The news on the Vermont Democratic Party website today makes me proud to play on that team. The VDP has finally announced the winners of their annual Curtis Leadership Awards. The first recipient is Marcelle Leahy, but I want to focus for a moment on the other two: former Justice Department lawyer and “Rutland Resolution” author Jeffry Taylor (here praised in the current issue of the American Prospect), and Speaker of the House — as well as leading public opponent of the Rutland Resolution — Gaye Symington.

Anyone who finds this juxtaposition unfathomable simply doesn’t understand the Democratic Party. When it works, the Democratic Party has never been about shared opinions or strategies, so much as shared values. A shared perspective, encompassing a broad diversity of specific viewpoints within those common values. And this is something, to my mind, which sets us apart from the other major leftist party in Vermont, the Progressives. Where the Progs are so concerned about uniformity of opinions they have hardwired adherence to the Party line into their bylaws, the Dems eschew “party discipline” and give free rein to rollicking debate. While the Progs’ approach may work for some, it’s always been a poor fit for those leftists with a more left-libertarian bent. From that perspective, issue uniformity is mandated at the expense of open debate, and open debate is ultimately lost at the expense of real democracy. And as maddening, sluggish, and messy as democracy can be, it is a process people like myself are passionately committed to — even if that means losing on occasion (within and outside the Party itself).

Jeff and the Speaker are two people I’ve complimented on this blog, even though Symington has been an opposing force on issues near and dear to me of late. Nevertheless, both are highly deserving. I applaud the VDP for making such a positive statement on it’s dialtectical principles of open, honest debate (which yes, also means open and honest disagreements) among those who hold these shared values of community — not just individual — responsibility.

Congrats to Jeff, Gaye (and Marcelle).

From DarkSyde at DailyKos:

How long will Americans put up with the endless excuses and Republican blame game? About as long as it takes for a GOP screw-up to impact their own pocketbook or lives. And that’s exactly what is happening right now with energy prices. Understandably then, Republicans are terrified that their jig is up. High gas prices knocked Jimmy Carter out of office, a hardworking and intelligent man, despite being perhaps a little too ineffective at solving some serious problems that got thrown his way. You can imagine Republican anxiety over voter backlash on gas prices

Except in Vermont. Where, fairly or not, reasonably or not, whenever Vermont voters look at the high gas prices they don’t think of Bush and the Republicans. They think of Democrats.

And as much as it may create problems for Democratic State Legislators, some of whom have shown a dogged insistence on a gas tax hike that likely won’t even be in the final legislation (as if anybody outside the Statehouse ever seriously thought it would), who will this association hurt more than anyone?

Peter Welch.

The price of gas is already shaping up to be a major election issue — second only to Iraq. All the economic spinning and framing done by the GOP hasn’t affected Americans unease and uncertainty towards our economic future for one major reason, and that reason is the price of fuel. Democrats running for federal office everywhere are capitalizing on this. It’s a tailor-made issue that resonates across the middle and working class demographic, and Dems are getting advice across the country to run head-on against the Party of big oil on this issue.

Except in Vermont. Where due to some in the House digging in their heels, in the free association word game of politics, when voters hear “gas prices” they are, for the moment, thinking “Democrats.”

As President Pro Tem of the Senate, Welch had the positioning and the good sense to get that tax out of the Senate bill, which gives him a leg up on getting the albatross off his neck. But it’s still an albatross, because most casual voters don’t make the distinction between the Dems in the two bodies.

In fact, the Senate’s quick rejection of the gas tax allowed for some creative thinking. Matt Dunne’s “gas guzzler” surcharge — essentially an environmental luxury tax — made for great copy. But legislators are loathe to create new revenue tools for their policy toolbox, preferring to tweak the tools they already have.

And in the mechanical sense (setting aside creativity like Dunne’s and the “vision thing”) this makes good sense. A straight line is the shortest distance between two points, and the shortest distance between the two sides of the revenue gap was a measly $.04 gas tax.

But just looking at it from the policy perspective – as much as the policy wonks in the legislature want desperately to believe otherwise – is not looking at the whole picture. The shortest distance between me and my car in the driveway is a straight line, but it goes right through a thorn-laden rose bush. So rather than get ripped to shreds, I go around (where was superstar political consultant Bill Lofy on this??)

