Certain Arizona Democrats continue to Go Along to Get Along with the Bush agenda. Giffords and Mitchell voted to continue to fund the war in Iraq and to immunize tel-comms who broke the law at the behest of the Bush Administration, incidentally preventing discovery in those pending civil cases that could produce further evidence of criminality by this Administration.
Do you think that Tim Bee or any of the GOP wannabees in CD 5 would have voted any differently than these Democrats on these issues? Of course not - that's the point of these GAGA Dems 'strategy': to deny their GOP opponents a contrast issue. But if there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on these key issues, how will people see a difference between the parties when it comes time to go to the polls? They won't - and they'll stay home, which is the worst thing possible for the Democratic party. Apathy is good for the GOP and these Democrats are doing their best to ensure that voters will be apathetic about their ability to affect the most important issues of our time.
Why are Giffords and Mitchell goldbricking on the hardest political work facing our Party? Perhaps it's because they don't believe Democratic positions on these issues are the right ones, or because they feel those positions are too hard to explain to a public conditioned by fear for the past 7 years. In either case, one has to wonder if candidates who won't fight for and vote for Democratic positions are the best representatives of for the Democratic Party in their districts. If they won't fight for positions our Party overwhelmingly supports (withdrawal from Iraq and fighting for the rule of law with an outlaw Administration) then perhaps it is time to consider whether we need to find candidates who will take on the difficult issues without always putting their fingers in the wind first, and aping the positions of their GOP colleagues to avoid a fight.
Giffords and Mitchell are not only betraying our troops by keeping them in a pointless war of attrition that is undermining American security, and betraying our Constitution by letting this Administration violate Congressional laws and immunize their co-conspirators, they are betraying the Democratic Party by ensuring that voters won't see a difference between the parties on the issues that matter most in November. That might work to their advantage in their own races (I personally am of the opinion that they are wrong to think that), but it will certainly not help our Party rally public opinion to make the major course correction this country so desperately needs.
Gabby Giffords' Votes:
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 - Vote Passed (268-155, 12 Not Voting)
The House approved this $165.4 billion bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through FY2008 and the beginning of FY2009.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords voted YESFISA Amendments Act of 2008 - Vote Passed (293-129, 13 Not Voting)
The House passed this intelligence bill that would revise U.S. surveillance laws.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords voted YES
Harry Mitchell's Votes:
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 - Vote Passed (268-155, 12 Not Voting)
The House approved this $165.4 billion bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through FY2008 and the beginning of FY2009.
Rep. Harry Mitchell voted YESFISA Amendments Act of 2008 - Vote Passed (293-129, 13 Not Voting)
The House passed this intelligence bill that would revise U.S. surveillance laws.
Rep. Harry Mitchell voted YES
Contrast the GAGA Dems' votes on these issues with those of a real progressive Democrat like Rep. Grijalva. I have to wonder if Raul is regretting his early and strong support for Gabby in the 2006 primary. Without that support we might now have a real progressive in Congress voting like Grijalva on these vital issues.
Raul Grijalva's Votes:
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 - Vote Passed (268-155, 12 Not Voting)
The House approved this $165.4 billion bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through FY2008 and the beginning of FY2009.
Rep. Raul Grijalva voted NOFISA Amendments Act of 2008 - Vote Passed (293-129, 13 Not Voting)
The House passed this intelligence bill that would revise U.S. surveillance laws.
Rep. Raul Grijalva voted NO
So which is it Gabby and Harry: is Grijalva undermining our national security with his thoroughly Democratic votes? Or are you undermining your own Party's credibility on these vital issues by voting against your caucus and siding with the wrong-headed GOP?
And in case you think I'm letting him off the hook: No, Obama's wrong on this issue, and playing the same short-sighted game as the GAGAs.
Link: NRCC blames Mitchell & Giffords for Gas Prices - Phoenix Business Journal:
I don't think I've ever seen a political attack that relies more on the American public being a pack of blithering idiots than this one. The NRCC just took an issue that has got most Americans pissed at their own party, and not only sought to make it a central issue in local Congressional races, but tried to shift the blame on the thinnest of pretexts.
Only a complete moron would fall for such a brainless ploy. Clearly, the GOP and brainiacs in charge at the NRCC think Americans are deeply stupid. With allies like these, Bee and Schweikert/Ogsbury hardly need enemies.
The American people understand quite well several things which make this attack akin to a terrorist tripping on the way to his target and blowing his own ass sky-high: Congress has little direct control over prices; Americans still have some of the cheapest gas on the planet (outside of OPEC countries) because we hardly tax it and subsidize the crap out of the industry; we can't drill our way to lower prices; Bush's occupation of Iraq and destabilization of the Middle East has more to do with high oil prices than any other factor besides the rapid growth of the Chinese and Indian economies; and the only way to escape our addiction to oil is through alternative energy and efficiency, which Democrats are leading the way on and the GOP couldn't care less about.
So thanks RNCC for reminding everyone of those facts.
The blissful self-confidence of the utterly incompetent we're seeing from the RNC, NRCC and other GOP political leadership cells of late has everything to do with the drubbing that the GOP is about to get in the General election. The voters are out of patience, and the GOP is out of ideas, out of excuses, out of ammunition, and (dare I pun so?) out of gas...
NATIONAL JOURNAL: "The New Center"
National Journal is getting a lot of ink locally (e.g., here and here) due to their ranking the ideology of many of 2006's frosh congresscritters, including Arizona's Gabby Giffords and Harry Mitchell, smack dab near the center of the political spectrum.
