State Rep. Amish Shah files for a run for Congress

Dr. Amish Shah, a Democratic State Representative from LD5 has formed a committee with the FEC for a candidacy for Congress.

He's not running for Ruben Gallego's soon-to-be vacant seat, but is challenging the unethical David Schweikert instead.  In 2022, Schweikert won re-election by a little over 3K votes over Jevin Hodge, a Democrat with lots of energy but almost no name recognition.  He's vulnerable.

The treasurer for the committee is Heather Mrowiec.

The form filed with the FEC is here.

The first thing that Republican members of the US House do is to help the wealthy

Well, the 2nd thing.

:)

They may have been divided on who their Speaker would be, but they were united on this.

From Quartz via Yahoo! -

Republicans’ first bill makes tax fraud easier for high earners

Republicans set the tone for their next two years running the House of Representatives by enacting legislation that would add $114 billion to the deficit over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The bill in question, passed by House Republicans on Monday, repealed new funding for the IRS that the government authorized last year as part of its Inflation Reduction Act. That funding—some $80 billion—would have gone to hire new staffers, upgrade technology, and generally strengthen enforcement. The goal of the funding was to reduce the estimated 13% of taxes that are annually owed but never paid to the government, equal to about $428 billion last year, or about a third of the federal deficit.

Townsend, spurned by Cheeto, quits race for Congress

From KJZZ -

Townsend, not endorsed by Trump, quits House race in Arizona

Arizona state Sen. Kelly Townsend announced Friday she is withdrawing from the race for the Republican nomination for Arizona's new 6th Congressional District because former President Donald Trump hasn't endorsed her.

Despite encouragement and repeated assurances, “the promised formal endorsement has still not materialized," leaving her unable to unify the conservative vote in the August primary, Townsend said in a statement.

[snip]

Redistricting put (state senator Wendy) Rogers and Townsend in the same legislative district and they avoided a head-to-head matchup when Townsend decided to seek the congressional seat.

Townsend's statement said she would “happily” focus on the state Capitol rather than the nation's Capitol, which left open a race against Rogers for the Senate.

Responding to an inquiry from the Associated Press, Townsend said that was indeed a possibility. She also said she could return to the private sector or return to college to get a doctorate. She is a doula, a trained professional who assists mothers giving birth.

What "possibility"?

She's running.  The only question remaining is if it will be against Rogers.

From Twitter -

Committees update

Yes, it's only 2017, but many candidates are already stepping forward for races in 2018.

In some cases, it's out of necessity - the races are so involved that an effective campaign needs time to sufficiently get up to speed (i.e. - fundraise).

In other cases, it about trying to clear the field (i.e. - minimize viable opposition).

In a few cases, it's about getting in some practice early on so that when campaign season gets fully up to speed, they'll be in full throat when they bay at the moon (we *are* talking about AZ, after all :) ).

Things will change before the cycle is over.  Some of the current candidates will discontinue their candidacies, and other people will jump in.

Also, races for seats in the legislature are still in almost complete flux; those will be covered at a later date.  This post will be all about races for statewide offices and seats in Congress.

On to the meat of this post (where a city is included - "Candidate X of city ABC", the city is based on the committee address)...

In CD9, seat currently held by Democrat (in name, anyway) Kyrsten Sinema, Irina Baroness von Behr of Tempe has filed for the race for the Republican nomination.  She was last seen running for a seat on the Tempe City Council, where she finished a distant last.

Talia Fuentes of Tempe has filed for the race for the Democratic nomination in CD9.  Her filing with the FEC specifically states that she the seat in CD9, but her website only discusses CD5.

Dave Giles of Gilbert has filed for another run at the Republican nomination in CD9.

Edna San Miguel of Tucson has filed for a run at the R nomination in CD3 (currently held by *D Raul Grijalva).
*Edited; a reader at Blog for Arizona spotted an error on my part.  Originally, I stated that the seat was held by Republican Paul Gosar.  I regret the error and thank Mr. Cizek for noticing and bringing it to my attention


Brianna Westbrook of Sun City has filed for a run at the D nomination in CD8 (currently held by R Trent Franks).

