Not kidding…

Tired of the usual chicken dinners, the Manchester Republican Committee is planning to arm supporters next month with Uzis, M-16 rifles and other automatic weapons for a day of target practice at a Pelham firing range.

“The thought just struck me one day: a machine gun shoot. What the heck?” said Jerry Thibodeau, the committee chairman.

Thibodeau, who is himself a hunter and skeet shooter, pitched the Aug. 5 event as a fun social gathering, as well as a demonstration of the party's support for Second Amendment rights.

The concept prompted shudders across the political aisle. Chris Pappas, the city Democratic party chairman, called the event “not just in poor taste; it is downright offensive.”

“The citizens of Manchester have lived through a deadly spike in violent crime the past year-and-a-half, despite the campaign promises of (Mayor) Frank Guinta to lower crime rates,” Pappas said. “That the mayor's political party would seek to glorify the use of machine guns for political gain is unconscionable.”

Today Chris Dodd became the next Democratic candidate to unveil a detailed health care plan.   Basically, he wants to combine the existing Medicare/Medicaid system with a supercharged version of the Federal Employees program.

Of the proposals I've seen thus far, this strikes me as the most doable.  Single Payer is never gonna work in this country and, anyway the insurance companies will fight it to the death.  Instead, this model creates a marketplace to compete and also gives consumers choice.

I also really like the fact that it separates coverage from employment.  Having a good job is a silly criteria for having access to good insurance, so the two elements should be de-linked, 

There are, however, a couple of things that need to be clarified:

Employers pay based on ability to pay… How is this determined? Size, profits?

I am skeptical of anyone who says this can be paid for out of efficency gains.  

Well .. the Pat Tillman story gets worse and worse …

(New documents shed light on Pat Tillman's death, Detroit Free Press, 07/26/07)

Whoa. 

Perhaps a kick in the teeth, as well… Gotta love this one  from the Hill…  Anxious  Republicans fear another beating:

Nine months after Republicans were routed in the midterm  elections, campaign observers, K Street lobbyists and political experts say  there is little evidence the party can rebound in 2008.

The same bad news – the president's low approval ratings, opposition to the  war in Iraq, and the lingering taint of congressional scandal, from the Jack  Abramoff investigation to Sen. David Vitter's (La.) involvement with the alleged  “D.C. Madam” – leave observers skeptical that the GOP can dent Democratic  majorities, let alone reclaim power in the next election.

    “The only thing that has changed is that everything that  was bad got worse,” said Bernadette Budde, political director of the Business  Industry Political Action Committee. BIPAC supports business-friendly candidates  of both parties, though most of the group's donations go to Republicans.

If the election were held today, “We'd be lucky to hold our own,” one House  Republican said.”

Don't giggle with glee just yet – more below the jump…

Aside from the “facism creep” of the past few years, howzabout  the fact that they're wrong on just about everything?  Gorver Norquist believes thy can still pull it together if it weren't for that  Iraq thingie::

Grover Norquist, director of Americans for Tax Reform, believes the conservative coalition of anti-tax, pro-gun and anti-abortion advocates can still deliver elections, but only if Iraq does not remain the central issue in voters' minds.

So, by this (il)logic, America is still really a bunch of antitax, antichoice gun nuts, we're just a little miffed about the Iraq thing. Uh, okay. Oh, wait.. I get it… that vocal minority of Americans can still get their collective heads out of their asses and away from their Left Behind books and Ted Nugent gun videos to pull of one more for the Gipper. Say it again… uh, okay. Quite a big “only if”, dontcha think? Eh, hell with Norquist… I think this Grover's a lot smarter anyways:

Now, I'm not expecting thngs to turn around too quickly in '08, even if the Dems get more seats and the WH, which is a very real possibility. At least they won't get worse. It's just that there's still no bold, progressive agenda to be seen anywhere, and I fear the squandering of an historic opportunity which results in another backlash and then another 1994. Lest you think I'm being poopy on this, I fully realize that perhaps when the Republican minority is more minor (and the Lieberman problem is effectively neutralized), there's not the constant obstructionsm and they're busy licking their wounds or thier hookers' feet, perhaps some good positive change could actually happen (odds are even greater if Hillary doesn't make it to the WH). I'm still quite jaded, but at least “wait and see” is finally entering the brain dialog.

