(I think this is worthy of a response from Welch – promoted by JulieWaters)

U.S. Rep. Peter Welch came to the Democratic State Committee meeting Saturday to ask for the Committee’s endorsement for the ’08 congressional race. However, knowing that there are serious concerns among some Committee members about his vote to condemn MoveOn.org for exercising its free speech rights by placing an ad in a newspaper, he didn’t take questions or comments from the Committee members. Additionally, abstainers from the vote to endorse were not permitted to state their reasons for abstaining, as is customary.  

If Rep. Welch can’t dialogue with dissenters within his own party, how can we ever hope that he will be able to stand up to the Republicans in Washington, who are busy at every turn trying to undermine the Constitution and weaken our Civil Liberties? The steamrolling through of an endorsement without being willing to publically address the MoveOn vote does not do justice to the Democratic Party’s commitment to democracy on the national, state and local levels. We can do better than that.

A short discussion with the Committee of the reasons for his defense of his vote, and of some of his friends’ reasons for their strong opposition and concern about it, could have left him in a stronger position as he heads back to Washington; knowing that we will have his back if he stands strong for the Constitution and Civil Liberties. It was a mistake, in my opinion, to not allow discussion of this at the State Committee meeting – to not be willing to take our questions publically. It makes me afraid that he will not stand up enough in Congress to protect the Constitution in these perilous times. I hope I am wrong.

I used to be on the State Committee when I was Chair of the Washington County Dems – a position handled much more competently by current Chair Jack McCullough. Since I haven’t been a member, I rarely show up at meetings, as I find them difficult experiences. I inevitably witness things that will make me very proud of my Party, but then there are also always things that make me wince. Saturday’s meeting had many moments to be proud of: Jack’s FISA resolution, a tremendous reception to Windsor County States Attorney and marijuana-law reform advocate Bobby Sand.

But there were a couple of those wince moments.

Chair Ian Carleton proudly announced to the Democratic full house that Rep. Dick Marek was working with Republicans to right a great wrong through legislative action. You see, it was pointed out by some Democratic activists last year that the Democratic (and Republican) National Committeepersons (there are two: always one man and one woman), according to law (and as Carleton told the crowd “absurd as it sounds”), do not actually have a vote in their respective State Committees.

Well, hollllllllllld everything! Clearly, this injustice must not stand!

Oh, brother.

Given a political establishment which is always quick to tell activists that none of their precious, legislative time can be taken up dealing with their policy concerns, drafting, discussing and passing legislation (H.665) to give 4 people (who already number among the most revered in their respective political classes) a simple vote in their respective State Committees is more than a little tough to swallow.

I say this with all due respect to Rep. Marek, whose list of sponsored legislation otherwise reads like a snapshot of progressive priorities. Also, I mean no disrespect to the Democratic or Republican National Committeepersons (although it should be mentioned that the only reason activists brought up the matter last year was from a sense of frustration at what many saw as inappropriate influence over the Committee by National Committeeman Chuck Ross over issues such as the impeachment resolution) – but good lord, don’t we have more important things to do?

And its worse than that, actually. Fair or not (and its a bit of both) there is a sense out there that the Vermont Democratic Party is cliqueish and elitist, and is overly dominated by a political class that can be anywhere from dismissive to vindictive. When we are seen as rolling our eyes in response to (or actively inhibiting) issues that evoke strong passions and urgency, but we have to hop to when members of what is perceived as that elite are simply inconvenienced, it feeds that narrative more than passing a dozen good policy bills can un-feed.

We can huff and puff about how silly that is if we want, but it doesn’t change the reality, and its always a good political idea to have reality on our side.

UPDATE: I was just forwarded the text of last year’s State Committee resolution asking the law to be amended, as some read this diary feeling that it sent a message that this legislation came from out of the blue. I didn’t mean to suggest it had, merely that it puts our legislative priorities in a dim light that feeds a bad narrative of Democratic elitism. So long as activists continue to be told with some regularity that there’s no time for their priorities, I ‘ll stand by that opinion. (text of resolution follows)

Bland and Inners Resolution

August 29, 2007

WHEREAS, current Vermont State Statutes do not provide that the Party National Committee Man and Woman are voting members of the State Committee, and

WHEREAS, at the July 14th meeting the Vermont Democratic Party State Committee members voiced concern that the National Committee Man and Woman should be full voting members of the State Committee and that current State Statutes may interfere with granting them this right,

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 Chairs of the House and Senate Government Operations Committees, and

RESOLVED that the Vermont Democratic State Committee advocates that Vermont Statutes Title 17 Chapter 45 be amended so that the National Committee Man and Woman may be full voting members of the State Committee.

