At its monthly meeting last night the Washington County Democratic Committee voted to support the Rutland resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush. Sentiment at the meeting was unanimous that Bush has committed impeachable offenses, with discussion focussing on whether the impeachment effort, which has no chance of succeeding in the Republican-dominated Congress, would either divert the Party from more important work or give the Republicans ammunition to attack Democrats with in November’s elections. After a respectful discussion the pro-impeachment side prevailed.

By my count there are now ten county committees supporting the resolution, with most of the remaining county committees scheduled to discuss it before the special State Committee meeting set for April 8. It is still unclear whether the Legislature will have time to act on the resolution (or, for that matter, whether any legislator will introduce it) before adjournment.

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…

All 13 counties of Vermont were represented yesterday in Montpelier at an all day training meeting convened by the DNC, Democratic National Committee.  Howard Dean opened the meeting and AGAIN, used his FIVE POINT MESSAGE which I’ve posted elsewhere on this blog.  Chairman Dean has added a SIXTH point to the original FIVE – that of Pension Security Retirement Security – whether that be Social Security or some other form of pension.  I’ll obtain his exact wording and re-post all six.  He asked me if I had them memorized yet, and I said I didnt although I had them in front of me on paper.  I told him I was working on memorizing them. Peter Welch dropped in on the session and gave a powerful, forceful stump speech. 

My nominee for the Outrage of the Week is the lengthy hagiography of “Major Mom” by Adam Silverman in the March 25, 2006 Sunday Burlington Free Press. http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?D=/20060326/NEWS01/603260315/1009&theme=

This one-sided puff piece reads more like a PR campaign press release than balanced news reporting.

The sole dissenter from the saccharin lauding of Generalissimo Martha’s record as head of the Vermont National Guard is painted as a fringe element peacenik, too clueless to comprehend that Rainville doesn’t have sole authority to stop the deployment of Green Mountain troops to Iraq.

There are Guard members who don’t think Rainville has done a good job. If any who share this view were interviewed, their opinions were not printed.

It is notable that AP canned their Vermont bureau chief, Chris Graff, for putting an op-ed piece by Senator Leahy on the AP advance wire. Just a few days later, the Gannett-owned Free Press prominently printed this slanted article, crafted to promote the General to Congresswoman.

Silverman implies warm and fuzzy Martha is for the flag and motherhood. It’s a wonder he didn’t write that she bakes yummy apple pies, while wearing a frilly white apron over starched camo fatigues.
 

It was probably a week or more ago that I wrote Senator Leahy urging him to sign on as a sponsor of Russ Feingold’s http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109452ftJ::? censure resolution. I’ve really gotten impatient that we’ve heard nothing from him.

Then, today I got an email from Senator Leahy  setting forth his statement. Here’s the text:

Thank you for contacting me about Senator Russell Feingold’s censure resolution.  I appreciate hearing from you.

On Monday, March 13, 2006, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin introduced S. Res. 398 to censure George W. Bush. The resolution would condemn the unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans without obtaining court orders as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.  Senator Feingold says he intended his resolution to prompt congressional investigations into the President’s actions on these issues, but Republican leaders have been reluctant to allow an investigation to proceed.

I agree that Senator Feingold’s resolution raises legitimate issues about the President’s claims on the legality of his domestic spying program.  I have urged Senator Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to hold hearings on the resolution and continue to investigate the facts surrounding the President’s domestic spying program. So far, the Bush Administration has failed to provide satisfactory legal reasoning for the authorization of this program.

I introduced S. Res. 350 on January 20, 2006 to express the sense of the Senate that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which passed before the invasion of Afghanistan , did not authorize warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens, as the President asserts.  Both S. Res. 350 and S. Res. 398 have been referred to the Judiciary Committee, and I will push for full congressional investigations and oversight of the issues that both resolutions address.  My resolution and statement are available on my website at http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/200601/012006.html

Conducting oversight of the Department of Justice is one of the responsibilities of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Whether serving as Chairman or Ranking Member of the committee, I have taken this responsibility very seriously.  Congressional oversight plays a vital role in our constitutional system of checks and balances and the seriousness of the matters that our nation is presently facing has made oversight more critical than ever. 

I think it’s great that he’s pursuing this, and that he’s introduced the “sense of the Senate” resolution he mentions on illegal spying.

But still. Really, how much investigation is needed to figure out that Bush has violated the law multiple times? We already know everything we need to know. Or at least, we already know everything we need to know to say that he has to sponsor the resolution, not just call for hearings and a full investigation.

Caution is not always a virtue.

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.

Town Meeting Day is just over, and one of the new subjects seems to be election reform. I’d say we’re due to look at the question from a number of perspectives, and there’s a lot to talk about:

First, we have instant runoff voting (IRV). As you know by now, Bob Kiss was elected Mayor of Burlington in the state’s first use of IRV. Bob ran first but only gathered 39% of the vote on the first round, but in the runoff, with all but the two leading candidates eliminated, he came in with a solid majority. The voting was smooth and fast, with final results in by 9:00. What’s more, the true results are available online, so you don’t have to worry about shenanigans, fraud, or hanging chads.

I’m all for runoff voting for one reason:

I’m sick of the D’s and P’s killing each other off in general elections and handing seats to the Republican. I’m not sure that instant runoff is the way to go: the fact that it’s cheaper than holding a separate runoff election doesn’t necessarily convince me, but if that’s the horse with the best chance of winning I can certainly get behind it. VPR covered the issue tonight, and if you missed it, follow this link.

We’re also looking at same-day registration. S. 164 has now passed the House, with proposals of amendment, and is back at the Senate to consider whether to accept the proposed amendments or appoint a conference committee. I think it’s safe to say that the people working to get this bill passed didn’t get everything they wanted (who does?) but they are still encouraged by this move to make it easier to get registered and vote, even on Election Day. I’m skeptical that same day registration will result in significantly more registration, much less higher voter turnout or significantly different results, but how do you argue against more democracy?

Finally, speaking of more democracy, Rick Hertzberg had an interesting piece in the New Yorker last month about a move to abolish the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment. This one is clearly pie in the sky, but it’s worth thinking about. The campaign, known as the Campaign for a National Popular Vote, calls for a critical mass of states to adopt an interstate compact by which they would agree to instruct their electors to vote for the national winner of the popular vote. Aside from the general idea that the Electoral College is undemocratic (not a trivial complaint, I would think), the supporters point out, among other things, that the arguments in favor of the Electoral College are spurious and that a nationwide popular vote will end some serious shortocmings of the current system, not least of which is the fact that both political parties ignore the majority of states and concerntrate all their efforts on the states they think are in play in the election. As I say, it’s pie in the sky, but worth thinking about. If you to go the web site you can actually download their book.

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).