So, today, I got up ridiculously early (six, but ridiculously early for a college kid, okay, =P) to go pick up my girlfriend in Manchester and drive an hour to Sunapee to take a shuttle to Unity. What followed was one of the best experiences of my life. Report and pics below the fold!

Update: OMG reclist! Thanks guys, glad you enjoyed the pictures! =)

Now that's a landslide.

The NH House of Representatives tabled HR.24, the resolution petitioning Congress to commence impeachment procedures. A motion was made to table the resolution, 227 approved, 95 opposed, the motion carried. WMUR Channel 9 has the obit.

Growing up in New Hampshire most of my life, I'm not surprised it was this lopsided. I knew it would be a uphill battle on all levels. Ninety-five patriots did the right thing today. The other 227....  all I can say now is they're on the wrong side of the issue. This was a time to rise above politics and do the right thing. Instead political expediency and fear got the best of them. Kudos to state representative Betty Hall (D-Brookline), the 95 members of the House who voted for it, and all the organizers who believed.

Crossposted at Blue Hampshire

“The Heroes in our nation's history who fought for liberty never calculated the odds. The just did what was right, and the legacy of their heroism is all around us. ... The didn't stop to ask whether they could really succeed; they just stood up against injustice because there was no other alternative. And they succeeded."

Former U.S. Congresswoman, Elizabeth Holtzman in “The Impeachment of George W. Bush.”

New Hampshire state representative Betty Hall (D-Brookline) isn't calculating the odds, nor is she questioning whether or not HR.24 can succeed. She's standing up to President George W. Bush and Vice-president Dick Cheney because there's no other alternative: U.S. Congress will not do stop the Bush Administration's abuse of power. History may not look too kindly on our Congress but perhaps there will be a footnote for one New Hampshirite's courageous stand. I caught up with Betty Hall and discussed the myths of investigations into impeachment, HR.24 efforts, and why NH Democrats should support it. Enjoy!

Crossposted with different title on Blue Hampshire

Jeanne Shaheen (D, Senate candidate):

"First and foremost, today we remember the fallen heroes of our armed services and their families.  We pray for the men and women serving our country and we honor the veterans who have sacrificed so much for all of us.

"Today, we are five years into a war we were told would last a matter of weeks, five years into a war that has taken almost 4,000 American lives and is costing us $12 billion a month, five years into a war that has diverted our military focus from pursuing terrorist threats around the world.  This morning, President Bush asserted once again that the war in Iraq has made America safer, while our intelligence agencies tell us that exactly the opposite is true – we are more vulnerable to terrorist threats now than we have been at any time since 2001.

(more)

Wow. Just as we expected, this teach-in delivered! For those of you on the fence re: investigations on impeachment, watch the following YouTubes, ESPECIALLY John Nichols of The Nation.

According to Paul Heintz of the Brattleboro Reformer

"Though billed as a "teach in" and held at Dartmouth College, impressionable students were far outnumbered by gray-haired veterans of a movement that began in southern Vermont and has since spread throughout New England."

I'd say that's accurate.

Read below the fold.

The House Judiciary Committee has a new,  better way to unravel the phone-jamming coverup.

Thats the real news in this letter from Conyers to Attorney General (pdf)--something reporters seem to have missed, so far.

No, Associated Press, the House Judiciary Committee is not headed back to NH in 2002. It will not be re-asking old questions of the old suspects, all of whom seem to have lawyered up and/or lost their memories.

"What did the White House know and when did they know it?"  

That's what we want to know--and it's why Conyers will start from the Washington, DC end of the phone-jamming tangle.

"The Bush administration has spent a lot of time talking about mythical cases of voter fraud and election improprieties," says the editorial in today's NY Times, "but the New Hampshire phone jamming case was the real thing."

Amen!!

The Times is endorsing the recent request by Representative Paul Hodes for a Congressional investigation, citing multiple actions by the now-disgraced Department of Justice that left many avenues unexplored or even blocked.

