(UPDATE: The Obama campaign is claiming that Anthony changed the password and froze them out of the MySpace site, starting all this. Interesting. If so, it alters the moral equation, but the fact that we’re seeing this neener-neener he said-he said play out in public is still shockingly dumb…)

(UPDATE2 – Not so fast, says Micah at techpresident:

(UPDATE 3: Dean campaign netroots pioneer and Obama activist Zephyr Teachout chimes in… check the bottom of the article, as I’m running out of update room on top.)

Okay, if you haven’t heard, here’s the story.

An Obamaphile named Joe Anthony creates an Obama MySpace fansite in 2004. Over the years, he’s done the whole social networking thing, including staying up long hours, making connections and building the Obama buzz. The site has been a roaring success – a model, even, of how to use such social networking sites for political causes.

As the Obama campaign ramped up, so did the workload. The Obama campaign forged a relationship with the guy and they seemed to have a good working connection – they’d let him know about errors that he’d correct, and so forth – and the list of connected “friends” to the Obama site ballooned to a mammoth 140,000 – particularly after MySpace started highlighting political sites.

So in March, the relationship went sour in a big way about the time Obama brings political veteran Scott Goodstein into the fray to run the online social networking (more on him in a moment). Anthony says he is getting worn out keeping up the site, which is turning into a serious committment, and emails the campaign asking to be compensated. The O campaign decides it wants hands-on control and discusses options – including bringing  Anthony on in a paid capacity. Eventually they decide to approach the guy and – this is key – ask him to make an offer to compensate him for his work to turn it all over, lock stock and barrel.

(Continued below the fold…)

Anthony admits he had no idea what would be an appropriate amount (and how could he , in a sense…. this is uncharted territory). He also admits to being sick of a campaign that he felt was now “bullying” him, and even harassing him by such things as setting up inconveniently scheduled phone meetings with him and routinely canceling at the last minute, and other such petty things that seemed all but intended to make him feel belittled and dismissed. He makes it clear that, after this treatment, he felt a right to compensation out of principle.

After considering his time since 2004, he came back with a number of about $39,000 as well as a share of any fees paid to MySpace up to that time up to a max of $10,000. (from his MySpace blog:)

(Obama staffer and facebook.com founder) Chris (Hughes) suggested a one-time fee to transfer over the profile to them and that they discussed this with Myspace and they were agreeable with any arrangement we could work out. He did not suggest how much, or what sort of a fee. He did say that he needed it by the next morning so we scheduled another meeting and I stayed up all night working on a proposal that I thought would be fair to everyone. This was a positive conversation and he seemed sincere enough.

That meeting finally happened yesterday. It was clear at that time that there was no “one-time fee”. I felt like it was a bit of a setup so that they could have a reason to take the profile without my consent.

I was accused of using this profile for commercial purposes. I was threatened that I would be responsible if the profile was deleted (they even followed up via email to be sure I knew it was my fault!) The conversation really was about them taking control of the profile. There was no counter offer, or anything to suggest that they had any intention of paying me anything at all.

At this point there was no way I would turn this community over to them and would rather keep it as an unofficial site and keep doing what I’ve been doing. I expressed this, and they said that if I did not turn the profile over to them immediately, they would delete it and all of my hard work would go to waste. They reiterated this several times, and repeated “You are the one making the decision to kill this profile”. In fact, I responded each time, that I have no plans to delete this profile, and that decision would be between them and Myspace. (I even added that he sounded like Bush telling congress/senate it was their decision not to fund the troops. How hypocritical is this!)

Finally, Chris from the campaign emailed me, indicating that Myspace needed my consent to give them access to the profile. I replied that Mypace did not have my consent to grant access to the profile to anyone.

An hour or so later, I was blocked from the profile and the content was altered to redirect traffic to the new, “Official” profile. Myspace has in fact granted access to the profile without my permission.

So, it’s a mess. The Obama campaign is apparently actively calling this guy a cybersquatter and telling folks he’s only in it for the money. For my part, I’m not entirely sure whether the number Anthony proposes was appropriate or not – but that very uncertainty suggests the need for negotiation and a considered response, rather than dropping the boom and trying to smear the guy – and make no mistake, the guy is getting trashed online by Obama supporters using words like “blackmail” and “extortion.”

