Blog For Arizona

AZ BlueMeanie analyzes Jefferson's "Tree of Liberty" quote

by David Safier

In a long, historically based and rather brilliant comment on my I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to think anymore post, AZ BlueMeanie looks into the meanings and ramifications of the Tree of Liberty quote conservatives, along with one of their own, Timothy McVeigh, so dearly love.

If you're of a scholarly bent, read his entire comment. If not, here's the Cliff Notes version that doesn't do it justice.

Jefferson didn't like Shays Rebellion in the 1780s. He thought the rebels were ignorant and misinformed, though patriotic. What the hell, he said, let them rebel. It's probably good for a government to get a wake-up call once in awhile. We'll end up killing some of them, and the others we'll set straight, then pardon for their wrongheadedness.

If we translate that to today, Jefferson might say about today's "Take up arms!" conservatives, Yeah, let those idiotic conservatives rise up and take arms. After all, they're doing it for patriotic reasons, even if they are idiots. And if some of them and some of us get killed, well, that's the way it goes. It's probably the only way we can knock the fanatical wrongheadedness out of their heads and make them realize how wrong they are.

One of the results of Shay's rebellion, by the way, was a stronger federal government. Oops!

A while after he wrote the Tree of Liberty letter, Jefferson, while helping to write the Constitution, changed his mind. He thought a carefully formed republican democracy could make armed rebellion unnecessary.

Here's a Jefferson quotation from that later period. The Tree of Liberty quoters might want to take a look at this to see that Jefferson, like most brilliant and complex thinkers, can't have his entire philosophy reduced to single sentence.

"Happy for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions."

The more thoughtful and curious among you, go read the Meanie's comment. He writes like a scholar. I write like a high school teacher.

Congress Must Stand Fast in Rejecting Bush's Assault on the Constitution

by John Adams

The US House of Representatives is right to reject the Administration’s cynically crafted version of the extension of the FISA amendment, the so-called Protect America Act of 2007.

Rather, our House acted wisely in passing its own version of the extension, which deletes immunity from prosecution for telecommunication providers who abetted secret and illegal wiretapping and internet monitoring.

As citizens, we must stiffen Congress’ resolve to defend our Constitution against continued assaults by the Bush Administration. Until their illegal activities were exposed by diligent investigative journalism in December 2005, the Bush Administration surreptitiously co-opted telecommunications providers to spy on both foreign and American phone calls and emails, operating under the provisions of a secret Executive Order signed by President Bush.

The Administration’s version of the FISA law extension would have precluded the filing of lawsuits against the telecommunications companies, essentially preventing any discovery in litigation into the Administration’s illegal spying activities. In contrast, the House version of the FISA amendment extension allows citizens the opportunity to bring suits before the court against these telecommunications companies for their clandestine cooperation with the Administration.

We should applaud the House for crafting a bill that will allow Americans to discover – in court -- more about the Administration’s flouting of our constitutional rights.

The fight between the Bush Administration and Congress over the Protect America Act (and its predecessor, the Patriot Act) is deceptively framed as a battle over the imperative of protecting our country from overseas threats. Instead, the struggle exemplifies the Bush Administration’s assault on real national security – our Constitutional liberties.

We have suffered much from terrorists -- certainly, we must confront Al Qaeda and their ilk. But in their assault upon the people of the United States, Al-Qaeda is abetted by those in this Administration who exploit the American people’s fears and demand the surrender of our most treasured liberties.

We stand at a crossroads in the defense of our Constitution, and in the defense of our real national security interests, as the henchmen who control our national security apparatus, both military and civilian, assiduously harness modern information technology to gain ever greater access to our privacy.

Administration officials, and the appointed heads of our intelligence bureaucracy, argue that the terrorist threat justifies the use of ever more powerful technologies to conduct ever more intrusive domestic monitoring, and therefore the government must exercise that capability.

The bare truth is that this Administration exploits the fear of terrorism to gain greater control over our intelligence and national security apparatus.

Still, the Administration sets the conditions for even greater abuses of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to our Constitution. The Administration argues that the FISA law dating from the 1970s is obsolete, citing among other justifications that contemporary computer data-mining and traffic analysis techniques did not exist then. The truth is that behind closed doors, the Administration crafts a policy supporting the technology of intrusion.

The Administration’s perverse argument goes like this: because there now exist more effective techniques of intrusion, we should change the law to enable their employment. It is worth noting that the stakes are huge for the profits of corporations that depend on the further development and employment of the new intrusion technologies. However, as citizens, we should be most concerned with the erosion of our basic rights.

Truly, the long-term damage to our rights are yet to come, as a generation of right-wing judicial appointees create their legacies over the next decades, promising to weaken the process of judicial review of such Executive Branch abuses. This President and his Administration’s officials, who have taken an oath to protect the Constitution, are in truth spying on the American people, and violating the Constitution they purport to protect.

The strength of the United States derives from our constitutional processes, the respect we have for our own system, and the credibility and inspiration our example provides to less fortunate nations. A Commander-in-Chief who runs roughshod over Congress, demanding blind obedience from the American people because only he and his henchmen know best, damages our national unity as well as our reputation as a nation of law and democracy.

Truly, the protection of our national security includes many factors, not least of which is the people’s trust in the process of intelligence surveillance. There must also be credibility that intrusions into the long-cherished rights of a free population will be proportionate and reasoned.  Without that trust and credibility, we breed domestic insecurity and international condemnation.

One of our wisest Constitutional framers, Benjamin Franklin, said: “Those who would give up essential liberty in order to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Our liberties are not negotiable. They have been paid for by the blood of more than two centuries of genuine American patriots. It would be unconscionable for us to mortgage our constitutional heritage of liberty in order to placate the charlatans and criminals of this Administration who cynically claim they want to protect us from terrorism.

