(I’m bumping a retread from WAY back up to the top, because in light of recent news that Bush is planning on relaxing environmental guidelines around National Parks, as well as his recent comparing of Obama to a nazi appeaser before the Knesset, I think its starting to have relevance… – promoted by odum)

As the clock ticks on towards the end of the Bush Presidency, I can’t help but feel a nagging dread at the prospect of what mischief this President could cause in his final weeks.

Presidents pull some interesting things out of their hats on the way out the door – whether its because of the freedom from professional accountability, or simply a last chance to pay back campaign supporters. Pardons are what we usually expect to see. Clinton, of course, caught hell for pardoning Marc Rich and others. More colorfully, Reagan expunged George Steinbrenner’s record from his 1974 guilty plea on obstruction of justice and conspiring to make illegal contributions to President Nixon. Then, of course, there was Bush I’s Christmas Eve pardons of Iran-Contra figures which came only days before former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was to stand trial for perjury.

Clinton also garnered the ire of the right for last minute administrative fiats. Signing the treaty creating the International Criminal Court, the protection of vast swaths of environmentally sensitive or unique land, and a tightening of logging regulations made the GOP seethe.

If Bush is thinking similarly, the last weks between the 08 election and the swearing in of a (hopefully) Democratic President could be scary. On the one hand, he has governed as President ‘Id’, so perhaps he has nothing up his sleeve – as he wears everything on it. If not, well – the mind boggles.

The President’s administrative authority gives him the broad powers of implementation. From this perspective, the easiest targets will again be environmental. He has already quietly attempted to sneak in rules for the maintenence of National Forests that would be devastating, and has opened up National Parks to unprecedented exploitation. In (those particular anti-environmental efforts from a year back), his style did suggest an uncharacteristic degree of concern about the public’s perceptions. Without that concern holding him back, he could throw the barn doors wide open.

Additionally, it’s not hard to imagine draconian new rules around federal programs designed to squeeze out immigrants in need, or to simply choke off programs’ effectiveness and ability to be broadly implemented – especially where they may compete with church-based programs.

And it’s hard not to worry about the prospects for higher-profile mischief, too. Given that the President’s simplistic political zealotry knows no bounds, its not hard to imagine a last minute “10 Commandments” monument dropped on the White House lawn, or a January attempt to take out Iranian nuclear sites.

At this early point speculating is little more than nervous musing, but as the final days get closer (and in the face of a Supreme Court that is giving tremendous deference to Presidential power), the nervousness will loom larger.

Anybody remember Jeffry Taylor? Taylor was the architect of the non-Town Meeting impeachment movement last year, where the strategy of focusing on the Vermont legislature through Section 603 of the Jefferson’s Manual was born. You know, the movement that ripped through the Dem County Committees (and in the process laid the groundwork for much of the Town Meeting success outside of Windham County). Apparently the retconned version, penned here by Darren-Allen-replacement Dan Barlow removes Taylor and allows James Leas to once again cast the movement as an anti-Democratic Party one. Figures.

I’m delighted to see the VT Milk Company thinking outside the box to enhance their long-term survival odds, but is anyone else concerned by their latest endeavor? From the Herald-Argus again:

Purchasing the franchise right to the “One-Shot” soft ice cream machine, the fledgling farmer-owned milk processing company now owns the exclusive distribution line for the innovative creemee machines across New England and New York City. The machines churn out 5-ounce creemees squeezed from pre-packaged, single-serving cartridges, eliminating the mess and labor costs associated with cleaning regular, soft-serve machines.

Now, I’ve been a supporter of this project, but…well…am I reading this right? Is the Pollina-backed operation hanging their profiteering hopes on a new product that will enable employers to cut down employee hours and add a new disposable item into the mix, just to save the 2 hours of cleaning a week? How… uh… all-American (and that’s before you even stop to consider the energy and costs involved in producing this new plastic item and shipping it). This hardly sounds progressive.

They state that the plastic containers are recyclable, but all plastic is technically “recyclable.” The question is, is it in a form that a real recycler will actually accept?

