Republicans in US Senate kill veterans' jobs bill; prepare to go on vacation until after the November election

From the National Journal via its sister publication Government Executive, written by Erin Mershon -

Senate Republicans effectively killed a measure to find jobs for unemployed veterans on a procedural vote Wednesday, after several attempts by Democrats to keep the bill on the table failed.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., raised a point of order against the bill on Wednesday, citing alleged violations of Senate budget rules. Since three-fifths of the chamber did not vote to waive the rules, the legislation cannot move forward.

The point of order was the latest in a string of obstacles designed to derail the bill, which would have created the Veterans Jobs Corps by setting aside $1 billion in federal grants to give veterans priority for jobs that might require military skills, such as in law enforcement or fire safety. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., briefly filibustered the legislation last week in an unrelated attempt to withdraw aid to Pakistan.

The Senate vote was 58 - 40, with 60 votes needed to allow the measure to move forward.

Every Democrat in the Senate voted for the measure, every vote against the measure was cast by a Republican.  Five Republicans did cross over to vote in support of veterans -

- Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who is locked in a tough battle with Elizabeth Warren for the Senate seat there.

- Susan Collins of Maine, who isn't up for reelection this year, but is known as one of the better human beings in the R caucus in the Senate.

- Olympia Snowe of Maine, who would be up for reelection this year, except she is retiring.  Also known as one of the better human beings in the R caucus.

- Dean Heller of Nevada, who is in a fierce race against Shelley Berkley in his quest for a full term in the Senate.  So fierce, in fact, that Heller is now trying to distance himself from Mitt Romney, who is beginning to act as a drag on the rest of the R ticket.

- Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.  Since the tea party types in her party turned on her and she was able to beat them back, as a write-in candidate of all things, she will occasionally vote for the best interests of her constituents and for America, and this was one of those occasions.

However, two of the Republicans who voted against veterans and for petty partisanship -

Arizona's own Jon Kyl and John McCain.

Kyl's vote is not a surprise; he's part of the leadership of the R caucus in the US Senate and his primary guiding principle seems to be "if it doesn't help me or mine (industry lobbyists and other Republicans), then it doesn't pass."  He (and they) view anything to help veterans as something that would help President Obama, especially since Obama strongly supported the veterans' job corps.  And they oppose *everything* that could even remotely be seen as helping the president.

McCain's vote is more than a bit of a surprise.  He's a veteran himself (in case you missed the eight zillion or so campaign ads, mailers, and talking points mentioning that fact when he ran for president in 2008) and recently has been showing signs that the "maverick" McCain was returning, the McCain who once looked like he was made of presidential timbre.

In short, the McCain with actual principles is long gone and "ain't comin' back".

And now the Senate has one more vote this week, making all of *three* this week, before heading home until after the November elections.

It seems that membership in the Republican-controlled Congress, both House and Senate, has become the next best thing to "no show jobs", so it's kind of appropos that the Congress is also the "no jobs show".

And before someone complains that the Democrats are the majority party in the Senate, the Senate rules allow for the minority party to obstruct the process at every turn, and the Republicans have enthusiastically, even ruthlessly, taken advantage of those rules.  They may not be in the majority in the Senate, but they are in control in the Senate.

BTW - did anyone else notice that the five Rs who supported the measure are women or are being challenged by women this year?  Not sure what it means, or if it even means anything at all, but it sure is interesting...

AZ-Sen starting line: Some candidates have a head start

While any candidate who jumps into for the US Senate will be sure to start raising money, some potential candidates already have a head start.  They already have federal campaign committees formed, and even if the committees are for some other office, the cash can be transferred to a Senate run.

The most recent "cash on hand" reported for the federal campaign committees of selected possible candidates -

Republicans -

JD Hayworth - $148,224.47

Jeff Flake - $627,851.61

John Shadegg - $154.99

David Schweikert - $16,308.33

Ruth McClung - $107,649.87 (included because she has so much cash on hand)

Jonathan Paton - $12,389.26

Ben Quayle - $7607.04


Democrats -

Ed Pastor - $1,391,936.29

Gabrielle Giffords - $285,501.24

Raul Grijalva - $30,621.77

Ann Kirkpatrick - $13,896.86


Just for giggles -

Joe Arpaio - $2,829,160.00

That number is worthy of giggles because while it dwarfs every other potential candidate's cash on hand, it doesn't matter - it's for his county sheriff candidacy and cannot be transferred to a federal committee.


While there has been a little internet chatter over a possible Pastor candidacy and his well-stocked campaign warchest and some of the other potential candidates have little or no cash for a federal campaign, once a legit candidate enters the race he or she will be able to raise money quickly.

Of course, they'll have to.  :)

Breaking: Politico.com reporting Jon Kyl not running for reelection

Thanks for the heads-up on this goes out to the blog Arizona's Politics...

From Politico, written by David Catanese -

Kyl to retire, won't seek another term



Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl will announce he won't seek another term at a press conference in his home state Thursday morning, POLITICO has learned.

