Neither the GOP nor the Democratic faithful can be doing backflips these days. Tonight is the night of the big Democratic Party Autumn harvest fundraiser at the Old Labor Hall in Barre, where many were hoping to see some sort of great unveiling of a candidate to run against incumbent Governor Jim Douglas. Could still happen, I suppose, but nobody's holding their breath.
In fact what some from the liberal wing of the Party are doing is turning their frustration towards organizing, with reports of progressive Dems quietly having conversations about drafting a candidate themselves, rather than continue feeling humiliated by the lack of one. There are also murmurs of a floor challenge to Chair Ian Carleton during reorganization if no candidate has emerged by then. Tough stuff, but it's clear a lot of folks are choosing activism as an alternative to despair.
But on the other hand, how rough must it be to be a Vermont Republican these days? Sure, Douglas has got the Dem field cowering - but he is an electoral juggernaut who has trounced his last two opponents and has held elective statewide office since time immemorial. Peter Welch, on the other hand, is but a lowly freshman US Representative who has only been on one statewide ballot successfully...
It's encouraging to see elected officials speak in no nonsense language. When we put together the intro to the VDP platform last year (I was on the committee), we tried to be as blunt and unambiguous as possible (emphasis added):
Vermont Democrats believe the rights to health care, food, shelter, clean air and water, education, privacy, justice, peace and equality, the right to organize and of free speech are essential to a robust democracy. These rights are not negotiable.
Based on these principles, we stand against torture, bigotry and discrimination, forced childbirth, corruption, and the establishment of state-sponsored religion or religious doctrine.
Peter Welch is thankfully taking the same tack about torture. Not couching it in terms like "rendition" or speaking of aggresive interrogation, or otherwise suggesting that waterboarding is no different than a happy flume ride and anybody who says otherwise hates freedom (from a Welch press release, emphasis added):
Rep. Peter Welch, a long-time critic of the Bush administration’s torture policies, assembled over 50 members of Congress to join him in a letter to Attorney General designee Michael Mukasey urging he reverse interrogation policies of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The letter, authored by Welch, states that “We are extremely concerned about the revelation of two secret Justice Department memos issued under your predecessor that sanction many of the most severe forms of torture
Let's hope this catches on. Lord knows it goes against the grain for career politicians to speak so indelicately, but Welch is among a growing number that do (see the large number of signers on the letter) and I, for one, am grateful. Symbolic? Yeah, but it still matters.
But at the end of the day, it is so profoundly disheartening that it's become necessary to have a public debate as to whether or not it's okay to torture. Clearly, this society is running very low on honor (full letter below).
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the House Majority Leader, postponed a press conference announcing new reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act after progressive lawmakers banded together and said they would fight any legislation that did not include a set of eight principles on wiretapping that preserve the "rule of law."
"What's most significant is that the Progressive Caucus came together and said to the leadership that all 72 of us require that these provisions be included," said Caroline Fredercikson, Legislative Director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "This changes the dynamic significantly."
Not sure what the bill was going to say, but all the scuttlebutt was bad indeed. Stoller framed it as another capitulation on civil liberties proposed by #2 House Dem Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel designed to protect vulnerable freshman by passing something they didn't want (I suppose with an inferred "you'll thank me for this someday" subtext). Whether the caucus really sank this or not is an open question, but I choose to believe it's the case - if for no other reason than if enough people believe it, it grants the P-Caucus a bit more clout. The text of the letter (again via HuffPo) after the jump.
This, along with the other good news that Welch is the hardest working freshman in the House, leaves him with a mixed grade for the last two weeks after disappointing votes on Iran and the MoveOn kerfuffle. The dude does keep us guessing.
It may surprise some to read this here - but it shouldn't: Congress has no business telling Rush Limbaugh to shut up.
