From Daily kos: In Vermont "all hell broke loose" in a meeting w/ Rep Welch

Peter Welch (D-VT) gets an earful about the war. People are pissed.
by lordradish
Sun Nov 11, 2007 at 08:55:59 PM PST
Congressman Peter Welch met today with a group of some 100-120 Vermonters to discuss the war in the Aldrich Library in Barre today. Hoo boy, where to begin... Let's just say that it was the most heated confrontation that I've ever personally witnessed between constituents and a politician.

lordradish's diary :: ::
I was there primarily as a participant, and not as a blogger or anything, so unfortunately I wasn't taking notes or pictures. In hindsight, that would have been a good idea. So I'm going to try to give a narrative from the best I can remember. WCAX, WPTZ, The Free Press, the Argus, Peter Freyne, and VPT were among the press in attendance. I've got a lot of mixed feelings about how all parties involved in this behaved, so bear with me as I try to piece it together. It was very tense and hard to follow at times, so I'm not exactly brimming with detail. If you were there, please let us know your take in the comments.

The meeting was opened by a few words from Palmer Legare, one of the activists arrested at Welch's a few weeks ago. He laid out the format, which I'll get to in a minute. The event then started off with an incredibly moving speech from Dottye Ricks of Graniteville, from the organization Military Families Speak Out. Her husband is one of the many who were injured in Iraq and came back a shadow of his former self, with the resulting problems that are all too well familiar now, in our fifth year of war. She was none too happy with the situation, and visibly quite frustrated with Welch, especially in light of the fact that she put a lot of time in volunteering on his campaign. She looked at him directly in the eye as she spoke, for the most part. Judy Sargent of Plainfield said a few words, and then Will Allen, a farmer from Thetford and the organization "Farms Not Arms" got up and spoke as well . Of all the activists who spoke, he seemed to be the most concise and well-composed, a very impressive guy and undoubtedly an asset to the movement.

Legare then took to the podium to lay out the format of the forum (which Welch was not told of in advance). There was a big board with fifteen questions for Welch, each with three boxes next to them : yes, no, waffle. Some of the questions (if memory serves me correctly, and if those who were more certain have a correction, please let me know):

Do you promise not to vote for any more money for the war?

Will you submit legislation to call home the military contractors in Iraq?

Will you introduce legislation banning the use of depleted uranium?

There were also several questions involving Iran, the Moveon ad, investigations, and impeachment.

The plan was for Welch to answer the questions directly, yes or no, after which he would be given ten minutes to say what he wanted, and then the floor would be open for questions.

And then all hell broke loose.

<snip>

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/11/235250/62

And this is why I no longer feel I can support Peter Welch, who I had great hopes for, and who I genuinely like. I will support a challenger. I'm hoping that David Zuckerman, a Progressive who sits in the State House, will run. Unless Welch stands up for Vermonters who overwhelmingly support ending the war and impeachment, he's lost my vote. His rhetoric on the war is good, but it's not matched by his actions. And that makes me sad. He's too cozy with the leadership. My impression is that he's more attentive to rising in the ranks, than representing Vermonters. Should a viable candidate appear on the scene, I'll work for that person.

:rofl:

That's priceless! What a great way to "score" a meeting with constituents.

Could you imagine doing this to Hillary? We'd have to check yes, no AND waffle on her every answer!

The sad thing is that as of now, there's no challenge to Welch. Well, that's one sad thing; the other is that he's been a real disappointment.

n/t

and very anti-war. We expect a committment not to vote for any funding for the war. And Welch should be on board with impeachment. The "distraction" excuse just isn't good enough.

while there is indeed a very liberal section of the party (which is the majority - as can be seen every year when I attend the parade on the 4th in Warren :-) ), there is also those more in the center.

He is up against the usual "not for the troops" if he doesn't vote for Pentagon funding (remember Vermont elected as Governor a RW used car salesmen running as GOP prior to Dean - Dems do not "control" the state by that big a margin - indeed the legislature is always a problem). Impeachment however would seem a safe vote in Vermont.

they show up at a meeting and yell at him.

And we wonder why the Left has so little power in the United States.

what a great concept. Yes no waffle. Someone here should create that image.

I was reading your diary as a fellow New Englander, and then I came across your comment about 9/11 nut jobs. WHY are progressives so GOP when it comes to a movement that is as varied as the USA? I am not a nut job, but I have questions that have not been answered. I also read History books. Like there have been no false flag operations in the history of our world? Must be nice to still believe that. Read the book "Overthrow".

I really resent it when a perfectly sane progressive goes blank when confronted with 9/11 QUESTIONS. Just questions! Nothing to fear except a paradigm shift in which a lot of seemingly crazy shit makes sense. No offense, but I don't know why 9/11 questions freak out people that are so willing to talk about anything else. I stopped watching Bill Mahr for that reason. I think it is fear of being labeled a "nutty liberal", which really surprises me in someone like Mahr,judging by the other things he is willing to talk about. Why not have some prominent members of the movement on? If they are so nutty, then bring it on for the world to decide. The blackout is ridiculous. Frankly I think some of my fellow anti-war people are rude and should dress better, but I don't think they are nut jobs, just different then me.

