No, just yell it.

What the hell is wrong with the Democratic leadership that they would even consider rolling over for Bush once again?

Here's what I'm talking about: Democratic leaders have signaled they are open to a more bipartisan approach to Iraq that would force the Bush administration to begin publicly planning for troop withdrawals but would stop short of requiring a firm timeline.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has said that he could drop his demand for a firm troop withdrawal next spring to win GOP votes. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this week that she will allow a vote on bipartisan troop legislation that, without requiring a redeployment, would force the administration to begin publicly planning for a withdrawal.

It was big news when the Democrats took over Congress last year. We knew there were a lot of reasons for that, and we knew that the margins were slim in both houses, with some of the new members on the edges being somewhat squishy. Still, it was a change, and we had reason to take heart.

But what the hell good does it do if they're going to vote like Republicans?

This is the time when we all have to stand up, contact our congressional delegations, and make sure they hear us: the way to oppose the war is by opposing the war, not making nice to the people who are making war. If we lose a vote, or ten votes, or a hundred votes, we can still tell voters across the country that we stood up for something, and the only way to get anywhere is to elect more Democrats who will fight for what the people want.

What can we tell the voters if the Democrats we elect won't stand up to the Republicans?

Whatever you think of freshman Representative Peter Welch, the fact is that he's been a busy, busy man of late.

Today (from the Times Argus):

Vermont's lone representative in the U.S. House, Peter Welch, said he will work to defeat the extension of a new federal wiretapping law passed by Congress in July.

Welch, a Democrat, said a number of Democrats have given in to pressure from the White House and supported the bill.

“This really is an abdication of the separation of powers. That is a core principle of our democracy,” Welch said. “There's no judicial review under the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) provision that was passed by Congress. Frankly I think that the courts may well find this unconstitutional because it's depriving the court of its jurisdictional oversight. And that's not an appropriate thing for Congress to do. This was a mistake.”

Click below the fold for the rest of the rundown…

The press release from yesterday:

Today Rep. Peter Welch introduced legislation to strengthen the safety of nuclear power facilities in Vermont and around the country establishing a process for an independent safety assessment. Welch’s legislation authorizes the governor or public utility commission from a state with a nuclear power plant (or an adjoining state) to initiate an independent safety assessment conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) when there is a pending application for re-licensing, a request for an increase in power above authorized levels, or a pattern of safety problems.

The bill directs the inspection team to report on its findings which are to be available to the public and be considered by the NRC. The NRC is directed to postpone license extension or approval of a power uprate until any safety matters identified in the report are resolved.

Two days before that, here's Welch reacting to Bush's announcement that the Democratic Congress is giving too much money to veteran's services:

“President Bush is engaged in a shameless political maneuver that pits necessary support for veterans against critical domestic spending needs such as children’s health care, affordable housing, and transportation infrastructure.  At the same time, he continues to insist on a blank check to fund his failed policy in Iraq at the expense of domestic priorities.

“This President, who regularly declared his support for the troops while presiding over the scandal at Walter Reed, is now demanding that Congress reduce funding for veterans programs.  Earlier this year, the House of Representatives appropriately passed the largest funding increase in Veterans Administration history, recognizing the real care our veterans need and deserve.  Those increases are necessary and must take effect.

The week before, he touted Congress's contribution to the much-discussed youth flight from the state:

The College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, H.R. 2669, passed the House last month and provides nearly $18 billion in financial aid over the next five years, cuts interest rates on student loans, and provides college cost containment incentives.  The bill adds no new cost to taxpayers.

The legislation is expected to benefit over 10,000 Vermont students, providing an estimated $44 million in financial aid and cutting interest rates for an average savings of $4,370.

A similar initiative has passed the Senate, and Welch is hopeful the legislation will be signed into law this fall.

On Iran a few days ago (via the Reformer):

“I don't trust the president on Iran,” Welch said in an interview.

“He's demonstrated a willingness to play it fast and loose when he was justifying Iraq. So I don't have confidence in what the president said (about Iran), and I don't have confidence in his judgment.”

The assessment came one day after Bush accused Iran of “sending arms to the Taliban” in Afghanistan and providing 240-millimeter rockets, explosives and training to Iraq-based insurgents. The pace of Iran's interference is increasing, he warned.

And along with this lil flurry, a public schedule over the week and a half leading up to labor day that had him averaging one public appearence a day during the end of his recess.

You may take issue with the content (I obviously don't – this is what I want to hear more of), but there's no denying the guy is working hard and keeping a high profile and level of accessibility. And he's using the bully-pulpit aspect of his position to solid effect.

