Clarence Thomas, part I

This afternoon was the all law school event for Justice Thomas. On my way to the moot courtroom (our sole auditorium), I was walking with my conservative friend I have talked about before. Suddenly we saw Thomas enter with two US Marshalls and a professor who clerked with Justice Stevens (who was his escort) back in the day.

My conservative friend shook his hand and I watched as Thomas talked to a couple other students.

My overall impression of him is that he is personable and down-to-earth. He loved to laugh and poke fun at himself. He also sees himself as a public servant. He worked for New Haven's Legal Aid and tried to do similar things in Savanna, Georgia (where I take it he is from), he has worked in government almost his whole legal life. He let me ask one of the last questions of the session, and I asked him how he felt about age limits for justices and judges. I was expecting some crack about how he was in favor of them when he got there, but now he is against them. But instead, he first asked back "How old" and talked about how sharp Justices like Stevens (looking at that professor) were at age 86. He talked about what a shame it would be to throw such legal minds to the curb. But then he said if it was 65, he would be happy because then he could get in his RV and go around the country with his family. He feels compelled to stay in his job at the Court until he dies, which must be a daunting prospect when you first get there.

The other thing I noticed was that he doesn't like all the questions the other justices ask, and wants to have the litigants speak, rather than having no clue or not caring about what they have to say. He seems very smart and friendly.

This is the second Justice I have been the in same room with. The other was Justice Ginsberg, who spoke at my undergrad baccalaureate. Her speech was more political and academic. Thomas was more interested in giving us students a heart to heart. He said that he didn't pay off his student loans until his third year on the court. That he had no job when he graduated and no clue what he was doing. And that he got study advice at Yale Law from John Bolton (trim down your outline sucessively until you have it down to an index card).

Tonight the wife and I will be dining with Justice Thomas and some other folks. Suggestions for respectful questions--i.e. nothing about Coke cans thank you very much--are welcome. I want to probe his thinking and mind and question him, but there is no need to be rude to a guest like this who came here to talk about non-ideological issues.

I see his coming as completely different from Cheney's visit to BYU. First, he is not speaking at our graduation. Second, Thomas is not an elected official. Third, there wasn't a poll of Utah lawyers/law students saying only 44% of them agreed with Justice Thomas' opinions. Fourth, he is one of nine justices on the court, who is not the deciding vote (whereas Cheney is the most powerful VP ever, and gets Bush to do almost everything he wants him to do).

Again, although I disagree with Justice Thomas, I don't plan on being disagreeable.

Out, damned spot! out, I say!

--Macbeth (V, i, 38).

The Bush administration is over. Sure they still have until 11:59 AM January 20, 2009 to do damage, but they have been tremendously marginalized. When Clinton lost the Democratic Congress in 1994, he still had two years and a re-election to recover. Bush has no such luxury...nor does Cheney, who is not running for president (because he already was co-president) in 2008.

The new Democratic Congress, particularly Chairman Waxman, is digging up more damaging information on the Administration by the minute, making the death a slow and painful one. My question as become, will anyone who worked for this administration come out unscathed?

Nixon's team faired very poorly, although some had rebirths--Pat Buchanan and David Gergen.

But who on Bush's team will have any legitimacy left in 2009? Not the war cabinet (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice), not his chiefs of staff, not his spokespersons, not his not his Pentagon team (although Doug Feith managed to score a teaching job at Georgetown), not his counsel's office, not his justice department, ...

Some will retire to AEI, like Lynne Cheney, but that doesn't mean they will be listened to. A rare few will be able to escape this mark, this blemish on their career. Soon, they too will be quoting (or paraphrasing) that line from Shakesphere.

photo of the day

© 2007 Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

"Mr. President, you have a monster in your Rose Garden!"

[H/T Atrios]

teaser revealed

Well, all my fun was spoiled by someone who talked to the Salt Lake Tribune and told them who was coming: Associate Justice Clarance Thomas.

I didn't tell you because our Dean specifically said don't talk about this because the U.S. Marshals want to put in metal detectors etc. For security reasons--the man gets lots of death threats--it was all supposed to be on the down low.

Like I said before, I disagree with Justice Thomas on almost every issue. I also had the impression prior to law school that if one wanted to know what Justice Thomas thought on an issue, one should ask Justice Scalia what he thinks. Over time, I have read many a US Supreme Court opinion. And while I still strongly disagree with him, I have grown to respect the Justice more.

His points on some issues, especially race, are interesting and worth mulling about. I am just glad he is still part of the crazy conservative minority (but just barely). It is nice to read his dissenting opinions and chuckle or read his majority opinions on non-ideological issues.

But for me, the bad news of the detainee cases was greatly lessened by the terrific news about the global warming case, Massachusetts v. EPA. The best part was how Stevens expanded the standing doctrine and Chief Justice Roberts was left huffing with his other 3 friends. Plus, I have hope that the 110th Congress will overturn the Military Commissions Act and allow the court to go back to protecting Habeas Corpus.

Oh and on a side note, Yale students burned the flag. I guess it really is starting to be Vietnam over again. Maybe we will see yet another flag burning case, despite the three cases that held a law banning it violates the First Amendment.

teaser alert

Today, when I got to law school, there were two police officers with bomb sniffing dogs walking around. I know who is coming today and tomorrow, but I am not telling until the person is gone. My wife and I have been invited to a private dinner with this person (and lots of other persons) so I don't want to lose my tickets and get my chance to ask pointed questions.

I will blog about the dinner and all events I attend with this person Thursday or Wednesday night.

post-April fool's round up

• All that water carrying and bootlicking may finally pay off for a member of Utah's delegation: "After insisting on the unlikely odds of such an event [AG Gonzales stepping down], Hatch said "it's up to the president," but if duty called, "I would serve this country any way I could." Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Judiciary Committee chairman teased Hatch by saying: "The rumor on the Hill this week was that he was actively running for it." Meanwhile, Pete Ashdown notes that Hatch is fundraising for his ultra-safe senate seat...so he can give his kitty to the RNC?
  
  Who would Huntsman appoint to replace Hatch? Can he appoint himself? One of the state legislature clowns? One of the Brothers Cannon? My favorite Utah GOPers these days are Olene Walker, Jon Huntsman Jr. and Rep. Bishop...and I am being pretty generous.


• Our health care system is broken: "Insurance protects your wealth. It does not protect your health," said Roberta Herzberg, a Utah State University associate professor of political science who specializes in public policy. Yet, Democrats are the only ones seriously proposing any changes to the system. Bush's big effort was to add a donut hole coverage for prescription medications for a program that is so complex and wasteful that even my masters-degree-in-economics-grandmother had to ask for advice.


• Josh Loftin of the Deseret Morning News is on a different planet: "An independent, bipartisan commission could address perceived abuses of redistricting, but it could also present new problems to fix a process that is not broken." The process isn't broken? Until 2006, over 90% of members of Congress were reelected. In 2002, 3 incumbents lost out of the 468 up that year. One of them had an affair with a 20-something woman that turned up dead, another went to federal prison. I guess it is working just great when you work for the Utah Republican Party Morning News, but if you care about democracy--voters picking their politicians and not the politicians picking their voters--then it is a disaster.


• Jenny Wilson's big idea is to offer free parking downtown during construction, which would be during the entirety of her would-be term. The sad fact is that whomever is the next mayor of SLC, the big visionary thing has been taken away from them by the LDS church who decided how to redo downtown, and since they own a large piece of downtown, there isn't much for the next mayor to do except fight for historic buildings or tweak the plan.


• This is why Sen. Buttars' gay-straight alliance clubs bill was horrible public policy:
  

  When a student in Cara Cerise's ceramics class at Salt Lake City's Highland High School told her he had a solution to the gay marriage issue, she was ready to listen.
  "Just kill everyone who's gay," she remembers the classmate saying.
  Shocked, Cara started to cry. The daughter of a gay man, the teenager knew she needed to find a safe haven at school where she would not be judged.
  It was through the school's gay-straight alliance (GSA), now melded into Highland's social-justice club, that Cara found a home.

  
  See Buttars, not everyone in the club is gay. They might have gay parents, siblings, cousins, friends, neighbors. Or they might just care about their fellow human beings. Bill's like Buttars' encourages thinking like that one student who suggested genocide for homosexuals. If that was a joke, no one is laughing.


• Bennett-Matheson is back (the St. George Bill). I think it is misguided, but I understand what they are trying to do--reign in Washington Co.'s growth--but this isn't the way to do it.

Cheney's BYU visit reax

Like Ethan, I think the reasoning in Rebecca Walsh's most recent op-ed is flawed or missing. And just after I praised her about the Mayoral debate. Sure taught me to say nice things about the media.

However, the Church's reaction to her column is quite telling. For its aggressive attacks at critics. Touched a nerve have we?

Whatever the personal views of individual students or other members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the invitation is seen by the university’s board of trustees as one extended to someone holding the high office of vice president of the United States rather than to a partisan political figure.

The Salt Lake Tribune ran two articles...

One, a prominently displayed personal opinion piece...criticizes the Church, in intemperate and disrespectful language, for inviting Vice President Dick Cheney...

The reporter’s central point seems to be that inviting the vice president — presumably this particular vice president — is inconsistent with the Church’s often-stated political neutrality.

