Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign sent out a press release this morning touting support from seven state attorneys general, including our very own Rob McKenna.
Both McCain and McKenna are often portrayed in the media as the kind of straight-talking, moderate Republicans who tend to appeal to WA’s independent and cross-over voters… when in fact they are both ruthlessly partisan political opportunists whose conservative credentials are well established with all but the most far-right-leaning elements of their already far-right-leaning party.
Take for example the quote McKenna provided for McCain’s press release:
“Senator McCain continues to garner support among legal and law enforcement leaders because of his stances on state rights and his role in brokering the confirmations of Justices Roberts and Alito,” said McKenna. “I’m honored to give John my support and I appreciate his leadership on the issues that count.”
The issues that count.
No, it’s not campaign finance reform that McKenna lauds — the issue that originally earned McCain his faux-maverick status — it’s his role in confirming Justices Roberts and Alito, two of the most far-right-leaning justices ever to serve on the Supreme Court… justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, uphold the President’s suspension of habeas corpus, and vastly expand executive power. These are partisan, right-wing, Republican justices — darlings of the Federalist Society. And McKenna thinks they’re just grand.
I suppose coming from a state GOP that includes the likes of Val Stevens, and has nominated Ellen Craswell and John Carlson for high office, McKenna might come off as a relative moderate. But while our state’s editorialists seem intent on talking up the carefully crafted McKenna and his prospects for governor or the US Senate, they willfully ignore the shrewd realpolitik that has defined his career. How can McKenna be constantly lauded for bipartisanship without mentioning his extraordinarily close relationship with the viciously partisan political thugs at the BIAW? And how can the media continue to accept McKenna’s mildly pro-choice statements at face value, when he applauds McCain’s efforts to confirm Supreme Court justices who would take that choice away?
McCain is the most conservative candidate running with a shot at the GOP nomination, and McKenna has enthusiastically endorsed him because he is the viable candidate who best represents his own values. And what are McCain’s self-proclaimed values?
“I am confident that this nation is not a center — I think they’re right. I think they’re basically conservative, the majority are basically conservatives, and I think that if we get back on our message, get back to the principles, philosophies and messages of Ronald Reagan and others, I think we’ll do just fine. But first we have to get over our state of denial.”
WA’s media has to get over its state of denial too. Rob McKenna is a conservative. That is how he would legislate. That is how he would govern. And as such, he is out of step with the mainstream of WA voters.
UPDATE:
Erica Barnett slogged that McKenna’s “no moderate” back on Feb 23, when the AP first reported he would endorse McCain. In that article, the AP matter-of-factly describes McKenna as “a moderate.”
That’s my point. It is not just the editorialists who should be held accountable for how they are misreporting McKenna’s politics, but the supposedly objective reporters. It is not an undisputed fact that McKenna is a moderate, and thus McKenna should not be described as such in a news report without attribution or citation.
McKenna is over on the right on social issues. But he’s got a broad statist streak – a characteristic more commonly found in those with “D’s” after their names.
McKenna’s predilections in this regard show up in taxpayer vs. government disputes. McKenna sides with the confiscators. Hey, he’s got to be able to operate in Olympia, after all. This goes back to his days on Sound Tranist’s board, during the key 1999 – 2001 period.
Take the most recent I-776 case appeal in the Supreme Court. McKenna’s office eagerly adopted as his own Sound Transit’s argument regarding the scope of its taxing powers. McKenna also argued for a patently unworkable outcome in that case (one that was contrary to all precedent) as a sop for his R. base. The court saw through McKenna’s crap: it alluded twice to the facts eviscerating what ST and the AG’s office claimed about the extent of ST’s tax powers, and it addressed and rejected McKenna’s cute, but unsupportable, proposed remedy.
Not too sure how many HA readers are avowed statists, but if that’s your kink, then Rob’s an “R” for you.
Rippy,
That was pretty good. Thanks for the comments!
@1 The AG has to defend the state law enacted by the legislature whether he/she agrees with it or not, period. The AG has to defend state agencies, period. Which side of a lawsuit the AG argues is not an indicator of the AG’s political leanings.
The voters elected McKenna despite, not because of, his righty leanings. McKenna is AG for only one reason: Deborah Senn. If McKenna had run against a more solid Democratic candidate, he would have lost.
