PEOPLE FOR BLOG

Majority Leader Reid says Senator McCain is the Lucy to America’s Charlie Brown

On November 16, 1952, Lucy yanked the football out from under Charlie Brown.

Peanuts

Today, Senator McCain is doing the same to America. Majority Leader Reid:

Mr. President, there is a recurring gag in the comic strip ``Peanuts'' with which we are all familiar. Charlie Brown is getting ready to kick a field goal. Lucy is holding the ball while Charlie runs up to the ball. At the last second, Lucy pulls the ball away. Charlie Brown flies into the air, comes crashing back down, and falls flat on his back. We have all seen this time and time again. But what makes this gag funny is the same thing that made it famous. It wasn't so much that Lucy was tricking Charlie Brown; it was that it kept happening over and over. Charlie Brown kept being tricked.

It is obvious by now that our Republican friends have drawn their political strategy from this cartoon.

[. . .]

Finally, the Senator from Arizona, his party's nominee for President last election, has given a dizzying defense of don't ask, don't tell--an obsolete, embarrassing, and discriminatory policy that weakens our military and offends our values. First, Senator McCain said he seriously would consider repealing it if the military leadership thought we should. When the military leadership said it should be repealed, he pulled away the football. Then Senator McCain said he would need to see a study from the Pentagon. When the Pentagon produced a study saying repeal would have no negative impact, he pulled away the football again. And for his latest trick, he said yesterday that he opposed repealing don't ask, don't tell, a proposal that would be a great stride forward for both equality and military readiness, because of the economy. I repeat: The senior Senator from Arizona said he couldn't support repealing don't ask, don't tell because of the economy. I have no idea what he is talking about, and no one else does either.

Senator McCain is essentially telling us to lie here for the rest of the day. But we know that we cannot and will not spend another 58 years trying to kick that football and make the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell a reality. The Senate must act posthaste on the FY11 Defense authorization bill. Take care of repeal. Take care of our troops. Take care of our nation’s defense.

Don’t let anyone tell you that neither the will nor the time are available. Show the Senate that they are. Click here to contact your Senators, and here for information about this Friday’s rally at the Capitol.

PFAW

Yesterday, Majority Leader Reid gave a floor speech about the Senate’s lame duck agenda.

 

Mr. President, as far as lameduck sessions of the Senate go, our agenda is rather ambitious, and the session itself is relatively long. It did not have to be this way. We have tried many times this Congress to tackle each of the priorities on our agenda. Each time we have tried, the minority has tried to shut down the Senate. Republicans ground the Senate to a halt and forced endless hours of inactivity. That is why we were here voting on Sunday--on Saturday; I am sorry. Thank goodness it was not on Sunday. That is why we will still be here another few weeks.

We have a long to-do list. But these priorities are not mere leftovers. They are critical to our economy and our national security, to our families and our country's future, and we will resolve them before we adjourn.

[. . .]

Obstruction has consequences. None of the issues on this long list is new. Neither is the minority's effort to keep the Senate from working and keeping Senators from doing our jobs.

It is time to roll up our sleeves--not dig in our heels. My hope for the final weeks of this year is that Republicans finally will realize we all have much more to gain by working together than working against each other.

That got me thinking about Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Its repeal constitutes just 4 pages (203-207) of the 854-page FY11 Defense authorization bill. That means GOP obstruction is holding up a bill over just 0.47% of its text.

So what’s in the other 99.53%?

As Majority Leader Reid points out:

We are also going to repeal the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell rule. We are going to match our policy with our principles and finally say that in America everyone who steps up to serve our country should be welcomed.

Republicans know they do not have the votes to take this repeal out of the Defense authorization bill, so they are holding up the whole bill. But when they refuse to debate it, they also hold up a well-deserved raise for our troops, better health care for our troops and their families, equipment such as MRAP vehicles that keep our troops safe, and other critical wartime efforts in Afghanistan and counterterrorism efforts around the world.

We’ve been waiting 17 years for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But our troops are also waiting. The Senate must act posthaste on the FY11 Defense authorization bill. Take care of repeal. Take care of our troops. Take care of our nation’s defense.

Don’t let anyone tell you that neither the will nor the time are available. Show the Senate that they are. Click here to contact your Senators, and here for information about this Friday’s rally at the Capitol.