Noah Dyer of Phoenix has filed IRS paperwork and AZSOS paperwork for a run at the Democratic nomination for governor.

Pat Quinn of Tucson has filed IRS paperwork for an independent run for US Senate.

Stacie Banks of Phoenix has filed for an independent run for Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Tom Forese, currently a member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, has filed for a run for the R nomination for State Treasurer.

Randy Grivel of Glendale has filed for a run for the R nomination for Arizona Corporation Commission.

Katie Hobbs of Phoenix, currently the Democratic leader in the Arizona State Senate (and my representative there) is running for the D nomination for AZ Secretary of State.

Kathy Hoffman of Glendale has filed for a run at the D nomination for Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Tracy Livingston of Peoria, wife of wingnut state legislator David Livingston, has filed for the R nomination for Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Greg Stanton, currently the mayor of Phoenix, has filed for a run at the D nomination for AZ Secretary of State.  Caveat:  The committee to do that may just be a "placeholder" committee.

Stu Starky of Phoenix has filed for a run at the Green Party nomination for Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Former state senator Kelli Ward is mounting a campaign to oppose Jeff Flake in the R primary for US Senate.


Rumors, or at least stuff that has been said but can't yet be confirmed by agency filings:


Rumors have current AZ Treasurer Jeff Dewit considering a run against Flake for the R nomination for US Senate.  While he has not officially stated his plans for 2018, he has stated that he will not be running for reelection as state treasurer.  If the US Senate thing doesn't work out, he may part of the Trump administration's bench, getting called in to fill a vacancy when turnover there inevitably occurs.

Republican legislative agendas: It's like deja vu all over again

In case anyone thought that the Republicans learned some lessons from their trouncing in November, think again.

In the US House, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-somewhere past the orbit of Pluto...ok, she's from Minnesota.  But this time of year, Pluto and MN are roughly the same temperature.  :) ) introduced, on the very first day of the 113th Congress, introduced HR45, a measure to repeal healthcare reform, also known as "ObamaCare" and HR46, a measure to repeal Dodd-Frank, the minimal increase in oversight of Wall Street and the financial services industry after the financial speculation bubble burst late in the last decade. (no text available for either measure as yet)

The Rs have been wailing against both measures basically since both were enacted; for example, in just the last Congress, the House Republicans voted to repeal health care reform 33 times.

None of their efforts made it through the Senate, and there's no reason to think that these will, if one or both even passes the House.  Of course, both HR45 and HR46 were assigned to *9* committees each, which may be the House Republican leadership's way of saying "quit wasting our time, Michele."

Of course, Republicans in Arizona are no better; in fact, they may actually be worse - they know they may actually get their way.

In Washington, the House Republicans will posture endlessly, but even they know what they're doing it just for show, to appease their base at klavern meetings and country club cocktail parties, but little more.

In Arizona, the Republicans may be looking to appease the same people, but do so with the knowledge that their efforts may actually become the law of the land.

To whit:

State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills, which isn't as far out there as Pluto, but it's close - Fountain Hills is also the home of Joe Arpaio) has filed his first bill for the upcoming session of the Arizona legislature - HCR2003.

If passed by the legislature, it would refer to the ballot a repeal of Arizona's medical marijuana law, a law that was enacted by the voters in 2010.

Since it was enacted, Arizona's elected Republicans have been fighting it in every court that will accept their legal filings. 

They've been going the "court" route because they can't overturn the will of the voters on their own. 

In 1998, the voters of Arizona passed an amendment to the state constitution known as Prop 105, or the Voter Protection Act.  It bars the legislature from overturning a measure approved by the voters.  They *can* amend such a measure, if the amendment both furthers the purpose of the measure and is approved by a 3/4 vote of the lege.

The 1998 measure was necessary because the lege had overturned a 1996 measure relating to...wait for it...

Medical marijuana.


