So, we at WW were doing our regular rounds today, perusing through the normal means of information gathering, and we were putting together a little posting on Welchie's first committee remarks, which were picked up by the AP. Something about how he was defending the Dems on the accusation of a fellow who was testifying before the committee...or something. We're sure that we'll get to it eventually, it seemed so appropriate. However, we got sidelined by this little nugget from the Free Press blog, which we came across somehow. It was, we think, pretty interesting.
For a number of reasons.
If you haven't clicked on our little link, we'll summarize it for you: Welchie just can't stop trying to dig himself out of the hole he's in over this Bush autograph thing. While it was bad enough that he was caught on tape essentially invalidating every point he made about his opposition to Bush, what has been coming out of his office, and from his mouth ever since has been much, much worse. Read: damning. Even to his most ardent supporters.
It's so bad, it seems, that we don't feel that we're in a position to paraphrase. We'll just let Welch's explanation stand for itself, and here we'll post the transcript of his remarks on VPR's switchboard in their entirety. Remember, this is Welch refuting accusations that he was attached to the Pres because of the controversial autograph request:
"On the question of President Bush, the first time I met him was at the Congressional orientation... I had a chance to interact with him as the rest of us did ... I asked him about Vermont farmers and could he help and then he asked me about a friend of his who lives in Burlington and who is somebody he when to high school and college with, Jack Sartore. He asked if I would call him and say hello, which I did. And it was President Bush, when he was leaving after the state of the uinion,(sic) he saw me -- the man has a memory -- and he asked me if I had called Jack Sartore and I said I had... and he asked me if I would let him know he was asking about him again at the State of the Union and so I did that.
Simply stunning.
So, instead of simply saying what everyone would have expected, and what his defenders have been suggesting is the case on the blogs, he says, essentially, that no, he wasn't just getting an autograph for the sake of presenting a token of Americanism to his young nephew. Rather, he was following up on a personal favor that Bush asked him to do, completely outside the realm of politics. Checking in in his buddy from Andover/Yale. That's right: just checking in. With Bush's college pal.
Again: stunning.
What, we are wondering, was the conversation between Welch and Sartore, a fellow Burlington personal injury attorney, like? We imagine it went something like this:
Welch: Hello? John? This is Congressman Welch! I ran into your old pal Georgie boy the other day, and he wanted me to give you a call; you know, see how you're doing. So, what's up?
Sartore: Oh, hello Peter. Thanks for the call! I know that Georgie appreciates it when people live up to their promises. You know, when they say they're going to do something, and then they do it. I'm glad that Georgie has found someone who will call who he asks, when he asks. I'm sure the two of you will get along great!
Welch: Thanks! I'll be sure to let him know that you and I spoke, and that we got along just great. I'll probably see him at the SOTU, so I'll mention it. Hey, want to get some Red Onion sandwiches next time I'm in town? You and I can trade old courtroom stories, and you can tell me all about what Georgie was like at Yale, his days in DKE, and all of that!
Sartore: Sounds great! I''ll make all of the arrangements. See you soon, Peter, or as Georgie now calls you, in classic GWB nickname giving fashion, "Ole' Welchie."
Welch: I'll look forward to it!
Okay, we'll admit it: we are taking some liberties here. But still, even if you're the biggest Welch booster around you have to admit that this is pretty bad. Let's go through the reasons why.
First, there is the actual issue of Welch being fully corrupted, and if not, at least fully corruptible. This is evident by his statement above, which pretty much says that hey, he was just doing a personal favor for Bush, no big deal. Not politics: personal. Are we wrong here? This is, as they might say in Stannard, damned crazy. Even we at WW couldn't have foreseen such a turn of events.
Second, there is the issue of what Welch will or will not say in any given set of circumstances. It's clear as the ice on St. Alban's bay that his office has made some fairly obvious rookie mistakes over the first few weeks in Congress, but it was just chalked up to these wet-behind-the-ears youngsters being inexperienced. Then, Welch was seen in the now infamous MSNBC footage, which we remarked upon as a departure from his tightly controlled campaign atmosphere. Now, with this utterly dumbfounding answer to a fairly straightforward question, the truth is fully revealed. Without Carolyn Dwyer beside him, Welch is a loose cannon. How loose? Loose enough to admit doing a personal favor for George Walker Bush. Let that sink in for a bit. Ok.
Any way you cut it, this spells major trouble for Welchie. Think about it this way: his real explanation for the thumbs up he gave Bush was actually worse than the bungled response his rookie press guy gave, which, considering the foolishness of his Yankees- Red Sox analogy, is saying something.
Our prediction: look for the glad handing of Bush to be the first in a long line of gaffes that Welch will make between now and Election Day, 2008. Why? He simply can't help it. The power to the people swagger which was so effective last Summer has been replaced with more of a, what should we say, power to the Peter strategy? Whatever. Just watch, it's only the start of this kind of thing. Trust us, we intend to pay attention as well.
Judging from what we have seen recently, it should be a heckuva ride.
Frankly, we can't wait.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Getting Sexy in Springfield
It was a long weekend for the folks at WW, and an equally long weekend for ole Welchie. As noted here, Welch was back home in Vermont Thursday, testifying before the State legislature on proposed new federal standards for state identification cards. We're sure it was a great time for Welch, being back in Montpelier and all. No word on whether he was seen running with smuckers, or whatever that dog's name is, on the state house lawn, just like in his campaign ads.
Oh, that's right: isn't that the state house lawn upon which, the very weekend before, there was a massive war protest aimed at getting the VT delegation to pull funding? Didn't see Welchie at that one, did you? Probably had a meeting or something. No worries; he was probably at the antiwar rally in DC this past weekend. No? Well, where was he?
Turns out he was at the pool. Literally. As this article points out, this past Friday, on the eve of the biggest anti-war protest in the nation, Welch was touring a pool facility in Springfield. As the article says, he "played around on some of the equipment...posing for photographers." Here is one of the machines he was seen "playing around on." Cool, right? Welch must be pretty "pumped" about this new facility, what with his missing the big rally to get a tour and all. Hey, grant us some poetic license, ok?
The article goes on to document Welchie's other activities of the day, from touring an engineering firm to meeting with reps from a door and window manufacturer, it sure seemed like a big day for Welchie down in Springfield. So big, it seems, that it makes up for his lack of an office in Southern VT. Anybody from Brattleboro catch that? No office in Southern VT. Why? Check at the bottom of the article: "Welch...said that his personal commitment to travel around the state meeting people was more important than a physical office in Southern Vermont." What what what?!
Needless to say, the newshounds at WW found a number of interesting aspects to this article. First, in order for there to be photographers at Welchie's little pool tour, there had to be a call made to the press that Welch would be touring the facility. Why would Welchie's peeps make such a call? To put it bluntly, it looked like a campaign stop to us. Smile for the cameras, shake a few hands, get your face out there...in Windsor County.
From what we remember, Welchie did pretty well in Windsor County. Wait, isn't he from Windsor County? Well, not really. He's from Massachusetts, but you know what we mean. So why is he campaigning so hard in a County he won easily, no less than three months after doing so?
This brings us back to the beginning, to what everyone knows was the defining issue of the last campaign, and what will be the defining issue of the next campaign as well: it's the war, stupid. What about it, they all say. What are you doing about the war, Mr. Welch, besides seeking out the commander in chief for a back-slap and an autograph? What's that you say? You're playing around on some exercise equipment? Ok, well, thanks. We guess.
The fact is that Welchie was as far away from the protests in DC as he could possibly be. And the choice of Windsor County for his first campaign stop of the 2008 election is, ahem, not an accident.
The people of Windsor and Windham Counties are the ones who put Welch in Washington, but in an ironic twist, are the people most likely to kick him right back out again if he doesn't do something about living up to his campaign promises. No, not the ones about the minimum wage and all. The ones about standing up to Bush, not framing his John Hancock for your office wall. Your home office wall, of course. Remember those? Yes?
Well, you're not alone. And the fact that Welchie isn't even opening an office in his home county ain't gonna help much neither. So, go by the pool, play around with the stationary bikes...and they'll forget about the war. That's the operational theory, it seems, and yes, we're slapping our foreheads too.
Maybe you can stop by his state office and have chat with ole' Welchie about it. That is, if there is anything anti-war going down in Washington. And, you live in Chittenden County. Otherwise have a good time talking to his staff.
Or just swing by the pool, take a dip, and forget all about it.
As always, the choice is yours.
Oh, that's right: isn't that the state house lawn upon which, the very weekend before, there was a massive war protest aimed at getting the VT delegation to pull funding? Didn't see Welchie at that one, did you? Probably had a meeting or something. No worries; he was probably at the antiwar rally in DC this past weekend. No? Well, where was he?
Turns out he was at the pool. Literally. As this article points out, this past Friday, on the eve of the biggest anti-war protest in the nation, Welch was touring a pool facility in Springfield. As the article says, he "played around on some of the equipment...posing for photographers." Here is one of the machines he was seen "playing around on." Cool, right? Welch must be pretty "pumped" about this new facility, what with his missing the big rally to get a tour and all. Hey, grant us some poetic license, ok?
The article goes on to document Welchie's other activities of the day, from touring an engineering firm to meeting with reps from a door and window manufacturer, it sure seemed like a big day for Welchie down in Springfield. So big, it seems, that it makes up for his lack of an office in Southern VT. Anybody from Brattleboro catch that? No office in Southern VT. Why? Check at the bottom of the article: "Welch...said that his personal commitment to travel around the state meeting people was more important than a physical office in Southern Vermont." What what what?!
