Mr Welch Goes To Washington

Yesterday after the Gitmo protest, I visited my Congressman's office.  I did not meet with Peter Welch himself (sorry, Michael) but did get 30 minutes with his legislative assistant, Chesley Thurber.  Nice guy and as frank as any political operative can be.

It was funny walking into the office in Longworth, immediately bombarded by Vermont in the form of Stephen Huneck, Sabra Field, and Cabot Cheese.  And with the boss away, everybody was in jeans--I overheard the receptionist mentioning that and laughing a little later on the phone while I waited for Ches.

In line with the casual atmosphere of the lax dress code this recess week, we just hung out in the reception area of Welch's office and chatted.  Ches gave me a handy sort of crib sheet listing off a variety of Congressional actions regarding Iraq and Iran, indicating how Peter voted and what the final results were.  A few highlights:

• Voted for H CON RES 63, condemning the surge (passed 246-182, 2/16/2007)
• Voted against an amendment to HR 2642 adding $170B for Iraq and Afghanistan (failed 141-149, 5/15/2008)
• Cosponsored 2 resolutions repealing the Iraq AUMF and 1 blocking funds for military action against Iran (2007)

It's a three page document with dozens of items, and I've asked for an electronic copy.  Fundamentally Peter has been on the right side at least enough that Code Pink hasn't inducted him into the Hall of Shame as yet. 

One of the biggest bones of contention I have with him is probably that Peter has consistently followed the Nancy Pelosi line of "impeachment would distract us from getting important things done, including other ways of holding Bush accountable."  You know, hell with the rule of law and a Constitutional mechanism for reining in runaway Executive power.  Sadly, they've temporized so much since their ascension to majority status that there really is no time to pull off impeachment now--just practically, summer is all about Convention and then the General, so there's hardly a way politically to gather critical mass.  Still, I'm going to harp on that in the hopes that Congress will at least see they are a rather powerful and important branch that needs to check the Executive, even when it's a Democrat in charge.

Anyway, I started off by talking about our action that morning and tied it to Bush's failed policies and strategies, including Iraq.  Just wanted to anchor the discussion to a larger context and show that I'm not just some random person on a lark but somebody who will be persistent and wants real dialogue.  Then I asked if he knew when the supplemental would come before the House after they get back next week, and what he anticipated the process might look like--that's when I got a hardcopy of that legislative actions list.

Ches took some notes about an issue a friend from the Franklin County Peace Alliance asked me to bring up: depleted uranium munitions.  The weapons are unnecessary in this type of conflict and pose undetermined health risks for our troops and Iraqi civilians.  I also told him about a tangentally-related article I'd read that morning about other types of inappropriate ammo our troops are being issued and forwarded him a link later.  With that as background we talked about how tactically the US is doing everything wrong on the ground in Iraq.

A couple times as the conversation went elsewhere, we did return to Peter's nay vote on the emergency funding amendment this month, and whether he will vote against what the Senate is sending back.  It sounds like he will end up being against it even with the domestic spending and Webb's GI bill included--the House most likely will not be able to re-separate the appropriations.  I indicated that I'll be watching that debate and roll call closely, as will Code Pink and a few other people.

In addition to wanting to keep Peter out of the HoS, I was curious as to how we might help him with some of the Democrats who keep voting the wrong way.  Were there any specific members--Blue Dogs or others--he'd been working on whom we the grassroots could pressure, and how might we do that?  No suggestions, so I guess we'll stick to more blanket campaigning.

As I told Ches in a thank you e-mail, I view this as an initial relationship-building exercise and will be following up with him regularly.  I also made a new request for a face-to-face with Peter (no earlier than a couple weeks from now since I'm unavailable) and Jake the scheduler called me back right away to apologize for not introducing himself yesterday, and we're going to figure out a time to meet presumably after the last Iraq vote (veto override notwithstanding).

So, as expected, there was nothing concrete coming out of yesterday's chat and that's okay from where I sit.  I simply wanted to make contact with the office beyond correspondence I've had with my Congressman and establish another escalation point.  One more step in what necessarily is a long journey.

I also have to admit that this was a little excursion from my comfort zone, just as it was when I grabbed the megaphone on Sunday.  It feels a lot safer doing such things as part of a group, and flying solo yesterday was significant for me because of that--going out on a limb a bit, giving me some more confidence.

It's kinda like exercise: you push yourself just beyond what you did last time you lifted weights or whatever, then you can go further next time.  Now I have to figure out what more I can do...

ntodd