Now, this isn't just another cynical rant brought on by madness 12 hours alternating in the blistering sun and in my dank, dark crawlspace (see here for more on that..). The larger point I'm trying to make is that it's pretty likely that the GOP is going to be taken to the cleaners in '08, and we can't use that as an excuse to be complacent. We need to keep the pressure on the Dems, both for positive change and undoing the damage of the last 12 years of Repub rule. It's time to stop “practicing” democracy and start getting it right.

crossposted on five before chaos. Sorry.

Well, we have Leahy's subpeonas, and now we have his Republican counterpart on the Senate's judiciary committee chiming in on another issue of deceipt:

(Specter to probe Supreme Court decisions, The Politico, 07/25/07)

We'll see … we'll see.

I have a quick moment for a post-Dental appointment diary. Although I know B'rouser has diaried on this already (below), this is enough text it seemed to merit more than simply a post.

Below the fold are several relevant documents for your perusal:

I. The text of cover letters sent to Karl Rove and Scott Jennings. 

II. Text of the actual subpoenas

III. Explanations of the terminology

IV. The text of a letter sent to Alberto Gonzales affording him an opportunity to amend his statements in light of the potential perjury charges

(Sorry for the formatting challenges… didn't have enough time to do this right…)

Enjoy! 

SUBPOENAS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS:
 

July 26, 2007
Mr. Karl Rove
 
Deputy Chief of Staff
 
The White House
 
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
 
Washington, D.C. 20500
 
 
 
 
Dear Mr. Rove:
 
Four months ago, Senator Specter and I sent you a letter seeking your voluntary cooperation with the Senate Judiciary Committee?s ongoing investigation of the mass firings and replacements of U.S. Attorneys and politicization at the Department of Justice.  We received no response to that letter.  Similar letters to the White House Counsel from the Committee have also failed to elicit cooperation.
 
Indeed, the White House has chosen to precipitate a needless constitutional confrontation.  The evidence gathered by our Committee and the House Judiciary Committee shows that you and other White House officials were involved in these firings and in the Justice Department?s response to congressional inquiries about them.  Yet, the White House has responded to requests for cooperation by stonewalling and to subpoenas with unprecedented, blanket assertions of ?executive privilege.?  It has even reached beyond matters under its control to stop or try to stop former White House officials involved in these matters from meeting their legal obligation to testify in compliance with congressional subpoenas. 
 
I am issuing the enclosed subpoenas to provide the Committee with documents in your possession, custody, or control related to the Committee?s investigation and for you to appear to testify under oath before the Committee on August 2, 2007.
 
I have issued this subpoena after exhausting every avenue for voluntary cooperation from you and the White House.  I hope that the White House takes this opportunity to reconsider its blanket claim of executive privilege, especially in light of the testimony that the President was not involved in the dismissals of these U.S. Attorneys.  I am left to ask what the White House is so intent on hiding that it cannot even identify the documents, the dates, the authors and recipients that they claim are privileged.
 
We have learned from the limited documents released by the Department of Justice, and from the testimony of high-ranking Department officials, that you were involved from the beginning in plans to remove U.S. Attorneys.  E-mails show that you initiated inquires at least by the beginning of 2005 as to how to proceed regarding the dismissal and replacement of U.S. Attorneys.  The evidence also shows that you raised political concerns, including those of New Mexico Republican leaders, about New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias that may have led to his dismissal.  He was fired a few weeks after you complained to the Attorney General about the lack of purported ?voter fraud? enforcement cases in his jurisdiction.
 
We have learned you raised similar concerns with the Attorney General about prosecutors not aggressively pursuing voter fraud cases in several districts and that prior to the 2006 mid-term election you sent the Attorney General?s Chief of Staff a packet of information containing a 30-page report concerning voting in Wisconsin in 2004.  This evidence raises serious concerns about your role in removing or trying to remove prosecutors not considered sufficiently loyal to Republican electoral prospects, an unacceptable manipulation and subversion of law enforcement.
 