PFAW

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Files Cloture on DREAM Act

Because, thanks to the ongoing GOP obstruction in the Senate, virtually nothing can get done without a time consuming cloture vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed cloture late yesterday on the motion to begin debate on the DREAM Act. If passed, the legislation would allow undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children to gain legal status and a path to citizenship if they attend college or join the armed forces.

The Brookings Institution gives a rundown of what the legislation includes:

The Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors (DREAM) Act would offer conditional citizenship to a specific group of young individuals. To gain conditional status under the DREAM Act one must have entered the United States before the age of 16, been in the country continuously for five years, earned a high school diploma (or GED) and not committed any crimes that would otherwise restrict someone from entering the country. During a six-year period of conditional status, this group will have been required to complete two years in uniformed service or two years enrolled at an institution of higher learning, and must pass a second criminal background check before being considered for full citizenship. It should also be noted that the DREAM Act only applies to young people currently in the country so that it will not encourage additional families to bring children to the U.S. looking for benefits.

The bill seems to have plenty of support. Orrin Hatch, Sam Brownback, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe have all supported it in the past. But when it comes to Republican obstruction, good policy takes a backseat to good politics.

By filing the cloture petition, Reid will be able to hold the vote on cutting off debate and then proceeding to consideration of the bill on Wednesday. We’ll keep you posted as the issue moves forward.

PFAW

Many Opportunities for Corporations at the Court This Term

Now seems as good a time as any to take a brief look at just how many cases are before the Supreme Court this term that threaten to take away people's right to hold giant corporations accountable. The Court is being asked to:

  • Empower retaliation against employees who file discrimination complaints;
  • Prohibit a class-action discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of its 1.5 million women employees;
  • Bar states from using federal nuisance law to hold power companies accountable for the climate damage they are causing;
  • Make it harder for employees to hold their employers accountable for providing inaccurate summaries of major changes in their pensions plans;
  • Demolish class-action suits and cripple state consumer protection laws through corporate-imposed arbitration agreements;
  • Protect pharmaceutical corporations from lawsuits from those who are injured by unsafe child vaccines; and
  • Recognize "personal privacy rights" of corporations.

There are other cases, as well, and their number will increase as the Court continues to accept new cases. It makes one realize just how big an impact the Supreme Court has on all our lives.

PFAW

The Case of the Fired Fiancé

Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Thompson v. North American Stainless, an employment retaliation case that threatens to keep illegally fired employees from holding accountable the companies that fire them.

In 2003, North American Stainless fired Eric Thompson in retaliation against his fiancée, who also worked for the company and had just filed a sex discrimination complaint against it. Such retaliation against an employee seeking to vindicate her rights under Title VII is illegal. So Thompson sued.

Two separate provisions of Title VII are relevant here:

  • First, to remove employees' fear of retaliation, Section 704(a) states that an employer may not "discriminate against any of his employees ... because he has ... made a charge ... under this title."
  • Second, in a provision relating to employment discrimination overall and not just retaliation, Section 706(f )(1) authorizes a person aggrieved by an unlawful employment action to file suit to enforce Title VII.

The firing was designed to retaliate against an employee seeking to vindicate her rights and was therefore clearly an unlawful employment action. Thompson, who lost his job, was undoubtedly aggrieved by this unlawful employment action. There shouldn't be any question that Congress gave him the right to sue.

Yet the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, dominated by nominees of George W. Bush, held otherwise. Ten judges (nine of whom were nominated by Republican presidents, a full seven by George W. Bush) held that Thompson cannot sue because he wasn't the person who was being retaliated against. North American Stainless is asking the Supreme Court to uphold that holding.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed an amicus brief that is even more extreme: There was no unlawful retaliation in the first place, because the company never altered the working conditions of the woman who filed the initial complaint. In the frightening world the Chamber wants us to live in, firing a complaining employee's fiancé, spouse, daughter, etc. is not at all considered unlawful retaliation.

As the Obama Administration points out in its amicus brief supporting the fired employee, the Sixth Circuit opinion ignores the plain language of Title VII. In addition, if upheld, it will have a devastating real-world impact. Most lay people unassisted by lawyers would naturally assume that the person who was fired - not the one who is still employed - should be the one to sue. If the Supreme Court bars suits by the most obvious plaintiffs, the ones who have suffered the most, then many injured parties will in the real world be left without a remedy.