When you take a closer look at the actual votes on which National Journal based their ratings, however, what they actually seem to be measuring is mostly how two key issues - Iraq and immigration - are causing some Democrats to throw out their principles in the name of expediency and poorly-judged pragmatism.
Note: The headings stand for Economy, Social, and Foreign policy.
A closer analysis of the fairly small sample of bills upon which the rankings are based indicates that in most respects Giffords and Mitchell both generally hew closely to the party line on most issues other than immigration and Iraq. The moderate nature of both candidates is largely a feature of their shared (and mistaken, in my view) hands-off approach to the war in Iraq, and their perceived need to armor themselves against the immigration fire-fight in Arizona.
Giffords is not ranked as notably more "economically moderate" than, say, Rep. Ed Pastor - at least in terms of her actual votes. She has not been nearly as much of an economic conservative in her votes to date as her overall centrist ranking, and her membership in the Blue Dogs, might suggest.
What Mitchell champions, however, is clearly out of step with most of his caucus - not surprising considering he too made a bid to join the Blue Dogs. What is surprising is that his rhetoric, and to a lesser extent his votes, actually indicates that he is much more in tune with conservative tax philosophy (coddle the rich and soak the middle class), yet it was Giffords who got the nod from the Blue Dogs. Maybe Mitchell's tax rhetoric put him too far to the right even for the Blue Dog's comfort. In the end, I think that Mitchell's ranking as a 'moderate' on economic matters, is rather too generous. He actually deserves to be in amongst the Republicans proper when you take into account his advocacy, as well as his votes.
UPDATE 3/14/08: Mitchell has made it two years in a row now that he has voted against his own party's budget. If he's trying to establish his fiscal conservative credentials, I think he's more than done the job.
Despite their fairly middle-of-the-road rankings in social policy, neither member is sending many overt signals to the 'values voters'. They do score considerably more conservative than other Dems in the Arizona delegation and the Caucus overall, but that is almost entirely down to votes having to do with immigration and immigrant rights.
The big difference between 'social centrists' like Gabby and Harry and the rest of the caucus is how terrified they are of creating a record that can be characterized as 'pro-immigrant.' The callousness and pettiness that these 'centrists' will stoop to in order to avoid giving racists and xenophobes any ammunition is often farcical.
On foreign policy, both members score more conservatively than their Arizona Democratic delegation-mates, but that is predominantly down to their votes on Iraq. Their score also includes a few instances when their urge to throw money at a military system outstripped any fiscal restraint or desire to look deeper at our actual strategic needs - a common and unfortunate Democratic habit that our members default to in order to forestall being labeled as anti-military, but that results in massive pork and a flabby, wasteful military.
I will take a closer look at the particular votes that earned Giffords and Mitchell their milquetoasty middle-of-the-herd street cred after the flip, and consider how well-deserved are their carefully-crafted, centrist images...
Continue reading "Giffords and Mitchell: The New Center? Let's Hope Not... UPDATED!" »
Governor Napolitano says Dick is depriving CD 1 voters of effective representation by not resigning • "Arizona Gov. Napolitano Urges Indicted Rep. Renzi to Resign"
The Tucson Citizen editorial staff agrees that Dick cannot effectively represent his constituents under these circumstances and should resign • "Indicted Renzi Should Resign"
Notable Quotes:
"All of this is prelude to the critical choice facing the House this week. At long last (and I mean long--some of us have been working for nearly 30 years to create a meaningful reform here) the House is going to take up a plan to create an independent office for preliminary ethics investigations...
"The panel would consist of six members jointly appointed by the Speaker and Minority Leader, with staggered four-year terms (a limit of two for any members.) It has reasonable standards and thresholds for the group to consider potential ethical violations, with reports sent to the ethics committee laying out the facts of the group's investigation alongside the relevant rules and/or laws. There are reasonable time limits for the ethics committee to act on the report--and importantly, provisions that would eventually require release of the independent panel's report to the public if the ethics committee simply sat on the report."
Public interest groups such as Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the the Project on Government Oversight are following Dick's case closely.
Local press homing in on scandal as the Yavapai County Daily Courier, the Kingman Daily Miner cover the story.
My View:
The Hill is hedged in its headline, pointing out some possible weak points in the indictment. "The indictment does not detail when or if Renzi crafted that bill and a
review of Renzi’s bills in 2005 and 2006 shows that no such measure was
introduced." The article opines, "The Renzi case on allegations of quid pro quo legislative maneuvers is
more nuanced than Ney’s and Cunningham’s cases where gifts and money
were linked to congressional activities such as statements that were
put in the Congressional Record and earmarks."
This is a sharp observation by The Hill, but very likely all the evidence the feds have has not been alleged or alluded in the indictment alone. There is likely a ton more evidence against Dick; especially very credible witness evidence, not to mention the likely testimony Dick's co-conspirators will cough up in exchange for a deal.
However, the absence of an introduced bill would be a major problem in proving at least some of the first 27 counts of the indictment. If The Hill's observation turned out to be true, it could be problematic for the prosecution. However, The Hill's concern is not an issue at all for Dick's earlier embezzlement of $400K to fund his 2002 campaign alleged in counts 28 - 35, which has nothing to do with his legislative actions.
I don't think The Hill did nearly enough diligence to conclude that the 'smoking bill' doesn't exist just because Renzi doesn't seem to have filed it; this sort of legislation gets lodged in omnibus bills all the time, and I'm sure Dick did his level best to keep his prints off it.
