Hatch calls a lie a blooper

Wherein Orin does his best Cheney impersonation by agreeing with big fat lies from the big fat lier himself [Limbaugh]:

[Hatch] singled out fired U.S. attorney for Southern California, Carol Lam, stating: "She's a former law professor with no prosecutorial experience and was the former campaign manager in Southern California for [Bill] Clinton."
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Lam's official biography shows that she was the assistant U.S. attorney in San Diego for 14 years and served as a San Diego Superior Court judge before being appointed U.S. attorney by the Bush administration.
She was never a law professor and was not involved in Bill Clinton's campaigns.
Hatch was repeating the same misinformation Rush Limbaugh spewed about Lam on his national radio program. What wasn't mentioned by Hatch or Limbaugh was that prior to her firing, Lam was investigating at least one Republican congressman in connection with the bribery scandal that led to the conviction of former Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham.

Hatch repeated this bogus claim on "Meet the Press" which Cheney also used to get out his message back in the day. Hatch had to write Tim Russert a letter of apology, noting that he had "confused" Lam for Lam's predecessor, Alan Bersin, who was all those things he used to tar Lam.

Oh but that's not all. Sen. Hatch also decided to call the kettle black on conservative blacks and latinos:

"I'm not calling them racist," Hatch said Thursday in an interview with The Salt Lake Tribune. "I don't believe anybody in the Senate is racist. But it certainly is questionable that they treat this man this way.
"What bothers me is that if you have a minority, like [Supreme Court Justice] Clarence Thomas, like Alberto Gonzales, who is conservative, then the other side, who claim they are so civil-rights oriented, they always treat them as though they're just not capable of doing these jobs," Hatch said.

What bothers me is when people say "don't mean to be rude" or "I am not saying they are racist" when in reality, they are being rude or saying someone is racist. Plus, there are racists in the Senate: heard of Trent Lott? ex-Sen. George Allen? or the most obvious of them all ex-Sen. Strom Thurmond?

If AG Ashcroft has still been around with this purge scandal had happened, and he had handled it the same way Gonzales did, I and many others would be calling for his resignation or impeachment in the same way as Gonzales. I don't think Alberto's race has anything to do with it. What matters is that he never stopped being George W. Bush's attorney and never started being the chief law enforcement officer of the US government.

Hatch's problem is that Kyle Sampson was his guy, and Hatch is having to take the stage as a chief apologist for this Aministration's illegalities and incompetencies. Sen. Hatch is full of lies and he knows it, but he has no option but to bluff his way out of this one at this point.

Clarence Thomas, part II

Wherein the Tribune has a hissy fit that it wasn't clued into what was happening:

At least, according to those who attended the private events this week.
The greater public had no access to Thomas. U. law school Dean Hiram Chodosh said he decided to keep the overnight visit under wraps because he worried that public attention would inhibit an open exchange with students.
[...]
The law school invited Thomas a year ago and used money from a private endowment to pay for his trip.
Thomas met with about 40 students leaders on Tuesday and then participated in a dinner reception at the home of U. President Michael Young.
The justice didn't address the group; rather he mingled with people such as Senate
President John Valentine and Brigham Young University Professor Thomas Lee.

Sorry reporters. Thomas didn't constrain what we asked him, or who spoke to him, or whatever. He is just a private person. Sometimes, we forget that these large, powerful figures are humans.

My dinner last night was mostly a hob-nob session. The food took forever to be there but Utah Justice Nehring was at my table and was quite interesting. I really had a better impression of Thomas as a person...although I could see how he could be a sexual harrasser...but not his opinions.

Clarence Thomas, part I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out, damned spot! out, I say!

--Macbeth (V, i, 38).

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

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

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

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

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

photo of the day

© 2007 Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

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

[H/T Atrios]

teaser revealed

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

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

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

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

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

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

teaser alert

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

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

post-April fool's round up

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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

Cheney's BYU visit reax

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

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

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

The Salt Lake Tribune ran two articles...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conservative governance theory 101

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

handicapping the WH race this far out

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

Dems

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


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


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


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

Repubs

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


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


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


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


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

The rest of the Republicans are not worth talking about.

Mormons at odds with Cheney, BYU's speaker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DC-Utah bill back on track

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

throw the bums out

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

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

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

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

horay for BYU students

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

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

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

tuesday round up

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

representation--Utah Republican style

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

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

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

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

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

classified secrets revealed

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

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

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

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

when image trumps substance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

where I was this week

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

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

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

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

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