Documents and testimony also show that you had a role in shaping the Administration?s response to congressional inquiries into these dismissals, which led to inaccurate and misleading testimony to Congress and statements to the public.  This response included an attempt to cover up the role that you and other White House officials played in the firings.
 
The evidence of untoward White House interference with federal law enforcement threatens our elections and has seriously undercut the American people?s confidence in the independence and evenhandedness of law enforcement.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman

* * * * *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Congress of the United States
 

To Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff to the President, Greeting:
 
Pursuant to lawful authority, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate of the United States, on August 2, 2007, at 10:00 o?clock a.m., at their committee room 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building, then and there to testify what you know relative to the Committee?s inquiry into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justice?s politicization of the hiring and firing of United States Attorneys, and to bring with you the documents described in Attachment A under the terms and conditions stated therein.
 
Hereof fail not, as you will answer your default under the pains and penalties in such cases made and provided.
 
To any Committee staff member or U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms to serve and return.
 
Given under my hand, by authority vested
 
in me by the Committee, on this  26  day
of  July   , 2007____.
 
Senator Patrick Leahy
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
 
 
* * * * *
Attachment A
 
Documents Subpoenaed
 
1.  Complete and unredacted versions, including complete paper and electronic versions, of any and all documents in your possession, custody or control related to the Committee?s investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justice?s politicization of the hiring and firing of United States Attorneys, including possible misrepresentations to Congress and other violations of federal law.  The documents produced shall include, but not be limited to:
 
A.  Any and all documents related to the: 1) evaluation of or decision to dismiss former U.S. Attorneys David Iglesias, H.E. ?Bud? Cummins, John McKay, Carol Lam, Daniel Bogden, Paul Charlton, Kevin Ryan, Margaret Chiara, Todd Graves, or any other U.S. Attorney(s) dismissed since President Bush?s re-election (hereinafter ?dismissed U.S. Attorneys?); 2) evaluation of any U.S. Attorney(s) considered for dismissal since President Bush?s re-election (hereinafter ?U.S. Attorneys considered for dismissal?); 3) the implementation of the dismissal and replacement of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys; and 4) the selection, discussion and evaluation of any possible replacement or interim or acting appointment to fill any vacancy with respect to dismissed U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Attorneys considered for dismissal.
 
B.  Any and all documents related to the testimony of any official at the Department of Justice to the United States Congress regarding any of the matters set forth in paragraph A, above.
 
Instructions
 
1.  In complying with this subpoena, you are required to produce all responsive documents that are in your possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or present agent, employee, or representative acting on your behalf.  You are also required to produce documents that you have a legal right to obtain, that you have a right to copy, or to which you have access, as well as documents that you have placed in the temporary possession, custody, or control or any third party.
 
2.  No documents as defined herein called for by this request shall be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred, or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee.  If you have knowledge that any subpoenaed document as defined herein has been destroyed, discarded, or lost, identify the subpoenaed document and provide an explanation of the destruction, discarding, loss or disposal and the date at which then document was destroyed, discarded or lost.
 
3.  This subpoena is continuing in nature.  Any document not produced because it has not been located or discovered by the return date shall be provided immediately upon location or discovery subsequent thereto with an explanation of why it was not located or discovered by the return date.
 
4.  If you believe any responsive documents are protected by a privilege, please provide a privilege log which (1) identifies any and all responsive documents to which the privilege is asserted, (2) sets forth the date, type, addressee(s), author(s) (and, if different, the preparer and signatory), general subject matter, and indicated or known circulation of the document, and (3) states the privilege asserted in sufficient detail to ascertain the validity of the claim of privilege.
 
5.  Production with respect to each document shall include all electronic versions and data files from email applications as well as from word processing, spreadsheet, or other electronic data repositories applicable to any attachments, and shall be provided to the Committee where possible in its native file format and shall include all original metadata for each electronic documents or data file.  Productions shall be provided on CD, DVD, or USB external hard drive.
 
