Cross-posted from Rational Resistance

We knew that when Pat Leahy ascended to the chair of the Judiciary Committee he would regularly be called on to stand up for rights, for civil liberties.. In light of today’s news we canall be glad he’s there.

What are we trying to establish in Iraq? Democracy, right? American-style democracy, with due process of law and all that stuff?

Maybe, depending on what you think due process of law and all those other inconveniences mean.

Here’s what Bush’s people think it means:

“I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out.”

Yup, that was Charles D. Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs. He’s the guy in charge of detainees, and presumably in charge of the show trials they’re getting. He’s also a lawyer who graduated from George Mason University. Maybe while he was there he missed the day they talked about John Peter Zenger, and his court-appointed lawyer, Alexander Hamilton. So if there’s any question in his mind, here’s a little tip: you don’t have to prove you’re innocent in order to qualify for a lawyer.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote to President Bush on Friday asking him to disavow Mr. Stimson’s remarks. They’re trying to distance themselves from Stimson, but since they’re the same people who fired a Navy lawyer for taking them to the Supreme Court on the Hamdan case, it’s hard to take what they say very seriously.

I’ve been thinking about my blogging a lot lately. Sometimes I worry that I’m just too cranky. And lately I’ve thought about de-emphasizing the latest ‘Christofascist idiocy’ and all the other dumb things that the right-wingers and Christianists do to outrage sensible reality-based people on a daily basis. But it’s sooooooo hard. Like Al Pacino in The Godfather Part III: “Everytime I try to get out, they pull me back in.”, and so it goes. I don’t know why I keep doing it; their power is on the wane, their ridiculous ideology bound to be the used, discarded condom of history(yeah, I know, I’ve used that analogy before but it’s just so appropriate and rude). So, dear readers, I’m still going to try to squeeze in more lighter, positive fare. But not right now. From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

This week in Federal Way schools, it got a lot more inconvenient to show one of the top-grossing documentaries in U.S. history, the global-warming alert “An Inconvenient Truth.”

After a parent who supports the teaching of creationism and opposes sex education complained about the film, the Federal Way School Board on Tuesday placed what it labeled a moratorium on showing the film. The movie consists largely of a computer presentation by former Vice President Al Gore recounting scientists’ findings.

“Condoms don’t belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He’s not a schoolteacher,” said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. “The information that’s being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is. … The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn’t in the DVD.”

Yeesh, where to begin? The stupid hurts my eyes.  This guy is partially correct, however, in that if we don’t act on climate change soon, everything will ‘burn up’, in a manner of speaking.

School Board members adopted a three-point policy that says teachers who want to show the movie must ensure that a “credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented,” that they must get the OK of the principal and the superintendent, and that any teachers who have shown the film must now present an “opposing view.”

The requirement to represent another side follows district policy to represent both sides of a controversial issue, board President Ed Barney said.

Ok, fair enough, present an opposing view. Seems reasonable. But, unfortunately for ‘Frosty’, like in the evolution/ ‘intelligent design’ controversy, there’s pretty much a consensus in the scientific community in regards to global warming and its reality. Sure, there are a few ‘scientists’ out there that deny it, but more often than not, they usually are funded by think tanks and policy centers that get huge amounts of money from petrochemical companies. This notion of presenting an ‘opposing view’, no matter how ridiculous is truly one of the few weapons that makers of fringe claims still seem to use. I know you’ve probably heard it before, but by that (il)logic, when classes teach about the Holocaust, should they give equal time to holocaust deniers, as well? And don’t tell me it’s not the same thing, because it is.

is as smart as they come, and he doesn’t support the surge.

The Chinese have called him, “the greatest strategic thinker in the western world”

He is Mr. Real Politic.

If Leahy/Sanders/sissy Welch want to sound smart when they talk about stopping the surge, this is where I would start.

(PS, the Dems, no matter how smart they sound, still have one hell of a political problem with the Iraq war. That’s the subject for another post.)

