I just threw a drink in Josh Marshall’s face.
See, at first, I was cool with it. I saw it as simply an opposing point of view; another way to look at the situation. I pride myself on my tolerance. That and my humility, which is actually my most admirable and meritorious personal trait. And that’s saying a lot, because it has a lot of competition in my personality profile. I’m damned proud of my humility.
(I often think that what the world needs are more geniuses that still have a bit of humility. After all, there are so few of us left.)
Be that as it may, the other day, my wingnut boss called me “the most intolerant person I’ve ever met.” That one sent me reeling. The primary GOP political officer (self-appointed) of my work environment called ME intolerant. This man thinks civil liberties begin and end with the Second Amendment. He seems to give not a fuck about the Fourth or Sixth. I wonder what he’d do if suddenly his Third Amendment rights were violated.
Anyway, I came to the realization that he was at least partly right. I AM intolerant. I am intolerant of this administration and its water-carrying MSM.
I did tell him about the HR 1606 thing as well as the latest attempts to gutshoot the 527s, and while he doesn’t like Move On, he did rail somewhat angrily at the idea of the government suppressing the blogosphere. There’s hope for this guy. he also watched Markos on KO last night. He tried to dismiss the guy, but his rhetoric bellyflopped. “Another anti-gun liberal….” “Hey, wait a minute! What did he say about guns? I missed that! Let’s watch the video and catch what Kos said about guns.”
He changed the subject.
But come to think of it, I guess I did too. I digress.
Quite frequently, and quite adroitly too, if I may.
I’ll go back on topic below the fold.

I want to share with you an editorial my local fish-wrapper put up about the Feingold censure resolution:

Feingold’s Flakiness  Posted 2006-03-14
http://www.dnronline.com/opinion_details.php?AID=3424&sub=Editorial

There is something about Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis, that is immensely likeable, no matter the flakiness of some of his actions. Perhaps it’s the fact that there is no guile in him. Stealth and manipulative tactics don’t seem to be a part of his character. He is upfront, direct and candid.

His judgement, though, is sometimes questionable. His latest direct and upfront crusade is for the Senate to “censure” President Bush due to the administration’s electronic surveillance program.

The chances Sen. Feingold’s censure resolution will pass are nil to less-than-zero, but it has certainly delighted Democratic activists who are gaining more and more influence in the party.

Sen. Feingold doesn’t provide any evidence that a single law was broken – as he alleges – nor does he mention that experts (not the pundits, but the constitutional experts) disagree with him.

Osama bin Laden and the Islamicfascism around the globe are dangerous to this nation, just as they have been lethal to Dutch film producers, clubgoers in Bali, women and children in Iraq and passengers on the London subway system. Listening to conversations of such people is a vital part of our defense.

Even if Sen. Feingold disagreed with the program, one would think he would grant the administration the benefit of the doubt since President Bush is trying to protect American lives. Alas, that is not the mentality of the Democratic left.

One congressman who might actually support Sen. Feingold’s resolution is Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich, who has called for President Bush’s impeachment. If the Democrats take over the House in November, Rep. Conyers would take over the House Judiciary Committee. No doubt he would then launch dubious investigations and sent subpoenas galore to the White House, thus obstructing and undercutting this nation’s war on terrorism.

Something to ponder come November.

