Showing posts with label Peter Welch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Welch. Show all posts

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Barack Obama Begins Fundraising By Trashing Congressmen He Helped Elect

We are cross posting this missive on Daily Kos.

So first some quick background for Kosacs not familiar with our work (we want to dodge a concern troll rating).

1. Yes we have worked for Republican candidates in the past (but we have also worked for Democratic candidates as well).

2. Yes we support the troop surge in Iraq (but we were thrown out of a CIA training program in '02 because of our opporsition to the war).

3. Yes we like and respect John McCain and Mike Huckabee (but we also really like and respect Chris Dodd and John Edwards).

4. We are not currently employed by any campaign or either party (and we'll disclose if we ever are).

5. We have offered to buy Kagro X a beer in NH (he's thinking about it).

So go easy with the concern troll label.

Because we thought you would be interested to know that it looks to us as if Barack Obama is raising money by kicking the hell out of a Congress that he helped elect in '06.

We're not kidding.

From his Obama's latest fundraising letter:

If you're confused about all the debate over Iraq, you're not alone.

People are wondering why political posturing in Washington continues as we get drawn deeper and deeper in Iraq. I hear it everywhere I go.

The House of Representatives took action last week on a "non-binding" resolution. In the Senate, the Republican minority has managed to prevent any vote at all. People perceive that the most important issue of our day has become captive to sound bites and cable news chatter.

You deserve better. You should demand it. (emphasis his)
It's a thick, thick irony sandwich my friends.

Senator Hunk, a rock star on the '06 campaign trail, now attacks the very people he helped elect.

Lest anyone forget- THE DEMOCRATS CONTROL CONGRESS (hence our slogan, the Anti-War Establishment).

And while Harry Reid, the cat herder, has some wriggle room on the Senate side, iron-fisted Grandma Pelosi has got nothing but excuses on the House side.

Same with our neighbor Peter Welch.

We wonder what our very good friend Phil Baruth is going to say?

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

What's "Original" Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater?

An "original" nursery rhyme:

Peter Peter pumpkin eater,
Had a wife but couldn't keep her.
He put her in a pumpkin shell,
and there he kept her very well.
An "original" co-sponsor of Congressional legislation is:
Before introduction, Representatives and Senators will often ask their colleagues to be an "original cosponsor" of their legislation. Being 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.
What Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater's "original" press release claimed yesterday:
I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 508, sponsored by Representatives Lynn Woolsey.
When H.R. 508 was "originally" introduced:
January 5, 2007
When Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater actually signed the "original" bill:
February 5, 2007
What the Brattleboro Reformer had to say just yesterday about Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater, the "original co-sponsor" of H.R. 508:
Curiously, while our congressman Peter Welch is a co-sponsor of two other bills -- one by Massachusetts Democrat Edward Markey to prohibit funding for additional troops in Iraq, and the other by Massachusetts Democrat James McGovern to withdraw our troops and contractors from Iraq -- Welch has not yet signed on to Woolsey's bill.
The "original" GreenMountainPolitics1 thinks that Peter Peter Pumpkin Eater might want to find another nursery rhyme.

Might we suggest:
and this little piggy went Wee Wee Wee all the way home!

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Peter Welch Finally Holds The President Accountable

Today I was asked, "Did you see Peter Welch and the President at The State of the Union Address last night?"

I answered that I had not.

After Bush's speech was finished last night I turned off the TV. I didn't watch as he walked out of the House Chamber through "Photo-Op Alley" while Republican Members mugged him for photographs.

But then I caught this news story about a Republican Congresswoman who was so excited to see the President last night that she held onto him in "Photo-Op Alley" for a full 30 seconds:
Early Wednesday morning, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS showed video of Rep. Michele Bachmann's exchange with President Bush Tuesday night. The video shows Bachmann grabbing onto and holding the president for almost 30 seconds.

Within hours, that video was blasted all over the Internet and viewed almost 250,000 times before the lunch hour. It was linked on national news Web sites and blogs across the country, a New York Times blogger even wrote about the story.
But guess who is COMPETING with that crazy Republican Congresswoman for the President's attention?

Why none other than Vermont freshman Congressman Peter Welch!

Check out the video for yourself (watch the left hand side of the screen).

