Some good news… the Times-Argus is reporting that the Instant Runoff Voting bill has passed the Vermont Senate, 16-12. It is uncertain whether it will make it to the House this session.

Welch and Sanders both support IRV, and Burlington used it for its most recent mayoral race. Gov. Douglas is opposed, not surprising because if IRV were in place earlier, Brian Dubie most certainly would not be in the LT. Governor’s office.

I’ll be following this, and will post more information as it becomes available. Thank you to all who contacted your Senators about this important issue.

cross posted at Evolving Peace http://evolvingworld…

The weather is a little gray today, and that is fine by me. We had temperatures soaring into the 80’s and while the temperatures set to cool for the week Montpelier was rocked by a storm. The storm was not due to any weather pattern or a flood of the river, but of a rise in energy and passions for the calling of impeachment of the President.

This past Wednesday, shortly after ten I arrived into the cafeteria of the State House amongst a sea of citizens demanding that their leaders recommend impeachment.

I was there actually for some other matters; however I am in complete support of the efforts. I was amazed at the impressive showing. So many folks present there, all decorated with signs stating their names and where they were from. It was impossible to ignore the issue of the day. Organizers claimed about three hundred were in attendance and word spread around that it was the largest numbers to attend a session in the house. The house was rocking with emotions and folks from all corners of the state where there to make their point.

A call for democracy, return of order to the United States Constitution, ending the war in Iraq, and justice was the mission of the day. While the outcome of the vote fell short of its passage another chink in the Teflon of this presidency has been punctured. Speaker of the House Symington, a Democrat, reportedly had been refusing to allow a vote to be taken, but amongst pressure from the citizens she had no choice but to call a vote. A rumor mentioned to me that her refusal can be attributed to her friendship with Congressman Peter Welch. Congressman Welch has been appointed to powerful committees by Nancy Pelosi, US Speaker of the House and if Welch proceeds with Articles of impeachment that could affect his relationship within party leadership circles. Whatever the case, the vote failed; however  it is not the end of the matter, but just the beginning of another chapter.

I hope that this impressive grass roots movement grows. While I am at odds with the pragmatic approach displayed by the Democrats towards impeachment, there is still the reality that the Senate would not vote to convict the President and Vice-President. Those who are aware of the issue realize that our democracy has been willfully hijacked by criminals and that the issue is of grave importance. Yes, I want impeachment, but unfortunately there remains a percentage of the population that just doesn’t care or even gets it. However, failure to allow justice to be served on this administration sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents by justifying circumvention of our system of laws.

So while in the Senate, Senator Leahy continues with oversight hearings on Alberto Gonzales and domestic spying and Peter Welch is in the House is issuing subpoenas on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s role of deceitful manipulation in the case for war, another domino falls on the charade of the presidency. Each day another individual changes their mind and before we know it we will see him impeached. Movements don’t happen overnight and unlike our propagandist history books that tell us that magically overnight Congress decided to pass civil rights it takes work and time to convert a population. Each step forward, although it may look like it was futile is one step closer to goal. Debate just echoed the VT House chambers and soon those same words will be coming to Washington, D.C. I personally would like to thank my two Vermont Representatives Warren Kitzmiller and Jon Anderson for voting in favor of the resolution and the Vermont Senate for passing it last week, that is how democracy works.

Wednesday’s storm rocked the house, and with the rise of Thursday’s sun a sense of calmness was present. After witnessing the scene of just the day before, it seem as if the State House was a quiet oasis from the busy world, but legislators were diligently back to work and onto creating solutions for the problems of the day. While impeachment was just one issue of a day, there are many issues going on without your involvement. To those who rallied up for impeachment, while you see the necessity for accountability on the national front, your state houses are going on without you. Use the energy of impeachment to make change within..

Peace
Robb Kidd

“Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world.” Howard Zinn, Author of “A People’s History of the United States”

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

You may never have heard of Fair Housing Month. After all, Vermont is repeatedly described as the whitest state in the country, and you may think that fair housing isn’t a big deal in Vermont.

Of course, you’d be wrong. A recent report in Seven Days shows that housing discrimination is standard operating procedure in Vermont.

MONTPELIER – “Family” may not seem like an obvious target for discrimination. But in two recent cases, landlords violated housing laws by indicating a preference for childless renters. The violations appear to correlate with a broader trend of rental malpractice in Vermont.

