( – promoted by odum)

The energy bill (H 520) is important on many levels.  It’s most obvious function is to strike a symbolic (yet necessary) first blow in the fight against Catastrophic Climate Change.

At the same time, it could help set the stage for a new business policy in Vermont, one which favors the small, innovative individual owner-proprietor rather than a model which continues to offer support to big business which return little profit and no loyalty to the state.

Politically, it represents an opportunity to show where we stand as a state, and where we want to go.

The tragedy of Jim Douglas is that he seems determined to follow the national Republican model of rule by fiat rather than by discussion and collaboration…and, in so doing,  he has set himself against the best interests of Vermont.

An earlier Draft of this Post was Cross Posted at Rip and Read

I've already written about my support for H 520, the energy bill which the Vermont Legislature passed, and which Governor Douglas swears will wither under the heel of his veto, and which the Democrats who control the Vermont House are going to fight to keep alive in a summer session. 

I believe that, in addition to a strong symbolic blow against Global Warming (at, at the beginning of an uphill battle, symbolism is actually very, very important), this bill would also be the first step towards creating a business climate in Vermont which would favor small innovative companies…companies which would supply good jobs, and opportunities for citizen ownership and Independence…building, in short, post-industrial version of Jeffersonian Democracy.

 As we look at the deals with Big Business that we have made here in Vermont, and have seen the return we receive…often in the form of corporate pullouts and massive layoffs…a change in our business strategy seems a very desirable outcome. 

There are other reasons to want this bill passed over Jim Douglas' objections. As John Odum, has pointed out:

Legislative Democrats had their chances for a significant power shift increase dramatically today – and they have Jim Douglas to thank for it.Despite an enormous, broad-based push on its behalf, the Governor has made it clear he will veto the climate change bill, which has become less and less controversial the more members of the media, the legislature and the public have had time to familiarize themselves with it… …if a Douglas veto -any veto – is overridden, that'll be the headline in all the papers the next day. And the perceived power shift will have the potential to send shockwaves into the next session, as well as the next election season.

The Burlington Free Press raises an interesting point in a Monday Editorial( yes, the Burlington Free Press…no, I'm not kidding) on Governor Jim Douglas and H.520. In speaking of Douglas' alternative to H 520, the Free Press asks:

At the same time, if the administration had the ideas and the power to act on global warming without legislation and without a new tax, then why did the governor wait until after the session to make his move?…At the same time, if the administration had the ideas and the power to act on global warming without legislation and without a new tax, then why did the governor wait until after the session to make his move?

I think, alas, the answer to the paper's question is obvious: Vermont Republicans have adapted the Republican National Strategy. The Republican national strategy, which has worked so well for George W. Bush, boils down something very simple: ignore the will of the people, they will go home eventually. 

This is a strategy which has stymied progress and overridden the express choice of the people time and time again- the most recent and obvious example being the failure of the U.S Congress to force an end to the now pointless Iraq War. 

And I think it is now clear that this Republican National strategy is seeping down to the State Level. Ruling by fiat is so much simpler than engaging in debate with one's opponents, so much easier than crafting compromises. Rather than engage in a debate, the administration will wait for the legislature to have it's say, and then, go ahead and do exactly what it wants, secure in the knowledge that the people won't be back in sufficient numbers come summer time…. 

And to me, that is the real tragedy of the Jim Douglas story.    Here is a man who started out as (seemingly) a fundamentally decent human being and conscientious public servant; a man who, throughout his career, was often the choice of both major political parties for statewide office; a man who is courtly, neighborly and genuinely friendly; a man who seems to have escaped the trap of hubris and ego that claims so many public servants.

And yet, this man has chosen, time and time again since becoming governor to take the low road rather than the high one.  This man seems determined to grant Big Business what it wants rather than helping Vermonters achieve what they NEED.

 Loading ...

Cross-Posted at Rip and Read

NOTE: Normally, I wouldn’t endulge in shameless self-promotion here at GMD– after all, that is what one’s OWN blog is for.  But, I am cross-posting this piece because I am dismayed about all the Inhuman Spawn of Satan feelings I see zipping around and my hope is that we can start throwing more spitballs at our opponants than at our allies.

The NEW New Nixon

They may have called Bill Clinton the “Come Back Kid”, but perhaps the American Politician who reinvented himself most successfully, time and time again, was Richard Nixon. In each new permutation, we were told that this was “The New Nixon”.

Well, this twisted and fascinating man is gone now…and, wherever he is, it must really irk him that he can’t make just one more comeback.

At least he couldn’t…until now!

And it’s all thanks to Philip Baruth over at Vermont Daily Briefing.

Thanks to Philip’s wizardry at the typewriter, Nixon has found his way back into the arena in the latest episode of Audio Dream Theater’s League of Extraordinary Republican Gentlemen.

