News Flash! Welch Agrees to Public Antiwar Meeting On Sunday (updated again)
November 8, 2007 | 4 Comments
An ad hoc group of antiwar activists has learned this morning that Congressman Peter Welch has agreed to meet with us in public. The meeting will take place this Sunday (November 11th) at 1:30 at the Aldrich Public Library in Barre, Vermont (6 Washington Street). [Update: Please note the new meeting place.] This is a public meeting and everyone with concerns about the Iraq War are encouraged to come to voice those concerns and learn what Congressman Welch is planning with his future war votes.
The specifics of the meeting are currently being discussed and updates will be posted here as they become available. But, in the meantime, spread the word and help us get people to the meeting.
We look forward to speaking with you, Mr. Welch, and we appreciate your willingness to participate in this public meeting.
Calling All Dreamers – Antiwar Meeting Tonight
November 7, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Hey. It’s democracy time again. And the grand dreamers will be meeting again this evening at the Kellogg Hubbard Library in Montpelier from 6-8 pm to discuss antiwar activism. If, like me, you enjoy the art and spirit of politics, this meeting’s for you. It’ll feed the soul and inspire the action that you know you’re yearning for. Come on, don’t deny it. It’s okay. In fact, it’s quite normal to wonder about the nefarious policies of our nation. And, better yet, it’s quite reasonable to actually risk something – say, public ridicule (yawn) – to do as Thoreau asked all the lovers of democracy to do when our government is engaged in policies that run counter to our social, civic, political and moral compass: “Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.” Indeed.
What’s truly remarkable about this meeting is that the group has no name. And no leaders. And no dusty bylaws. Or officers. It’s just an organic collection of people who have simply realized that there is not enough being done to stop this war. Worse, we’ve come to realize that the lethargy of the population when it comes to this war is being reflected in the lethargy of our elected officials who refuse to be bold in their efforts to stop it. And so we meet to plan an end to the slumber and do as Mother Jones once begged the dreamers to do: Wake the sleepers!
Somewhere along our nation’s democracy voyage the responsibilities that come with citizenship have been watered down to the point where voting is considered by most to be the highest act of participation. The results, of course, are longer and longer campaigns (read: distractions) from a shorter and shorter list of political elites saying basically the same things: Go to sleep, I will handle everything. Ha! And we wonder why a Bush and/or a Clinton have been in the White House for 27 straight years – and counting. Yes, indeed, go to sleep. Or not.
But until we take the duties between elections seriously, we get what we deserve: More empty campaign rhetoric and less electoral action. And on and on it goes.
What to do? Consider the words of Tolstoy in his famous “Letter to the Liberals:”
Merely the simple, quiet, truthful carrying on of what you consider good and needful, quite independently of government, and whether it likes it or not. In other words: standing up for your rights, not as a member of a committee, not as a deputy, not as a landowner, not as a merchant, not even as a member of Parliament; but standing up for your rights as a rational and free man, and defending them, not as the rights of local boards or committees are defended, with concessions and compromises, but without any concessions and compromises, is the only way in which moral and human dignity can be defended.
I hope to see you at the library tonight.
A Vote for Torture: Thanks, Dems
November 6, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Ugh. There they go again. The Dems, that is. The party that holds no moral or strategic compass. Proving, once again, that they’re more a funeral than a party, the Dem-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee voted just hours ago to approve the nomination of Michael Mukasey to be Bush’s Attorney General. In a vote of 11-8, with Dem Senators Feinstein and Schumer tipping the scales by joining the Republican minority, the man who refused to acknowledge that waterboarding is torture is now on his way to becoming the nation’s top law enforcement official. Thanks Dems!
On the good news side, we owe a special note of thanks to our own Senator Bernie Sanders who stepped up and sounded off against Mukasey shortly after the leader of the anti-Mukasey movement in the Senate, Russ Feingold, got the ball rolling. And Bernie’s early and unequivocal opposition to Mukasey certainly led to Senator Patrick Leahy’s eventual – and more tortured than it had to be – opposition to the appointment. But, let’s be honest, this vote was a no-brainer for anyone who truly believes in the Constitution and loves this country.