This ran in today’s Post. Brzezinski was on last night’s Leher News Hour saying the same thing.

Five Flaws in the President’s Plan

By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Friday, January 12, 2007; A19

The president’s speech gives rise to five broad observations:

· It provided a more realistic analysis of the situation in Iraq than any previous presidential statement. It acknowledged failure, though it dodged accountability for that failure by the standard device of assuming personal responsibility. Its language was less Islamophobic than has been customary with President Bush’s rhetoric since Sept. 11, though the president still could not resist the temptation to engage in a demagogic oversimplification of the challenge the United States faces in Iraq, calling it a struggle to safeguard “a young democracy” against extremists and an effort to protect American society from terrorists. Both propositions are more than dubious.

· The commitment of 21,500 more troops is a political gimmick of limited tactical significance and of no strategic benefit. It is insufficient to win the war militarily. It will engage U.S. forces in bloody street fighting that will not resolve with finality the ongoing turmoil and the sectarian and ethnic strife, not to mention the anti-American insurgency.

· The decision to escalate the level of the U.S. military involvement while imposing “benchmarks” on the “sovereign” Iraqi regime, and to emphasize the external threat posed by Syria and Iran, leaves the administration with two options once it becomes clear — as it almost certainly will — that the benchmarks are not being met. One option is to adopt the policy of “blame and run”: i.e., to withdraw because the Iraqi government failed to deliver. That would not provide a remedy for the dubious “falling dominoes” scenario, which the president so often has outlined as the inevitable, horrific consequence of U.S. withdrawal. The other alternative, perhaps already lurking in the back of Bush’s mind, is to widen the conflict by taking military action against Syria or Iran. It is a safe bet that some of the neocons around the president and outside the White House will be pushing for that. Others, such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman, may also favor it.

· The speech did not explore even the possibility of developing a framework for an eventual political solution. The search for a political solution would require a serious dialogue about a joint American-Iraqi decision regarding the eventual date of a U.S. withdrawal with all genuine Iraqi political leaders who command respect and wield physical power. The majority of the Iraqi people, opinion polls show, favor such a withdrawal within a relatively short period. A jointly set date would facilitate an effort to engage all of Iraq’s neighbors in a serious discussion about regional security and stability. The U.S. refusal to explore the possibility of talks with Iran and Syria is a policy of self-ostracism that fits well into the administration’s diplomatic style of relying on sloganeering as a substitute for strategizing.

· The speech reflects a profound misunderstanding of our era. America is acting like a colonial power in Iraq. But the age of colonialism is over. Waging a colonial war in the post-colonial age is self-defeating. That is the fatal flaw of Bush’s policy.

The writer, who was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, is the author of the forthcoming book “Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower.”

The owner of this blog ended up posting comments on my site over the last few days.

I have no idea who these people(person) are(is)

Anyway, I got to admit, so far I like the little SOB’s talking points. And, politically, its a smart move – define your opponent early.

I sent the blog writer – the anonomous writer – an email saying that I would promote their blog if they stuck to the facts and if they came out of the closet. No response as of yet.

I’ve had enough of the PolitcsVT stuff for awhile.

Anyway, since I feel like a (sorta) accepted conservative member of the GMD family, I would pass along this site to you all. See if you found it interesting.

http://welchwatching…

If nothing else, maybe with will get a conversation about health care going, but otherwise, sorry if this comes across as self-serving whining:

PLEASE, someone, anyone, lots of people, whoever can. . . solve the health care problem NOW!  If the feds are unwilling and unable, lets a least get it done in Vermont.

