Welch’s office issued this statement:

“I am deeply disappointed that there is no deadline for troop withdrawal in this bill and will therefore vote against it. Regrettably, the President continues to stubbornly dig in his heels and cling to a failed policy. He has led this country into a catastrophic foreign policy failure and he continues to thumb his nose at retired generals, the will of the majority of Congress, and the majority of the American people.

“While I am profoundly disappointed, I remain determined to end this war. This vote will not be the final say. Regrettably, the President continues to isolate himself on this war. The day of reckoning for this President is coming as more and more members of his own party find their voices and demand a change in course. I have great hope that in the coming months a veto-proof majority emerges in Congress that can stand up to the President to end this terrible war.”

( – promoted by odum)

Columnist David Broder says: “… the extremist elements in American society — the vituperative, foul-mouthed bloggers”

Time’s Joe Klein says: “[bloggers’] vitriol just seems uninformed, malicious and disproportionate”

and Dennis Miller says: “”And one thing I’ve noticed about these blogs is they’ve turned into the ideological equivalent of “Girls Gone Wild””

Hey, these bloggers must be a pretty great crowd to hang with, eh?

Well, here comes yer chance:

It’s the second annual Vermont Daily Briefing/Green Mountain Daily Hamburger Summit, open to bloggers, political types, and terrified (or mystified) observers alike. Everybody and anybody is welcome/encouraged/invited. Come on out, have burger and watch how the “regular” bloggers interact with their vituperative, malicious and foul-mouthed political counterparts. See and be seen, or just eat and run. Show up and we can all make fun of (presumable) no-shows such as kestrel and Kagro without them overhearing. Who knows, if we have enough beer, maybe we’ll impeach somebody!

It’s Sunday, July 15th
Burlington’s North Beach
1PM-5PM

We’ll have some drinks and grillables, but not a bad idea to bring something. Watch this space or Philip’s for details.

For as long as I can remember, Democratic Leaders in Washington – and to a large extent in the state legislatures that I’ve worked near – have been first and foremost motivated by a single emotion; fear. Fear of losing the next election. Fear of not coming through for their caucus. Fear of being painted as soft or weak in the media. Fear, fear, fear.

Fear has a couple important qualities. First, it’s viral. It doesn’t remain static – it grows and spreads. Within a lawmaker it spreads from fear of losing or looking weak. It becomes a deeper fear – that maybe, just maybe, all those nasty things Republicans say about progressive policies are true. Maybe these ideas are stupid, impractical, impossible. And when several people – especially leaders – share that fear, it becomes a culture of fear. Idealistic newbies stepping into the caucus for the first time become awash in it. And like any weakness or failing, we try to dress it up as a virtue. As realism. And sometimes we compensate in other ways. Fear creates weakness, but nobody likes to look weak. Thus do you get the Rahm Emanuels – all tough guy and blustery, but living in mortal fear that he’s gonna blow it (and ready to angrily blame everyone around him if he does – even pre-emptively).

The other thing about fear is that it’s reactive. If fear is your motivator, everything you do is in response to the thing(s) you’re afraid of. Pro-activity is just too scary. Fear keeps you in the safest possible corner, so as better to defend yourself.

This is not to say that all Democratic leaders live in fear, but the ones who don’t are often the most dangerous in the long term. The notoriously corrupt ones, such as John Murtha (who continues to work against ethics reform and support the croneyism culture in the US House) have stepped back from the policy game and have entered the self-enrichment game. Much less scary, and the lines aren’t so clearly drawn. That’s not to say such people aren’t incapable of taking a principled stand (such as his Iraq position), but when all is said and done, they are a deeper problem than the culture of fear.

And that’s because the culture of fear can be overcome, not just collectively through the democratic process, but individually. Case in point, John Kerry. He blew it big time running for the top job. He was actively working toward a second run, when he grudgingly read the tea leaves and realized he had no chance in hell. He wisely gave up.

But then a funny thing happened – he came to life like never before. No longer afraid of losing, disgusted by much of what he saw, John Kerry (of all people) has become one of the most consistently assertive and progressive of voices in the Senate. Why? Because there’s nothing left for him to fear – and as such, fear has become rather pointless for him. Again, that’s not to say he isn’t going to do things that will piss us off, but its clear we’re dealing these days with Kerry 2.0 – and it’s a big improvement.