Sadly, it’s another example of the false hopes provided by a Dem Party that cannot hold its act together on the most basic issues of justice. Remember when we were all told during the last election cycle that a Dem-majority in Congress would be an essential roadblock to the Bush regime? Never mind.
In case you didn’t notice, the two Dem defectors – Feinstein and Schumer — are big-time political players from the very liberal states of California and New York. Usually when the Dems lose on something like this they pull out their “big tent” nonsense, subtly blaming those dastardly southern-conservative-Dems. Not this time. Nope, this political failure is the result of the liberal base of the party.
And what’s that sound you hear? Oh, that’s the sound of the wind being emptied from the sails of the grassroots activists who were still clinging to the notion that the Dems would finally stand up to Bush. Cynicism, meet the voters. And voters, please remember this in 2008.
Shame on them.
Dada Monday
November 5, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Sorry, folks, but it’s a “real” workday – firewood and all. So the horse and I are headed back to the delightful woods that keep the spirit alive and the heart healthy and full. I hope you’ll understand.
Besides, I’m hardly in the mood for you anyway. I’m in my Dada mood. Yeah, the one that makes me more interested in donning the same sign Andre Breton donned on his chest as he greeted the people attending the Paris Dada festival in 1920:
“You are incapable of liking anything unless you have seen and heard it for a long time, you bunch of fools.”
Well, it’s not all Dada’s fault. Because I’m also in a state of complete and utter wonderment as a result of the movie I saw on Friday night: Into the Wild. Please see it. And then look around and ask yourself what really matters. I did.
And now I’ve got work to do.
Friday Random Blogging
November 2, 2007 | 2 Comments
Okay, I just finished sitting down and having a long talk with Snarky Boy. I let him know that it was NOT okay to use foul language when our nation is at war. I mean, what if the soldiers heard it? What kind of support is that? And I made it very clear that no matter how frustrated he may get with politicians who get elected to do something and then do nothing about that something, he must not – repeat: not – let his emotions get the best of him. This is America. This is Vermont. This is a civilized nation. And we cannot – repeat: cannot – let the foul language or our emotions get in the way of the killing. Not for a minute. Got that Snarky? Now crawl back into the deep recesses of my mind and leave this poor, innocent nation alone. We’ve got killing to do. Support the troops – speak kindly, believe it all, and keep funding the war. Amen.
Whew. Cross that off the list. Besides, I never like publicizing the conversations I have with myself. It just feels kind of weird. And the next thing you know, someone’s gonna get the wrong idea. They might, for example, think that I’m rude. Or playful. Or narcissistic. Or odd. Or stupid. That’s okay. Because it sure beats sitting on my hands quietly in the cheap seats. Oh damn, there I go getting all sentimental about democracy. Life would be so much simpler if I could just shake the notion that speaking out and standing up is what citizens are supposed to do. Oh, but the language!
–
Speaking of rude, did hear about that woman in Alabama who broke the rules by sitting wherever she wanted to sit on the bus? Shame on her. Why didn’t she just call her congressman? And didn’t she know that she was likely to turn people off by violating the rules and norms of the moment? She’s lucky she didn’t do that in politically correct Vermont because she would have never lived down the shame of it, huh?
–
And speaking of no sense of humor, how about the Democrats in South Carolina who are fighting Stephen Colbert’s efforts to get on their presidential primary ballot? Yep, the leaders of the Democratic Party of South Carolina voted 13-3 in favor of keeping Colbert off the ballot. But the best part of the story is this statement issued by one of the Dem officials:
[Colbert’s] really trying to use South Carolina Democrats as suckers so he can further a comedy routine…and he serves to detract from the serious candidates on the ballot.
Frankly, I’m not sure who’s bullshitting whom more here. Is it Colbert “suckering” the Dems for a “comedy routine” or the Dems suckering the people with its “serious candidates”? Help.
–
What’s up Doc? The most bizarre story of the day for me was the Associated Press piece about the Burlington doctor facing sexual assault charges. If you missed it, here’s the money quote from the article about the charges Dr. Joseph Abate, an orthopedic physician at Fletcher Allen Health Care, is facing:
He was first charged in June, after a 22-year-old patient accused him of improperly touching her genitals during an exam for knee surgery.
