BRATTLEBORO — Dec. 31: We were on our way not just to downtown Philadelphia, and not just to a rally for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, but we were headed to the same ground upon which the likes of Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Paine, and all of the founders strolled amidst the gardens and groves of the vibrant city.
Before the rally we visited Independence National Historic Park and watched a movie about the promise of the founders' efforts to create the Republic. Most notably, of all the brilliant qualities of the Constitution only two were featured: that it provided for the first peaceful transfer of political power in history through an electoral process, and that it included impeachment as a tool to curb executive excesses. The audience was also reminded that we had become a nation of laws, not of men.
This concept still sends a chill up my spine when I hear the language of the original arguments for the documents that made the United States a reality.
I find it hard to choose which is more moving, the Declaration of Independence or the preamble to the Constitution.
It didn't occur to me before I set off on my march to Washington that we are living in an historic moment. At first, I just considered this effort necessary to stimulate a rethinking of the position that impeachment is “off the table.”
Since then, however, I have come to see our situation as much more serious.
The impeachment of Bush and Cheney and the legislative corrections needed to safeguard the Constitution as we knew it, as it was intended, are required before Bush and Cheney leave office. Failure to do so by Congress is not only to pardon Bush and Cheney for their crimes, but to alter the Constitution without going through the required amendment process.
Failure to act against this administration is to allow future Presidents to suspend habeas corpus, spy on American citizens, encourage the use of torture, establish secret prison camps, and create repositories of personal data for use whenever it is convenient to harass, intimidate, or prosecute individuals deemed a threat to the individual or party in power.
This isn't a matter of policy differences or electoral politics. The Constitution forbids these acts and provides protections from these behaviors to American citizens - if we honor the Constitution.
If Congress doesn't protect these rights, who will?
* * *
Jan. 13: We made it!
We gathered at the National Arboretum under a blue cloudless sky with temperatures in the 50s. I like writing that. The weather was freezing at the start, snowy into Massachusetts and Connecticut and cloudy and rainy from New York southward, but let up for today, our last day of the March and of this phase of the journey.
After having taken three days off schedule for a family emergency and for personal business, it took exactly 40 days and 40 nights to make it from Faneuil Hall in Boston to the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
About 50 people turned out for the rally, and I was surprised at the number of states represented. At least one person came from: New Mexico, California, Ohio, Maine, Vermont, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, plus D.C. There were about 20 people at the outset, and the number grew at Union Station and again at the final rally point across the street from the Archives, where after the rally we were to see the original Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
Thinking about the meaning of those documents and what it took for 13 small colonies, and then states, to agree to write and defend them, was again to be reminded that we were the first intentional country. Each of those documents was a testament to the unacceptable abuse of power by a monarch, or other tyrant, but also to the wisdom of the founder's efforts to prevent such abuses from developing in the new nation. Each document was also a testament of the extraordinary faith the founders had in widespread participation in the decision making process: the House of Representatives is the first and foremost voice of the people.
So we gathered. We said thanks. We talked about the Constitutional power of impeachment. We're a nation of laws, and the archives needs to be the number one choice for tourists to see the documents that outline our principles.
And then the rally was over. The march came to an end. We headed back across the street as regular tourists but as soon as we entered the building, those of us wearing any caps, T-shirts, or ponchos with the message to impeach Bush/Cheney were stopped and ordered to remove the articles or leave.
Small matter, right? Just do it, right. Why get into a hassle?
Well, here we were attempting to see our Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. All of these documents spelled out just why we engaged in a Revolutionary War and what values we cherished and rights we guaranteed one another.
In this very hall was the document that proclaimed in the first amendment that “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” We made no move to organize ourselves, speak to others, or create a scene of any kind. We were simply wearing clothing that had a message. Our signs were left outside.
No go.
Some, like me, took off their hats and absentmindedly put them back on. There in the rotunda of the great hall, with a copy of the actual Constitution proclaiming my rights as an American, a guard came over to me and said, “Either remove your hat, or you will be immediately escorted from the building.”
I removed my hat and asked him if he thought that it might be odd that in the presence of the Constitution he was asking me to remove my hat because of the message written on it. He simply said he was following orders and needed his job.
* * *
Jan. 23: I should be euphoric. Instead, I am suffering a great sadness.
Today I walked the halls of the Longworth House Office Building tracking down congressmen and -women on behalf of my supporters and the impeachment movement.
Oh, what a day; what an education! In these halls and behind these thick, dark-brown wooden doors, history is made. I could only imagine that eager, proud, reverent people would be at work here trying to make the United States a better place to live and to make our country a better world citizen. I could only imagine the seriousness of purpose and the heavy, unbearable weight of responsibility pressing down on these inhabitants. Of course I know better - I sometimes do read the newspapers - but I don't want to believe that working in these buildings is just doing a job, or having a decent gig for a while, or just some idea of a cool place to work.
Today I was face to face with the reality of congressional offices and walked away really worried. I visited about 20 offices and collected first impressions of how members of the House of Representatives present themselves to the world.
Typically I was told: “She isn't here.” “She's not back yet.” “He's in a meeting.” “He's on the floor.”
