I dread Romney-Clinton

Can you imagine a worse set of choices than Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton? You have a person with no core beliefs other than fulfilling his family dream of becoming president and a person who is so eager to get back there that she will try to confuse people where she stands on THE issue of the day: Iraq.

Both candidates seem to think that doing more of the same or a smaller version thereof will be acceptable to the American people. And it won't. If the major parties go this route, it could spell trouble.

The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can't-stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn't consider voting for him.

What does that mean? Low turnout, possibly. Or Bloomberg having a realistic chance in throwing the whole thing to guy who thinks tying his dog to the car makes him tough.

illegal wiretaps and subpoenas, part deux

So yesterday I praised Sen. Hatch for voting with the overwhelming majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee to subpoena the White House for information about its warrantless wiretapping program. Unfortunately, Rep. Cannon seems to disagree with Sen. Hatch (via TPMmuckracker):

It is unfortunate that the Majority has seen fit to turn down reasonable offers of cooperation in favor of court battles that will do nothing except draw headlines and further distract the Judiciary Committee from work that needs to be done. After close to 10,000 pages of documents, dozens of interviews and testimony under oath, this investigation has not led, as the majority has speculated, to the White House. This investigation has spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours of work to discover politics play a part in political appointments. If the Majority had accommodated the White House in the early part of the year, we could have already interviewed these people and moved forward with the investigation.

Cannon continued, "Instead, the Majority has stonewalled and denied the Committee the ability to interview the White House staff with the intent to promulgate a myth about wrongdoing. The Majority's stonewalling has led the American people down a path of 'constitutional crisis'. We take an oath to defend the Constitution, not shred it." (emphasis added)

Where to start...how about the fact that a violation of the law, even if the president does it, is illegal. And when the president says he can violate the law, and that no body can hold him accountable, that creates a constitutional crisis of his own making. This is because the president clearly has no executive privilege to deliberations regarding whether and how to violate FISA by not seeking a warrant from the FISA court.

Don't believe me? Check out United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974):

The impediment that an absolute, unqualified [executive] privilege would place in the way of primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III. In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches, the [Framers] sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence. To read the Art. II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of "a workable government" and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.
[...]
...But this presumptive privilege must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law. This is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that "the twofold aim [of criminal justice] is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer."

But wait you say, this involves wiretapping terrorists, therefore it involves the military and foreign relations, which the court said was included in executive privilege.

Let me point out that we don't know who or what the targets of the warrantless wiretapping were, let alone why. How come we don't know for sure? Because the White House won't let anyone see even the legal memos they drafted in support of this program, let alone internal memos discussing the scope or targets of the warrantless wiretapping. Since this administration has a terrible track record with being open, up front, and honest about things, forgive me if I doubt the official line that this was only targeted at terrorists. To me, there seems a very real possibility that these warrantless wiretaps were listening in on political enemies. After all, the Rumsfeld Defense Department was listening in on peace groups.

I am sure there must have been some great things about the 1970s (I was born in 1979), but the government spying on its political enemies sure wasn't one of them.

Good for Orin

(Photo Credit: Doug Mills/The New York Times)

This rare praise of Sen. Hatch is due to his voting for oversight and the rule of law. (and praise to the AP, which finally juxtaposed spin with truth)

The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's controversial eavesdropping program that operated warrant-free for five years.
[...]
"We're aware of the committee's action and will respond appropriately," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said. "It's unfortunate that congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation."
In fact, the Judiciary Committee's three most senior Republicans - Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, former chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa - sided with Democrats on the 13-3 vote last week to give Leahy the power to issue the subpoenas.

This is an interesting turn of events since Orin used to be his usual GOP cheerleader self on the issue of Bush's law-breaking wiretaps. Take it from Glen Greenwald, the blogosphere's resident expert on FISA.

Thursday, January 18, 2007
[...]
Orrin Hatch spent the first two minutes of his time "questioning" Gonzales by lauding Gonzales' extreme integrity and diligence during this Grave and Epic War on Terrorism that America faces, explaining that everything they've done is critical to protecting us and describing the time in which Gonzales is Attorney General as one of the most difficult and important in history -- Hatch emphasized that he means not only U.S. history, but in the history of the whole, wide world. That is really what he said. He did not ask one question about anything the DOJ is doing with regard to this Most Important Matter Ever.

Hatch then spent the rest of his time (all 6 minutes) demanding that Gonzales and the Justice Department devote much more of its resources and attention -- including FBI agents, other law-enforcement resources and a new task force -- to enforcing anti-obscenity laws against people in the U.S. who produce pornography, particularly those who sell it over the Internet, and urged that whole new laws be created to criminalize Internet pornography. [...]

Or, to put it another way, the Terrorists pose such a grave danger to our Republic that it is the most threatening and important time Ever, justifying whole new expansions of government power and total government secrecy in order to protect us and to win this War because the Terrorists want to kill us all, and our law enforcement resources should therefore be poured into imprisoning people who make adult films and putting an end to pornography. That's what Orrin Hatch said today.

