Consider the list in the Sunday Times Argus/Rutland Herald of the “winners” and “losers” of the now-wrapped legislative session. The winners include Healthcare, Groundwater, Emergency Contraception, the Abenaki. In many ways making for an impressive biennium. Consider the complaints from the latest Legislative Update of the VT Chamber of Commerce — an often reflexively obstructionist crowd that serves as a useful reverse barometer:

This past legislative session was characterized by an activist legislature that frequently looked to expand government on the backs of businesses. Cost cutting, fiscal restraint, or a thought to the impact of legislation on job providers rarely seemed to be a part of the natural discussion. In the next six months, the Vermont Chamber will work to bring a voice of moderation to the legislature on election day.

So, with all due kudos to the Legislature, my eye turned towards the Argus/Herald “losers” list (being the chronic glass is half empty sort that I am). Three in particular caught my eye, and led me to an idea:

Instant runoff voting: A study into possibly establishing instant runoff voting in Vermont passed, but actually implementing the method by which voters could choose their leaders by ranking candidates was put off.

Same-day voter registration: Maybe residents will be able to register to vote and complete a ballot at the same time someday, but it won’t be this year, lawmakers said.

Presidential impeachment: Despite a loud and politically charged effort on the parts of Democrats, Progressives and the Green Party, a measure that would have called on the Legislature to urge the House to begin an impeachment investigation against President Bush was sent to its death in the House Judiciary Committee.

There are more for the list, for example the resolution that called for a study of how overseas deployments affect the troops and the ability of the Vermont Guard to respond to emergencies. What you see in these bills are some real (small ‘p’ — let’s just stipulate that small ‘p’ for the rest of this piece, eh?) progressive priorities, which were allowed to fall by the wayside or be squashed — often so as not to ruffle feathers. It’s a bitter pill to swallow for progressives (of both the D and P variety), especially since the showcase accomplishment of the session is a severly watered-down health care law — watered down so much that legislators such as Representatives Fisher, Sharpe and Zuckerman couldn’t even bring themselves to support it.

It’s a familiar and frustrating dynamic. Progressive social change has always entailed “ruffling feathers.” A committment then not to ruffle feathers suggests, therefore, a committment to refrain from progressive social change. Clearly that’s not how many in leadership perceive it themselves, but it’s an inevitable dynamic.

And there will always be reasons to wait one more year. Usually it’s either “we have to be careful to maintain our majority” or “we have to be careful in order to regain our majority.” Clearly leaders are right to be cautious — as we know, elections can turn the power structure rather dramatically. But on the other hand, we must all be vigilant against giving into the rhetoric or the habit of political inertia.

So, to that end, the strongest advice I would make to frustrated progressive legislators is one word: organize. Although there are informal working groups around specific issues as well as a women’s caucus, generally there is no corollary under the Golden Dome to the kind of formalized caucuses of interest that you see in Washington DC. In Washington, by speaking with one voice, the House Progressive Caucus has found that speaking as a bloc, they can often be greater than the sum of their parts (post-2000 elections — where virtually no Democrat or Democratic group has had a say in anything — notwithstanding). A Vermont (p)rogressive Caucus could similarly speak as one voice on important or emblematic progressive issues that come before the Legislature and be in a position of collective power to keep them on the table when they become politically inconvenient.

As small as our Legislature is, it wouldn’t take very many legislators to create an effective force. The obvious list may be the list of co-signers on the very Impeachment motion that was cast into the judicial committee abyss.

In fact, if these particular legislators were to coalesce into such a caucus, the institutional bond between the two parties represented (Democratic and Progressive) that it would forge could only enhance the overall influence of the now-fractured left in Vermont beyond simply the legislative session itself.

Something to think about, anyway.