So Welch is starting a tough race with a disadvantage unique from other Dem candidates for the US House. He needs to get some distance from the session and his team needs to work to refocus culpability where it truly belongs – with Bush and the national corporate croney GOP leadership – before he dare mention gas prices on the stump.

On the upside, nobody in Vermont handles the press better than Welch’s campaign manager, Carolyn Dwyer, so that’s a plus. Although I’ve expressed concerns on this blog about Welch’s tendency to monologue and drift off message (as well as concerns about what that message is), it’s reasonable to assume that public indications, such as the Doyle Poll, which showed the race at a dead heat set off alarms among Welch and his team at least as much as they scared me (and I went into a freakin’ panic), so I’m guessing there’s been a lot of work on those matters. Time will tell.

In the future, though, some in the House might find they get more mileage for being bold, truth-telling leaders by digging in and getting stubborn on ideological issues (such as the National Guard/Iraq legislation that was abandoned at the behest of Dubie II), rather than sterile bureaucratic ones (such as insisting on increasing a high-profile regressive tax that hits people right in their most fundamental sense of fiscal security during an election year – all because it neatly fills a revenue gap). They’ll be doing themselves and their team a favor.

The Cashman issue may be yesterday’s news, but Vermont is still near and dear to Bill O’Reilly’s heart. From the Free Press and Fox News via Media Matters (in case you missed it while it was on the Media Matters sidebar):

While discussing states’ sentencing laws for people convicted of sex crimes against children, Bill O’Reilly declared: “Soon, there will only be a few states where” sex offenders “can go and molest children and get sympathy, states like Massachusetts and Vermont.”

You can also click on the image for a link to the clip. Click on “there’s more” for the context.

As The Burlington Free Press reported on April 13, the Vermont Senate “unanimously gave preliminary approval Wednesday [April 12] to a bill designed to crack down on sex offenses” by “increasing the number of investigators who focus on sex crimes, increasing the number of pre-sentence investigations that judges use to help determine a sentence, trying to better coordinate prevention programs … decriminalizing consensual sex between teenagers”; creating a “a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for aggravated sexual assault”; “expand[ing] the sex offender registry to list more offenders on the Internet and add[ing] a registry for violent offenders.”

The Vermont House of Representatives previously had passed legislation that “approved a mandatory life maximum and set advisory minimum sentences, but declined to affix a mandatory minimum out of concerns they would make it more difficult to prosecute sex crimes.” As the Free Press noted on April 5, “[M]any prosecutors and victims’ advocates” oppose mandatory sentencing laws “out of concern that the mandate would force more defendants to take their cases to trial, forcing more victims to testify and creating the possibility of more acquittals because sex crimes can be difficult to prove.”

Now, do you think the subtleties escape Bill because he’s not interested, or is he just a dimwit?

Or do we really care anymore?

Whatever. I’m gonna go watch Olbermann now…

Following the action of legislators in California and Illinois – which in turn followed the grassroots activism of Vermonters – legislation calling for the impeachment of George Bush under Section 603 of the Jefferson Manual will be introduced to the Vermont State Legislature Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest.

As first reported in this diary and this one at Green Mountain Daily, and subsequently picked up by The Nation and others, Rep. David Zuckerman (P-Burlington) has retrofitted his previous call for impeachment with the language of the “Rutland Resolution.” Current co-sponsors include Represenetatives Steve Green, George Cross, Daryl Pillsbury, Kathy Pellett, Dexter Randall, Michael Fisher, Jim McCullough, Winston Dowland, Ann Seibert and Chris Pearson, making it a true bipartisan (Progressive and Democrat) action. It is no small step for these Dems to buck the wishes of leadership to avoid the issue. One wonders if it is at least in some way a reflection of frustration at the quiet abandonment of some more lefty legislation such as Instant Runoff Voting and the study on the Iraq debacle’s effect on the VT National Guard.

Chances for passage of the legislation this session at such a late date are slim (as are the chances for the comparable California and Illinois resolutions), but it is still a tremendous vindication for supporters who are committed to pushing the legislation next session if need be.

The complete text of the legislation follows the link. You can also check California talk radio’s “Peter Collins Show” for an archived mp3 of Rep. Zuckerman’s appearence with Rep. Yarbrough of Illinois who introduced the Illinois version.