I am DAMNED SICK AND TIRED of Democrats cowering in fear of political damage. They’re so spooked behind the last few years they’re afraid to move in for the kill on an opponent that is maimed by self-inflicted wounds. If not now, when?
I am a fourth-generation Democrat. My family pisses blue. But I am to the point where I am about to begin advocating a blood purge of the party. And it’s because of people like Hillary, like Steny Hoyer, like Joe Lieberman, like Ben Nelson, like Cuellar. Because of people like Zell Miller. But at least he’s out of play.
Any Democrat that will not support Feingold’s resolution, for example, can kiss my fucking ass. I am SICK TO DEATH of this shit. This sorry-ass excuse for a President has turned record surpluses into staggering deficits, has lied us into an unnecessary and unproductive war, in which our children and theirs are dying, has squandered any good will and sympathy we had around the world after 9/11 with arrogant, jack-booted militarism, violates our Fourth Amendment rights on a daily basis, has granted tax breaks to corporate entities exacerbating the brown-acid-trip deficits which he claims must be combatted by slashing Medicare, Medicaid, low-income heating asistance and student loans, and nearly every other form of assistance this government provides to the least among us. He has exposed the identities of covert operatives as political punishment. His party’s money trail is dirtier than the flow lines at a sewage treatment plant. Elections are a joke-the mechanisms by which we vote are designed and built by his supporters. His mouthpieces dominate the airwaves. And as his standing with the American people falls into the abyss, he contemplates another war as a means to unite the people he has intentionally divided to the same end: insuring control by his party, which he unquestionably places before the good of the country.
To ANYone who will not pursue any and all political and legal means to damage this bastard and his circle-jerk posse as severely and as often as possible, to those who cower in fear of the GOP noise machine, I say: Fight with us, or stay out of it.
And the horse you rode in on is presumably tied to the hitching post outside the Catamount.
ITMFA!

“You Haven’t Done Nothing”

We are amazed but not amused
By all the things you say that you’ll do
Though much concerned but not involved
With decisions that are made by you

But we are sick and tired of hearing your song
Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong
‘Cause if you really want to hear our views
“You haven’t done nothing”!

It’s not too cool to be ridiculed
But you brought this upon yourself
The world is tired of pacifiers
We want the truth and nothing else

And we are sick and tired of hearing your song
Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong
‘Cause if you really want to hear our views
“You haven’t done nothing”!

We would not care to wake up to the nightmare
That’s becoming real life
But when mislead who knows a person’s mind
Can turn as cold as ice un hum

Why do you keep on making us hear your song
Telling us how you are changing right from wrong
‘Cause if you really want to hear our views
“You haven’t done nothing”!
-Stevie Wonder

That is all.
 

 Loading ...

I’ve spent a fair amount of bandwidth on the prospect of impeachment in general and the ongoing project to have the Vermont Legislature use obscure US House rules to call the subject to a vote in Washington. I’ve been gently encouraging while raising lots of caution flags along the way. So now that there’s lively debate amongst GMD’s own front pagers, let me say that I do come down in favor of the state-based impeachment drive, while I still have tremendous respect for those who think its a bad idea — particularly those who feel that the time spent on impeachment would be better spent on crafting and supporting good public policy that has some chance of passage (such as Health Care reform). There are two points I feel strongly need to be made, however.

One: I do strongly disagree with the notion that the Democratic Party’s involvement will make us look like wingnuts and drive away voters. As an emailer pointed out, two State Democratic Parties did that very thing last election cycle with no ill effects.

Two: The highly-covered censure motion proposed by Sen Russ Feingold (D-WI) — which many felt would “compete” with the impeachment momentum — is doing just the opposite. The discussions are merging, and their fates are becoming intertwined. So much so that the success or failure of the censure motion could be critical to the chances of impeachment efforts, both now and under the future prospect of a Democratic Congressional majority.

Please click on “Theres More” for an explanation, and to see how you can help promote censure and/or impeachment.

First on the history of Democratic State Committees calling for impeachment (and thanks to Kagro X for birddogging this info out). If the VDP goes forward, they would be following in the footsteps of others, before anyone had ever heard of the Jefferson Manual, state-initiated impeachment, or even the NSA wiretapping scandal.

The Wisconsin Democrats called for impeachment in June of last year, and Nevada’s Democrats did so in May of 2004. The Nevada Dems went so far as to write impeachment into their Party Platform:

ELECTIONS, ETHICS and GOVERNMENT
An informed electorate which demands that elected and appointed officials serve the public in an ethical, competent and honest manner forms the basis of good government which serves all of its citizens equally. Therefore, the Democratic Party:…

…19. Calls for the Impeachment of President Bush for lying to congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq

Sure, they got hammered for it a bit. But did it matter come election time? As kagro reported to me:

* NV Dems picked up a net two seat gain in the legislature (+3 in the 42-seat House, -1 in the 21-seat Senate).

* 2004 Democratic Congressional candidates outperformed (by percentage
of votes cast) 2002 Dem candidates in every district.

