Neither the GOP nor the Democratic faithful can be doing backflips these days. Tonight is the night of the big Democratic Party Autumn harvest fundraiser at the Old Labor Hall in Barre, where many were hoping to see some sort of great unveiling of a candidate to run against incumbent Governor Jim Douglas. Could still happen, I suppose, but nobody's holding their breath.

In fact what some from the liberal wing of the Party are doing is turning their frustration towards organizing, with reports of progressive Dems quietly having conversations about drafting a candidate themselves, rather than continue feeling humiliated by the lack of one. There are also murmurs of a floor challenge to Chair Ian Carleton during reorganization if no candidate has emerged by then. Tough stuff, but it's clear a lot of folks are choosing activism as an alternative to despair.

But on the other hand, how rough must it be to be a Vermont Republican these days? Sure, Douglas has got the Dem field cowering – but he is an electoral juggernaut who has trounced his last two opponents and has held elective statewide office since time immemorial. Peter Welch, on the other hand, is but a lowly freshman US Representative who has only been on one statewide ballot successfully…

While elected with a comfortable margin, it was hardly a landslide, and the guy has received almost daily taunts suggesting he'll be only a one-termer.

And yet, who have the Republicans got to take him on?

Exactly. Bupkus.

The rumors of Jeff Wennberg came and went quickly with nothing of substance to back them up. the only muttered hope of the Grand Ol' Party would seem to be former Auditor of Accounts Randy Brock, who has enough of the green to bankroll himself.

But he's hardly a stellar candidate, and is likely smart enough to steer clear, given that Welch has been busting his butt to stay in the media, to keep in steady contact with constituents, and is earning a reputation as the hardest working freshman in Washington – and is going to put any opponent at a serious fundraising disadvantage. The RCCC is abysmally low on money and has way too many vulnerable incumbents, so its likely a candidate would not get any national help in what's shaping up to be another Democratic electoral landslide.

Just recently added to the mix is a recent email that went out to Welch supporters from “Campaign Manager Carolyn Dwyer,” suggesting that the same, highly-lauded election team may be back in the mix for round two. That probably doesn't make potential chalengers feel any better.

So yeah, I'm pissed about the whole Governor thing as a D…

 …but hey – at least I ain't an R.

I just got this note from the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force:

Dear Julie,

Please email Congressman
Peter Welch to thank him for his co-sponsorship of the
gender-identity-inclusive ENDA.

Congress is on the verge voting on the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill co-sponsored by
Vermont Representative
Peter Welch that would prohibit employment discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation and gender
identity.  Congressional leaders are seriously
considering pulling back the fully-inclusive ENDA, substituting
in its place a bill that does not protect transgender
Americans or people who don’t conform to gender
expectations.  The unified outcry from the gay,
lesbian, bisexual, transgender and allied communities has been
striking– and leadership has delayed its move to make the
substitution.  We have the chance to prevent this
critical non-discrimination bill from itself becoming a
vehicle of discrimination. 

Please, take 30 seconds to send a quick e-mail thanking Peter
Welch for his co-sponsorship of the
gender-identity-inclusive ENDA, to encourage him to stand
firm against any attempts to water down this bill, and to let
him know that you do not support a bill that would exclude many
in our own community. 

 

Contact
Peter Welch today!

 

Thank you for taking action!!

 

Robyn Maguire

Field Director

I’m a fan of Barney Frank and, more often than not, I think he’s on the right side. In this particular case, however, I think he’s made some tragic missteps. I’ll explain more below the fold.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with what’s been going on lately, there’s been a push for decades now to get Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) passed into law. ENDA would outlaw discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation and gender presentation. This would go along with similar protections from discrimination on the basis of race or religion.

In recent weeks, there’s been a push to remove gender presentation from the bill. While on the surface that may seem like decent strategy, it comes with multiple problems, outlined quite clearly Lambda Legal:

[removing gender identity] “diminished the bill not only by excluding transgender people ? a consequence we oppose in itself. The cut also made the bill far weaker by denying protection of the earlier version to those who may not identify as transgender but who are discriminated against because they are perceived as gender nonconforming. Lesbians, gay men and bisexuals frequently are perceived that way.”

This has led to a fairly nasty and divisive fight. From my point of view, the infighting is nasty and unproductive, but so is the splitting ENDA into separate bills, one with Gender included in the language and one without. Watching this unfold has been both politically and personally brutal, but I’m really glad to see Welch step up to the plate and do the right thing.

The way I see it, this bill will not, under any circumstances, become law with the current administration occupying the White House. I’d personally rather we fail while trying to do the right thing than fail while trying to do the compromise. Then we can spend the next year doing education to get everyone up to speed on why the bill as originally presented is crucial and how much of an open gap in protection the other version leaves.