Techpresident.com has the focal piece on it, and their assessment seems reasoned and reasonable:

Indeed, it appears the Obama internet team was shocked by the size of Anthony’s proposal and argued to themselves that it was proof that he was just in it for the money, even though campaigns like theirs regularly give tens of thousands of dollars to highpriced media consultants who would give their eye-teeth to deliver 160,000 rabid activists to a campaign. Instead to them, Anthony’s bid was all the more reason to get control of the site. Obama’s staffers are now spreading the word that Anthony wanted a big payday, including a huge percentage of any ad buys on MySpace. I have a copy of Anthony’s email proposal, however, and it contradicts that claim.

Of course, no one really knows how to value the creation of a popular political website with tens of thousands of members. Big sites like Flickr.com and Weblogs.com have earned their owners somewhere between $20 and $40 per member. Care2, the massive progressive email list vendor, charges about $1 per email address that they generate for a campaign. But it would be silly to suggest that Anthony generated 160,000 MySpace friends for Obama on his own–if he wasn’t plugging a very charismatic candidate like Obama he’d never have grown such a large site.

Whatever the case, at this point it appears the Obama people simply decided that they would get control of the myspace.com/barackobama url by going around Anthony and getting MySpace to lock down his access to it.

Which is where we’re at.

Now look, where I can’t help but have sympathy with the Obama campaign when I read how the stink developed – and I have no idea what financial offer they were expecting (although $39,000-$49,000 clearly was more than they were bargaining on), I find their handling of the relationship with Anthony (short of any new revelations that alter the picture) both morally appalling and mind-numbingly stupid.

Let’s start with the “stupid” part, eh? Why do I say it’s stupid? Because of posts like this that are filling up the internetz today (from Anthony’s blog again):

This was just WRONG, the man lost my vote.

Posted by Guze on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 at 9:52 AM
[Reply to this]

---

This is about as rotten as it gets. The story of your plight just hit Slashdot, so every tech-minded person in America should know about the “MyTheft” shortly.

Posted by Jason on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 at 10:04 AM
[Reply to this]

---

This is really disappointing; it’s unfair and un-American on so many different levels that it’s hard to quantify.

Things like this will definitely have an impact on deciding my primary voting and where my support goes; whether that be as a campaigner or a contributor.

Ultimately I’m left wondering if this will blossum into a defining moment for the Obama campiagn- the day Obama broke the ‘Netroots’ back.

Keep up the good work; and sorry about the crappy treatment from Barak Obama.

Posted by Skip on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 at 10:08 AM
[Reply to this]

Why, oh why did supposedly net-saavy staffers like Goodstein and Hughes not think this would happen? And it’s only getting worse. The fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the internet – both in how netroots activists should be treated (and the potentially national consequences of treating them poorly) and the impossibility of controlling web hubbub with traditional spin – makes the mind boggle. Obama’s net campaign is often compared with Dean’s – but this incident shows how far behind the Dean perspective Obama’s people really are. Early on, the Dean crowd realized there was no controlling a lot of that independent, spontaneous energy circulating among the netroots, so they wisely went with that and tried to harness, support, and by supporting steer (to an extent) that energy – but with the understanding that they could only steer it to a very limited degree. This attempt at old school command-and-control of a key – possibly even critical netroots blossom shows that Obama’s net folks do not understand the medium and its participants the way the Dean crowd did – meaning this could be only the first big screw up of its kind.

But, barring any changes to what looks like a fairly consistent picture – this was clearly a pretty crappy way to handle Anthony, and trashing him after the fact just seems sleazy. The truth is it’s not too hard for me to imagine that Anthony may have been feeling bullied by Goodstein because… well… Scott can be that way.

Scott Goodstein has a history in Vermont. Back in the late 90’s, he helped out as a fundraising consultant for the Vermont Democratic House Campaign, and when I was brought on board, he was hired to work on the first “David W. Curtis leadership Awards.” I always liked the guy, even though he rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, precisely because he was hardcore. He put the hard, hard sell on people to ante up and contribute. The guy was relentless.

