I was a little bored and doing a some light reading over at PRNewswire.com and lo and behold, there were a few gems among the usual corporate dreck.
To wit -
...The Department of Justice announced "the Ingersoll-Rand CompanyLimited has agreed to pay a $2.5 million fine as part of an agreement withthe U.S. government regarding charges brought in connection with an ongoing investigation of the U.N. "Oil for Food" program..."
Ingersoll-Rand is a subsidiary of Halliburton. Halliburton reported revenues last year (period ending December 31, 2006) in excess of $22 billion.
Think they'll notice a paltry $2.5 million??
...The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) issued a release criticizing a report from the American Institute for Cancer Research as based on "sketchy" science. The report, Food, Nutrition,Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer, recommends, among other things, that people reduce their intake of red meat.
Earlier in the day, the CCF issued another press release, this one equating the report and its supporters to PETA.
The only problem with CCF's criticisms? The CCF is an astroturf lobbying group fronting for the restaurant, alcohol, and food industries.
Perhaps they should consider that they have a bit of a credibility problem, and a high volume of press release won't make up for their low volume of quality.
...The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) issued a press release blasting presidential candidate John McCain's health care proposal in a Halloween-themed release as "all trick and no treat."
Other prime Hallo-quotes -
"...he presents a health care reform plan that would bring the Bush Administration's failed health care policies back from the dead."
"...The frightfully feeble plan includes a Bush-like tax credit gimmick..."
"...Channeling President Bush, McCain also ignores the plight of the 47 million Americans..."
"...McCain ought to dress up as George W.Bush today, because he's clearly offering the same failed leadership."
No more snarkiness needed; I just wanted to use some cheesy quotes. :)
Note1: The NCSL release is drawn directly from a DNC release.
Note2: The Council for Affordable Health Insurance has a non-partisan summary of the health care plans of the presidential candidates here.
...and in the most poetic public service announcement of the day, Erie Insurance reminded us to
As You Steer, Fear the Deer
It was a gentle reminder that this time of year is the period when the greatest number of car/Bambi collisions occur and that drivers should be alert.
Not really a metro Phoenix problem, but northern AZ folks might find it to be good advice.
Later!
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
An open letter to John Shadegg
The following letter was submitted to the Congressman via his House website (note: the links didn't go through; it's a text-only message form) -
Note: This letter is from a post in my blog, Random Musings. While I truly don't expect a reply, it's only fair to actually submit the letter to you when I'm posting it on the internet.
Congressman Shadegg -
I know you've been busy with other things, like dealing with criticism for your support of the President's SCHIP veto or fighting off the surging campaign of challenger Bob Lord, but I hope you can take the time to answer a question for me.
You've been getting a lot of love recently in the conservative blogosphere for your bill, HR1359, the Enumerated Powers Act.
As written, it would require that "each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act."
Believe it or not, while I am an active Democrat and certainly more progressive than you, I don't have a major problem with that particular concept.
I do have to wonder, however, where is the same requirement for Presidential acts, such as executive orders and 'signing statements'?
Why don't you believe that the President is as subject to the Constitution and needs to have Constitutionally-granted authority for his or her actions as any member of Congress would?
Sincerely,
[cpmaz]
Later!
Note: This letter is from a post in my blog, Random Musings. While I truly don't expect a reply, it's only fair to actually submit the letter to you when I'm posting it on the internet.
Congressman Shadegg -
I know you've been busy with other things, like dealing with criticism for your support of the President's SCHIP veto or fighting off the surging campaign of challenger Bob Lord, but I hope you can take the time to answer a question for me.
You've been getting a lot of love recently in the conservative blogosphere for your bill, HR1359, the Enumerated Powers Act.
As written, it would require that "each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act."
Believe it or not, while I am an active Democrat and certainly more progressive than you, I don't have a major problem with that particular concept.
I do have to wonder, however, where is the same requirement for Presidential acts, such as executive orders and 'signing statements'?
Why don't you believe that the President is as subject to the Constitution and needs to have Constitutionally-granted authority for his or her actions as any member of Congress would?
Sincerely,
[cpmaz]
Later!
Another day, more evidence of Republican priorities
The Bushies are now limiting their contempt for the public. They are only placing more importance on corporate profits over public safety on specific days now.
As in only on days ending in "y".
Earlier today, the House Committee on Science and Technology held a hearing on NASA's refusal to release the results of a survey of pilots on aviation safety.
NASA's justification for that initial refusal?
It might "affect the public confidence in, and the commercial welfare of the air carriers and general aviation companies." (AFP)
Under questioning from legislators at today's hearing (including AZ5's Harry Mitchell), the director of NASA, Michael Griffin, disavowed the stated justification for withholding the survey results and promised to release the results.
After any sensitive information has been redacted (i.e. - censored) from the report.
Sensitive information includes such 'meaningless' things like airlines, airports, and aircraft models.
Rep. Harry Mitchell had this to say (courtesy a press release) -
You know, I've disagreed with Congressman Mitchell on a few significant issues (FISA, Iraq war funding), but he's dead on on this one.
Perhaps it must be done one issue at a time, but it's time that the Democrats in Congress start holding the Bush Administration and their Executive Branch appointees accountable for their failure to do their job of protecting the interests of *all* Americans.
Not just big-money contributors.
Griffin's written testimony here.
Committee chairman Bart Gordon's (D-TN) opening statement here.
AP coverage of the hearing here.
Later!
As in only on days ending in "y".
Earlier today, the House Committee on Science and Technology held a hearing on NASA's refusal to release the results of a survey of pilots on aviation safety.
NASA's justification for that initial refusal?
It might "affect the public confidence in, and the commercial welfare of the air carriers and general aviation companies." (AFP)
Under questioning from legislators at today's hearing (including AZ5's Harry Mitchell), the director of NASA, Michael Griffin, disavowed the stated justification for withholding the survey results and promised to release the results.
After any sensitive information has been redacted (i.e. - censored) from the report.
Sensitive information includes such 'meaningless' things like airlines, airports, and aircraft models.
Rep. Harry Mitchell had this to say (courtesy a press release) -
“The idea that the federal government would put private profits ahead of the flying public’s safety is outrageous and inexcusable,” said Mitchell. “NASA’s survey reportedly contains information – from pilots – about runway incursions, wildlife strikes, and near collisions. These are real risks. If pilots have concerns about them, we need to know.”
You know, I've disagreed with Congressman Mitchell on a few significant issues (FISA, Iraq war funding), but he's dead on on this one.
Perhaps it must be done one issue at a time, but it's time that the Democrats in Congress start holding the Bush Administration and their Executive Branch appointees accountable for their failure to do their job of protecting the interests of *all* Americans.
Not just big-money contributors.
Griffin's written testimony here.
Committee chairman Bart Gordon's (D-TN) opening statement here.
AP coverage of the hearing here.
Later!
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Will somebody please wake me when the Republicans start taking the responsibilities of governing seriously?
Sort of maintaining the theme of my last post or two...
While looking for info about the results of the Senate Commerce Committee hearing into S2045, the CPSC overhaul bill (it passed), I came across this tidbit from Broadcasting and Cable -
The upshot of it all? The Republicans want to base public policy that is supposed to protect consumers on an industry-oriented study.
That's not exactly breaking news, but their current openness about it is rather reassuring.
"Reassuring" in the sense that it's obvious that despite some missteps by the Democrats in Congress (FISA bill, continued funding for Bush's war in Iraq), the Republicans are ceding next year's elections to the Democratic Party.
Well, it's either that or else the Republicans are utterly incapable of learning from last year's resounding defeat.
And you know, while I've written many words about Republicans (though few of them have been complimentary ones :)) ), "stupid" hasn't been one of them.
They know what happened last year, and why.
Bottom line: Whether it's SCHIP, civil liberties, the war in Iraq, or any other of a hundred issues, they aren't even pretending to represent the interests of the average American.
Note: Arizona's John Shadegg(R-AZ3) is also on the House Commerce Committee.
While looking for info about the results of the Senate Commerce Committee hearing into S2045, the CPSC overhaul bill (it passed), I came across this tidbit from Broadcasting and Cable -
House Republicans Seek Info on GAO DTV StudyThe Republicans on the House Commerce Committee, led by Reps. Joe Barton of Texas and Fred Upton of Michigan, sent a letter to the GAO requesting all sorts of information related to a planned GAO study on the pending transition to digital TV.
Barton, Upton Question Need for GAO Study in Wake of CEA Study
Top House Republicans suggested that a Government Accountability Office study on the digital-TV transition has its work cut out for it if it wants to match one already completed on the same subject by the Consumer Electronics Association.
The upshot of it all? The Republicans want to base public policy that is supposed to protect consumers on an industry-oriented study.
That's not exactly breaking news, but their current openness about it is rather reassuring.
"Reassuring" in the sense that it's obvious that despite some missteps by the Democrats in Congress (FISA bill, continued funding for Bush's war in Iraq), the Republicans are ceding next year's elections to the Democratic Party.
Well, it's either that or else the Republicans are utterly incapable of learning from last year's resounding defeat.
And you know, while I've written many words about Republicans (though few of them have been complimentary ones :)) ), "stupid" hasn't been one of them.
They know what happened last year, and why.
Bottom line: Whether it's SCHIP, civil liberties, the war in Iraq, or any other of a hundred issues, they aren't even pretending to represent the interests of the average American.
Note: Arizona's John Shadegg(R-AZ3) is also on the House Commerce Committee.
The Bush Administration Consumer Protection Plan:
Oppose efforts to increase consumer protections.
From the International Herald Tribune -
It should come as no surprise that Ms. Nord's bio on the CPSC website touts her corporate protection experience (she was a corporate lawyer and water carrier for the Republicans before her stint at CPSC) while ignoring any consumer protection experience (well, to be honest, I couldn't find any, so maybe 'ignore' is the wrong word :) ).
The IHT article later covers the White House's contention that while Ms. Nord did not coordinate her opposition to the pending legislation, it too opposes that legislation.
Maybe the Administration will propose a 'consumer affairs' bill, one similar in intent and effect to NCLB (No Child Left Behind.)
They can call it "NCLF" for No Child Lead-Free.
ProgressNowAction's take on this here. (note: PNA compares Ms. Nord to Irwin Mainway. Background info on Mr. Mainway here. :)) )
OMBWatch's take is here.
Background info - the bill that the administration opposes seems to be S2045, CPSC Reform Act of 2007. Info at the link.
Later!
From the International Herald Tribune -
The top official for consumer product safety has asked Congress in recent days to reject legislation that would strengthen the agency that polices thousands of consumer goods, from toys to tools.
On the eve of an important Senate committee meeting to consider the legislation, Nancy Nord, the acting chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, has asked lawmakers in two letters not to approve the bulk of legislation that would increase the agency's authority, double its budget and sharply increase its dwindling staff.
Nord opposes provisions that would increase the maximum penalties for safety violations and make it easier for the government to make public reports of faulty products, protect industry whistleblowers and prosecute executives of companies that willfully violate laws.
It should come as no surprise that Ms. Nord's bio on the CPSC website touts her corporate protection experience (she was a corporate lawyer and water carrier for the Republicans before her stint at CPSC) while ignoring any consumer protection experience (well, to be honest, I couldn't find any, so maybe 'ignore' is the wrong word :) ).
The IHT article later covers the White House's contention that while Ms. Nord did not coordinate her opposition to the pending legislation, it too opposes that legislation.
Maybe the Administration will propose a 'consumer affairs' bill, one similar in intent and effect to NCLB (No Child Left Behind.)
They can call it "NCLF" for No Child Lead-Free.
ProgressNowAction's take on this here. (note: PNA compares Ms. Nord to Irwin Mainway. Background info on Mr. Mainway here. :)) )
OMBWatch's take is here.
Background info - the bill that the administration opposes seems to be S2045, CPSC Reform Act of 2007. Info at the link.
Later!
Monday, October 29, 2007
Short Attention Span Musing
Just a Republicans being Republikkkans kind of day...
...Dick Cheney went hunting today.
The good news (by Republican standards, anyway :) ) - no lawyers were shot.
The bad news (by the standards of normal folks, anyway) - the hunting trip was to a private club that displays (get this!) a Confederate flag.
From the New York Daily News -
...Want positive proof that the 'family values' Arizona Republicans make a mob family look like the Waltons?
Now the Maricopa County Republicans are promoting a "gala reception" for Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) as he "explores" a run against Congressman Jeff Flake (CD6), one of their very own.
What does Flake have to do to get a little love from his own party? I can understand Democrats disliking him - on social issues, he makes Barry Goldwater look like a bleeding heart and his "crusade" against earmarks always seems to focus more on community-based projects than on real waste like no-bid contracts and the like - but why do other Republicans hate him so much?
In addition to all of the reasons that Democrats can't stand him, he's intelligent, hard-working, untainted by scandal, and while he is *definitely* wrong on nearly every important issue, he isn't an embarrassment to his district or his state.
Hmmm..."not an embarrassment"...hmmm....
Maybe, in a perverse sort of way, that's the real problem here.
Consider the scheduled headline endorsers at Pearce's soiree -
Joe Arpaio and Andrew Thomas of "let's arrest journalists for writing uncomplimentary articles about us" fame.
Those two are perfect for Pearce - nobody can say they don't embarrass the state.
...The Bush State Department has given the Blackwater security guards responsible for killing 17 Iraqi civilians immunity from prosecution.
No wiseass-ery here. This is just too disgusting.
Later!
...Dick Cheney went hunting today.
The good news (by Republican standards, anyway :) ) - no lawyers were shot.
The bad news (by the standards of normal folks, anyway) - the hunting trip was to a private club that displays (get this!) a Confederate flag.
From the New York Daily News -
Nobody got shot, but Vice President Cheney still fired up controversy Monday when he went hunting at a private club that hangs the Confederate flag.
A Daily News photographer captured the 3-by-5 foot Dixie flag affixed to a door in the garage of the Clove Valley Gun and Rod Club in upstate Union Vale, N.Y.
...Want positive proof that the 'family values' Arizona Republicans make a mob family look like the Waltons?
Now the Maricopa County Republicans are promoting a "gala reception" for Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) as he "explores" a run against Congressman Jeff Flake (CD6), one of their very own.
What does Flake have to do to get a little love from his own party? I can understand Democrats disliking him - on social issues, he makes Barry Goldwater look like a bleeding heart and his "crusade" against earmarks always seems to focus more on community-based projects than on real waste like no-bid contracts and the like - but why do other Republicans hate him so much?
In addition to all of the reasons that Democrats can't stand him, he's intelligent, hard-working, untainted by scandal, and while he is *definitely* wrong on nearly every important issue, he isn't an embarrassment to his district or his state.
Hmmm..."not an embarrassment"...hmmm....