Needless to say, the newshounds at WW found a number of interesting aspects to this article. First, in order for there to be photographers at Welchie's little pool tour, there had to be a call made to the press that Welch would be touring the facility. Why would Welchie's peeps make such a call? To put it bluntly, it looked like a campaign stop to us. Smile for the cameras, shake a few hands, get your face out there...in Windsor County.
From what we remember, Welchie did pretty well in Windsor County. Wait, isn't he from Windsor County? Well, not really. He's from Massachusetts, but you know what we mean. So why is he campaigning so hard in a County he won easily, no less than three months after doing so?
This brings us back to the beginning, to what everyone knows was the defining issue of the last campaign, and what will be the defining issue of the next campaign as well: it's the war, stupid. What about it, they all say. What are you doing about the war, Mr. Welch, besides seeking out the commander in chief for a back-slap and an autograph? What's that you say? You're playing around on some exercise equipment? Ok, well, thanks. We guess.
The fact is that Welchie was as far away from the protests in DC as he could possibly be. And the choice of Windsor County for his first campaign stop of the 2008 election is, ahem, not an accident.
The people of Windsor and Windham Counties are the ones who put Welch in Washington, but in an ironic twist, are the people most likely to kick him right back out again if he doesn't do something about living up to his campaign promises. No, not the ones about the minimum wage and all. The ones about standing up to Bush, not framing his John Hancock for your office wall. Your home office wall, of course. Remember those? Yes?
Well, you're not alone. And the fact that Welchie isn't even opening an office in his home county ain't gonna help much neither. So, go by the pool, play around with the stationary bikes...and they'll forget about the war. That's the operational theory, it seems, and yes, we're slapping our foreheads too.
Maybe you can stop by his state office and have chat with ole' Welchie about it. That is, if there is anything anti-war going down in Washington. And, you live in Chittenden County. Otherwise have a good time talking to his staff.
Or just swing by the pool, take a dip, and forget all about it.
As always, the choice is yours.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Autographgate: In Which the Media Makes an Appearance
Finally! Some news has come out today regarding the autograph that has Vermont's more actively engaged lefty voters looking at Progressive candidates for the US House in 2008. As in Progressive with a capital "P." As in, say, David Zuckerman, or Zephyr Teachout, or someone who will not actively seek the autograph of the President that they purport to loath. As in, someone besides Peter Welch.
That's right, the Rutland Herald has reluctantly brought to light what is rapidly becoming the most visible symbol of ole' Welchie's real "new direction." That is, if the new direction is a bee-line to the autograph section after the SOTU. As we remarked upon yesterday, clear video footage shows Welchie angling in line to meet Bush, reaching his copy of the speech out to the President, then beaming, child-like, as the POTUS returns his warm handshake. If you're a hawkish, neo-con type, this is just great. If, however, you ran your entire campaign on your opposition to the President, you're kind of, how should we put this: screwed.
All of which makes the Herald story surprisingly blase. What, we at WW were thinking, could be the explanation that Welch would give when asked why he would want an autograph from the man he so loved to hate all last Summer, the man who supposedly makes his blood boil? Oh, it's for his nephew. That's the explanation, his nephew! Let us at WW be the first to ask it: does this make sense?
There are a number of reasons that, simply put, it does not. First, why would Welchie's nephew want such a token? Has he not been listening to his distinguished uncle when it comes to all of the bad things that Bush has done?
Second, if the autograph was for his nephew, then why did he not only get the signature, but then hang around shaking hands with the Pres, giving him a thumbs up, and then basking in his glow after Bush passes by, as the video so clearly shows? There are simply no explanations for these discrepancies.
Surprisingly, however, the Herald article succeeds in creating even more confusion about what is clearly an embarrassing incident for Welchie. This stems from the explanation his press-secretary offers, and here we quote directly. He says that Welchie getting the autograph of Bush, who he has literally made a career out of bashing, "is like being a Red Sox fan at Fenway and getting Derek Jeter's autograph." Just let that sink in a bit: OK, let's move on.
This last quote is so earth-shatteringly vapid that it is difficult to approach from a rational standpoint. We seem to recall that Welchie is a Sox fan, which makes it even worse. Any Fenway-goer worth their beer at the Cask & Flagon knows that getting Jeter's autograph at a Sox game would be tantamount to treason. We at WW, baseball fans all, know this first hand. If we were sitting at Fenway, guzzling beers and downing Fenway Franks, and one of our fellow Sox fans came back to the cheap seats, prized Jeter signature in hand, we don't know how we would react. It certainly wouldn't be good. Also, this is baseball we're talking about people. Not, ahem, the future of our nation.
Really, this little incident says more about Welch than his penchant for historical documents, his nephew's interest in Bush, or any autograph oriented point. Really, it gets to the heart of what many have thought about Welchie for a long time, but few have said because of their desperate hope of getting someone in Congress to, ironically, oppose Bush: he doesn't care. That's right, it's all about politics, the trappings of power, stature, power and glory. We hate to burst your bubble, but that's what it comes down to. Welch doesn't just heart Bush, Welch hearts Welch. Think about it.
The guy has been running for something for the duration of his life. He ran for the House twice, Lite Guv, state senate, state house, and almost any office he thought he had a shot at. It's what he does. Now that he has finally gotten to Washington, he just can't help it. He had to be there, shakin' hands with Bush, grinnin' it up, and you know, being part of the scene. It's just in his blood to follow the cameras, he simply didn't realize that they would catch his star-gazing moment in such vivid detail.
The second noteworthy aspect of this autograph situation is that, as we can see, when Welchie is away from his handlers, he is liable to do silly things. Silly things like seek out his supposed arch-enemy for the purposes of getting his signature. This is why his campaign staff was given such a wide-berth by the media: they were so good! Never an unscripted moment, never an opportunity for Welch to wander off on his own and get into trouble. But seating is pretty limited at the SOTU. You think that his COS would have let him waltz up to Bush, right on MSNBC, and show his mug giving Bush a big thumbs up? Not a milkshake's chance at Enosberg Dairy Days.
No, what we saw on Tuesday night was pure, unadulterated Welchie. Right in the middle of things, living in the big-city, eatin at the Tabard Inn, sitting on two committee's, doing what Nancy says and generally having a great time. Just don't look for him to show one ounce of spine in actually standing up to anything that might threaten his political future. How sure are we that this is the case?
We'd sign our names to it.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Catching Up: Welch Hearts Bush?
Whew! It's been a busy week for the staff at WW, and consequently we have been able to offer few updates on what has been an equally busy week for ole' Welchie.
First there was a great op-ed piece by Welch in last Sunday's Burlington Free Press, in which he spelled out all of the great things that the "first 100 hours" agenda had accomplished. You can see it here. It's also covered by the Reformer here. Nice.
Then, of course, the big story was the State of the Union address, or as it has apparently come to be called the "SOTU." Not to be confused with sudoku, which is a super-fun numbers game. We'll get to that later.
Then there was a great story on the opening of Welch's district office on Vermont's own WCAX, in which he spelled out a program whereby he will "set up a table" in various towns so that people can meet with him and he can "answer their questions." Cool.
And then, of course, there was all that votin' and legislatin.' All in all, a wild week, to say the least.
At the centerpiece of it all, however, and at the center of what can only be described as a media maelstrom, was the SOTU. Man, what a speech, and what a circus that surrounded it. We at WW actually didn't see it live, but had DVR'd the event to so as to really bask in all of the glory that is this speech. This way we could relive the excitement, the energy, the whack-a-mole bobbing of Speaker Pelosi and the VP...all of it, over and over again. And that's exactly what we did.
The coverage of it thus far, we think, has been exhaustive enough that we don't need to recap what went down. However, there was an interesting portion at the end. You know, that part where the POTUS is walking out, getting all smooched and what not by various politicians, shakin' hands, gettin' props. All of that.
But what?! Who was that we saw at the end getting all country club chummy with Bush? That's right: ole' Welchie himself. Vermont's left wing firebrand, the anti-war, pro-labor, hero of the working class who took over for big Bernie, shaking hands with the Pres and grinning like a fool. Pretty different from his reaction to the SOTU last year, eh? Okay, mondaymorningclacker scooped us on it here (bravo), but we at least wanted to have some fun with the commentary part. And, in terms of this at least, the fun's just begun.
The big story coming out of Vermont's fourth estate on Welchie's new found affection for Bush? Nada. That's right. There is none. Weird, right? Especially considering the way it all went down last Summer, what with Martha Rainville all attached to Bush, the scarlet R, and all of that stuff. There were even efforts to plaster a picture of Rainville shaking hands with Bush all over the state, just to show how close the two of them were. It certainly took roots with the lefty blog crew, who couldn't get enough of the connection between Bush and Rainville. Bah! They all said, she's a closet-SoCo, who would rubber stamp the Bush agenda! Turns out that the only stamp around is the one that Welchie left on Bush's hand. By gripping it so hard. Ok, not the best turn of phrase, but you get the point.
This should be enough to seriously worry all of the folks who carried Welchie's banner through those long Summer weekends, and who rallied him as the next real-deal in Vermont's more progressive circles. Of course, Welchie was seen glowering at Bush's remarks during the speech, but after the speech was over...well, go here and watch it again, under the headline "this Republican really really likes George Bush," if you're keen. It gets better every time.