In other phone-jamming news, James Tobin's lawyers filed a motion (on September 14) for aJudgment of Acquittal on grounds that seem to me completely outrageous...more below the fold.

What did the White House know and when did they know it? Several million Republican dollars and lots of Department of Justice  slow-walking went into an effort to wall off investigation of any higher-ups in the NH phone-jamming scandal.

What's new is that Representative Paul Hodes (D-NH)--a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee--is asking his own committee to investigate.

And with an overwhelming Democratic majority in the House (233 of 435 members), this request from Hodes is likely to get more traction than a request to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which never went forward.

(This is a crosspost from Green Mountain Daily, and as such some of the references I make relate to GMD posts or Vermont stuff... please bear with me. If you're curious about anything that doesn't make sense, I try to provide links for background)

Naturally, getting to the hotel in Manchester wasn't as easy as it should've been, but after getting only mildly lost in the driving rain, I arrived late for breakfast and only just in time for John Edwards' scheduled appearence. Fortunately for me, Edwards was on politician time (late), so I got to hear the last extended minutes of Democracy For America President Jim Dean (he of the eerily similar voice to his brother).

(Details on Edwards, Jim Dean, Paul Hodes, Carol Shea-Porter, and the impeachment panel including Jeffry Taylor, Dan DeWalt, Dave Lindorff and Adrienne Kinne below the fold...)

The excellent "Bill Moyers Journal," thankfully back on PBS, had a segment on Congressional ethics Friday that featured three freshmen who may not be in the House today, but for the disgraceful ethical lapses/crimes of the DeLay Republican Congress -- Kirsten Gilliband (NY-20), Paul Hodes (NH-2), and Zack Space (OH-18).

Gillibrand made ethics a key issue in her successful campaign against John Sweeney, who had taken a junket to the Marianas at the behest of Jack Abramoff and DeLay, and compared the sweatshops there favorably to sweatshops in this country.

Hodes noted that the incumbent he beat, Charlie Bass, refused to return $15,000 in tainted contributions from DeLay and Bob Ney, an Abramoff bribee now in prison.

And Space won the seat vacated in August by Ney, by a 62-38 margin that was the largest of any Democrat in a Republican-held seat nationwide in 2006.

Moyers not only gave these freshmen some national face time, he also credited "freshmen reformers" for steeling the rest of the Democrats in Congress to pass meaningful ethics reform.

Details below.

At yesterday's New Hampshire Democratic Party state convention, presidential candidates Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson spoke. Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley spoke for Hillary Clinton, former Congressman David Bonior spoke (through a bullhorn, to protest a non-union sound company) for John Edwards, and Michelle Obama spoke for Barack Obama. New Hampshire Governor John Lynch spoke, Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter spoke. Senate candidates Jay Buckey, Steve Marchand, and Katrina Swett spoke. It was a jam-packed day.

But Paul Hodes gave us something special. While I'm predisposed to like what Hodes has to say, I've also heard him speak many times and the ending of this one stood out, in the day and in his record.

To be a Democrat in this modern age means to inherit a fearful nation and give it new confidence and new strength.   It means creating policies that transform our nation into something stronger and more compassionate than it was before. Our great opportunity is to build on the legacy of the Democratic Party, adapt it to modern times and lead with strength and clarity. To paraphrase John Fitzgerald Kennedy, we look forward and not behind. We welcome new ideas without rigid reaction. We care about people, their health, their housing, their jobs, their schools, their civil rights, and their civil liberties.  And we believe that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad.

It would be easy to leave this work to the presidential candidates.  But I believe that we must define this new vision.  The challenges we face are both global and local, but they are all interrelated. How can we address immigration without addressing our trade policies?  How can we deal with fanatical extremists abroad and protect the civil rights of American citizens at home?  The United States earns the respect of the world when we act on our principles instead of violating them.  We spend more on defense than all the nations of the world combined, but we have not bought more security.

Nationally, the middle class, the backbone of this country, is squeezed by globalization, corporate greed rewarding a few at the very top, and soaring costs for basic needs from gas to health care.