He popped back up in the area running Jan Backus’ unsuccessful primary campaign against Ed Flanagan for the privilege of getting trounced by Senator Jeffords in 2000. It was here that he really started annoying the crap out of people – even folks who were his friends. He was playing the role of pushy, aggressive politico-guy to an almost caricatured degree, including by having his lieutenant persistently and inappropriately calling me at home at all hours to try to strong arm me into giving his candidate unfair and unethical special access to the Party’s database which I guarded like it was my child. As mad as I would get, I was a paid hack at the time, and I suppose it came with the territory. If Anthony – who is simply an idealistic, and probably naive volunteer – got a piece of that… er… interpersonal styling, it’s not a wonder he got mad.

In any event, the issue is metastasizing across the internet. It may soon behoove the big O himself to step in and calm some ruffled feathers, as well as rein in some of his more aggressive operatives, lest his operation start to lose wavering onlookers to the Edwards campaign, which has become their netroots rival…

UPDATE 3 continued… Zephyr Teachout from a comment at techpresident:

Check the link and scroll down for her comment. There’s more to it, and it’s an interesting read.

UPDATE 4: Why, god, why is Rospas still out there trashing this guy (go here and scroll down to the second comment)??? Don’t they realize how bad that looks? How it feeds the poor beset upon, David-v-Goliath narrative that is blossoming. Or even apart from that, how utterly classless and tacky it looks. They screwed up by letting this get out, now it’s time to cut losses by rising above it and taking the high road. By continuing the “let’s call this guy an extortionist every chance we get” approach, they drag it out in an unseemly manner, when Obama is the only one with anything to lose, at this point. Bizarre and mindless – and these guys are supposed to be political pros?

It gets easier to understand Dem campaign screw-ups, doesn’t it?

The L.A. Times is reporting that Senator Leahy, in anticipation of a possible Gonzales resignation and continued stonewalling in regards to the testimony of White House officials, is saying that his committee (judiciary) will not hold confirmation hearings for any potential future nominees unless Karl Rove and other White House aides testify about the firing of U.S. attorneys to clarify whether “the White House has interfered with prosecution.”

Of course, whether it be because of that special channel of communication he has with the Almighty, the years of coke and alcohol abuse, or just sheer stupidity/brain damage, Bush more than likely will dig in and keep Gonzales on. But as Elizabeth Holzmann reports, it very might well be in Bush’s own personal interest to not let Speedy Gonzales go:

All this is reminiscent of the Watergate scandal. In 1973, as the coverup was unraveling, the Senate imposed a condition on the confirmation of President Nixon’s nominee for attorney general, Elliot Richardson. Richardson’s predecessor had resigned because of Watergate troubles. Concerned that the Justice Department would not get at the truth, the Senate insisted that Richardson would name a special prosecutor to investigate Watergate. Richardson duly appointed Archibald Cox.

The rest is history. Cox’s aggressive investigations led to the prosecution of top administration officials and the naming of Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator in the coverup. When Cox sought White House tapes of Nixon’s conversations with his staff, the president had him fired, unleashing a firestorm of protests. Americans demanded that a previously reluctant Congress start impeachment proceedings against Nixon. Congress complied; the House Judiciary Committee, of which I was a member, voted for impeachment, and Nixon resigned.

Aspects of this history could easily repeat themselves. The Senate could demand, as it did in 1973, that a new attorney general appoint a special prosecutor, and this could again have dire consequences for the White House.

A new special prosecutor would have many questions to investigate.

With a new Bush/GOP related atrocity coming to light nearly every day, who knows where this one may go? Regardless, its reassuring to know that Bush isn’t going to have it easy either way on this particular matter.

Now that Bush has stamped his Veto across the Iraq spending bill the question is: how do Democrats continue to drive the point home that America wants an end to Bush’s war?

Do we vote no money for the troops and give the Republicans Ammo they’ve been dreaming of?

Or do we fold, give Bush his bill with no timelines, and remain committed to this endless and wasteful Republican debacle?

Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania has got a plan that seems pretty damn good to me.

According to the AP story, Democrats weigh post-veto Iraq options,:

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who chairs the House panel that oversees military funding, said he wants a bill that would fund the war for just two or three months. Before that second bill would expire in summer, Democrats would try again to pass legislation calling for an end to combat.

It sounds like a good idea to me…it does two things:

• It Shows Democrats DO support the troops
• It Shows Democrats WILL NOT roll-over and play dead for Bush

Still, I’ve yet to read any substantive discussion of the merits of the idea (It’s very similar to something the DLC put out, so that alone may make it very unpopular here on GMD).  Does anyone have any thoughts?

Some readers know that I have two sons, and I’m insanely proud of both of them. John is in graduate school at Yale Drama School and Adam is a student at the University of Montana. This post happens to be about Adam, who is more politically active than John.

From the ActBlue Blog…

Fundraising pages are the most important component of ActBlue: the vast majority of visitors to the site arrive directly on a fundraising page because a friend, an organization, or a campaign has channeled them there.  We pride ourselves on these pages’ simplicity: donors can show up, immediately understand what’s going on, and contribute with no distracting bells and whistles. 

But we harbor a dirty secret (or, not-so-secret if you’ve been with us a while).

Over the past three years, $22 million raised, and 200,000+ donors, these pages haven’t actually changed all that much.  For a bit of nostalgia, check out the DailyKos dozen page as it looked back at the end of 2004 (compare to the same page with today’s look).  Yeah, the site framework has changed a little, but the makeup of the fundraising pages is remarkably similar.

Next week, all that is about to change.

Motivated by a strong sense that we could do better (and by a desire to burn down HTML code approaching its second anniversary), a few weeks ago we got to work putting together a new design with the help of the excellent Steve Ofner of Liberal Art.  The result is the new design that that you see at right.  (Click the image for a full-size mockup.)

In putting the new design together we had several aims:

• A sharper, more dynamic look & feel
• A simpler user experience
• A clearer presentation of the dollar and donor numbers
• A more attention-grabbing "contribute" button at the top

The result is an improved page design that looks good with long candidate blurbs, short candidate blurbs, no candidate blurbs, or all of the above.

We’ll be rolling out this design next week, and will continue to refine it in the coming months — so please let us know what you think!

Congratulations to New Hampshire for achieving civil unions (without threat of a court order) for Granite State gay and lesbian couples. A wonderful day for my natal state, in keeping with their wisdom and courage in electing the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson.

I like civil unions. Lots less baggage than “marriage.” We get to invent our own traditions, or carry on parts of the old ones, or take on the whole marriage panoply of ceremony and tradition as we like.

But — and you knew there would be a “but” — what sticks in my craw are comments like those of Howard “Fifty State” Dean, the former governor who signed Vermont’s civil unions bill secretively, behind closed doors, so as not to offend the bigots or allow the queers and their equality-minded allies opportunity to celebrate. Howard Dean, the former presidential candidate who made millions of dollars for his 2004 campaign from hopeful queers across the country, thanks in large part to gay and lesbian Vermonters who campaigned for him among out-of-state communities he otherwise had no clue how to address, shows an odd mix of almost-courage buried in cowardice. It’s as if his heart for justice is battling his fearful political instincts, and unfortunately there is no well-meaning but ultimately fraudulent Wizard of Oz to give him a medal so he could finally go with justice.

About New Hampshire’s enactment of civil unions, a step toward equality for gay and lesbian couples, Howard Dean, the current kingmaker of the Democratic Party, said in a statement carried by WCAX TV:

You know I don’t think marriage or civil unions are a national issue. I think the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional. Clearly the states have the right to make these kinds of decisions about benefits and legal relationships and that’s always been the way it is. I think there should be less federal regulation not more.

Okay, he threw one good line in there: “I think the defense of marriage act [DOMA] is unconstitutional.” That’s the courageous Lion part.

The problems with the rest of his statement are below the fold.