Of course, even in court, they usually lose, and lose badly.  Which leaves Kavanagh's plan as the only one with real viability - get the voters to override themselves.

Which *could* happen, except that the Rs haven't presented any independently verifiable evidence that the voters were wrong to approve the medical marijuana law.  All they've done is present evidence that the Rs don't agree with the voters.

Now, I'm a pretty cynical, "glass half full" kind of guy, but even I think that's not going to be enough to convince the voters of Arizona.

Oh, and given the Republicans' penchant for doing the "same old, same old", I have a nominee for the office of chair of the GOP (national or state, works either way) -

Punxsutawny Phil.


If you don't understand the reference, watch the movie "Groundhog Day", starring Bill Murray.

Is John Boehner using Hurricane Sandy relief as leverage to gain a 2nd term as Speaker of the House?

The 112th Congress adjourned for the last time today.  The next meetings of both the House of Representatives and the Senate will take place tomorrow, but those will mark the beginning of the 113th Congress.

As such, all unfinished business (and there's a lot of it - one of the most unproductive sessions of Congress ever) of the 112th Congress is now dead, and that includes measures that would provide relief to those still suffering the from the effects of Hurricane Sandy, which devastated parts of New Jersey, New York, and other northeastern states approximately two months ago.

The Senate passed a relief measure, but the Republican majority in the House refused to even consider it, much less pass it.

When they adjourned the 112th Congress today, effectively killing any relief for those who are still dealing with the destruction wrought by the historically destructive storm.

The callousness of the Republican leadership incensed people from all over the political spectrum, including Republicans from the affected areas -

Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ), from the Los Angeles Times, written by Paul West -

"Shame on you. Shame on Congress," Christie said at a news conference in Trenton, the state capital. "It's absolutely disgraceful, and I have to tell you, this used to be something that was not political. Disaster relief was something you didn't play games with." But "in this current atmosphere, [it's] a potential piece of bait for the political game. It is why the American people hate Congress."

Congressman Peter King (R-NY) took to the floor of the House to express his outrage (video here, courtesy ABC News) -

"I'm saying right now, anyone from New York or New Jersey who contributes one penny to congressional Republicans is out of their minds," he said in an interview on Fox News. "Because what they did last night was put a knife in the back of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans. It was an absolute disgrace."

Apparently, the Republican leadership is callous, but not deaf.  The uproar was loud enough to inspire the House leadership, in the persons of Speaker John Boehner and Majority leader (and Speaker-wannabe) Eric Cantor, to promise that Sandy relief will be the first thing on the new Congress' agenda.

Caving so quickly doesn't make much sense, until one remembers that the election for House Speaker is tomorrow.

And the votes of the Republican members of the delegations from NY, NJ, and the other states affected by Sandy could be crucial to the eventual victor (I'm betting on Boehner is this horse race, but my insight into internal R caucus politics is limited, to say the least).

I'll be keeping an eye on news reports while I'm at work tomorrow and suggest that those who can also do that, do so.

(Fiscal Cliff) Diving Into The New Year

Well, earlier today, it looked like that some kind of deal had been worked out between the White House, Senate, and House to avoid put off the country going over the "fiscal cliff".

Then it looked like the deal had been killed by a group of House Republicans, led by speaker-wannabe Eric Cantor, who feel that as bad as the measure is in its current form, it isn't bad enough for their taste.

Now it appears that the House *will* vote on the deal tonight (~ between 7 and 8 p.m. AZ time), and without any amendments.

Not going to predict the outcome of the vote tonight, but the vote outcome will serve as a sign of the outcome of another big vote, this one coming Thursday -

If the fiscal cliff measure passes the House, expect John Boehner to retain the speakership for the next session of Congress.

If it doesn't pass (and this includes it not even coming up for a vote), expect Boehner to lose the speakership, ending up deposed in favor of Eric Cantor.

I'd gloat over Boehner's troubles (he's been a horrid speaker), but if he ends up with the job, Cantor will be worse.

