From the Times Argus:

Even though we predicted the outcry of the narrow-minded that would follow, we chose the latter. In retrospect, while others allowed emotions and fear to drive their comments, the council made a well-informed and thoughtful decision. I knew they would.

That’s Barre City’s newest Mayor (as of last summer) talking. Pretty harsh words, eh? Must be quite an issue to get him using such unusually insulting rhetoric, eh? Maybe it was an op-ed about the Iraq War, or Vermonters without health insurance, or the AIDS epidemic, or… or…

… a weather vane?!?

A little background – and I do mean a little. If you want more details, here’s a link. Basically, there’s this cool old weather vane that used to sit atop the Barre Fire House. They took it down several years back to display in the library when City officials realized it was probably valuable. Well, they were more right than they knew, as an offer of a cool $400k came in for the piece out of the blue. Concerned that there was a half-million dollar piece of art there for the casual taking, city officials decided to put the vane in a vault for safe keeping and consider their options. They’ve since decided not to sell, but not to put it back yet either.

And there’ve been some words, of course. Most notably between Lauzon and longtime Barre activist Joellen Mulvaney-Stanak. But hey, that sorta thing comes with the job of being mayor, right? …right? Here’s more from the Mayor’s bizarre rant-in-print:

While the personal attacks that ultimately follow the fights are tiring at times, I’m secure in the knowledge that I don’t pick the easy fights – I pick the fights that need fighting. For me, selling pieces of history would be an admittance that we as a community have given up hope for a better future – something I’ll never do.

Cue violins… after all, this is all about the children:

Someday in the near future, when families and children visit the weather vane display in a bustling downtown within a vibrant community, I hope they’ll have us to thank for it. I hope they’ll be able to hear about our lives and times. A time when we, acting as a community, declined the easy path and fought for a better future. That time is now.

Let’s leave the merits of this case to the side for now (I certainly don’t have a dog in that fight). Let’s also assume the guy isn’t pathological in some way – which then begs the question as to how big an ego one would have to have in order to feel free to spout such embarassingly insulting and self-aggrandizing nonsense without the slightest twinge of self-doubt or self-consciousness. And this from a guy who, from all indications, has loftier political ambitions. If he gets this freaky over a weather vane, imagine what awaits those who might disagree with him over something a bit more substantive. Holy moley.

But perhaps Mr. Lauzon was just having a bad day. And only ran the piece by other people who were also having bad days. Or something.

Sadly, no – and it’s no coincidence that Lauzon has risen to prominence in Barre City. He’s just the latest chapter of a troubled city’s recent history – a city seemingly divided into many truly amazing people busting their butts to make a healthier, stronger community on the one side, and those who have seemed to just give up on city government on the other.

(Please note: The Times Argus is heavily referenced. Unfortunately, they’ve chosed to put any articles more than a couple weeks old behind a #$%@ pay wall. I’ve therefore snipped what I could and linked to the search page where the complete article can be viewed at a price, although you may need to scroll and look for it.)

Barre has been hit as hard from skyrocketing property assessments as anywhere. It’s also slipped ahead of the curve in the trend towards greater anger and frustration towards government. Many there are still simmering over civil unions, and that rage has continued to smoulder, generating a solid “anti-everything” bloc that is the most consistent voting bloc in town.

They’re a minority, sure, but the rest of the City has become increasingly cynical, and the left (including some of the most committed, smart and organized activists you’ll ever meet) has had an increasingly hard time turning out the vote in key elections, even when the citizenry (or, more often the case, their children’s) self-interest is on the chopping block.

What has resulted is a toxic stew of name-calling and political opportunism, and what we’re seeing in Lauzon are those chickens coming home to roost.

Barre City was fiscally challenged back when Harry Monti was mayor, and the challenges were only going to increase with the pricey construction of a new Public Safety Building. The City had to build it, but the process became protracted, running into cost overruns, controversy and public resentment. After presiding over the process that got the ball rolling and put a plan on the table, Monti announced he wouldn’t run again. He clearly knew the Herculean challenges that were on the horizon:

Now that Harry Monti isn’t mayor of Barre any more, he has some advice for the man who is.. “He’d better buckle his seatbelt,” advised Monti, who this week reflected on his years as the leader of central Vermont’s largest city and the challenges facing Peter Anthony as the new mayor settles into the center seat on the City Council. “It’s going to be a wild [term]

  In 2004’s closely watched mayoral race that saw Governor Douglas directly involve himself in the nonpartisan affair on the side of Republican State Representative Leo Valliere, Peter Anthony (backed by the left) ended up with the victory.

It was during Anthony’s term that things really came to a head. Anthony threw himself into finding ways to address the growing crisis of Barre City simply not being able to pay for itself with his inherited building committment dragging the whole process down:

May 6, 2004…City officials admit Barre can’t afford to build a public safety complex that has already been sited, designed and priced out, even if it spends every penny of the $3.9 million voters approved for the project more than two years ago.

…and it got more complicated:

Public Safety complex compromise falls apart, now heads to court
Date: June 17, 2004
Publication: Times Argus, The (Montpelier-Barre, VT)
By David Delcore TIMES ARGUS STAFF. BARRE – Landlord Paul Irons didn’t blink.. Faced with what amounted to an ultimatum from the City Council, the local landlord whose permit appeal has stalled construction of Barre’s new $3.5 million public safety building, rolled the dice on Wednesday.. For the second straight day, Irons refused to accept the city’s offer to create parking for his tenants on Fourth Street in exchange for his agreement

Looking at the process from every angle seemed to lead to the same conclusion: Barre City would save little to no money bailing out of the project – which left Anthony in the unenviable position of trying to find more revenue from an electorate that felt overburdened by property taxes already – and with a strong recent history of rejecting them (at least on the first tries). Anthony turned to an electorate largely burned out on the process and not interested in voting, but for a committed bloc seemingly interested in shutting down the whole process:

Mayor Peter Anthony says he won’t revive the short list of local options taxes that was bombed by Barre voters on Tuesday, but he warned they shouldn’t be surprised if some other revenue-raising initiative appears on the ballot in March. Frustrated by the overwhelming defeat of an alternative tax package that was pitched in conjunction with Montpelier and Berlin, Anthony said there is little point in pursuing that proposal any further

Recriminations flew, and he found himself challenged for the mayor’s office by Thomas Lauzon.