Dozens of Vermont Town Halls Pass Impeachment Resolutions
All across Vermont yesterday, citizens met in town hall meetings to conduct town business — and vote on impeachment resolutions. These resolutions were controversial and the subject of emotionally charged debates, and did not pass everywhere, but overall, Vermont citizens yesterday sent a clear message: They want accountability for Bush and Cheney’s constitutional violations.
We should pass a law, nationwide, that would prohibit anyone who graduated from law school from running and/or serving in any elected office. Including AG. No lawyers in government whatsoever!
One of the arguments raised in yesterday’s town hall debates was that the impeachment charges are based on things Bush and Cheney did before the 2004 election (primarily, lying about the Iraq intel), and the voters have already spoken on their misdeeds.
That argument is disingenous for several reasons. First of all, Bush and Cheney did not win the 2004 election; it was stolen in Ohio. Second, there was no debate of their constitutional violations in the campaign, partly because some of them were unknown at the time, and partly because the GOP successfully steered attention away from real issues by conducting a vilification campaign against the Democratic candidate. Third, the impeachment movement is based in substantial part of acts and evidence discovered since the election. One of Bush’s most serious offenses was conducting illegal, unconstitutional wiretapping of law-abiding American citizens — and lying about not doing it. We didn’t know about this in 2004 to the extent we do today.
I agree the Iraq war, torture scandal, and detention of foreign “enemy combatants” without due process are not clear-cut grounds for impeachment. While I don’t believe him, Bush can plausibly argue Iraq’s WMDs were a judgment call. We simply don’t have evidence directly linking him to the torture abuses. And the law is not clear that foreigners taken into custody on a battlefield on foreign soil have any rights flowing from the U.S. Constitution.
There are, however, two clear-cut cases of constitutional violations rising to, and calling for, the sanction of impeachment.
1) At least two American citizens were detained as “enemy combatants” without due process in violation of their constitutional rights. No matter what these individuals did, or are accused of doing, when arrested by U.S. authorities and held in U.S. custody, they are entitled to all of the same rights as the rest of us. By authorizing the violation those rights, Bush violated the Constitution in a way that is dangerous to all American citizens, and warrants his removal from office.
2) The wiretapping case is equally clear-cut. It not only violated the constitutional rights of a vast number of American citizens who have done nothing wrong and are not accused of violating any law, but also clearly violated a federal statute that Congress enacted expressly to prevent the executive branch from doing exactly what Bush did. And Bush covered up this illegal activity by lying to us when he said there was no wiretapping going on without a court order when, in fact, vast numbers of Americans were being wiretapped without court orders upon his orders. This is one of the most clear-cut cases for impeachment in American history, and Bush’s conduct in this regard is so dangerous to our fundamental freedoms and legal rights that it not only justifies but compels his removal from office.
The issue is not whether impeachment would make it through a Senate in which Republicans have 49 votes. Impeachment may not have a snowball’s chance in Hell in the Senate. That’s completely beside the point. This is one of those times in history when the principle is what matters. Going forward with impeachment proceedings in the House will send a message to future presidents: If you violate the Constitution, you will be impeached. It is imperative to do it. Otherwise, we have no constitutional rights, no matter what is written on paper. Just because slavery opponents didn’t have the votes to abolish slavery during the period 1776 – 1860 was not a reason to turn their heads away from the evils of slavery. Asserting the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no one may violate it, even a president, is one of those principles we must fight for even if it’s a losing battle. Because if we don’t, we are acquiescing to the notion that our country is ruled not by law but according to the whims of whoever is able to seize political power by whatever means. The Framers understand the nature of politicians, and designed the Constitution to constrain them. The Bush presidency is a historic test of whether the Constitution is more powerful than any president. If we do not assert that principle, future generations of Americans will regret and pay for our timidity for the rest of time.
@6 What a bunch of hooey. The last thing we need is amateurs running our legal system. You are a stupid fuck.
@6 I have a suggestion for you. Next time you need brain surgery, don’t let a trained surgeon do it, go to your neighborhood car mechanic instead. Come to think of it, you already have — that’s how your lobotomy got messed up.