In June 2006, the Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and the Rutland Herald ran an advertisement offering a two-bedroom apartment for “two people.” In July, the papers ran a second ad offering an apartment that would be “good for one person or professional couple.” Both ads breached federal and state housing-discrimination laws. The Vermont Legal Aid society filed the first case with the Vermont Human Rights Commission in October, and the second in December. Both were settled in March through mediation.

Why April? Well, this April is the 39th anniversary of the enactment of the Fair Housing Act, the federal law prohibiting discrimination in housing, so every year HUD encourages states to mark the occasion by recognizing Fair Housing Month and conducting activities to increase visibility of fair housing issues. And yes, it’s been Fair Housing Month all month in the rest of the country.

Governor Douglas got around to noticing it yesterday. Yes, in Vermont, Fair Housing Month goes from April 26 to April 30 this year. With all the time he spends issuing proclamations, cutting ribbons, and so forth, if it were really important to him don’t you think he would have done it earlier?

I guess things could be worse. There was at least one year in recent memory (2005, I think) when he didn’t do it at all.

Montpelier representative Warren Kitzmiller sends out regular reports on his work at the State House. The report he sent out yesterday covers his vote on the impeachment resolution, and he told me I could publish it here.

IMPEACHMENT; a special report:

4/25/07  1:30pm

I’m sitting in the House, awaiting the coming discussion of the impeachment resolution. The House is packed. Not only is virtually every Representative here today, but so are nearly 200 visitors, people wearing large nametags urging us to support the resolution.

I will be voting in favor of the resolution, though I am very conflicted as to the wisdom of this vote. With this vote, I will be representing the wishes of my constituents as evidenced by the nearly 200 messages and conversations I’ve had with so many of you. Every single message I have received, with no exception, has  asked me for my support.

As your Representative, I see my job in several different ways. On the one hand, I know that I am being sent here in your place, to study the issues presented, to learn the merits of them and to use my best judgment on your behalf. On the other hand, there are times when I feel I am here to use my vote as you have asked me to do.

On this issue of impeachment, I feel that every one of you understands what is going on. You know the serious nature of impeachment and there is no need or ability on my part to try to learn MORE than what you already know.

Though I greatly fear that impeachment will serve to re-divide a nation that is just beginning to heal from the damage done by the Bush presidency, and though I am afraid that impeachment might become “a convenient substitute for elections”, I am agreement with you that this President needs to be held accountable for the damage he has done to our Constitution, to our economy, to our reputation in the world.

While I have my own personal reservations, I am very proud to cast this vote for you.

AFTER THE VOTE:

8:15pm

Well, I’m sorry to say the impeachment resolution failed, on a vote of 60 “Yes” and 87 “No”.  It was a long and emotional day. Many representatives, regardless of whether they voted one way or the other, spoke eloquently about their disagreement with Bush and the damage he has done to our country.  I explained my vote by saying that I had been contacted by more people on this issue than any other issue, and that every single contact, with no exception, had asked me to support the resolution. My people knew exactly what they wanted me to do, and they knew WHY. In spite of my personal reservations, I was proud to represent my district with my “Yes” vote.

Several people spoke to me about how disappointed they were with Speaker Symington’s opposition to this resolution. I want to tell you, in the strongest possible terms, that I honor and respect her reasoned, carefully-considered and principled stand. Please understand that if I had only been voting my own conscience, I believe I would have voted as she wanted me to. Her position is NOT wrong, just different than many of yours.

If you expect ANY person to “bat 1,000”, to be on your side of every single issue, you will never find that person (unless you run yourself, and even that is not a sure bet). It’s an impossible standard to meet.  Some have said to me that “this was such an important issue, though”. Of course it was!  But it was only ONE issue. I do not, ever, want to be or to expect others to be “one issue voters”, no matter how important the issue. Even the most important issue is less important than the sum of all other issues.

Gaye Symington is one of the finest people I know. Her positions are always based in reason; they are carefully considered. They are not always the same as mine, but they have always gained my respect. I feel honored to serve with her, and she is doing a superb job. I hope you will all accept that honest differences can and do arise . . . especially among friends.

Today was a long and difficult day; a wonderful day for democracy in Vermont. I am so very proud to represent Montpelier!

