Doug Racine’s recent suggestion that he may be eyeing a rematch against Jim Douglas did more than throw a wrench into the early calculations of those folks who have been mulling a run themselves, it also wrecked my li’l series of diaries analyzing the potential races. Sheesh.

But the hubbub that has ensued demands some meaningful responses. First of all this notion being bandied about by some Progressives and echoed by Vermont’s Mister-Conventional-Political-Wisdom, Eric Davis (who repeated the idea on the Mark Johnson Show) – that Racine’s public contemplations are simply a Democratic scheme designed to derail Pollina’s fundraising efforts and nothing more – is utter bunk. I’ve known Doug for a while and spoke to him recently about it, and he is seriously considering a run (I know, I know – so much more fun for some to think it’s all part of a grand conspiracy to keep Pollina down. If you’re really in such need for political drama and subterfuge, though, you’ll probably be better off renting The Pelican Brief than counting on Vermont Democrats to provide it).

More worthy of attention are the assertions that Racine (who lost to Douglas by a mere 5,871 votes) was electorally aided by Independent candidate Con Hogan in 2002 (he wasn’t), and that Pollina would be a stronger candidate based on his own statewide record and the supposition that he pull more Republican votes from Douglas than Racine would.

The reason why, for most readers, that this final assertion would seem to fly in the face of reality is because, mathematically, it does. Click on the extended entry for yet another set of numbers, graphs and charts that make the case (I think rather clearly) that, whether or not he is the candidate for you (and there are many things besides simple arithmetic that could and should enter into one’s personal calculus on such matters), the fact is that, in terms of numbers, Racine clearly enters this conversation with the most tangible case for being the strongest candidate of the five mentioned (the other four being Pollina, Galbraith, Campbell and Dunne)

First of all, let me be clear in the interests of full disclosure; if Racine were to jump into this, he’d have my full support. I’d be comfortable with whichever of the names were to emerge from a Democratic primary (and yes, that includes Pollina), and would bust my butt to do everything I could to get them elected, but Doug would be my favorite for a variety of reasons. I know other GMD front pagers feel differently – one in particular who is himself planning a diary putting forward Windsor Senator John Campbell as his preferred option.

But Doug is the only other candidate besides Pollina with an extensive track record in statewide politics. Additionally, he has a more recent track record in the very area that has been kicking Democratic gubernatorial candidate’s butts in recent elections – the conservative suburbs of Chittenden County.

So, that means it’s time for some graphs and charts and stuff… sigh…

First of all, make no mistake – the three way race for Governor helped Jim Douglas. Racine internal polling showed that 60-some percent of Hogan voters would otherwise have voted for Racine, who only lagged Douglas in the final tally by a mere 3%.

I would argue that, in the end, the bleed-off to Hogan was even higher. My own town of Montpelier is an interesting laboratory for the Vermont left, and it’s worth looking at the statewide Constitutional offices that were meaningfully in play that year (Treasurer and AG were non-races), and the vote totals:

In this image, I’ve combined the votes for Pollina and Shumlin in the Lieutenant Governor column. On both the D/P and R ends, you see a very clear range. The Auditor’s race, I would argue, deviates from the range, as Elizabeth Ready was in the throes of her first scandal (the cell phone issue), and that took both her and her opponent out of their partisan baselines. I think the true baseline is a median line between Lite Gov and Secretary of State.

Now look what happens when we drop the Gubernatorial race in:

If the partisan baseline truly is the median between Lt Gov and SoS, it’s clear that Douglas stays within that zone (although barely), while Racine’s votes plunge right out – by an amount very close to the showing of Con Hogan.

Now let’s look at the idea that Pollina can draw more from Republicans than Racine could. We looked at Pollina’s appeal to Republicans in this previous diary and saw that, while real, it’s manifestation in the ’02 Lieutenant Governor race was overstated. More importantly, though, is that it was clearly confined to the counties of Lamoille, Orleans and Caledonia. Here, again, are those numbers:

But Racine has his own regional appeal to Republicans – in the far more populace suburbs of Burlington, where votes would have to be mined in order to close the gap with Douglas statewide. In fact, as shown in this chart, Racine was the highest vote getter in Chittenden County this last election:

More to the point, however, is how well Racine recently did in the conservative enclaves outside Burlington – towns like South Burlington, Shelburne, Milton and Essex. The towns that have dragged on our statewide tickets in recent elections. As you’ll see from this chart, not only did he do well, he was also the highest vote getter in these four towns:

When Pollina ran for statewide office, he didn’t do so well there:

That’s means, in their most recent appearences in these swing towns, Racine collected a whopping 7619 more votes than Pollina did – even racking up 1580 more votes than Pollina and Shumlin combined. This is a bit of apples-to-oranges, as the Senate is a multiple choice ballot, but it shows Racine handily wins the popularity contest where Pollina didn’t by a significant margin.