Lawyers are required to adhere to a rigid code of ethics that requires them to put their clients’ interests first and their own interests last. This way of doing business is almost unique in our society; only doctors and health practitioners are under similar strictures — and we lawyers enforce competent and ethical behavior in our profession a lot better than doctors do in theirs. The very people who make sport of vilifying lawyers couldn’t possibly live up to the ethical demands of the legal profession.
RR @ 3 wrote: “The AG has to defend the state law enacted by the legislature whether he/she agrees with it or not, period.”
Duh. What the AG was doing in the second I-776 appeal in the Supreme Court however was defending the state law enacted by the voters (I-776), NOT a state law enacted by the legislature. What McKenna proposed as a sop to his base was this weird notion of ST only collecting enough additional MVET to pay off the 1999 bonds. That cute idea was shot down by the Supremes.
RR @ 3 also wrote: “The AG has to defend state agencies, period. Which side of a lawsuit the AG argues is not an indicator of the AG’s political leanings.”
For starters, Sound Transit is not a state agency. It is a local government. More to the point of my post, McKenna’s statist leanings are evident from his unsupported – and anti-taxpayer – adoption of ST’s incorrect and grossly overbroad reading of how much taxing authority flows from the terms of its voter-approved ordinance. That’s where McKenna showed his statist stripe.
Farmer’s Daughter:
Your idea has been suggested many times, over many years. It has also been noted that everyone hates lawyers until they need one.
It seems that making promises that cannot be kept and claiming that laws do not matter is a very old practice.
@11 The rule is the same: The AG is required to defend any initiative passed by the people, whether he/she agrees with it or not.
@11 P.S., don’t talk down to me, asshole. I’ve been a licensed lawyer in this state for 30+ years. And your legal credentials are … ?
Roger Rabbit @ 7:
You know I agree with you, however, wouldn’t your first ponit regarding “enemy combants” not be an impeachable offense since the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is retroactive?
On what legal grounds can Congress impeach Bush on in the matter of Enemy Combatants?
It seems to me swomeone would have to file suit in fedral court, have standing under Art. III, and successfuly argue their case and the appeals that would surely follow ultimately edning up up at the SCOTUS. A process that would take so long that Bush would be out of office making a ruling on the matter moot.
@11 (continued) The legal issue in the ST case was simple: Once the agency is obligated to bondholders, neither the legislature nor voters can repeal the duly enacted taxes needed to pay off the bonds, because that would impair the public’s contract with the bondholders.
Roger Rabbit-zilla @ 11:
Tear ’em a new one Roger!
correction to 17:
should read Roger Rabbit-zilla @ 14
@15 Well, I didn’t say the enemy combatants was an impeachable issue. The Constitution gives rights to American citizens wherever they are, and noncitizens present within the U.S. and subject to its laws by reason of their presence. It does not extend to foreigners on foreign soil, even when they’re affected by actions of our government. Bush’s treatment of enemy combatants may have violated some treaties, but presidents have considerable latitude to abrogate treaties. The Supreme Court has said that treaty abrogation is a “political question” over which the courts lack jurisdiction, i.e., it’s for Congress and the executive branch to work out.
The detention of enemy combatants without due process becomes a constitutional issue when the detainees are U.S. citizens entitled to the full range of constitutional protections against their own government. Padilla won’t have any constitutional rights if he were jailed by Pakistan in a Pakistani jail. But there are no constitutional rights he does not have while being held by U.S. authorities on U.S. soil. There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes a president to suspend any American citizen’s constitutional rights. Padilla may well be a dangerous terrorist, but he should be tried under U.S. laws. The government should be required to establish his guilt with evidence, and should not be permitted to convict him with a coerced confession. The government should not be permitted to beat, shock, or strangle “intelligence” out of him — based on the principle that our government doesn’t have the power or right to treat any U.S. citizen that way, out of sight, and beyond the supervision of the courts. I don’t care if Padilla is a traitor, a terrorist, or Jack the Ripper — that’s a separate issue, to be dealt with within the legal system. An offense against his constitutional rights is an offense against the constitutional rights of us all, because it is an offense aganst the rule of law. That is the issue.
So, to summarize, I see an impeachment issue involving Bush’s treatment of enemy combatants only in the cases of those designated “enemy combatants” who are U.S. citizens. In Padilla’s case, it’s even more clear-cut, because he was not taken prisoner on a foreign battlefield, but was arrested on U.S. soil.