Sincerely,
Warren F. Kitzmiller
State Representative, Montpelier

I had to meet a friend for lunch to day in Montpelier, and then sauntered over to the Statehouse to catch the impeachment proceedings in the House. It was defeated, 87-60. I’d like to offer a big thanks to those who stood up for accountability and voted for the resolution. Odum has the roll call here.

Yes, as others have noted, it was inspiring, and it truly was a case of democracy in action. But I left rather angry. And disappointed.

The VT blogosphere was on hand… from who I could see, Norsehorse, Snarky Boy, GMD, Carpetbagger Report and yours truly were all there to report on the carnival. The house was packed, as you can see from the photo I took.

There were people of all kinds in the crowd on hand (over 300) to do that ‘democracy’ thing that seems to be in short supply lately.  The Republican speeches were pretty pathetic, ranging from Tom Koch (Barre Town) keeping consistent and speaking out against it on procedural grounds, partisanship and everything but the kitchen sink. Not surprising, because that guy, when not trying to pass laws forbidding driving-while-flute-playing pretty much opposes anything good that ever gets presented, regardless of the issue. Another Repub whose name I didn’t catch acted as though the various misdeeds of Bushco were somehow still in doubt, then rehashed a bunch of statements from prominent Dems from almost ten years ago. Others just looked annoyed.

But the one that got me pissed more than anything was from a Democrat (once again, I didn’t get a name-if someone has these names please put something in the comments and I’ll revise) who gave the tired excuse of how the legislature had many other areas of important business to address, and didn’t have time for this. Wrong on two accounts…first off, the only ‘time’ taken was already in progress. Second, this has been one of the least productive legislatures that I can remember in recent memory. Other than avoiding confrontation with Douglas on issue after issue, I’m hard pressed to think of anything substantial to come out of the Statehouse this year, short of the resolution to end the war. Nothing substantial involving healthcare that I’m aware of. A meager proposal on property taxes. What are they spending so much time on? The bill to help small farmers process meat on site so they can sell at markets and restaurants is a great bill, but is it a real time-stealer?

Although I was a bit disappointed, I didn’t think this was going to pass. House Speaker Gaye Symington, one of the more spineless speakers in recent memory (someone quipped ‘bad as he was, at least Walter Freed (R) got some things passed, fer Crissake’) has shown an astounding lack of leadership on the issue, as with most issues. She finally caved on this one, and some of you find that commendable. This is the only explanation that makes sense, because it’s not like these people were going to face some harsh electoral consequences back home for supporting it. It’s not an election-buster like civil unions were. And I suspect they’re not going to face anything harsh for not supporting it either.  Real leadership would have enabled it to happen beyond just the traditional lefty Dems, same with the “Death With Dignity” bill.

Admittedly, although I support it wholeheartedly, I’m not as impassioned as some are in regards to the impeachment thing, probably because I know better than to hope that Congressman Welch is going to ride in on his white horse and actually do something about it. Perhaps he’s too preoccupied with making friends in Washington and not making waves with Pelosi.

The larger issue here for me is the astounding lack of leadership from the Democrats in the Statehouse. They have the numbers to go on the offensive against Douglas, and don’t. Instead, we hear Ann Cummings talk about “sending the governor something he can sign.” Perhaps I wouldn’t be so astounded if they had a supermajority for 20 years and were just getting complacent and lazy. But that’s not the case. There is a serious leadership vaccuum in the  Statehouse right now. it’s my humble opinion that Symington needs to go. The question is, who in the Dem party machine is going to be courageous enough to take that step and point it out?

A couple days ago, I put up a diary targeted towards Dems about how grassroots movements like the “Rutland Resolution” wave and the netroots explosion – despite their frustrations – are something to feel good about institutionally. That they are signs of growth. But given the day’s events and in recognition of the many non-Dem (even anti-Dem) readers, let me broaden that pep talk a bit.

First and foremost, you did great. Really. Today’s skirmish didn’t go as hoped, but looking at the roll call, it really looks like (with a few odd exceptions on the edges) the Vermont elected left heard you, and more than just heard you – they agreed. Truth to tell, there were few individual Representatives who were feeling scared or intimidated in their own districts and altered their votes accordingly – the reality is (again with a couple exceptions), those sixty votes were sincere. Through persistence, you broke through the firewall erected to keep you from getting near them, and they stood with you.