NV-01:
2002 – Shelley Berkley (D) 54%
2002 – Lynette Boggs McDonald (R) 43%

2004 – Shelley Berkley (D) 66%
2004 – Russ Mickelson (R) 31%

NV-02:
2002 – Jim Gibbons (R) 74%
2002 – Travis Souza (D) 20%

2004 – Jim Gibbons (R) 67%
2004 – Angie Cochran (D) 28%

NV-03:
2002 – Jon Porter (R) 56%
2002 – Dario Herrera (D) 37%

2004 – Jon Porter (R) 54%
2004 – Tom Gallagher (D) 40%

I just dont think this is a problem. Platforms and State Committees have a role and an effect, but the fact is that nobody looks at the Platform or the list of approved Committee motions to decide whether or not they’re voting for a specific candidate — especially not in Vermont where everything is so person-to-person. The only thing such an action would show is that there are enough people who feel strongly enough about the matter that they got organized and made a public statement.

Now again, I think the “waste of time” argument is compelling. There is always a lot of work to be done on policy and electioneering, and an impeachment push in Vermont could be a distraction. It’s a valid point, and it may be correct. But I’m at the point where I want to err on the side of making clear, unambiguous statements of right and wrong to the world — and I have to believe that people will respond to that. We are, to large extent, in uncharted territory, and I choose to be guided by my conscience.

And my conscience tells me, as loudly as I can, to call King George to account.

So where does Censure fit in?

Rather than materializing as a competing notion, censure is taking shape as impeachment lite — especially since even I have been caught by surprise at just how timidly the Democratic Caucus is reacting to the motion. As of this blog entry, only Senators Harkin and Boxer have signed on, while Senator Kerry is reminding us why he was such a poor candidate for the Presidency by bobbing and weaving on the issue. They are so terrified, that the media is now smelling blood, which means the scrutiny on, and polarity of the narrative are increasing before our very eyes.

So make no mistake. If you prefer Censure as an option — that option is in serious peril, and Senators Leahy and Jeffords MUST hear from you.

If you prefer Impeachment as an option, without at least a decent showing on Feingold’s Censure motion, Impeachment may be DOA in the media, the Congress, and ultimately by extension, the public. The dominos tend to fall like that, unfortunately. Therefore, Senators Leahy and Jeffords still must hear from you.

Complicating all of this is the word that right-wing talk radio is encouraging folks in some markets to call Democratic Senators in support of censure, as they believe the same media reports telling them that this is a wingnut issue. That Democrats will look bad. And that Bush’s 33% approval ratings are all a big left-wing conspiracy, and that America is really behind their President.

Yeah, right.

So in the short term, regardless of your feelings on Impeachment, we need a strong showing on censure. Do we need to win? No, but we can’t get creamed again.

Contact information:

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT)
United States Senate
433 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-224-4242 (DC Office Phone)
800-642-3193 (Home Office Phone)
email

The Honorable James M. Jeffords (I-VT)
United States Senate
413 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-224-5141 (DC Office Phone)
800-835-5500 (Home Office Phone)
email

I think it’s clear that George Bush has knowingly and intentionally violated the law in numerous ways, including his invasion of Iraq, which violated internation law; his violations of American citizens’ constitutional rights; and his policy of torturing prisoners, which violated both domestic and international law. You can undoubtedly add to this list.

The question, though, is whether pursuing impeachment is a good idea from any number of perspectives. Josh Marshall, who is one of the most astute political analysts I read every day, has a new column out in which he sets forth why he doesn’t think we should be rushing to impeach Bush.

Here’s how he starts out, and you can read more by following the link.

Since talk of impeachment is in the air, it seems incumbent on all vocal critics of the president to go on the record with their points of view on this momentous question. So let me devote this column to explaining why I think it’s a bad idea on both policy and political grounds.

State Senator Mark Shepard weighs in on the reasons we should mistrust Venezuela and CITGO. 

CITGO is dividing Americans according to the Senator?  uuummmm, I think America was divided well BEFORE the CITGO programs. 

Also, Senator Shepard DOES NOT address that a major leader of the Religious Right friendly with the Bush Administration, called for the outright assassination of the President of Venezuela. 