The third-term Kyl was first elected to the Senate in 1994.

A GOP operative notes that the last time Arizona elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate was 1988 -- 22 years ago.

Assuming this report is accurate, and rumors to this effect have been swirling for weeks, even months, this development, along with redistricting and the addition of a ninth Congressional seat to Arizona, would turn next year's elections here into complete free-for-all.

Look for Republicans Jeff Flake and John Shadegg, current and former members of Congress, respectively, to be two of the most prominent names in any discussion of potential candidates to replace Kyl.

They won't be the *only* ones, however.

More later...

What does Jon Kyl know of "inappropriate"?

From Talking Points Memo, quoting Kyl from an appearance on this morning's Face The Nation on CBS -

Kyl: Arizona Sheriff's Remarks Inappropriate

In a Sunday morning appearance on Face the Nation, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) took issue with Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who criticized Arizona hours after the Giffords shooting.


"I didn't really think that that had any part in a law enforcement briefing," Kyl said.

Reminder: Kyl is the Republican Senator that argued that having the U.S. Senate work during the week between Christmas and New Year's would be "disrespecting" Christmas and Christians.

Nice lack of credibility there, Senator Kyl.

It's too bad that one of the few times in recent memory that Kyl has noticed events in Arizona (you know, the state that he is elected to represent), it took a massacre to gain his attention.

Or that his "attention" consisted of criticizing one of the people who has been dealing with the fallout from his (and the legislature's) less-than-benign neglect of the state.

DADT repeal and the DREAM Act: .500 batting average is great in baseball...

...but it sucks in real life...

John McCain and Jon Kyl, Arizona's Senators, joined the Three Amigos (Congresscritters Flake, Franks, and Shadegg) on the "Lump of coal in their Christmas stockings" list today...not that they weren't already charter members of that not-so-distinguished group. :)

First, the good news: the Senate passed cloture on repeal of the military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy toward gay and lesbian members of the U.S. armed forces.  The vote there was 63 in favor, 33 opposed.  The move basically sets an end to Senate debate on the measure and allows it to be brought up for a final vote (likely later today).  Passing cloture makes it seem likely that the measure will gain full approval because that will only require a simple majority (51 votes) not the 3/5 support (60 votes) that cloture requires.

Now, the bad news:  by a vote of 55- 41 (60 votes needed to pass), the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the DREAM Act, effectively killing the measure.  If passed, it would have created a path to "legal" immigrant status and possible citizenship for children brought to the U.S. by undocumented immigrants.  That path wouldn't have been an easy one, requiring many things, including attending college here or serving in the U.S. armed forces.  The nativist Rs, aided and abetted by five Democrats (Nelson of NE, Pryor of AR, Tester and Baucus of MT, and Hagan of NC) held sway today, however, turning their backs on the many hard-working and high-achieving residents of the U.S. who were brought to the United States through no choice of their own.

Three Rs did show some character, voting for decency over demagoguery.   Deepest thanks go out to Bennett of UT, Murkowski of AK, and Lugar of IN for their support.

Kyl and McCain showed a remarkable consistency - they were against both measures, voting to undercut members of the military who are honorably serving their country *and* to snub many of their own constituents who have done nothing but help make Arizona's (and America's) society more robust.

In baseball, consistency is good.  A batter who hits .290 every season has the same lifetime average as one who hits .240 and .340 in alternate years, yet the consistent player it considered the better player, one desired by almost every team.

In real life however, as written by Emerson in his essay Self Reliance, "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

Emerson may have been writing nearly a century before McCain or Kyl was born, but it's almost as if he was watching them in action when he wrote his essay.

Message to Jon Kyl: If you want a Christmas break, get some work done now

The Republicans in D.C., led by Arizona's own Jon Kyl, are now trying to derail any efforts to pass significant legislation late in the year by claiming that doing so would somehow disrespect one of the "holiest" of Christian holidays.

From TPMDC -

To Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's suggestion that the Senate come back the week after Christmas isn't just a way to complete a busy lame duck agenda -- but an attack on people of the Christian faith.


"It is impossible to do all of the things that the majority leader laid out," Kyl said today, "frankly, without disrespecting the institution and without disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for Christians and the families of all of the Senate, not just the senators themselves but all of the staff."

Let me keep this brief -

There are millions of Americans right now who would love to be in a position where they could complain about having to work between Christmas and New Year's.  Yet Kyl doesn't think that is disrespectful of Christians, though many of the people affected are Christians.

There are millions more who will be working between Christmas and New Year's, and wishing that they could afford to take the week off.  Yet Kyl doesn't think that is disrespectful of Christians, though many of the people affected are Christians.

There are thousands of American servicemen and women who will be away from their families and in harm's way on one of Christianity''s "holiest" days and have no choice about that, yet Kyl doesn't think that disrespects the Christian members of the armed forces.

Senator Kyl, all I have to say is this:

If anybody is "disrespecting" Christmas, it is you with your brazenly cynical attempt to use the holiday as a political tool.

