“The Associated Press is reporting that Tony Rudy, a former aide to Tom DeLay will plead guilty to one count in connection with the ongoing federal investigation of Jack Abramoff’s scandal-ridden activities.”

Like the drip, drip, drip of Watergate, the dominos are beginning to fall.
Yosarian

(GMD has insufficient VT Yankee coverage…thanks to Ed for this – promoted by odum)

PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED ON EVACUATION PLAN

Two committees of the Vermont State Legislature will travel to Brattleboro to take direct testimony from people affected by the State Emergency Plan and the local nuclear emergency response plan.

House and Senate Government Operations Committees will hold a joint hearing at Brattleboro Union High School Gymnasium, Wednesday, April 5, at 6:30 pm. To accommodate the large turnout expected, speakers may be limited to three minutes each.

Judy Davidson, speaking for the local grass-roots activist group Nuclear Free Vermont by 2012, commented, “The rest of the state doesn’t know what it’s like to live next to a nuclear reactor that’s cracking and vibrating. This is a perfect opportunity to educate legislators from other parts of the state about our increased concerns about accidents because of Entergy Nuclear’s plans to increase power by 20% and operate for 20 years longer.”

Nuclear Free Vermont was the sponsor of Town Meeting Day Resolutions in six towns around the reactor that called for increased spending by Entergy Nuclear to improve local evacuation plans. The measure passed in all six towns, and won 84% of the vote in Brattleboro.

(Can’t let John have all front page space! – promoted by mataliandy)

[Cross Posted on Kos and elsewhere]

I’ve been involved in the Rutland Resolution portion of the impeachment process in Vermont and thought it would be a good time to share what we’ve learned over the last 6 weeks or so, for any of you who might want to give it a “go” in your own states.  

While all of us have been relatively politically active the last couple of years (a couple of us have even managed to become members of the Democratic State Committee), for the most part we’ve never really done much more than send emails, sign petitions, maybe blog, and hold signs on the sidewalk.

As a result, this has been quite a crash-course in the political process!

Join me below the fold for a taste of how it has worked (so far) here in Vermont.

First off, why the Rutland Resolution version of impeachment process instead of directly asking our US Representative to write an impeachment bill? We prefer the Rutland Resolution method (the version that leverages US House Rule 603) because John Conyers already has a top-down bill in committee in the US House, using the normal procedural process.

Our effort is meant to be a tool for creating bottom-up, ground-level support and for bringing the discussion into the public square, the two necessary elements for any impeachment proceeding to get anywhere at the national level. This work is complementary to both Conyers’ impeachment bill and Feingold’s censure bill. If you have not already pestered the bejeebers out of your US Rep and Senators, please do so. Ask for co-sponsorship of Conyers’ bill from your Representative and for co-sponsorship of Feingold’s Censure resolution from your Senators.  It doesn’t matter what party they’re in! The US Constitution is not a partisan issue.

On to the tips…

Parties

1. The established parties are scared to death of this, so it seems to work best if you bring it around from the bottom up. In VT it started with towns and counties. One county voted on and approved one resolution (Rutland). One town voted on another resolution (Newfane). Both resulted
   in publicity.

   If you’re going to try to work through official party committees, look for your state committee list on line. Most have something on the official party web site in your state.

   
   When you find the list, see if you can find the ones who are more willing to try new things (hint: if they have an email address, they’re slightly more likely to be more willing).

