A couple days ago, I put up a diary targeted towards Dems about how grassroots movements like the “Rutland Resolution” wave and the netroots explosion – despite their frustrations – are something to feel good about institutionally. That they are signs of growth. But given the day’s events and in recognition of the many non-Dem (even anti-Dem) readers, let me broaden that pep talk a bit.

First and foremost, you did great. Really. Today’s skirmish didn’t go as hoped, but looking at the roll call, it really looks like (with a few odd exceptions on the edges) the Vermont elected left heard you, and more than just heard you – they agreed. Truth to tell, there were few individual Representatives who were feeling scared or intimidated in their own districts and altered their votes accordingly – the reality is (again with a couple exceptions), those sixty votes were sincere. Through persistence, you broke through the firewall erected to keep you from getting near them, and they stood with you.

And as a matter of reality, none of this was supposed to happen. No House vote, no Senate vote (let alone an overwhelming Senate victory). At the time, some of us were concened that the Senate bill was not a joint resolution, but because of that, the House couldn’t shoot it down. The fact is that the Senate Resolution will be sent to Washington. The first and only such resolution like it in the nation. The reverberations are still echoing from that specific victory, and the overall victory you have achieved (an imperfect victory, but a victory nonetheless) will continue to fuel enthusiasm and activism on the issue at the national level with renewed focus and enthusiasm. We all go into the next stage victorious against all predictions, and all of you who worked on it – Dems, non-Dems and anti-Dems alike – should feel great pride and joy. You won. And that’s a fact.

That’s people power for ya.

Roll call below the fold.