PFAW

Wal-Mart Class Action at Issue

Earlier today, the Supreme Court accepted a high-profile case that will likely have a substantial impact on employees all over the country. Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, is being sued for unlawfully discriminating against its women employees. It is a class-action suit on behalf of the corporate giant's 1.5 million women employees. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the case could proceed as a class action.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Wal-Mart's appeal. As the Washington Post reports:

[The Court] will be looking at the question of whether a single suit is proper when alleging charges of pay discrimination and lack of promotions spread across thousands of stores in every region of the country. ...

Business groups say certification of a class action puts enormous pressure on a company to settle regardless of whether the charges can be proved, because of the cost of the litigation and the potential award at stake. In the case of Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, the amount could be billions of dollars.

But civil rights groups say class-actions are the most effective way of making sure a business ends discriminatory practices and pays a price for its actions.

Large corporations, with resources dwarfing those available to the average individual, clearly benefit when their victims are unable to pool resources through a class action. Indeed, this is not the only case this term where the Supreme Court is being asked to dismantle this vital tool, one that has proved time and again to be the only way to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable.

We will learn this spring whether the Roberts Court will continue its trend of twisting the law in order to benefit powerful corporations over the rights of individuals.

PFAW

The Republican opposition to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal has focused on a worry that the military will not be able to handle rolling back the policy in a time of war. Defense Secretary Robert Gates begs to differ:

"My greatest fear is that we have to be told that this law will be overturned by a court and we will be forced to implement it without any time for information or training, or any of the other efforts that need to be undertaken to prepare us for such a change," he said.

The likelihood of DADT being overturned by courts is high—two federal courts have already declared the discriminatory policy unconstitutional. Supporters of DADT aren’t only putting off the inevitable—they’re making it harder for the military to prepare for the inevitable. DADT supporters claim to be listening to the military’s wishes. But, as Gates makes clear, that is exactly the opposite of what they’re doing.
 

PFAW

Court Accepts Global Warming Nuisance Case

This morning, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case affecting whether and how corporate polluters can be held accountable for the planetary climate damage they are causing. Several states have sued power producers on the basis that they are creating a public nuisance. This is federal common law, not tied to any specific federal statutes or regulations. The Second Circuit ruled that the lawsuit could proceed on this theory, and the power companies appealed.

According to the Los Angeles Times:

The global warming case will decide whether judges and courts can put limits on carbon emissions on the theory that this pollution is a public nuisance. Eight states, including New York, California and Connecticut, joined with environmentalists and launched a lawsuit against the power producers in the Midwest, arguing that their coal-fired plants were contributing to climate change.

Environmentalists said they took the issue to court because Congress was not likely to take up the climate change issue and set limits on greenhouse gasses. They won a significant preliminary victory when the U.S. appeals court in New York cleared the suit to proceed.

But the power industry, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Obama administration joined in urging the high court to stop the lawsuit. They argue that the global warming issue and limits on carbon emissions should be decided by Congress and the White House, not by judges acting on lawsuits.

Justice Sotomayor has recused herself, since at the time she was nominated to the Supreme Court, she was a member of the Second Circuit panel considering this case.

PFAW

Appeals Court Starts Hearing Prop 8 Case Today

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just begun hearing an appeal of the decision that struck down California’s gay marriage ban. The court will be considering the legal arguments laid out by Judge Vaughn Walker in his decision to strike down Prop 8 in August. As it does so, the Court will rely on the substantial factual record that Judge Walker gathered in the original trial—much of which demolishes the “facts” presented by anti-gay activists.

You can watch the proceedings live here:

...and follow the Constitutional Accountability Center’s live blog at the Huffington Post.

Whatever the Ninth Circuit decides, the case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court. Back in August, People For’s Michael Keegan wrote about the stakes involved for the Right:

For years, the Right has watched its anti-gay agenda lose credibility as public acceptance of gays and lesbians has steadily grown and intolerance has declined. And that trend is going strong, as young people of all political stripes are more likely to know gay people and more willing to grant them equal rights and opportunities, including the right to marriage. A CNN poll this month found that a majority of Americans think gays and lesbians should have the right to marry--the first time gay marriage dissenters had slipped solidly into the minority in a national poll. Even in California, where Proposition 8 passed on the ballot in 2008, a poll earlier this year found a majority now support same sex marriage rights. Indeed, this change is even visible on the Right, where the fight against equality is being waged by an increasingly marginalized movement. Who would have ever thought that Ann Coulter would be booted from a right-wing conference for being "too gay friendly"?