I simply reposted it here.

are more willing than others to let their children and grandchildren learn about that day from history books written by this administration, complete with medals, and promotions. What were they presented for again? Anybody? Thanks.
quickesst

Just wanted you to know you're not alone. We've been marginalized but that doesn't mean we're wrong to ask questions and demand answers. What it shows us is that even progressives can be sheep on certain issues.

Why would anyone believe the official conspiracy theory, which was composed entirely by the Bush administration and disseminated by the notoriously unreliable US mass media, when that very administration has lied about every single thing they've done since 9/11 and had those lies sanctioned by the same M$M gatekeepers?

And why is it so difficult to acknowledge the fundamental role 9/11 played in enabling the entire PNAC/BushCo agenda -- creating an external threat, scaring the population into submission, demonizing an entire religion to whip up fundie war frenzy, stealing individual rights in the name of providing protection, invading countries that played central parts in implementing various fossil fuels schemes -- from the Unocal pipeline through Afghanistan to the blatant resource grab in Iraq and the upcoming one in Iran, gaining consensus for obscene war budgets (meaning obscene profits for the war industry), creating a private army with no accountability or consequences for its actions, institutionalizing torture, spying on and harassing US citizens with nonsense like TSA gropings at airports, no-fly lists, national ID cards, RFID-equipped passports... the list is nearly endless.

Every single piece of repressive legislation, every single signing statement, executive order and presidential directive, every single governmental violation of the Constitution, every single wingnut judicial appointment, every single instance of election fraud... every outrage this administration has committed has been legitimized by the tired line that, well...9/11 changed everything.

The official conspiracy theory is so ridiculous that it insults my intelligence and would be absolutely hilarious if it weren't the keystone that supports the entire BushCo agenda. And yet there are millions of seemingly intelligent people, including many here on DU, who profess to despise BushCo and all it stands for, yet cling to the official story like a drowning man to a piece of driftwood.

After all, if high ranking US government officials would think nothing of murdering about 3,000 people, destroying three skyscrapers and attacking the pentagon simply to advance their agenda, then there's really nothing left of the American creation myth to cling to.

And even though physical, anecdotal and circumstantial evidence make mincemeat of the official fairy tale, it seems that many people would rather believe it than deal with the cognitive dissonance that admitting government complicity would create.

Amazing.


wp

but MIHOP doesn't work for me, and I keep hearing about the incredible evidence that you claim exists, but I don't see it. And neither do the VAST majority of experts world wide- engineers, scientists, etc.

I saw loose change, and thought it was amazing that anyone could possibly buy into it. The trouble with a lot of the 9/11 MIHOP stuff, is rumors start, are taken as gospel, and it doesn't seem to matter how many times they're knocked down. And no, I don't think it's about having one's illusions about America shattered- at least not for me. I haven't had any illusions about this country for a long time.

...have a look at Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Journal of 9/11 Studies for a thorough examination of the physical evidence.

Then look at http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_timeline_key_day_of_9_11_events">this segment of Paul Thompson's Timeline, then scroll down a bit to the section on military exercises occurring on 9/11 for one of the key pieces of circumstantial evidence. Note that it's somewhat unlikely that a guy in a cave with a laptop and a satellite phone could have instigated a series of well-timed war games and crisis simulations that had the overall effect of putting NORAD out of business.

For anecdotal evidence, have a look here at some of the hundreds of eye-witness reports -- people like cops, firefighters and EMTs -- all saying that they heard and/or felt a series of violent explosions immediately before each tower collapse. There's also a video that's worth watching. Some were actually tossed around like rag dolls and suffered moderate to severe injuries due to explosions that the official story says didn't happen.

I'm not swayed by claims of death rays or, a recent bit of craziness, that planes never hit the buildings and that they were matted in by video techs to support the official story. Too many witnesses saw planes to deny their presence. The problem is that they were incapable of causing the massive damage the crashes allegedly inflicted. But Scholars for 9/11 Truth and the Journal of 9/11 Studies do a far better job of explaining why the jet-fuel-softens-structural-steel theory is sheer fantasy than I could.

Read, absorb and get back to me re LIHOP or MIHOP, or BUNNYHOP for that matter.


wp

can you imagine if bush ever got in front of a crowd such as this. One that tells him exactly what they think of him and his policies. He would mess his pants ten times over.

I think there should be more of this type of confrontation with our representatives and senators. They should know we are mad as the devil with the way things are going in DC. And we want a change. NOW>

I think Welch is just lookin' out for number one. He's not in DC to represent his constituents. He's left the farm state in bucolic little Vermont for the cosmopolitan lifestyle of lavish cocktail parties, lobbyists wanting to heap gifts on him, the whole scene. He's not going to risk committee assignments by actually telling Congress what his constituent's want, as he was elected to do. He's there to advance his own career and work toward getting a bigger, better office next year, and not having to get sent home. Period. He's as bad as the rest of 'em no matter how "well meaning" he says he is.