Maybe, in a perverse sort of way, that's the real problem here.
Consider the scheduled headline endorsers at Pearce's soiree -
Joe Arpaio and Andrew Thomas of "let's arrest journalists for writing uncomplimentary articles about us" fame.
Those two are perfect for Pearce - nobody can say they don't embarrass the state.
...The Bush State Department has given the Blackwater security guards responsible for killing 17 Iraqi civilians immunity from prosecution.
No wiseass-ery here. This is just too disgusting.
Later!
Superfund site update meeting in Scottsdale on November 15
Earlier today, the East Valley Tribune published a story about an upcoming community meeting to be held by the EPA regarding the status of cleanup activities at the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site.
From the article -
Given that I live in the affected area, my interest was piqued, to say the least.
I contacted Vicki Rosen, the EPA community involvement coordinator handling the event for more info (her name and number is in the article).
Turns out that the article is accurate as far as it goes, but isnt quite complete.
After reading the article, particularly the part about Motorola wanting to be allowed to pollute the area more (not to save money and enhance their profit margin, of course :) ), I called Ms. Rosen for more info.
She characterized the meeting as a "common" community involvement meeting where emissions controls will just be a small part of the meeting agenda.
She later emailed the meeting notice to me, and yes, it does seem to be a "normal" meeting. The meeting's discussion will have a strong "trichloroethylene" (TCE) element, but that's to be expected - it's the primary pollutant contaminating the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site.
These meetings have been held periodically over the last few years to provide information, address community concerns and answer questions.
Also done on a periodic basis is Motorola's attempt to wriggle off of the cleanup hook, and that's probably where Ari Cohn, the Trib reporter who wrote today's article, got the theme of the piece.
Ms. Rosen was clear on the EPA's position that it does not support the removal of carbon filters as Motorola has requested.
On the other hand, while the article may be a *little* alarmist, when you can read about ExxonMobil's efforts to get out of paying for the Exxon Valdez spill and how they are turning to the U.S. Supreme Court to get off the hook for billions of dollars in damages or how the White House censors scientific reports on global warming or that FEMA holds fake news conferences, well, it's easy to get alarmed when a government agency, a huge multinational corporation, and our health and safety all get tangled together.
Note: None of this is meant to be a dig at Cohn - he does a great job covering Scottsdale for the Trib. This issue just highlights one of the problems with the growing regionalization and/or centralization of the news media. The Trib only has a couple of people covering Scottsdale's happenings and there's no way a couple of people can completely cover a growing city of Scottsdale's size. Anybody doing the job, even someone with Cohn's ability, is occasionally going to miss some of the nuances and history behind a "current" story.
Anyway, the meeting will be at the Scottsdale Center for the Performing Arts, 2nd Floor, 7384 E. Second St. on November 15 from 5:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.
If you live in or near south Scottsdale, this is a meeting worth attending.
Later!
From the article -
Federal environmental officials plan to hold a public meeting Nov. 15 on Motorola’s request to remove equipment that filters suspected cancer-causing chemicals from the air at a south Scottsdale Superfund treatment site.
Given that I live in the affected area, my interest was piqued, to say the least.
I contacted Vicki Rosen, the EPA community involvement coordinator handling the event for more info (her name and number is in the article).
Turns out that the article is accurate as far as it goes, but isnt quite complete.
After reading the article, particularly the part about Motorola wanting to be allowed to pollute the area more (not to save money and enhance their profit margin, of course :) ), I called Ms. Rosen for more info.
She characterized the meeting as a "common" community involvement meeting where emissions controls will just be a small part of the meeting agenda.
She later emailed the meeting notice to me, and yes, it does seem to be a "normal" meeting. The meeting's discussion will have a strong "trichloroethylene" (TCE) element, but that's to be expected - it's the primary pollutant contaminating the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site.
These meetings have been held periodically over the last few years to provide information, address community concerns and answer questions.
Also done on a periodic basis is Motorola's attempt to wriggle off of the cleanup hook, and that's probably where Ari Cohn, the Trib reporter who wrote today's article, got the theme of the piece.
Ms. Rosen was clear on the EPA's position that it does not support the removal of carbon filters as Motorola has requested.
On the other hand, while the article may be a *little* alarmist, when you can read about ExxonMobil's efforts to get out of paying for the Exxon Valdez spill and how they are turning to the U.S. Supreme Court to get off the hook for billions of dollars in damages or how the White House censors scientific reports on global warming or that FEMA holds fake news conferences, well, it's easy to get alarmed when a government agency, a huge multinational corporation, and our health and safety all get tangled together.
Note: None of this is meant to be a dig at Cohn - he does a great job covering Scottsdale for the Trib. This issue just highlights one of the problems with the growing regionalization and/or centralization of the news media. The Trib only has a couple of people covering Scottsdale's happenings and there's no way a couple of people can completely cover a growing city of Scottsdale's size. Anybody doing the job, even someone with Cohn's ability, is occasionally going to miss some of the nuances and history behind a "current" story.
Anyway, the meeting will be at the Scottsdale Center for the Performing Arts, 2nd Floor, 7384 E. Second St. on November 15 from 5:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.
If you live in or near south Scottsdale, this is a meeting worth attending.
Later!
Bad news/good news - Tancredo edition
The Bad News - Tom Tancredo isn't dropping out of the race for the Republican nomination for President.
The Good News - He announced that he won't run for re-election to Congress, no matter how his Presidential bid goes.
From the Washington Post -
Before the dancing in the streets starts, however, it should be noted that there has been talk of him running for U.S. Senate. If he goes that particular root, he'll find a strong candidate already running for the job, Rep. Mark Udall.
The full Rocky Mountain News article on Tancredo's announcement is here.
Later!
The Good News - He announced that he won't run for re-election to Congress, no matter how his Presidential bid goes.
From the Washington Post -
Tancredo Won't Seek New Term
Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo has had enough. Of Congress, that is.
The five-term member of the U.S. House and long-shot presidential candidate has decided he will not run for reelection in 2008, ending his congressional career as he continues to seek the White House.
Before the dancing in the streets starts, however, it should be noted that there has been talk of him running for U.S. Senate. If he goes that particular root, he'll find a strong candidate already running for the job, Rep. Mark Udall.
The full Rocky Mountain News article on Tancredo's announcement is here.
Later!
A good weekend to be a Boston sports fan...
...in Arizona.
And it was actually a pretty good weekend for AZ sports fans, too. :)
Non-political post ahead...
Let's see...
The Red Sox won the World Series, showing that the combination of an explosive offense and timely pitching is a championship combination...
- - - The Diamondbacks may not have won the World Series this year, but their surprising trip to the League Championship Series is something to build on.
The Patriots blew out Washington, setting up a sure-to-be-overhyped matchup of unbeaten teams next weekend when they face the Indianapolis Colts.
- - - The Cardinals didn't play, ergo, they didn't lose.
Boston College's undefeated football team solidified its hold on the #2 ranking in the national polls with a comeback victory over Virginia Tech.
- - - Likewise, the Arizona State Sun Devils maintained their undefeated record with a solid win over Cal (a win that propelled ASU to the #6 ranking in the polls.)
The Boston Celtics will be starting their regular season this week with a team that is Boston's best chance in many seasons for a long playoff run. Adding Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett to a team in the NBA's very weak Eastern Conference will do that for a team.
- - - The Phoenix Suns also start their regular season soon; unlike the Celtics, however, just a "playoff run" will be a disappointment Now that Tim Donaghy isn't an NBA referee, the Suns are a championship-caliber team.
The Boston Bruins are playing. The good news is that the NHL's national TV contract with the Versus sports network means that almost no one will see them.
- - - The Phoenix Coyotes: Ditto.
New Englanders can still golf in November (which starts this week!); they just put on a coat, hat, and gloves.
- - - Arizonans can still golf in November; they just put on shorts, a t-shirt, and sunblock.
Note: :)))
And it was actually a pretty good weekend for AZ sports fans, too. :)
Non-political post ahead...
Let's see...
The Red Sox won the World Series, showing that the combination of an explosive offense and timely pitching is a championship combination...
- - - The Diamondbacks may not have won the World Series this year, but their surprising trip to the League Championship Series is something to build on.
The Patriots blew out Washington, setting up a sure-to-be-overhyped matchup of unbeaten teams next weekend when they face the Indianapolis Colts.
- - - The Cardinals didn't play, ergo, they didn't lose.
Boston College's undefeated football team solidified its hold on the #2 ranking in the national polls with a comeback victory over Virginia Tech.
- - - Likewise, the Arizona State Sun Devils maintained their undefeated record with a solid win over Cal (a win that propelled ASU to the #6 ranking in the polls.)
The Boston Celtics will be starting their regular season this week with a team that is Boston's best chance in many seasons for a long playoff run. Adding Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett to a team in the NBA's very weak Eastern Conference will do that for a team.
- - - The Phoenix Suns also start their regular season soon; unlike the Celtics, however, just a "playoff run" will be a disappointment Now that Tim Donaghy isn't an NBA referee, the Suns are a championship-caliber team.
The Boston Bruins are playing. The good news is that the NHL's national TV contract with the Versus sports network means that almost no one will see them.
- - - The Phoenix Coyotes: Ditto.
New Englanders can still golf in November (which starts this week!); they just put on a coat, hat, and gloves.
- - - Arizonans can still golf in November; they just put on shorts, a t-shirt, and sunblock.
Note: :)))
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Short Attention Span Musing...
edited to add a link below...
Edit2 on 10/26 to add to the "Trent Franks" part of the post below...
...and reminders of a couple of events...
...Tonight, Thursday October 25, the Arizona Chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council will meet at 6991 E. Camelback in Scottsdale at 7:00 p.m. Congressional candidate Bob Lord (CD3) is scheduled to speak. For more info, contact Jerry at njdc[at]cox.net.
...Saturday, October 27 - Presidential candidate Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) is visiting Tucson and Phoenix.
Phoenix event info: Fajita Fundraiser and Launch of Inaugural Phoenix Chapter of Mi Familia con Bill Richardson, IBEW Building, 5808 North 7th Street, Phoenix, AZ. Time: 2:00 p.m.
Now on to the snarkiness (aka the 'short attention span' part of the post :) )
...The Tancredo campaign seems to be getting desperate, or perhaps he's just getting back to his Catholic roots. In an effort to eliminate one of the frontrunners for the Republican nomination, he's throwing the political equivalent of a "Hail Mary" pass.
From boston.com -
As you can see from the headline to the piece, the Romney campaign declined to accept the bet.
Tom, face facts - the Rockies have a far better chance of winning the World Series than you ever did of winning the Presidency. Hell, my nephew's little league team has a better chance of winning the WS than you do of winning the Presidency, but I digress. :)
...In other Romney news, the latest Rolling Stone has an in-depth article on him. However, he may not like the national publicity.
The title -
...continuing with the whole "Mitt" theme, today, he showed that he has the same attitude toward, and knowledge of, the use of military force as does Bush.
From AP via Yahoo! News -
"Bombardment of some kind"??
Nice incisive military analysis there, Mitt.
...Bush is showing in southern California that perhaps he (or more likely, his handlers) has learned some lessons from the Katrina debacle.
From AP via Yahoo! News -
Yup, Bush has learned some lessons.
Either that, or the victims of the wildfires in southern Cal tend to be somewhat paler and wealthier than the victims of Katrina in New Orleans and the Gulf Region were.
Not that I'm a cynic or anything... :))
...Edit to add: Blogger and activist Eli Blake at Deep Thought makes the same observation in this post, and does a far better job of it. He is perhap the best pure writer in the AZ political blogosphere, right or left, and his blog is worthy of bookmarking.
End edit...
Note: LA Times coverage of Bush's California visit here.
...The House passed HR3963, the revised SCHIP bill by a vote of 265 - 142. From the Arizona delegation: Pastor, Giffords, Grijalva, Mitchell, and Renzi voted 'aye'; Franks, Flake, and Shadegg voted 'nay.'
I didn't get to see the entire debate, but in a 'one-minute speech' after regular legislative business, Trent Franks (R-AZ2) surprisingly *didn't* cite a concern for insurance company profits, the Republicans' usual reason for voting against health care for poor children.
Nope, in an exhibition of Bush-like reasoning skills, he concocted a hobo's stew of reasons, stirring in "Hillary-care", abortion, and "attacks on the family" among others as the reasons that he opposed SCHIP.
John Thrasher 2008. 'Nuff said.
Edit to add: Apparently, I wasn't the only person to watch and comment on Congressman Franks' diatribe.
From Melissa McEwan at the blog Shakespearessister, who puts it far more *colorfully* than I did :)) -
As indicated in the quote, she posted a video of Franks' floor speech. Follow the link - it's worth watching.
End edit.
Later!
Edit2 on 10/26 to add to the "Trent Franks" part of the post below...
...and reminders of a couple of events...
...Tonight, Thursday October 25, the Arizona Chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council will meet at 6991 E. Camelback in Scottsdale at 7:00 p.m. Congressional candidate Bob Lord (CD3) is scheduled to speak. For more info, contact Jerry at njdc[at]cox.net.
...Saturday, October 27 - Presidential candidate Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) is visiting Tucson and Phoenix.
Phoenix event info: Fajita Fundraiser and Launch of Inaugural Phoenix Chapter of Mi Familia con Bill Richardson, IBEW Building, 5808 North 7th Street, Phoenix, AZ. Time: 2:00 p.m.
Now on to the snarkiness (aka the 'short attention span' part of the post :) )
...The Tancredo campaign seems to be getting desperate, or perhaps he's just getting back to his Catholic roots. In an effort to eliminate one of the frontrunners for the Republican nomination, he's throwing the political equivalent of a "Hail Mary" pass.
From boston.com -
Romney passes on high-stakes baseball bet
{snip}
Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo wants to put something important on the line -- his candidacy. His campaign called ABC News to issue this challenge: The Colorado congressman will drop out of the race if the Rockies lose the World Series -- if rival Mitt Romney agrees to pack it in if the Red Sox lose.
As you can see from the headline to the piece, the Romney campaign declined to accept the bet.
Tom, face facts - the Rockies have a far better chance of winning the World Series than you ever did of winning the Presidency. Hell, my nephew's little league team has a better chance of winning the WS than you do of winning the Presidency, but I digress. :)
...In other Romney news, the latest Rolling Stone has an in-depth article on him. However, he may not like the national publicity.
The title -
Mitt Romney: The Huckster
He May Have Made $250 Million as a Venture Capitalist, but the Republican Candidate Is Trying to Sell a Party that's Gone Bankrupt
...continuing with the whole "Mitt" theme, today, he showed that he has the same attitude toward, and knowledge of, the use of military force as does Bush.
From AP via Yahoo! News -
Republican Mitt Romney said Thursday he would be willing to use a military blockade or "bombardment of some kind" to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.