Quit whining and finish the year's work before Christmas, or plan to drag your ass back to D.C. immediately after the holiday.

Note: most of the above was sent to Sen. Kyl as a letter through his website's contact form.  There were a few minor modifications (I'm not going to use the word "ass" in a letter to a senator, even one I can't stand :) ).

Later...

The AZ Republic is applying some fresh Chapstick and puckering up

The editorial board of the Arizona Republic is kissing up to the Republicans in AZ's delegation to Congress (I won't engage in unseemly speculation about which part of the Rs they are trying to kiss :) ).

The latest indication of this activity is the poorly written love letter masquerading as an "analysis" piece that the Rep published on Sunday.

The piece -

Vote gives Arizona more clout in Congress

The midterm elections will likely boost Arizona's clout in Congress, giving the state's new delegation greater power in crafting legislation and deciding how billions of federal taxpayer dollars will be spent.

Among the results, Arizona lawmakers say, could be increased highway funds for the state, more money for border security and even the passage of legislation to allow the construction of a huge, controversial new copper mine near Superior.

The growing influence of the state begins in the U.S. House. A new Republican majority among Arizona's House delegation ensures that Arizona's voice will be heard by the GOP House leaders who take control in January.

More "influence" in the House?

More federal projects for Arizona?

Riiiiiggghhhht...

Let's see:

Jeff Flake (CD6) has made a career out of taking an apparently principled stand against earmarks or any projects for his district (to be fair to Flake, it isn't just his district - like Mikey of Life Cereal fame, he hates *everything.*  Unlike the fictional character Mikey however, he doesn't change in the face of reality), but he wins reelection every year in his R-heavy district because he is well-coiffed, smiles a lot, and he isn't an embarrassment (say, in the mold of J.D. Hayworth).

Trent Franks (CD2) actively works against highway money for his district.  He will occasionally support a local project, but those usually involve the construction of jails or the purchase of some new technology for law enforcement.  And even in that, he seems almost ashamed for doing something that might possibly help his constituents (even if it's less "helping his constituents" and more "helping to imprison his constituents").  In fact, the only thing he exhibits any enthusiasm around is his quest to destroy a woman's right to choose.

Newly-electeds Paul Gosar (CD1) and David Schweikert (CD5) were elected on tea party/pro-corporate platforms and seem unlikely to support any efforts to help Arizonans...unless those Arizonans have last names that can be abbreviated "Corp.", "Inc.", or "LLC".  And have contributed to their campaigns.

The newly-elected Ben Quayle (CD3) may be the House member most likely to support projects for his district.  He's got two years to establish his "representative" bona fides before running for reelection after the redistricting process changes his district.  Still, given his daddy's (and his daddy's friends') heavy involvement in his campaign, he seems likely to favor projects that will help the companies of his donors, not his constituents.

As for AZ's contingent in the U.S. Senate, both Jon Kyl and John McCain have been in D.C. for decades, and for decades, they haven't worked for Arizona.

Kyl openly works for Big Business, protecting their interests to the exclusion of all else, including the interests of the average Arizonan.

McCain openly works for John McCain.  Period.


The article is right about one thing, though. 

The change in the partisan balance in Congress, and in Arizona's delegation to Congress, will almost certainly mean that the Resolution Copper land swap/swipe will go through.  Of course, while that is sold as a benefit to Arizonans (in the form of mining jobs and tax revenue, while ignoring the multi-generational costs of a destroyed environment and watershed, and the savaging of ancestral Native lands held in "trust" by the federal government), the big beneficiary will be a large, multi-national corporation, Rio Tinto.

Rio Tinto (or its Resolution Copper subsidiary) has donated directly to the campaign committees, or to mining industry PACs that donated to the campaign committees, of almost every R member of AZ's delegation.  I couldn't find any direct or indirect contributions to Gosar in the time allotted for this post.

The results of Tuesday's elections will almost certainly result in more influence in Congress for the Rs in Arizona's Congressional delegation.  It almost certainly won't result in more influence in Congress for Arizona.


Certain people (and newspapers) in Arizona like to complain that AZ doesn't get its "fair share" of federal projects.

They may be correct.


So why do they continue to support candidates and electeds who are dedicated to opposing projects for Arizona?

Jon Kyl: Republican campaigner-in-chief

I don't like Jon Kyl - his politics are repugnant and he is far more interested in protecting the interests of Big Business than in protecting and representing the his constituents, the people of Arizona.

However, that doesn't mean that anyone should discount his intelligence or political acumen.

He knows that the one issue that the Rs can win on this fall is immigration, and as long as the average American is distracted by undocumented immigrants and not paying attention to the Republicans' efforts to obstruct an economic recovery for the middle and working classes, cut taxes for corporations and the wealthiest Americans, to foment a full-fledged return to the disastrous Bush-era policies that created the mess that we're in, they stand a very good chance of gaining control of one or both chambers of Congress in November.