I don’t know about Senator Shepard, but I am really divided from the poor elderly widow that lives down the street getting fuel oil cheaper than me.  Why should she get the cheap oil?  I want some cheap oil!  I want my Maypo.

The Senator speaks of an OLIVE BRANCH?  An outright threat by a powerful American to assasinate the President of Venezuela is an OLIVE branch? 

  [url=]http://timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060315/NEWS/603150309/1022] TIMES ARGUS LETTER FROM SHEPARD HERE[/url]

Citgo oil deal a Trojan Horse

March 15, 2006

Thank you for your editorial (March 1, “Bad Company”) recounting my objection to the Vermont legislature honoring Chavez by formally thanking him for his “gift” of discount oil. And thank you for pointing out “The oil discount program shows Chávez clearly understands the value of the grand gesture.”

This “gift” was not about charity, in my opinion. It was and is propaganda used by Hugo Chávez, whom your editorial points out is “the most vocal and visible symbol of a rising tide of anti-American sentiment in Latin America.”

If any of the countries you mentioned in your article made a similar move and there were a resolution thanking them for it, I would have also objected to that. And it appears that after reviewing my objections, the sponsors of the Chávez resolution quickly came to agree with my position, as they did not even try to defend it, but rather sent it to committee to die.

As the world’s greatest power we must take extra care that our actions work toward building positive and confident relationships with the people (not just the leaders) in other countries, most especially our neighbors in the Americas.

The unrest and difficulties of life in many of the countries south of us is why people from those countries risk their lives to illegally enter the United States. Our foreign policy in South and Central America has often been very poor and has not focused on building long-term healthy relationships between nations. We can do better, and being consistent is the starting point. How can we just enjoy our freedoms and incomparable wealth, while at the same time we honor a man whose policies have reduced freedoms and increased poverty in other nations?

It is critical that our leaders differentiate between an olive branch of help and a Trojan horse designed with the intent to divide Americans.

State Senator Mark Shepard

North Bennington

One of these quotes is not like the others. From The Times Argus:

As he has in the past, the (Vermont) Republican governor (Jim Douglas) declined to stake out a position on whether the war in Iraq was a mistake.

“I really don’t see the value in looking backward. I would rather look forward,” he said. “I don’t think there is much point to second-guessing the policy decisions of the past.”

Some other viewpoints:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana

Liberty without learning is always in peril
John F. Kennedy

If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.
George Bernard Shaw

No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of his own mistakes deserves to be called a scholar.
Donald Foster

Be not ashamed of mistakes and thus make them crimes.
Confucius

Mistakes are the portals of discovery.
James Joyce

Wise men profit more from fools than fools from wise men; for the wise men shun the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate the successes of the wise.
Cato the Elder, from Plutarch, Lives

The past is not dead. In fact, it’s not even past.
William Faulkner

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Here’s the entry from Peter Freyne’s column last week. You really have to wonder if the Republicans want Vermont to be the kind of place where outside organizations like the Swifties tell lies about our candidates, whatever the party, don’t you?

Parke Goes Swift-Boat — It looks like Vermont TV viewers will be guaranteed a slew of out-of-state attack ads. The other Republican U.S. Senate candidate, Greg Parke, a commercial pilot for a private charter outfit, has just picked up the support of the truthless “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” outfit that trashed John Kerry’s Vietnam war record.

In a fundraising letter put out this week by Friends of Greg Parke, John O’Neill, the Swift Boat Vets leader, zeroes in on Bernie Sanders.

“Sanders is as radical as they come,” writes O’Neill to donors. “In fact, he’s so far to the Left that he calls himself an ‘independent’ because he thinks Democrats are ‘too conservative.’ His record in the House of Representatives — particularly on defense matters — is disgraceful.

“He’s consistently fought President Bush on issues of national security — most specifically he voted against the use of force to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

“And even though we are in the middle of a global war on terror, Bernie Sanders proudly says he’s ‘leading the charge against the Bush Administration.’

And proud of it! I know, I know. With enemies like this, Ol’ Bernardo won’t have to break a sweat. It’s free advertising!

But politics do not begin and end in Washington. So it is that the antiwar messages most likely to be heard and acted upon by Congressional Democrats and wavering Republicans trying to figure out how the war will play at the polls in November will come from their hometowns. It is there, at the grassroots, that a growing number of activists are organizing with an eye toward communicating to Congress that, as Wisconsinite Keith Schmitz says, “It’s OK to oppose the war.”