Although Dick's lawyers are currently only making implausible generic and blanket denials, Dick will eventually have to get much more specific and credible in order to justify his staying in office. This could be a huge problem for his defense.
It is never a good idea to lock yourself into a theory of defense before you know what evidence the prosecution has got and is likely to be able to present at trial. This is why high-profile cases are such a bear to defend: the public wants answers more compelling than merely telling them that the charges are baseless: the public isn't stupid.
They know that 35 count indictments don't get cooked up whole and that there is always some factual basis for such charges, even if the authorities may have misinterpreted events and acts that are perfectly legal - especially when the charges are against a man as powerful and well-connected as Dick, who has the power to defend himself vigorously and to do damage to careers and government departments should there have been any impropriety in bringing the indictment.
The voters will want to hear Dick's explanation of what looks quite damning, indeed. If he and his lawyers can't start to produce a narrative explaining why the charges are mistaken without tying Dick's hands in his eventual defense in court, forget about his staying in office, the issue becomes solely keeping him out of jail. When it comes right down to it, if I were more concerned about the rest of my client's life than preserving his job, and the GOP's electoral chances in CD 1, I would be pushing Dick to resign in order to avoid the need to go on the record with more specific denials and explanations that could possibly compromise his defense later.
Politico points out the GOP would be seriously disadvantaged in their efforts to hold CD 1 by an early Dick departure. They would fare much better, though they are likely still in deep trouble, if the seat were up for grabs in November, instead. They cite the large funding advantage held by both the DCCC over the RNCC, and between the parties' candidates on the ground.
Interestingly, Politico also compared Sydney Hay to Randy Graf - poison to her national fund-raising potential. Personally, because of Hays' ties to charter and home-school advocates, I think a better political parallel would be to Gov. Mike Huckabee, who home-schoolers did yeoman's work for in making his Presidential bid viable.
The Raw Story echoes Washinton Post reporter Ben Pershing's comments on RenziGate that indicate the formation of a conventional wisdom that the GOP is considerably better off running in a November election, rather than a quick special election, because of McCain's presence at the top of the ticket:
"If Renzi hangs around the rest of the year, he may generate some more bad publicity, but the race to replace him in Arizona's 1st District should at least be manageable for the GOP in November, especially with home state Sen. John McCain at the top of the ballot."
I've entertained this thought myself a for a while, but I'm increasing dubious about McCain's coattails in light recent polling by Bruce Merrill indicating a narrowing margin for McCain in Arizona, and the finding that most Arizonans don't expect McCain to actually win the Presidency, even if they plan to vote for him.
With softening support, a surging Democratic ticket, and pessimism even among Republican voters about McCain's chances, he may not have the coattails in this state that so many, including myself, have expected.
Dick's stench being dragged around Arizona for an extended period of time could even pox McClean's image as he battles his own allegations of campaign finance shenanigans.
McCain is rightly viewed as the real leader and paterfamilias of the Arizona Republican party, now that he's practically the GOP's nominee. It says something to voters that McCain sits on his hands and says nothing about Dick's troubles and his refusal to step down.
Considering the robocall McCain left CD 1 voters, it may be hard for his to put day-light between himself and Renzi at all:
"This is Senator John McCain. I'm calling to urge you to support my friend, Representative Rick Renzi for Congress. Rick has represented the first district of Arizona with tenacity, honesty and integrity beyond reproach. I work with Rick every day and can report to you his total dedication to the people of Arizona and the United States. Please join me in supporting rural Arizona's workhorse Congressman on November 7."
The longer Dick and John are easily associated in the public's mind by the nature of the their ethical troubles and their party affiliation, and the longer McCain tacitly condones Dick's behavior by not overtly condemning him and calling for his resignation, the more McClean's own shine may tarnish.
In the end, Renzi may wind up doing much more damage to McCain than any benefit the GOP may get from a November election rather than a special election to replace Arizona's own Tricky Dick.
The following is based on allegations and purported evidence contained in the US Attorney's indictment, not personal knowledge. Renzi and others named in the indictment are considered by the law to be innocent until proven guilty by a court of law - but that's lawyer-blather for "he's guilty as sin, we just gotta get 12 folks to see what's plain as day."
There are two major conspiracies at the heart of the case against soon-to-be-former Representative Rick "Dick" Renzi: how he stole from his own insurance clients to buy his way into Congress in the first place and then lied repeatedly to try to cover it up, and how he then abused his office to bully legitimate businesses into a shake-down and kick-back land deal to cover his own debts and then lied to cover that up, too.
Continue reading about what the indictment means after the click...
I won't even pretend to hide my delight at the news of Dick Renzi's long-anticipated indictment. There was a strong appearance of political interference by the White House to stave off Renzi's just deserts by firing Arizona USA Paul Charlton during the pendancy of his investigation of Renzi's dealings, so it is much to the credit of Diane Humetewa, the new Arizona USA, that she persevered and put this prosecution at the top of her agenda despite the obvious interest of the Bush Administration in making this matter go away.
Of course, that interest has become much more costly now that Bush's fingers were burned in the Attorney-gate scandal, and the benefit of continuing to support Renzi's criminal lifestyle had diminished markedly once the GOP was no longer fighting to maintain a majority in the House. These factors undoubtedly combined to give Humetewa the breathing room needed to do her job without undue political pressure. The very fact that such political considerations can even be contemplated to have been a factor in the prosecution of public corruption are just one more of the many damning indictments of this Administration and the ethics of the modern GOP.