Last week, Senator Leahy and Representative Welch broke with Senator Sanders and brought several flavors of shame to the liberal community under one, all-encompassing umbrella - the vote to rebuke MoveOn. While first and foremost, I find the vote both bizarre and cowardly (for its myopic waste of time on the one hand, and the pointless "Sister Souljah"-style sacrifice of an ally deemed - apparently - disposable on the other), the fact is that it was also an affront to the tradition of free speech in this country. It's true (and important) that the naked attempt by the GOP to frame the anti-war public as crazy and uncivilized (an attempt that was successful only thanks to the assistance of Dems like Leahy and Welch) did not take any action to specifically disallow speech, but such action has a chilling effect nonetheless. As much as I took State Representative Dave Zuckerman to task for sending a chilling message, as an elected lawmaker, by accusing Stewart Ledbetter of "irresponsible journalism" for asking a question he didn't like, the MoveOn rebuke was far worse.
Am I being harsh? Perhaps. Maybe it's just the first expression that came to mind.
If you're a Vermonter, you probably already know about Sen. Leahy caving in to the right-wing noise machine's phony righteous indignation and voting to condemn MoveOn.org's NYT ad that (perish the thought!) General Westmoreland Petraeus might not actually be so on the level in regards to Iraq.
Well, as you now know, the Continuing Resolution that would extend fiscal year 2007 spending at the same levels for 7 weeks into fiscal year 2008 has just passed. And yes, there is Iraq money in there. The MoveOn condemnation was an amendment to that bill. So they stuck it on a must-pass bill, and sadly, Welch and many others didn't attempt to kill the amendment as far as I know. Not good. Welch voted for the bill.
The following comes courtesy of the Welch press office...
Leahy said, “It seems clear that the President has no idea how to end this war and has every intention of laying it on the doorstep of the next President. He would leave as many troops stuck on this treadmill next summer as we had there a year ago. The surge that was supposed to usher in a political solution among Iraq’s warring factions has failed, with a settlement no closer today than it was one, two or three years ago. Meanwhile we have become an excuse for Iraq to avoid reaching a settlement. We have been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II. It’s time to begin bringing our brave troops home from the middle of Iraq’s civil war.”
Sanders said, “President Bush misled us into this war 4 1/2 years ago, and he is still misleading us. Bush’s ‘troop withdrawal’ program will leave us with as many troops in Iraq as we had before the ‘surge’ troop buildup -- about 130,000. Even more importantly, this president has no idea as to how to end this war. Bush’s advisors concede that this war, already longer than World War II, could go on for another five to 10 years. This is unacceptable. We need to bring our troops home and develop a new and more effective strategy for fighting the very serious problem of international terrorism.”
Welch said, “The President made clear tonight that there is no end in sight to the war in Iraq. He continues to blindly pursue a failed military strategy for a civil war that demands a political and economic solution. The American military has achieved every objective this President has given them. They are now stretched beyond their capacity, leaving America exposed to threats elsewhere around the world. Continuing to referee a civil war with no end in sight is unacceptable to our military, unacceptable to the American taxpayer, and unacceptable for America’s national security. President Bush has no strategy in Iraq other than running out the clock on his presidency, knowing that this war will soon be another President’s burden. It is imperative that Congress finally use the power of the purse to end this war and bring our troops home.”
Vermont's lone representative in the U.S. House, Peter Welch, said he will work to defeat the extension of a new federal wiretapping law passed by Congress in July.
Welch, a Democrat, said a number of Democrats have given in to pressure from the White House and supported the bill.
"This really is an abdication of the separation of powers. That is a core principle of our democracy," Welch said. "There's no judicial review under the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) provision that was passed by Congress. Frankly I think that the courts may well find this unconstitutional because it's depriving the court of its jurisdictional oversight. And that's not an appropriate thing for Congress to do. This was a mistake."
Click below the fold for the rest of the rundown...
Well the press may not be taking this seriously (click here for the pictures, - they are pretty shocking - or just scroll down) but at least somebody is:
August 23, 2007
The Honorable Dale Klein Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Chairman Klein:
We are writing in response to the alarming events that occurred at Vermont Yankee power plant on August 21, 2007. It is our understanding that a non-safety related portion of one cooling tower cell at the plant collapsed. We further understand from your staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that there was no threat to the public's health with this accident and that the plant began to power down to 40% immediately following the accident.