And as a matter of reality, none of this was supposed to happen. No House vote, no Senate vote (let alone an overwhelming Senate victory). At the time, some of us were concened that the Senate bill was not a joint resolution, but because of that, the House couldn’t shoot it down. The fact is that the Senate Resolution will be sent to Washington. The first and only such resolution like it in the nation. The reverberations are still echoing from that specific victory, and the overall victory you have achieved (an imperfect victory, but a victory nonetheless) will continue to fuel enthusiasm and activism on the issue at the national level with renewed focus and enthusiasm. We all go into the next stage victorious against all predictions, and all of you who worked on it – Dems, non-Dems and anti-Dems alike – should feel great pride and joy. You won. And that’s a fact.

That’s people power for ya.

Roll call below the fold.

Member  –  Vote

Acinapura of Brandon  No 

Adams of Hartland  No 

Ainsworth of Royalton  No 

Allard of St. Albans Town  No 

Ancel of Calais  Yes 

Anderson of Montpelier  Yes 

Andrews of Rutland City  No* 

Aswad of Burlington  Yes 

Atkins of Winooski  No* 

Audette of S. Burlington  No 

Baker of West Rutland  No 

Barnard of Richmond  Yes 

Bissonnette of Winooski  No 

Bostic of St. Johnsbury  Absent 

Botzow of Pownal  No 

Branagan of Georgia  No 

Bray of New Haven  No 

Brennan of Colchester  No 

Browning of Arlington  No 

Canfield of Fair Haven  No 

Chen of Mendon  No 

Cheney of Norwich  Yes 

Clark of St. Johnsbury  No 

Clark of Vergennes  No 

Clarkson of Woodstock  No* 

Clerkin of Hartford  No 

Condon of Colchester  No 

Consejo of Sheldon  No 

Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford  Yes 

Corcoran of Bennington  No 

Courcelle of Rutland City  No 

Davis of Washington  Yes 

Deen of Westminster  No 

Devereux of Mount Holly  No 

Donaghy of Poultney  No 

Donahue of Northfield  No 

Donovan of Burlington  Yes 

Dostis of Waterbury  Yes 

Edwards of Brattleboro  Yes 

Emmons of Springfield  Yes 

Errecart of Shelburne  No 

Evans of Essex  Yes 

Fallar of Tinmouth  Yes 

Fisher of Lincoln  Yes* 

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City  No 

Flory of Pittsford  No 

Frank of Underhill  No 

French of Randolph  Yes 

Gervais of Enosburg  No 

Gilbert of Fairfax  No 

Godin of Milton  No 

Grad of Moretown  Yes* 

Haas of Rochester  Yes 

Head of S. Burlington  Yes 

Heath of Westford  No 

Helm of Castleton  Absent 

Hosford of Waitsfield  Yes 

Howard of Rutland City  No 

Howrigan of Fairfield  No 

Hube of Londonderry  No 

Hudson of Lyndon  No 

Hunt of Essex  No 

Hutchinson of Randolph  Yes 

Jerman of Essex  No 

Jewett of Ripton  Yes 

Johnson of South Hero  Yes 

Johnson of Canaan  No 

Keenan of St. Albans City  No 

Keogh of Burlington  No 

Kilmartin of Newport City  No* 

Kitzmiller of Montpelier  Yes* 

Klein of East Montpelier  Yes 

Koch of Barre Town  No 

Komline of Dorset  No 

Krawczyk of Bennington  No 

Kupersmith of S. Burlington  No 

Larocque of Barnet  No 

Larrabee of Danville  No 

Larson of Burlington  Yes 

LaVoie of Swanton  No 

Lawrence of Lyndon  No 

Lenes of Shelburne  Yes 

Leriche of Hardwick  Yes 

Lippert of Hinesburg  Yes 

Livingston of Manchester  No 

Lorber of Burlington  Yes 

Maier of Middlebury  Yes 

Malcolm of Pawlet  No 

Manwaring of Wilmington  No* 

Marcotte of Coventry  No 

Marek of Newfane  Yes 

Martin (Cynthia) of Springfield  Yes 

Martin of Wolcott  Yes 

Masland of Thetford  Yes 

McAllister of Highgate  No 

McCormack of Rutland City  No 

McCullough of Williston  Yes* 

McDonald of Berlin  No 

McFaun of Barre Town  No 

Milkey of Brattleboro  Yes* 

Miller of Shaftsbury  Yes 

Minter of Waterbury  Yes 

Mitchell of Barnard  Yes 

Monti of Barre City  No 

Mook of Bennington  No 