Whereas, Section 603 of the Manual of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives provides for impeachments to be initiated on a motion based on charges transmitted from a state legislature, and
Whereas, President George W. Bush has served as the 44th President of the United States since January 20, 2001, and

Whereas, his profound disregard for the fundamental principles of the United States Constitution, including the rule of law and the separation of powers, has only worsened in recent months, and

Whereas, George W. Bush has committed high crimes and misdemeanors as he has repeatedly and intentionally violated the United States Constitution and other laws of the United States, particularly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Torture Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution is a treaty as part of the “supreme law of the land,” and

Whereas, George W. Bush has acted to strip Americans of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to legal counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an “enemy combatant,” all in subversion of law, and

Whereas, George W. Bush has ordered and authorized the attorney general to override judicial orders for the release of detainees under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly INS) jurisdiction, even though the judicial officer after full hearing has determined that a detainee is held wrongfully by the government, and

Whereas, on more than 30 occasions, George W. Bush has ordered the National Security Agency to intercept and otherwise record international telephone and other signals and communications by American citizens without warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, and has designated certain U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants,” all in violation of constitutional guarantees of due process, and

Whereas, notwithstanding the President’s reliance on the 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing his “use of all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,” many legal scholars and members of Congress from both political parties have criticized the domestic surveillance activity as being in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (Act), and

Whereas, George W. Bush has admitted that he willfully and repeatedly violated the Act and boasted that he would continue to do so, each violation constituting a felony, and
Whereas, the Act requires obtaining a warrant from a federal court that sits in secret session as a prerequisite to the conduct of domestic intelligence surveillance activities, and

Whereas, the Act even includes a provision providing for a 72-hour period after a domestic surveillance action has occurred for a federal official to obtain a retroactive warrant, and
Whereas, in the nearly 18 years since the Act’s court’s creation, only a miniscule number of requests for a warrant has been refused, and

Whereas, if, despite the extensive leeway the Act provides for the conduct of a domestic intelligence surveillance action and the strong inclination of the FISA court to grant nearly every federal request for a warrant, the administration still believes the Act is not responsive to the new digital technology that was not available in 1978, it could have sought an amendment to the law, and

Whereas, the repeated constitutional and statutory violations that are manifested in the domestic spying program leave Congress no alternative but to commence an impeachment proceeding, now therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives:

That the General Assembly submits that President Bush’s actions and admissions constitute ample grounds for his impeachment, and that the General Assembly has good cause for submitting charges to the U.S. House of Representatives under Section 603 of the Manual of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives as grounds for George W. Bush’s impeachment and be it further

Resolved:  That the General Assembly urges the U.S. House Judiciary Committee to initiate presidential impeachment hearings as quickly as reasonably possible, and be it further

Resolved:  That the secretary of state be directed to send a copy of this resolution to Representatives F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. and John Conyers Jr., the chair and the ranking member of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, and to the Vermont Congressional Delegation.

Vermont may have led the way with the Town Meeting resolutions, but the best our legislature can hope for in this heartening trend of Democratic electeds standing up and saying “no more” is now third place. From ImpeachPac:

California Assemblyman Paul Koretz of Los Angeles (where the LA Times has now called for Cheney’s resignation) has submitted amendments to Assembly Joint Resolution No. 39, calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney. The amendments reference Section 603 of Jefferson’s Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives, which allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature.

I love seeing this movement spread, but I still am disappointed that we weren’t first. Ah well.

From the blog Proviso Probe via Kagro X at Daily Kos:

Today, Thursday, April 20, 2006, Rep. Karen Yarbrough introduced into the Illinois General Assembly House Joint Resolution 125, which calls for the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

Want to know why I’m posting this here? Check out the first paragraph of the resolution:

WHEREAS, Section 603 of Jefferson’s Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature

Looks familiar, eh? Despite all the expressed reasons not to take this step, which are at least as valid in the take-no-prisoners venue of Illinois politics, a proud Democratic legislator has stepped forward. Go give her a contribution, she’s got an election this year too (and tell her GMD sent ya!) Check the link for the complete resolution:

WHEREAS, Section 603 of Jefferson’s Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature; and

