<!–ARTICLE BODY TEXT–> Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton's campaign is sending three paid staffers to Vermont and opening a campaign office in the state this week, former Gov. Madeleine Kunin said Monday.
That's all I have on this so far. I'm working on getting contact information for the Vermont staff, and I'll post it when I get it.
You undoubtedly know that one of the big issues this year is whether marijuana should be legalized, decriminalized, or whether the current regime of prohibition should in some other way be rationalized.
Now, we have two new voices against a rational drug policy in Vermont: Lite Gov Brian Dubie and Barre Mayor Tom Lauzon. Sure, it's been a long time since we've heard anything from Dubie, except for what job he might be up for in the Bush Administration, but he's in the news again, standing up for marijuana prohibition.
The marijuana bill that passed the Senate this week was different, he said, because attention about the issue was ricocheting through Vermont, and sending what he sees as the wrong message.
Dubie held a rare news conference Friday to say he'll work to change a bill that would allow first- and second-time offenders with an ounce or less of marijuana to go through court diversion without the possibility of jail time, taking that decision out of the hands of the prosecutor.
. . .
So what? Lauzon's a mayor, he has to be concerned about law enforcement in his city, and that might involve drug issues, right?
It's just that this isn't the first time we've heard from Lauzon about marijuana. In fact, it was less than a year ago that the new mayor of Barre was taking public positions on drugs. What do you think he said back then?
Well, he was saying that we should adopt the death penalty for drug dealers. Yes, the death penalty. Vermont doesn't execute murderers, kidnappers, rapists, child rapists, or people who refuse to dim their high beams (and we really need to get on those guys!), but he wants to execute drug dealers.
Potheads, on the other hand? Las year he was calling for legalization of marijuana–not decriminalization, but legalization. He was right then, except for the capital punishment thing, but it struck more than a few people that this was a bizarre combination of positions. Now, less than a year later, what gives?
Lauzon said, “I think there should be stiffer penalties for drugs.”
He said he is willing to consider reduced penalties for some marijuana cases if it's part of a larger discussion about the state's overall drug policy.
I agree that we should have a larger discussion about drug policy. Somehow, I don't think that executing drug dealers should be part of it, though.
The Obama campaign has hit Vermont!
That’s right, they arrived tonight, and I met some of them at the 40th birthday party for our proprietor over at the Labor Hall.
Fresh from their stints in New Hampshire and Maine, I met Rob Hill, the Obama State Director, and Emily Polak, the field organizer for Washington, Orange, and Caledonia Counties. As you might guess, Rob and Emily are young, smart, and enthusiastic. Who wouldn’t be enthusiastic with the momentum they’ve got going?
The Obama campaign in Vermont has a state director and six field organizers, and I think some other staffers (it was hard to hear over the sounds of Sugar Shack but hey, I’m not going to complain about the chance to hear Scarlet Begonias, Cumberland Blues, and other Dead classics), and they’re planning on a phone banking and door-to-door campaign from now to Town Meeting Day.
They didn’t tell me this is okay, but if you are fired up and ready to go, you can contact them at rhillATSYMBOLbarackobama.com and epolakATSYMBOLbarackobama.com
More news that the Vermont secession movement is history:
By John Curran Associated Press
We've talked about this a lot here, and to get a lot of the back story you can also hop over to Vermont Secession.
I didn't know this was happening, but apparently the neo-confederates and assorted shallow thinkers who've been dreaming about secession have been trying to get the idea on the ballot across the state for Town Meeting Day. You know, the organ of democracy, where the Bush/Cheney impeachment movement was advanced a couple of hears ago?
Yup, I didn't know about it and probably neither did you, even if, like me, you live in one of the sixteen towns they tried to get the issue on the ballot.
I guess this isn't surprising, since they could barely attract twenty people to their banquet last month.
If they do the right thing, and just fade away like any number of fringe movements, I can't say I'll miss them.
Remember last summer when the Brattleboro police decided that the best way to deal with peaceful demonstrators was to turn on the juice? 25,000-25,000 volts' worth.It caused a lot of stir, and got a lot of coverage right here. So much that the town decided to launch an investigation of police practices.