Ew. But the lawyer for Dr. Abate says “It’s medicine, not sex, that is described in these [events].” Good luck with that.
–
Freyne to the Rescue: You had to know that Peter Freyne wouldn’t let too much time tick off the clock before seeking to make amends with the Welch folks for his – gasp! – coverage of the antiwar protests directed at Welch. The inside word is that Welch’s folks let it be known that they weren’t happy with the spotlight Freyne gave the obvious “riff-raff.” It was, as you’ll recall, very fair coverage, especially considering all the other paper-based media outlets in Vermont completely ignored it.
But Freyne gets back to his lap dog ways on his blog today by trumpeting Welch’s work on…huh?…Enron. Yes, Enron. Silly me, I thought Enron was soooooo yesterday. But not to Welch. And certainly not to Freyne as he looks to mend the fences with the people he loves to play media/power elite footsie with. Giggle, giggle.
It’s one thing to make a big splash over Welch introducing legislation over something called an “Enron loophole,” but it’s quite another for Freyne to package it along with this sloppy kiss to the Welch teams’ collective behinds:
With one year to go before the votes are counted, would it be impolite of me to declare rookie Democratic U.S. Congressman Peter Welch the winner of the 2008 Vermont U.S. House race?
At the moment, Welchie’s only political critics in the Green Mountains are folks on the antiwar left who are upset that Ol’ Pedro has not supported the impeachment of the Liar in the Oval Office or voted “no” on any and all Iraq War money.
Impolite? Nah. But absurd? Yes.
Freyne proves he’s either eager to get back into Welch’s good graces or he’s stuck in the old paradigm of whom the “antiwar” crowd consists of. Or probably both. Freyne’s dismissal of the antiwar people as the “only” people critical of Welch seems to ignore the fact that 70% of Vermonters are antiwar. Hey Peter, this ain’t 2001 anymore. And as the much-publicized WCAX polls indicate, a vast majority of Vermonters are both against this war and unhappy with the way our members of Congress have continued to fund it. You don’t need a poll to know this either, just go into the streets and ask around.
The only way 70% of Vermonters will remain as insignificant as Freyne seems to be suggesting is if the Vermont media keeps ignoring their frustration and, instead, keeps serving up pandering pieces about tough talk and no action. Been there, done that.
Besides, did I miss the poll that indicated 70% of Vermonters wanted Welch to get tough on Enron?
–
Something positive to end on: Ed Defresne’s music column in today’s Times Argus informs us that Anais Mitchell will be performing in the area again on Thursday night at Montpelier’s Langdon Street Café. I know I’ll be there. I stumbled upon her last show there a few months ago and was mesmerized. She’s an incredible local talent with a mighty stage presence. You can sample some of her music here.
Trouble in Welchville
November 1, 2007 | 1 Comment
Wow. As an activist for more years than I want to think about – I once went door-to-door for Jimmy Carter in Iowa (I know, I know) – I’m always in search of those rare political moments when I leave a meeting or event and feel energized and empowered beyond my expectations. Last night’s gathering at Langdon Street Café was one of those rare moments. Thanks, folks, I needed that.
The gathering, of course, was called as a follow-up to our recent actions – and arrests – in Congressman Peter Welch’s office to protest his continued support of war funding, his admonishment of antiwar activism (the MoveOn ad and the continued arrest of those seeking to speak with him) and his failure to use all the tools at his disposal in the House of Representatives to lead an antiwar movement in Congress.
As the WCAX polls confirm this week, the people of Vermont are frustrated by the relative inaction of all of our members of Congress when it comes to stopping this war. But Peter Welch seems to be getting the brunt of the activists’ focus because his campaign two years ago was almost exclusively about “stopping the war,” especially since he was running against General Martha Rainville, a proud supporter and participant in the Bush war machine.