That's Peter. Grinning like a schoolboy and getting a back slap from the President.

Peter has finally held the President accountable for something.

An autograph.

Virginia Senator Jim Webb Is A Rising Star - So Why Is Hillary Clinton So Unhappy?

I sometimes wonder which is worse for our Republic -

A out-of-touch (control?) Chief Executive operating with complete disregard (utter contempt?) for majority opinion?

Or a newly elected Congressional majority who moan, after being swept into office to stop a out-of-control Chief Executive, that it's really "not as simple as all that"?

Freshman Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) might very well argue that a neutered (self-neutered?) Legislative Branch poses a greater threat to our Democracy than a out-of-control Chief Executive.

In any event, he set out to take care of both when he gave the Democratic Response to President Bush's State of the Union last night.

Webb's speech staked out positions on two fronts.

The first dealt with creating a more progressive economy. Webb said:

When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.

In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy - that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.

And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We've established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We're working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.
As an Independent who leans right, I support addressing America's wealth gap. While I do not blame Bush and the formerly GOP dominated Congress for creating the problem, their fiscal priorities greatly exacerbated it.

Creating a more progressive economy will be a theme that Democratic candidates for President will make political hay out of in 2008. And rightly so.

The second position that Webb staked out last night was on the Iraq War.

Webb, as everyone knows, is an opponent of the War (the initial invasion, the way it was managed, keeping troops there any longer).

Which makes Jim Webb a darling of the Anti-War Establishment (The New Left). He should be. As he said last night:
The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable - and predicted - disarray that has followed.

The war's costs to our nation have been staggering.


The damage to our reputation around the world.

The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism.

And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.
"Showing him the way."

Translation: I will go to the floor of the Senate and offer a bill that cuts off funding for the war when it becomes apparent that this sissy non-binding Resolution Reid/Clinton/Pelosi are pushing does jack squat.

While I support the proposed troop surge it is clear that Senator Webb at least has the power of his convictions - quite unlike other freshman Democrats elected in 2006 to "change the direction of the Iraq War" and "hold the President accountable".

Last night Webb promised to do exactly what it was that he was elected to do. The Anti-War Establishment cheered. So did John Edwards.

Hillary Clinton not so much.

Get ready to watch a huge split in the Democratic Party over what to do about Iraq.

Saturday, January 13, 2007

Dick Morris Predicts Big Storm And Vermont's Peter Welch Doesn't Have A Lifeboat

Democrat Party strategist Dick Morris is smart. Dick Morris is also kinky.

He readily admits that he hires prostitutes to suck on his toes while having late-night phone strategy sessions with the President of the United States.

I say "readily admits" because one of the hookers told a newspaper about Morris' fetish back in the late 90s, embarrassing then President Clinton and forcing him to fire his longtime adviser.

In less than two months, Morris was back advising Clinton in secret. You can always eat lunch in this town again.

So, when Dick Morris speaks, folks tend to listen. Even now.

And this week Morris wrote a column entitled "The Coming Democratic Party Civil War" and people listened.

Some Highlights -

Reacting to Bush’s planned “surge” in troop strength, the Democratic leaders in Congress, savoring their victory, are contemplating taking only symbolic steps to protest Bush’s war policies, a timidity that will highly displease their leftist boosters. The liberal activists who funded and impelled the Democratic victory in 2006 did not focus on winning a Congressional majority so that it would take merely symbolic action. Symbolic action would have been appropriate for a minority party, but the backers of a party in the majority expect something more.
Symbolic action? The Democrats are the majority party now?
They (Reid/Pelosi) are not ready for a constitutional confrontation with the Commander-in-Chief over his wartime powers. So, instead, they are going to hold hearings during which a parade of former generals will voice their misgivings and air their disagreements, past and present.
Hearings? We already had them, it was called the Iraq Study Group. But won't the left be pissed?
But this theater is not going to appease the left. They did not elect Democrats to Congress so they could hold hearings. They expect laws not shows. Their frustration will become increasingly apparent as the Cindy Sheehans of the world react to the increased troop commitment in Baghdad.
Did I mention that I am a huge fan of Cindy Sheehan?
As long as the Democratic Party could be counted upon to represent the left on Iraq, protests against the war were channeled through the political process and were aimed at electing a Democratic Congress. But now that the Democratic leadership has, in the eyes of the leaders of the left, “betrayed” them, look for protest to overflow the bounds of partisan politics and go into the streets.
Like on Church Street in Burlington?

