It was probably a week or more ago that I wrote Senator Leahy urging him to sign on as a sponsor of Russ Feingold’s http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109452ftJ::? censure resolution. I’ve really gotten impatient that we’ve heard nothing from him.

Then, today I got an email from Senator Leahy  setting forth his statement. Here’s the text:

Thank you for contacting me about Senator Russell Feingold’s censure resolution.  I appreciate hearing from you.

On Monday, March 13, 2006, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin introduced S. Res. 398 to censure George W. Bush. The resolution would condemn the unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans without obtaining court orders as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.  Senator Feingold says he intended his resolution to prompt congressional investigations into the President’s actions on these issues, but Republican leaders have been reluctant to allow an investigation to proceed.

I agree that Senator Feingold’s resolution raises legitimate issues about the President’s claims on the legality of his domestic spying program.  I have urged Senator Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to hold hearings on the resolution and continue to investigate the facts surrounding the President’s domestic spying program. So far, the Bush Administration has failed to provide satisfactory legal reasoning for the authorization of this program.

I introduced S. Res. 350 on January 20, 2006 to express the sense of the Senate that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which passed before the invasion of Afghanistan , did not authorize warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens, as the President asserts.  Both S. Res. 350 and S. Res. 398 have been referred to the Judiciary Committee, and I will push for full congressional investigations and oversight of the issues that both resolutions address.  My resolution and statement are available on my website at http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/200601/012006.html

Conducting oversight of the Department of Justice is one of the responsibilities of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Whether serving as Chairman or Ranking Member of the committee, I have taken this responsibility very seriously.  Congressional oversight plays a vital role in our constitutional system of checks and balances and the seriousness of the matters that our nation is presently facing has made oversight more critical than ever. 

I think it’s great that he’s pursuing this, and that he’s introduced the “sense of the Senate” resolution he mentions on illegal spying.

But still. Really, how much investigation is needed to figure out that Bush has violated the law multiple times? We already know everything we need to know. Or at least, we already know everything we need to know to say that he has to sponsor the resolution, not just call for hearings and a full investigation.

Caution is not always a virtue.

Filling in for the host on the“Mark Johnson Show”, local sports announcer and WDEV station owner Ken Squier, while rightfully speaking out against the impending execution of a former Muslim in Afghanistan for converting to Christianity (and also rightfully using the case to illustrate why Western Democracy cannot be imposed by the US), devolved into a rant about Muslims in general, referring to them as “those ragheads.”

As any reader knows, Green Mountain Daily posters are staunchly against the Iraq War. Speaking for myself (and I imagine others), I agree that Democracy cannot be imposed. But not because Muslims, Arabs, Persians, Afganis or any others in the region are somehow barbarian heathens inherently inferior to good, Christian American white folk. THAT is the message using an epithet sends. And it’s only magnified by the fact that so many Vermonters listen to this show.

And I think it’s our responsibility to both distance the anti-war movement from this sort of hate speech, as well as to make it clear that we find it disgusting in and of itself. My son was in the car with me at the time and it nauseates me that he got treated to that kind of garbage. Secretary of State Deb Markowitz came on immediately afterwards, but didn’t say anything. Hopefully, she just didn’t hear it.

You can call now and complain at 877-291-8255, or you can call next week and complain to Mark Johnson. WDEV’s office headquarters is at (802) 244-7321, and the emails are mark@gmavt.net and wdev@radiovermont.com respectively. Go on and make noise… and for discussion, is this just another nail in the coffin of this notion that Vermont political discussions are always more civil than everywhere else?

My, what a difference a week makes!

The various impeachment initiatives in Vermont are coalescing, and the state is taking notice. The city of Brattleboro is about to consider a resolution like Newfane’s. On the web, Philip Baruth at Vermont Daily Briefing has endorsed the broader effort. Freyne at Seven Days continues to cover it, and rumor has it that Dan DeWalt of Newfane (who “lit the fuse” with the Newfane resolution) may be making an appearence on a prime time national media show, so stay tuned.

Meanwhile, the “Rutland Resolution” — Jeff Taylor’s implementation of the national, blog-fueled drive to push for a state legislature to call Articles of Impeachment directly to the US House Floor (as per the House rules in the Jefferson Manual), is sweeping across Vermont’s Democratic infrastructure. Passing it so far are County Committees in Rutland, Orleans, Lamoille, Franklin, Chittenden, Bennington and Addison (who added Cheney). By the time the State Committee meets April 8th, it’s possible the only County Committee that will not have signed on will be Windsor, which opted to recommend censure.