[Update as of 5:30 pm, per CarpetBagger  & TPM: Republican cloture motion failed on the FISA bill, 48-45. FOUR D's voted with the R's, and Republican Sen. Arlen Specter voted with the D's. As TPM says, “The fight goes on.”] — NanuqFC 

The Vermont Democratic Committee voted unanimously yesterday to call on Vermont Senators Leahy and Sanders to filibuster the version of the FISA extension bill now pending in the United States Senate because it contains the retroactive immunity for illegal wiretapping that has been anathema to defenders of civil liberties.

 Although a suspension of the rules was required to even consider the resolution, both the motion to suspend the rules and the vote on the resolution itself were unanimous. Supporters of the resolution, introduced by GMD front-pager Jack McCullough and front-pager emerita Liane Allen, pointed out that the Bush Administration's actions have been illegal, and that giving the telcos retroactive immunity would prevent any investigation into the illegality of their actions. 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now also supporting the filibuster, an idea initially voiced by Senator Chris Dodd:

Thursday, Republicans proved the only thing they care about is politics. They spent the day filibustering on the Senate floor, preventing Democrats from introducing any amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) bill. At the end of the day, Senator McConnell decided he would try and stop debate entirely by filing for cloture. That means if Republicans get 60 votes on Monday, debate on this vital issue will be shut down.

If you care about your civil liberties and our national security, it is vital you tell your Senators to vote no on cloture Monday.

Here's how to contact Senator Leahy:

433 Russell Senate Office Bldg
(at Constitution and Delaware)
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-4242

senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov

And Senator Sanders:

Also, since this is campaign season, let's contact Clinton and Obama and demand that they return to Washington to support the filibuster.

Here's how to contact them:

 http://www.clinton.senate.gov/contact/

http://obama.senate.gov/contact/

The text of the resolution is below the fold.

RESOLUTION ON THE RENEWAL OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE ACT
WHEREAS the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is about to expire, and is
now being considered for renewal by the United States Congress:
And WHEREAS the Bush Administration has used FISA and the so-called USAPATRIOT
Act as an excuse for a wide range of illegal and unconstitutional abuses of
power, including gross violations of the right to privacy and unlawful and warrantless
wiretapping of Americans in their private communications;
And WHEREAS the Bush Administration seeks to prevent investigation into the
illegality of these acts of eavesdropping by pursuing a provision in the pending
legislation that would give telecommunications carriers retroactive immunity to all civil
or criminal penalties for their illegal wiretapping activities;
And WHEREAS prior to any illegal wiretapping by this Administration, legal methods
existed enabling the Administration to wiretap in urgent situations without delay;
And WHEREAS telecommunications carriers do not need legal protection, because laws
already protect them in instances when they comply with legal wiretapping requests by
an Administration;
And WHEREAS telecommunications carriers do not need financial protection, because
mechanisms exist, and have been used before, to protect them from financial ruin;
And WHEREAS telecommunications companies were aware of the wiretapping laws
before they chose to comply with any illegal requests by the Administration;
And WHEREAS at least one major telecommunications company chose to obey the law,
and did not to comply with illegal wiretap requests from the administration;
And WHEREAS some major telecommunications carriers knowingly cooperated with
Administration requests to eavesdrop on the private communications of their customers
in violation of all applicable legal principles;
And WHEREAS some telecommunications companies chose to shut off illegal wire taps
due to unpaid bills, and reinstate those taps when bills were subsequently paid, thus
exposing as false any claims that the taps were being done for either patriotic or security
reasons;
And WHEREAS the illegal wiretapping began before September 11, 2001;
And WHEREAS the Administration, when proposing the immunity falsely claimed that
the illegal wiretapping only occurred after September 11, 2001, for anti-terror purposes;
And WHEREAS under the doctrine of “Congressional ratification,” Congressional
approval of retroactive immunity would also retroactively create in the office of
the President the constitutional authority for extra-legal warrantless surveillance;
And WHEREAS, also under the doctrine of “Congressional ratification” such prior
illegal surveillance would be automatically rendered lawful;
And WHEREAS, due to the doctrine of “Congressional ratification,” the adoption
of the proposed retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies would
thus also provide immunity to the Administration for the Administration’s illegal
actions;
And WHEREAS the Congress has twice considered granting similar immunity:
during the Johnson Administration for banks that had violated merger laws, and
during the Ford Administration for telegraph companies that illegally provided
customer’s private communications to the NSA;
And WHEREAS in both of those instances, the Congress decided not to grant
immunity because of the unjustifiable precedent that would be set;
And WHEREAS the wording of the current bill would make legal past and future
illegal requests by any Administration as long as an official gave an “indication”
to the recipient of the request that the request is “authorized” by the President and
has “been determined lawful” – even if the indication is false;
And WHEREAS the American people voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in the 2006
election to put the brakes on the Bush Administration’s unlawful actions;
And WHEREAS, as a result of that election, the Democratic Party, the historic defender
of civil liberties, now has a majority in both the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives, and consequently has both the opportunity and the duty to restrain the
illegal and unconstitutional activities of the Bush Administration;
And WHEREAS Vermont’s senior Senator, Patrick J. Leahy, has attempted to protect the
civil liberties of Vermonters by introducing a version of this legislation that did not
provide retroactive immunity, which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee but failed on
the floor of the Senate:
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the Vermont State Democratic Committee
that we call upon our Congressional delegation to oppose any legislation that includes
retroactive immunity for telecommunications carriers who participated in illegal
wiretapping activities;
AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that we express our great appreciation for the efforts
of Senators Patrick J. Leahy and Bernard Sanders to protect the civil liberties of
Vermonters and all Americans;
AND IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that we call upon Senators Patrick J. Leahy and
Bernard Sanders to take any and all actions, up to and including filibuster and opposition
of cloture, to oppose the inclusion of retroactive immunity in any legislation that comes
to the floor of the Senate.
Proposed by John J. McCullough III and Liane Allen