Our real security as a nation can no longer be measured by our defense budget alone.  The true test of our greatness is whether we have the capacity and the will to adapt to change and innovate at a pace which keeps up with the change thrust upon us.  In 2006, we responded in New Hampshire and across the country by sweeping new leaders into office.  Some are frustrated at the pace of that change.  Congress is a body that thrives on incremental change. I am impatient also.  I can already feel the competing pressures as a member of congress that would sap my passion if I am not vigilant.

We made a good start in 2006 by returning the voice of the people to the people's House in both Concord and Washington.  But our work has just begun.  We have a great opportunity as Democrats to seize this moment and rally the nation around us.  I believe Democrats bring a fundamentally different world view to the business of governing.  We recognize that we live together in an interrelated world, that cherishing freedom at home means acting morally abroad.  We know that to project our power in the world, our cultural diplomacy and statesmanship are at least as important as our military might.  To lead the world, we must stand on moral high ground.  A nation which tortures its prisoners in secret prisons cannot hold itself up as a moral and compassionate world leader.  We must lead with the force of our founding principles and strive towards equality, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the birthright of everyone, everywhere.

So, let us continue to revitalize our Democratic Party.  Let us build new partnerships and new coalitions while strengthening our traditional ones.  To those on the left, stick with us as we work to resolve the war in Iraq.  To Independents and Republicans of conscience, welcome aboard because we recognize the value of fiscal prudence, free markets and common sense.  We know that this is no time to rest on our laurels.  We have the ability to rise to meet any challenge.  It is time for boldness, policies and programs as large as the issues before us.  As Martin Luther King said, we must respond to the fiery urgency of now.  My friends, this is our country, this is our flag, and this is our time.

A large group of Freshman Democrats know that one of they keys to their election in 2006 was changing the meaning of "business-as-usual" on Capitol Hill, whether that meant ending the Bush rubberstamp on Iraq or how Congress conducts itself. While a big chunk of the old-timers is resisting ethics reform, the Freshman are pushing a new effort:

U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy spearheaded an effort by freshman representatives Wednesday to call for an independent and bipartisan ethics panel to investigate complaints against lawmakers.

"Clearly the Ethics Committee that Congress has today doesn't work," said Murphy, D-5th Dist. "The process that's in place right now requires congressional members to investigate their friends and colleagues.

"It's time for a change. The voters sent me here to drain down the swamp that's become Washington, D.C. That's what I intend to do."

The proposal is meeting significant resistance in the caucus. Despite that, Murphy and his colleagues including Zack Space, Baron Hill, Paul Hodes, and Betty Sutton along with a dozen or so others, are pushing the Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement to consider their proposal. The task force was set up to determine how Congress could police its own more effectively after the travesty of Bob Ney, in which the existing House Ethics Committee did nothing.

The Freshman proposal would create a wholly independent, bipartisan panel comprised of members of the public. Or, you know, consitutents. It woud vet, initiate, and conduct investigations. This push to have an external, independent review board should be strongly considered by the task force. While the majority of Members of Congress are honest and ethical, their integrity is hugely sullied by a bad few. The Ney and Foley sagas aren't the first time that a bad few, like Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, and Doc Hastings were in a position to scuttle investigations, and it won't be the last.

Last fall, we voted for real reform, for transparency, and for change. No one understands that better than the Freshman class that swept the Congress back to a Democratic majority. The leadership needs to recognize that and to give them a seat at the table in shaping reform.

Back in September, the story of how a staffer in the office of then-Congressman Charlie Bass (NH-02) was concern-trolling local blogs supporting then-challenger, now-Congressman Paul Hodes made it into the traditional media mostly thanks to Daily Kos.  That staffer was Tad Furtado, Bass' policy director, who was forced to resign.

Now, Furtado's back in the news, bringing Bass with him.  An ex-girlfriend seems to have pretty good evidence to back up the following allegations:

Howell alleges that Furtado slashed every piece of furniture in her home with a knife. He did the same thing to her lingerie, her complaint contends — and then proceeded to douse her underwear drawer with Tabasco sauce. Howell also says Furtado poured bleach over many of her clothes, threw eggs, olives, beer and yogurt in her washer and dryer, and threw some of their vacation photos from Paris in her toilet.

