Welch and the "OC"

A tipster um, tipped us off to an interesting developing story regarding what has been a major issue for people interested in the actions of Vermont's resident Congress-guy. As has been playing out over the past few weeks, both supporters and detractors of Welch have been taking him to task over his lack of leadership on his big campaign promise; standing up to Bush, ending the war, and all of that.

In the ever-interesting Vermont blogosphere, the divide over Welchie's spinning plate approach has created some odd bedfellows. Here, some guy urges his fellow anti-war peeps to holler at Welch and get him to sign onto the Woolsey Bill, while a rather shrill and often vulgar exchange goes down over here on that very issue. Oh, the first prediction of the 2008 House race in VT is also made, albeit in an unsurprisingly curse-laden (but strangely satisfying) manner here. And in the non-shocker of the month, this guy still hasn't said anything about Welch and the war, despite his avowed huge role in getting Welch elected. All in all, it has been what they might call in Ferdinand "a big to-do." Pretty wild, right?

This is the kind of thing that eventually gets a politician's attention. When people are faxing, calling, sending smoke signals, carrier pigeons, etc, to your office en masse to suggest that you get with the program, your staff probably starts to tell you that you should, well, get with the program. Predictably, we had to hear something from Welchie's peeps on why he wasn't doing just that. Apparently, tonight we heard that, actually, he was.

Or did we?

Well, in typical Welch fashion, there seems to be some lack of clarity on the matter. The whole thing started with this piece of information, which was given mad props by the folks at the website upon which you see it. You notice how it does not say "press release." It's also not listed as a press release on Welch's website. All we know is that it is "from Peter Welch's office." That is not to say that it's not a press release, per se. We don't get cc'd on stuff from them. However, it came from somewhere...inside Welch's office, apparently.

This is part of what it says:

"I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 508, sponsored by Representatives (sic) Lynn Woolsey"

Wait, really? Where to start...

Well, we started by looking up the original information on HR 508, which we yapped about weeks ago as the bill that Welch wouldn't sign on to. We were surprised, then, when Welch said that he "was an 'original cosponsor'" of this piece of legislation...did we mess up on our research? You can see the Thomas text of the bill here. You can see the list of cosponsors, both original and not, here. Do you see Welch's name? Neither do we. It's also not on Welch's website. Weird.

Then we started thinking, well, Welch's people wouldn't put out something so blatantly untrue without checking it out first. After all, there has been such an uproar about why he didn't cosponsor it; why wouldn't he have just said something like "yes, I actually did cosponsor that bill," and thusly end the brewing conflict?

In short, if he cosponsored the bill, why the uproar? We started thinking that the term itself, "original cosponsor," might be a term of art. That's why it didn't show up on the Thomas list...or something. So, we looked it up. This is what we found here:

"Before introduction, Representatives and Senators will often ask their colleagues to be an 'original cosponsor' of their legislation. Being an an original cosponsor means that they agreed to support the bill before it was introduced, which presumably is riskier because the bill hasn't been studied. It is a sign of commitment to an issue."

So, it wasn't some issue of arcane House lingo that we just didn't get. Again, weird.

The only thing we can conclude, right now, is that this is really strange. There are a few options as to what is going down here:

1) The information that came from Welch's office (if that's really where it came from) is wrong. Welch didn't sign the Woolsey bill, he just has some really poor press people. Honest mistake.

2) The information that came from Welch's office is right, and everyone else, including Thomas, Welch's website, GovTrack, and WW, are all wrong. If this is the case, we apologize. Profusely.

3) Welch's people got so freaked out by the thousands of voters who called his office that they just threw out this piece to make everyone think that Welch signed the bill, although they knew he didn't. This would be really, really bad.

In any event, observers from both sides of the debate on Welch should take it upon themselves to figure out what is going on here. If this really came from Welch's office, and it is purposefully deceptive, well, there should be serious repercussions. If it is a mistake it should be acknowledged, and if it is true it should be noted by anti-war demonstrators and others who want to see Welch live up to his campaign promises.

Essentially, we need to know the truth. Was Welch an original cosponsor of this bill or not?

However, we have to say, we think that this information is, ahem, not true. We do not think that Welch was a cosponsor of HR 508. It just doesn't add up. What, then, is going on? We don't know.

Given these doubts, we think that those looking for some anti-war cred from Welch need to take a step back, look at the facts, and find out what is going on.

And when the dust settles, we'll go from there.

Trust us.

Letter From A Reader

Occasionally, we at WW will receive emails from readers, concerned citizens, critics and fellow bloggers regarding the subject of our site: the incorrigible Peter Welch. We want to make this clear: we love hearing from readers. Whether it's a citation to a news event, a commentary on our chosen format, or an interesting tidbit of political information, we just can't get enough feedback. Simply put: we love it.

However, sometimes we get some email, or in this case a posting, that deserves a wider audience than it has thus far been afforded. In the case of the letter we received below, this theory applies. Why? Because, well, it really says it all. Dare we say, better than we are capable of doing? Come on: as though that's even possible...

At the very least, the letter below lends a less cynical, and perhaps more visceral, perspective than we are capable of offering. It really touched a nerve with us here at WW, so we thought we'd give it some play. We also think that the open-letter format lends itself well to our set-up here at WW.

In any event, it certainly reflects the sentiment that we have been getting from our readers. Oh, and we'll try to make it our last posting on Autographgate, unless we get more news on the issue. Cool?

Enjoy!

To: Representative Peter Welch

From: David in Brattleboro

Re: My Vote For You Faxed to his VT & DC fax lines, no email address made available. Also posted to iBrattleboro.

Dear Sir,

I voted for you in November after hearing you speak at my place of employment and was impressed by your strong position against the Bush regime. I spoke to you afterwards and implored you to, if elected, explore any means necessary to stop this war and stand up to the ruling party. Imagine my dismay as I view the video of you at the State of the Union last week. The same man who was the target of your fiery speechmaking was the target of your fawning behavior after the speech was over. What in the world possessed you to want to shake that man’s hand, get his autograph and smile and act like everything is OK with his outrageously corrupt and single-minded presidency? He is more of an enemy to us Vermonters than any of the people whose countries we invade and cultures we defile could ever be. He has drained our treasury, soiled our reputation worldwide, neglected to protect our citizens from natural disasters, lied about the reasons for going to war, and seriously damaged our constitutional rights. And you sought him out for an autograph? It boggles my mind that you would do this. My respect for you is shot and my vote will never be cast in your favor again, even if it means that Martha Rainville, or another Republican candidate is our next Congressperson. At least they would be honest about their Bush-loving and would not have misrepresented themselves to the voters of Vermont who sought CHANGE. I voted for someone who would stand up to the president, not seek him out for an autograph. I read that the autograph was for your nephew – and even if that’s true – how can you seek out an autograph from the worst president in any of our lifetimes and the single greatest threat to our nation’s future? What kind of example are you trying to set for your nephew and for Vermont’s youth? Bush should be shunned and avoided and your association with him is an embarrassment, worse than anything Fox News could dish out for Vermont. You have already been a great disappointment to me and many other Vermonters. There is a chance to redeem yourself by voting for the House Bill that will return our troops home and end this fiasco in Iraq. Will you make that stand or will you continue to betray your campaign platform and further disgrace your seat and your standing in Vermont’s eyes.

Disgustedly,

David
Brattleboro

Autographgate III: The Plot Thickens

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.