Am I missing something here?

Lots of things in the media that have generated strong reactions from me of late. First off, Chris Pearson hits one out of the park with a guest op-ed in the freeps:

On May 24 the Free Press ran a story about Gov. Douglas joining 21 other governors to demand answers about why our gas prices keep climbing at the pump. Good for him. We deserve some answers from the folks at ExxonMobil. But, doesn’t this move send a bad signal to business?

Gas prices are climbing and that usually means oil companies are making more money. But the governor has moved to protect similar profits generated at our own nuclear power facility. He has been very clear that taxing profits or increasing the tax on energy generation at Yankee is bad for business. It’s the reason he’s going to veto this year’s energy bill.

What’s the difference, Governor?

Second, where I usually roll my eyes at Congressional photo-op trips, the recent tour of the Middle East by Leahy and Welch generated this reality check which was spot on (and which you never hear anymore):

Leahy and Welch each said Wednesday that the trip ? which coincides with the congressional Memorial Day break and ends this weekend ? shows that the United States now has its priorities backwards in the Middle East.

“Iraq dominates the talk in Washington,” Welch said. “In the Middle East, it’s the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Iraq is not only a disaster in and of itself, its a disaster that allows the more deeply rooted problem that is fueling the regional violence to further fester.

Finally, something to horrify is in the latest in Seven Days (which has been on fire lately) concerning the unseen subculture of explotative conditions in regional Chinese restaurants:

Town and village records confirm that 2 Park Terrace, and another residence at 9-11 Park Street, are both owned by a company that belongs to Lai Poon, who is also listed as the president of Ming?s Incorporated.

In subsequent interviews, which were conducted in English or with a certified Chinese-language interpreter present, other residents of the house told stories similar to the old man?s. They all spoke of working exceptionally long hours ? 12 hours per day, six days per week ? at minimum or even below-legal wages. Many said they work only for tips, with a percentage of their earnings skimmed by the management. Though their employer provides free room and board, they claim to get no breaks, sick days, health insurance or other benefits. Moreover, several complained that if a worker quits or gets fired, he or she may be evicted from the house, sometimes the very same day.

Meet the newest generation of Vermont wage slaves, the Chinese restaurant workers

Legislative Democrats had their chances for a significant power shift increase dramatically today – and they have Jim Douglas to thank for it.

Despite an enormous, broad-based push on its behalf, the Governor has made it clear he will veto the climate change bill, which has become less and less controversial the more members of the media, the legislature and the public have had time to familiarize themselves with it. legislative leaders have scheduled an unusually late July 11 special session to attempt an override – presumably to allow plenty of time to muster support.

Still, an override remains a long shot at best – even with its prospects improving daily. But the Governor just made another decision that opens up a strategic vulnerability; his veto of the new campaign finance bill.

This veto should surprise no one – with a few high-profile exceptions, there’s nothing that bugs the GOP machine like campaign finance reform legislation. Both they and their constituency groups can’t stand that stuff.

But in adding another potential override to the plate, Douglas may have given an out to some of the more conservative or vascillating Dems that will be under enormous pressure to tow the party line in July. A way to vote with the Governor on the most high-profile issue, but vote against him on the other. Freshman Democratic Representative-appointee Jon Anderson of Montpelier has done little but piss off the Democratic leadership since his arrival (voting with the Governor on a previous veto-override vote, but also in particular on campaign finance, where he sided with the Vermont GOP and Right-to-Life on a key amendment vote), and is very much in the Douglas camp on most issues. However his vote for the impeachment resolution and subsequent comments in the Montpelier Bridge publication indicate he is very concerned about winning re-election as a conservative in liberal Montpelier.

Such a twofer would enable Anderson and others in similar situations to vote for their man Douglas on the high-profile climate bill, but vote against him on campaign finance in order to try and claim political and intellectual independence before their constituents (and the caucus leadership). This isn’t necessarily good news for climate change, but it’s still good news for Dems, potentially. Why?