So, to recap, not only are Vermont's leftiest left with a Congressperson who does not support their anti-war effort, votes with the Speaker 100% of the time, and doesn't listen to his own supporters when they tell him they want him to live up to his campaign promises and end the war asap, but now they have one who positions himself in a strategic spot, angling through the crowds, waiting late, dodging other members, just so he can get his copy of the speech signed and shake the hand that shook the world. Let us pose this question to our left-leaning readers: is this the man you thought you were voting for?
Regardless, at least for the next two years, let us be the first to say it:
Welcome to Welchdom.
First there was a great op-ed piece by Welch in last Sunday's Burlington Free Press, in which he spelled out all of the great things that the "first 100 hours" agenda had accomplished. You can see it here. It's also covered by the Reformer here. Nice.
Then, of course, the big story was the State of the Union address, or as it has apparently come to be called the "SOTU." Not to be confused with sudoku, which is a super-fun numbers game. We'll get to that later.
Then there was a great story on the opening of Welch's district office on Vermont's own WCAX, in which he spelled out a program whereby he will "set up a table" in various towns so that people can meet with him and he can "answer their questions." Cool.
And then, of course, there was all that votin' and legislatin.' All in all, a wild week, to say the least.
At the centerpiece of it all, however, and at the center of what can only be described as a media maelstrom, was the SOTU. Man, what a speech, and what a circus that surrounded it. We at WW actually didn't see it live, but had DVR'd the event to so as to really bask in all of the glory that is this speech. This way we could relive the excitement, the energy, the whack-a-mole bobbing of Speaker Pelosi and the VP...all of it, over and over again. And that's exactly what we did.
The coverage of it thus far, we think, has been exhaustive enough that we don't need to recap what went down. However, there was an interesting portion at the end. You know, that part where the POTUS is walking out, getting all smooched and what not by various politicians, shakin' hands, gettin' props. All of that.
But what?! Who was that we saw at the end getting all country club chummy with Bush? That's right: ole' Welchie himself. Vermont's left wing firebrand, the anti-war, pro-labor, hero of the working class who took over for big Bernie, shaking hands with the Pres and grinning like a fool. Pretty different from his reaction to the SOTU last year, eh? Okay, mondaymorningclacker scooped us on it here (bravo), but we at least wanted to have some fun with the commentary part. And, in terms of this at least, the fun's just begun.
The big story coming out of Vermont's fourth estate on Welchie's new found affection for Bush? Nada. That's right. There is none. Weird, right? Especially considering the way it all went down last Summer, what with Martha Rainville all attached to Bush, the scarlet R, and all of that stuff. There were even efforts to plaster a picture of Rainville shaking hands with Bush all over the state, just to show how close the two of them were. It certainly took roots with the lefty blog crew, who couldn't get enough of the connection between Bush and Rainville. Bah! They all said, she's a closet-SoCo, who would rubber stamp the Bush agenda! Turns out that the only stamp around is the one that Welchie left on Bush's hand. By gripping it so hard. Ok, not the best turn of phrase, but you get the point.
This should be enough to seriously worry all of the folks who carried Welchie's banner through those long Summer weekends, and who rallied him as the next real-deal in Vermont's more progressive circles. Of course, Welchie was seen glowering at Bush's remarks during the speech, but after the speech was over...well, go here and watch it again, under the headline "this Republican really really likes George Bush," if you're keen. It gets better every time.
So, to recap, not only are Vermont's leftiest left with a Congressperson who does not support their anti-war effort, votes with the Speaker 100% of the time, and doesn't listen to his own supporters when they tell him they want him to live up to his campaign promises and end the war asap, but now they have one who positions himself in a strategic spot, angling through the crowds, waiting late, dodging other members, just so he can get his copy of the speech signed and shake the hand that shook the world. Let us pose this question to our left-leaning readers: is this the man you thought you were voting for?
Regardless, at least for the next two years, let us be the first to say it:
Welcome to Welchdom.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Welchie's Own, Homemade, Plum Jelly
The front page (not the Dupont Bar) of the Washington Post today says it all: in the print edition we have stories on the Senate ethics bill, one on Art Buchwald, one on the new Guv of MD Martin O'Malley, one on this china missile test issue and one on the issue of the shady real estate deal (just below the fold) that D golden boy John Edwards is now embroiled in. Check out the online edition here. Or Don't check. They're pretty similar. However, there is one difference between the venerable Washington papers print and online editions: the print edition features a 6x8" picture of an American soldier walking through a "grove of date palms near Ramadi in Anbar province." Anbar province? What the...Oh yeah, that.
While the Post's coverage of the topic which will be dominating the political discourse is stuck on page A15, one could say the same about the coverage of what has been going down with Old Welchie regarding his pet issue from Summer 06. The Burlington Free Press lead with this story on usage of the waterfront for, what else, an Air Force jet show. The Times Argus headlines something about Catholic Schools, and the Rutland Herald is talking about ID regulations. All important issues, perhaps, but the elephant is still in the room. Shhhhh....
Behind the tightly drawn veil of the larger media outlets, however, thing shave been a bit more interesting regarding Welchie's upcoming big decisions. The clowns in the blogosphere, besides this predictably rah-rah regurgitation, have been up in arms over Welchie's position on troop withdrawal, the surge, funding, etc. Admirably, some on the left have started to at least discuss whether Welchie will live up to his campaign pledge, exhaustively cataloged by us at WW, to "bring our troops home" "yesterday." GMD follows it here, with a tit-for-tat at the bottom. Cool, right?
Yes. It is cool. We like it when the commentators who speak as the voices for candidates when the candidates can't stay stuff themselves, which is a lot, start to at least get serious about what those candidate then go on to do. After all, if one thinks of himself as contributing to the victory of a candidate, is that person not partially responsible for holding that candidate accountable when the candidateis victorious? We at WW think so, which is why we were glad to see that this discussion is going down.
What we were not happy to see, however, was the degree to which the aforementioned folks have conflated the issues that are at play. That's where WW steps in: we pick up the slack when others don't act. Hey, the kind of rhymes!
In this instance, the slack-picking-upping comes on what is being touted by some as Welchie's getting with the program, the program he read, then copied, on the war. Apparently, a press-release from Welchie's office, which is curiously not on his website, is apprising the media, and those pesky anti-war folks who will be marching on Montpelier tomorrow that, indeed, Welchie will be taking action! You can see the text of the bill he is so proud to have co-sponsored here. Man, it's got all kinds of hard-core claims in there; the word "redeploy" is used, all kinds of stats are thrown in, and there is even a three point plan. Three points, Bush, got that? Yeah!
Predictably, perhaps, there is a catch: this bill just ain't what you think it is, and it ain't what Welchie, or those people who voted for him, want it to be. Will it be enough to placate the anti-war folks, the ones who voted him into office, and the bloggers that cheered them along the way? We have yet to see, but it is certain that this legislation is, as they might say in the critical literature, piecemeal. That's right: tokenism. Can we come up with any other synonyms? You bet your keyboard we can. Just try us.
What makes this clear, if you start to look around a bit, by which we mean not just at the press-releases coming from the D majority, is the existence of other bills, real bills, that would actually accomplish what Welch said he wanted to accomplish during those pleasant trips in the old, red suby with that charming pooch, Smuckers, or whatever his name is. Bills that have more than 36 lines in them. Bills that we are shocked, SHOCKED, that Welchie hasn't signed on to, that do not have the approval of the D leadership, and that have not garnered any media attention outside of the district from which the sponsor of the bill hails. Bills like this one. Read it, love it, cradle it in your burly arms, then cast it away as the dream you once had, but will never realize. Why? Because, as this article in the Marin Independent points out, "Pelosi is reluctant to cut funding 'because there are troops in the field.'"
That's right. It's all there in black and white. Rep. Woolsey, who has a truly bad-ass website here, has introduced the real-deal bill, but the D's want to sweep it under the rug. Here's the thing: the rug isn't big enough to cover this bill. Put it next to the bill Welchie is giving mad props to, and you will start to get the idea. Woolsey's bill makes Murtha's look like yesterday's watered down grits. But do you see Welchie's name attached to the project. In Russia they might say nyet. Here we just say, gee, no, we don't. Wondering why?
The answer, as we at WW have been pointing out recently, is that there is a bigger issue here. Something that says something about old Welchie. This is what it says: any claims he may have once had to "independence," that word from last Summer, are gone. Hey, that's the way it works in Washington. When Nancy gives you some plums, you don't make plum jelly, you make whatever Nancy wants you to make. In this case, Welchie is making the best he can, but "i'm not gonna do what I said I was gonna do" is not a flavor of pie. At least not a good one. What is it?
It's the recipe for a one-term Congressperson.
While the Post's coverage of the topic which will be dominating the political discourse is stuck on page A15, one could say the same about the coverage of what has been going down with Old Welchie regarding his pet issue from Summer 06. The Burlington Free Press lead with this story on usage of the waterfront for, what else, an Air Force jet show. The Times Argus headlines something about Catholic Schools, and the Rutland Herald is talking about ID regulations. All important issues, perhaps, but the elephant is still in the room. Shhhhh....