Impressive all in all, and you’d assume the narrative will reach its climax at April’s Democratic State Committee meeting. The truth is, however, it’s the next week that will really determine whether all this leads to something more or not.

To clarify: first its important to point out that there are two impeachment “movements” in Vermont. The Town Meeting resolutions are calling on Bernie to present Articles of Impeachment in the House. After initially dismissing the efforts as “impractical,” Bernie bowed to the unexpected groundswell and signed on to Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) formal call for Impeachment in the House. This is likely as far as he will go.

The movement sweeping the VT Dem infrastructure, on the other hand, is pushing for direct involvement by the Vermont legislature — again, something allowed under the House Rules.

But the movements are coalescing, both from within Vermont and from without, as the Progressive Democrats of America are actively trying to coordinate the efforts nationwide.

The resistance to this within the Democratic infrastructure is largely based on the fear that we’ll all look like wingnuts if this goes too far — a fear I think is overstated. It’s also based on the sense that the whole process is a waste of time, since it won’t go anywhere in the Republican US House. This is a concern I have sympathy for, but I (and most proponents) are more inclined to err on the side of speaking up as loudly as possible than we may have been a couple years ago.

But the fact is that the Vermont Legislature is almost done. They have an incredible amount of work on the table, and are in the process of sorting out what bills they intend to pursue and which ones will be left behind — all with an eye towards a May adjournment.

The fact is, that by the time the State Committee has its say, the chance for Legislative action will be long gone.

So if proponents don’t come up with a sponsor or two in the Vermont House or Senate, the State Committee meeting will likely be the end of it, placing Vermont’s Democrats in the company of those from several other states who have affirmatively endorsed impeachment, but nothing more.

And lately, my little ear to the wall has picked up no rumblings of any interested legislators. Some are taking notice, but only inasfar as they hope not to have to deal with it.

It is hard to imagine who might pick this up, with everybody so busy. The only one who could arguably have some self-interest in the issue might be Rep John Tracy of Burlington, who has been the subject of outright ridicule for his “non-campaign campaign” for the Democratic nomination for Lt. Governor against Sen. Matt Dunne, whose campaign is steaming right along. If Tracy were to suddenly show interest, it would pull the spotlight right on him, fire up the Democratic base on his behalf, and likely draw the support of most of the Vermont Deaniac crowd virtually instantly. Still, even if he were inclined to take it up (which I would seriously doubt), nobody is more neck-deep in the Health Care reform process — an all-consuming dynamic if ever there was one.

So while the State Committee will be interesting (and GMD may live-blog it!), the real curtain will rise or fall over the next few days.

Like I said, stay tuned!

( – promoted by odum)

UPDATE 3/24: Zow! The Vermont Guardian is reporting that “Vermont’s entire congressional delegation and the governor are calling on the Associated Press to come clean about why it fired long-time journalist Chris Graff, and are asking him to be reinstated to his post.” Good grief! I don’t think this story is going away anytime soon. Go Chris!

The story of the firing of Graff, a local institution and universally regarded nice guy, is kicking up a firestorm within and beyond Vermont’s borders. Graff’s firing is becoming the new emblem of an ideological swing to the right (or at least a running desperately away from the left) in the mainstream media. Bloggers are suggesting that Graff is only the latest in a string of such firings at the AP, although I haven’t seen verification of that.

But people are fired up.

Drudge has picked it up (yuck). At DailyKos, there is a recommended diary from BriVT with 120 comments from across the nation. BriVT’s lead in sums up the feelings:

The most respected person in Vermont journalism, Chris Graff, was just fired by the Associated Press, axed after almost 27 years as the Vermont Bureau chief. The proximate cause? Running a column by a Democrat.

There’s more to the story, and it’s a perfect illustration of the degradation of the American media, and what progressives (and anyone interested in a functioning democracy) are up against …

Graff makes for an unlikely symbol of right-wing oppression. Conservatives will complain that he’s soft on Leahy, but he’s also been at least as easy on fellow Middlebury alum and GOP Governor Jim Douglas. Still, it’s the Leahy factor that’s caused the furor. The one thing I have heard from insiders is that many still believe there must be more to the story. I suppose we’ll all know soon enough. There’s just too much scrutiny on the matter for any secrets to be kept for long.

