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."