A personal story which are my reasons for this plea: 

I don’t have health care through work and pay for it out of pocket.  My insurance did cost me $125/month with a $10,000 deductible.  Once a year I get a physical check-up, see an eye-doctor, and a dermatologist.  I REALLY need to see a dentist but can’t afford it at all and dental isn’t a part of my insurance.  I have one regular prescription that I use half the recommended dose because if not it would cost me over $350 a month including the health insurer’s measly contribution towards drugs.  This does not include self-medicating measures such as alcohol, which I can’t seem to convince anyone to write me a prescription for. 

So essentially I pay $1,500 a year for less than a 40% reduction in the cost of one prescription and to protect me should some horrible accident happen.  I have never in my life needed emergency care, so far.

I am under 30, physically active, and healthy.  OK, OK, I’m a smoker, but I never told the insurance company that which means that doesn’t fit into my costs.  I PROMIS (mom, if you’re reading this) that I’ll have quit long before the health consequences catch up with me.

But notice that I said my insurance did cost me, because recently they cancelled my coverage.  I haven’t been able to find anyone willing to offer me coverage for less than $100 more than this.

Oh, the reason my coverage got cancelled?  Good question.  One day I noticed that I hadn’t seen a bill from them, so I called to ask why.  It seems that they, for completely unknown and unexplainable reasons, changed my zip code in their computer system from 05682 or 05602.  I certainly didn’t tell them to do that, and they couldn’t tell me how or why they did it.  In their oh so understanding of THEIR mistake way, they did tell me that if I pay the one month that they didn’t receive a payment from me for, then I would be more than welcome to re-apply as a new policyholder for a policy from them.  Oh, their quote for the exact same coverage I had was suddenly $10/a month more.

I hate people, businesses, institutions, and everything else that treats people this way, and I loath to give my business to a company who would be such assholes to someone who’s asking to be ripped off by them, but otherwise I have no insurance.  I cannot afford the policy I have, let alone a more expensive one.

I Googled “health care spending per person, industrialized nations” and got, well 479.000 hits, many of which were intelligent, informative, and reputable sources of information about how entirely insane the U.S. health care system is when compared to the rest of the industrial and post-industrial world. 

Thamls for hearing me bitch.

There is increasing hubbub around the question of replacing Francis Brooks (D-Montpelier) when he steps into the Sergeant-at-arms position. Of course traditionally, the local Party committee nominates three potential replacements to forward to the Governor, none of whom he is obligated to accept – although usually one is chosen. A few people in Montpelier have been either making noises about the slot, or have actively put their names forward. In an unusual twist, one seems to be actively campaigning for the position (despite the fact that the Montpelier Town Democratic committee hardly makes the final decision, and that the town committee is only currently made up of nineteen people), making the whole matter impossible not to blog about…

Get the who’s who below the fold.

The highest profile name in the mix is clearly Montpelier Mayor Mary Hooper. Hooper’s initial expression of interest garnered her mention on the matter in two front page stories in the Times Argus within three days (here and here). In addition, she today sent out an already broadly circulating email campaigning for the position:

I hope this is old news to you, but I wanted to share with you directly, my long standing interest and aspirations to serve Montpelier in the Legislature.  I have a passion to help people improve their lives and to do this in a way that is appropriate for Vermont.  That is what motivated me to run for mayor three years ago.  It is what has driven my work in City Hall and what will power my work in the legislature.

We have built, and maintain, a wonderful community in Montpelier. There is much more we, and other communities, can do with legislative support to improve people’s lives in the areas of housing, transportation, hunger, and the environment.  I am committed to work for you on these and other issues.  You know that I am also committed to carefully listening to all of Montpelier’s residents and acting on your behalf.

The combined media and persuasion push looks for all the world like an actual campaign. I suppose it’s good practice for an election, but one wonders a bit as to whether it’ll matter in the final vote. Hooper is already a shoe-in for one of the Dem committee slots, and the Governor may or may not respond well to such a campaign. Hooper’s expressed desire for the position has, however, kept a few other high-profile local faces who were interested in the role from putting their names forward, according to accounts – so to that extent, it may have worked in her favor. Most agree that Hooper has rising star potential beyond Montpelier’s borders. Whether that works for or against her in the eyes of the Governor is an open question.