The US House is meeting Sunday; I set the over/under at 3

...3, as in "the number of times that John Boehner lets the tears flow"...

In a rare occurence, the US House of Representatives will meet tomorrow, a Sunday. 

The unusual scheduling is ostensibly to give the House a chance to pass a measure that would enable the country to avoid going over the "fiscal cliff".

However, while a number of measures are on the tentative agenda, no one truly expects much to be done tomorrow - the Republican caucus in the House has turned political self-immolation into an art form, and their fiscal cliff negotiating position ("stop me before I shoot myself!") may be their pièce de résistance.

While they still could surprise me (and everyone else, including themselves) and put aside ideological posturing in favor of actually, you know, *governing*, I think the only real question left to ponder is -

Who is going to cry more tomorrow, Cardinals fans or Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner?

For the record, I think that Cardinals fans will cry more often, but I'm not counting tears of joy over the end of a truly painful season.

"Merry Christmas" from the GOP sounds a lot like "up yours"

'Twas the week before Christmas, and all through the House, the Teapublicans were jostling, each trying to prove that he was the biggest louse..."

Tuesday, the Republicans in the US House of Representatives voted to increase taxes on 160 million Americans when they voted to reject a Senate compromise that would have extended the payroll tax holiday by two months.

They're trying to blame President Obama and the Democrats in Congress for this betrayal of the the vast majority of working Americans, but the bottom line is that the people who oppose any tax increases that affect corporations and wealthy people shamelessly threw average people under the economic bus.

Beside the expected outcry from Democrats and other advocates for middle class and working families, even Republicans as disparate as Sen. Scott Brown (MA) and Sen. John McCain (AZ) have roundly criticized the actions of the House Republicans.

 Brown, as perhaps the most vulnerable R senator up for election next year, is justifiably worried about the impact of the Teapublicans' tantrum on his reelection chances.  With consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren hot on his heels, Wall Street's favorite senator has realized that he'd better look like he has Main Street's back if he wants to return to the Senate in 2013.

McCain on the other hand was just reelected last year and is from an R leaning state.  He has no short-term motivations when he points out that the House Rs' greed (they want what they want and refuse to compromise or even negotiate in good faith) is hurting the entire R brand.  Going into a presidential election year.

Most observers, including me, expect that the payroll tax holiday will be extended eventually.  The only real question is how much damage the House Republicans will wreak upon the middle class and the economy as a whole before they do right thing.

Note:  Of the AZ Congressional delegation, Republicans David Schweikert, Ben Quayle, Paul Gosar, and Trent Franks voted to raise taxes on the middle class while Democrats Raul Grijalva and Ed Pastor and Republican Jeff Flake (running for US Senate) voted against it.  Gabby Giffords didn't vote as she is continuing her recovery from January's shooting in Tucson.

Question for the GOP: How does mounting an Inquisition against Planned Parenthood help Americans find jobs?

The American economy is still in the tank - millions of Americans are un- or under-employed, most of those who still own their own homes owe far more on those homes than they are worth, even assuming they could find a buyer, and the economy as a whole is teetering on the precipice of a second dip into a recession (personally, I don't think we ever left the first one), but Congressional Republicans are spending their time working on keeping their base distracted with dog whistles.

The latest tune:

A renewed attack on Planned Parenthood.

From AP, via Yahoo! News -

A Republican-led House panel has asked the Planned Parenthood Federation of America to hand over more than a decade's worth of documents in a probe of whether the organization improperly spends public money on abortions.

Democrats and Planned Parenthood supporters say the 90-year-old group is audited regularly and publicly and that the probe is the latest Republican run at shutting it down.

The committee that is going after Planned Parenthood now is the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

That doesn't seem like a committee that has a lot to do with health issues or health care, but one that should have a LOT to do with trying to improve the economy.

Of course, if the GOPers in charge of that committee were to actually start doing their jobs, their base (and the rest of America) might notice that they haven't been doing their actual jobs.