"Bombardment of some kind"??
Nice incisive military analysis there, Mitt.
...Bush is showing in southern California that perhaps he (or more likely, his handlers) has learned some lessons from the Katrina debacle.
From AP via Yahoo! News -
Bush visits California wildfire victims
{snip}
In San Diego's hard-hit community of Rancho Bernardo, Bush stepped through rubble on a street of Mediterranean-style homes, where houses that remained unscathed were interspersed with what amounted to mere shells of the American dream. He stood with Jay and Kendra Jeffcoat near where a single spiral staircase rested amid rubble that used to be their home and where their burnt-out car had melted into the scorched earth.
"Those of us who are here in government, our hearts are right here with the Jeffcoats," the president said, his arm draped around Mrs. Jeffcoat. Holding her small brown dog on a leash, she fought back tears and Bush kissed her on the head.
Yup, Bush has learned some lessons.
Either that, or the victims of the wildfires in southern Cal tend to be somewhat paler and wealthier than the victims of Katrina in New Orleans and the Gulf Region were.
Not that I'm a cynic or anything... :))
...Edit to add: Blogger and activist Eli Blake at Deep Thought makes the same observation in this post, and does a far better job of it. He is perhap the best pure writer in the AZ political blogosphere, right or left, and his blog is worthy of bookmarking.
End edit...
Note: LA Times coverage of Bush's California visit here.
...The House passed HR3963, the revised SCHIP bill by a vote of 265 - 142. From the Arizona delegation: Pastor, Giffords, Grijalva, Mitchell, and Renzi voted 'aye'; Franks, Flake, and Shadegg voted 'nay.'
I didn't get to see the entire debate, but in a 'one-minute speech' after regular legislative business, Trent Franks (R-AZ2) surprisingly *didn't* cite a concern for insurance company profits, the Republicans' usual reason for voting against health care for poor children.
Nope, in an exhibition of Bush-like reasoning skills, he concocted a hobo's stew of reasons, stirring in "Hillary-care", abortion, and "attacks on the family" among others as the reasons that he opposed SCHIP.
John Thrasher 2008. 'Nuff said.
Edit to add: Apparently, I wasn't the only person to watch and comment on Congressman Franks' diatribe.
From Melissa McEwan at the blog Shakespearessister, who puts it far more *colorfully* than I did :)) -
Brain-Numbing Dipshittery During the SCHIP Debate
...here is video of Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) on the House floor earlier today, explaining why he must cast a vote against SCHIP, with a giant picture of a fetus behind him. It's like someone bet this douchebag money that he couldn't hit every square on an anti-choice Bingo card, and he said, "Oh yeah? Watch me."
As indicated in the quote, she posted a video of Franks' floor speech. Follow the link - it's worth watching.
End edit.
Later!
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Jon Kyl just doesn't get it, does he?
From an article in Wednesday's Arizona Republic -
So somebody help me understand this -
Is he placing the leaks that exposed the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib on the same ethical level as the leaks that endangered the life of the wife of Joe Wilson, the "administration critic" that he spoke of?
Perhaps the more pertinent question is "does Jon Kyl have a moral compass that points only toward the White House?"
Oh, and as an aside, did anyone else notice the 'irony' in how Kyl bemoaned partisanship while he very partisanly defended the retaliation against a critic of the administration?
He just doesn't seem to understand that his job is to represent Arizona's interests, not the White House's.
In an interview with The Republic, Kyl said leaks take on partisan overtones on Capitol Hill.
Democrats appreciate leaks that embarrass the Bush administration, such as the stories exposing torture and humiliation at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, while Republicans decry them.
But Democrats demanded to know who in the White House leaked the information that Valerie Plame, the wife of an administration critic, worked for the CIA.
"It's a crime to leak classified information, and it should be," Kyl said. "It looks a little bit to me like it depends what the political cause is. If we're for the leak, then we don't want to ever try catching anybody. But if we're against the leak, well, then it's OK."
So somebody help me understand this -
Is he placing the leaks that exposed the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib on the same ethical level as the leaks that endangered the life of the wife of Joe Wilson, the "administration critic" that he spoke of?
Perhaps the more pertinent question is "does Jon Kyl have a moral compass that points only toward the White House?"
Oh, and as an aside, did anyone else notice the 'irony' in how Kyl bemoaned partisanship while he very partisanly defended the retaliation against a critic of the administration?
He just doesn't seem to understand that his job is to represent Arizona's interests, not the White House's.
Call your senator to urge support of the DREAM Act
The Senate is expected to vote for cloture on S. 2205, the DREAM Act later today.
In summary, the DREAM Act would apply only to individuals brought to the U.S. at least 5 years ago as children, who have grown up here (but are still under 30 years old), and who have remained in school and out of trouble. They could get a green card 6 years after graduating from high school if during that time they continue on to college or serve in the military.
If cloture fails, S. 2205 will be removed from the floor
Contact info for Arizona's Senators:
Jon Kyl (602) 840-1891 Washington (202) 224-4521 Fax (202) 224-2207
John McCain (602) 952-2410 Washington (202) 224-2235 Fax (202) 228-2862
And if the fact that it's a good bill isn't enough to make the bill worthy of support, remember this one fundamental truth -
If it passes, Republican Congressman and presidential candidate Tom Tancredo (R-CO) will be seriously pissed.
This is the loon who followed up last week's call for DNA testing of immigrants with a demand that ICE raid a Tuesday meeting at the Senate that was held in support of the DREAM Act.
His theory was that meeting-goers would be illegal immigrants.
ICE thought so much of his demand that they didn't show up.
Note: Man Eegee has a far more complete post about the DREAM Act here.
Later!
In summary, the DREAM Act would apply only to individuals brought to the U.S. at least 5 years ago as children, who have grown up here (but are still under 30 years old), and who have remained in school and out of trouble. They could get a green card 6 years after graduating from high school if during that time they continue on to college or serve in the military.
If cloture fails, S. 2205 will be removed from the floor
Contact info for Arizona's Senators:
Jon Kyl (602) 840-1891 Washington (202) 224-4521 Fax (202) 224-2207
John McCain (602) 952-2410 Washington (202) 224-2235 Fax (202) 228-2862
And if the fact that it's a good bill isn't enough to make the bill worthy of support, remember this one fundamental truth -
If it passes, Republican Congressman and presidential candidate Tom Tancredo (R-CO) will be seriously pissed.
This is the loon who followed up last week's call for DNA testing of immigrants with a demand that ICE raid a Tuesday meeting at the Senate that was held in support of the DREAM Act.
His theory was that meeting-goers would be illegal immigrants.
ICE thought so much of his demand that they didn't show up.
Note: Man Eegee has a far more complete post about the DREAM Act here.
Later!
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Harry Mitchell and John Shadegg - getting their messages out to the people they represent
...sometimes, the Republicans just serve up the political equivalent of a batting practice fastball.
Earlier this week, the House unsurprisingly failed to override the President's veto of the SCHIP renewal bill.
Also unsurprising was the fact that Arizona Representatives John Shadegg (R-AZ3) and Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5) were on opposite sides of the vote.
And in yet another unsurprising development, they each wrote op/ed pieces on SCHIP, detailing their positions and opinions on the subject.
Harry Mitchell's piece was published in both the Arizona Republic and the East Valley Tribune (no link available), the papers of record in his district. Between the two outlets and the email he sent out, his district is thoroughly covered. People who voted for him, who voted for somebody else, or who didn't vote at all, were able to read it.
John Shadegg's piece?
It was in Investor's Business Daily.
At least we've gotta give him credit for touching base with his base, right? That must count for something, doesn't it??
...Not really.
Shadegg was hired to represent Arizona's 3rd Congressional District, not the healthcare and insurance industries (perhaps not coincidently, when it comes to campaign contributions, those are the two industry sectors that gave him the most $$$ in the last election cycle, according to opensecrets.org.)
Shadegg's opponent for 2008, Bob Lord, is scheduled to speak at the next meeting of the Arizona chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council this coming Thursday, October 25 at 7 p.m. The address is 6991 E. Camelback Rd. in Scottsdale. Contact Jerry at njdcphx[at]cox.net for more details.
Stop by and check out Bob's message. If you can't make it Thursday, surf by his website or contact the campaign at info[at]lord2008.com. Volunteers and contributions are always welcome.
Now, for anyone who missed it, Harry Mitchell's article, courtesy the email he sent out -
SCHIP opponents distort issue
By Rep. Harry Mitchell
We have a children's health care crisis in our country. The numbers are staggering: 9 million children, including 250,000 here in Arizona, do not have access to health insurance.
As a father, grandfather and former teacher who has seen first-hand the consequences of children without adequate health care, I believe we have a moral responsibility to solve this crisis. This is an important issue and worthy of honest debate.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program provides funding for states to decide how to best address local health care needs. In Arizona, SCHIP funds KidsCare, which currently ensures that 65,000 of Arizona's poorest children receive health care in the doctor's office instead of the emergency room.
I recently voted for, and Congress passed, bipartisan legislation to make that possible for 4 million more of the nation's 9 million uninsured children. It doesn't solve the crisis, but it is an important step forward. Here in Arizona, it means 81,000 more children would be covered through KidsCare. Unfortunately, the president defied calls from Republicans and Democrats alike, vetoed the bill and put those children at risk.
In recent weeks, children's health care opponents have used misleading information to scare others into falsely believing that Republicans and Democrats are working to shift upper middle-class children from private insurance to SCHIP.
This kind of misinformation has become widespread.
One of my colleagues, speaking on the House floor, inaccurately claimed that every new child covered through SCHIP would drop his or her private insurance. Specifically, my colleague said the bipartisan bill "will produce one person dropping private insurance for every one person who gets SCHIP insurance."
But that's simply not true. Earlier this month, I told a Valley newspaper that the false claim was a "phony argument" and "scare tactic." I stand by my words.
Just a few days ago, former state Sen. Tom Patterson wrote in the Tribune that "the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculates that at least half of the new beneficiaries of an expanded SCHIP would be families who are currently insured."
But that's not accurate, either. While his mistake may have been unintentional, Patterson seriously misrepresented the report. According to the CBO, whose report is available for the public at www.cbo.gov, the SCHIP legislation provides the resources to extend coverage to 4 million children who would otherwise go uninsured by 2012. About 3.5 million of these children already meet the states' current SCHIP coverage criteria.
As public servants, I believe we have an obligation to help inform as well as advocate, and the use of inaccurate and misleading information does not contribute to an open and honest debate. I believe, as do the vast majority of my constituents, that ensuring these 4 million children have access to health care is a much-needed and worthwhile investment.
As a teacher, I saw how children without adequate health care miss too many days of school because of illness. Children who miss too many classes are the most likely to drop out, and those who drop out are less likely to contribute to our economy, and more likely to commit crimes. Over time, that makes our neighborhoods less safe, and places an even heavier burden on taxpayers.
Some SCHIP opponents continue to accept government-supported health care for themselves, have voted to give themselves pay raises, and even delivered billions and billions of dollars in corporate welfare to the Big Oil industry. Yet, they actively work to deny health insurance to Arizona's poorest children. I believe that is wrong.
I will continue to work with Republicans and Democrats alike to solve this health care crisis and put Arizona's children first.
Later!
Earlier this week, the House unsurprisingly failed to override the President's veto of the SCHIP renewal bill.
Also unsurprising was the fact that Arizona Representatives John Shadegg (R-AZ3) and Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5) were on opposite sides of the vote.
And in yet another unsurprising development, they each wrote op/ed pieces on SCHIP, detailing their positions and opinions on the subject.
Harry Mitchell's piece was published in both the Arizona Republic and the East Valley Tribune (no link available), the papers of record in his district. Between the two outlets and the email he sent out, his district is thoroughly covered. People who voted for him, who voted for somebody else, or who didn't vote at all, were able to read it.
John Shadegg's piece?
It was in Investor's Business Daily.
At least we've gotta give him credit for touching base with his base, right? That must count for something, doesn't it??
...Not really.
Shadegg was hired to represent Arizona's 3rd Congressional District, not the healthcare and insurance industries (perhaps not coincidently, when it comes to campaign contributions, those are the two industry sectors that gave him the most $$$ in the last election cycle, according to opensecrets.org.)
Shadegg's opponent for 2008, Bob Lord, is scheduled to speak at the next meeting of the Arizona chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council this coming Thursday, October 25 at 7 p.m. The address is 6991 E. Camelback Rd. in Scottsdale. Contact Jerry at njdcphx[at]cox.net for more details.
Stop by and check out Bob's message. If you can't make it Thursday, surf by his website or contact the campaign at info[at]lord2008.com. Volunteers and contributions are always welcome.
Now, for anyone who missed it, Harry Mitchell's article, courtesy the email he sent out -
SCHIP opponents distort issue
By Rep. Harry Mitchell
We have a children's health care crisis in our country. The numbers are staggering: 9 million children, including 250,000 here in Arizona, do not have access to health insurance.
As a father, grandfather and former teacher who has seen first-hand the consequences of children without adequate health care, I believe we have a moral responsibility to solve this crisis. This is an important issue and worthy of honest debate.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program provides funding for states to decide how to best address local health care needs. In Arizona, SCHIP funds KidsCare, which currently ensures that 65,000 of Arizona's poorest children receive health care in the doctor's office instead of the emergency room.
I recently voted for, and Congress passed, bipartisan legislation to make that possible for 4 million more of the nation's 9 million uninsured children. It doesn't solve the crisis, but it is an important step forward. Here in Arizona, it means 81,000 more children would be covered through KidsCare. Unfortunately, the president defied calls from Republicans and Democrats alike, vetoed the bill and put those children at risk.
In recent weeks, children's health care opponents have used misleading information to scare others into falsely believing that Republicans and Democrats are working to shift upper middle-class children from private insurance to SCHIP.
This kind of misinformation has become widespread.
One of my colleagues, speaking on the House floor, inaccurately claimed that every new child covered through SCHIP would drop his or her private insurance. Specifically, my colleague said the bipartisan bill "will produce one person dropping private insurance for every one person who gets SCHIP insurance."
But that's simply not true. Earlier this month, I told a Valley newspaper that the false claim was a "phony argument" and "scare tactic." I stand by my words.
Just a few days ago, former state Sen. Tom Patterson wrote in the Tribune that "the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculates that at least half of the new beneficiaries of an expanded SCHIP would be families who are currently insured."
But that's not accurate, either. While his mistake may have been unintentional, Patterson seriously misrepresented the report. According to the CBO, whose report is available for the public at www.cbo.gov, the SCHIP legislation provides the resources to extend coverage to 4 million children who would otherwise go uninsured by 2012. About 3.5 million of these children already meet the states' current SCHIP coverage criteria.