In hijacking our Constitution, this Administration and the technological goons who abet them deserve our scorn. Real national security for our country -- the defense of our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic -- demands that Congress stand fast in opposing the Administration’s self-serving constitutional mayhem, and stand by their wise version of the extension of the so-called Protect America Act of 2007.

Meet Sydney Hay, Republican Lobbyist and Ideologue Seeking to Fill Tricky Dick Renzi's Purloined Shoes

Mining industry lobbyist and candidate for Congress in CD 1, Sydney Hay put together a very nice introductory video for her campaign. It illustrates very clearly why the GOP won't manage to hang on to CD 1: they are absolutely bereft of ideas.

Hay's campaign looks like it was cobbled together out of most extreme rantings and wacky policies of the Right over the past 20 years, the dissicated corpses of Reagan and Goldwater, and the most disingenuous and empty rhetoric the Right has fallen back on in defense of the massive failures of the Bush years, all held together by a 'values' appeal that already passé among evangelicals and fundamentalists, let alone the general public.

You can always tell when a social movement is effectively dead by how nostalgic its members become about a claimed Golden Age. In the case of the Conservative Movement, their necromantic rites centering around Reagan and Goldwater are increasingly elaborate, central to their religion, and frankly pitiful.

Sure, we Democrats have our culture heroes—FDR, JRK, RFK, MLK—but we aren't nearly so strident about hearkening back to their particular strain of liberalism as a lost Golden Age that we must return to, and to which our politicians must pay obsequious obescience.

That's because Liberalism is alive and kicking and growing. Conservatism is a dead and discredited credo, destroyed by Bush and the Republican Congress of 1994-2006, now seeking a leader who can revivify it with a fresh perspective and newly invigorated values. That leader doesn't seem to be Sydney Hay—she's too ideologically rigid to acknowledge any new ideas.

I was really amused by the enthusiastic and detailed endorsement by Arizona Republican Congressman Trent Franks. Since the incumbent is in the dock, Renzi can't exactly pass the establishment torch, so Trent from next door is pinch-hitting. It should prove amusing to watch the Republican candidates in CD 1 madly scramble to avoid any association with Renzi.

Trent credits Sydney with a number of key accomplishments. He indicates she lead the campaign to require a super-majority for any tax increase in Arizona. The result has been to ratchet down tax rates permanently, destroying the Arizona state government's ability to fund essential services. Trent tells us that Sydney, a former teacher, also was largely responsible for the failed experiment of charter schools, and for diverting taxes to private and parochial schools.

Polices Sydney claims credit for have over the last two decades been largely responsible for Arizona's free-fall to nearly the bottom among U.S. states in almost every educational metric. With accomplishments like these in her past, electing her to office is sure to result in policies that will make us even more backward, poor, and uncompetitive.

Let's take a quick look at some of the 'ideas' Sydney wants to take to Congress...

First Post - In Defense of Liberty!

by John Adams

First of all, thanks to Mike Bryan and Blog for Arizona for the opportunity to contribute to this exciting, progressive community.  It's a privilege to share our thoughts on today's issues.

Since this is my first post, please allow a brief introduction.

I retired from Active Duty in the US Army in September 2007, as a Brigadier General, with over thirty years' service to our Constitution as a Military Intelligence officer, Army Aviator, and Foreign Area Officer.

With on the ground experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan (temporary duty in 2004), I also served in Africa (Operation Guardian Assistance, Rwanda, 1996), Europe (Operation Allied Force, the Balkans, 1999), and the Middle East (Operation Desert Storm, Saudi Arabia, 1991).

On 9/11, I was at the Pentagon, 100 yards from the crash site...and on that tragic day I participated in the rescue and recovery of the shattered bodies of our brothers and sisters-in-arms. As a committed servant of the Constitution of the United States of America, I am determined to combat the murderers who attacked us on 9/11.

But I am just as determined to combat the fear-mongering criminals in the Bush Administration who assault our Constitutional rights under the guise of protecting us—and who under false pretenses, send our brave troops to die in the unconscionable occupation of Iraq.

From first-hand experience, I know national security issues. I also know that the Bush Administration cynically exploits our fears to gain ever more control of our national security apparatus, benefit the richest among us economically, and eviscerate our constitutional liberties.

Although I have taken off my Army uniform, I am no less committed to fighting for our Constitution—and for real national security—than I was when on Active Duty.

However, as John F. Kennedy said in his acceptance speech for his nomination as the Democratic Party candidate for President in 1960, "We are not here to curse the darkness, but to light a candle that can guide us."

In that spirit, please allow me to address a brighter subject...the movement to elect Barack Obama as our next President. Barack has a life experience that demonstrates his capacity for hard work and commitment...and most important for someone who aspires to the Presidency, Barack is a brilliant, caring, perceptive, and courageous leader.

My own life experience convinces me that Barack Obama is the greatest leader we have seen in America for generations. He has the experience, the judgment, and the passion to inspire all Americans, to unite us, and to carry this country forward beyond ethnic and economic divisions.

As a delegate pledged to Barack Obama, I will fight to make him our nominee at our Democratic National Convention.  With the help of Americans united in the conviction that we must change the course of our country, and chart a new one that benefits all our people, we will elect a President of whom all Americans will be proud.

I am privileged to call Blog for Arizona my "home," including at the upcoming Democratic National Convention. I welcome your thoughts—and your counsel—as we march toward Denver and beyond.

Voter ID Laws: Voter Supression Under the Guise of Preventing Individual Voter Fraud

"The GOP has transformed the legal apparatus of the United States into an instrument of partisan force." - Scott Horton "Vote Machine: How Republicans hacked the Justice Department" (PDF)

The GOP has been engaging in a cynical and deliberate attempt to use the justice system to punish their political enemies, justify and legitimate their systematic voter suppression programs, and seek electoral advantage by undermining the neutrality and credibility of our criminal justice system. Any citizen of conscience, liberal and conservative alike, should condemn these practices before their entrenchment in our legal culture enables Democrats to abuse power in a similar fashion as they move into positions of power.