Additionally, this subpoena also has the benefit of having Dick "Forth Branch" Cheney seek to avoid the document request by again claiming he IS the executive branch. Don't worry though, he won't comply with any executive order that would require him to share information or power with any agency, office, or person.

(Photo Credit: AP/Eric Gay)

More 2008 logos

A thoughtful reader pointed out that of all the presidential candidates with a real chance (being generous to include McCain and Richardson) that I forgot Fred Thompson, who is basically in this race already. Without further ado...

Fred Thompson GRADE: C+

Sorry it is so long, but the main page (this is the blog page) doesn't have a jpg you can pull thanks to CSS. Here's my problem with the logo: Fred who? I know he is famous due to Law and Order (and has been the best DA on the show since the first two guys) but he isn't a household first name to the extent that Hillary and Rudy are. Moreover, I don't like the navy and gold color with underline motif. It says, "we have to be enthusiastic! Otherwise, people won't join this late campaign." And was Fred in the Navy? The colors seem to suggest such. Compare that to Wesley Clark's 2004 website and logo which alluded to military service well, but had a bad domain name (because there was some dude named Wesley Clark who wouldn't give it up)

"Four stars? Oh yeah, he was a FOUR STAR GENERAL." It was about as subtle as a sledgehammer (unless you were dumb enough to think the stars were supposed to match the 04 part of the site), but that was one of his main selling points. And it almost worked.

Even assuming this isn't Thompson's final campaign logo, what a terrible domain name. JoinRudy was bad enough, but ImwithFred? That's fine for a state convention button, or a fan site (unofficial or astroturf) but not as your official website. The color change between I'm and With and Fred again smacks of desperation when it is just trying to be for emphasis. I can easily see a mocking site called "ImagainstFred.com" with the word against in gold instead. Or it could be a paid-for attack site by a Romney or Giuliani. The whole thing is a lazy slap job that reinforces the whispering campaign that ex-Sen. Thompson lacks "fire in the belly" and won't really campaign hard (aka will lose and GOPers will blame it on his lack of effort)


And remember this isn't some fly-by-night candidate. He, like Wes Clark in September 2003, was supposed to save the party from certain electoral doom due to the terrible candidates available. After all, he is second in Iowa and first in South Carolina already.

too little, too late

"What me, principled?" © 2007 Deseret News

After endorsing Romney in 2002 for governor of Massachusetts (and using his "liberal street cred" to bless Mitt as a moderate-- "Take it from this liberal Democrat: If you want an amazing leader, vote for Mitt Romney."), now Rocky wants a do over at the presidential level.

Anderson scolded his "great friend" and GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney for what he called caving to handlers and flip-flopping on stem-cell research, torture policy, abortion and the Iraq war.
The two men had backed each other during past election bids despite their partisan divide.

"This is not the Mitt Romney I knew, and it really saddens me." he added. Really, you think you knew this guy? You were part of the bait and switch with Massachusetts voters.

"But you can see very clearly what's happening - it's so transparent," Anderson said. "A year before the presidential race, all of a sudden he's got these new positions on these issues.
"If Mitt Romney would be himself, true to himself, true to the people of this country, I think he would be a great president. But he has fallen for these handlers and flip-flopped on these issues and, I think, is misleading us in terms of his positions."
[...]
"He told me, going into that [governor's] race, that Roe v. Wade is working," the mayor said. "And he felt that it was important that women have choice."

So did Ann Romney, when she gave money to planned parenthood, a family planning group that includes abortion as an option for women.

So who does Rocky support? NM Gov. Bill Richardson, who is so principled he said he is both a Yankee and Red Sox fan.

He told the Deseret Morning News last month that Richardson "is genuinely a good man with tremendous values. He's very effective — better experienced than any of the other candidates."
Richardson has a "real respect for international law and diplomacy" and has been "one of the best state leaders in the country on responsible environmental practices," the mayor said.

Good luck Bill, it sounds like Mayor Anderson's golden touch is about to kill your mini-surge.

logo wars: presidential edition

I love to comment on signs and logos by candidate, and since the SLC mayoral one was so well received (and the Obama one was well received) I am going to do as many presidential candidates as possible...in no particular order

Romney: GRADE F

I'm sorry but what the heck is that supposed to be, an eagle? It has a brain washed patriot feel to it that I can't stand it. The man isn't about liberty since he wants to regulate your personal life but let corporations do as they please.

Giuliani: GRADE B+

This one keeps it simple stupid. Rather than scaring people with his hard to spell and pronounce name, you keep the "All-American" part of the name. Moreover, it reminds people of that movie about the kid that wanted to play for Notre Dame. It lends itself to chants of RUDY! at the convention.

H. Clinton: GRADE B-

The difference between using "Hillary" and "Rudy" is this: Sen. Clinton's logo is as cautious as her campaign. Everyone knows her by first name, and using Clinton would be confusing to some. Remember, assume those who star in "Jay walking" vote. So she really doesn't gain anything by going first name. Moreover, it hints at the vibe that Sen. Clinton is a being phony about how personal voters can get with her. Plus, I am just tired of this modified version of a flag in her banner.