The Vermont Gore poll is down, and has proven once again that the only time GMD readers care to participate in a poll is when they get a chance to vote for Russ Feingold. Still, here are the results:

And to all who voted in the “Great” column (and everyone else), here’s a link to the very funny (if a bit bittersweet) “President Gore” lead in sketch from last night’s SNL (click on the image to view):

UPDATE: This is seeming phonier and phonier. In any event, check this excellent summary of Fitzgerald’s rapid (and verifiable) targeting of Cheney. It’s clearly building to a head.

So is Karl Rove indicted or not? Truthout reports yes indeed:

Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

  Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.

  It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

So is it true? If so, why haven’t we seen it anywhere else like, say CNN? MSNBC? Unfortunately Jason Leopold and Truthout are not sources we can feel confident about, and the blogosphere is abuzz as to whether he should be believed or not. Guess we’ll find out soon. If it’s true, you can say you read it at GMD first. If it’s not, maybe I’ll just be tacky and delete the diary…

Democratic candidate for Governor Scudder Parker has been in a serious hole. Atrocious name recognition, limited funds, and he can’t get press to pay him any attention… until today, that is, when Parker brought the NSA domestic spying issue home for Vermonters and finally made the Times Argus step up and take notice:

“I have asked my campaign staff to investigate whether the Bush administration’s warrantless spying activities, and the action of telecommunication companies involved in these disclosures, may have violated any Vermont laws, and if so, what actions have been taken to protect the rights of the citizens of this state,” Scudder Parker wrote in a draft of a letter to David O’Brien, commissioner of the Department of Public Service.

The fact is that it’s going to be much harder for Douglas to claim that Bush (and his association with him) are irrelevant to the election this time than it was two years ago, when Douglas laughed off any attempts by Clavelle to draw a linkage — and was gleefully joined by his plentiful allies in the Vermont Press. The excesses of the Bush administration are too pervasive, too omnipresent.

And Douglas knows it. That’s why he stands up quickly to inoculate himself, rather than dismiss it out of hand.

Jason Gibbs, a spokesman for Gov. James Douglas, said the governor had ordered O’Brien to determine if Verizon’s actions violated Vermont law immediately after hearing that Verizon had shared phone records with the NSA.

Things will have to change quickly for Parker to have a chance in this, but now that George Bush will be on the debate stage with him and Douglas, anything is possible.

It’s been a while since we’ve talked about the movement to instigate impeachment via the Vermont Legislature as per the procedures and precedents contained in the Jefferson’s Manual. A bill was finally introduced in the House with several co-sponsors, but in the waning frantic weeks of the session, it went nowhere. Still, the bill made it past the Statehouse doors and most of it’s sponsors will be back under the Golden Dome when the next session opens in January, hopefully ready for a January relaunch of 603 legislation.

And further brightening the future of the Vermont Impeachment movement is the likely arrival of a “603” ally in the Vermont Senate. Former Senate President Pro-Tem and Lieutenant Governor Candidate (and almost-Governor candidate) Peter Shumlin will likely step up to run for the Senate seat in Windham County being left open by retiring Senator Rod Gander. Gander is a fine man and will be much missed in Montpelier, but his retirement opens up the return of a major political player in Shumlin, who is one of the signers of the online impeachment petition (click here for the page his name appears on) that specifically calls on the legislature to take up Article 603 legislation. If he does run, Shumlin would be a virtual shoe-in, putting him into an ideal position to work with those like-minded legislators in the House who have already stepped forward on the matter — particularly if he returns to leadership.

Meanwhile, the Impeachment movement — both those activists who worked on “603” and those involved in the town meeting motions — largely continue their work, but in a more coordinated and regionalized way. Expect to see some local events bringing the issue to communities as proponents continue to work behind the scenes promoting the petition to build up a head of steam for a return in January. With the news of ever-greater and more astonishing attacks on our very society by this administration, it becomes clear that those of us who care are obliged to do everything we can within the bounds of morality and civilization to stop the erosion of our Democracy.

And thanks to the Jefferson Manual, this is something we can do.

John McCain the “maverick” has been sucking up to Jerry Falwell who he once called an “agent of intolerance” and has been rightfully beaten up for it the media and the blogs.