The other article — in the same newspaper — is an editorial that urges that the vice president be allowed to speak because "this is democracy at work" and that an audience of college graduates is capable of assessing what he says. The newspaper further says that the decision was for the BYU board of trustees to make, "just as it is the right of anyone who disagrees with the choice to say so."

So far, the are whining over an overall neutral editorializing of the choice of Cheney. She used mean, bad words WAAAH! And please when you skim Walsh's column, find me some of that "intemperate and disrespectful language." I guess they are not used to being treated without kid gloves by the local media. Even though the Tribune editors fell over themselves to do so after allowing Walsh's column.

One could argue that a editorial by the paper versus a column means that the paper's true feelings like more with the Church and less with Walsh.

The invitation to the vice president of the United States is not a violation of [the Church’s political neutrality policy], any more than inviting the majority leader of the Senate would be. In fact, Senator Harry Reid — a Democrat from the opposite political pole to the vice president — has already accepted such an invitation for this fall. That invitation has been in process for many months — long before the announcement of the vice president's visit.

Even if I believe you about Reid's pre-planned fall visit, there is a big difference between a fall speech and a graduation speech. The later gets a lot more attention from students, faculty, staff, and the media than the former. Moreover, speakers see graduation speeches as more prestigious than other speeches before Universities/College, because it is. They are simply not equivalent platforms.

Moreover, Sen. Majority Leader Reid is LDS. He is the most powerful LDS politician in the US (if not the world), even if there are high powered Mormons in the Bush administration, like ex-Gov. Leavitt. Cheney, however, is not LDS. But he sure is powerful. He is more like a co-president than a vice president. More importantly, he was and still is the biggest supporter of this war in Iraq, one that only 44 percent of the Church's members agree with. And they haven't invited a war critic to balance out Cheney. Reid voted for the war, but is now leading Senate Democrats in pushing a non-binding timetable.

But wait, the Church's press release isn't done yet. It asks a question:

Is it appropriate for a university — even one that espouses a policy of political neutrality — to have as featured speakers the holders of some of the highest offices in the land? Of course it is. And whoever the visitor — the vice president, the majority leader of the Senate or the chief justice of the Supreme Court (another scheduled fall speaker) — the university and the student body will listen, evaluate and react to them as intelligent citizens capable of making up their own minds about their messages.

So now we learn that Reid will be balanced out by CJ Roberts, a ultra-conservative partisan justice nominated by George W. Bush. So much for claiming Reid was there to balance out Cheney. Moreover, when was the last time the Church allowed differing views on things like Women's Rights, Abortion and Gay Marriage, etc. to be displayed at BYU/Church functions? They have ex-communicated professors at BYU, one who taught Feminism, another who thought gay people should be able to marry and have children. I will just wait until some one posts an example.

All in all, I am pleased with the groundswell of support by BYU students, faculty, and alumni, who wish to protest Cheney's speech. I am not surprised at BYU's choice for their speaker, but disappointed nonetheless.

conservative governance theory 101

Every Thursday morning I have a blast because I get to chat politics [and law] with a liberal, two conservatives, a moderate democrat, and an independent. It's my Election Law class, and as you have noticed, that means there are 5 people in the class other than myself (yes including the professor).

And my very conservative friend and I always enjoy sparring, this time over the Purge scandal. He seems to be of the Kyle Sampson school of thought: "Sure we did it for purely political reasons, but that's the president's prerogative." My friend claimed that USA's serve, like every other appointee, at the [pure] pleasure of the President and can be terminated for whatever reason. He then added that Clinton fired all 93 USA's in 1993 to get of the one investigating Maj. Leader Dan Rostinkowski (D-IL).

If true, shame on Bill Clinton. Rostinkowski was a man who had become wholly corrupted to the core (I read a book about him in an undergraduate class). Even if true, this was on USA targeted and firing all 93. Here we had 8 targeted mid-term to get rid of 8 meddlesome USA's who failed to mount flimsy cases as Democrats (or failed to indict Democrats quickly enough) or more importantly were investigating corrupt Republicans. Moreover, 7 of the 8 were in swing states for the 2008 race, states were a corruption charge against a Democrat could hurt the top of the ticket.

The 8th? Carol Lam, who nabbed Duke Cunningham and was sniffing up another corrupt California congressmen who were also entwined in Cunningham's scandals: House Appropriations Chair Jerry Lewis, a much, much bigger fish than Duke.

My point is this. The reason this scandal is a scandal and is important is not that DOJ lied to Congress repeatedly, although that doesn't help. The reason you should care is that the wheels of government were being used to help ensure Republican victories and continued control of Legislative and Executive Branches. This gaming of the system is not only bad for democracy, it is criminal. This is what Nixon and his crew were trying to do.

My friend's response might be, "Bill Clinton did it" or "this is a partisan which hunt" or "you guys would do the same if you were in charge." Let me say right now that if Democrats did that, I would not support those Democrats and I would be joining Republicans in calling for their resignation, indictment, or impeachment. Secondly, that is not how Democrats operate.

Government to Democrats is a tool for good: more people get jobs, health insurance, good education, grow the economy, etc. To conservatives, government can never do good it can only mess things up that a free market would better solve. So what to do when in power of said government? Either a) destroy it from within by eliminating agencies via defunding or disempowering or disbembering or b) use it as a tool for patronage and political growth. If your appointees are incompetent, who cares? You wanted to prove that government was worthless right? Now it is. If your appointees are bad at their jobs but good at hurting Democrats/helping Republicans great, keep them in as long as possible.

I am not saying all liberals/Democrats are pure and true while all conservatives/Republicans are evil and corrupt, but that this is where the theory leads you to. If you believe government is only good to keep kids from having sex, but not good for lifting people out of poverty, then you elect and support a George W. Bush. If you believe that government is only good for helping people out when the private sector has failed, but is terrible at regulating morality, you elect and support a Bill Clinton.

And right about now, I think I know who the public would chose if they could do it all over again.

handicapping the WH race this far out

Here are my thoughts on how the primaries are shaping out on both the Democrats' and Republicans' sides:

Dems

1. Edwards is ticking up, but HAS to win Iowa to have a prayer. The boost may be temporary sympathy or it may be how he handled the situation.


2. Clinton is fighting back hard against Obama's surge, which seems to have peaked to a degree. However, her fundamental problems: her rating personality and voice, her cautiousness, etc. will not go away. I still don't see how she can hang on to her lead if Obama or Edwards win both Iowa and New Hampshire


3. Obama has made several mistakes recently and it seems his rhetoric is not going to be enough these days, people want a plan. He needs to talk about how touting an imaginary plan is worthless and how he would get a bill on a) the war, b) health care, etc. Obama's main appeal is that he sounds moderate but votes fairly liberal.


4. Unless Edwards drops out and/or Obama stumbles badly, I don't see anyone else in the Democratic fold getting any traction. Of those also-rans, I seen Richardson and Clark as the only ones who have a chance. Sorry Dodd, Biden, Gravel, and Kucinich.

Repubs

5. McCain is in deep, deep trouble. His comments on Iraq were mocked by journalists (his main base of support) and Generals on the field. McCain hitched his wagon to Bush's war and it isn't going away by 2008. More immediately, the revelation that he wanted to caucus with the Democrats and drop out of the GOP in 2001 will make it that much harder for McCain to convince primary voters he is one of them. I am frankly not surprised. In 2001, McCain's strategy was to run a third party maverick against Bush in 2004. Then John Weaver realized that a third party run would be disastrous, so he decided to become a conservatives conservative on most issues. But conservatives are still pissed off about campaign finance reform, tax cuts, and climate change. No matter how many pro-life votes he has they still will focus on that.


6. Romney has been hit hard by opo research, and there is lots of ripe ground. He still has many fundamental problems which have nothing to do with his religion: his recent flip-floppery on so many cultural issues. Romney seems particularly clumsy in his attempt to please what ever crowd he needs to appeal to. Again, unless he wins Iowa, I don't see how he breaks through.


7. Giuliani is running a pretty tight ship. Despite the tough hits via opposition research, he has continued to have a massive lead in state polling and national polling. He has picked up support from key movement conservatives on fiscal issues, like Steve Forbes. And Dobson hasn't said anything negative about him, despite his glaring moral failings


8. Thompson's balloon floating has been popped by Dobson. It seems that conservatives are dissatisfied with the current field...but can't find anyone who looks good to them. Will Mr. Law & Order be able to tap into that void?


9. Gingrich seems to be in the same boat as Thompson, but he seems to be the last of great conservative winners. He is untainted by the DeLay-Bush years. And he stepped into Dobson's confessional with a megaphone to beg for forgiveness on his adultery. Still, GOPers should be worried about his ticking time bomb qualities.

The rest of the Republicans are not worth talking about.

Mormons at odds with Cheney, BYU's speaker

Why is Dick Cheney being invited to speak at BYU's graduation again? Many people still assume that Saints support Bush-Cheney blindly. Well think again:

A January poll by The Salt Lake Tribune showed a precipitous drop in support for Bush's handling of the war among Utah's Latter-day Saints.
In the survey, just 44 percent of those identifying themselves as Mormon said they backed Bush's war management. That's a level considerably higher than Bush gets from Utah's non-Mormon population and the nation at large, but it's also a 21 percentage point drop from just five months earlier. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 4.7 percentage points.
Such abrupt moves in group opinion are uncommon. Pollsters say numbers generally move gradually, unless "spooked" by something.
But what?