What happened next was so shocking: the virtually unanimous ignorance shown by staffers regarding their employer's position on the impeachment issue and their inability, or unwillingness, to find out.
At Michael E. Capuano's office, I was met with some sympathy for my journey and cause, but again, the staff member attending me seemed more attuned to a TV monitor than our conversation. Did she know the congressman's position? “No, I don't.... Thanks for coming.... Have a nice day.”
At Rahm Emanuel's office, a self-identified intern said, “It's not my policy area.” His concern was constituent relations.
At John Hall's office, two staffers simply didn't know. The one at the reception area was sitting next to an open closet with piles of copies of the Constitution. At this point I broke out in a sweat and, frankly, was getting a little ill. I looked into the eyes of ignorance that seemed to scream back at me, So what?
At Rush Holt's office I was referred to Chris, his press liaison who was aware of my walk, in large part, I think, because he mentioned Mary Ellen Marino's frequent calling with impeachment updates. That was a unique experience.
There were two more. One was Rep. Christopher Shays' office, where I actually received a copy of his position (opposed). His was the one and only office of the 20 I visited to do so.
But the cake goes to a staffer without a name in the office of Rep. John Olver. She knew his position and communicated it clearly, if haltingly, gathering her words carefully so that she didn't misrepresent him. She said he believed impeachment was counterproductive and divisive even though he doesn't support the administration.
She was articulate and knowledgeable; the first of the day. I told her how impressed I was, that she was the first to actually know where her member of Congress stood on the issue. I wanted to take her picture. She got scared, as if she had done something wrong! She left her chair to get the press liaison, but that couldn't be arranged.
“Gee,” I said, “I seemed to have offended you.”
“Yes,” she replied.
Now I was really worried. Was speaking to drop-ins against the rules? Was knowing about the positions held by your boss and talking about them inappropriate? Has every utterance become a matter of strategy, nuance, and spin that only designated individuals are allowed to speak? I said, “I didn't mean to offend you. I was actually complimenting you.”
She wasn't satisfied. She said, awkwardly, but unconvincingly, “Yes, OK.”
I wasn't sure she understood I was complimenting her on her knowledge and helpfulness and said again, “Really, it was a compliment.”
She sat back down and resumed her work with an expression of “Now, please go away."
* * *
Jan. 23: Mary Kate, Speaker Pelosi's scheduling assistant, called yesterday with what turned out to be their final offer.
“I strongly recommend you take this appointment with Michael Tecklenburg,” she said, describing him as the speaker's legislative assistant.
“Does this mean he is a substitute for an appointment with the Speaker or is this a prelude to a meeting with her, you know, to check me out to be sure I'm not crazy?” I asked.
“The Speaker is very busy and can't see you right now.”
“You know, Mary Kate, I risked my health and life walking down the most congested, dangerous, and polluted highway on the east coast just to see the Speaker. I don't mind waiting until that's possible.”
I don't remember the exact words, but she suggested I not pass up this opportunity.
“Well, I'll consider it a prelude to a meeting. I don't care how long it takes to arrange,” I said optimistically.
The fact of the matter is there will be no meeting with the speaker. It is off the table.
* * *
Jan. 24: Let's dip into the future for a moment and consider what the massive Democratic Party refusal to consider impeachment will mean. O.K., you heard a few of these before: silence is consent to the Bush/Cheney crimes; we will get a Constitution forever ambiguous about checks and balances since Congress allowed the Executive to assume many functions specifically designated to Congress; torture will become standard operating procedure; and spying on Americans. And so on. You know the drill by now.
But it also means that some people are above the law, that the law is applied differentially - especially when our entire security apparatus is used as the political enforcement arm of the Office of the President; it means the Constitution is arbitrary; it means loyalty is more important than competence; it means that we are a nation of men and no longer a nation of laws; and, it means that ideology is all that is important and any way to promote it is simply politics, not about principle or law.
In this way, the ruling class is separated from any accountability to the electorate. It also means that remedies for the abuse of power no longer exist, because there is no limit to the use of power. It means that anything goes. If you can get away with it, do it. That is the first lesson we learned from this administration.
Fittingly, the CBS Sports vehicle pulled up to the Capitol to cover the State of the Union speech. Yes, whatever is happening in the Capitol is not unlike a sport, or a dance, or a collusion, or something much worse.
As long as the Democrats believe they are doing what is required to win the White House this year and can't parse their low approval ratings - coupled with public disgust with their lack of leadership, lack of vision, lack of courage - then they are not only in danger of losing the election, but also in transforming the Constitution into a meaningless artifact of an experiment that has gone terribly bad.
* * *
Jan. 24: So now I move into phase three - taking it all back home to consider the future.
One thing is certain: my conscience feels a whole lot better.
In addition, I met a whole lot of friends I didn't know I had.
I also have enjoyed the support and encouragement of so many people who I will never meet but who, in their reaching out to me during this odyssey, have reminded me that there is a huge reservoir of trusting, loving, supportive, intelligent people in this country willing to stand up, speak out, and march for what is right.
Stay tuned.