Town Meeting Day is just over, and one of the new subjects seems to be election reform. I’d say we’re due to look at the question from a number of perspectives, and there’s a lot to talk about:

First, we have instant runoff voting (IRV). As you know by now, Bob Kiss was elected Mayor of Burlington in the state’s first use of IRV. Bob ran first but only gathered 39% of the vote on the first round, but in the runoff, with all but the two leading candidates eliminated, he came in with a solid majority. The voting was smooth and fast, with final results in by 9:00. What’s more, the true results are available online, so you don’t have to worry about shenanigans, fraud, or hanging chads.

I’m all for runoff voting for one reason:

I’m sick of the D’s and P’s killing each other off in general elections and handing seats to the Republican. I’m not sure that instant runoff is the way to go: the fact that it’s cheaper than holding a separate runoff election doesn’t necessarily convince me, but if that’s the horse with the best chance of winning I can certainly get behind it. VPR covered the issue tonight, and if you missed it, follow this link.

We’re also looking at same-day registration. S. 164 has now passed the House, with proposals of amendment, and is back at the Senate to consider whether to accept the proposed amendments or appoint a conference committee. I think it’s safe to say that the people working to get this bill passed didn’t get everything they wanted (who does?) but they are still encouraged by this move to make it easier to get registered and vote, even on Election Day. I’m skeptical that same day registration will result in significantly more registration, much less higher voter turnout or significantly different results, but how do you argue against more democracy?

Finally, speaking of more democracy, Rick Hertzberg had an interesting piece in the New Yorker last month about a move to abolish the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment. This one is clearly pie in the sky, but it’s worth thinking about. The campaign, known as the Campaign for a National Popular Vote, calls for a critical mass of states to adopt an interstate compact by which they would agree to instruct their electors to vote for the national winner of the popular vote. Aside from the general idea that the Electoral College is undemocratic (not a trivial complaint, I would think), the supporters point out, among other things, that the arguments in favor of the Electoral College are spurious and that a nationwide popular vote will end some serious shortocmings of the current system, not least of which is the fact that both political parties ignore the majority of states and concerntrate all their efforts on the states they think are in play in the election. As I say, it’s pie in the sky, but worth thinking about. If you to go the web site you can actually download their book.

Update: Okay, I’ve asked around and fielded a phone call from a perturbed insider, and I’ll admit I may be underestimating Rainville’s name recognition, and yes I know its hard to be out defining yourself when youre a legislator in session…but my thesis stands: we need to be very concerned about this race, and Vermont lefties cannot afford to take it for granted. Here’s Baruth’s piece from a few weeks back to help me make my point.

The results of Senator Bill Doyle’s (R-Washington) famed “Doyle Poll” — a non-scientific, broadly distributed survey handed out at Town Meetings across the state — are in, and the news is not good for Senate President Pro Tem and US Congress hopeful Peter Welch (D-Windsor). Senator Welch will undoubtedly take some comfort in the fact that the poll is completely unscientific. But if he takes anything more than rhetorical solace, he isn’t doing himself or his supporters any favors.

The poll shows the 6,315 respondents (from 126 cities or towns) choosing Republican candidate Martha Rainville over Welch 40% to 39% (a Rainville-advantaged dead-heat, but Welch should be decidedly out in front at this point given his high profile), with 21% undecided. What makes this poll impossible to dismiss, despite its complete lack of any verifiable or statistically sound methodology is two things. One: it skews towards the more rural areas (where statewide Dems need to watch their electoral backsides), and two: other results of the poll are, well, exactly what you’d expect to see, suggesting it may not be so far off. In the US Senate race for example, Bernie towered over Tarrant 62%-26% with a mere 12% undecided.

The problem many Dems are either in denial about, or simply don’t want to admit is that Welch is just not an appealing candidate. He comes off as central casting’s out-of-touch liberal, which is bad enough, but ironically, he’s also fallen out-of-touch with much of his natural liberal base (although they are thankfully showing signs of coming back around of late). He’s already lost two statewide races, and yet his name recognition is still as much from his “need a lawyer…?” commercials as from his political credentials. Quite frankly, Welch could be better off as a blank slate than being perceived as the “ambulance chaser” candidate.

The long and the short of the matter is that Welch has to be out there redefining himself for the electorate NOW before Rainville gets her act together and starts doing it for him. And all the Obama fundraisers in the world aren’t going to help him with that. Neither will depending on travelling with Bernie. Just ask Anthony Pollina, Cheryl Rivers and Peter Clavelle. As Anthony said to me after the last election, “there are no coattails in Vermont.” The sooner Senator Welch learns that, the sooner he can get out there and start making his own coat.

