( – promoted by odum)

Another rainy-when-it-should-be-snowy Saturday, another linkdump for you.

More on the phony war:  No, it’s not Iraq, it’s that appearingly perennial ‘War On Christmas’ that the right wing doughy pantloads are  so fond of whining about:
A little background from Dan Radmacher at the Roanoke Times:

As Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus wrote last year during a similar outbreak of Yuletide battle fever, “There is an ugly, bullying aspect to this dispute, in which the pro-Christmas forces are not only asking, reasonably, that their religion be treated with equal status and respect but in which they are attacking legitimate efforts at inclusivity.”

[Bill] O’Reilly is not the first to allege a war on Christmas. An article last year on the anti-Fox News Web site News Hounds recalled that Henry Ford made the same allegation in his anti-Semitic tract, “The International Jew.”

It was also a favorite refrain of the John Birch Society in the late 1950s.

And of course, like their brethren in the Bush administration, the LA Times tells us that people are making a lot of money on their war:

The American Family Assn., a conservative activist group, has rung up more than $550,000 in sales of buttons and magnets stamped with the slogan “Merry Christmas: It’s Worth Saying.”

Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit law firm affiliated with the religious right, has taken in more than $300,000 with its Help Save Christmas Action Packs. The kits include two buttons, two bumper stickers and “The Memo that Saved Christmas,” a guide to defending overt religious expression, such as a Nativity scene in a public school classroom.

And of course, the incomparable Rude Pundit has his unique take on it here.

Some good Saturday editorial cartoons compiled by Bob Geiger here.

And finally, nothing to me shows the love of Jesus more than blowing off the head of non-believers with a high-powered rifle. Yes, the creators of the Wal-Mart bestselling ‘Left Behind’ series now have a video game, where you join the ‘Tribulation Force’ after the Rapture and kill all nonbelievers, including Muslims and United Nations troops. The only redeeming quality to the game is you can also play the antiChrist and dish out the same to the GodIdiots. Matt Taibbi has that as well as his take on the War on Christmas, here.

If you’re celebrating something this season, or not, have fun.

Crossposted at five before chaos.

Cross posted from Rational Resistance
This is really sort of like comic relief. I got this story from Josh and you can read about it here.

You may have read about it, but the short version is that the communications director for Montana Representative Denny Rehberg has been fired after he got caught trying to hire someone to break into his college’s computer system and improve his grade point average.

The funny thing, though, is that you can go online and read the emails between this guy and the people he was soliciting to do this illegal act, including repeated demands that he provide photographs of pigeons and squirrels to prove his bona fides.

As I say, since it is the holidays, if you’re interested in a chuckle, take a look.

I don’t usually get too personal on this blog, but here’s a rare exception, so if you’re not into hearing me venting, click somewhere else today, I can dig it. Every now and then I get into a funk when I think about the state of the nation. As I was doing some last minute holiday shopping in Burlington today and saw so much ‘stuff’ being bought, it hit me.

Mostly, as I read the news and see how Bush is obviously not going to budge on Iraq, and I don’t think the Dems have the balls to cut off funding or impeach or anything else daring and effective, the anger hits me, but it’s not so much the anger at the government. I’m really mad at the ordinary people in this country who have enabled all of this bad behavior. Whether it be because of the intellectual deficiencies that allow them to be so easily emotionally manipulated, or the laziness that prefers American Idol to Being Informed, or just the fact that so many in this country are shallow, selfish and materialistic and just buy in to all the rah-rah we’re #1 bullshit, it drives me insane. Many of us acted like little, scared, whiny pants-poopers after 9-11, and didn’t learn a goddamn thing.  And I’ve really had it up to here with fundamentalists, like this asshole.  I can’t help but agree with this by Jesse over at TV News Lies:

All I can say is that this is what you get for believing even for a moment what the US corporate media wants you to believe. The rest of us Bush haters are Bush haters for one reason and one reason only; we pay attention! So to my new former Bush supporting friends who seem to be suddenly surrounding me and telling me that I have been right all along: you can tell me I was right but after that shut the hell up because it is too late for forgiveness. From now on, just shut up and listen. Think about it!

It’s easy to say that, well, “we get what we deserve”. I sure as hell don’t deserve what has been happening to this country. Do you?