Because if a Douglas veto –any veto – is overridden, that’ll be the headline in all the papers the next day. And the perceived power shift will have the potential to send shockwaves into the next session, as well as the next election season.

A long time ago, a couple conversations started more or less simultaneously. In Newfane, Dan DeWalt and others were working on Town Meeting Resolutions that requested then-Representative Bernie Sanders initiate impeachment proceedings. At the same time across the internet, there were discussions such as those in this diary of mine from January of 2006 about the possibility of using obscure House rules in section 603 of the Jefferson’s Manual to bring the conversation to Washington via a state legislature. From that latter conversation came the “Rutland Resolution” that swept Vermont’s Democratic County Committtees, itself drawing press attention from across the country. When the Rut-Res was stymied at the State Committee, largely through the intervention of Senator Leahy’s staff, the “603” crowd retreated and regrouped. At this point the gap was bridged between the two groups, and by this last legislative biennium, a synergy had formed. The grassroots coalition of Progressives, Independents and Democrats that worked the Town Meeting angle leveraged their renewed success into the goals of the Democratic Rutland Resolution movement (until about a week ago, the Progressive Party rebuffed our effort to get them on record with a Rut-Res). The result was a thing of beauty. A true merging of grassroots and netroots across party lines towards progressive goals.

For my part, I’ve been involved from way back, talking to legislators and others, making phone calls, crafting letters to state committee members, and more recently launching vtimpeach.com (for which I just dropped a setup/hosting check in the mail). Truth to tell, when I spoke with Kagro X (the second person I asked to be a front pager when GMD started), I admitted to him that much of the reason I wanted to start this blog was to support the nascent Impeachment movement in this state. It has been a long, deeply emotional relationship.

It is therefore with sadness that I announce my divorce from the Vermont Impeachment Movement over irreconcilable differences. You see, we’ve drifted apart over the past months. So far apart that I no longer feel welcome in my former “spouse’s” company.

The problem started when this “beautiful” synergistic movement was greeted in the worst possible way from the Democratic leadership. Here was organized, statewide, grassroots energy towards progressive goals. A veritable army ready to support real policy changes locally and nationally – all we asked was a little respect from elected officials. But as we all know, the movement was greeted with scorn from the offices of Senators Sanders, Leahy and Speaker Symington. Shumlin was not much better, choosing to try to crudely play the movement for (presumably) later advantage (the truth is – the only major Democratic elected who has dealt honorably with the Impeachment Movement has been Peter Welch, although good luck getting those organizers who are irrationally contemptuous of him to admit it).

What followed then was all too predictable. With our elected “leaders” choosing not to lead, a leadership vacuum was created. And nature abhors a vacuum. Into that vacuum rushed people like James Leas and Dennis Morriseau – people with agendas far beyond impeachment, and far too much unrestrained self-righteousness and contempt for those who do not share their views to bother restraining themselves. Those of us in the original “603” crowd began to get regular servings of rhetoric like this one from Morriseau, sent out to whoever’s email address he could get his hands on and regarding Peter Welch:

I think little Pete is “the enemy”.  In fact I’m sure of it, so I doubt he can be
moved by anything.

Very quickly, the greater culture of the movement began to reflect this rhetoric. Finally, last week came this from Freyne Land:

Welchie’s “no” vote on the latest Iraq War funding bill is too-little, too-late for a couple of the folks who’ve organized Vermont’s statewide “Impeach Bush & Cheney” Campaign.

“This bill, that has the support of Democratic Party leaders Pelosi and Reid, funds the war without any limits,” said Iraq War veteran Adrienne Kinne. “The Iraqis want this occupation to end. The American people want our soldiers home now. I fear Peter Welch’s no vote is too little too late. Peter Welch has been going along with that failed Democratic Party leadership for too long, and this terrible bill is the result.”

“We call on Peter Welch to speak out against the Democratic Party leadership that talks peace and makes war,” said Kinne. “We call on Peter Welch, Patrick Leahy, and Bernie Sanders to initiate investigation of Bush and Cheney, not just underlings like Alberto Gonzalez.”

