|
|
|---|
Now that his two year post-Senate "cooling off" period is over, totally not gay toe-tapper Larry Craig is once again trolling the halls of Congress, but this time it's as a lobbyist.
Craig's firm, New West Strategies, wouldn't actually confirm lobbying was now part of his portfolio. "I didn't say that," said Mike Ware, a principle at New West, adding, with emphasis, that "the cooling off period IS over." But the mere spotting of Craig back on the Hill was enough to raise alarms from those good-government groups who see danger in the coercive influence former members can have on old colleagues. "This is sort of the way of Washington right now. It is not the exception to the rule but more or less a rule itself," said Dave Levinthal, Communications Director at the Center for Responsive Politics. "When you get out of federal office you think about how you can cash in that experience you gained from working in the public sector by going into the private sector."Former members of the House and Capitol Hill senior staffers are only required to wait one year before that revolving door grants their corporate clients access to the very legislation their new emissaries once authored. According to the above-linked story, so far this year 90 former members of Congress and former Hill staffers have already registered as lobbyists.
The GOProud/CPAC kerfuffle is the cover story for today's Metro Weekly, which should appear online by the end of the day. Reporter Chris Geidner interviewed me for about an hour on Monday, so we have to see how much of my take was, uh, printable. Here's the teaser, via press release:
GOProud has a fight on its hands. From the left, right and middle, organizations and activists argue with, debate and even ignore the gay conservative group that’s now heading into its second year at CPAC, the annual conservative conference. But – in the conservative arena that is the group’s aim – GOProud is winning, as an attempted boycott because of the group’s CPAC participation fizzled and the group is making serious inroads in the conservative movement. From longtime conservative activists like Grover Norquist to new media names like Andrew Breitbart, GOProud is grabbing attention – and friends – in the conservative movement. Metro Weekly senior political writer Chris Geidner talks with GOProud, allies and critics as CPAC gets under way – and as GOProud looks to the future.
Sarah Palin has declined the invitation to give the keynote address at next week's CPAC 2011. In previous years, Palin has said she'd attend but never showed up.
Last year, the former Alaska governor turned down an opportunity to speak at the event, reportedly over concerns of being affiliated with CPAC organizer David Keene. In 2008 and 2009, Palin pulled out of plans to address the conservative gathering. "We're disappointed that she wasn't able to make it this year," said Keene through a spokesman on Thursday, ABC News reports. He added that Palin had "expressed interest" in attending the event.In the past week other Tea Party heavyweights like Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Jim DeMint, and NJ Gov. Chris Christie have all announced their non-attendance at CPAC. None of this has to do with GOProud, right?
Tomorrow morning in Washington, DC, activists from GetEQUAL will picket the National Prayer Breakfast, where members of the infamously anti-gay and shadowy GOP congressional group The Family will gather with other politicians and lobbyists. The Family has been outed as supportive of Uganda's gay death penalty bill. Details here.
Upon the urging of anti-gay groups such as NOM and the Family Research Council, a coalition of GOP House members plan to introduce a bill to repeal same-sex marriage in Washington, DC.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC), told The Hill that he will push for a vote on the controversial issue in the 112th Congress. The RSC has 175 members. “I think RSC will push for it, and I’m certainly strongly for it. I don’t know if we’ve made a decision if I’ll do it or let another member do it, but I’m 100 percent for it,” Jordan said.Last year Jordan was the chief sponsor of a similar bill.
UPDATE: Metro Weekly reports that the Log Cabin Republicans are unhappy-ish with Jordan, who last week also promised to cut 100% of federal funding for the arts.
R. Clarke Cooper, the executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, opposed the effort -- also strongly. "While Log Cabin Republicans support Chairman Jordan's efforts to reign in government spending, we strongly protest a House vote that would be a direct incursion on state's rights," Cooper told Metro Weekly. "For the House of Representatives to roll back DC marriage equality would be an anti-conservative expansion of federal authority."Jordan is among the GOP leaders boycotting CPAC over GOProud's presence.