WHEREAS, President Bush has publicly admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to violate provisions of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony, specifically authorizing the Agency to spy on American citizens without warrant; and

WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that President Bush authorized violation of the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty regarded a supreme law by the United States Constitution; and

WHEREAS, The Bush Administration has held American citizens and citizens of other nations as prisoners of war without charge or trial; and

WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that the Bush Administration has manipulated intelligence for the purpose of initiating a war against the sovereign nation of Iraq, resulting in the deaths of large numbers of Iraqi civilians and causing the United States to incur loss of life, diminished security and billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses; and

WHEREAS, The Bush Administration leaked classified national secrets to further a political agenda, exposing an unknown number of covert U. S. intelligence agents to potential harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to investigate the matter; and

WHEREAS, the Republican-controlled Congress has decline to fully investigate these charges to date; therefore be it

RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NINETY-FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE SENATE CONCURRING HEREIN, that the General Assembly of the State of Illinois has good cause to submit charges to the U. S. House of Representatives under Section 603 that the President of the United States has willfully violated his Oath of Office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States; and be it further

RESOLVED, That George W. Bush, if found guilty of the charges contained herein, should be removed from office and disqualified to hold any other office in the United States.

I know, I know — it’s been a whole week since any Vermont impeachment news. And after Philip Baruth sang our praises for our coverage! After daily hits from places like michaelmoore.com and google searches aplenty, all looking for impeachment news! Well, at GMD we aim to please…

…and there are several bits of information to report, mostly from the rumor mill. I prefer to wait until things have clarified, but what’s a blog without a little gossiping?

First of all, contrary to reports of a massacre, grassroots efforts to call for the impeachment of the worst President in history as loudly as possible continue. And though Democrats in the Legislature have opted not to take the matter up collectively, the grassroots push is finding other avenues…. (click link for who’s doing what in Vermont, Maine, Washington, etc.)

Key points:

* Mighty Burlington may be the next Vermont municipality to tackle a Newfane-style resolution. There’s rumbling…

* There seem to be mixed emotions on the matter among the Democratic caucus post-State Committee meeting. Rep. Dick Marek, who supported the Newfane town resolution but spoke out against the Section 603 resolution (with an argument debunked below) is now circulating a letter calling on the Vermont Congressional delegation to push for “investigation”, and it has 56 legislative signatures! It seems many of the Dems are comfortable calling for action individually but not collectively — and they remain deathly uncomfortable with the word “impeachment” outside of a town meeting. Could be a lot of reasons for this — some of them reasonable, some of them not-so-much. Marek is a good guy, though, so GMD will give him the benefit of the doubt. Still wish he didn’t feel the need to suggest that a 603 resolution would be somehow “unconstitutional” though. Obviously folks a bit closer to the source of that founding document didn’t think so (the procedure is from the Jefferson Manual after all — a manual compiled of procedures based on early precedent not idle fantasies — impeachment proponents hardly made it up).

* On April 30th, the Progressive Party State Committee meets, and I’ve heard from three seperate sources that they will be looking at passing a “Rutland Resolution” with the Section 603 language intact. There’s continued suggestion that Rep Zuckerman may retrofit his existing impeachment motion to include such language. At the end of the day, though, consensus is clearly that any action on April 30th would meet everybody’s definition of “too late” to act upon, so the motion wouldn’t have any immediate impact — beyond that of another body of Vermont citizens calling for the Congress to throw the bum out (which is certainly a good thing).

* Vermont continues to inspire! As this post from an earlier diary passes on from Maine:

-OGUNQUIT — If a group of Ogunquit residents have their way, the warrant for the June 13 town election will include an article that asks voters to request senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to call for the Senate to censure President George Bush. The residents are circulating a petition to collect the signatures needed to put the measure on the ballot.

“Part of what prompted this was an article in the paper about some towns in Vermont that passed [resolutions] to impeach,” said Paul McGowan, one of the leaders of the petition drive. “What struck me about this was, what a great way to have a voice. It brought some focus to people’s concern and worry about the direction of the country. It’s about a way that a small town could have a voice and raise questions about the actions of the President.”

Jack Leary, another member of the group, said it was time for local action. “Nothing’s happening from the top down,” Leary said. “So, we thought we’d go from the bottom up.”

Cool, huh?

