( – promoted by JDRyan)

I had a feeling when I said I was leaving for an indefinite time, that it’d be either a very long time or a very short one. So while I am back, don’t get too used to me, as you won’t be seeing me around very much – at least for the time being. As I said when I’d left, the attacks on me personally from those who haven’t approved of what I’ve written (SVR being the most recent and high-profile, but hardly the only such case) have impacted my life in various ways – but things can change quickly. As such, here I am, but I don’t intend to return to Front Page status or be a very frequent contributor for a while. Personal matters still need to settle down, but it’s good to feel that I don’t have to stay away completely to protect myself and my family. Thanks to everyone for your kind words and wishes (many of you I saw last Saturday in Burlington, and I should have thanked you there and then, but I think I was subconsciously pretending that everything was hunkey-dorey… either that or I was just being a jerk… sorry). Thus endeth a few really crappy weeks (I hope)

But I just had to come back today. I couldn’t stay quiet when I heard the news. No, not Town Meeting…or Scooter Libby… I mean the bad news. The news that Captain America is dead.

Yeah, okay, so I’m enough of a geek that I’ve blogged about Cap before. But consider the storyline in Captain America comics; a superhero-symbol of America not simply dead, but gunned down leaving the courthouse where he was on trial for his refusal to comply with a draconian law that completely deprived an entire class of Americans of their civil rights in the interest of law enforcement and national security.

Now I’m not going to belabor the metaphor’s obvious relevance except to make the point that sometimes things that we roll our eyes at or don’t take seriously can contain real content that should be openly talked about rather than casually dismissed.

Case in point, but in a negative way: Rep. Tom Koch’s (R-Barre Town) proposed legislation that would mandate a $600 fine for virtually any “distraction” while driving – not simply cell phones, but coffee, or dealing with pets, children, or presumably scratching oneself in hard-to-reach places.

The reaction to this bill has generally been to mockingly dismiss it, the exception being Charity who implied that such a proposal was atypical of a Republican and more consistent with Democrats. I think both perspectives are fallacies (details below the fold)…

The AP described the bill this way:

Vermont lawmakers are considering a measure that would ban eating, drinking, smoking, reading, writing, personal grooming, playing an instrument, ”interacting with pets or cargo,” talking on a cell phone or using any other personal communication device while driving. The punishment: a fine of up to $600.

Similar bills are under consideration in Maryland and Texas, and Connecticut has passed one that generically bans any activity that could interfere with the safe operation of a motor vehicle.

Now consider what the actual effect of this bill would be if implemented. A police officer would have the authority to pull virtually anybody over for anything, with the excuse that they were trying too hard to find a station on the radio or adjusting their rear view too vigorously. Nobody’s really looked at in in this light because we’re all to busy chuckling at how goofy the bill is.

Well I aint laughing.

here’s some of the text of the bill:

(a)  A person shall not operate a motor vehicle while distracted, as defined by this section.

(b)  “Distracted driving” means operating a motor vehicle while engaged in any activity involving the use of one or both of the driver’s hands if the activity is not necessary for the operation of the vehicle or any of its installed accessories, including reading, writing, performing personal grooming, smoking, consuming any food or nonalcoholic beverage, playing a musical instrument, interacting with pets or unsecured cargo, using personal communications technologies, except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, or engaging in any other activity which causes the operator to be distracted from the primary mission of driving.

The bill then leaves it up to the Douglas administration to define the specifics.

The truth is that the draconian increase in police powers this bill would be a nice and easy fit with the dramatic increase in authoritarian government we’ve seen under the Bush administration at the national level. In fact it slides so easily into that narrative, we hardly even notice – nor did we notice the fact that it’s only one of many such bills being introduced around the country. It’s the political zeitgeist, making something this small and local in scale hardly worth mentioning. Just a footnote in the long list of institutional power grabs. Really, is anybody even keeping track any more?

And that’s what concerns me the most – the context.

I’m not suggesting anything conspiratorial-minded. Nor am I suggesting that Koch has a secret agenda beyond what he’s stated publicly. That’s not the point.

The point is, that this bill is not simply a goofy anomoly. In this era of domestic spying, loss of habeus corpus, secret prisons and secret tribunals, it’s right at home. And the bill is not something we would sooner expect from Democrats, as it is a clean, easy local companion piece to the Bush Republican agenda for all of us. What we should be is shocked that Democrats, Progressives and Independents have signed onto it.