Once an instrument of power becomes legitimate through repeated use, it is naive in the extreme to expect those who seek power to lay such tools aside voluntarily. The GOP's misuse of our justice system in this fashion therefore threatens the freedom of every citizen and undermines the integrity of our democratic system of governance.

The GOP's campaign seeks to build a myth of individual voter fraud in which large numbers of ineligible persons (usually non-citizens) seek to subvert our elections by voting fraudulently or multiple times. Concern about such fraud is exploited to pass draconian voter ID laws, the purpose of which is to differentially reduce Democratic voter's effective participation (i.e. a voter's ballot actually counting) by 3-5%, thereby allowing victory for the GOP in more close contests.

The second, even more pernicious aspect of their campaign is to subvert the Justice Department (and even some local prosecutorial authorities, such as The Maricopa County Attorney's office) to bolster the claims of individual voter fraud by issuing voter fraud cases on flimsy and deficient evidence. This has happened repeatedly and is behind at least some of the U.S. Attorney firings that drew a great deal of attention last year.

In addition, the Justice Department has been used, as have the investigative resources of the FBI, to bring prosecutions for public corruption against political enemies and rivals of the GOP. From 2001 to 2006, the Justice Department had initiated 375 investigations of public officials: 298 of those investigations targeted Democrats, only 67 of them targeted Republicans.

The odds of such an imbalance being the result of random chance is 1 in 10,000. Based on the great number of public corruption scandals that have engulfed the GOP and dragged its reputation into the gutter with voters, neither is it based on the underlying proclivities of Democratic officials (who, being in the minority for those years, had much less opportunity to misuse their offices, in any case).

Recent Senate hearings have shown there is no evidence to support GOP concerns about individual voter fraud, which is the only kind of election fraud that could be addressed by voter ID laws. Watch the hearing (RealMedia).

Arizona's voter ID law, requiring proof of citizenship to register and to vote at the polls, is back in effect for the 2008 races. The effect of this law will not be to stop voter fraud, but to stop a class of people, including the poor and minorities, from effectively exercising their franchise, giving a preferential advantage to Republican candidates.

An Indiana voter ID law is now before the Supreme Court, and in the oral arguments the Justices admitted frustration that they haven't been provided any reliable data on which to judge the seriousness of the 'problem' of individual voter fraud. Download Oral Argument Transcript (PDF)

A State must have a compelling interest in preventing such fraud in order to burden a fundamental constitutional right such as voting. As the method of remedying the problem imposes a known cost of effectively disenfranchising a statistically measurable number of the most vulnerable Americans, there must really be a significant problem and the court must examine the State's method of addressing that problem to ensure that it is narrowly tailored to avoid burdening that right to the extent possible.

The Court has no such record establishing there is a serious problem with individual voter fraud, therefore the State's response cannot possibly be narrowly tailored to impose the least possible burden on the fundamental right to vote. If the Court upholds the Indiana law, the ruling will be utterly illegitimate and primarily based on the partisan bias of the Court.

Voter ID is merely a legal means of harassing certain classes of voters. Voter turn-out is not the issue, as turn-out is apparently not much affected by voter ID laws. Rather, it is the effective exercise of the voter's franchise that is the issue. A person without adequate ID may go to poll, and even cast a provisional ballot, but the likelihood of his vote actually being counted becomes much, much less.

Preventing people from coming to the polls and voting is much harder than simply creating a legal basis on which to ignore their votes. Provisional voting provides just such a legal mechanism that targets undesirable voters (i.e. preponderantly Democratic ones) by means of the ID requirement.

Many Republicans express derision for the idea that significant numbers of citizens lack a government issued ID acceptable under voter ID laws: an estimated 11% of the population (21 million Americans) lack such ID. Many of those citizens lack the resources (time, money, transportation, documentation) to obtain such ID in order to make their franchise effective. In the absence of any evidence that individual voter fraud is a significant problem, the burdens placed on these citizens to make their franchise effective is intolerable.

Every American should be outraged when any political party resorts to legalistic methods of voter suppression in order to win more elections. There is a clear echo of the legal methods of effectively destroying the franchise of black Americans for over a century in these laws, prompting many to call the new laws "José Crow."

Just as "Jim Crow" will forever stain the honor of my own Democratic Party, "José Crow" will become a source of eternal dishonor for the GOP. The temporary gains made as a result of such a shameful policy cannot even begin to compensate for the permanent reputational harm it imposes.

Giffords and Mitchell: The New Center? Let's Hope Not... UPDATED!

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...

 

GOP Goes Nuts Over Giffords Talking with Constituents About Impeachment of Bush/Cheney

Upon learning that Rep. Giffords sent her Chief of Staff, Maura Policelli to meet with DFA/Tucson about impeachment, the Pima County GOP issued a press release which stated:

"Gabby Giffords' Chief of Staff Maura Policelli tonight will be the special guest at a meeting of the Tucson chapter of Democracy for America, a far left-wing activist group bent on seeing that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are impeached.

"'There are real problems facing southern Arizona like border security, healthcare and education,' Pima County Republican Party Chair Judi White said. 'It's hard to believe that Congresswoman Giffords would dispatch her top aide to such a frivolous event.'

"According to the agenda posted on the group's Web site, Policelli will participate in a discussion over topics relating to impeachment, including H. RES. 799, a resolution calling for the impeachment of the Vice President introduced by Congressman Dennis Kucinich."