Sure, you say, Pollina and Shumlin were running against Essex resident Brian Dubie.

Well, Racine has also run against Dubie – in the 2000 Lt. Governor’s race. Here are the numbers they posted in those conservative towns:

In fact, if you look at these numbers compared to his 2002 run against Douglas:

It seems likely that what everyone said was true: Racine underperformed, and hemorrhaged votes to spoiler Hogan, who hurt him badly.

But Douglas’s political star is clearly beginning to wane, with the recent WCAX poll showing, as I said at the time:

No two ways about it: the recent WCAX gubernatorial poll is huge. Here are Jim Douglas's re-elect numbers:

42 percent said they'd vote to re-elect Jim Douglas.

33 percent said they'd replace him.

25 percent said they were not sure.

Roper & company are trying to be blase about it, but this is a dramatic sea change. At this point in the last two cycles, Douglas's re-elect numbers were in the 60's. What's more ominous for the GOP is the significance of that number, which they no doubt recognize: 42%. It's roughly the mean, historical, hardcore GOP voting block that their statewides can depend on cycle after cycle. That's what he's down to, in terms of firm support.

…and in the meantime, with Racine posting higher numbers in these areas than ever in his career, his own cache with this group is clearly on the rise in a real, measurable way. The same cannot be mathematically demonstrated for Pollina, who has seemed to historically have very little interest in these areas. His limited strength in the northeast kingdom (and presumed increased numbers in Windham without Shumlin on the ballot) would be hard pressed to offset weakness in outer Chittenden, while simultaneously being expected to offset his questionable numbers in the rest of the state outside Washington County

Now any one of these arguments could be questioned. Racine was the popular incumbent when Dubie ran against him, while Dubie was the incumbent when Pollina and Shumlin ran against him. Time has passed since Racine was on a statewide ballot.

But when every argument mathematically suggests (if not truly concluding) on its face that Racine would be stronger, the individual “buts” start to lose meaning – and that’s because you’re looking at a trend. A systemic indication, and that becomes very hard to refute. And when you look again at the population spread, its clear that Chittenden County is where those votes are so badly needed, just as a matter of pure quantity. Pollina’s claim to a huge wave of support in Lamoille, Orleans and Caledonia counties is just too soft to offset the undeniable gains Racine would provide in suburban Chittenden, in my own opinion.

Racine’s appeal would cross from the liberal camp into that of the moderates, and there are many moderate business owners who would likely abandon Douglas for Racine, who they see as one of their own. Liberals would likely trust that Racine is on their side, even if he were to sometimes deviate from the liberal line. He, more than most, could hold together a left-center coalition, while Pollina would depend on a left-disaffected right coalition, Campbell and Galbraith would have a hard time establishing name recognition so late in the game, and Dunne would largely be an x-factor.

As I say, “electability” should hardly be the prime motivator in one’s choice of a horse to back. Hell, it maybe shouldn’t even make the top ten.

But don’t fool yourself about who has the mathematical mojo working for him among the current crop of pretenders, for whatever it’s worth.

UPDATE: TPM reports this disturbingly mushy response from our Senior Senator who is near the top of the list of Democratic Senators being disrespected and disregarded by Majority Leader Reid:

Sounds to me like Leahy is laying the groundwork for looking the other way. The fact is, anything short of supporting Dodd’s filibuster is double-talk that should be considered insulting to Vermonters’ intelligence. ( /update)

I hate the celebrity political-blather thing. And I also hated The West Wing (yeah, that’s right, Sorkin’s a poseur who wouldn’t know a real leftist if they laid down in front of his Hummer singing “We Shall Overcome”… so sue me), but if you won’t listen to me, maybe you’ll listen to this West Wing guy:

This may have to be, not your garden variety, vote-against-cloture filibuster, but a good old fashioned, Hollywood, talk-it-to-death and embarrass the leadership filibuster.

Because the problem here, again, is the leadership. Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has upheld the tradition of individual Senators placing holds on legislation on behalf of the craziest Republicans like Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn (who still has a holds on bills, such as the one that would help prevent suicides among veterans), has decided to essentially spit in the eye of Democratic Senator Chris Dodd and ignore his hold on the FISA bill.

