Blatant Corruption

The big political debate in the next few weeks will be on the Keystone XL pipeline, a really bad idea that John Boehner will be pushing hard for one simple reason: because the House Speaker has substantial investments in several Canadian tar sands firms that would greatly benefit from the deal. That's it. He'll say it's about "jobs" (although it would only generate very few), but it's really only about money. Pure, blatant corruption.

And he's likely to get away with it.

(h/t to Zandar Versus The Stupid for catching this)

Three Year Delay

Tom DeLay Sentenced To 3 Years In Prison. It took a while, but the corrupt 'Hammer' has gotten the sentance he deserved.

Ransom Paid, Hostages Freed

What a great day! "Bipartisan" compromise on tax cuts achieved! Everybody's happy!

Or maybe not...

Obama and the Democrats are getting lambasted from the left for conceding on tax cuts for the rich, which is quite fair but is only half of the story. I wish I was reading as much screaming about the total venality of the Republicans agenda.

In a nearly perfect terrorist operation the Republicans were able to hold the middle class, poor, and indeed the entire national economy hostage for the sake of tax cuts for millionaires. They were truly ready to destroy everybody in the service of the rich. Priorities. Give the millionaires even more, or we'll start killing the poor. Might just be the clearest ransom note in the history of political terrorism. Perhaps we should start calling them the "terrorist" party.

The democrats tried a 'rescue operation' in the form of last weekends senate votes on tax cuts for the non-millionaires. It failed. Thanks to the Republicans standing in lockstep and the senates arcane filibuster rules, the hostages remained held. The class war is over; the rich have won.

It's easy to criticize Obama and the Democrats for their weakness, and perfectly valid. Obama is a lousy negotiator and the Dems lack the spine (or unity) to truly fight effectively. They caved.

But...

Let's be really clear who the villain is here, rather than forming a circular firing squad. It was the Republicans who took the hostages. It was the Republicans who greedily put the rich ahead of the good of the country. It was the Republicans who chose the terrorist hostage taking tactic in order to get their demands met.

Not that the political media, or the majority of voters, will notice.

So Obama caved in and paid the ransom. That's certainly not something to be proud of. But there weren't any real alternatives (despite what some liberal blogs are saying on their unicorn farms) that wouldn't be worse. The Republicans were perfectly willing to prolong the recession, shut down the government, and kill (literally) the unemployed in the service of millionaires. It's easy to say that "you don't negotiate with terrorists" until the dead hostages (likely children) appear.

So I want to be perfectly clear: Yeah, Obama caved. But the true crime was perpetrated by the Republicans. They are the party that put the wishes of millionaires ahead of the well being of the country. The Republicans are the party that chose to engage in the terrorist tactic of holding the country hostage until their demands were met. That is the crime. They are the criminals.

Added: For better or worse, Obama seems to be on the same wavelength that I am. During todays press conference:

"I've said before that I felt that the middle class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high end tax cuts. I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers unless the hostage gets harmed. Then, people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case the hostage was the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/12/not_a_winning_message.php?ref=fpblg

Not sure how well that will work, but at least he said it.

Brewer: Jailing Immigants for Profit

Gov. Brewer's support for S.B. 1070 is easy to understand: just follow the money. Yup, her people stand to make a tidy profit jailing brown people:

This Thursday, SB-1070, Arizona’s radical new immigration law, will go into effect. Despite an incoming lawsuit from the Obama administration’s Department of Justice, Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) has maintained that her state “will prevail,” claiming that she is simply defending the border integrity and safety of her state.

Yet a new investigation by local Arizona TV news station CBS 5 finds that the Brewer administration may have ulterior motives for its strong support of the new law. The station has found that “two of Brewer’s top advisers have connections” to private prison giant Corrections Corporation of America (CCA).

Paul Senseman, Brewer’s deputy chief of staff, is a former lobbyist for CCA. His wife continues to lobby for the company. Meanwhile Chuck Coughlin, who leads her re-election campaign, chaired her transition into the governorship, and is one of the governor’s policy advisors, is president of HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, which lobbies for CCA.

This is important because CCA currently “holds the federal contract to house detainees in Arizona.” CBS 5 notes that the company currently bills $11 billion a month to the state of Arizona and that, if SB-1070 is successfully implemented, its profits would be significantly padded as it would take responsibility for imprisoning immigrants arrested by Arizona police.