Of course, basic human rights should never be decided by majority vote--they are guaranteed by the Constitution. But, on the issue of gay rights, the Right Wing now finds itself up against both the Constitution and the will of a steadily increasing majority.


 

 

PFAW

Republican Freshmen Seek Out Corporate Donors

Members of the far-right GOP freshmen class have not been sworn in yet, but are already becoming entangled in the Washington web of lobbyists and corporate donors. The incoming congressmen, many of them Tea Party candidates, have quickly put together fundraisers to pay off their campaign debts and also to fund their 2012 reelection bids. Unsurprisingly, corporate interests have readily stepped up to the plate to support their fundraising efforts, and freshmen Republicans are more than happy to have the help.

Dan Eggen of the Washington Post reports that with the help of the Republican House leadership, many GOP freshmen are embarking on an all-out blitz for corporate cash to recharge their campaign war chests:

After Francisco "Quico" Canseco beat Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-Tex.) as part of the Republican wave on Nov. 2, the tea party favorite declared: "It's going to be a new day in Washington."

Two weeks later, Canseco was in the heart of Washington for a $1,000-a-head fundraiser at the Capitol Hill Club. The event--hosted by Reps. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.) and Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.)--was aimed at paying off more than $1.1 million in campaign debts racked up by Canseco, much of it from his own pocket.

After winning election with an anti-Washington battle cry, Canseco and other incoming Republican freshmen have rapidly embraced the capital's culture of big-money fundraisers, according to new campaign-finance reports and other records.

Dozens of freshmen lawmakers have held receptions at Capitol Hill bistros and corporate townhouses in recent weeks, taking money from K Street lobbyists and other powerbrokers within days of their victories. Newly elected House members have raised at least $2 million since the election, according to preliminary Federal Election Commission records filed last week, and many more contributions have yet to be tallied.

The aggressive fundraising efforts underscore the financial pressures facing new members of Congress even before they take their seats. The contributions also represent a symbolic challenge for the Republican class of 2010, many of whom gained office by running against the ways of official Washington and monied interests.

"The lobbyists are all saying, 'Welcome to Washington; let me help pay off your debt,'" said Nancy Watzman, who tracks political fundraisers for the Sunlight Foundation, a watchdog group. "It's particularly interesting when so many of this year's freshmen were running against Washington. But as soon as they get elected, they come to Washington and put out their hand."



Rep.-elect Bill Flores (R-Tex.), a retired energy executive who held a debt-retirement reception Nov. 17, received post-election contributions from political-action committees for, among others, Deloitte, ExxonMobil and the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors. Flores, who ousted Democratic veteran Chet Edwards, also forgave himself more than $600,000 in personal loans, FEC records show.

The financial advisors group also gave $2,500 each to more than a dozen other incoming legislators including Rep.-elect Dan Benishek (R-Mich.), who held a Nov. 18 fundraiser, records show. Benishek took in last-minute donations from Johnson Controls, Delta Airlines and the K&L Gates lobbying firm, records show.

Benishek is a surgeon and abortion opponent who won the seat being vacated by centrist Democrat Bart Stupak (D-Mich.). He campaigned against "ungodly spending" in Washington and pledged not to seek earmarks, which designate federal funds for local projects.



Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, said debt-retirement events and other post-election fundraisers "are God's gift to special interests," allowing corporate PACs and lobbyists to curry favor with grateful lawmakers. It also allows some donors to pitch in with a candidate that they had previously ignored or opposed, she said.

"If you were on the wrong side or just AWOL during the election, this is your chance to make it up," McGehee said. "It' s a great way to get in good with members of Congress."
PFAW

The Senate Armed Services Committee closed its two days of hearings on the Pentagon’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell report with the testimony of the chiefs of the various armed services. While there is some disagreement as to when and how, the general consensus was that repeal can and should be implemented. Even General James F. Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, who has expressed his opposition publicly on numerous occasions, “think[s] it will be repealed eventually. I just ask for the -- the opportunity to be able to do it with my forces when they're not singularly focused on combat.”

If the effective date really is the sticking point, that has already been addressed in the proposed legislation, which requires President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen to certify that repeal is consistent with military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting. Secretary Gates has made “absolutely” clear that he “will not certify until [he] feel[s] that the process can move forward without any damage to the safety and security of our men and women that are serving, number one, and that our battle effectiveness will not be jeopardized, number two.” Moreover, “before the certification is signed, everything has to be done to get ready. It's not something that I would start, that I would certify while it was still in process as it were.”

