A couple of issues near and dear to the hearts of Vermont activists are playing out (or beginning to).
First is the aftermath of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's move to do what so many Vermonters wanted Rep. Peter Welch to do - sort of. As everyone has no doubt heard by now, Kucinich called the impeachment question on the floor of the House (where motions on impeachment are considered privileged and must be addressed). Yay Dennis, except, well - it was a call for the impeachment of Cheney, which seems to me to miss the target politically and ethically. Long past are the bygone days where people on the left wondered whether President Bush was no more than an ineffectual empty suit. Cheney may be his most crude, effective and brazen hatchet man, but he is still a hatchet man - a mere symptom of the problem that is Bush himself.
In any event, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland moved quickly to table the motion, but was stymied by a block of Democrats joined (ultimately, after some vote-switching) by Republicans who thought a public debate over the merits of ditching a vice president whose approval rating is nearly in the single digits would somehow embarass his critics more than his defenders (this is bizarro world, isn't it?). The motion was not tabled, but, after getting the dissident Dems marching to his drum, was then quickly sent by Hoyer to the Judiciary committee where the profoundly disappointing Chair, Rep. John Conyers, will simply stack it to die along with the other Kucinich impeachment resolution gathering cobwebs in that committee.
But the question on everyone's mind is - will Kucinich simply bring it to the floor again (and aim at Bush next time)? By House rules, it remains a privileged motion that must be considered. If Kucinich is serious, he could well bring it to the floor on primetime every day of the session. He's gotten gobs of good feedback on this, so activists are watching and waiting...
Second is Rep. Welch's moment of truth on Iraq funding that is now on on its way.
Welch has gone through a process which many Vermont activists (myself included) have found rather frustrating in terms of Iraq Warfunding (and I'm not refering to the bizarre, Welch-is-personally-responsible-for--Iraq crowd who seem so obsessively fixated on him, or who see piling on him as a means to other political or personal ends). Welch has moved through a series of steps on his dealing with Iraq much like the stages of grief:denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and now, acceptance. While he's done them all within the course of a year (which is fast in Legislative time), it has been frustrating to watch him go through such a process to end up where he reasonably should have been years ago (and where many of us thought he already was when he was elected); at a point where he's prepared to stop playing political games and refuse to continue funding of Bush's Middle East adventure.
Some time back, Welch joined other frustrated members of the Progressive Caucus in signing a letter saying enough is enough - that they would no longer follow the Democratic leadership (intent on biding its time until next year's election, apparently) and would simply vote against any and all funding for the Iraq War without firm withdrawal timetables. The Welch-haters, naturally, didn't care that he'd made the very commitment they were demanding, and have even continued to circulate angry emails that simply state (in the face of reality) that he hasn't signed the letter, and castigate him for it. Whatever.
But the point is, the moment of truth is nearly here. From AlterNet:
In the next few days, a Congressional conference committee will likely pass the largest defense spending bill in the history of the United States. Despite Democratic lawmakers' promises to stop issuing blank checks for war, the bill does not call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq or Afghanistan, nor does it prevent military action against Iran.
If Welch means what he says, he can likely hardly wait to cast his vote to get the Welch-haters to shut up (they won't, of course, as he has somehow acheived almost mystically evil stature in their eyes. Why is beyond me, but that's a matter better addressed by social psychologists). If he doesn't (and I can't see why he wouldn't, as he seems to be playing out a fairly consistent pattern), he's gonna rightfully catch holy hell if he flubs this.
