| JD: H.J 52? The other one. PW: Yes, the continuing resolution. JD: Now, Senator Russ Feingold said in particular about this, “We're about to vote on a continuing resolution that contains tens of billions of dollars to continue the misguided war without a timeline.” PW: That's simply not right. First of all, you know that all of the war funding bills were supplemental appropriation bills. And this is yet another thing for which George Bush should be condemned. It was on the credit card. So, the funding for the war never went into the defense bill. The funding bill went on a supplemental appropriations bill for war funding. So all of the war funding was in separate supplemental bills. This bill was a continuing resolution to keep the lights on in government for six weeks. Now, some people have apparently argued, well, if you keep the lights on, it keeps the war going. And I'll let the people decide whether that's it, but the bottom line is that i means Walter Reed shuts down, it means soldiers that are getting health care for their treatments don't get it, it means Social Security checks don't go out, and so on. JD: But that did contain money for continuing combat operations, correct? PW: No, the argument that the proponents have made is that by allowing the Pentagon to have money along with the VA, with the hot lunches, along with Walter Reed, that money was, quote, “fungible”, so they could move it around. So, we could argue about that, but the point is that fundamentally it was about appropriation or every single thing government does, from hot lunch, to the highways, to our hospitals, to the VA. And, it may be, I mean, a fair argument that somebody could make is that their position is that we should just shut down all of government. I mean, that's the straight-out argument. Not just cut off pentagon funding for the war, literally shut down government. JD: That worked really well for Newt Gingrich, right? PW: So that's the honest argument that somebody could make. And they could say, “Peter, you voted to continue funding for hot lunch and veteran's programs and you shouldn't have. That's the argument they're trying to make there. JD: But couldn't you say they could have made the argument that also said that a better resolution should have come back for you to vote on, that was more specific about the funding? PW: Well, you know the answer to that is always theoretically possible, okay? I mean, it always is. There's never anything I've voted on in Montpelier or Washington that didn't have plenty of room for improvement. So the question is, did I fight for things that were better? Did I use the power that I have as one of 435? And, was there any more room or were you at the end of the rope? So that's it. It's kind of a convenient argument that you could always make, but there's nothing you can ever pass that will be, quote, “perfect”. I mean, what's amazing about this is that the war, the folks who are watching this, who have spent their lives these past six years trying to bring this war to an end and get congressional support, they're in a sense nonpartisan and very critical of what we do in Congress, rate me 100%. I've got an A rating from the progressive blogs, the middle-class blogs, so, you know it's hard to see... there's nobody who's done more. JD: Well, then let's talk about the anger. I was at that meeting in Barre last winter [Peter's meeting last year with anti-war activists]. What were you thinking as you were going in there? PW: Well, here's what I thought. I thought that, and I've always thought this, it's a big reason why I went. I share the fury about the war. Bush lied to us about the weapons of mass destruction. It's made us weaker, I mean all of the things that have made this so terrible, paying for it on the credit card, and Vermonters are really angry. They also had a lot of hope in that election two years ago, that by changing their congressional... going from Republican to Democrat, that we'd be able to end it. So there was an immense amount of frustration. A lot of us in the House had frustration. I voted on the timetables and sponsored the first bill to bring our troops home. So I shared the fury. You know, the practical problem we run into is the Senate, so can have a House with a working majority, you have the votes to get the troops home, it gets to the Senate, and you don't have the votes to do it. Even when we got advisory language to the President, he vetoed it, and we didn't have the votes in the Senate to overcome it. So, I can see why people are really, really frustrated. And the challenge for all of us in politics, and in life, is to do the best we can, to channel that frustration. JD: But did you come out of that meeting feeling any different about anything? PW: [pauses for a moment] Well, see, I went in as somebody totally opposed to the war, and who's committed to doing everything I could with my one vote, every day I could, to try to bring that to an end sooner, rather than later. And that meeting, I think, really had a couple of different things going on. I mean, there were some people there who just basically had come, they wanted to show me up, and tear me down, and it didn't matter. There was no willingness to have a dialog, no willingness to let me listen to them and then actually explain what I was doing, why, and how. And as you may remember, I made it clear to folks there that I would stay as long as they wanted and answer any question that anyone wanted to ask me. I feel that's my responsibility,and I was willing to do that. But there were some people that wanted to turn it into some kind of a show trial. There were an awful lot of other people there, frankly, who wanted to have a discussion about the war, what's going on, what to do about it. They might want to ask me questions about what I did and why I did it, maybe answer some of the questions the organizers asked of me. So it was a mixed group who was there, you know? JD: You know, it seems that a lot of antiwar activists really just feel like “no means no”, meaning they want a hardline position on this. Not just “voting for funding if there's a timetable”, meaning “no money for the war, period.” What would you say to them? You see, I think what part of it is... I talked on the radio, WKVT, shortly after the meeting, and I said that part of what makes it different about Vermont, being as liberal as we are and definitely one of the most antiwar states in the country, is that it think that some people expect more, a more vocal, leadership role from you than... PW: Well, I think that might be right. You know, my goal is to bring that war to an end, as soon as we possibly can. And, sometimes it's a judgment call as to what step you can take that will do the most to advance that cause. JD: A difference in tactics is what you're saying? PW: Well, see, I think, to accomplish any goal... I find that in politics, its often exciting and it's often very hard. You might get a group of people together that are really committed to the goal of universal healthcare. We want that. Everyone of us in our soul really wants that. But when you get to the actual implementation of it those same people who share that goal and that passion might have honest differences of opinion about what's the best next move? Some people might say, “Let's propose single payer.” Others might say, “Let's do a petition drive.” Others might say, “Let's do a demonstration in front of the hospital.” And who knows who's right? This is what I get from the civil rights movement. When I started working in