Now the investigation is complete, and it may be no surprise to you that the investigation concluded that the police were guilty of using excessive force in their actions.
Consultant: Taser use was 'excessive'
The report and the Town Manager's memo to the select board are available online.
Cross posted from Rational Resistance
Okay, let’s take a minute to assess where things stand. Yesterday was Super Duper Tuesday, and Clinton and Obama are essentially dead even in delegate count, 580-571, out of 2,025 needed for the nomination (I’m not counting the super delegates, since they are not committed).
They have basically hit half the states and have half to go.
And now today, we have two news stories that it’s hard not to connect.
Clinton lent $5 million to her campaign before Super Tuesday
Obama Campaign Has Raised Over $4 Million — Since Polls Closed Yesterday!
Coming out of Super Tuesday, every campaign wants to spin the day as a win. Still, if Clinton’s campaign is running on fumes and Obama is taking money to the bank in bushel baskets, it’s at least suggestive that the winds are turning Obama’s way.
Does this say something about the priorities of the Bush Administration?
Vt. civil rights panel languishes, due to federal inaction
February 5, 2008 By Daniel Barlow VERMONT PRESS BUREAU MONTPELIER –
You're familiar with the argument about Anthony Pollina's candidacy, and whether he should get the support of the Democratic Party without running in the Democratic primary. His supporters point out that the law prohibits him from appearing on more than one party's primary ballot, so that if he runs in the Prog primary, which has been his home party for many years, he can't run in the D primary.
Here's the legislative provision of Title 17 in question:
§ 2353. Petitions to place names on ballot
In the absence of this statutory provision, a candidate could decide to enter the P and D primaries, or even more, and run on all the tickets in which he or she won the primary.
The question I would like to raise today is: Would this be a good idea? Should we try to get the Legislature to repeal this provision of law? Are there harmful effects of this change that we would want to pay attention to before we pushed for a change like this?
On the face of it this change seems to make sense to me. On the other hand, I know there are people who pay a lot more to the mechanics and theory of elections and ballots than I do, so other people may have a more informed analysis than mine.
[Update as of 5:30 pm, per CarpetBagger & TPM: Republican cloture motion failed on the FISA bill, 48-45. FOUR D's voted with the R's, and Republican Sen. Arlen Specter voted with the D's. As TPM says, “The fight goes on.”] — NanuqFC
The Vermont Democratic Committee voted unanimously yesterday to call on Vermont Senators Leahy and Sanders to filibuster the version of the FISA extension bill now pending in the United States Senate because it contains the retroactive immunity for illegal wiretapping that has been anathema to defenders of civil liberties.
Although a suspension of the rules was required to even consider the resolution, both the motion to suspend the rules and the vote on the resolution itself were unanimous. Supporters of the resolution, introduced by GMD front-pager Jack McCullough and front-pager emerita Liane Allen, pointed out that the Bush Administration's actions have been illegal, and that giving the telcos retroactive immunity would prevent any investigation into the illegality of their actions.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now also supporting the filibuster, an idea initially voiced by Senator Chris Dodd:
Here's how to contact Senator Leahy:
433 Russell Senate Office Bldg
(at Constitution and Delaware)
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-4242
senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
And Senator Sanders:
| DC Address: | The Honorable Bernie Sanders United States Senate 332 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-4503 |
| DC Phone: | 202-224-5141 |
| DC Fax: | 202-228-0776 |
| Electronic Correspondence: | http://www.sanders.senate.gov/comments/ |
| WWW Homepage: | http://sanders.senate.gov/ |
Also, since this is campaign season, let's contact Clinton and Obama and demand that they return to Washington to support the filibuster.
Here's how to contact them:
http://www.clinton.senate.gov/contact/
http://obama.senate.gov/contact/
The text of the resolution is below the fold.
