BURLINGTON, Vt., Mar. 7, 2007
Vermont Towns Back Bush Impeachment
Voters Support Resolutions To Investigate Administration On Iraq Policy; Approve Withdrawal Of U.S. Troops
-
Carl Newton counts "yes" votes as Jericho, Vt., residents vote in favor of continuing debate on a resolution to impeach President Bush during a Town Meeting on Tuesday, March 6, 2007. The resolution passed, 82-66. (AP/Burl. Free Press, G. Russell)
-
Interactive Presidential Approval Ratings A sampling of President Bush's overall job approval ratings at selected points during his term in office.
-
Interactive Bush Presidency The president's agenda, plus facts, figures, major events and key personalities.
CBS affiliate WCAX correspondent Darren Perron reports that voters in 35 towns passed non-binding resolutions to investigate and possibly impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Twenty towns voted in favor of immediately withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
Nine other towns either voted no or declined to take up the impeachment resolution.
Organizers of the initiatives say these tiny New England towns have sent a big message to Washington and the rest of the country.
But critics of the impeachment and withdrawal resolutions said it's not a local matter to be decided at town meetings along with firehouse budgets and property taxes, and the discussion took away from issues that the forum is designed to deal with.
"This is an inappropriate venue," said Bill Miller of Jericho. "Town Meeting is to decide town issues. We should stick to that."
Clearly, the resolutions were the reasons some voters showed up in the first place. They considered Town Meeting the perfect venue to vent their frustration with the Bush administration and its Iraq policy.
"A chorus (of people) want this nightmare of a war to be over," said Peter Lackowski.
In Middlebury, Gov. Jim Douglas was the Town Meeting moderator. He at first tried to block a vote on the two resolutions, reasoning that they were brought up under new business, meaning no vote could be held, according to the Rutland Herald and Times Argus.
He changed his mind when voters made clear they wanted to weigh in on the resolutions, both of which were opposed by wide margins.
"It became clear that no one was going home until they had the chance to discuss the resolutions and vote on them," said David Rosenberg, a political science professor at Middlebury College who attended the meeting. "And being a good politician, he allowed the vote to happen."
In Calais, Vt., moderator Gus Seelig asked the crowd of about 125 people to keep it civil. "We're not going to attack our neighbors," he said. "They're still going to be our neighbors when we're done here today."
Marion Gray, 60, the stepmother of a service member killed in Iraq, called it "treasonous" to spend taxpayer money on impeachment proceedings, and said the United States had more to lose by pulling out.
"If we don't finish the job there, it's going to be finished here," she said. "They will follow our troops home."
Moments later, Cynthia Johnson, 51, who had petitioned for the resolution, stood up from her pew near the back. "It is our responsibility here, at Town Meeting, in this forum, to question the things that are happening."
So it went, back and forth.
Ray Lemay, 66, whose son is a U.S. Navy officer, said the polling place was where such grievances should be addressed. His voice halting, he looked toward Gray, who was across the room. "I'd hate to see my son in the same boat as Mrs. Gray's. But if it happens, it happens. It was a good cause."
Several speakers said they objected to the notion that war opponents don't support the troops.
"It is not treason to question our government," said Tom Treece, 40. "This has nothing to do with the troops. It's about what the administration is doing. We all support the troops, but they're being used."
Supporters said that while this week's votes should get the attention of Vermont's Congressional delegation, all three members — Senators Patrick Leahy (D) and Bernie Sanders (I) and Rep. Peter Welch (D) — have said they do not support beginning impeachment proceeding against the president, though they are in favor of investigating Bush administration policies — and all three are in favor of at least a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Gray said it was supporters of the measure who were being used. She said Calais' passage of the resolution — in a 94-22 vote — would have no effect.
"It goes nowhere, folks," she said. "Neither forward nor backward."
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From U.S.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 30 CommentsThey need to catch up to the "NEW WORLD" and
just accept what is given and taken. Pfft.
laws are for the peons - what do they think we are a "democracy" - besides he didn't commit adultry or anything. And the book of 1000 lies and patriotic americans die?
Well that is allll in the name of "national security" and our all out effort to find.....
Bin laden?
Posted by RandalDS at 10:36 PM : Mar 07, 2007"
I was forgetting her. No one else would be prepared to stoop that low. LOL
what law has been violated?.......
Hmmm..
Secretly moving monies from Afghanistan to Iraq to initiate his war of choice would be a start.
Bypassing the FISA courts to spy on US citizens, holding American citizens in military custody without bringing charges, any serious investigation into the criminal organization running this country would reveal a plethora of illegal and immoral actions.
Posted by omega39 at 11:09 AM : Mar 07, 2007
And one of these would be an open and shut case as the idiot himself confessed on national TV that he authorized spying without a warrant, when he does not have the power to do so. In effect he confessed to committing the crime and it's a felony, so off to club fed with him! An impeachment's not good enough, only prison is.