Now its Vermont’s own Howard Dean’s turn on Pat Robertson’s pet “news” show:

Dean told Christian Broadcasting Network News that the 2004 Democratic platform declares “marriage is between a man and a woman” — just one of the points he made in reaching out to religious conservatives who are largely hostile to the party.

But the platform does not define marriage that way, and his remarks prompted the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to return a $5,000 donation from the Democratic National Committee.

Dean later acknowledged his misstatement, but the group sent back the money anyway. “We need for Governor Dean to demonstrate real leadership on our issues,” executive director Matt Foreman said in an interview, “not to equivocate depending on the audience.”

There’s a difference between reaching out to new or alienated traditional Democratic constituencies, and pandering to the bad guys. This crosses that line.

Do I think Dean was “bearing false witness” so to speak? No, just speaking impulsively, but he should keep in mind that he is not “the Party,” and if he’s going to go reaching out to people who have values inconsistent with the values of everyone he works with, he should at the very least take a little more care not to misrepresent me and other Democrats in the process. I feel more than a little slimed by this report.

The guy is doing a great job as Chair, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t call him on things like this. If anything, since he is DNC Chair, we have a special responsibility to.

It’s everywhere — every blog and news report, but at the same time it’s impossible to not to mention, even on a local Vermont blog. Without repeating the details, here’s some important key points to the latest news — that Bush & co. have put together a database of virtually every phone call made in America.

From Salon’s War Room:

So what do we learn today? The Bush administration — without an act of Congress, without a ruling from the judiciary, without even the usual F-you of a signing statement — has written its own set of rules for gathering telephone records. Forget words like “subpoena” and “warrant” and “probable cause.” Forget fine legislative calibration. Forget all that stuff about amendments and floor debate and compromise in conference committees. None of that matters now. Under the Bush administration’s rules, the NSA gets access to every single phone record it can persuade anybody to give it.

What is the government doing with the phone records? Well, we don’t know, and we don’t really have any way of finding out for sure.

Finally, the sidebar Q&A from USA Today:

Q: Does the NSA’s domestic program mean that my calling records have been secretly collected?

A: In all likelihood, yes. The NSA collected the records of billions of domestic calls. Those include calls from home phones and wireless phones …

Q: Can I find out if my call records were collected?

A: No. The NSA’s work is secret, and the agency won’t publicly discuss its operations.

Q: Why did they do this?

A: The agency won’t say officially …

Q: But I’m not calling terrorists. Why do they need my calls?

A: By cross-checking a vast database of phone calling records, NSA experts can try to pick out patterns that help identify people involved in terrorism …

Q: Who has access to my records?

A: Unclear. The NSA routinely provides its analysis and other cryptological work to the Pentagon and other government agencies.

For a video of Senator Leahy’s reaction, click here.

Poll! If you haven’t noticed, Republican US Congress Candidate Martha Rainville is having a bad week. She’s been beat up by the Times Argus, by the right-wing Caledonian Record, the blogs and the WCAX poll doesn’t look great. On the one hand, it shows that she doesn’t have nearly the name recognition that all the Democratic campaign folks insist she has (of course, neither does Welch). On the other hand, all her bungling is having an effect. Democrat Welch is nine points up.

Chittenden Senator Jim Leddy is retiring. Senator Leddy is a good guy and a solid legislator. It’s hard to imagine the Senate without him. Thanks for everything, Jim…

Dem-lings: Did you know the Vermont Young Democrats had a blog? I didn’t know. I didn’t even know there were any Vermont Young Democrats (neither did Cathy Resmer at 802 Online — they aren’t listed in her uberblogroll). There’s apparently at least one: Louis Klapp, a VDP staffer. Check it out.

So do we have the whole Chris Graff story or not? Vermont Sunday Magazine Editor Dirk Van Susteren says the supposed justification of journalistic impropriety concerning a book on Howard Dean is bunk. Hmm. There may be more to this after all.

