Nixonian Flashbacks

***LEAHY UPDATE FRIDAY 6 P.M.***

"This is a further shift by the Bush administration into Nixonian stonewalling and more evidence of their disdain for our system of checks and balances," Leahy said.

"Nixonian stonewalling," eh?

Shall we say, the perfect word selection by Vermont's senior Sen. Patrick J. Leahy?

The Senate Judiciary Committee Leahy is chairman of has issued subpoenas to the White House for documents and testimony that will help to uncover the truth about the Bush firing of all those federal prosecutors. We still live in a democracy, right?

*UPDATE: Chairman Leahy will appear live Sunday morning on NBC's "Meet the Press" for a 15-minute solo segment regarding the subpoenas.

C'mon St. Patrick, comb your hair nice.

Closer to home, these folks were out exercising their democratic right of freedom of speech on North Avenue in Burlington last night. Their issue is global warming. And their target is Republican State Rep. Kurt Wright, whose district they were in. Ol' Kwik-Stop Kurt, along with all the other House Republicans, voted "no" on H. 520, the top priority of Democratic Senate leader Peter Shumlin, the big global-warming bill that passed and received a firm gubernatorial veto.

Lawmakers return on July 11 for a veto-override attempt. And it appears obvious to all now, including Shumlin, they simply do not have the two-thirds vote required to win.

That's prompted Shummy & Co. to offer a deal -  the withdrawal from the legislation of its controversial funding source, the tax on power generation on Entergy's Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Vernon, Vermont.

"This is dead meat," suggested yours truly to the tiny band of environmental activists. "There’s no impeachment override. The Democrat leaders concede they don’t have the votes. It’s not about getting Kurt’s vote; they can’t even get enough Democrats!"

"That’s only half the point," replied Vermont Public Interest Research Group Field Associate Sean Sarah. "The other half of the point is action and letting people know, and letting legislators know, it’s not just about this one vote, it’s about the issue. And even if we lose this vote, the issue’s still around. The amount of play it’s gotten in the media tells us it’s still going to be around whether we win or lose and that’s equally important."

By the way, "Freyne Land" was the only media that dropped by Thursday's protest.

"I’m sure there’s a chance we’re going to lose." said the VPIRG organizer. "We’re still going to fight and even if we lose, we still have the issue. That’s the most important thing, continuing the dialog afterward."

Becca McHale, a sign-holding Burlington graphic designer, said she liked Gov. Douglas "a lot more before this."

"You didn't vote for him, did you?" I asked.

"No, I didn't, actually, but I didn't think he was this bad!"

McHale said she thought that, "It was the Yankee tax that really did 'em in."

Carrie Shamel, a Burlington social worker, said she was protesting the governor of Vermont's veto of H. 520 during Thursday's dinner hour because she was "saving the planet for my great-great grandchildren."

And the youngest of the tiny band, 17-year-old Sarah Pennucci of South Burlington had biked into the Queen City [no helmet!] for the protest.

"It’s my future that this is concerning," she told me with determination. "Most of the people making the laws will be dead before any of this has any effect, but I have to deal with it and I think I should be part of trying to solve it."

Sarah got wind of the event from a friend at the recently started Vermont Youth Activism Network.

"I think our governor really needs to get a backbone already and stop cow-towing kowtowing [thanks Kitchen Talker], to businesses," added Sean Zigmund, a "computer geek" by trade. "This is not about money anymore. This is really about our future. It's up to the younger generation to step up and say this is bullshit."

Why the rather small turnout Thursday evening on North Avenue? There were more protest signs than hands to hold them.

"Honestly," said Zigmund, "I think it’s because we live in a society and a country where we’re complacent because of the fact that we’re spoon fed eveything through the media and we just buy whatever we’re told.

"And we’re content with what we have and we’re very comfortable. If people weren’t comfortable you’d know they’d be out in the streets screaming about it."

He's got a point, eh?

Comments

[Kitchen Talker]

What!!! The governor has been cow-towing? Does PETA know about this???

(just kidding)

[Carl]

"Save the Planet" The famous cry of enviromentalist for decades. How about getting a slogan that states things more relavent to us. The "planet" will be here no matter what humans do. Whether or not it is comfortably inhabitable, that is what we are really trying to save.
"Significant" global changes (the kind that really would change how we live) are not measured in years or decades - they are measured in centuries and eons - far beyond what ANY of us will see in our lives. The youth and forward lookers of today are not looking to save "Earth" for ourselves, but distant generations to come.
I consider it a noble cause, but also laugh a little at the simplicity of thought and comments made by well intentioned enviromentalist.

