This is an email sent in response to the online impeachment petition, reprinted with permission from the petition administrator and the author:

Dear Ms. Allen,
I am not a Vermont resident, so unfortunately I cannot sign your petition, but I want you to now that there are plenty of people here in Mass. who support the Vermont towns who have voted for resolutions to impeach Pres. Bush.  I’ve read stories about Newfane and other communities who have taken such action, and some of the right wing backlash that has resulted.  My family vacations in Vermont every summer, and we are proud to spend our tourist dollars in a state that has a conscience. Keep up the good work!

Sincerely,
Bill Santoro

Cool, huh?

As a quick PS to Jack’s update on the local County impeachment resolutions just below. First, reports are that the Windham County Progressive Party committee will be considering the Rutland Resolution at their next meeting. Also: there may be Legislation stirring (more on that as it comes out).

Finally, supporters make their press full court and have started a Rutland Resolution petition being circulated by hand and online, petitioning the Vermont Legislature (as per the Vermont Constitution Chapter I Article 20) to take up the matter. The petition is being circulated across the Democracy for Vermont network. It’s developing an aura of inevitability, folks! You can sign the online petition here.

Some weeks back, GMD user vtpeace posted this diary, linking to a story detailing allegations that the California National Guard had been used to spy on American Peace activists, such as the Raging Grannies, in the state. California State Senator Joseph Dunn had taken up the cause, and according to the report:

Senator Dunn says one file shows at least ten other states engage in domestic spying.

Gail Sredanovic [of the Raging Grannies]: “It’s very dangerous. It sets a very dangerous precedent.”

Around the same time, Vermont’s own Senator Leahy managed to squeeze an admission out of the Department of Defense after Donald Rumsfeld had avoided any direct response on the matter before him in committee.

DOD did receive two reports from the Department of Homeland Security about protests against DOD recruiters by Vermont groups, which prompted reports that were entered on the TALON Reporting System, created in 2003 to document, share and analyze unfiltered information about suspicious incidents related to possible foreign terrorist threats to DOD.

The letter from Leahy was written in response to press reports that American Friends Service Committee protests had been spied on. The response seems to reduce the matter to something relatively trivial (I say relative just because it doesn’t involve lying to get us into war, or breaking laws on wiretapping). No one I know is satisfied or reassured that we have heard the whole truth, given that this administration routinely underplays (or outright denies) scandals that make them uncomfortable.

Adding these things together raises some obvious questions — potentially very uncomfortable ones for retiring VT National Guard Adjutant General and GOP candidate for Bernie Sanders House seat Martha Rainville, the current darling of the Vermont media. When I asked myself, I still found nothing conclusive, but the questions did suggest a clear course of action for the Vermont Legislature — one that could put Gen. Rainville on quite the hot seat, in a what-did-she-know-and-when-did-she-know-it sort of vein.

I was curious, so I called California Senator Dunn’s office. A helpful staffer reviewed the document in question, and found that Vermont was not on that particular list. However, New York was, bringing the issue literally right next door, and only increasing the questions. It may well be that the surveilling of Vermont Peace groups is as “passive” as it now sounds, and therefore completely circumvented Rainville. It may well be that she knew nothing of the DOD using the National Guard right next door to do so. But looking at the facts, a reasonable person could conclude that it may well be that she did. Frankly, I think Legislatures everywhere would want to be checking in with their Guard command on this issue, and it’s only a larger question in Vermont because the (former) Command is running for Congress — the very body which should have oversight over this sort of Bush Administration excess.

Which brings us back to the dynamics of the furor in California, and what it might mean for Vermont. As is fairly generally understood, the Military cannot be used against American civilians. It’s called the Posse Comitatus Act (1878), and it states that:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

What is not generally understood is that the National Guard is generally exempt from this law. What this means is that this type of Domestic spying — essentially using the National Guard as a tool for intelligence gathering — while frightening, seems to be technically legal. In California, Senator Dunn is moving with all deliberate speed to close the “Posse Comitatus loophole” at the State level, to insure this sort of abuse is clearly and unquestionably illegal, once and for all:

“Let us have that discussion,” he said. “Let us not say the National Guard can go willy-nilly in any direction they choose, which is what we have now. We need to close this loophole so that our military personnel do not engage in law enforcement. They are not designed for that activity, they should not be used for that activity. That should be left for domestic law enforcement agencies.”

