Cross-posted at Rational Resistance

I’m passing along a message I got from the ACLU on illegal spying today. Naturally, I think it’s very important to stop Congress from doing nothing about it in the guise of pretending to do something, so please take the opportunity to contact Senator Leahy today.

In addition to using the phone numbers listed you can comment directly by using this link

To Our Friends in Vermont,

This week the Senate Judiciary Committee is considering two bills that would reward President Bush’s illegal actions by allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to continue spying on Americans in violation of our laws. These bills are being pushed through even though Congress has failed to learn key facts about the program.

Senator Leahy sits on this committee and can stop both of these bills dead in their tracks.

We need you to call Senator Leahy right now.

In Burlington: (802) 863-2525
In Washington, DC: (202) 224-4242

  * Tell him to oppose both Senate Bill 2453 and Senate Bill 2455. Congress needs to get the facts about the NSA spying program before making it legal.
  * Both bills would have the effect of whitewashing the illegal NSA domestic spying program. Conservatives and progressives agree that this program should not be made legal.
  * Congress has a duty to get the facts, not help the Bush administration cover them up. The Senate Judiciary Committee must uphold its responsibility to the Constitution and the American people by opposing these misguided bills.
  * Tell Senator Leahy to get the facts about the warrantless NSA domestic spying before making it legal.

Calls are needed to several members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Please take a moment and forward this email to your friends and family who live in Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, California, Ohio, Iowa, South Carolina, Kansas, Wisconsin, Delaware, Oklahoma and Illinois. They can look up their member’s phone number here.

ADDITIONAL DETAILS FOR YOU:
S. 2453, a bill written by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), would supposedly restore judicial review of wiretaps, but the law already requires judicial review and the president has ignored it. Senator Specter’s bill would allow the courts to approve programs of surveillance, diminishing the Constitution’s requirement there be probable cause that an American is doing something wrong before their communications can be seized. 

S. 2455, a bill written by Senator Mike DeWine (R-PA), would also attempt to rewrite probable cause to allow warrantless surveillance of Americans’ calls and emails without evidence that they are conspiring with suspect terrorists. It would make judicial review of wiretaps optional and would reduce the amount of information the president is required to give Congress about the program. 

Sincerely,
Signature
Caroline Fredrickson
Director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office

Here is the text of the letter sent by Vermont legislators to our Congressional delegation supporting impeachment:

Dear Members of the Vermont Delegation:

As you know, many of our fellow Vermonters are speaking out over their
deep concerns regarding many actions of President Bush-actions which
they believe violate our laws, our constitution, and our international
treaty obligations.  These concerns of average Vermonters are being
voiced through resolutions adopted at town meetings, resolutions voted
at county and state committee meetings, in public petitions, and in an
ever-increasing number of letters seen in our newspapers. 

Based upon the public information already available to them, many
Vermonters whom we serve have indicated that they would respond
affirmatively to each of the following questions:

Has George Bush violated the law and Constitution by ordering American
citizens to be held indefinitely without access to counsel and without
being charged, or afforded any opportunity to challenge such detention
before a civil judge, based solely on his discretionary and unilateral
designation of them as “enemy combatants”?

Has George Bush violated the law and Constitution by ordering and
continuing to order the interception and recording of telephone calls by
the National Security Agency without obtaining statutorily required
court orders?

Has George Bush violated international treaties and the United Nations
Charter by invading Iraq and by obtaining authorization from the United
States Congress for that invasion based upon intentionally false
information and the intentional withholding of accurate information and
by then intentionally concealing those actions?

Has George Bush violated the law and Constitution by ordering the
continued detention of persons being held, even after their release has
been ordered by a court?

These questions raise, both individually and in their totality, issues
of the gravest national importance.  Fundamental standards of due
process require that such allegations not simply be accepted as true;
however, they also cannot and should not be ignored.

Indeed, we believe that openly obtaining objective answers to these
questions is increasingly critical to sustaining public faith in our
constitutional system of government and in its requirement for
accountability by every President.  Obviously, if any or all of these
alleged acts is substantiated through a fair investigation and hearings,
it then could either require censure or setting in motion the
constitutional process for possible removal from office.

We realize the serious practical difficulties of initiating even an
initial investigation of these issues at present, much less in actually
moving forward should they be substantiated.  However, speaking as
individual Members of the Vermont House of Representatives and the State
Senate, we ask that you take all possible steps which you believe can
lead to the initiation of such an investigation and then promptly
conduct all further proceedings which are warranted by its results.