Episode 3: Statehouse of the Living Dead features the voice-work of:

• Philip Baruth  as the Narrator and Brian Dubie, Wonder Boy.
• Neil Jensen (Publisher of What’s the Point and Green Mountain Daily’s own front pager Vermonter) in a masterful turn as Al Gore, and also a surprise cameo as Henry Kissinger.
• With Special Guest Star Kathryn Blume. Blume is one of the actresses who lead a world wide protest against the war in Iraq by helping to inspire 1,029 performances of Aristophanes’s anti-war farce, Lysistrata, around the globe.

It probably goes without saying that I feel very lucky to be a part of this little acting company…but I’ll say it anyway, because I am.

I hope you enjoy Statehouse of the Living Dead! at least half as much as I enjoyed working on it!

I’m in favor of the energy bill that was passed this session, and I’m sorry (but not surprised) that the Governor plans to Veto it.

More than just a climate change bill, I truly believe that the thinking behind this measure represents a step in the right direction for Vermont from a political and business prospective as well as an environmental one.

From the Burlington Free Press:

Supporters of the bill argue it offers a number of opportunities to save
Vermonters money on heating bills and, in the process, generate jobs.

Chuck Reiss is a Hinesburg homebuilder who’s hoping for a change in state law that
would allow a group of homes he’s building to share a wind turbine and sell the
excess power to utilities. That change in law is contained in the bill Douglas
has promised to veto.

“It’s time to start helping small businesses instead of
large businesses,” said Reiss, owner of Reiss Buildings and Renovations, who
added that he has several neighborhoods interested in running group wind
turbines if the law allows it.

In addition to striking a blow on behalf of the environment, this bill can also start setting the stage for a modern version of Jeffersonian Democracy here in Vermont.

In his original vision for this country, Jefferson saw a nation of small landholders…none powerful enough to tyrannize over their neighbors, and yet all enjoying the fruits of their labor and invested in “the system”.

For Jefferson, the economic engine he envisioned was primarily agricultural. But the principle holds true in today’s post industrial Vermont Landscape as well. The principal of many of us, owning our own business, making decisions here at the local level and wielding a collective amount of econonmic and political power is just as important to the health of our democracy as are  efforts to decrease our reliance on oil to the environment.

This bill would begin to help generate economic stimulus needed to  speed this process.

One of the things that I’ve always (begrudgingly) respected the Governor for was the way in which he made the point that Vermont kids SHOULD be able to grow up and do well economically RIGHT HERE AT HOME…

However, by opposing the logic of this bill, the Governor is turning his back on the future of Jeffersonian Democracyand the cause of meaningful employment here in Vermont in favor of a Hamiltonian emphasis on Big Business. The few good jobs we might gain for our youth would pale in comparison to the number we would loose by turning our back on small, forward looking, locally owned and managed Vermont Businesses.

I am glad to read in the Free Press that Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility and other Groups are, according to director Will Patten, “not going to take no on this issue” .

Again, from the Free Press:

Patten said his group will continue to try to persuade the governor not to
veto the bill. Failing that, he said, the business owners hope to persuade
enough legislators to override the veto when the Legislature returns for a veto
session July 11.

According to State Senator Ginny Lyons and State Rep Robert Dostis (who I heard at the recent VBSR convention) letters to leaders really ARE effective…and I hope to write a few. Maybe you will too.

Now that Bush has stamped his Veto across the Iraq spending bill the question is: how do Democrats continue to drive the point home that America wants an end to Bush’s war?

Do we vote no money for the troops and give the Republicans Ammo they’ve been dreaming of?

Or do we fold, give Bush his bill with no timelines, and remain committed to this endless and wasteful Republican debacle?

Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania has got a plan that seems pretty damn good to me.

According to the AP story, Democrats weigh post-veto Iraq options,:

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who chairs the House panel that oversees military funding, said he wants a bill that would fund the war for just two or three months. Before that second bill would expire in summer, Democrats would try again to pass legislation calling for an end to combat.

It sounds like a good idea to me…it does two things:

• It Shows Democrats DO support the troops
• It Shows Democrats WILL NOT roll-over and play dead for Bush

Still, I’ve yet to read any substantive discussion of the merits of the idea (It’s very similar to something the DLC put out, so that alone may make it very unpopular here on GMD).  Does anyone have any thoughts?

Edwards, Hillary, Obama. It’s just too damn early for this. A combination of Democratic eagerness for a rematch (where, it is to be hoped, the game won’t be rigged this time) combined with the surge of State Pride (and desire for campaign cash) have pushed the primary season ridiculously early.