The company maintains that it “unequivocally, did not at any time lobby — nor did we have any outside consultants lobby — anyone in Arizona on the immigration law,” but direct lobbying would not be necessary with allies like Senseman and Coughlin working directly for Brewer.

Coughlin, in particular, has a history of boasting about the influence he has had on the state government on behalf of private business. In an interview earlier this month, he bragged about privatizing the commercial garbage business in Mesa, Arizona, by coordinating with industry lobbyists. He told the interviewer, “I can make [expletive] happen.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/26/prison-brewer/

And this isn't even considered corruption here in Arizona, just business as usual. Absolutely despicable. In a just world, Jan Brewer would get to experience the joys of a "for profit" prison.

Oil Rules

(cartoon from Outside the Interzone)

I've had absolutely zero enthusiasm for posting about serious topics lately. It's all too damn depressing, and bitching in a blog post doesn't improve my mood.

Take the gulf oil spill (please), an environmental disaster of epic proportions. It's the inevitable result of our oil dependant society, and a system that rewards corruption. Cheap, profitable oil is sacred, and government regulation is seen as an obscene abomination to be removed or avoided at all costs. BP ignored the old proverb about "an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure", choosing to scrimp on safety valves to reduce costs and increase profits. It was cheaper to buy looser regulations.

So it's somewhat positive that the Obama administration is making an attempt to reform the Minerals Management Service, an agency with the conflicted agenda of both promoting and regulating off-shore drilling:

The Obama administration is proposing to split up an Interior Department agency that oversees offshore drilling, as part of its response to the Gulf Coast oil spill, The Associated Press has learned.

An administration official who asked not to be identified because the plan is not yet public said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will urge that Congress approve splitting the Minerals Management Service in two. One agency would be charged with inspecting oil rigs, investigating oil companies and enforcing safety regulations, while the other would oversee leases for drilling and collection of billions of dollars in royalties.

Currently, the Minerals Management Service, an arm of the Interior Department, is responsible for collecting more than $10 billion a year from oil and gas drilling and with enforcing laws and regulations that apply to drilling operations.

Some critics have said the two roles are in conflict and are one reason the agency has long been accused of being too cozy with the oil and natural gas industry.

An internal investigation in 2008 described a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" by workers at the agency. The investigation by Interior's inspector general found workers at the MMS royalty collection office in Denver partied, had sex with and used drugs with energy company representatives. Workers also accepted gifts, ski trips and golf outings, the report by Inspector General Earl E. Devaney said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jYP7GoO9ldJALdGGRcHuadmF3y1gD9FKIM1O0

OK, it's really only a small step. The regulators and the industry were (sometimes literally) in bed together, and the results are now washing upon the shore. Separating the regulators from the promoters would at least encourage a moderate level of oversight, and a slight increase in safety.

But it's not going to solve the problem of our societies oil addiction: no winning politician is going to campaign on a platform of "we need to raise the price of gasoline" in the face of "drill, baby, drill". We'll have a nice little moratorium as the result of this disaster, then expand off-shore drilling as soon as the headlines have been forgotten.

And nothing I post on this little blog will have the slightest impact on that truth.

Not News, But...

I know this isn't news to most of my readers, but the corporate television "news" is overrun with corporate shills who are portrayed as "expert analysts" by the corporate media. There's a Great article in The Nation by Sebastion Jones about this:

Tom Ridge, was on MSNBC's Hardball With Chris Matthews, offering up his own recovery plan. There were "modest things" the White House might try, like cutting taxes or opening up credit for small businesses, but the real answer was for the president to "take his green agenda and blow it out of the box." The first step, Ridge explained, was to "create nuclear power plants."

As Ridge counseled the administration to "put that package together," he sure seemed like an objective commentator. But what viewers weren't told was that since 2005, Ridge has pocketed $530,659 in executive compensation for serving on the board of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power company. As of March 2009, he also held an estimated $248,299 in Exelon stock, according to SEC filings.

Moments earlier, retired general and "NBC Military Analyst" Barry McCaffrey told viewers that the war in Afghanistan would require an additional "three- to ten-year effort" and "a lot of money." Unmentioned was the fact that DynCorp paid McCaffrey $182,309 in 2009 alone. The government had just granted DynCorp a five-year deal worth an estimated $5.9 billion to aid American forces in Afghanistan. The first year is locked in at $644 million, but the additional four options are subject to renewal, contingent on military needs and political realities.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100301/jones

(there's a whole lot more examples in the article; well worth reading. But you get the general idea.)

