(A reminder to readers — I have a standing invite for pols to post diaries and I’ll front page ’em. The promotion of Sen. Dunne’s diary at the same time a poll is running on his primary race shouldn’t be misconstrued as an endorsement. – promoted by odum)

Given the emerging revelations about NSA domestic spying, I call on Lt. Governor Brian Dubie to convene an emergency session of the Governor’s Homeland Security Advisory Council to ask its members to vote on a resolution opposing domestic wire taping without a warrant, and against the secret acquisition of phone records of innocent Vermonters.

The Homeland Security Advisory Council chaired by Dubie is the appropriate entity to express to President Bush that the security of Vermonters, and the nation, is not dependent on these illegal invasions of privacy.

In January, when federal wire tapping of Vermonters’ phone calls first came to light, I sent a letter co-signed by over 100 Vermont legislators to Lt. Governor Dubie asking to formally denounce government spying on our citizens.  The Lt. Governor never responded to the letter, in writing or to the press. The council has met since the letter was sent, but Chairman Dubie has yet to include it on an agenda.

The Lt. Governor should respond to every single Vermonter who takes time to write him a letter on important public matters.  To ignore a request from a majority of the Vermont legislature is indefensible.

Domestic spying on Vermonters in the name of “security” is simply wrong. It violates Vermont’s proud tradition of protecting civil rights, especially the right to privacy. As the head of Vermont’s security taskforce, Dubie must stand up to Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and demand that they and the President stop spying on Vermonters.

LETTER TO LT. GOVERNOR DUBIE:

January 30, 2006

Dear Members of the Governor’s Homeland Security Advisory Council:

In the past several weeks, it has become public that the federal administration has authorized the surveillance and search of American citizens without a warrant. We strongly believe this is a fundamental infringement of our constitutional right to privacy. As the Defense Department’s monitoring of Vermonters who were peacefully sharing their political opinions demonstrates, the recent federal disregard for our civil liberties has now penetrated our own state’s borders. In the Vermont tradition, we ask you, as the representatives of our state’s Homeland Security efforts, to formally call on our national leadership to end this activity immediately.

In this post 9/11 era, the importance of an effective homeland security program is unquestioned. The dangers of terrorist may well require the use of covert efforts to identify and bring to justice those that wish to do us harm. However, effective public safety does not necessitate that we disregard our traditional and constitutional right of privacy that prohibits the government from searching our homes or monitoring our phone calls or e-mail messages without a court’s approval.  Homeland security is as much about protecting our state and nation’s civil liberties and way of life as it is securing the physical safety of Vermonters.

We find the recent revelations that the national administration has utilized the resources of the federal government, including those of the National Security Agency, which was established to monitor overseas intelligence and not engage in domestic surveillance, to be shocking and deplorable.  We find further that the national administration’s defense of such actions demands a swift response.

Not only do these actions challenge the basic principles of our U.S. Constitution, they specifically fly in the face of Vermont’s traditional philosophy towards the role of government.  Vermonters have consistently said that no government has the right to tap our phones, read our mail, or search our homes without a good reason. We have fought strongly against such searches especially when motivated simply because a person’s views are no the same as a government official.

In 1798, one of Vermont’s U.S. Representatives, Matthew Lyon was arrested and jailed under the federal Sedition Act for his harsh written criticisms of President John Adams.  But Vermonters’ respect for his actions and outrage towards an overreaching executive branch led to his reelection while he was incarcerated. 

In the dark days of McCarthyism, the government used similar surveillance to find the equivalent to today’s terrorists, but then turned it into weapon to blackball people who simply had differing views on the direction of the country. Vermont U.S. Senator Ralph Flanders defied his own political party’s leadership and publicly challenged Senator McCarthy. Flander’s  bold leadership laid the groundwork for the U.S. Senate’s  censure of the Wisconsin Senator.  His abuse of Americans’ fundamental rights became intolerable for his Senate colleagues and the nation.

As the voice for homeland security in Vermont, you are in the strongest position to oppose, on behalf of the state of Vermont,, this disregard for Vermonters’ basic rights.  We hope that you will do so swiftly and strongly. With your help, we believe Vermont, under the banner of “Freedom and Unity,” can once again lead the charge to stop the Federal Government’s flagrant disregard for our fundamental civil liberties.

#30#

Now here’s a group that shows they have no remaining sense of decency, and probably no sense of how their actions will look in public. A month after settling a sex abuse–that is, child rape–case for almost a million dollars, the Catholic diocese of Burlington has announced it’s going to start hiding its assets in “charitable trusts” to protect them from other abuse victims and their lawyers.