BTW - I had a thought (yes, that happens occasionally.  Don't laugh.  Or get used to it. :) ).  Planned Parenthood is so far declining to hand over their records,  Maybe they should make a deal with the GOPers.

How about this:  PP will give over their records (excluding patient medical records and anything that could identify patients) if the GOP, in the forms of the RNC, RSCC, RNCC, FreedomWorks, Club for Growth, and a couple of the others, hands over the real books (not the BS reports that they give to the FEC and IRS)

Think the GOPers would go for it?  Anybody?

GOP: Tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations: Bad; tax hikes on the poor and middle class: Good

From AP, via MSNBC.com, written by Charles Babington -

News flash: Congressional Republicans want to raise your taxes.


Impossible, right? GOP lawmakers are so virulently anti-tax, surely they will fight to prevent a payroll tax increase on virtually every wage-earner starting Jan. 1, right?

Apparently not.comm

Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different "temporary" tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase.

They're not even bothering to pretend that they are working for the interests of the average American, are they?

BTW - I am not necessarily opposed to letting the temporary payroll tax cut expire (as much as it would hurt), but it has to be paired with making the tax burden more fairly distributed by also allowing the Bush-era tax cuts, mostly focused on the wealthy and corporations, expire.

However, look for the GOPers to push for higher taxes on the poor and the middle class while at the same time insisting on lower taxes on the wealthy.

They'll call it their "jobs creation" initiative or some such line of BS.

And unfortunately, look for the Obama administration to surrender to the R extremists yet again.

Stage one of the latest mugging of America complete: House passes debt ceiling deal

Edited on August 2 to correct an error.  I initially wrote that Paul Gosar voted against the measure, when in fact, he voted for it.  Thanks go out to reader Robert Leger for spotting the mistake.

Monday, the House passed the debt ceiling mugging "compromise" by a 269 - 161 vote.  The vote did have the unexpected effect of uniting the usually-divided-along-partisan-lines Arizona delegation, where all but two members voted against the measure (Democrats Pastor and Gijalva were no votes because it was such a horrific deal, Republicans Quayle, Schweikert, Franks, and Flake voted no because it isn't horrific enough).  The members of the Arizona delegation who voted in favor: Republican Paul Gosar and...

Democrat Gabby Giffords, who returned from her long rehab following the January mass shooting in Tucson.

Pic of the one true highlight of the day -

Pic courtesy Laura McGann of Politico

She may have voted the wrong way today, but it was still great to see her back at work.

....As a related aside, look for whoever stage managed the moment for the White House to move to Hollywood after the 2012 elections.  He or she is obviously good enough to make some serious money there and just as obviously, he or she will be looking for a job by the end of next year.

Latest possible debt ceiling deal emerges; screwing of America pending

...When the best hope for the country is if the tea-publicans get arrogant and oppose the deal in the belief that they can squeeze even more out of the stone that is what remains of the American economy and the American people, we're in deep trouble...fortunately, we can probably count on the tea party types reaching for more...unfortunately, we can probably count on Barack Obama, Harry Reid and the rest of the DC Dems to give it to them.

From the San Francisco Chronicle -

Congressional leaders and the Obama administration negotiated to finish the details of an agreement to raise the U.S. debt ceiling, paving the way for possible votes in the Senate tonight and the House tomorrow on a plan to avert a U.S. default and calm market concerns.

"We're really, really close to an agreement, and we'll let you know when we get it," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told reporters as he left the Senate chamber today.

{snip}

Under the emerging plan, a bipartisan congressional super- committee would be charged with coming up with the savings by late November, and its recommendations would receive expedited consideration and a certain vote by Christmas.

{snip}

Socially liberal groups and lawmakers expressed anger at the emerging package because it omits tax increases while cutting deeply into government spending and threatening still more reductions to safety-net programs such as Medicare.

"This deal does not even attempt to strike a balance between more cuts for the working people of America and a fairer contribution from millionaires and corporations," Representative Raul Grijalva, the Arizona Democrat who leads the Progressive Caucus, said in a statement. "I will not be a part of it."

Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion has Congressman Grijalva's full statement here.

Bottom line:  Decimation of the social safety net is on the table; tax increases on corporations and the wealthy are off of the table.

Why don't they just pass a d@mn budget?

Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2560, the Republican posturing bill that sets an arbitrary cap on federal spending and mandates immediate cuts to spending on discretionary spending (mostly social programs and infrastructure spending).  In addition, H.R. 2560 mandates that the House and Senate approve a "balanced budget" amendment to the US Constitution before the debt ceiling can be raised. 

The bill passed by a vote that was almost completely along party lines.  All five AZ Republicans voted for the bill (all five were also cosponsors), while AZ Democrats Raul Grijalva and Ed Pastor opposed it, and Gabrielle Giffords was absent).

The "balanced budget" amendment measures mentioned are H.J. Res. 56, S.J. Res 10, and H.J. Res. 1.  All have a budget IMbalance clause in them - a requirement that measures that raise taxes or otherwise increase revenue need a 2/3 majority to pass each chamber of Congress.

That's the same clause that has destroyed fiscal stability in Arizona, California, and a number of other states.  It has very effectively blocked any moves to increase revenues, whether through tax rate hikes or through simple closure of loopholes, yet allows for the passage of practically permanent tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

All of this, including the brinkmanship over increasing the federal debt limit, is geared toward forcing a showdown over federal spending.

Except that the Republicans in the House are already in a position to cut spending any way they want, and have been since January.

Under Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, the House controls the purse strings, and the Republicans control the House.

If they want to cut federal spending and decrease taxes, then they can just pass a budget with less spending and more tax cuts.

Of course, that would mean standing up and explaining why tax breaks for owners of corporate jets are more important than education, or why massive tax credits for oil companies are needed more than the infrastructure need to clean up the messes that oil companies leave wherever they go (like all over the Gulf Coast).

They don't want to do that - they've been getting their butts handed to them in special elections since they made it clear that their intent was to leverage their majority status in the US House into a complete dismantling of the country's social safety net.  They want to funnel  the public treasury away from the public and into corporate coffers, but they know if they are up front about that fact, they'll lose their jobs (and probably undercut the chances of a Republican winning the White House in 2012).

Hence, the scheme to distract people into swallowing cuts to Social Security (which has nothing to do with the budget, other than the annual siphoning of money from Social Security's trust fund into the general fund), Medicaid (which is funded by a special payroll tax) and education (which only secures the country's future, which is something that any government of any country is supposed to protect and nurture).

They're hoping to use the threat of economic armageddon brought on by a failure to increase the debt ceiling (something that even Ronald Reagan, the late Republican icon, thought was the responsible thig to do) to keep people focused on that issue instead of the gutting of America's social safety net and physical infrastructure.

I have no idea if the debt ceiling will actually be raised, but if it is, they'll wait until the last possible moment to do so.

And if it isn't, they'll blame President Obama for the Republican-engineered destruction of the economy.

Schweikert reaching...into some deep pockets

From Huffington Post, written by Paul Blumenthal -

Of all the ways that Congress finds to make Americans cringe, the creation of leadership political action committees (PACs) -- campaign finance vehicles that provide yet another avenue for special interest influence and test the furthest limits of the English language with unwieldy acronyms -- may induce the strongest grimaces.

{snip}

The House Financial Services Committee, a well-known feeding ground for money-hungry lawmakers, is the most represented committee among GOP freshmen with PACs and includes Reps. Robert Hurt (Va.), Dave Schweikert (Ariz.), Jim Renacci (Ohio), and Michael Grimm (N.Y.). The campaign committees of these four lawmakers have all received an inordinate amount of contributions from financial PACs. Now those financial PACs, some of the biggest donors to Congress, have another avenue to contribute to new committee members overseeing their industry. Republicans, as well as Democrats, place vulnerable members on the committee so they can raise funds from the industry the panel oversees.

Interesting article.  It inspired me to do a little research on the FEC's website.