Edwards: GRADE B

The use of green is welcome change from the over use of red, white and blue. I don't think German candidates use gold, red and black in their logos, so why do American candidates have to do so? But the moving star reminds me of A) Gore's 2000 logo and B) after school cartoons. The whole thing seems to lack seriousness to me.

Richardson: GRADE B-

Another boring flag waving logo. If you are trying to get out of the pack of "who else is running for president" candidates, you need to do lots to distinguish yourself, starting with your logo. His campaign is rumoring that he will raise more than Edwards and is in third place (13%) in Iowa head of Obama. If both hold up (Obama is running some ads in Iowa now), Richardson will create a second tier with him and Edwards on it, with Hillary and Obama in the first tier.

McCain: GRADE B+/A-

The use of black, white, and yellow is striking. I think the way Ralph Becker is doing is a better way to do it.

The image pops more in yellow than black. But then again, black used this way reminds me of night and death, which is exactly accurate for McCain's candidacy at the moment. He could really make a splash by bowing out and endorsing his lazy friend Fred Thompson.

Obama: GRADE A-/A

As I have said before, I really like this logo because it is an iconic summary of his campaign message: optimism and change. "A new day is beginning," it seems to say. This helps me overlook the annoying use of flags and flag colors. Plus, it is an "O" --a unique shape for most logos and immediately reminds the viewer of the first letter of the candidate's last name, something very useful in finding them on the ballot. This makes Hillary and Rudy seem not so helpful, especially if he is listed as "Rudolph" in some states. You can double the size of one "O" and then stack two more on top of another for a quick and dirty "'08" sign, useful to mix it up at a convention.

Vouchers won't fix Utah's schools

Conservatives who believe that free markets are a panacea have recently attempted to use Utah as a guinea pig to prove their point about public schools. Previously, the Republican-controlled Congress did the same for DC, whose ailing public schools are in as bad a shape as Utah's, but for different reasons. The results were underwhelming, to say the least.

Students in the D.C. school voucher program, the first federal initiative to spend taxpayer dollars on private school tuition, generally performed no better on reading and math tests after one year in the program than their peers in public schools, the U.S. Education Department said yesterday.

...[The] only [] exception[] to the conclusion that the program has not yet had a significant impact on achievement: Students who moved from higher-performing public schools to private schools and those who scored well on tests before entering the program performed better in math than their peers who stayed in public school.
[...]
A Republican-led Congress created the $14 million-a-year program in 2004. The five-year initiative provides $7,500 vouchers each year to 1,800 students, from kindergartners to high school seniors, who attend 58 private schools, most of them Catholic schools. ...

... [T]he initiative is one of the few government-run voucher systems in the country. Milwaukee and Ohio have similar plans, and Florida and Arizona offer vouchers to special education students.

In studies of those programs and others funded with private money, researchers tended to find little improvement in test scores after one year, said Paul Peterson, director of Harvard University's program on education policy and governance. He said it takes time for students to adjust to new surroundings.

"Kids lose ground when they change schools. Even if they may be in a better school, they're not going to adjust to that right off the bat," he said. "It doesn't happen overnight. It's a slow process."

That's right the Bush Administration's own Education Department, with NCLB brainchild Margaret Spellings at the helm, says vouchers don't work.

But don't worry, that won't stop Utah Republicans from making dishonest arguments about Vouchers and NCLB.

Utah once challenged No Child Left Behind, threatening to defy the No Child law and forfeit $76 million in federal aid. The Legislature, however, adopted a softer approach, telling state education officials to give precedence to Utah's own assessment standards over federal mandates.
[Scott] Parker [Rep. Rob Bishop's Chief of Staff] says Bishop has been trying to help the state receive waivers from the Department of Education for certain aspects of federal law and to allow Utah to try some pilot programs. But he said the voucher opponents are sending mixed signals by challenging the law.
[state school board chairman Kim] Burningham says Bishop and others are playing politics with the November vote.
''I guess the logic is that the arch conservatives are supporting vouchers nationwide and when we oppose them . . . it therefore weakens other conservative efforts like opposition to No Child Left Behind,'' he said.

NCLB has to do with testing and de-funding schools that underperform. Vouchers are PARTIAL tuition grants for children to go to private (often religious) schools. While an NCLB shut-down/defunded school makes children go elsewhere for their schooling, it has nothing to do with the use of public monies for private schooling. And exemptions to the testing standards has nothing to do with how to use public monies for education. This is just an attempt to confuse the issue.

Good thing our schools are so bad that people might not be able to understand how the Rep. Bishop's of the world are trying to make them worse. I say worse because if you spend more money on something that makes no difference you waste that money that otherwise could have gone to hiring more teachers, better/more teacher training, building more classrooms/schools, buying better/more textbooks, etc.

I think we all can agree that NCLB needs to be massively reformed, if not scrapped altogether. Since states/counties/school districts/schools don't want to lose funding, they have opted to teach to the test and/or make the test easier. Either practice defeats the original purpose of the bill, which was to RAISE standards and make sure our children were being educated properly. Countries like Germany & Japan score much higher on tests for not just math but in virtually every category. Maybe it is time to stop trying to reinvent the wheel and rather try to adapt their practices into the US.