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

As soon as word was out that longtime Democratic State Representative Francis Brooks of Montpelier was throwing his hat into the ring for the Statehouse Sergeant-at-Arms position, speculation began on who his replacement might be. In the overwhelmingly Democratic Statehouse, it was a given that if Brooks wanted the job, it would be given to him at the outset of the session, when the position is voted on. Current S-at-A Kermit Spaulding vacillated on whether or not to make a stab at keeping the position (while praising Brooks as his personal choice, should he choose to retire), but as of yesterday he bowed to the seemingly inevetible and announced he would not seek a return to the post.

Since the announcement of Brooks’ interest, Montpelier Mayor Mary Hooper made it clear to the press that she was interested in filling his seat. Her desire was amplified by back-to-back glowing pieces in the Times Argus that, by their cumulative, de facto effect, seemed to all but endorse her for the role. The scuttlebutt around Montpelier is that the statehouse seat is Hooper’s already.

Let’s slow down for a minute, shall we?

First of all, it’s traditional for a regional caucus of the Party of the retiring lawmaker (in this case, the Montpelier Democratic Committee) to nominate three acceptable choices to forward to the Governor (not simply one or two). A tradition is not a hard and fast rule, but it’s likely a tradition that will be followed in this case. For one, it’s wise policy when offering names to a Governor of the opposing party not to give the appearence that you are delivering marching orders, as a one-name list would. But for another, there are likely to be several interested people (full disclosure, I was toying with the idea of going for it myself – how could I not? – but I can’t imagine doing without a “real” job).

But the real point is that this is the Governor’s pick, and the Governor’s only. So it behooves us to consider what might drive the Governor in his decision making.

First of all, it’s unlikely that Douglas would break with tradition and appoint someone from his own party. Douglas needs to work with Dems. Besides that, he’d be dropping an R into a district where they’d just get their butt kicked in 08, so it’s hardly helpful to Republicans in any meaningful way.

So the question is where Douglas may come down on Mary’s ascension, if you will.

All politics in Vermont are trumped by the personal. If Hooper has a personal relationship with Douglas, then she does become the odds on favorite. If she doesn’t, the calculation may become more political. Mary Hooper has the potential to become a star in Democratic circles. She would make a strong State Senate candidate who would quickly become a serious contender for statewide office and a real threat to the GOP. As such, given the choice between Hooper and an alternative Douglas might consider far enough left to be outside of the Vermont mainstream, he may opt for the latter, calculating that his choice would be effectively “contained” within  Montpelier’s more-liberal-than-the-county-at-large voting bloc. If he was in a mood for real mischief (and a long shot, political “Hail Mary” pass), he may – given the opportunity – opt for a lesser known, milquetoast “centrist” Democrat, calculating that he or she would likely draw a Progressive challenger in 08 and possibly open the door for a GOP pickup (unlikely, but not impossible).

On the other hand, given the news that she has statehouse ambitions, such an ascension may be inevitable and the Governor may decide it makes more sense to make it as cooperative an ascension as possible.

And on the..er…third hand, it’s always possible that Douglas would just pick the person he thinks would make the best legislator, regardless of the political considerations…

…oh, stop laughing, now.

If you care deeply about re-deploying our troops to end the War in Iraq and you do not know who Rob Portman is, you are not paying enough attention.

Rob Portman is the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget and is responsible for keeping the Executive Branch’s books.

Yesterday Portman released the official White House estimate of what the War in Iraq will cost in FY 2007. According to OMB, the War in Iraq will cost American taxpayers $110 billion dollars next year. Or, a little more than $2 billion a week.

$2 billion a week does not seem to buy you a whole lot of democracy these days, as anyone reading today’s paper will tell you.

As people know, I was against the War from the beginning. However, for a variety of reasons I now favor putting more troops into Iraq to try and stabilize it. That conversation is not the purpose of this post.

This purpose of this post is to “suggest” to the Anti-War Establishment (a.k.a. the Congressional Class of 2006) a plan that will, I believe, help them side step the political train wreck currently barreling towards them.

Why do this? Sour grapes?

Hardly.

First, its Christmas.

Second, If, and this is a BIG if, the Anti-War Establishment actually does what I suggest then that outcome will be better for America’s future than will the outcome that will (probably) occur if America puts more troops into Iraq.

Therefore, and assuming someone with some authority actually reads what I’ve written; I’m suggesting all this for the good of my country.

Also, I like letting my opinions be known. Why else would I keep a Blog?

The political problem facing the Anti-War Establishment is as follows –

You won the 06′ election after offering the voters “a new direction in Iraq”. You will start work in January. The New York Times will write a glowing “First 100 Hours” editorial. Everything will be great.

And then the wheels come off. In a hurry.