The Cowardly part of his Cowardly Lion act lies in the rest of what he said:

Clearly the states have the right to make these kinds of decisions about benefits and legal relationships and that’s always been the way it is. I think there should be less federal regulation not more. [emphasis mine]

Problem #1: When the federal government exercised no say in marriage laws of individual states, 13 or 14 states decided that whites and African Americans could not legally marry. That issue was dealt with in the Loving v. Viginia Supreme Court ruling.

Problem #2: No civil union is recognized by the federal government, which grants more than a thousand rights and benefits to married couples.

Here are two major examples of the consequences of not having equal federal rights and benefits: income tax and health care.

Income tax: Every year my partner and I have to do two federal tax returns apiece: one as if we were filing separately, as legal strangers; one as if we could file jointly, as the all-but-married, civilly united couple that we are. Because Vermont’s state taxes are a percentage of federal taxes, and the federal government does not recognize our legal relationship, the second federal return is required to enable us to file our state taxes as a couple.

Not only do we have to give the state copies of our fake second federal return in order to prove our numbers (which no mixed-gender married couple has to do),  but because we do not get to file federal tax returns as a couple, we lose out on more than a thousand dollars a year in refunds. Screw all that whining about the so-called “marriage penalty.” We — and all other Vermont gay and lesbian civil union couples — lose serious cash every year on a major “civil union penalty.”

Howard Dean’s support of “states’ rights” with regard to marriage and civil unions ignores this federally enforced major economic disadvantage.

Health care: One of Bush’s few “big ideas” (other than war as a vehicle for transfer of wealth) was employer-and-employee-funded, consumer-controlled “Health Care Savings Accounts” to supplement (in some cases to replace) employer-paid health insurance. It was supposed to help slow the growth of health care expenses by enlisting the consumer in making choices based on cost and real necessity not just on whether the insurance plan would pay for any given piece of premium care.

Even if you accept the premise (and so far I can’t say it has worked well), it is a federal program. Because it is a federal program, the amount of my spouse’s health care savings account money we can use for my health care expenses is: ZERO. Zip. Nada. Nichts. Nothing. At the same time, married couples can use their health care savings account money for any family member’s expenses. My spouse’s employer has made an HCSA part of its diminishing health insurance benefit package.

And that’s not even mentioning all the other issues from Social Security survivor’s benefits to buying a family pass to national parks.

So, Mr. DNC Chairman Howard Dean, thanks for the incremental step toward equality in Vermont. Thanks for supporting civil unions so that Heartland Democrats who are confused or uncertain, or fear that the issue will bite them in the next election will know that their party’s leader thinks civil unions are okay (but not “gay marriage”) — and just in case that’s too scary, that he supports “states’ rights.” BTW, your statement on civil unions appears nowhere on the DNC site, so maybe I’m giving you more credit than you deserve.

The courage you showed seven years ago in signing Vermont’s civil unions law and your cowardice in doing it “in the closet” shows in what you did not say this week: “States should be able to define marriage and civil unions, and in the name of equality for ALL Americans, as long as the federal government awards benefits to married couples, those benefits must also be awarded equally to partners in civil union.”

( – promoted by odum)

It’s time to wrestle with the big question on everybody’s mind of late; that is, who – after two landslide victories in his back pocket – is going to step up and challenge Governor Douglas in next year’s election for Governor? It’s a question with some urgency, as whoever is had better get moving in late Spring/early Summer, or they shouldn’t even bother. The Dem candidate needs to look to models like the NH Dean Presidential campaign to build a groundgame unlike one any of their statewide candidates have been willing to put the resources behind before, and the biggest resource in such an equation is time. Just to make it harder, they should expect to do so with little help from the state party and zero help from the national one, as it will be considered a terrible investment (although they’ll still be expected to raise scads into the Dem Coordinated Campaign, unfortunately… but that’s an issue for another diary).