6.  Any draft, preliminary version, modification, revision, or amendment of a document, and any version that otherwise differs in any respect, such as having marginalia, markings, other notations or attachments, or otherwise, shall be considered a separate document and shall also be furnished as responsive.
 
7.  Documents shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course of your business, including with any file labels, dividers, or other identifying markers with which they were associated when this subpoena was served.  Also identify to which paragraph from the subpoena such documents are responsive.
 
8.  All documents shall be bates?stamped sequentially and produced sequentially, with an indication as to which paragraph of the schedule it is responsive.

Definitions
 
1.  The term ?document? as used in this subpoena includes all emails, memoranda, reports, agreements, notes, correspondence, files, records, and other documents, data, information or memorialization in any form, whether physical or electronic, maintained on any digital repository or electronic media, and should be construed as it is used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
 
2.  The terms ?related? and ?relating? with respect to any given subject, shall be construed broadly to mean anything that constitutes, contains, embodies, reflects, identifies, concerns, states, refers to, deals with or is in any manner whatsoever pertinent to the subject.
 
3.  The terms ?including? and ?includes,? with respect to any given subject, shall be construed broadly so that specification of any particular matter shall not be construed to exclude any documents that you have reason to believe the Committee might regard as responsive.
 
4.  The terms ?Department of Justice? and ?Department? includes without limitation, anyone presently or formerly employed there, suspended from employment there, or on administrative leave from employment there.
 
5.  The term ?White House? includes, without limitation, anyone presently or formerly employed there, suspended from employment there, or on administrative leave from employment there.
 
* * * * *

July 26, 2007
 
Mr. J. Scott Jennings
Special Assistant to the President
  and Deputy Director of Political Affairs
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
 
Dear Mr. Jennings:

Four months ago, Senator Specter and I sent you a letter seeking your voluntary cooperation with the Senate Judiciary Committee?s ongoing investigation of the mass firings and replacements of U.S. Attorneys and politicization at the Department of Justice.  We received no response to that letter.  Similar letters to the White House Counsel from the Committee have also failed to elicit cooperation.

Indeed, the White House has chosen to precipitate a needless constitutional confrontation.  The evidence gathered by our Committee and the House Judiciary Committee shows that you and other White House officials were involved in these firings and in the Justice Department?s response to congressional inquiries about them.  Yet, the White House has responded to requests for cooperation by stonewalling and to subpoenas with unprecedented, blanket assertions of ?executive privilege.?  It has even reached beyond matters under its control to stop or try to stop former White House officials involved in these matters from meeting their legal obligation to testify in compliance with congressional subpoenas. 

I am issuing the enclosed subpoenas to provide the Committee with documents in your possession, custody, or control related to the Committee?s investigation and for you to appear to testify under oath before the Committee on August 2, 2007.

I have issued this subpoena after exhausting every avenue for voluntary cooperation from you and the White House.  I hope that the White House takes this opportunity to reconsider its blanket claim of executive privilege, especially in light of the testimony that the President was not involved in the dismissals of these U.S. Attorneys.  I am left to ask what the White House is so intent on hiding that it cannot even identify the documents, the dates, the authors and recipients that they claim are privileged.
 
We have learned from the limited documents released by the Department of Justice, and from the testimony of high-ranking Department officials, that you were involved in the discussions and planning that led to the removal of Bud Cummins and bypassing the Senate confirmation process to install Tim Griffin, a former aide to Mr. Karl Rove, as U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Arkansas.  You were also part of a group that discussed using the Attorney General?s expanded authority under the Patriot Act Reauthorization to avoid the opposition of the Arkansas Senators by appointing Mr. Griffin as interim indefinitely. 
 
In addition, we have also learned that you set up a meeting between the Department?s White House Liaison, Monica Goodling, and New Mexico Republican officials in

June 2006 to talk about the U.S. Attorney ?situation? in New Mexico, describing it as ?sensitive.?  Mr. Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, was fired months later based at least in part, according to the evidence, on political complaints raised by these officials. 

Finally, documents and testimony show that you had knowledge of the plan for firing multiple U.S. Attorneys on December 7, 2006, and were involved in shaping the Administration?s response to congressional inquiries into these dismissals, which led to inaccurate and misleading testimony to Congress and statements to the public.  This response included an attempt to cover up the role you and other White House officials played in the firings.