2. We then brought the Rutland Resolution to the next state committee meeting – not to be voted on, which would require all sorts of machinations to comply with by-laws and would have been killed before it went any further, but just as a point of discussion.
3. We used our personal email lists and made it a Democracy for Vermont project (it helps that some of us are on the DFV steering committee, but the important thing is for an established organization in the state to adopt it). We also used phone trees, and personal cajoling to get an overwhelming grassroots turnout at this meeting (in most states, it’s usually hard to get event the committee members to show up for meetings, this time the room was filled). The committee may be less likely to try to quash it if they have to do so in public.
4. When the meeting ended and people were milling around preparing to leave, people talked to the committee members from their own counties in person and ask for a special meeting to be called for their county to discuss and vote on it.  In addition, there was a county chairs working group immediately after, so we discussed it there, too. Not all counties chose to hold special meetings, but the majority did. The reticent counties may be more likely to vote in favor due to not wanting to look out of step.
5. After the meeting, we called and/or emailed all the county committees and asked for the date their committee would be meeting to vote on it and put together an excel spreadsheet to track county/date/result. After we had a few counties’ results, we pushed the results out through a couple of email groups.
6. Every week, we’ve sent out new results, with more words of encouragement to the remaining counties.
7. Simultaneously, we got the rules on how to require a new state committee meeting.  We’ve dotted all the i’s nd crossed all the t’s, and a special meeting is scheduled April 8, specifically to discuss and vote on the Resolution.  Barring either a blizzard or a 70-degree spring day that just can’t be ignored, the committee meeting is likely to be well-attended and some national press is planning to show up, so we hope the tendency to try to kill it by procedural means will be limited by the brightness of the spotlight.
8. Not resting on that, we know the state legislature is not going to take it up willingly, so, we’ve been working on candidates for various offices this coming November, trying to bring them around (a very slow process). We have also been chipping away at the current House and Senate membership, finding out who leans which way, and trying to get people who support it privately to agree to support it publicly if it gets there, while trying to get those who are wavering to at least agree not to stand in the way.
9. PLUS, we’ve put together a petition for redress to force the legislature to take it up once it gets through the committee. Note: If you are a Vermont resident and want the URL to the petition or a copy of it, send an email to bringvisibility*at*charter*dot*net. I’m not publishing the link here, because it’s for Vermont residents only.

——————-
Other Groups

1. Introducing non-binding resolutions at town meeting has been very powerful.  Many of these were entirely independent, uncoordinated efforts in different towns.  Many towns and cities in other states are likely to have town meetings/council meetins/whatever coming up over the next several weeks. Check the Secretary of State’s web site in your state for information on town and city governance and how voting occurs.

   The power of these meetings comes from the presence of the local press. One trick is to find towns where it is likely to be popular, and only bring it up in those, so press coverage is consistently about passage of the resolution. We haven’t had to do that in Vermont. I don’t know if it’s the strong independent streak among Vermont voters, but it seems they don’t like what they’re seeing and aren’t buying the Administration’s line.

   By-laws for the different towns and cities in your state will vary – some will allow non-binding resolutions, some won’t so you’ll need to mobilize a couple of people to call around to friends and relatives to figure out which are the friendly towns (in MA, Concord & Lexington might be a good start, for example), then find out from the town clerk or town moderator which of those will allow a resolution to be brought to the floor.

2. Any other kind of group at all: Treat the resolution somewhat like a petition and get members of various groups to adopt it – Quakers, Unitarians, and UCC churches, peace & justice groups, arts guilds, libtertarian groups (a big source of supporters), unions, etc. This is unlikely to get a lot of publicity, but will create “buzz” on the ground and build a broad support network.
   

   Note: you must be EXTREMELY careful working with non-profits.  This cannot be done as an organizational activity or they could lose their non-profit status.  Ask individual members of various organizations to ask their friends who are also members of those organizations to support the resolution. Depending on the specific form of legal organization, the organization itself may not be able to support it, since it is specific to a candidate: George Bush, and thus is a partisan activity. It’s best to play it safe. You can be just as effective.

   One way to do this is to hold an informational session nearby after one of their group meetings and have one of the group members announce to the group that the session will be taking place.

—————–
Publicity

1. Simultaneously, find a friendly columnist at a popular paper. For xample, in MA, in the Boston Globe, I bet E.J. Dione would be a good choice, or Mary McGrory, if she’s still there.  Peter Freyne at Seven Days in Burlington has been the one keeping this in the news in VT. He’s been including at least a little “aside” about it in most editions, if not devoting his column to it.
2. We’ve published several diaries on Daily Kos, occasionally coordinating with one another to try to get to the recommend list for at least a few minutes, and cross-posting to other blogs we might belong to.  Plus Green Mountain Daily, a popular blog in the state, has been running regular posts.
3. Get the folks who are most excited about it in each area to write letters to the editor of their LOCAL paper and the big papers. It’s the local coverage that will determine the flavor of articles in the big papers.  The more “pro” letters in the smaller (generally more conservative) papers, the better the coverage will be both in those papers and in the big ones.
4. The above combined is what brings the national attention: AP, NYT, Washington Post, Reuters, …

You’ll need at least 4 committed people to help you get this rolling and keep it on track.  You’ll need to divide up the effort and cajole each other to do your respective bits, despite the demands of your real lives.