Yet at the meeting with Policelli, the Congresswoman's Chief of Staff told the crowd that Giffords agreed with the view that this Administration is out of control, and further that Giffords would be in favor hearings in the House Judiciary Committee to determine if acts of Bush Administration officials might constitute impeachable offenses. Giffords did vote to refer articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration. Policelli indicated that the Congresswoman takes her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution quite seriously. Video of the conversation between Policelli and constituents favoring impeachment will be available online soon.

DFA/Tucson leaders were very pleased by the common ground they found with Giffords' Chief of Staff and the Congresswoman's views, and are excited to continue working with Rep. Giffords to hold the Administration to account according to Dr. Ray Graap and Dick Kaiser, two of the organizers of the impeachment movement in Tucson. They are looking forward to Gifford's response to their letter suggesting that she sign on to Rep. Wexler's petition to begin just such an inquiry.

As to criticism from the GOP of Giffords for sending her staff to meet with community leaders on the issue of impeachment, such rhetoric is certainly not unexpected from a party so badly out-of-touch with Pima County's voters. But Chairwoman Judy White's characterization of citizens who are insisting that impeachment be considered by the Congress as the sole means of countering this Administration's abuses of power as "far left-wing" and "frivolous" is deeply undercut by the caliber and ideological disposition of those who are leading advocates of impeachment inquiries nationally. Serious legal professionals such as the American Lawyers Defending the Constitution support enforcing the rule of law through impeachment inquiries. Prominent conservative legal experts, such as Reagan Administration Justice Department official Bruce Fein, strongly support impeachment from a principled, conservative constitutionalist viewpoint. Apparently, these upstanding citizens are all frivolous and far left-wing in White's estimation. No wonder the GOP keeps losing ground in Pima County.

The Pima County GOP's characterization of use of Founder's cure for an over-reaching Executive as a marginal, left-wing issue only illustrates how out-of-touch with even their own electorate they have become. A swiftly growing minority of their own party members are alarmed by the Bush Administration's abuses of our civil rights and the rule of law, and many are becoming reconciled to position that impeachment is the only way to restore the balance of power in the federal government before what looks likely to be a Democratic President takes power in 2009. Nationally, a strong and growing minority of self-identified Conservatives (33%) and Very Conservatives (28%), and self-identified Republicans (23%), would support impeachment for wiretapping of Americans' telecommunications without a warrant according to Zogby polling. Apparently, a quarter of her own party members are frivolous far left-wingers according to White.

Members of DFA/Tucson would surely welcome (considering that they tried to invite representatives of an anti-impeachment viewpoint to their recent forum, and found no takers) an opportunity to discuss the impeachment issue with leaders of the Republican Party rather than merely engaging the shallow rhetoric and divisive politics that has led the current Administration so badly astray and relegated their party to minority status nationally, and near irrelevance locally.

 

Why is the AZ GOP's Top Legislative Priority the Elimination of the State Education Equalization Property Tax Levy?

The AZ GOP caucus has made a quarter-billion dollar property tax cut the non-negotiable centerpiece of this years budget process as we face as much as a $1 billion budget shortfall and even bigger budget deficits projected for 2009 and even 2010.

Why does the GOP want to cut taxes in the middle of a looming national recession and huge (~10%) state budget deficit?

There are very good reasons, none of which has anything to do with fiscal prudence, and everything to do with politics and ideological commitments:

First, and most obviously, they get to have their cake and eat it too by eliminating this property tax. The reinstatement of the state equalization property tax levy will take effect next year, and thus repealing it is budget neutral this year, yet the GOP gets to claim a quarter-billion dollar tax cut going into a tough campaign season in which the Democrats could quite conceivably take away their majority. They get to lock in a tax cut, and transfer the cost of that $250 million dollar cut to the General Fund next year.

Learn the next two reasons after the click...

Tim Bee's Big Surprise

Tim Bee stunned the Arizona political scene with a completely unexpected announcement that he is challenging Gabby Giffords for the CD 8 Congressional seat.

Seriously, though, Tim made it official -- he's in. I know, I was there. And, no, I didn't get tazed, Bro.

It was the kind of non-news news event one expects in the kabuki dance of American politics. But there were a few interesting bits.

Much more after the flip...

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer Draws a Line in the Sand on RealID

Link: Montana Governor Foments Real ID Rebellion.

"Today, I am asking you to join with me in resisting the DHS coercion to comply with the provisions of REAL ID, " Schweitzer wrote. "If we stand together either DHS will blink or Congress will have to act to avoid havoc at our nation's airports and federal courthouses."

I love this man. He is the Left's answer to Ron Paul. Fiercely principled, populist, and undaunted by any political fight; a man you would like on your side when the it comes to a throw down. And he loves his dog -- brings Jag to the office every day. That says something damn positive about a man, in my opinion.

Read his whole letter to the Governors.

I wonder why our Governor isn't joining in on this? I know for a fact that she would find a lot of support across the aisle on this issue.

Feingold Speaks Against Flawed FISA Revision

UPDATE: VICTORY! Reid pulled the version with immunity. It will likely creep back on the calendar in January, but for now the beast is slain.

If you aren't sure what the fuss is about regarding granting immunity to telecoms for the assistance in the Administration's past violations of FISA, then this is the video to make the issue and what's at stake crystal clear for you.

Senator Dodd is in the midst of a filibuster against Majority Speaker Reid's version of the FISA revision that grants retroactive immunity. Despite Reid's own Intelligence Committee reporting out a version with no immunity, Reid has insisted on introducing the House version which does include it. He's going out of his way, and ignoring an openly acknowledged Senatorial hold by Dodd, seemingly just to mollycoddle the telcoms and to cover Bush's backside. Looks to me like it's time for our out-of-touch Majority Speaker to go, too.

If there is one Senator above all others whom I would like to see lead our majority forward in a principled and intelligent fashion, it would be none other than Senator Feingold, who demonstrates in the above video why he is so manifestly the right man for the job in this time of crisis for our society.