In January, The President will announce that he is putting in twenty to thirty thousand more troops into Iraq. He will also announce that the current military is not large enough to fight the War on Terror and he is therefore going to increase the overall size of the military.

I’m calling it Bush’s “Double Fuck You” to the 2006 voters. Bush will respond to your outrage by taking a nap.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, your leaders, will announce that they are “reluctantly” going along with the President’s plan.

Behind closed doors they will lecture you on “The Presidential Election in 08′”, the need to be perceived as “strong on national security” and will repeatedly use the expression “the ends justify our means”. You will want to scream.

To keep you on board they will beg and they will plead. And when they are done with that they will threaten.

They will tell you that if you submit a bill cutting off funding for the War In Iraq (which is the only way troops are coming home) your ass is grass and Pelosi is the (very nicely coiffed) lawn mower.

Remember, Pelosi didn’t become the first female Speaker of the House because she smells nice and has really, really cute grandkids.

You will come to realize that many of you aren’t going to be around after the 08′ election if you go along with your leadership and “cave” to the White House on Iraq. Allowing more troops to go to Iraq is not the new direction the voters were thinking about when they elected you.

To add a sense of urgency to this political problem, your freshly hired communications director, who hasn’t even officially started yet, is already telling you about letters to the editor popping up in the local newspapers questioning when you are going to “bring our boys home like you promised”.

It’s a jam alright. But, in Washington, every jam is a potential political opportunity – if you can stand the squeeze it takes to get out.

To get out of this pickle you first have to defy your own leadership and put forward a bill cutting off funding for the War in Iraq. You will not survive re-election in 08′ if you do not. It will be the hardest thing you have ever done in your professional career.

Official Washington will go absolutely bananas the moment you drop that bill in the House and Senate hopper. Hold on tight.

Every mainstream Democrat running for President will beat on the Anti-War Establishment like a drum. “Well Mr. Leher, while I agree with trying to end the War in Iraq as quickly as possible, I just can’t see cutting off funding for our troops.”

Every Republican running for President will gleefully skewer you. “That’s right Mr. O’Reilly, I think they hate our country. And, while I can’t prove it, I heard his mother is a whore.”

It’s always darkest right before it’s pitch black. And, just when you think that it can’t get any worse, it will. You will be cut-off by your own leadership.

Quietly, behind the scenes, Grandma Pelosi will kneecap you. It will hurt.

Hey, no one claimed taming the Military Industrial Complex was going to be easy. Taking them on means that you are (probably) soft of national security and (probably) don’t care about our troops.

And you’re just a silly little peacenik don’t forget.

But, just when the boys at Lockheed think they have “got you, smashed you and made an example of you” you fire your next two shots.

You may even scream, “Right back at you baby!” as you pull the (legislative) trigger.

This is where Rob Portman becomes your best friend because, since you voted against funding the war, you have (in theory) $110 billion dollars that has not yet been spent to work with.

And I’m going to tell you (this is MY Blog after all) how to spend that money to not only save your peacenik hides, but also maximize your political capitol and REALLY move this country forward –

The $110 billion should be used to fund two significant pieces of legislation.

The first bill would provide full funding for every single program that the Department of Veterans Affairs needs/wants/thinks they might want/isn’t sure they want but it couldn’t hurt to have/knows they don’t need or want but it would be cool, I guess, to have it just in case/and everything else that might be left.

“Mr. Leher, contrary to what others have been saying on your program, I love our troops. I love them so much I’m bringing them home and I’m taking care of them when they get here.”

Overnight the Anti-War Establishment becomes the political darling of the pro-military crowd. Politics makes strange bedfellows. You have successfully neutralized the “anti-troop” argument the other side is made. Cheney probably has a stroke. Imagine that.

But that’s only the first $10 billion or so. You still have $100 billion to play with.

The next bill you should propose with Portman’s billions is legislation creating a “NASA type program to move America and the world off of fossils fuels as an energy source”.

Everyone ran on this idea in 06′. Now you have the funding to actually start doing it.

The Feds only spent $3 billion on alternative energy research last year. How much more could they do with another $97 billion?

And, after telling the Military Industrial Complex to take a flying leap, telling the oil companies to do the same will be a walk in the park (and many of you will actually enjoy it).

To maximize your position (good policy makes great politics) use language like: “While ending our dependence on fossil fuels is good for our economy and our environment, we are most immediately concerned with ending our dependence on unstable foreign regimes. We never want to have to send our troops to places like Iraq again.”

Take that crazy Arabs! The Anti-War Establishment has just become the new authority on national security policy. Imagine that.

