The ale is cold below the fold.
I received an email from a correspondent last night that really, really got me thinking. Just when we thought state-based impeachment had kind of fizzled, it appears to have gotten a shot in the arm not only from recent action by our friends in the great state of Illinois, but the signing of a letter by 56 legislators and 13 senators from Vermont. And not a Republican amongst them. I am truly, deeply, shocked. (NOT…..)
So on the state level, the issue is very much alive, at least among Democrats. Hope it’s alive for gops too – alive, that is, like a good case of Phthirus pubis or that annoying fungus some of the male gender kill with Aftate.
But when you move up to the Congress, an interesting dynamic comes into play, given we have those pesky midterm elections on tap.
Pesky?
Yeah, at least to some of us. I was lurking and throwing scoobysnacks around the Saturday night WYFP thread on Daily Kos, and ran across this from someone I’m sure we all know, one of our favorite tacticians in the impeachment movement:
My Problem. (42+ / 0-)
My problem is that I have been addressing impeachment as a Constitutional necessity, for directly confronting and stamping out forever the Nixon/Bush Doctrine of Runaway Executive Power, but when people come out to smack impeachment down, it’s always smacked down as an electoral strategy, which is not at all what we’re talking about.
So, uh, I just wanted to say that.
Waste more of your day at The Next Hurrah.
by Kagro X on Sat Apr 22, 2006 at 08:40:13 PM EDT
It raises a larger question, and it seems like I saw another blogger express it in this
way, but I can’t remember who to credit. Hat tip into the ether; if you see this, you know who you are.
How is it that every objection to the conduct of the Bush administration gets reduced to an election issue? Is not, for example, blatant and repeated violations of the FISA statutes,f’r’instance, an issue on its own? What about manipulation of prewar intelligence? Abramoff? Valerie Plame? Abu Ghraib? Saber rattling of the nucular variety with Iran?
What about leaving people to die in a flooded city?
Is that strictly a campaign issue too? God I hope not.
But Kagro’s right. The progression of state-based impeachment to the federal level-the handoff from statehouses to the House of Representatives – is, in my view, being inhibited by the politics of an election year. Sure, it’s a campaign issue.
What the hell isn’t?
Already,the Republican side of this as a campaign issue is falling into place: if the “Democrat Party” regains control of the House, they will begin to issue subpoenas and move toward impeachment of the President. Therefore, vote Republican, or else.
Hell, I say let them run on that. Here comes a cliche: “Bring it on.”
But, for God’s sake, we cannot run from the legal and ethical issues regarding the conduct of the Bush Administration because it’s an election year. Especially not when this President’s approval ratings have hit a new low – just in time for the latest Osama bin Laden audiobook.
As I write this, it is my understanding that, despite tons of money, incessant TV ads, and an offer of three thousand dollars and a free computer to Vermont high school students, who are reacting to his “Why I should be elected” essay contest with unbridled enthusiasm, Bernie Sanders, barring the unforseen, should handily be elected to replace retiring Senator Jim Jeffords. Meanwhile, the impeachment hive is buzzing in Vermont. But Bernie seems to think this is a place where angels fear to tread, as we well know. Boston Globe:
WHITE RIVER JUNCTION, Vt. –Rep. and U.S. Senate candidate Bernard Sanders says he would be likely to support a move to censure President Bush, but is continuing to take a dim view of calls for Bush’s impeachment.
“If people are serious about changing the direction of America, there’s one way to to that — you do that in November” by electing Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Sanders said Tuesday.
But that isn’t good enough for some people………on to that email I received last night from a correspondent in Colchester:
sam wrote:
The following letter will be leaving my computer immediately after this is sent. Bernie
Sanders has repeatedly stated he does not believe a call for impeachment of George W. Bush will
lead to action by the Republican controlled House. If the allegation by Drumheller to be aired 04/23/2006 on CBS’ 60 Minutes doesn’t do it, then the responsibility clearly will have been given
back to U.S. citizens and our respective state legislatures to assume Constitutional authority to
demand action leading to consideration of impeachment of the President of the United States. Following that, then, responsibility for removing those in both the House and Senate who have refused to assume Constitutional responsibilities for which each took an oath remands to U.S.
citizens to demand they leave office and be replaced by others who may think and act more
responsibly.