Lauzon ran a nasty campaign. It was replete with the name calling, scapegoating and faux suggestions of magic fixes that we’ve come to expect from the worst campaigns. It drew energy from the anger that had already caused the rejection of all the city’s budget requests, school and otherwise. To make matters worse, Harry Monti – who, as mayor for many years, arguably bore more responsibility for the overall dynamic than Anthony who simply inherited a crappy situation – threw his fellow Democrat under the bus, and endorsed Lauzon, who took the prize…

Date: May 11, 2006
Publication: Rutland Herald (VT)
BARRE – Voters ousted their first-term mayor and rejected school budgets for the third time this year and the city budget for the first time. Mayor Peter Anthony was trounced by challenger Thomas Lauzon, an accountant and developer

And yes, you read that right — the vote included the rejection of the school budget for the third time. That was the mood of the residents who came out to vote, and that was the flame fanned by Lauzon that burned his path into office.

But he found he couldn’t just bark at people and magically make things better. Suddenly it was his pile of crap. And guess what happened? The budget went down again:

Date: June 30, 2006
Publication: Times Argus, The (Montpelier-Barre, VT)
BARRE – Granite City voters have steered their community where officials say no Vermont town has gone before: into a new fiscal year without the authority to spend one red cent. In the latest of a seemingly endless series of special elections that have afflicted this city of 9,200, voters Thursday rejected a $7.9 million municipal budget, 632-516

TIme for desperate scapegoat mode, and that scapegoat was in the person of another of Lauzon’s campaign targets, City Manager Robin Bennett. The problem was, Bennett had recently been giving a shining performance review by the City Council. How then to handle the problem of putting her head on the wall?

Easy, just throw together another performance review to your liking behind closed doors (I kid you not), then fire her. From the Times Argus again:

The day after voters bombed their budget, city councilors bounced the city manager. After spending more than 90 minutes behind closed doors during a hastily arranged special session late Friday afternoon, councilors refused to renew City Manager Robin Bennett’s contract and informed her that she will be out of work in 90 days

Nobody will care, right? After all, she already riled up alot of voters complaining about the pornography in Barre City firefighter’s lockers…

Date: May 4, 2006
Publication: Times Argus, The (Montpelier-Barre, VT)
BARRE – Firefighters are fuming, but City Manager Robin Bennett is standing her ground in the face of complaints she opened a firefighter’s locker in the city’s new public safety building, finding a nude photograph taped inside the door. The incident, which occurred while Bennett was inspecting the public safety building days before last Saturday’s open house, has fueled tense relations between the manager and unionized firefighters,

… so nobody should bat an eye.

But there’s still that pesky problem of a budget. For the first time (I believe in the state’s history), a municipality was operating without one.

Lauzon’s petulance, unfiltered through any more scapegoats, shined through:

…”If we don’t have a budget I don’t think we can in any stretch consider Homecoming an ‘essential service,'” Lauzon told city counselors, suggesting he would not support providing the police and public works’ manpower that organizers say is crucial to the success of the popular four-day festival.
“It is virtually impossible to pull off without the city’s support,” Lauzon said of the community-wide celebration that is scheduled to start July 27.
Meanwhile, Lauzon warned that another budget defeat would finally prompt him to support “pulling the plug” on the municipal swimming pool. Although Barre is already operating without any authority to spend money this fiscal year, Lauzon has stood unflinchingly behind the council’s decision to lay off several city workers and curtail some services while at the same time keeping the pool open.
Berlin Street resident Laura Boldosser publicly questioned Tuesday night the decision to keep the pool open, claiming it was a concern shared by other taxpayers she has spoken with.
“That’s a bone of contention with a lot of people,” said Boldosser, who said the council had sacrificed public safety to keep the pool open.

…”I feel like I’m standing here in the batter’s box and I can’t get anyone to pitch to me,” lamented Lauzon, who defended a budget that calls for a 7 percent increase in spending and a 3 percent increase in the property taxes needed to pay for it.
“I ran on a platform of controlling spending and taxes and I think this council has responded to that,” he said, vowing to mount a campaign to recruit absentee voters in the run-up to next Thursday’s election.
In hopes of pushing turnout over the 1,400-voter mark Lauzon said he has already contacted 163 registered voters and signed them up for absentee ballots. He is asking other council members to do the same in coming days.
“I didn’t think it would come to this, but now I’ve learned to play the voter apathy game,”

If Lauzon sounds like a weasel, well that’s exactly the word one insider I spoke to used to describe him. His reputation is of someone less than trustworthy, and some have privately questioned his professional ethics. So why throw Anthony over for him?

Peter Anthony is a good guy, but what I’m always told is that he’s not a “people person” and that a lot of folks don’t like him. Monti in particular was annoyed by him, from accounts. All I can say from personal experience is that Peter is a very decent, hardworking, committed and smart guy, and I’ve never seen this surly side. What I can tell you is he comes off, in mannerisms and appearence (especially his car) very working class. And he’s a very no-nonsense guy. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if part of the complaints about him were simply a matter of his inability to look like a member of the movers-and-shakers club, as well as a refusal to be deferential to the members of that club.

I’m not saying I couldn’t be completely mistaken, but that’s sure as hell what it looks like from here.

So now Barre City has Mayor Thomas Lauzon.

God help them. And their weather vanes.

