Ugh. The Dems put this up recently.

It's all just a game for him, I suppose. Gotta pick the winner.

Guess who the losers are?

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…

While elected with a comfortable margin, it was hardly a landslide, and the guy has received almost daily taunts suggesting he'll be only a one-termer.

And yet, who have the Republicans got to take him on?

Exactly. Bupkus.

The rumors of Jeff Wennberg came and went quickly with nothing of substance to back them up. the only muttered hope of the Grand Ol' Party would seem to be former Auditor of Accounts Randy Brock, who has enough of the green to bankroll himself.

But he's hardly a stellar candidate, and is likely smart enough to steer clear, given that Welch has been busting his butt to stay in the media, to keep in steady contact with constituents, and is earning a reputation as the hardest working freshman in Washington – and is going to put any opponent at a serious fundraising disadvantage. The RCCC is abysmally low on money and has way too many vulnerable incumbents, so its likely a candidate would not get any national help in what's shaping up to be another Democratic electoral landslide.

Just recently added to the mix is a recent email that went out to Welch supporters from “Campaign Manager Carolyn Dwyer,” suggesting that the same, highly-lauded election team may be back in the mix for round two. That probably doesn't make potential chalengers feel any better.

So yeah, I'm pissed about the whole Governor thing as a D…

 …but hey – at least I ain't an R.

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).

October 11, 2007

The Honorable Michael Mukasey

Patterson Belknapp Webb & Tyler LLP

1133 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. Mukasey,

 

As you prepare for your confirmation hearings, we would like to bring your attention to the important matter of our nation’s interrogation policies.  In particular, 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.  According to The New York Times, these memos “provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.”

Not only is use of torture by the U.S. Government morally reprehensible, it has done immeasurable damage to our nation’s ability to conduct foreign policy and has put our own men and women in uniform in greater danger.  While we must seek to gather as much information as possible from captured terrorists, it is the job of the Attorney General to ensure that interrogation policies follow all relevant U.S. and international law.

As the nominee to be the next Attorney General, we urge you to commit to withdraw these memos on your first day in office, should you be confirmed.  In addition, we hope that you will dedicate yourself to returning the Department of Justice to policies consistent with U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions.

Sincerely,

 

 

Peter Welch (VT)

 

Barbara Lee (CA)          

John W. Olver (MA)        

Dennis J. Kucinich (OH)   

Timothy J. Walz (MN)      

Bruce L. Braley (IA)      

James P. McGovern (MA)    

Albert Russell Wynn (MD)          

Keith Ellison (MN)        

Raul M. Grijalva (AZ)     

James L. Oberstar (MN)    

Elijah E. Cummings (MD)   

Mark Udall (CO)   

Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (IL)         

Tammy Baldwin (WI)        

Doris O. Matsui (CA)      

Carol Shea-Porter (NH)    

Janice D. Schakowsky (IL)         

Peter A. Defazio (OR)     

Edward J. Markey (MA)     

Danny K. Davis (IL)       

Barney Frank (MA)         

Carolyn B. Maloney (NY)   

Betty Sutton (OH)         

Lynn C. Woolsey (CA)      

Henry C. “Hank” Johnson Jr. (GA)          

Mazie K. Hirono (HI)      

Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)        

Maurice D. Hinchey (NY)   

Melvin L. Watt (NC)       

Lloyd Doggett (TX)        

Maxine Waters (CA)        

James P. Moran (VA)       

Michael A. Arcuri (NY)    

Fortney Pete Stark (CA)   

John P. Murtha (PA)       

Darlene Hooley (OR)       

Thomas H. Allen (ME)      

Betty McCollum (MN)       

Zoe Lofgren (CA)          

Sam Farr (CA)     

John J. Hall (NY)         

Steven R. Rothman (NJ)    

Linda T. Sanchez (CA)     

Ellen O. Tauscher (CA)    

Hilda L. Solis (CA)       

Dennis A. Cardoza (CA)    

Earl Pomeroy (ND)         