“This bill, sponsored by the Democratic Party leadership, forces us to ask how Peter Welch and Pat Leahy can remain in a party that accepted Bush and Cheney’s demands to fund the war without any meaningful conditions,” said James Marc Leas. “A party that talks peace but makes war has lost credibility. Peter Welch and Patrick Leahy can do much more to end this war if they stop supporting a pro-war party. Just as Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party, Peter Welch and Patrick Leahy should leave the Democratic Party.”

I, and the other Dems in the 603 movement became angry. These two organizers had single-handedly branded the Vermont Impeachment Movement an anti-Democratic Party movement, delivering a kick to the groin to all of us Democrats who had worked so hard on this for so long before people like Leas even knew there was an Impeachment Movement.

When confronted with our anger and our expectation that there would be a clarifying statement, we were met with the typical self-righteousness and scorn we’ve come to expect from the “you’re-with-us-or-you’re-with-the-Bushites” wing of the left. The slash and burn crowd who can’t recognize that those in positions of leadership must take responsibility for their words and work to bring people together – even if that means subsuming one’s own ego from time to time. The closest we got to an apology from Leas was:

You ask me to apologize because you misread our statements as speaking for the movement as a whole, even though Peter Freyne introduced it clearly as the views of two of the people within that movement. Fine. I apologize. And in the future I will state, “speaking for myself,” to make clear that I am speaking for myself, not for the movement as a whole. In this case, however, even without such an express disclaimer from me and Adrienne, Peter Freyne made it clear that we were speaking for ourselves and that there could be other views among those who’ve organized Vermont’s statewide ‘Impeach Bush & Cheney’ Campaign. Why don’t you apologize for the misreading? The only evidence you give that it was not clear is the fact that you misread it.

Basically, “it’s not my fault, and I’m sorry you’re too stupid to see that.” Now that’s leadership.

But he spent the majority of his response – paragraphs and paragraphs – with stuff like this:

I think you are attacking Adrienne and me because you have no idea what to say or do about the Democratic Party cave in and support for this war. I am wondering whether your priority is to protect the Democratic Party no matter what they do. Prove me wrong by putting out your own statement to Peter Freyne and the rest of the media stating your view, speaking for yourself of course, about the war funding vote.  I am more and more interested in knowing what your view is on the subject.

Guy doesn’t spend much time on the blogs, obviously.

Unfortunately, we’ve seen nothing from any of the others in the movement’s current leadership making the point that Democrats are still welcome.

And nobody wants to stay where they’re not welcome.

So I’m afraid the divorce is final, but the truth is, I’ve already been seeing someone else; the National Impeachment Movement. Organically speaking, it only makes sense for the Vermont Movement to fully merge with the national, as all attention is now on Washington and efforts there. We in Vermont have shown them the way, organized and pushed the matter through our capitol – empowering and furthering the conversation from coast to coast. Nationally of course, the movement is fueled by groups like Progressive Democrats of America and Democrats.com – and in case you didn’t catch those names, they remain Dem-friendly.

I would also be remiss if I didn’t mention another positive legacy of the Vermont Impeachment Movement – the vaulting of Dan DeWalt onto the national scene. Dan is one of the more decent and thoughtful people I’ve met, and clearly has no problem living with disagreements among allies over things such as Party affiliation. The nation is only a better place now that Dan has earned a wider audience.

But whether or not the state movement is about to lose all its Dem membership, I don’t know. Certainly the many I’ve talked to are done with it after the Freyne Land quote. Organizers need to realize for their own sake that their supposed allies across the country are largely Democrats, and if they insist on insinuating or stating that Dems should be marginalized from the group, they will inevitably find it is they themselves banished to the margins – again.

Although he received wide praise across the blogs when he stated unequivocally his intention to vote against the Iraq, no-strings-attached, give-Bush-what-he-wants supplemental bill, the question of the rule that essentially streamines and fast tracks the bill through the floor process by insuring no amendments that aren’t friendly to the President’s no-strings-attached demand was hanging.