( – promoted by odum)

I think it’s become even more obvious than it was a week ago: Democrat Thomas Salmon Jr has been elected Auditor of Accounts for the State of Vermont, dealing a mighty kick in the rear-end to outgoing GOP Chair Jim Barnett on his way out the door. Of course, as PoliticsVT reports, there’s a big chunk of votes yet to be counted:

According to the Secretary of State’s Office, Tom Salmon is still leading in the Auditor of Accounts race and has continued to pick up handfuls of votes across 13 of Vermont’s 14 counties.

It now all comes down to Chittenden county and it roughly 63,000 votes. It is truly the “big one” of the Vermont political scene and it will decide who will be Vermont’s Auditor of Accounts.

The fact is that Chittenden County is overwhelmingly using optical scanners, and as Secretary of State Markowitz said, the optical scanners are not where the numbers are changing – it’s in the hand counts. This election is over.

The optical scanners, with their paper trail and high accuracy rate, are actually pretty good for Vermont, as a technology of scale. Yes, their programming can be easily altered, but considering the scale of our elections, nobody is going to be able to do that on the sly without drawing a lot of attention. Similarly with programming patches or updates coming down from the manufacturer. Tampering is possible, but it would be dangerously easy for a citizen Board of Civil Authority to catch given that even our “big cities” are actually relatively small towns, and the implications of getting caught make it a poor cost-benefit scenario. Contrast this with the touch-screen systems which are more complex and can be easily interfaced under the guise of normal maintenence by anybody with a laptop.

But it’s hard to shake that lingering question as to why so many votes went to Levy instead of Salmon. It’s just that, once again, the ballots seem to be skewed in error to Republicans favor. The hubbub from SoS is that it’s an issue of ballot design, and I’m willing to accept that of course – but call me cynical for wishing that in a couple of these towns, vote counters would’ve double counted votes for a couple other offices to make sure they lined up as well.

National news sources are reporting that South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson is under observation at George Washington Hospital suffering from stroke-like symptoms. No word as to his condition.

There is significant chatter about it on the blogosphere, but precious little in the media as yet. On everyone’s mind, after concerns over the well-liked red-state Senator and his family, are concerns over the balance of power in the Senate. In the event of Johnson’s leaving the Senate, his replacement would be named by the state’s Republican Governor, who would inevitably appoint a GOP replacement, making the Senate a 50-50 tie thereby returning control to Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and the Republicans by virtue of VP Cheney’s tie-breaking vote as Senate President.

Mercifully, even the hard-core right-wingnuts are sending their best wishes. Maybe this country isn’t as screwed up as we’re often afraid it is.

UPDATE 5:53: Unconfirmed word is that he has been released from the hospital. Reportedly the stroke (or whatever it was) was caught very early.

UPDATE: 7:11 A.M.: Johnson is in the hospital after brain surgery last night. There are still no clear reports on what happened yesterday, but the fact that he had surgery on his brain seems to support earlier reports that he had a stroke.

CNN also has a link to audio of his verbal difficulties on the conference call yesterday.

UPDATE AGAIN: There was apparently bleeding into Johnson’s brain caused by a condition called “Congenital Arteriovenous Malformation” whereby blood vessels are structurally too close together. His condition is critical, but that’s mainly because brain surgery’ll do that to you. By all accounts, he is recovering well, so it’s wait-and-see.

[Here’s one to kick Burlington Free Press reporter Nancy Remsen’s Terri Hallenbeck’s concerns about “blogger over-speculitis” into overdrive…]

Is Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy thinking of giving the GOP something new to be terrified about?

Boy, did an email I received today get me a-speculatin’…

Nominally from Senator Patrick Leahy, the email says:

The Senate Judiciary Committee, which I will chair in the new Congress, will take an active role — and, I hope, a bipartisan role — in charting a new course for our country that includes oversight, and not just rubber stamping of the Bush Administration’s agenda.

My new agenda for the Senate Judiciary Committee will be an agenda of restoration, repair and renewal:  Restoration of constitutional values and the rights of ordinary Americans.  Repair of a broken oversight process and the return of accountability.  And renewal of the public’s right to know.

Interestingly, the email lays out that agenda, which includes not merely privacy and civil rights concerns, but immigration “reform,” war profiteering and “making thoughtful and practical changes we can greatly increase access to essential medicines throughout the world.”

Hm. Immigration reform? Health care reform? In the Judiciary Committee?

Lest you think I’m being silly, take a look at where the email was sent from: the Green Mountain PAC. This “GMP” is all-Leahy-only-Leahy, is promoting a broad, hot-button agenda, and has been supporting candidates across the country. In fact, it looks an awful lot like PACs such as this one, this one and this one.

Okay, but candidates have such PACs without actually running for President. Here’s California Senator Barbara Boxer’s, for example. Maybe it’s to build support and funds for his re-election bid in…er… 2010?

But if that’s all it was, why would the greenmountainpac.com URL be registered to Mustafa Tameez? Never heard of him? Texans have. From blogHouston.net:

Tameez may well represent the future of politics in Texas for Democrats, if they are to have one any time soon. His ability to reach across the aisle on specific issues — for example, he had the KSEV crew eating out of his hand on the pension plan referendum — is the sort of coalition-building his party will need to do while it is the minority party in this state. That he knows how to do so definitely makes him a consultant to watch

Why would Leahy need a hotshot rising star such as Tameez to help him set up his simple let’s-help-the-Dems operation? And why would he need one intimately familiar with (and electorally successful in) that reddest-of-red, polar-political-opposite state of Texas, home of George Bush, Tom DeLay and a lot of voters whose opinion of northeastern liberals could use a little rehabilitating? From the Houston Chronicle:

Mustafa Tameez managed a successful referendum campaign for [Houston] Mayor Bill White in May [2004] and again in the recent election [2004]. He’s also the man behind Hubert Vo’s strong showing Tuesday against Republican state Rep. Talmadge Heflin  though that tight race still hinges on uncounted provisional and absentee ballots.

Can’t blame a guy for wondering.

But again, I’m just a-speculatin’…

…though I must say, it’s a nice-looking website.