I've noticed that, with the exception of those who were never going to vote for him in the first place, Welch has quieted a lot of the complaints about him of late. Perhaps its because, in terms of progressive priorities, he's proving himself to be more effective in his first term than was the man he replaced – former Rep. Bernie Sanders.

And the result? Still not a peep from a potential GOP challenger. And that's refreshing.

(I’m bumping this back to the top. This is getting pretty interesting! – promoted by Brattlerouser)

I just can't stand it anymore.

My left brain has been pushing towards Edwards for a while, while simultaneously reminding me that candidates can turn on a dime so I should watch it and hold off for as long as possible. My right brain has wanted me to wait until the embarassingly entitled “Club Obama” event to dip my toe in the pool with the only candidate who has inspired any real passion from Democrats to see if any of it rubs off.

Well, my right brain just threw up at the latest news of the talk of more mind-numbing capitulation on war funding from the Democratic leaders in Washington.

If you haven't heard:

With a mixed picture emerging about progress in Iraq, Senate Democratic leaders are showing a new openness to compromise as they try to attract Republican support for forcing at least modest troop withdrawals in the coming months.

The wait is now on to hear from those-who-would-lead-the-free-world on this.

Let's be clear, I don't expect anything from Clinton. With her record, I don't see how anybody rationally could. Dodd has come out on this in a forthright way quickly, but he's always seemed like he's running for the nominee's VP spot. Richardson puts his foot in his mouth as much as Dean ever did, but without the great payoff that candidate Dean provided as compensation. Kucinich would be way too “non-secular” a Prez for me (and I don't trust the abortion rights flip-flop), and Gravel (who I interviewed, but found the tape was damaged) is way too right-libertarian for me (and hasn't found a clean way to translate his unusual political philosophies into specific policies without sounding scary). And Biden. Uhhh.

So let's be serious, it's always been between Edwards and Obama for me, with advantage Edwards. Even as Obama avoided policy discussions for so long, I was well aware of the enthusiasm he generated among people I respect, so I've tried to keep my mind open in the same way I'm a religious agnostic; my gut tells me there's no deity out there, but I'm open to the idea that believers have some special knowledge or understanding that I'm just not picking up on. So it's been with my relationship to the Obama phenomenon (or syndrome, if you see it that way).

In that vein, I've been encouraged by Obama's recent moves towards speaking up and out about policies and issues, rather than simply spouting cliches and platitudes to adoring throngs. I've had the sense of late that he's become more interested in running for President, rather than National Therapist.

For so long, he has seemed so concerned about being as many feelgood things as possible to as many people as possible that he's hopelessly straitjacketed what is clearly an impressive intellect. His strange bobble over the question of using nukes was a prime example…

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons “in any circumstance” to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” Obama said, with a pause, “involving civilians.” Then he quickly added, “Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.”

… where he (presumably) started sheepishly with something from the gut, then nervously modifying it into an answer he probably felt was a good sell, but hearing and questioning himself again before the reverberations had even died down.

Long passed is the time when in may have been strategic (if distasteful) to avoid clear policy pronouncements in the hopes of not alienating potential supporters. With the extended election calendar, that window closed long ago, leaving in its wake a narrative of someone who is either a panderer – or worse – an empty suit.

But of late, one had the sense that his unintentional flashes of hot-button substance had yielded gold. That even his fans had yearned for the progressive substance they've always assured skeptics was hiding there, just beneath the surface, and all reacted with renewed enthusiasm – perhaps finally showing him that a Presidential candidate can lead, not just by allowing voters to easily project all manners of goodness and light into his ciphered image and personal presence, but by stepping forward with real vision and political leadership. And policies have of late been forthcoming – perhaps not always the most original or the most progressive ones, but still heading in the right direction.

Perhaps the straitjacket was coming off – not simply of the intellect, but of this good-hearted progressive I keep being told about.

And perhaps I simply let my guard down by being hopeful. Obama is receiving a “do-over” of sorts on one of his more profound failures as a leader to the progressive base; his coyness on whether or not he would vote in the Senate to continue funding the war, and his voting against only after it was clear the bill would pass.

Well, we're right back there again, for all intents and purposes, as the Democratic leadership in Washington are falling all over themselves to – once again – give Bush what he wants, even though everything was supposed to be different in September (ha). Edwards and Dodd are right out of the gate calling this bullshit for what it is.