Respectfully,
Sam
Colchester, Vermont
Dear Rep. Sanders,
I realize you have stated your implicit belief that calling for impeachment of President
George W. Bush and his Vice President may not lead to action by your colleagues. However, given what I’ve read re CBS airing on 04/23/2006 of Tyler Drumheller’s allegations, I and believing he is telling the truth, I urge you to press your colleagues to force the issue and demand open investigation and hearings to impeach this sitting President and remove his administration from
office.
Further, I recognize that the Speaker of your chamber is 3rd in line to assume the Presidency after Cheney. However, given his outright resistance to take responsibility for anything about the current President, it is clear to me that he should recuse himself from the possibility of become President. Because she is appointed by a President who, it is hoped, will be facing impeachment, I believe it is similarly essential that the Secretary of State recuse herself from consideration as a potential assumptive President as well.
By Congress’ passive inaction heretofore to deal effectively with the dishonesty flaunted and portrayed publicly by the President, the Vice President and their respective advisors, a
Constitutional crisis of serious proportions has been created. It is now “bottom line” time for
the House to act responsibly to assume its Constitutional responsibility and to act in behalf of the United States of America and our citizens by impeaching Mr. Bush.
I look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
Sam
Colchester, Vermont
After reading this, the thought occurred to me: Bernie Sanders doesn’t have to win with the whole country. Bernie has to win in Vermont, a state that is leading the state-based impeachment movement. Granted that in a Republican-controlled Congress, impeachment is going to fly like one of Mr. Carlson’s turkeys, but that doesn’t mean you don’t make the statement. Impeachment: a word that will not go away.
Can you hear me now?
I wrote back to Sam and asked him for permission to use his letter in blog material. His response:
Ed,
At this point in what has become one helluva unholy war against anyone and everyone either here
or in the Middle East and Afghanistan/Pakistan/Nepal … I don’t really give a tinker’s damn if Bernie or that long drink of water, Tarrant, are forced to take positive stands regarding the SOB we’ve got f’n up in, around and way beyond the White and Blair Houses.
Bernie has been playing this one close for the past several years – and I certainly understand the political need as an Independent from/in Vermont behind his avoidance – but, I’ve had it with the comfort-dependent folks in the Democratic and Republican Parties and Bernie (for that matter) who have not been aggressive at home and in Washington to the extent that Hastert and his damned crowd would have been forced to act more pro-Constitution and less pro-passive and conservative.
So use whatever I write … and let folks deal or not with it.
Sam
Oh, gee, Sam, I like ya, but hey. We mustn’t make those Republicans too angry, now. We need to be uniters, not dividers. Mustn’t move too far off the center. Never mind the fact that every time the Democrats move toward the center, the right is emboldened, and moves farther right.
Don’t want to alienate the…alienate the….wait.
Just who are these people that some are afraid of alienating, the ones in the middle of the road, who are more worried about how they’re going to vote in American Idol than how they’re going to vote in the next election? The ones who stopped their personal presses when a litle baby Scientologist was born in a silent room, following which Dad eagerly wolfed down the placenta then burned off the extra carbs by jumping up and down on a couch?
lightning crashes, a new mother cries
her placenta falls to the floor
the angel opens her eyes
and Tom Cruise comes running in
with a bowl, a knife and fork
-with apologies to Live
Is it the people who actually give two shits if Paris Hilton is alive or dead? Is it them?
That’s hot.
How do you alienate someone that isn’t listening in the first place?
So, there’s a topic for discussion over cheese and ale. I am going to take a firm, principled stance of NEUTRALITY on the issue, for the purpose of facilititating the percussive discussive discoursizations. Would taking a definitive stance that this President’s conduct warrants an immediate discussion of impeachment in the United States House of Representatives, hurt Bernie…..in VERMONT? Is that a negligible risk – that Richie Rich will seize it as a campaign issue? And what if he does? Might that actually work in Bernie’s favor – and advance the cause of beginning serious examination of the Constitutional necessity of impeaching this President?
Discuss.