( – promoted by odum)

Isn’t this nice? Sean Hannity will be skiing at Okemo over Christmas. But he also plans on getting out and mixing in with the locals a bit. From the Rutland Herald:

Several minutes later, Hannity told his listeners that he had come up with an idea for his Vermont trip. He and a crew are going to interview unsuspecting Vermonters for his Man on the Street segment, in which interviewees are made to look ignorant and ridiculous.

“We’re going to do a Man on the Street while we’re in Vermont,” Hannity said. “Ooh, it’s going to be good. I can’t tell you any more right now, just listen in January.” He said he would dig up our Old World attitudes and behaviors for the amusement of his audience.

Proving once again that Hannity is simply the schoolyard bully who never grew up and still thinks back fondly of his days beating up the smart kids on the playground.

Hey, let him come. After all, we’ve already paid for his trip with Vermont tax dollars.

Today, December 9th, marked the end of the “lame duck” session in Washington, and while most of us will remember the day as the end of the most incompetent, corrupt and dangerous Congress in anyone’s memory, it is also the official closing of the final US Congress that Senator Jim Jeffords will ever be a part of – and for that, I am feeling sad.

In 2001, when the course of this President and his congressional enablers had come clear, many of us concerned about our Constitutional freedoms and the very essence of what makes our nation special had begun to despair. It was during this moment that a singularly brave and ethical public servant stepped forward to do what none of his colleagues in the GOP Senate caucus could do (or have done since) – the right thing. Jim Jeffords single-handedly turned control of the US Senate to the Democrats, and for a brief moment ended one party rule in Washington.

Sadly, it was all too brief, but his action did serve to temporarily halt the momentum of those who have since done such harm to this country. Perhaps more importantly, though, it gave many of us who were in despair some real hope – not just that things could get better, but that we were right. It was a shot in the arm that we, as opponents of the Bush agenda, absolutely needed.

The poor Google video clip above was taken by me using a hastily acquired video camera (the first two minutes show some of the scene outside the Burlington hotel where Sen. Jeffords held his press conference, the next fifteen or so show the actual announcement, and the next 3-4 show the increased crowd outside the hotel… the last minute or so is blank). I’ll never forget that week or the wild scene in Burlington…

I was working for the Vermont Democratic Party at the time, and had taken most of the week off to do a brief teaching gig, as it was the slowest time of the election cycle for us. Party Executive Director Mark Michaud (there were only two of us on staff at the party at the time, amazingly enough) contacted me to let me know something big was coming – that it looked like Jeffords was either going Independent (and would caucus with the Dems), or going Democrat outright. In either event, we needed to get it on camera.

We managed to keep the event in Burlington rather than Montpelier, as originally discussed, as there was to be a truckload of anti-civil union activists in the Capitol City that day and we didn’t want them crashing the scene. Also, the Chittenden County Dems were busy phonebanking their lists for a completely unrelated reason, so we were able to piggyback a turnout message onto their script (so no, that wasn’t quite a spontaneous crowd, I’m afraid).

So I hastily got a hold of a public access camera and arrived in Burlington met by the scene at the beginning of the recording. Unfortunately, police, hotel security and hotel management were checking for press credentials at the door to the conference room. Since everyone who was anyone of local importance was wearing a suit, I figured I could bluff myself by as I was in a plaid shirt and jeans – and therefore looked like an absolute nobody tech with a camera. I loaded up both arms with equipment and strolled up to the door through the aisle created by police and security through the throngs of well-wishers. When I reached the harried hotel manager at the door, she asked for my press pass.

I put my best pained look on my face, glanced quickly at each armful of equipment as if to say “you’ve got to be kidding me.” The only sound I made was a semi-audible cross between a grunt and a whine…

…and she simply waved me through.

I set up two cameras over from Candy Crowley, and what you can see through the Google viewer is all that survied of my personal copy of the tape, which sadly got water damaged in my basement (yes, I’m an idiot).

It was quite a moment on quite a day – one I and many others will never forget. It was a day that etched a two word phrase onto the bumper stickers, lips and minds of Vermonters for years to come:

“Thanks, Jim.”

The following is the text of Jeffords’ speech:

Good morning, everyone.

Anyone that knows me knows I love Vermont. Vermont has always been known for its independence and social conscience. It was the first state to outlaw slavery in its constitution. It proudly elected Matthew Lyon to Congress, notwithstanding his flouting of the Sedition Act.

It sacrificed a higher share of its sons in the Civil War than perhaps any other state in the Union. And I recall Vermont senator Ralph Flanders’ dramatic statement 50 years ago, helping to bring the close on the McCarthy hearings–a sorry chapter in our history.

Today’s chapter is of much smaller consequence. But I think it appropriate that I share my thoughts with my fellow Vermonters.

For the past several weeks, I have been struggling with a very difficult decision.

It’s difficult on a personal level, but even more difficult because of the larger impact in the Senate and also the nation. I have been talking with my family and a few close advisers about whether or not I should remain a Republican.

I do not approach this question lightly. I have spent a lifetime in the Republican Party and served 12 years in what I believe is the longest continuous held Republican seat in history. I ran for re-election as a Republican just this past fall, and had no thoughts whatsoever, then, about changing parties.

The party I grew up in was the party of George Aiken, Ernest Gibson, Ralph Flanders, Winston Prouty, and Bob Stafford. These names may not mean much today outside Vermont, but each served Vermont as a Republican senator in the 20th century.

I became a Republican not because I was born into the party, but because of the kind of fundamental principles that these and many Republicans stood for: moderation; tolerance; fiscal responsibility. Their party–our party–was the party of Lincoln.

To be sure, we had our differences in the Vermont Republican Party, but even our more conservative leaders were in many ways progressive.

Our former governor, Dean Davis, championed Act 250, which preserved our environmental heritage.