As public servants, I believe we have an obligation to help inform as well as advocate, and the use of inaccurate and misleading information does not contribute to an open and honest debate. I believe, as do the vast majority of my constituents, that ensuring these 4 million children have access to health care is a much-needed and worthwhile investment.
As a teacher, I saw how children without adequate health care miss too many days of school because of illness. Children who miss too many classes are the most likely to drop out, and those who drop out are less likely to contribute to our economy, and more likely to commit crimes. Over time, that makes our neighborhoods less safe, and places an even heavier burden on taxpayers.
Some SCHIP opponents continue to accept government-supported health care for themselves, have voted to give themselves pay raises, and even delivered billions and billions of dollars in corporate welfare to the Big Oil industry. Yet, they actively work to deny health insurance to Arizona's poorest children. I believe that is wrong.
I will continue to work with Republicans and Democrats alike to solve this health care crisis and put Arizona's children first.
Later!
Good news/bad news - Arizona in the national spotlight
First the good news - Barack Obama visited Tempe on Friday, and absolutely rocked the crowd of more than 6000 at ASU's Hayden Lawn. Many of the students and other supporters were already in line when the volunteers staffing the event arrived hours before gates opened.
Turns out that was a good move - the main stage area of the event filled quickly once gates opened, and overflow areas were provided for many late arriving spectators.
The event has been covered pretty thoroughly in the AZ MSM; AZ Daily Star here, AZ Republic here, East Valley Tribune here.
Now, the bad news.
Actually, it's the "jaw-droppingly ugly" news.
Earlier this week, the Phoenix New Times broke the story of how the Maricopa County Attorney, Andrew Thomas, and his special prosecutor, Dennis Wilenchik, issued grand jury subpoenas demanding that the New Times turn over all documents relating to any story they've written about Thomas' saddle parter, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, since January 1, 2004. In addition, they demanded information about anyone who has viewed the New Times website.
In a fit of pique after the New Times dared to publish the article, on the orders of the county attorney's office, Maricopa County sheriff's deputies arrested the authors of the article, Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin, for revealing grand jury information.
Then, on Friday, perhaps sensing that a Category 5 sh!tstorm was bearing down on him for his brazen contempt for the Constitution, County Attorney Thomas dropped all charges against the
New Times, Lacey, and Larkin, throwing his 'special' prosecutor under the bus by blaming Wilenchik for "serious missteps" and removing him from the job.
A few questions to ponder...
...Were Lacey and Larkin actually arrested for the crime of 'revealing grand jury information? Or was their real "crime" that of "not suffering in silence" when power-drunk public officials used their offices to harass them?
...Is it now going to be standard County policy that anyone who dares criticize County officials (such as the Sheriff and County Attorney) will be subject to arrest?
...Has wanna-be governor Thomas realized that perhaps Joe Arpaio is *not* the best political mentor for someone who hopes to win a state-wide race?
...Christmas is coming - should we all chip in on a gift for Thomas?
I'd suggest his own, personal, copy of the Constitution.
With the Bill of Rights highlighted.
Later!
Turns out that was a good move - the main stage area of the event filled quickly once gates opened, and overflow areas were provided for many late arriving spectators.
The event has been covered pretty thoroughly in the AZ MSM; AZ Daily Star here, AZ Republic here, East Valley Tribune here.
Now, the bad news.
Actually, it's the "jaw-droppingly ugly" news.
Earlier this week, the Phoenix New Times broke the story of how the Maricopa County Attorney, Andrew Thomas, and his special prosecutor, Dennis Wilenchik, issued grand jury subpoenas demanding that the New Times turn over all documents relating to any story they've written about Thomas' saddle parter, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, since January 1, 2004. In addition, they demanded information about anyone who has viewed the New Times website.
In a fit of pique after the New Times dared to publish the article, on the orders of the county attorney's office, Maricopa County sheriff's deputies arrested the authors of the article, Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin, for revealing grand jury information.
Then, on Friday, perhaps sensing that a Category 5 sh!tstorm was bearing down on him for his brazen contempt for the Constitution, County Attorney Thomas dropped all charges against the
New Times, Lacey, and Larkin, throwing his 'special' prosecutor under the bus by blaming Wilenchik for "serious missteps" and removing him from the job.
A few questions to ponder...
...Were Lacey and Larkin actually arrested for the crime of 'revealing grand jury information? Or was their real "crime" that of "not suffering in silence" when power-drunk public officials used their offices to harass them?
...Is it now going to be standard County policy that anyone who dares criticize County officials (such as the Sheriff and County Attorney) will be subject to arrest?
...Has wanna-be governor Thomas realized that perhaps Joe Arpaio is *not* the best political mentor for someone who hopes to win a state-wide race?
...Christmas is coming - should we all chip in on a gift for Thomas?
I'd suggest his own, personal, copy of the Constitution.
With the Bill of Rights highlighted.
Later!
Thursday, October 18, 2007
The House of Representatives is brimming with bipartisan pride this week...
[A bit of a rant ahead...]
...with their consideration and passage, usually by voice vote or overwhelming majority, of a number of bills.
A closer examination of the record, however, shows that only the Republicans in the House have anything of which to be proud, dubious though that pride may be.
Let's see...
Monday was spent debating non-controversial facility-naming, memorial, and "we hate XYZ disease" bills.
Tuesday was filled with more of the same, with the additional consideration and passage of the high-sounding "Free Flow of Information Act" and a motion complaining about the "withholding of information relating to corruption in Iraq."
Wednesday was devoted to another memorial and to consideration and passage of the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act and the RESTORE Act (aka - FISA update bill).
Today, Thursday, a vote to override the President's veto of the SCHIP renewal bill was on the agenda.
So why are the Republicans proud of their week's work?
...The "disease" bills have no actual appropriations attached to them; they can take credit for the passage of the bills (mostly by voice vote) without having to pay for it. Wouldn't want anything to divert funds from the President's war in Iraq.
...The "Free Flow Of Information Act" is all but toothless (government or commercial attorneys can pierce the shield almost at will), and the 'sense of Congress' motion concerning information about corruption in Iraq *is* utterly powerless.
Both bills were passed by overwhelming margins; the Republicans will use the votes to claim that they support Constitutional protections of the freedom of the press and are against corruption in Iraq.
What they won't say is that they tried to kill both bills by strongly opposing the Rules resolutions that permitted and controlled debate on the bills and by supporting motions to recommit the bills.
The divisions on those efforts fell almost perfectly along party lines.
...The railroad safety act *was* a non-partisan bill, and though it too passed by a large margin, was similarly opposed by the Republicans fighting the Rules resolution and with a motion to recommit.
...As for the RESTORE Act, with its increased oversight of the President and his administration?
It was simply pulled from the floor, beaten back without even a vote.
...And today's coup-de-grace? The House, *led* by 154 Republicans, upheld the President's veto of SCHIP.
The truly sad part of all of this? The fact that the SCHIP veto override debate vote was the *cleanest* of the week - Congress passed a good bill, Bush vetoed it, and more than 75% of the Republican caucus joined together to protect that veto.
The bottom line is that is something the Democrats can take some pride in. They did their jobs. They fought for the best interests of their base, their constituents and constituents' children, and crafted a reasonable and effective bill. Bush and the Republicans fought for their base, corporate interests.
While the Republicans may spend the weekend crowing about their victory in this particular political battle, in the long run, it only contributes to the further electoral marginalization of the Republican Party.
Unfortunately, the SCHIP loss is the *only* thing that the Democrats in Congress can be even the slightest bit proud of this week.
Everything that did pass was either meaningless pap or watered-down to the point that it might just as well be meaningless pap.
Last night (10/17), on the "Live with Dan Abrams" show on MSNBC, there was another "Phoenix freezes over" moment that ties in with this.
Pat Buchanan, of all people, said something that was accurate and insightful.
From the transcript linked above (emphasis mine) -
He was speaking about the war in Iraq and the efforts of Democrats in Congress to rein in or end that war, but his statement is true in many areas other than the conduct of the war.
In all practical terms, the majority of Democrats in Congress have surrendered to the Bushies.
Congressional leaders, when wondering why their job approval poll ratings are so low, should consider that when they were given control of Congress in the 2006 elections, it was to change things for the better in a very broken D.C.
Not to be "Republicans-lite" and appease or even actively collaborate with the Bushies (no, I haven't forgotten the 41 Democrats, mostly Blue Dogs, who sided with the President during the August FISA vote.)
In the end, the most disappointing thing about this Congress isn't the fact that they haven't succeeded in ending the war or in reining in Bush; it's that for the most part, they aren't even seriously trying to do so.
End rant.
...with their consideration and passage, usually by voice vote or overwhelming majority, of a number of bills.
A closer examination of the record, however, shows that only the Republicans in the House have anything of which to be proud, dubious though that pride may be.
Let's see...
Monday was spent debating non-controversial facility-naming, memorial, and "we hate XYZ disease" bills.
Tuesday was filled with more of the same, with the additional consideration and passage of the high-sounding "Free Flow of Information Act" and a motion complaining about the "withholding of information relating to corruption in Iraq."
Wednesday was devoted to another memorial and to consideration and passage of the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act and the RESTORE Act (aka - FISA update bill).
Today, Thursday, a vote to override the President's veto of the SCHIP renewal bill was on the agenda.
So why are the Republicans proud of their week's work?
...The "disease" bills have no actual appropriations attached to them; they can take credit for the passage of the bills (mostly by voice vote) without having to pay for it. Wouldn't want anything to divert funds from the President's war in Iraq.
...The "Free Flow Of Information Act" is all but toothless (government or commercial attorneys can pierce the shield almost at will), and the 'sense of Congress' motion concerning information about corruption in Iraq *is* utterly powerless.
Both bills were passed by overwhelming margins; the Republicans will use the votes to claim that they support Constitutional protections of the freedom of the press and are against corruption in Iraq.
What they won't say is that they tried to kill both bills by strongly opposing the Rules resolutions that permitted and controlled debate on the bills and by supporting motions to recommit the bills.
The divisions on those efforts fell almost perfectly along party lines.
...The railroad safety act *was* a non-partisan bill, and though it too passed by a large margin, was similarly opposed by the Republicans fighting the Rules resolution and with a motion to recommit.
...As for the RESTORE Act, with its increased oversight of the President and his administration?
It was simply pulled from the floor, beaten back without even a vote.
...And today's coup-de-grace? The House, *led* by 154 Republicans, upheld the President's veto of SCHIP.
The truly sad part of all of this? The fact that the SCHIP veto override debate vote was the *cleanest* of the week - Congress passed a good bill, Bush vetoed it, and more than 75% of the Republican caucus joined together to protect that veto.
The bottom line is that is something the Democrats can take some pride in. They did their jobs. They fought for the best interests of their base, their constituents and constituents' children, and crafted a reasonable and effective bill. Bush and the Republicans fought for their base, corporate interests.
While the Republicans may spend the weekend crowing about their victory in this particular political battle, in the long run, it only contributes to the further electoral marginalization of the Republican Party.
Unfortunately, the SCHIP loss is the *only* thing that the Democrats in Congress can be even the slightest bit proud of this week.
Everything that did pass was either meaningless pap or watered-down to the point that it might just as well be meaningless pap.
Last night (10/17), on the "Live with Dan Abrams" show on MSNBC, there was another "Phoenix freezes over" moment that ties in with this.
Pat Buchanan, of all people, said something that was accurate and insightful.
From the transcript linked above (emphasis mine) -
No, what the president is saying he says the Congress agree with you, it‘s hyperbole but the Congress has acquiesced in the Bush policy. Resistance has been broken.
He was speaking about the war in Iraq and the efforts of Democrats in Congress to rein in or end that war, but his statement is true in many areas other than the conduct of the war.
In all practical terms, the majority of Democrats in Congress have surrendered to the Bushies.
Congressional leaders, when wondering why their job approval poll ratings are so low, should consider that when they were given control of Congress in the 2006 elections, it was to change things for the better in a very broken D.C.
Not to be "Republicans-lite" and appease or even actively collaborate with the Bushies (no, I haven't forgotten the 41 Democrats, mostly Blue Dogs, who sided with the President during the August FISA vote.)
In the end, the most disappointing thing about this Congress isn't the fact that they haven't succeeded in ending the war or in reining in Bush; it's that for the most part, they aren't even seriously trying to do so.
End rant.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Well, at least one AZ Republican understands 'resign to run' ...
...of course, since he's leaving the job of Maricopa County Treasurer, no one will really notice.
(That's not really a personal shot at Mr. Schweikert; until he was mentioned as a potential CD5 candidate, I had *no* idea that the County Treasurer position was an elected one, much less who held the job. In short, it's a *very* low profile position.)
On Tuesday, 1st-term County Treasurer David Schweikert announced his resignation from the job with a little more than a year left in his term.
He is one of the many Republicans lining up to try to unseat Harry Mitchell in next year's CD5 race.
While Schweikert didn't officially announce his candidacy (that will come after he actually leaves office next Monday), his resignation letter reads more like a campaign statement than a letter ending his term of public service to the citizens of Maricopa County.
From the letter (courtesy the East Valley Tribune) -
OK, so maybe I cherry-picked his letter a little. :)) When his campaign becomes official, I'm sure he'll hire a decent writer as his press secretary.
Or at least someone who knows how to use 'spell check.' :)
Seriously though, his letter *was* a campaign statement, with roughly 70% of the letter devoted to touting his "accomplishments" in Republican-speak - aka "downsize" and "privatize."
The letter, in fact, reads a lot like the introductory statement on his 'exploratory' website, though, for obvious reasons, with a stronger emphasis on his activities in the county treasurer's office.
The EV Trib story on the resignation is here.
The AZ Rep's Plugged-In has coverage here.
(That's not really a personal shot at Mr. Schweikert; until he was mentioned as a potential CD5 candidate, I had *no* idea that the County Treasurer position was an elected one, much less who held the job. In short, it's a *very* low profile position.)
On Tuesday, 1st-term County Treasurer David Schweikert announced his resignation from the job with a little more than a year left in his term.
He is one of the many Republicans lining up to try to unseat Harry Mitchell in next year's CD5 race.
While Schweikert didn't officially announce his candidacy (that will come after he actually leaves office next Monday), his resignation letter reads more like a campaign statement than a letter ending his term of public service to the citizens of Maricopa County.
From the letter (courtesy the East Valley Tribune) -
"Most importantly we made the office a shinning (sic) example of how government should operate."
OK, so maybe I cherry-picked his letter a little. :)) When his campaign becomes official, I'm sure he'll hire a decent writer as his press secretary.
Or at least someone who knows how to use 'spell check.' :)
Seriously though, his letter *was* a campaign statement, with roughly 70% of the letter devoted to touting his "accomplishments" in Republican-speak - aka "downsize" and "privatize."