My Complaint Against Senator Tim Bee for Violation of Arizona's Resign-To-Run Laws

On November 20th I sent the following letter to the Arizona Attorney General's office, and today I sent it to major media throughout Arizona.

The readers of BlogForArizona can help by calling the Attorney General's Office and your local media to inquire about what is being done about my complaint.

"Dear Mr. Goddard:

I wish to register a formal complaint against Tim Bee, State Senator for Arizona Legislative District 30 and current President of the Arizona Senate. By all appearances, he has violated the Arizona Constitution's Article XXII, §18 and Arizona Revised Statutes §38-296, collectively known as the "resign-to-run" laws. These laws require state officeholders to resign before campaigning for another office, except in the final year of their term of office. I urge that Mr. Bee be directed to resign his office immediately, and, should he refuse, that your office immediately commence legal proceedings to declare his office vacant.

The supporting statements below are based on information and belief arising from public records and press accounts, not personal knowledge. They illustrate that (1) Mr. Bee is a candidate for federal office; (2) he has alleged that he is not a candidate under Arizona state law; (3) he has alleged that his non-candidate status exempts him from the requirement to resign his state office; and (4) this position is legally and practically untenable and contrary to the public policy interests of the Arizona electorate.

Under federal law, Mr. Bee is a candidate for the United States Congress. The "Tim Bee Exploratory Committee" (C00438408) is a federal principal campaign committee registered with the FEC pursuant to USC 14 §431(2)(A). Only a federal candidate may designate a principal campaign committee under USC 14 §432(e)(1). By designating a principal campaign committee and filing the receipts and expenses of that committee with the FEC, Mr. Bee has made legal admission of his candidacy under federal law. However, for purposes of Arizona law, Mr. Bee persists in the fiction that he is only "exploring" a candidacy, based on the fact that he has not yet filed candidacy papers in Arizona. Despite its misleading title, the Tim Bee Exploratory Committee is, de jure, actually a candidate's committee. The misleading use of the word "exploratory" in the name of his campaign committee in no way diminishes his status as a federal candidate.  Furthermore, by receiving and/or making expenditures aggregating in excess of $5, 000.00 in connection with seeking nomination or election to a federal office, Mr. Bee meets the definition of a federal candidate under 11 CFR §100.3(a).

Tim Bee attempts to maintain the fiction of his exploratory status in his Statement of Candidacy (FEC filing of Aug. 31, 2007; http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_27039520463+0), but this attempt to muddy the waters cannot counter his present legal status as a federal candidate. According to relevant federal law, there are only three possible status candidacy options: "candidate," "testing the waters," and "non-candidate." Mr. Bee has essentially attempted to invent a fourth category, that of an exploratory candidate who is testing the waters and has chosen to voluntarily follow the FEC regulations applicable only to candidates. Although his actions and filings have taken him out of the testing-the-waters phase of his candidacy and made him subject to regulations applicable only to candidates, he simply refuses to admit to being a candidate. His lack of admission is irrelevant; he is a federal candidate.

Mr. Bee's status under federal law is directly relevant to his status under state law. It is a legal absurdity for a person to be a candidate for federal office under federal law, but not a candidate for that very same federal office under state law. Since Mr. Bee is a already a candidate for Congress in Congressional District 8 under federal law, that legal fact should have a dispositive effect on his status under state law.

As stated in Attorney General Opinion I93-003, Arizona statutes contain no provision defining a "formal public declaration of candidacy," nor have the Arizona courts directly addressed this issue. However, Opinion I93-003 cautions that "mere creation of an exploratory committee does not automatically shield an incumbent from the resign-to-run laws if other statements or conduct constitute a formal public declaration of candidacy." This caution applies directly to Mr. Bee's attempt to become a candidate under federal election law while remaining a potential candidate under state laws. Announcements by your office concerning the candidacy of Mr. Bee have suggested that only the actual filing of candidacy papers or a formal announcement would qualify a person as a formal candidate. Such a narrow reading is in clear conflict with reasoning in the aforementioned Attorney General opinion and with the intent of the resign-to-run laws of this State.

Mr. Bee has engaged in extensive fund-raising far in excess of what is reasonably needed for exploratory activities. As of Sept. 30, 2007, his campaign had raised in excess of $134,000 (FEC filing of Oct. 15, 2007: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00438408/). Since the campaign has spent merely $15,000 thus far, it is clear that these monies are not being used for exploratory activities, and that the vast majority of the fruits of his fundraising efforts are intended to be spent on his candidacy for office, not on exploratory activities. This financial position alone is sufficient to find that his actions are that of a candidate for office, not one who is exploring a bid for office.

The policy purposes of the resign-to-run laws, as expressed by Arizona's courts, are manifestly being transgressed by Mr. Bee's campaign activities. These policy purposes are four-fold: (1) to encourage an elected official to devote himself exclusively to the duties of his office; (2) to minimize the possibilities of public subsidies for officials who are merely using public office as a "stepping stone"; (3) to prevent abuse of office before and after an election; and (4) to protect the expectations of the electorate in voting a candidate into office. See Joyner v. Mofford, 706 F.2d 1523, 1532 (9th Cir. 1983).

Mr. Bee's conduct is at odds with several of the policy purposes of the resign-to-run provisions, and enforcement of that law should take into account the results of his actual behavior. Most troubling are Mr. Bee's fund-raising activities, which have led to an appearance of abuse of office. One example being that on Nov. 13 2007, several lobbyists with business pending before the Arizona State Senate threw a fundraiser for Mr. Bee's congressional campaign. The Phoenix event was co-chaired by registered lobbyists Kevin DeMenna (ID# 3100669), Michael Preston Green (ID# 3101382), John Kaites (ID# 3600187), and Michael Racy (ID# 3100964). The obvious and damaging inference is that the interests represented by these lobbyists might receive preferential treatment from Mr. Bee in his capacity as Senate President in return for their campaign contributions. It is exactly such an appearance of abuse of office that undermines public confidence in our political institutions, and that the resign-to-run provisions seek to prevent.