But now, not even half way through his first term, Welch has voted in favor of bills that have provided nearly $200 billion in Iraq war money to the Bush team that he promised he was going to “stand up” to. Sorry, but if that’s standing up I’d hate to see him roll over. And Vermonters have clearly had enough.
There were about forty people who showed up last night at Montpelier’s Langdon Street Café to heed the short-noticed call to gather and plan the next steps for Vermont’s antiwar movement. There were high school students, college students, regular old joes and janes and some old cranky bastards, too (hear that, Will & Boots?). And we all had a couple of things in common: We’re fed up with the congressional inaction and we’re ready to step up the activism.
While this is certainly not the time or place to divulge the specifics of last night’s strategy session (send me a private email seeking to be included in the discussions and/or watch this site for the announcement of our next meeting), I would like to address the news of Welch’s recent actions that came out during the meeting.
As we all know by now, Peter Welch has been refusing to meet with many of his antiwar constituents. He has had us arrested (twice) and, most recently, he had his chief of staff send me a bizarre letter in which it was made clear they will not meet with me about the war.
But over the last several days, as media reports have been favorable to our actions, the mood of the public has been extremely supportive, and news of the WCAX poll has sunk into the Welch team, Peter Welch has been doing some scrambling. Here, for example, is what one Dem insider told me yesterday:
It doesn’t look good for Democrats when we’re castigating [Governor] Douglas for his “listening tour” while Welch is having what should be his core constituents arrested for trying to talk to him. At least Douglas is pretending to listen.
Exactly. And that message is being delivered to Welch in large enough doses that the rookie congressman is trying to do damage control now. Consider, for example, that Welch spent much of the last few days trying to contact many of the people he had arrested last week. That’s right. Last week, Congressman Welch wouldn’t pick up the phone to speak with us or, worse, even provide a date and time to meet with us. Instead, his office instructed the Burlington Police Department to handcuff us and arrest us for trespassing. But this week Welch has been frantically trying to call at least four of those same people. In some instances, Welch has left three and four messages seeking to have a conversation since the people haven’t been home or available.
And what’s changed? Welch has tasted the public discord with his recent votes and seen that he’s on the losing end with his silly little “I won’t talk to them” struggle with the antiwar activists. Moreover, he’s watching the polls and feeling the heat from an increasingly nervous and moribund Vermont Democratic Party.
But when Welch does talk with the antiwar activists, he’s only been making the situation worse. He hasn’t, for example, assured any of them that he’s going to vote against any and all future war funding or that he’s going to use other parliamentary tools at his disposal like a filibuster or lobbying to agree not to bring war funding votes up for a vote.
Instead, Welch has been employing a rather clumsy “divide and conquer” strategy where he’s been calling some activists, continuing to ignore others and, worse, trying to make some of the activists the issue (hmm, who could that be?) rather than his votes and actions being the issue. Nice try, Congressman.
But perhaps the most bizarre thing to come out of the personal phone calls Welch has been making to the activists is his declaration that he “made a mistake” with his late-September vote in favor of $12 billion more for the Iraq war. That’s right, Welch told two of the people he spoke with that he didn’t know that the Iraq war money was included in the bill he voted in favor of. Sorry, but that’s not too far off from the old “the dog ate my homework” excuse in terms of believability, especially when Welch has already been on record defending the vote because it was only “short-term funding for the war.” So which is it, Mr. Welch? But it can’t be both.
And now you’re beginning to see why Vermonters like those who gathered last night with so much energy are ready to take action. We’ve seen enough. We’ve heard enough. And we’re fed up with the tough-talk rhetoric that is never – ever! – followed up with tough action or a corresponding vote.
One of the students who came to the meeting last night took issue with someone calling this “Bush’s war.” “This is Welch’s war, too, because he keeps voting to fund it,” the student declared. Indeed. You fund it, you own it. No more excuses.
We’re ready to move forward with a number of great ideas that came out of last night’s discussion. I hope you will all stay tuned for the updates and/or contact me to “get on the list.” But Peter Welch – and Senators Sanders and Leahy – can help us scratch a few of our goals off the list by pledging once and for all that they will oppose any more war funding and will lead in every congressional effort possible to stop “their war.”
Imagine.
Posts