Presumably, Democratic supporters of the President’s Iraq agenda (which is what voting for this bill expresses, regardlesss of any hemming and hawing) want to guarantee that they will be on record as little as possible in support of Bush’s demands, and David Sirota (and others) speculated that this rule gives them that cover in a fairly underhanded way.

But the fact is that the rule has changed – and not simply in that it provides for another up-or-down vote on the war itself in Septemeber (as Sirota already noted). The final rule severed the provisions of the bill into two distinct votes; seperating the appropriation provision from the domestic spending elements (for example $6.4 billion in hurricane relief and $3 billion in agricultural assistance) of the bill, which many progressive legislators support. In this way, the rule passed by attracting the votes of the most solid anti-war liberals in the caucus, such as Reps. Woolsey, Lee, and yeah, Welch.

So the rule passes (and of course, the supplemental does too – which was inevitable), but I can’t get too bent out of shape. I can’t help but think I would’ve done the same thing, albeit grudgingly.

Via email:

There is much that I support in this bill — including assistance for Afghanistan and funding we added to help the National Guard address equipment shortages — but it contains a serious flaw that I simply cannot vote for:  It does not begin the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

The original supplemental bill that passed the Senate and was sent to President Bush’s desk last month paralleled the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, recommendations that would have fundamentally changed the course of our military mission in Iraq.

Unfortunately, the President vetoed the original supplemental bill and has refused any meaningful compromise that would give us a clear path toward ending of our military involvement in Iraq.

This brings us to the current version of the supplemental bill.  In short, the Iraq War funding provisions in this bill represent little more than a continuation of the failed status quo — a continuation that I find unacceptable. The current bill will not begin to redeploy our troops from Iraq, it does not put adequate pressure on the Iraqis to stand up both politically and militarily, and it does not put a stop to President Bush’s escalation plan.

I’m not on Bernie’s list (not sure why not, actually). If anybody gets something from him on the matter, I encourage you to post it.

The other day I wrote a diary entitled “fear”, describing how (IMHO), the Democratic Leadership in Washington (and to an extent in the states) is primarily motivated by fear in much of what they do. I discussed how that fear translates into weakness and capitulation.

It also can translate into sleaze. In a diary at dKos, David Sirota (who has done a great job researching and birddogging some of the creepy, behind-the-scenes stuff that some of the newly empowered Democratic Committee Chairs are trying to get away with) lays out the proposal to turn today’s expected capitualtion vote on Iraq into a craven capitulation vote on Iraq:

Here’s how it is expected to work today in a process only Dick Cheney could love (though you never know – it could change at the last minute). Every bill comes to the House floor with what is known as a “rule” that sets the terms of the debate over the legislation in question. House members first vote to approve this parliamentary rule, and then vote on the legislation. Today, however, Democrats are planning to essentially include the Iraq blank check bill IN the rule itself, by making sure the underlying bill the rule brings to the floor includes no timelines for withdrawal, and that the rule only allows amendments that fund the war with no restrictions – blank check amendments that House Democratic leaders know Republicans will have the votes to pass.

This means that when the public goes to look for the real vote on the Iraq supplemental bill, the public won’t find that. All we will find is a complex parliamentary procedure vote, which was the real vote.

With our lone Representative, Peter Welch, already on the right side on this, there’s little we in Vermont can do about it.

But it’s worth noting that such an action will be seen as the crudest sort of condescension and insult to the netroots across the country. An insult that could (and should) have consequences.

( – promoted by odum)

Columnist David Broder says: “… the extremist elements in American society — the vituperative, foul-mouthed bloggers”

Time’s Joe Klein says: “[bloggers’] vitriol just seems uninformed, malicious and disproportionate”

and Dennis Miller says: “”And one thing I’ve noticed about these blogs is they’ve turned into the ideological equivalent of “Girls Gone Wild””

Hey, these bloggers must be a pretty great crowd to hang with, eh?