What’s wrong with the FISA bill? Well, the one that came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee isn’t quite as bad, as Senator Leahy stripped the provision that allows for retroactive immunity of telephone companies that broke the law doing Bush’s bidding on warrantless wiretaps of American citizens – but for whatever reason, Senator Harry Reid is bound and determined to get his campaign contributors their immunity. Can’t imagine why (/snark).

This cannot stand. And as far as I’m concerned, it’s the last straw for Harry Reid, who has lost any and all moral authority to lead the Senate. He needs to be out on his ass, the sooner, the better. I hope to god somebody finds a primary challenger for him in Nevada.

Contact info below the fold…

Here’s the contact info for Sanders and Leahy:

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

District Offices:

1 Church Street, 2nd Floor

Burlington, VT 05401 Voice: 800-339-9834

FAX: 802-860-6370

Burlington office

36 Chickering Drive, Suite 103

Brattleboro, VT 05301 Voice: 802-254-8732

FAX: 802-254-9207

Brattleboro office

2 Spring Street, Suite 1

Montpelier, VT 05602 Voice: 802-223-2241

FAX: 802-229-5734

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy

United States Senate

433 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510-4502

DC Phone: 202-224-4242

DC Fax: 202-224-3479

Email Address: senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

District Offices:

199 Main Street, 4th Floor

Burlington, VT 05401 Voice: 800-642-3193

87 State Street, PO Box 933

Montpelier, VT 05602 Voice: 802-229-0569

And here’s how to contact Senators Obama, Clinton and Biden, all of whom have said they would support Dodd’s filibuster (we’ll see…)

Obama campaign: (866) 675-2008

Clinton campaign: 703-469-2008

Biden campaign: (302) 574-2008

And finally, here’s Reid’s contact info. Give him a piece of your mind, if you’re so inclined:

The Honorable (sic) Harry Reid

United States Senate

528 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510-2803

DC Phone: 202-224-3542

DC Fax: 202-224-7327

Email Address: http://reid.senate.gov/contact…

Has the modern GOP devolved into a party of monsters?

In the face of yet another Republican (Missouri Senator Kit Bond) not merely tolerating torture, but actually celebrating it, Hunter at dKos has a grim diary up that poses the question. Here’s an excerpt:

The Republican party has devolved into unapologetic supporters of violence on all levels. Torture, war: it is all the same. Watching the Republican primaries, what stands out the most is how eager to please all candidates are, when it comes to issues of violence, and how ravenously the audiences consume any such expressions. You will get applause for declaring that you will double the internment of prisoners; you will be booed if you dare say you will reform it. You will get applause for spinning tales of ticking clocks, imminent mushroom clouds, and the justifications for torturing anyone who may yet turn out to be entirely innocent and unknowledgeable; you will be a lone, fuming onstage exception, if you object to such tactics. It is not that Republicans are merely supportive of detention without charge, or of torture, or of prisoner abuse, or of war itself; they have given themselves over to all those things in service of pandering to a more base primality. It does not pay to think, anymore, only to passionately hate, and wound, and seek revenge. That is what it takes, to rally the God party.

Yesterday, Jonah Goldberg gave one of his charming College Republicans presentations, “All I am Saying is Give War a Chance”, in which he was to give forth on the “costs, necessities, consequences, and benefits of war”. This should be mildly eyebrow raising, as I have never once heard anyone give a student lecture exploring “The Case For Rape”, or “The Case For Mugging”, even though I would imagine you could reuse most of the same material: each uses violence to unapologetically force a weaker party into doing what you want of them. If you wanted to make a case for mere self defense, you would not make a case for the benefits of war — for bloodshed as a way to gain actual advantage.

Where are the Republicans who still pretend at morality? Why don’t we hear from them? Human nature being what it is, I’m sure they’re out there. How can they allow themselves to be cowed into this kind of grisly party line?

I honestly don’t understand it.

UPDATE: I’ve included the text of Leahy’s statement opening the meeting, as well as the text of the motion below the fold…

From Reuters, via TPM:

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Thursday to hold two top aides to President George W. Bush in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate in its probe of fired federal prosecutors.

On a largely party-line vote of 11-7, the Democratic-led panel sent contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove to the full Senate for consideration.