I know Welch gets a lot of crap from us and the progressive community in general, and I think some of it’s justified, but it’s also important to highlight when he does the right thing.

Someone made a good suggestion of writing about why you suport your candidate instead of always attacking Obama for the toothless positions he keeps taking (sorry, just can’t seem to stop myself…)

From a recent Edwards’ speach in Iowa:

When economists say that trade helps our economy overall, we need to be honest about the fact that it does not help everyone. The true measure of our economy isn’t found only in the size of our GDP or the level of corporate profits – it’s whether middle class families are doing better or worse.

A sure sign that our trade and economic policies are seriously out of whack is our trade deficit. Our nation’s imports have increased by a staggering 50 percent in the past 15 years, and instead of a trade balance, the United States now has the largest trade deficit in the history of the globe – and it just keeps growing. Last year, our current account deficit was more than $850 billion, which is a staggering 6.5 percent of our nation’s entire GDP, and our trade deficit with China alone was $233 billion. That means that we are consuming billions of dollars more in imported goods than we produce – and we are borrowing heavily to pay for them.

Behind all these numbers and statistics are the faces of millions of Americans forgotten in our trade deals. Well, I can tell you that I will never forget them. I saw what happened when the mill that my dad worked in all his life, and that I worked in myself when I was young, closed and the jobs went somewhere else. It wasn’t just devastating to our community economically — it was devastating to the pride and dignity of the people who worked hard every day trying to make a better life for their kids.

Let me tell you, if a CEO thinks the right thing to do is to ship American jobs overseas, to destroy families and communities, then I challenge him to go and look those workers in the eye and have the guts to tell them to their face that they can’t compete. I’ve stood with these workers all across America – and let me tell you, they can compete, because they are the best workers in the world.

The trade policies of President Bush have devastated towns and communities all across America. But let’s be clear about something – this isn’t just his doing. For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA, promising that they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities. Instead, too many of these agreements have cost us jobs and devastated many of our towns.

NAFTA was written by insiders in all three countries, and it served their interests – not the interests of regular workers. It included unprecedented rights for corporate investors, but no labor or environmental protections in its core text. And over the past 15 years, we have seen growing income inequality in the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

Well enough is enough. Americans have paid the price long enough. We need to change our fundamental approach to trade. We need to make American values the foundation of our trade deals, and we need to put workers back at their core.

Yesterday I put up a post about the people in New Hampshire who were just arrested after holing up in their compound in New Hampshire to avoid going to prison after they were convicted of tax fraud.

 Now it turns out that we have people like that on this side of the river, too. I just came across a decision from a tax appeal to the Washington Superior Court earlier this year. In this appeal the taxpayers were arguing that they had no income, because the only definition of income is “corporate gain”, and since they are not a corporation, they have no income.

Appellants argue that federal income is “corporate gain,” and therefore excludes personal income for services, such as those performed by Appellant James Henry in his work as a contractor. Appellant James Henry is not a corporation, they reason, so he cannot have corporate gain, and so he cannot have taxable income “under the laws of the
United States.” Appellants rely on Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), which addresses a somewhat different legal issue. When taken out of context, the statements Appellants use appear to have a meaning that supports Appellants’ position, but this court has reviewed the applicable law on point.

As you might think, the Superior Court rejects this argument, finding that the law defining income is broad enough to encompass everything they get, including the payments they receive as building contractors.

This doesn't look like a case where people are getting sent to prison, but look around–the loonies are out there. 

Latest Delegate Count from http://www.usaelecti…

Interesting to see Edwards’ position in the winner-take-all calculation.

Last Updated: 10/10/07

Calculated based on winner-takes-all for all states.
Democrats
Clinton  3289.0
Obama  208.0
Edwards  0.0
Richardson  38.0

Republicans
Giuliani  2414.0
McCain  193.0
Romney  240.0
Huckabee  47.0
F. Thompson  618.0
T. Thompson  0.0

Calculated based on proportional distribution of delegates per state.
Democrats
Clinton  1419.2
Obama  711.6
Edwards  442.2
Richardson  125.3

Republicans
Giuliani  960.7
McCain  480.4
Romney  449.2
Huckabee  134.8
F.Thompson  537.3
T.Thompson  5.5

Calculated based on percentage of total delegates.
Democrats
Hillary Clinton  36.6%
Barack Obama  18.4%
John Edwards  11.4%
Joe Biden  2.2%
Bill Richardson  3.2%
Dennis Kucinich  1.3%
Al Gore  1.9%

Republicans
Rudy Giuliani  24.2%
John McCain  12.1%
Mitt Romney  11.3%
Fred Thompson  13.5%
Mike Huckabee  3.4%
Ron Paul  1.6%
Newt Gingrich  2.0%

It's encouraging to see elected officials speak in no nonsense language. When we put together the intro to the VDP platform last year (I was on the committee), we tried to be as blunt and unambiguous as possible (emphasis added):

Vermont Democrats believe the rights to health care, food, shelter, clean air and water, education, privacy, justice, peace and equality, the right to organize and of free speech are essential to a robust democracy. These rights are not negotiable.