Member  –  Vote

Acinapura of Brandon  No 

Adams of Hartland  No 

Ainsworth of Royalton  No 

Allard of St. Albans Town  No 

Ancel of Calais  Yes 

Anderson of Montpelier  Yes 

Andrews of Rutland City  No* 

Aswad of Burlington  Yes 

Atkins of Winooski  No* 

Audette of S. Burlington  No 

Baker of West Rutland  No 

Barnard of Richmond  Yes 

Bissonnette of Winooski  No 

Bostic of St. Johnsbury  Absent 

Botzow of Pownal  No 

Branagan of Georgia  No 

Bray of New Haven  No 

Brennan of Colchester  No 

Browning of Arlington  No 

Canfield of Fair Haven  No 

Chen of Mendon  No 

Cheney of Norwich  Yes 

Clark of St. Johnsbury  No 

Clark of Vergennes  No 

Clarkson of Woodstock  No* 

Clerkin of Hartford  No 

Condon of Colchester  No 

Consejo of Sheldon  No 

Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford  Yes 

Corcoran of Bennington  No 

Courcelle of Rutland City  No 

Davis of Washington  Yes 

Deen of Westminster  No 

Devereux of Mount Holly  No 

Donaghy of Poultney  No 

Donahue of Northfield  No 

Donovan of Burlington  Yes 

Dostis of Waterbury  Yes 

Edwards of Brattleboro  Yes 

Emmons of Springfield  Yes 

Errecart of Shelburne  No 

Evans of Essex  Yes 

Fallar of Tinmouth  Yes 

Fisher of Lincoln  Yes* 

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City  No 

Flory of Pittsford  No 

Frank of Underhill  No 

French of Randolph  Yes 

Gervais of Enosburg  No 

Gilbert of Fairfax  No 

Godin of Milton  No 

Grad of Moretown  Yes* 

Haas of Rochester  Yes 

Head of S. Burlington  Yes 

Heath of Westford  No 

Helm of Castleton  Absent 

Hosford of Waitsfield  Yes 

Howard of Rutland City  No 

Howrigan of Fairfield  No 

Hube of Londonderry  No 

Hudson of Lyndon  No 

Hunt of Essex  No 

Hutchinson of Randolph  Yes 

Jerman of Essex  No 

Jewett of Ripton  Yes 

Johnson of South Hero  Yes 

Johnson of Canaan  No 

Keenan of St. Albans City  No 

Keogh of Burlington  No 

Kilmartin of Newport City  No* 

Kitzmiller of Montpelier  Yes* 

Klein of East Montpelier  Yes 

Koch of Barre Town  No 

Komline of Dorset  No 

Krawczyk of Bennington  No 

Kupersmith of S. Burlington  No 

Larocque of Barnet  No 

Larrabee of Danville  No 

Larson of Burlington  Yes 

LaVoie of Swanton  No 

Lawrence of Lyndon  No 

Lenes of Shelburne  Yes 

Leriche of Hardwick  Yes 

Lippert of Hinesburg  Yes 

Livingston of Manchester  No 

Lorber of Burlington  Yes 

Maier of Middlebury  Yes 

Malcolm of Pawlet  No 

Manwaring of Wilmington  No* 

Marcotte of Coventry  No 

Marek of Newfane  Yes 

Martin (Cynthia) of Springfield  Yes 

Martin of Wolcott  Yes 

Masland of Thetford  Yes 

McAllister of Highgate  No 

McCormack of Rutland City  No 

McCullough of Williston  Yes* 

McDonald of Berlin  No 

McFaun of Barre Town  No 

Milkey of Brattleboro  Yes* 

Miller of Shaftsbury  Yes 

Minter of Waterbury  Yes 

Mitchell of Barnard  Yes 

Monti of Barre City  No 

Mook of Bennington  No 

Moran of Wardsboro  Yes 

Morley of Barton  No 

Morrissey of Bennington  No 

Mrowicki of Putney  Yes* 

Myers of Essex  No 

Nease of Johnson  Yes 

Nuovo of Middlebury  Yes 

O’Donnell of Vernon  No 

Obuchowski of Rockingham  Yes 

Ojibway of Hartford  Yes 

Orr of Charlotte  Yes 

Otterman of Topsham  No 

Oxholm of Vergennes  No 

Partridge of Windham  Yes 

Pearson of Burlington  Yes 

Peaslee of Guildhall  No 

Pellett of Chester  No* 

Peltz of Woodbury  Yes 

Perry of Richford  No 

Peterson of Williston  No 

Pillsbury of Brattleboro  Yes 

Potter of Clarendon  No 

Pugh of S. Burlington  Yes 

Randall of Troy  Yes 

Rodgers of Glover  Yes 

Scheuermann of Stowe  No 

Shand of Weathersfield  No 

Sharpe of Bristol  Yes 

Shaw of Derby  No 

Smith of Morristown  No 

Spengler of Colchester  Yes* 

Stevens of Shoreham  No 

Sunderland of Rutland Town  No* 

Sweaney of Windsor  Yes 

Symington of Jericho  Presiding 

Trombley of Grand Isle  Yes 

Turner of Milton  No 

Valliere of Barre City  No 

Westman of Cambridge  No 

Weston of Burlington  Yes 

Wheeler of Derby  No 

Winters of Williamstown  No 

Wright of Burlington  No* 

Zenie of Colchester  Yes 

Zuckerman of Burlington  Yes* 

* Member explained vote on floor. See the House Journal for the date

(good one from C.L. More, please! – promoted by JDRyan)

Is it culture or politics?

1990s GOP PLAN: Once they decided to impeach a Democratic president, the GOP scoured everywhere to find, create or develop the illusion of a crime to justify their political impeachment conspiracy.  Laughably absent any act by President Clinton resembling a high crime or misdemeanor warranting congressional impeachment and conviction proceedings, the bastards STILL went ahead and tried to convict him.

Current DEMOCRATIC PLAN: Deciding impeachment to be a bad political idea the Democratic congress scours everywhere to find a reason to justify not impeaching Mister Bush Ridiculously absent any indication that Mister Bush has the slightest interest in, or capacity to, ceasing criminal activities that require congressional impeachment and conviction, and laughably and tragically absent any historical precedent of a President engaging in this level of criminality without facing legal or constitutional jeopardy, the Democratic congress STILL goes ahead a refuses to perform its duty to stop Mister Bush’s criminal behavior.

Why the difference?

(cross posted at big orange).

How to explain the difference?  How can two cultures and two eras diverge from the reality of who we are and what we’ve become?

Truly remarkable. 

EXHIBIT A:  In the 1990s, President Clinton competently led the U.S. through a period of peace and prosperity.  In response, the Republican congress made the political decision to go hell bent to impeach him no matter what the consequences or potential outcome. 

Response to Exhibit A —

  1. GOP PLAN: Once they decided to impeach him, the GOP scoured everywhere to find, create or develop the illusion of a crime to justify their political impeachment conspiracy.  Laughably absent any act by President Clinton resembling a high crime or misdemeanor warranting congressional impeachment and conviction proceedings, the bastards STILL went ahead and tried to convict him.

  2. BACKGROUND (to GOP plan): Clinton’s popularity was generally in the high-50s / low-60s, which are amazingly good numbers for a second term president (perhaps due to that unsexy peace and prosperity thingy that drove the media and GOP –  but I repeat myself there – crazy, remained generally popular, nonetheless).  Republicans feared not the consequences of a sham impeachment charade and suffered no noticeable ill effects by hoisting this fraud on the American public.  Some even scored a few benefits.  Congress’ popularity was a fraction of Clinton’s and polls showed general opposition to impeachment.