And Vermont’s Calvin Coolidge, our nation’s 30th president, could point with pride to his state’s willingness to sacrifice in the service of others. Aiken and Gibson and Flanders and Prouty and Bob Stafford were all Republicans, but they were Vermonters first. They spoke their minds, often to the dismay of their party leaders, and did their best to guide the party in the direction of those fundamental principles they believed in.

For 26 years in Washington, first in the House of Representatives and now in the Senate, I have tried to do the same, but I can no longer do so as a Republican. Increasingly, I find myself in disagreement with my party. I understand that many people are more conservative than I am and they form the Republican Party. Given the changing nature of the national party, it has become a struggle for our leaders to deal with me and for me to deal with them. Indeed, the party’s electoral success has underscored the dilemma that I face within the party.

In the past, without the presidency, the various wings of the Republican Party in Congress have had some freedom to argue and influence and ultimately to shape the party’s agenda. The election of President Bush changed that dramatically.

We don’t live in a parliamentary system, but it is only natural to expect that people like myself, who have been honored with positions of leadership, will largely support the president’s agenda.

And yet, more and more, I find I cannot. Those who don’t know me may have thought I took pleasure in resisting the president’s budget or that I enjoyed the limelight. Nothing could be further from the truth. I had serious substantive reservations about that budget, as you all know, and the decisions it set in place for the future.

Looking ahead, I can see more and more instances where I’ll disagree with the president on very fundamental issues–the issues of choice, the direction of the judiciary, tax and spending decisions, missile defense, energy and the environment, and a host of other issues, large and small.

The largest for me is education. I come from the state of Justin Smith Morrill, a U.S. senator from Vermont who gave America its land grant college system. His Republican Party stood for opportunity for all, for opening the doors of public school education to every American child.

Now, for some success seems to be measured by the number of students moved out of the public schools.

In order to best represent my state of Vermont, my own conscience and principles I have stood for my whole life, I will leave the Republican Party and become an Independent.

(APPLAUSE)

JEFFORDS: Sorry for that.

Control of the Senate will be changed by my decision.

AUDIENCE: Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Jeff.

JEFFORDS: I’m sorry for that interruption, but I understand it.

I will make this change and will caucus with the Democrats for organizational purposes once the conference report on the tax bill is sent to the president. I gave my word to the president that I would not intercept or try to intervene in the signing of that bill.

My colleagues, many of them my friends for years, may find it difficult in their hearts to befriend me any longer. Many of my supporters will be disappointed, and some of my staffers will see their lives upended. I regret this very much.

Having made my decision, the weight that has been lifted from my shoulders now hangs heavy on my heart, but I was not elected to this office to be something that I am not. This comes as no surprise to Vermonters, because independence is the Vermont way.

My friends back home have supported and encouraged my independence. I appreciate the support they have shown when they have agreed with me, and their patience when they have not. I will ask the support and patience again, which I understand will be very difficult for a number of my close friends.

I have informed President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Senator Lott of my decision.

They are good people with whom I disagree. They have been fair and decent to me, and I have informed Senator Daschle also of my decision. Three of these four men disagree with my decision, but I hope each understood my reasons. And it’s quite entirely possible that the fourth one, with my independence, may have second thoughts down the road. But anyway, that’s the way it is.

I have changed my party label, but I have not changed my beliefs. Indeed, my decision is about affirming the principles that have shaped my career. I hope that the people of Vermont will understand it. I hope in time that my colleagues will as well. I am confident that it is the right decision.

Yes?

Q: Senator Jeffords, what do you say to those people who, only six months ago, voted for you as a Republican…

(APPLAUSE)

Q: … so what do you say to them (OFF-MIKE)

JEFFORDS: Right. I understand, and I’m sorry that I had no expectation of it.

Q: (OFF-MIKE) you were his campaign chairman, obviously?

JEFFORDS: I was not the campaign chairman, but that’s a small point. I believed at the time and had hoped at the time that those of us that are the moderates of the party, not just myself–and I speak, I’m sure, for many moderates in the party who had high hopes when the president spoke of education and when he gave his dedication to education–that we would be able to follow him, and I praise the president for his education package.

It will alert this nation, every student, every school, every state will know exactly how bad they are.

And that’s the problem that I have with it. Because there are terrible problems out there that will have to be solved, and that is why in the budget process, I stood up and said, no, we can’t give all this money back. We have too many high priorities–education, number one.

We have got to provide the resources for the president’s plan. If the resources are not there, it’s going to be misery in the school systems. And I told this to the president personally. So it’s no secret that I have these feelings.

But I could not, after that, see the direction of the budgetary process–and you know I stood up against that, and we succeeded in getting some $300 billion extra to spend. But it’s not being directed under the budget process to education.

Q: Do you feel the president has not lived up to his campaign promises?

JEFFORDS: Well, I don’t know–I don’t ever remember specifically a promise to fund. He gave us a promise to get us new direction in education. But new direction without funding is really no useful direction at all.

Q: Senator, much has been made of the way the Bush White House and the Republican leadership in Congress have treated you. Has their treatment–personal treatment of you had anything to do with your decision?

JEFFORDS: Oh, nothing whatsoever. It gets laughable at times, and you get upset with it–like Vermont, the national school teacher, those kind of things. But that had nothing to do with it. Nothing at all.

Q: When did you make your decision?

JEFFORDS: I’m sorry?

Q: When did you make your decision?

JEFFORDS: I made my decision yesterday on the way down, really. And I’ll tell you why–why did you wait that long? I promised my moderates. I met with the moderates yesterday, and it was the most emotional time that I have ever had in my life, with my closest friends urging me not to do what I was going to do because it affected their lives very substantially.

I know, for instance, the chairman of the Finance Committee has dreamed all his life of being chairman. He’s chairman a couple of weeks, and now he will be no longer the chairman.

All the way down the line, I could see the anguish and the disappointment as I talked. So I told them I would not make my final decision until I had time on the way to Vermont to decide, and I did leave it open. But I could not justify not going forward.