Behind the tightly drawn veil of the larger media outlets, however, thing shave been a bit more interesting regarding Welchie's upcoming big decisions. The clowns in the blogosphere, besides this predictably rah-rah regurgitation, have been up in arms over Welchie's position on troop withdrawal, the surge, funding, etc. Admirably, some on the left have started to at least discuss whether Welchie will live up to his campaign pledge, exhaustively cataloged by us at WW, to "bring our troops home" "yesterday." GMD follows it here, with a tit-for-tat at the bottom. Cool, right?
Yes. It is cool. We like it when the commentators who speak as the voices for candidates when the candidates can't stay stuff themselves, which is a lot, start to at least get serious about what those candidate then go on to do. After all, if one thinks of himself as contributing to the victory of a candidate, is that person not partially responsible for holding that candidate accountable when the candidateis victorious? We at WW think so, which is why we were glad to see that this discussion is going down.
What we were not happy to see, however, was the degree to which the aforementioned folks have conflated the issues that are at play. That's where WW steps in: we pick up the slack when others don't act. Hey, the kind of rhymes!
In this instance, the slack-picking-upping comes on what is being touted by some as Welchie's getting with the program, the program he read, then copied, on the war. Apparently, a press-release from Welchie's office, which is curiously not on his website, is apprising the media, and those pesky anti-war folks who will be marching on Montpelier tomorrow that, indeed, Welchie will be taking action! You can see the text of the bill he is so proud to have co-sponsored here. Man, it's got all kinds of hard-core claims in there; the word "redeploy" is used, all kinds of stats are thrown in, and there is even a three point plan. Three points, Bush, got that? Yeah!
Predictably, perhaps, there is a catch: this bill just ain't what you think it is, and it ain't what Welchie, or those people who voted for him, want it to be. Will it be enough to placate the anti-war folks, the ones who voted him into office, and the bloggers that cheered them along the way? We have yet to see, but it is certain that this legislation is, as they might say in the critical literature, piecemeal. That's right: tokenism. Can we come up with any other synonyms? You bet your keyboard we can. Just try us.
What makes this clear, if you start to look around a bit, by which we mean not just at the press-releases coming from the D majority, is the existence of other bills, real bills, that would actually accomplish what Welch said he wanted to accomplish during those pleasant trips in the old, red suby with that charming pooch, Smuckers, or whatever his name is. Bills that have more than 36 lines in them. Bills that we are shocked, SHOCKED, that Welchie hasn't signed on to, that do not have the approval of the D leadership, and that have not garnered any media attention outside of the district from which the sponsor of the bill hails. Bills like this one. Read it, love it, cradle it in your burly arms, then cast it away as the dream you once had, but will never realize. Why? Because, as this article in the Marin Independent points out, "Pelosi is reluctant to cut funding 'because there are troops in the field.'"
That's right. It's all there in black and white. Rep. Woolsey, who has a truly bad-ass website here, has introduced the real-deal bill, but the D's want to sweep it under the rug. Here's the thing: the rug isn't big enough to cover this bill. Put it next to the bill Welchie is giving mad props to, and you will start to get the idea. Woolsey's bill makes Murtha's look like yesterday's watered down grits. But do you see Welchie's name attached to the project. In Russia they might say nyet. Here we just say, gee, no, we don't. Wondering why?
The answer, as we at WW have been pointing out recently, is that there is a bigger issue here. Something that says something about old Welchie. This is what it says: any claims he may have once had to "independence," that word from last Summer, are gone. Hey, that's the way it works in Washington. When Nancy gives you some plums, you don't make plum jelly, you make whatever Nancy wants you to make. In this case, Welchie is making the best he can, but "i'm not gonna do what I said I was gonna do" is not a flavor of pie. At least not a good one. What is it?
It's the recipe for a one-term Congressperson.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Welchie and the Deaniacs: Playa Hatin' on the National Scene
Today is shaping up to be a pretty busy day for ole' Welchie up on the Hill. As these very words are being typed, he is no doubt settling into the organizational meeting of the Committee on Oversight, which started at 10:00AM, and then later today he will be heading to a 3:00PM meeting of the Rules Committee, which will be considering a motion to suspend the rules. For those unfamiliar with the arcane workings of the House of Reps, we at WW are pleased to point you in the direction of this excellent pocket guide of floor procedures, just so you can keep up with all of the legalese, technical jargon and other brands of obfuscation used to shield the public from what Congress is actually doing. It can get pretty complicated at times...did you already know the bell-tolling system for calling Members when "a series of two or more votes" are to take place "in which any of the votes after the first one are five-minute votes?" We have to admit it: we didn't. Hey, we try to bring the power to the people every once in awhile too.
Aside from regular business however, and today's business is certainly that, Welchie also made news in a couple of noteworthy articles outside of the famous, tenaciously investigative Vermont press corps. One of these articles can be found here, essentially citing Welchie's take on an apparent peace deal between his boy Howard Dean and his new pal Chris Van Hollen, with whom he sits on the Oversight Committee. "Victory is a great aphrodisiac" Welch is strangely quoted as saying. In typical non-committal fashion, Welch also suggests that Dean and his former nemesis Rahm Emmanuel "were both right" about the D's strategy last cycle, despite some, shall we say, "rocky moments" between the two, by which we mean "full-contact curse-laden screaming matches." The piece ends by noting that Welch "is close to Dean."Close? Riiiight.
Aside from the odd connection Welch seems to be suggesting between electoral politics and the "arousing of sexual desire," this article points to a fairly important but not often remarked upon set of interests that are at play involving Dean, Welch, and the national Democratic strategy for 2008 and beyond. You see, the national D's just don't like old Howard. As the article says, many feel that "it's totally bizarre dealing with him." Why? maybe it's because everyone outside of Vermont thinks that Howard Dean "is crazy," as this article notes. Indeed, there is no lack of evidence suggesting that Washington's established Democrats can't stand Dean, just like, for years, they couldn't deal with Bernie. So why the warm, fuzzy feeling emanating from the national D's towards Welchie, who is so close to Dean?
Here, the purloined letter theory applies: it is so obvious that it's really easy to miss. The fact is that Vermont's At-Large seat in the US House has not been occupied by someone as tailored for establishment Washington as Welch is in a long time. Heck, the Washington D's can't even deal with Dean, who Vermonters love. This is because Bernie, and to a lesser extent Dean, didn't buy into the Washington establishment scene. Bernie is the mud in their eye, they're all jerks, D's and R's are the same, power-to-the people candidate, and Vermonters love him for that. He couldn't be co-opted, bought, sold or otherwise compromised. "Give em hell, Bernie!" is a common refrain from Newport to Marlboro. "Give em hell, Welchie" just doesn't have the same ring, does it? And it ain't just because it sounds dumb.
The fact is that there is some cognitive dissonance going down right now in the Bluest corners of the bluest state around over what to think of Old Welchie. On the one hand, its nice to have someone who gets along with the establishment, who sits on committees, who talks nice about Rahm, Chris, Howie, Nancy and the whole gang, and who generally plays well with others. On the other hand, some of Welchie's supporters are starting to feel, well, a little icky. And they don't know why.
Maybe it's actually not a good thing to have a Rep who gets along, who sits on committees and smiles for the camera, they are starting to think. During the campaign it took an at times painful effort to draw a connection between the popular rebel Bernie and the lawyer famous for his firm's TV ads: "where winning is no accident." The anti-Iraq thing worked for awhile, but now that Welchie is following the D's "stay the course" strategy, even those who supported Welch for his war stance, like those within the "labor movement," are starting to waver. How much longer can they hold out?
WW's prediction? Not much longer. While some of Welchie's supporters will remain pleased with his conformity to the Washington scene, and the perks that come with Welchie's complicity with their platform, the ones who were naive enough to think of Welchie as the next Bernie will experience some serious Bernie withdrawal symptoms. Right now we're in the confusion phase, trending towards anger at Welchie's refusal to support a relinquishment of funding for the war. Next we'll see full-blown anger, then sadness, and then the inevitable acceptance that those "plum" committee assignments, a high profile with the national D's and all of the other perks of power come with a pretty serious price tag: doing whatever the national D's want you to do.
Finally, however, and inevitably, the people of Vermont will have to come to the final symptom: deciding if the price of the goods is worth the cost. While it's difficult to say what their decision will be, one thing can be said for certain: the tab is only running higher...
Aside from regular business however, and today's business is certainly that, Welchie also made news in a couple of noteworthy articles outside of the famous, tenaciously investigative Vermont press corps. One of these articles can be found here, essentially citing Welchie's take on an apparent peace deal between his boy Howard Dean and his new pal Chris Van Hollen, with whom he sits on the Oversight Committee. "Victory is a great aphrodisiac" Welch is strangely quoted as saying. In typical non-committal fashion, Welch also suggests that Dean and his former nemesis Rahm Emmanuel "were both right" about the D's strategy last cycle, despite some, shall we say, "rocky moments" between the two, by which we mean "full-contact curse-laden screaming matches." The piece ends by noting that Welch "is close to Dean."Close? Riiiight.
Aside from the odd connection Welch seems to be suggesting between electoral politics and the "arousing of sexual desire," this article points to a fairly important but not often remarked upon set of interests that are at play involving Dean, Welch, and the national Democratic strategy for 2008 and beyond. You see, the national D's just don't like old Howard. As the article says, many feel that "it's totally bizarre dealing with him." Why? maybe it's because everyone outside of Vermont thinks that Howard Dean "is crazy," as this article notes. Indeed, there is no lack of evidence suggesting that Washington's established Democrats can't stand Dean, just like, for years, they couldn't deal with Bernie. So why the warm, fuzzy feeling emanating from the national D's towards Welchie, who is so close to Dean?