We are concerned about the cause of this structural failure, especially about the implications for the cooling tower cell(s) that are related to the safe operation of the plant. We understand from your staff that the licensee, Entergy Vermont Yankee, is currently examining this accident to determine the cause of the collapsed tower and whether there was any evidence of structural deficiencies prior to the collapse. However, the NRC, has not yet committed to undertaking a thorough investigation of the safety related cooling towers cell(s) that are located on the same site and could potentially have similar structural issues. We find this extremely troubling.
We therefore request you undertake an immediate and thorough investigation to determine if there are similar structural deficiencies in any and all portions of the safety related cooling towers cell(s) at the facility. Furthermore, we ask you to examine the structural integrity of the remaining towers and institute any additional precautions to prevent other collapses that would jeopardize the safety of the cooling towers and that could present a risk to the public's health or safe operation of the facility. Finally we request an evaluation of any preventive actions that the licensee and/or NRC took in the past related to the safe and efficient operation of all of the cooling towers at the facility.
Please continue to keep us thoroughly informed as more information becomes available. We are committed to assisting Vermont and the NRC to ensure the safety at Vermont Yankee. We appreciate your timely attention to this issue.
When people hear that we are running a candidate to oppose Vermont Democratic Congressman Peter Welch in next year’s election, they are often quick to mention that next term will be too late to impeach Bush or Cheney. This is an indication that they either miss the point, or that they are dedicated Democrats who can’t bear to see erstwhile allies bearing down on their compatriots.
Allow me to explain our reasons for running. During the last election cycle, the American people made it abundantly clear that we wanted serious change. The Democratic victory, which was larger that anything that even the Democrats had dared to hoped for, was a mandate to bring the occupation of Iraq to an end, and to stop Bush from further damaging the country, if not to hold him accountable.
Instead, we see the Democratic Congressional leadership shying away from meaningful confrontation with the President or Vice-President, and being unable and unwilling to take a single significant step in ending or even slowing the occupation. John Conyers, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, the man who, while serving in the Republican controlled House during the last Congress, wrote the book on the impeachment of Bush, now not only doesn’t believe in it, but is fighting tooth and nail to keep it from being considered in his committee.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has declared impeachment “off the table”. She prefers to watch Bush and Cheney twist in the wind for the next 18 months in the hopes that the Democrats will thus inherit the White House. What she and Conyers fail to include in their political calculations are the numbers of lives to be lost while those 18 months creep by and Bush continues to act out on his policy whims. What she and Conyers, and Peter Welch and the vast majority of Democratic lawmakers who are going along with this masquerade are conveniently forgetting to put into their calculus is that they have taken a professional and moral oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
We will run a candidate who knows that their first loyalty is to the Constitution and their second is to their constituents. We don’t care who the next President is. We do not want to give her or him anything near the amount of power that George Bush has amassed for the current executive branch. The Democrats say “trust us, we’re on your side, it will all come out in the wash with the next election.” We say what have you done to deserve our trust? Where is your defense of the Constitution?
Where is your moral outrage? Where is an investigation that is really focusing on the crimes of the President or the Vice-President and not just concentrating on their underlings? Where are the results of all this important work that you claim to be doing which is precluding you from taking any action on impeachment? Since when is some future judgment of history an adequate substitute for justice served in response to constitutional breaches and criminality?
If you want to know what a determined opposition can do to a President from the other side of the aisle, take a glance at Newt Gingrich’s Congress and how they went after Bill Clinton, yielding no ground and effectively bottling him up and neutralizing him. The best that these current Democrats can do is to waste money rolling out the cots so they can stay up all night with a pajama party talkfest about how bad they think the war is. There is a reason that the only body in this nation with a lower approval rating than the President is the Congress. It is because they have betrayed the American people. If we wanted discredited Republican policies to continue, we would have voted the Republicans back in.