Um could it be the thousands of dead US soldiers, several of whom where from Utah and LDS? Maybe it was another speaker at BYU:

Speaking to Brigham Young University students on Oct. 31, LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley lamented "the terrible cost of war."
"What a fruitless thing it so often is," he said. "And what a terrible price it exacts."

Hinkley Institute of Politics Director Kirk Jowers notes that interpreting statements from Pres. Hinkley is like reading the tea leaves of Alan Greenspan's testimony. But how could he just be talking about war in general when the most obvious one of all is staring us all in the face?

And what popular Gov. and LDS Church member Huntsman? "The security situation is Baghdad is out of hand," said Huntsman. "I am less optimistic about a successful outcome."

So tell me again, why is it that an unpopular man among Mormons, who leads an unpopular war among Mormons being invited to BYU?

DC-Utah bill back on track

So House Republicans introduced a poison bill amendment last time on the DC-Utah bill, one that would repeal DC's ultra strict gun laws for a city with a history of violent crime. Thanks Texas Republicans. Maybe this is why Sen. Webb carries a concealed weapon and then accidentally left a 9-mm in an aide's bag the other day.

The great thing about being in the majority in the House is the Rules Committee. If I get to make the rule, and you get to make the bill, I don't care if your bill is about Puppies and babies, I will win the vote. Just look at the Utah Legislature and its rule about animal cruelty.

Anyway, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) promised to have the bill back up on the floor next week, with a poison bill proof rule.

Here's Rep. Chris Cannon arguing why he supported a measure he should have known would kill the bill that would give Utah more power (and give his beloved party another member):

Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, says there is nothing wrong with the attempt by Republicans to send the legislation back to committee with instructions to get rid of the district's handgun ban - a move DC-Utah bill supporters said was blatantly meant to kill the measure.
"The right to keep and bear arms protects the right to vote, and the prospect of defending both rights has put a number of moderate Democrats in an uncomfortable spot," Cannon said. But, "my goal remains the same: to get the additional clout in Congress [Utahns] deserve and defend the Second Amendment."

Um last time I checked I didn't need a gun to cast my ballot for Jim Matheson. The right to bear arms is a completely separate right. The purpose of that amendment was to give states and individuals the ultimate recourse if their government is betraying their trust-- an armed rebellion. Thankfully, we have been able to vote out most of such scoundrels and impeached or forced resigned the remainder.

I just don't see how eliminating gun bans in DC has anything to do with allowing their delegate a vote on bills. Maybe the brothers Cannon can explain that one to me.

throw the bums out

The AG has rendered its legal opinion on the voucher bills and the petition, which I signed, on the first bill.

a second law passed earlier this year amending the state's original voucher law could stand on its own, allowing the state to award public funds to help parents pay for private school tuition. So a referendum petition drive under way to repeal the first bill would merely nullify the sections of the bill that don't appear in the second version, HB174.
One section, however, includes language providing "mitigation monies" that keep public schools from losing money when students leave. Other sections limit state oversight of participating private schools and declare the program "neutral with respect to religion." A voucher program without those sections would be more vulnerable in court, the opinion said.
"Without this language, the act may be more susceptible to an establishment clause challenge," the opinion said. "However, these possible constitutional challenges to HB174 will not doom the bill's ability to stand on its own in creating a voucher program."

Gov. Huntsman pledged to hold a special session if 92,000 valid signatures are on that petition. Legislators who received donations from out of state voucher groups and then voted for a bill that the people don't want, like Speaker Curtis, better be begging Huntsman to hold a special session, because if they don't they might very be out of a job next November.

Call me a Political Science nerd, but I always thought that representative government should represent the people in their district or state or nation. And not whomever rights the biggest checks for their campaign. I have a feeling that at least 92,000 Utahns feel the same way, and many more who will show up to the polls to end this corruption by making this a two-party state for once.

horay for BYU students

A while back I urged Y students to organize against VP Cheney's graduation speech. I got my wish:

An online petition at http://cheneyspeech.blogspot.com says, "Cheney has made misleading statements about the tragic war which continues in Iraq, levied outrageous partisan accusations against his Democratic opponents, and used vulgarity on the Senate floor. He has been linked to serious scandals involving botched intelligence reports, no-bid contracts awarded to friends and political donors, and perjury convictions handed down to his own staff."
Because of such actions, the petition says, Cheney should not be given a platform "for his controversial political agenda."
The petition asks that the school refuse Cheney's offer to speak, or at the least, provide a prominent Democrat with a similar schoolwide platform.
As of Tuesday afternoon, the online petition had nearly 200 signatures. Most signers identify themselves as current or past BYU students.

Good job Cougars! I salute you, even if I will never root for your teams.

tuesday round up

While I am waiting for the repairman to arrive at my home, I thought I would get my series of random thoughts off my chest...

• I like Elizabeth Edwards more than I like John Edwards. EE seems genuine, smart, and capable, while to me JRE seems calaculing and smarmy. Like Kos, I dream of a Elizabeth Edwards vs. Libby Dole NC Senate race. She would make a fantastic senator.
  
  Her cancer is really horrible. I have had several family members and family friends be in similar situations (the got cancer, they beat it, only to find a few years later that it was back with a rengence) and it never ended well. I only can pray that it is different for her...and WH spokesman Tony Snow.


• The Congressional Research Service changed its mind on the Utah-DC bill...sort of. "Based on the authority granted to Congress under the Constitution to regulate congressional elections and relevant Supreme Court precedent, it appears that federal law establishing a temporary at-large congressional district would likely be upheld as constitutional." [PDF] Now if they could only get over the DC part, we would be in business.


• Bennett's intellectual dishonesty tour is now stopping in Campaign Finance Reform:
  

  Right now, Senate candidates' disclosures are filed in paper form to the secretary of the Senate, then scanned and sent to the Federal Elections Commission, creating a delay for the public to see the information in the run up to the election.
  The Campaign Finance Institute said that as late as three days before the 2004 election, the antiquated reporting system hid from the public 85 percent of the donations made to U.S. Senate candidates in the three months before filing
  [...]
  The government watchdog group Democracy 21 also complained Monday that Bennett was operating to defeat the measure.
  "If you start to turn this bill into a Christmas tree with all sorts of controversial amendments, you're going to kill the legislation," says the group's president, Fred Werthheimer. "And Sen. Bennett has to understand that."
  Democrats want the campaign finance legislation to get a straight up or down vote in the Senate without being encumbered by controversial amendments.

  
  Bennett's amendment would allow candidates and parties to coordinate advertisements is exactly what McCain-Finegold sought to prevent. That to me is a controversal amendment, no matter what Bennett says. Bloggers have been pushing this bill sincec Matt Stoller had to comb through Lieberman's last minute donations, finding lots of Republican supporters.


• Rebecca Walsh is a pretty good Op-Ed columnist for the Salt Lake Tribune, pointing out things that other want to ignore:
  

  With a pack of 10 politicians jockeying to replace Rocky Anderson, the candidates have to distinguish themselves somehow. For some, their history in office could be problematic; others have no record at all. So campaigning this year has become an exercise in creative résumé-writing.
  [...]
  [ex-House Minority Leader] Ralph Becker...hopes voters remember him railing ineffectually against the machine, fighting the good fight on Capitol Hill. Of course, he talks less about getting squashed like a bug by the Republicans year after year.
  Dave Buhler, one of three conservatives in the campaign, is betting residents will forget he ran for mayor once before... He never said the word "Republican" in the debate. "I prefer bipartisan," Buhler said. "Obviously, I'm not hiding it."
  ...Republican Keith Christensen hopes Salt Lakers will forget some of his decisions [on the City Council, like light rail]
  ...suggested renaming Pioneer Park to allow wine to be poured in nearby restaurants and voted twice against protecting gay city employees from discrimination. The mayor named Christensen his heir apparent...
  Meghan Holbrook is asking left-leaning Salt Lakers to focus on her thankless, six-year job as chairwoman of the state Democratic Party and disregard the fact that now she's a lobbyist for Zions Bank.
  Perennial candidate John Renteria believes residents won't count how many times he has been a loser at the ballot box... [H]e has switched his party loyalty between the Democrats and the Greens.
  Nancy Saxton, a Democrat, wants voters to forget about her financial troubles and spats with Anderson and some of her City Council colleagues. "No one's ever accused me of being one of the good ol' boys," she said.
  Jenny Wilson is...banking in part on her name - her father is beloved former Democratic Mayor Ted Wilson - to propel her into office.
  And J.P. Hughes - a proctologist, Grand Old Party member... [is] hoping Salt Lake City voters will be charmed by his role as the affable jester in the race and vote for a Mormon Republican with no political experience.
  So Monday's debate progressed as...spin. The Republicans didn't mention their party. The Democrats hitched on to Anderson's love for the environment and distanced themselves from his "impeach Bush" protest tour.
  And Wilson reminded the crowd: "You may know my father."