As Reuters correctly points out, its likely Republicans will continue to block any meaningful follow-through, but we are, to an extent, into uncharted territory now. Will Leahy and the Senate Democrats be content to let Bush wind down the clock on the matter in the Courts, or would there be movements towards inherent contempt, which would bypass the courts?

It seems unlikely that the Democratic leadership would have the stomach for a full-blown Constitutional battle. We’ll see. I expect there’ll be a statement from Leahy’s office anytime, and I’ll post it when there is as an update to this diary.

Opening Statement of Chairman Patrick Leahy

Executive Business Meeting

December 13, 2007

This week we have held three more important hearings before the Committee.  I have noticed two more hearings next week to consider several of the President’s Executive Branch nominees.  Regrettably, many of those announced for top Justice Department positions were not, in fact, nominated when announced, and even after those nominations were finally received, many still lack the necessary background checks and materials necessary to be considered.  We are proceeding expeditiously with the nomination of Mark Filip to be the Deputy Attorney General and will hear from him next Wednesday.  I noticed that hearing immediately upon receiving the nomination and background materials.  

This week’s agenda includes a number of items I had hoped the Committee would have considered last week but that were carried over.  We begin with the resolutions arising from the failures of Karl Rove and the President’s chief of staff to honor this Committee’s subpoenas.  As the Ranking Member has said, when we issue subpoenas, we need to follow up.  We have worked together during the last week to modify the language in the resolutions and I believe we can proceed efficiently this morning to consider and approve those items.  The White House’s blanket claims of executive privilege and immunity are insufficient to excuse current and former White House employees from appearing, testifying and producing documents related to this Committee’s investigation.  Having been directed to comply with the Committees’ subpoenas, they have not done so and now we must take the next steps to enforce the Committee’s subpoenas.  This is not a step I have wanted to take – in fact, I have tried for many months to find ways to work with the White House and avoid a confrontation.  

The President has not accepted responsibility for the firings or given any indication that he was involved in White House efforts to politicize federal law enforcement.  Instead, the White House line is that “mistakes were made.”  Apparently no one, least of all the President, is responsible, yet somehow executive privilege supposedly applies to cloak all White House activities and communication in regards to these firings affecting the independence and integrity of federal law enforcement from oversight.

The White House counsel asserts that executive privilege covers all documents and information in the possession of the White House.  They have gone further and claimed absolute immunity even to have to appear and respond to this Committee’s subpoenas for Mr. Rove and Mr. Bolten.  And they contend that their blanket claim of privilege cannot be tested but must be accepted by the Congress as the last word.  Their views of the unitary and all powerful Executive know no bounds.

The position taken by this White House in refusing to turn over documents or allow White House officials and former officials to testify is a dramatic break from the practices of every administration since World War II in responding to congressional oversight.  In that time, presidential advisers have testified before congressional committees 74 times, either voluntarily or compelled by subpoenas.

Executive privilege should not be invoked to prevent investigations into wrongdoing, and certainly should not prevail.  These resolutions are an effort to provide a fuller account and accountability.  We should act to protect Congress’ ability to conduct oversight and the right of the American people to learn the whole truth about the U.S. Attorney firings.

During the past week we have learned that the CIA destroyed videotapes of detainee interrogations.  That revelation is leading to another investigation.  As the Ranking Member on this Committee from 2001 through 2005, I was not informed of the existence of the videotapes or of their destruction.  I do not believe the Republican Chairmen were either.  I have repeatedly sought information about the Administration’s interrogations of detainees, including in connection with the consideration of the Mukasey nomination and my October 25, 2007, letter to the White House counsel.  We continue doing so. This week Senator Specter and I jointly wrote the Attorney General seeking information relevant to the tapes, their destruction and the preliminary inquiry now underway within the Executive Branch.  Surely, Congress must retain the authority to investigate and even subpoena relevant information without being foreclosed by blanket claims of executive privilege.  I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the Vermont’s Rutland Herald about the destruction of these tapes be included in the record.  

We will next turn to Senator Specter’s bill to use the legal concept of substitution as an alternative to retroactive immunity in connection with the warrantless wiretapping of Americans contrary to law from 2001.  I commend his constructive effort and look forward to that discussion.

Also on our agenda is our bipartisan bill to adjust judicial pay.  I introduced this bipartisan legislation with Senators Hatch, Feinstein, Graham, Reid, and McConnell almost six months ago.  It was the first bill introduced on this matter following the plea from the Chief Justice at the beginning of the year.  This bill would authorize an increase in federal judicial salaries to recognize the important constitutional role judges play in administering justice, interpreting our laws, and providing the ultimate check and balance in our system of government.  Since 1969, the salaries of federal judges have significantly declined when adjusted for inflation.  