(UNKNOWN): Last question.

Q: Senator, last week, the chairman of the Vermont Republican Party said he’d be terribly surprised if the idea of leaving the party had even crossed your mind. What have you done today to Republican leaders (OFF-MIKE)?

JEFFORDS: I’ve communicated with them, either I or my staff have. I’ve had conversations with them on the phone to make sure they understood what I was doing and why I was doing it.

STAFF: Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

In the waning days of the last election season, I received an email from a reader who was clearly angry at WCAX’s naked partisanship demonstrated, not simply in it’s standard, FOX-news-reminscent news coverage (or lack thereof), but by it’s refusal to sponsor a gubernatorial debate (despite hosting debates for every other major office, and traditionally hosting one in cycles past), thereby significantly (and seemingly intentionally) minimizing the opportunities for Scudder Parker to reach voters in his challenge to Jim Douglas.

The writer had an interesting suggestion… that “maybe it’s time to challenge WCAX’s FCC license since it appears they are not operating in the public interest?”

The timing is spot on, as their current 8-year license expires April 1, 2007. This means that public input on the renewal can be accepted until March 1st. But whether or not such an effort would be worthwhile and victorious may come down to a questin of how you define victory…

It’s unlikely that such an effort would bear fruit, if the goal is to shut down WCAX. Such efforts generally aren’t, but there is a push out there to use this process as a means to hold corporate media accountable, win or lose. It should be added though, that “corporate media” that they are, there are still free speech considerations, ethically speaking.

But, as so many of those opposed to state-based impeachment never allowed themselves to understand, sometimes it’s not simply about winning and losing – or, more accurately, it’s often the case that there are degrees of success. Many would be thrilled to see the CAX operation shut down for meddling so shamelessly in the democratic process, but it would also send a powerful message indeed to give Marselis Parsons and his GOP cronies a serious public black eye – and it could then prove inspiring to others around the country who similarly have to deal with their primary local news source so closely wedded to the ambitions and goals of a specific political party.

Here’s the process (pulled primarily from the handy-dandy how-to guide at New Hampshire’s FreePress.net):

Yesterday, WCAX filed an application to renew with the FCC. Click here to view the application on the FCC website. Now that they have, the flood of public commentary should begin from now until 30 days before the expiration date of April 1st.

First, there’s the head-on approach; writing a letter that makes the case that the station is serving a partisan political interest. This is grounds for a complaint, as is working against the interest of the community it’s located in.

It may also be possible to catch them in a “gotcha” moment, whereby they’re not fulfilling their obligations under their licensure. For example, all stations are required to air 3 hours a week of educational programming for kids, and it’s not uncommon for stations to either pre-empt that programming, or to pass clearly non-educational shows off as meeting the obligation. You can go to the FCC database located here to view WCAX’s reporting on meeting this obligation. These public accountings are filed quarterly, and it would take a little effort to comb through them. A glance at last quarter’s reveals little out of place, but I certainly think it’s questionable whether or not “Dance Revolution” counts as educational…

The following information needs to be included on the letter:

• Call letters: WCAX-TV
• City and State: BURLINGTON VT
• Facility number: 46728
• License renewal application file number: BRCT – 20061130APP

The letter can be sent to:

Video Division, License Renewal Processing Team
Room 2-A665
FCC, Office of the Secretary
445 12th St. SW
Washington, DC 20554

A copy should also be sent to:

General Manager, WCAX-TV
MT. MANSFIELD TELEVISION, INC.
P.O. BOX 4508
BURLINGTON VT  05406

The other, more time-intensive but effective route would be to file (with the help of a lawyer) a formal “Petition to Deny”. The link provides details.

So from where I’m sitting, it seems to me to be a no-lose scenario. Cast a vote below if you have an opinion.

–

 Loading ...

Sirota beat me to it. With Obamamania sweeping the Democratic left, all my alarm bells have been clanging for weeks, fueled by remembrances of the many discussions and frustrations that have been brewing around the freshman superstar. I’ve been intending for days to type a diary about my concerns. Concerns that, given how little Obama has really done and how far he has fallen into the game of reinforcing many of the Republican talking points about liberals on his book tour and casting it as reaching out, it may be premature to be falling all over each other to anoint this guy as the second coming (of Clinton, Kennedy or King, depending on who you listen to).

It’s just as well, as my fellow Bernie-Sanders-staff-alumnus Sirota (okay, I was only a little organizing toady, while Sirota was a press secretary…) was typically far more direct and compelling than I ever am:

For progressives, this situation is perilous indeed. Obama is a candidate who has kept his record deliberately thin, who has risked almost nothing for the bigger movement, and in fact who has sometimes gone out of his way to reinforce dishonest stereotypes about the left. This is a man who has helped launch the Hamilton Project designed to undermine Democrats pushing for fairer trade deals. This is a man who belittled Paul Wellstone as merely a “gadfly.” This is a man who refused to lift a finger for Ned Lamont. Flocking to a candidate like that without demanding that he change only reinforces the damaging concept that our movement is a Seinfeld Movement about nothing.

His thesis was, by my reading, simple and irrefutably valid:

I want to be clear: I don’t think our movement is a Seinfeld Movement. But don’t fool yourself: a movement that rushes to embrace a candidate without demanding that candidate actually lead on the issues that the movement is supposed to be about – well, that could be a death blow for what we are working toward. Movements move because leaders lead and because they weild power by forcing politicians to stand up for people. Movements are killed by false prophets, cults of personality and by the unwillingness of those in the movement to wield their power for their agenda.

Okay, so maybe some don’t agree. I happen to, and in fact consider it self-evident. But there are reasons not to. Perhaps someone takes an “electioneering” perspective over an ideological one, and sees Obama as eminently marketable and electable. Regular readers of my scribblings won’t be surprised to hear that I don’t subscribe to that line of reasoning, but hey, I recognize it as a legitimate point of view. Or perhaps you share Sirota’s concerns, but your “gut” tells you that Obama will nevertheless be the guy to run for president. Fine. We all depend to some extent or other on the “gut check.”