  Groan. Jim Matheson never did that when he was running, nor did Scott Jr. Jim just talked about the values his family instilled in him with family photos, a far more subtle approach than Jenny's.


• Romney finally has a good idea that I can support. And it is an idea that only a Republican would come up with: " Participants in 'Students for Mitt' will get 10 percent of the money they raise for the campaign beyond the first $1,000. While candidates often offer professional fundraisers commissions up to 8 percent, campaign experts believe the Massachusetts Republican is the first to do so with the legion of college students who have historically served as campaign volunteers." Because Young Republicans always ask not what can I do for my country, but what is in it for me?


• My beloved PILO put on that mayor's forum/debate last night and they did a heck of a job.

That's all for now...the repair people still haven't come but you know 1-3 really means 2:59 or 12:59.

representation--Utah Republican style

Rep. Chris Cannon found another opportunity to make a fool of himself...this time managing to do it on Fox News.

"You got 3,000 pages already released and many more now that indicate that there was a great deal of staff work going into this and they had a culminating meeting where it was talked about, among some other things.... This is highly consistent with what the attorney general said in the past," Cannon said. "I don't think there's anything new here."

He says this despite the fact that those documents Directly contradict the Attorney General's sworn testimony before Congress. Rep. Cannon seemed to care about perjury when it pertained to Clinton's extramarital oral sex, since he was a House Impeachment Manager in 1998-99. I know this is old news but I have a larger point to make.

Rep. Cannon and both Sens. Hatch and Bennett revel in every opportunity they get to defendant this sorry excuse for a president. They go on TV, radio, and in the newspapers spinning and gushing about all the President's men and women. In fact, they seem to spend more time and get more press doing that they do getting federal money for Utah or passing bills that align with Utahn's interests (like better student loans, making health care more affordable, making child care more affordable, etc.)

That is, these Utah Republicans represent their party over their state. These Congress-critters are more interested in Utahns who move to Washington to join the Bush administration...like Karl Rove, Kyle Sampson, and Jay Bybee [folks who are an embarrassment to the Beehive State, the Republican Party, and America] than they do to the people that still live in Utah. I think we should send them back to Utah perminantly so they can readjust their values and start representing their constituents in Washington rather than representing their partisan pals in Washington to their constituents.

classified secrets revealed

I am not surprised but disagree with Rep. Matheson's vote against the Iraq supplemental.

Matheson objected to language in the bill that he said would "compromise the safety of our troops on the ground." He has said previously he would not support any bill containing a date-certain withdrawal, and he took issue with how the debate came down to Republican vs. Democrat.
"I am saddened that this important issue devolved into a partisan debate," Matheson said in a statement. "It's immoral to play politics with the needs of the men and women who protect the ideals we hold so dear."
Matheson had proposed an amendment to allow President Bush to decide the withdrawal date and for him to ensure the date was "classified." The amendment, though, didn't get included into the debate.

If Matheson's version were to become law, I can let you in on a little secret. Bush's classified withdrawal date would be the same his public date: "not on my watch." Bush doesn't want the fall of Saigon images to happen while he is still in the White House. He dreams that this alone will save his legacy. But people don't blame Ford for ending the Vietnam war, they blame LBJ for starting it for real, and Nixon for bombing Cambodia illegally, and then suing for peace. Or they blame the liberals in Congress in the 1970s for defunding the war. But not Ford.

And Bush's presidency has been done since he got reelected. That was his only real accomplishment.

when image trumps substance

many times in politics, people become powerful or weak based on perception...this conception of a person comes from media coverage, how they carry themselves and how they react to the situation around them.

The Iraq war has been one of those things from the beginning, which is why those in favor of the war keep home alive that if only they could show enough newly painted schools, all those mass executions and suicide bombings would fade into the background. We went to war with Iraq because we felt scared, afraid after the first major foreign attack on US soil since 1812. During this period of fear, anthrax was mailed to Senate Democrats and prominant news anchors. [The targets to me have always seemed very right-wing: Daschle, Lehey, and Brokaw...no one but a right-winger obsessed with judges and the "liberal media" would have picked those folks] In the end, only a few people with weak immune systems died (like elderly women).

During this period of trembling, the President, the VP, the president's chief of staff, the president's national security advisor, the secretary of defense, and other prominant officials gave the impression that Iraq was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons and still had biological weapons like anthrax. they warned that these weapons could be delivered to US troops stationed in the region and to our allies like Israel.

Afriad of seeming weak on National Security, Senate Democrats listened to Joe Lieberman, half of them voting for the war...including Biden, Dodd, Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton.

Finally, in 2006, Democrats stopped being afriad. They are no longer in fear of a president whose ratings hover between the high 20s and low 30s. They no longer fear a GOP smear machine after the American people have come out overwhelmingly against the war and started to self-identify themselves as Democrats.

Sure, the supplimental is far from perfect. I thought Murtha's proposal sounded reasonable, and I don't understand why the no attacking Iran portion of the bill was omitted, but in the end, it doesn't matter. The AP version of the story that I read in the Richmond Times-Dispatch focused on the message that Democrats want: Democrats wish to end this war, and Republicans want to stay beside their disaster of a president. Sure it barely passed, and sure 2 Republicans voted for it so 2 more liberal democrats could vote their conscience, but the message was won by Pelosi. Paragraph one was the spin they wanted, paragraph two was her quote, paragraph three talked about the 2 GOPers and the dissent within the party, but then the next graphs talked about Bush's opposition. It wasn't until the fold that the details of the bill were laid out.

And for a lot of people, the details are boring. Kerry's "I voted for it, before I voted against it" became the impression of him, not what he ment by that and why he decided to vote for the war but against an appropriations. Hillary's nuanced position on the war is coming across as pro-war, and Obama's position is coming across as anti-war, much to Bill's chagrin.

The image of president Bush these days is of an angry man who has lost touch with reality rattling around the White House as his presidency collapses around him. His Attorney General is a dead man walking, with no credibility with Congress (Republicans don't like being lied to that much either). His secretary of state suffers from the same disbelief abroad. VP Cheney is only welcome on Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and BYU...and even there he might face the music.

Sorry for the sporatic posting of late, I am visiting with the In-laws in Richmond...I am off to see Jamestown, the 400th year of its existance.

where I was this week

Sorry for the long gaps in writing...a big blogger no-no. There is a summary (semi-accurate) of our time in DC via Aron Ralston.

I also went to DC to talk to attorneys there I know and get a sense of what I should do with myself. The original title of this post was "the fine art of self-deception" because I was thinking about what kind of person am I? Am I warrior? Am I a person who likes to win above all else? How much am I willing to put up with to win? Thoughts to ponder.

Meanwhile, Lord Vader VP Cheney will speak to BYU graduates. Please let one of them grow some balls and protest this horrible person.

In order to get our Utah leaders to do the public's will, we have to sign petitions to force them to change their ways. On the RSL stadium and Vouchers. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs seems to have actually looked at the same numbers as Corroon did, and divested itself from RSL's stadium.

Finally, I noticed that as predicted, Republicans care more about preventing an overwhelmingly democratic, urban, and african-american-empowered area from having a vote in the House than allowing Utah to have another rightful seat that would almost certainly go Republican. Stop voting Republican, Utah. They clearly don't care about you.

doing something about it

a couple things to note tonight. Thanks to the Wasatch Watcher for linking to one of my many typo-ridden posts (Gonzales and his "purse scandal"). I would go to bed at this hour but two hilarious articles from the local papers caught my eye.

The title of the Trib's DC reporter's article says it all: "What Cannon would ask Plame - if he'd been there." Who the heck cares what he would have asked? If he has other priorities than showing up to hearings of the plumb committee he is on a big national issue, then his opinion matters even less than mine. At least I would have gone had I been Rep. Cannon. Residents of Summit County and Happy Valley, your congressman is a joke, literally.

If he or anyone in a similar situation wants to complain about something, they should at least try doing something about it, rather than just whining to the press.

Which brings me to another (unintentionally) funny article. Here's the lede [no that's not a typo]: "The minority House Democrats in the Utah Legislature were three times less effective in passing their bills this year than all other state lawmakers, an analysis by the Deseret Morning News shows." I really hope they didn't spend too much time, money, or effort on that 'analysis' because anyone with half a brain could have told you that a Democrat in the Utah legislature has about as much chance passing a bill as Kucinich has of winning the nomination...OK it's not that bad, but pretty close. Why did they waste the space in the newspaper to do this article? Oh that's right, the backup argument of Utah's GOP leadership (one of whom is now the editor-in-chief of the Des News and is idiot Rep. Cannon's brother) is that you can't vote Democratic because your Rep will have no power.

Well if voters take a defeatist approach like that, they will never have a remotely close close to a democracy in Utah. Right now, it is getting closer and closer to China with it's one party rule and it's corresponding corruption and waste.

I am tired of just complaining about stuff, so I am actually in DC this week to lobby Congress about Utah's wilderness. Maybe this year we can finally get SUWA's nearly 10 million acres bill passed by at least the House. Even if it doesn't, at least I am doing something about it.

PS I will be pretty busy because of this so please be patient with posts this week.

Purge scandal hits home

I know other local bloggers have covered the US Attorney purge scandal in regards to the current US Attorney for Utah, but another juicy email came out about his predecessor, Paul Warner.