Yes, that’s right. We now know what’s causing all the problems the Catholic Church has had: it’s these litigious times and the “unbridled, unjust and terribly unreasonable assault” coming from these greedy and unscrupulous former altar boys and other rape victims. Got that? What would be a “gross act of mismanagement” would be not their decades-long practice of covering up and transferring known child molesters so they could do it again, but allowing the victims a chance at reasonable compensation for their injuries.

Just what is wrong with these people?

With the Legislature wrapped, it’s time to start looking forward to the elections. Of special interest to Vermont Dems is the primary contest between Rep. John Tracy of Burlington, and Sen. Matt Dunne of Windsor County. Both are well-known among primary voters, and both have impressive political resumes. Tracy has been in the House leadership for some time and most recently was the House point man on Health Care Reform. Dunne was in the House leadership ranks himself before a stint in Washington as Director of Americorps (he has also contributed a few diaries on Health Care and free speech to GMD). Both are competent and charismatic sorts who are virtually indistinguisable on policy matters (a brief search for legislative scorecards turned up the Vermont Alliance of Conservation Voters’ where each earned a 92% voting record in the most recent available scorecard, and likewise for VPIRG’s where they each show 100%). So how will voters decide? A week or so back, I made disparaging comments about voters who ignore policy and vote based on a snapshot “gut-check” reading of the candidates’ characters. Ironically, for voters who do follow policy (such as most primary voters), but are left with no clear way to differentiate on those terms, they too will fall back on the gut-check. On character. And in that regard, Dunne and Tracy are causing people to react in an entertainingly mirrored way…

First a reality check:

Dunne has been running a serious campaign since well into last year, while Tracy has barely gotten started. Why Tracy opted to let Dunne have the Democratic base all to himself for so long is anybody’s guess, but Dunne used the opportunity like a pro, focusing on Tracy’s own power base of Chittenden County. His endorsement list reads like a who’s who of Democratic leaders, with an overwhelming concentration in Burlington and the surrounding area. It’s hard not to give the advantage in Chittenden to Dunne with all the organizing he’s done — and if Dunne takes Chittenden and his own Windsor County, realistically the game is over.

So to have any chance, Tracy has to hope for some good fortune, and “hoping for good fortune” is the grimmest of campaign strategies. When you run a campaign, you want to control as many variables as possible and minimize the potential impact of fate. You want to run the game board and not have it run you — and trusting to fate is an implicit acknowledgement that you have no control of the board at all. Like I said, grim.

Still, there are the components for a Tracy surge. As a recent poll concerning other races suggests, voters may not have truly engaged with the campaigns yet. If that’s true, Tracy may enter the summer on more equal footing with Dunne than anyone expects.

Tracy could also benefit (if the timing is right) from what let’s call the “Kiss effect.” Progressive Bob Kiss entered the Burlington mayoral race very late — after most observers felt that Hinda Miller had it wrapped up. This helped to create a “perfect storm” of sorts for Miller — just as her honeymoon had worn off and voters were taking a closer, more critical look, Kiss’s honeymoon began. That created a surge which then built on itself as the underdog narrative spread. If the timing is right, Tracy could create a similar effect, but it’s a long shot (and it depends on whether or not Tracy ever gets serious about running a statewide campaign).

Still, if anyone has a chance at such an effect, it’s Tracy — simply because he is uniquely good on the stump, is highly charismatic, and has a compelling personal narrative — Vietnam combat vet, family man, plain talker who is more willing to put himself out there. There is no doubt that he scored some points in this way with some of the more activist base by showing up at the State Committee meeting where impeachment was discussed. Dunne avoided the meeting, as he has the entire discussion, as though it were radioactive. Tracy — while speaking against a ‘603’ resolution — had the nerve to show his face and speak up, and for that forthrightness he was recognized in many murmurs after the meeting.

All of this, though, simply lends more credence to the argument that people are going to cast their votes based on the perceived character of the candidates, and the way folks have already started making those judgements has an amusing polarity.

Dunne’s detractors like GMD user coronado tom who commented on one of Dunne’s Health Care posts, see him as overly ambitious — as being a relentless ladder climber:

While the Senator writes and positions himself, others are doing the real work on health care reform legislation in Montpelier…

…It’s no secret that this issue is one of the most important facing Vermont today. Good to know that at least some of our legislators are treating it that way — putting public service ahead of public relations and personal ambition.