New Donkey, the centrist Democrat blogger, posted on this subject about a week ago- and I think it’s worth a read.

cross-posted at Rip and Read

New Donkey writes:

This [the rush to nominate] … is simply crazy. February 5 is nine months before the general election, and roughly six months before the nominating conventions … It virtually guarantees that three factors: money, name ID, and success in the earliest states, especially Iowa,will determine the outcome. And it may well snuff any serious chance for the lower-tier candidates in both parties ….Most importantly, the emerging calendar will provide zero opportunity for second thoughts after the early rush has anointed nominees. It could be a very long spring, summer and autumn if a nominee commits some major blunder, or some disabling skeleton jumps out of a closet [emphasis added].

New Donkey goes on to say point out that this problem could be solved by having the Democratic National Committee take a leadership role to stop thmadnesses:

…what should happen before the next go-around, is a truly national approach. Whether it’s a lottery, or a carefully matched series of states around the country, or regional primaries, or just the kind of spread-out process that prevailed until recently, it could be imposed by the DNC through a combination of (a) strict rules against seating of delegates chosen outside the calendar guidelines, and (b) an aggressive effort to recruit all candidates in advance to support the decision, with ejection from DNC-sponsored debates, or if necessary, a ban on speaking opportunities at the Convention, being the stick.

But if we don’t get seriously angry about this abomination right now, we’re going to find ourselves in the same situation four and eight years from now.

Given the source (New Donkey is after all, usually butting heads with MyDD and Daily Kos), it’s possible that these ideas will be rejected by the netroots and others who will write off anything said by such folks as “Republican-Lite” rhetoric.

But…given the fact that HRClinton is the likely beneficiary this year of this insane process…I think it’s a conversation in which all should participate.

Recently, Congressional Republicans maneuvered to deny the people of a major American city representation in Congress.

One blog struck back.

Cross-posted at Rip and Read

Note:While one the surface of it, this story has nothing directly to do with Vermont, it has a lot to do with democracy…so I take the liberty of putting it up.

Besides:  it’s a funny story, and after 7 years of Bush and War, I need all the laughs I can get.

The residents of D.C want a vote in the U.S. House. There are plenty of people who don’t want to give them that vote. After all, if you give a D.C. mouse a cookie, he will want a seat in the Senate. Since voters in the District of Columbia (which is a large, east coast city after all) tend to have problems like poverty, crime, drugs etc, they tend to vote Democratic. So, the last thing Republicans want is to see these inner-city residents sneaking into Congress bringing a lot of those damn Liberal Democrats in through the back door. (Especially at risk would be a Senate divided by the width of a whisker.)

So, when the U.S. House seemed poised to grant D.C. it’s first full representative, Republicans used a little legislative chicanery to send the bill back to committee, where it will, hopefully, die. The reason Republicans gave was that D.C.’s gun laws were too tight.

The Washington Post has the story.

Besides, according to Texas Republican Louie Gohmert, these inner-city people don’t NEED their own Representative to Congress:

I would submit to you that Washington, D.C. is also the only city in the entire country that every Senator and every Member of Congress has a vested interest in seeing that it works properly, that water works, sewer works, and no other city in America has that. [Hear him for yourself here]

Well, according to the Post, the Washington Blog, DCist, picked up on Congressman Gohmer’s….opps: that’s Gohmert….remarks and was delighted to have finally found a representative to whom they could direct complaints.

So delighted in fact, that the blog suggested to it’s readers that THEY call up their new congressman and share their concerns…early calls went to the wrong Republican, but no harm done, he also voted against the bill…but soon, Washington’s residents were eagerly jamming their new Congressman’s phone to complain about crime, garbage removal, and potholes.

As Republican staffers struggled to carry out their new duties, reviews on the DCist comment page were mixed. “I just gave a call to ask about garbage collection. And Man, our rep’s are not very friendly.”

According to the Post, one Republican congressional office was “deluged” with calls.

Now, I know that there is a legitimate debate to be held about why the District of Columbia was excluded from Congressional Representation by the founders.

But I also know that, to men like Gohmert, that is not what this is about. This is about keeping those damn Democrats from getting more votes.

After all, as the Post points out:

Democrats, who recently won control of Congress, have made a priority of giving a vote to the mostly African American city. [emphasis added]In floor speeches yesterday, they described it as an issue of fairness, linking it to laws and court decisions that gave blacks full rights.

Republican’s like Gohmert see it differently, and used the same old Republican Compassion Conservative line of Bush-Wah. But they got busted and embarrassed when Washington’s Voters decied to take them at their word

…and I’m having too much fun watching Gohmert and his buddies clean that egg off their faces to worry about the “legitimate debate”.

One reader writes in DCist that: Each week, DC residents should pick one member of Congress who opposes giving us voting rights and make him or her our “member of the week.”