Moran of Wardsboro  Yes 

Morley of Barton  No 

Morrissey of Bennington  No 

Mrowicki of Putney  Yes* 

Myers of Essex  No 

Nease of Johnson  Yes 

Nuovo of Middlebury  Yes 

O’Donnell of Vernon  No 

Obuchowski of Rockingham  Yes 

Ojibway of Hartford  Yes 

Orr of Charlotte  Yes 

Otterman of Topsham  No 

Oxholm of Vergennes  No 

Partridge of Windham  Yes 

Pearson of Burlington  Yes 

Peaslee of Guildhall  No 

Pellett of Chester  No* 

Peltz of Woodbury  Yes 

Perry of Richford  No 

Peterson of Williston  No 

Pillsbury of Brattleboro  Yes 

Potter of Clarendon  No 

Pugh of S. Burlington  Yes 

Randall of Troy  Yes 

Rodgers of Glover  Yes 

Scheuermann of Stowe  No 

Shand of Weathersfield  No 

Sharpe of Bristol  Yes 

Shaw of Derby  No 

Smith of Morristown  No 

Spengler of Colchester  Yes* 

Stevens of Shoreham  No 

Sunderland of Rutland Town  No* 

Sweaney of Windsor  Yes 

Symington of Jericho  Presiding 

Trombley of Grand Isle  Yes 

Turner of Milton  No 

Valliere of Barre City  No 

Westman of Cambridge  No 

Weston of Burlington  Yes 

Wheeler of Derby  No 

Winters of Williamstown  No 

Wright of Burlington  No* 

Zenie of Colchester  Yes 

Zuckerman of Burlington  Yes* 

* Member explained vote on floor. See the House Journal for the date

(good one from C.L. More, please! – promoted by JDRyan)

Is it culture or politics?

1990s GOP PLAN: Once they decided to impeach a Democratic president, the GOP scoured everywhere to find, create or develop the illusion of a crime to justify their political impeachment conspiracy.  Laughably absent any act by President Clinton resembling a high crime or misdemeanor warranting congressional impeachment and conviction proceedings, the bastards STILL went ahead and tried to convict him.

Current DEMOCRATIC PLAN: Deciding impeachment to be a bad political idea the Democratic congress scours everywhere to find a reason to justify not impeaching Mister Bush Ridiculously absent any indication that Mister Bush has the slightest interest in, or capacity to, ceasing criminal activities that require congressional impeachment and conviction, and laughably and tragically absent any historical precedent of a President engaging in this level of criminality without facing legal or constitutional jeopardy, the Democratic congress STILL goes ahead a refuses to perform its duty to stop Mister Bush’s criminal behavior.

Why the difference?

(cross posted at big orange).

How to explain the difference?  How can two cultures and two eras diverge from the reality of who we are and what we’ve become?

Truly remarkable. 

EXHIBIT A:  In the 1990s, President Clinton competently led the U.S. through a period of peace and prosperity.  In response, the Republican congress made the political decision to go hell bent to impeach him no matter what the consequences or potential outcome. 

Response to Exhibit A —

  1. GOP PLAN: Once they decided to impeach him, the GOP scoured everywhere to find, create or develop the illusion of a crime to justify their political impeachment conspiracy.  Laughably absent any act by President Clinton resembling a high crime or misdemeanor warranting congressional impeachment and conviction proceedings, the bastards STILL went ahead and tried to convict him.

  2. BACKGROUND (to GOP plan): Clinton’s popularity was generally in the high-50s / low-60s, which are amazingly good numbers for a second term president (perhaps due to that unsexy peace and prosperity thingy that drove the media and GOP –  but I repeat myself there – crazy, remained generally popular, nonetheless).  Republicans feared not the consequences of a sham impeachment charade and suffered no noticeable ill effects by hoisting this fraud on the American public.  Some even scored a few benefits.  Congress’ popularity was a fraction of Clinton’s and polls showed general opposition to impeachment.