While on the other side of the looking glass, Tracy’s detractors, such as Vermont Daily Briefing’s Philip Baruth, wonder why Tracy is bothering to compete when he seems to have so little ambition that he can’t even be troubled to run a campaign:

VDB has little patience with statewide candidates — especially Democratic statewide candidates — who insist upon not campaigning.

Why? Because we think it is an excellent way to lose.

So if you listen to their detractors, you’ve got your choice between Mister-too-ambitious and Mister-no-ambition… which again, will mean it’s voter “gut check” time. [I’m sure I’ll make endorsement here myself someday, but it’s gonna be a while. It’s tough — I know both these guys and I like both of them. I’ll have no problem voting for whoever comes out on top come November.]

The one piece of advice I’d give to both campaigns: recognize that it’s character — your personal story that’s going to draw votes to you. Drilling down to the level of policy nuance that seperates you will put people to sleep. Leadership. Your story. Vision. — and of course a campaign viable enough to communicate these things to voters. Given that last one, it’s still advantage-Dunne (overwhelmingly so)…

…but you never know.

I want to pass along some information about a public forum happening next Monday night. It’s right after the Washington County Committee meeting, so if you are a member, or even if you aren’t, you should come for both.

  Public Forum: “Should Vermont raise taxes–but only on its wealthiest citizens– and use the revenue to  fund health care, housing, education, and other essential public services for all  Vermonters?”

When: Monday, May 22nd, at 7pm.

Where:  Barre’s Aldrich Library, Milne Community Room, following the monthly meeting of the Washington  County Democratic Party

The details:

The speaker and discussion leader will be John Berkowitz, director of Vermonters for a Fair Economy and Environmental Protection (VFEEP).  VFEEP recently ran a series of full-page ads in the Times Argus and other daily papers titled “Invest in Vermont”, which called for fairer tax and budget priorities.

Specifically, the ads called on the Governor and legislature to take back some of the large tax cuts given to America’s and Vermont’s wealthiest taxpayers by President Bush and Congress during the past five years, and to provide more adequate funding for health care, housing, education, transportation, and other public services.

VFEEP is seeking to build a broad grass-roots coalition of human service, religious, labor, low-income, environmental, and other organizations, called the Vermont Fairness Alliance, to promote these policies.

North Carolina and New Jersey passed a “Millionaire’s Tax” in recent years, which helped them increase funding for health care, housing, education, transportation, and other important public services and programs, while at the same time easing some of the burden of property taxes.

California voted in a referendum in 2004 to increase taxes only on the richest citizens, in order to help fund expansion of community mental health services.  Another referendum is scheduled for June, ’06, which would raise taxes on Californians with annual income over $200,000 in order to fund a voluntary, universal preschool program for all the state’s children.

Each of these states has an active coalition, such as the New Jersey Fairness Alliance, consisting of organizations from the low-income, health care, elder care, education, religious, business, labor, non-profit, environmental, civic, and other sectors of the community.

Vermont is facing a $100 million deficit in Medicaid funding next year, plus chronic underfunding of public service programs and pension/retirement commitments.  With the Bush Administration and Congress giving huge tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and reducing domestic spending to all the states, it is time for Vermont to ask its best-off citizens to give back some of their windfall tax cuts to help maintain or even increase funding for our essential public services.

For more details about this campaign, with photos and articles of our Tax Day ’05 Statehouse press conference, and the text of our full-page newspaper ads, go to our website at vfeep.org.

(An insightful assessment of the State of Things. The anger and fear conveyed by the diarist is what I can only hope would take hold with the people, if they could be made to understand. I do hope it doesn’t take yet ANOTHER war.
-ed – promoted by Ed Garcia)

Will we ever return to a rational Federal government that actually has qualified people there to serve us?  We have had one nightmare scenario after another since 2001, continually raising our ‘fear factor.’ Lies, lies and more lies.

Personally, I’m much more concerned about our own out-of-control government than I am about terrorists striking us here.  I would not be surprised to see Bush refusing to leave the White House on January 20, 2009, backed by a military junta.

The Republicans know they are in trouble, and will lose their majorities in November unless they can justify a new war to convince voters not to ‘change horses in midstream’ … and I can vividly imagine a Strait of Hormuz-type incident  taking place well before the November elections.

Israel is obviously pushing — do it or we will –but they should realize they will lose much international support (at least from people) if they do, especially using nuclear bombs they do not admit having.  Israel is subsidized heavily, and would be forced to put ‘sanctions’ on their own people if this happened.