What the recent negotiations over the war tell us is that the welcome pattern of engagement with the netroots by the Democratic leadership has not come about because they’re suddenly more with us than ever before. Sure, some of the rank and file caucus members are because of how we helped put them there – but that’s not the case from the leadership’s engagement with our community. The fact is, we’ve become something else they fear. And because of that, we’re now at the table. But whereas fear may get us to the table, at the end of the day we’re still not the ones they fear the most, so if we can’t win our battles quickly, this leadership will revert to form and go hide in the corner in terror.

Still, we are at the table and we are having an effect. Making the Dem leadership afraid of us may get us taken seriously, but it doesn’t get us off the hook on the long, slogging battle to  truly change the culture in Washington and in our state capitols.

But it’s a start.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. CNN is now reporting:

Congressional Democrats plan to send to President Bush a war-spending bill without a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, two Democratic leadership aides tell CNN…

The bill is expected to include benchmarks that the Iraqi government would have to achieve. The bill is also expected to require the president to provide numerous reports to Congress before August 2007 on the Iraqi government’s progress, the aides said.

If the Iraqi government fails to meet the benchmarks, the aides said, reconstruction funds could be cut. The bill may also allow the president to waive the penalties for failing to meet the benchmarks if he feels they are necessary.

So Bush gets the money, and he can ignore the benchmarks. Perhaps they can add an amendment that lets him use Pelosi as a footstool, too. Pelosi has said she will not support the supplemental bill.  Mr. 28% looked at them and they’ve apparently blinked.

It seems as though that spine transplant that some thought the Dems had gotten turned out to be just a few vertebrae. Doctors now report that those few vertebrae actually have several herniated disks.

So, what now? You can start by calling Peter Welch’s office at (888) 605-7270 (in VT) or (202)225-4115 (in DC) and letting him know what you think. If Welch is serious about ending the war (and let’s not turn this into yet another impeachment thread, please), this is most definitely a make-or-break moment. Make sure he knows that.

crossposted at (http://evolvingworld…)

As the Vermont Legislature rapped up its session a week ago, news and opinions have dominated the prognosis of the recent energy bill and the last minute education compromise; however important agriculture legislation has barely received a bleep on the radar screen. THE VIABILITY OF VERMONT AGRICULTURE, H522 not only has passed the Vermont House and Senate but has just been signed by Governor Douglas.

There are many parts to this bill that deserve recognition but to many observers, this bill had one outstanding provision and that was in regards to poultry provisions. Thus to many, it was known as the Chicken Bill. As of today small scale Vermont farmers (producers of less than 1,000 birds per year), will be able to sell their poultry directly to consumers at the farm and farmers markets, as well as local restaurants without going through the high regulatory barriers of state inspection.

There’s more…

Myself as a vegetarian, am ecstatic about its passage for a number of reasons. As a personal reference, I began a vegetarian diet as a general disapproval of the large scale farm industry that has manipulated the raising of meats to a factory like setting. The meats consumers receive in a supermarket do not represent meats found in the natural world. Animals in a factory farm system are feed unnatural diets, injected with dangerous hormones and bred for specific genetic qualities. As well, in addition most animals are systematically confined to small areas for their entire lives and are forced to live an unnatural live. Even so called large scale “free range” produced animals are just given limited access to the natural environment. One could debate the philosophical questions of this practice, but as a consumer there are stark differences to industrial produced meats compared to those of naturally raised meats whether it is with taste or the health attributes.

In addition, to my ethical and health concerns of industrialized meats, the current large scale farming procedures are just not environmentally sustainable. The average American meal travels 1,500 miles and those added costs are producing higher levels of carbon. Current American trends of a fast food diet of 4,500 calories demands ten times as much energy in fossil fuels to produce. So what is needed is a more balanced sustainable approach to agriculture and that entails fostering a local and natural based agricultural system.

For farmers, the bill is a great economic boost. The high cost of processing birds just did not make sense for small scale producers. They were stifled by regulations set in place to protect the public from the harms of industrialized producers. Instead now with the advent of the bill’s passage farmers can diversify their farm and not only become more economically stable they can become more ecologically balanced. As a direct result farmers are given greater opportunities to profit while at the same time protecting our treasured rural landscape. Fostering local farms protect the land from being turned into sub developments since they are becoming more economically viable.