Okay, by now, you’re no doubt wondering about my encounter with Shep as related by Baruth in his VDB piece. This was a ways back, and just in case somebody from corporate happens to get ahold of this piece (they will) I want everyone to know that I was reprimanded for what I did on the air that day. I was not formally disciplined, but I did receive quite the scolding from the corporation’s Chief Operating Officer, who is almost like a second father to me. I hung my head so hard I damn near had to see a chiropractor. In one sense, it actually hurt my show in the long term. I had been able to get away with “truth to power” on the air like a bandit, as long as I stayed on the national level. This is an example of how much of a street buzz I’d built up about the anti-Bush stance of my show: my father ordered some tamales for my family’s Christmas from a firm in Texas. They came in a big styrofoam cold storage box. The (substitute) postman brought them into the radio station, saying, “I have something for Eddie….” and ceremoniously placed the large white box on the front counter, saying, “It is the head of George W. Bush. Packed in dry ice.” Man, I got away with murder. Every day. The walls of the control room were completely covered in anti-Bush, anti-war, pro-Democrat material. Talking points flapped from the wall on yellow post its everywhere like some kind of weird skin condition. But once I forayed into local politics, I came under increased scrutiny, and had to pull back some. Itshay. But reading Baruth’s piece made it all seem worthwhile.
Here is my original post on Daily Kos:
Mark Shepard (none / 0)
is an anti-gay fundamentalist Christian. I believe he will be soundly trounced by the gop competition. About the only thing he can run on that I can think of is helping to bring the microtechnology center to Bennington, but I think Dick Sears was involved in that to some extent too. (Although some of the peace activists object to it because it will produce guidance systems for torpedoes.) BTAIM, when Shepard came out of the gate with that asinine defense of marriage initiative,I BLASTED him on the air. Just flat gave him both barrels. “Bennington deserves better, and you deserve better.”
The following Monday, he showed up at the radio station. I about had a heart attack. But I regained my footing when he told me “I represent you….” I drew myself up and said, “No Senator, you don’t represent me.” He proceeded to tell me that his initiative would “in no way affect the civil unions law.” But read the initiative, if you can find it, and read Baker v. State of VT. Note the use of the language “marriage or the lawful incidents thereof.”
Had his initiative passed, the civil unions law would have lost all legal meaning. Short version: I feel that Shepard basically lied to me. I realize that’s a strong statement, but that’s what I got out of the encounter and subsequent research.
Wish I could get back to Vermont. I miss my adopted home terribly, terribly – enough to be heading into the Prozac zone.
Mad love from VA’s Shenandoah Valley.
And I’d have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for those meddling kids.(-8.50\-7.13)
by kestrel9000 on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 01:26:50 PM EDT
There may be a couple of mistakes on my part in there – if you see any, let me know.
At any rate, Rereading Baker and the civil unions law leads me to the conclusion that and defense of marriage initiative in Vermont would be, on its face, redundant.
Recycling my own stuff:
NO. 91. AN ACT RELATING TO CIVIL UNIONS.
(H.847)
It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:
Sec. 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS
The General Assembly finds that:
(1) Civil marriage under Vermont’s marriage statutes consists of a union between a man and a woman. This interpretation of the state’s marriage laws was upheld by the Supreme Court in Baker v. State:.
Vermont’s marriage statutes are set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 15, entitled “Marriage,” which defines the requirements and eligibility for entering into a marriage, and Chapter 105 of Title 18, entitled “Marriage Records and Licenses,” which prescribes the forms and procedures for obtaining a license and solemnizing a marriage. Although it is not necessarily the only possible definition, there is no doubt that the plain and ordinary meaning of “marriage” is the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. See Webster’s New International Dictionary 1506 (2d ed. 1955) (marriage consists of state of “being united to a person . . .of the opposite sex as husband or wife”); Black’s Law Dictionary 986 (7th ed. 1999) (marriage is “[t]he legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife”). This understanding of the term is well rooted in Vermont common law.
§ 1201. DEFINITIONS
As used in this chapter:
(1) “Certificate of civil union” means a document that certifies that the persons named on the certificate have established a civil union in this state in compliance with this chapter and 18 V.S.A. chapter 106.
(2) “Civil union” means that two eligible persons have established a relationship pursuant to this chapter, and may receive the benefits and protections and be subject to the responsibilities of spouses.