"I suspect that when push comes to shove, home-state senators likely would resist wholesale (or even piecemeal) replacement of U.S. attorneys they recommend (see Senator Hatch and the Utah U.S. attorney)," [Kyle] Sampson wrote.
[...]
[Paul] Warner had been re-confirmed to another four-year term as U.S. attorney in August 2003. He announced he was leaving the office in January 2006 and was nominated as a federal magistrate.
When Warner stepped aside, Sampson had lined up support so he could take the job, including the backing of the attorney general.
Hatch, however, chose to back Brett Tolman, an assistant U.S. attorney in Utah who had been working for the Senate Judiciary Committee, first for Hatch, then for new Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
After several months, the White House nominated Tolman in June.
"I'm just going to be honest with you. Yeah, Kyle Sampson wanted my job. That's not nearly as Machiavellian as it sounds because lots of people wanted my job," Warner said. At one point, Sampson told Warner directly he was interested in the post.

Dude, Kyle, if you want to do something illegal, first rule is don't do it via something recordable. His inbox is a series of indictments/impeachments/resignations waiting to happen.

Kyle wanted Warner's job. As Gonzales' and Rove's toady, he thought he had it made. And with the new provision in the PATRIOT Act reautorization, he thought he had an in. But he forgot how much pull Senator Hatch has with local appointments.

This purse scandal widens by the day and everyone has to ask their local US Attorney's who serve or served during the Bush administration if they were pressured to leave, or to file bogus charges against political enemies, or to not file charges/be lienant on political allies. Because it seems that pressure was brought to bear on dozens of US Attorneys, from Guam to Arkansas to New Mexico, to San Diego...and it goes all the way to the very top.

how to bribe...I mean lobby...a Utah legislator

Conveniently, the office of legal counsel to the Utah State Legislature provided this handy-dandy guide [PDF] of the do's and don'ts of trying to curry a legislator's favor via gifts.

For example, the new law "do not include [disclosure requirements on]:a food or refreshment item not part of a meal that is $5 or less; a publicly presented
award that is $50 or less." However "reimbursement expenses for all travel, lodging, or meals are reportable expenditures." This means if a lobbyist were to buy a huge amount of [let's say] pizza for the entire appropriations staff and leadership staff [including the Representatives and/or Senators] while they are putting the final touches on the budget, I don't have to report it because if I assume everyone gets a slice or two, each person only got >$5 worth of food.

Conversely, if I am a legislator, I have to report the "cost of admission to
professional or collegiate sporting event, regardless of cost; tangible personal
property greater than $10; food or beverage greater than $50; all gifts given in one day, if the total gifts in the day are greater than $50." Ironically, this bill requires lobbyists to be more ethical in their disclosure than legislators. A lobbyists, who "just so happens" to have been the legislator's high school/college/grad school friend or co-worker can treat them to $49.95 worth of food and beverage and no disclosure is required. And since most legislators don't drink alcohol, this means they could dine out a places like the New Yorker and never have to report a thing.

Finally, the bill "Remove[d] a reference to legislators under the Utah Public Officers' and Employees' Ethics Act related to restrictions on receiving a gift unless it is reported." Nice to know other state government employees have to be more ethical than their elected legislators.

Without disclosure, how will voters ever know how "on the take" their Representatives and Senators are?

STDs spike in Davis Co.

Last night my wife and I watched "Kinsey." While the man contributed a lot to science and the ensuing sexual revolution, his personal life was...well let's just say he had an affair with a male assistant researcher, then told his wife, then that assistant researcher propositioned Mrs. Kinsey, and both Kinsey's thought that would be a great idea. Anyway, one part of the movie Dr. Kinsey noted that despite (rather because of) abstinence-only education, Sexually Transmitted Diseases (then called venereal diseases) were rapidly rising.

Utah, home to some of the most conservative sexual education in the country, the kind that Kinsey campaigned against in the 1950s, has the same problem as Indiana U. kids during his early days.

Cases of the sexually transmitted disease chlamydia jumped 17 percent in Davis County last year.
That is the finding of a study released this week by the Davis County Health Department.
Chlamydia tops the county's list of communicable diseases with 510 reported cases in 2006.
Health experts say chlamydia's relatively mild symptoms allow it often to go undetected and untreated, spreading the infection and causing infertility.
County health officials also reported a rise in gonorrhea, logging 55 cases in 2006.
[...]
Of communicable diseases identified in Davis County in 2006, some 44 percent were STDs. Most cases were adults between ages 20 and 29, and 64 percent of all STD cases were women, the report said.

I just hope no one is really surprised by these reports.

Utah 4th: GOP edition

The White House, known for their dubious constitutional arguments (see John Woo's "unitary executive" memo vs. Justice O'Connor's Hamdan...the 4th circuit's rulings on so-called 'enemy combatants'), is opposing the DC-Utah house seat bill because Bush believes it is unconstitutional.

The news was not well received on the Hill.
"They'll officially base it on the same half-baked and disingenuous constitutional concerns some other opponents have raised," said a senior Republican congressional staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Why is it disingenuous? Because they wouldn't support a constitutional amendment, either. It's just cover for blatant partisanship. Shocker - another opportunity missed by the administration."

Meanwhile, Sen. Hatch a Senate 'supporter' of the bill isn't exactly busting his hump to get Utah more representation "I haven't done a head count. I don't even know if it's going to be brought up." Orin said. There were more Republican shenanigans to thwart the voting rights of DC residents that failed:

Republicans made numerous attempts to amend the bill, although all failed, including one by Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah.
Cannon wanted to change the at-large portion of the bill, giving the state of Utah the option to use a new four-district map approved at the end of last year and whatever else it would decide to do.
An amendment offered by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., would have required the state to use a map approved last year instead of the at-large seat but it also failed. Sensenbrenner was chairman of the committee last year and put the bill on hold until the map was drawn. Congress adjourned before it could pass the bill.
Other failed amendments would have kept the changes from taking effect until the 112th or 113th session, pushing it years beyond the current 110th session, while others would have made a congressional district out of every military base.

While the bill is expected to pass the House, the group DC Vote notes that it doesn't have 60 votes yet in the Senate, which is filled with White House toadies who might be inclined to filibuster for King President George W. Bush.

constitutional interpretations by congress

nowadays it is very rare that Congress interprets the constitution, and when it does, blatantly unconstitutional laws like Terri Schiavo's is created. Some times, however, they do a great job. The 1982 amendments to the VRA is one of the few recent bright spots in Congressional interpretation of the Constitution, where both sides had good points and struggled long and hard with tough questions and important issues.
Currently, there is another one: The DC-Utah House vote bill. The Washington Post reports:

Both sides can point to legal scholars to back them up. Several weeks ago, a constitutional expert at the Congressional Research Service produced a report saying that the bill was probably unconstitutional.
On the other side are the American Bar Association and former top government lawyers such as Viet Dinh, an author of the Patriot Act. Appearing at the hearing yesterday, Dinh said the legislation would probably survive a court challenge because judges usually uphold Congress's actions taken under the District Clause.
[...]
Reflecting such concerns, Republican legislators [in particular Rep. LaMar Smith of Texas, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee] are expected to propose an amendment in today's hearing calling for expedited judicial review of the bill. That would clear the way for the case to go directly to the Supreme Court on appeal after a lower court ruled.

I wouldn’t oppose this in general, but it seems like they are trying to bypass the DC Circuit, which has extreme liberals and extreme conservatives in its Court of Appeals. Depending on the draw, one panel will follow Hamdan and another will follow the Anti-Habeas Corpus act of 2006…I mean the Military Commission Act.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said ultimately a court will decide whether Congress has the authority to grant the district and Utah seats and it is worth the battle to try. "The time for action has long passed," he said.

DC voters were eloquent in their advocacy for a voting member of the House. "We are not the constituents of any of you, and therefore can command the full devotion of none of you," said Bruce P. Spiva of the advocacy group DC Vote, in his opening remarks

… residents stood up silently but en masse as Spiva said there were "teachers, firefighters, veterans and students" who make up the city's population.
"We fight for democracy abroad and are denied it here at home," Spiva said. "We pay federal and local taxes. We serve on federal juries. We have fulfilled every responsibility of American citizenship, and yet we have no say in the passage of our nation's laws and do not even have ultimate authority over our own local laws and institutions."
Spiva said Congress certainly has the right to fix this "and it must change now."

Here, here!

Wednesday round-up

• Last night's blogger reception with Mayoral candidate Ralph Becker was a roaring success. It was great to meet all the fantastic local bloggers and discover that they are as smart and funny in real life as they are online. My only regret was that I couldn't have arrived on time and gotten a chance to chat with folks more. The bus system is what made me late to the event, but luckily we brought up transportation issues up with Min. Leader Becker and he seemed to agree.
  