I will give you a hint: they don't use vouchers.

the case for a fourth branch

All this talk about Dick Cheney's ludicrous claim that he is both a member of the executive branch (so he can claim executive privilege for his secret energy meetings with oil and nuclear company executives) and not a member of the executive branch (so he doesn't have to comply to classified document requirements, in case he wants to oh out a covert CIA officer because her husband said true things about the case for the Iraq war) has gotten me thinking about an idea I have been kicking around for a while.

Prior to the 12th Amendment, the Electoral College runner up became Vice President. This was OK when the two men (and until at least 2009 it has always been and will always be two men) agreed on stuff, but was very awkward when they were political rivals (see John Adams vs. Thomas Jefferson). However, without this bitter rivalry, the alien and sedition acts wouldn't have been tested so early. In an age that is just as partisan and nasty as it was then (1990-2000s=1790s-1800s) I think this time it will actually work. This is especially true if the VP was to not be the president of the Senate (a default job the constitutional drafters gave him since they had no clue what to do with the VP) but rather, the head of the Justice Department.

The first attorney general was like Alberto Gonzales, aka just the president's lawyer, at first. However Edmund Randolph quickly saw that he needed to be able to intervene in cases on behalf of the US, not the president. Only one justice at the time agreed with him, James Iredell. Today, the Justice Department has grown far beyond Randolph's desk and now employs thousands of prosecutors & investigators, with broad powers.

Imagine if Bush had gotten the White House in 2000...but Al Gore was made VP/AG with a separate constitutional office and powers of his own. This would have likely prevented many of the scandals you see today, or at least drawn them out into the light of day much sooner before they became cancerous on the Administration. Such a fourth branch would have the power to check into wrongdoing not only of the executive branch, but also of the legislative branch. This also would have obviously prevented the US Attorney scandal since a bootlicker like Alberto Gonzales never would have gotten the second most electoral votes.

The current VP office can be as powerful as junior president for someone like Dick Cheney, or "not worth a bucket of warm piss" for someone like John Nance Garner. The voters don't know what power/role the president will give his vice president, which leaves the office either with little political influence or Dante's political purgatory from which they can run for the presidency or vanish into the night.

The American people deserve an independent Justice Department, and the only guarantee for that is my plan, given human nature. Americans deserve a VP who is ready to take over for the president should something terrible happen, and one who will be wholly independent of the Congress and the President.

Under the current system, someone like Cheney can create a secret shadow government, which can order civilian planes shot down (like he did on 9/11 with Lynne Cheney, and without George W. Bush) and who knows what else. After all, he doesn't want us to know.

But if we had a true fourth branch, which was separately elected from the President and Congress, we would ensure that partisanship does not go awry. After all, if the AG/VP started to investigate members of Congress/the White House for no reason, he could always be defunded/impeached.

important stuff

It seems these days lame duck executives are twiddling the time on really critical matters like these:

By Executive Order, Crocs Aren't Chic
By Robin Givhan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 22, 2007; Page C01
Crocs have been given the presidential seal of approval but this is not necessarily a good thing.
George W. Bush was photographed recently in a pair of black Crocs -- Cayman style, $29.99 -- as he was heading out from the White House to ride his bike.

(Photo Credit: Ron Sachs via Bloomberg News Photo)
OK well maybe that was unfair to Mr. 26%, all he did was wear them. Let's beat up on Rocky instead (a favorite past time of mine)

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson hopes to make his fight against water bottles a national battle.
Anderson, along with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, will sponsor a resolution today at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Los Angeles calling for a study on the impact of bottled water on cities' budgets and waste-disposal systems.

Why so we can say that bottled water hurts the environment by contributing to global warming and polution? Any idiot can figure that out. Why don't we do a study to measure how many people Rocky has managed treat like crap (including and excluding staff)?

But as the race to replace him rages on and his days in office wane, Anderson isn't worried about being treated like a lame duck.
"I don't think it could get much worse with this council," he said. "They're very slow and very indecisive. I hate to paint with a broad brush, but the majority of the council have been extremely difficult to move toward the kinds of improvements that I think ought to be embraced in this community."
Anderson has created a list of about 100 priorities he hopes to accomplish before he leaves office. He wants to start a Sunday Farmers Market at the city's west-side Jordan Park, complete the Grant Tower rail realignment and replace the light bulbs in all city-run buildings with more efficient types. He also has broader aims, which include explaining to the general public ways to combat global warming.

I would just like to point out that the one guy he endorsed is in fifth place. The man is not popular and that is why he could not win unless it was Dave Buhler vs. someone else conservative...and that won't happen. Either Jenny Wilson or Ralph Becker will make it through to the next round, or both.

If that happens, it will be an embarrassment of riches.

if you can't beat 'em make 'em join you

The old "kicked upstairs" routine. The two Board of Education attorneys that but the law above party are going to probably sucked into the vortex of the Attorney General's office, where I am sure they will have horrible jobs.