Between this proposal and Barre City Mayor Lauzon’s call for the death penalty for drug dealers, we are seeing the Bush wing of the GOP unleashed at the Vermont level – to the chagrin of not only Democrats and Independents, but Libertarian minded Republicans as well.

And the last thing we should be doing is rolling our eyes, blowing it all off and moving on. We should be reminding folks every chance we get. Remind them that this Bush breed of Republican is alive and well in our back yard and shamelessly firing more bullets into Captain America’s heart.

I hardly know how to start writing this diary.

As those of you who read this site regularly probably have noticed, the current trend among those who don’t like what they read here has been to respond by attacking me in personal ways. Given the realities of my socio-economic status and the responsibilities of family, this has always been a vulnerability. So I suppose it was always only a matter of time before these sorts of attacks drew blood, as they have.

As a result, I have no choice but to leave Green Mountain Daily (and blogging) indefinitely. Whether or not this is permanent is anybody’s guess. I’ve put a lot of my heart and soul into building something that I’m sure will continue to be a force in both public debate and electioneering going into 2008, but I’d be lying if I said the thought of it doing so without me wasn’t painful.

But go on it will, with Jack, Ed, Neil, Euan, B-Rouser and Kagro. To help make up for lost content, former FP-er mataliandy will be returning from time to time, and Five Before Chaos blogger JDRyan will join the front page as well (yeah, he’ll be the first FP-er that doesn’t self-ID as a Dem, but he’ll still have his own blog as well, so he can keep that radical cred intact and please the spaghetti western fans). For the moment, I’ll hang on the admin duties just because I’m not sure how else to handle it, but I have been informed that GMD will be receiving a Blogpac.com grant to cover a years worth of hosting fees, so whatever else happens, GMD will be around.

Have fun, folks. I’ll be reading!

I’ve promised myself I won’t talk about the Second Vermont Republic issue anymore – I’m gonna leave that to Rowley and JD Ryan – but I want to restate something I did say to minimize collateral damage. I’ve been swapping email with an angry Jason Sorens of the Free State Project, and I’m afraid after the Guardian article, that people may be making incorrect inferrences from my brief reference to him/them. I have no factual correction to make, but given Sorens’ understandable reaction I want to make sure I’m 100% clear, so I’m going to restate with a bit more force:

I’ve heard on more than one occassion, people suggest or charge that the Free Staters may be xenophobic or have racist undertones – in large part due to their involvement in an event last year that had originally been flagged by the Anti-Defamation League as such. But in my web surfing, it looked to me like these charges were unsupportable – even the ADL backed off from them to large extent. And you can bet that if I’d caught a whiff of racism or xenophobia, I’d have said so in that diary. I specifically didn’t, and I sure wasn’t inclined to hold back (for that matter, I had nothing on Bassani either – those specific charges have come from the Green Mountain Collective).

While I find Sorens’ politics WAY off, he seems like a well-meaning sort. In fact, he went so far as to agree on the racism of the League of the South and scoffed at their hiding behind the banner of heritage.

As far as this stuff goes, I’ve even tried approaching the FSP online community a bit, to maybe a little avail (I owe them a link to a student group complaint that I had also, but of course, I cant find it now – I think it was mutterings in response to the same NH event anyway…). A lot of ranters and ravers over there sure, but also a lot of decent folks. It’s a good site, believe it or not.

And while I’m at it, I did have lunch with Rob Williams yesterday (yes, when they posted their press release stating “SVR is not interested in responding to bloggers who refuse to engage in constructive dialogue with individuals and organizations prior to leveling allegations of any sort”, we had already planned to get together… I wondered if the PR was an oblique cancellation, but there’s a lot of left-hand-vs-right-hand going on I think). And let me just make clear; I have no idea whether or not Naylor himself is a racist. Questions, sure – but no conclusion (it’s enough that his craven attacks against me and my family’s livelihood in the media mark him as a person of low character). But, let’s be clear – I don’t think Williams is a racist. I just think he is supremely, tragically wrong.