We believe that Vermonters, our nation and our constitutional
principles deserve no less.
###

Thanks to Rep. Dick Marek, who wrote the letter and sent me the copy.

It’s pretty obvious that one minority group that is an “acceptable” target for hate is sex offenders. The latest from Bill O’Reilly is certainly an example of this phenomenon.

Another, of course, is the murders of two sex offenders in Maine.

We now learn that the suspected killer, while searching for victims, searched the Vermont registry.

Given the fact that everyone is entitled to protection from criminal assault, and that one of the things we know for sure is that isolation makes offenders more likely to reoffend, shouldn’t we be reconsidering whether painting targets on released sex offenders is good public policy?

http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/042006/VTSaysImpeach.shtml

Rep. David Zuckerman, a Progressive from Burlington is collecting signatures from lawmakers today to introduce a formal resolution in the legislature demanding that Congress draft articles of impeachment against the pResident. Zuckerman is relying on the Jefferson Manual of rules for the U.S. House of Representatives which was cited in the Rutland resolution that passed many Democratic County Committees.

According to today’s vermontguardian, at least 12 legislators had signed on.  Please, everyone, call your local reps and ask them to sign on, and to vote for it.  Tell them not to let fear rule their lives. 

Most people know about the lies told us to get our support for invading Iraq.  Most know about wiretapping and threats to our civil liberties.  This is not news — but if the conversation does not become front and center we will be stuck in the same quicksand for another two years.  This should be a national discussion, and Vermont should lead the way.

Barbara

The Cashman issue may be yesterday’s news, but Vermont is still near and dear to Bill O’Reilly’s heart. From the Free Press and Fox News via Media Matters (in case you missed it while it was on the Media Matters sidebar):

While discussing states’ sentencing laws for people convicted of sex crimes against children, Bill O’Reilly declared: “Soon, there will only be a few states where” sex offenders “can go and molest children and get sympathy, states like Massachusetts and Vermont.”

You can also click on the image for a link to the clip. Click on “there’s more” for the context.

As The Burlington Free Press reported on April 13, the Vermont Senate “unanimously gave preliminary approval Wednesday [April 12] to a bill designed to crack down on sex offenses” by “increasing the number of investigators who focus on sex crimes, increasing the number of pre-sentence investigations that judges use to help determine a sentence, trying to better coordinate prevention programs … decriminalizing consensual sex between teenagers”; creating a “a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for aggravated sexual assault”; “expand[ing] the sex offender registry to list more offenders on the Internet and add[ing] a registry for violent offenders.”

The Vermont House of Representatives previously had passed legislation that “approved a mandatory life maximum and set advisory minimum sentences, but declined to affix a mandatory minimum out of concerns they would make it more difficult to prosecute sex crimes.” As the Free Press noted on April 5, “[M]any prosecutors and victims’ advocates” oppose mandatory sentencing laws “out of concern that the mandate would force more defendants to take their cases to trial, forcing more victims to testify and creating the possibility of more acquittals because sex crimes can be difficult to prove.”

Now, do you think the subtleties escape Bill because he’s not interested, or is he just a dimwit?

Or do we really care anymore?

Whatever. I’m gonna go watch Olbermann now…

Ed Shamy has a great column in this morning’s Free Press, although in my humble opinion he doesn’t go far enough.

It’s all about the story that two Vermont border guards are charged with making false reports when they caught a marijuana smuggler and decided to “turn” him, let him go, and prepared false documents to substantiate their story. They’re now facing federal charges, and the theory of the feds seems to be that it’s okay when the feds decide to make up the same kind of lie, but not okay when the lowly border guards do it on their own.

Today’s column amply examines the pattern of lies, falsification of documents, and phony press reports that, in the view of the prosecution, were legitimate police tactics in an earlier case, but which the prosecution is condemning in the case at bar. Shamy makes great points, especially when we get to lies that made their way into the local papers. Whenever the government breaks the law or lies to the public we can assume they think it’s for a good reason, but the Bush administration has shown us where the pattern of lies and deceiption leads.

What’s missing in the press so far, though, is a real examination of the root causes of this situation. It’s time for us all to recognize that it is the failed policy of drug prohibition that has given rise to widespread police corruption, millions of people, mostly minorities, in prison, and the devastation of communities across the country.

Following the action of legislators in California and Illinois – which in turn followed the grassroots activism of Vermonters – legislation calling for the impeachment of George Bush under Section 603 of the Jefferson Manual will be introduced to the Vermont State Legislature Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest.