Well, here comes yer chance:

It’s the second annual Vermont Daily Briefing/Green Mountain Daily Hamburger Summit, open to bloggers, political types, and terrified (or mystified) observers alike. Everybody and anybody is welcome/encouraged/invited. Come on out, have burger and watch how the “regular” bloggers interact with their vituperative, malicious and foul-mouthed political counterparts. See and be seen, or just eat and run. Show up and we can all make fun of (presumable) no-shows such as kestrel and Kagro without them overhearing. Who knows, if we have enough beer, maybe we’ll impeach somebody!

It’s Sunday, July 15th
Burlington’s North Beach
1PM-5PM

We’ll have some drinks and grillables, but not a bad idea to bring something. Watch this space or Philip’s for details.

For as long as I can remember, Democratic Leaders in Washington – and to a large extent in the state legislatures that I’ve worked near – have been first and foremost motivated by a single emotion; fear. Fear of losing the next election. Fear of not coming through for their caucus. Fear of being painted as soft or weak in the media. Fear, fear, fear.

Fear has a couple important qualities. First, it’s viral. It doesn’t remain static – it grows and spreads. Within a lawmaker it spreads from fear of losing or looking weak. It becomes a deeper fear – that maybe, just maybe, all those nasty things Republicans say about progressive policies are true. Maybe these ideas are stupid, impractical, impossible. And when several people – especially leaders – share that fear, it becomes a culture of fear. Idealistic newbies stepping into the caucus for the first time become awash in it. And like any weakness or failing, we try to dress it up as a virtue. As realism. And sometimes we compensate in other ways. Fear creates weakness, but nobody likes to look weak. Thus do you get the Rahm Emanuels – all tough guy and blustery, but living in mortal fear that he’s gonna blow it (and ready to angrily blame everyone around him if he does – even pre-emptively).

The other thing about fear is that it’s reactive. If fear is your motivator, everything you do is in response to the thing(s) you’re afraid of. Pro-activity is just too scary. Fear keeps you in the safest possible corner, so as better to defend yourself.

This is not to say that all Democratic leaders live in fear, but the ones who don’t are often the most dangerous in the long term. The notoriously corrupt ones, such as John Murtha (who continues to work against ethics reform and support the croneyism culture in the US House) have stepped back from the policy game and have entered the self-enrichment game. Much less scary, and the lines aren’t so clearly drawn. That’s not to say such people aren’t incapable of taking a principled stand (such as his Iraq position), but when all is said and done, they are a deeper problem than the culture of fear.

And that’s because the culture of fear can be overcome, not just collectively through the democratic process, but individually. Case in point, John Kerry. He blew it big time running for the top job. He was actively working toward a second run, when he grudgingly read the tea leaves and realized he had no chance in hell. He wisely gave up.

But then a funny thing happened – he came to life like never before. No longer afraid of losing, disgusted by much of what he saw, John Kerry (of all people) has become one of the most consistently assertive and progressive of voices in the Senate. Why? Because there’s nothing left for him to fear – and as such, fear has become rather pointless for him. Again, that’s not to say he isn’t going to do things that will piss us off, but its clear we’re dealing these days with Kerry 2.0 – and it’s a big improvement.

What the recent negotiations over the war tell us is that the welcome pattern of engagement with the netroots by the Democratic leadership has not come about because they’re suddenly more with us than ever before. Sure, some of the rank and file caucus members are because of how we helped put them there – but that’s not the case from the leadership’s engagement with our community. The fact is, we’ve become something else they fear. And because of that, we’re now at the table. But whereas fear may get us to the table, at the end of the day we’re still not the ones they fear the most, so if we can’t win our battles quickly, this leadership will revert to form and go hide in the corner in terror.

Still, we are at the table and we are having an effect. Making the Dem leadership afraid of us may get us taken seriously, but it doesn’t get us off the hook on the long, slogging battle to  truly change the culture in Washington and in our state capitols.

But it’s a start.