“Among the allegations contained in the indictment, Congressman Renzi misused his public office by forcing a land sale that would financially benefit himself and a business associate, and in so doing, he betrayed the trust of the citizens of Arizona,” stated U.S. Attorney Diane J. Humetewa. Here's Humetewa's press conference presenting the indictment:
Learn more about the indictment and what it means for the McCain campaign after the click...
Now that our McCain is the acknowledged front-runner and almost certain nominee of the Republican Party for President, what will happen to his Senate seat?
If McCain follows the example of others in the race, such as Obama and Clinton, and nominees of the recent past, such as Kerry and Lieberman, nothing will happen to his seat unless he's elected President. Should he resign in order to signal his intent to win, or to mute criticism of his neglect of his Senatorial duties while on the campaign trail, however, then there may be a more immediate effect on his Arizona Senate seat.
The mechanism for replacement of a Senator in Arizona is for the Governor to issue a writ of election to authorize a special election to replace the Senator, and to appoint a member of the former Senator's party to serve in an interim capacity until the special election is held on a date determined by the Arizona legislature.
Thus, the question is three-fold: who might the Governor appoint to the interim term, who would likely run in a special election, and, keeping in mind the compressed electioneering period a special election often entails, who might win such a race?
I don't have any pat answers, so I am asking for your ideas and advice on this one - especially that of my friends on the red end of the spectrum.
I don't think McCain is likely to resign his Senate seat, but he's a surprising old bird - one never quite knows what he's up to. I don't think he'll win the Presidency, either, but if he were to do so, then his seat goes up for grabs via interim appointment and special election in November 2008 at the earliest, January 2009 at the latest. If he were to resign for the campaign, it could all begin tomorrow.
The first question is who would Napolitano appoint to an interim term? I don't think she's timid enough to just roll over and appoint some presumptive Republican pretender, giving a Republican a clear advantage in the special election. More likely, it seems to me, she would appoint a Republican she is close to, and wants to see get more of a political profile, but not someone who is established enough to seek the Senate seat for his or herself.
One person who comes to mind as fitting that bill is Kris Mayes. The big draw-back of appointing someone like Mayes, is what she might do with the profile an interim U.S. Senate seat would give her. There has been rumblings about her challenging for the CD 1 Congressional nomination, so her appointment might backfire by creating a strong Republican challenger where there is currently little real energy, and possibly handing CD 1 to the GOP.
A second option is an appointment that, while no one could question the legitimacy and appropriateness of the appointment, the GOP would likely come to rue it none-the-less. An inspired move, in my opinion, would be for the Governor to appoint state GOP Chairman Randy Pullen. It's an inspired move in my view: you get to bring Pullen's trademark nuttiness to a national audience, embarrassing the national party (who hates Pullen's guts so much they've choked off the state party's funding), and likely setting off another internecine struggle between the alienated factions of the AZ GOP.
Either way, the Governor has lots of latitude to really cause some mischief with the appointment or to help a moderate Republican she favors. The possible interim appointees are a good source of speculation, and I encourge you to share your thoughts, especially the naughty ones.
Who might run in a special election to replace McCain? One obvious Democratic contender is Jim Pederson, who tried to bring down Senator Jon Kyl last cycle. He's got the name recognition, experience, and, most importantly in a short campaign, the money to bring off a credible short-notice compressed campaign. Other notable Democrats with a state-wide profile without other pressing engagements in 2009 are rather sparse on the ground.
The most chilling prospect is if Janet Napolitano herself decides to put her hat in the ring. She would, of course, likely have to resign to run (she would have a hard time taking a play from Tim Bee's book "How to be a Schrödinger's Candidate" as her term expires all the way out in 2010) so that would mean SoS Jan Brewer would become our Governor. Perish the thought.
Surely, we have a deeper bench than this? Isn't there an Obama cooling his heels in the State legislature just waiting to burst upon the national stage? There are many who have the potential for a greater leadership role in the state, but none with the sort of burning ambition and talent it would take to prevail in the hyper-compressed schedule of a special election. Even Obama might not have broken out in such circumstances. I like my State Rep., Steve Farley; I think he would make a fine U.S. Senator, but I don't see him raising the millions a U.S. Senate campaign would require. Who do you see as a possible break-out contender?
On the Republican side, there are a number of pretenders waiting in the wings, if only because they've lost more state-wide races lately. Matt Salmon seems like a possible contender, having both the connections and name-recognition to gear up quickly for a state-wide special election. Despite having about zero chance of prevailing, Len Munsil and Don Goldwater would likely have to make some noises about running, if only to save face.
An intriguing possible contender would be J.D. Hayworth, who might be interested in trying to erase the stain of his loss to Harry Mitchell with a stretch at the big brass ring. And who knows? Maybe he'd be more palatable to a state-wide constituency that he was to the increasingly moderate voters of CD 5.
In the "slightly batty possibilities" category is disgraced former Governor Fife Symington who keeps threatening to put down his pastry bag long enough to run for something again. In the "certainly not lacking self-importance despite all evidence to the contrary" category is Arizona Speaker of the House Jim Weiers. Despite his tenuous hold on power, not to mention his own House seat, he might get a signal from god that he's to be the next Senator from Arizona.