Two must-read GMD diaries: vtpeace (Barbara) starts a discussion on talking points for Democratic values, and Brattlerouser makes a last second appeal for help on the Farmer Protection Act. Check ’em out. Leave ’em your thoughts.

Did I say Rainville was having a bad week? She may be in competition with Tarrant who gets a one-two punch from Seven Days, first in an exchange with Freyne that suggests the guy is coming unhinged at his doghouse numbers, and then an article about some sleazy push-polling lite going on. This stuff deserves a real fleshed out post, but I’m swamped. Maybe Jack or mataliandy or Ed will go for it.

…and the session should be wrapping right about now. I’m sure everyone who posts here will have a lot to say on it (I know I will). Stay tuned.

Looks like the deal is done:

As many as 25,000 people who have no health insurance will be able to get it under a compromise health care reform package reached Tuesday among Gov. Jim Douglas and legislative leaders.

So it’s certainly a political victory for the Democratic leadership (at least until the Governor starts his own spin), but is the compromise a good thing or a bad thing? Will it hold up, or will it implode?

Differing views on the flip…

From Terry Doran of Vermont Health Care for All’s email:

There is a bit of guesswork and wishful thinking about where the money
will [come from]…

…the legislation, as far as we are concerned, is good politics, but not good health policy. The bills are patches on a weakening system that make good PR. We think they will add to overall health care costs, not reduce them. We think they will further burden the already over-burdened health care services. We think that primary care – the backbone of medical care – will take a heavy hit.

From the Speaker’s office:

This bill is an important first step in living up to the legislature’s commitment to
controlling the skyrocketing costs of health care.  It accomplishes that goal two ways: by making health care affordable and accessible to Vermonters who are currently uninsured, and by establishing an outstanding system of chronic care management…

…This is a bill that all Vermonters can be proud of.  We still have a lot of work to do to achieve our goal of comprehensive health care reform, but this is a solid step forward and I’m glad that the Governor agrees.

What do you think? Who’s right? I supported it, but felt I had little ethical choice and am deeply concerned about the plan. I also felt that by supporting it, I had a personal responsibility to push for deeper change quickly. Others felt differently. Are they right?

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Scudder Parker avoided the question of whether or not he supported the bill. Shortly after receiving the endorsement of Con Hogan — a proponent of more radical health care reform who has called the bill a sham — Parker merely said:

“It’s his creature as much as the Legislature’s” Parker said. “If I were governor, we would have a very different bill.”

So who’s right? Is it an easy question or a tough one? What’s next? And who stands to gain in November?

For a look at the details of the plan (or at least it’s claims) going into the negotiations with the Governor, check out this diary. We’ll have to wait for more details about what, if any, further concessions were made.

A story that should be passed on. As if we don’t have enough evidence already of the shameless corruption of this President and his cronies. Thanks to JLFinch at DKos for ferreting this out. From the Dallas Business Journal:

Once the color barrier has been broken, minority contractors seeking government work may need to overcome the Bush barrier.

That’s the message U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson seemed to send during an April 28 talk in Dallas…

…Jackson closed with a cautionary tale, relaying a conversation he had with a prospective advertising contractor.

“He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years,” Jackson said of the prospective contractor. “He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something … he said, ‘I have a problem with your president.’

“I said, ‘What do you mean?’ He said, ‘I don’t like President Bush.’ I thought to myself, ‘Brother, you have a disconnect — the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn’t be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don’t tell the secretary.’

“He didn’t get the contract,” Jackson continued. “Why should I reward someone who doesn’t like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don’t get the contract. That’s the way I believe.”

Incredible. No shame. No conscience. No sense that he needs to even pretend to restrain such blatant corruption and croneyism. He just brags about it in public for the world to hear and expects to be applauded.

That’s what we’re dealing with, folks. Here’s the HUD number if you want to complain: (202) 708-1112. And no, the HUD mission statement doesn’t mention anything about political litmus tests. At least not yet.