The hubris and condescension that emanates from lawmakers who tell us that in spite of the majority of their constituents demanding impeachment and accountability, they know better and are ignoring our demands for our own good are infuriating and nauseating. They, like the President, are putting themselves above the constrictions of the Constitution and think that they are wise Pooh-Bahs, when they are nothing more than puppets for the corporate oligarchy for whom most of our government functions.
We are running to take back our country from the political parties who have squandered and misdirected our resources, destroyed any veneer of respectability that might have survived the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years and have cast us into the darkness of endless war against an ethereal enemy.
The following is an op-ed I wrote that appears in today's Times-Argus, for which I am suitably braced for much grief. In fact, I promise to keep my mouth shut in the comments...
The Vermont Impeachment Movement has taken many forms over the last year-and-a-half. At its best, it represented a political cross-section of Vermonters, united in little more than their view that President Bush had broken the law and should be removed from office. At its worst, it's been an echo chamber inhabited by a handful of activists with axes to grind against virtually everyone else inhabiting the political system.
The announcement that "the Impeachment Movement" has decreed that Rep. Peter Welch is contemptuous of the Constitution because he doesn't agree with them and must be punished in November by facing an "impeachment" candidate (who, of course, would only take office after Bush was gone) suggests that the echo chamber is all that remains.
I, for one, am saddened. I was among the earliest organizers of the impeachment movement that swept Democratic Committees last year, demanding action from the Vermont Legislature. When our efforts merged with activist Dan DeWalt's town meeting movement, I was thrilled.
But gradually, we Democrats who had started the legislative push found ourselves marginalized. When our own party's leadership spurned us, they created a leadership vacuum that was filled by activists with a different agenda ? one quickly made known to us in no uncertain terms. As Welch dealt with all of us honorably ? bringing our shared concerns to the House floor even though he disagreed ? it seemed clear that the fix was already in. Behind the scenes and before the cameras, Welch became the whipping boy for an increasingly shrill, politically exclusive crowd whose real target was anybody they considered to be in the political mainstream and who dared to disagree.
As such, everybody saw this announcement coming a mile away.
There's a sense in which media blogs are dangerous things. One of the reasons for the success of the blogosphere (political and otherwise) is it's personal, often matter-of-fact communication paradigm. Blog entries are conversational, informal, and inevitably (whether intended or not) relay a sense of the person (or at least their "internet side"). Blogs are, after all, online personal journals in which some of us like to wax political, and some just want to discuss their Star Wars memorabilia.
This creates a challenge for traditional media outlets who want a piece of that blogosphere action and send their journalists into the fray. Journalists are supposed to have a professional detatchment from their subjects, but professional detatchment is the very antithesis of political blogspeak. Certainly there are other times when journalists are systemically encouraged to either editorialize, or make full blown ideological crusaders of themselves. One could even say that's the zeitgeist.
But put a beat reporter in that position and things are different. The Vermont political press corps are all blogging these days, potentially providing uncomfortable (but illuminating) views into their own biases and thereby inviting everything from speculation as to whether or not these biases inevitably creep into their reporting, to full-blown criticism.
Well, invitation accepted. I give you Burlington Free Press reporter Terri Hallenbeck and her apparent distaste for Freshman Representative Peter Welch (continued on the flip).
[05-14-07, 1 p.m. There's an update, pulled from the Brattleboro Reformer's report, an accurate soundbite from Peter's response, about 2/3 down below the fold -- NanuqFC]
The basic messages to Rep. Peter Welch at Saturday's White River Junction "town meeting" on impeachment (short, non-repetitive version, exclusive of conspiracy theories and gratuitous heckling): Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable offenses beyond the war in Iraq; your duty to us and to your oath of office is to defend and restore the shredded Constitution and get these guys out; your rationales for avoiding impeachment hold no water.