The U.N. Security Council is floating a plan to affirm Irans’ right to a peaceful nuclear energy program if Iran would suspend enrichment for a few years while the UN (read U.S.) goes through the books, as it were, and is satisfied Iran has no weapons program and no intention to pursue one. (This would call the bluff of Bolton and his superiors, and I can’t see them voting for it.)

I am embarrassed, as an American, to support a resolution asking another country to, in effect, bend over and let the dominator have his way.  This may gain some short term relief here but will inflame tensions not only in the Middle East, but all over the world. Nobody likes a bully.  It will not change any plans Bush already has in place; just force him to think up another excuse.

Wonder if Bush/Cheney will get special visiting rights to Karl Rove in prison?  They certainly wouldn’t want that brain to atrophy!

For us, we need to keep on top of all rhetoric from Bush and Condi and be a truth squad — not just here, but in all our local letters to the editor.  If their plans are finalized to censor the internet it may be our last best chance to find out what reality is!

The next Congress must insist that ‘signing statements’ made by any President are only a personal opinion and do not have the force of law. Congress must take back the reins and again become the lawmakers, and insist the laws be followed.  We need to keep track of these!

Barbara

Consider the list in the Sunday Times Argus/Rutland Herald of the “winners” and “losers” of the now-wrapped legislative session. The winners include Healthcare, Groundwater, Emergency Contraception, the Abenaki. In many ways making for an impressive biennium. Consider the complaints from the latest Legislative Update of the VT Chamber of Commerce — an often reflexively obstructionist crowd that serves as a useful reverse barometer:

This past legislative session was characterized by an activist legislature that frequently looked to expand government on the backs of businesses. Cost cutting, fiscal restraint, or a thought to the impact of legislation on job providers rarely seemed to be a part of the natural discussion. In the next six months, the Vermont Chamber will work to bring a voice of moderation to the legislature on election day.

So, with all due kudos to the Legislature, my eye turned towards the Argus/Herald “losers” list (being the chronic glass is half empty sort that I am). Three in particular caught my eye, and led me to an idea:

Instant runoff voting: A study into possibly establishing instant runoff voting in Vermont passed, but actually implementing the method by which voters could choose their leaders by ranking candidates was put off.

Same-day voter registration: Maybe residents will be able to register to vote and complete a ballot at the same time someday, but it won’t be this year, lawmakers said.

Presidential impeachment: Despite a loud and politically charged effort on the parts of Democrats, Progressives and the Green Party, a measure that would have called on the Legislature to urge the House to begin an impeachment investigation against President Bush was sent to its death in the House Judiciary Committee.

There are more for the list, for example the resolution that called for a study of how overseas deployments affect the troops and the ability of the Vermont Guard to respond to emergencies. What you see in these bills are some real (small ‘p’ — let’s just stipulate that small ‘p’ for the rest of this piece, eh?) progressive priorities, which were allowed to fall by the wayside or be squashed — often so as not to ruffle feathers. It’s a bitter pill to swallow for progressives (of both the D and P variety), especially since the showcase accomplishment of the session is a severly watered-down health care law — watered down so much that legislators such as Representatives Fisher, Sharpe and Zuckerman couldn’t even bring themselves to support it.

It’s a familiar and frustrating dynamic. Progressive social change has always entailed “ruffling feathers.” A committment then not to ruffle feathers suggests, therefore, a committment to refrain from progressive social change. Clearly that’s not how many in leadership perceive it themselves, but it’s an inevitable dynamic.

And there will always be reasons to wait one more year. Usually it’s either “we have to be careful to maintain our majority” or “we have to be careful in order to regain our majority.” Clearly leaders are right to be cautious — as we know, elections can turn the power structure rather dramatically. But on the other hand, we must all be vigilant against giving into the rhetoric or the habit of political inertia.

So, to that end, the strongest advice I would make to frustrated progressive legislators is one word: organize. Although there are informal working groups around specific issues as well as a women’s caucus, generally there is no corollary under the Golden Dome to the kind of formalized caucuses of interest that you see in Washington DC. In Washington, by speaking with one voice, the House Progressive Caucus has found that speaking as a bloc, they can often be greater than the sum of their parts (post-2000 elections — where virtually no Democrat or Democratic group has had a say in anything — notwithstanding). A Vermont (p)rogressive Caucus could similarly speak as one voice on important or emblematic progressive issues that come before the Legislature and be in a position of collective power to keep them on the table when they become politically inconvenient.