The Attorney General's Office is set to weigh whether to bring into its ranks two lawyers working at the State Office of Education who went against its opinion when the school voucher ballot question was before the Utah Supreme Court earlier this month.

Deputy Attorney General Ray Hintze on Wednesday said one of his first assignments in 2001 was to rein in "illegal in-house counsel" at state agencies by making them part of the Attorney General's Office, a move he said was supported by then-Gov. Mike Leavitt.
[...]
"We left these two (attorneys) in place thinking it was a workable situation, and until this issue came up, it has worked very well," Hintze told the legislative Education Interim Committee Wednesday.

Remember, that was the committee hearing where the Board of Education's attorney's said they wouldn't show up to, because they were worried about politicization.

Looks like someone just fired a shot across their bow. Shurtleff's Hintze-man basically told them they were going to sleep with the fishes. That is, be stuck in dead-end jobs AG jobs where no one affiliated with the Utah Republican party would dare hire them.

I don't know about you, but I am tired of the AG using his power like a bully because his power was questions and his judgment was proved false. Mark has egg all over his face but insists on terrorizing a small public agency because he won't admit he was wrong. A bully and a coward, and this man counts as a "rising star" in the Utah GOP.

EXCLUSIVE: Becker's Education proposal

Sources close to Becker for SLC Mayor campaign spoke on condition on anonymity about his education platform and plan.

The plan is a big departure from the current, hands-off approach to schooling that Rocky has made. (Who by the way, realizes his 15 minutes of fame are up and is toying with running again...gag me with a spoon) Here are some of the ideas I like the best:

• Second-Language Proficiency: "by the time every Salt Lake City student is 18 years old, he or she will be able to pass a basic proficiency exam in a second language." This includes not just Sudanese refugees and Mexican kids, but white kids named Jensen. What better way to get a talented workforce ready for a globalized economy than having them proficient in another language? And by the way, it would make missionary language training much easier if one is called to serve in a country that speaks the language you learned in high school. I hope this will mean that not only will the next generation of Utahns know how to speak a language like Spanish, but also languages like Mandarin or Japanese.


• Expanding Excellence in Education ("E3"): E-cubed is based on the idea that schools should not be limited to the knowledge and materials found inside their buildings. Rather, students would be encouraged to participate in "extracurricular learning opportunities" in the form of formal and informal programs with local companies, museums, researchers, etc. The real world is coming soon to a high schooler near you. They need to learn what it will take to make it in the real world without mom and dad's assistance. Maybe one of these programs will inspire a student to go to medical school, architecture school, start a business, become an artist, or dissuade them that working as a mechanic is really going to be great.


• Public-Private Partnerships: "the city will build partnerships with local businesses to help provide opportunities for our children to learn and excel" through grants of money/equipment, as well as employees volunteering. Imagine people who work out at the refinery teaching kids chemistry.

There are several others, like appointing a senior staffer to be the "Ed Czar," monthly meetings with principals and the mayor, city employee engagement, but those are less "sexy" than the other plans in my view.

Anyway, feel free to talk about the merits of these ideas or suggest your own, I am sure Ralph would love to hear them. And it seems his staff read my blog.

Who's the boss

(photo credit: Television Heaven UK)

Remember that crappy 80's sitcom, where it was so funny that a woman could be in charge of men? And that men were stupid (Tony Danza only played characters with the name of "Tony" so he wouldn't get confused) Well it seems to be back in syndication up on Salt Lake's Capitol Hill.

"Although Superintendent (of Public Instruction Patti) Harrington initially may have indicated some availability to attend the Education Interim Committee meeting this coming Wednesday, after due deliberation, I, representing the State Board of Education, respectfully decline to send a representative to that gathering," State Board of Education chairman Kim Burningham wrote in a letter to Education Interim Committee co-chairman Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper.
"It is unclear what role the committee has in relation to what essentially is business to be conducted confidentially, if at all, between the Attorney General and the state board. It is clear, however, that any further politicization of the relationship between the Attorney General and the state board is unwelcome to the board, if not to (Attorney General Mark) Shurtleff, and would be ill-advised in any event."
The letter sent a ripple through legislative leadership Tuesday.
"The State Board of Education cannot refuse to talk to us," said Senate President John L. Valentine, R-Orem, following a meeting Tuesday afternoon of top-level legislative bosses — the Executive Appropriations Committee.

Valentine went to my law school, but he seems to forget attorney client privilege and that his duty is to the people of the state of Utah, not Mark Shurtleff or the executive committee of the Utah Republican Party. [By the way, don't you think it is funny that when they had a choice, they chose a lobbyist? And the lobbyist said that lobbyist are an important part of the GOP coalition?]

Shurtleff was pissed that they didn't follow his advise, claiming they had to. No state agency has to follow the AG's advice, but if they guess wrong and are sued, there will be no immunity. In this case, the state board guessed right, as the Utah Supremes voted unanimously that Shurtleff was completely full of sh!t. But that didn't stop legislators from doing his bidding

After that decision, the education interim committee changed its agenda for today's meeting. The committee had originally planned to discuss the board's decision no to offer vouchers. But a revised agenda released Monday had replaced that item with a discussion of the AG's duties.