RR @ 19:
Sorry, I didn’t make myself clear. When I said “enemy combatants” I was referring to American citizens being designated such status and how it relates to the Military Commissons Act.
While I agree with you in therory and practice that the president shouldn’t have the power to suspend the constitutional rights of any citzen in good legal standing, isn’t that preciesly the power granted to the president and the Executive branch through the Military Commission Act of 2006?
I’m not disagreeing with you that it’s wrong and repugnant to the Constitution, the point I’m trying to make is that didn’t this law give Bush temporary politcal cover until someone takes this through the judical process and has this law overturned?
Excuse the typos, going to fast to double check today.
RR @ 19 cont.
Part of the reason I’ve taken such an interest in Constitutional Law lately can be summarized in your comment “An offense against his constitutional rights is an offense against the constitutional rights of us all, because it is an offense against the rule of law.”
Any illegalities that Padilla may have committed are inconsequential at this moment in life. What the federal government HAS done so far is what concerns me the most.
I love my country, but I certainly don’t trust THIS government!
How long before these words become just another one of Bush’s lies??
“This was a lengthy trial on a serious matter and a jury of his peers convicted him and we’ve got to respect that conviction,” Bush told CNN . . .”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17502749/
@ 16
I agree the legal issue in that appeal was simple, but you sure did a lousy job of describing it (@ 16).
The issue was whether sec. 6 of I-776 violated the contracts clause of the constitution. The court (quite properly) determined that section of the initiative was unconstitutional. Why? Because repealing ST’s MVET on Dec. 5, 2002 would have impaired the bond sales contract.
A good bit of what you posted about @16 was irrelevant. Whether or not the taxes were “duly enacted” or “needed to pay off the bonds” played no part in the analysis. The dispute did not involve “the public’s contract” (it was a Sound Transit contract).
But hey, maybe you were meaning to speak really loosely . . . .
TOM MCCABE OF BIAW FAME IS INSANE.
LOOK AT THIS.
HE CALL MCKAY A DEMOCRAT BECAUSE OF HIS TIES TO JENNIFER DUNN?
WHAT A LUNATIC!!!
YOS LIB BRO @ 24
I think Tom McCabe called John McKay a Democrat, since there was no objective evidence that John McKay was a Republican when he was appointed in 2001. Also, John’s older brother Mike McKay had given money to Democrat Christine Gregoire for re-election as stated Attorney General in May 2000 (two days before Gregoire gave his law firm a lucrative contract to whitewash the missed appeal deadline in the $17.8 DSHS lawsuit judgment), to Democrat Ron Sims for his 2001 re-election campaign as King County Executive, and to Democrat Mark Sidran for his 2004 campaign for state Attorney General.
I am not sure any objective evidence existed that John McKay was a Democrat, and he actually claimed to be a Republican. However, Mike McKay also claimed to be a Republican, but gave money to Democrats Gregoire and Sims while he was serving as co-chair of President Bush’s campaign in Washington in 2000.
Mike McKay does have close ties to Jennifer Dunn, which no doubt resulted in his appointment to head the federal appointment patronage committee for President Bush in this state. Back in January 2001, Mike McKay’s committee was rumored (in stories published in local newspapers) to be favoring the appointment of Anne Bremner as the local U.S. Attorney.
When I read this back in January 2001, I immediately wrote President Bush and protested. I pointed out that Anne Bremner was really a Democrat, since she had donated money to both Democrat Governor Gary Locke and Democrat Congressman Jay Inslee in October 2000. (Certainly a damned foolish thing to do, when you are hoping that a Republican possibly going to be elected President in a few weeks will be considering you for appointment as U.S. attorney!)
So as a result of all this, I was roundly criticized by a bunch of moderate “Republicans” — including Chris Vance — for causing trouble and insulting good “Republicans” like Anne Bremner and Mike McKay. As things finally turned out, Anne Bremner was not given much more serious consideration for the U.S. Attorney position, and we ended up with John McKay instead.