Of course, the best is saved for last. What if Senate President Tim Bee decides that he has a better shot at retaining a Republican Senate seat than displacing Gabby Giffords' hold on a now-Democratic House seat? Would he abandon his bid against Gabby to go for a seat in the 100 Club? Better yet, since he seems to have so much time on his hands to run the Senate, and run for Congress, why couldn't he just ALSO run for U.S. Senate in the special election should McCain resign soon? That way, he can have his cake, eat it too, and still have seconds.
Who else, on either side of the aisle, do you think might decide to take a run at the Senate if McCain were to resign, or win the Presidency?
Link: Final Vote Results for Roll Call 1186.
I can't begin to express my disappointment with the comportment of these two Democrats. Their own political convenience continues to remain a higher priority than forcing Bush to bring our troops in Iraq home. I want to hold CD 5 and 8 as much as any other Democrat, but there is a price we shouldn't be willing to pay -- the life of even one solider lost needlessly in Iraq as Democrats dither and fail to maintain a unified caucus to confront the President on this issue.
With 141 Democrats voting against this amendment, and only 78 Democrats voting for it in concert with a nearly unanimous Republican caucus, this was objectively the Republicans' amendment - and Gabby and Harry helped pass it. And the result is $70 billion more for the fiscal rat-hole we call Iraq with no strings and no conditions attached. This amendment would not have passed without the support of spineless centrists in the Democratic caucus who bucked their own party to protect their own electoral interests.
Heck of a job, Gabby and Harry.
UPDATE 12/21 @ 1900:
I received an email from Gabby's office regarding her vote to squander another $70 billion with no progress toward an exit from Iraq. I imagine this is the letter that anyone who expresses consternation about her vote gets. I've added some bold and numbering to highlight the passages I would like to consider more closely.
"Dear Mr. Bryan,
Thank you for contacting me about the war in Iraq.
As you know, Congress passed an omnibus appropriations bill on December 19th that provided more than $70 billion in additional funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was deeply disappointed that the bill did not include the timetables for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq that I have supported throughout the year (1).
Since the beginning of my term in Congress, I have consistently voted for measures that challenge the President's strategy or impose strict withdrawal timelines as a condition for providing war funding (2). I believe that this is the best way for Congress to make real progress in ending the war. Unfortunately, both times an appropriations bill that included mandates for redeploying our troops has passed the House, it has failed to become law. The first bill was vetoed by the President; the second was blocked by Republicans in the Senate.
In May, I joined over 220 of my colleagues in the House in voting to override President Bush's veto. Regrettably, the House fell short by 68 votes. Given the current membership of the House and Senate, it has been difficult to muster the two-thirds majority necessary to achieve our goal: the responsible redeployment of our remaining combat troops from Iraq.
Partisanship and the President's unreasonable intransigence frustrated Congress' efforts to meet this goal shared by the majority of Americans (3). (I have attached a relevant article from the Los Angeles Times for your review). Faced with only one final option to support our troops, I did just that by voting for the omnibus appropriations act (4). I cast this vote in the firm belief that it was the best decision for the welfare of our troops (5), but I remain committed to the goal of redeploying U.S. combat troops from Iraq.
Achieving stability in Iraq requires an aggressive political and diplomatic initiative-not a massive U.S. military presence. But failing to pass appropriations or prompting another veto would not have changed President Bush's strategy in Iraq (6). It would only have prevented the military from replacing worn-out equipment (7). Our troops are embroiled in an untenable civil war between Iraqi factions, but they did not choose or design their mission (8).
I will continue to vote in support of a responsible shift of troops from Iraq to targeted regions around the world where there are serious threats to America.Sincerely Yours, Gabrielle Giffords
Member of Congress
(1) I don't doubt that Gabby is deeply disappointed by the lack of any progress toward redeployment in this bill. She should express that disappointment the way that 141 of her Democratic colleagues did -- by voting against this appropriation that does not advance the cause of ending the occupation of Iraq.
(2) It's true Gabby has voted for package that include some measures designed to end the occupation -- before she then went ahead and voted for packages that did not include any restrictions. In other words, she was for ending the occupation before she was for sustaining it.
(3) The President's intransigence has certainly stymied progress toward ending the occupation of Iraq, but to blame partisanship is risible. If anything, it is the complacence of Democrats and one-sided attempts at bi-partisanship on Iraq that has driven this Congress' approval rating into the dirt. The American people don't see the Democratic Congress standing up firmly to the President's agenda. Rather, they see its continual compliance with the GOP's agenda, followed by limp excuses that a 'bi-partisan coalition' can't be formed to end the occupation.
Instead of confronting Bush, and accepting the political risks that entails, to get a true compromise out of the White House, Democrats like Giffords and Mitchell are giving in before any real bargaining has even begun. Of course the President will never give an inch if he knows that Congressional Democrats don't dare tie his hands in Iraq and risk taking on responsibility for the outcome. The last thing centrist Dems who control Congress want is any taint of the loss of Iraq clinging to them in the 2008 elections; someone will pay the price politically and they are desperately afraid that the GOP's propagandists will hang that rotting corpse around the Democrats' necks.
(4) "faced with only one final option..." Really? The option that Dems dare not speak of, because it entails significant electoral risk, is to confront the President with a budgetary stalemate and refuse to pass any funding until a satisfactory compromise on withdrawal is made. It's the only chip that Congress has, and they are afraid to use it ever since Murtha got his fingers burned in 2006 trying to use the power of the purse to force the Administration's hand on Iraq policy. That backfire has made centrist Dems gun-shy of actually using one of the two effective constitutional weapons they have -- the power of the purse. The other effective weapon to force a change in Administration policy -- impeachment -- also remains firmly in Madame Speaker's holster.
