Interesting comparison...

...when you compare the constituent services of a relative rookie (by D.C. standards anyway) like Harry Mitchell with a grizzled veteran Beltway insider like Jon Kyl, it's reasonable to expect that the veteran will show up the rookie.

Sometimes expectations have nothing to do with reality.

Ya know, many people, including me, have contacted Harry Mitchell over his FISA vote, and continue to disagree with that vote even after hearing or reading his explanation of it.

But disagree with him or not, at least he has responded to the concerns raised by his constituents.

Which is totally unlike another Arizonan sent to D.C. to represent us, Senator Jon Kyl.

Last month, July 12th to be precise, Rajan Zed, a Hindu clergyman from Nevada, was invited to give the morning prayer on the floor of the U.S. Senate. That prayer was disrupted by a group of Christian fundamentalists. who were promptly arrested on misdemeanor charges.

After writing a post about the incident, I wrote a letter to Senators Kyl and McCain, submitting it via their websites.

Today, I received a response from Senator Kyl.

Let me quote from the letter; no, actually let me quote the entire letter -

Dear Mr. [cpmaz],

Thank you for contacting me about Rajan Zed's being permitted to deliver the Senate's opening prayer on July 12. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me, and hope that you will continue to keep me informed of your thoughts and concerns.

Sincerely,

Jon Kyl
United States Senator

JK/tjh

This letter is so generic, it could have been sent to people who expressed support for the extremists who nearly caused an international incident with their bigotry!

Say what you want about Harry Mitchell's FISA vote, at least he and his staff are on top of constituent communications; the same cannot be said for Jon Kyl and his staff.

Later!

Open letter time - FISA bill

There are a lot of topics that I could write about tonight...

...the parliamentary meltdown on the House floor last night, during consideration of the Agriculture Appropriations bill...

...the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. standing up to the executive branch by ruling that the FBI overstepped its bounds when it raided Rep. William Jefferson's House office and took legislative documents...

...the fingerpointing has already begun in the case of the bridge collapse in Minneapolis...

...and there are others that would be just as worthy, but there is one topic that is of overriding concern tonight.


Bush's latest attack on civil liberties, the Senate's meek acquiescence, and the House's failure to pass a version of the bill that calls for tighter judicial oversight.

From the Washington Post -

The Senate bowed to White House pressure last night and passed a Republican plan for overhauling the federal government's terrorist surveillance laws, approving changes that would temporarily give U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order.

The 60 to 28 vote, which was quickly denounced by civil rights and privacy advocates, came after Democrats in the House failed to win support for more modest changes that would have required closer court supervision of government surveillance. Earlier in the day, President Bush threatened to hold Congress in session into its scheduled summer recess if it did not approve the changes he wanted.

The legislation, which is expected to go before the House today, would expand the government's authority to intercept without a court order the phone calls and e-mails of people in the United States who are communicating with people overseas.

Folks, it's time to write letters to our Congresscritters (Harry Mitchell in my case)...

Congressman Mitchell -

As it is late here in Arizona, I'll be brief...

First, let me commend you for your support of HR3356. Even though it didn't gain the 2/3 majority to pass, it was a superior bill to the Senate's FISA bill because of its stronger judicial oversight component.

Later today, it is likely that the House will consider the Senate's FISA bill.

I am writing to strongly urge you to stand fast against the President's attempt to further bypass judicial oversight of his actions.

The fact that he is trying to railroad Congress into passing a bill with no oversight should raise red flags all over Washington, much as it has all over the country.

The President has threatened to keep Congress in session until he gets his way; so be it.

The extra time will allow the House time to take up Congressman Inslee's call to investigate, and if appropriate, impeach, Attorney General Gonzales.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[cpmaz]

...And let me now strongly urge everyone who reads this to contact their Congressman or -woman *today.*

Use the email contact form on their websites, or simply pick up the phone and call his/her office, but let them know that it is time to stand up to Bush, and that we are watching.

Perhaps the best argument to make to a Congresscritter would be to mention the idea that the reason for Congress' dismal approval ratings (below Bush's!) could be the fact that one of the reasons for the Democratic wave last year is that we wanted people in office that would stand up for America, and to date, these folks haven't done it.

The House phone list can be found here.

Good night...

A first for me - a letter to the Governor

This letter concerned the ongoing efforts by Rep. John Kavanagh and others to repeal the ignition interlock device statute, written by Rep. David Schapira, that was recently signed into law.

The letter -

Dear Governor,

I am writing to urge you to veto SB1582, the bill that as amended, would repeal the recently enacted law requiring that first-time DUI offenders have an ignition interlock device (IID) installed in their vehicles.

Some of the supporters of the repeal of the law, such as Rep. John Kavanagh, argued that there is no evidence that IIDs prevent first-time offenders from using their vehicles.

While that particular point is debatable, I have to ask, with all due respect to Rep. Kavanagh, how often does this legislature pass a law creating a punishment for a violation of a law without having hard evidence that the punishment will have the intended effect? Witness the vast majority of immigration-related measures passed by the Arizona legislature in recent years.

Others, such as Rep. Ben Miranda, argued that the IIDs would financially impact the families of the offenders.

Perhaps so, but an IID has less of an impact than a term in jail, and it has nowhere near the impact that is experienced by the victims of a drunk driver, even if it was the very first time the driver operated their vehicle while under the influence.

In short, the IID law is a reasonable and measured law. It doesn’t try to prevent people from drinking, or take an overly punitive but ultimately irrelevant action against the offender.

Instead, it addresses the crime directly – get convicted of driving while under the influence, and society will take steps to ensure that you cannot drive while under the influence.

Is the new law perfect?

Almost certainly not (no law is), but it deserves a chance. Let the law work for the remainder of the year. Then, if there are flaws, the next session of the Legislature can fine tune or repeal the law if necessary.

If SB1582 actually makes it to your desk, it deserves your veto.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

There are a number of people who, like me, have been struck by the incongruity of a law-and-order Republican like Kavanagh pushing this repeal.

AZ Rep columnist Laurie Roberts weighs in on the issue, stating that liquor industry representatives have been lobbying hard against IIDs.

I strongly urge anyone else who is interested to contact the Governor and express your opinion.

Her contact info:

The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Governor of Arizona
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Telephone (602) 542-4331
Toll Free 1-(800) 253-0883
Fax (602) 542-1381

The contact page on her website can be found here.

Later!