So, who do you think? Contrary to people’s assumptions, there’s been nothing to indicate that any of the Dem elected big-dogs want to go head-to-head with big Jim – and yes, that includes Shumlin and Symington. Shummy may have it on his mind, but he’d probably be more inclined to join the inevitable stampede for the office that will ensue the day Mr. Douglas decides he’s done. People are wondering about Matt Dunne, particularly Peter Freyne who, rather inexplicably, referred to him has Douglas’ “worst nightmare.” Dunne has the advantage that neither Parker nor Clavelle had – that he’s now been on a statewide ballot and the voters have therefore been properly introduced – but I’m among those that think it’s hardly enough. What I’m hoping to see is Dunne refine his style and campaign strategy and take another run at Dubie. With that challenge hanging out there un-met, it’s hard to believe he’d be considered a viable candidate.

In fact, if you look at the realities of numbers and statistics, of the current crop of Dem pols, the one on paper who would have the best shot is former multi-term Lieutenant Governor and current Chittenden Senator Doug Racine. Think about it – voters outside his district know him, and have elected him to statewide office despite the none-too-insignificant anti-Burlington-area feelings out there in greater Vermont. And of course, there’s the fact that he’s the only Dem who’s run against Douglas for the top spot that made a respectable showing (only losing by 3 points – and then, thanks to Con Hogan who apparently pulled virtually zero R votes). But Doug is the Rodney Dangerfield of Vermont politics. There’s this idea out there that he’s not interested in or capable of engaging in “serious” rough and tumble campaigning. There was even subtle eye-rolling that fed that insider-narrative as a result of his last Lite Guv run when he became the first (and only, I believe) candidate ever to win a statewide election in any state with a publicly-financed operation.

So the narrative is unfair and largely driven by “conventional wisdom” insider snootery, in my opinion. But having said that, I don’t think he’d be the candidate either – at least not this time.

So who, then?

Being out of the elections business has allowed me the glorious freedom to lose the political gamesman/tactician and re-embrace my inner idealist, but I’ll admit that the big statewide races still being out the tactician in me. I can’t help it. Tactically speaking, it’s likely that most folks on the Dem political bench would get waxed by Douglas unless they were inclined to really, really take some risks and think outside the box. That aint gonna happen with this bench. And I still believe that Progs statewide peaked with Anthony Pollina’s third place showing with a mere quarter of the vote his last time out for Lite Guv.

So the Dem candidate is going to have to be from outside the standard political ladder – but is going to have to be someone who can go a long way towards funding the run him-or-herself, or through his-or-her connections. Worse case scenario says I’m describing a Tarrant-style “vanity” candidate, but best-case means some genuine fresh blood.

And yes, this leads you right to the business community via campaign contribution lists that give you some sense of what business leaders are liberal and politically minded. There are some interesting names on some of these lists, such as the Blittersdorfs of NRG Systems fame and success. With the wind power boom on the edge of happening, though, it’s hard to imagine either of them breaking now for a statewide political run. Also, there’s that pesky Chittenden County factor again.

One name that leaps out at me is Bob Stiller, founder of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters. GMC is based in Waterbury (one of those swing towns) and the company is well-regarded by almost everybody as a success story and as a fair trade promoter. Stiller has not been shy about supporting Dem candidates and the business-leader-gone-politico schtick has definite crossover appeal. His involvement in the promotion of meditation might get him some wannabe-Governor-Moonbeam jibes, but it might make some other groovy lefties less nervous about promoting a big business guy.

But in truth, I’m just musing, here. I don’t know the guy at all. Never met him. He might be a disaster. Maybe he has a speaking voice like Pee Wee Herman. Who knows?

The point is that now’s the time, and everybody I know is scratching their heads.

Ideas?

(As always, patrioticresponse deserves to be on the front page! – promoted by Brattlerouser)

The events of the past week in the Vermont legislature mark the beginning of a sea change in American political power. This may sound a bit grandiose coming on the heels of a defeat of an impeachment resolution in the Vermont House, but is true nonetheless.

Less than two weeks ago, in spite of the votes of 40 Vermont towns, despite months of lobbying by many Vermonters, Vermont Speaker Gaye Symington and Senate President pro-temp Peter Shumlin declared in the most absolute of terms that any chance of action on impeachment this year was irretrievably gone.