—————–
Objections

We fairly consistently hear the following:

Practicality:

It’s impractical. It’ll never get anywhere, so your effort is wasted.

Response that seems to work:

Our legislators took one oath when they were sworn into office: to preserve and protect the United States Constitution. The oath said nothing about doing it only if it’s practical. It is our duty as citizens of this democracy to hold them to their oath.

Distraction:

It’s an election year, we don’t want to distract people from the elections. OR We have to focus on the people’s business, not some pie in the sky flight of fancy. (or equivalent)

Response that seems to work:

The people are bringing this to the legislature, because the people don’t think their representatives will do the job otherwise. Continuing to not do that job will make them put more energy into making it happen, not less. It’s better to let this train roll through the station.  Once it passes through, you can leverage all the networks that have been built to work even more effectively on those campaigns/issues/whatever.

Focus:

The focus is on Bush right now, and we want to keep it there. If we do this, the focus will shift to the Democrats (or impeachment, or …).

Response that seems to work:

Rove is going to do everything in his power to move the focus off of Bush no matter what. If we walk away from impeachment, he’ll focus on that.

So wouldn’t it be much better to use impeachment to turn the focus back onto the President?  When attacked, reply with something like: “Every patriotic American is deeply concerned about this President’s failure to uphold his sworn duty to the Constitution. It is a very serious matter and must be addressed.”

Let’s Just Support “x” Instead:

Conyers (or Feingold) already has something in the works, let’s just support that and get on with [whatever].

Response that seems to work:

Those are both great and we should support them as well, but this is an effort that gets the voters involved in the process in a way that gives them hope.  It is building strong coalitions, laying the groundwork for those other efforts to succeed, and is creating a volunteer base that can be leveraged at election time to get volunteers to help with campaigns – at least for those candidates that support it.

Administration Apologists
Here’s a three-fer.  The apologists have several primary reactions:

Frame = It’s Just Sour Grapes or Personal Dislike

“I don’t think we should be impeaching presidents because we disagree with them. Or something similar – the goal of the statement is to paint the impeachment movement as either childish, irresponsible, or cynical.

Response:

He is correct. But we should absolutely undertake impeachment when the President has violated the Constitution of the United States, admitted to it, and says he will continue to do so.

Frame = “It’s the Loonies”

This is being driven by “left-wing blogs and conspiracy theories. Or similar. The goal is to dismiss it as an out-of-the-mainstream concept.

Response:

When you’re as far right as this administration, of course everything looks like it’s from the left. But when the President himself admits to violating the Constitution, that’s an American problem, not a right or left problem. Every patriotic American knows that a President who fails to uphold his oath of office is not qualified to be President.

Frame = “There’s Nothing to See Here, Move Along”

Impeachment is “an extraordinarily serious action that they propose to take against the president of the United States in a time of war, based on actions he has taken to protect the United States from terrorism.” Or similar. The point of the frame is to imply that the current impeachment movement is a lark – rather than the deeply serious and gravely important action that it is.

Response:

The “time of war” argument did not work for President John Adams. It was James Madison, himself – author of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights – who wrote the Virginia Resolution in response to President Adams’ going too far. Thomas Jefferson joined Madison by writing the Kentucky resolutions.

Are they trying to tell us the Founding Fathers did not know what they were talking about?

Philip Baruth at VDB explains how Martha Rainville’s inexperienced campaign staff is it’s own worst enemy, with a timeline of how she let the far more experienced Welch campaign turn a yawner non-issue into a full blown campaign contribution scandal. Read the piece and then head to the online petition at the VT Dems site and keep the squeeze on.

Freyne at Seven Days (always required reading) reports that President Bush, after rejecting the recommendation of Sen Leahy and Gov. Douglas regarding the vacant US Attorney post in Vermont, is now set to install a cheerleader for the god-awful USA Patriot Act. What a shocker.

Vermont Commons not only wants an independent Vermont republic, it seems they’d also like to lock the borders and keep the pesky foreigners out. J. Arthur Loose combines the usual, simplistic reasoning that says we have to choose between promoting a fair, equitable society and accepting that foreigners are covered under the concept of “inalienable human rights” with a disturbing metaphor that suggests a very low regard for Mexicans in general. Somehow, the 2nd Vermont Republic is sounding less like a country I want any part of.