That’s all there is to it. Sometimes it really is that easy. If you have leaders that can lead.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I don’t think the Anti-War Establishment has the moxie to actually go through with this. I think you all cave to Grandma Pelosi and then get whipped in 08′ (which is why I’m sticking with the more troops in Iraq strategy).

However, if the Congressional Class of 2006 proves me wrong…

Well, not only will you have proved the great Monday Morning Clacker wrong, but you will have ended up keeping your campaign promise and served you country with honor.

I’d think about voting for that.

If you look at the particulars against George III and his Parliament in the Declaration of Independence, Bush et al make the earlier George and his enablers look like amateurs.  If you look at the powers Bush has taken upon himself outside the Constitutution, a good case can be made that we don’t have a federal government, we have a tyrant.  The social contract is disolved  and we owe no duty to Washington at all. 
It is time to bring VT troops home from Iraq and order the national guard to protect the state from the tyrant.
Comments and debate wanted.

Not much to report because its cold outside, gets dark too early, and as a result I don’t bump into anyone on the street these days. What’s a political gossipmonger to do when I have to depend on the same wire reports everybody else reads? Sheesh. Well, let’s see, here…

A few different folks report that Chuck Ross is mulling a run for Governor. Ross is a former state legislator, is the current Vermont Democratic National Committeeman and has been Senator Leahy’s right hand in Vermont for several years now. As such, he’s a major mover and shaker in Dem circles, but isn’t as widely known beyond them. Reportedly Ross was considering a run early last cycle as well, but with environmental issues moving more front and center of late, a Ross candidacy may seem more timely (Ross is considered very strong on environmental issues).

TV newsman Anson Tebbetts is to be the deputy secretary for development for the state Agency of Agriculture. I don’t really understand how one job leads to another, but what do I know?

GMD is nabbing Tim Newcomb when PolVT closes shop in a few weeks Woo-hoo! Cartooons! When I started working to get GMD off the ground, I intended to do the occasional political cartoon, but I suck. Tim totally does not suck.

Robb Kidd’s Evolving Peace is a really interesting blog. You should check it out.

On the other hand, Chris Stewart/Monday Morning Clacker’s Green Mountain Politics1 will be a lot more interesting when it starts losing the “don’t blame me, I worked for Rainville” subtext dripping from every (okay, okay, many) otherwise well-written post(s). Of course I doubt I’ll much agree with any of the GOP rhetoric he’s offering, but he’s a good writer with stuff to say under the sour grapes.

There was something else I was going to mention, but now that I’ve gotten this far, I forgot. Gimme a break, I’m sick this week.

For starters, I believe Odum does a great job of picking up immediately on the most interesting, noteworthy and objectionable elements from Darren Allen’s piece.  There is no doubt that the continual rightward stretch of the spectrum of political discourse in this country is horrific at best.  From comparing the Swift Boat Veterans to MoveOn and labeling Clinton as “liberal” Odum is right on the mark about the audacious re-defining of political terms that the media enables and endorses, if it doesn’t outright produce.

And, whereas I would disagree that most of the media is actually politically left (as we shall see bellow), I do agree entirely that most of them are relatively liberal, which Odum seems right in his conclusions on, including how it creates for a very curious and complicated political-media environment.

But towards those same ends, lets take a look at where this piece starts to look like it’s replicating Allen’s tactics rather than taking a stance against such things:

For starters, I believe Odum does a great job of picking up immediately on the most interesting, noteworthy and objectionable elements from Darren Allen’s piece.  There is no doubt that the continual rightward stretch of the spectrum of political discourse in this country is horrific at best.  From comparing the Swift Boat Veterans to MoveOn and labeling Clinton as “liberal” Odum is right on the mark about the audacious re-defining of political terms that the media enables and endorses, if it doesn’t outright produce.

And, whereas I would disagree that most of the media is actually politically left (as we shall see bellow), I do agree entirely that most of them are relatively liberal, which Odum seems right in his conclusions on, including how it creates for a very curious and complicated political-media environment.