The passage of THE VIABILITY OF VERMONT AGRICULTURE is an important step forward in creating a sound environmentally sustainable environment. I hope that we see more proactive measures coming from our government in helping fostering ideas like this to move forward. Our food resources are as important as the air we breathe, so big thanks goes to the Vermont House and Senate Agriculture Committees for diligently working on these issues and for Governor Douglass signing the bill. Oh, yeah and yes I will eat chicken again, but only locally from a farmer I know.

Peace
Robb Kidd

“Were the walls of our meat industry to become transparent, literally or even figuratively, we would not long continue to raise, kill, and eat animals the way we do.” Michael Pollan, author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”

Today Bill Richardson made it very official — in Spanish, in California: he is a candidate for the Democratic nomination to run for president of the United States. And, in a campaign stop in Iowa,  reported by NPR’s Linda Wertheimer he said a lot of what I want to hear from EVERY Democratic presidential candidate:

Withdraw ALL the troops from Iraq — no advisers, no fudging.

Give active-duty vets a “hero card” which they could use like an insurance card to pay for health care at the provider of their choice.

Ending dependence on oil and cutting greenhouse emissions by 80% by 2040, and 50-mpg cars within 5 years.

Preventing nuclear proliferation.

National scholarships (remember Pell grants?).

And there is more that I can’t remember or access right now.

Even the Chicago Tribune agrees that he’s got “arguably the best resume” among the Democratic candidates: he’s been a member of Congress, is now a governor (the electorate likes executives for executive positions), was ambassador to the United Nations, was Clinton’s Energy Secretary, has done troubleshooting in North Korea and Iraq (while Saddam Hussein was running the place).

It’s way too early to commit. But at least he’s making the right noises.

NanuqFC

Welcome to Pottersville has a great Frank Rich piece today about the symbolic importance of Jerry Falwell’s death:

Though Mr. Falwell had long been an embarrassment and laughingstock to many, including a new generation of Christian leaders typified by Mr. Kuo, the timing of his death could not have had grander symbolic import. It happened at the precise moment that the Falwell-Robertson brand of religious politics is being given its walking papers by a large chunk of the political party the Christian right once helped to grow. Hours after Mr. Falwell died, Rudy Giuliani, a candidate he explicitly rejected, won the Republican debate by acclamation. When the marginal candidate Ron Paul handed “America’s mayor” an opening to wrap himself grandiloquently in 9/11 once more, not even the most conservative of Deep South audiences could resist cheering him. If Rudy can dress up as Jack Bauer, who cares about his penchant for drag?

Wasn’t the MSM coverage of Falwell’s passing kind of funny? Aside from from the obvious nutjobs, people were struggling to say something, anything nice about the departed Christofascist gasbag.

This weekend I was thinking about the impact of Giuliani not giving in on his pro-choice stance. Although I am quite certain he will not win the nomination (nor will the GOP win the presidency), I can’t help but wonder if it will have a larger ripple effect in terms of bringing those who would like to vote GOP but are nauseated by the theocrats back into the fold. Now, aside from the fact that he seems to be a major sleazebag, there’s still no getting past the simple fact that Giuliani’s worst thing is his unapologetic warmongering and his continual sodomizing of the corpse of 9-11. And although that kind of thing still impresses the 25% still supportive of Bush (whom I suspect would also be impressed and enthralled by waving a piece of string with a feather on it in front of them), I don’t think that’s going to play well with people who don’t buy into that kind of b.s. anymore.

I’m thrilled to death about the fact that the GOP is so utterly, unbelievably screwed on so many levels. It’s sickening (and revealing) that the main reservation about the war expressed to the Prez in that GOP meeting a week or two ago was how the war is hurting GOP chances in the next election. Wow, they’ve finally found a good reason to be against the war – self-preservation. How noble. Sit back and grab the popcorn, this is going to be an interesting show.