In daily conversations, with friends, neighbors, associates, in the grocery store line, we need to make mention how the war is hurting us here at home.  Here’s an example I used yesterday talking to friends from Shaftsbury VT.

Me:  ” I went to a meeting yesterday (Saturday) at the Bennington Public Library where Vermont House speaker Gaye Symington held a Town Meeting discussion. 

Friends:  “Oh, I heard about her, she’s quite attractive”…

Me: “Yes indeed, and smart too.  We had a very good discussion on the challenges of funding healthcare in Vermont and helping the uninsured”.
“The town meeting was videotaped by Catamount Public Access TV and will be playing on TV soon”

Friends: “If we could just get out of this war in Iraq, we’d have some money to do other things here at home”.

Me:  “Exactly!  That’s the first thing I said to some people when I left the meeting at the library”! 

This is an example of bringing the war home. We are setting the stage for letting friends know that its OK to oppose the war.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

url= BRINGING THE WAR HOME

I kept the poll open an extra day (because I was too busy to mess with it), so here are the results:

On the one hand, the poll is overwhelmingly in favor of the Vermont Legislature initiating impeachment proceedings as per the US House rules. On the other hand, unlike our other poll on Democratic Presidential Primary candidates, hardly anyone felt moved enough to actually vote. Are the results muted by a lack of enthusisam? What do you think?

On today’s broadcast of ABC’s Sunday morning “news” program This Week, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) — who was recently selected GMD readers’ favorite Presedential hopeful — dropped a political bombshell on the public (and an unsuspecting Sen. Bill Frist, also on the program) by announcing he will formally introduce a motion in the Senate calling for the censure of President Bush over the NSA wiretapping matter (a clip of the appearence can be found here).

Although Frist pledged to use his power to keep the motion from seeing the light of day, it’s still agreat move because, as Georgia10 at DailyKos puts it:

The most obvious and immediate benefit of Feingold’s statement is that it keeps Bush’s illegal spying in the news.  While the media has declared accountability dead after the Senate Intelligence Committee voted not to investigate the program, Feingold’s motion ratchets up the heat and keeps the scandal alive.

It seems obvious to folks who frequent this board that Bush’s blatantly illegal conduct merits at least this action. Here’s Feingold:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So if you’re so convinced that the President has broken the law, why not file an article of impeachment?

FEINGOLD: Well, you know, that’s an option we could look at, if somebody thought that was a really good idea. There are other options out there. In fact, this conduct is right in the strike zone — even though the Founding Fathers didn’t have strike zones, they didn’t have baseball — but it is right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors.

“We, as a Congress, have to stand up to a president who acts like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were repealed on Sept 11, [2001],”

In fact, a glance to the left side of the front page will remind you that Vermonters would like to see a far more definitive reaction, but anything that causes Sen Frist to get all twisted up and flustered has got to be good.

Frist:

“Russ is just wrong, he is flat wrong, he is dead wrong,”

Frist called the censure attempt “political” and a “terrible, terrible signal” to enemies of the U.S. abroad.

Will a successful censure movement take the wind out of the impeachment movement? I doubt it. Impeachment promoters will simply see this as gravy if it passes (and again, the motion actually seeing the Senate floor seems like an outside shot, at this point), and if it doesn’t pass, they’ll just get more riled up and determined.

I suppose it’s possible that if this censure notion were to become a much bigger deal than I think it will, it could end up “competing” with impeachment. But I seriously don’t see that happening. What do you folks think?

Once more the town of Hardwick has sad news, as another Hardwick native has been killed in Iraq. Christopher Merchant was only 32 and left four children, ages nine to fourteen. Once again, we in Vermont are left to wonder why our sons, brothers, and members of our communities must die in a futile and ill-conceived war against an enemy who never threatened the United States.

In addition, we can wonder whether the kind of democracy we have in the United States, in which the government spies on its political opponents, is what Bush has planned for Iraq.

Small wonder that Bush’s popularity is at an all-time low and towns in Vermont are voting to support impeachment.