The full article can be found here:

GreenMountainpolitics1 has been hot on the idea of the Democratic Party being torn between their hawkish party leadership and the newly elected Anti-War Establishment for several weeks.

We wrote about it here:

And here:

And here:

The Democrats are in a tight spot alright.

Those in the tightest spots? Freshman Democrat House Members elected by the anti-war vote but lacking guts to stand up to Pelosi and do what they promised the voters at home they would do - CUT OFF FUNDING FOR THE WHOLE WAR AND REALLY CHANGE THE COURSE IN IRAQ.

Remember, if you're not supporting the surge and your not cutting off funding for the whole war, you're staying the course. That's not a new direction. That's timidity compounded by stupidity.

Vermont's freshman Peter Welch is about to find that out the hard way.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

In The Spirit of Christmas I Help The Anti-War Establishment Solve A Problem They Did Not Know They Had With A Solution They Never Thought Of

If you care deeply about re-deploying our troops to end the War in Iraq and you do not know who Rob Portman is, you are not paying enough attention.

Rob Portman is the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget and is responsible for keeping the Executive Branch's books.

Yesterday Portman released the official White House estimate of what the War in Iraq will cost in FY 2007. According to OMB, the War in Iraq will cost American taxpayers $110 billion dollars next year. Or, a little more than $2 billion a week.

$2 billion a week does not seem to buy you a whole lot of democracy these days, as anyone reading today's paper will tell you.

As people know, I was against the War from the beginning. However, for a variety of reasons I now favor putting more troops into Iraq to try and stabilize it. That conversation is not the purpose of this post.

This purpose of this post is to "suggest" to the Anti-War Establishment (a.k.a. the Congressional Class of 2006) a plan that will, I believe, help them side step the political train wreck currently barreling towards them.

Why do this? Sour grapes?


First, its Christmas.

Second, If, and this is a BIG if, the Anti-War Establishment actually does what I suggest then that outcome will be better for America’s future than will the outcome that will (probably) occur if America puts more troops into Iraq.

Therefore, and assuming someone with some authority actually reads what I’ve written; I’m suggesting all this for the good of my country.

Also, I like letting my opinions be known. Why else would I keep a Blog?

The political problem facing the Anti-War Establishment is as follows –

You won the 06' election after offering the voters "a new direction in Iraq". You will start work in January. The New York Times will write a glowing “First 100 Hours” editorial. Everything will be great.

And then the wheels come off. In a hurry.

In January, The President will announce that he is putting in twenty to thirty thousand more troops into Iraq. He will also announce that the current military is not large enough to fight the War on Terror and he is therefore going to increase the overall size of the military.

I'm calling it Bush's "Double Fuck You" to the 2006 voters. Bush will respond to your outrage by taking a nap.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, your leaders, will announce that they are "reluctantly" going along with the President's plan.

Behind closed doors they will lecture you on "The Presidential Election in 08'”, the need to be perceived as "strong on national security" and will repeatedly use the expression "the ends justify our means". You will want to scream.

To keep you on board they will beg and they will plead. And when they are done with that they will threaten.

They will tell you that if you submit a bill cutting off funding for the War In Iraq (which is the only way troops are coming home) your ass is grass and Pelosi is the (very nicely coiffed) lawn mower.

Remember, Pelosi didn’t become the first female Speaker of the House because she smells nice and has really, really cute grandkids.

You will come to realize that many of you aren't going to be around after the 08' election if you go along with your leadership and "cave" to the White House on Iraq. Allowing more troops to go to Iraq is not the new direction the voters were thinking about when they elected you.

To add a sense of urgency to this political problem, your freshly hired communications director, who hasn’t even officially started yet, is already telling you about letters to the editor popping up in the local newspapers questioning when you are going to “bring our boys home like you promised”.

It’s a jam alright. But, in Washington, every jam is a potential political opportunity – if you can stand the squeeze it takes to get out.

To get out of this pickle you first have to defy your own leadership and put forward a bill cutting off funding for the War in Iraq. You will not survive re-election in 08’ if you do not. It will be the hardest thing you have ever done in your professional career.