EXHIBIT B: Beginning the 21st century, our ruler presides over a historically unparalleled time of gross incompetence, corruption, war and the moral/military/financial bankrupting of the United States.  Leading a failed administration, our ruler commits high crimes and misdemeanors, some he commits against us everyday.  When caught, he indignantly brags that he is doing it to protect us and it is actually the people who reveal his criminal activities who are endangering us.

From violations FISA’s federal criminal law provisions to aiding & abetting espionage among top aids (just for starters), Mister Bush literally commits high crimes and misdemeanors every single day of his presidency.  By the time he’s had breakfast, Mister Bush has further acted as an accessory-after-the-fact of the serious national security crimes and conspiracies performed by his top staff, has further maintained orders instructing NSA/CIA/Defense Intel. to violate federal criminal statutes under FISA, and acts in furtherance of the illegal operations and orders causing the kidnapping, assault, battery and tortured of uncounted and untold victims in violation of U.S. laws, treaty obligations and many foreign laws as well.

Response to Exhibit B —

1.  DEMOCRATIC PLAN: Deciding impeachment to be a bad political idea the Democratic congress scours everywhere to find a reason to justify not impeaching Mister Bush Ridiculously absent any indication that Mister Bush has the slightest interest in, or capacity to, ceasing criminal activities that require congressional impeachment and conviction, and laughably and tragically absent any historical precedent of a President engaging in this level of criminality without facing legal or constitutional jeopardy, the Democratic congress STILL goes ahead a refuses to perform its duty to stop Mister Bush’s criminal behavior.

2.  BACKGROUND (to Democratic plan):  Bush’s popularity is so low, that “popularity” and “Bush” cannot be used in the same sentence without laughing. Democrats fear any consequences while, ironically, standing to gain politically by doing their job of impeaching and trying the President for his crimes.  Congress’ popularity is relatively high for it and many Democrats in particular, and polls show support among Americans for impeachment proceedings.

Why more talk about Presidential Removal Proceedings:

As the crimes unfolded over the past several years, I was generally agnostic about impeachment because of the political conclusion that the effort will almost certainly die in the Senate.

However, I strongly support any effort to begin and vigorously start impeachment proceedings and my reasoning and change is generally a result of the lame reasons given by so many Democrats for not bringing removal proceedings against Mister Bush.

The tipping point for me is the gross failure of the Democratic party to honestly explain [frame] the issue for the public/media/Mister Bush/voters. How about, for instance:

We are not bringing impeachment and conviction proceedings against the President at this time.  Although the level of acknowledged and ongoing criminality and fraud warranting removal of the President is historically unprecedented, the overwhelming majority of GOP Senators support and continue to endorse this President’s behavior. 

Were it up to us, the President would be held accountable for his crimes and his betrayal of his oath of office.  However, as long as the Republican caucus in the Senate, which ultimately controls whether these proceedings will be successful, continues to strongly support the ongoing criminal actions of this President, we will work to stop President through the legislative process rather than the impeachment process over which the President’s party in the Senate has the ultimate vote.

Elections have consequences and we hope the voters will remember that each Republican U.S. Senator is personally responsible for the ongoing war and Presidential misconduct.

Instead, the Democrats’ reasons for not impeaching the President read and sound either like a concession speech.  They are better arguments for impeachment than against it.

Bad reason 1:  “It will take away from the business of congress” — The President is taking away from the business of congress by not following the laws passed by congress and not allowing the policies voted into law by the people’s representatives to be followed. If the concern is `the business of congress,” than removal proceedings are certainly in order. By the way, when did congress ever receive less cooperation in doing the “business of congress” by putting more pressure on an unpopular president?

Another bad reason: “We need to investigate” — And you are investigating just what? 

Most of the investigations are primarily needed to assess the damage done by the Bush/Cheney crimes.  Congress is not investigating whether crimes occurred; it is investigating the magnitude of the criminality and the breadth of the damage.  Furthermore, the administration continues to subvert meaningful investigation through obstruction and noncompliance with their obligations to submit to oversight. 

You want investigations?  Then get rid of those obstructing the investigations so the American people may have a full account of the mismanagement, fraud, waste and criminality that has occurred on Mister Bush’s watch and at his instruction.