Where’s Adam? Since the fallout over his brouhaha with the Governor, blogger aq at Vermonters First has been AWOL. Hopefully he’s just on break. Mr. Quinn has done a lot to make the VT blogosphere a lively place. Come on back soon, aq…

The Blier Watch vs. conservative theocrat Kevin Blier saga gets covered by 802 Online’s Cathy Resmer in Seven Days (with input from entertainingly-designated “straight man,” yours truly). In the piece, to soften his image, Blier claims he would never use the epithet “fag” which he calls “the F word.” GMD readers will recall that he has no qualms about letting others use it on his website, however, as an article entitled Fag Commentary: Rebuke Them Sharply was printed there. Unfortunately, the original has dropped off Google’s cache, and only the “cleansed” version remains. Hopefully the BW folks saved a copy.

…and a few days ago, Green MT Daily passed the 100 registered users mark! What a month! Traffic is up, and we’re linked all over (including a front page link at MyDD.com!) For myself, I’ve managed to draw indignation from Dems and Progs alike. Don’t worry folks — I get very seasonal-affective-disordered. Now that the sun’s shining, I’ll get nicer…

This is an email sent in response to the online impeachment petition, reprinted with permission from the petition administrator and the author:

Dear Ms. Allen,
I am not a Vermont resident, so unfortunately I cannot sign your petition, but I want you to now that there are plenty of people here in Mass. who support the Vermont towns who have voted for resolutions to impeach Pres. Bush.  I’ve read stories about Newfane and other communities who have taken such action, and some of the right wing backlash that has resulted.  My family vacations in Vermont every summer, and we are proud to spend our tourist dollars in a state that has a conscience. Keep up the good work!

Sincerely,
Bill Santoro

Cool, huh?

As a quick PS to Jack’s update on the local County impeachment resolutions just below. First, reports are that the Windham County Progressive Party committee will be considering the Rutland Resolution at their next meeting. Also: there may be Legislation stirring (more on that as it comes out).

Finally, supporters make their press full court and have started a Rutland Resolution petition being circulated by hand and online, petitioning the Vermont Legislature (as per the Vermont Constitution Chapter I Article 20) to take up the matter. The petition is being circulated across the Democracy for Vermont network. It’s developing an aura of inevitability, folks! You can sign the online petition here.

At its monthly meeting last night the Washington County Democratic Committee voted to support the Rutland resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush. Sentiment at the meeting was unanimous that Bush has committed impeachable offenses, with discussion focussing on whether the impeachment effort, which has no chance of succeeding in the Republican-dominated Congress, would either divert the Party from more important work or give the Republicans ammunition to attack Democrats with in November’s elections. After a respectful discussion the pro-impeachment side prevailed.

By my count there are now ten county committees supporting the resolution, with most of the remaining county committees scheduled to discuss it before the special State Committee meeting set for April 8. It is still unclear whether the Legislature will have time to act on the resolution (or, for that matter, whether any legislator will introduce it) before adjournment.

Some weeks back, GMD user vtpeace posted this diary, linking to a story detailing allegations that the California National Guard had been used to spy on American Peace activists, such as the Raging Grannies, in the state. California State Senator Joseph Dunn had taken up the cause, and according to the report:

Senator Dunn says one file shows at least ten other states engage in domestic spying.

Gail Sredanovic [of the Raging Grannies]: “It’s very dangerous. It sets a very dangerous precedent.”

Around the same time, Vermont’s own Senator Leahy managed to squeeze an admission out of the Department of Defense after Donald Rumsfeld had avoided any direct response on the matter before him in committee.

DOD did receive two reports from the Department of Homeland Security about protests against DOD recruiters by Vermont groups, which prompted reports that were entered on the TALON Reporting System, created in 2003 to document, share and analyze unfiltered information about suspicious incidents related to possible foreign terrorist threats to DOD.

The letter from Leahy was written in response to press reports that American Friends Service Committee protests had been spied on. The response seems to reduce the matter to something relatively trivial (I say relative just because it doesn’t involve lying to get us into war, or breaking laws on wiretapping). No one I know is satisfied or reassured that we have heard the whole truth, given that this administration routinely underplays (or outright denies) scandals that make them uncomfortable.