So, given the outstanding questions about the nature of the Domestic spying known to have been carried out on Vermont’s soil, isn’t it appropriate that the Vermont Legislature take up similar legislation here, and as soon as possible?

I think it of little doubt that such a move would meet with almost universal approval from Vermont voters. This despite the fact that it was all the rage to discuss a further weakening of the act after the Katrina disaster.

Sure, there would have to be hearings held, and testimony taken.

Testimony that may — or may not — end up being very uncomfortable for a certain US House candidate who hopes to take up Bernie Sanders’ mantle…

Filling in for the host on the“Mark Johnson Show”, local sports announcer and WDEV station owner Ken Squier, while rightfully speaking out against the impending execution of a former Muslim in Afghanistan for converting to Christianity (and also rightfully using the case to illustrate why Western Democracy cannot be imposed by the US), devolved into a rant about Muslims in general, referring to them as “those ragheads.”

As any reader knows, Green Mountain Daily posters are staunchly against the Iraq War. Speaking for myself (and I imagine others), I agree that Democracy cannot be imposed. But not because Muslims, Arabs, Persians, Afganis or any others in the region are somehow barbarian heathens inherently inferior to good, Christian American white folk. THAT is the message using an epithet sends. And it’s only magnified by the fact that so many Vermonters listen to this show.

And I think it’s our responsibility to both distance the anti-war movement from this sort of hate speech, as well as to make it clear that we find it disgusting in and of itself. My son was in the car with me at the time and it nauseates me that he got treated to that kind of garbage. Secretary of State Deb Markowitz came on immediately afterwards, but didn’t say anything. Hopefully, she just didn’t hear it.

You can call now and complain at 877-291-8255, or you can call next week and complain to Mark Johnson. WDEV’s office headquarters is at (802) 244-7321, and the emails are mark@gmavt.net and wdev@radiovermont.com respectively. Go on and make noise… and for discussion, is this just another nail in the coffin of this notion that Vermont political discussions are always more civil than everywhere else?

My, what a difference a week makes!

The various impeachment initiatives in Vermont are coalescing, and the state is taking notice. The city of Brattleboro is about to consider a resolution like Newfane’s. On the web, Philip Baruth at Vermont Daily Briefing has endorsed the broader effort. Freyne at Seven Days continues to cover it, and rumor has it that Dan DeWalt of Newfane (who “lit the fuse” with the Newfane resolution) may be making an appearence on a prime time national media show, so stay tuned.

Meanwhile, the “Rutland Resolution” — Jeff Taylor’s implementation of the national, blog-fueled drive to push for a state legislature to call Articles of Impeachment directly to the US House Floor (as per the House rules in the Jefferson Manual), is sweeping across Vermont’s Democratic infrastructure. Passing it so far are County Committees in Rutland, Orleans, Lamoille, Franklin, Chittenden, Bennington and Addison (who added Cheney). By the time the State Committee meets April 8th, it’s possible the only County Committee that will not have signed on will be Windsor, which opted to recommend censure.

Impressive all in all, and you’d assume the narrative will reach its climax at April’s Democratic State Committee meeting. The truth is, however, it’s the next week that will really determine whether all this leads to something more or not.

To clarify: first its important to point out that there are two impeachment “movements” in Vermont. The Town Meeting resolutions are calling on Bernie to present Articles of Impeachment in the House. After initially dismissing the efforts as “impractical,” Bernie bowed to the unexpected groundswell and signed on to Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) formal call for Impeachment in the House. This is likely as far as he will go.

The movement sweeping the VT Dem infrastructure, on the other hand, is pushing for direct involvement by the Vermont legislature — again, something allowed under the House Rules.

But the movements are coalescing, both from within Vermont and from without, as the Progressive Democrats of America are actively trying to coordinate the efforts nationwide.

The resistance to this within the Democratic infrastructure is largely based on the fear that we’ll all look like wingnuts if this goes too far — a fear I think is overstated. It’s also based on the sense that the whole process is a waste of time, since it won’t go anywhere in the Republican US House. This is a concern I have sympathy for, but I (and most proponents) are more inclined to err on the side of speaking up as loudly as possible than we may have been a couple years ago.

But the fact is that the Vermont Legislature is almost done. They have an incredible amount of work on the table, and are in the process of sorting out what bills they intend to pursue and which ones will be left behind — all with an eye towards a May adjournment.