The evidence of untoward White House interference with federal law enforcement threatens our elections and has seriously undercut the American people?s confidence in the independence and evenhandedness of law enforcement.

Sincerely,

PATRICK LEAHY
Chairman
 

* * * * *

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Congress of the United States 

To J. Scott Jennings, Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Political Affairs, Greeting:
 
Pursuant to lawful authority, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate of the United States, on August 2, 2007, at 10:00 o?clock a.m., at their committee room 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building, then and there to testify what you know relative to the Committee?s inquiry into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justice?s politicization of the hiring and firing of United States Attorneys, and to bring with you the documents described in Attachment A under the terms and conditions stated therein.

Hereof fail not, as you will answer your default under the pains and penalties in such cases made and provided.

To any Committee staff member or U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms to serve and return.

Given under my hand, by authority vested

in me by the Committee, on this  26  day
of  July   , 2007____. 

Senator Patrick Leahy
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

 
* * * * *

Attachment A

Documents Subpoenaed

1.  Complete and unredacted versions, including complete paper and electronic versions, of any and all documents in your possession, custody or control related to the Committee?s investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justice?s politicization of the hiring and firing of United States Attorneys, including possible misrepresentations to Congress and other violations of federal law.  The documents produced shall include, but not be limited to:

A.  Any and all documents related to the: 1) evaluation of or decision to dismiss former U.S. Attorneys David Iglesias, H.E. ?Bud? Cummins, John McKay, Carol Lam, Daniel Bogden, Paul Charlton, Kevin Ryan, Margaret Chiara, Todd Graves, or any other U.S. Attorney(s) dismissed since President Bush?s re-election (hereinafter ?dismissed U.S. Attorneys?); 2) evaluation of any U.S. Attorney(s) considered for dismissal since President Bush?s re-election (hereinafter ?U.S. Attorneys considered for dismissal?); 3) the implementation of the dismissal and replacement of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys; and 4) the selection, discussion and evaluation of any possible replacement or interim or acting appointment to fill any vacancy with respect to dismissed U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Attorneys considered for dismissal.

B.  Any and all documents related to the testimony of any official at the Department of Justice to the United States Congress regarding any of the matters set forth in paragraph A, above.

Instructions

1.  In complying with this subpoena, you are required to produce all responsive documents that are in your possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or present agent, employee, or representative acting on your behalf.  You are also required to produce documents that you have a legal right to obtain, that you have a right to copy, or to which you have access, as well as documents that you have placed in the temporary possession, custody, or control or any third party.

2.  No documents as defined herein called for by this request shall be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred, or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee.  If you have knowledge that any subpoenaed document as defined herein has been destroyed, discarded, or lost, identify the subpoenaed document and provide an explanation of the destruction, discarding, loss or disposal and the date at which then document was destroyed, discarded or lost.

3.  This subpoena is continuing in nature.  Any document not produced because it has not been located or discovered by the return date shall be provided immediately upon location or discovery subsequent thereto with an explanation of why it was not located or discovered by the return date.

4.  If you believe any responsive documents are protected by a privilege, please provide a privilege log which (1) identifies any and all responsive documents to which the privilege is asserted, (2) sets forth the date, type, addressee(s), author(s) (and, if different, the preparer and signatory), general subject matter, and indicated or known circulation of the document, and (3) states the privilege asserted in sufficient detail to ascertain the validity of the claim of privilege.

5.  Production with respect to each document shall include all electronic versions and data files from email applications as well as from word processing, spreadsheet, or other electronic data repositories applicable to any attachments, and shall be provided to the Committee where possible in its native file format and shall include all original metadata for each electronic documents or data file.  Productions shall be provided on CD, DVD, or USB external hard drive.

6.  Any draft, preliminary version, modification, revision, or amendment of a document, and any version that otherwise differs in any respect, such as having marginalia, markings, other notations or attachments, or otherwise, shall be considered a separate document and shall also be furnished as responsive.