All hail partisan hack Mark "Tony Danza" Shurtleff. Who's the boss now, legislature?

Becker gets Ashdown's support

But will it matter? Pete Ashdown got about the same (about 31%) as former State Sen. Scott Howell got in 2000 against Hatch. Pete's walloping was least bad in Salt Lake County, where he got 91,601 votes to Hatch's 109,201. Of course, Salt Lake City is the biggest city in the County and probably the source of the bulk of those 91,601.

But Ralph Becker isn't the only guy with endorsements. Jenny Wilson got Peter Corroon's who actually won Salt Lake County (albeit only the plurality) and will likely win in a landslide reelection next year. All things considered Jenny's endorsement is probably worth more than Ralph's.

people as props

Today's post is on how the media and campaigns use groups of people to make a point and thus to dehumanize them. First up, LDS families:

The Becerras live in Sandy. He is a financial adviser and a stake president who has done voluntary work for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' public affairs department. Because of the latter connection, he got a call from church headquarters asking if he would allow his family to be observed by Sharpton while they held a family home evening.
So the Becerras did what they do every Monday night, or most of them anyway. With Sharpton and his assistants watching, along with an LDS Church official, they sang a hymn and prayed. Daughter Rachael sang a church hymn solo, and Debbie gave a lesson on the Prodigal Son. Sharpton sat quiet until he was asked to read a passage from the Bible.
[...]
Then three weeks later, the church sent another visitor to the Becerra household. This time it was an "NBC Nightly News" crew, headed by reporter Ron Allen. They showed up on a Monday night to observe another family home evening. With cameras rolling and the crew observing, the Becerras sang a hymn and then prayed. Jorge gave a lesson. They ate Popsicles. They played croquet in the yard. The kids, distracted at first by the large TV cameras leaning in for close-up shots, eventually ignored the audience, and it was business as usual.
[...]
After a pause, Jorge [Becerras] added, "We felt like we were under a microscope, but we welcome any interest."
Ready or not, it's coming anyway. CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, Time magazine and newspapers from around the country have all come calling in recent weeks, and more will follow in the months ahead. They all want to know the same thing: What, exactly, is a Mormon?

In both cases, TV cameras, famous African-Americans from New York, and church officials took the "family" out of family home evening, one of the most universally appealing practices of Mormons.

The spectacle makes LDS families seem either like an ants in an ant farm, or nostalgic '50s throwbacks.

Next up, homosexuals

The vote taken by Bay State lawmakers showcases the state's ultra-liberalism and gives the former Massachusetts governor another reason to kick Massachusetts around.
Beyond that, it fires up opponents of same-sex marriage, who constitute a fierce conservative base. They are already expressing fears about what happens now that Massachusetts is the only state where same-sex marriage is legal: Gay couples will travel here, obtain a marriage license, then sue to strike down laws banning same-sex marriage in other states.

First off, Romney and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed that only Massachusetts residence can get marriage licenses, applying a 1918 law narrowly. This eliminated gay marriage tourism and probably hurt the economy slightly, and made these conservative fears unfounded.

Second, I am glad to see that Romney's people acknowledge they are using gay people to burnish Multiple Choice Mitt's conservative credentials ("It helps Mitt," a Romney adviser said.)

Here's more on his flip flopping

Romney committed himself to pro-choice policies and miscellaneous moderate social stands in order to run for office in Massachusetts, and with good political reason. It would be hard to imagine a pro-life, anti-gay rights social conservative winning a Massachusetts governor's race. Once elected, Romney used Massachusetts as the launchpad he intended from the start. He began the dramatic political retooling that he hopes will win him the Republican nomination, then the presidency.
In that regard, gay rights and the gay marriage issue hold similar peril for Romney. When he was running against Edward M. Kennedy, Romney said he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than the liberal senator. Conservative critics also charge that as governor, he unnecessarily implemented same-sex marriage after the state's highest court declared that gay couples have a right to marry. In a compilation entitled, "The Mitt Romney Deception," Romney critic Brian Camenker holds Romney accountable for gay marriage in Massachusetts on the grounds that he "jumped the gun and needlessly advanced the homosexual agenda by granting marriage rights without a fight."

And in Romney's defense, he at least rhetorically fought the results. He even tried to campaign for GOPers in 2004 and 2006 in Massachusetts and their power actually decreased in Mass.

Mitt Romney is today's Aaron Burr

(Sorry, I don't have Photoshop so this ghetto mashup of Romney and the third Vice President of the United States is brought to you by Microsoft Paint. )

Anyway, as you probably know, in 1800, Thomas Jefferson overwhelming won the popular vote against John Adams. However, the idiots selected to be electors cast their votes for both Jefferson and Aaron Burr in such a fashion that both had a tie in the Electoral College.