The funny thing is that more and more Vermonters were seeing it the other way. Four days after the great final NO verdict, one hundred and thirty Vermonters welcomed themselves into the Senate Chamber, presented a cogent and urgent case to the leadership, and most certainly, knocked some serious political sense into them with our turnout of just plain folks.

Three days later, an impeachment resolution was drafted and passed by the Senate. Gaye Symington nevertheless refused to entertain any notion of a debate in the House.

Read below the fold.

Buoyed by the Senate action, almost 400 Vermonters came back to the state House just days after the Senate vote. The Speaker was obliged to give them the entire House chamber, where they filled the members’ seats and packed the galleries with many left standing. Ms Symington, who was not going to waste the peoples’ valuable time on impeachment, was about to spend most of a day on the subject.

She was treated to a question and answer period like that of the British Parliament when the opposition has at it with the Prime Minister. She heard passionate arguments from citizens who had never visited the statehouse before. Her reasons for opposition were exposed as political calculations that place the Democratic Party above the Constitution and that misread the threat of the Bush administration.

As further delay would only bring more Vermonters to the Capitol, Symington called a vote, and although a large majority of her party deserted her leadership and voted for impeachment, she defeated the resolution with a coalition of Republicans and middle of the road Democrats who are in step with the timid national leadership.  Too cute by half, these Democrats think that they will deliver the Presidency to their Party by doing damage to Bush while pretending that they don’t want to. This is the non-binding resolution crowd, the nebulous benchmark crowd. These are the Democrats who put all their hopes in the various investigations currently nibbling around the edges of the Bush administration.

As weeks and months are spent trying to pry Alberto Gonzales out of his politicized Department of Justice, Bush and Cheney will be ramping up their war, simmering their other schemes and laughing at the self-satisfaction shown by those who supposedly have them on the ropes.

Meanwhile, the newly empowered citizens of Vermont who agree that impeachment is a Constitutional necessity are now setting their sights on Congressman Peter Welch. He has been trying to both praise and ignore the Vermont impeachment movement. The ignoring option has just been taken off the table.

Vermonters are asking the Congressman to conduct a town meeting on impeachment, and he is being urged to sign on to Dennis Kucinich’s impeachment articles against Dick Cheney introduced last week. He will soon see just how widespread our support is.

This people power is infectious and has spread to our south, west and east. Hundreds of people gathered in front of Boston’s Faneuil Hall on April 28 as part of the National Day of Impeachment. They are cheering on the Vermont efforts and are organizing themselves to do the same. Fifteen western Massachusetts town meetings will vote on impeachment resolutions this month. Resolutions have already passed by large margins in some towns. Across the Hudson, New Yorkers are starting to get impeachment resolutions before their town governments. Southeast Connecticut towns have organized impeachment committees and are rallying together next week. Maine impeachment supporters are closing in on 10,000 signatures on an impeachment petition that they will be taking to their legislature.

The American people are ready to face the stark realities caused by Bush administration actions. Our politicians are still mired in their sticky systems and need prodding. Last week’s events in Vermont were nothing less than the occasion of actual sovereignty being exercised by the hands of the People. And the People like the feeling that comes with having being heard. Symington’s tortured arguments and political machinations shattered more than a few illusions about how our citizen legislature works. But at the same time, these are lessons that will not be lost. The citizenry is aroused, educating itself, and has become a force to be reckoned with. Our neighbors are getting the idea. When will our leaders?

Thought I’d post on something other than impeachment.

This morning’s WaPo reports that Randall Tobias, the Director of US Foreign Assistance, resigned yesterday after allegations that he used an escort service for sex.  TPM has some coverage as well.

As someone who works in international development, I am having a hard time deciding whether to laugh or cry at this farce.  For years, the Bush administration has been preaching a policy in developing countries called ABCs, where ‘A’ stands for abstinence, ‘B’ stands for Be Faithful, ‘C’ stands for condoms.  That might be a policy for Dobson’s Focus on the Family, but it is a bit trickier in developing countries where HIV is frequently spread by commercial sex workers.  As a result of the ABC policy it has become very hard for family planning NGOs to promote safe sex practices with USG funds. 

One wonders if Tobias at least remembered the ‘C’ part….