Meanwhile, the author of the DCist itself remarked that, given the fact that Republicans based their maneuverings on gun rights, Representative Gohmert should reflect on “what happened the last time a group of Americans were taxed, unrepresented and, thanks to [Gohmert’s] efforts, armed to the teeth…”

All I can hope is that Gohmert’s Texas constituants have to pay his phone bill.

Footnote:

Gohmert is the same Republican who remarked of Decorated Veteran (and Democrat) John Murtha, that “…thank God he was not here and prevailed after the bloodbaths at Normandy and in the Pacific or we would be here speaking Japanese or German.”

This info comes from Wikipedia, which, I notice has been altered  to reflect recent events. As of 10:00 am Eastern Time, March 24, his entry reads:

In March of 2007 Gohmert unilaterally ended the historical disenfranchisement of Washington the District of Columbia … Since that time Gohmert has become the ‘go-to’ representative for the District of Columbia and residents are encouraged to contact his office for any constituent services.

(Agree or not, I think this is a discussion worth paying attention to. – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Crossposted at Rip and Read

There has been a loud cry from the Vermont “netroots” for the impeachment of George W. Bush.  I completely sympathize.  Bush has led this country into one of the worst military blunders of our history.  He has done damage to a century of goodwill built-up by his predecessors: from Wilson to Clinton.  His administration has continued to add to the Federal deficit; ultimately, this will place programs the American people need, cherish, and depend upon, programs such as Social Security, in grave danger. His reliance on creating a climate of fear has brought our ancient civil liberties into question.  Finally, his policies have lead to great loss of life.  American Solders and Iraqi Civilians have paid the ultimate price in a dubious cause of questionable worth.

George W. Bush’s administration has been both a failure and a disaster for this country.
Impeachment, however, would be a mistake, and would play right into the hands of Karl Rove and company.

Crazy F*#!king Hippies

Recently, on Green Mountain Daily, an entry appeared entitled “Crazy F*#!king Hippies”. A cartoon shows a Donkey and an Elephant watching a crowd of protesters.

The protesters bring up the fact that the war is based on a lie; there are no weapons of mass destruction.  The Donkey Cheers them on.  The Elephant growls: Crazy F*#!king Hippies.

The protesters note that the government is spying on us. The Donkey Cheers them on.  The Elephant growls: Crazy F*#!king Hippies.

The protesters scream that Katrina relief was a disaster. The Donkey Cheers them on.  The Elephant growls: Crazy F*#!king Hippies.

The protesters cry: Impeachment.  The Donkey and the Elephant looked shocked.

And then the Donkey growls: Crazy F*#!king Hippies.

These people are incensed.  And they want action.  They want to see George W. Bush placed on a pillory of disgrace and made to feel some small token of shame for what he has done to this country.

I agree, I sympathize, and I think impeachment would be a HUGE MISTAKE.

My gut feeling is, in fact, that a serious move to impeach Bush would play right into the hands of both this president, and those who are trying to find a worthy successor for him: one who will continue Bush’s agenda.

The Impeachment Process: What’s the Charge?

Before going into my argument, it is probably worth reviewing the Impeachment process.

The House of Representatives functions somewhat like a grand jury.  It decides if there is enough evidence that the President (or other public official) should be brought to trial, or impeached.  The trial then moves to the United States Senate  The Senate hears the case, and decides if the official deserves to be removed from office.

That is the extent of the Senate’s power: removal from office.  However, after the convicted official is removed, he is then liable to a criminal prosecution resulting from his actions.

The charges that can lead to Impeachment are very, very specific: Article Two, Section 4 of the Constitution states: The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment  for and conviction of [emphasis mine] treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

The question then becomes: what could President Bush be charged with, that he would also be convicted of?

Treason?

Given the damage that President Bush has done, both to this country’s traditions of liberty and to its strategic and diplomatic position in the world, it certainly sounds as if we could charge him with treason.

But no…the Constitution is quite specific about the definition of Treason.  In Article 3, Section 3, treason is defined very narrowly: Treason against the United States shall consist onlyin levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort..  Note the “only”.

In the eighteenth century, memories of Tudor England’s Star Chamber were not far distant; and, of course, the examples of aristocratic Europe were plain to see.  The founders did not intend for “treason” to be a catch-all crime, used to “disappear” anyone who dissented from the government of the day.

Given the fact that Rovists have endeavored to tar anyone from the center to the left who dare disagree with their polices with the stigma of treason, and given their obvious lack of respect for civil liberties, I cannot say that I think the founders were wrong to keep the lid so firmly on the crime of treason.

Bribery?

