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...
Thursday, January 18, 2007
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.
"A Promise Made, A Promise Delivered"
Well, not too surprised that we missed an interesting little article over at the Vermont Guardian from a few days ago, considering that the old Guardian is usually a bit, how should this be put diplomatically, "centristly challenged," but they have a heckuvan article on what's going on with Vermont's anti-war firebrand Peter Welch, especially how his lawyerly head is dealing with a pretty big conundrum these days: it's the war, stupid.
Less surprising than WW's oversight, however, was what seemed to be a distinctly shivery and cold feeling that comes across in the article, which can be found here. Dude, the Guardian is, as mentioned, a pretty reliable haunt of those most blue-blooded Vermonters; Progressives, anti-war activists, church-street regulars, UVM professors, etc. Why the brush off for Welchie then? Maybe its starting to look like his tough talk about getting troops home by the end of 2006, or at least forming "an aggressive plan for doing so," are not so easy to live up to when you get out of Montpelier and down to Washington. Even with a fully Democratically controlled Congress. Even when Welch sits on two of the most powerful committee's in Washington. Even when US support for the war is at an all-time low.
Instead, in the VG article "Welch acknowledged that despite the large number of US voters who swept Democrats into power based on their disapproval of the Iraq war, Bush still holds the upper hand when it comes to setting troop levels and setting war policy." What, what what!? What happened to the claims made, throughout the sweet summer months, that we need to stop the "rubber stamp" Congress? Welch goes on to say that "the President is the Commander in Chief. He has the cards. We in Congress must do our best we (sic) to persuade him to change the direction in Iraq (author's note: "change the direction?" does that sound familiar?) Can the President do it even if it's wrong? He probably can." Said Welch.
Now, call us out if we're wrong, but this seems to be developing into what they call in Sheffield "a load of bull-crap." As in, it simply ain't true. Welch sits on two committees, one of which must approve each bill that comes through for it to get to a vote. Read: the Democrats CAN end this war as soon as they would like to. There is actually a faction who wants to do this. Welch is not in this faction.
He either a) does not have the influence to "persuade (Bush) to change the direction" (wait, wouldn't that be "standing up to Bush?") or b) he is not willing to introduce or co-sponsor the legislation that would "end the war now." Legislation which would end all funding for the war except for troop withdrawal is not new, but Welch has not indicated that he would sign onto it. Repeat: Welch will not do this, which is exactly what he said he would do when he was courting your vote last summer. I'll say it again: Welch will NOT DO what he said he would do. Heck, he knows it. Maybe Welch should start reading the blogs, like this one by Dennis Kucinich. Its all there in black and white.
In our opinion, this should make people pretty mad. Bernie would have pulled the plug, right? My prediction: no one will notice, or even care. Why? Well, we all know that you can trust a personal injury attorney, why pay attention to what he is actually doing? Hey, times are tough all over.
Not tough enough, though, for Welch to claim that he is living up to his promises on the campaign while dodging the cannonball for his goose-egg on the war. The Totten article, please note, does end with Welch pointing out that the Dem controlled Congress is acting on a whole host of other issues in the much vaunted "100 hours" plan. " Stem cell research, school funding, and a few others will all get some attention. "They were really campaign promises, and a promise made, a promise delivered" says Welch.
We have our doubts.
Less surprising than WW's oversight, however, was what seemed to be a distinctly shivery and cold feeling that comes across in the article, which can be found here. Dude, the Guardian is, as mentioned, a pretty reliable haunt of those most blue-blooded Vermonters; Progressives, anti-war activists, church-street regulars, UVM professors, etc. Why the brush off for Welchie then? Maybe its starting to look like his tough talk about getting troops home by the end of 2006, or at least forming "an aggressive plan for doing so," are not so easy to live up to when you get out of Montpelier and down to Washington. Even with a fully Democratically controlled Congress. Even when Welch sits on two of the most powerful committee's in Washington. Even when US support for the war is at an all-time low.
Instead, in the VG article "Welch acknowledged that despite the large number of US voters who swept Democrats into power based on their disapproval of the Iraq war, Bush still holds the upper hand when it comes to setting troop levels and setting war policy." What, what what!? What happened to the claims made, throughout the sweet summer months, that we need to stop the "rubber stamp" Congress? Welch goes on to say that "the President is the Commander in Chief. He has the cards. We in Congress must do our best we (sic) to persuade him to change the direction in Iraq (author's note: "change the direction?" does that sound familiar?) Can the President do it even if it's wrong? He probably can." Said Welch.
Now, call us out if we're wrong, but this seems to be developing into what they call in Sheffield "a load of bull-crap." As in, it simply ain't true. Welch sits on two committees, one of which must approve each bill that comes through for it to get to a vote. Read: the Democrats CAN end this war as soon as they would like to. There is actually a faction who wants to do this. Welch is not in this faction.
He either a) does not have the influence to "persuade (Bush) to change the direction" (wait, wouldn't that be "standing up to Bush?") or b) he is not willing to introduce or co-sponsor the legislation that would "end the war now." Legislation which would end all funding for the war except for troop withdrawal is not new, but Welch has not indicated that he would sign onto it. Repeat: Welch will not do this, which is exactly what he said he would do when he was courting your vote last summer. I'll say it again: Welch will NOT DO what he said he would do. Heck, he knows it. Maybe Welch should start reading the blogs, like this one by Dennis Kucinich. Its all there in black and white.
In our opinion, this should make people pretty mad. Bernie would have pulled the plug, right? My prediction: no one will notice, or even care. Why? Well, we all know that you can trust a personal injury attorney, why pay attention to what he is actually doing? Hey, times are tough all over.
Not tough enough, though, for Welch to claim that he is living up to his promises on the campaign while dodging the cannonball for his goose-egg on the war. The Totten article, please note, does end with Welch pointing out that the Dem controlled Congress is acting on a whole host of other issues in the much vaunted "100 hours" plan. " Stem cell research, school funding, and a few others will all get some attention. "They were really campaign promises, and a promise made, a promise delivered" says Welch.
We have our doubts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