Eight years ago, Congress saw fit to double the President’s salary to $400,000 a year.  We are not proposing to increase judges’ salaries by 100 percent, but by half that.  Our democracy and the rights we enjoy depend on a strong and independent Judiciary.  Surely we can do half as much for the judicial branch of government as we did for the Executive eight years ago.   This was a key subject in the Chief Justice’s annual report for this year and I would like this Committee to act on it today.  

I trust that the Republican holdover of the bill for the reauthorization of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children will not portend further delay and that we can consider and report that measure without complications.

I urge all Members who have not yet arrived to come and participate with us in the work of the Committee.

# # # # #

RESOLUTION

Authorizing the President of the Senate to certify the facts of the failure of Joshua Bolten, as the Custodian of Records at the White House, to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary and produce documents as required by Committee subpoena.

WHEREAS, since the beginning of this Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee has conducted an investigation into the removal of United States Attorneys;

WHEREAS, the Committee’s requests for information related to its investigation, including documents and testimony from the White House and White House personnel, were denied;

WHEREAS, the White House has not offered any accommodation or compromise to provide the information requested that is acceptable to the Committee;

WHEREAS, on April 12, 2007, pursuant to its authority under Rule 26 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary authorized issuance to the Custodian of Records at the White House, a subpoena which commands the Custodian of Records to provide the Committee with all documents in the possession, control, or custody of the White House related to the Committee’s investigation;

WHEREAS, on June 13, 2007, the Chairman issued a subpoena pursuant to the April 12, 2007, authorization to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten as the White House Custodian of Records, for documents related to the Committee’s investigation, with a return date of June 28, 2007;

WHEREAS, on June 28, 2007, in response to subpoenas for documents issued by the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, White House Counsel Fred Fielding conveyed the President’s claim of executive privilege over all information in the custody and control of the White House related to the Committee’s investigation;

WHEREAS, based on this claim of executive privilege, Mr. Bolten refused to appear and produce documents to the Committee in compliance with the subpoena;

WHEREAS, on June 29, 2007, the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees provided the White House with an opportunity to substantiate its privilege claims by providing the Committees with the specific factual and legal bases for its privilege claims regarding each document withheld and a privilege log to demonstrate to the Committees which documents, and which parts of those documents, are covered by any privilege that is asserted to apply and why;  

WHEREAS, the White House declined this opportunity in a July 9, 2007, letter to the Committee Chairmen from Mr. Fielding, while reiterating the privilege claim;

WHEREAS, on August 17, 2007, Mr. Fielding rejected the Chairman’s request for a meeting with the President to work out an accommodation for the information sought by the Committee;

WHEREAS, on November 29, 2007, the Chairman ruled that the White House’s claims of executive privilege and immunity are not legally valid to excuse current and former White House employees from appearing, testifying and producing documents related to this investigation and directed Mr. Bolten, along with other current and former White House employees, to comply immediately with the Committee’s subpoenas by producing documents and testifying;

WHEREAS, Mr. Bolten has not complied with the Committee’s subpoenas or made any offer to cure his previous noncompliance;

WHEREAS, the Committee’s investigation is pursuant to the constitutional legislative, oversight and investigative powers of Congress and the responsibilities of this Committee to the Senate and the American people; including the power to: 1) investigate the administration of existing laws, and obtain executive branch information in order to consider new legislation, within the Committee’s jurisdiction, including legislation related to the appointment of U.S. Attorneys; 2) expose any corruption, inefficiency, and waste within the executive branch; 3) protect the Committee’s role in evaluating nominations pursuant to the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent; and 4)  examine whether inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading testimony or other information was provided to the Committee;

BE IT RESOLVED, that the President of the Senate certify the facts in connection with the failure of Joshua Bolten, as the Custodian of Records at the White House, though duly summoned, to appear and to produce documents lawfully subpoenaed to be produced before the Committee, under the seal of the United States Senate, to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that Joshua Bolten may be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law.

# # # # #

RESOLUTION

Authorizing the President of the Senate to certify the facts of the failure of Karl Rove to appear and testify before the Committee on the Judiciary and to produce documents as required by Committee subpoena.