This would be appropriate, to be sure.  Many of us believe that there would be no sweeter vision of justice than to see George W. Bush convicted of inviting his Halliburton and Big Oil cohorts to the public table to gourge themselves on taxpayer money braised with the blood of our solders. 

But we have no real evidence of this, nothing hard and fast, nothing that would hold up in a court of law.

In Congress, Henry Waxman is holding hearings in the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Among other questions, Congressman Waxman is asking: What happened to the 363 TONS (yes, TONS) of money we shipped to Iraq?  The committee is also looking into the administration’s slipshod dealings with our government contractors, and evaluating the Administration’s request for more money.

Vermont’s own Peter Welch is a member of that committee, and it should be interesting to see if they come up with material that results in criminal charges. 

But there is no firm evidence yet; at least, not firm enough to convict the President of the United States.  Personally, I doubt there will be.  There is no need for Bush to personally get his hands dirty.  To help his friends, all he need do is turn a blind eye toward them.  It is very hard to prove intentional malfeasance over shear stupidity and blindness.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

And here we come to the most famous phrase in the impeachment language: High Crimes and Misdemeanors. 

When you can’t convict for Treason, or for Bribery, there is always this catch-all.

But if you look into our history, you will find that, although the House has, in moments of passion, adhered to Congressman Gerald Ford’s assertion that: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history”,  the Senate has not followed suit.

In fact, given  that a two-thirds majority is needed to obtain a conviction by the Senate, it is, and always has been, highly unlikely that the Senate will respond to the passion of the moment.

Because the Right-Wing seems so much better at using passion to remove opponents from power (think: Schwarzenegger in California) I, for one, am very glad that our founders thought to balance passion against sober judgment.  In my opinion, both forces are vital to the successful running of any community.  Especially one as large and varied as the United States of America.

The American People: Deeply Conservative

But I realize that many others of Liberal persuasion would disagree with me.  They would prefer that the voice of the people be heard loud and clear- and that there be no disconnected elite in a position to growl such phrases as: Stupid F*#!king Hippies.

It’s a good argument (and also one not to delve too deeply into here:  this essay has already grown too long).  But my short answer it this:  The American people are, by nature, conservative.  In each new addition of his masterful, radical work, A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn includes a final chapter entitled: “The Coming Revolt of the Guards.”  It was there when the book was issued to me as a college text back in 1987.  Last time I looked, twenty years later, the book has been extensively updated, but the chapter is still there.  Zinn’s chapter is a “not a prediction, but a hope”…and yet it has not come to pass.

I believe that this lack of  dynamic, radical change is due to the basic conservatism of the American people.  Change does come- witness civil rights, child labor, environmental protection, enfranchisement…but it comes for the most part slowly: three steps forward, one step back.

The arguments of the right are short term arguments.  They, much more than liberal arguments, appeal to the passions most deeply held by the American people.  Because of our conservatism, if we allow ourselves to be subjected to fast revolution, it will be a Revolution to the Right, not the left.

The arguments of the center-left take time to resonate.  The American people often do not want to admit the truth of them.  They long for the Bush/Reagan “dead or alive” cowboy approach. 

That is why the center-left coalition lost in 2002, and again in 2004.

But Americans are not completely stupid, and they are realizing now that this approach does not work.  At least, not in the case of Iraq.

Our arguments ARE resonating now.  And the truth of them is being admitted.  This is a slow process; it has to be, given the nature of an American public which is highly resistant to it. 

This process MUST be given time to continue…we must NOT give the Right wing a rallying point which they can use to obfuscate the process and cloud the question of Bush’s responsibility.

Two Thirds? No Way

Let’s look at an important point once more: It requires a two-thirds majority to convict and remove the President.  Unlike the Watergate case, there is no smoking gun.  Therefore, it is highly unlikely that, in a Senate all but split down the middle, there would EVER be the two-thirds majority needed to convict Bush on any but the most blatant charge.

But perhaps it is not necessary to convict Bush.  Perhaps it is only necessary to make him appear before the bar of history, and thus stain his reputation.  Perhaps there is a tactical advantage to this?

It’s a legitimate argument, but I believe that a look into the history books will show that it would backfire on the center-left.

When Impeachment Fails: Johnson

We have impeached two presidents in our national history.  Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.

The most famous Presidential Criminal of all, and the only President to be forced to resign his office, was Richard M. Nixon.  It is worth noting that Nixon was not impeached by the U.S. House of representatives.

As everyone remembers, Nixon resigned in disgrace before the House could impeach him.  While some sources reported that he was momentarily tempted to fight, it quickly became apparent that, not only did the House of Representatives have the “Smoking Gun” tape, which recorded Nixon personally authorizing hush money, but that there would be a strong possibility that the Senate would find the two-thirds majority needed to convict.