Reportedly, popular former Montpelier High School Principal (and one time Senate candidate) Charlie Phillips has expressed an interest (although an unconfirmed report suggests he’s reconsidered). Phillips was highly lauded during his time at MHS, but was not a strong candidate for countywide office, which may make him a more politically safe choice for the Governor, if GOP Senator Phil Scott (R-Washington) is feeling queasy about enabling a Hooper ascendence.

Generally, Hooper and Phillips (in a Montpelier context) would have to be looked at as the more moderate candidates. They are also professionals steeped in the understanding of civil mechanisms, and both have a track record of building agreement in such contexts to generate positive results. The two other names out there would likely bring a more progressive ideological slant to the position.

Although not technically in the mix yet, Matt Levin is strongly considering throwing his name in. Despite a relatively limited time lving in Vermont, Levin has made his name very well known in political circles (and not simply for being the son of US Rep. Sander Levin and the nephew of US Sen. Carl Levin, both Democrats of Michigan). Levin has been the Political Director for the Alliance of Conservation Voters, the Director of the Vermont Democratic House Campaign, is serving as Outreach and Development Director for Vermonters for a Clean Environment, and has done consulting for many local Democratic candidates (including Scudder Parker). Levin is a strong personality and a political pro. Whether that political background would be at play in the Governor’s decision is another open question.

Cary Brown, like Levin, is a Montpelier JP, but the resume similarity ends there. Brown is currently the Interim Executive Director at the Turtle Island Children’s Center in Montpelier and has spent most of the last decade in the education system, directing programs focusing on gender equity and non-traditional skills training for girls through institutions and nonprofits such as Vermont Technical College and Northern New England Tradeswomen. As a Democratic State Committee member, Brown was able to share this GMD diary after the State Committee meeting last year that was dubbed by Freyne as the “Rutland Massacre.” Brown does not have the political gravitas of the others interested, which could work against her in the caucus, but may work for her with the Governor.

Finally, statehouse lobbyist Anthony Otis seems to have taken a keen interest in the race. As he reportedly has not thrown his name into the hat, it’s an open question as to whether or not that interest is on his, or someone else’s behalf, but he’s been reported by a few people to have been chatting the matter up.

Of course the man closest to all this is GMD’s own Jack McCullough, who as Montpelier Democratic Chair gets to be the ringmaster of the big committee meeting. Given his role as arbiter, though, we can hardly expect him to blog on it. We should all feel free to needle him relentlessly, nevertheless…

…and if you’re looking for an endorsement from me, forget it. I’ve been trying to be as blandly analytical as possible here, because I’ve got a conflict of interest as well; specifically, I’m married to one of the candidates (I’ll give you a hint – I’m not the “First Gentleman” of Montpelier). Whether that admission is tantamount to an endorsement is your call. If it is, whether or not that endorsement should be worth a damn under the circumstances seems like a far easier call.

Anyway, one way or the other, I’m sure there’ll be more to say on the matter soon enough…

There has been a strong bias against electing sitting Senators as President in US elections, and former senators have not faired as well as other candidates, especially governors. Despite this track record, the 2008 field has a LOT of Senate connections. Will this trend “stay the course” or “cut and run”?

More below…

Great summary from this post:

During the last 26 elections, Senators have only won the Presidency twice.

John F. Kennedy was the last President who served in the senate from 1953 to 1960 when he ran for President in 1960.

Prior to Kennedy we have to go back 40 years to find the next one in Warren G. Harding who served in the Senate from 1915-1921 when he ran for president in 1921.

Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon were also senators but they moved from Vice President to Presidency, not from the Senate directly to the Presidency.