Obama? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

I can't stand it anymore. I thought maybe – just maybe – he'd moved beyond the clumsy calculations. This capitulation is morally outrageous, so where is the moral outrage? I'm sorry, but if you have to stew on it with your advisers and decide whether or not it'll poll well before you finally come out with something, it's something other than moral outrage, and I really expect to hear some moral outrage.

I for one am tired of waiting for it, or trying to imagine acceptable excuses as to why its not there.

So its Edwards – who doesn't exactly make me do backflips. Nevertheless, his focus on poverty and labor issues are a breath of fresh air – and its hard not to wonder if his lagging in the polls isn't because such talk isn't seen as a “downer” in the face of Obama's ethereal, amorphous hope-speak. If that's the case, then it's a downer many in the country should be required to take. Looking at poverty is ugly. It suggests that the “haves” may have to sacrifice for the sake of what's right. The idea of a National Therapist who will make it all better with a change of our collective self-esteem may capture the zeitgeist of the baby boom era, but it aint enough. Edwards's more open-eyed and pasionate approach is evident in his health care plan, which is superior to Obama's, and through which he openly purports to grease the wheels toward a fundamentally different single-payer approach.

Still, I have the same problem with Edwards that a lot of people have; I'm afraid he could be a phony.

But guess what – I'm afraid they ALL could be phonies. Some of them I'm certain are. As far as that goes, they're all on a level playing field, more or less.

Faced with the choice of several maybe-phonies, it would be self-defeating not to vote for the one that is out there saying what I've been demanding the candidates say about Iraq, poverty, health care and corporate political influence. I feel obliged to do my part to make sure that this sort of rhetoric and policy is an election winner rather than a loser, as all the beltway insiders and DLC types insist. In fact I'd be downright hypocritical not to vote for the guy at this point. Here he is on the new “compromise” notion:

Following today's report in the New York Times that Congress may cave on a withdrawal date from Iraq, Sen. John Edwards released the following statement:

“In 2006, the American people elected a Democratic Congress to change course and end this war. It's the whole reason the American people voted for change. Yet, 10 months after the election, we still have the status quo and Congress has still failed to do the people's will. That might be the way they do it inside the Beltway, but it's not the American way. It's time to stand up for the American people and against President Bush's failed, stubborn policy. Without a firm deadline, a small withdrawal of only some of the surge troops won't cut it—that's not a solution, it's an excuse. Congress must not send President Bush any funding bill without a timeline to end this war. No timeline, no funding. No excuses.”

Okay, maybe he's just telling me what I want to hear.

What, I'm supposed to therefore vote for someone who isn't??

I don't think so.

( – promoted by odum)

Yesterday, Sue Allen at the Times Argus reported on the Douglas “Set The Agenda” tour.  If there was ever any doubt that this “tour” is nothing more than another Douglas publicity stunt, it was confirmed by the fact that the only two attendees were GOP state representatives.  This was the focus of the headline and the early part of the article, and Freyne also made chiding reference to it.

What Freyne, and perhaps even Allen missed, however, was Douglas contradicting himself on property taxes in that very article. 

First, in defending his tour, Douglas “…said certain issues raised by attendees are specific to their areas…” but that “[o]ther topics, particularly the burden of property taxes, are raised at virtually every stop…” (my emphasis).  But Allen then reports on an exchange between Douglas and a patron he approached and questioned:

Admitting that she was putting on her Berlin select board hat, McDonald asked the governor about potential increases to the PILOT program (payment in lieu of taxes) to communities that host a number of tax-exempt state buildings. The answer was negative.

“You want to be fair, but there's got to be some economic benefit to hosting a state facility,” Douglas said, adding that years ago when he served on the House Appropriations Committee, the state only gave PILOT assistance to Montpelier. Now, he said, more communities are seeking financial assistance.

What Allen fails to report, and Douglas neglects to mention, is that an increase in PILOT payments to a municipality actually reduce property taxes in that town.  By failing to support increased PILOT payments, Douglas is supporting higher property taxes in towns that receive these payments.

Furthermore, Gov Douglas' FY 2008 budget level funded the PILOT program (which, in real dollars is of course a cut).  The legislature increased PILOT payments in passing its own FY08 appropriations bill, thus granting many Vermonters a property tax cut over and above that proposed by the Governor.  It isn't surprising (although it is disappointing) that we didn't hear Gov. Douglas thank them for this small but important effort to reduce property taxes.  But it is both surprising and disappointing that the Vermont press, after unfailingly reiterating the Douglas attack lines, failed to give credit to the legislature where it was due.