The letter, in fact, reads a lot like the introductory statement on his 'exploratory' website, though, for obvious reasons, with a stronger emphasis on his activities in the county treasurer's office.
The EV Trib story on the resignation is here.
The AZ Rep's Plugged-In has coverage here.
Obama and Richardson events in the valley
...On Friday, October 19 (i.e.- this Friday!), Senator Barack Obama will appear at ASU for a free Rally for Change.
Event details -
Rally for Change in Arizona
Friday, October 19
Hayden Lawn, on ASU's Tempe Campus
Gates open at 10:00 a.m.
To RSVP, please visit: http://www.barackobama.com/arizonarally
After the rally, Senator Obama will appear at a fundraiser at the Wyndham Phoenix.
Obama's Arizona website here; the Obama campaign's HQ is at 22 E. Mitchell (directions: From Osborn & 3rd St, travel north one street and g oleft. Single- story building is gray with a red awning.)
...On Saturday, October 27, Governor Bill Richardson will appear in both Phoenix and Tucson.
The details of the Phoenix event -
A "Fajita Fundraiser" with Governor Bill Richardson
Saturday October 27th
2:00 pm to 4:00 pm
IBEW Building
5808 North 7th Street
Phoenix AZ 85014
Enjoy great food, including chicken and beef fajitas, red chili burros, vegetarian chimichangas and all the trimmings provided by our friends at Mi Patio Restaurant (at 7th Avenue and Osborn); plates are $10 each and all proceeds go to the Richardson for President campaign.
If any of the other Democratic campaign want their eventsinfo posted, email me at cpmaz[at]yahoo.com.
Later!
Event details -
Rally for Change in Arizona
Friday, October 19
Hayden Lawn, on ASU's Tempe Campus
Gates open at 10:00 a.m.
To RSVP, please visit: http://www.barackobama.com/arizonarally
After the rally, Senator Obama will appear at a fundraiser at the Wyndham Phoenix.
Obama's Arizona website here; the Obama campaign's HQ is at 22 E. Mitchell (directions: From Osborn & 3rd St, travel north one street and g oleft. Single- story building is gray with a red awning.)
...On Saturday, October 27, Governor Bill Richardson will appear in both Phoenix and Tucson.
The details of the Phoenix event -
A "Fajita Fundraiser" with Governor Bill Richardson
Saturday October 27th
2:00 pm to 4:00 pm
IBEW Building
5808 North 7th Street
Phoenix AZ 85014
Enjoy great food, including chicken and beef fajitas, red chili burros, vegetarian chimichangas and all the trimmings provided by our friends at Mi Patio Restaurant (at 7th Avenue and Osborn); plates are $10 each and all proceeds go to the Richardson for President campaign.
If any of the other Democratic campaign want their eventsinfo posted, email me at cpmaz[at]yahoo.com.
Later!
Monday, October 15, 2007
Dean Martin - State Treasurer, Investigation Subject, ...and Traffic Builder?
This blog has been getting a higher-than-normal number of hits today, with a number of hits based on searches for "Dean Martin Arizona Treasurer" or some variation thereof.
I wasn't what was behind the traffic jump until I visited the website of the East Valley Tribune and found this headline and story -
The 'longtime critic' mentioned in the Trib piece is Bob Haran, who I mentioned in my most recent post on the Martin investigation and in my earlier posts on these same allegations here, here, and here.
In the end, the now-federal investigation may only prove that Mr. Martin is unethical, but is that a character trait that we want in a state treasurer?
The bottom line is that he's a fraud scandal and indictment waiting to happen.
Later!
I wasn't what was behind the traffic jump until I visited the website of the East Valley Tribune and found this headline and story -
AG probe into Martin focuses on campaign money
A new complaint involving old allegations from a longtime critic of state Treasurer Dean Martin triggered the short-lived investigation into Martin’s finances by Attorney General Terry Goddard’s office.
The 'longtime critic' mentioned in the Trib piece is Bob Haran, who I mentioned in my most recent post on the Martin investigation and in my earlier posts on these same allegations here, here, and here.
In the end, the now-federal investigation may only prove that Mr. Martin is unethical, but is that a character trait that we want in a state treasurer?
The bottom line is that he's a fraud scandal and indictment waiting to happen.
Later!
Quarterly FEC reports - updated
Updated on 10/16 with every incumbent now reporting; many of those who are just 'exploring' haven't filed yet. Many of those, because of the timing of their organization, won't *have* to report until after the first of the year.
Key: Candidate name, affiliation ( * signifies incumbents) - total contributions, PAC and other committee $, individual contributions, cash on hand
CD1
Rick Renzi, Republican* - $1,200; $1,000; $200; $2,085.59
Note: Renzi still owes over $100K in legal fees from earlier in the year.
Ann Kirkpatrick, Democrat - $217,050.00; $1,000; $216,050.00; $173,227.81
Sydney Hay, Republican - $57,933.81; $0; $57,933.81; $106,267.60
Note: $50,000 of Ms. Hay's fundraising came in the form of a loan to the campaign by the candidate.
Howard Shanker, Democrat - $18,160.24; $0; $18,160.24; $9,367.88
Note: $2,586.34 of his total came from the candidate and the campaign owes $9,300 on a credit card.
Ellen Simon, Democrat - $1,550.00; $0; $1,550.00; $4.41
Note: All $1,550 of Ms. Simon's funds came from the candidate herself.
CD1 note: To borrow a phrase from the film "Bull Durham" - Ms. Kirkpatrick has "announced [her] presence with authority." Her strong quarter sends a loud message both to potential Democratic primary opponents and potential Republican opposition in the general. Her candidacy is for real, and anyone thinking of jumping into the race (either side of the aisle) better be prepared for the long haul.
CD2
Trent Franks, Republican* - $49563.00, $23,500, $26,063.00, $72,153.87
John Thrasher, Democrat - $2,218.51; $0; $2,215.00; $3,619.87
CD3
Bob Lord, Democrat - $142,133.52; $5,000.00; $137,133.52; $332,189.52
John Shadegg, Republican* - $192,653.00; $36,400.00; $156,253.00; $450,930.26
Annie Loyd, Independent - $12,139.24; 0; $12,139.24; $5,001.16
Bob Stump, Republican - $0; $0; $0; $13,484.68
CD3 notes: You know that Independent Loyd has an uphill fight when the numbers show that her active campaign has less cash on hand than the inactive (for many years) campaign of Republican Stump. Also, the Lord campaign seems to have legs; while the incumbent Shadegg has outraised him and leads in COH, the differences are fairly insignificant, especially when the majority of the fundraising difference is rooted in Shadegg's advantage in PAC money.
This one is going to be a real race and one to keep an eye on.
Note on the note - Mr. Lord will be speaking at the next meeting of the Arizona chapter of the National Jewish Democratic on next Thursday. More on that in my "events calendar" post later this week.
CD4
Ed Pastor, Democrat* - $53,935.94; $39,190.94; $14,745.00; $1,229,812.71
CD5
Harry Mitchell, Democrat* - $354,638.52; $140,470.52; $214,168.00
Laura Knaperek, Republican - $30,700.00; $0; $30,700.00; $28,846.25
JD Hayworth, Republican - $0; $0; $0, $20,279.70
Larry King, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $0
CD5 Note: Laura Knaperek's max contributors ($4600) include Ken Kendrick, owner of the Diamondbacks, and Randy Kendrick, lawyer. Other contributors include Nathan Sproul (Arizona's version of Karl Rove) and his wife Tiffani, who gave $2300 each.
CD6
Jeff Flake, Republican - $225,765.78; $22,500.00; $203,265.78; $749,738.38
CD7
Raul Grijalva, Democrat* - $63,122.02; $0; $63,122.02; $94,425.00
CD8
Eva Bacal, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $2,957.80
Tim Bee, Republican - $134,620.00; $0; $134,620.00; $119,316.25
Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat* - $257,800.05; $96,548.41; $161,251.64; $1,126,838.82
Note: Giffords' info has been corrected by an update; a previous "October" report that was filed in September is NOT the October quarterly report. Oops - I should've caught that in my original post. :(
CD8 note: With a cash on hand total that is slightly more than 10% of Gabrielle Giffords', the fundraising effort of sitting State Senate President Bee can only be termed as "disappointing" for the Republicans.
Of course, I'm a Democrat. :)))))
Yet another note: Some other blogs have reported numbers for other candidates (Sonoran Alliance post on the Ogsbury campaign in CD5 here) but until the FEC posts them, I won't list them. I'm not saying that SA has it wrong (their source is an email from the campaign, which is good enough for me) but I want to be consistent. The numbers that candidates tout to their supporters can be different than the ones they report to the FEC.
The FEC numbers count more. :))
A Sonoran Alliance post on the significance of the numbers in CD5 and CD8 here.
A Sustainablity, Equity, Development post on CD8 is here.
Later!
Key: Candidate name, affiliation ( * signifies incumbents) - total contributions, PAC and other committee $, individual contributions, cash on hand
CD1
Rick Renzi, Republican* - $1,200; $1,000; $200; $2,085.59
Note: Renzi still owes over $100K in legal fees from earlier in the year.
Ann Kirkpatrick, Democrat - $217,050.00; $1,000; $216,050.00; $173,227.81
Sydney Hay, Republican - $57,933.81; $0; $57,933.81; $106,267.60
Note: $50,000 of Ms. Hay's fundraising came in the form of a loan to the campaign by the candidate.
Howard Shanker, Democrat - $18,160.24; $0; $18,160.24; $9,367.88
Note: $2,586.34 of his total came from the candidate and the campaign owes $9,300 on a credit card.
Ellen Simon, Democrat - $1,550.00; $0; $1,550.00; $4.41
Note: All $1,550 of Ms. Simon's funds came from the candidate herself.
CD1 note: To borrow a phrase from the film "Bull Durham" - Ms. Kirkpatrick has "announced [her] presence with authority." Her strong quarter sends a loud message both to potential Democratic primary opponents and potential Republican opposition in the general. Her candidacy is for real, and anyone thinking of jumping into the race (either side of the aisle) better be prepared for the long haul.
CD2
Trent Franks, Republican* - $49563.00, $23,500, $26,063.00, $72,153.87
John Thrasher, Democrat - $2,218.51; $0; $2,215.00; $3,619.87
CD3
Bob Lord, Democrat - $142,133.52; $5,000.00; $137,133.52; $332,189.52
John Shadegg, Republican* - $192,653.00; $36,400.00; $156,253.00; $450,930.26
Annie Loyd, Independent - $12,139.24; 0; $12,139.24; $5,001.16
Bob Stump, Republican - $0; $0; $0; $13,484.68
CD3 notes: You know that Independent Loyd has an uphill fight when the numbers show that her active campaign has less cash on hand than the inactive (for many years) campaign of Republican Stump. Also, the Lord campaign seems to have legs; while the incumbent Shadegg has outraised him and leads in COH, the differences are fairly insignificant, especially when the majority of the fundraising difference is rooted in Shadegg's advantage in PAC money.
This one is going to be a real race and one to keep an eye on.
Note on the note - Mr. Lord will be speaking at the next meeting of the Arizona chapter of the National Jewish Democratic on next Thursday. More on that in my "events calendar" post later this week.
CD4
Ed Pastor, Democrat* - $53,935.94; $39,190.94; $14,745.00; $1,229,812.71
CD5
Harry Mitchell, Democrat* - $354,638.52; $140,470.52; $214,168.00
Laura Knaperek, Republican - $30,700.00; $0; $30,700.00; $28,846.25
JD Hayworth, Republican - $0; $0; $0, $20,279.70
Larry King, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $0
CD5 Note: Laura Knaperek's max contributors ($4600) include Ken Kendrick, owner of the Diamondbacks, and Randy Kendrick, lawyer. Other contributors include Nathan Sproul (Arizona's version of Karl Rove) and his wife Tiffani, who gave $2300 each.
CD6
Jeff Flake, Republican - $225,765.78; $22,500.00; $203,265.78; $749,738.38
CD7
Raul Grijalva, Democrat* - $63,122.02; $0; $63,122.02; $94,425.00
CD8
Eva Bacal, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $2,957.80
Tim Bee, Republican - $134,620.00; $0; $134,620.00; $119,316.25
Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat* - $257,800.05; $96,548.41; $161,251.64; $1,126,838.82
Note: Giffords' info has been corrected by an update; a previous "October" report that was filed in September is NOT the October quarterly report. Oops - I should've caught that in my original post. :(
CD8 note: With a cash on hand total that is slightly more than 10% of Gabrielle Giffords', the fundraising effort of sitting State Senate President Bee can only be termed as "disappointing" for the Republicans.
Of course, I'm a Democrat. :)))))
Yet another note: Some other blogs have reported numbers for other candidates (Sonoran Alliance post on the Ogsbury campaign in CD5 here) but until the FEC posts them, I won't list them. I'm not saying that SA has it wrong (their source is an email from the campaign, which is good enough for me) but I want to be consistent. The numbers that candidates tout to their supporters can be different than the ones they report to the FEC.
The FEC numbers count more. :))
A Sonoran Alliance post on the significance of the numbers in CD5 and CD8 here.
A Sustainablity, Equity, Development post on CD8 is here.
Later!
Sunday, October 14, 2007
There's a fine line between wicked irony and utter cluelessness
and which side of that line do you think Bush's Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice falls on?
Consider some of the statements that she made concerning a certain world leader and his government (courtesy a Department of State transcript) (note: I've replaced specific name references to the subject country with 'XXX') -
As most of you probably know, she was talking about Russian President Putin. However, all of the Russian references that were replaced by "XXX" (words like Russia, Russian, Kremlin, Duma) could easily have been replaced with U.S.A, American, White House, and Congress, etc., and the statements would still be accurate.
So, any speculation? Was she being ironic or just clueless?
AP, via CNN.com, coverage here.
A number of other blogs caught this one too - like The Blue State, The One With Aldacron, and The Agonist, among others.
I'd have been quicker with this post, but work beckoned. :))
Later!
Consider some of the statements that she made concerning a certain world leader and his government (courtesy a Department of State transcript) (note: I've replaced specific name references to the subject country with 'XXX') -
[Rice] But I've continued to make what I think are the essential points. There are issues of human rights and we've been concerned and I've talked a good deal about the problems of individuals, journalists and others, who have had difficulty. But there are also institutional issues, issues about the -- in a presidential system not having strong institutions, countervailing institutions, to the presidency. And I've been very open about the concerns that that raises in any country, not just in XXX but in any country. If you don't have countervailing institutions, then the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development.