So when Tom McCabe called John McKay a Democrat back in that 2005 letter, I would say that is his personal opinion and political judgment. John McKay would not have publicly claimed to be a Democrat back in 2005, of course. I would not be surprised if John McKay claims to be a Democrat in the future, since his feeding station at the Republican trough has been eliminated, he obviously feels very personally insulted by all this, and the Democrats will be lionizing him and treating him as a hero.
I am glad that President Bush finally came to his senses, by firing John McKay and not considering him for the federal bench. It is just unfortunate that the timing is bad — undoing something that should never have been done six years ago, and perhaps being associated with some other firings which truly were questionable.
while he was serving as co-chair of President Bush’s campaign in Washington in 2000.
THAT’S ALL THE EVIDENCE I NEED OF HIS REPUBLICANISM.
Also, John’s older brother Mike McKay had given money
TO A BUNCH OF DEMOCRATS. GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION!
there was no objective evidence that John McKay was a Republican when he was appointed in 2001.
SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. HE WAS A “DEMOCRAT” IN 2001 AND MCCABE SAID IN 2005 THAT HE TANKED THE 2004 GOVERNOR’S ELECTION CASE BECAUSE OF HIS “FUTURE POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS”.
THIS GUY REALLY THINKS LONG-TERM. SHEESH
Well, let’s see here. I’m a registered Democrat, but my brother is a Bush supporter, I have an uncle who like Ronald Reagan was once an ardent New Dealer but changed his views as he got older (he’s 89 now) and several cousins who are evangelical Christians and rock-ribbed conservatives. Does this mean I don’t qualify for a government job if the Dems ever regain control?
It’s getting pretty Kafkaesque when the party in power starts purging people because their families don’t all pass some sort of ideological litmus test.
Editorialists live McKenna because he has learned an important lesson from Auditor Brian Sonntag: suck up to the newspapers and they will love you in return. Sonntag frequently tips the press to his audit findings before he lets the agency he’s auditing know. The press loves this. It is no accident that McKenna is following this model and has decided to be the champion of a reporter shield law and fighting exemptions to the public records act.
Adjust your meds, Richard.
In addition to the citations from ArtFart, I’ll point out that under your “logic”, either Democratic PCO Di Irons must be a Republican, or parent-abuser and Sims roadkill David Irons must be a Democrat.
@27 But don’t you LOVE watching Republicans eat each other?!!
This is nothing; wait until the finger-pointing starts after the GOP’s 2008 election disaster!
You know what will happen, of course. The professionals will take charge — and purge the neocons.
@20 A cynic might argue the Military Commissions Act is simply the action of a rubberstamp GOP Congress trying to legitimize unconstitutional and illegal actions by the president, but I believe it’s more complicated than that. It’s important to remember the Act’s constitutionality has not been court-tested and cannot be assumed. Conservative commentators argue it’s constitutional because the provisions denying habeas corpus do not apply to American citizens. Thus, even the conservative argument seems to acknowledge that, even under this law, U.S. citizens are entitled to habeas corpus and the president does not have the power to abrogate that right. Their hope, of course, is that this interpretation might save the Act’s constitutionality in a court challenge.
@21 The accusations against Padilla aren’t inconsequential, but he should be tried, not arbitrarily imprisoned. If he was tortured, any “information” thus obtained has no value as evidence. Prior to his overseas sojourning, Padilla was a known street gang member, and had been convicted of a homicide — a bad guy by any definition. It’s important that he be brought to justice for any further crimes he may have committed. Unfortunately, the administration’s handling of the Padilla case may have impaired or even wrecked the opportunity to do so.
I think Richard Pope has gone off his meds again.
Actually Goldy when you look at all of America, McKenna is a moderate. You’re a socialist. Must suck being you.
McKenna appears conservative to the floks on this blog because you are so liberal . In this state republicans could be democrats down south .. Of course not Ellen Craswell or Jophn Carlson . But Craswell was a religious Conservative , Carlson was a social conservative but I would say he was more pragmatic .
Also because you acknowledge that our constitution does not speak to abortion is actually just a view held my many legal minds , liberal legal minds … Roe was a lousy decision .. You can still be very pro choice , like the x Mayor of NY and acknowledge it is not in oall of our best interest to allow a few unelected folks in robes believe the Constitutionhas a mind of its own .. What would happen if Craswell or Carlson became Judges ?