7.  Documents shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course of your business, including with any file labels, dividers, or other identifying markers with which they were associated when this subpoena was served.  Also identify to which paragraph from the subpoena such documents are responsive.

8.  All documents shall be bates?stamped sequentially and produced sequentially, with an indication as to which paragraph of the schedule it is responsive.

Definitions

1.  The term ?document? as used in this subpoena includes all emails, memoranda, reports, agreements, notes, correspondence, files, records, and other documents, data, information or memorialization in any form, whether physical or electronic, maintained on any digital repository or electronic media, and should be construed as it is used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2.  The terms ?related? and ?relating? with respect to any given subject, shall be construed broadly to mean anything that constitutes, contains, embodies, reflects, identifies, concerns, states, refers to, deals with or is in any manner whatsoever pertinent to the subject.

3.  The terms ?including? and ?includes,? with respect to any given subject, shall be construed broadly so that specification of any particular matter shall not be construed to exclude any documents that you have reason to believe the Committee might regard as responsive.
 
4.  The terms ?Department of Justice? and ?Department? includes without limitation, anyone presently or formerly employed there, suspended from employment there, or on administrative leave from employment there.
 
5.  The term ?White House? includes, without limitation, anyone presently or formerly employed there, suspended from employment there, or on administrative leave from employment there.

TEXT OF LETTER TO GONZALES:

 

July 26, 2007
 
The Honorable Alberto Gonzales
 
Attorney General
 
Department of Justice
 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
 
Washington, D.C. 20530

 

 
Dear Attorney General Gonzales:
 
I have enclosed a copy of the unedited hearing transcript from the United States Senate Judiciary Committee hearing at which you appeared and testified on July 24, 2007. This is for you to review and should not be copied or distributed.
 
Please mark any changes you wish to make to correct, clarify or supplement your answers so that, consistent with your oath, they are the whole truth.  Then return it to my office, to the attention of Jennifer Price, Hearing Clerk, Senate Judiciary Committee, 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20510.  In order to complete the hearing record, please return this transcript with your changes as soon as possible, and in no event later than Friday, August 3, 2007.
 
I expect in the next few days to also forward follow up written questions from Members of the Committee.
 
[CONTACT INFORMATION]
 
 
Sincerely,
 
PATRICK LEAHY
 
Chairman
 

To Whom it May Concern,

Hi. My name is John and I'm writing to ask your help. You see, I'm really, really confused and concerned.

I want to support my Party's leadership in the Legislature. I really do. I'm committed to doing what I can to make them as effective as possible, even when that means…shall we say… a little “tough love.” Now that gay marriage is on the table, I'll happily work as hard as I can to see it passed.

But the truth is, I feel like I'm caught in a washing machine spin cycle that just went into overdrive this week. Over the last few months, we were admonished by our legislative leaders that many of the issues we were concerned about were too divisive which frustrated many of us to no end. All of a sudden, that's no longer operative, as without warning the most delicate issue of all is now “the issue.” We were told that discussing impeachment would take too much time, and suddenly it barely took a day. After beating up on the governor's education finance plan during the session, we get the news that the Senate President Pro Tem gave it a new lease on life on an impulse. After sucessfully garnering grassroots support for a bold stand against the governor, there was suddenly word (without warning or consultation) that the most controversial aspect was off the table. And now, the Democratic Senate leader is suggesting we should vote for a Republican for governor.

So you can see why I … why we…need your help. We need someone to step up and be the public face of the Party before we're all made to look like utter fools. I'm convinced more than ever that it should be someone from off the bench – from outside. And no, I don't think it should be Matt Dunne, who needs to run for Lt. Governor again first. And I think Freyne is dead wrong when he says it's about a Dem having “testicles” as he said (ahem – let's say “nerve” rather than ascribe the concept of courage strictly to men, eh?). I don't think it's about a lack of nerve anymore. After yesterday's press conference, it's clear that isn't lacking. What we need is nerve coupled with judgement, and framed within a clear progressive ethic.

It's about grounding. We want a progressive message, but we want a consistent one. One we can hang our hat on. We don't want to get out there and argue passionately for policies on the table, only to find the next day that the table has been completely pulled out. We want to see our leaders working with our other electeds, who must be more confused than we are. We need something steady. Dependable.