WHEREAS, since the beginning of this Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee has conducted an investigation into the removal of United States Attorneys;

WHEREAS, the Committee’s requests for information related to its investigation, including documents and testimony from the White House and White House personnel, were denied;

WHEREAS, the White House has not offered any accommodation or compromise to provide the requested information that is acceptable to the Committee;

WHEREAS, on March 22, 2007, pursuant to its authority under Rule 26 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary authorized issuance to Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff to the President, subpoenas in connection with the Committee’s investigation;

WHEREAS, on June 28, 2007, in response to subpoenas for documents issued by the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, White House Counsel Fred Fielding conveyed the President’s claim of executive privilege over all information in the custody and control of the White House related to the Committee’s investigation;

WHEREAS, on June 29, 2007, the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees provided the White House with an opportunity to substantiate its privilege claims by providing the Committees with the specific factual and legal bases for its privilege claims regarding each document withheld and a privilege log to demonstrate to the Committees which documents, and which parts of those documents, are covered by any privilege that is asserted to apply and why;  

WHEREAS, the White House declined this opportunity in a July 9, 2007, letter to the Committee Chairmen from Mr. Fielding, while reiterating the blanket privilege claims;

WHEREAS, on July 26, 2007, the Chairman issued a subpoena authorized March 22 to Mr. Rove for documents and testimony related to the Committee’s investigation, with a return date of August 2;

WHEREAS, the Chairman noticed an August 2, 2007, Judiciary Committee hearing under its Rules at which Mr. Rove was subpoenaed to testify;  

WHEREAS, Mr. Fielding, in an August 1, 2007 letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member, informed the Committee that the President would invoke a claim of executive privilege and a claim of immunity from congressional testimony for Mr. Rove, and directed Mr. Rove not to produce responsive documents or testify before the Committee about the firings, and that Mr. Rove would not appear in response to the Committee’s subpoena;

WHEREAS, based on these claims of executive privilege and absolute immunity,

Mr. Rove refused to appear or to produce documents or to testify at the Committee’s August 2, 2007, hearing in compliance with the subpoena;

WHEREAS, on August 17, 2007, Mr. Fielding rejected the Chairman’s request for a meeting with the President to work out an accommodation for the information sought by the Committee;

WHEREAS, on November 29, 2007, the Chairman ruled that the White House’s claims of executive privilege and immunity are not legally valid to excuse current and former White House employees from appearing, testifying and producing documents related to this investigation and directed Mr. Rove, along with other current and former White House employees, to comply immediately with the Committee’s subpoenas by producing documents and testifying;

WHEREAS, Mr. Rove has not complied with the Committee’s subpoenas or made any offer to cure his previous noncompliance;

WHEREAS, the Committee’s investigation is pursuant to the constitutional legislative, oversight and investigative powers of Congress and the responsibilities of this Committee to the Senate and the American people; including the power to: 1) investigate the administration of existing laws, and obtain executive branch information in order to consider new legislation, within the Committee’s jurisdiction, including legislation related to the appointment of U.S. Attorneys; 2) expose any corruption, inefficiency, and waste within the executive branch; 3) protect the Committee’s role in evaluating nominations pursuant to the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent; and 4)  examine whether inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading testimony or other information was provided to the Committee;

BE IT RESOLVED, that the President of the Senate certify the facts in connection with the failure of Karl Rove, though duly summoned, to appear and testify before the Judiciary Committee and to produce documents lawfully subpoenaed to be produced before the Committee, under the seal of the United States Senate, to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that Karl Rove may be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law.

Seven Days continues its recent track record of fantastic articles, and this week’s has a lot of material to mine for discussion. Of particular note is the article that highlights the extraordinary work of nuclear power experts (and anti-Vermont Yankee activists) Arnie and Maggie Gunderson, who have so often been lauded over at VDB. From 7 Days:

Of late, troubling new questions have arisen about whether there will be enough money to dismantle the Vermont Yankee nuclear power station in Vernon when it reaches the end of its useful life. Many of those questions have been raised by Margaret and Arnold Gundersen, two longtime nuclear-industry experts living in Burlington.

In interviews and a recently released white paper, the Gundersens contend that Vermont Yankee’s current owner, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY), has not met its legal obligation of setting aside money to decommission the plant when the time comes to shut it down, clean it up, dispose of its radioactive material, and return the site to its natural state.

The Gundersons have prepared this prodigious report on their own time and on their own dime, and it concludes, as Seven Days states, that “Vermont and its rate-payers could be facing “two equally bleak alternatives”: One, ENVY could declare bankruptcy and leave the future cost of decommissioning the plant to Vermonters. Two, environmental remediation of the site could be delayed for years – possibly decades – leaving highly toxic material in the Connecticut River flood plain until enough money accrues in the fund to pay for its disposal.”