(5) And here we come to it. The troops. The last redoubt in American politics. "I did it for the troops." The ultimate political gobstopper. Who can question such a high and noble motive? Me.
The troops want to come home: my own conversations with people in the military and vets combined with James Zogby's polling demonstrates that to my complete satisfaction. Sure, a lot of military folks admirably and determinedly are set on completing the mission - and God love 'em, that 'can do' attitude is what we expect of them and what such work requires. But we shouldn't insist that the men and women of our military admit defeat before we let them come home.
Keeping our troops in Iraq, dying by inches every day, grinding our military preparedness into dust for no discernible strategic objective worth the blood our countrymen is not supporting our troops, it's killing them needlessly... actually, no, their deaths do serve a purpose. They ensure that their blood doesn't smear the skirts of centrist Democrats like Giffords. When they face the electorate they will hold up their clean hands and proclaim that they did all they could to 'support the troops' by funding the occupation that's killing them. Horseshit.
(6) The biggest political lie in the 2008 Congressional election season is previewed right here. Not passing an Iraq appropriation wouldn't change Bush's behavior. Actually, little else will.
The one thing that Giffords and her 77 colleagues will never risk doing, won't even admit could possibly work, is the only thing that really can. The Congresswoman isn't naive or stupid - it's not that she and the people who advise her can't see the political calculus and determine that the only variable that will actually move Bush to act is to serious threaten the funding of his bloodbath - it's that they are all afraid to change that part of the political equation.
They foresee going into the 2008 season with the charnel-house wind blowing off the million corpses we've piled up in Iraq at their backs. Why tack into it and allow the Republicans to possibly cheat our wind and cross the finish line ahead of us? It's hard-bitten political calculation that keeps Giffords and Mitchell and their 76 buddies from doing what's right. Whatever else it might be - savvy, cunning, the higher good - it's also political cowardice.
I don't argue that maybe such despicable calculation is necessary to keep and expand the Democratic majority. I don't think it is - I have a little more faith in the good sense of the American people, despite good evidence to the contrary of late. But don't dress it up in this patriotic bunting and say it's for the common good. It's not. It's for the Democratic Party's good, and I just don't think that the price is worth the prize.
I also happen to strongly believe that we DO NOT have to pay such a price to collect the prize of victory in 2008. I think we can force the President to back down, save our troops from meaningless destruction, and actually win the respect and gratitude of the voters, no matter the propaganda the GOP will fling at us. If there is a chance that we can achieve the greater good of a Democratic government while not paying the price of additional dead American soldiers in Iraq, shouldn't we take that risk? If our majority is somewhat smaller, if our President has a bit less of a mandate, aren't those acceptable prices to pay? I pray that Democrats have not become so craven and desperate in the face of Republican aggression against our Constitutional order that blood for votes seems like a good bargain. Regardless of how easy a deal to strike that seems now, history won't judge such a choice kindly.
(7) This is just one of those annoying dishonesties in political communication that continually gall me. She implies that the troops wouldn't have gotten needed equipment without this funding. But the funds for acquisition of new equipment to that worn out by years of war are separate from Operations and Maintenance appropriations. In fact, the Acquisition funds only account for a little over $2.3 billion of this appropriation (man, politicians must hate the internet); almost all of the appropriation is to continue to pound Iraqi sand and kill its people, innocents and bad-guys alike. That needed equipment could be provided without funding the occupation. To imply otherwise is just another damned lie.
(8) Damned straight they didn't. And they don't get any say in how it's fought, or when to stop it, with this Administration in power. We all know that the Bush Administration hides behind our Generals like they were sock-puppets that get disposed of the moment they start to seem politically unreliable or tainted by the Administration's continual failures. The result is that we get a military leadership that is unable to provide objective and professional advice - Bush and his gaggle of neo-cons don't want to hear it, and they never will. So, since the Administration is never going to adjust course to correct the massive damage they've done, there is only one power under our Constitution that can force such a change - Congress.
With Representatives like Giffords and Mitchell tucking their tails at the very thought of a genuine Constitutional show-down with this failed President, the troops are never going to get the true champion they deserve - a champion that can force this President to stop the madness and evil that Iraq has become, and extract them from the mindless meat-grinder that is the legacy of the Bush Presidency.
State Rep. John Kavanagh (R - LD8) launched his anti-immigration website to support the employer sanctions law: ProtectAZBorder.com. One of the first things you will read on his site is the following:
"Arizona businesses are firing Hispanic immigrants, moving operations to Mexico and freezing expansion plans ahead of a new law that cracks down on employers who hire undocumented workers."
I guess in some universe this is good news.
The anti-immigration crowd have fashioned a stake which they have plunged through the heart of Arizona's business climate, and they call it employer sanctions.
12% of Arizona's workforce is undocumented labor. These anti-immigration radicals want to put the businesses that rely on that labor pool out of business. They have a naive and ideological belief that this law will cause undocumented workers to give up and return home because they can't find a job in Arizona. Most will merely go deeper underground, ensuring that they are exploited and abused by employers at greater rates. At best, some may move to other states. None will return to Mexico or other nations of origin as a result of this law. Not one.
The belief that this bill can address the immigration issue is as faith-based as the idea that the Iraqis would greet us as liberators. The mindset that complex and systemic problems can be fixed by simple and brute-force solutions is endemic to the radical authoritarian mind-set. Unfortunately, their fantasies of omnipotence don't map to reality with any success. This bill does nothing for America, and nothing for Arizona except ensure a recession; the only benefit is to the electoral hopes of the radical authoritarians.