As first reported in this diary and this one at Green Mountain Daily, and subsequently picked up by The Nation and others, Rep. David Zuckerman (P-Burlington) has retrofitted his previous call for impeachment with the language of the “Rutland Resolution.” Current co-sponsors include Represenetatives Steve Green, George Cross, Daryl Pillsbury, Kathy Pellett, Dexter Randall, Michael Fisher, Jim McCullough, Winston Dowland, Ann Seibert and Chris Pearson, making it a true bipartisan (Progressive and Democrat) action. It is no small step for these Dems to buck the wishes of leadership to avoid the issue. One wonders if it is at least in some way a reflection of frustration at the quiet abandonment of some more lefty legislation such as Instant Runoff Voting and the study on the Iraq debacle’s effect on the VT National Guard.

Chances for passage of the legislation this session at such a late date are slim (as are the chances for the comparable California and Illinois resolutions), but it is still a tremendous vindication for supporters who are committed to pushing the legislation next session if need be.

The complete text of the legislation follows the link. You can also check California talk radio’s “Peter Collins Show” for an archived mp3 of Rep. Zuckerman’s appearence with Rep. Yarbrough of Illinois who introduced the Illinois version.

Whereas, Section 603 of the Manual of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives provides for impeachments to be initiated on a motion based on charges transmitted from a state legislature, and
Whereas, President George W. Bush has served as the 44th President of the United States since January 20, 2001, and

Whereas, his profound disregard for the fundamental principles of the United States Constitution, including the rule of law and the separation of powers, has only worsened in recent months, and

Whereas, George W. Bush has committed high crimes and misdemeanors as he has repeatedly and intentionally violated the United States Constitution and other laws of the United States, particularly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Torture Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution is a treaty as part of the “supreme law of the land,” and

Whereas, George W. Bush has acted to strip Americans of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to legal counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an “enemy combatant,” all in subversion of law, and

Whereas, George W. Bush has ordered and authorized the attorney general to override judicial orders for the release of detainees under U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly INS) jurisdiction, even though the judicial officer after full hearing has determined that a detainee is held wrongfully by the government, and

Whereas, on more than 30 occasions, George W. Bush has ordered the National Security Agency to intercept and otherwise record international telephone and other signals and communications by American citizens without warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, and has designated certain U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants,” all in violation of constitutional guarantees of due process, and

Whereas, notwithstanding the President’s reliance on the 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing his “use of all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,” many legal scholars and members of Congress from both political parties have criticized the domestic surveillance activity as being in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (Act), and

Whereas, George W. Bush has admitted that he willfully and repeatedly violated the Act and boasted that he would continue to do so, each violation constituting a felony, and
Whereas, the Act requires obtaining a warrant from a federal court that sits in secret session as a prerequisite to the conduct of domestic intelligence surveillance activities, and

Whereas, the Act even includes a provision providing for a 72-hour period after a domestic surveillance action has occurred for a federal official to obtain a retroactive warrant, and
Whereas, in the nearly 18 years since the Act’s court’s creation, only a miniscule number of requests for a warrant has been refused, and

Whereas, if, despite the extensive leeway the Act provides for the conduct of a domestic intelligence surveillance action and the strong inclination of the FISA court to grant nearly every federal request for a warrant, the administration still believes the Act is not responsive to the new digital technology that was not available in 1978, it could have sought an amendment to the law, and

Whereas, the repeated constitutional and statutory violations that are manifested in the domestic spying program leave Congress no alternative but to commence an impeachment proceeding, now therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives:

That the General Assembly submits that President Bush’s actions and admissions constitute ample grounds for his impeachment, and that the General Assembly has good cause for submitting charges to the U.S. House of Representatives under Section 603 of the Manual of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives as grounds for George W. Bush’s impeachment and be it further

Resolved:  That the General Assembly urges the U.S. House Judiciary Committee to initiate presidential impeachment hearings as quickly as reasonably possible, and be it further

Resolved:  That the secretary of state be directed to send a copy of this resolution to Representatives F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. and John Conyers Jr., the chair and the ranking member of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, and to the Vermont Congressional Delegation.

A RECIPE FOR FAILURE

http://timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060424/NEWS/604240341/1002/EDUCATION05

Times Argus published an Associated Press editorial today labeling Dean as doing a balancing act.  I guess it can be viewed that way but I dont see it like that.  Certainly he has to keep the people at the top happy and the people at the bottom and in between happy.  But, we all know what happens when we try to keep everyone happy.  Its a recipe for failure.