Because of the great amount of effort and time required to mount a serious campaign for public office, running for another office is inimical to the diligent performance of the duties of an official's current office. When Mr. Bee was elected to his current office, the voters in his legislative district had a reasonable expectation that he would concentrate his energy on his duties on his office as an Arizona legislator. By retaining his Senate office while his energy and time are devoted to campaigning for the U.S. Congress, he is clearly violating that expectation.

The prior findings of the Attorney General's Office (Opinion I93-003), Mr. Bee's current federal status as a candidate, his fund-raising far in excess of what is needed for candidate exploration, and his campaign's persistent violation of the purposes of the resign-to-run provisions all argue that Mr. Bee is a candidate for federal office under Arizona law. It is incumbent upon your office to uphold Arizona's resign-to-run provisions in the face of Mr. Bee's obstinate and flagrant attempt to subvert our legal traditions. I urge you to demand Mr. Bee's immediate resignation from the Arizona Senate, and, if he refuses, to immediately initiate legal proceedings to declare his seat vacant. Failure to act is to condone Mr. Bee's attempt to subvert the laws and Constitution of this state, and to set a precedent for future officeholders that is likely to transform our resign-to-run provisions into dead-letter law.

Respectfully Yours,
Michael Bryan"

My motivation in filing this complaint is not political advantage for any candidate, but rather a desire to see the rule of law respected and enforced.

I actually see many political advantages to Sen. Bee retaining his current office while running for Congress: he is objectively an ally to Gov. Napolitano in the coming budget process, his legislative duties will severely restrict his fund-raising, the performance of the legislative session could adversely affect his electoral chances, and history indicates that only members of the state legislature who resign their seats are successful in running for Congress.

Notwithstanding those excellent political reasons to tolerate Sen. Bee's abuse of Arizona's laws and Constitution, I feel strongly that since no one in either political party or the state government is doing their part to uphold the law, someone has to at least make an attempt and state the case strongly on the record to enforce of our laws.

Democratic Deputy Whip Gets a Tongue Lashing on Impeachment

An interesting debate on impeachment sums up the cock-eyed view of the issue from the belt-way Democrats in Congress. In a heated exchange Thursday with liberal radio host Ed Schultz, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the deputy Democratic whip, said the party, which dramatically swept into power last year, was more focused on "other priorities".

Let's take a look at Wasserman-Schultz' excuses:

The American people don't support it - Simply not true. Well more than half of voters already support it even without hearings to frame the issues for them. Democrats supporting overwhelmingly, and don't we deserve a little something from our elected representatives now and then?

It is not among the voter's priorities - If you ask folks what their priorities are, of course they are not going to say impeachment. They want health care, and end to Iraq, jobs, education, opportunity, lower crime rates, etc. That doesn't mean people don't want Congress to pull the trigger on impeachment, demonstrated by wide and deep popular support for the action.

It would create too much partisan rancor - Give me a break. Like there's not plenty of that already. And that's hardly Democrats' fault. That like saying you can't stand up to a bully because there is way too much violence playground already.

It would be viewed like Clinton's impeachment - No, it wouldn't. There is actually a good reason, several in fact, to impeach Bush and Cheney. They've mangled our Constitution. Comparing that to a partisan witch-hunt over a blow job is just sick; in fact, I want the American people to see the contrast and the Republicans' hypocrisy when they howl in outrage over an impeachment of their President.

It would tie up precious Congressional resources - It would take some time in the Judiciary committee and it would focus the attention of the nation on this Administration's abuses, but that is manifestly a price worth paying, and a desirable effect. Frankly, the American people's opinion of Congress is pretty damn low already. Congress is accomplishing some stuff, but with Bush's veto pen hovering over them, they aren't going to be passing the New New Deal anyhow. The biggest splash Congress could make in public opinion and in productive work is to dismantle this Presidency.

It would prevent us from achieving important legislative goals, like healthcare and renewable energy - See above. We can't even get our SCHIP program through without major concessions. If the Republicans are willing to fuck sick little kids over, what makes anyone think that they are amenable to any sort of bi-partisan progress. No, the only way to move American forward is to hammer the current GOP into electoral oblivion. The best way to do that is to thoroughly discredit their President by exposing him for the lawless tyrant he is before the world.

It would blot out the sun - You will note Wasserman Schultz saying this in the interview. Not really sure what she means, but I have my own interpretation. And I think it may be the only real argument she makes - all the rest are just convenient excuses. The image is frightening, and I think this really just boils down to sheer terror of impeachment. It would certainly become the single most important political fact a mere year out from the Presidential election. You'll note she seems to say that she would feel a bit differently if it were 30 months to the end of Bush's term. But this close to the election, it would suck the wind our of the nomination process and force everyone to take a position, even as they are trying to appeal to swing voters. The result is highly unpredictable. The last thing the Democrats want right now is unpredictability because it is highly predictable that we will take the Presidency and increase our Congressional margins significantly. Why take a chance on blowing that? Just the sort of risk-adverse self-interested calculation I would expect from a good professional politician. And that I am also sick to death of.

Unfortunately, this is not a time for politics-as-usual. This Administration is a Constitutional crisis. We need statesmen who take the long view, the principled stand, and let the chips fall where they may. We don't need careerist idiots like Wasserman Schultz rearranging the deck chairs as the ship of state sinks. We need to impeach Bush and Cheney because I don't want the next President, even a Democratic one, to think he or she can get away with any of the crap this one has done.

Let the eclipse come.

Why is this letter from the Goldwater Institute, not the Democratic Party?