Hoo-boy. Was it not that simple. Let’s just say there’s another reason I’m glad Sirota beat me to the punch, as this is the sort of response he received:

Narcissistic Sirota doesn’t think his movement is a Seinfeld Movement. But don’t fool yourself: a movement that rushes to embrace a writer who belittles leading Democrats – well, that sort of mindless negativity could be a death blow for what we are working toward. Movements move because writers write in ways that unify and promote popular causes — and because they spell words like “wield” without inappropriately applying mnemonics like “i before e except after c and sometimes w.” Movements are killed by false prophets like Sirota, who mistake self-righteousness for substance.  They “weild” their power for their own, self-referential agenda.

As Sirota responded on his own blog shortly thereafter:

None of this is Obama’s fault, and as I’ve written repeatedly, I strongly believe he has incredible potential to be one of American history’s great leaders, and in fact a great presidential candidate right now – but only if he starts aspiring to actually lead, starts using his bully pulpit to promote a real, substantive cause (and by the way, as I have written before, that goes for ALL of the potential Democratic candidates). In fact, the Obama obsession as a political phenomenon really is less interesting in what it says about him than what it says about us, the progressive movement. People just want to say “shut up, Obama for President” or claim like conspiracy theory freaks that I am on the payroll of another presidential candidate (I am not), or claim that we simply cannot talk about the presidential contest and must fall in line immediately without any discussion. What it all signals is that parts of the progressive movement are so singularly focused on personality that they don’t want to even think about the tough questions that ask whether we actually are an issue-based “movement” at all.

Mr. Sirota, meet the guru mentality. It permeates the left, is an ongoing source of mischief and mania, and with every passing year seems only to get worse.

The guru principle could be considered a pathological manifestation of the leader principle. Unlike many on the far left of mainstream debate who come from a socialist framework, I’ve fallen into the public arena from more of a left-libertarian zone, and as such I’ve always been leery of leaders. Nevertheless, I recognize the role of – and need for – the leader from time to time, whether they manifest as an individual or as some sort of vanguard. Good leaders are visionaries who draw their vision from the people they lead, taking those shared values and making them manifest through word and deed. Good leaders know that they are a reflection of those they lead, and are only leaders inasmuch as there are like-minded people willing to follow. This is not to suggest that real leaders are simply parroting the impulses of their followers, as an important function of leadership is to provide the ugly, unpleasant truth when it is called for, and to sometimes chart a course that is not the one his or her followers would like to travel – but a good leader builds a trust with those they lead that acts as a contract, holding them together through the tough patches.

In other words, there is faith involved on the part of those who are lead, but it is a faith based in experience and confidence – or in other words, based on reason.

Contrast that with it’s pathological counterpart, the guru principle. The relationship between the political guru and his or her followers is not about reason. It is about feelings, stimulus responses and blind faith. Reason is not part of the equation – in fact, reason is anathema to the guru principle, for the obvious reason that it threatens absolute devotion.

The contract created between the political guru and the followers is not based on trust or experience, it is based on emotional need or the desperate desire for someone – anyone – to make things right, either in the world around the follower, or within their own psyches. The guru principle manifests when the political sphere gets too close to the religious sphere – which is, frankly, why the areligious are often the most susceptible to it (and I speak as an extraordinarily areligious sort myself). When we consider ourselves above religion and faith 9as opposed to merely separate from it),  I believe we underestimate the human tendency towards faith, and fall into the trap of finding faith in inappropriate places.

The problem with this contract is the extraordinary amount of power it invests in the guru. It is a blank check, and no leader should ever be issued such absolute power from those they lead. That’s a scenario that never goes well. At the very least, in electoral politics, it is a way to cast yourself as the absolute captive constituency, which – in the democratic vacuum created – makes the guru-leader far more likely to grant disproportionate influence to others who may not share your values simply because they need to be persuaded.

It’s bad news folks. It’s a bad way to create a movement, it’s a bad way to create a democracy. It’s a lousy way to be a follower, and – perhaps most significantly for the purposes of the Sirota experience – it’s a lousy way to be a leader. If you think Obama is the greates thing since sliced bread, fine – more power to him. If you’re ready to hand him the keys to the kingdom and rise to cast down any who would question his righteous ascendance, don’t fool yourself into thinking you’re doing your guru any favors.

If you want to see Obama be the kind of leader you imagine him to be, join with others in demanding he make his case clearly, respectfully, reasonably – and most important, completely. As Spider-man says, with great power comes great responsibility. If he wants the power, let’s make sure he accepts the responsibility to clearly account for what he will do with that power. or to put it in a less geeky way, is it too much to ask to see his application before we give him the job?

After all, if this guy has half the potential he seems to have, the last thing we want to do is push him into the deep end before he’s comfortable swimming. We should all have the conversation clearly and respectfully.

It’s just called looking before you leap, and if you’re angrily and defensively covering your eyes before you take the plunge into who-knows-what, perhaps you need to ask yourself if it isn’t because you’re a little nervous about what you might see if you let yourself look…

I didn’t think I was going to be able to get to the post-election party sponsored by the state Democratic Party tonight, but suddenly an opportunity presented itself and I popped into my car and zoomed over.  Around 100 people were in attendence from a couple different Dem “usual suspect” subsets that don’t usually mix. To my chagrin, I realized I had arrived just in time for the traditional parade of speeches from the electeds, so I took a deep breath and tried to look interested.

But then something odd happened. One after one, our statewide candidates (winners and losers) took the stage and were relaxed, positive and … well, brief – which only buoyed the crowd (which had already been drinking for an hour before my arrival) further. And one by one, the speakers reminded us all what we’d accomplished, sure – but also how much work was left to do.