ITS NOT A BALANCING ACT

and ITS NOT AN ACT! ITS REAL!

I assume this article is published because Dean appeared at the DNC meeting over the weekend.

Dean is not performing a balancing act. He is re-building the party from the bottom up. Those at the top fear they wont get theirs.

VISUALIZE A PYRAMID

A pyramid needs to be built from the base, upward. It would be a balancing act if he tried to build the top first, without a foundation. He has the courage to do the job correctly, building the foundation first.

I have seen that foundation and it is sorely in need of repair. He is doing exactly what needs to be done.

Also, the TIMES ARGUS does not mention his message – his 6 point platform for the year. The Dems have been exorciated for not having a message and he has repeated our message over and over again: Maybe that’s too much too expect of the AP…

1) Honest Leadership and Open Government
2) Real Security
3) Jobs in America that stay in America
4) Strong Public Education System
5) Health Care System that works for everyone
6) Retirement and Pension Security

 

Dean doing a balancing act

April 24, 2006

By Liz Sidoti Associated Press

NEW ORLEANS — Howard Dean, long known for bucking the establishment, has spent much of his time as Democratic chairman trying to strengthen the party outside of Washington — and his rank and file loves him for it.

“He is truly nationalizing the Democratic Party and he’s looking to the future,” said Steve Achelpohl, head of the Nebraska state party.

Dean’s approach, however, does not sit well with some Democratic critics in the nation’s capital. They grumble, in private, that Dean perhaps is not focusing enough on fund-raising for House and Senate races in November, particularly when the party sees an opportunity to reclaim power in Congress.

“When you first elected me, I said that we would take our country back vote by vote, block by block, and neighborhood by neighborhood,” Dean told members of the Democratic National Committee on Saturday. “We are making progress toward our goal.”

He said the party no longer is just about building up presidential candidates.

In practice, that means part of the DNC’s attention — money and manpower — is going to state parties to try to elect Democrats to offices at all levels, from city hall to Capitol Hill and the White House in 2008.

In the speech that ended a three-day meeting, Dean drew comparisons to a late party chief, Ron Brown, who in 1989 pledged to rebuild so Democrats could win elections in every part of the country and at every level.

The current strategy, Dean said, has meant that more than 175 workers, paid for by the DNC, are scattered across all 50 states where they are organizing and reaching voters. He then listed mayoral and gubernatorial races where Democrats have won in states that lean Republican — the red states.

Dean gets high praise from state party leaders for sending resources their way in hopes of positioning Democrats to be competitive. While giving Dean some credit for that goal, some Democrats in Washington are concerned that congressional races this year may get short shrift.

“There’s a natural tension and I think we have to get beyond that,” said Iowa Lt. Gov. Sally Pederson, who also heads the state’s Democratic Party. “I don’t think it’s an either-or equation. We have to do both.”

“I think that Democrats will step up to the plate and put the money necessary” into House and Senate contests, she said.

Democrats see a chance to retake Congress this fall, encouraged by President Bush’s low approval rating and opinion polls that show public disapproval of the majority Republicans.

But fund-raising totals show that the Republican National Committee holds a huge edge over the DNC. That raises questions of whether the Democratic Party is raising enough money to supplement the efforts of the campaign committees for Senate and House candidates.

Dean congratulated Democrats for bringing in $18 million in the first three months of the year. He said it was a record for the DNC in that period in a nonpresidential election year.

Left unsaid, however, was that the DNC has $10.5 million on hand compared with almost the $43 million the RNC has available seven months before congressional elections.

Senate Democrats have $32.1 million and are maintaining a 2-to-1 advantage over their GOP Senate counterparts. House Democrats have $23 million in the bank and are slightly trailing the GOP House campaign committee.

DNC members at the New Orleans meeting defended Dean’s approach.

“He’s doing very well,” said Mitchell Ceasar, a former Florida Democratic Party chairman. “We’re winning races in red states, places where we, frankly, haven’t won anything in 30 or 40 years.”

Andrew O’Leary, executive director of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota, said that because of Dean, the DNC now is paying the salaries of four organizers now working in Minnesota.

“He’s raising the money necessary to be competitive. He’s just spending it in ways the party’s never seen before,” O’Leary said.