So the following story in the Arizona Republic should come as no surprise -

U.S. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl on Sunday expressed support for hearings on the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.

{snip}

"Well, actually there is a constitutional provision in the 14th Amendment that has been interpreted to provide that if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen no matter what," Kyl, R-Ariz., said Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation. "Now, there are limitations on that. For example, for the children of diplomats and so on. So the question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?"

The quote from Kyl came Sunday on CBS' Face The Nation.  CBS News coverage of Kyl's appearance here.

The part of the Constitution under attack from Kyl (and Russell Pearce, and the rest of the nativist of the GOP) is the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads -

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In his appearance on Face The Nation, Kyl alluded to the fact that the amendment doesn't apply to those, such as diplomats, who are immune to (not "subject to the jurisdiction" of) American laws.

Since the ability of Joe Arpaio et. al. to arrest, detain and harass brown-skinned people continues unabated, and I expect that lawyer-by-education-and-experience Kyl is cognizant of that fact, Kyl's intended targets for selective application of the Constitution are obviously *not* immune from American laws.

As such, no matter how much the nativists wish otherwise, the Fourteenth Amendment applies to undocumented immigrants.

Unless, of course, he wants to propose granting them diplomatic status...

OK - probably not. :)

Anyway, if any of Kyl's proposed hearings take place, you can be certain that Fox News and the rest of the R echo chamber will do everything that it can to ensure that the cacophony surrounding them drowns out discussion of any issue other than immigration.

BTW - I'm not sure that a minority party Senator can call hearings on a given topic.  However, the Senate's rules can be rather arcance and antiquated ("antiquated" as in "harkening back to the time when there was less pure partisanship in D.C.") - so anything is possible.

Billionaire fraudsters/GOP donors indicted: Will AZGOP, McCain, Kyl, and Schweikert return donations?

From ABC News -

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged billionaire Samuel Wyly and his brother Charles with fraud for reaping more than $550 million of illicit gains by trading stock in four companies while they were serving as directors.


Samuel Wyly, 75, and Charles Wyly, 76, were accused of concocting a sham web of trusts and subsidiaries in the Isle of Man and the Cayman Islands to conceal over a 13-year period more than $750 million of stock sales in Michaels Stores Inc, Sterling Commerce Inc, Sterling Software Inc and Scottish Annuity & Life Holdings Ltd.

The Wyly family (the brothers, their wives, and their children) have been huge GOP supporters over the years, giving millions to Republican candidates, committees, and front groups/PACs (like Swift Boat and Club for Growth).

Some of their largesse has reached into Arizona.

According to FEC records, they've given at least $5K to Jon Kyl's campaigns over the years, $3K to John McCain's Senate campaign since 1997 (and many thousands more to his PAC and presidential campaigns) and even $2300 in 2008 to David Schweikert's campaign in CD5 (that one was contributed by son Andrew, who hasn't been indicted as yet).

Also according to FEC records, Sam Wyly gave over $1100 directly to the Arizona Republican Party in 2004.

They really juicy stuff, however, was from a quick glance at the website of the Arizona Secretary of State - the Wylys gave over $700K to an Arizona-registered committee called "1648 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL STATE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE."

I'm assuming because of the name that's actually a federal soft-money committee that had to register in AZ because it expended money here, but appointed Secretary of State Ken Bennett has reduced the functionality of the SOS' website, so I wasn't able to look up the relevent reports (from 2000 and 2002).

That's still a LOT of money.

The AZGOP has been rather enthusiastic (occasionally justly so) in calling on AZ Democrats to return contributions from sources with tarnished reputations.

Now will they just as enthusiastically meet the standards that they hold Democrats to, or will they be hypocrites?

Note: that last is a rhetorical question.  I don't expect them to even blink over the Wyly money, much less express any regrets over accepting it.

Later...

BTW - this info was gathered in approximately 30 minutes of search time; somebody with more time could probably find evidence that the Wylys have contributed more money and exerted more influence over AZGOP politics than that which I've outlined here.

Jon Kyl wants to drag the entire US into the same fiscal abyss that Arizona is in

Ummm...in case that anyone has forgotten (and apparently, Kyl has), blindly and irresponsibly cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy while not addressing the issue of reduced revenue (aka - "paying for the cuts") is what has led to the generational budget deficit that is destroying Arizona's future...and present.



ThinkProgress coverage here.

Ezra Klein coverage in the Washington Post here.

Breaking news: Federal Government Sues AZ Over SB1070

....OK, OK, that is hardly breaking news - everybody expected a lawsuit was coming as soon as Jan Brewer signed Russell Pearce's anti-immigrant measure into law in late April.

How about this for a title?

Breaking News - Republicans Freak Out Over Federal Lawsuit To Block SB1070

...OK, OK, that's hardly surprising either.  They freak out whenever somebody calls them out on their garbage.

Anyway, on to the main part of the post.