The Gunderson’s efforts deserve more attention than I have time to give them in this diary, so I encourage folks to check out the article and read the entire white paper, generously provided for public viewing. Check it out. Good (if scary and disturbing) stuff.

After catching endless flak on his weird power grab in Windsor County, where he ordered all drug offenses brought directly to the Attorney General’s office, (circumnavigating the Windsor County State’s Attorney Bobby Sand because he opted to send a first time marijuana offender to court diversion) Governor Douglas has decided to back off.

Evidently, when it came out that he didn’t give a damn when, a few days earlier, a more extreme case involving 110 marijuana plants in Orange County was also sent to diversion (the Orange County prosecutor is a Republican, Sand is a popular Democrat – you do the math), the political reek was so extreme and so brazen, even Douglas decided it might be best to backpedal and try to put the mess behind him. He has now rescinded his order that the State Police bypass Sand’s office.

But he can’t quite let it go. From VPR:

(Douglas) “The state’s attorney in Windsor County indicated that he has moved on from what appeared to be a blanket policy of deferring first-time marijuana cases, regardless of quantity. He has met with local law enforcement officers and indicated that henceforward he will talk with them about these cases before making a decision as to how to dispose of them.

Oh really, Governor?

(Sand) “I indicated to governor’s counsel in an email that we don’t have any type of blanket policy in Windsor County and we never had and we never will have with regard to marijuana cases.

This kind of schoolyard BS should be beneath Vermont’s Governor.

It’s become the mantra of the netroots, personified on the long-term, systemic end of the spectrum by DailyKos, and on the more immediate end by the fine folks at OpenLeft (which has been my favorite national blog of late). The netroots is clearly a phenomenon born, bred and thriving in the trenches of the Democratic Party grassroots infrastructure – redefining that infrastructure both culturally and functionally at an astonishing pace.

The founding culture of this site is no different. In fact, when I had the first conversations about the blog with Jack, Ed and David, I had three notions in mind; in the short term, I wanted to promote the hell out of the nascent “Rutland Resolution” impeachment movement, but in the longer term, I wanted to play catch-up with the rest of the country on effecting public dialogue in Vermont the way new media is effecting it nationally, but also on this grassroots transformation taking place within the Democratic Party elsewhere.

The soundbite summation of that goal is this netroots catchphrase, “more, better Democrats.” I think it might be interesting to dissect that a bit. In the face of the groundwork being laid for the inevitable capitulation of the National Democratic Leadership on Iraq funding (again), it would seem timely.

The phrase sums up the transformational goal. More Dems is not in and of itself a worthy target, we have to make them better. The need to promote “better” Dems is an implicit recognition that the greater Democratic political culture and leadership is in need of improvement. The tone on all of these blogs put the urgency to that sentiment.

What’s also implicit is that there are “better” Dems, and worse Dems. What I like about the phrase is that, in three simple words, it rejects the idea that anyone in Washington (or elsewhere) who calls themselves a “Dem” can be reduced to a simple, institutional generalization (bad or good). It implicitly recognizes that there’s a spectrum. In doing so, it makes each individual candidate and elected official accountable for their individual actions to their individual constituents, rather than making them each fully accountable for the collective sins of their Party-mates. This is, of course, what so often makes many third-party promoters so incensed at these blogs, as they’re predicated on the sort of individual accountability model that is incompatible with one of their primary rhetorical tools; the assignment of partisan collective responsibility.

Other third-party promoters are driven to their stances based on rejections of this sort of collectivist mindset. Many of those are often surprisd to find themselves very much at home among the netroots, despite sometimes considerable disagreements over policy. Many more are someplace in between, and find themselves simultaneously drawn to, and leery of, netroots sites like this one.

But “more, better Democrats” also sets up twin goals that may or may not always be in concert. Is Kos right, that our expectations of Democrats should be based on their districts, and that over time voting in conservative D’s from conservative districts is okay if we’re simutaneously pushing moderate Ds in liberal districts to respond to progressive ideals or get booted out in a primary? Maybe Bowers and Stoller are right, that every Dem everywhere should be pressured to be responsive to the full range of progressive ideals (implicit in that, is the idea that in every district that could possibly elect a Dem, there’s a latent progressive culture to be nurtered and allowed to blossom)?