I hope criminal charges are brought.  But the story isn't just about Furtado's abusiveness.  It's also about Bass.  Once again, Charlie Bass finds himself talking to the press about Furtado's misdeeds.  Why is that, exactly?  Didn't Furtado's employment with Bass end a while ago?  Not so much:

But Bass was awfully loyal to his former aide. He kept Furtado on the House payroll through October, even though he'd supposedly resigned a month before. And when Bass went on to chair the moderate GOP lobby the Republican Main Street Partnership this winter, he brought Furtado with him as a policy aide.

So Charlie's back where he was in September, saying he knew nothing about the atrocious behavior of the same guy, after having rehired him.

"Tad tendered his resignation this morning," Bass said May 2, adding that he had "no other comment on any of this stuff except to say I knew nothing about it until late in the afternoon" the day before, when Congressional Quarterly contacted him about the situation.

I know it's a courtesy extended to professionals and all, but at what point do you stop going "No, seriously, THIS time he TOTALLY resigned" and start going "This time, I fired his crazy ass"? (h/t Kagro X)

But there's a serious question here.  With the concern-trolling, Furtado committed serious ethics violations, and Bass pled ignorance and said Furtado no longer worked for him.  Only we now know that not only did Bass keep him on the payroll for a month after his supposed resignation, he got him another job with a national Republican group with a membership including six senators and 42 members of the House?  And now, once again, he's shocked, shocked! to discover that Furtado is doing something wrong while in his employ.

So I want to see Charlie Bass answer this question: Do you not feel you lied to the people of New Hampshire when you said Tad Furtado had resigned in September?  And tell us again how you were independent of the Republican culture of corruption?

No, not Daily Kos newbies.  Newbies in the House of Representatives - or freshmen, if you want to be formal about it.  It seems that a coordinated pattern of advocates for the Iraq war attempting to bully New Hampshire's two new representatives is emerging (with the cooperation of local media).  

The Concord Monitor and Union Leader report on a meeting between Paul Hodes and some pro-war New Hampshire residents who have had family members serve in Iraq or Afghanistan.  

I would call these people constituents, but several of them in fact live in Carol Shea-Porter's district.  In fact, one of them was one of the partisan Republicans who previously accused Shea-Porter of bullying constituents by attempting to discuss their disagreements about the war.  Looks like she has a little pattern going - and like this event was intended as an occasion for the bullying these same people previously accused Shea-Porter of.  In fact, both articles note that

Family members frequently interrupted Hodes, first asking a question, then interrupting while he tried to deliver an answer.

"I haven't gotten to finish a single sentence yet," he said more than 15 minutes into the meeting. - UL

Mostly, the group followed the "trying to end the war betrays the troops" script, complete with denial that there is a civil war going on in Iraq, one claim of weapons of mass destruction, and, most of all, insistence that Congress should be committed to "winning."

The congressman said he had attended military briefings at "the highest level" and "the military believes that ultimately a political situation, a diplomatic solution, is going to be what's required in order to make the kind of progress we want to make." - UL

I wanted to share a few highlights with the community here of the hearing Henry Waxman held this week. First up, Paul Hodes questions James Knodell and Bill Leonard about the selective leaks of the NIE.

Henry Waxman explaining just what Mrs. Wilson's status was is posted below with two more video links. I hope everyone feels free to share them with our Fox watching friends, or maybe ex-friends...lol who might believe that Brit Hume isn't insane when he tried to say that not only Plame, but Hayden lied to Congress this Sunday. More on the flip.

There's a remarkable detail from Waxman's hearing on Friday, relating to my favorite story of Libby's bogus NIE story. In short--the ranking Minority member, Tom Davis, reveals he knows--and fears--Libby's story about being authorized to leak the NIE by the President Vice President. Davis reveals that he has been prepared for this point--and has come ready to craft the record to protect Cheney.