From the Arizona Republic -

The Obama administration filed suit today against Arizona's landmark immigration law, alleging it was unconstitutional and a U.S. District Court judge should keep it from going into effect July 29.

The suit, filed in Phoenix, claims Arizona's new law "will conflict and undermine the federal government's careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives," and divert resources from the "dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority."

{snip}


Gov. Jan Brewer, who is named as a defendant along with the state, called the lawsuit "a terribly bad decision.

"It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels," Brewer said in a written statement. "Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice.

Other reactions:

Congressman Harry Mitchell, from a press release -

"I am extremely disappointed that the Obama Administration has decided to file a lawsuit against Arizona to try to overturn our state's new immigration enforcement law, SB 1070. This is the wrong direction to go. I urged President Obama and his administration against doing so because I strongly believe their time, efforts and resources should be focused on securing our border and fixing our broken immigration system. Arizona needs Washington to take action, but a lawsuit is definitely not the kind of action we need.

Attorney General Terry Goddard, from a campaign press release -

"What we need are solutions, not lawsuits. Until we get real solutions, more states will turn to band-aid remedies to address this very important issue," said Attorney General Terry Goddard. "It is disappointing to see the federal government choosing to intervene in a state statute instead of working with Arizona to create sustainable solutions to the illegal immigration issue that our state and country so desperately need."

State Senator Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) calls the lawsuit an "insult" to Arizonans.

U.S. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl, from a McCain press release -

“The Obama Administration has not done everything it can do to protect the people of Arizona from the violence and crime illegal immigration brings to our state. Until it does, the federal government should not be suing Arizona on the grounds that immigration enforcement is solely a federal responsibility.”

My take:

The law is bad, the lawsuit is necessary, and any sort of immigration policy that doesn't address the underlying cause of immigration from Mexico to the U.S, the economics, whether it's Russell Pearce's version of "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" or some kind of "comprehensive reform" is doomed to fail.

And all of the blathering about "insults" and "attacks" and "secure the border first" won't change that.

BTW - The best quote about this wasn't actually said about this mess. 

In 2007, the late, great Molly Ivin wrote "Conservatives have been mad at the Supreme Court since it decided to desegregate the schools in 1954 and seen fit to blame the federal bench for everything that has happened since then that they don't like."

Look for Brewer, Pearce, and the other nativists suffer from fits of apoplexy if/when a federal judge blocks their police-state law.


The text of the legal filing can be found here, courtesy AZCentral.com

The "Pot meet Kettle" moment of the Kagan confirmation hearings (so far):

Long-time Senator Jon Kyl, son of a congressman, a lawyer and former lobbyist, Republican Whip in the U.S. Senate, and rumored R candidate for VP in 2012, derided Kagan as too "establishment" to be a good Supreme Court Justice.

From Kyl's opening statement today, courtesy MainJustice.com -

Not only is Ms. Kagan’s background unusual for a Supreme Court nominee, it is not clear how it demonstrates that she has, in the President’s words, ‘a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.’ One recent article noted that ‘[Ms.] Kagan’s experience draws from a world whose signposts are distant from most Americans: Manhattan’s upper West side, Princeton University, Harvard Law School and the upper reaches of the Democratic legal establishment.’

If Kyl's political blood was any bluer, he'd be getting ready to star in the sequel to Avatar.  There is no doubt that he is a highly intelligent and hard-working Senator (though it would be nice if he used that intelligence and work ethic to benefit all Arizonans, not just his biggest campaign contributors, but I digress :) ), but he inherited a lot of his wealth and political contacts.  He's used that initial advantage to great effect, but he still had a big leg up on most of his peers.

On the other hand, Kagan, who is at least as intelligent and hard-working as Kyl, had to earn every single one of her achievements.  "Manhattan's upper West side" isn't exactly a hovel in Appalachia, but her path to an eminent career in public service wasn't as gilded as Kyl's.  One doesn't become the first female U.S. Solicitor General and the first female dean of the Harvard Law School by inheriting the jobs.  She earned them the old-fashioned way, with hard work and intellectual merit.  Her start was less "leg up" and more "leg work."

I truly expect Kagan to be confirmed, but also expect that the hearing, with both Kyl's derision and the other R's attacking Kagan because of her ties to judicial icon Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, is serving as a preview of this fall's campaign rhetoric - class warfare and race-baiting.

Hope I'm wrong about that last.

Short Attention Span Musing

Just a mish-mash of (mostly) lege-related stuff...

...Governor Jan Brewer has vetoed HB2462, Rep. Ed Ableser's proposal to rein in predatory towing companies. In her veto letter (linked above to the word 'vetoed'), she cited a few reasons she was opposed to this bill, including that she felt that it added responsibilities to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) while not funding those new activities. What she didn't cite, in the letter anyway, was the fact that Rep. Ableser is known as one of the most progressive members of the Democratic and is vocal about his positions.

Including his opposition the Brewer's proposed sales tax increase (voting closes next Tuesday).