RESOLUTION ON THE RENEWAL OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE ACT
WHEREAS the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is about to expire, and is
now being considered for renewal by the United States Congress:
And WHEREAS the Bush Administration has used FISA and the so-called USAPATRIOT
Act as an excuse for a wide range of illegal and unconstitutional abuses of
power, including gross violations of the right to privacy and unlawful and warrantless
wiretapping of Americans in their private communications;
And WHEREAS the Bush Administration seeks to prevent investigation into the
illegality of these acts of eavesdropping by pursuing a provision in the pending
legislation that would give telecommunications carriers retroactive immunity to all civil
or criminal penalties for their illegal wiretapping activities;
And WHEREAS prior to any illegal wiretapping by this Administration, legal methods
existed enabling the Administration to wiretap in urgent situations without delay;
And WHEREAS telecommunications carriers do not need legal protection, because laws
already protect them in instances when they comply with legal wiretapping requests by
an Administration;
And WHEREAS telecommunications carriers do not need financial protection, because
mechanisms exist, and have been used before, to protect them from financial ruin;
And WHEREAS telecommunications companies were aware of the wiretapping laws
before they chose to comply with any illegal requests by the Administration;
And WHEREAS at least one major telecommunications company chose to obey the law,
and did not to comply with illegal wiretap requests from the administration;
And WHEREAS some major telecommunications carriers knowingly cooperated with
Administration requests to eavesdrop on the private communications of their customers
in violation of all applicable legal principles;
And WHEREAS some telecommunications companies chose to shut off illegal wire taps
due to unpaid bills, and reinstate those taps when bills were subsequently paid, thus
exposing as false any claims that the taps were being done for either patriotic or security
reasons;
And WHEREAS the illegal wiretapping began before September 11, 2001;
And WHEREAS the Administration, when proposing the immunity falsely claimed that
the illegal wiretapping only occurred after September 11, 2001, for anti-terror purposes;
And WHEREAS under the doctrine of “Congressional ratification,” Congressional
approval of retroactive immunity would also retroactively create in the office of
the President the constitutional authority for extra-legal warrantless surveillance;
And WHEREAS, also under the doctrine of “Congressional ratification” such prior
illegal surveillance would be automatically rendered lawful;
And WHEREAS, due to the doctrine of “Congressional ratification,” the adoption
of the proposed retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies would
thus also provide immunity to the Administration for the Administration’s illegal
actions;
And WHEREAS the Congress has twice considered granting similar immunity:
during the Johnson Administration for banks that had violated merger laws, and
during the Ford Administration for telegraph companies that illegally provided
customer’s private communications to the NSA;
And WHEREAS in both of those instances, the Congress decided not to grant
immunity because of the unjustifiable precedent that would be set;
And WHEREAS the wording of the current bill would make legal past and future
illegal requests by any Administration as long as an official gave an “indication”
to the recipient of the request that the request is “authorized” by the President and
has “been determined lawful” – even if the indication is false;
And WHEREAS the American people voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in the 2006
election to put the brakes on the Bush Administration’s unlawful actions;
And WHEREAS, as a result of that election, the Democratic Party, the historic defender
of civil liberties, now has a majority in both the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives, and consequently has both the opportunity and the duty to restrain the
illegal and unconstitutional activities of the Bush Administration;
And WHEREAS Vermont’s senior Senator, Patrick J. Leahy, has attempted to protect the
civil liberties of Vermonters by introducing a version of this legislation that did not
provide retroactive immunity, which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee but failed on
the floor of the Senate:
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the Vermont State Democratic Committee
that we call upon our Congressional delegation to oppose any legislation that includes
retroactive immunity for telecommunications carriers who participated in illegal
wiretapping activities;
AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that we express our great appreciation for the efforts
of Senators Patrick J. Leahy and Bernard Sanders to protect the civil liberties of
Vermonters and all Americans;
AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that we call upon Senators Patrick J. Leahy and
Bernard Sanders to take any and all actions, up to and including filibuster and opposition
of cloture, to oppose the inclusion of retroactive immunity in any legislation that comes
to the floor of the Senate.
Proposed by John J. McCullough III and Liane Allen
Did you see this story in the paper this morning: MONTPELIER – Some lawmakers were taken aback Thursday when they found out that Gov. James Douglas' proposed budget did not include funding for this year's election”?
Did it sound familiar?
If it did, maybe that's because you read it yesterday over at Philip Baruth's Vermont Daily Briefing:
Hey, I know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but MSM guys: when you pick up the stories that we break, how about giving us credit, huh?
Oh, and great work, Philip!