Official Washington will go absolutely bananas the moment you drop that bill in the House and Senate hopper. Hold on tight.

Every mainstream Democrat running for President will beat on the Anti-War Establishment like a drum. “Well Mr. Leher, while I agree with trying to end the War in Iraq as quickly as possible, I just can’t see cutting off funding for our troops.”

Every Republican running for President will gleefully skewer you. “That’s right Mr. O’Reilly, I think they hate our country. And, while I can’t prove it, I heard his mother is a whore.”

It’s always darkest right before it’s pitch black. And, just when you think that it can’t get any worse, it will. You will be cut-off by your own leadership.

Quietly, behind the scenes, Grandma Pelosi will kneecap you. It will hurt.

Hey, no one claimed taming the Military Industrial Complex was going to be easy. Taking them on means that you are (probably) soft of national security and (probably) don’t care about our troops.

And you’re just a silly little peacenik don’t forget.

But, just when the boys at Lockheed think they have “got you, smashed you and made an example of you” you fire your next two shots.

You may even scream, “Right back at you baby!” as you pull the (legislative) trigger.

This is where Rob Portman becomes your best friend because, since you voted against funding the war, you have (in theory) $110 billion dollars that has not yet been spent to work with.

And I’m going to tell you (this is MY Blog after all) how to spend that money to not only save your peacenik hides, but also maximize your political capitol and REALLY move this country forward -

The $110 billion should be used to fund two significant pieces of legislation.

The first bill would provide full funding for every single program that the Department of Veterans Affairs needs/wants/thinks they might want/isn’t sure they want but it couldn’t hurt to have/knows they don’t need or want but it would be cool, I guess, to have it just in case/and everything else that might be left.

“Mr. Leher, contrary to what others have been saying on your program, I love our troops. I love them so much I’m bringing them home and I’m taking care of them when they get here.”

Overnight the Anti-War Establishment becomes the political darling of the pro-military crowd. Politics makes strange bedfellows. You have successfully neutralized the “anti-troop” argument the other side is made. Cheney probably has a stroke. Imagine that.

But that’s only the first $10 billion or so. You still have $100 billion to play with.

The next bill you should propose with Portman’s billions is legislation creating a “NASA type program to move America and the world off of fossils fuels as an energy source”.

Everyone ran on this idea in 06’. Now you have the funding to actually start doing it.

The Feds only spent $3 billion on alternative energy research last year. How much more could they do with another $97 billion?

And, after telling the Military Industrial Complex to take a flying leap, telling the oil companies to do the same will be a walk in the park (and many of you will actually enjoy it).

To maximize your position (good policy makes great politics) use language like: “While ending our dependence on fossil fuels is good for our economy and our environment, we are most immediately concerned with ending our dependence on unstable foreign regimes. We never want to have to send our troops to places like Iraq again.”

Take that crazy Arabs! The Anti-War Establishment has just become the new authority on national security policy. Imagine that.

That’s all there is to it. Sometimes it really is that easy. If you have leaders that can lead.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I don’t think the Anti-War Establishment has the moxie to actually go through with this. I think you all cave to Grandma Pelosi and then get whipped in 08’ (which is why I’m sticking with the more troops in Iraq strategy).

However, if the Congressional Class of 2006 proves me wrong…

Well, not only will you have proved the great Monday Morning Clacker wrong, but you will have ended up keeping your campaign promise and served you country with honor.

I’d think about voting for that.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Peter Welch's Iraq Problem

As the Iraq Study Group suggested he do, President Bush is getting ready to send twenty thousand or more American troops into Iraq.

The New York Times has the story here:

I think that sending more troops into Iraq is our last (and only) real option. My thoughts on this can be found here:

This development represents a serious political problem for Vermont's newly elected Congressman Peter Welch. Welch ran for Congress on the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" platform, promised voters he would "hold President Bush accountable" and would create a timetable for troop withdrawal.

Of course I could be wrong. Congressman Welch might be flying high without a care in the world. But here is why I don't think that I am.

An interesting statistic from the 2006 House race between Martha Rainville and Peter Welch that no one has talked much about is that polling shows that when Rainville lost on election day her "favorables" were HIGHER than Welch's and her "negatives" were LOWER than Welch's.

