It’s everywhere — every blog and news report, but at the same time it’s impossible to not to mention, even on a local Vermont blog. Without repeating the details, here’s some important key points to the latest news — that Bush & co. have put together a database of virtually every phone call made in America.

From Salon’s War Room:

So what do we learn today? The Bush administration — without an act of Congress, without a ruling from the judiciary, without even the usual F-you of a signing statement — has written its own set of rules for gathering telephone records. Forget words like “subpoena” and “warrant” and “probable cause.” Forget fine legislative calibration. Forget all that stuff about amendments and floor debate and compromise in conference committees. None of that matters now. Under the Bush administration’s rules, the NSA gets access to every single phone record it can persuade anybody to give it.

What is the government doing with the phone records? Well, we don’t know, and we don’t really have any way of finding out for sure.

Finally, the sidebar Q&A from USA Today:

Q: Does the NSA’s domestic program mean that my calling records have been secretly collected?

A: In all likelihood, yes. The NSA collected the records of billions of domestic calls. Those include calls from home phones and wireless phones …

Q: Can I find out if my call records were collected?

A: No. The NSA’s work is secret, and the agency won’t publicly discuss its operations.

Q: Why did they do this?

A: The agency won’t say officially …

Q: But I’m not calling terrorists. Why do they need my calls?

A: By cross-checking a vast database of phone calling records, NSA experts can try to pick out patterns that help identify people involved in terrorism …

Q: Who has access to my records?

A: Unclear. The NSA routinely provides its analysis and other cryptological work to the Pentagon and other government agencies.

For a video of Senator Leahy’s reaction, click here.

( – promoted by odum)

My blog friend, Philip Baruth, wrote a post yesterday about the new WCAX poll on Welch vs. Rainville. Good news for Peter Welch and bad for Martha Rainville, he maintains. And I don’t disagree.

I suppose, given Rainville’s many missteps since her campaign launch, it’s no surprise that her numbers of so weak. I suspect the numbers would have been more favorable to Rainville if the poll had happened last month.

But, I think the poll is perhaps a very revealing look into some possible serious voter apathy about either candidate.

Though, given the low sample number with its high 5% margin of error, and the combining of “Do Not Recognize” and “No Opinion,” it’s hard to know what the real mood of the electorate is.

Sure, some of it is perhaps low name recognition for Welch and Rainville. But, since only 51% registered “No Opinion” for Greg Parke in WCAX’s poll on Monday, I suspect that’s not the whole story.

Here’s the favorable/unfavorable breakdown:

FAV/UNFAV/NO OPINION

Peter Welch 26% 9% 65%

Martha Rainville 19% 13% 68%
Mark Shepard 16% 7% 77%

And here’s the breakdown for election choice:

Welch 26%
Rainville 17%
Undecided 57%

So, only 26% of Vermonters think they’ll vote for Welch over Rainville?

That means that there are 57% of Democrats, independents, Greens, Progressives, Republicans, etc. who just might vote for Martha Rainville, or might just stay home in November.

I bet there’s a few people out there who wonder what Zephyr Teachout’s polling would have looked like at this stage in the race.

When I heard Rainville was considering entering the race, almost exactly a year ago, my gut told me she would win. But that was based on what I assumed would be a well-run campaign and on much anecdotal evidence that she was very well liked by Vermonters of many political stripes.

That prediction also assumed a lackluster Democratic operation. But Peter Welch and the whole VDP are running a much more focused and sharp operation that I would have thought. They deserve a lot of credit for that.

But, I think this poll shows that there are still lots of factors at play, and this race, despite the rookie mistakes of Rainville’s campaign, will very likely be the nail-biting squeaker that Philip predicts.

On a more optimistic note…

From Monday’s poll, Tarrant’s numbers are dismal and he clearly doesn’t have the Republican nomination locked up by any means.

And Douglas’ relatively low numbers (53%), the 29% undecideds, and Parker’s 18% (and  a very high 74% No Opinion response), means that Parker (also running a strong campaign, at least compared to Clavelle) has lots and lots of time and plenty of undecided voters to work with.

This is going to be a fun election year.

Cross-posted at What’s the Point?

Letter to the Editor, “Burlington Free Press” May 11. http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060511/OPINION/605110330/1006

IT SURE CLARIFIES HIS POSITION FOR ME; NO FLIP-FLOPS HERE:

Think long-term on energy policy
In a May 4 editorial I am quoted as saying I am “open” to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I believe we need a long-term energy policy in this country that reduces our reliance on foreign oil. This means taking a multi-pronged approach that includes conservation and developing alternative forms of energy such as wind, solar, hydrogen fuel cells and biomass.

I want to go to the United States Senate to work in a collaborative way to solve our country’s problems. The only way we can make progress is to get everyone around the table and hear all sides of an issue.

When I say I am “open” to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), I mean I am willing to listen to those who support it if it means we can begin working together to solve our energy needs.

However, I want to be clear that our first response should not be drilling in ANWR. Those who promote drilling are only thinking in the short-term.

In balancing environmental protection and the promotion of our short-term energy needs as public policy, our environment should always come first.
RICH TARRANT Colchester
The writer is a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate.

Poll! If you haven’t noticed, Republican US Congress Candidate Martha Rainville is having a bad week. She’s been beat up by the Times Argus, by the right-wing Caledonian Record, the blogs and the WCAX poll doesn’t look great. On the one hand, it shows that she doesn’t have nearly the name recognition that all the Democratic campaign folks insist she has (of course, neither does Welch). On the other hand, all her bungling is having an effect. Democrat Welch is nine points up.

Chittenden Senator Jim Leddy is retiring. Senator Leddy is a good guy and a solid legislator. It’s hard to imagine the Senate without him. Thanks for everything, Jim…

Dem-lings: Did you know the Vermont Young Democrats had a blog? I didn’t know. I didn’t even know there were any Vermont Young Democrats (neither did Cathy Resmer at 802 Online — they aren’t listed in her uberblogroll). There’s apparently at least one: Louis Klapp, a VDP staffer. Check it out.

So do we have the whole Chris Graff story or not? Vermont Sunday Magazine Editor Dirk Van Susteren says the supposed justification of journalistic impropriety concerning a book on Howard Dean is bunk. Hmm. There may be more to this after all.

Two must-read GMD diaries: vtpeace (Barbara) starts a discussion on talking points for Democratic values, and Brattlerouser makes a last second appeal for help on the Farmer Protection Act. Check ’em out. Leave ’em your thoughts.

Did I say Rainville was having a bad week? She may be in competition with Tarrant who gets a one-two punch from Seven Days, first in an exchange with Freyne that suggests the guy is coming unhinged at his doghouse numbers, and then an article about some sleazy push-polling lite going on. This stuff deserves a real fleshed out post, but I’m swamped. Maybe Jack or mataliandy or Ed will go for it.

…and the session should be wrapping right about now. I’m sure everyone who posts here will have a lot to say on it (I know I will). Stay tuned.