QUESTION: They gave a very long list of all the problems they're facing -- NGO restrictions, anti-terrorism measures that are used against political opposition. I mean, did you come away with that given a sense -- with a sense that the U.S. can do anything to reverse it or are you left with this at the end of the your tenure?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, I thought that one interesting comment was that, if you remember, we worked very hard on the NGO law, and the comment was that it -- the law itself, like many laws, are not so bad, that the question is really implementation and concerns really that for larger human rights groups who can deal with some of the bureaucratic issues, they can get through them, but concerns about very small human rights groups. And so that's a place to work and to see if we can prevail upon the Russian Government to be more forward leaning and less bureaucratic for smaller groups.
[Rice] But I think this country is in the process of developing its institutions and developing the relationship of those institutions to each other and the relationship of the government to the citizens, and the ability of citizens themselves to engage in meaningful political activities. And so I'm always very concerned that there be space for citizens, XXX citizens, to organize themselves in order to be able to petition their government.
[Rice] This is a country in the midst of a big transition. And I think some of the aspects of that transition have made the YYY-XXX relationship more difficult. For instance, clearly some of the ways in which the oil and gas industry have developed here with very close connections to the politics, with concerns about whether or not contracts are stable, with concerns about the use of energy for political motivation, have introduced strains into the relationship.
[Rice] Ultimately, democratic guarantees come from institutional development. Democratic governance comes from a president who can never be too strong because there will always be a congress or a parliament to check him or her, because there will be an independent media to shed light on what is going on.
[Rice] I've said that I think there's too much concentration of power in the XXX. And I've told the XXX that. I've said it publicly before. Because it's just the absence of -- I think everybody has doubts about the independence, full independence, of the judiciary...but on a lot of very high-profile cases I think there are questions about the independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media...
As most of you probably know, she was talking about Russian President Putin. However, all of the Russian references that were replaced by "XXX" (words like Russia, Russian, Kremlin, Duma) could easily have been replaced with U.S.A, American, White House, and Congress, etc., and the statements would still be accurate.
So, any speculation? Was she being ironic or just clueless?
AP, via CNN.com, coverage here.
A number of other blogs caught this one too - like The Blue State, The One With Aldacron, and The Agonist, among others.
I'd have been quicker with this post, but work beckoned. :))
Later!
Saturday, October 13, 2007
House bill HR2102, an open attack on bloggers, reaches the House floor next week
H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act, a bill that I've written about before (here, here, and here) hits the House floor next week, after a brief stop in the Rules Committee.
As I wrote in late August, as submitted the bill would craft a fairly general federal journalist's shield law; as amended in the Judiciary Committee, it would restrict that shield to "professional" journalists only.
From Section 4 of H.R. 2102 as introduced -
From Section 4 of H.R. 2102 as amended (emphasis mine) -
The 'financial gain or livelihood' language clearly targets non-commercial journalists such as bloggers.
During the Judiciary Committee's deliberations on the amendment, the desire to craft a shield that couldn't be used by terrorists was cited as the justification for the restriction.
However, a couple of clauses in the amended version of the bill give lie to that rationalization, and point toward another motivation - protecting corporate media organizations from burgeoning competition from amateurs on the internet.
First, paragraph 2 of the amended definition of “covered persons” already specifically provides exceptions to the shield for foreign powers, agents of foreign powers, and designated terrorist organizations. As such, the financial gain language is unnecessary.
Second, clause C of paragraph 3 in section 2 of the amended bill overtly places the interests of commercial entities on par with the interests of public safety and national security.
Even in its current form, however, the bill is only a tepid, ineffectual one. A couple of propsed amendments submitted to the Rules Committee seek to turn the current weak bill into an abomination.
From the amendment proposed by Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia -
It was thought by many, including some members of the Judiciary Committee, that the original amendment would still cover many bloggers because many (though not me!) derive a small income from advertisements on their websites. Adding "substantial" to the financial gain language is an open attempt to close that avenue to protection.
Additionally, the amendment submitted by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas would lower the threshold of significance that the government would have to meet to compel disclosure of a source. It would lower the threshold so much that disclosure of the source would no longer have to be "critical" or "necessary" to the government's case, just "helpful" or "important."
In short, these amendments would render meaningless the shield crafted by the underlying bill.
Earlier this evening, I wrote a letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell expressing my concerns with the amended bill and the proposed further amendments. In addition, I urged him to try to restore the 'covered persons' definition to its broader original language and to fight the further amendments submitted by Boucher and Smith.
I now urge every blogger and everyone who cherishes true freedom of the press to contact their own Congressional representative, and to do so as soon as possible. The bill is before the Rules Committee on Monday at 5:00 p.m. EDT, and can reache the House floor shortly after that, possibly as soon as Tuesday.
A few other notes on the issue -
...When I called the Judiciary Committee staff in August asking for the specific language in the amendment, they repeatedly put me off, saying that it would be posted in THOMAS within a week or two.
The hearing was on the first of August; the amendment was posted in THOMAS on the 10th of October.
They also later told me that the bill was *not* amended in committee, that an amendment was only discussed and not approved. I thought then that the statement was a lie.
I now *know* it was a lie.
...There is a related bill in the Senate, S. 2035. It contains the original, broader, definition of "covered persons" that doesn't have the financial gain language.
However, in perhaps the least surprising move of the year, Arizona's anti-open government activist Senator Kyl is fighting it tooth-and-nail; don't hold your breath on that bill ever passing the Senate in anything resembling an effective form.
In summary, HR2102 is a weak bill that certain Republicans (what? You though Boucher and Smith were Democrats?!? LOL) are trying to water-down even more. Get the word out to other bloggers and interested folks -
Contact your Congresscritters!! Let them know that you think this bill is already too weak!
Thanks for reading this long post all the way through!
Later!
As I wrote in late August, as submitted the bill would craft a fairly general federal journalist's shield law; as amended in the Judiciary Committee, it would restrict that shield to "professional" journalists only.
From Section 4 of H.R. 2102 as introduced -
(2) COVERED PERSON- The term `covered person' means a person engaged in journalism and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.
From Section 4 of H.R. 2102 as amended (emphasis mine) -
(2) COVERED PERSON- The term 'covered person' means a person who, for financial gain or livelihood, is engaged in journalism and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person.
The 'financial gain or livelihood' language clearly targets non-commercial journalists such as bloggers.
During the Judiciary Committee's deliberations on the amendment, the desire to craft a shield that couldn't be used by terrorists was cited as the justification for the restriction.
However, a couple of clauses in the amended version of the bill give lie to that rationalization, and point toward another motivation - protecting corporate media organizations from burgeoning competition from amateurs on the internet.
First, paragraph 2 of the amended definition of “covered persons” already specifically provides exceptions to the shield for foreign powers, agents of foreign powers, and designated terrorist organizations. As such, the financial gain language is unnecessary.
Second, clause C of paragraph 3 in section 2 of the amended bill overtly places the interests of commercial entities on par with the interests of public safety and national security.
Even in its current form, however, the bill is only a tepid, ineffectual one. A couple of propsed amendments submitted to the Rules Committee seek to turn the current weak bill into an abomination.
From the amendment proposed by Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia -
Covered Person – The term "covered person" means a person who regularly gathers, prepares...for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain...
It was thought by many, including some members of the Judiciary Committee, that the original amendment would still cover many bloggers because many (though not me!) derive a small income from advertisements on their websites. Adding "substantial" to the financial gain language is an open attempt to close that avenue to protection.
Additionally, the amendment submitted by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas would lower the threshold of significance that the government would have to meet to compel disclosure of a source. It would lower the threshold so much that disclosure of the source would no longer have to be "critical" or "necessary" to the government's case, just "helpful" or "important."
In short, these amendments would render meaningless the shield crafted by the underlying bill.
Earlier this evening, I wrote a letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell expressing my concerns with the amended bill and the proposed further amendments. In addition, I urged him to try to restore the 'covered persons' definition to its broader original language and to fight the further amendments submitted by Boucher and Smith.
I now urge every blogger and everyone who cherishes true freedom of the press to contact their own Congressional representative, and to do so as soon as possible. The bill is before the Rules Committee on Monday at 5:00 p.m. EDT, and can reache the House floor shortly after that, possibly as soon as Tuesday.
A few other notes on the issue -
...When I called the Judiciary Committee staff in August asking for the specific language in the amendment, they repeatedly put me off, saying that it would be posted in THOMAS within a week or two.
The hearing was on the first of August; the amendment was posted in THOMAS on the 10th of October.
They also later told me that the bill was *not* amended in committee, that an amendment was only discussed and not approved. I thought then that the statement was a lie.
I now *know* it was a lie.
...There is a related bill in the Senate, S. 2035. It contains the original, broader, definition of "covered persons" that doesn't have the financial gain language.
However, in perhaps the least surprising move of the year, Arizona's anti-open government activist Senator Kyl is fighting it tooth-and-nail; don't hold your breath on that bill ever passing the Senate in anything resembling an effective form.
In summary, HR2102 is a weak bill that certain Republicans (what? You though Boucher and Smith were Democrats?!? LOL) are trying to water-down even more. Get the word out to other bloggers and interested folks -
Contact your Congresscritters!! Let them know that you think this bill is already too weak!
Thanks for reading this long post all the way through!
Later!
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Quarterly FEC filings are rolling in...
from the various Congressional campaigns. The list isn't complete (the due date is the 15th) but here's a partial summary of reports from active committees (not necessarily active candidates) -
Key: Candidate name, affiliation - total contributions, PAC $, individual contributions, cash on hand
CD1
CD2
Trent Franks, Republican - $49563.00, $23,500, $26,063.00, $72,153.87
John Thrasher, Democrat - $2,218.51; $0; $2,215.00; $3,619.87
CD3
Annie Loyd, Independent - $12139.24; 0; $12139.24; $5001.16
CD4
Ed Pastor, Democrat - $53,935.94; $39,190.94; $14,745.00; $1,229,812.71
CD5
Laura Knaperek, Republican - $30,700.00; $0; $30,700.00; $28,846.25
Larry King, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $0
CD5 Note: Laura Knaperek's max contributors ($4600) include Ken Kendrick, owner of the Diamondbacks, and Randy Kendrick, lawyer. Other contributors include Nathan Sproul (Arizona's version of Karl Rove) and his wife Tiffani, who gave $2300 each.
CD6
CD7
CD8
Eva Bacal, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $2,957.80
Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat - $663,297.91; $228,891.49; $434,406.42; $407,041.71
Yet another note: Some other blogs have reported numbers for other candidates (Sonoran Alliance post on the Ogsbury campaign in CD5 here) but until the FEC posts them, I won't list them. I'm not saying that SA has it wrong (their source is an email from the campaign, which is good enough for me) but I want to be consistent. The numbers that candidates tout to their supporters can be different than the ones they report to the FEC.
The FEC numbers count more. :))
Yes, it's a little early for this post, but I work weekends and won't have the time to do a more complete post until early next week.
Key: Candidate name, affiliation - total contributions, PAC $, individual contributions, cash on hand
CD1
CD2
Trent Franks, Republican - $49563.00, $23,500, $26,063.00, $72,153.87
John Thrasher, Democrat - $2,218.51; $0; $2,215.00; $3,619.87
CD3
Annie Loyd, Independent - $12139.24; 0; $12139.24; $5001.16
CD4
Ed Pastor, Democrat - $53,935.94; $39,190.94; $14,745.00; $1,229,812.71
CD5
Laura Knaperek, Republican - $30,700.00; $0; $30,700.00; $28,846.25
Larry King, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $0
CD5 Note: Laura Knaperek's max contributors ($4600) include Ken Kendrick, owner of the Diamondbacks, and Randy Kendrick, lawyer. Other contributors include Nathan Sproul (Arizona's version of Karl Rove) and his wife Tiffani, who gave $2300 each.
CD6
CD7
CD8
Eva Bacal, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $2,957.80
Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat - $663,297.91; $228,891.49; $434,406.42; $407,041.71
Yet another note: Some other blogs have reported numbers for other candidates (Sonoran Alliance post on the Ogsbury campaign in CD5 here) but until the FEC posts them, I won't list them. I'm not saying that SA has it wrong (their source is an email from the campaign, which is good enough for me) but I want to be consistent. The numbers that candidates tout to their supporters can be different than the ones they report to the FEC.
The FEC numbers count more. :))
Yes, it's a little early for this post, but I work weekends and won't have the time to do a more complete post until early next week.
Candidate visits and other events calendar
Friday, October 12 - Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter appears in Scottsdale.
Time: 6:30 - 8:30 p.m.
Location: New Vision Spiritual Growth Center, 9659 N. Hayden Rd. (SE Corner of Hayden & Mountain View)
More info here.
Friday October 12 - The Big Picture Film Series and the LD17 Democrats present the documentary "In Debt We Trust."
Time: 3:30 p.m.
Location: Room 170, Coor Building, ASU.
Saturday, October 13 - Democratic State Committee Meeting in Tucson
Time: 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.
Location: Tucson High School, 400 North Second Avenue, Tucson.
Thursday, October 18 - The Big Picture Film Series and the D17 Democrats present the film "Invisible Ballots." The film addresses concerns about electronic voting and the lack of a paper trail. It is an in-depth analysis of the "privatization" of voting in America.
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: Room 170, Coor Building, ASU.
Thursday, October 18 - The D8 Democrats present speaker Cynthia Black, producer and host of "Action Point--Solution Politics" on KPHX radio, 1480 AM.
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Location: Mustang Library, 10101 N. 90th St., Scottsdale.
Friday, October 19 - Campaign appearance by Senator Barack Obama in Tempe.
Time: 11:00 a.m.
Location: TBA, details available soon at Arizonans for Obama.
Edit to add: Jeff Berlinsky, Obama supporter and owner of the Sub-Culture Cafe in Tempe, has a sandwich named after Senator Obama, the "Commander In Cheese." It is made with Oven Gold Turkey, American Cheese, Lettuce and Tomato. For each "Commander In Cheese" sold, he will contribute $1 to the Obama campaign.
The Sub-Culture Cafe is located at 227 E Baseline Rd., Suite J7, Tempe.
End edit...
Also on Friday, October 19 - Obama for President fundraiser in Phoenix.
Time: 12:30 p.m.
Location: Wyndham Phoenix, 50 E. Adams, Phoenix
Details: https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/phoenix1019
Note: The Arizona headquarters of the Obama campaign is now open. It is located at 22 E Mitchell Dr., Phoenix, AZ 85012 (Directions: From Osborn & 3rd St, travel north one street and g oleft. Single- story building is gray with a red awning.)
Web site: arizona.barackobama.com
Friday, October 26 - The D8 Democrats present "Friday Night at the Movies" in Fountain Hills. This month's movie is "Invisible Ballots." (link above)
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: Fountain Hills Community Center, 13001 N. La Montana Dr, Fountain Hills.
Friday, November 2 - Arizona Democratic Party Hall of Fame Dinner, with special guests James Carville, Governor Janet Napolitano, and Attorney General Terry Goddard.