(Don’t read this over dinner — and hang in there until after the jump.
– promoted by NanuqFC)

Bill Lippert’s been on quite the emotional rollercoaster over the past week or so. There was the close of a tough legislative session for the House Judiciary chairman, and the O’Really? Factoid ambush over breakfast in the State House (Freyne has his original story with a link to O’Really?’s site and a followup with the Speaker and the Pres Pro Tem about their letter to Faux News. O’Really? has his own followup charging the Rutland Herald with being a “corrupt enterprise” in response to its publication of Democratic consultant Bill Lofy’s Op-Ed castigating Fox for its bigotry in choosing Lippert to harass [check out the “in case you missed it: Vermont Chaos! Vermont paper turns Jessica’s law into a gay issue!” on O’Really?’s site] There’s more follow-up, including an editorial from Randal Smathers about O’Really?’s attackdogs calling him to object. Got all that?)

Lofy covered some of the threats that Lippert received via email. But here are a few others from among those I asked him to send me during a phone conversation on Friday:

i couldnt even tell you were a transvestite when i saw you making such a douche of yourself on oreilly.  and your drag queen friends that were trying to protect you were classic.  are all you socialist liberal pieces of crap like that?  maybe you queens could rent a pair of testicles next time you are on television?

you are one disgusting person, i really dont know how you can live with yourself,keep on smiling,you could give a shit about children,i spread the word on your state,over the web,keeping people from visiting the state of v.t,and it works. do me a favor drive fast and reckless,

Lippert sucks muslim dicks and likes it. I hope you get the shit beat out of you on a regular basis.

One such email began with the subject line: “Bill Lippert go drown yourself you pedophile bastard” and continued:

I hope you die of natural causes like a heart attack you F’ing bastard for protecting fags, and doing nothing for Jessica’s law. f you you ugly old white trash. America will soon turn to a militia, after this keeps going on. Vermont is shit, with all white trash.

The story gets better below the fold — and by better, I mean less disgusting and more uplifting. I promise.

There were also a couple of stern but polite ones in the batch he sent, including this one, signed (as many of the more vitriolic ones were not) and from someone who identified himself as from Vermont:

Sir, I don’t agree with the way Bill O’Reilly and his reporters conduct interviews, but a reporter was allowed access to speak to you, and you didn’t answer his question. You had an opportunity to set the record straight and you dropped the ball. What really was more disturbing was all your fellow law makers could do was boo the reporter. That and your no reply answer makes Bill O’Reilly look good and Vermont look bad. I await your reply. [signed, with mailing address and email address]

Another of the more polite ones:

Sir, I was watching Bill O’Rilley last night.  You said Vermont just increased the sentencing terms for child predators. I also watched Keith Olberman and he said O’Rilley got it all wrong. I am just trying to learn the honesty of each of those “Talking Heads”.

Can you tell me what you meant when you said the laws were strengthen [sic]. Actually if you can give me a web site address that show the various laws, and you give me the law’s number, I can do the research myself.

Thank you for your guidance.

I wouldn’t want to lead GMD readers to believe that all Faux News/O’Really? watchers are as ill-informed and block-headed as the majority of the emails might suggest.

One of the 27 O’Really?-prompted emails Bill shared with me (which he had previously shared with Speaker Gaye Symington) was particularly nasty and blatant about its homophobia:

There has never been any correlation between homosexuality and Pedophilia, ……. Until now. […] Therapy is as successful conquering pedophilia, as it is with conquering  homosexuality.  The ONLY solution is incarceration or castration. […] If I were you,  I would seriously consider killing myself.

Now we get to the good part. Bill Lippert, whom I’ve known for 25 years, did an interview with Vermont Public Radio last Thursday to talk about the ambush, the reality of Vermont’s sex offender laws, and the emails he’d been getting.

Here are a few quotes from the 31 (plus) emails he got after that interview aired:

I was fortunate enough to listen to your segment on NPR [sic] regarding your Bill O’Reilly encounter.  I feel sad and scared to know that such people are in the public eye broadcasting such inaccurate and atrocious information.  I greatly appreciate all that you do for the state of Vermont and beyond.  I completely support your decision to  not support Jessica’s Law as I agree that its protocol would not protect the victims, properly rehabilitate the predators, or keep our communities safe. I was devasted to hear that you are receiving such emails as the one you read on the air today.  It’s scary to think how many intolerate, judmental [sic], and hateful people there are in the world.