Crossposted @ www.rednalsiofvermont.blogspot.com

While we’re shaking up the political scene in the U.S., I think we’re due for a revamp of a little something I call government as usual.   This long drawn out primary has convinced me it needs to be a short quick process.  Left to their own ends, the candidates are pulling off the gloves, to no ones benefit.  Look at McCain & Romney, and Obama & Clinton, dividing their own parties.  It makes people want to turn off their TV’s already and we’ve got till November.

1st change is a national primary.  A week of televised debates on real issues, then everyone in the country votes in a primary.  There shouldn’t be any states whose opinion counts anymore than others.  It would cut down on costs and why should the states be treated unequally?  The only thing going on in our nations economy right now is all the wealth being spent and applied toward the presidential election.  Think about it, if the money was being put toward job creation or national debt our economy wouldn’t be going down the pooper.

2nd change is along the line of treating all states equally, and goes along with the idea of a national primary.  We eliminate the electoral college, the president must win by popular vote.  After all, are we not all americans?  Does one person’s vote not count equally as anothers?  The person getting more votes from citizens should be the winner.  This would be true democracy, not the watered down version we’ve all been fed for years.  Yes, it would make campaigning harder, to reach a bigger audience.  But then maybe real issues would be addressed instead of proving which candidate can bicker and sidestep issues more.  We need a president who can lead, unite, and bring the hope of prosperity.  Not divide and conquer.

Crossposted @ www.rednalsiofvermont.blogspot.com

While we’re shaking up the political scene in the U.S., I think we’re due for a revamp of a little something I call government as usual.   This long drawn out primary has convinced me it needs to be a short quick process.  Left to their own ends, the candidates are pulling off the gloves, to no ones benefit.  Look at McCain & Romney, and Obama & Clinton, dividing their own parties.  It makes people want to turn off their TV’s already and we’ve got till November.

1st change is a national primary.  A week of televised debates on real issues, then everyone in the country votes in a primary.  There shouldn’t be any states whose opinion counts anymore than others.  It would cut down on costs and why should the states be treated unequally?  The only thing going on in our nations economy right now is all the wealth being spent and applied toward the presidential election.  Think about it, if the money was being put toward job creation or national debt our economy wouldn’t be going down the pooper.

2nd change is along the line of treating all states equally, and goes along with the idea of a national primary.  We eliminate the electoral college, the president must win by popular vote.  After all, are we not all americans?  Does one person’s vote not count equally as anothers?  The person getting more votes from citizens should be the winner.  This would be true democracy, not the watered down version we’ve all been fed for years.  Yes, it would make campaigning harder, to reach a bigger audience.  But then maybe real issues would be addressed instead of proving which candidate can bicker and sidestep issues more.  We need a president who can lead, unite, and bring the hope of prosperity.  Not divide and conquer.

Per The Rutland Herald:

The Vermont Department of Public Service has asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to put a hold on the relicensure review of Vermont Yankee.

The Douglas administration has joined anti-nuclear groups from Vermont, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey in an effort to stop the NRC’s relicensing of four nuclear reactors until the commission overhauls its review program. Nuclear companies in those four states have renewal applications pending before the NRC.