The fact is, that by the time the State Committee has its say, the chance for Legislative action will be long gone.

So if proponents don’t come up with a sponsor or two in the Vermont House or Senate, the State Committee meeting will likely be the end of it, placing Vermont’s Democrats in the company of those from several other states who have affirmatively endorsed impeachment, but nothing more.

And lately, my little ear to the wall has picked up no rumblings of any interested legislators. Some are taking notice, but only inasfar as they hope not to have to deal with it.

It is hard to imagine who might pick this up, with everybody so busy. The only one who could arguably have some self-interest in the issue might be Rep John Tracy of Burlington, who has been the subject of outright ridicule for his “non-campaign campaign” for the Democratic nomination for Lt. Governor against Sen. Matt Dunne, whose campaign is steaming right along. If Tracy were to suddenly show interest, it would pull the spotlight right on him, fire up the Democratic base on his behalf, and likely draw the support of most of the Vermont Deaniac crowd virtually instantly. Still, even if he were inclined to take it up (which I would seriously doubt), nobody is more neck-deep in the Health Care reform process — an all-consuming dynamic if ever there was one.

So while the State Committee will be interesting (and GMD may live-blog it!), the real curtain will rise or fall over the next few days.

Like I said, stay tuned!

( – promoted by odum)

UPDATE 3/24: Zow! The Vermont Guardian is reporting that “Vermont’s entire congressional delegation and the governor are calling on the Associated Press to come clean about why it fired long-time journalist Chris Graff, and are asking him to be reinstated to his post.” Good grief! I don’t think this story is going away anytime soon. Go Chris!

The story of the firing of Graff, a local institution and universally regarded nice guy, is kicking up a firestorm within and beyond Vermont’s borders. Graff’s firing is becoming the new emblem of an ideological swing to the right (or at least a running desperately away from the left) in the mainstream media. Bloggers are suggesting that Graff is only the latest in a string of such firings at the AP, although I haven’t seen verification of that.

But people are fired up.

Drudge has picked it up (yuck). At DailyKos, there is a recommended diary from BriVT with 120 comments from across the nation. BriVT’s lead in sums up the feelings:

The most respected person in Vermont journalism, Chris Graff, was just fired by the Associated Press, axed after almost 27 years as the Vermont Bureau chief. The proximate cause? Running a column by a Democrat.

There’s more to the story, and it’s a perfect illustration of the degradation of the American media, and what progressives (and anyone interested in a functioning democracy) are up against …

Graff makes for an unlikely symbol of right-wing oppression. Conservatives will complain that he’s soft on Leahy, but he’s also been at least as easy on fellow Middlebury alum and GOP Governor Jim Douglas. Still, it’s the Leahy factor that’s caused the furor. The one thing I have heard from insiders is that many still believe there must be more to the story. I suppose we’ll all know soon enough. There’s just too much scrutiny on the matter for any secrets to be kept for long.

Update: Okay, I’ve asked around and fielded a phone call from a perturbed insider, and I’ll admit I may be underestimating Rainville’s name recognition, and yes I know its hard to be out defining yourself when youre a legislator in session…but my thesis stands: we need to be very concerned about this race, and Vermont lefties cannot afford to take it for granted. Here’s Baruth’s piece from a few weeks back to help me make my point.

The results of Senator Bill Doyle’s (R-Washington) famed “Doyle Poll” — a non-scientific, broadly distributed survey handed out at Town Meetings across the state — are in, and the news is not good for Senate President Pro Tem and US Congress hopeful Peter Welch (D-Windsor). Senator Welch will undoubtedly take some comfort in the fact that the poll is completely unscientific. But if he takes anything more than rhetorical solace, he isn’t doing himself or his supporters any favors.

The poll shows the 6,315 respondents (from 126 cities or towns) choosing Republican candidate Martha Rainville over Welch 40% to 39% (a Rainville-advantaged dead-heat, but Welch should be decidedly out in front at this point given his high profile), with 21% undecided. What makes this poll impossible to dismiss, despite its complete lack of any verifiable or statistically sound methodology is two things. One: it skews towards the more rural areas (where statewide Dems need to watch their electoral backsides), and two: other results of the poll are, well, exactly what you’d expect to see, suggesting it may not be so far off. In the US Senate race for example, Bernie towered over Tarrant 62%-26% with a mere 12% undecided.