As a result, the election was thrown to the House of Representatives, which was for the moment still controlled by Federalists (but would become overwhelmingly Jeffersonian in a matter of weeks). Rather than be happy with being VP Burr saw an opportunity for power indirectly asked the Federalist to vote him into the presidency in exchange for power in his administration.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist party chief (and ancestor of yours truly), had a tough choice. He hated Jefferson's ideas, believing he would be a disaster. He hated Burr personally, because as a fellow New Yorker and banker, had seen how loathsome Burr was as a human being. After tortuous deliberation, Hamilton decided "Jefferson is to be preferred. He is by far not so dangerous a man and he has pretensions to character."

By contrast Burr's "private character is not defended by his most partial friends... His public principles have no other spring or aim than his own aggrandizement... If he can he will certainly disturb our institutions to secure himself permanent power and with it wealth..." As V. Lowry Snow put it "Hamilton recognized that Burr was dangerous not because he took a strong stand for what he believed in, but precisely because he took no stand and believed in nothing but himself."

Is it just me, or was the first Treasury Secretary and the author of our national economy describing the former Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Mitt's views on everything have changed to suit his electorate--Abortion, Stem Cell research, Guns, Gays, pardons, taxes, even the articles his own faith.

When Burr ran for Vice President, Hamilton said: "Mr. Burr is determined, as I conceive, to climb to the highest honors of the state. He is bold, enterprising, and intriguing, and I feel it is a religious duty to oppose his career." Likewise, I feel honor bound to oppose Romney's rise to the Oval Office.

Barry dishonest

(H/T Bag News notes, photo credit information available at their website).

I really dislike the tactic of campaigns to have the candidate claim to stay above the fray while the staff throw the mud, and then have the candidate pretend he/she knew nothing of these tactics and proceed to scold their staff.

This is the second time Obama's staff have done something old school politics against Senator Clinton and I expect that any minute now, the Senator will issue a statement claiming ignorance and rhetorically blasting his staff for doing the very thing he is supposedly campaigning against. Will said staffers be fired? Don't hold your breath.

The first time was during the Geffin spat, which really had more to do with David Geffin's anger at Bill Clinton's refusal to pardon a friend of his and less to do with either Hillary or Barrack.

This time, some one looked at the Clinton's financial statements and cried foul that Bill was getting lots of money from outsourcing companies, calling his spouse "Sen. Clinton (D-Punjab)" not only is this juvenile, and selective (25 other Senate Democrats took money from CISCO and you see no press release from them) but also slightly racist for a guy who is supposed to be more racially conscience than any candidate in the race.

Indian-Americans are upset about this, and rightfully so. I thought we got rid of Indian bashing after George Allen lost his senate seat. Plus, Obama doesn't strike me as an anti-trade deal kind of guy. Sure, he will complain about outsourcing, but I can't think of one trade package he has voted against, let alone lead the fight on.

In fact, he pretty much was trying to keep a low profile until his fame overwhelmed those plans.

But really, this isn't about Obama as much as the tactic of going high-road/low-road at the same time. If Obama really wants to change "the smallness of our politics" he needs to ditch his conventional, petty staff and get some innovative thinkers.

deja vu all over again

(© 2004 Daniel Bersak)
I have been blogging for a long time, since 2002 in fact. (remember when MyDD was called "my due diligence"?) But I didn't start to get serious traffic until my boss State Representative Debby Blumer (D-Framingham)was called upon to vote in a Massachusetts Constitutional Convention ("ConCon") whether to uphold Goodridge [v. MPH].

Debby was a liberal, but also a pragmatist. So she had supported a bill calling for civil unions for gays and lesbians for a number of years. But after Goodridge came down in November 2003, she and other liberals banded together to strategize how to preserve the courts holding from an onslaught led by then-Gov. Romney (who had realized this was his chance to gain attention so he could run for president like his dad had as Governor of Michigan). As her staffer, I was responsible for among other things, constituent services and contact. Letters, emails and phone calls poured in, not just from her district, or from Massachusetts, and not just from around the country, but from all over the world.

As people began to pour their hearts out to us, sending pictures and telling us personal tales (as well as threats and hate mail), I began to realize why civil unions wasn't enough. I blogged about what was going on inside Rep. Blumer's group and the strategy. That got me in trouble with her, and rightly so.

But I also got emails and comments from people around the country thanking me for explaining to them what the heck was going on. We won that fight, and then-Speaker Finneran's civil union proposal narrowly lost.

Thos opposed to gay marriage, including Rep. Blumer's colleagues in one of her committees (meaning their "offices" was only a few feet away from each other) sued all the way to US supreme court and kept trying to revive a ballot initiative in the state legislature (called the "General Court" in Massachusetts).

Today, the latest one failed again. Rep. Grogen and his allies only needed 50 out of 200 State Representatives and State Senators to support it, but got a mere 41. Nearly four years after Goodridge, the sky hasn't fallen on Massachusetts. The divorce rate in Massachusetts is the lowest in the country (Bush's adopted home of Texas has the highest). The more people get to know gay and lesbian couples, they realize that these couples aren't so different from married friends they have.