Senator Levin, Chairman of the Committee, was quick to point out that “you have to repeal before the implementation stage comes.” Implementation will take considerable thought and time, but there will be nothing to implement if Congress doesn’t first act on repeal.

Senator McCain is still insisting that he needs more time. He needs to talk to more people. And don’t forget his warning that “the problem with the defense authorization bill isn't confined to the "don't ask/don't tell" issue.” This is another case of putting the cart before the horse. You can’t implement repeal if there is no repeal. And you can’t fix the “problems” with the Defense bill, you can’t even discuss them, if the bill is not allowed to come to the floor. Senator Levin: “The place to address the kind of issues which Senator McCain raises is on the floor of the Senate. There are issues, of course, in any defense authorization bill that come[s] out of committee. And the only way those issues can be addressed is to debate them, resolve them in the Senate.”

Now the final push begins to bring up that Defense bill and ensure that repeal becomes law in 2010. Senator Scott Brown, a target of repeal supporters and opponents alike, removed one stumbling block today with the announcement of his position. Or did he?

I have been in the military for 31 years and counting, and have served as a subordinate and as an officer. As a legislator, I have spent a significant amount of time on military issues. During my time of service, I have visited our injured troops at Walter Reed and have attended funerals of our fallen heroes. When a soldier answers the call to serve, and risks life or limb, it has never mattered to me whether they are gay or straight. My only concern has been whether their service and sacrifice is with pride and honor.

I pledged to keep an open mind about the present policy on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Having reviewed the Pentagon report, having spoken to active and retired military service members, and having discussed the matter privately with Defense Secretary Gates and others, I accept the findings of the report and support repeal based on the Secretary’s recommendations that repeal will be implemented only when the battle effectiveness of the forces is assured and proper preparations have been completed.

Senator Brown’s support is welcome news. But important questions remain, as reported by Greg Sargent for the Washington Post (The Plum Line).

One important question: How does this square with Mitch McConnell's letter vowing that the entire GOP caucus would stand in unison against DADT repeal and everything else Dems want until the standoff over the Bush tax cuts and funding the government are resolved? If Brown confirms he will vote for cloture on the Defense Authorization Bill containing DADT repeal, irrespective of whether a deal is reached on the tax cuts, it makes McConnell's threat look pretty empty.

Keep an eye on the remaining moderates. More when I learn it.

UPDATE, 1:32 p.m.: One other quick point. It's one thing for Senator Brown to say he supports repeal in general. What needs to be established is whether Brown's vote for repealing DADT is contingent on Harry Reid jumping through a whole bunch of procedural hoops that some GOPers have demanded. More on that when I get it, but for now, this is clearly a positive step.

Whatever the answers may be, the fight is certainly not over. Click here to contact your Senators.

An archive of today’s webcast is available here.

PFAW

Johnson Picks Corporate Lobbyist as Chief of Staff

The first major decision any newly-elected member of Congress makes is who will serve as his or her chief of staff. The personnel choice says a lot about the member’s personality and priorities. Off-the-charts extremist Congressman-Elect Allen West, for instance, chose off-the-charts extremist radio host Joyce Kauffman (before the “liberal left” raised some concerns about her role inciting a school shooting plot). It should come as no surprise, then, that Wisconsin Senator-Elect Ron Johnson, whose pro-corporate policies earned him plenty of corporate cash on the campaign trail, has picked a corporate lobbyist to lead his team in Washington.

Johnson’s pick, reports Express Milwaukee, is Don Kent, who after a gig at the Department of Homeland Security in the Bush Administration, “became a lobbyist at Navigators Global, where he ‘heads up the Homeland Security practice.’”:

Johnson’s choice of Kent shows that he’s trying to ingratiate himself with big defense contractors, Big Pharma and anti-worker groups.

Navigator Global’s clients include AgustaWestland North America, the world’s largest helicopter manufacturer; the Coalition of California Growers, which was fighting a bill that would make it easier for workers to organize; the Computer and Communications Industry Association, which was fighting an effort that would allow some taxpayers to file their state tax returns for free; the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, when then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer was investigating the industry; Pfizer; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which wanted to block the reimportation of Canadian drugs to bring down costs for consumers.