* Supporters of the original Rutland Resolution intend to honor signatures on the online petition for Vermont Legislative action under Section 603 by keeping up the push for a critical mass of signatures, both online and in traditional hardcopy. Supporters are aiming for 5000 signatories and expect that number to be enough to trigger review under the Vermont Constitution — but instead of scrambling to get something in before the Legislative Session ends, they’re targeting the first week of the next Legislature. Should be plenty of time to collect names, and the “too late in the session” excuse will be a little harder to repeat.

* Regarding the Town Impeachment efforts, rumor is that supporters and representatives from the towns may gather in Washington to present the motions directly to their respective Representatives on or about May 1st — which means that by deflecting the issue away from the State Legislature, the spotlight will now shine even more brightly on Bernie Sanders himself. Which is a bit ironic because…

* …Vermont’s delegation to Washington clearly doesn’t like this impeachment business. Bernie has been all over the map, starting with calling it impractical after the Newfane resolution, turning around and signing onto the impeachment bill currently circulating in the US House, and then going back to talking about what a loopy idea it is. In addition, before the Dem State Committee meeting on the 8th (and again at the meeting itself), Democratic National Committeeman and Leahy staffer Chuck Ross made an 11th hour attempt to convince supporters on the State Committee to abandon the key Jefferson Manual language.

The final arguments from the Washington direction seem to boil down to two things, both of which were echoed by State legislators. One: that Section 603 of the Jefferson Manual does not require a State legislature initiated impeachment motion to be taken up by the US House (uh-oh, I hear another impeachment advocacy argument coming on…duck!). Of course, more than a cursory glance at supporters’ arguments will show that they never made that definitive claim. That, again, the whole idea was that principle demanded they make as loud a noise as possible, and the Jefferson Manual simply provided for an extraordinarily loud megaphone. Whether the motion actually got to the House floor or not was, frankly, secondary.

Two: That such a motion would somehow rob Bush of his fundamental right to “due process.”

Let’s set aside for a moment that this suggests impeachment is a judicial procedure rather than an administrative one. It is not a court of law, but a rather pointed job review, after all.

Still, if one still insists on making a judicial analogy, then let’s make it completely. In such an analogy, the US Senate is clearly the “court of law.” The US House, as the body that draws up the “indictment” plays the role of the “investigative officers” and the “district attorney.” What does that leave for a State Legislature under Section 603?

Simply the role of an aggrieved complainant filing a police report. The police hardly turn away a citizen filing a police report because the subject of the report hasn’t yet been offered their due process. Obviously that comes later — it is in fact initiated by the complaint.

So — thin reasoning. Unnecessarily so. Especially when the real reason for resistance from candidates running for local, state or federal office is fairly straightforward and easy to understand and appreciate:

1. Elections are strategic endeavors.

4. So they don’t like it.

Simple. Straightforward. Reasonable. Understandable.

And an explanation that would’ve gone over a bit better, and not resulted in several people scratching their heads a few days later after they had time to think about the excuses they were given.

So we continue to agree to disagree, with impeachment proponents still feeling ethically compelled to speak as loudly as possible, and through as many avenues as are available to them. Maybe they’ll get a little farther next session, maybe not.

That’s Democracy for ya.

Quick links to discussions of the Vermont Impeachment Movement

2.19.2006 …Catamount Tavern: Let it Begin Here

3.03.2006 Vermont, Impeachment and the Democratic Party

3.04.2006 VT Dems to Push For State Leg. Initiated Impeachment

3.07.2006 Bernie: Impeachment Talk “impractical”

3.08.2006 Catamount Tavern: First Round’s…

3.15.2006 Impeachment?

3.16.2006 The Impeachment/Censure Synergy

3.16.2006 Catamount Tavern: Neighsayers drink with the Horses

3.24.2006 VT Impeachment Train: Juggernaut or…

3.25.2006 Brattleboro Town Meeting…

3.28.2006 Add Washington to the List

3.28.2006 Impeachment PS: Online Petition and Progressives

3.28.2006 Standing Against Bush Good for VT’s Economy

3.29.2006 Do It Yourself Impeachment…

4.04.2006 Articles of Impeachment

4.07.2006 A Taylor in Two Cities

4.08.2006 Will Somebody Please Impeach This Guy?

4.09.2006 …a Two Minute Clip (Maryscott O’Connor)