[Carl]

What does federal prosecutors being fired have anything to do with "democracy"? Their jobs are appointment based jobs, just like all the jobs in the Presidental cabinet. As appointment jobs, they are at the discretion of the President. I for one have a strong disdain for our current president, but I have to side with him on this one issue. He is at liberty to replace any appointees he feels the need or desire to replace, and really does not need to give a reason for replacing them.
I am and "at will" employee in my current job. I do my job knowing I can be let go at any time at the companies discretion. It keeps me on my toes and keeps me working hard for the company expecting it will keep them inclined to keep me employeed. My efforts do not obligate them to continue employing me.
I think our Senators could be better spending "OUR" time pursuing real social injustices and not witch (or warlock) hunting.

[vermonter]

Carl, you are correct that US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. It is not unusual when a new President comes in to replace many US Attorneys. (It is also very common for new Presidents to keep many or most of them in their jjobs also, as criminal prosecution is not usually considered a political job.)

But what the Bush Administration did is a strong break from tradition. Long after he was in office, he appointed a young political hack with no legal experience to be the White House "liaison" to the Justice Department to make sure the White House's political and moral lines were followed by the Justice Department. The White House then launched a program to replace US Attorneys based on their political and cultural allegiance to the White House line. Furthermore, there is evidence that this was done based on who the current US Attorneys were going after and who they weren't going after. This was wrong. This is completely different than cleaning house when you arrive in office. And, to top it off, the Justice Department lied about what they did. If there was absolutely nothing wrong with what they did, why try to hard to cover it up? Why outright lie about knowing about it, as the Attorney General has done?

No, this was a misuse of presidential power and a corruption of the Justice Department.

[JPC]

Vermonter, i agree that lying about and covering up the firings was wrong, but the firings themselves are perfectly legit. The serve at the pleasure of the president meaning that he has the authority to fire them whenever regardless of tradition. Who and what they are prosecuting really doesn't matter either. At all levels of government somebody has to make a call on what to prosecute and what not to worry about. TJ Donovan decides what is going to be enforced and what isn't. So, if Gonzo decided these attorneys were not focus on the cases he wanted then he was justified in their firings. Again I agree that the lying and secrecy needs to stop, but investigating the firings is simple grandstanding.

[Roger]

Carl wrote..

"Significant" global changes (the kind that really would change how we live) are not measured in years or decades - they are measured in centuries and eons - far beyond what ANY of us will see in our lives.

NO, YOU ARE WRONG, and so many are sooo way uniformed on this like most Americans, largely due to our so called pathetic press.
We could lose Sugaring in two maybe three decades and see it’s maple syrup production decline on the way. Did anybody say snow and ski resorts not to mention the cross country resorts, winter recreation ice on Lake Champlain going going- going gone – now you add up the costs, start environmentally and end economically. You like those pot holes on the interstate – their to the nearly continuous freeze thaw cycle – rip rip rip rip not necessarily big trucks.
How about land slides – ELM street Montpelier – you think that was just a fluke – FREEZE THAW BABY and there’s lots more to come – why climate change and that’s happening right here – right now. But even sooner than that – there is quality of life issues like year round mosquitoes. Have a dog , no like to walk in the woods? – get Lyme disease. These are product correlated very easily with Climate Change.

Things are really moving along quickly - are way closer probably in both your and my lifetimes. This sweep it under the rug thing that’s it’s EONS away might make you feel much better if you just keep thinking (militant ignorance) so you won’t have to do anything about it, but you and the rest of you out there ARE IN FOR QUITE THE SHOCK if you are under age 50.

No If I was young I’d be tap dancing on the governors desk in the Pavilion to get his attention.

You guys are funny if it wasn’t so freaking tragic.
Challenge me I dare yah, but google it first and educate yourselves! I’m through explaining the earth is round.
Roger Hill

[vermonter]

Once again, Roger makes valid points about the effects of global warming, if you can cut through his erratic, disjointed prose to figure out what he's saying, but undercuts his persuasiveness with his SHOUTING and his accusatory rhetoric.