Just again to be clear. I’ve never made any “allegations.” I’ve just expressed my shock and disapproval at SVR’s institutional relationships and makeup. Others have agreed. There are no facts in dispute, no charges made. I’m just grossed out, frankly (and neither is it fair to have expected “special treatment” – I didn’t ask for permission before criticizing Howard Dean, Pat Leahy, George Bush or any of the others I’ve criticized or praised… this is a web log for pity’s sake). Basically, there is no better summation of my feelings than the following, stating concerns that SVR…

…consorts with racists, white supremacists, and neo-confederate Christian theocrats. Unfortunately, there is some truth in those allegations, since the SVR has chosen to include on its advisory board and to invite to our table those who are associated with such movements. And it has done so with very little input from the larger activist secession community.

Even with the newly-published disclaimer that such associations are only because of the common interest in peaceable secession, there is a danger that such relationships will taint Vermont’s secession movement, as indeed this current controversy has born out.

I, for one, had already been arguing that we should draw a firewall between SVR and individuals or groups with publicly-stated philosophies that are antithetical to SVR’s and to Vermont’s tradition of tolerance.

… which was penned by Robert Riversong of the SVR. By all means, firewall away (although, may I suggest something more along the line of a mile wide, bottomless trench to seperate you).

Now I really am done with this. Way beyond done. Go talk about it at five before chaos.

Wanna play the world’s worst drinking game? Sit around with your buddies, pour shots, go around the circle and anytime anyone can come up with the name of a likely Republican candidate for Vermont’s at-large US congressional seat, take a drink. Expand it out to include any statewide office (beyond the two they already hold). I guarantee you’re gonna end the night pretty sober. The conflicting rumors about previous candidate Martha Rainville (that she is intending to go for the seat again vs. she’s moving out of the state entirely) open up the Congress question, and pretty quickly one comes to realize just how thin the GOP bench has become.

Under the guidance of recently departed Chair Jim Barnett, the Republican legislative races were allowed to dry up and blow away while all attention and energy was spent protecting Governor Douglas and pushing some of the other, big ticket statewide races. The result is a dearth of talent in the short term, and few rising stars on the horizon.

I have little doubt that pressure is already being brought to bear to persuade Brian Dubie to make a Congressional run, but he seems content with the cushy time committment-to-public profile ratio afforded him by the Lite Gov’s office. New House Minority Leader Steve Adams (R-Hartland) has high marketability potential, but is too new in his leadership position to be able to stike out anytime soon with any hope of success. And then of course there’s recently defeated Auditor Randy Brock who is already running against Salmon for his old position, but in a manner so over the top it’s already bordering on self-parody.

So who are we looking at for Congress? Secretary of State? Treasurer? Attorney General?

Folks like former House Speaker Walter Freed and former National Committeeman (and local Party moneybags) Skip Vallee have begun collecting cobwebs on the political shelf. Perennial Congressional candidate Greg Parke – who runs not to win, but to simply bring in income for himself and his family – may find it harder to continue his electioneering industry racket without the boogeyman of Bernie Sanders to open wide the spigot of out-of-state, reactionary GOP cash. A crusader (such as recently defeated former Rutland County Senator Wendy Wilton) is always a possibility, as electoral viability is not generally a concern for those sorts (and with Roper now the GOP Chair, folks like Wilton may feel empowered and energized).

So who’s left?

My guess is that more candidates in the Rich Tarrant mold will emerge to fill the vacuum – individuals used to being the ones the candidates turn to for money and contacts. For that list, instead of turning to current officeholders, we may find the Republican candidates of tomorrow by looking at campaign finance filings, such as this one or this one of Martha Rainville’s.

Many of these bigger contributors may or not be interested, but my gut tells me that somewhere on this list there are GOP-ers already making noises behind the scenes about stepping into the spotlight and sticking it to the liberals.

What do you folks think? Recognize any names?

A good editorial in the NYT today (entitled “Making Martial Law Easier”), highlighting Senator Leahy’s attempt to restore the provisions of law referred to as posse comitatus that restrict the President’s use of the military domestically. Of the many disturbing things this President and his GOP Congress did, this was one of the more chilling. Passed and signed into law in a very hush-hush manner, the law opens up the door for Bush to use the National Guard and other military forces domestically for almost any purpose he might deem appropriate. From the Tmes:

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any ”other condition.”

Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation’s governors.

There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation’s governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions.

Leahy was very concerned about this at the time the changes were enacted and was firing off a lot of warnings to no avail. It’s likely due to a combination of outrage fatigue, and the simple matter of the issue being lost against the cacophanous din of regular, almost routine egregious power-grabs that it didn’t gain traction when it happened.