Also, the Wolfowitz scandal at the Bank continues…  He gave his girl friend a 60k raise (tax free) to be seconded to the State Department where she was trying to launch the Foundation for the Future – an Orwellian nightmare designed to promote democracy in the Middle East. 

As if we needed to give our critics more ammunition about America’s moral hypocrisy….

crossposted at five before chaos.

By now, in our fifth year of Iraq war fatigue, no single term has been bandied about and abused as “Support the Troops”. Part of it has its origins in guilt about the way returning Vietnam Vets were treated by certain people. And naturally, no matter how much one may or may not support what the troops are actually doing, I hope it’s still safe to say that we support them as human beings in a difficult situation. And many of us reading this blog know that the best way to ‘support the troops’ is to remove them from harm’s way and bring them home as soon as humanly possible.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration, as you all know, often views the troops as nothing more than props and political pawns. They talk about ‘supporting the troops’ every chance they get, yet their policies do anything but, whether it be the  Bush-McCain-Lieberman escalation, the atrocities at Walter Reed Hospital, cuts in Veteran’s services, insufficient body armor, you name it. I’m sure you’re well aware of them. Yes, it’s criminal.

So, today I was a bit stunned (but not surprised) to read in the Times Argus that the VT GOP is proposing a resolution that will declare “full support to our troops and their mission in conducting the War on Terror.” The TA reports that “The bill seeks to designate May 6 as “Vermont Vets for Victory Day” and coincides with a six-day support-the-troops rally beginning on May 1 through several communities, including Rutland, Chester and Bennington.” It’s not as simple as it sounds…

As it stands, this resolution is not a good one. First, there is the ever-so-subtle insinuation that only good Republicans “support the troops”. But the larger problem is it’s basically putting one of the biggest lies about the war into a public legislative record : that the Iraq War is part of the “War on Terror” (or more appropriately as Borat would have called it, the “War of Terror”), and it’s trying to get the Dems to sign off on that. Gotcha!

Many in the GOP are still obviously drinking the Bush Krazy Kool Aid:

David Ayer, a Republican activist from Barre who helped organize the upcoming support-the-troops tour, said Republicans may be open to some language changes, but insisted that the resolution is nonpolitical and has nothing to do with the Iraq War.

“I defer to the experienced veterans who have been on the ground and have been fighting the war,” he said. “They tell me that the war in Iraq is the war on terror. We are fighting terrorists there.”

He added that it is important for the troops to know that Vermonters support them.

“It’s demoralizing for them to hear some of the comments made concerning the war,” he said.

Yes, those comments demanding they be taken out of harm’s way are just so ‘demoralizing’, aren’t they? Maybe to those few who still love this war.  Only thing missing was the ‘so we don’t have to fight them here’ line.

But the absurdity doesn’t stop there.One of the propagandists leading the complementary ‘Vets for  Victory’ tour is none other than retired Lt. Col. Steve Russell…

an Oklahoma man who founded a pro-war organization of the same name. He travels the country now urging people to continue supporting the four-year-old conflict.

Russell, who traveled to Vermont earlier this year to speak opposite of peace mom Cindy Sheehan during the Senate Iraq War debate, was one of troop leaders who helped capture Saddam Hussein in December 2003.

In his speeches, Russell justifies the invasion of Iraq because he believes that Hussein was actively trying to make a nuclear bomb and ordered his military to smuggle other weapons into nearby Syria. (emphasis mine – JD)

That assessment puts Russell at odds with the Iraq Survey Group, the multinational fact-finding group that searched the country for weapons of mass destruction. The group’s 2004 report stated that Hussein had abandoned his nuclear program in the early 1990s and a 2005 revision declared it unlikely that officials moved weapons into Syria.

Yet another war hawk completely unhinged from reality. VT Democrats have already raised concerns about some of the language in the bill, and I’m sure some of them also smell the ‘gotcha!’ in this resolution. Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with passing a resolution simply thanking the troops for their service and sacrifice. It is just imperative that it’s wording doesn’t include something proliferating well-discredited ideas, something the GOP has mastered until recently.