Today —

Hope to see you today at the State House.

sláinte,
cl

Speaker Symington, finally showing the wisdom to get out of the way of the people that the Governor found at his town meeting, has relented and will permit a floor vote on a House impeachment resolution tomorrow, though she intends to vote against it.

Wonderful. And I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but of course, there was no “gift” here. This was the result of hard work. So I’d like to make a few more points before we let the chips fall where they may.

In her statement on the subject, Symington explained her position on the Legislature’s earlier vote calling for an immediate withdrawal of American occupation forces from Iraq:

Despite my general reluctance to debate national issues in the Legislature, I supported this debate and the outcome. I am proud that Vermont was the first state to take such a strong stance against the war.

And it was a strong stance against the war occupation. Very strong. So strong, in fact, that it represents a position considerably more aggressive than that taken by the United States Congress itself. Still, it seemed, at the time, necessary and appropriate for the Vermont Legislature to advise them as to the best means of redressing the harm and injustice this administration has brought to our nation and the havoc it has caused beyond our borders. Didn’t it?

Those are exactly my words, though. Those are Speaker Symington’s words. But not about the troop withdrawal legislation. Save for one word, “advise,” those are the words Symington used in her most recent statement to oppose the impeachment resolution. Except in that statement, it was “second guessing,” not “advising.” I guess it’s all in how you look at it.

The Speaker quite correctly points out the fantastic job that the Democratic Congress has done in opening investigations into this “administration’s” conduct, and naturally, the praise for the leadership shown in that regard by the Members of Vermont’s Congressional delegation is both effusive and well-deserved. Nobody’s been more pleased with the robust pursuit of oversight than I have. But I also look ahead and ask to what end are we conducting this oversight?

So far, we have only the vaguest indications that the Members of Vermont’s delegation are considering where this path leads, though I can’t blame them for being cautious about it:

In a joint statement issued late Friday, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, and Rep. Peter Welch, D-VT, said, “Currently, for the first time since Pres. Bush has been in office, there are a number of investigations taking place regarding the actions of the Bush administration, including how and why we invaded Iraq, no-bid contracts, the firing of U.S. attorneys by the attorney general, the assault on constitutional rights and the use of Republican Party e-mails in the White House. Before we talk about impeachment, it is imperative that these investigations be allowed to run their course and we should then follow wherever the facts lead.”

These investigations will be followed wherever the facts lead.

Which is a good thing, right? Of course it is. On the other hand, it’s also one of the minimum basic requirements of oversight. You follow the facts where they lead. Anything other than that just isn’t oversight. So, that’s about as non-committal a statement as you can possibly make about an investigation that implicates the “administration” in the above-recited litany, don’t you think?

The fact of the matter is that the activities being probed as clearly indicate the need to consider the remedy of impeachment as anything the Congress could ever hope to investigate. Everyone knows it, but few (though a growing number) are willing to acknowledge it. In one of the great ironies of our time, it is the fate of those who see around the corner to endure the slings and arrows of those who would cling to the label of “realists” even as they persist in denying that fact. Worse things have happened, of course. It does us no good to dwell on that.

The Speaker then continued:

Impeachment may be needed where checks and balances fail. That is not the case now, and instead of choosing that disruptive and divisive option, we should support the legislative branch of our government as its members work to hold the executive branch accountable for their misguided policies and mismanagement. We should not short circuit that process of accountability.

Here, it’s particularly hard to agree. Where are the successes of our system of checks and balances? We certainly saw none under the Rubber Stamp Republican Congress, but we knew we never would. And while we can hold out hope that oversight and investigations conducted by Congressional Democrats can be of help, anyone who’s been even casually following along can see plainly that the White House has no intention whatsoever of complying with Congressional inquiries. And why would they? After all, the oversight power of Congress is ultimately backed by the threat of the one thing that Speaker Symington has worked so hard to suppress. And if the opposition party won’t even discuss it, what worry has the White House in tempting fate?

The day will come — and it will come sooner rather than later — when Chairman Leahy and his colleagues have had enough of White House stonewalling. Some of you who know him better than I do would say that day has already arrived. But with what weapons do you expect your Senator to enforce compliance from a recalcitrant and bunkered George W. Bush? The arsenal is limited, and purposefully so. But there’s no getting around it: the ultimate leverage the Congress has against the executive is impeachment, and there’s absolutely nothing in the world Speaker Symington can do or say to change that fact. The only thing she can do is contribute to a political strategy that would render it irrelevant, and in so doing, render the Congress irrelevant as well.