According to sources, one of the big motivations behind the veto was Ableser's vocal opposition to the tax hike because of its regressive nature.

Now to be fair, it probably wasn't her only reason for the veto - most Ds voted against the referral of the sales tax increase to the ballot, but there have been a *few* D-sponsored bills signed by Brewer.

Still, an aroma of "payback" is surrounds this veto.

...There's also a whiff of hypocrisy surrounding it, too. In her letter vetoing the bill, Brewer also cited a concern for maintaining local control of local matters.

This the same day she signed HB2281, barring local school districts from offering ethnic studies courses to their students.

...There is a rumor that there will be yet another special session of the lege (8 and counting so far). The plan for this one, if it goes off, will be to pass some version of the Republicans' corporate bailout bill (HB2250 in the regular session).

They'll want to do this ASAP, in order to maximize corporate spending on their campaigns, but this move may be bad tactically. They should have passed this *before* passing SB1070, Russell Pearce's "show us your papers" anti-immigrant bill. If they had, their corporate tax cuts would have been lost in the uproar over their scheme to suspend Bill of Rights protections for people with brown skin.

Now, the AZ lege is under a nationwide microscope, and anything they do will be dissected.

If more of the Rs had attended last week's Project Civil Discourse Town Hall on the sales tax (only House Republican leader John McComish was there), they might be rethinking their plans.

While there was a variety of perspectives on the sales tax proposal, one thread seemed to run through all the comments, whether supporting or opposing the referendum - almost nobody trusts the legislature to handle things properly.

...The Arizona Democratic Party has come out in opposition to the calls for a boycott of Arizona over SB1070. They feel a boycott will hurt the average Arizonan, most of whom have nothing to do with the bill, and prefer to rally support and change the composition of the legislature. (my paraphrase, so if any nuances have been missed, the fault is mine)

I understand the reasoning and even would agree with it, except that this is Arizona.

Here, the Republicans refuse to hear any of the voices raised in protest to their anti-immigrant law, but they will hear (and have heard in the past) the sound of closing wallets.

Until the ADP implements a "30 District" strategy to contest every seat in the lege and sticks with it, and either gains control of one or both chambers of the lege (or at least makes the Rs learn that they can't take control of the lege for granted), the Rs aren't going to change.

As such, while I agree that a boycott will have negative effects on many Arizonans that weren't involved in the passage of SB1070, those effects will be less bad than the effects of the law if it goes unchallenged.

...It looks as if even national Republicans are embarrassed by their Arizona counterparts. In what comes as a bit of a surprise, the GOP has bypassed Phoenix and awarded its 2012 convention to Tampa, Florida.

Tampa???? Phoenix was stood up for Tampa?? Thank you Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer...

Hmmm....wouldn't it be sweet if the Democratic National Committee now decides to hold its convention here? You know that the R whackjobs would crawl out from under every rock in the Southwest to make their presence known...colorfully...in front of half the TV cameras in the known universe.

Just randomly musing... :)

...Yesterday, I got a dirty look from a signature collector for one of the three Democrats who recently jumped into the race to challenge for John McCain's Senate seat. When she approached me for a sig, I advised her that I couldn't sign the petition because I had signed another candidate's paperwork (Rodney Glassman). The dirty look came when I further advised her that she and her candidate should have begun collecting sigs months before the deadline, not three weeks before.

The sad part is that I was trying to be helpful. I think a couple of the candidates are interesting, even intriguing. However, a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat can't make the run/don't run decision on the spur of the moment, and it looks like these three did so.

May 2010 is the time to start building the foundation for a 2012 run at Jon Kyl's seat, not for a 2010 run at John McCain's seat.

Later...

Kyl and McCain abandon average Arizonas for Wall St. bigwigs

Yeah, they served this one up like a BP fastball during baseball's homerun derby so it doesn't seem fair to hit it out of the park.



Too bad.



Earlier today, the U.S. Senate failed to invoke cloture (limit debate) on financial reform. The bill is something that Wall St. interests have been working diligently with the Republicans in the Senate to beat back. (AP coverage, via Yahoo! News, here)

Today, all of the Senate's Republicans, including Arizona's Jon Kyl and John McCain, and one Democratic defector (Ben Nelson of Nebraska) teamed up to put Wall Street's interests before that of Main Street's.

This is nothing new from the McKyl brothers, but it is still a little disappointing and more than a little surprising. In this year where the only people held in lower esteem than long-time elected officials (you know, like Senators McCain and Kyl) are Wall Street executives, this should have been an easy call for our Jon and John.

OK, it probably *was* an easy call for them - both have well-documented histories of placing the interests of deep-pocketed donors above the interests of the people they were sent to D.C. to represent.

Jon Kyl on the Supreme Court: Ideology is more important than qualifications

From the Washington Post -

There isn’t even a vacancy on the Supreme Court and yet the absurdities have already begun.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the minority whip, essentially warned President Obama that sterling qualifications won’t be enough for his next high court pick to be confirmed. “I think the president will nominate a qualified person,” Kyl said. “I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test.”