The problem many Dems are either in denial about, or simply don’t want to admit is that Welch is just not an appealing candidate. He comes off as central casting’s out-of-touch liberal, which is bad enough, but ironically, he’s also fallen out-of-touch with much of his natural liberal base (although they are thankfully showing signs of coming back around of late). He’s already lost two statewide races, and yet his name recognition is still as much from his “need a lawyer…?” commercials as from his political credentials. Quite frankly, Welch could be better off as a blank slate than being perceived as the “ambulance chaser” candidate.

The long and the short of the matter is that Welch has to be out there redefining himself for the electorate NOW before Rainville gets her act together and starts doing it for him. And all the Obama fundraisers in the world aren’t going to help him with that. Neither will depending on travelling with Bernie. Just ask Anthony Pollina, Cheryl Rivers and Peter Clavelle. As Anthony said to me after the last election, “there are no coattails in Vermont.” The sooner Senator Welch learns that, the sooner he can get out there and start making his own coat.

With the distant potential for the Dems to retake the US House growing, the last thing any of us want to see is Vermont to be the site of the R’s surprise pick-up in November — especially if the national Dems were to come up just one seat short (shudder).

Remember this from Freyne’s column in Seven Days back in November?

The Center [for American Cultural Renewal/Vermont Renewal]‘s stated goal is “to promote and protect traditional values based on the Judeo-Christian ethic . . . Our goal is to renew the promise of America envisioned by the Pilgrims of the 17th Century and the Founding Fathers of the 18th Century restoring our greatest institutions; traditional marriage, two-parent families, community and religious organizations, and civic responsibility for the purpose of renewing our values to fall in line with our most cherished traditions.”

Earlier this year, Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Richard Tarrant went to Rutland and spoke to CFACR members in his run-up to declaring his candidacy. Apparently Richie Rich, a good Catholic boy whose charitable foundation has a policy against contributing to pro-choice organizations, made a good impression.

Lest you think as I did, that this is just some small, grouchy, right-wing social group, the bloggers at Blier Watch have made it their mission to get the word out about them (and are now facing a right-wing blogger’s attempt to intimidate them into silence for it…more on that in a bit).

In fact, these folks are so bad that it begs the resurrection of Freyne’s point about Tarrant’s visit. Consider the folks he did such a good job impressing (click on the link for the full story):

Kevin Blier, the founder of the group, keeps fairly busy. He has been in the local press:

…as a frequent Letters-to-the-editor contributor (“As the Court Jester of Congress, Mr. Sanders seemingly struggles to comprehend a document he swears an oath to defend … the U.S. Constitution”)

…Opposing bipartisan transgendered rights legislation (“I’m not sure the legislature should be in the business of giving minority protections and special privileges to people who have a clinical psychosexual disorder”)

…Worked to have Vermont Supreme Court Justices thrown off the bench over Civil Unions (“Justices take an oath to uphold the constitution the way it is written, not an oath to uphold the constitution the way they wish it was written”)

So, basically another John McClaughery with, as some of his saner fellow Republicans have said,  “no Washington presence and little clout with social conservatives outside Vermont”, right?

Well, first of all, the guy is a desperate social conservative ladder-climber. Despite the complete irrelevence of the organization in the right-wing world, a simple Google search will reveal the guy is trying his damndest to position himself among the stars of the right every chance he gets. The Center For American Cultural Renewal pops up on lists like this one (supporting the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts) alongside groups such as the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and the Center for Moral Clarity (chuckle — love that last one’s name)

He’s also got an eye on politics, having just unsuccessfully run for office in Brandon.

Oh, and did we mention how he feels about “fags?” From an article reprinted on his site entitled “Fag Commentary: ‘Rebuke Them Sharply'”

As anyone can see, the meaning of “Hate the sin but love the sinner” has almost been inverted in the 20th and 21st centuries. Now it means indulging the sinner, not offending him, and certainly not punishing him. But loving the sinner, according to Augustine, includes such strong medicine as expelling the sinner as well as milder forms such as reproving — e.g., shaming.

Hate the sin but love the sinner? Of course. And to be precise: Hate the faggotry but love the fag.

You’ll notice the link is from the Google cache, as Mr. Blier edited his site after Blier Watch brought it to public attention. Guess he forgot about caching. Oops!

