[Quick preface/sidenote: I'm front paging again, but its gone so well without me, I intend to remain a reduced presence... - odum]
For the next three days, we're going to borrow another page from Kos and take a few diaries to open up the floor for job assessments of our elected leaders. Today we'll focus on our Washington delegation and tomorrow we'll move in-state. GMD has the advantage of being sort of a "convention floor" as well as having a regular community with widely varying opinions, so I'm hoping we can get a lot of viewpoints. If you regulars can think of any one else who might get into this, by all means send 'em an email and invite 'em in.
Let's start with our Senior Senator, Patrick Leahy. Leahy has been in the news a lot lately as the face of the legislative effort to hold Bush accountable for many of his illegal activities. On the other hand, some activists would like to see him even more aggressive on the war, even as he has signed on to the most aggressive legislation in the Senate. What do you think? Comments and poll beneath the fold (remember, you need to register as a user to vote, if you haven't already):
As Senator Leahy bravely tightens the noose around the neck of the Bush "administration," Vermont Democrats have lent him invaluable political backing in signaling their support for the remedy that ultimately gives him his power in his subpoena showdown -- impeachment. The Vermont legislature now stands poised to lend its voice to the growing chorus joining Leahy's charge.
In her continuing opposition, however, the understandably cautious Speaker Gaye Symington clings ever more tenuously to the excuses she's invented for herself not to act. With the nation's eyes on the contest of resolve now being waged between Leahy and Bush, her expressions of concern become increasingly indistinguishable from willful protection of the Bush White House.
As kestrel9000 outlined the other day, Vermont's own Pat Leahy stand at the point in the fight against the latest outrage in the six-year continuing saga of Bush power-grabbing.
The White House has pretty much been caught red-handed in an effort to corrupt and contaminate the actual administration of justice in the United States, by overtly hiring and firing U.S. Attorneys around the country on the basis of their partisan and personal loyalty not to the law, but to George W. Bush. Pat Leahy, righteously indignant at the implications for the future of our country, wants answers, and says he'll subpoena top White House officials to get them.
George W. Bush says he'll order his advisors to defy Leahy's subpoenas.
The Vermont Democratic Party and the Vermont State Legislature are poised to lay down for Bush, leaving Leahy twisting in the wind.
For the second time in two weeks, the Senate has voted not to allow an up-or-down vote on a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush's plan for military escalation in Iraq.
There was little doubt today's vote would turn out as it did. Senate Democrats needed a 3/5ths majority to successfully invoke cloture and force a vote, but they had little chance of getting there. The Democratic caucus is technically 51 strong, but they came in with only 49 votes today -- Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota is still hospitalized after experiencing bleeding in his brain in December and Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an "independent Democrat" who is part of the Democratic caucus, is one of the most vocal supporters of the president's plan. As such, the Democrats would have needed 11 Republicans to cross the aisle in order to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary for victory. They got seven.
Still, this was an increase, by five, over the last vote less than two weeks ago.
UPDATE:Senator Feingold's resolution was introduced today, and indeed, Senator Leahy is a co-sponsor. He is also a co-sponsor of Senator Obama's legislation that would require all combat brigades to be redeployed by March 31, 2008. Check after the fold for instances in recent history where Congress has restricted funding for specific military operations or campaigns (and - surprise, surprise - two of the four listed targeted Clinton)
As much as activists are demanding otherwise, I and others have been assuming that the question of pulling congressional funding for the Iraq War wouldn't come up until March - when the next supplemental funding request from the Pentagon was likely to show up. But Sen. Russ Feingold has decided to bring it up now. He is proposing legislation that would prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. Here's Feingold explaining his legislation:
The Judiciary Committee Chair is, of course, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, which means he'll have a big role in how this plays out. I'm confident he'll do the right thing, but he should hear from his constituents in support. Give him a holler if you can at 202-224-4242 or 1-800-642-3193.
Reintroducing his National Guard Empowerment Act, which gives the Guard a seat at the table when it comes to their deployments. Hopefully, with this topic on his mind, he will also move quickly to undo some of the other damage done through last Septembers Defense authorization, specifically (in Leahy's words):
It also should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law. There is good reason for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations.
Preparing for tomorrow's Judiciary hearing with Lee Hamilton and others on the Iraq Study Group's recommendations concerning police training and establishing a workable judiciary in Iraq.
(Crossposted from Daily Kos) UPDATE: I gotta give a hat tip to proudprogressiveca, who tipped me off to the C&L posting as a possible diary subject. He couldn't do it himself; he'd already used his diary for the day. "...without whom none of this etc." Thanks, bud.
As we are all aware, among the Republican voter intimidation/suppression efforts put forth by the Republicans in the 2006 election was right-wing radio spewer Laura Ingraham encouraging her listeners to jam the Democratic voter assistance hotline.
Looks like she pissed off the wrong person.
Laura, were you so confident that we would lose, you were willing to stick your neck out that far?
You just may be about to get Anne Boleyn'd for your trouble.