With the distant potential for the Dems to retake the US House growing, the last thing any of us want to see is Vermont to be the site of the R’s surprise pick-up in November — especially if the national Dems were to come up just one seat short (shudder).

The Rutland Herald published an editorial entitled “GOP Adrift” today.  Good you say?  On the surface it seems good, until you read it!  Embedded in the text is criticism of the Democrats as having no message.  This is blatantly false.  Howard Dean has repeatedly framed the Democrats Message which I post below the fold below. Howard Dean has repeated this message repeatedly, most recently at a speech he gave at the American Medical Association.  The challenge is to get this message into peoples’ mind so we can end these lies that the Dems do not have a message.  I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.

PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE OR TWO TO GO TO THE RUTLAND HERALD EDITORIAL AND POST A COMMENT

[URL]http://rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060321/NEWS/603210301/1038[/URL]

Howard Dean, speaking on Face the Nation, February 12, 2006 framed the
Democratic platform/agenda for election year 2006 as:

ONE, we want honesty and openness back in government again.

TWO, we want a strong national defense, first of all, based on telling the truth
to our citizens and our soldiers before we send troops abroad to defend America.

THREE, we want American jobs that will stay in America using energy Independence
as a new industry to create millions of construction and manufacturing jobs.

FOUR, we want a health-care system that works for everybody, just like 36 other
countries have in the world.

FIVE, we want a strong public education system so we can have optimism and
opportunity back in America.

Remember this from Freyne’s column in Seven Days back in November?

The Center [for American Cultural Renewal/Vermont Renewal]‘s stated goal is “to promote and protect traditional values based on the Judeo-Christian ethic . . . Our goal is to renew the promise of America envisioned by the Pilgrims of the 17th Century and the Founding Fathers of the 18th Century restoring our greatest institutions; traditional marriage, two-parent families, community and religious organizations, and civic responsibility for the purpose of renewing our values to fall in line with our most cherished traditions.”

Earlier this year, Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Richard Tarrant went to Rutland and spoke to CFACR members in his run-up to declaring his candidacy. Apparently Richie Rich, a good Catholic boy whose charitable foundation has a policy against contributing to pro-choice organizations, made a good impression.

Lest you think as I did, that this is just some small, grouchy, right-wing social group, the bloggers at Blier Watch have made it their mission to get the word out about them (and are now facing a right-wing blogger’s attempt to intimidate them into silence for it…more on that in a bit).

In fact, these folks are so bad that it begs the resurrection of Freyne’s point about Tarrant’s visit. Consider the folks he did such a good job impressing (click on the link for the full story):

Kevin Blier, the founder of the group, keeps fairly busy. He has been in the local press:

…as a frequent Letters-to-the-editor contributor (“As the Court Jester of Congress, Mr. Sanders seemingly struggles to comprehend a document he swears an oath to defend … the U.S. Constitution”)

…Opposing bipartisan transgendered rights legislation (“I’m not sure the legislature should be in the business of giving minority protections and special privileges to people who have a clinical psychosexual disorder”)

…Worked to have Vermont Supreme Court Justices thrown off the bench over Civil Unions (“Justices take an oath to uphold the constitution the way it is written, not an oath to uphold the constitution the way they wish it was written”)

So, basically another John McClaughery with, as some of his saner fellow Republicans have said,  “no Washington presence and little clout with social conservatives outside Vermont”, right?

Well, first of all, the guy is a desperate social conservative ladder-climber. Despite the complete irrelevence of the organization in the right-wing world, a simple Google search will reveal the guy is trying his damndest to position himself among the stars of the right every chance he gets. The Center For American Cultural Renewal pops up on lists like this one (supporting the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts) alongside groups such as the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and the Center for Moral Clarity (chuckle — love that last one’s name)

He’s also got an eye on politics, having just unsuccessfully run for office in Brandon.

Oh, and did we mention how he feels about “fags?” From an article reprinted on his site entitled “Fag Commentary: ‘Rebuke Them Sharply'”

As anyone can see, the meaning of “Hate the sin but love the sinner” has almost been inverted in the 20th and 21st centuries. Now it means indulging the sinner, not offending him, and certainly not punishing him. But loving the sinner, according to Augustine, includes such strong medicine as expelling the sinner as well as milder forms such as reproving — e.g., shaming.

Hate the sin but love the sinner? Of course. And to be precise: Hate the faggotry but love the fag.