  I think many were encouraged by Ralph's responses to our questions and suggestions and he did himself a great service by engaging the blogosphere in a constructive fashion. Better to have a friend than an enemy. I just wish other candidates would do the same. Again, I am still undecided, but must admit that he impressed me last night


• Atrios (Duncan Black) has labeled Democratic strategist Bob Shrum as a "wanker of the day" for admitting what we already knew: that he convinced Edwards to vote for the war. Digby points out that Kerry too was talked into voting for the war by the same breed of perennially losing DC Democratic strategists. Digby and Atrios let the blame fall of the beltway boys rather than the Senators turned presidential candidates (and running mates). This to me makes no sense. When one votes for a candidate for president and vice-president, you are doing so on your assessment of their judgment (as well as stances on the issues).
  
  Both Kerry and Edwards (as well as Clinton, Dodd, and Biden) voted for the Iraq war out of purely political reasons--their fear of seeming weak on national defense. Kerry in particular was afraid to vote against the war given that he had voted against the 1991 Gulf war, which was a mistake. So instead, he was wrong both times. If these Senators made wrong but politically expedient at the time votes in 2002, what confidence should I have as a voter that they will make the tough calls in the Oval Office? Sure the DC pundits have horrible advice, but the Senators running in 2004 (and in 2008) didn't have to listen to them. If you will recall, Edwards and Kerry were fighting over who got to have Shrum as their advisor.
  
  As much as I think Bob Shrum and Democracy Corps should be blacklisted for consulting, the onus falls on those who sought out and took their advice: the candidates.


• The coverage of the Trolley Square shooting as finally come up with an interesting angle: the shooter's girlfriend:
  

  On the night of Feb. 11, Talovic talked to his girlfriend, Monika, for hours on the phone. '' 'Something is going to happen tomorrow that you'll never be able to forgive me about,' '' the 17-year-old remembers Talovic saying. ''He said it was supposed to be the happiest day of his life and that it could only happen once in a lifetime.''
  Monika pressed for details. "It involves everyone and everything," he said, except for her - he loved her too much. "I would never in the world want something like that to happen to you."

  Two days later, Talovic killed five people wounded five more critically, and was killed by the police. Talovic and his girlfriend had another thing in common (besides ethnicity): trouble at school...
  

  Both had dropped out of school, Talovic from Horizonte High School in Salt Lake City, Monika from Cap Rock High School in Amarillo. She is now being home schooled and expects to receive her diploma in November.

  My conjecture that the war caused some of this still holds water:
  

  Talovic was about 5 years old in the early 1990s, when Serbian forces overran Talovici.
  Monika said Talovic described hiding in the woods over a period of three years, lying face down in the dirt to avoid watching as Serbs decapitated countrymen nearby. He told Monika of seeing people shot in the head or stomach. He did witness killings, his aunt said.
  Talovic recalled his hunger pains, surviving on wild mushrooms and droplets of water that collected on leaves, Monika said.
  "He was mad because when he didn't have a place of their own, they had to live in the forest. He used to be mad when he was a little kid, but said he got over that," she said.
  Talovic once spoke of a clinic in their village where the wounded and dead were taken, Smajlovic said. He "remembered there was a little ambulance there," Smajlovic said. The aunt recalls hiding with the Talovic family in the woods. Eventually, the family left, walking hundreds of miles toward a free zone in Tuzla. On the way, they slept on the floor of schoolhouses without blankets. Talovic's grandfather was fatally shot. An infant brother and sister died.
  "They didn't have food, they didn't have shelter, it was every man for his own," said Smajlovic. "It was horrible. They spent their time looking for food, a piece of bread. There was no time to talk about anything nice."

Bloggers meet the mayoral candidate TONIGHT

Meet a mayoral candidate TODAY Tuesday the 13th at 5:30 PM in SLC. Food and drink provided, you ask the questions. Feel free to bring friends and family. If you are interested, show up at 145 S. 400 E. (across from Crown Burgers and Freewheeler Pizza).

Utah's 4th and the internets

Speaker Pelosi's blog "The Gavel" has a post today about the DC-UT voting bill, and has links to streaming video of the committee markup as well as the full text (PDF) of the bill.

All three are worth checking out.

UPDATE: "The bill ultimately passed the committee 24-5; the House Judiciary Committee plans a hearing tomorrow on the bill and a vote Thursday. Advocates expect the bill to pass the House by the end of this month."

Good thing Republicans aren't being partisan about this--

But Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., tried to amend the bill to say that the whole measure would be tossed out should Utah elect a Democrat for the new seat, a move that didn't sit well with Oversight and Government Reform Committee members.
"Aren't you saying the voters would have to live up to our assumptions," questioned Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who called the amendment "presumptuous and unconstitutional." Westmoreland's attempt failed, as did another to cede the nonfederal lands in the District of Columbia and its nearly 600,000 residents back to the state of Maryland, which gave up the area originally to form the nation's capital. District residents pay taxes and can vote in presidential elections but have no full vote in Congress, which oversees the city's budget and laws.

Utah's unrepresentative government

It's time for another installment of Utah Republican leaders working for the lobbyists not the people.

1. we all know that the Voucher bill was bought and paid for by out of state interests, but now we are all sure that the public doesn't support vouchers (after a proper poll explained it to them).
   


2. If that ideological boondoggle weren't enough, we have taxpayer money being thrown at a 3rd tier pro-sporting event that won't create real economic growth. Oh and the public doesn't support that either.


3. This is [also] the Place [to waste taxpayer money on failed quasi-religious things]. Oh and "many neighbors remain skeptical that commercially developing 12 acres of the 60-acre restored pioneer village is the best way to financially stabilize the park that celebrates the Mormon pioneers' arrival in the valley in the mid-19th century."
   

   Republican leaders, without a public hearing, handed over the $2 million, but demanded the foundation be reorganized, and home developer and one-time county mayor candidate Ellis Ivory be put in charge.
   Ivory has been pushing his solution to the park's long-term stability that includes commercial development and the construction of a large reception center in the park. Even with approval of the lease deal, the park would be less than halfway to covering its annual $3 million expenses, he said.

   Cronyism at its finest.
.

I am sure more will come up as more people ask questions.

Utah's 4th up next week

It seems like the bill that would give Utah a 4th seat in exchange for a seat for DC will be up and pass the House next week.

The legislation - co-sponsored by Rep. Jim Matheson, Utah's only Democrat in Congress - would make the new Utah seat one that is elected statewide, a change from a previous version of the bill that had the seat carved into a specific district.
Congressional aides said last month that tweak was needed to pacify concerns that Utah's current members would have to run for re-election again this year if the bill passes and Matheson's district would change dramatically.
The House Judiciary Committee and the Oversight and Government Management Committee are scheduled to vote on the bill this week.

When you have Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and local member of the majority party all in support of something in the House, usually it goes through.

The only question is if someone will vote no out of constitutional concerns, or if the law will be challenged in court. I urge everyone in the US to call their representatives and urge them to vote for the bill. Especially urge Judiciary Committee members, like Rep. Cannon and Chairman Conyers, to get the bill out of committee. This bill is good for Utah and the District.

another wasted $3.5 million

Yesterday, I was planning on writting about the ray of hope that Gov. Huntsman's stalling on the high school clubs bill represented, and it is a good thing I hesitated. Today, he signed the monstrosity, creating needless state intrusion and red-tape, all in the name of going after gay-straight clubs. And these clubs will continue to exist fellas.

In other depressing wastes of state resources, it seems we will blow $3.5 million on another primary that no one will vote in and the results won't matter. By placing Utah in the "Super Duper Tuesday" date 11 months from now, we pretty much ensure that our state will be ignored. Why come to Utah when Texas, California, Illinios, and Florida are on the same day? Especially for Republicans, who know that Romney will take the state unless he is so out of the running that it will go to the frontrunner.

In 2004, Leavitt tried a "Western primary" only to see that our state was ignored and Kerry won all of them easily. Even though I was a Clark man, by the time Utah's primary occured, I voted for Edwards because Clark had dropped out by then.

The definion of stupidity, Albert Einstein said, is doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result.

thursday round-up

1. The bill for a fourth seat for Utah will come up soon. "The committee schedule is still being worked out, although the markups may take pace March 14 and 15." Rep. Cannon is on the committee. Lord help us all. "[DC Delegate Eleanor] Norton said Wednesday that she anticipated the House would pass the bill by the end of the month, before the next recess that starts April 2."


2. Here is one great thing about all these candidates running for mayor:
   

   On Tuesday, the City Council voted to direct attorneys to draft an ordinance that could limit such check-cashing businesses from concentrating in certain locations and restrict them based on the city's population.
   [...]
   Councilwoman Nancy Saxton, who is running for mayor, sought the ordinance. She acknowledged it wouldn't stop predatory lending. Nor would it outlaw check-cashing businesses.

   It's not perfect or complete, but its a start.


3. This week's sign that the appocolype is upon us (apologies to Sports Illustrated):
   


4. I had a jury trial yesterday, sorry for not posting. If you still want to go to the blogger meet and great for a SLC mayoral candidate, there is still time, add a comment or email me (both get emailed to me).

Calling all local bloggers...

If you live in Salt Lake City and would like me meet a mayoral candidate one on one, please contact me via this blogger comment thread. A friend of mine is putting together a blogger meet and greet for said candidate. I have yet to make any commitments, but am impressed this candidate is doing blogger outreach.

waiting for wes, part III

Wes Clark, Jr. scolds those of us who fear a Clark candidacy is DOA.