Here, the purloined letter theory applies: it is so obvious that it's really easy to miss. The fact is that Vermont's At-Large seat in the US House has not been occupied by someone as tailored for establishment Washington as Welch is in a long time. Heck, the Washington D's can't even deal with Dean, who Vermonters love. This is because Bernie, and to a lesser extent Dean, didn't buy into the Washington establishment scene. Bernie is the mud in their eye, they're all jerks, D's and R's are the same, power-to-the people candidate, and Vermonters love him for that. He couldn't be co-opted, bought, sold or otherwise compromised. "Give em hell, Bernie!" is a common refrain from Newport to Marlboro. "Give em hell, Welchie" just doesn't have the same ring, does it? And it ain't just because it sounds dumb.
The fact is that there is some cognitive dissonance going down right now in the Bluest corners of the bluest state around over what to think of Old Welchie. On the one hand, its nice to have someone who gets along with the establishment, who sits on committees, who talks nice about Rahm, Chris, Howie, Nancy and the whole gang, and who generally plays well with others. On the other hand, some of Welchie's supporters are starting to feel, well, a little icky. And they don't know why.
Maybe it's actually not a good thing to have a Rep who gets along, who sits on committees and smiles for the camera, they are starting to think. During the campaign it took an at times painful effort to draw a connection between the popular rebel Bernie and the lawyer famous for his firm's TV ads: "where winning is no accident." The anti-Iraq thing worked for awhile, but now that Welchie is following the D's "stay the course" strategy, even those who supported Welch for his war stance, like those within the "labor movement," are starting to waver. How much longer can they hold out?
WW's prediction? Not much longer. While some of Welchie's supporters will remain pleased with his conformity to the Washington scene, and the perks that come with Welchie's complicity with their platform, the ones who were naive enough to think of Welchie as the next Bernie will experience some serious Bernie withdrawal symptoms. Right now we're in the confusion phase, trending towards anger at Welchie's refusal to support a relinquishment of funding for the war. Next we'll see full-blown anger, then sadness, and then the inevitable acceptance that those "plum" committee assignments, a high profile with the national D's and all of the other perks of power come with a pretty serious price tag: doing whatever the national D's want you to do.
Finally, however, and inevitably, the people of Vermont will have to come to the final symptom: deciding if the price of the goods is worth the cost. While it's difficult to say what their decision will be, one thing can be said for certain: the tab is only running higher...
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Odds and Ends
Not much in the news today regarding Vermont's At-Large Congressperson. The House is in session today, with a few interesting propositions floating around, but this week marks the first in which there has not been an announcement (thus far at least) that Welchie will be landing another "plum" assignment on another committee. Of course, last week's big news was that ole' Welchie would be landing on a key oversight committee, which is responsible for probing into the Bush administration's policy choices over, oh, the last six years or so. Cleanin' up Washington, doing the people's work, etc. That's the story that the D's sold us on, and that's the story that they're trying to write. Today, however, it is starting to look like the ink well doth run dry, and once again, we must be forced to recognize that the promise is more powerful than the living up to it...or something like that.
This theory stems from a front page (above the fold) story in the old Post this morning. You can read it here. It covers another one of the main campaign promises that the D's, including son-of-the-green-mountains Welchie, painted most brightly across the newspapers and airwaves of our great nation last Summer. No, it's not Iraq (stupid!) but rather the second barrel of the D's shotgun, take the Hill plan: cleaning up Washington! We all heard so much about the "culture of corruption" (those catch-phrases are so cute) that the R's had engendered for far too long, right? This despite widespread evidence that power, famously, corrupts, and no lack of evidence from D's that cold hard cash is a desirable commodity indeed, for both D's and R's alike. Welchie was full of fire and brimstone on this issue. Peep his campaign site here. However, according to the post, the hands-in-taxpaers-pockets mentality that has so plagued our nation's seat of power will not be removed so easily.
As the Post article discusses, the reason for this is pretty simple: politicians just can't stop themselves from taking the opportunity to double dip for the price of their influence. Which means that the roundly praised ethics reform which was at least partially responsible for sweeping the D's into office is, like so many aging hippies, entirely without teeth. Surprised? Get used to it.
A recap of the first few days that the D's have been in control of both chambers brings us to some conclusions that must strike even the bluest of the blues with well, the blues. 1) Iraq: this debate has been lost by the D's. As mentioned on this very site, the framework has been shifted, without a chance of getting it back on track, we suggest. Think about it: have you heard anything on troop withdrawal? If so, where in City Hall Park were you standing, and what sized bongo was the person who told you about it playing? 2) Ethics reform: Congressional D's are simply not willing to implement a ban on their own spouses lobbying activities? WW predicts that this is just the start of a greater watering down of any actual ethics reform. Why? Because that's just the way that Washington works. There are a few scandals, the ethics cold war between the parties escalates into full-blown nuclear strikes, reforms are promised and then everything dies down for another 20 years. This is because, wake-up, both D's and R's are guilty of these types of violations. It's only when the stakes are really high that the ethics committee warms up.
Which brings us, once again, back to Welchie. We recently read about his co-sponsorship of the "man on the moon" project or whatever the heck it was. When will we read about his much-hyped ethics reform package? When will he sign on with Kucinich to end funding for the war? When will we read anything about any of this in the pages of any of our local papers? As an old song once said, the answer is blowing in the wind.
And a cold wind it is.
This theory stems from a front page (above the fold) story in the old Post this morning. You can read it here. It covers another one of the main campaign promises that the D's, including son-of-the-green-mountains Welchie, painted most brightly across the newspapers and airwaves of our great nation last Summer. No, it's not Iraq (stupid!) but rather the second barrel of the D's shotgun, take the Hill plan: cleaning up Washington! We all heard so much about the "culture of corruption" (those catch-phrases are so cute) that the R's had engendered for far too long, right? This despite widespread evidence that power, famously, corrupts, and no lack of evidence from D's that cold hard cash is a desirable commodity indeed, for both D's and R's alike. Welchie was full of fire and brimstone on this issue. Peep his campaign site here. However, according to the post, the hands-in-taxpaers-pockets mentality that has so plagued our nation's seat of power will not be removed so easily.
As the Post article discusses, the reason for this is pretty simple: politicians just can't stop themselves from taking the opportunity to double dip for the price of their influence. Which means that the roundly praised ethics reform which was at least partially responsible for sweeping the D's into office is, like so many aging hippies, entirely without teeth. Surprised? Get used to it.
A recap of the first few days that the D's have been in control of both chambers brings us to some conclusions that must strike even the bluest of the blues with well, the blues. 1) Iraq: this debate has been lost by the D's. As mentioned on this very site, the framework has been shifted, without a chance of getting it back on track, we suggest. Think about it: have you heard anything on troop withdrawal? If so, where in City Hall Park were you standing, and what sized bongo was the person who told you about it playing? 2) Ethics reform: Congressional D's are simply not willing to implement a ban on their own spouses lobbying activities? WW predicts that this is just the start of a greater watering down of any actual ethics reform. Why? Because that's just the way that Washington works. There are a few scandals, the ethics cold war between the parties escalates into full-blown nuclear strikes, reforms are promised and then everything dies down for another 20 years. This is because, wake-up, both D's and R's are guilty of these types of violations. It's only when the stakes are really high that the ethics committee warms up.
Which brings us, once again, back to Welchie. We recently read about his co-sponsorship of the "man on the moon" project or whatever the heck it was. When will we read about his much-hyped ethics reform package? When will he sign on with Kucinich to end funding for the war? When will we read anything about any of this in the pages of any of our local papers? As an old song once said, the answer is blowing in the wind.
And a cold wind it is.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Welchie's Website (Not THAT one) And The "Man On The Moon"
We admit it: up until this point we at WW have been focusing on some pretty rough stuff about ole' Welchie. You know, stuff that Vermont's 4th estate (which consists of oh, about 8 people) just doesn't care about, or doesn't want to point out for fear of losing access, or is afraid to see in print because well, that's the kind of thing that just shakes stuff up a bit too much. You know, little stuff, like Welchie bailing on his campaign pledge to "demand a timetable" for withdrawal of troops, or about how his claim of being able to "change the course" in Iraq crumbled like cake in the rain when he actually got to Washington. We guess that's just the kind of stuff we're supposed to do around here, simply because others refuse to do so. Besides, we're just so good at it.
Today, however, we'll look at some stuff that Welchie has been up to a bit more recently. Congressional stuff, like votin', kickin' services to the peeps, and all that. Stuff Welch actually does, as opposed to stuff he says he will do when he is campaigning, and then doesn't, which when we think about it, is alot. Which leaves us with relatively little to write about. Slow news day? Hardly.
We decided that a good starting point for all of this was Welchie's brand spankin' new website. It's pretty good, for being new and all. There's a section on the site about all of the bills that Welch has sponsored and cosponsored in the first few days of the new Congress. Thought we'd take a look at a few of them. Here's one of the items that the new Congress is really getting down with. That's right, it's not a typo: we're talking about the "man on the moon" people. Now that's legislating!
After a quick perusal of this hard-hitting piece of drafting we can glean two things: 1) the term "man on the moon" is about as antiquated as it gets, legislatively speaking, and 2) this legislation is essentially meaningless. What, we wonder, is the precedent of "the magnitude, creativity and sense of urgency of the 'Man on the Moon' project?" How creative and how urgent was this program? Is there anyone alive who knows?