(3) “Commissioner” means the commissioner of health.
(4) “Marriage” means the legally recognized union of one man and one woman.
(5) “Party to a civil union” means a person who has established a civil union pursuant to this chapter and 18 V.S.A. chapter 106.
Seems to me that “defense of marriage” the way the uptight people want enshrined in law is already there? So, what’s really going on?
Baruth:
Because for all of his pleasant demeanor and entrepreneurial savvy, Shepard strikes me as Vermont’s version of Rick Santorum: ambitious, well-spoken, and more than just a little disturbing when you take the time to really listen to what he has to say.
We have a friend here in VA who is a militant pro lifer. You bring up any argument, any argument at all, in favor of even limited choice in the sense of “pharmaceutical abortion” like Plan B or RU-486 and he immediately interrupts and asks if you would slit a baby’s throat with a knife as soon as the head is clear of the mother’s body. Then tries to tell you there’s no difference. John Cornyn and box turtles. Rick Santorum and fun with Fido.
That was how my personal encounter with Shep went.
Lemme recycle myself again, and this is from my email to Baruth:
I always get kind of a perverse kick out of how conservatives who are religious fanatics will jump through hoops to deny that their political positions are influenced by their religious beliefs. It’s a trip into the land of “ends justify the means.” What makes it worse, on a personal-annoyance level is that on the day he paid me a visit, his manner was somewhat….condescending, at least initially. He actually asked me if I wanted to legalize murder simply because it is proscribed in the Bible – this was in response to my assertion that I will oppose any attempts to pass laws based on an interpretation of Christianity, or any other religion for that matter. As far as him being a logic-driven engineer, I can’t see the logic in his assertion that same-sex unions have an adverse effect on “traditional” marriage in any way. I think he’s just a plain ole cryptotheocrat.
And to say that “not legalizing gay marriage is not regulating it”? Apply that same logic to, oh say, “recreational drugs”. Tell me that banning them isn’t regulating them.
You can’t have it both ways, Shep.
For mankind to hate truth as it may bring their evil deeds to light and punishment, is very easy and common, but to hate truth as truth, or God as God, which is the same as to hate goodness for its own sake, unconnected with any other consequences, is impossible even to a (premised) diabolical nature itself.
-Ethan Allen
That’s basically how it went. And I came away with the same sense that Baruth did for the guy, complicated by the sense that I’d been…..uh….PREVARICATED to. “Lie” is such an ugly word.
I wish I could find the text of his initiative again. If anyone can dig that up, I’d love to have it. But I can’t help but suspect that, given that the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is already written into Baker and codified further in the Vermont Civil unions law that resulted from that decision, he was never honest with me about what his real goal was. Whether it was a play to his fundamentalist “base” (that probably exists primarily in his own mind), whether it was an attempt to create legislation that caused a conflict with the civil unions law that would have dragged it into court, or whether it was an attempt to catapult his propaganda into the Fox News spotlight, or all of the above, I can’t know. I suspect it was all of the above. But this, as well as the fact that the state GOP abandoned him en masse for a candidate who has no political experience, suggests a number of campaign strategies to help make sure Shep does not win re-election to the State Senate.
As for Shep’s strategeries? He seems to have a plan to remake himself. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
He WAS the walrus…goo goo ga joob…..
A Bennington activist and I discussed possible candidates for a run against Shepard. One guy I like a LOT, and know personally, has already been approached, but has reportedly demurred, due to wanting to spend time with his family. Jesus, the guy hasn’t even been elected yet, and he already….all right, all right, all right.
But if my walking five hundred and twelve miles to Bennington with a backpack full of cheese and crackers and bottled water will change this guy’s mind, then I guess I better go buy some new boots.
Come on, dude,I owe ya. You know why. I know I paid your bill (except for the few bucks you discounted me, which was cool), but still, I owe ya. And I believe in you. There are those who know who I’m talking about. Please relay the message. I offer my services as media director, oppo research….campaign manager….whatever.
I’m open to any opportunities in VT posed by any entity who could use my skill set. Except Republicans, of course. Resume on request. Email addy in my profile.
OK, I’ll buy this round. Let the debates commence.
ITMFA!
Loading ...
.