I heard your interview on VPR this morning, and cannot refrain from writing you a letter of support.  It is appalling that these representatives of a foreign culture would come to Vermont to mount this kind of personal and baseless attack.  Your tolerance, intelligence, courage, and insight are evident in your articulate responses.
  I never am able to get over my surprise and sadness at the bigotry, ignorance, ugliness, and hate that seem to prevail in some quarters of our society.  I can assure you that most of us here in Vermont think that in fact it is you who represent the true and great traditions of our State, of our entire species, really, the traditions of open-mindedness, fairness, justice, tolerance, and compassion, which are the only values that stand between us and chaos.
  I know this episode must have been very hurtful.  Please know that there are a great many of us here who share a little fraction of that pain vicariously, and who hold you in the highest respect.  Your have made Vermont a better place for all of us.

I just heard your interview on VPR.  You are among the special, honorable people that make me proud to be a Vermonter.  Caring, intelligent, thoughtful and reasonable views like yours are notably lacking in our country’s public discourse.

I listened to you on VPT [sic] this morning and was so impressed with your composure, unwavering dedication and professional demeanor in light of what you experienced recently and in the past–in direct contrast to what you encountered eating breakfast at the state house.  I appreciate all that you are doing and have been doing and am so glad I live in Vermont so I can live next door to upstanding people like you.  The ignorance and hate that exists in this country and planet is too much sometimes to handle and gets overwhelming, but I hear you and remember that leading by example every day will hopefully make some change happen.

I caught your interview on VPR this morning – I hope you could hear my shout of “well done” from down the road in Williston. You did a great job explaining Vermont’s approach to the sex offender legislation.  You were measured and rational, such a sharp contrast to the hysterical attacks you were addressing.  The excerpt you read from the e-mail was chilling, and effective – who could fail to note the irony of the violence and immorality of the writer.  Allusion to suicide?!  I personally think we need to clone you.  I can only hope my four kids will take to heart the political and personal courage you have shown, you are an amazing role model for them.  You are my hero.

I have been following the story since Saturday, and have been enraged on your behalf– on so many levels. Thank you for your hard work on many critical issues facing Vermonters, but especially those related to the civil rights of members of the LGBT community. The courage it must require to withstand the persecution you have clearly faced as an openly gay legislator is truly inspiring.

There were many more in the same vein.

There’s one more piece, which can be read as a true example of how to be an ally, OR as a truly inspired political play — or both, as these things so often are (my view, not Bill’s, btw).

Bill told me he was called by a network television news local outlet for an interview on Tuesday, after O’Really?’s piece had aired over at Faux. “I just really didn’t want to do it,” Bill said. “And when I said that to Gaye [Symington], she said, ‘You shouldn’t have to do it, Bill. I’ll do it.'” And she did.

On the one hand, Gaye was among the legislators who supported civil unions from the beginning and maybe even went on one of the legislator speaking tours to talk about it. For a straight person to offer to take on a media interview on behalf of a gay beleagured colleague, essentially stepping into the target zone,  and do a creditable job is the mark of a true ally — just as has happened here on GMD when the homophobes stomp by.

On the other hand, how will Bill now feel about voting against the Speaker, as he did during the impeachment vote? Does Bill owe the Speaker something? or was what Gaye did the obligation of any decent person to one persecuted out of bigotry? And can Bill see it that way?

NanuqFC

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act — George orwell

I just noticed Freyne beat me to this, but it’s still worth pointing out. This is from today’s Sunday Herald/Argus editorial:

An important decision awaits Gov. James Douglas now that the Legislature has completed its work this year: whether to veto the energy bill that includes a tax on power generation at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

Douglas should sign the bill.

Sounds good, yes? But it follows on the heels of this from two weeks ago:

efforts to make companies more responsible corporate citizens must be undertaken with fairness in mind, which suggests a thoughtful policymaking process.

Action on climate change is long overdue. If Gov. James Douglas had been leading the way on the issue, then the Legislature might not have felt compelled to rush its program into existence. But that is no excuse for creating a program with a dubious funding source.

Clearly, the editors would like us to accept a parsing of the language that would do the Boston Legal team proud; that they can be all for the bill (in a blandly clinical, one-shot way) but still object to the funding mechanism (in a more, shall we say, vehement way on multiple occasions – going as far as taking the playground-scuffle step of calling Shumlin’s original proposal a “score-settling tax”).