Time: 6:00 p.m. registration and reception; 7:00 p.m. dinner
Location: Wyndham Phoenix, 50 E. Adams, Phoenix
Friday, November 16 - Presidential Candidate and former Senator Mike Gravel will be speaking to the ASU Young Democrats.
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Location and other info: Contact the ASU Young Dems.
Later!
Time: 6:30 - 8:30 p.m.
Location: New Vision Spiritual Growth Center, 9659 N. Hayden Rd. (SE Corner of Hayden & Mountain View)
More info here.
Friday October 12 - The Big Picture Film Series and the LD17 Democrats present the documentary "In Debt We Trust."
Time: 3:30 p.m.
Location: Room 170, Coor Building, ASU.
Saturday, October 13 - Democratic State Committee Meeting in Tucson
Time: 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.
Location: Tucson High School, 400 North Second Avenue, Tucson.
Thursday, October 18 - The Big Picture Film Series and the D17 Democrats present the film "Invisible Ballots." The film addresses concerns about electronic voting and the lack of a paper trail. It is an in-depth analysis of the "privatization" of voting in America.
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: Room 170, Coor Building, ASU.
Thursday, October 18 - The D8 Democrats present speaker Cynthia Black, producer and host of "Action Point--Solution Politics" on KPHX radio, 1480 AM.
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Location: Mustang Library, 10101 N. 90th St., Scottsdale.
Friday, October 19 - Campaign appearance by Senator Barack Obama in Tempe.
Time: 11:00 a.m.
Location: TBA, details available soon at Arizonans for Obama.
Edit to add: Jeff Berlinsky, Obama supporter and owner of the Sub-Culture Cafe in Tempe, has a sandwich named after Senator Obama, the "Commander In Cheese." It is made with Oven Gold Turkey, American Cheese, Lettuce and Tomato. For each "Commander In Cheese" sold, he will contribute $1 to the Obama campaign.
The Sub-Culture Cafe is located at 227 E Baseline Rd., Suite J7, Tempe.
End edit...
Also on Friday, October 19 - Obama for President fundraiser in Phoenix.
Time: 12:30 p.m.
Location: Wyndham Phoenix, 50 E. Adams, Phoenix
Details: https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/phoenix1019
Note: The Arizona headquarters of the Obama campaign is now open. It is located at 22 E Mitchell Dr., Phoenix, AZ 85012 (Directions: From Osborn & 3rd St, travel north one street and g oleft. Single- story building is gray with a red awning.)
Web site: arizona.barackobama.com
Friday, October 26 - The D8 Democrats present "Friday Night at the Movies" in Fountain Hills. This month's movie is "Invisible Ballots." (link above)
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: Fountain Hills Community Center, 13001 N. La Montana Dr, Fountain Hills.
Friday, November 2 - Arizona Democratic Party Hall of Fame Dinner, with special guests James Carville, Governor Janet Napolitano, and Attorney General Terry Goddard.
Time: 6:00 p.m. registration and reception; 7:00 p.m. dinner
Location: Wyndham Phoenix, 50 E. Adams, Phoenix
Friday, November 16 - Presidential Candidate and former Senator Mike Gravel will be speaking to the ASU Young Democrats.
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Location and other info: Contact the ASU Young Dems.
Later!
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
House Judiciary Committee approves revision to FISA
...and the bill should hit the House floor next week.
The bill, HR3773, is notable both for what it contains, judicial oversight provisions, and what it doesn't contain, retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that aided the Bush Administration's violation of privacy and civil liberty laws.
President Bush has demanded both freedom from oversight and that immunity for telecoms, saying that he will veto any bill that doesn't meet both criteria.
The committee hearing went as expected, with Republicans, including Arizona's own Trent Franks, arguing that any judicial oversight only helps terrorists kill Americans, and Democrats arguing "bulls_t."
(OK, so they were a little bit more eloquent than that; the meaning was the same. :) )
After going back and forth over various amendments and the underlying bill for a while, the committee passed the bill along party lines.
The bill isn't perfect. The ACLU has some objections and urges support of the "FISA Modernization Bill" instead of this bill, the RESTORE Act. This bill still gives way too much authority to the President. However, it is a vast improvement over the repugnant "Protect America Act" (PAA) that was passed and signed into law in August.
Note: I couldn't find a link to a bill with the name "FISA Modernization" but I'll keep looking; I think the act that the ACLU prefers is HR3782, "To reiterate the exclusivity of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as the sole authority to permit the conduct of electronic surveillance, to modernize surveillance authorities...,"introduced by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ).
While less than perfect, the RESTORE Act is significantly less vile than the PAA. There will still be a lot of angst over the bill from the Republicans and from Democrats who are afraid of the President (aka - the Blue Dogs), all of whom will attempt to water down the oversight provisions.
And to protect the large campaign contributors in the telecommunication$ indu$try. [Can't forget them :) ]
However, it is something of a compromise bill - it does contain some things that the President wants (blanket warrants that require only an annual review/renewal). It does also contain enough to assuage some of the concerns of civil liberties-focused progressives in Congress.
Further watering-down of civil liberties at the behest of the President and his water carriers on the Hill (like Franks!) will only push the more hesitant members into the 'No' column on the RESTORE Act and increase the likelihood that the Congress will receive and pass a bill that the President will *really* hate.
Hmmm....there's a thought.... :)
Anyway, I have a final question, one that I don't ever expect a straight answer to, so I won't bother actually asking it of Trent Franks, Dan Lungren (R-CA), Randy Forbes (R-VA) and the other opponents of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties in the House.
So I'll just post it here. :))
It's not an original question (I don't know who first asked it in print, otherwise I'd give credit here), but it needs to be asked again -
Revocation of which part of the Constitution would prevent terrorist attacks?
A simple question, really, but one that the fear-mongers can never answer, because there isn't such a section and they know it. They also know that blind, unreasoning fear is the only thing that the Republican Party has left to offer America and they're hoping they can milk it one more time.
A FireDogLake post by Christy Hardin Smith containing a rough transcript of a statement by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) is here.
CongressDaily, via GovExec.com, coverage of the hearing here.
CNN coverage here.
House Judiciary Committee summary of the provisions of the new bill is here; a comparison between the Restore Act and PAA is here.
House Judiciary Committee press release on the hearing here.
Later!
The bill, HR3773, is notable both for what it contains, judicial oversight provisions, and what it doesn't contain, retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that aided the Bush Administration's violation of privacy and civil liberty laws.
President Bush has demanded both freedom from oversight and that immunity for telecoms, saying that he will veto any bill that doesn't meet both criteria.
The committee hearing went as expected, with Republicans, including Arizona's own Trent Franks, arguing that any judicial oversight only helps terrorists kill Americans, and Democrats arguing "bulls_t."
(OK, so they were a little bit more eloquent than that; the meaning was the same. :) )
After going back and forth over various amendments and the underlying bill for a while, the committee passed the bill along party lines.
The bill isn't perfect. The ACLU has some objections and urges support of the "FISA Modernization Bill" instead of this bill, the RESTORE Act. This bill still gives way too much authority to the President. However, it is a vast improvement over the repugnant "Protect America Act" (PAA) that was passed and signed into law in August.
Note: I couldn't find a link to a bill with the name "FISA Modernization" but I'll keep looking; I think the act that the ACLU prefers is HR3782, "To reiterate the exclusivity of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 as the sole authority to permit the conduct of electronic surveillance, to modernize surveillance authorities...,"introduced by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ).
While less than perfect, the RESTORE Act is significantly less vile than the PAA. There will still be a lot of angst over the bill from the Republicans and from Democrats who are afraid of the President (aka - the Blue Dogs), all of whom will attempt to water down the oversight provisions.
And to protect the large campaign contributors in the telecommunication$ indu$try. [Can't forget them :) ]
However, it is something of a compromise bill - it does contain some things that the President wants (blanket warrants that require only an annual review/renewal). It does also contain enough to assuage some of the concerns of civil liberties-focused progressives in Congress.
Further watering-down of civil liberties at the behest of the President and his water carriers on the Hill (like Franks!) will only push the more hesitant members into the 'No' column on the RESTORE Act and increase the likelihood that the Congress will receive and pass a bill that the President will *really* hate.
Hmmm....there's a thought.... :)
Anyway, I have a final question, one that I don't ever expect a straight answer to, so I won't bother actually asking it of Trent Franks, Dan Lungren (R-CA), Randy Forbes (R-VA) and the other opponents of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties in the House.
So I'll just post it here. :))
It's not an original question (I don't know who first asked it in print, otherwise I'd give credit here), but it needs to be asked again -
Revocation of which part of the Constitution would prevent terrorist attacks?
A simple question, really, but one that the fear-mongers can never answer, because there isn't such a section and they know it. They also know that blind, unreasoning fear is the only thing that the Republican Party has left to offer America and they're hoping they can milk it one more time.
A FireDogLake post by Christy Hardin Smith containing a rough transcript of a statement by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) is here.
CongressDaily, via GovExec.com, coverage of the hearing here.
CNN coverage here.
House Judiciary Committee summary of the provisions of the new bill is here; a comparison between the Restore Act and PAA is here.
House Judiciary Committee press release on the hearing here.
Later!
Prominent Republicans endorse Hillary Clinton for President
Well, not directly, but certain Republican candidates spent most of their debate yesterday campaigning against her.
The Wall Street Journal transcript of the debate is here.
Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, two of the frontrunners for the Republican nomination kept hitting her on health care, Iran, the economy, and more.
And if it wasn't Hillary Clinton, the target was former President Bill Clinton.
Giuliani, from the transcript -
It should be noted here that Giuliani flip-flopped within a few moments -
...He was against it before he was in favor of it? Or does he only favor the line-item veto when Republicans wield it?
Anyway, back to the real focus of this post - the Republicans did Hillary Clinton a huge favor yesterday.
Her biggest weakness, current frontrunner status notwithstanding, is that her candidacy has *not* been warmly embraced by the grassroots of the Democratic Party; she comes across as too much the candidate of the corporate establishment, not the candidate of the average American.
However, the fact that the Republicans are ganging up on her already only shores up her credibility with the likely primary voters, active Democrats.
Now the question is did they do that because they think that because she is the Great Boogeywoman that Republican parents tell stories about to scare their children and attacking her will bring Republican votes to them in the primaries?
Or do they realize that they strengthen her candidacy when they attack her and just think that she is the most beatable in the general election?
One other note on the debate: while I didn't see the entire debate, from what I did see, whenever new entrant Fred Thompson flubbed his lines, he looked like someone who was used to hearing a director yell "Cut! Do it again!" and was a little lost when he didn't hear those words.
Later!
The Wall Street Journal transcript of the debate is here.
Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, two of the frontrunners for the Republican nomination kept hitting her on health care, Iran, the economy, and more.
And if it wasn't Hillary Clinton, the target was former President Bill Clinton.
Giuliani, from the transcript -
...The line item veto was unconstitutional. I took Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court and beat Bill Clinton...
It should be noted here that Giuliani flip-flopped within a few moments -
So you can bang your head up against the stone wall all you want. I am in favor of a line item veto...
...He was against it before he was in favor of it? Or does he only favor the line-item veto when Republicans wield it?
Anyway, back to the real focus of this post - the Republicans did Hillary Clinton a huge favor yesterday.
Her biggest weakness, current frontrunner status notwithstanding, is that her candidacy has *not* been warmly embraced by the grassroots of the Democratic Party; she comes across as too much the candidate of the corporate establishment, not the candidate of the average American.
However, the fact that the Republicans are ganging up on her already only shores up her credibility with the likely primary voters, active Democrats.
Now the question is did they do that because they think that because she is the Great Boogeywoman that Republican parents tell stories about to scare their children and attacking her will bring Republican votes to them in the primaries?
Or do they realize that they strengthen her candidacy when they attack her and just think that she is the most beatable in the general election?
One other note on the debate: while I didn't see the entire debate, from what I did see, whenever new entrant Fred Thompson flubbed his lines, he looked like someone who was used to hearing a director yell "Cut! Do it again!" and was a little lost when he didn't hear those words.
Later!
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Campaign literature season has started
Got a bit of snail mail today, addressed to "The [cpmaz] Family."
It was from the Schweikert Congressional Exploratory Committee (i.e. - one of the Republicans running against Harry Mitchell in CD5 next year.)
The envelope contained a short letter asking for support and a postage-paid reply card.
His campaign is still an "exploratory" one because he is currently the Maricopa County Treasurer and would have to "resign to run" under Arizona law if he becomes a candidate while he has more than one year left in his term of office.
I was impressed by a passage from the letter -
Wow! He speaks like a true Democrat! Observing the Republican 'culture of corruption' and waste, and vowing to challenge it!
...Too bad *he's* a Republican himself...
Note to Mr. Schweikert: The next time you ask the County Recorder's office for a mailing list, have them use search criteria of "CD5 residents but not Democratic Party PCs or wiseass bloggers."
Just a suggestion... :))
It was from the Schweikert Congressional Exploratory Committee (i.e. - one of the Republicans running against Harry Mitchell in CD5 next year.)
The envelope contained a short letter asking for support and a postage-paid reply card.
His campaign is still an "exploratory" one because he is currently the Maricopa County Treasurer and would have to "resign to run" under Arizona law if he becomes a candidate while he has more than one year left in his term of office.
I was impressed by a passage from the letter -
...As we have all seen in the last few years, many of our leaders in Washington have continued to increase the size and scope of government, while wasting our tax dollars on pork projects that do little or no good for our country.
{snip}
If you are like me, you are frustrated with what's going on in Congress. Frustrated with the corruption and the unwillingness of our leaders to stop government waste...
Wow! He speaks like a true Democrat! Observing the Republican 'culture of corruption' and waste, and vowing to challenge it!
...Too bad *he's* a Republican himself...
Note to Mr. Schweikert: The next time you ask the County Recorder's office for a mailing list, have them use search criteria of "CD5 residents but not Democratic Party PCs or wiseass bloggers."
Just a suggestion... :))
Monday, October 08, 2007
Red Sox/Indians and Rockies/Diamondbacks in the LCSs
Totally non-political post ahead...
A few quick observations on both of baseball's League Championship Series -
...The two opponents in the NLCS, the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Colorado Rockies, have played for a combined 24 seasons.
The teams in the ALCS, the Boston Red Sox and the Cleveland Indians?
Well over 220 seasons.
I'm not sure what it means (probably nothing), but it's still eye-opening...
...An NLCS matchup between the DBacks and the Rocks? Who would have predicted that in early April?
Hell, who would have predicted that in late August??
I like the DBacks and hope they win (I would *love* to see a Red Sox/DBacks World Series), but I have more than a little admiration for the Rockies.