Plenty of people—including members of Congress—go in and out of the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street. But Johnson’s choice makes a clear statement about the difference between him and his predecessor, Russ Feingold. Feingold has been one of the Senate’s strongest champions of clean elections and transparent government, and wrote the campaign finance law that was largely gutted by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. In the first election after Citizens United, Johnson benefitted from a flood of outside money, some from pro-corporate groups, to unseat Feingold.

It’s one of the first signs that the corporate interests that funded Tea Party candidates across the country are going to get what they paid for.

Via The Awl
 

PFAW

New Details on the Money Behind American Crossroads

A new Center for Responsive Politics report uncovers some more details about the money behind American Crossroads, one of the most powerful right-wing spenders in the 2010 elections.

The Karl-Rove founded group acted as a “Shadow RNC” in this year’s elections, collecting and distributing money from wealthy donors who were shying away from the embattled party committee. But it also had a brand new leg up: the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year to allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on influencing elections. A full third of American Crossroad’s $28 million in funding came from corporate donors, CRP found. And a big chunk of American Crossroad’s remaining cash—54%--came from just four wealthy donors.

And that’s just the branch of American Crossroads whose funding we know about. The group’s sister organization, Crossroads GPS, spent $17 million on elections, and according to CRP,” saw its preferred candidates win in 71 percent of the races in which it invested money.” We can’t know for sure about the sources of GPS’s funding, since it doesn’t have to report its activities to the Federal Election Commission, but we do know that it received significant funding from Wall Street bankers. Once source told Politico in October that “most of the GOP corporate money is believed to be moving through [Crossroads GPS], so that it isn’t disclosed publicly.”

Rove himself has said that the Citizens United decision made the success of American Crossroads and American Crossroads GPS possible. In turn, his groups helped to define what political spending looks like in the post-Citizens United era, where corporations and a few wealthy individuals have enormous power over elections—but rarely have to own up to it.


 UPDATE: Mother Jones has more on the Big Four donors to Crossroads.

PFAW

The Long Term Cost of GOP Obstruction

Usually when we talk about Republican obstruction, it’s to explain the immediate problems that need to be fixed, but can’t because Republican Senators won’t let the solutions come up for a vote—an understaffed Department of Justice, empty seats languishing on the federal judiciary, an impending budget deadline, etc.

Currently, for example, there are 34 judicial nominees pending on the Senate floor, the vast majority of which are to fill vacancies deemed “judicial emergencies.” 26 of those nominees have faced no Republican opposition; one received only one negative vote - but all of them are held up anyway, waiting endlessly to start their new jobs.

But perhaps the most damaging effect of this delay won’t become apparent for years. Delaying simple confirmation votes forces nominees to put their lives on hold for months or even years, for a job with longer hours and less pay than they could find elsewhere. The excruciatingly long confirmation process is making it harder and harder to recruit qualified candidates to fill critical government positions.

Already, some nominees have decided that they couldn’t, or didn’t want to, deal with the ugly process any longer.

Dawn Johnsen, President Obama’s pick to head the Office of Legal Counsel, eventually withdrew her name because Republican senators so politicized her nomination that they undermined her primary goal of depoliticizing the OLC itself. Mary Smith, nominated to head the Tax Division of the Justice Department, asked for her name to be withdrawn when she concluded GOP obstruction would drag on for months longer. And any number of judicial nominees have displayed borderline heroism by sitting by silently as their reputations are smeared by critics playing fast and loose with the truth.

After seeing the treatment that even exceedingly well qualified nominees receive from the Senate, should it be any surprise if well qualified individuals in the future just decide that they don’t want the trouble?

Of course, if you’re in the business of attacking the Obama Administration at all costs, maybe scaring off qualified government officials isn’t a problem, it’s the goal.

 

PFAW

Name Your PAC

Americans for Prosperity. Americans for Job Security. Americans for New Leadership. Center for Individual Freedom. Commission on Hope, Growth, and Opportunity.

These are just a few of the many feel-good names that adorned corporate-funded groups that spent millions to elect pro-corporate candidates in the 2010 elections.

Now, the Sunlight Foundation has created a tool to help you name your own corporate front-group PAC. Try it here:

And for more about some of the real groups that hid their pro-corporate intentions behind platitudes about the American Dream, check out our report: Citizens Blindsided: Secret Corporate Money in the 2010 Elections and America’s New Shadow Democracy.

Via NPR
 

PFAW