“Howard Dean has put his money where his mouth is,” added Jay Parmley, a former Oklahoma Democratic Party chairman who is working in Mississippi as a DNC-paid organizer. “He’s delivered on his promises to help state parties reach out to our counties and precincts.”

Dean has reason to keep state party chairmen and other DNC members happy. They are his constituency — the Democrats who will decide whether he gets to keep his job beyond his current four-year term. He was elected in 2005.

Vermont may have led the way with the Town Meeting resolutions, but the best our legislature can hope for in this heartening trend of Democratic electeds standing up and saying “no more” is now third place. From ImpeachPac:

California Assemblyman Paul Koretz of Los Angeles (where the LA Times has now called for Cheney’s resignation) has submitted amendments to Assembly Joint Resolution No. 39, calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney. The amendments reference Section 603 of Jefferson’s Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives, which allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature.

I love seeing this movement spread, but I still am disappointed that we weren’t first. Ah well.

The ale is cold below the fold.

I received an email from a correspondent last night that really, really got me thinking. Just when we thought state-based impeachment had kind of fizzled, it appears to have gotten a shot in the arm not only from recent action by our friends in the great state of Illinois, but the signing of a letter by 56 legislators and 13 senators from Vermont. And not a Republican amongst them. I am truly, deeply, shocked. (NOT…..)

So on the state level, the issue is very much alive, at least among Democrats. Hope it’s alive for gops too – alive, that is, like a good case of Phthirus pubis or that annoying fungus some of the male gender kill with Aftate.
But when you move up to the Congress, an interesting dynamic comes into play, given we have those pesky midterm elections on tap.
Pesky?
Yeah, at least to some of us. I was lurking and throwing scoobysnacks around the Saturday night WYFP thread on Daily Kos, and ran across this from someone I’m sure we all know, one of our favorite tacticians in the impeachment movement:

My Problem. (42+ / 0-)

  My problem is that I have been addressing impeachment as a Constitutional necessity, for directly confronting and stamping out forever the Nixon/Bush Doctrine of Runaway Executive Power, but when people come out to smack impeachment down, it’s always smacked down as an electoral strategy, which is not at all what we’re talking about.

  So, uh, I just wanted to say that.

  Waste more of your day at The Next Hurrah.

  by Kagro X on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 08:40:13 PM EDT

  It raises a larger question, and it seems like I saw another blogger express it in this
way, but I can’t remember who to credit. Hat tip into the ether; if you see this, you know who you are. 
  How is it that every objection to the conduct of the Bush administration gets reduced to an election issue? Is not, for example, blatant and repeated violations of the FISA statutes,f’r’instance, an issue on its own? What about manipulation of prewar intelligence? Abramoff? Valerie Plame? Abu Ghraib? Saber rattling of the nucular variety with Iran?
  What about leaving people to die in a flooded city?
  Is that strictly a campaign issue too? God I hope not.
  But Kagro’s right. The progression of state-based impeachment to the federal level-the handoff from statehouses to the House of Representatives – is, in my view, being inhibited by the politics of an election year. Sure, it’s a campaign issue.
  What the hell isn’t?
  Already,the  Republican side of this as a campaign issue is falling into place: if the “Democrat Party” regains control of the House, they will begin to issue subpoenas and move toward impeachment of the President. Therefore, vote Republican, or else.
  Hell, I say let them run on that. Here comes a cliche: “Bring it on.”
  But, for God’s sake, we cannot run from the legal and ethical issues regarding the conduct of the Bush Administration because it’s an election year. Especially not when this President’s approval ratings have hit a new low – just in time for the latest Osama bin Laden audiobook.
  As I write this, it is my understanding that, despite tons of money, incessant TV ads,  and an offer of three thousand dollars and a free computer to Vermont high school students, who are reacting to his “Why I should be elected” essay contest with unbridled enthusiasm, Bernie Sanders, barring the unforseen, should handily be elected to replace retiring Senator Jim Jeffords. Meanwhile, the impeachment hive is buzzing in Vermont. But Bernie seems to think this is a place where angels fear to tread, as we well know. Boston Globe:

WHITE RIVER JUNCTION, Vt. –Rep. and U.S. Senate candidate Bernard Sanders says he would be likely to support a move to censure President Bush, but is continuing to take a dim view of calls for Bush’s impeachment.
“If people are serious about changing the direction of America, there’s one way to to that — you do that in November” by electing Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Sanders said Tuesday.