Diana DeGette (CA)

Jose E. Serrano (NY)

Earl Blumenauer (OR)      

Rosa L. DeLauro (CT)      

Rush D. Holt (NJ)

Michael E. Capuano (MA)

Carolyn C. Kilpatrick (MI)     

Here's the new reality, based on SurveyUSA data (now if only some of our elected sorts in DC would wake up to it and stop trembling…)

Some hubbub around this animation over at Open Left (my favorite blog this month) if you want more…

• Okay, I realize Vermont is a special place, but could somebody explain this to me?
• Im not always in 100% agreement with them, but Vermont Scrapwood is still the smartest blog in the state. Just go and browse if you haven't already.
• On the other hand, Vermont Hum just confuses me. But that's okay, lots of things do.
• Stephen McArthur at Orwell's Grave posts “quite possibly the last interview with (Grace Paley) and major story written about her”, penned by his partner, Rickey Gard Diamond, for Vermont Woman. A great read.
• Five before Chaos is becoming the late night stand-up of the Vermont blogosphere. John is starting to remind me of Lewis Black. For the record, that's a good thing.
• Alex has turned Rip & Read into a travel blog of late. Lots of political changes in merry ol' England (where he's traveling, and has posted 10 entries from), so I'm still hopeful he'll strike up a political conversation or two and report back…
• Dohiyi Mir still won't link to us. Sigh. Woo-hoo! See what sighs can get ya?
• Paleoconnish blog, The Vermont Traditionalist, which usually wanders in the world of can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees-psuedointellectualism, can be a fun source for gossip on Vermont's religious right. One point of peripheral interest they provide of late is what's to become of usual-suspect, quixotic vermont candidate Greg Parke, who made a perennial cottage industry for himself by effectively raising money to run against Bernie Sanders every two years. Arch-right winger Parke, who didn't really ever run against him, so much as raise gobs of money from out-of-staters by exploiting their Berniephobia, has found a new way to put those languishing lists he's accumulated to work in lieu of a Vermont socialist candidate to joust with every two years – a new nonprofit called The Vermont Conservative Union. Expect Bernie to appear prominently in their first fundraising piece.

This is one of those stories that has to be passed on as far and as wide as possible, but it really makes you wonder if some of these partisan, win-at-all-costs Republicans are actually some different species or something. Think Progress has done the work on this, so I'll just excerpt from them:

Two weeks ago, the Democratic radio address was delivered by a 12-year old Maryland boy named Graeme Frost. Graeme told his story of being involved in a severe car accident three years ago, and having received access to medical care because of the Children’s Health Insurance Program. He said:

If it weren’t for CHIP, I might not be here today. … We got the help we needed because we had health insurance for us through the CHIP program. But there are millions of kids out there who don’t have CHIP, and they wouldn’t get the care that my sister and I did if they got hurt. … I just hope the President will listen to my story and help other kids to be as lucky as me.

Now, you know what's coming – you just might not believe it. The right wing attack machine has, in response, gone after this kid and his family. And we're not just talking about a few easily dissmissable nutjobs here (although the smear did begin with an anonymous wingnut at freerepublic.com), the attack has been picked up and amplified by The National Review, Michelle Malkin, Wizbang, Powerline, the Weekly Standard blog, and House GOP leader John Boehner – and the attacks have crept into ABC's online site as well. The message is, as TP put it, “that Frost was actually a rich kid being pampered by the government” and that “Graeme and his sister Gemma attend wealthy schools that cost 'nearly $40,000 per year for tuition' and live in a well-off home”

The real message – given the above attacks and reports that the family is getting a barrage of harassing phone calls, and have picked up Michelle Malkin as a stalker into their private lives – is basically; don't open your mouth and screw with us or we'll come after you. Any conservative with any kind of conscience should damn well get out in front and condemn this twisted smear and intimidation campaign.

Here are the facts about the family, for the record:

1) Graeme has a scholarship to a private school. The school costs $15K a year, but the family only pays $500 a year.