On election day more people liked Martha Rainville than liked Peter Welch and more people disliked Peter Welch than disliked Martha Rainville.

However, in 2006 it just didn't matter. Rainville still lost.

She lost because Peter's "I'm mad as hell" message deeply resonated with a state that was, well, mad as hell about the President and the war. Nothing else mattered in the race.

Carolyn Dwyer's talked about the Welch/Rainville race with Phil Baruth in last weekend's Vermont Guardian. Carolyn is a savvy operator who knows her business and the state of Vermont. I will concede that she is correct in many (but not all) of her critiques of Martha's campaign.

However, if she is being honest, she will admit (both teams were looking at essentially the same polling data) that on election day 2006 the less popular candidate won. And since she is so savvy and honest, she knows why this polling is significant. And she understands that Congressman Welch is fast approaching a series of decisions that will greatly influence his chances for re-election in 2008.

The great irony of the 2006 mid-terms is that this country - sick of war, sick of the President and sick of Donald Rumsfeld - voted to "throw the bums out" and give control of Congress back to the Democrats so we can "move Iraq in a new direction". The voters, for all that hard work, are going to get "twenty thousand or more troops into Iraq".

If it wasn't so sad I would be laughing my ass off.

Which brings us back to Welch (and the Democratic Congress in general). If I am a betting man, I am betting that when Vermonters held their noses and voted for Welch's "new direction in Iraq" over a candidate they actually liked the voters DID NOT think that they were voting for sending twenty thousand or more American troops into Baghdad.

Unfortunately, for Peter, that's just what the headlines are reading.

It's an open secret. President Bush does not give a Texas hoot about Welch, Nancy Pelosi, Republicans, people who worked for his father or anybody else. Bush is on a mission from God, and by God he is going to finish what he started in Iraq.

President Bush isn't going to pull troops out of Iraq. The only way American troops are coming out of Iraq is if the Democratic Congress cuts off funding for the war.

Let me repeat that again so that everyone reading this is clear - The only way American troops are coming home from Iraq is if the Democrats cut off funding for the war. The Democrats have this power.

So, what's the big deal? Democrats were elected to "change the course in Iraq". Why do just that?

Because rage is easy and leadership is always harder than you think. Always.

Me, I'm easy and opinionated. I'm betting that the Democrats don't have the guts to cut off funding. I'm betting that they are too worried that they will be labeled "soft on national security" going into the 2008 Presidential race. I'm betting that they're betting voters will have forgotten their 06' rage by 08'. I'm betting Pelosi really begins to like the view from the Speaker's office. I'm betting that all the Democrat talk about "changing the course in Iraq" was just that, talk.

I'm betting.

Who should be more upset about this? A moderate Republican who believed fiercely that Martha Rainville was far superior to Peter Welch? Or an anti-war/anti-Bush voter who fiercely wanted to believe that Welch was the real deal?

"I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" is a tough sell when Rumsfeld is gone, the Democrats control Congress and you sit on the Rules Committee, which is the most powerful, inside baseball committee in the House.

The letters to the editor have already started. This is going to be interesting.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy Cuts a Deal With The Devil, And (might) Lives to Tell About It!

Democrats out in Blog Land take note. I am about to explain to you how your party has been sold down the river by a Senior Senator from Vermont.

It all started about a year ago when VT's lone Congressman, Bernard Sanders, decided to leave his U.S. House seat and run for retiring Jim Jeffords U.S. Senate Seat. As it always does, the open U.S. House seat set off a scramble in the Vermont political establishment.

At that time, the front-runner candidate to replace Sanders in the House was a lady by the name of Martha Rainville. Now, Ms. Rainville was the first female Adjutant General of the Vermont National Guard. Actually, she was the first female Adjutant General in the entire history of the National Guard. She is attractive, articulate, young has gotten extremely high marks in Vermont for the nine-year job that she did running the Guard.

She was an awesome candidate - pro-choice, pro-civil unions, female and rock solid on national security.

The interesting thing about Ms. Rainville was that even by the end of last summer neither the Republicans or the Democrats knew if she was one of them. She had always been military and had never picked a party, ever. So, both political parties started courting her, hard.