It’s good to see that he’s wasted no time in acting correctively. The Times editorial fully supports Leahy’s corrective remedy and rightly admonishes lawmakers never to embark on such a draconian change without a full and open debate.

It’s sarcasm, snark, c’mon. Ed’s colorfully entitled diary below was mocking those who go nuts with Hillary-bashing as though she were Satan or something. I thought that was clear, but some have been reading it as though it were literal.

Speaking of “snark,” I guess I can no longer avoid the conclusion that “Snarky Boy” is radical activist Michael Colby. That’s been an opinion out there since he began, but I always poo-poohed it because, frankly, I thought he and I got along fine. I’ve even praised him on this site. The “boy” whose self-promotional narcissism is typically coupled with anything from homophobia to outright lies would seem to be a wholesale fictional character, given that more than one person has presented me with actual evidence of his identity. Ah well. So much for my judgment of character. In response, expect yet another round of fat jokes, invective, oblique threats to my day job (all proudly presented as radical liberational rallying cries), and mocking denials from the “blogger” whose personal obsession with me continually wavers on the pathological (and criminal). Truth to tell, I still hope everyone’s wrong about this.

On the SVR/White Supremacist thing, originally discussed here (90+ comments, brace yourself). Thomas Rowley has an initial examination of founder Thomas Naylor’s background, and in case you missed it, the Vermont Guardian has called for SVR to divorce its ties from the League of the South. If anyone was wondering whether the lull at SVR indicated reasoned contemplation, wonder no more. This, again from Rowley:

In what I can only describe as a bizarre development over this weekend, Kirkpatrick Sale, an Advisory Board member of Second Vermont Republic, contributor to the publication “Vermont Commons” and director of the Middlebury Institute, a self described “umbrella” organization to a variety of groups advocating secession from the United States that include racists, anti-Semites, misogynists, homophobes and white supremacists, has reaffirmed a commitment to partner with the League of the South, a documentably racist and white supremacist organization.

To Sale, the racist attitudes and agenda of some of his secessionist colleagues, and the potential consequences to his fellow citizens, is of no importance.  Not every Vermonter will share this cavalier attitude.

Remarkably, Sale has further revealed that his group intends to co-sponsor a convention later this year with the LoS.

Meanwhile, the narrative continues that those of us who object to neo-confederates given a beachhead in Vermont are part of the desperate crumbling power structure and are all COINTELPRO. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Dennis Kucinich just wrapped on AM1490 in Brattleboro. In the breathless coverage of Hillary and Obama’s trips to New Hampshire last week, you’d never known that Kucinich was there as well. Check Blue Hampshire for a report, if you’re so inclined.

A great analysis of the Vermont GOP’s flailing on the education issue from Vermont Scrapwood. Great blog. Wish they posted more often.

Well, I guess this is why Douglas has always tiptoed around the immigration issue, even when it was the red meat issue du jour for the GOP base:

A dairy farm run by relatives of Gov. Jim Douglas employs four undocumented Mexican immigrants, a farm owner said.

Douglas told the Burlington Free Press he had known for some time that the Foster Brothers Farm employed immigrant workers.

“I’m certainly aware they have Mexican workers, but I’ve never run into any of them when I was there,” he said.

“Farm business people feel it’s appropriate to do this to be successful,” Douglas said. “I don’t have any particular advice, other than to write your congressional members and tell them we need immigration reform.”

Interesting. Likely there will be a lot more on this to come.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

A post from a local Montpelier business leader at my now-largely-obsolete diary on the status of newly elected Statehouse Sergeant-at-Arms Francis Brooks’ House seat reminds me that I should probably post an update. The game is now afoot, and it’s worth another check-in. Please bear in mind, again, that what I should say on the matter is limited – particularly as regards my actual opinions – as my wife is one of the people who have made their interest known (although, since this is just a weblog, I can post whatever the heck I want, but still…).

First of all, Freyne has a brief tip of the hat to Brooks posted. Although popular in Montpelier, in recent years Francis seems to have rarely been given his due in greater Democratic circles. Hopefully there will be more tributes and acknowledgements forthcoming. Lord knows he’s earned ’em.