2) His sister Gemma attends another private school to help her with the brain injuries that occurred due to her accident. The school costs $23,000 a year, but the state pays the entire cost.

3) They bought their “lavish house” sixteen years ago for $55,000 at a time when the neighborhood was less than safe.

4) Last year, the Frost’s made $45,000 combined. Over the past few years they have made no more than $50,000 combined.

5) The state of Maryland has found them eligible to participate in the CHIP program.

Desperate to defend Bush’s decision to cut off millions of children from health care, the right wing has stooped to launching baseless and uninformed attacks against a 12 year old child and his family.

“Electability” bedevils Democratic Presidential electoral politics like nothing else. It brought us John Kerry over “unelectable” Howard Dean. It brought us the Governor of the balanced-budget “Massachusetts Miracle,” Michael Dukakis. While it may seem a funny aside how the “electability” factor seems to keep leading us to Massachusetts, the fact is that it more often tends to lead us to failure, and that's because of what Democrats have really meant when they've said “electability.” From Kinsley last time around:

“I only care about one thing,” they all say. “Which of these guys can beat Bush?” Secretly, they believe none of them can, which makes the amateur pragmatism especially poignant.

Nevertheless, Democrats persevere. They ricochet from candidate to candidate, hoping to smell a winner. In effect, they give their proxy to the other party. “If I was a Republican,” they ask themselves, “which of these Democratic candidates would I be most likely to vote for?”

Kinsley only brushes up against the implicit inferiority complex in this mindgame. The subtext that leftist ideas can never win. That in a fair fight, the right will win because it's their country, not ours – but we're stuck here and have to put up with them. A big part of the almost messianic quality of Dean's following in '04 was his message that this was a bogus assumption; that we should be proud of our policies, programs and priorities because they are America's policies, programs and priorities, regardless of what the traditional media would have you believe and internalize. While the message didn't have enough power to turn the inferiority complex on its head in a single election season, it has undeniably altered the Democratic Party and begun chipping away at the greater media narrative.

Still, we are all again becoming concerned about electability, and speaking for or against candidates in implied terms of their appeal (or lack thereof) to GOP voters. What's different is that there are other, often more nuanced forms of electability being discussed this time around than in the past, and parsing out when these more nuanced arguments have merit, versus when they're simply a back-door re-entry to the same old losing patterns and inferiority complexes is trickier.

On the flip side is a quick list of why our candidates are electable and unelectable….

On Clinton's electability: She's a Clinton, and everybody loves a Clinton.

On Clinton's unelectability: She's Hillary Clinton and everybody hates Hillary Clinton.

(Okay, that one was boring.)

On Obama's electability: More personally inspiring than other canididates on either side, positive message/vibe.

On Obama's unelectability: Polling a bit lower in swing states in head-to-head matchups compared to Clinton and Edwards, fueling a “America still won't elect a black president” hubbub.

Obama is unique in that arguments on both sides are about who he is and how he plays, versus what he's saying. In truth, there is something to watch in that regard, inasmuch as it affects those last few percantage points of the electorate that takes pride in staying undecided before the TV interviewers and pollsters until Election Day itself. That crowd really doesn't care about policy, treating elections as a reality show. Unfortunately, they have an annoying tendency to sway election results. Maybe Obama becomes the best one to tip the balance of that crowd.

On Edwards's electability: Handsome southern white guy. Populist rhetoric appeals to independents.

On Edwards's unlelectability: Edwards had no categorical unelectability narratives against him until recently. His decision to go the public financing route has him put into a position, seen by many, as being straitjacketed by the restrictions and disbursement schedule of the public financing regime. As many see it (and rightfully so), it would put him extraordinarily vulnerable during much of 2008 in the current era of mega-political-fundraising (or as some have said, he's be bringing a knife to a gunfight).

Supporters have suggested that the Party and the 527 groups could fill in the gap, but to many that's not enough (and it's going in the wrong direction). Here's Markos of dKos, who has basically given up on Edwards after the news:

527s allow for unlimited contributions, and the donors don't have to be publicly disclosed.