EXHIBIT B: Beginning the 21st century, our ruler presides over a historically unparalleled time of gross incompetence, corruption, war and the moral/military/financial bankrupting of the United States.  Leading a failed administration, our ruler commits high crimes and misdemeanors, some he commits against us everyday.  When caught, he indignantly brags that he is doing it to protect us and it is actually the people who reveal his criminal activities who are endangering us.

From violations FISA’s federal criminal law provisions to aiding & abetting espionage among top aids (just for starters), Mister Bush literally commits high crimes and misdemeanors every single day of his presidency.  By the time he’s had breakfast, Mister Bush has further acted as an accessory-after-the-fact of the serious national security crimes and conspiracies performed by his top staff, has further maintained orders instructing NSA/CIA/Defense Intel. to violate federal criminal statutes under FISA, and acts in furtherance of the illegal operations and orders causing the kidnapping, assault, battery and tortured of uncounted and untold victims in violation of U.S. laws, treaty obligations and many foreign laws as well.

Response to Exhibit B —

1.  DEMOCRATIC PLAN: Deciding impeachment to be a bad political idea the Democratic congress scours everywhere to find a reason to justify not impeaching Mister Bush Ridiculously absent any indication that Mister Bush has the slightest interest in, or capacity to, ceasing criminal activities that require congressional impeachment and conviction, and laughably and tragically absent any historical precedent of a President engaging in this level of criminality without facing legal or constitutional jeopardy, the Democratic congress STILL goes ahead a refuses to perform its duty to stop Mister Bush’s criminal behavior.

2.  BACKGROUND (to Democratic plan):  Bush’s popularity is so low, that “popularity” and “Bush” cannot be used in the same sentence without laughing. Democrats fear any consequences while, ironically, standing to gain politically by doing their job of impeaching and trying the President for his crimes.  Congress’ popularity is relatively high for it and many Democrats in particular, and polls show support among Americans for impeachment proceedings.

Why more talk about Presidential Removal Proceedings:

As the crimes unfolded over the past several years, I was generally agnostic about impeachment because of the political conclusion that the effort will almost certainly die in the Senate.

However, I strongly support any effort to begin and vigorously start impeachment proceedings and my reasoning and change is generally a result of the lame reasons given by so many Democrats for not bringing removal proceedings against Mister Bush.

The tipping point for me is the gross failure of the Democratic party to honestly explain [frame] the issue for the public/media/Mister Bush/voters. How about, for instance:

We are not bringing impeachment and conviction proceedings against the President at this time.  Although the level of acknowledged and ongoing criminality and fraud warranting removal of the President is historically unprecedented, the overwhelming majority of GOP Senators support and continue to endorse this President’s behavior. 

Were it up to us, the President would be held accountable for his crimes and his betrayal of his oath of office.  However, as long as the Republican caucus in the Senate, which ultimately controls whether these proceedings will be successful, continues to strongly support the ongoing criminal actions of this President, we will work to stop President through the legislative process rather than the impeachment process over which the President’s party in the Senate has the ultimate vote.

Elections have consequences and we hope the voters will remember that each Republican U.S. Senator is personally responsible for the ongoing war and Presidential misconduct.

Instead, the Democrats’ reasons for not impeaching the President read and sound either like a concession speech.  They are better arguments for impeachment than against it.

Bad reason 1:  “It will take away from the business of congress” — The President is taking away from the business of congress by not following the laws passed by congress and not allowing the policies voted into law by the people’s representatives to be followed. If the concern is `the business of congress,” than removal proceedings are certainly in order. By the way, when did congress ever receive less cooperation in doing the “business of congress” by putting more pressure on an unpopular president?

Another bad reason: “We need to investigate” — And you are investigating just what? 

Most of the investigations are primarily needed to assess the damage done by the Bush/Cheney crimes.  Congress is not investigating whether crimes occurred; it is investigating the magnitude of the criminality and the breadth of the damage.  Furthermore, the administration continues to subvert meaningful investigation through obstruction and noncompliance with their obligations to submit to oversight. 

You want investigations?  Then get rid of those obstructing the investigations so the American people may have a full account of the mismanagement, fraud, waste and criminality that has occurred on Mister Bush’s watch and at his instruction.

Today —

Hope to see you today at the State House.

sláinte,
cl