The formation of new businesses in Arizona has ground to a virtual stand-still over the legal uncertainty that the employer sanctions law has created. The radical authoritarian immigration-haters point to this fact proudly. Why would you expand into or move a business to Arizona when you might face the loss of your license to operate, or even your corporate charter, should you be found negligent in hiring an illegal alien?
The sponsors of this bill are the enemies of our economy. Their obsession with taking the reins of a contentious political issue for purely political gain has made them ignore the very real costs and dangers this bill poses to all our financial futures. In the midst of a billion dollar budget shortfall, one might hope that the legislative leaders of our state would be interested in more than scoring political points with the most radical elements of their political constituencies. Such hope would be in vain.
One primary sponsor of this terrible bill was Senate President Tim Bee. Tim has already proven he has no respect for Arizona's laws with his not-so-stealth campaign masquerading as an "exploratory committee," so his lack of concern for Arizona's economy should come as no surprise. But consider that this darling of the business right, for whom the royal road to nomination has been cleared by financial threats against any potential challengers by men such as Don Diamond and Jim Click, is one of the very economic assassins who is trying to kill Arizona's economy as a sop to the racist and nativist groundlings of his party. Ironic, no?
Those who voted for this mess, and there are many Democrats who did so out of fear, ignorance, or whatever motivation, should apologize to their constituents. Employer sanctions by a single state is a suicidal move. It's like swatting a fly on your nose with a round fired from a .357 magnum. There might be some benefit from a well-coordinated national employer sanction law if combined with well-policed labor standards and a new legal status for currently undocumented workers already in this county, but there is no advantage to the unilateral economic seppuku that is Arizona's employer sanctions bill.
As many of you will have read in Daniel Scarpinato's piece on impeaching Cheney , Raul Grijalva has signed on a co-sponsor of resolution 799 (was 333). That means that we here in Southern Arizona have finished half of our responsibility to get our Representatives on board. Grijalva deserves our thanks and our support for truly representing the sentiments regarding this issue of those who elected him to Congress. If you are in his district, take a minute and let him know you appreciate his stance. If you are outside his district, take another minute and give his Tucson office a call (ph (520) 622-6788) and let them know how you feel.
Of course, that leaves Gabby Giffords as our main target of persuasion in Southern Arizona. She has always maintained that impeachment is out of her hands because the leadership is against it. Well, here's her chance to prove where she really stands on the issue of constitutional governance. Her vote to table Kucinich's resolution when it came to the floor doesn't inspire any confidence. Here's her chance to win our confidence back.
If you live in Ed Pastor or Harry Mitchell's district, get out there and start marching, writing letters, and making phone calls. All of Arizona's Democrats should be on board. There is nothing scary here; the Arizona Democratic Party passed an pro-impeachment resolution, so they will just be following the will of their own party by co-sponsoring an impeachment resolution.
An ad hoc group of non-aligned, pro-constitution, anti-monarchy advocates will be demonstrating outside of Congresswoman Giffords' office again this Monday from 4pm to 6pm. They'll be taking a break for a couple of weeks after this Monday, so they hope to make this demonstration an impressive one.
You can make a sign that speaks your message to Gabby, or just show up, because they have plenty of pointed, but polite signs to display. ("Honk to Impeach" and "Support H Res 799 - Call Gabby at 881-3588" are two pretty good ones.)
If you wish, you may drop in to her office before 5pm and ask a staffer to take a personal message. It will be filled out for you, as you dictate it. Stay for an hour or just awhile. It's good for the soul....
If anyone can come and take good video of the demonstration to distribute on the web, it would inspire others around the state and country to get active locally.
Link: Mitchell votes against House tax relief package.
Harry Mitchell has just proven himself to be conclusively uninterested in middle class tax relief. He justified his support for making permanent Bush's massive estate and capital gains tax giveaways to the wealthy by pointing out that some crumbs may fall into middle-class citizens' pockets. Now he has voted against those same middle-class citizens being protected from the Alternative Minimum Tax, because the package is paid for with a rate hike from 15% to 35% on the massive profits of hedge fund managers.
It is clear that the well-being of the middle class is really the last thing on Harry's mind. The only reason Harry is supporting permanent cuts in estate and capital gains, and voting to keep the taxes on the billions that hedge fund managers are raking in at an unconscionably low 15% tax rate, is that Harry is sucking up to the money.
If he would just be honest about it I wouldn't mind so much.
He could say, "Look, the wealthy give me big donations to get re-elected and are big influencers on Republican business-class voters. I need these folks to get re-elected." I could live with that. That's pragmatism. What Harry's doing is lying.
I can't stomach the sanctimonious and hypocritical excuse that he's pursuing these tax-cuts to help the middle class. No, Harry, we can all see that you are toadying up to the wealthy with these positions.
True, none of is directly hurting Democratic tax policy, or even middle-class citizens yet. Harry doesn't have the votes, the influence, or support of enough other Democrats to put this regressive program of tax cuts of the wealthiest into place, thankfully.
But these hypocritical lies are the same ones the Republicans use on voters to line the pockets of the wealthy at everyone else's expense. Harry is keeping powder of the enemies of the middle class dry for another day's battle. Instead of fighting for the truth, Harry is perpetuating the lie. That is unacceptable.