I just wish Debbie was still alive today to see that marriage equality was basically guaranteed (the next time they could put it to a vote is 2012, good luck by then) in her home state. So while a flood of memories come back, I am excited for the future.

I have no confidence in Hatch or Bennett

Not surprisingly, my US Senators Hatch and Bennett voted against the no confidence vote on AG Alberto Gonzales.

I wonder what it was about Gonzales' tenure as Attorney General that gave them confidence in his job performance. His lying under oath, which led them to vote to remove President Clinton for the same offense? His repeated lying about the use of the Department of Justice to further the Republican Party's grip on power? His "inability" to recall basic facts? His vast grant of power to his inept deputies to fire and hire DOJ employees based on partisan affiliation? His endorsement of torture as White House Counsel? His eleventh hour visit to then-AG John Ashcroft's hospital bedside to convince the man to sign on to an illegal wiretapping program (remember, Gonzales was unclear if there were other illegal wiretapping programs that he approved of beyond the "terrorist surveillance program")?

Republicans [such as Joe Lieberman] did not defend him, but most voted against moving the resolution ahead.
Monday's vote was not the end of scrutiny for Gonzales and his management of the Justice Department - more congressional hearings are scheduled and an internal department investigation continues.
Short of impeachment, Congress has no authority to oust a Cabinet member, but Democrats were trying anew to give him a push. Gonzales dismissed the rhetorical ruckus in the Senate, and President Bush continued to stand by his longtime friend and legal adviser.
"They can have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to make the determination about who serves in my government," Bush said in Sofia, Bulgaria, the last stop on a weeklong visit to Europe.

Your government? Actually Mr. President, it is OUR government, remember that "We the People..." bit? Sens. Hatch and Bennett carry water for man who thinks that the US government belongs to him, not unlike Louis XIV. "L'État, c'est moi" said Bush, in Europe.

If I could vote on it, I would vote no confidence in my senators. Instead, I am left to vote against these two every six years.

Bramble's dumb move

Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble (R-Provo), has the political instincts of Joe Lieberman.

Just a few months ago Bramble announced his support for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, as did 55 of his fellow Republican lawmakers.
McCain's campaign is expected to announce the endorsement Tuesday, but Bramble really switched sides some time ago.
"I think there is room at this stage of the presidential contest to consider several candidates," said Bramble, who does not want his support for McCain to be seen as a criticism of Romney. "I would have no problem if Gov. Romney was the party's nominee."
Bramble signed a Romney endorsement letter that circulated through the Legislature. He also went to a press conference but did not stand on stage with the candidate on Feb. 20.
Less than two weeks later, Bramble spent 45 minutes alone with McCain at the Grand America Hotel. At the end of the meeting, Bramble promised his support.

Now let's look at the obvious. McCain is trying to lower expectations on his second quarter fundraising, which already set a low target of $12.5M. Previously, his campaign had admitted that they really needed to turn things around this quarter to stay viable. Meanwhile, McCain's signature issues-- Campaign Finance Reform and Immigration Reform-- are deeply unpopular with the GOP primary voter. And his Iraq Escalation plan is a huge disaster, both politically and in real terms, for his party and the country. He is now behind not only Giulliani and Fred Thompson, but also "I don't know" in national polling. In the important primary states, he is in a distant third as well.

Meanwhile, Romney raised the most money of all the Republican candidates, and is up by a lot in Iowa and New Hampshire. So much so that Giulliani and McCain gave up on the Ames Straw Poll, a key IA GOP boondoggle. So why would Bramble change horses so dramatically? He says it is taking the unpopular stands on Iraq and Immigration, but I think it is this "McCain's biggest supporters in Utah include Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and Attorney General Mark Shurtleff."

you know you are joke candidate when

You get put in jail (where your sentence could keep you in jail until after election day) and it barely gets a mention in the press.

John Renteria, a perennial candidate for public office who has never won an election, was booked into the Salt Lake County Metro Jail on Friday on a violation of his probation from a previous traffic conviction.
Renteria pleaded guilty in November 2005 to one count of attempted failure to stop at an officer's command, a class A misdemeanor; one count of incorrectly positioned plates, a class B misdemeanor; and one count of failure to obey a traffic-control device, a class C misdemeanor.
[...]
Renteria's attorney, Patrick Corum, said Renteria admitted to 3rd District Judge Sheila McCleve on Friday that he twice drove despite his license having been revoked and that he has drunk alcohol, both in violation of his probation.
[...]
But Corum said he hopes Renteria can go before the judge again to plead his case in the near future.
"I'm very optimistic that we'll be able to get him out," Corum said.
He did not know how Renteria's arrest would affect his run for mayor.
"I've never talked to him about his candidacy," Corum said.

Patrick Corum is a Salt Lake County Legal Defender or as we call them in the biz an LDA. That means that Renteria is really poor, like food stamps poor. To get a public defender, you need to be almost on welfare.

Rolly states the obvious. "Renteria was considered a second-tier candidate and not given much of a chance to win. The last campaign finance disclosure indicated he had raised no money." Note the past tense WAS CONSIDERED. Now he is not going to be even considered, except as a trivia pursuit question.