UPDATE II: Call Rep. Jordan at 202-225-2672 and express your displeasure.
"It would be easy to spin yesterday's news about the Supreme Court as a victory for same-sex 'marriage.' (So easy, in fact, that homosexual activists are already doing it!) But there was a lot more behind this case than a simple 'yes' or 'no' on D.C.'s counterfeit marriage law. When the justices announced that they wouldn't hear Bishop Harry Jackson's appeal, it wasn't an affirmation of same-sex 'marriage' in our nation's capital. In fact, it wasn't a reflection on the merits of the case at all!
"The Supreme Court declined the suit because it's a local election issue. And even though this affects America 's capital, it has very limited federal implications. The only reason the Supremes had jurisdiction over this case is because D.C. operates under federal law. If this suit had originated in the states, the Court couldn't even consider it. With all the headlines out there, it's important to understand this. Tuesday's decision was not an endorsement of gay 'marriage' in this city or anywhere else. It was simply the court recognizing its own limitations. On matters affecting the District, Congress is the absolute authority. The justices are leaving it to them to clean up this mess, or not." - Family Research Council president Tony "Scare Quotes" Perkins.
"With a pro-marriage majority in the new Congress we will explore a number of avenues to force the District to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to voters. As the four Court of Appeal justices who dissented in this case made clear, the District of Columbia owes it to the voters to allow them to decide the critical issue of marriage which has existed since before there was a District of Columbia. In order to curry favor with the same-sex marriage special interest group, members of the City Council have turned their backs on their own constituents. It is ironic that these same council members champion the right of District votes to be heard in national elections but then deny those same residents the right to vote on the definition of marriage. We will press our belief with Congress that the constitution of the District requires that voters be allowed to decide this important issue." - NOM president Brian Brown.
Just in from Catholics For The Common Good:
"It is shocking that the U.S. Supreme Court did not accept the appeal of District of Columbia citizens who were deprived of their right to vote on the definition of marriage. The Court's decision effectively upheld the finding of the Washington Human Rights Commission that it would be discriminatory to even give citizens a choice to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. [snip] The consequences of changing the definition of marriage have broad ramifications for how the value of marriage to children and society is perceived and will affect decisions people make about marriage in their own lives. Already, 41% of children born today are deprived of a mother and father who have first chosen to make themselves irreplaceable to each through marriage. This is a human tragedy and a violation of the rights of the child."
The Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of Bishop Harry Jackson, whose lawsuit demanded that Washington DC residents be allowed to vote on same-sex marriage.
The court did not comment Tuesday in turning away a challenge from a Maryland pastor and others who are trying to get a measure on the ballot to allow Washingtonians to vote on a measure that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Bishop Harry Jackson led a lawsuit against the district's Board of Elections and Ethics after it refused to put that initiative on the ballot. The board ruled that the ballot question would in effect authorize discrimination.It's unclear what, if anything, today's news may mean regarding the Supreme Court's position on same-sex marriage in general.
According to the Supreme Court's public docket, the nine justices have scheduled a Friday meeting to discuss Jackson v. the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics, Bishop Harry Jackson's lawsuit demanding that DC residents be allowed to vote on same-sex marriage. The Court is expected to announced on Monday if they will hear the case.
Lou Chibarro reports at the Washington Blade:
Jackson and his attorneys argue that the city did not have the authority to ban ballot measures that impact the Human Rights Act because only Congress could make such a change by amending the city’s Home Rule Charter. Gay rights attorneys have joined city attorneys in disputing that contention, claiming the city acted within the scope of the Home Rule charter in the 1970s when it put in place restrictions on certain ballot measures. City attorneys defended those restrictions in a brief submitted before the Supreme Court on Dec. 17. The attorneys, among other things, argued that the case involves a local matter pertaining to the city’s initiative and referendum law. They noted that the high court has a longstanding precedent of deferring to state or D.C. appeals courts on cases that don’t have a national impact. If the Supreme Court rejects Jackson’s request to take on the case, the D.C. Court of Appeals decision remains in force to permanently prevent a ballot measure on the same-sex marriage law.