Harry, just stop it. Stop justifying your pandering to the wealthiest among us with a patina of concern for the middle class. You know these tax cuts have very marginal benefits for those of modest means and massive ones for the moguls.
A Democrat spouting the very same shameless lies about our tax system as Republicans harms the Democratic party far more than losing your seat would. So, if you want to lick the boots of the wealthy, just get down there and do it, and don't pretend to be doing anything else. No Democrats are buying it outside of your own staff, and that's only because you're paying them.
Please link to this site. Deep linking as well as landing page links are encouraged and appreciated. Here are site graphics you can use for graphic links.
Purchase of goods via or donations to this site do not constitute a donation to any political candidate or party and are not tax deductible. This site is run by volunteers and is not authorized by any political campaign, party, or PAC.
Opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions or positions of any other organization, entity, or officials.
Blue Tsunami
by Michael Bryan
The pundocracy is widely acknowledging that the 2008 election cycle is not likely to be kind to the GOP. In fact, most folks are expecting something of a perfect storm. I'm expecting a generational re-alignment. Not only will Obama win, he'll win huge: Reagan vs. Mondale huge. Not only will Democrats defend their Congressional majority, they will extend it by at least 30 more seats in the House (maybe as many as 60) and by 5 or more in the Senate.
What this means in Arizona is that Democrats will make pick-ups in AZ-1 and AZ-3 and successfully, even handily, defend recent gains in AZ-5 and AZ-8. AZ-2 and AZ-6 will be the last GOP hold-outs in the Arizona House delegation, mainly because the Democrats haven't chosen to put those districts in play. Obama may not win Arizona, but McCain won't have any coat-tails here. McCain certainly won't turn Arizona into a safe place to be a Republican, as many Republicans hope and pray.
We've already seen, through bye-elections in some very red districts, that McCain isn't having any positive effect on GOP chances nationally and linking Congressional Democrats to Obama in your messaging is the best favor you can do for your Democratic opponent.
The GOP 'brand' has been too profoundly damaged by the last 7 years of misrule to be easily restored. In fact, The very reason McCain is the nominee is because the GOP 'brand' simply isn't selling, so the Republicans nominated their 'maverick' to try to distance their 2008 campaign from the wreckage. Unfortunately for them, McCain was forced to make obeisance to so many core constituencies during the primary that he thereby severely damaged his credibility as a reformer - now he just looks like another GOP party hack who is just a bit more of a hypocrite than most.
I also expect new Democratic majorities in state houses across the country, including Arizona. We are only 4 seats away from taking the Arizona House, and I see a clear path to picking up more seats than we need just here in Southern Arizona, let alone pickup opportunities around the state. Phil Lopes will be our new Speaker of the House come 2009.
What dooms the GOP is the insistence of their base to hold fast to some of the least productive aspects of their discredited brand, even as their candidates are getting trounced by Dems for running on those very themes.
I see highly qualified and competent GOP candidates here locally who would have the most electoral appeal to Independents and moderate Dems having to tack strongly to the right on issues like taxes, guns, gays, and immigration just to stay afloat in primary contests. The very candidates who have the credibility and new ideas to rebuild the GOP brand at the grassroots level are being weeded out by their own party in pursuit of ideological purity. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. In the short term, the self-destructive behavior of Republicans benefits my own party electorally, but in the long-run it impoverishes our politics and deranges the national dialog.
The result of this chest-beating by Republican candidates for their discredited and deeply unpopular "movement conservative" constituents will be that the GOP's nominees will be way off message for the coming general elections, or their primaries will simply produce candidates who don't even realize how deeply their own party has been wounded. Such insular ideologues who never speak to anyone outside their party will be absolutely decimated in the current political environment.
Candidates who should be busy recreating the GOP brand around issues average people actually care about, are instead forced to chain themselves to the very cultural hot-button positions and consistently failed policy nostrums that voters are throwing overboard as economic hard times toss the ship of state. The result will be an electoral Armageddon for the GOP and the beginning of 40 years in the wilderness they so desperately need to purge their ranks of the fascists, racists, and kooks who have taken over and encouraged Republicans to worship false idols.
Those who say that the Democrats aren't winning this elections so much as the GOP is losing it are absolutely right. It won't matter much when the votes are counted: either way it's a bloodbath.
But there is much bad news in such a victory for Democrats. Many will learn the wrong lessons from it.
When an experimental animal is randomly rewarded it will associate completely random, even harmful behaviors with the reward and start repeating those behaviors obsessively in hopes of reward. Democrats are going to get a huge reward for engaging in the most politically useless and harmful behaviors. The result will be utter irrationality by my own party.
The lessons that our appartchikis will glean will be that Democrats won by staying on message and talking about the laundry list of programs and policies that "Americans care about", when the truth is that we will have won in spite of their nattering along about our list of legislative "accomplishments".
We could have run the current GOP coalition out of American political life permanently. We would have forced their remaining electorally-viable remnants to join with the Libertarians to rebuild something resembling a viable opposition party. Had we rammed home just how terribly the GOP has screwed up our country through investigations of the manifold criminal enterprises of this Administration and a slew of impeachment hearings, we could have broken the GOP as thoroughly as the Whigs or the Mafia. But our leaders don't understood where the political jugular lies. Instead, we have folks like Nancy Pelosi to whom the political death sentence that the GOP so richly deserves is simply off the table.
mbryanaz on May 19, 2008 in Arizona, Arizona Congressional Delegation, Arizona Congressional Races, Commentary, McCain, Party Politics, President '08, State Legislature | Permalink | Comments (11)