To get some background we did a little bit of research, starting with this Fox News article to give us the basic gist of things. From there we proceeded to this teacher's article in the hope of determining what the "man on the moon" project entailed, exactly. Pretty interesting. According to the piece, the Man on the Moon project was, well, big. JFK, who had the idea that the US should lead space tech essentially for propaganda, called the MOTMP "the highest kind of national priority," and allocated funding the same: maybe around $27B. And that's in 1967 USD. Not cheap.
This is not to say that the US should not spend a good amount of time and research on the peak oil problem, but really; the "Man on the Moon?" A "national priority" for studying the peak oil problem? What about what seems to be that other national problem, the one that Welchie and the D's couldn't stop talking about last Summer: what the heck we're going to do about the Middle East! Is this really the time we need to be pouring literally tens of billions into a federal program to figure out what's happening with the peak oil problem?
According to one of the witnesses at the hearing before Congress, the whole peak oil problem is a little further away from developing than say, today. Or even tomorrow, or next week. The "world is not running out of oil imminently, or in the medium term," this guy, who also wrote a book about oil production capacity told the committee. He said it wouldn't be "for about three or four decades or so." Interesting. Well then, Mr. oil news analyst guy, what factors are contributing to our oil problems, if you're so smart? "The major risks to this outlook...are not below ground geological factors, but above ground geopolitical factors." Ehem, well, they're looking into all of that too. Soon. They promise.
The only other noticeable remark that WW has to bring your way today stemmed from Welchies website. No, not that website. His old website. For "Welch, Graham and Manby," the firm where "winning is no accident." Yep, if you check it out here, you'll find that the URL is still the same, www.wgmlegal.com, but the contents have changed dramatically. No more references to dog bites, slip and falls, mesothelioma, etc. And wait, no more references to Welchie! Vanished. Why? Well, it wouldn't be very seemly for a sitting Congressperson to engage in that type of behavior, would it? Unless, you know, he made his entire life's career of it or something. Whatever. There are probably some Congressional rules about these things as well. But if that's the case, what does the "w" in "wgmlegal" stand for? Should not Robert Manby Jr have to change the URL to fully remove any vestige of Welchian influence over the firm? We don't know, but we'll keep an eye out.
In the meantime, where will all of those Vermont dog-bite victims go for representation? Sadly, we'll never know.
Today, however, we'll look at some stuff that Welchie has been up to a bit more recently. Congressional stuff, like votin', kickin' services to the peeps, and all that. Stuff Welch actually does, as opposed to stuff he says he will do when he is campaigning, and then doesn't, which when we think about it, is alot. Which leaves us with relatively little to write about. Slow news day? Hardly.
We decided that a good starting point for all of this was Welchie's brand spankin' new website. It's pretty good, for being new and all. There's a section on the site about all of the bills that Welch has sponsored and cosponsored in the first few days of the new Congress. Thought we'd take a look at a few of them. Here's one of the items that the new Congress is really getting down with. That's right, it's not a typo: we're talking about the "man on the moon" people. Now that's legislating!
After a quick perusal of this hard-hitting piece of drafting we can glean two things: 1) the term "man on the moon" is about as antiquated as it gets, legislatively speaking, and 2) this legislation is essentially meaningless. What, we wonder, is the precedent of "the magnitude, creativity and sense of urgency of the 'Man on the Moon' project?" How creative and how urgent was this program? Is there anyone alive who knows?
To get some background we did a little bit of research, starting with this Fox News article to give us the basic gist of things. From there we proceeded to this teacher's article in the hope of determining what the "man on the moon" project entailed, exactly. Pretty interesting. According to the piece, the Man on the Moon project was, well, big. JFK, who had the idea that the US should lead space tech essentially for propaganda, called the MOTMP "the highest kind of national priority," and allocated funding the same: maybe around $27B. And that's in 1967 USD. Not cheap.
This is not to say that the US should not spend a good amount of time and research on the peak oil problem, but really; the "Man on the Moon?" A "national priority" for studying the peak oil problem? What about what seems to be that other national problem, the one that Welchie and the D's couldn't stop talking about last Summer: what the heck we're going to do about the Middle East! Is this really the time we need to be pouring literally tens of billions into a federal program to figure out what's happening with the peak oil problem?
According to one of the witnesses at the hearing before Congress, the whole peak oil problem is a little further away from developing than say, today. Or even tomorrow, or next week. The "world is not running out of oil imminently, or in the medium term," this guy, who also wrote a book about oil production capacity told the committee. He said it wouldn't be "for about three or four decades or so." Interesting. Well then, Mr. oil news analyst guy, what factors are contributing to our oil problems, if you're so smart? "The major risks to this outlook...are not below ground geological factors, but above ground geopolitical factors." Ehem, well, they're looking into all of that too. Soon. They promise.
The only other noticeable remark that WW has to bring your way today stemmed from Welchies website. No, not that website. His old website. For "Welch, Graham and Manby," the firm where "winning is no accident." Yep, if you check it out here, you'll find that the URL is still the same, www.wgmlegal.com, but the contents have changed dramatically. No more references to dog bites, slip and falls, mesothelioma, etc. And wait, no more references to Welchie! Vanished. Why? Well, it wouldn't be very seemly for a sitting Congressperson to engage in that type of behavior, would it? Unless, you know, he made his entire life's career of it or something. Whatever. There are probably some Congressional rules about these things as well. But if that's the case, what does the "w" in "wgmlegal" stand for? Should not Robert Manby Jr have to change the URL to fully remove any vestige of Welchian influence over the firm? We don't know, but we'll keep an eye out.
In the meantime, where will all of those Vermont dog-bite victims go for representation? Sadly, we'll never know.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Life, the Framework and Everything
This morning's dawn broke (we hope) on the second consecutive Monday upon which our members didn't show up for work up on the old Hill. The difference being that, unlike last Monday, you probably had the day off today as well. Also, they have the day off today for a better reason than a football game. So, what will members be doing with their long weekend this time around?
What they are doing is trying to sort out what seems to be a roller-coaster of a time with this troop-surge/escalation/implementation/redeployment/ whatever-whoever-is-speaking-at-the-time-says it is thing. For those keeping score at home, here's the update: they still don't have the foggiest idea how its all going to shake out. And with good reason.
While last week ended looking like this thing was going to arrive DOA, the fight, as Johnny Mac says here, is far from over. For one, hard-core D Carl Levin can't seem to make up his mind on the troop surge, saying before that he may approve...with "conditions" of course (no word on what they are) while suggesting the opposite here. Perennial Presidential "hopeful" ("hopeful" meaning "no chance in hell") Joe Biden is sticking to his guns, however, and true to form, news of Johnny Mac's demise looks to be greatly exaggerated after Bush's "cement trampoline" turned out to have more bounce than first thought. Anyone see Bush acting all aloof on 60 minutes last night? Ouch.
We anticipate that this debate, which is shaping up to look pretty big-time for D's, R's and (as an afterthought), the future of American foreign policy, will continue to engender furrowed brows and disapproving clucks amongst intelligentsia and politicos alike. However, we think that today, of all days, also offers us more than an opportunity for political point-making and continued gamesmanship. Today, perhaps, we should pause, our spoon-fulls of coco-puffs poised mid-air, and consider a question: if MLK were here, what would he say about the war? Fortunately for us, this website poses this very question! Cool, right?
Yeah, it is cool, and one particularly cool point jumped out at us. It was #5: "Martin supported a timetable for withdrawing US troops" (from Vietnam). Hmmm, that's an idea: if we at least have a target, we can try to meet it. Sounds like a good argument to us, and the MLK quote that supports this logic is pretty cool too. It all seemed so, well, familiar...where did we hear that word "timetable" before. We know it was a long time ago....
Oh yeah, it was last Summer! Last Summer we heard the word "timetable" a thousand times. Just the way that MLK said it too, as in "we need to set a timetable to get out of Iraq." Welch threw down pretty hard about it on his campaign site, even telling the Times Argus he believed that "Congress must demand a plan from the President that includes a timetable with the goal of significant withdrawal in 2007." Demands, baby, yeah! Take that Bush! Welchie's girl even dropped mad knowledge on her "timetable" plan way back in 2005.
But we haven't heard a lot about timetables recently, have we? No, we haven't. In fact, if you even Google the term "timetable" in connection with any US House event/legislation/proposal more recent than November 6th, you only get references to the timetable for, wait for it, the troop surge! On Saturday Robert Gates even went so far as to put the smack-down on the whole timetable thing, even though no one asked him about it. Wow.
This is going to be tough for ole' Welchie. Why? Because as his lefty base starts to realize he didn't give two buckets of syrup about establishing a "timetable" they're gonna get pissed. Wait, they're already getting pissed. The head honchos of VT's labor unions are even having a rally in Montpelier next Saturday to get Welchie to pay attention. Here's Welchie and his homies marching in B-town's labor day parade last year... think they'll be out there next week? Sorry to ruin it for you: there isn't a Republican's chance in Woodstock. Why? We don't know, maybe he'll be eating at the Tabard Inn (WW gives their brunch 4 stars) with Leahy. Or maybe it's because he isn't running for Congress this year. Or maybe it's because he won't end funding for the war, like he said he would during those halcyon days of last Summer, on the pleasant green, when things were so simple. Who knows, there are just so many reasons!