I'm sitting with General Clark right now

He never said he's not going to run and he's not going to commit to a timeline on when he has to announce. The early campaign season is good for two groups of people - the fundraisers and the consultants. The average citizen won't make up their mind until much later in the game.

Good old bomb throwing Wes Jr. is back.

As right as he is about consultants and fundraisers, the winning nominee will have to have even more money than last time. Lots more. This is not only because of inflation and the quality of the Democratic field, but also because the early February Super Tuesday will even more nationalized. California and other big, expensive media states will all be on the same date. And if Iowa and New Hampshire are won by the same person, it will be a steamroller for that winner. If those two states are split, with close second places of different people, then maybe the Super Tuesday states will also be divvyed up.

However, that is an extremely unlikely scenario...even then, there will probably only be 2-3 folks coming out of that situation. One of them will be probably be Obama and another probably will be Clinton. Even if voters aren't focused in this early, the political talent is. Some of them are actually worth snapping up, especially in an organizational state like Iowa.

Needless to say, I am worried for my man General Clark.

waiting for Wes, part II

Wherein I learn how long I have to wait. Susan Putney, one of the three co-founders of DraftClark04.com, asked the General the question on every Clark fan's mind:

I went to see Wes on Friday here in NH where he hosted a fundraiser for Carol Shea-Porter in Portsmouth.[...] After working the rooms thoroughly, Wes was introduced and proceeded to talk about the state of the world, Iran, nuclear threats, global warming, alternative energy, the pros and cons of withdrawing troops quickly from Iraq, etc. He was brillant. He was the old Wes that I had heard on CNN and instantly I knew why I had worked my butt off encouraging him to run and then on his campaign. And those in the room, many who supported Kerry or Edwards in 04, were dazzled by his knowledge and the ease with which he discussed world issues. He got everybody's attention there.

Just before he concluded his talk, he said, "I'm not a candidate for President, but I haven't said I won't run". He asked for questions and I couldn't help but be the first to ask, "Wes, is there any chance during the next 3 months you will declare your candidacy?" Everybody chuckled knowing I had supported Wes in 2004. He said no. He told the room that when you're a candidate, they discount your views on everything. He was very happy to discuss policy with high level people because they took him seriously. He knew that would change the minute he declared. ...

Susan is a Clark fan, but she is also an opportunist. As a founding member of Mass4Clark and of the Draft Wesley Clark movement in general, I know. Susan and a few others got upset that the DraftWesleyClark.com people were getting lots of media attention and decided to start their own website and effort. Some like myself, urged the group not to fracture like this. I said there would be plenty of campaign jobs and jobs in the Clark White House for all of us.

In Boston, we organized a service project day in New Hampshire and tried to get press coverage of it. Yet Susan took all the credit for the effort, despite delivering only herself to volunteer day. We got to see the office she bought for Clark in the sea coast region. It was as nice as any of the other campaign offices, which were right next door (literally). She also took credit for our first 1,000 petitions for him to enter the race, even though she was a mere courier.

But she is loyal and a trustworthy source on this. However, I am with Chris Bowers on this one. I doubt that Clark can be successful if he waits 3 more months to enter. Vilsack's staff will be snapped up. Unless a real contender folds up shop or has a big scandal , I don't see the advantage in waiting. To me, this is like John Kerry's wait-for-it-I-am-not-running announcement. Clark is going to enter the Veepstakes and the high cabinet level-stakes it seems to me. I wish it weren't so, but logic tells me that is what is happening.

So assuming this is true, I am an Obama man. Even my wife, a Wellesley alum and big Hillary fan, is leaning Obama's direction and is annoyed with Hillary's caution. I will still wait for Wes, but I won't hold my breath.

a tale of two speeches

yesterday I was flipping the channels and came across the tail end of Obama's keynote speech at Selma, AL. While he stepped on some of his applause lines, it was a good speech. He talked about civil rights leaders as the "Moses generation" who got us to edge of the promised land but couldn't go there themselves. And he hinted that he was part of the "Joshua generation" of unworthies who who lead the people the last 10% home. This was part of his theme, that he represents a new generation of leadership, one that is not reliving the battles of the 1960s but building upon it. "Don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Ala. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Ala. I'm here because somebody marched. I'm here because you all sacrificed for me. I stand on the shoulders of giants," he said.

Obama also talked about the problems facing Black America today. "We have too many children in poverty in this country, and everybody should be ashamed, but don't tell me it doesn't have a little to do with the fact that we got too many daddies not acting like daddies. Don't think that fatherhood ends at conception. I know something about that because my father wasn't around when I was young, and I struggled." He went on to note that if you read his book, you saw he got in trouble because he didn't have a real father figure and it took him a while to get his life on track. Barack spoke about how his greatest fear is that he is becoming one of those fathers by spending so much time campaigning and being away from his daughters.

And it made me think that if someone as brilliant and talented as Obama had brushes with the law and was on a path of self-destruction, what about all those other young Black men who don't have his gifts? It was a profound moment that can get white people of privilege to realize that the project began by Abraham Lincoln and restarted by Martin Luther King, Jr. is still unfinished.

Immediately after his speech, C-SPAN switched to Hillary Clinton's. I was struck by how harsh her tone was, not the words but her manner of speaking. When she turns up the volume to arouse the crowd, she seems to be yelling at them. Obama seems like he is evoking righteous anger, like a preacher. She seems like an angry parent at a PTA meeting that everyone wishes would be quiet. Hillary's trouble is that she married the most gifted politician of our times and is running against another charismatic brilliant orator.

Against lessors, her speeches wouldn't seem so terrible. I remember in 2002, I heard her speak at the DLC National Conversation (their annual convention). She was far and away the best speaker there, compared to John Edwards, John Kerry, Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, Greg Meeks, Blanche Lincoln, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Jim McGreevey, and Mark Warner. She spoke off the cuff and was both funny and good.

These days, Hillary is looking desperate and afraid. She Peppermint Patty-ed herself to a church across the street from Obama's, and even brought down Bill Clinton to march on the bridge with her. I wasn't the only one who thought Obama is having the better of the Clinton's"

In the crowd, one dad who came from Atlanta was sure he was seeing history being made.

"Look at Obama, he's going to be the first black President," said Kenneth Byrd, who proudly took turns hoisting his son, Myles Byrd, 10, and daughter, Erin, up for a look.

McCain's true colors

(Photo Credit: Northrop Grumman)
In 2000, I was so nonplussed about Al Gore and Bill Bradley that I was seriously considering voting for John McCain in 2000. After George W. Bush defeated McCain, it became obvious to me that Gore was my choice.

During the summer of 2001, I was an intern for Congressman Jim Matheson. As part of being an intern on Capital Hill, they have speakers you can attend if you would like. One of these speakers was John McCain [the best one was Jim Trafficant {D-jail}]. That is when my myth of McCain the maverick was shattered. He managed to pander to right-wing Israelis and pretend to care about us "young people" in his standing-room only talk. I have to say, he seemed like the phonyist politician I had ever met during that speech. Then I began to look at how he stood on the issues and almost all of them were opportunistic bait and switches. He would fight like tooth and nail to cut one silly aircraft carrier, but then he would allow 10 similar boondoggles in without so much as batting an eyelash. He would vote against the tax cut when he knew it would pass. He would pass his torture bill and make create noises when he knew Bush would ignore it. He would hug Joe Lieberman and screech about Cap and Trading Carbon emission, comforted that it would never become law.

And now this "Westerner" has placed the last conceivable straw on the camel's back. He claims he is a Goldwater conservative and yet McCain thinks storing nuclear waste out in Nevada is a great idea.

"Oh, you have to travel through states ... I am for Yucca Mountain. I'm for storage facilities. It's a lot better than sitting outside power plants all over America," said McCain, adding, "I don't mean to be sarcastic. I apologize. But I believe we can transport waste safely."


(Photo Credit: Laura Seitz, Deseret Morning News)
After Jon Huntsman endorsed him and held a fancy $150,000 fundraiser for the guy in Deer Valley, this is the thanks Utahns get? That was a big FU to Nevada and Utah, yet he still expects them to vote for him. I know in the general, Utah is a lost cause, but Nevada has an outside chance. I hope some 527 "Nevadans for our future" or some such reminds voters that McCain wants to store high-level nuclear waste for millions of years a 100 miles away from Las Vegas.

the undemocratic branch

no, its not the virtual-life tenured state judiciary, but the Utah state legislature that is undemocratic. Because out-of-state voucher enthusiasts dumped a cool half million on our legislature, we got one of the most expansive voucher bills in the country. But thank goodness someone is going to ask the people what they want:

A coalition of public education advocates on Thursday filed a referendum petition in an attempt to recall Utah's new voucher law, which creates the nation's most comprehensive school voucher program by making vouchers available to all families who do not currently have children in private schools.
The group has 40 days to scrape together nearly 92,000 signatures from all corners of the state to get the issue before voters.
[...]
Education coalition members have been discussing how to challenge the voucher law ever since it squeaked through the Utah House by one vote last month. The group is still mulling a legal challenge but focused first on the voter referendum because of its strict deadlines.
[...]
The Legislature has purposefully made it difficult to recall a law. Getting a referendum on the ballot takes the signatures of 10 percent of all the votes cast for governor in the last general election, or about 92,000.
And that 10 percent threshold must be reached in 15 of the state's 29 counties.
If the petitioners get enough signatures, Huntsman will set the referendum before voters.
And the state could not issue a voucher until voters decide to keep or reject the law.
Legislators who backed the voucher proposal assume the group will get the issue on a ballot, but say they are not worried about the outcome and promised no retribution in future legislative sessions.