But towards those same ends, lets take a look at where this piece starts to look like it’s replicating Allen’s tactics rather than taking a stance against such things:

In the very beginning, it’s pointed out that “‘ultra-left’ is clearly beyond simply `left'” which is true enough, except that neither is actually defined.  While some things can easily be assumed to be (near) universally understood by the reader, these terms don’t seem to lend themselves to that trait- especially given that this confusion of what “left” entails is essentially the premise of Odum’s article.  In other words, I know my grandfather considers unemployment checks from the government a “crazy scheme of the left” whereas I do not consider any action taken by a capitalist State to be outside of the far right, other than what is occasionally leaning towards the left.  A French journalist recently covering Bernie Sander’s election to the Senate said something to the effect of “in France, his politics would be considered very mainstream; certainly not on the right but by no means on the far left” (I’m sorry that my internet search skills keep me from actually finding a direct quote or a link; I assume anyone who doubts me will be quick to fact check on their own).  Where Odum’s piece really confuses me is where he really seems to agree with the self-serving statements that brush aside those whom this piece finds politically distasteful, i.e., “radicals” who are “not to be trusted and have little or nothing to do with everyday political dialogue.”  It would seem that the actuality of this “left” that we’re talking about is being defined in the same manner by both Allen and Odum, with only the slightest of differences.  Perhaps both should take a quick trip to Europe, where they might get a slightly broader understanding of “left” that is far more international and historical in scope than anything spoken in either the traditional U.S. media or this website.

I take part in this forum precisely because I have a very real interest in the everyday political dialogue of Vermont, and I assure you, I fall in your (and many other’s) definition of “ultra-left”; so much so that there are those that call my views “post-left” (so far left I’m right! ;-}).

And while I know that Odum was only listing examples that came from a google search, I do have to point out that “Marxism” and “anarchism” could, with little debate, find themselves being called “far-left”.  However, for those few who actually study the politic that carries that dubious distinction, Lenin is about as deserving of the title as Clinton.  Lenin orchestrated horrific slaughters of literally millions of people, often by wretched means such as cutting off the food supply to vast regions where he had little support, which hardly seems populist and “left” to me.  Regardless of the incredibly successful efforts by both capitalist and Marxist interests to paint the Soviet Union as such, neither Lenin, nor the Soviet Union, came anywhere near being a communist state for the Russians.  Lenin and the USSR were unquestionably nothing more than a State-run capitalist dictatorship, as with North Korea, China, and Cuba today.

Perhaps these points could be ignored by Odum’s search for the “real spectrum of American discourse”- it’s irrelevant what France calls left or right, only the major pockets of political opinion here, non?  But how could this be? The whole point of the piece is that Odum objects to the narrowing definitions of the political spectrum.  If so, then aren’t we better served with the broadest of spectrums, so that every idea for how best to interact as a social species can be discussed and debated based on merit?  Should we demand the spectrum be broadened so as to place our own opinions somewhere other than on the undesirable fringes, but use those same fringes as proof itself that those we disagree with are wrong, in fact “crazy”?

Which isn’t meant to be some sort of proof that I’m not crazy, but there’s no way to deduce from that that my ideas are as well.

And while Odum seems to champion some sort of idea of “progressive” values, I wonder if he recognizes the history of such demands.  There was, after all, an incredibly fruitful and successful Progressive Era in this country several generations ago.  Back then, when they fought for such crazy ideas as public education for every child, child labor laws, health care, decent wages, a minimum wage, worker’s comp, safety standards on the job, etc, guess who were the social heroes, the leaders who played no small part in helping to organize the working class so that we were capable of accomplishing such victories? Those “radical, crazy, not to be trusted and have little or nothing to do with everyday political dialogue” “ultra-leftists” such as Emma Goldman, “Big Bill” Haywood, and Mother Jones.  A visit to Karen and her husband (who’s name I always forget) at the Aldrich Library in Barre will also provide some great stories about the not-so-small part that Vermonter’s, particularly those from Barre, played during the Progressive Era.  The “conservatives” of those progressive movements were often “merely” Marxists, to say nothing of the anarchists and communists, who despite not being worth our trust, managed to get child slavery, I mean labor, outlawed and established the 40 hour work week.  In fact, with the 40 hour work week increasingly abused by our present-day economic realities, perhaps we should start bringing some of those untrustable, “outside-the-acceptable-range-of-debate” ultra-leftists back into the conversation so that we can re-establish our human right to not labor-away our lives with no time to enjoy the fruits of our toils. 