But what happened to the two Presidents who were actually impeached by the House of U.S.  Representatives?

In the story of Andrew Johnson, it is hard to find a clear cut hero. 

Johnson succeeded Lincoln upon his assassination.  A Tennessee Democrat, he broke with his party on the question of Southern Session.  The former Democrat was nominated by the Republicans to serve as Lincoln’s VP to show the nation and the world the Party of Lincoln was the party of all loyal men. [Freidel, Frank. Our Country’s Presidents. National Geographic Society. Washington DC.  1981.]  But, he was never fully trusted by them.

Certainly, it is hard to love Johnson. As Howard Zinn points out, Johnson, seeking to bind the nation’s wounds, often ended by siding with former slave owners and racists. “Johnson Vetoed bills to help Negros,” writes Zinn, “he made it easy for Confederate states to come back into the Union without guaranteeing equal rights to blacks.”

However, the Republican Congress of the time is not very lovable either. Following the war, and the assassination, the passions of the country ran very high.  According to Nevins and Commager in their Short History of the United States [Random House. New York. 1945] this situation was quickly exploited by a Republican Party who wished to “perpetuate it’s power and by the wish of selfish business groups to use the situation to their own advantage.  Manufactures who wanted high tariffs, bondholders who wanted to be certain of interest payments…railroad builders who wanted land grants all rallied behind the Republican Regime.”

These Radical Republicans, annoyed at the Democrat, Johnson, for standing in their way, passed some highly questionable laws about who he could, and could not, appoint to his cabinet.  Johnson defied these laws.  And he was impeached by the House.

The Senate voted NOT to convict Johnson by one vote.  It is possible that some Republican Senators were more concerned at the judgment of history than they were at the judgment of their party.

Johnson’s term was soon over.  However, he WAS later elected to the United States Senate.  From Wikipedia: [In the Senate] Johnson denounced the corruptions of the Grant Administration and his passions aroused a standing ovation from many of his fellow senators who had once voted to remove him from the presidency.

So, with Johnson, we see that a failed Impeachment has enabled historians to make an argument that he was a bullwork against those same forces of corporatism that Bush’s foes are fighting today.  And we see that it helps gain for this mediocre President a STANDING OVATION in the Senate.

Now,  I urge all in the center-left who are crying for Bush to be impeached to project that same picture 150 years into the future.  Is this really the curtain call you want for George W. Bush? A STANDING OVATION in the Senate?  Personally, I find that an increadibly distasteful picture.

When Impeachment Fails: Clinton

Fortunately, it is not necessary to spend a lot of time recreating this moment in history.  It is still fresh.  What is worth noting, however is that the party of Clinton gained seats during the 1998 midterm elections,  that Clinton’s approval rating has continued to RISE following his impeachment trial, and that his wife is considered a very serious contender for the Presidency.  Bill Clinton has hardly been confined to obsurity by his opponenents.

Republicans, unable to beat Clinton in open political warfare, chose to fight using the weapon of impeachment.  They were beaten then, and they continue to be beaten.  With the exception of the die-hard Clinton haters, most people seem to reguard this impeachment trial as pointless partisan warfare.  Many remember Clinton was a certain degree of respect.

Again, is this the fate we would wish for George W. Bush?

Don’t Hand Them a Weapon

For eight years (if you include the 2000 campaign) George W. Bush and his cronies have been unsavory, slippery, dishonest, nasty, unscrupulous opponents of the Center-Left coalition. 

They have done great damage to this country in every area.  They have wreaked havoc on our diplomacy, our military, our financial stability, our programs of social justice, our environment, and on our civil liberties- upon which all else depends.

For most of that time, they have frustrated all of our efforts to stop them.  Not until 2006 was there even so much as a glimmer of hope.

Now, we are tempted to go for broke, our luck is changing, and many of us are ready to bet all of our chips on impeachment.

It would be a bad bet on our part.

Presently, the right wing is fractured and floundering.  http://www.npr.org/t… >Conservatives cannot find a clear cut leader and they are reeling from last fall’s reversal of fortune. 

The American people, despite their basic conservative instincts, seem to be coming around to a more sensible view of the world.  We see this in Bush’s plummeting levels of support, and, of course, in last fall’s midterm elections.

The facts, in other words, are speaking for themselves to our fellow citizens.

But, if we throw Impeachment into the mix, not only will we give conservatives a point around which they can rally; but by bringing a charge without being able to obtain a conviction, we will actually leave the question of Bush’s guilt wide open.

Because it is likely that Bush would not lose his trail in the Senate, the American people will have an excuse to stop their journey toward common sense.

That is why I agree with the political leaders of Vermont:  Bernie Sanders, Patrick Leahy, and Gaye Symington that Impeachment is not the right decision and that we would be handing our opponents a weapon.