The basic messages from Rep. Welch to the 200-plus souls in attendance (short, non-repetitive version, exclusive of side issues, litanies of outrages, rephrasings of impeachment as "change direction," and self-serving stories): I agree that B/C have done terrible things to our country; impeachable offenses are whatever 218 Representatives say they are; impeachment is just one tool in the fight for accountability; in my judgment impeachment is the wrong tool because it will delay ending the war; look at all the investigating we're already doing.
Did we change his mind or even cause him to doubt his own entrenchment behind stopping the war first? I doubt it. And, while I hoped that was possible, that's not the only reason I was there.
For those who want exhaustive detail, it's below the fold.
Speaker Symington, finally showing the wisdom to get out of the way of the people that the Governor found at his town meeting, has relented and will permit a floor vote on a House impeachment resolution tomorrow, though she intends to vote against it.
Wonderful. And I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but of course, there was no "gift" here. This was the result of hard work. So I'd like to make a few more points before we let the chips fall where they may.
In her statement on the subject, Symington explained her position on the Legislature's earlier vote calling for an immediate withdrawal of American occupation forces from Iraq:
Despite my general reluctance to debate national issues in the Legislature, I supported this debate and the outcome. I am proud that Vermont was the first state to take such a strong stance against the war.
And it was a strong stance against the war occupation. Very strong. So strong, in fact, that it represents a position considerably more aggressive than that taken by the United States Congress itself. Still, it seemed, at the time, necessary and appropriate for the Vermont Legislature to advise them as to the best means of redressing the harm and injustice this administration has brought to our nation and the havoc it has caused beyond our borders. Didn't it?
Those are exactly my words, though. Those are Speaker Symington's words. But not about the troop withdrawal legislation. Save for one word, "advise," those are the words Symington used in her most recent statement to oppose the impeachment resolution. Except in that statement, it was "second guessing," not "advising." I guess it's all in how you look at it.
Continuing our three days of job assessments of our elected leaders, today focusing on our Washington delegation...
Brand, spankin' new US Representative Peter Welch has been a busy guy. He's been pushing climate change issues, as well as making a concerted effort to take up the mantle of Defender of Veterans that his predecessor Bernie wore for so long. On the other hand, being in the House has brought the issue of funding the war directly to him, and although he's signed on to the more aggressive bills on the floor, many activists have criticized him for supporting the Iraq supplemental. There's also the inescapable fact that the guy just seems to rub some people the wrong way.
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):
I've had enough of people (who purport to be liberal) who can look at an amazing, spontaneous, truly grassroots statewide movement that brings together Dems, Progs, Independents and even the more radical left, and only roll their eyes and see a pain in their ass that will complicate their schedules.
I've had enough of waiting for some real leaders who can take this energy and pull us together - even over disagreements - rather than ignore, scold or berate folks for not shutting up and letting them drive.
I've had enough of people whose support for any officeholder rises and falls on a single issue, or on whether or not that officeholder does things exactly the way you demand they should.
I've had enough of people who are more interested in sticking it to politicians they don't like than to support them in helping people who need it.
I've had enough of attacking the wrong people (especially when those leading the attack, as it were, are merely using the opportunity to promote their own rumored political ambitions, such as this one and this one)
I'm one of those people who's participated in quite a few marches in my lifetime, and with the exception of one that landed me in jail, I always leave them with an empty feeling, that although there was a 'support group/community' feeling to be gained from it, the reality is that the people in power could really care less about us marching in the streets. And half of the time, many on the left have a bit of a focus problem, in that instead of staying on task with a single-minded objective, we get the Free Palestine/Mumia/The Whales/Go Vegan/insert-liberal-cause here crowd, and it dilutes the message. So I've resolved not to do it anymore. Sure, I'm jaded. I'm not saying you shouldn't continue to do it, it's just not for me anymore.
One complaint we've heard is that Iraq protesters don't really go far enough. Some people have singled out the people who vigil in front of the Federal Building in Montpelier every week. Although I thoroughly respect the people who do it, and would never say they shouldn't, I am inclined to agree with the critics in terms of its lack of any real effectiveness.