A "leadership" PAC to benefit freshman GOPers Schweikert, Hurt, Steve Stivers and Francisco Canseco named "Freshman Majority" was formed late April/early May and hasn't filed any reports yet.  However, Schweikert's latest campaign filing shows that he has been the recipient of a lot of bribes campaign contributions from industries that have matters before the Financial Services Committee in the US House.

He reported $166K in contributions during the three month period ending March 31; more than 25% $43,000 came directly from insurance, banking, and real estate PACs (or, in a couple of cases, lawyer/lobbying firm PACs where they firm self-identifies as working primarily for interests in those areas; other lobbyist firm contributions were not added into this total).

Another 15%, or $26K, came from individual donors who self-identified as working in the same businesses.

Think it's a coincidence that Schweikert opposes regulation of financial industry activities and supports destroying Medicare and replacing it with a corporate Vouchercare program?

The not-so-fine line between "dumb" and "dumbass"

I was going to title this post "Well, didn't see that one coming" but we all saw "it", and that was the problem.

Today, Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) admitted that yes, he was responsible for the lewd pictures sent via his Twitter fieed to a college student in Seattle.  His original story that his Twitter account was hacked, well, that story was a lie.

He also admitted that he had a number of online "relationships" with women who he has never met.

That makes him dumb.  He's not the first guy to do something like that, nor is he the first to initially deny everything when caught.

However, when a high-profile public figure such as a member of Congress not only does that, but does it under his own name and with pictures and is expects to keep it a secret, that's the very definition of "dumbass".

Congressman Anthony Weiner is a dumbass.

I like him politically, and as DC scandals goes, this is pretty minor league.  I hope it doesn't lead to the end of his political career. 

I'm still happy that he isn't married to one of my sisters, however.


My advice to Congressman Weiner and all Democratic officeholders -

1.  Nothing, not phone calls, text messages, emails, Tweets, Facebook updates or whatever, is secret.  If it's embarrassing or can be spun in an embarrassing way, it *will* come out.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't use those forms of communication, but don't say, write, or send something that you wouldn't want on display in open church in front of your grandparents and fiercest rival.

2.  Don't try to tell jokes.  You can't do it right.  Ask John Kerry.  Or Barack Obama

Leave the jokes to the jokers.


My advice to Republican office-holders -

1.  Say what you want; do what you want.  For example (hypotheticall speaking, of course) -

- Like to hang out in airport restrooms?  Go for it.

- Have a habit of sending creepy emails to underage pages?  No one will care.  Trust me.

- Want to abandon your official duties in favor of a booty call in Argentina?  Your constituents will be cool with that.

- Want to boink the wife of a family friend, and use you parents to funnel hush money your girlfriend and her husband?  Sounds brilliant.

- Sending semi-nude pictures of yourself?  Not a problem.

2.  Tell all the jokes that you want.  The more off-color and bigoted, the better.  People will appreciate it, especially if they are the target of your joke.  You'll seem like "just folks."

Later...

Debt Ceiling Up For A Vote Tomorrow; Nationwide Default Imminent

After weeks of posturing and playing chicken with America's economic stability (and fiscal credibility), House Republicans are bringing H.R. 1954, raising the government's debt limit, to the floor for a vote Tuesday evening.

It's a vote designed to fail - they're bringing the bill to the floor under "suspension of the rules," meaning that it will require a 2/3 vote to pass.

There are 432 members of the House right now, and 2/3 of that total is 288.  That means that if all 192 Democrats in the House voted to raise the debt limit, the measure would still need 96 Republicans to vote for it in order to pass.

However, not every D will vote for it  (though the vast majority will) plus some will be absent (i.e. - Gabby Giffords).  In other words, H.R. 1954 will need the support of somewhere between 102 and 106 Rs to pass.

Probably not going to happen.  Most of them are more interested in adhering to their economic nihilist ideology than in actually governing.

The move to require a 2/3 vote, however, frees up any Republican who is from a district that is more moderate than they are to vote for raising the debt ceiling without, you know, actually raising the debt ceiling.