But that isn’t good enough for some people………on to that email I received last night from a correspondent in Colchester:

sam wrote:

  The following letter will be leaving my computer immediately after this is sent.  Bernie
Sanders has repeatedly stated he does not believe a call for impeachment of George W. Bush will
lead to action by the Republican controlled House.  If the allegation by Drumheller to be aired 04/23/2006 on CBS’ 60 Minutes doesn’t do it, then the responsibility clearly will have been given
back to U.S. citizens and our respective state legislatures to assume Constitutional authority to
demand action leading to consideration of impeachment of the President of the United States.  Following that, then, responsibility for removing those in both the House and Senate who have refused to assume Constitutional responsibilities for which each took an oath remands to U.S.
citizens to demand they leave office and be replaced by others who may think and act more
responsibly.

  Respectfully,

  Sam
  Colchester, Vermont

  Dear Rep. Sanders,

  I realize you have stated your implicit belief that calling for impeachment of President
George W. Bush and his Vice President may not lead to action by your colleagues.  However, given what I’ve read re CBS airing on 04/23/2006 of Tyler Drumheller’s allegations, I and believing he is telling the truth, I urge you to press your colleagues to force the issue and demand open investigation and hearings to impeach this sitting President and remove his administration from
office.

  Further, I recognize that the Speaker of your chamber is 3rd in line to assume the Presidency after Cheney.  However, given his outright resistance to take responsibility for anything about the current President, it is clear to me that he should recuse himself from the possibility of become President.  Because she is appointed by a President who, it is hoped, will be facing impeachment, I believe it is similarly essential that the Secretary of State recuse herself from consideration as a potential assumptive President as well.
  By Congress’ passive inaction heretofore to deal effectively with the dishonesty flaunted and portrayed publicly by the President, the Vice President and their respective advisors, a
Constitutional crisis of serious proportions has been created.  It is now “bottom line” time for
the House to act responsibly to assume its Constitutional responsibility and to act in behalf of the United States of America and our citizens by impeaching Mr. Bush.

  I look forward to your response.

  Respectfully,

  Sam
  Colchester, Vermont

After reading this, the thought occurred to me: Bernie Sanders doesn’t have to win with the whole country. Bernie has to win in Vermont, a state that is leading the state-based impeachment movement. Granted that in a Republican-controlled Congress, impeachment is going to fly like one of Mr. Carlson’s turkeys, but that doesn’t mean you don’t make the statement. Impeachment: a word that will not go away.
Can you hear me now?
I wrote back to Sam and asked him for permission to use his letter in blog material. His response:

Ed,
At this point in what has become one helluva unholy war against anyone and everyone either here
or in the Middle East and Afghanistan/Pakistan/Nepal … I don’t really give a tinker’s damn if Bernie or that long drink of water, Tarrant, are forced to take positive stands regarding the SOB we’ve got f’n up in, around and way beyond the White and Blair Houses.
Bernie has been playing this one close for the past several years – and I certainly understand the political need as an Independent from/in Vermont behind his avoidance – but, I’ve had it with the comfort-dependent folks in the Democratic and Republican Parties and Bernie (for that matter) who have not been aggressive at home and in Washington to the extent that Hastert and his damned crowd would have been forced to act more pro-Constitution and less pro-passive and conservative.
  So use whatever I write … and let folks deal or not with it.

Sam

Oh, gee, Sam, I like ya, but hey. We mustn’t make those Republicans too angry, now. We need to be uniters, not dividers. Mustn’t move too far off the center. Never mind the fact that every time the Democrats move toward the center, the right is emboldened, and moves farther right.
Don’t want to alienate the…alienate the….wait.
Just who are these people that some are afraid of alienating, the ones in the middle of the road, who are more worried about how they’re going to vote in American Idol than how they’re going to vote in the next election? The ones who stopped their personal presses when a litle baby Scientologist was born in a silent room, following which Dad eagerly wolfed down the placenta then burned off the extra carbs by jumping up and down on a couch?

lightning crashes, a new mother cries
her placenta falls to the floor
the angel opens her eyes
and Tom Cruise comes running in
with a bowl, a knife and fork

-with apologies to Live

Is it the people who actually give two shits if Paris Hilton is alive or dead? Is it them?
That’s hot.
How do you alienate someone that isn’t listening in the first place?
So, there’s a topic for discussion over cheese and ale. I am going to take a firm, principled stance of NEUTRALITY on the issue, for the purpose of facilititating the percussive discussive discoursizations. Would taking a definitive stance that this President’s conduct warrants an immediate discussion of impeachment in the United States House of Representatives, hurt Bernie…..in VERMONT? Is that a negligible risk – that Richie Rich will seize it as a campaign issue? And what if he does? Might that actually work in Bernie’s favor – and advance the cause of beginning serious examination of the Constitutional necessity of impeaching this President?