Why worry when you have created ultra-safe districts for yourself and you receive dozens of unreported free meals with lobbyists and lots of out of state money in contributions.

Meanwhile, someone has to sue to overturn the EnergySolution bill:

But Charles Judd says the law is unconstitutional because it helps create and protect a monopoly at the expense of other companies in the same industry.
“It's obvious that this is an unfair piece of legislation,” said Judd, who served as president for the radioactive waste company for several years.
“The truth is, they broke the law, and now they want to change the law to benefit one company.”
[...]
[Huntsman's Department of Environmental Quality]has sided with EnergySolutions over the past year, while Judd and other critics challenged the state on its refusal to apply a certain provision of the law to the mile-square disposal site. The provision says if a waste facility wants to grow by 50 percent or more, it must get approval from local elected officials, the Legislature and the governor, as well as regulators.

In other legislative follies, we have the case of the disingenuous "saved by the bell" tactic.

It was close — but a parliamentary snag and time-chewing debate doomed it.
For the third year running, a bill that would have created a felony provision for serious cases of animal torture failed to make it through the Legislature.
But this time it came down to the wire. It wasn't a lack of votes but the ticks of a clock that killed SB190.
After sitting in the House Rules Committee for days, SB190, sponsored by Sen. Gene Davis, D-Salt Lake, made it to House floor with just ten minutes left in the session.

This article fails to note that the bill came up with plenty of time but the Republican leadership moved it back towards the end of the calendar to make sure they "just missed" the time needed to pass it. But don't feel bad animal rights people, rabid pro-lifers got similarly hosed:

Early in the legislative session, HB235 was substituted with an outright ban on abortion, with exceptions for rape, incest or extreme medical necessity for the mother. That bill would have set the stage for Utah to lead the way in the challenge against Roe v. Wade, a legal battle estimated to cost upwards of $3 million.
Citing concerns about the cost and timing of the court fight, the House restored the "trigger bill" approach. That's the version the Senate approved late Wednesday, with amendments that stripped the bill of about $1 million in unrelated funding, provided an exception for fatal fetal deformity and made another minor change.
The amendments effectively killed HB235, because they left little time for it to make it back to the House. Still, the Senate would have voted on the bill much earlier in the session, had it been listed as a high-priority item — which it was not.

See? Even in Utah's ultra conservative legislature, this unconstitutional bill is not important to them.

Our long statehood neighmare is over...for now

In other words, the legislature is now out of session and can do no more damage until next year. But they shouldn't take all the blame. Huntsman's shameful pocket non-veto of the Energy Solutions bill was a shining star of politics over people:

Huntsman's inaction means the measure will become law, giving EnergySolutions an easier time at winning approval to nearly double the capacity of its landfill about 72 miles west of Salt Lake City.
[...]
The company is a generous political donor in Utah and says it doesn't apologize for that. It doled out $189,020 in political donations last year in Utah, including money to 75 of 104 legislators, according to filings at the lieutenant governor's office.

And his wife wasted taxpayer money because lobbyists flattered her:

The day the Legislature approved a lucrative $35 million funding plan for the Real Salt Lake soccer stadium, the Major League team sent Mary Kaye Huntsman 35 roses.
[...]
"The truth be told, we would not be standing here without Mary Kaye's insistence that RSL stay here," team owner Dave Checketts said the day the House passed the bill 48-24. In the end, the bill garnered bipartisan support from the majority of the House and the Senate.

One rose for every million dollars they got from state coffers. Those must have been some roses.

partisanship

For some reason, I was a moderate Democrat when I lived amongst and worked for liberal Democrats in Massachusetts. I was also fairly moderate when worked for the DLC, although I strongly disagreed with their advocacy for the Iraq war. But living in Utah again has made me much more partisan, although I was pretty partisan from birth.

I think it is because the Republicans in power in this state--with a few exceptions--are really radically reactionary. All of the Congressional Republicans from Utah carry water for the radical presidency of Bush-Cheney, who has claimed an unprecidented [and unconstitutional] amount of executive privilege and power. Some--like Rep. Bishop and Sens. Hatch and Bennett--have placed this duty above those of their constituents. I dislike bootlickers of all stripes, and Clinton appologists are just as annoying to me [and dishonest] as folks like Hatch and Rep. Patrick McHenry.

For its part, the state legislature seeks to outdo their congressional counterparts in unconstitutionality, partisanship, and ideology over constituents. To me, Sen. Buttars takes the cake. Despite his greatest desires, he probably has homosexual constituents. Yet his whole legislative agenda is to do everything possible to make life worse for them from the moment they come out. Well that's not fair, the rest of his agenda is based on legislating his other religious views, such as the world was literally created in 6 days by God.

If there were more Senators like Scott McCoy, who worked hard to do what was right for their constituents, sought to save taxpayers money by arguing against unconstitutional bills, etc. I wouldn't care about their particular beliefs much.

I have many conservative friends and I respect conservatives at all levels of government who try to do the right thing. But when conservatives use underhanded tactics and dishonest arguments to pass bad laws, I react to condemn their party who fails to condemn them.

I am for solutions to big problems and don't really have a set agenda on how to get there. For example, if someone can convince me that Vouchers really do work, I would love to see it. But so far, for every study that says they are good, there are more studies that say the opposite. And the whole church-state thing makes me uneasy, despite what SCOTUS said. I want to reduce the number of abortions, lower health care costs, raise the standard of living world wide, level the playing field, keep America safe, end/reduce wars, stop global warming, etc. If a free-market or social-conservative approach to any of these problems is shown to work empirically better than social-democratic approach, I will support it. However, all I have seen thus far is that abstinence-only doesn't work, forcing marriage doesn't work, privatizing health care doesn't work, voluntary business compliance doesn't work, discrimination lives on without legislation/litigation, preemptive voluntary wars are disastrous, etc.

But as the masthead says: "truth over balance, progress over ideology."

The Majority means something

Being in the Majority Jim Matheson can finally do things that that are long overdue--like treating National Guardsmen like the rest of the regular military as far as GI bill benefits go. If we are going to ship them over to Iraq with no real training or equipment, the least we can do is give them benefits in terms of education benefits. Another Democrat is offering a bill that would give them Veteran's health care (which looks pretty bad at Walter Reed these days).

Matheson introduced the bill in 2004, after hearing from Utah members of Fox Company, 2nd Battalion Marine Corps Reservists returning from the war. They told him that even though they served 24 months on active duty, they did not qualify for the education assistance they thought they would get because it was not consecutive.

Being in the Majority also allows you to bring great harm and hassle to others:

The tinkering ended Monday with a final compromise among Republicans.
Over the objections of Democrats, the House sent the bill, ...to the desk of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.
[...]
They faced heavy opposition, even from some Republicans, because of the long list of requirements students would have to meet to start a club.
But in a conference committee, Tilton and Buttars agreed to remove many of the proposed regulations. No longer would students have to submit a club application by Oct. 15 and that application would not have to include a constitution or bylaws. Students would have to state the purpose of the club and its budget, if any.
Tilton and Buttars are pushing the bill for different reasons.
Tilton champions the parental consent portion of the legislation...
Buttars, on the other hand, hopes to give administrators the ability to block clubs such as the Gay Straight Alliance without fearing a massive legal bill.
[...]
Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake City, ...fully expects a school to try to block a club and he expects that group to then sue the school.
He said "the hook" is a requirement that clubs could not violate "the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior." The legislation makes no attempt to define the term.

Insert Spiderman quote here.

How 1948 and 2004 are related

In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran under the "Dixiecrat" party uttering the famous lines: "There's not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches." Keep in mind, this is 8 years before Brown. And while Strom died in 2003, his legacy of racism, hypocrisy and cowardice lives on.

Rev. Al Sharpton, who was an also ran in 2004 for president as a Democrat, found out yesterday that his ancestors were owned by Strom's. While Rev. Sharpton has no credibility with me on anything after his repeated self-agrandizing kleptomaniac efforts in NYC, he was one of the best speakers of all the candidates last time and is really quick on his feet. So without further ado, let's get to Al's quote:

"It was probably the most shocking thing of my life," Sharpton said of learning the findings, which were requested and published Sunday by the New York Daily News. He called a news conference to respond publicly to the report. "I couldn't describe to you the emotions I have had . . . everything from anger to outrage to reflection to some pride and glory."
[...]
The newfound knowledge that his great-grandfather was a slave, Sharpton added, gave him a new perspective on his life.

"You think about the distance that you've come, you think about how brutal it was, you think about how life must have been like for him. And then you start wondering whether or not he would be proud or disappointed in what we have done," Sharpton said, with his eldest daughter, Dominique, 20, at his side.
[...]
"In the story of the Thurmonds and the Sharptons is the story of the shame and the glory of America," Sharpton said Sunday.

I agree with that last line. It shows us all how far we have come, and yet how far we have to go.