This is how public opinion gets manipulated to the point where a large percentage of the populace will believe something that is flat out false. Remember the run up to the Iraq war? Remember talking to friends or family who absolutely believed the assorted lies about the need for war? I certainly do.

And the manipulation is only going to get worse thanks to the SCOTUS Citizens United decision. Beyond having paid "experts" lobbying as "news" on issues, they will expand directly into lobbying for candidates. Because the disclosure rules are so weak, most of the public will not be savvy or motivated enough to discover who is manipulating them. And more and more lies will become publicly accepted as "facts".

Keeping Appointments

By now, you've all read that Sen. Richard Shelby (R) of Alabama has taken the perhaps unprecedented step of placing holds on ALL of President Obama's nominees until he gets the money for a couple of big earmarked pork barrel projects he feels entitled to back in his home state. More blatant rethug obstructionism, but this time it's flat out extortion; "give me my earmarks, or I'll prevent you from governing". And it looks like Shelby can get away with this without consequences, as there's no democrat (as yet) running against him in November.

Which makes the prospect of recess appointments increasingly likely. Certainly, the shrub administration made numerous recess appointments of unqualified hacks and cronies. It's a politically odious maneuver, however, and not one that would be popular for Obama. The right wing noise machine (for whom hypocrisy is a virtue) would probably be calling for impeachment. But I'm not seeing any other option.

By now it's obvious that the media isn't going to hold Sen. Shelby accountable for such shameless manipulation, and I really doubt that it would resonate much with the voting public. It's 'too complex' and smacks of 'politics as usual' for our "serious pundits" to focus on. But it is important; attempting to destroy the government for political gain should be considered a crime against the American people. The country needs appointees doing their jobs, not gamesmanship. It's one thing for a Senator to hold up a nominee on a question of qualifications, quite another to put a blanket hold on all nominees.

And there's another major reason why appointments matter: ABC News is reporting that the White House is preparing to handle not one, but two possible retirements from the Supreme Court over the next few months. If Obama cannot get bureaucratic nominees confirmed, how much luck will he have with vastly more important Supreme Court nominees?

Maybe we should just hand the government back to the rethuglicans now, and sit back and watch the country collapse into ruins. I'm sure the benevolent corporations will keep some of us alive as indentured servants, or for entertainment as contestants on American Idol.

Most Voters are "Un-Informed"

This doesn't come as a surprise, but if you read political blogs, you're far more informed than the typical person. This Pew research study shows that the majority of voters don't really know much about the actual operation of the government:

The public has consistently expressed strong interest in the health care debate, but relatively few Americans can correctly answer two key questions related to the Senate's consideration of health care legislation.

In the latest installment of the Pew Research Center's News IQ Quiz, just 32% know that the Senate passed its version of the legislation without a single Republican vote. And, in what proved to be the most difficult question on the quiz, only about a quarter (26%) knows that it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster in the Senate and force a vote on a bill.

It's well worth reading the whole thing, but I want to focus on how this relates to the Supreme Court's decision allowing corporations to buy and run political ads, and why our elections are about to get worse.
I'll try to be polite. I don't want to say that most voters are "stupid", so I'll say that they're "low-information" and not inclined to learn a lot about politics or government. They tend to know what they've seen and heard on TV. And American mega-corporations are masters of television manipulation. Just look at the shlock they're already selling us. The corporations don't have to lie to manipulate people's opinions, only engage in some slick marketing. Even if they did lie, it's doubtful that anyone would be able to effectively counter it. So all the corporations will need to do is to sell the public their chosen candidates, and let those elected legislate to their benefit. And the public will not notice...
because the public is "un-informed."

Miers and Renzi

Ah, the old case gets more interesting...

In the House Judiciary investigation into the U.S. Attorney firings, Harriet Miers admitted to her role in helping re-elect Rick Renzi by hiding the corruption investigation of him:

It's just days before the mid-term elections, and you're sitting in the White House watching a close Congressional race when it bubbles up that the the Republican incumbent, long dogged by corruption rumors, is under federal investigation.

That's the situation the Bush White House found itself in when it was reported in late October 2006, first on blogs, that U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton was investigating Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ).

And that's when the damage control machine kicked into gear.

