Daily Archives: March 13, 2008

Even Pat and Bernie Just Don’t Get It

Yesterday was a red-letter day in my email in-box. I heard from both of my U.S. senators, Pat Leahy and Bernie Sanders. Leahy was lamenting the cost of the Iraq occupation, and wishing that we weren’t spending so much. He was pleased to have entered a recent article by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes outlining the occupation’s true cost into the Congressional record.

Sanders wrote to inform me that me must consider three trends when considering the nation’s budget: inequality of wealth, children in poverty and the growing debt. Below are two open letters to our Senators.

Dear Senator Leahy,

My question to you is; why aren’t you doing anything about it? Your voice (and Bernie’s) should be dominating the airwaves calling for an end to the occupation.  Instead of repeatedly caving in to the “President’s” requests for funding, you should be leading filibuster efforts refusing one more nickel unless it’s for withdrawal.

Instead of being pleased with your efforts to nibble around the edges of Pentagon contractor fraud, or worrying about Harriet Meyers and whether you dare have her arrested for contempt, you should be going after the real villains from this crime scene: Bush/Cheney.

Your fine words are a cheap currency sir, better left to those of us who hold no power. You are in a position to do something about this administration that has lied us into war, has decided to use torture has spied on Americans, to mention just a few of their crimes. I don’t need to hear your lament; I want Congressional action.

.

Sincerely, Dan DeWalt

South Newfane VT

Dear Senator Sanders,

You list three major trends that must be addressed to better our nation, but, incredibly, you don’t even mention the two that are most significant: Iraq and the suspension of the rule of law and Constitutional adherence by the Bush/Cheney administration.

You would like to garner a few billion dollars here and there by increasing taxes on millionaires (a fine idea), yet you say not one word about the occupation in Iraq, which costs more in one month than your tax plan will reap in a year. And how can see importance only in economic terms, when this occupation has degraded us morally, debased us in the eyes of the world, and helped to foster a new status of America as a pariah nation, embracing torture as an important “tool” of our foreign policy, and engaging in an illegal war of aggression?

Equally incredible is your decision to blatantly ignore the flagrant violations of the Constitution and American law by the Bush/Cheney administration. The proud maxim once promulgated by our political leaders that we are a country of laws, not of men, has been disgracefully reduced to sniveling about getting a veto proof majority and the rule of law be damned.

I admire your interest in economic justice. But putting your head in the sand about Iraq and the Constitution does nothing but make your objectives unattainable.

Dan DeWalt

South Newfane VT

Just a quick one on the presidential race

I just heard an interview of Hillary Clinton on VPR a couple of minutes ago, and the interviewer was pushing her on whether she's okay with winning with superdelegate votes even if she loses the popular vote. (By the way, I'm okay with it–we knew the rules going in, and I think there are good reasons for the superdelegate system.)

What I thought was interesting was the way she seems to be trying out a new line on why she should win. Even if she doesn't get the popular vote in all the primaries combined, we should look at states where the Democratic candidate can win. She said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that we're not going to win Alaska, or Utah, or South Dakota anyway (states that Obama won) but we can, and we need to, win states like Michigan and Florida. The implication was that they should count more in deciding who the nominee should be.

Of course, they do, because they have more delegates. Still, she seemed to be saying more, like maybe discounting the results of even big states if we are pretty sure they are going to go for McCain.

Maybe this isn't so much about Alaska and Utah as it is about the fact that we now know that she also lost Texas, but it seems to demonstrate a certain level of desperation on her part, leading to another in the shifting rationales for her candidacy. 

Welch on some kinda tear this month

Peter Welch has an unfortunate habit of doing lots of escalating good things before screwing up on something really big in a more Constitutional sense, in a way that suggests a degree of obliviousness (the MoveOn vote, the “Homegrown Terrorism Bill”, etc.). If that pattern continues, he’s due for a major screw up anytime, as the last couple weeks have been great for him.

On the 3rd, he brought home $341,000 for expanding Norwich University’s Nursing program, on the 5th he led the way on legislation overturning the recent Environmental Protection Agency decision to deny California’s request for a waiver to adopt stricter automobile emission standards.

On the 7th, he asked the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to investigate a multibillion-dollar contracting loophole that was slipped into plans to crack down on fraud in taxpayer-funded projects overseas, putting the Bush Administration on the defensive in a big way. This got him attention from as far away as UK’s Guardian newspaper.

Also, he not only scored 100% score for supporting legislation to help the middle class from the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy’s TheMiddleClass.org 2007 Congressional Scorecard, yesterday he also joined Berne Sanders in receiving an A+ rating on the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law’s scorecard for his voting record on poverty issues.

And just for added measure, he had this to say about the idea of immunity for telephone companies that broke the law to help Bush spy on American citizens:

Keep in mind some telecommunications companies said no and they got a requirement of judicial warrant and they’re all set they have immunity the ones that complied it’s really much more about what the president doesn’t want us to see that the White House did than anything the companies did.

But my favorite one, just for the sheer drama of it?

A bill to create an outside independent panel to investigate ethics complaints against US Representatives faced one of those procedural votes that would enable it to be quietly killed, without Reps having to actually have to go on record with a floor vote on the bill. The bill eked by this roadblock (before going on to passage) by ONE vote – with Welch voting in the affirmative.

I mean, holy crap. Peter’s been a busy bee this month so far. Let’s hope there are many more such months to come.