Chicago, we were working on housing, and the issue there is that poor people lived in neighborhoods that were redlined, so no matter how good their job, they couldn't get a mortgage. Fast forward to 2007, the Lehman Bros. hired mortgage originators to go into those neighborhoods to sell loans to people that could never afford them, because they were poor, and they could talk them into it, and they didn't care. It's still victimization and predation, in case by giving money, in another by withholding money. JD: But don't you think there's something to be said for personal responsibility, as well? PW: There's an element of that. I believe there's a lot to be said for personal responsibility. But just to go back to your question, I remember the hardest parts of the work that I was doing, you know, ultimately we ended up doing this payment strike to try to get some justice, really, for these families. But we had fierce debates among ourselves whether we should be doing leafleting out in a suburb where one of these real estate speculators lived. What would be the backlash? How would that affect us? We had debates about whether we should picket in front of the Federal Savings and Loan. Should we picket in front of Continental Bank? And, it was an assessment about how that tactic would work. Would it set us back? Would it result in too much backlash? I mean, all these practical questions that you can't escape if you're honestly trying to be responsible to achieve a goal, whether it be the case of us in Chicago to get civil rights for folks who were denied them, or if it's in Congress, in trying to bring this war to an end as soon as humanly possible. And I find that to some extent, we sometimes take refuge in a tactic because it gives us a certainty that it will work, it gives us the satisfaction that we're being on the high ground, and I find life to be much more complicated than that. JD: It's empowering. It's definitely empowering, and that's something that I wanted to ask you. You've had sit-ins in your office, things like that, there were protests out in Denver, much more out in St. Paul.. in terms of some of the traditional methods of protest and civil disobedience, do you feel they have the same relevance that they did thirty or forty years ago? PW: No, I don't, and I think it's totally different. You know, I serve with John Lewis. And in those early civil rights days, the folks who demonstrated, black and white, put themselves in danger of getting killed. Literally. Beaten up. Maimed. And the harm's way they put themselves in was real. It was somebody like John Lewis who we see every day was beaten to the brink of death. He sat in, time and again, to integrate a lunch counter. And that's simply not the case now. JD: What's... there's still the risk of getting beaten or killed. St. Paul showed us that. I'm not sure what you're saying. The danger element of it is still there. PW: Well, I wouldn't compare it to the folks who were in the early 60's, and I don't include myself in that, by the way. I did some demonstrating but I wasn't like some of the Freedom Riders. I mean, it's fundamentally different. It's not without risk, and I respect that. JD: Do you think it still has a place? PW: Sure. Yeah, I do. JD: Now, how does.. you and your colleagues. How does it affect you? What are the various reactions you get to that when you see it? It doesn't get the media coverage that it used to. PW: Well, I frequently will talk to people. I mean, I want to hear them. I respect activism. I respect people who are willing to make an effort to change things. I might disagree with their tactic, whether I was in public office or not. I would sometimes disagree with that decision for a particular action or not but sometimes I'd agree with it. Obviously, in politics, it's really important to mobilize and organize. So that, I respect, and I respect speaking out in public ways to get attention. But the “how to” so you're successful in making your point and not having it hijacked by others to make a different point, that's a matter of judgment, and some people have better judgment than others. JD: Is it about fighting or winning? I look at that and I think that question tends to get overlooked when considering tactics. PW: Yes, I think the goal of our efforts has to be to make progress. You know, winning is a bigger term than I'm used to in politics, or in life, frankly. It just, you know, is such a dynamic, this world we live in, and our own lives, they are so dynamic, and it's not like we get to a place where we have a static equilibrium or we're perfect, in our own world. All of us have our limitations and we're aware of them and it's this society, we have our limitations as well. And I think there's this big place in politics and in life, for tolerance and respect. I really believe that. You know, I do my best, but I never assume that I'm absolutely right. I also found that focusing on what the goal is, and not some specific tactic often creates space for people to feel successful, to get there sooner, rather than later. JD: Okay, can I have one more quick question? [voice in the background – “Is it yes or no?] JD: If there's one thing you have to say if you look back over these last two years that you might have done differently, what would it be? Especially in light of what you just said... Something you could have done differently legislatively, a way you could have handled a certain issue, the way you conveyed a certain message...What would you have to say you would have done differently? PW: I'll have to think about that. You know, my goal was to be engaged and listening. Open, and accessible. I think my job is to do the best I can to be a means by which Vermonters can participate in this discussion about the future. And one of the things I'm really proud of is the “Congress in Your Communities” stuff, just about every weekend. It's just about talking to folks on their terms and on their time. And a lot of the best legislation. I guess I've passed more legislation than any new member, like 55 members, by factor of a lot. In significant stuff, not naming a highway or something. A lot of those ideas, like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Rutland.. the hospitals that were going to get whacked, those came directly from me talking to people in the street. They gave me these ideas, I translated them into legislative-speak. The milk program, where on the House side, we made a lot of progress, Senator Leahy was obviously incredibly important in this, but the feed adjuster, respect for the cost side... all of these things emerged because I was talking and listening to Vermonters. JD: But is there something you could have done differently? PW: Well, I'm sure there is. I don't look back on any votes with regret, okay. Could I have explained things a bit better? Probably at times, I could. I'm very proud of my record on the war, and even on this economic issue, there are times where you've got to reach into you own soul, and come to your best judgment about that's the right vote. And in my case around the war and on the economy, where it affects average, hard-working Vermonters, my strong desire is to make the call in an honest way, the best I see it, and to deal with the political fallout afterwards. It's a great job. JD: Okay. Thanks, Peter. PW: Thanks, JD. *** So, that's that. I had a few nuclear-related questions for Peter that I didn't get to, but he emailed me some answers. I'll put those up in a post next week. Thanks for reading and your comments, too. |
250-1
55-1
