Well, anyone reading this blog knows that the Vermont Democratic State Committee passed an impeachment resolution yesterday.
It was an interesting meeting, beginning with some “dirty tricks” wherein someone claiming to be from the Democratic Party HQ had apparently called the venue and cancelled the reservation sometime during the week. Our new Executive Director, Jill Krowinski, handled the situation admirably, securing the space for the day after a brief discussion with the building supervisor.
The meeting began with Peter Shumlin, President Pro Tempore of the VT Senate, who had some sobering reflections on the Governor’s lack of leadership ability. While the Governor is very good at the public face portion of his role (things like ribbon cuttings and other public appearances), he is woefully inadequate at his more important management role, leaving the legislature in the difficult position of having to not only do policy, but to provide the leadership and management that should be the Governor’s responsibility.
Some examples provided: On jobs, the Governor has failed to recognize the decline in skiing and maple syrup industries and prepare for the future induced by global climate change. As a result, the Governor has done little to support the creation of a robust alternative energy industry in the state, which could easily supplant the declining industries with the kind of jobs that we really need.
The Governor hasn’t created jobs, seems not to understand that next economic revolution will be global warming-related. If VT can get a piece of it, then we will be part of the boom. People will come from out of state for those jobs. This Governor doesn’t have the management skills to do it.”
He also discussed the way the Governor, rather than “do” anything about the state hospital in Waterbury, relied on the crutch of federal regulations as an excuse for an absurd plan to build a huge hospital, someday, on one of the most expensive pieces of land in the state. A Governor who was a good manager would have made a few phone calls to get a waiver from those regulations – regulations designed for states with very large populations – so a plan appropriate to our small state could be developed. Governor Doesless, unfortunately, failed to figure this out, and instead has proposed another Fletcher-Allen style high-cost boondoggle.
He then went on to dicsuss global climate change, from the perspective of someone who has lived, farmed, and hunted on the same piece of land for half a century. He mentioned that the governor’s version of “leadership” on the issue is to say “There’s not much Vermont can do,” then fly off to China to “advise’ them on how to deal with it.
One arresting quote on this topic:
Governor Aiken once said: “Only Vermont could take 4 ft of snow and 20 below and turn it into economic opportunity.”
I bet Aiken could never imagine a Vermont that couldn’t keep snow on its mountains. “
He ended with a brief mention of impeachment:
If one can have impeachment hearings for an indiscretion, then one should be able to have impeachment hearings for a war that killed many Vermonters, Americans, Iraqis, and others.
He stated that he sympathizes with Speaker Symington’s position – the House has a lot of business to address this session, and working people in our citizen legislature need to get back to their real lives in May, it’s hard to do it all. But in the final sentence, he said “I personally would like us to do it, but I’m out of the loop with others on that.”
After Senator Shumlin’s remarks, a discussion of property taxes (worth its own diary), and the usual mundane committee stuff regarding office space, new hires, budget, etc, we came to the impeachment discussion. The discussion was remarkably brief (in stark contrast to the “unusual” discussion in Brattleboro).
Highlights from the discussion and the resolution after the jump:
I don’t know all the speakers’ names, so for consistency’s sake, I’ll leave them out. Also, things were moving so quickly, it was hard to catch the exact wording of all the comments. As a result, some of the comments below are paraphrased slightly. I did my best to capture the meaning and context of each comment. If I misrepresent anyone’s comment, I encourage the commenter to let me know, and I will be more than happy to correct the record.
The last few sentences of this comment struck a chord:
What is the harm? I see no harm in asking our legislators. It may not go anywhere, but how can we look ourselves in the mirror and see ourselves as people who did not do every single thing possible to stop this administration. I don’t want to be a “Good German.”
This commenter was pretty frustrated by some of the excuses we’ve been hearing about the “lack of time” and “other priorities”:
I have a problem with this “priority” thing we keep hearing about. This IS a priority. I propose an amendment: change “early passage” to “2007 passage” in last the paragraph of the resolution.
And a constitutional angle:
The Constitution says the legislature “shall remove…” It doesn’t say anything about “unless it’s politically inexpedient, or inconvenient.” It says “shall.”
Another constitutional angle:
Impeachment is not mandatory. It’s archaic, risky, with an uncertain outcome. There are alternatives that will leave historical record that this outlaw president has done more damage than any other in history. Be careful what you wish for.
There was also a bunch of discussion about how hard the legislature works (or not, depending on who was speaking). One speaker suggested that the legislature may have “impeachment deficit disorder.”
It was also noted that as a result of last year’s resolution, 69 members of the House and Senate sent an official letter to the Vermont delegation in DC “asking them to pursue all remedies available under the constitution.”
And now, without further ado, the Resolution:
WHEREAS, on April 8, 2006 the Vermont Democratic State Committee by unanimous vote adopted a resolution calling for the impeachment, trial and removal from office of George W. Bush, President of the United States, and directing the State Committee Secretary to send the resolution to the Vermont General Assembly for “appropriate action”, and
WHEREAS, twenty-one members of the Vermont House, including many Democrats, are co-sponsoring Joint Resolution 15 (JRH 15) that incorporates substantially most of the April 8, 2006 State Committee resolution, and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2007 JRH 15 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it awaits action, and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2007 more than three dozen Vermont towns passed resolutions calling for the impeachment, trial and removal of George W, Bush as President of the United States, and/or Richard B. Cheney as Vice President of the United States, and
WHEREAS, the State Committee recognizes that a President and Vice President can abuse his or her authority and power, thereby oppressing the people, diminishing their liberties, imperiling their lives and impoverishing their substance in illegal wars and conflicts, all in subversion of the Constitution and the rule of law, and
WHEREAS such abuses and subversions can, and should, be checked and restrained by the Constitutional engine and remedy of impeachment,
NOW THEREFORE, be it
RESOLVED that the Vermont Democratic State Committee transmit this resolution to the Speaker of the Vermont House of Representatives, the President Pro Tempore of the Vermont Senate, and the Vermont delegation to the US House of Representatives and Senate, and
RESOLVED that the Vermont Democratic State Committee advocates that JRH 15 be amended to include Vice President Richard B. Cheney, and
RESOLVED that the Vermont Democratic State Committee strongly supports and advocates, as “appropriate action” the 2007 passage of JRH 15, for the State of Vermont, under Section 603 of Jefferson’s Manual of Parliamentary Practice, for the US House of Representatives to submit, as soon as possible, impeachment charges against George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney for their trial and removal as President and Vice President of the United States.