Based on these principles, we stand against torture, bigotry and discrimination, forced childbirth, corruption, and the establishment of state-sponsored religion or religious doctrine.

Peter Welch is thankfully taking the same tack about torture. Not couching it in terms like “rendition” or speaking of aggresive interrogation, or otherwise suggesting that waterboarding is no different than a happy flume ride and anybody who says otherwise hates freedom (from a Welch press release, emphasis added):

Rep. Peter Welch, a long-time critic of the Bush administration’s torture policies, assembled over 50 members of Congress to join him in a letter to Attorney General designee Michael Mukasey urging he reverse interrogation policies of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The letter, authored by Welch, states that “We are extremely concerned about the revelation of two secret Justice Department memos issued under your predecessor that sanction many of the most severe forms of torture

Let's hope this catches on. Lord knows it goes against the grain for career politicians to speak so indelicately, but Welch is among a growing number that do (see the large number of signers on the letter) and I, for one, am grateful. Symbolic? Yeah, but it still matters.

But at the end of the day, it is so profoundly disheartening that it's become necessary to have a public debate as to whether or not it's okay to torture. Clearly, this society is running very low on honor (full letter below).

October 11, 2007

The Honorable Michael Mukasey

Patterson Belknapp Webb & Tyler LLP

1133 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. Mukasey,

 

As you prepare for your confirmation hearings, we would like to bring your attention to the important matter of our nation’s interrogation policies.  In particular, we are extremely concerned about the revelation of two secret Justice Department memos issued under your predecessor that sanction many of the most severe forms of torture.  According to The New York Times, these memos “provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.”

Not only is use of torture by the U.S. Government morally reprehensible, it has done immeasurable damage to our nation’s ability to conduct foreign policy and has put our own men and women in uniform in greater danger.  While we must seek to gather as much information as possible from captured terrorists, it is the job of the Attorney General to ensure that interrogation policies follow all relevant U.S. and international law.

As the nominee to be the next Attorney General, we urge you to commit to withdraw these memos on your first day in office, should you be confirmed.  In addition, we hope that you will dedicate yourself to returning the Department of Justice to policies consistent with U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions.

Sincerely,

 

 

Peter Welch (VT)

 

Barbara Lee (CA)          

John W. Olver (MA)        

Dennis J. Kucinich (OH)   

Timothy J. Walz (MN)      

Bruce L. Braley (IA)      

James P. McGovern (MA)    

Albert Russell Wynn (MD)          

Keith Ellison (MN)        

Raul M. Grijalva (AZ)     

James L. Oberstar (MN)    

Elijah E. Cummings (MD)   

Mark Udall (CO)   

Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (IL)         

Tammy Baldwin (WI)        

Doris O. Matsui (CA)      

Carol Shea-Porter (NH)    

Janice D. Schakowsky (IL)         

Peter A. Defazio (OR)     

Edward J. Markey (MA)     

Danny K. Davis (IL)       

Barney Frank (MA)         

Carolyn B. Maloney (NY)   

Betty Sutton (OH)         

Lynn C. Woolsey (CA)      

Henry C. “Hank” Johnson Jr. (GA)          

Mazie K. Hirono (HI)      

Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)        

Maurice D. Hinchey (NY)   

Melvin L. Watt (NC)       

Lloyd Doggett (TX)        

Maxine Waters (CA)        

James P. Moran (VA)       

Michael A. Arcuri (NY)    

Fortney Pete Stark (CA)   

John P. Murtha (PA)       

Darlene Hooley (OR)       

Thomas H. Allen (ME)      

Betty McCollum (MN)       

Zoe Lofgren (CA)          

Sam Farr (CA)     

John J. Hall (NY)         

Steven R. Rothman (NJ)    

Linda T. Sanchez (CA)     

Ellen O. Tauscher (CA)    

Hilda L. Solis (CA)       

Dennis A. Cardoza (CA)    

Earl Pomeroy (ND)         

Diana DeGette (CA)

Jose E. Serrano (NY)

Earl Blumenauer (OR)      

Rosa L. DeLauro (CT)      

Rush D. Holt (NJ)

Michael E. Capuano (MA)

Carolyn C. Kilpatrick (MI)