Leading the Democratic Party courtship was Pat Leahy. Senator Pat promised Martha the fundraising moon and his public pre-primary endorsement in the hopes that she would jump into the U.S. House race as a Democrat. There was a slight problem for Senator Pat however, there was already a Democrat in the race, state senator Peter Welch, who had declared his intentions several months previous.

No matter, Senator Pat had his gal and, as the biggest pig at the political trough, he figured he would win her hand. Who gives a pig's snout about a state senator anyway? Leahy was talking with Schumer who was talking with Emanuel, who are all playing to take back the U.S. House in November.

Hey, Senator Pat told a dejected Welch, you got to break some eggs to make an omelet.

But, the courtship was not to be. Martha Rainville decided, after much consideration, to run as a Republican instead. Hey, its politics and weird things happen.

Oh fuck, thought Senator Pat. That is actually a direct quote from Senator Pat's head when he found out Martha was joining the Republicans. Oh F-U-C-K!

Now Senator Pat had a serious problem. He had he been jilted, in a semi-public way, AND the hoped for Democrat cake-walk for Vermont's U.S. House seat just got a whole lot more interesting as Martha Rainville, even as a Republican, has a really good shot at defeating Peter Welch. Hastert's aides gloated while Pelosi's aides fumed.

So, Emanuel called Schumer who called Senator Pat and said, "Fix it moron. Every take back the House plan the Democrats have requires us to keep VT's seat in the hands of the Democrats. Jesus, how hard can it be? Its your own fucking state!"

That's right, thought Senator Pat, it IS my own fucking state!

So, Senator Pat went into over-drive mode. And, this is where he screws his own party for short term gain. Because Senator Pat had another big problem other than just Martha.

At about the same time that Martha Rainville was deciding to run as a Republican a state representative named David Zuckerman, a progressive, was thinking about tossing his hat into the Housed race. Now, everyone liked David but didn't believe he had a snowballs' chance in hell of winning the election. Hell, David didn't think he had a chance. However, David didn't care. He wanted to run so he could talk about issues near and dear to his heart, farming and such, and he wanted to have fun. In other words, a typical Progressive.

David, all pundits agreed, would get 5-10% of the vote, party it up on the campaign trail, lose gracefully and then head back to the statehouse next winter.

Wrong. Senator Pat had other plans. In what was going to be such a tight race between Rainville and Welch Senator Pat couldn't have 5-10 points leaving his Democratic candidate for the Progressive Candidate. If Zuckerman stayed in it would guarantee a Rainville victory.

So, Senator Pat called up the one guy that could help him, Bernie Sanders, the undisputed Dean of the Independents, Progressives and everyone else in Vermont. Their conversation went like this:

Senator Pat: "Hello Bernard, its Senator Pat"

Sanders: "What do you want? I hate Democrats."

Senator Pat: "You're running against a really, really, really rich guy for Senate (Rich Tarrant). The race is going to be over a year long. You know that anything can happen in that time."

Bernard: "Yeah, so?"

Senator Pat: "I'll endorse you, publicly. My party will endorse you publicly. We'll all pretend that your not a socialist and have said things like 'when I saw JFK's funeral procession I cheered'. And you can sew this Senate race up right now."

Bernard: "What do I have to do?"

Senator Pat: "Keep Zuckerman out of the race. He's in your party, stop him from running."

Bernard: "Done."

So, Sanders agreed to slit Zuckerman's throat and Senator Pat agreed to slit the Democratic Party's throat.

Fast forward to the present. Sanders is running away with in his Senate race against Rich Tarrant with the full and public endorsement of Senator Pat. Sanders will win the election in November in a landslide and will go to Washington a U.S. Senator with all the rank and senatorial privilege that goes along with that (hang on tight Vermont!)

Sanders #1 priority in DC? Growing the Independent Party. Where do Independent voters come from? Why from Democrats silly. Sanders is making off like a bandit. The Democratic Party's long term outlook isn't doing so well.

And, what did Senator Pat get from screwing his party in the long term? Well, he did manage to keep the Progressive out of the race by cutting his deal with Sanders. But, I just saw the latest Welch-Rainville poll numbers with a little over two months to go before the election.

Welch 47 - Rainville 45.

Senator Pat is chewing on his fingernails. And praying.