The interchange starts when Congressman Paul Hodes asks James Knodell about the NIE. (On the CSPAN video, this starts at 2:35:55.)

Hodes: Do you agree with me Mr. Knodell that the NIE is a classified document?

Knodell: Pardon me?

Hodes: Do you agree with me that the National Intelligence Estimate, before it is declassified, is a classified document?

From the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's hearings on the Plame leak.  Excerpts from transcripts available at The Raw Story.  Pictures in the public domain.

REP. WAXMAN: Thank you.

Before I recognize the next witness, I just want to clarify this point. The investigation by Mr. Fitzgerald didn't take place for months and months and months after it was well-known that there had been a leak of the identity of a covert CIA agent. Now, as I understand it, there's an obligation for the White House to conduct an immediate investigation to find out whether they needed to suspend security clearances of somebody who had leaked this information, to maybe take disciplinary action against an individual who might have been involved, and thirdly, to find out who divulged it.

And the White House had that obligation, because this was a matter of important, highest-order national security. Am I stating things correctly, Mr. Leonard?

MR. LEONARD: Mr. Chairman, as you point out, whenever there is suspected unauthorized disclosure or compromise, there is an affirmative responsibility to do an inquiry. At the very least to determine -- to implement corrective action. So that -- subsequent and additional and similar violations do not continue to occur, and also to be able to ensure that any potential damage to national security is assessed.

And part of the assessment of corrective action is also the assessment of the need for sanctions.

REP. WAXMAN: Right after the Novak column appeared, there was an outrage that this was disclosing a covert agent. And not only that, the CIA was so angered by it that they wrote a letter to the Justice Department demanding an investigation. And in light of this, which took place immediately after the information of the leak was disclosed, the White House still has not initiated an investigation. Am I correct in that statement, Mr. Knodell?

MR. KNODELL: That's correct. My office does not.

REP. WAXMAN: Thank you.

REP. HODES: What discussions, if any, have you had with anyone about whether or not you should or should not institute an investigation into the security breaches that are the subject of this hearing today?

MR. KNODELL: I've had no conversations.

REP. HODES: You haven't talked to anybody?

MR. KNODELL: That's correct.

REP. HODES: So when you say you're going to go back to the White House and take it up with senior management, you're senior management, aren't you?

MR. KNODELL: Yes, sir. I am.

REP. HODES: So you're going to go back and talk to yourself about whether or not you're going to conduct an investigation? Is that what you want this panel to believe?

MR. KNODELL: I will -- I report to several people.

REP. HODES: Who do you report to, sir?

REP. CUMMINGS: So even if Karl Rove or any other White House official did not know that Ms. Wilson's employment status was classified, the disclosure of such information to an individual not authorized to receive it could have been a violation of the executive order? And that is an executive order of the president of the United States. Is that right?

MR. LEONARD: That's right.

REP. CUMMINGS: So, basically the president set up some rules and then he said, I'm going to make sure that if anybody violated these rules, they're going to have major problems, and they're going to have to go. And then the next thing you know, there is apparently a violation, but there has been no action. Is that right?

MR. KNODELL: Other than the criminal proceedings, no action from my office.

Just a friendly reminder.

Granite State Poll (PDF). 2/1-5. Adults. MoE 4.2% (9/06 results)

Is there any doubt that we're seeing the Iraq factor at play? No wonder Sununu is literally running away from reporters. Both are now under the 50 percent "endangered" line.

While Gregg has four years to try and turn things around, Sununu must face the music next year. And with the resurgent New Hampshire Democratic Party gunning for him, and a near-bankrupt NH GOP forced to send a big check to their Democratic counterparts every year for the next five years, his prospects look tough indeed.

Meanwhile, let's check in with our new Democratic House incumbents:

That's a fantastic job by Shea-Porter of boosting her name ID. She'll need it as she faces a tough rematch against the very guy she ousted last year, Jeb Bradley.

Race Tracker wiki: NH-Sen, NH-01, NH-02