Finally, my least favorite liberal myth, that of the “objective” media.  There never has and never will be such a thing, and thankfully so.  We’re probably all aware of the continual consolidation of the media, but lets not forget that this consolidation began long before Bush or even Nixon.  A hundred years ago there were often dozens of different newspapers in any given city; New York City alone had something like 30 at one point.  And each and every one was very clear about the politic that it espoused and the political slant of the reporting that was being done.  In this, a very broad spectrum was covered and you consumed the media knowing what the angle was, free to pick and choose as you saw fit.  It is a rare and in fact very sterile story that reads entirely factual, like a lab report, with no human inference.  And yes, sometimes a story is objective and better for it, but seldom in political matters.  Hunter S. Thompson would remind us that the journalist is in fact a character in the story he or she is reporting, and therefore the only honest thing to do would be to let that be known explicitly to the reader.  I have countless friends who may scoff at my continual consumption of sometimes dubious media (from Fox News, CNN, NPR, NY Times, that really obnoxious True North Radio on WDEV that makes me NUTS but for some reason I listen to almost every day, the Burlington Free Press, etc) but I have a very good understanding of where each of them are coming from, who their target is, and what their agenda may or may not be, so I can understand so much more than if I were to simply accept that some (or all) of these media sources were reporting in an objective, “fair and balanced” way.  The same holds true for when I listen to Democracy Now! or read the magazine Northeastern Anarchist; I understand that these media are providing me with an opinion that is shaped by their politic, and I can take what I may from them because I know and understand their slant, not because they’re promising me that they are objective and neutral, like the form my doctor fills out when I get a check-up.

One last note, which is that, OK, this diary clearly cements me as the token “ultra-left” pinko-commie on this site.  I’m fine with that.  I am here because I find the opinions and stories interesting, informative, and valuable.  I do not mean to be attacking Odum as a person here in this diary and I hope no one takes it as such; I don’t even know Odum, but from what he posts on GMD I know that I sometimes agree and sometimes don’t, BUT, and more importantly, Odum is clearly a thoughtful, well-meaning, rational person, which seems to me far more important than political agreement.  Cheers.

( – promoted by odum)

If you haven’t yet heard, Representative Clint Martin (D-Springfield) passed away. This is from PoliticsVT’s post on his passing:

Martin was the director of the parks & recreation department in Springfield, and was dedicated to fitness, healthy living and children’s issues.

Speaker of the House Gaye Symington (D-Jericho) said that his death was a “loss for Springfield, a loss for Vermont and a loss for the House.”

Martin was most noted for being a thoughtful legislator and a dry sense of humor that put people at ease when it came down to tough negotiations. He was well liked on both sides of the aisle, in this regard.

Our thoughts go out to Rep. Martin’s family and friends.

I like you guys (and gals). Most of you are hard working, decent and fair reporters. And those of you that are not, well, you print outrageous things that make me laugh and so I consider us even.

The good, the bad and the ugly of the 2006 election is behind us. There were winners. There were losers. And there were casualties who are just now trying to get back into the game. God bless all of them.

I think that we can all agree that the Iraq War was the deciding topic of the Vermont U.S. House Race. The candidate that won the election, Peter Welch, promised to take America in a “new direction in Iraq” and “hold President Bush accountable”.

Not surprisingly, you and your brethren seemed to like writing about the Iraq War. No question was too small and no candidate answer too complete to remove the topic from your queue.

My personal favorite were questions that dealt in hypothetical hypotheticals. Such as: “Candidate X, if you knew what you know today and if you were a Member of Congress when the vote to authorize the President to go to war was taken, how would you have voted?”

No doubt valuable questions from the valued Fourth Estate.

My purpose with this tongue-in-cheek open letter is not to pick a fight with you. You buy your ink by the barrel, have teams of corporate lawyers just waiting to pounce and I have more than enough skeletons in my closet that I would like to see stay there thank you very much.

My purpose of this letter is to ask a simple question of you. Three days ago it became public that President Bush is planning on sending between twenty and thirty thousand more American troops into Iraq and I want to know what does our Vermont delegation think about this?

What does the anti-war candidate Peter Welch, a man who just today had two large news articles and one large editorial discussing the freshman’s take on the DC housing market, have to say about this?

Twenty to thirty thousand more troops? Not only is this a radical development in the Iraq War as a whole, but is this the “new direction” that Peter promised the voters?

We won’t know until you ask him and write about it.

Look, its hard for me to. Its hard for me to believe that one of our Senators is Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. One of our Senators was labeled by USA Today as “one of the most important members of the Senate”. And our freshman Congressman is on the Rules Committee, which is as inside-the-beltway as you can get.

All three are “shot callers”. Our delegation has the power to raise a big stink over the current troop increase the President is calling for if they so choose.

Help our delegation stay honest. You don’t have to go back to the hypothetical hypotheticals. But less comment on the real estate market and more comment on how our elected officials are keeping their campaign promises would be appreciated.

Many thanks and merry Christmas!