They were even bigger underdogs than the DBacks; I thought the DBacks were a year and a pitcher away from serious contention, but the Rocks weren't even on the long-range radar.
...Both series should be good ones - in the National League, the Rockies won the regular season series against the DBacks, winning 10 games and losing 8, and they have gotten hot at the right time of the season, but the DBacks have Brandon Webb, Micah Owings and a team that just never gives up.
In the AL, the Indians and the Red Sox entered the playoffs with identical regular season records and both made short work of their first round opponents. They both have strong offenses and solid defenses, and with their short first-round series, rested pitching staffs.
Predictions: DBacks in 6 (Webb is just too much for the Rocks to overcome) and Red Sox in 7 (that's as much wishful thinking as anything else - this pair is *really* evenly matched).
...George Steinbrenner, managing general partner of the New York Yankees, has threatened to fire manager Joe Torre if the Yankees lost their playoff series against the Cleveland Indians.
Tonight, though they made it interesting in the 9th inning with a third deck home run by Bobby Abreu and a monster foul homer by Jorge Posada, the Yankees lost in the first round of the playoffs for the third year in a row.
Now, baseball fans everywhere, not just in New York, are waiting to see if the Boss will carry out his threat.
Steinbrennerwants to fire the man who has led the Yankees to 10 division titles in 12 seasons and 4 World Series titles, the man who has held together a team that in 1998 was considered one of the best teams ever to one that is now better known for its aging pitching staff (Joba-mania notwithstanding) and thin bench, the man who never wilts under the harsh glare of the attention of the New York media and fans?
Whoooo hoooo!!
There is a God in heaven!!
Uncle George and the Bronx Zoo are back and they're loonier than ever!!
Every team in the AL, even the Red Sox, is breathing a little easier tonight.
Later!
A few quick observations on both of baseball's League Championship Series -
...The two opponents in the NLCS, the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Colorado Rockies, have played for a combined 24 seasons.
The teams in the ALCS, the Boston Red Sox and the Cleveland Indians?
Well over 220 seasons.
I'm not sure what it means (probably nothing), but it's still eye-opening...
...An NLCS matchup between the DBacks and the Rocks? Who would have predicted that in early April?
Hell, who would have predicted that in late August??
I like the DBacks and hope they win (I would *love* to see a Red Sox/DBacks World Series), but I have more than a little admiration for the Rockies.
They were even bigger underdogs than the DBacks; I thought the DBacks were a year and a pitcher away from serious contention, but the Rocks weren't even on the long-range radar.
...Both series should be good ones - in the National League, the Rockies won the regular season series against the DBacks, winning 10 games and losing 8, and they have gotten hot at the right time of the season, but the DBacks have Brandon Webb, Micah Owings and a team that just never gives up.
In the AL, the Indians and the Red Sox entered the playoffs with identical regular season records and both made short work of their first round opponents. They both have strong offenses and solid defenses, and with their short first-round series, rested pitching staffs.
Predictions: DBacks in 6 (Webb is just too much for the Rocks to overcome) and Red Sox in 7 (that's as much wishful thinking as anything else - this pair is *really* evenly matched).
...George Steinbrenner, managing general partner of the New York Yankees, has threatened to fire manager Joe Torre if the Yankees lost their playoff series against the Cleveland Indians.
Tonight, though they made it interesting in the 9th inning with a third deck home run by Bobby Abreu and a monster foul homer by Jorge Posada, the Yankees lost in the first round of the playoffs for the third year in a row.
Now, baseball fans everywhere, not just in New York, are waiting to see if the Boss will carry out his threat.
Steinbrennerwants to fire the man who has led the Yankees to 10 division titles in 12 seasons and 4 World Series titles, the man who has held together a team that in 1998 was considered one of the best teams ever to one that is now better known for its aging pitching staff (Joba-mania notwithstanding) and thin bench, the man who never wilts under the harsh glare of the attention of the New York media and fans?
Whoooo hoooo!!
There is a God in heaven!!
Uncle George and the Bronx Zoo are back and they're loonier than ever!!
Every team in the AL, even the Red Sox, is breathing a little easier tonight.
Later!
Light Rail Public Meetings
This isn't normally a topic that I would cover, but when I went out today, I found a door hanger notice for two public meetings to (quoting from the doorhanger) (emphasis mine) -
The "I-10 West" study area roughly encompasses the area of 7th St. west to 99th Avenue and Buckeye Road north to Thomas Road.
The meetings will be held on October 23 from 6 p.m. - 9 p.m. at the Desert West Community Center, 6501 W. Virginia Ave. in Phoenix and on October 25 from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. at University Park's Safe Haven Room, 350 N. 10th Ave. in Phoenix.
My question - Why did they notify East Valley (i.e. - south Scottsdale) residents about West Valley public meetings?
There are light rail meetings in *this* area, and they are this week.
From Valley Metro's website -
October 10, 2007 Line Section 4 CAB Meeting, 3 p.m - 5 p.m., Operations and Maintenance Center (OMC), Jim Starz room, 670 S. 48th Street, Phoenix, AZ.
October 11, 2007 Line Section 5 CAB Meeting, 7:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m., Escalante Community Center, 2150 E. Orange St., Tempe, AZ.
The info on the West Valley meetings can be found here.
...learn about and provide input to the high-capacity transit study in the I-10 West study area...
The "I-10 West" study area roughly encompasses the area of 7th St. west to 99th Avenue and Buckeye Road north to Thomas Road.
The meetings will be held on October 23 from 6 p.m. - 9 p.m. at the Desert West Community Center, 6501 W. Virginia Ave. in Phoenix and on October 25 from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. at University Park's Safe Haven Room, 350 N. 10th Ave. in Phoenix.
My question - Why did they notify East Valley (i.e. - south Scottsdale) residents about West Valley public meetings?
There are light rail meetings in *this* area, and they are this week.
From Valley Metro's website -
October 10, 2007 Line Section 4 CAB Meeting, 3 p.m - 5 p.m., Operations and Maintenance Center (OMC), Jim Starz room, 670 S. 48th Street, Phoenix, AZ.
October 11, 2007 Line Section 5 CAB Meeting, 7:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m., Escalante Community Center, 2150 E. Orange St., Tempe, AZ.
The info on the West Valley meetings can be found here.
What they said...what they were thinking
As a courtesy to weary readers, buried under countless pap-filled statements and pontifications from public officials, I now offer a quick guide to some recent quotes.
Purely for educational purposes. :))
Mitt Romney, when confronted by a muscular dystrophy patient who needs prescribed medical marijuana to make it through each day (after being told that Romney's recommended synthetic marijuana make the patient ill) -
What he said:
What he was thinking:
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on the investigation of Republican Bill Montgomery, former candidate for Attorney General (AZCentral.com)
What he said:
What he was thinking:
John McCain during the 2000 Presidential campaign -
What he said:
What he was thinking in 2007 when the long-time Episcopalian announced that he is a Baptist (coincidentally, he's running as a Baptist in heavily Baptist South Carolina) (The Carpetbagger Report) and proclaimed that the Constitution created the United States as a Christian nation (BeliefNet.com), as he clicks his heels together:
President George Bush, from his weekly radio address -
What he said about his SCHIP veto:
What he was thinking:
Later!
Purely for educational purposes. :))
Mitt Romney, when confronted by a muscular dystrophy patient who needs prescribed medical marijuana to make it through each day (after being told that Romney's recommended synthetic marijuana make the patient ill) -
What he said:
"I am not in favor of medical marijuana being legal in the country," Romney said as he moved on to greet other people. (CNN)
What he was thinking:
[singing]
When a man's an empty kettle,
He should be on his mettle
And yet I'm torn apart.
Just because I'm presumin'
That I could be kinda human,
If I only had a heart. (WarnerBrothers.com)
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on the investigation of Republican Bill Montgomery, former candidate for Attorney General (AZCentral.com)
What he said:
"It was a political thing," Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said of the complaint. "We sent people out; we just couldn't make the case."
What he was thinking:
"It was a political thing," Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said of the complaint. "We sent people out; we just don't think it's wrong for Republicans to hire illegal aliens."
John McCain during the 2000 Presidential campaign -
What he said:
"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance," whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left or Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson on the right."
What he was thinking in 2007 when the long-time Episcopalian announced that he is a Baptist (coincidentally, he's running as a Baptist in heavily Baptist South Carolina) (The Carpetbagger Report) and proclaimed that the Constitution created the United States as a Christian nation (BeliefNet.com), as he clicks his heels together:
"I wish I was President, I wish I was President, I wish I was President."
President George Bush, from his weekly radio address -
What he said about his SCHIP veto:
...When it comes to SCHIP, we should be guided by a clear principle: Put poor children first...our Nation's goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage...
What he was thinking:
[$inging]
When a man'$ an empty kettle,
He $hould be on hi$ mettle
And yet I'm torn apart.
Ju$t becau$e I'm pre$umin'
That I could be kinda human,
If I only had a heart. (WarnerBrother$.com)
Later!
Events Calendar - Presidential Campaign Edition
Obama Campaign -
Tuesday, October 9 - The Obama campaign is holding a 'Wine and Appetizers Fundraiser for Obama' at the Scottsdale Culinary Institute, 8100 E. Camelback, Scottsdale.
Time: 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Cost: $40 - $20 to SCI, $20 to the Obama campaign (though more is certainly welcome :)) )
RSVP here.
Saturday, October 13 - The Turn the Page in Iraq Canvass in Phoenix and Tempe
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Places:
Tempe Canvass, Kiwanis Park, 6111 South All-America Way, RSVP here;
Phoenix Canvass, Steele Indian School Park, 300 E Indian School Rd, RSVP here.
Friday, October 19 - Senator Barack Obama visits Arizona. Details available at the October 9th event; I'll post them here when available.
Richardson Campaign -
Friday - Sunday, October 12 to 14 - Richardson Campaign Adopt-A-State weekend in Nevada
Details/RSVP: Ray Glendening at the Richardson campaign
Kucinich campaign -
Saturday, October 20 - Fundraiser for Dennis Kucinich at the Peace Tree House in Tempe. Contact local coordinator Rick Romero at 602.515.9844 (cell) for details.
That's it for now; still waiting to hear back on information requests of the Clinton and Edwards campaigns.
Tuesday, October 9 - The Obama campaign is holding a 'Wine and Appetizers Fundraiser for Obama' at the Scottsdale Culinary Institute, 8100 E. Camelback, Scottsdale.
Time: 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Cost: $40 - $20 to SCI, $20 to the Obama campaign (though more is certainly welcome :)) )
RSVP here.
Saturday, October 13 - The Turn the Page in Iraq Canvass in Phoenix and Tempe
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Places:
Tempe Canvass, Kiwanis Park, 6111 South All-America Way, RSVP here;
Phoenix Canvass, Steele Indian School Park, 300 E Indian School Rd, RSVP here.
Friday, October 19 - Senator Barack Obama visits Arizona. Details available at the October 9th event; I'll post them here when available.
Richardson Campaign -
Friday - Sunday, October 12 to 14 - Richardson Campaign Adopt-A-State weekend in Nevada
Details/RSVP: Ray Glendening at the Richardson campaign
Kucinich campaign -
Saturday, October 20 - Fundraiser for Dennis Kucinich at the Peace Tree House in Tempe. Contact local coordinator Rick Romero at 602.515.9844 (cell) for details.
That's it for now; still waiting to hear back on information requests of the Clinton and Edwards campaigns.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Another corporate lobbyist to run against Harry Mitchell
From the AZ Republic -
In addition to all of her corporate ties listed above, within the last year she has been working to raise her "community group" profile with her involvement in 'Citizen Advocates for Southern Scottsdale' (CASS).
I put "community group" in quotes because CASS seems less a genuine grassroots group and more an astroturf operation run by the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce and Virginia Korte.
Her lobbying activities have led her to espouse some politically touchy views. For instance, as chair of the Arizona Competitive Telecommunications Coalition she opposes the recent City of Phoenix ban on sending text messages while driving.
"Corporate profits over the safety of the general public" is not a campaign slogan that will fly too far at a time when the country, left, center, and right, is in an uproar over George Bush's veto of SCHIP to protect insurance industry profits.
It's late, and I have to work in the morning, so I don't have time to do a campaign contribution search for her and the various groups that she's been affiliated with tonight, though I will do one later in the week.
Her interest in Harry Mitchell's seat in CD5 has long been rumored, and she is the fifth candidate to express a strong interest (Mark Anderson, Jim Ogsbury, Laura Knaperek, and David Schweikert). While the field is getting crowded, and may see still other entries, I don't expect to see more than three or so names on next fall's Republican ballot.
At least a couple of the candidates will find fundraising in that crowded field to be an overly daunting task. In addition, some will find the task of raising their name recognition among primary voters to be an insurmountable hurdle.
I won't start speculating on who is going to fall by the wayside even before the primary vote until fundraising figures start rolling in.
Later!
SCOTTSDALE: Former Councilwoman Susan Bitter Smith said she likely will run in next year's Republican primary in the 5th Congressional District. The seat is help by Democrat Harry Mitchell.Bitter-Smith, in addition to being a former member of the Scottsdale City Council, she is also a former candidate for Congress (2000), current chair of the Arizona Competitive Telecommunications Coalition (at least according to an AZ Rep article; the Coalition's website is unavailable), current President of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (aka - Central Arizona Project), and long-time Executive Director of the Arizona Cable Telecommunications Association.
In addition to all of her corporate ties listed above, within the last year she has been working to raise her "community group" profile with her involvement in 'Citizen Advocates for Southern Scottsdale' (CASS).
I put "community group" in quotes because CASS seems less a genuine grassroots group and more an astroturf operation run by the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce and Virginia Korte.
Her lobbying activities have led her to espouse some politically touchy views. For instance, as chair of the Arizona Competitive Telecommunications Coalition she opposes the recent City of Phoenix ban on sending text messages while driving.
"Corporate profits over the safety of the general public" is not a campaign slogan that will fly too far at a time when the country, left, center, and right, is in an uproar over George Bush's veto of SCHIP to protect insurance industry profits.
It's late, and I have to work in the morning, so I don't have time to do a campaign contribution search for her and the various groups that she's been affiliated with tonight, though I will do one later in the week.
Her interest in Harry Mitchell's seat in CD5 has long been rumored, and she is the fifth candidate to express a strong interest (Mark Anderson, Jim Ogsbury, Laura Knaperek, and David Schweikert). While the field is getting crowded, and may see still other entries, I don't expect to see more than three or so names on next fall's Republican ballot.
At least a couple of the candidates will find fundraising in that crowded field to be an overly daunting task. In addition, some will find the task of raising their name recognition among primary voters to be an insurmountable hurdle.
I won't start speculating on who is going to fall by the wayside even before the primary vote until fundraising figures start rolling in.
Later!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)