For some on this board, the real manifestation of this question is the “will you vote for Hillary if she’s the nominee” question?

Are we on the cultural clock or the electoral clock for progressive change? Both? Neither? What does the mantra “more, better Democrats” mean to you?

Just up from the VT Press Bureau (h/t DB):

The Vermont State Police admitted Friday that detectives recently asked three pharmacies to hand over all their information on patients prescribed powerful painkillers, despite a directive from state law enforcement officials not to do so.

Lt. John Flanagan said three State Police detectives requested that information from three pharmacies in Vermont during the last two weeks, but that supervisors have now put a stop to that effort.

“Mistakes were made,” Flanagan said. “From our perspective this is a training issue and we have taken steps to remedy it.”

This directly and completely contradicts what Major Tom L’Esperance was desperately spinning saying on Mark Johnson’s show. In that appearance (and you should listen to the podcast – it would seem to be a complete fantasyland account based on what we now know), he insisted it was an isolated misunderstanding at one pharmacy, and proceeded with an elaborately detailed counter-history of the incident. I’m not saying he personally made it up – but somebody sure did. Circling the wagons doesn’t work when the wheels all fall off.

But the word that this was all just a “training issue” needs a bit more explanation. Is that to say that three full Detectives spontaneously across the state had some sort of rookie-mistake breakdown? Please. And what is the third pharmacy in question? We currently know that pharmacists at Fairfax Pharmacy and Wells RIver Pharmacy were approached. Who else?

The State Police need to come clean about the full extent of this program, and what specifically the plan was for implementation. There’s still an email out there, supposedly sent last Friday when pharmacists started pushing back, that is likely going to be incriminating when it finally surfaces (and it should be a matter of public record).

No doubt there’ll be more in tomorrow’s paper.

A quick vlog on how Racine has turned the race for Governor on it’s head, and whether or not the Progressives would see fit to judge him a “bona fide” top tier candidate…

UPDATED with link to the full report. 2:33 p.m. JMc.

Following up on yesterday’s report below; it may or may not be the case that Pharmacists are required by state law to provide the prescription records of all Schedule II medications to State Police as is being demanded of them.

The Pharmacist I spoke to contacted the Secretary of State’s office and was advised to comply, however that advise would seem to be in conflict with a report the state Department of Health submitted to the legislature this year specifically in reference to the law which gives police their authority to examine such records (18 VSA 4218). From the report:

“HIPAA contemplates that state laws may conflict with its terms and has been written to address those situations.  HIPAA, by its terms, preempts provisions of state law that are contrary to HIPAA, unless state law affords greater privacy protection.  When state law affords greater protection than HIPAA, the state law is not preempted and the covered entity must follow state law.

HIPAA regulations provide that a state statute is “contrary” to HIPAA if it is impossible for the covered entity to comply with both HIPAA and the state law or if the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of HIPAA.  45 C.F.R. § 160.202.  Applying this standard, conflicts between HIPAA and section 4218 of Title 18 must be resolved by the covered entity on a case-by-case basis.  The pharmacy, as a covered entity, must determine whether HIPAA permits the requested disclosure to DPS, and that determination will depend on the circumstances of the request for the protected health information.  As in the examples above, there are circumstances where complying both with HIPAA and section 4218 would not be impossible and the disclosure would be permitted.

In the event the pharmacist determines that HIPAA does not permit the disclosure, he/she is required by HIPAA to refuse disclosure.  Since HIPAA would preempt state law in this case, section 4218 of Title 18 would not control and the pharmacist would not be in violation of section 4218 for refusing to disclose.

For these reasons, VDH and DPS conclude that section 4218 is not contrary to HIPAA.  Correspondingly, since the pharmacies are bound by HIPAA and may disclose information only as permitted by HIPAA, any medical privacy concerns are addressed by HIPAA and no revision of section 4218 is necessary.”

HIPAA, again, is the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act – the federal law which sets down strict guidelines on the privacy of medical records.

This would seem to put pharmacists on the hot seat in a big way. They’ve got the State Police demanding they dump these records in an unprecedented (and unconstitutional) way, the Secretary of State’s office advising them they must comply – but the Department of Health telling the legislature it’s really up to the Pharmacist to make a judgment call on whether or not the request violates HIPAA, as the State law is not supposed to supersede the federal regime.

If I were a pharmacist, I’d be pissed off. Obviously, if I were a patient, I’d be pissed off.

Another fiasco brought to us by Vermont’s executive branch…