The bottom line is that you won't be hearing jack from Welchie about timetables, or defunding, or any of that for a long time. Maybe never again. You'll hear about dinner tables before timetables. Bush has succeeded in what they call "winning the framework" on what to do with troops, which means that he controls the conversation. Welchie is following Nancy's lead on this one, (read: no pulling funds for the war. Activists, ready your bongos!) Actually, this looks to be shaping itself into a bit of a pattern. Check the link to Welchie's voting record thus far: he has voted with Nancy %100 of the time. I think we can all agree: that just ain't the old Vermont "independence" shining through now, is it?
Which brings us back to MLK, on his very own day. Understanding that King would have called for a timetable is pretty elementary. He did so regarding Vietnam ("to sustained applause," according to transcripts.) So, why the silent treatment from Welchie on this point? It's weird, isn't it, especially considering what Welchie's website says about MLK. Turns out that Welch saw King speak once, in Chicago. And what a speech it was. According to whoever wrote the website, "Dr King's political courage and resolute commitment to nonviolence have had long-lasting effects on Peter's beliefs and work."
The question we at WW have is pretty simple: how long does "long-lasting" really last? Well, it looks like we're going to find out.
What they are doing is trying to sort out what seems to be a roller-coaster of a time with this troop-surge/escalation/implementation/redeployment/ whatever-whoever-is-speaking-at-the-time-says it is thing. For those keeping score at home, here's the update: they still don't have the foggiest idea how its all going to shake out. And with good reason.
While last week ended looking like this thing was going to arrive DOA, the fight, as Johnny Mac says here, is far from over. For one, hard-core D Carl Levin can't seem to make up his mind on the troop surge, saying before that he may approve...with "conditions" of course (no word on what they are) while suggesting the opposite here. Perennial Presidential "hopeful" ("hopeful" meaning "no chance in hell") Joe Biden is sticking to his guns, however, and true to form, news of Johnny Mac's demise looks to be greatly exaggerated after Bush's "cement trampoline" turned out to have more bounce than first thought. Anyone see Bush acting all aloof on 60 minutes last night? Ouch.
We anticipate that this debate, which is shaping up to look pretty big-time for D's, R's and (as an afterthought), the future of American foreign policy, will continue to engender furrowed brows and disapproving clucks amongst intelligentsia and politicos alike. However, we think that today, of all days, also offers us more than an opportunity for political point-making and continued gamesmanship. Today, perhaps, we should pause, our spoon-fulls of coco-puffs poised mid-air, and consider a question: if MLK were here, what would he say about the war? Fortunately for us, this website poses this very question! Cool, right?
Yeah, it is cool, and one particularly cool point jumped out at us. It was #5: "Martin supported a timetable for withdrawing US troops" (from Vietnam). Hmmm, that's an idea: if we at least have a target, we can try to meet it. Sounds like a good argument to us, and the MLK quote that supports this logic is pretty cool too. It all seemed so, well, familiar...where did we hear that word "timetable" before. We know it was a long time ago....
Oh yeah, it was last Summer! Last Summer we heard the word "timetable" a thousand times. Just the way that MLK said it too, as in "we need to set a timetable to get out of Iraq." Welch threw down pretty hard about it on his campaign site, even telling the Times Argus he believed that "Congress must demand a plan from the President that includes a timetable with the goal of significant withdrawal in 2007." Demands, baby, yeah! Take that Bush! Welchie's girl even dropped mad knowledge on her "timetable" plan way back in 2005.
But we haven't heard a lot about timetables recently, have we? No, we haven't. In fact, if you even Google the term "timetable" in connection with any US House event/legislation/proposal more recent than November 6th, you only get references to the timetable for, wait for it, the troop surge! On Saturday Robert Gates even went so far as to put the smack-down on the whole timetable thing, even though no one asked him about it. Wow.
This is going to be tough for ole' Welchie. Why? Because as his lefty base starts to realize he didn't give two buckets of syrup about establishing a "timetable" they're gonna get pissed. Wait, they're already getting pissed. The head honchos of VT's labor unions are even having a rally in Montpelier next Saturday to get Welchie to pay attention. Here's Welchie and his homies marching in B-town's labor day parade last year... think they'll be out there next week? Sorry to ruin it for you: there isn't a Republican's chance in Woodstock. Why? We don't know, maybe he'll be eating at the Tabard Inn (WW gives their brunch 4 stars) with Leahy. Or maybe it's because he isn't running for Congress this year. Or maybe it's because he won't end funding for the war, like he said he would during those halcyon days of last Summer, on the pleasant green, when things were so simple. Who knows, there are just so many reasons!
The bottom line is that you won't be hearing jack from Welchie about timetables, or defunding, or any of that for a long time. Maybe never again. You'll hear about dinner tables before timetables. Bush has succeeded in what they call "winning the framework" on what to do with troops, which means that he controls the conversation. Welchie is following Nancy's lead on this one, (read: no pulling funds for the war. Activists, ready your bongos!) Actually, this looks to be shaping itself into a bit of a pattern. Check the link to Welchie's voting record thus far: he has voted with Nancy %100 of the time. I think we can all agree: that just ain't the old Vermont "independence" shining through now, is it?
Which brings us back to MLK, on his very own day. Understanding that King would have called for a timetable is pretty elementary. He did so regarding Vietnam ("to sustained applause," according to transcripts.) So, why the silent treatment from Welchie on this point? It's weird, isn't it, especially considering what Welchie's website says about MLK. Turns out that Welch saw King speak once, in Chicago. And what a speech it was. According to whoever wrote the website, "Dr King's political courage and resolute commitment to nonviolence have had long-lasting effects on Peter's beliefs and work."
The question we at WW have is pretty simple: how long does "long-lasting" really last? Well, it looks like we're going to find out.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Are You Ready For Some Football?
Well, it's Friday in Washington, which essentially means that no one on Capitol Hill works. What do they do, you may be asking? The answer: not much. Many "members" (it's kind of weird when you first hear that term used to refer to Senators and Congresspeople on the hill, strangely appropriate though, we think) return to their home districts for the weekend.
Oh, by "weekend," we mean "all of the days between Friday and Monday, inclusive." While their staff may go to their place of business, little is done in the way of work on Fridays or Mondays. Oh yeah, its one of the things that Pelosi said she wanted to change about life on the Hill. See the Post's much hyped article here. Get down to business, right? Those R's were so arrogant. Who did they think they were, taking off on Fridays and not getting back until Tuesday? It's a good thing Welchie's platform, "the only way to change Washington is with a new Congress" resonated so well with the voters. Here's the Colchester Sun article taking note of Welchie's D's taking things "in a new direction." These D's will treat things differently baby! Its a new day, let the sun shine!
Wait, actually, hold that thought. Also, hold that whole "100 hours" thing. Until after the football game. That's right: the first Monday of the new session was, as the Brit's might say, given a miss. For a football game. Boston.com covers this story here, and Indian Country Today (a great site) throws in their two cents here. The D controlled Congress gave everyone the day off this past Monday to watch a football game that didn't start until 8:30PM EST. Why? Well, there is really no common sense justification for this shockingly arrogant act. The answer is actually pretty simple: because, this just in, the D's are just as wasteful and self-interested as the R's were! Wait, did you actually believe all of that campaign nonsense? If so, follow these instructions: stop. Take a deep breath. Count down from 15 backwards, and think about it for a second. Simply put, did you have to go to work on Monday?
Well, wait a second. We were certain that Welchie's boy, MD Rep Steny Hoyer, would never approve something like this. What did Hoyer have to say? "There is a very important event happening Monday night, particularly for those living in Ohio and Florida" Hoyer remarked. The D's decided not to work "in the spirit of comity." Wait, Ohio and Florida? Interesting.
Also interesting is what the Vermont Press Corps had to say about the "reform-minded" D's, the ones that Welchie hyped as the only way to "change business" in Congress, the ones that decided to start their change by taking an entire day off of work to watch a football game as their very first act to start their new tenure. Nothing.
Did you read about it? We didnt. WW would be interested to hear what size TV Bill Kurtz left Welchie in his new digs. Did he have his staff over to make nachos, drink Long Trails and watch the game? On your dime, we might add. Bottoms up, right?
Is this the "reform" Welchie talked about all last year, drinking beer and watching football? Stay tuned...until the NFL season ends, at least. As ICT reports, a full work week "won't happen until the professional football season is over." Then you have pitchers and catchers report to spring training, then the NFL Draft, and of course, the croquet season begins in West Palm...whew!
While the games proceed, and Welchie's new crash pad becomes a veritable sports bar of Hill staffers while you are at work, at least let us at WW be the first to say it: play ball.
Oh, by "weekend," we mean "all of the days between Friday and Monday, inclusive." While their staff may go to their place of business, little is done in the way of work on Fridays or Mondays. Oh yeah, its one of the things that Pelosi said she wanted to change about life on the Hill. See the Post's much hyped article here. Get down to business, right? Those R's were so arrogant. Who did they think they were, taking off on Fridays and not getting back until Tuesday? It's a good thing Welchie's platform, "the only way to change Washington is with a new Congress" resonated so well with the voters. Here's the Colchester Sun article taking note of Welchie's D's taking things "in a new direction." These D's will treat things differently baby! Its a new day, let the sun shine!