Scott Jennings, deputy to Karl Rove, and White House Counsel Harriet Miers intervened to try to get the Justice Department to throw cold water on the reports of an investigation, despite the DOJ's policy not to confirm or deny the existence of ongoing probes, according to e-mails released by the House Judiciary Committee today. (Read them here.)

In the two days following Miers and Jennings' emails, articles appeared in the press quoting DOJ officials saying the investigation was in "preliminary stage" -- which it was not.

One piece in the Arizona Republic, speculating that the news about the
investigation was politically-motivated, quoted a DOJ official: "I want to caution you not to chop this guy's (Renzi's) head off." That's the type of statement that surely helped Renzi in the heated days before the election.

Renzi went on to win reelection, but was indicted on wide-ranging corruption charges in April 2008. The case is still pending.

The Jennings/Miers e-mails make for rich reading. On October 24, Jennings wrote, under the subject "re: our call":

"The person I called you about [Renzi] said the USATTY in his area, as well as the local FBI office, said they were unaware of any investigation."

Miers replied, describing how she intervened to pressure the DOJ on its public stance:

Scott, I just finished speaking with [Deputy AG] Paul McNulty. He said what we suspected he would. He has been contacted by a number of frustrated members of the Congress asking why people can't be vindicated in the event nothing is going on. He acknowledged that the situation is frustrating, but reiterated their position that they cannot confirm or deny the existence of an investigation. He said the AG did an interview last week to put things in as good as a perspective as possible by explaining that no one should be talking and that a refusal to deny should be given no meaning beyond that Justice does not admit or deny the existence of an investigation. I observed that at some point, immediately preceding an election, unattributed statements about the existence of an investigation was rankly unfair. He is continuing to think about the situation, but I did not get a lot of encouragement that they will deviate from normal course.

In other words: despite being told it was DOJ policy not to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation, Miers asked Paul McNulty, the deputy attorney general, to knock down the reports of a probe. But she "did not get a lot of encouragement that they will deviate from normal course."

In the next two days, the articles citing anonymous DOJ officials appeared, falsely reporting the probe was in early stages. It's still not known who made those leaks and whether anyone directed them to do it.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/on_election_ever_miers_tried_to_intervene_renzi_case.php?ref=fpb

Renzi's corruption investigation was kept hidden until after the election for political reasons, a classic example of how the shrub administration operated (read the whole article for a lot more juicy details). Paul Charlton was fired in the Attorney purge, in hopes of killing the investigation of Renzi, and it almost worked. But Mr. Corruption's trial is scheduled for next month. I wonder if Harriet will be called to testify? That certainly could be worth watching.

And, (in keeping with the Pygalgia tradition with all things Renzi), Mr. Renzi, here's your pig:

(And read all about sleazy Karl Rove's roll in it all here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove12-2009aug12,0,6512321.story, here: Raw Story, here: NYTimes, and The full interview transcripts and documents can be found here.)

Revisiting the History of Renzi

In the long delayed prosecution of my former congress critter Rick Renzi, now news is coming out that confirms something I long suspected: Shrub's (in)justice department manipulated evidence to protect Renzi:

In the fall of 2006, one day after the Justice Department granted permission to a U.S. attorney to place a wiretap on a Republican congressman suspected of corruption, existence of the investigation was leaked to the press — not only compromising the sensitive criminal probe but tipping the lawmaker off to the wiretap.

Career federal law enforcement officials who worked directly on a probe of former Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) said they believe that word of the investigation was leaked by senior Bush administration political appointees in the Justice Department in an improper and perhaps illegal effort to affect the outcome of an election.

At the time of the leak, Renzi was locked in a razor-thin bid for reelection and unconfirmed reports of a criminal probe could have become politically damaging. The leaked stories — appearing 10 days before the election — falsely suggested that the investigation of Renzi was in its initial stages and unlikely to lead to criminal charges.

In fact, the investigation had been ongoing for some time and had already amassed enough evidence of alleged criminal misconduct to obtain approval from the highest levels of the Justice Department, including then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, to seek an application from a federal judge to wiretap Renzi. In February 2008, a federal grand jury indicted Renzi on 36 felony counts of money laundering, extortion, insurance fraud and various other alleged crimes.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bush-administration-leaks-bolstered-rick-renzis-reelection-bid-2009-06-24.html

Renzi didn't run for re-election in 2008 when his blatant corruption finally lead to criminal charges. His trial has been delayed to September of this year. But he barely managed to retain his seat in 2006 by downplaying the investigation, even though his corruption was well known to anyone paying attention.
One of the reasons that I began this blog was to attempt to fight against Mr. Renzi, who represented my district. I dedicated pictures of tattoo'd pigs to him, and I'm only too happy to revive the tradition. There have been a lot of corrupt congress critters, but he was consistently among the worst. The entire Shrub administration acted as a crime syndicate, and Renzi was a typical rethug criminal who belongs in jail.
So have another pig, Mr. Renzi. I'm looking forward to the trial.