Another relevent line, this one from the Fox News piece linked in the WaPo quote -

Specter said he wants a nominee who is "tough" on executive power. But Kyl said that's exactly the kind of pick his party wants to avoid.

Yup, 'cause God knows that "checks and balances" were never part of the intent of the original Framers of the Constitution.

Anyway, Kyl is talking like a guy who A) knows that the Rs will eventually control the White House again, and wants to make sure they have only a lapdog SCOTUS to deal with, not a bulldog SCOTUS: and B) who is considering the possibility that he will be on the R ticket in 2012 as VP, and wants to have as much freedom from judicial scrutiny as was enjoyed by Dick Cheney.

Short Attention Span Musing

Edit later on 10/7 with a correction to a factual error...

Just a few questions that I've been wondering about...


...Wouldn't it be ironic if AZ Senator Jon Kyl's anti-maternity care diatribe during a Senate hearing on health care reform is what pushes Maine Republican Senator Olympia Snowe off the fence and onto the side of health care reform?

- In a related note, at 1 p.m, State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema and a group of Arizona mothers and medical personnel will rally at Kyl's office (2200 E. Camelback in Phoenix) to protest Kyl's contempt for them and all expectant mothers (OK, so that's a bit of an overstatement, but he served this one up like a BP fastball to Albert Pujols).


...What's going on in the Scottsdale City Hall? There is, as usual, a 4 - 3 divide on the Council regarding most significant issue (Mayor Lane and Council members Borowsky, Littlefield, and Nelssen on one side and Council members Ecton, Klapp, and McCullagh on the other).

That divide is actually pretty much par for the course with the Scottsdale City Council. What is interesting is the way that it has manifested itself.

For instance, I've noticed something while attending the meetings of the Charter Review Task Force - the "three," Ecton, Klapp, and McCullagh have been at each one, observing intently and taking notes. After talking with other City Hall-watchers, I found out that they've also been regulars at the meetings of the Budget Review Commission.

Considering that the work being performed by the folks on the Task Force and the Commission is vital to both the short-term and long-term interests of Scottsdale, the fact that Council members are paying close attention is laudable.

So why aren't the "four" - Lane, Borowsky, Littlefield, and Nelssen - there too?

Disclaimer: I *did* see Borowsky at one meeting of the Charter Review Task Force, but she entered the Kiva (City Hall meeting area) from the back of the building, watched the proceedings for a moment, and left. She was just passing through, not watching and learning.

Are the "three" more dedicated to their jobs? Or are they just not receiving the same breadth and depth of info from Council staff , which is overseen by Tim Lasota, Lane's chief of staff ?

Edit to add a correction: I contacted Pat Dodds, Scottsdale's Public Affairs Officer, for info about the structure of the Mayor and Council's staff.

It turns out that Council staff members do not directly report to Tim Lasota. It used to be that the staffers for the Mayor and Council reported to the City Manager's staff reported to the City Manager. That was changed earlier this year so that they now report to the City Clerk. While it seems likely that the Mayor's own staffers (an admin and an assistant) are directed by Lasota in practical terms, they and the Council staff do not report to him officially.

Of course, the change in the org chart reporting lines (from City Manager to City Clerk) only serve to highlight the dysfunctionality that currently permeates Scottsdale's City Hall. (see the "jihad" comment below)

Thanks to Mr. Dodd for his quick response with the correct information.

Also. apologies to Mr. Lasota if he was offended by the comment that he was in charge of Council staff. I don't expect that he was offended, but since the factual error was mine, an apology is merited.

End edit...

Disclaimer2: I have never voted for any of the "three", but am beginning to wonder if maybe I should have.


...I am beginning to wonder if the current budget stalemate/meltdown at the Capitol, with all of the very public internecine Republican angst associated with it, was all part of a larger plan to force a smaller, anti-Arizonan, pro-corporation model of government onto Arizona, without bothering with a change to AZ's Constitution?

Let's see some of the signs that have recently been in the news -

The Governor and the Legislature crippling the Arizona Corporation Commission, the fourth branch of government in created in the Arizona Constitution (Article 15), with more cuts to the rest of the government coming due to their continued inaction regarding the budget crisis;

The Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District micromanaging the District toward mediocrity (and proudly saying that is their job);

The jihad that the Republican mayor and council in Scottsdale is conducting against professional staff.

This all may not be part of a specific plan for a quiet de facto coup d'etat, but it highlights what happens when a major political party allows a petty and extreme political ideology to triumph over professionalism and a committment to the community.

Stay tuned...

Quote of the week - IOKIYAR edition

Republican Senator Jon Kyl, AZ's own Big Insurance lobbyist, provides a gem this week.

From the Arizona Republic -

...Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said Obama deserves some of the blame for the polarization, saying the president went out of his way to be "unnecessarily politically pugnacious" during his speech to the joint session of Congress.

Obama took several shots at his health-reform critics, at one point vowing, "If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out."