.

I never saw him that way. He's a longtime Vt pol, and before that he was a public interest lawyer and activist. It's just so disappointing. From what I know of him (disclosure: I used to work with one of his daughters) he's not out attending lavish parties or taking lobbyist money, but I'm afraid he's waaay to indebted to Pelosi: She gave him plum Committee assignments; and he doesn't want to rock the boat. Yep, that looks like putting advancing his career over his constitutents.

I just wrote him a letter explaining that unless he starts representing Vermonters, and supporting impeachment, I regretfully won't be voting for him next year. I suspect he's getting a lot of similar messages.

But imagine how bad I feel...I live in Connecticut, and we have LIEBERBUSH! :puke:

.

.

As a former staffer on the hill I can tell you, most freshman don't even get the hang of the voting schedule until their second year, let alone how to make real waves and form coalitions to get legislation passed. The other main problem new members face is getting back and forth from their districts to Washington and the scheduling problems that come from that. But he found the time to spend 3.5 hrs taking questions in a heated environment,

He's come to Washington and is learning the way the system works. Get along to go along. The boat-rockers get assigned to the office in the basement, next to the janitor's closet. Your DC resume is built upon your committee assignments. But, unless you're planning on staying there forever and sucking at the teat forever, why do care about the committee assignments and resume-building? If you're there to represent your state, your constituents, why worry about "pleasing" Nancy or anyone else...just represent the people who elected you.

It seems clear to me that Welch is looking long-term, toward his own fat future among the Washington establishment, not toward the future of the country and what it is the voters of Vermont sent him to Washington for. He is not representing THEM, he is representing himself.

.

This one is great...a number of Vermonters outside a restaurant (I presume) and they caught Welch going inside. He wouldn't play "pin the impeachment on Cheney." But someone else did...not sure who it was:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYBcYNRE81I

Vermonters telling it like it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez92KQRPrkU

Are you familiar with this blogger?

Don

but I thought it was a pretty good diary- and fairly balanced.

I could very well have entirely the wrong impression here, given that a) I've only got the perspective/opinion of the Kos writer to work with, and b) I don't have any real background or knowledge about Rep. Welsh.

But.

He stayed around all night, answered or at least attempted to answer every question, wanted to offer detailed explanations for his answers, and worked through the cacophony of what what sounds to me like a room-load of shouters who were looking for a chance to holler instead of a chance to debate. Last I heard, this kind of behavior from our elected officials was once considered admirable and desirable.

I like to think that someone offering reasoned debate and exchanging ideas, even if there's disagreement between you and they, is someone worthy of respect. I'll never in my life have a Senator or Rep. I am 100% in agreement with across the board, but if they can explain themselves clearly enough to convince me their feelings on an issue are genuine, if they can defend their beliefs articulately, and if there is respect coming and going in the exchange, that's a good recipe for decent representation.

This Walsh fellow was elected by Vermonters, and I can't imagine folks in that state electing some false-flag Democrat with no integrity or progressive ideology. He must be better than the up-thread comments would suggest, right?

Like I said, I could have this all bass-ackwards, but that's my immediate impression.

and this isn't the first time he's faced a hostile crowd. He's a genuinely good guy in many respects, but as I said, I won't be supporting him if he doesn't stand up for what the large majority of Vermonters want. 63% of Vermonters are pro-impeachment. He should represent us. He hasn't spoken out as strongly as I'd hope against the war, and that's the issue he ran on.

The people that voted him to represent them in Washington are being told they're wrong. WTF is that? It isn't his job to tell the voters that they're wrong and he's right. It's his job to take the wishes of Vermonters to Washington and say "This is how the people of Vermont want me to vote." That's his fucking job. Admittedly, I am a Pollyanna for thinking anyone would actually do this in this day and age, but I'm not willing to give the guy a break just because he let people yell at him for a couple and then went and did what he wanted anyway.

.

guy to face his critics, instead of ducking from them. That said, it's not enough, but I actually didn't vote for him just to do what Vermonters tell him to do- remember there's a sizeable number who don't want to impeach. I vote for reps and Senators to both do what they believe is the right thing to do using their best judgement and to represent what the majority want. It's a balancing act. I just don't think that Welch is doing either well.

just quit having town meetings or debates.

http://www.wptz.com/video/14568914/index.html

Direct link may work better for some:
http://mfile.akamai.com/12879/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2007/1112/14568914.56k.asx
(You may have to copy and paste the link into media player.)

I understand the frustration with politicians' babbling and equivocating. But sometimes it's not a simple as yes or no.

When we hear someone like Hannity or O'Reilly say "just answer yes or no", it's infuriating.