Instead, let us continue to support and follow the efforts of Congressman Waxman to expose the fraud perpetrated by this administration, let us continue support the prosecution of second tier officials like Scooter Libby.  Let us continue to show the American people what “Support the Troops” means to a Republican Administration that runs Walter Reed.

Let us keep exposing the Bush Administration for the Disaster it truly is.

And IF we do, in the course of this exposure, find a smoking gun…by all means let’s go for impeachment.  I’d love to see George W. Bush be forced from office and stand open to criminal prosecution.

But, until that moment arrives, let us NOT allow Bush to beat us one last time.  Until we really have the smoking gun, let’s don’t pretend that we do.

Cross Posted at Rip and Read.

February 2007:

Anna Nicole Smith died, Lisa Nowak- astronaut- put on a pair of diapers and raced across the south to do some serious ass kicking in a love triangle and Henry Waxman began holding hearings about what happened to the money we sent to Iraq.

Guess which story got the most play in the so called “Liberal Media” this month?

The question sort of just hangs out there…what happened to the TONS of cash that the U.S. shipped to Iraq? 

That’s right…TONS of cash.  According to a Denver Post Article, 363 tons, to be exact.  In true better late than never fashion, I started following this February story just as March was rolling over the horizon…oh, but what interesting reading it is…if only you can find it.

I’m going to post a link to the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform at Rip and Read. 

That way, I might remember to check it out from time to time- if I rely on the “Liberal Media” to keep me informed, I’ll grow old waiting to find out who-done-it.

In the meantime, here’s part of an opening statement by Chairman Waxman. As you may recall, it is his congressional committee which is looking into the billions of dollars that has simply disappeared in Iraq.

You can find more committee documents at: http://oversight.hou… if you can stand to read more:

Opening Statement of Rep. Henry A. Waxman
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Hearing on “Iraq Reconstruction: An Overview”
February 15, 2007

Last week, our Committee focused on the $12 billion in cash that our government sent to Iraq.

We learned that no one knows what really happened to that money or even whether it ended up in the hands of terrorists. All we know is that the cash is gone and billions were wasted.

Today we get more bad news. The Director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency is going to testify that there are more than $10 billion in questioned and unsupported costs relating to Iraq reconstruction and troop support contracts.

This estimate is three times higher than the $3.5 billion in questionable charges that the Government Accountability Office warned us about last year. And in this new report, $2.7 billion in suspect billings are attributed to just one contractor: Halliburton…

Even worse, the actual amount of waste is likely even higher. The Defense Contract Audit Agency arrived at its $10 billion estimate after reviewing only $57 billion of Iraq contract spending.

But American taxpayers have already spent over $350 billion for the war in Iraq. There’s $300 billion still to audit. The total amount of waste, fraud, and abuse could be astronomical.

Let’s add it up. Last week’s $12 billion in cash and today’s $10 billion in questionable charges combines for $22 billion. And there’s still the potential for tens of billions more in waste.

It’s no wonder that taxpayers all across our country are fed up and demanding that we bring real oversight to the “anything goes” world of Iraq reconstruction.

Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, will tell us about a particularly egregious example of wasteful spending. It involves the State DepartmentÂ?s contract with DynCorp to train and equip the Iraqi police.

…the government could not demonstrate that it had actually received tens of millions of dollars in critical equipment, including armored vehicles, body armor, and weapons.

This is the equipment that is supposed to be going to the Iraqis so they can take up the fight and allow our U.S. service members to come home.

… I want to assure the American people that we aren’t going let a handful of corporations walk away with enormous windfalls while thousands of American soldiers are sacrificing everything to defend their country.

…To Be Continued.

cross-posted at
http://rip-and-read….

The Speaker’s Plane…A Fable with No Moral

Once upon a time, in a little town called Washington, there was nifty little tempest in a teapot when someone asked for a new plane for Speaker Nancy Pelosi while she tried to make a case that we should do something more about climate change.

Oh what a fun little story it is…

Really, the whole thing is a merry little game of “Hypocrite, Hypocrite, Who Is the Hypocrite”.

Here’s what happened, at least, here is what happened according to the AP story:

Yesterday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi went before the House Science committee to testify about the need to take action on Global Warming. (I think now that Democrats are back in Congress, it is legal again to refer to it as “Global Warming” rather than “Climate Change” – which is the term Republicans prefer… I personally like the term “Malignant Climate Change” … but I digress.)

The Irony was just tooooooo delicious to pass up for the embittered losers (whoops, I’m not sure that came out right…I meant the Republicans) on the other side of the aisle.

You see, THEY had just noted that a request had been made that the Speaker of the U.S. House (that’s Pelosi) be granted access to a much bigger (or, as Bernie Sanders might put it: “A [h]’Uuuge “) plane.