In fact, his excessive self-promotion and his loathing of gays found expression in his grotesque exploitation of the Lisa and Janet Miller-Jenkins affair, where one partner in a former civil union became an “ex-gay” and tried to keep her former partner away from their daughter. The case pitted the Virginia Courts against the Vermont Courts (with Blier clearly working against Vermont) and was a particularly heartbreaking and disgusting display of the real anti-family, anti-civil rights, win-at-all-costs agenda of the phony ex-gay movement and the theocratic wing of the Republican Party.

And Republican US Senate hopeful Rich Tarrant made “a good impression” on this crowd. This begs the question as to which scenario is worse: that this is a crowd Tarrant is simpatico with, or that its simply a crowd he felt the need to pander to?

Yuck.

But the Kevin Blier phenom has a new wrinkle in the Vermont blogosphere. The right wing theatrical-blog Will Chamberlain’s Vermont (a winger whose presumptious schtick is to pretend he’s some kind of Vermont Founding Father) claims:

Justice Department sources confirm today that documents pertaining to “BlierWatch”, an anonymous blog that has surfaced in recent months here in Vermont, have been turned over to the Criminal Investigation Division for possible Telecommunications Act violations by the Federal Communications Commission.

Excuse me for a moment while I recover from laughing so hard I sprayed some of my tea out my nose.

Okay, this is so dumb, I have no doubt it’s made up. I’m not sure by whom since WC’s Vermont (‘WC’…heh-heheheh-heh) has no actual living human’s name attached to it, but I doubt there are many degrees of seperation from Mr. Blier, there.

Kevin, look: as a result of all the naked attempts to make yourself into a public figure, you’re now a public figure. That means people can tease you on a blog. Deal with it.

Cathy Resmer, Vermont’s premier metablogger, broke the story this morning, although in a somewhat matter-of-fact way. She finds Blier Watch distasteful because its, well, pretty harsh. It’s hard not to have sympathy though — this Blier guy is a nasty, nasty fellow who wants to be a major player — which would in turn give him greater impact in Vermont. The BW crowd is basically saying, not on our watch and not without a fight. Who can blame them? The guy is irrelevent now, but may not be if he gets a friend…oh, in the US Senate, for example?

Still, I hope Cathy and others will respond to what this is: a naked (albeit crude) attempt to intimidate bloggers out of their free speech rights. An attempt doomed to failure, but bloggers — right, left, and center — should respond in no uncertain terms that this is not okay. In my opinion, Cathy tends to have a reporter’s tendency to judge lefties a bit more harshly and to give right-wingers broader latitude, rather than a blogger’s tendency to throw caution to the wind. Still, this kind of free-speech slam hits us all where we live out here in the blogosphere, and if she hadn’t reported on it, I might have missed it. Nice catch, Cathy.

How about some good news, by way of RadicalRuss.net (and thanks to Delaware Dem at DailyKos.com for bringing it to a broader audience):

Click on the image for a bigger, clearer view. Russ explains:

This map displays the state-by-state job approval polls of Pretzeldunce Chimpy McFlightsuit. His Net Approval is his job approval minus his job disapproval ratings, with positive numbers representing states where more people approve than disapprove, and negative numbers representing the opposite.
I’ve color-coded the states according to their relative “Bush Love” in red to their relative “Bush Hate” in blue, with those states more toward the center shaded in purple….The map begins at the 2004 Election, and every five seconds a new month appears

Nice, yes? An encouraging image to enter the weekend with.

I’ve spent a fair amount of bandwidth on the prospect of impeachment in general and the ongoing project to have the Vermont Legislature use obscure US House rules to call the subject to a vote in Washington. I’ve been gently encouraging while raising lots of caution flags along the way. So now that there’s lively debate amongst GMD’s own front pagers, let me say that I do come down in favor of the state-based impeachment drive, while I still have tremendous respect for those who think its a bad idea — particularly those who feel that the time spent on impeachment would be better spent on crafting and supporting good public policy that has some chance of passage (such as Health Care reform). There are two points I feel strongly need to be made, however.

One: I do strongly disagree with the notion that the Democratic Party’s involvement will make us look like wingnuts and drive away voters. As an emailer pointed out, two State Democratic Parties did that very thing last election cycle with no ill effects.

Two: The highly-covered censure motion proposed by Sen Russ Feingold (D-WI) — which many felt would “compete” with the impeachment momentum — is doing just the opposite. The discussions are merging, and their fates are becoming intertwined. So much so that the success or failure of the censure motion could be critical to the chances of impeachment efforts, both now and under the future prospect of a Democratic Congressional majority.