It's a much different world than it was thirty years ago. The idea of civil disobedience, of really laying one's body on the line, sometimes at the risk of bodily harm was something that, up until recently, has had a rich tradition in the United States, and you don't have to go back to Henry Thoreau to see it. Just go back 30 or 40 years.
Well, anyways, thankfully, some people haven't forgotten. Enter the Occupation Project. The O.P. is a coalition of several anti-war organizations such as Veterans for Peace, United for Peace and Justice, CODE PINK, and many others, whose objective is :
"a campaign of sustained nonviolent civil disobedience aimed at ending the U.S. war in and occupation of Iraq. The campaign will begin the first week of February 2007 with occupations at the offices of Representatives and Senators who refuse to pledge to vote against additional war funding."
And to those of you who are hungering for a more direct, somewhat confrontational activism, the Occupation Project has targeted Peter Welch's office, this Wednesday, March 21st. They'll be meeting at at the Peace and Justice Center in Burlington at noon, where they will then proceed to Peter Welch's office. Anyone of our readers that attend, please post a diary with your experiences, if you feel so inclined.
Note: I realize I'm going to catch some hell for this from some people. My posting this is simply because there are people that think Welch hasn't gone far enough, and would be interested in this. I personally think Welch has done okay on the war, but could definitely be more visible and strong, so spare me the tongue-lashing. It's definitely VT political news, and therefore appropriate.
Rep. Peter Welch: It's easy to see the minefield Welch is in, simply by looking at the latest Danziger cartoon in yesterday's Times Argus/Rutland Herald (check the "Rainville '08" alongside the signature). Welch made the Iraq War the centerpiece of his campaign. After his campaign at Democratic gatherings, he forcefully and passionately continued the theme. Now that proposals for ending the war are coming almost daily, the term "non-binding resolution" has already become farcical, not simply among the activist left, but within the US Congress itself. Welch currently looks like he's standing still, signing onto non-binding bills that seemed like yesterday's news before the ink was dry. While his ideas on Global Warming are important, it is clear that - due to his own campaign strategy - his stance on the War will be the issue that defines his first term, both among his supporters and his Republican opponents. It may seem unfair to Team Welch that things are moving so quickly, but them's the breaks - and again, Welch brought them on himself. Add to that the fact that Senator Leahy - someone with far more authority to speak on what is and isn't proper and possible in Washington - is now on the leading edge of the issue through the Feingold-Boxer-Leahy bill, I suspect Welch has until the end of the month to join him on that edge and match his own campaign rhetoric. Any longer than that and - even if he does come around to the Leahy position - he will be tagged as having done it grudgingly and only under public duress (in other words, the "phony" label)Done.
The Governor: Letting himself pop at reporters last week was a big mistake. As I've argued, I don't think it wasn't truly uncharacteristic in quality (he's always gotten nasty), but unexpected in quantity (insofar as he doesn't lose it to such a degree). The dude needs to watch himself. This is not the same Vermont press corps anymore. The rapid turnovers are changing the nature of reporting and whatever institutional buddiness exists between the fourth estate and the administration. Gone are Chris Graff and Darren Allen, for example - and the Governor is likely to find himself held to far higher scrutiny before the likes of Porter and Hallenbeck.
It's January 31st, a month into freshman US Rep. Peter Welch's first term in Washington, breaking in a staff, familiarizing himself with the process, getting settled and acquainted with his colleagues, learning who's who and what's what in the middle of the biggest Washington power shift in 15 years.
And apparently, if you surf Vermont blogs (and yes, that includes the traditional media blogs), you'll find he is all washed up. Done. Kaput. He's already defeated by a Green candidate. He's a phony. A Bush cheerleader. Turning his back on all his campaign promises.
It's so obviously absurd, it's actually started to get kind of funny, in an embarrassment-humor sort of way.