Discuss.

Okay, by now, you’re no doubt wondering about my encounter with Shep as related by Baruth in his VDB piece. This was a ways back, and just in case somebody from corporate happens to get ahold of this piece (they will) I want everyone to know that I was reprimanded for what I did on the air that day. I was not formally disciplined, but I did receive quite the scolding from the corporation’s Chief Operating Officer, who is almost like a second father to me. I hung my head so hard I damn near had to see a chiropractor. In one sense, it actually hurt my show in the long term. I had been able to get away with “truth to power” on the air like a bandit, as long as I stayed on the national level. This is an example of how much of a street buzz I’d built up about the anti-Bush stance of my show: my father ordered some tamales for my family’s Christmas from a firm in Texas. They came in a big styrofoam cold storage box. The (substitute) postman brought them into the radio station, saying, “I have something for Eddie….” and ceremoniously placed the large white box on the front counter, saying, “It is the head of George W. Bush. Packed in dry ice.” Man, I got away with murder. Every day. The walls of the control room were completely covered in anti-Bush, anti-war, pro-Democrat material. Talking points flapped from the wall on yellow post its everywhere like some kind of weird skin condition. But once I forayed into local politics, I came under increased scrutiny, and had to pull back some. Itshay. But reading Baruth’s piece made it all seem worthwhile.
Here is my original post on Daily Kos:

  Mark Shepard (none / 0)
is an anti-gay fundamentalist Christian. I believe he will be soundly trounced by the gop competition. About the only thing he can run on that I can think of is helping to bring the microtechnology center to Bennington, but I think Dick Sears was involved in that to some extent too. (Although some of the peace activists object to it because it will produce guidance systems for torpedoes.) BTAIM, when Shepard came out of the gate with that asinine defense of marriage initiative,I BLASTED him on the air. Just flat gave him both barrels. “Bennington deserves better, and you deserve better.”
The following Monday, he showed up at the radio station. I about had a heart attack. But I regained my footing when he told me “I represent you….” I drew myself up and said, “No Senator, you don’t represent me.” He proceeded to tell me that his initiative would “in no way affect the civil unions law.” But read the initiative, if you can find it, and read Baker v. State of VT. Note the use of the language “marriage or the lawful incidents thereof.”
Had his initiative passed, the civil unions law would have lost all legal meaning. Short version: I feel that Shepard basically lied to me. I realize that’s a strong statement, but that’s what I got out of the encounter and subsequent research.
Wish I could get back to Vermont. I miss my adopted home terribly, terribly – enough to be heading into the Prozac zone.
Mad love from VA’s Shenandoah Valley.

And I’d have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for those meddling kids.(-8.50\-7.13)

by kestrel9000 on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 01:26:50 PM EDT

There may be a couple of mistakes on my part in there – if you see any, let me know.
At any rate, Rereading Baker and the civil unions law leads me to the conclusion that and defense of marriage initiative in Vermont would be, on its face, redundant.
Recycling my own stuff:

NO. 91. AN ACT RELATING TO CIVIL UNIONS.

(H.847)

It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:

Sec. 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS

The General Assembly finds that:

(1) Civil marriage under Vermont’s marriage statutes consists of a union between a man and a woman. This interpretation of the state’s marriage laws was upheld by the Supreme Court in Baker v. State:.

 

Vermont’s marriage statutes are set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 15, entitled “Marriage,”  which defines the requirements and eligibility for entering into a marriage, and Chapter 105 of Title  18, entitled “Marriage Records and Licenses,” which prescribes the forms and procedures for obtaining a license and solemnizing a marriage.  Although it is not necessarily the only possible  definition, there is no doubt that the plain and ordinary meaning of “marriage” is the union of one  man and one woman as husband and wife.  See Webster’s New International Dictionary 1506 (2d ed. 1955) (marriage consists of state of “being united to a person .  .  .of the opposite sex as  husband or wife”); Black’s Law Dictionary 986 (7th ed. 1999) (marriage is “[t]he legal union of a  man and woman as husband and wife”).  This understanding of the term is well rooted in Vermont common law.