Newly elected US Congressman Peter Welch was relaxed, sincere, funny – and downright inspiring. I like Peter, but I haven’t generally found him to be very inspiring in front of a crowd, which made it even more remarkable. He spoke eloquently about meeting with Rep. John Murtha after the leadership vote, and accompanying Murtha to the Bethesda military hospital the very next day to visit and speak with the Iraq wounded. The crowd practically yelled halleluia when he ended his three minutes by stating clearly and directly that he understood and embraced the fact that voters had sent him to Washington first and foremost to end the Iraq War and bring the troops home as soon as possible.

Senator-Elect Bernie Sanders followed, also more relaxed than I’ve ever heard him. Of course there is no one more inspiring on the stump than Bernie, but he doesn’t exactly exude a lot of warmth, generally speaking. This time was different, which is not to say his time-tested timbre and message were in any way altered, just that he was clearly among friends, and the crowd of Democrats (which have longed to be able to celebrate his work with him among them) responded in kind.

And finally there was our Senior Senator, Patrick Leahy. For those who’ve heard Senator Leahy speak, you know that his delivery can vary quite a bit. It can be easy to tell when he’s tired, physically or mentally – so Leahy on the stump doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing twice. But Leahy of late has had a fire in his belly, the likes of which we haven’t seen in a while. His sadness at the loss of comity and the discarding of basic Constitutional values under the Bush GOP has turned into outrage, and he has been consistently riveting in front of a crowd in recent months.

But since the election, that outrage has turned into inspiration, and it’s an inspiration he passed on to the crowd tonight. Like the speakers before him, Leahy was funny, thankful, exuberant… but there was an edge that was very serious. He related a conversation where he was recently asked if President Bush should be “worried” that he was now to be Chair of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee. The crowd started cheering.

“No, no” he said, calming the crowd, as if to be prepared for a softening of his rhetoric.

“No, he shouldn’t be worried. He should be terrified.”

And the room exploded.

Leahy went on to assure the crowd that, unlike “some in the administration,” he’d “actually read the Constitution,” and went on to promise that no judges nominated to the federal bench who would ignore that Constitution would ever get past his committee.

All told, it was a great evening. An inspiring evening, and it had been a long time coming – not just in the sense of wresting control of the COngress from Bush, but by having Senator Sanders in the room, breaking bread with so many of the people who had worked so hard to put him into office. It was a reminder of a big part of why we had won nationally – because while the Bushites were tearing the Right Wing apart with divisive politics and corruption, the Left Wing was coming together like never before to protect our shared values (if not always our shared strategies).

So who’d-a-thunk it? In the end, Bush ended up being a uniter after all.

[Originally published in the Vermont Journal. No linky, as they’ve done something weird to the site. This is my final column, as the paper’s been sold and – temporarily, at least – mothballed. Thanks to editor John Bauer for the fun (if brief) experience as a print-person.]

The question of Presidential impeachment was thrown around before November, and it’s a question that won’t go away in the election’s aftermath. A question as to whether or not the breaking of more than 750 duly passed laws (according to the Boston Globe), and the trampling of the 6th, 4th and 8th amendments (according to the Courts) through acts such as the reserved “right” to declare any citizen an “unlawful combatant” and lock them up indefinitely without charges or access to counsel, rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” specified under the Constitution as grounds for – what amounts to – the ultimate job performance review and disciplinary hearing for our nation’s number one employee.

It’s a question that begs an answer.

I’m a blogger, which makes me an internet geek of sorts. As a geek, I know the old Star Trek series a lot better than I probably should admit to. To this day my favorite moment in the series was when Captain Kirk explains to an evil, bearded, doppelganger version of Spock the simple logic of social activism.

“If change is inevitable, predictable, beneficial – doesn’t logic demand that you be a part of it?”

It’s a powerful line that speaks to the responsibility of all of us not simply to be spectators of history, but to take part in it. Unfortunately, Democratic lawmakers have a tendency to head directly for the calmest waters in the interest of stability for stability’s sake. Of course, it’s no coincidence that the calmest waters are usually also the shallowest.

I share the belief that our responsibilities demand we act on what is right, even if that action is inconvenient. The transgressions of this administration show no signs of abating under the new Congress in light of the President’s self-appointed “signing statement” authority, through which he brazenly rewrites congressional laws to suit his own agenda and dares any and all to challenge him otherwise.

But that’s not even the point, is it? If the standard of impeachment is the Lewinsky scandal, this President has left the line in the dust. If we’re to be concerned with the integrity of process, of fairness, and of the basic tenets of law and order, it seems clear that an accounting must be made if the Constitutional impeachment provisions are to have any meaning.

It can’t be enough, to simply wipe the slate clean and pretend nothing happened, any more than it would in a court of law. To do so would be to cast impeachment forever as a purely political process – and if that’s truly all it will ever amount to, we should be doing away with it altogether.

Whether or not the US Congress will step up to the plate remains to be seen, but the responsibility not simply to watch from the sidelines but to act demands that we all do our part to defend our nation and it’s laws. For me and most people I know, that means speaking out.

For the Vermont House and Senate, it means much, much more.

A little known, seldom-used but recognized Congressional procedure allows impeachment proceedings for federal officeholders to be initiated in a state legislature. Activists urged the Vermont House and Senate to take up the matter, but were rebuffed despite a groundswell that drew headlines across the country. “There isn’t enough time” we were told. “It wouldn’t go anywhere in a Republican Congress” we were told.

This session activists will doubtless be dismissed with the reciprocal argument; that since Democrats are in power, there is no need to bring the matter up.

Poppycock. If we hold our American principles in any esteem, we must demand accountability of our chief executive when he acts contrary to those principles. Without accountability, there are no principles. Without principles, there is no America. And if America is all of us, we all have a responsibility to defend it by whatever tools we have available to us. As a private citizen, I do not have the tool of impeachment available. By virtue of their offices, our State Representatives and Senators do.

“Push `til it gives” Kirk admonished.

I, for one, choose to ask no less of my elected representatives