So whoever you are, I hope you'll answer soon. This crazy merry-go-round is gonna make me hurl before too much longer.

Sincerely,

odum

Not long ago I pointed out the incompetence involved in two of the Cheney/Bush administration's vacations (Impeachment … its for gross incompetence too.). Now I'd like to point to similiar action by the Democratic controlled Congress.

Short, sweet and simple: we have two outstanding contempt citations against high level Cheney/Bush administration officials that require a vote of the full House of Representatives (House Panel Backs Citing bush Aids for Contempt, Washington Post, 07/26/07); and the U.S. Attorney General has been caught lying to the U.S. Congress (AP Reveals New Documents Reveals 'Clear Case' Of Gonzales Perjury On Spying Program, Think Progress). 

Oh yes, I almost forgot, there's a small question of actually doing something to get us out of Iraq and the ELEPHANT in the room … IMPEACHMENT!

Helluv'a time to leave your work space, Democratic controlled Congress. 

It's no secret that Democrats across the state are eager to find a solution to the Douglas problem. He seems unbeatable, the voters don't seem to grasp the pernicious, extremist views he has put into action, and our best politicians either don't seem to connect with enough voters to displace him, or don't want to give up their comfortable seats to take him on.

So the word is out: find the candidate who can defeat Douglas.

But is Shummy for real here? 

Just read the lede and tell me what you think:

(Host) Democrats are thinking hard about a gubernatorial candidate to take on Governor Jim Douglas next year. 

Illuzzi says he hasn't ruled out the idea.

I think I reacted like most people who read the news about today's press conference announcement from Speaker Symington and Senator Shumlin that they're diving full steam ahead into the issue of gay marriage in Vermont. Basically:

Whaaaaaa…….?   

We can discuss the peculiarities of timing, the prospects of success, the sometimes unfathomable thinking of the Democratic leaders (and we will, no doubt), but what's more interesting to me at this moment is how our reactions to this issue and this initiative are going to define us as activists and progressives.

The kneejerk response is to go the route that Freyne did – outright mockery, but I think that would be a mistake.

The criticism of the Legislative leadership is that they've been wimps. Capitulators. That they strategize and compromise in such a way that takes their base for granted. Both Symington and Shumlin have endured much justifiable and appropriate criticism on their rejection out of hand of this very issue last session.

So now, here thay are. Taking a divisive, high-profile, risky – but morally correct position. Maybe it's bad strategy. Maybe it's a crass attempt to shore up the base. Maybe they've just gone a little crazy.

But at the end of the day, who gives a shit? It's the right thing to do and they're doing it. End of story.

Freyne has become so mired in the personal, he can't see that. During the civil unions debate, he was a regular advocate for equal rights for gays and lesbians in the state, and yet he has nothing to offer but mockery. He has crafted a print narrative that places Symington and Shumlin in the role of comic relief. Of buffoonish clowns. There are certainly many who would agree, as GMD's own JDRyan has repeatedly called for Symington to step down on this very site, and his opinion is shared by many. Lord knows I've been critical of them as well.

The difference is that Freyne seems no longer capable of seeing past it.

And folks, we have to. I think there's a real argument to be made that what we're seeing is the Legislative Leadership becoming more responsive to the base. Sure they picked a strategically odd time/place/way to do it, but to go so far out of one's way (as Freyne does) to ignore the actual content of their presser – that the leaders of the Vermont Legislature are moving to craft a bipartisan push for Gay Marriage – is to cut off one's nose to spite one's face. Freyne would even rather talk about how shocking – shocking – it is that Bob Kiss wasn't invited to the press conference than actually engage with the issue that is now front and center (and check the news and the papers tomorrow if you doubt that it will now be front and center). He is that jaded.

Are we?

Again, there's no question that the strange strategy of making this announcement now merits a discussion – and you can bet I'll be neck deep in it myself. There is a lot of justifiable eye-rolling to be done.

But at the end of the day, if we're not going to first and foremost step up to back these folks up on doing the right thing even though it's politically dangerous, than we're just hypocrites.