§ 1201. DEFINITIONS

As used in this chapter:

(1) “Certificate of civil union” means a document that certifies that the persons named on the certificate have established a civil union in this state in compliance with this chapter and 18 V.S.A. chapter 106.

(2) “Civil union” means that two eligible persons have established a relationship pursuant to this chapter, and may receive the benefits and protections and be subject to the responsibilities of spouses.

(3) “Commissioner” means the commissioner of health.

(4) “Marriage” means the legally recognized union of one man and one woman.

(5) “Party to a civil union” means a person who has established a civil union pursuant to this chapter and 18 V.S.A. chapter 106.

Seems to me that “defense of marriage” the way the uptight people want enshrined in law is already there? So, what’s really going on?

Baruth:

Because for all of his pleasant demeanor and entrepreneurial savvy, Shepard strikes me as Vermont’s version of Rick Santorum: ambitious, well-spoken, and more than just a little disturbing when you take the time to really listen to what he has to say.

We have a friend here in VA who is a militant pro lifer. You bring up any argument, any argument at all, in favor of even limited choice in the sense of “pharmaceutical abortion” like Plan B or RU-486 and he immediately interrupts and asks if you would slit a baby’s throat with a knife as soon as the head is clear of the mother’s body. Then tries to tell you there’s no difference. John Cornyn and box turtles. Rick Santorum and fun with Fido. 
That was how my personal encounter with Shep went.
Lemme recycle myself again, and this is from my email to Baruth:

I always get kind of a perverse kick out of how conservatives who are religious fanatics will jump through hoops to deny that their political positions are influenced by their religious beliefs. It’s a trip into the land of “ends justify the means.” What makes it worse, on a personal-annoyance level is that on the day he paid me a visit, his manner was somewhat….condescending, at least initially. He actually asked me if I wanted to legalize murder simply because it is proscribed in the Bible – this was in response to my assertion that I will oppose any attempts to pass laws based on an interpretation of Christianity, or any other religion for that matter. As far as him being a logic-driven engineer, I can’t see the logic in his assertion that same-sex unions have an adverse effect on “traditional” marriage in any way. I think he’s just a plain ole cryptotheocrat.
And to say that “not legalizing gay marriage is not regulating it”? Apply that same logic to, oh say, “recreational drugs”. Tell me that banning them isn’t regulating them.

You can’t have it both ways, Shep.

For mankind to hate truth as it may bring their evil deeds to light and punishment, is very easy and common, but to hate truth as truth, or God as God, which is the same as to hate goodness for its own sake, unconnected with any other consequences, is impossible even to a (premised) diabolical nature itself.
-Ethan Allen

That’s basically how it went. And I came away with the same sense that Baruth did for the guy, complicated by the sense that I’d been…..uh….PREVARICATED to. “Lie” is such an ugly word.
I wish I could find the text of his initiative again. If anyone can dig that up, I’d love to have it. But I can’t help but suspect that, given that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is already written into Baker and codified further in the Vermont Civil unions law that resulted from that decision, he was never honest with me about what his real goal was. Whether it was a play to his fundamentalist “base” (that probably exists primarily in his own mind), whether it was an attempt to create legislation that caused a conflict with the civil unions law that would have dragged it into court, or whether it was an attempt to catapult his propaganda into the Fox News spotlight, or all of the above, I can’t know. I suspect it was all of the above. But this, as well as the fact that the state GOP abandoned him en masse for a candidate who has no political experience, suggests a number of campaign strategies to help make sure Shep does not win re-election to the State Senate.
As for Shep’s strategeries? He seems to have a plan to remake himself. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
He WAS the walrus…goo goo ga joob…..
A Bennington activist and I discussed possible candidates for a run against Shepard. One guy I like a LOT, and know personally, has already been approached, but has reportedly demurred, due to wanting to spend time with his family. Jesus, the guy hasn’t even been elected yet, and he already….all right, all right, all right.
But if my walking five hundred and twelve miles to Bennington with a backpack full of cheese and crackers and bottled water will change this guy’s mind, then I guess I better go buy some new boots.
Come on, dude,I owe ya. You know why. I know I paid your bill (except for the few bucks you discounted me, which was cool), but still, I owe ya. And I believe in you. There are those who know who I’m talking about. Please relay the message. I offer my services as media director, oppo research….campaign manager….whatever.

I’m open to any opportunities in VT posed by any entity who could use my skill set. Except Republicans, of course. Resume on request. Email addy in my profile.

OK, I’ll buy this round. Let the debates commence.

ITMFA!

 Loading ...