Indeed, as the Vermont delegation said, “it is imperative that these investigations be allowed to run their course and we should then follow wherever the facts lead.”

When we come to the end of that trail of facts, will Gaye Symington and Vermont’s Democrats have offered their support for what comes next? Or will they have established a narrative — impeachment as “disruptive and divisive” — for the White House’s apologists to seize as their own?

You might remember a while ago that the VT delegation had a hearing on the new Federal Farm Bill that is currently up for reauthorization. I’d like to point you now to this piece in the NYT by Michael Pollan, author of the bestselling ‘The Omnivore’s Dilemma’, that lays out in no uncertain terms how important the farm bill really is. It affects many levels: public health, nutrition programs, many aspects of the farming industry, and the environment.

Some of you might remember back during the so-called ‘Republican Revolution’, as they began to wage their war on the poor, then Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX and T&A movies) made a comment along the lines that ‘America is the only country where our poor people are fat’. Now, insensitive as it was for Gramm to say so, in a sense he did have a point. As you’ve heard me lament before, there’s something really wrong with the system where only the rich can afford to eat healthy. As Pollan writes:

  A few years ago, an obesity researcher at the University of Washington named Adam Drewnowski ventured into the supermarket to solve a mystery. He wanted to figure out why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person’s wealth. For most of history, after all, the poor have typically suffered from a shortage of calories, not a surfeit. So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight?

  Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend, using it to purchase as many calories as he possibly could. He discovered that he could buy the most calories per dollar in the middle aisles of the supermarket, among the towering canyons of processed food and soft drink. … he found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice…he concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly – and get fat.

So how does this tie into the farm bill? Subsidies, baby. Subsidies, proving once again the idea of a ‘free’ market is nothing but a myth:

  [The farm bill] which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system – indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world’s food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat – three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades … U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy…The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.

Pollan then goes on to show how the needs of big agribusiness are often contradictory to the needs of public health. It even determines what foods your kids will eat for lunch at school (ever wonder why there’s always Tater Tots? – certainly not because of all the nutrition they don’t have). It also affects world poverty, as well, for when we are able to sell crops for less than it costs to grow them, that often can determine the fate of Mexican corn farmers and Nigerian cotton growers, and whether they lose their farms and move to the city, exacerbating the poverty already rampant there.

You’d think something this important would be something to rally around, but due to the technical jargon and back room deals, it usually passes, unnoticed except by the few that stand to benefit the most from it (certainly not you or I).

Pollan is optimistic, however, that change may finally be around the corner, due to the increasing awareness of the environmental community, the development community, and the public health community. But most importantly, he insists that real change is not just going to come from changing our eating habits; we need to get our hands dirty and start taking notice of agricultural policies, and concentrate our activism there:

  A grass-roots social movement is gathering around food issues today, and while it is still somewhat inchoate, the manifestations are everywhere: in local efforts to get vending machines out of the schools and to improve school lunch; in local campaigns to fight feedlots and to force food companies to better the lives of animals in agriculture; in the spectacular growth of the market for organic food and the revival of local food systems. In great and growing numbers, people are voting with their forks for a different sort of food system. But as powerful as the food consumer is – it was that consumer, after all, who built a $15 billion organic-food industry and more than doubled the number of farmer’s markets in the last few years – voting with our forks can advance reform only so far. It can’t, for example, change the fact that the system is rigged to make the most unhealthful calories in the marketplace the only ones the poor can afford. To change that, people will have to vote with their votes as well – which is to say, they will have to wade into the muddy political waters of agricultural policy.

I’ve mentioned it before.. for truly radical change to happen, we need to not just ‘practice’ democracy, we need to start living it.

( – promoted by odum)

In order to keep the pressure to represent their constituents on our state lawmakers, there will be a rally of sorts Wednesday at the State House in Montpelier. I say “of sorts”, because from what I can tell from this article in the Rutland Herald, it’s more of a group lobbying effort.

Sorry for the short post, but I have little info, less time, and wanted to get this out to the progressive community ASAP.
If anybody wants to carpool, my email is in my profile.
Let’s let our elected representatives know how we feel.