But it doesn’t work that way.

Collectively, the Argus and the Herald make up a tremendously influential and consequential chunk of the Vermont media, and as such, they get to lead the way in informing debate. The fact is, when the bill went through, they quickly came out with a couple editorials, slamming the bill in no uncertain terms. In doing so, they set the goalposts, and crafted what has become the “conventional wisdom” among both the opponents of the bill, as well as those casual news watchers who have only followed it peripherally, but now feel that the sophisticated, intellectual viewpoint is that handed to them in the papers.

And an odd conventional wisdom it is. It says that if a tax doesn’t directly, precisely relate to an expenditure, it is “bad policy.” Since the bill is designed to shape the energy paradigm in Vermont, you’d think that a tax on an energy producer would fit that criterion. But apparently using either a nuclear waste tax, a windfall profits tax, a property tax, or an energy production tax that would also be levied on wind (all notions bandied about, with the final one actually making the cut and deemed marginally more acceptable to the editors) on the energy industry providing a third of our electrical power is not related enough to a bill focusing on energy conservation and renewables promotion.

To editorial, the only funding scheme acceptable was the much maligned heating fuel tax. Once again, editors show they are in the enviable position of not suffering the death of a thousand cuts that those in the middle and working classes do. It’s a yearly ritual in my house to consider which bills we will be late on in order to pay for those final one or two deliveries of oil to heat the family home. No big deal to the editors, though – even if there’s an obvious corporate citizen equally related to the energy field who can easily afford it and make for a more progessive target of taxation.

Apparently, you can only tax Vermont Yankee for a bill that would perhqaps move the nuclear waste. Under this logic, tobacco taxes going to health programs would be out the door.

And the General Fund? The sales taxes, income taxes, etc that collectively fund every other functioning of government? Well, I suppose paying the Governor’s salary is “bad public policy.” Even gas taxes going to the transportation fund would seem inadequate. Again – not even the same industrial category. Perhaps if the gas taxes were going for oil drilling…

For whatever reason, the Herald and Argus targetted this bill with unusual scorn. Proponents are doing a good job bouncing back, and the news that Vermont has more per capita nuclear waste than any other state is a nice sign that they aren’t going to be willing to play ropa dope.

But the fact is, despite their nice, groovy sounding liberal editorial today – if this bill goes down, it’ll be a defeat largely owned by the editors of the Rutland Herald and Times Argus.

crossposted at Five Before Chaos

You may remember a few weeks ago, I wrote about the new farm bill, more specifically how the subsidies for Big Corn and Soy make it so the least healthiest foods are the cheapest, and how this ties into our nation’s poorest people having problems with obesity and other diet-related problems. In keeping with that theme, have a look over at this piece at Tom Paine, where it talks about how four members of Congress tried to live on $21 of food per week, the average weekly food stamp allotment. It’s not pretty, and once again, it puts the problems of the nutritional challenges that the poor in this nation have to face:

“No organic foods, no fresh vegetables, we were looking for the cheapest of everything,” McGovern said in an interview with The Washington Post at a Washington supermarket. “We got spaghetti and hamburger meat that was high in fat-the fattiest meat on the shelf. I have high cholesterol and always try to get the leanest, but it’s expensive. It’s almost impossible to make healthy choices on a food stamp diet.”

It does not help that some of the cost estimates of the USDA recommended meals seem out of date. A chili recipe that calls for three-quarters of a pound of ground beef, beans, celery, onions and seasonings is priced at $3.87 for four servings. But the lowest-priced ground beef, with 20 percent fat, was selling this week for between $2.99 and $3.59 a pound at two major Washington supermarkets.

After about three days on their food stamp diet, Lisa McGovern wrote, “We’ve been eating so minimally-concerned that we won’t have enough food to carry us through to Tuesday. I can see an impact on our energy levels, even in just these few days. When Jim got home around 10 last night, he just seemed a little `flat.’ He’s usually very animated when recapping his work day, whether it was good or bad. But the lack of fuel seemed to drain that from him a bit.”

It goes without saying that it’s sickening that we have billions of dollars for unnecessary wars and tax breaks for polluters, when there are people struggling to put food in their mouths. I guess it just says a lot about our priorities as a nation. You can also read one of the congresspeople’s blog about the experience here.