So, after a summer during which Republicans all over the country referred to President Obama as a "Nazi" and/or "socialist"; where health insurance industry lies are regarded as Gospel truth by Rep members of Congress; where teabaggers shouted down supporters of health care reform at public forums; where other teabaggers hung an effigy of a Congressman because of his support of health care reform; members of Congress continued to spread the lie that President Obama isn't a citizen; a dozen armed protesters, including one with an assault rifle, greeted President Obama when he visited Phoenix in August; an Obama speech to students that advised them to stay in school, listen to their teachers, and do their homework was criticized at "too political" by Republicans; where...you know.

That's all OK with Kyl. Apparently, he doesn't consider those actions and words to be "inappropriately pugnacious."

Telling Reps that they will be held accountable for their part in coarsening public discourse, now *that* is too "pugnacious."

So remind me again Republicans - why were auto industry bailouts bad, but banking bailouts good?

Last fall, at the height of D.C.'s bailout mania during the waning days of the Bush administration (and yes, into the beginning of the Obama administration), there was strong support in Congress for bailing out the white collar banks whose irresponsible and even fraudulent practices helped precipitate the deepest U.S. economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Yet, when the auto industry came calling, with its hundreds of thousands blue collar manufacturing jobs, the Republicans in Congress, led by AZ's own Jon Kyl, expressed outrage at the mere thought of bailouts for them.

Fast forward to today, when Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General for the State of New York, released a report on the bonus practices of bailed-out banks. (warning: the .pdf file is rather large; if you are using a dialup connection, it may take a while to download in its entirety.)

From the New York Times' article on the report -

The Wall Street millionaire club had nearly 5,000 members in 2008.

At least 4,793 bankers and traders were paid more than $1 million in bonuses last year even as profits at the biggest banks dwindled and they accepted tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, according to a report released on Thursday by the New York Attorney General’s Office.

Something tells me that of all the things that these "bankers and traders" might have bought with their bonuses, none of them bought even a small amount of shame.

Back to AZ later...

The John Sydney McCain Memorial Crappie Award

Throughout the Bush Administration, AZ Senator Jon Kyl carried the Bush's water on Capitol Hill in many ways, but particularly in trying to shepherd Bush's judicial nominations through the Senate. One of his favorite tactics to try to intimidate Democrats who made noises about filibustering the worst of the worst was to cry about "obstructionism" and demand an "up or down" vote on the nominees.

A lengthy Kyl speech on the topic, courtesy his own Senate web site, is here; a written piece is here.

It's clear from the speech and other sources, Kyl considers filibusters a case of Senate minority members "running roughshod over its [the Senate's] traditions."

So what does he do as a member of the now-minority party in the Senate faced with the likelihood that a Democratic president will nominate a liberal to the Supreme Court?

Threatens a filibuster.

Of course.

Let's just proclaim March 18 "National Shameless Posturing Day"

...or maybe "National Triangulation Day"

Let's be clear - the posturing and triangulating wasn't confined to Republicans (though they did dominate in that department)...

Much of it stemmed from the U.S. House's vote on H.R. 1586 (to tax the AIG bonuses at 90%). The bill passed 328 - 93, with 6 Democrats (including CD5's Harry Mitchell) joining 87 Republicans in voting against it.

Everybody, and I mean everybody, who voted on this bill was posturing, since the bill itself doesn't stand a chance of actually becoming law.

It might fail to gain cloture in the Senate (it will only take a few Dems who aren't up for election next year to kill it, and AIG has given LOTS of campaign contributions over the years); if passed...

It might not get into law by President Obama; if enacted...

It won't survive a constitutional challenge (can you say "bill of attainder" or "ex post facto law", both of which are explicitly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution - Article One, Section Nine)

...Of course, the posturing and triangulation wasn't limited to the primary vote on the bill itself; once it became obvious that the bill was going to pass with or without their support, dozens of Republicans switched their votes from "no" to "yes".

...Over in the Senate, when Harry Reid tried to get the bill passed by unanimous consent, in spite of his (faux) criticisms of the bonuses, Jon Kyl objected (source: Countdown with Keith Olbermann)

...And in a move that would merit consideration for a Crappie Award for Kyl (if only he hadn't won one yesterday :)) ), Kyl joined fellow shameless hypocrite Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) in criticizing President Obama for taking time out of dealing with the economy and the AIG bonus scandal to fill out an NCAA Tournament bracket (his predicted winner: UNC; mine? Louisville. Sorry ASU. :)) ).

Besides the insult to Obama, that he was like his predecessor and can't handle more than one issue at a time without suffering from brainfreeze, Kyl and Alexander forgot to mention one thing.

Their friend and colleague John McCain did the same thing. He even selected UNC to win it all.

Just like the President.

Geez...a guy goes to work and all sorts of twisting with the wind, flip-floppery, and outright hypocrisy breaks out all over...

More tomorrow (maybe featuring the AZ lege...)