Why am I getting a mailer that I completely agree with from the Goldwater Institute? It's not that I never agree with conservatives (it happens on those rare occasions when they actually talk like conservatives), it's that I wish liberals were better at choosing to advocate issues that could have significant appeal to independent voters. If we understand and talk about issues that matter to undecided voters, framed by our values, those voters are going to give the Democratic Party another look and consider voting for those candidates that speak to those values.

Nothing boils my progressive liberal blood quicker than a bunch of fat-cats getting massive tax subsidies from my local government. I've bitched about this issue before, ironically also in the context of the Goldwater Institutes advocacy on this issue. I consider the practice to be deeply corrupt and counter-productive to sustainable economic development. Strangely, I know the conservative Goldwater Institute agrees with me - they're telling me so - but I haven't any idea where the Democratic Party stands on this hot-button issue that is extremely salient to local and state elections. You won't find a word about it in the Arizona Democratic Party's platform; if anything, some parts of the document could be read creatively to support such tax subsidies - not that anyone reads the bloody thing anyhow...

By our silence we are allowing the Goldwater Institute to dominate this issue, raise money with it, and divert that money to wing-nuttery like private school vouchers and non-existent eminent domain abuses that mask a 'regulatory takings' agenda.

We could be using this populist rocket-fuel to power local Democratic candidacies. Consider the campaign of Salette Latas for Oro Valley town council. She is staking out a strong position on this issue. She's running in a traditionally very conservative area, building her grassroots organization in conjunction with a campaign opposing a massive give-away of local revenue to a developer who promised the moon and delivered green cheese.

We should be using opposition to tax subsidies to raise awareness on important Democratic values like strengthening local communities, supporting local entrepreneurs and small businesses, sustainable growth, and tax fairness. Hell, a fairly explicit ban of such subsidies is even in our constitution: you can't get much more politically orthodox than upholding the constitution.

We should be running more of our local candidates on this winning issue. Instead, the Goldwater Institute is being left to own the issue to such an extent that they feel free to send fund-raising letters to Democrats like me and my wife.

National Security Letters and You

One of the most egregious violations of our constitutional traditions in the so-called PATRIOT Act is the power of issuing National Security Letters given to the FBI. These letters allow the FBI to harvest massive amounts of private and confidential information without a warrant, judicial review, any means to challenge the demands' validity, or any independent oversight of the absurdly low evidentiary standard under which the letters issue. The recipient of such a letter is put under a perpetual gag order, except that now under an amendment to the Act a recipient may now consult a lawyer, but may not even tell Congress about the letter. Worse, the information collected has no expiration, even if it turns out to be useless to any investigation. Instead the information is warehoused in a giant database currently consisting of over 500 million records that over 10,000 federal employees have access to, and an untold number of state employees through joint terror task forces.

The FBI's own internal audits have found that there have massive abuses of the letters, failures in training, and that there is not a single instance when these powers have led to the arrest or prosecution of a single terror suspect. Instead these powers have been used in thousands of standard criminal investigations, especially drug cases. Regardless of the efficacy of such tactics, these extraordinary powers were not instituted to make the FBI's job easier when pursuing street criminals, but in an attempt to keep us safe from terrorist attack. Of course it would be easier for police forces everywhere to be able to simply dispense with the judicial oversight provided by the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, but soon thereafter this would no longer be a free society.

The following documentary, "FBI Unbound," tells the story of how these letters came to be, their legal significance, and their use and abuse. Bruce Fein, who is quickly becoming, along with Bob Barr and Ron Paul, one of my conservative heroes, also makes a compelling case that this power is irresponsible, unconstitutional, and violative of our deepest American values. Please watch; it's well worth the time.

PART 1:

PART 2:

Why is Bush Twice as Popular as Congress?

Why is the Democratic Congress so terribly unpopular with voters? Congressional approval ratings are at a historical low of 18%. I don't believe that it is because the Democratic Congress is working to improve wages, protecting workers' right to unionize, improving children's access to health care, fostering alternative energy and energy independence, enacting the 9/11 Commission recommendations, passing meaningful ethics and lobbying reforms, restoring pay-as-you-go fiscal discipline, and reinvesting in our future by doubling our commitment to basic research and math and science education. No, I think most people strongly approve of those, and other, Democratic priorities.

What is killing Congress' approval rating is their failure to confront this Administration forcefully enough about the occupation of Iraq, and it's abuses of executive power and civil liberties. These are issues that swamp every other good thing that the Democratic Congress has done and can do for this country. These are the issues on which nearly enough, is not nearly enough. Americans want this occupation ended and they want it yesterday, and they want this executive back within constitutional bounds. Until the Congress is willing to invest all its political capital in these goals, their numbers won't budge out of the basement.

Many Democrats in leadership positions think we are sitting pretty. The occupation of Iraq was on the Republican's watch and therefore the electorate will rightly hold them accountable for any failures going forward. And trying to take on the the Administration when it has wrapped itself in the flag on matters of anti-terrorism civil liberties violations will only get Democrats burned.

Unfortunately, That's not how it works. Our leaders hope that by just sitting on our collective hands and letting Bush have all the rope he asks for, that we will win by default because voters haven't anywhere else to go. They want to ride dissatisfaction with Bush and with the GOP in general into total power in 2008, taking over the Presidency and improving our majority in Congress.

That seems a sound, prudent and low-risk policy. But it is also a foolish one, as the Congressional approval rating bears out. The American people expect more of their leadership than not making egregious mistakes, they want real leadership, convictions and guts. Just not being the Republicans isn't enough to produce a mandate from the voters in 2008.

 

When we have a Vice President who is practically taunting Congress with his contempt for their subpoena power, it is no wonder that the public also holds Congress in contempt. Pelosi took impeachment off the table in attempt to create a functional divided Federal Government that could do the work of the people. But this Administration has no intention of allowing that to happen. It's like trying to appease terrorists, it doesn't work and it looks every bit as weak.