Please click on “Theres More” for an explanation, and to see how you can help promote censure and/or impeachment.

First on the history of Democratic State Committees calling for impeachment (and thanks to Kagro X for birddogging this info out). If the VDP goes forward, they would be following in the footsteps of others, before anyone had ever heard of the Jefferson Manual, state-initiated impeachment, or even the NSA wiretapping scandal.

The Wisconsin Democrats called for impeachment in June of last year, and Nevada’s Democrats did so in May of 2004. The Nevada Dems went so far as to write impeachment into their Party Platform:

ELECTIONS, ETHICS and GOVERNMENT
An informed electorate which demands that elected and appointed officials serve the public in an ethical, competent and honest manner forms the basis of good government which serves all of its citizens equally. Therefore, the Democratic Party:…

…19. Calls for the Impeachment of President Bush for lying to congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq

Sure, they got hammered for it a bit. But did it matter come election time? As kagro reported to me:

* NV Dems picked up a net two seat gain in the legislature (+3 in the 42-seat House, -1 in the 21-seat Senate).

* 2004 Democratic Congressional candidates outperformed (by percentage
of votes cast) 2002 Dem candidates in every district.

NV-01:
2002 – Shelley Berkley (D) 54%
2002 – Lynette Boggs McDonald (R) 43%

2004 – Shelley Berkley (D) 66%
2004 – Russ Mickelson (R) 31%

NV-02:
2002 – Jim Gibbons (R) 74%
2002 – Travis Souza (D) 20%

2004 – Jim Gibbons (R) 67%
2004 – Angie Cochran (D) 28%

NV-03:
2002 – Jon Porter (R) 56%
2002 – Dario Herrera (D) 37%

2004 – Jon Porter (R) 54%
2004 – Tom Gallagher (D) 40%

I just dont think this is a problem. Platforms and State Committees have a role and an effect, but the fact is that nobody looks at the Platform or the list of approved Committee motions to decide whether or not they’re voting for a specific candidate — especially not in Vermont where everything is so person-to-person. The only thing such an action would show is that there are enough people who feel strongly enough about the matter that they got organized and made a public statement.

Now again, I think the “waste of time” argument is compelling. There is always a lot of work to be done on policy and electioneering, and an impeachment push in Vermont could be a distraction. It’s a valid point, and it may be correct. But I’m at the point where I want to err on the side of making clear, unambiguous statements of right and wrong to the world — and I have to believe that people will respond to that. We are, to large extent, in uncharted territory, and I choose to be guided by my conscience.

And my conscience tells me, as loudly as I can, to call King George to account.

So where does Censure fit in?

Rather than materializing as a competing notion, censure is taking shape as impeachment lite — especially since even I have been caught by surprise at just how timidly the Democratic Caucus is reacting to the motion. As of this blog entry, only Senators Harkin and Boxer have signed on, while Senator Kerry is reminding us why he was such a poor candidate for the Presidency by bobbing and weaving on the issue. They are so terrified, that the media is now smelling blood, which means the scrutiny on, and polarity of the narrative are increasing before our very eyes.

So make no mistake. If you prefer Censure as an option — that option is in serious peril, and Senators Leahy and Jeffords MUST hear from you.

If you prefer Impeachment as an option, without at least a decent showing on Feingold’s Censure motion, Impeachment may be DOA in the media, the Congress, and ultimately by extension, the public. The dominos tend to fall like that, unfortunately. Therefore, Senators Leahy and Jeffords still must hear from you.

Complicating all of this is the word that right-wing talk radio is encouraging folks in some markets to call Democratic Senators in support of censure, as they believe the same media reports telling them that this is a wingnut issue. That Democrats will look bad. And that Bush’s 33% approval ratings are all a big left-wing conspiracy, and that America is really behind their President.

Yeah, right.

So in the short term, regardless of your feelings on Impeachment, we need a strong showing on censure. Do we need to win? No, but we can’t get creamed again.

Contact information:

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT)
United States Senate
433 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-224-4242 (DC Office Phone)
800-642-3193 (Home Office Phone)
email

The Honorable James M. Jeffords (I-VT)
United States Senate
413 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-224-5141 (DC Office Phone)
800-835-5500 (Home Office Phone)
email