rs. From their "The Fix" political blog today comes this:

"But, if you are looking for places…where we might see a surprise Republican win on Nov. 7, keep an eye on Vermont’s at-large open seat, Georgia’s 12th district, Illinois’ 8th district, West Virginia’s 1st district and South Carolina’s 5th district. None are prime opportunities for Republicans — especially in the current political environment — but each has upset potential."

Only a person mired in stereotypes of Vermont, with no understanding of the history of Vermont politics, would suggest that a Rainville win over Welch would be an "upset" let alone "all but unwinnable."

So, regardless of the reality, the WSJ and Washington Post have already helped define a "Rainville’s the noble underdog" narrative that — because of the prestige of the media outlets involved — can’t help but be perpetuated in other outlets.

Cesar Augusto Murillo
01/21/69 - 09/11/01

Cesar lived on my floor during my first year of college. And though I wasn’t close to Cesar and didn’t stay in contact with him after school, he was the only victim of 9/11 that I knew personally.

His death was so tragic and pointless, but it helped to personalize my grief.

It made the abstract and surreal televised images all too real for me. And it forced me to confront the reality of it all. In a strange way, his death helped me to begin to comprehend the incomprehensible.

It was a strange and sad gift to have received.

He didn’t deserve to die just to give me the gift of healing. And I didn’t deserve to receive it.

So, on the 5th anniversary of 9/11, please consider sending a donation to the Cesar Augusto Murillo Memorial Fund, which “provides scholarships to minority students enrolled at or accepting admission to the University of Vermont.”

Centre Pompidou - Paris, France - March 2006

To my loyal reader(s?), sorry for the light postings. Check out Media Matters for good ABC stuff, and if you want to jump on the “Dump Path to 9/11″ bandwagon, check out the Take Action link or this one at TrueMajority.org.

Try to make them feel better…

Well we’ve got alot alot of hard work today
We gotta rock at the government center
To make the secretaries feel better
When they put those stamps on the letters

And they got alot alot of great desks and chairs
Now, at the government center
Where they put the stamps on all the letters
And then they write it down in the ledger

We gotta rock-a rock-a rock-a nonstop tonight
Uh huh, at the government center
Where they put the stamps on the letters
And then they write it down in the ledger

We won’t stop until we see secretaries smile
And see some office boys jump up for joy
Tell old Mr. Ayhern, “Calm down a while,
You know that’s the only way the center is ever gonna get better”

We gotta rock-a rock-a rock-a nonstop tonight
At the government center
Where they put the stamps on the letters
And then they write it down in the ledger

- Modern Lovers

Some text, wrapped inside a blockquote, surrounded by link tags…

Matryoshka Dolls - Paris, France - March 2006

Caleb Daniloff provides the text of his latest VPR commentary (listen here), a personal reflection on the 20th anniversary of his father, Nicholas Daniloff’s, infamous run-in with the KGB.

It happened when I was sixteen. I was sneaking a cigarette on our balcony in Moscow when my mom burst out. “Pa’s been arrested for espionage,” she stammered. It was a cool summer morning, twenty years ago today.

My Russian friends Kot and Kolya were over visiting. Before he left, Kolya grabbed my arm and said reassuringly, “Tvoi otets matros.” Which roughly means, “Your dad’s a tough bird.”

Kolya’s words stuck with me. Not because it was a touching show of support, but because when I thought of tough birds, my journalist dad did not leap to mind. To me, he had the air of a professor. He wore highwater pants and thick glasses, wouldn’t step on a bug and rocked embarrassingly on his heels when he talked.

A week later when I visited him at Lefortova Prison, he looked crumpled – no shoelaces or belt, no look of disapproval. His demeanor was calm as if he were spending time at a sanatorium. I’d been coached by Refusnik friends of my parents to extract information for the western reporters camped outside. As a sullen, easily embarrassed teenager, I found interviewing my father far more comfortable than talking with him.

Bob Somerby details the extent to which the press corps covered up for McCain in 2000 (and will likely cover up again) in his "novelization" of McCain series.

To what extent did a fawning press corps hide other oddball things McCain said? Obviously, it’s hard to say, although we did more work on this matter in real time. (It goes beyond the use of “gooks,” into areas of actual substance.) But our analysts chuckled when Frankel said that McCain’s every word had been “on the record.” After all, it’s easy for a pol to speak on the record when he knows the press is so deep in the bag that they’ll airbrush all his weird comments away. But then too, things really did even out in the end. Even as the corps was hiding McCain’s weird statements, they were inventing weird statements by Gore! Voters heard the correct amount of weird statements. The corps simply changed what those weird statements were, and changed the names of who said them.

And concerning the Armitage/Plame story, Media Matters does all the work that I would have liked to have done - but never would have gotten around to - in calling out the consistent misreporting of the story which leaves Rove and Libby off the hook. I heard Isikoff, himself, helping to push this angle on Rachel Maddow earlier this week.

Summary: Numerous media figures have asserted that a recent report purportedly identifying former deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage as Robert Novak’s original source for Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA operative prove that Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were not involved in the leak of her identity. However, Armitage’s role as Novak’s first source is not inconsistent with Rove’s and Libby’s involvements in the leak — both were original sources of the information for two other reporters.