The vote is scheduled for ~6:30 p.m. Eastern, or 3:30 p.m. Arizona time.  The debate on the matter will be earlier in the day, late morning or early afternoon Arizona time.

Government Executive magazine, a publication of the National Journal, offers a list of likely ramifications of default here.  For readers who believe that ultimately the Republicans will do the responsible thing here, read the list.

There's nothing on the list that the Republicans harbor any serious objections toward.

Republican plans to destroy Medicare run aground; leadership cries "Full steam ahead!" anyway

Republican members of Congress across the country have been getting an earful from constituents on their plan to gut Medicare, the health care plan for America's seniors.

The public expressions of displeasure have even reached Arizona.

From an AP article by Paul Babington, via Philly.com -

Robert Howarth, a Republican-turned-Democrat in Arizona, urged freshman Republican Rep. David Schweikert to find "other ways" besides the House-backed plan.


"We don't have to gut Medicare and go after the poor people on disability and Medicare," Howarth said at Schweikert's spirited town hall in Tempe, Ariz. "The millionaires and billionaires are not paying their fair share, like they used to," he said.

Howarth noted there was a strong economy and federal budget surplus during a time of higher tax rates in Bill Clinton's presidency.

The national pushback was so strong and nearly-universal that the Republicans have, backed off from their plans.  For now, anyway.

While temporarily heartening, the GOP leadership has already reiterated their threats against America's seniors, all in the name of "balancing the budget."

Of course, affirming their intent to gut Medicare only a couple of days after all but two of them voted to protect taxpayer subsidies to the most profitable industry in history only serves to illustrate the authenticity of their interest in "balancing" the budget.

The AP article quoted above, while written and published days before the Protect Big Oil vote, had a rather prescient line -

In an interview, Schweikert said he has talked with "market makers" who told him "we're going to punish you" if Congress doesn't make huge strides in reducing the deficit.

It's clear that Schweikert and his fellow Republicans in Congress may have the job title of "representative."

It's also clear that they have neither intent nor even interest in "representing" the people of their districts.

What's the difference between the Tea Party and a black hole?

One is incredibly dense and sucks all of the light and energy from a collapsing stars and other things around them, and the other is an astonomical phenomenon.  :)

First, today's politics lesson from Republican House Speaker John Boehner, courtesy ABC News' George Stephanopoulos -

Speaker of the House John Boehner said he is in lockstep with the Tea Party on budget negotiations despite claims from Democrats that there could be a deal if only he could buck the Tea Party.


“Listen, there’s no daylight between the Tea Party and me,” Boehner told me today during our exclusive interview.

Now, today's science lesson, courtesy NationalGeographic.com -

Black holes are the cold remnants of former stars, so dense that no matter—not even light—is able to escape their powerful gravitational pull.


While most stars end up as white dwarfs or neutron stars, black holes are the last evolutionary stage in the lifetimes of enormous stars that had been at least 10 or 15 times as massive as our own sun.

Schweikert votes to protect oil companies

Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.J. Res 44, a resolution continuing government operations for another two weeks, by a vote of 335 - 91.  As one can see from those totals, support for the measure was bipartisan, even if a lot of that support was of the "I'll hold my nose and vote for this anyway" variety.

Less bipartisan was the vote on a proposal by Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA) to add a clause to the measure "prohibiting the use of funds to be used for tax benefit or relief for any major integrated oil company."

What is possibly the single most profitable industry in the world is also one of the most highly subsidized.

Arizona's David Schweikert (R-CD5), a self-professed fiscal hawk, someone who never fails to grab an opportunity to rail about the federal deficit, had an opportunity to vote to cut the federal deficit by BILLIONS of dollars.

So what did he do?

Voted with every other Republican in the House of Representatives to continue the budget-busting (but oh-so-campaign-contribution-friendly) corporate subsidies.

The proposal to end oil company subsidies for as long as the federal government is operating under a continuing resolution (as opposed to an actual budget) went down 176 - 249.

Of course.