The AP actually uses the term “swanky” to describe the aircraft.

The AP quotes Rep. Patrick McHenry, Republican of North Carolina: “The jet that Pelosi has produces 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide an hour, far more than the previous speaker used,” (This puts good old Former Speaker Dennis “Don’t-think-about-what-he-is-doing-to-that-boy-or-what-Jack-Abramoff-is-doing-to-the-taxpayer-and-maybe-it-will-all-just-go-away” Hastert in the highly unusual position of FRIEND to the ENVIRONMENT…but I digress…again.)

So there was Nancy, forced to defend herself from the charge of Hypocrisy…”By commandeering a huge government plane for her personal transport to California, this is totally contradictory to the alarm bells we heard her ringing in the Science Committee just a few hours ago,” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. was quoted in the AP story.

“I have never asked for any larger plane,” was the substance of the Speaker’s argument, “I have said that I am happy to ride commercial if the plane they have doesn’t go coast to coast.”

….No, I requested the plane…quoth House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood (if you read this line in your best Dudley Dooright voice, this story starts to get EVEN funnier.) It was a matter of SECURITY! The only problem with taking that one at face value is that the Sergeant At Arms is elected by the members of Congress (and with a Democratic majority lead by Speaker Pelosi…well, you do the math. Of course, as a loyal Democrat, I am suggesting NOTHING! Still, it is just possible that Livingood request the plane because…well, you’re a grownup, you figure it out.)

And this is where it gets really good– because once the SECURITY card got played the cavalry rode over the Hill (so to speak) to rescue the “San Francisco Liberal” Speaker from the clutches of the nasty Republicans. And who was this masked hero…it was…now hold your breath….none other than….drum roll, please……

TONY SNOW!!!

White House Spokesman. Yes, that White House, the George W. Bush White house…because, while fun is fun and all, when those nasty little Republican congressmen criticize the speaker on the question of SECURITY…that’s when somebody looses an eye. You see, if you question the Speaker’s SECURITY (she is, after all, second in line for the Presidency after Dick Cheney) then you question the validity of the WAR ON TERROR, and, if you assert that there is not that much need for SECURITY for the Speaker, then you begin to see that the people might start to wonder about the WAR ON TERROR and that would be BAD…because of course, if we don’t have a WAR….then we can’t have a WAR PRESIDENT….

and that’s why the White House came to the rescue of Nancy Pelosi…..

Isn’t that a good story?

I’m hoping that the Debate on Malignant Climate Change fairs better in Vermont.

( – promoted by odum)

Cross Posted at Rip and Read

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but was last night’s State of the Union Address a crock of crap or what?

We have heard from the media all about his “plea for unity” but you didn’t have to listen very far into the president’s speech to hear the message he was really sending- about 2 minutes and 57 seconds to be exact. A nice, subtle “up yours” to the good folks across the asile.

If you READ New York Times transcript, the President says:

We enter the year 2007 with large endeavors under way and others that are ours to begin. In all of this, much is asked of us. We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies, and the wisdom to face them together.
Some in this chamber are new to the House and the Senate, and I congratulate the Democratic majority.

But if you LISTEN to the NPR recording, (there is a link on this page the President says:

We enter the year 2007 with large endeavors under way and others that are ours to begin. In all of this, much is asked of us. We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies, and the wisdom to face them together.
Some in this chamber are new to the House and the Senate, and I congratulate the Democrat majority.

If you are not a political junkie, you probably missed it, it was that subtle…just one little part of one little word. DemocratIC vs. Democrat. But it spoke VOLUMES. And what it said…wasn’t very nice.

What did it say? Well, here’s a quote from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28phrase%29)

Democrat Party is a political epithet used by some conservative commentators and by some past and present leaders of the Republican Party (including the Republican National Committee, the White House, and President George W. Bush) in speeches and press releases instead of the name (or more precisely, the proper noun) Democratic Party.

Many members of the Democratic Party object to the term. Liberal commentator Hendrik Hertzberg writes, “There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. ‘Democrat Party’ is a slur, or intended to be – a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but ‘Democrat Party’ is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams ‘rat’.”

One Republican to use this term widely was Joe McCarthy, according to the Wikipedia article, others have included Tom DeLay, and, of course, Rush Limbaugh fires it off quite often.

So, even while the President- the well known Uniter not Divider- stood on the Rostrum last night, pleading for Unity, he shot a very definite, but subtle bird at the new DEMOCRATIC Majority. Using the word “Democrat” was just a nasty little gesture made when the teacher wasn’t looking.

So, all the talk of unity was, in the end, just more smoke and mirrors…but then, you knew that already, didn’t you?