You’ll notice the link is from the Google cache, as Mr. Blier edited his site after Blier Watch brought it to public attention. Guess he forgot about caching. Oops!

In fact, his excessive self-promotion and his loathing of gays found expression in his grotesque exploitation of the Lisa and Janet Miller-Jenkins affair, where one partner in a former civil union became an “ex-gay” and tried to keep her former partner away from their daughter. The case pitted the Virginia Courts against the Vermont Courts (with Blier clearly working against Vermont) and was a particularly heartbreaking and disgusting display of the real anti-family, anti-civil rights, win-at-all-costs agenda of the phony ex-gay movement and the theocratic wing of the Republican Party.

And Republican US Senate hopeful Rich Tarrant made “a good impression” on this crowd. This begs the question as to which scenario is worse: that this is a crowd Tarrant is simpatico with, or that its simply a crowd he felt the need to pander to?

Yuck.

But the Kevin Blier phenom has a new wrinkle in the Vermont blogosphere. The right wing theatrical-blog Will Chamberlain’s Vermont (a winger whose presumptious schtick is to pretend he’s some kind of Vermont Founding Father) claims:

Justice Department sources confirm today that documents pertaining to “BlierWatch”, an anonymous blog that has surfaced in recent months here in Vermont, have been turned over to the Criminal Investigation Division for possible Telecommunications Act violations by the Federal Communications Commission.

Excuse me for a moment while I recover from laughing so hard I sprayed some of my tea out my nose.

Okay, this is so dumb, I have no doubt it’s made up. I’m not sure by whom since WC’s Vermont (‘WC’…heh-heheheh-heh) has no actual living human’s name attached to it, but I doubt there are many degrees of seperation from Mr. Blier, there.

Kevin, look: as a result of all the naked attempts to make yourself into a public figure, you’re now a public figure. That means people can tease you on a blog. Deal with it.

Cathy Resmer, Vermont’s premier metablogger, broke the story this morning, although in a somewhat matter-of-fact way. She finds Blier Watch distasteful because its, well, pretty harsh. It’s hard not to have sympathy though — this Blier guy is a nasty, nasty fellow who wants to be a major player — which would in turn give him greater impact in Vermont. The BW crowd is basically saying, not on our watch and not without a fight. Who can blame them? The guy is irrelevent now, but may not be if he gets a friend…oh, in the US Senate, for example?

Still, I hope Cathy and others will respond to what this is: a naked (albeit crude) attempt to intimidate bloggers out of their free speech rights. An attempt doomed to failure, but bloggers — right, left, and center — should respond in no uncertain terms that this is not okay. In my opinion, Cathy tends to have a reporter’s tendency to judge lefties a bit more harshly and to give right-wingers broader latitude, rather than a blogger’s tendency to throw caution to the wind. Still, this kind of free-speech slam hits us all where we live out here in the blogosphere, and if she hadn’t reported on it, I might have missed it. Nice catch, Cathy.

How about some good news, by way of RadicalRuss.net (and thanks to Delaware Dem at DailyKos.com for bringing it to a broader audience):

Click on the image for a bigger, clearer view. Russ explains:

This map displays the state-by-state job approval polls of Pretzeldunce Chimpy McFlightsuit. His Net Approval is his job approval minus his job disapproval ratings, with positive numbers representing states where more people approve than disapprove, and negative numbers representing the opposite.
I’ve color-coded the states according to their relative “Bush Love” in red to their relative “Bush Hate” in blue, with those states more toward the center shaded in purple….The map begins at the 2004 Election, and every five seconds a new month appears

Nice, yes? An encouraging image to enter the weekend with.

This takes some time to go through, but, the exercise is worth it.  I would be interested to hear from all of you after you look at the data, what conclusions, big picture, you come to.  Also, any thoughts about the methodology described in this report card. 

To my knowledge, Vermont DOES NOT have a Report Card.  The link I am posting is for the Drum Major Institute’s NEW YORK STATE REPORT CARD.  Since I live within a few miles of New York State, I found it instructive. 

As a Progressive Democrat in Massachusetts, we put in place a similar process to scorecard our state legislators. We took this “radical” step because we found our legislators wanted to use the progressive base to get into office, but then, once firmly planted in office, did not adhere to what we considered the Democratic platform.

DINO, Democrats in Name Only, remain a challenge. The scorecard or report card, is one way to assess legislators who profess to be Democrats, but, don’t walk the talk and vote like a Democrat.

[url] http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/outerenvelope_exec.htm[/url]