Wait, actually, hold that thought. Also, hold that whole "100 hours" thing. Until after the football game. That's right: the first Monday of the new session was, as the Brit's might say, given a miss. For a football game. Boston.com covers this story here, and Indian Country Today (a great site) throws in their two cents here. The D controlled Congress gave everyone the day off this past Monday to watch a football game that didn't start until 8:30PM EST. Why? Well, there is really no common sense justification for this shockingly arrogant act. The answer is actually pretty simple: because, this just in, the D's are just as wasteful and self-interested as the R's were! Wait, did you actually believe all of that campaign nonsense? If so, follow these instructions: stop. Take a deep breath. Count down from 15 backwards, and think about it for a second. Simply put, did you have to go to work on Monday?
Well, wait a second. We were certain that Welchie's boy, MD Rep Steny Hoyer, would never approve something like this. What did Hoyer have to say? "There is a very important event happening Monday night, particularly for those living in Ohio and Florida" Hoyer remarked. The D's decided not to work "in the spirit of comity." Wait, Ohio and Florida? Interesting.
Also interesting is what the Vermont Press Corps had to say about the "reform-minded" D's, the ones that Welchie hyped as the only way to "change business" in Congress, the ones that decided to start their change by taking an entire day off of work to watch a football game as their very first act to start their new tenure. Nothing.
Did you read about it? We didnt. WW would be interested to hear what size TV Bill Kurtz left Welchie in his new digs. Did he have his staff over to make nachos, drink Long Trails and watch the game? On your dime, we might add. Bottoms up, right?
Is this the "reform" Welchie talked about all last year, drinking beer and watching football? Stay tuned...until the NFL season ends, at least. As ICT reports, a full work week "won't happen until the professional football season is over." Then you have pitchers and catchers report to spring training, then the NFL Draft, and of course, the croquet season begins in West Palm...whew!
While the games proceed, and Welchie's new crash pad becomes a veritable sports bar of Hill staffers while you are at work, at least let us at WW be the first to say it: play ball.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Hill Digs for Welchie...But From Who?
We were cruising through some of the political fodder from recent weeks when we came across this interesting morsel of "news" coyly inserted at the bottom of Darren Allen's site: Welchie will be moving into the apartment of whom? The answer is Bill Kurtz, former Chief of Staff for the roundly lionized (and deservedly so) former Senator Jeffords. Our immediate impulse was to think this a bit strange; is not Kurtz an avowed "R?" Apparently Welch is taking the spirit of bipartisanship to a whole new level. Seemed odd...then we stumbled on this fluffy piece on the same not-news subject of Welchie's new bachelor pad. Wait, this blog article says that the apartment in question is furnished too. Sweet. So, Welchie will be reviewing the troop surge proposal that has everyone so up in arms on the same ratty old sofa where Kurtz watched West Wing reruns and ordered takeout from the Tune Inn? This seemed a little bit odd to us at WW.
Then we started thinking about stuff. It's really not that weird. Of course, the body politic in the old green mountain state is pretty small, or as one commentator once told me "it's easy to climb through the ranks here because there are so few people." It makes sense that Kurtz and Welch would know each other, simply due to this fact. Of course, Vermonters should stick together, and Kurtz IS a Vermonter. In his farewell address, Jeffords described Kurtz as "one of the greatest people to ever serve...the State of Vermont." Wow.
But what really had us thinking was the role that Kurtz played in the last election. Welchie's breakthrough year. Yeah, that one, where everyone thought that Martha Rainville was great, but...well, you know the rest. The whole R scarlett letter thing, and there's some truth to that argument, and a few other missteps. But make no mistake: the establishment was shaking in their birkenstocks that Rainville would turn the Vermont political establishment, and a well-guarded one it is, on its head. Of course, Rainville herself was bulletproof, but those national R's have to go! they all cheered, and just look at those glossy TV ads they paid for...wait, did we just see a black & white of Jeffords fly by, on screen for less than a second? Yes, we did.
Remember that? The claim was that national R's were using Jeffords against his will. A letter even came out of Jeffords' office on it, the Times Argus taking note here, and Freyne here. Who wrote that letter? Ostensibly, of course, it was Jeffords. Perhaps we'll never know, but one can imagine that the Chief of Staff might have a say in something like that coming out at well, an opportune moment, shall we say, especially considering the well-known fact (in political circles, at least) that Jeffords was, according to Allen's surprisingly undercovered piece here, "operating in a diminished capacity." How diminished? Evidence suggests the answer: pretty diminished. Enough to block press access to the state's sitting Senator. Blocking press access to the state's sitting Senator. For more than a year. Let that sink in for a bit...Ok.
Considering that this article also points out Kurtz's reference to a Senate office as a "business" it becomes pretty surprising that no one pointed to this article when the anti-Rainville letter came out. The date of Allen's piece was in Summer news hell: July 21st, which was a Friday. "Jeffords'" little piece effectively endorsing Welchie? October 10th, a Tuesday. Less than a month before the election. Interesting timing, isn't it, for "business," we mean?
So, considering all of these connections, it makes perfect sense that Welchie will be crashing at Kurtz's pad, drinking his left-over Sunny-Delite, eating his old rice pudding in that weird green container at the back of the fridge. It makes a lot more sense than one might, from the perspective of the average voter, think.
This leads us to a much discussed but little noticed fact about electoral politics in its current manifestation: nothing. is. done. by. accident. Nothing. The elements of the well choreographed "letter from Jeffords" are so clear: Jeffords's well-deserved saint-like status, combined with no press-availability and a secret-service like level of protection from his staff meant that his office could at least have a strong influence on the timing and reporting of his remarks. At least. Heck, in DA's piece his staff admits that it already drafted major pieces of legislation for him. Why not a little letter about the campaign? Are those crickets I hear?
The timing of these events, and the substantial undercoverage of a long and well-developed piece by Darren Allen implicating Jeffords' ability to reason, combined with the business aspects of politics, are just too much to dismiss as conspiracy theory. It was brilliant triangulation by Welchie's crew, and great cooperation from the establishment to keep Rainville, a legitimate political threat to them all, out of a party to which she was never invited.
If Leahy's COS has an even swankier joint in a few years, look out.
Then we started thinking about stuff. It's really not that weird. Of course, the body politic in the old green mountain state is pretty small, or as one commentator once told me "it's easy to climb through the ranks here because there are so few people." It makes sense that Kurtz and Welch would know each other, simply due to this fact. Of course, Vermonters should stick together, and Kurtz IS a Vermonter. In his farewell address, Jeffords described Kurtz as "one of the greatest people to ever serve...the State of Vermont." Wow.
But what really had us thinking was the role that Kurtz played in the last election. Welchie's breakthrough year. Yeah, that one, where everyone thought that Martha Rainville was great, but...well, you know the rest. The whole R scarlett letter thing, and there's some truth to that argument, and a few other missteps. But make no mistake: the establishment was shaking in their birkenstocks that Rainville would turn the Vermont political establishment, and a well-guarded one it is, on its head. Of course, Rainville herself was bulletproof, but those national R's have to go! they all cheered, and just look at those glossy TV ads they paid for...wait, did we just see a black & white of Jeffords fly by, on screen for less than a second? Yes, we did.
Remember that? The claim was that national R's were using Jeffords against his will. A letter even came out of Jeffords' office on it, the Times Argus taking note here, and Freyne here. Who wrote that letter? Ostensibly, of course, it was Jeffords. Perhaps we'll never know, but one can imagine that the Chief of Staff might have a say in something like that coming out at well, an opportune moment, shall we say, especially considering the well-known fact (in political circles, at least) that Jeffords was, according to Allen's surprisingly undercovered piece here, "operating in a diminished capacity." How diminished? Evidence suggests the answer: pretty diminished. Enough to block press access to the state's sitting Senator. Blocking press access to the state's sitting Senator. For more than a year. Let that sink in for a bit...Ok.
Considering that this article also points out Kurtz's reference to a Senate office as a "business" it becomes pretty surprising that no one pointed to this article when the anti-Rainville letter came out. The date of Allen's piece was in Summer news hell: July 21st, which was a Friday. "Jeffords'" little piece effectively endorsing Welchie? October 10th, a Tuesday. Less than a month before the election. Interesting timing, isn't it, for "business," we mean?
So, considering all of these connections, it makes perfect sense that Welchie will be crashing at Kurtz's pad, drinking his left-over Sunny-Delite, eating his old rice pudding in that weird green container at the back of the fridge. It makes a lot more sense than one might, from the perspective of the average voter, think.
This leads us to a much discussed but little noticed fact about electoral politics in its current manifestation: nothing. is. done. by. accident. Nothing. The elements of the well choreographed "letter from Jeffords" are so clear: Jeffords's well-deserved saint-like status, combined with no press-availability and a secret-service like level of protection from his staff meant that his office could at least have a strong influence on the timing and reporting of his remarks. At least. Heck, in DA's piece his staff admits that it already drafted major pieces of legislation for him. Why not a little letter about the campaign? Are those crickets I hear?
The timing of these events, and the substantial undercoverage of a long and well-developed piece by Darren Allen implicating Jeffords' ability to reason, combined with the business aspects of politics, are just too much to dismiss as conspiracy theory. It was brilliant triangulation by Welchie's crew, and great cooperation from the establishment to keep Rainville, a legitimate political threat to them all, out of a party to which she was never invited.
If Leahy's COS has an even swankier joint in a few years, look out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