As small as our Legislature is, it wouldn’t take very many legislators to create an effective force. The obvious list may be the list of co-signers on the very Impeachment motion that was cast into the judicial committee abyss.

In fact, if these particular legislators were to coalesce into such a caucus, the institutional bond between the two parties represented (Democratic and Progressive) that it would forge could only enhance the overall influence of the now-fractured left in Vermont beyond simply the legislative session itself.

Something to think about, anyway.

The Vermont Gore poll is down, and has proven once again that the only time GMD readers care to participate in a poll is when they get a chance to vote for Russ Feingold. Still, here are the results:

And to all who voted in the “Great” column (and everyone else), here’s a link to the very funny (if a bit bittersweet) “President Gore” lead in sketch from last night’s SNL (click on the image to view):

UPDATE: This is seeming phonier and phonier. In any event, check this excellent summary of Fitzgerald’s rapid (and verifiable) targeting of Cheney. It’s clearly building to a head.

So is Karl Rove indicted or not? Truthout reports yes indeed:

Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

  Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said.

  It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

So is it true? If so, why haven’t we seen it anywhere else like, say CNN? MSNBC? Unfortunately Jason Leopold and Truthout are not sources we can feel confident about, and the blogosphere is abuzz as to whether he should be believed or not. Guess we’ll find out soon. If it’s true, you can say you read it at GMD first. If it’s not, maybe I’ll just be tacky and delete the diary…

Democratic candidate for Governor Scudder Parker has been in a serious hole. Atrocious name recognition, limited funds, and he can’t get press to pay him any attention… until today, that is, when Parker brought the NSA domestic spying issue home for Vermonters and finally made the Times Argus step up and take notice:

“I have asked my campaign staff to investigate whether the Bush administration’s warrantless spying activities, and the action of telecommunication companies involved in these disclosures, may have violated any Vermont laws, and if so, what actions have been taken to protect the rights of the citizens of this state,” Scudder Parker wrote in a draft of a letter to David O’Brien, commissioner of the Department of Public Service.

The fact is that it’s going to be much harder for Douglas to claim that Bush (and his association with him) are irrelevant to the election this time than it was two years ago, when Douglas laughed off any attempts by Clavelle to draw a linkage — and was gleefully joined by his plentiful allies in the Vermont Press. The excesses of the Bush administration are too pervasive, too omnipresent.

And Douglas knows it. That’s why he stands up quickly to inoculate himself, rather than dismiss it out of hand.

Jason Gibbs, a spokesman for Gov. James Douglas, said the governor had ordered O’Brien to determine if Verizon’s actions violated Vermont law immediately after hearing that Verizon had shared phone records with the NSA.

Things will have to change quickly for Parker to have a chance in this, but now that George Bush will be on the debate stage with him and Douglas, anything is possible.

It’s been a while since we’ve talked about the movement to instigate impeachment via the Vermont Legislature as per the procedures and precedents contained in the Jefferson’s Manual. A bill was finally introduced in the House with several co-sponsors, but in the waning frantic weeks of the session, it went nowhere. Still, the bill made it past the Statehouse doors and most of it’s sponsors will be back under the Golden Dome when the next session opens in January, hopefully ready for a January relaunch of 603 legislation.

And further brightening the future of the Vermont Impeachment movement is the likely arrival of a “603” ally in the Vermont Senate. Former Senate President Pro-Tem and Lieutenant Governor Candidate (and almost-Governor candidate) Peter Shumlin will likely step up to run for the Senate seat in Windham County being left open by retiring Senator Rod Gander. Gander is a fine man and will be much missed in Montpelier, but his retirement opens up the return of a major political player in Shumlin, who is one of the signers of the online impeachment petition (click here for the page his name appears on) that specifically calls on the legislature to take up Article 603 legislation. If he does run, Shumlin would be a virtual shoe-in, putting him into an ideal position to work with those like-minded legislators in the House who have already stepped forward on the matter — particularly if he returns to leadership.

Meanwhile, the Impeachment movement — both those activists who worked on “603” and those involved in the town meeting motions — largely continue their work, but in a more coordinated and regionalized way. Expect to see some local events bringing the issue to communities as proponents continue to work behind the scenes promoting the petition to build up a head of steam for a return in January. With the news of ever-greater and more astonishing attacks on our very society by this administration, it becomes clear that those of us who care are obliged to do everything we can within the bounds of morality and civilization to stop the erosion of our Democracy.

And thanks to the Jefferson Manual, this is something we can do.