4.10.2006 VT Impeachment: Not Quite Dead Yet?

4.13.2006 What Happened and Where To?

4.20.2006 What’s That? You’d like another… Update?

4.21.2006 Illinois Dems Accept… Vermont Counterparts Declined

4.22.2006 VT Legislators Speak Up

4.23.2006 VT CATAMOUNT TAVERN: Random Musings…

4.24.2006 California Legislators Join Illinois…

4.24.2006 VT Legislators to Introduce ‘603’ Impeachment Resolution…

4.26.2006 VT Legislators’ Impeachment Letter

5.1.2006 …Resolutions Presented in Washington – Statement from Dan DeWalt

Posts by Jack McCullough, Ed Garcia, mataliandy, odum, brattlerouser, brown

I’ll admit it, and Jack or mataliandy or Ed may disagree, but as a working class sort, this Vermont gas tax proposal makes me crazy. As I watch the price go back up over $3.00 a gallon, I try to imagine the Dem caucus conversations where they decided this was a good idea, here in the most rural state in the nation, and I just don’t see it.

But just as my own team has me pulling my hair out, along comes dependable Jim Barnett to pull the heat right onto himself.

Republicans, seeking to capitalize on Democrats’ support of a gasoline tax increase, launched an automated telephone campaign late last week against supporters of the proposal.

Robocalls! Robocalls! Ohhhh people just looooove those.

I may not understand what the Dem caucus is thinking, but I find Barnett even more mysterious. Sometimes it seems he’s sitting around dreaming up ways to make himself and the GOP look tackier while patting himself on the back. Weird… he’s like Vermont’s political Simon Bar Sinister

There was a time when I considered using robocalls in such a manner in my county when I was the Dem County Chair. Then I sobered up. Think I’m being unfair?

As of the end of the day, Democratic Party officials had received no phone calls and just one e-mail, which executive director Jon Copans said was supportive

Now how many annoyed phone calls do you think GOP HQ has received? Betcha it’s more than zero…

Oh lord where to begin…as some may have noticed I usually like to have these up on Thursday…now how about some discussion on these for a change…?

* In this diary from way back in the Burlington mayor’s race, I took the Progs to task rather severely for digging up Dem candidate Hinda Miller’s ex-business partner in order to smear Miller personally. While I still don’t think it’s an honorable line of attack, it does seem that – contrary to what was reported at PoliticsVT – Lisa Lindahl stepped forward on her own in response to an email (a copy of which was sent my way) sent out from the Miller campaign to rally support before the Dem caucus. Consider my culpa mea’d.

* Speaking of Progs, it seems there was dissention in the ranks. S.88, a bill relating to the membership of the Labor Relations Board that was supported by organized labor was just killed in committee by a Progressive. Holland Rep. Winston Dowland (who is becoming quite the handful for the Progs) voted with the Republicans and against labor, despite the reportedly very vocal displeasure expressed by fellow Progressive Rep. Sarah Edwards of Brattleboro outside the committee room. Ouch. Welcome to major party life, guys.

* Holy crap! Peter Welch raised $262,175 this last reporting period and has $612,776 on hand! That’s a lot of bumper stickers! Martha Rainville raised $218,972, and $130,000 of that came from Washington insider GOP Pacs such as Tom DeLay’s Retain Our Majority PAC. Martha Martha Martha…

* Speaking of the US Congress race, if you haven’t read Philip Baruth’s interview of GOP dark horse candidate Mark Shepard, get over there NOW. It’s something else. Shepard, an unabashed conservative, speaks openly about being not just dumped by his own Party, but piled on and humiliated more with each passing day. He also discusses how his far-right views are based on simple “logic.” We’re gonna have fun with that one in a later post…

* Hey — the Liberty Union Party got major party status back when I wasn’t looking. Primary time! (Thanks to Burlington Lib for pointing that out)

* Check out this diary from GMD user vtpeace from today and tell me that the latest thing from the Tarrant for Senate camp is not just weird, creepy and wrong. Barbara, if you or anybody else can provide details or links on this, it’d be greatly appreciated.

* …and finally, it’s not local, but –seriously — maybe we should be asking if there are any retired Generals that don’t want Rumsfeld to resign (oh yeah, besides this one)