Here’s the scoop on the potential 2008 field so far:

Dems:

U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)
U.S. Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE)
U.S. Sen. Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY)
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)
U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT)
U.S. Sen. / 04 nominee John F. Kerry (D-MA)
U.S. Rep. / 04 candidate Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH)
ex-U.S. Sen. Maurice “Mike” Gravel (D-AK)
VP 04 nominee / ex-U.S. Sen. John R. Edwards (D-NC)
Gov. William B. “Bill” Richardson (D-NM)
Gov. Thomas J. “Tom” Vilsack (D-IA)
General Wesley K. Clark (retired) (D-AR)

Reps:

U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
ex-House Speaker Newton L. “Newt” Gingrich (R-GA)
ex-New York City Mayor Rudolph W. “Rudy” Giuliani (R-NY)
Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
Gov. George Pataki (R-NY)
Gov. W. Mitt Romney (R-MA)

Senators seem so imperious, aloof and… well, senatorial. Dean surged out of the field as a Governor last election, will that happen again? Will Vilsack make an unexpected splash on the Dem side?

On his way out the door as governor of Iowa, Democratic presidential candidate (and DLC Chairman!) Tom Vilsack delivered a surprise package in his last address to the state legislature:

Departing Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack used his final Condition of the State speech Tuesday to condemn the Bush administration’s plan to send as many as 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.

“Now the president and the Congress are poised to make a big mistake even bigger,” the Democrat seeking the 2008 presidential nomination told a joint session of the Iowa Legislature. “Understand that escalation will come at the expense of families and communities here in Iowa and across the nation.”

Vilsack also urged the Legislature, with new Democratic majorities in both houses, to pass resolutions condemning Bush’s plan.

An interesting approach, don’t you think? And it reminds me of a little something we saw up in Vermont last year:

A formal resolution introduced late Tuesday in the state Legislature calling on Congress to draft articles of impeachment against Pres. George W. Bush has been sent to the House Judiciary Committee for review.

Rep. Dave Zuckerman, P-Burlington, the lead sponsor of the measure, was joined by 23 of his colleagues, all Progressives and Democrats except for one independent.

There were, of course, all kinds of gripes about that. It came too late in the session. The legislature was too busy with health care. It was a federal issue, not a state one.

Of course, anyone who remembers the Vermont legislature’s action on the USA PATRIOT Act knows that the last one’s simply a canard.

But even better, we now have a very moderate, Mid-western presidential candidate calling for yet more state legislative involvement in federal policy. It’s not just for Crazy Hippies(TM) anymore!

And what’s more, Vilsack validates even more of the Vermont agenda:

Vilsack called on communities across America to pass a resolution opposing the troop increase. Bush’s plan, he said, “will make his big Iraq mistake even bigger.”

As we all know, Dan DeWalt made headlines literally around the world last year with his resolution at the Newfane Town Meeting. This year, he’s leading the charge again. And he’s bringing back-up:

DeWalt, a member of the Newfane Selectboard, kicked off a statewide chain reaction last March when he successfully urged passage of a town meeting resolution supporting Bush’s impeachment on the claim he mislead the country into war.

Inspired by Newfane’s lead, five other Vermont towns followed suit the same day. And now up to 40 towns in the state will likely face a similar question at town meeting in 2007 if a grassroots effort organized by DeWalt is successful.

Are you collecting signatures? Are you facing resistance? Are you being told that your town “has no business” meddling in federal affairs?

Point the doubters to Tom Vilsack. And send them to his presidential campaign’s web site, where he’s got an online toolkit for people to take his issue to their local governments, all across America.

If he can do it, why can’t you?

Thank you for the link.

Breaking News from ABC:

Troop Surge Already Under Way
90 Advance Troops from 82nd Airborne Arrive in Baghdad

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 10, 2007- – President Bush’s speech may be scheduled for tonight, but the troop surge in Iraq is already under way.

ABC News has learned that the “surge” President Bush is expected to announce in a primetime speech tonight has already begun. Ninety advance troops from the 82nd Airborne division arrived in Baghdad today.