Party committees, like the DNC, can take contributions of $28,500 per individual.

You can't claim your guy is a real mensch for taking a stand for publicly financed elections, then claim that the big dollars of the 527s and the DNC will bail your guy out.

What has the better chance of buying influence? Bundled $2,300 contributions, or bundled $28,500 ones? Or even better yet, a million dollar check to a 527 run by insider party operatives?

That's why I passionately believe in candidates funded by small-dollar contributions, beholden to people, not big dollar donors. And while we're not quite there yet, and have a lot of work to get there, Edwards isn't doing anything this cycle to get us there. In fact, shutting out small-dollar donors and pushing for bigger dollar ones to the DNC and 527 would be a step backwards.

It's a shame, since his nationwide matchups look pretty good, and he could expand the map beyond Obama or Clinton. But that won't happen after he gets hit with $150 million in attack ads over the summer from his opponent plus whatever the RNC and conservative 527s throw at him. The DNC and progressive 527s will be able to close some of that gap, but a disparity of $100 million or more is still likely. And I'm not willing to bet on poor GOP fundraising to bail Edwards out of his inability to respond.

It's compelling on a lot of levels (Philip – now do you get why I wanted to wait until all the facts were in before making an endorsement??? Sheesh…). It also leads into the current state of the “electability” argument as it applies to the rest of the field. Whatever global narratives primary voters may have made about the supposed unelectability of candidates like Kucinich (too wacky with all the new age stuff), Biden (the history of plagiarism), Dodd (too New England), Gravel (too much a party of one) or Richardson (too gaffe-prone to be ready for the big time), its the money issue that trumps all those arguments now. The conventional wisdom is that they simply can't win now because they haven't passed the ongoing money primary.

But there's also the ethical flip side of Markos's more practical argument. Sure, if Edwards wins and successfully diverts funding to these other sources, that's bigger money and less transparency – and that's bad.

On the other hand, accepting that implicitly locks in the money primary the most important part of the election – and that primary is decided before a single vote is cast.

It's a far more complex and nuanced “electability” argument than we've heard in the past, and is therefore harder to dismiss than electibility canards of the past (or for that matter, the paper-thin electability arguments currently leveled against Obama and Clinton). And I'll admit, its thrown me for a loop.

But I'm not quite ready to go there yet. Four years ago I eschewed categorical concerns over a candidate's electability on principle, and it still feels to me that that way lies madness. I'm going to cling to this notion that content matters – that the system fails us if we fail it, by not voting for the candidate we feel best represents us.

So my advice to other non-Obama or Clinton voters? The hell with the money. Vote for Richardson, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich, Gravel – whoever – if they're the candidate that speaks to you. Give the financial-electability questions no more heed than you would give the “he's too black” or “she's too Hillary” electibility questions as an Obama or Clinton supporter. That's not what it's supposed to be about, so  let's do what little we can not to let it be about that.

But you'll forgive me if I still remain very, very worried about Edwards's decision…

Remember the “Douglas clause” Bernie put into his bill that would clamp down on problem nuclear plants like the one in Vernon, held together with duct tape by Jim Douglas's buddies (and campaign contributors) Entergy? You know – the clause that didn't simply empower the governor of a state containing such a scary plant from calling for safety inspections, but also would empower governors of neighboring states to do the same? Well, never let it be said that concerns over consistency prevent Jim Douglas from helping a corporate contributor.

(On the Sanders bill this week…) Flip:

(Douglas) “I think it's a precedent that we need to be very wary of, to empower adjoining states to be able to have a role in the regulatory proceedings in one state.”

(…and on another familiar matter involving regulatory proceedings on power generation with cross-state implications) Flop:

Vermont’s leaders agree that International Paper should be required to install state of the art pollution control technology if it is going to burn tires for fuel at its Ticonderoga facility. Currently, the Ticonderoga paper mill does not have industry standard pollution control devices in place. “We are prepared to exhaust all available options to prevent this tire burn without appropriate safeguards in place,” Douglas added.