Posted by dcamp2909 at 12:16 PM
-----
Spot on, man!
Posted by scott4261 at 01:20 PM : Mar 07, 2007
I'll third that! The Electoral College has long outlived it's purpose. Besides over the years the number from the smaller population states has increased in a disproportionate number as compared to the more populous ones, giving them more weight then they deserve. Dump the whole thing in favor of a straightforward popular vote.
Just who would give him a BJ, the twins by mistake when they also get drunk? LOL
Posted by Agnim at 05:03 PM : Mar 07, 2007
That would be Condi. She's the secretary in charge of BJ's.
Actually, we did have reliable, timely intelligence. Unfortunately, Cheney and Rumsfeld set up the "Office of Special Plans" and put Doug Feith in there to whip up some "intelligence" that was more favorable to their plans.
sero5 wrote: "We could have gone to war with Iraq even with Kerry as president."
Possible but doubtful. It's much more likely that Kerry would have stuck with targeting those responsible for 9/11 and helping Afghanistan get back on its feet. No one but the guys who had a preset plan to invade Iraq would have done so - there wasn't any evidence that Iraq was any part of the 9/11 attack.
Posted by david1737 at 02:59 PM : Mar 07, 2007"
Right!
Just who would give him a BJ, the twins by mistake when they also get drunk? LOL
Oh my god! You mean Bill Clinton got a BJ. Quick bring Impeachment hearings!
Bush:
Walter Reed
Abu-gharieb
Git-mo
Secret CIA prisons
Torture
Outs a spy
Hurricane K
Wire taping
data mining
No WMD
No Yellow Cake
No connection to 9-11
Repubs say how dare Vermont even think of impeachment.
You are so right about the electoral college. When it was created, it served a valid purpose. Now, with our technological abilities, why not put it to the popular vote nationwide instead of allowing each state to give their votes to one candidate or another. What about those states that the candidates are too close. BTW, let's do that with all new laws, ordinances, taxes...etc.
1. LYING ABOUT IRAQI WEAPONS
2. DOCTORING INTELLIGENCE
3. WAGING AN ILLEGAL WAR IN IRAQ
AND WORSE OF ALL
4. CAUSING THE NEEDLESS LOST OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN
LIVES AND LIMBS!
5. There are more than ample grounds for impeachment!
It's just that, some mindless people in Congress just DON'T WANT TO DO THEIR JOBS!
And that is why the nation is in a mess: We have lost leaders who refuse to do their jobs, and do it intelligently and properly, from the president down.
Posted by Agnim at 11:38 AM : Mar 07, 2007
The closest we came to an anomaly on that scale was in 1992, when millionaire Ross Perot ran an Independent campaign with his own money and nearly captured the electoral votes from Maine and a couple of other states. He didn't garner any electoral votes in the end, but he came d a m n close! The other near anomaly was when Teddy Roosevelt, after having already served as the Republican president, ran on the progressive Bull Moose Party ticket in 1912. He didn't garner any electoral votes, either. But it is interesting to note that he ran against his hand picked Republican successor, William Howard Taft, and Democrat Woodrow Wilson, after an attempt to move the Republican party in a more progressive direction. The resulting split of the Republican vote denied Taft a second term and handed Wilson the first of two terms as president.
The Electoral College has outlived its usefulness. It was put in place so that the elite would not lose power in close elections (or for a power grab in close elections, as we found out in 2000). There is no reason why, in the 21st century, a man who wins an election (as Al Gore clearly did by 500,000 votes in 2000) should not be president.
Interestingly, a conservative made that argument to me prior the 2000 election, when the Republicans all thought the election was going to end with a popular vote for George W. Bush and an Electoral College victory for Gore. It's funny how the argument was turned on its head when the opposite happened!
I posted this at the end of February, when all the buzz was about Al Gore's Oscar:
(1 of 2)
I was reading the posts from forthepeaple, and I have to say that I'm one who would like a valid third party option. That is not to say that, in the end, I wouldn't vote Democratic, but at least I would like to know that a third party at least has a shot.
The only way to do this is to abolish the Electoral College. Until that happens, Americans will always be selecting "the lesser of two evils" because the "winner take all" Electoral College lends itself to a two party system.
Posted by dcamp2909 at 12:16 PM
-----
Spot on, man!
what law has been violated?
impeachment because you disagree with a policy?..again from a legal perspective there is no basis for impeachment
Posted by golfkt at 10:16 AM
----------
golfkt,
How about the fact that we were LIED into a war on the abasis of cooked intel? Bush deserves impeachment!
Posted by Neocon04 at 10:41 AM : Mar 07, 2007
The very same. As a side note....I don't recall CBS ever mentioning that little factoid. I vote that we revoke all of Vermont's federal funding - for everything.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 30 Comments