And a reminder: the Montpelier city committee will likely follow tradition and send a list of three names to the Governor for consideration, who will likely (but not necessarily) choose from that list. Given that, rumors abound that as many as 8 people may approach the committee for consideration. There are the three previously reported on here – Mayor Mary Hooper (who enjoys widespread support from the business community), Matt Levin and Cary Brown. Also having formally entered the mix is lawyer Jon Anderson. Unofficially, Washington County Assistant Judge Barney Bloom is also said to be interested. I couldn’t find information on the other three names, although one may be former Principal Charlie Phillips who after some initial interest has since backed off from consideration.

Where it would be silly to characterize this as a race, some jockeying behind the scenes has become… interesting… and even a bit tense. More after the fold.

Hooper and Anderson both want the seat badly, and are thusfar the only candidates to actively campaign for it – Hooper by email, and Anderson via snail mail and telephone. Hooper seems to have collected support from local business leaders, including local media, given her significant coverage in the Times Argus. The word has also been actively propogated that Hooper intends to run a primary contest in 2008 against anyone besides her who may be chosen, regardless of how well that person serves in the seat. There is some question as to whether or not this message is actually coming from Hooper herself, or whether it’s simply a narrative being promoted by Montpelier Rep. Warren Kitzmiller, who is supporting her aspirations. As it has just been repeated on this site by a local business leader (who himself had been rumored to be interested at one point)…

If anyone but Mayor Mary is appointed, they’d be a lame duck, as she’d run in two years and win.

…it’s clear that the notion is in full circulation and, at least, is not being refuted.

Given that the audience for such a threat is a tight circle of Democratic Party regulars – 20, to be exact (yes, I’m on the list) – it’s a dangerous idea to be circulating. First of all, the caucus can hardly only send one name to the Governor, as he would almost certainly reject such “marching orders” from Democrats outright. The suggestion that others interested could end up on a de facto enemies list may not go over well with Hooper’s fellow Democrats. Neither will the suggestion that she would foist a primary onto the party regardless of whether or not the designee actually serves the town well in their role as Representative.

But the fact is that Hooper’s threat could well be more targeted in intent, if not in application. Jon Anderson has a reputation in the statehouse as being… well, as not really being a Democrat, despite the fact that he once served as City Chair. To a person, everyone I’ve discussed the race with who only knows him from the Statehouse has greeted me with the same response: “I thought he was a Republican.”

This is because Anderson tends to represent development interests (such as Skip Vallee’s company) and has a reputation for being decidely anti-regulation and not generally receptive to progressive zoning or environmental positions. What this likely means for Hooper (and the others) is that – despite the narrative of inevitability that Hooper’s supporters have attempted to perpetuate regarding her appointment – the truth is, if Anderson is on the list forwarded by the city, the seat is likely his, given his strong ties with those connected to the Governor. Heck, even if he’s not on the list, it wouldn’t surprise me to see the Governor throw out the list and appoint Anderson anyway.

Hooper’s threat may be specifically targetted at Anderson, as she has kicked his butt in citywide elections already and he therefore has to be taking that threat seriously. An Anderson appointment would also be likely to draw a Progressive Party candidate into the mix as well, although Progs generally haven’t fared well when they’ve run under the official Party banner in Montpelier.

In any event, Anderson is undaunted, and has been lobbying to guarantee that the meeting will be scheduled before or after a planned absence from the city.

Anderson may not be the only one threatened with a primary challenge though, as a couple activists from the liberal wing of the party who have not been as pleased with the Mayor’s performance as Kitzmiller, have suggested that a Hooper appointment would almost certainly draw a challenge from the left. That may be a moot point if another rumor (this one I’ve only heard from one source, so take it with some serious grains of salt…) – that the Governor is displeased with Hooper and likely wouldn’t appoint her – is true.

All told, this hubbub hardly rises to the level of intrigue, and it all seems to be happening around the lesser known municipal players Levin, Bloom and Brown who haven’t been out there campaigning for the position beyond casual conversation. But it does suggest that the yet-to-be-scheduled city committee meeting, which many have suggested would be a foregone conclusion, may be wide open – even if the Governor’s choice may be less so.

Bring the popcorn.

From Salon:

For the second time in two weeks, the Senate has voted not to allow an up-or-down vote on a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush’s plan for military escalation in Iraq.

There was little doubt today’s vote would turn out as it did. Senate Democrats needed a 3/5ths majority to successfully invoke cloture and force a vote, but they had little chance of getting there. The Democratic caucus is technically 51 strong, but they came in with only 49 votes today — Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota is still hospitalized after experiencing bleeding in his brain in December and Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an “independent Democrat” who is part of the Democratic caucus, is one of the most vocal supporters of the president’s plan. As such, the Democrats would have needed 11 Republicans to cross the aisle in order to reach the 60-vote threshold necessary for victory. They got seven.