(…and another…) Belly Flop:

As part of the foundation for this administration’s clean air action plan, Douglas has urged the Vermont Attorney General to join other states in this appeal and he has offered his continued support to this effort.

“It is my hope that through unified action we will be successful in compelling these (coal burning power plants in mid-west states) to stop polluting our air,” Douglas said.

Yup. Call it “political relativism.”

Of course, I'm not sure what any of it matters if the Democratic Party can't even run a candidate against him. Hey! Maybe that means he can get the Democratic Party nomination as a write in, too! Just like we let him do for Treasurer one year, as I recall!

Oh how my heart beams with pride.  (PS – ht to wdh3, and major ht to John Dillon for great reporting)

Bam!

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.

Progressive Caucus Official Position and Fundamental Principles Governing FISA Reform, as adopted

October 3, 2007

We, Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, fully recognizing we live in a dangerous world but proud of, and deeply committed to, the values that have made the United States an exemplar for the world, affirm the following principles to guide consideration over the debate regarding surveillance of foreign intelligence. We hold that these principles represent the pillars by which America gives no quarter to terrorists who would do our country harm, while at the same time ensuring fidelity to the distinctively American commitment to the rule of law, the dignity of the individual, and separation of powers.

1. It should be the policy of the United States that the objective of any authorized program of foreign intelligence surveillance must be to ensure that American citizens and persons in America are secure in their persons, papers, and effects, but makes terrorists throughout the world feel insecure.

2. The best way to achieve these twin goals is to follow the rule of law. And the exclusive law to follow with respect to authorizing foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As initially enacted by Congress, the exclusivity of FISA was unambiguous. Legislation must reiterate current law that FISA is the exclusive means to authorize foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil.

3. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) should be modernized to accommodate new technologies and to make clear that foreign to foreign communications are not subject to the FISA, even though modern technology enables that communication to be routed through the United States.

4. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is indispensable and must play a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with the law. This oversight should include, where possible, regular judicial approval and review of surveillance, of whose communications will be collected, of how it will be gathered, and of how content and other data in communications to and from the United States will be handled.

5. Congress must have regular access to information about how many U.S. communications are being collected and the authority to require court orders when it becomes clear that a certain program or surveillance of a target is scooping up communications of U.S. persons.

6. Once the government has reason to believe that a specific account, person or facility will have contact with someone in the United States, the government should be required to return to the FISC to obtain a court order for continued surveillance. Reliance on the FISC will help ensure the privacy of U.S. persons' communications.

7. Congress should not grant amnesty to any telecommunications company or to any other entity or individual for helping the NSA spy illegally on innocent Americans. The availability of amnesty will have the unintended consequence of encouraging telecommunications companies to comply with, rather than contest, illegal requests to spy on Americans.

8. Authorization to conduct foreign surveillance gathering on U.S. soil must never be made permanent. The threats to America's security and the liberties of its people will change over time and require constant vigilance by the people's representatives in Congress.

Ah, never a dull moment at ol' GMD, where no freewheeling debate about Presidential candidates goes unpunished. It occurs to me that perhaps it's time to channel some of that anxiety into yet another poll!

That's right, it's been many months since our first straight-up presidential preference poll. Oh sure, we've had a few modified polls, such as the “vote for everyone you could stand to vote for in the General” poll, but I don't think we've had a straight up preference poll since waaaay back in early aught-six, when Russ Feingold was the choice out of the 40 or so votes cast.

Well, after taking a moment to read this wondrous diary from Hunter at dKos, come on back and vote to make your candidate the official (for now) Vermont Netroots pick in the Democratic primary for president! Yesiree, we'll keep this poll up for a week, so time to turn all that frustrated energy into emailing your fellow candidate-supporters to get on over here and vote fer yer guy or gal. Remember – sadly, only registered users can vote, so sign up and freep that poll, folks (and consider this an open thread).