Adding these things together raises some obvious questions — potentially very uncomfortable ones for retiring VT National Guard Adjutant General and GOP candidate for Bernie Sanders House seat Martha Rainville, the current darling of the Vermont media. When I asked myself, I still found nothing conclusive, but the questions did suggest a clear course of action for the Vermont Legislature — one that could put Gen. Rainville on quite the hot seat, in a what-did-she-know-and-when-did-she-know-it sort of vein.

I was curious, so I called California Senator Dunn’s office. A helpful staffer reviewed the document in question, and found that Vermont was not on that particular list. However, New York was, bringing the issue literally right next door, and only increasing the questions. It may well be that the surveilling of Vermont Peace groups is as “passive” as it now sounds, and therefore completely circumvented Rainville. It may well be that she knew nothing of the DOD using the National Guard right next door to do so. But looking at the facts, a reasonable person could conclude that it may well be that she did. Frankly, I think Legislatures everywhere would want to be checking in with their Guard command on this issue, and it’s only a larger question in Vermont because the (former) Command is running for Congress — the very body which should have oversight over this sort of Bush Administration excess.

Which brings us back to the dynamics of the furor in California, and what it might mean for Vermont. As is fairly generally understood, the Military cannot be used against American civilians. It’s called the Posse Comitatus Act (1878), and it states that:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

What is not generally understood is that the National Guard is generally exempt from this law. What this means is that this type of Domestic spying — essentially using the National Guard as a tool for intelligence gathering — while frightening, seems to be technically legal. In California, Senator Dunn is moving with all deliberate speed to close the “Posse Comitatus loophole” at the State level, to insure this sort of abuse is clearly and unquestionably illegal, once and for all:

“Let us have that discussion,” he said. “Let us not say the National Guard can go willy-nilly in any direction they choose, which is what we have now. We need to close this loophole so that our military personnel do not engage in law enforcement. They are not designed for that activity, they should not be used for that activity. That should be left for domestic law enforcement agencies.”

So, given the outstanding questions about the nature of the Domestic spying known to have been carried out on Vermont’s soil, isn’t it appropriate that the Vermont Legislature take up similar legislation here, and as soon as possible?

I think it of little doubt that such a move would meet with almost universal approval from Vermont voters. This despite the fact that it was all the rage to discuss a further weakening of the act after the Katrina disaster.

Sure, there would have to be hearings held, and testimony taken.

Testimony that may — or may not — end up being very uncomfortable for a certain US House candidate who hopes to take up Bernie Sanders’ mantle…

All 13 counties of Vermont were represented yesterday in Montpelier at an all day training meeting convened by the DNC, Democratic National Committee.  Howard Dean opened the meeting and AGAIN, used his FIVE POINT MESSAGE which I’ve posted elsewhere on this blog.  Chairman Dean has added a SIXTH point to the original FIVE – that of Pension Security Retirement Security – whether that be Social Security or some other form of pension.  I’ll obtain his exact wording and re-post all six.  He asked me if I had them memorized yet, and I said I didnt although I had them in front of me on paper.  I told him I was working on memorizing them. Peter Welch dropped in on the session and gave a powerful, forceful stump speech. 

My nominee for the Outrage of the Week is the lengthy hagiography of “Major Mom” by Adam Silverman in the March 25, 2006 Sunday Burlington Free Press. http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?D=/20060326/NEWS01/603260315/1009&theme=

This one-sided puff piece reads more like a PR campaign press release than balanced news reporting.

The sole dissenter from the saccharin lauding of Generalissimo Martha’s record as head of the Vermont National Guard is painted as a fringe element peacenik, too clueless to comprehend that Rainville doesn’t have sole authority to stop the deployment of Green Mountain troops to Iraq.

There are Guard members who don’t think Rainville has done a good job. If any who share this view were interviewed, their opinions were not printed.

It is notable that AP canned their Vermont bureau chief, Chris Graff, for putting an op-ed piece by Senator Leahy on the AP advance wire. Just a few days later, the Gannett-owned Free Press prominently printed this slanted article, crafted to promote the General to Congresswoman.

Silverman implies warm and fuzzy Martha is for the flag and motherhood. It’s a wonder he didn’t write that she bakes yummy apple pies, while wearing a frilly white apron over starched camo fatigues.