The Congress is only reluctantly and incrementally bringing to bear it's full Constitutional authority to rein in this Administration and people are feed up with its timorous approach. That is why approval is so low. Not because they are being too partisan and too harsh with the Administration, but because they are insufficiently partisan and not nearly harsh enough.

Impeachment, the power of the purse, subpoena power, and advise and consent powers should be fully and vigorously used to check, and if need be, destroy this over-reaching, illegal, and downright criminal Administration. Until the Democratic leaders of Congress realize that their primary goal for the next year is to reassert the primacy of Congressional power against an out-of-control Executive, their electoral hopes for 2008, along with those of Democratic candidates everywhere, will continue to fade.

The Real Meaning of Patriotism

James Spader of Boston Legal gives a masterful performance as a lawyer giving a summation of the case against the GOP's vision for America:

Prop 200 Suppressing Minority Voting

I've long argued that the main point of Protect Arizona Now! (aka Prop 200) is really not to prevent voter fraud (as there really is no such thing as individual vote fraud anymore - much easier and effective to just reprogram the tabulators), but to suppress the electoral participation of legally eligible minority voters. Well, the evidence is in and what many, including myself, had presumed has turned out to be exactly right (here I am trying blatantly to boost your confirmation bias in favor of myself as an accurate prognosticator...), PAN and other voter ID laws have the effect of reducing minority participation in those states that have such laws by as much as 10%.

Here's the skinny:

Just last month, the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University presented new research findings to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission that suggest Latinos, Asian Americans and African Americans are less likely to vote as a result of increasingly restrictive voter ID requirements. The Eagleton study examined the 2004 election and concluded that in states requiring voters to present an ID at the polls, voters were 2.7 percent less likely to vote than in states where voters were merely required to state their names. Latinos were 10 percent less likely to vote, Asian-Americans 8.5 percent less likely to vote and African Americans 5.7 percent less likely to vote.

What this means is that the bastards who promoted these laws are really out to disenfranchise Americans, not prevent foreigners from voting fraudulently; or, if that was not their object, they've done an uncannily good job of accomplishing an unintended consequence that so many warned them of that if they didn't intend it, then they are just incompetent idiots, rather than racist louts.

More important than the assignment of blame, however, is the legal jeopardy that these findings represent to such voter ID laws. These laws have been looked askance by the federal courts before, now courts are likely to get another crack at them. There is now demonstrable evidence of a disparate impact upon protected classes - racial and ethnic minorities, and possibly national origin - under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection jurisprudence. Without any evidence that these laws are actually addressing a compelling governmental purpose, i.e. preventing voter fraud, they are very susceptible to constitutional challenge. I suspect it will not be long before we are seeing a challenge to these laws in federal courts, hopefully in time to banish these abominations before the 2008 elections.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra Seems to Act Like Congress is Co-Equal Branch

In what can only be described as a Constitutional officer seeming to think about actually doing his duty, Pete Hoekstra sent a confidential, and thus possibly somewhat candid, letter to President Bush. (Download 20060709hoekstra.pdf) Hoekstra, who is the chair of House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, expressed concern about several issues, but the one burning Bush's nose hairs is that Hoekstra learned through whistleblowers in the CIA that the Administration had carried out at least one major covert program without informing Congress; specifically, without informing Hoekstra. Hoekstra doesn't appriciate it.

The operations referred to are still confidential and undisclosed, but it is not the NSA wiretaps or the financial transaction monitoring; it is something else, and is so secret that apparently the White House didn't want to share even with a reliable ally like Hoekstra, even though legally obligated to do so by the National Security Act.

That's actually a little frightening. Think about that. The White House did brief selected members of Congress about the NSA monitoring program, despite the fact that it clearly violated FISA. Whatever this is, the White House didn't even dare tell the Chairman of the House Committee. And as soon as the Chairman got clued in by a whistleblower (whom many Republicans want to strip of legal protection in national security matters) he said this to the White House:

"I have learned of some alleged Intelligence Community activities about which our committee has not been briefed. In the next few days I will be formally requesting information on these activities. If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the Administration, a violation of law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the Members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies. I strongly encourage you to direct the elements of the Intelligence Community to fulfill their legal responsibility to keep the Intelligence Committees fully briefed on their activities. The U.S. Congress simply should not have to play 'Twenty Questions' to get the information that it deserves under the Constitution."

Oh, snap! Guess who just got himself removed from the White House Christmas card list?

Just to put things in context, Hoekstra earlier in the letter expressed reservations about a CIA nomination by the President because he felt that the nominee may be too closely associated with people in the CIA who worked to discredit Bush's cooked case for Iraqi WMD. Hoestra is concerned about what he calls 'politicization', but he means the opposite of what normal folks mean - bringing to bear political pressure to skew intelligence estimates. Hoekstra is concerned that Bush's pick may not sufficiently toe the line and will act too independendently.

Hoekstra is no enlightened Republican, he's as 'movement conservative' as they get: yet even he's so chessed about this that he put the slap down on Bush. Even given Hoekstra's inclination to follow blindly the Administration's orders, this incident has him invoking Congressional power as a co-equal branch and using the words 'violation of law'. That should make your blood run cold. It does mine.

Protecting Your Rights in Police Encounters

Every day I see the result of people's complete ignorance of their legal rights when dealing with the power of the state. People routinely confess freely to misbehavior not even under investigation, allow unwarranted searches, and are induced to arbitrage their own penal interests against their freedoms by clever police officers. Assuredly, many people who get jammed up are, in fact, criminals, who deserve what they get; but so many of them are just regular folks who do something stupid that doesn't hurt anyone and end up paying far too much for thier mistakes.

This video is a excellent starting point for learning how to deal with police interactions and insist upon your rights intelligently.