Still, this was an increase, by five, over the last vote less than two weeks ago.

Here’s the response from Senator Leahy:

“If anything, this debate is four years overdue.  Delaying this debate is a disservice to our troops and their families and to Vermonters and ordinary Americans everywhere who have stood up to demand a change of course in Iraq.

“We must keep pushing to bring our troops home, and I hope the Senate soon will rise to the occasion and once again accept the role it so often has served, as the conscience of the nation.  We have the power to bring the troops home and it is time to use it.”

Almost makes you wish the GOP had pulled the trigger on the “nuclear option” to scuttle filibusters (scuttlebusters?) so we could hoist ’em on their own petard (I said “almost”).

Of course, the GOP is just digging their own hole, adding more and more momentum to the defunding argument.

…and regarding that, also from Salon:

California Democrat Dianne Feinstein did, however, take her time today to introduce something more binding and less purely symbolic than what was up for discussion today: Legislation that puts an “expiration date” of December 31, 2007 on the authorization for use of military force. If Feinstein’s bill passes, Bush would have to seek renewed authorization for military force in Iraq after that date.

JRH015, a bill “REQUESTING CONGRESS TO COMMENCE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES” has been introduced in Montpelier has been introduced. The AP has this to say:

Organizers want legislatures around the country to adopt resolutions asking for impeachment proceedings to begin against the president. They argue that if resolutions are adopted, Congress would be forced to consider them under a little-known provision of a parliamentary manual drafted by Thomas Jefferson for the conduct of the House and Senate.

They say that manual requires Congress at least to consider impeachment if the state legislatures demand it.

Again, this is a bill excercising a State’s right under Section 603 of the Jefferson’s Manual (a guide to US House procedures) to initiate federal impeachment proceedings. This represents the latest step forward in the work of a lot of people who believe the time to play politics with Bush is over, and the time to take the integrity of the office of the President, as well as our Constitutional integrity, seriously has long since come.

Unfortunately, the odds are still stacked against the bill:

From the AP again

“I think, in general, we have limited time to address national issues,” [House Speaker Gaye Symington] said. “I made an exception for the Iraq resolution. Vermonters feel very, very strongly about Iraq. There’s a very direct impact because of the budget and the cost of human life.”

The bill is likely to be sent to the House Judiciary Committee for a recommendation on whether the full House should adopt it. But that recommendation may not be coming soon, said Chairman William Lippert, D-Hinesburg.

“I’m guessing I would share many of the sentiments,” said Lippert, who had not yet seen the resolution. “But our own congressional delegation has expressed its reluctance to engage in the impeachment process in Washington. … I think that suggests to me it may not be the best use of our time in the Vermont Statehouse.”

The thinness of this apparently united institutional front to so casually dismiss the effort is belied by the list of twenty co-sponsors:

Aswad, William
Masland, Jim
Nuovo, Betty
Zuckerman, David
Donovan, Johannah Leddy
Pillsbury, Daryl
Sharpe, David
McCullough, Jim
French, Patsy
Marek, Richard
Edwards, Sarah
Rodgers, John
Leriche, Lucy
Haas, Sandy
Hutchinson, Jim
Randall, Dexter
Pearson, Christopher
Davis, Susan
Mrowicki, Michael
Mitchell, Mark

Some heavy hitters there, who obviously do not share the opinion that the measure is somehow a waste of time.

It is interesting to note who is on this list that wasn’t on the co-signer list from last year’s ill-fated bill. Dick Marek, for example, was one of the original measure’s lead critics at the so-called “Rutland Massacre” Democratic State Committee meeting where the original meansure’s momentum was blunted. Missing from the list also are some sponsors of the original, such as Warren Kitzmiller, Michael Fisher and Mark Larson. It’s hard to imagine why they would have a change of heart, given that the transgressions of this President have hardly diminished in the interim.

This time is different, though, for several reasons. It’s not the last few days of the session, it’s not a matter of a few months before an election, and through the Iraq resolution proceedings, the House has provided a model whereby the matter could be taken on directly and with dispatch.

There are no excuses left beyond various iterations of “we’d just rather not deal with it.”

Don’t expect advocates to be thrilled to hear that mantra.