State of Corruption

Arizona's congressional delegation has piled up a catalogue of corruption that few states can rival. My representative, and Republican corruption poster boy, Rick Renzi (who should be in jail) is sharing some of the investigation with our Senators St. Sleazy McCain and bloody stupid Jon Kyl:

Federal agents interviewed staffers for likely Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as part of their corruption case against Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.).

U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona Diane J. Humetewa and fellow prosecutors disclosed the interviews with aides for McCain and fellow Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl in a written response to Renzi’s attorneys, who asked for the contents of the interview to help prepare for Renzi’s upcoming trial, which is scheduled for October.

The aides were interviewed about land exchanges, according to an April letter from Humetewa filed with the U.S. District Court of Arizona late last week. The letter did not indicate when the interviews occurred.

A federal land swap critical to developing a $3 billion copper mine southeast of Phoenix is at the heart of the case against Renzi, who is facing 35 public corruption charges, including conspiracy, money-laundering, extortion and insurance fraud. Renzi is retiring at the end of this session.

Prosecutors said they would provide Renzi’s legal team with reports and transcripts of the staffer interviews. They also mentioned that they have requested documents from both Arizona senators’ offices.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/fbi-interviews-arizona-staffers-2008-05-27.html

While there is no evidence (yet) that St. Sleazy was involved in Renzi's solicitation of bribes, it does tie in with his current lobbyist problems. St. Sleazy likes to choose foxes to advise him on henhouse security:

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s national campaign general co-chair was being paid by a Swiss bank to lobby Congress about the U.S. mortgage crisis at the same time he was advising McCain about his economic policy, federal records show.

“Countdown with Keith Olbermann” reported Tuesday night that lobbying disclosure forms, filed by the giant Swiss bank UBS, list McCain’s campaign co-chair, former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, as a lobbyist dealing specifically with legislation regarding the mortgage crisis as recently as Dec. 31, 2007.

Gramm joined the bank in 2002 and had registered as a lobbyist by 2004. UBS filed paperwork deregistering Gramm on April 18 of this year. Gramm continues to serve as a UBS vice chairman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24844889

St. Sleazy will try to distance himself from shrub and his low poll numbers, but he's still surrounded by the culture of corruption. He was closely tied to Renzi until Rick got caught. The Arizona Republican congressional delegation have a long history of sharing the spoils from their dirty deals, so I wouldn't be surprised if St. Sleazy found a way to profit from Renzi's corruption.

St. Sleazy Slinks into Iraq

As if Iraq didn't have enough problems, St. Sleazy (my new nickname for John McCain, as a retort to the media accolades) decided to sneak in for a visit. Of all the media takes, I really like Jake Tapper's:

"We were informed that John McCain landed in Iraq Sunday morning," Ali al-Moussawi, an official in the office of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, told the AP. "A meeting will take place with the Iraqi government."

Sen. John McCain and the McCainettes (Sens. Lindsey Graham & Joe Lieberman) landed in Baghdad and are set to meet with deputy PM Barham Saleh, Gen. David
Petraeus, and perhaps al-Maliki as well.

McCain's trip abroad will also include visits in the UK with Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Stavros Dimas, the European Union's commissioner for the environment; in Paris with President Nicolas Sarkozy; in Jerusalem with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Likud leader Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu; and in Amman, with Jordanian King Abdullah.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/mccain-iraqs-an.html

Of course, the trip isn't political. St. Sleazy told the press it wasn't political between fundraisers:

McCain says his trip is as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, not as the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. But on Thursday, McCain will hold a fundraiser at Spencer House in London for Americans living abroad -- $1,000-$2,300 per person.

Admitted, the fundraiser is in London. I doubt that St. Sleazy would have as much luck raising money in Iraq (but it's possible). And, of course, we taxpayers get to pay the bill for the trip. I'm really tired of hearing the media portray McCain as a "straight-shooter" when he's been about as corrupt as any member of congress, and more corrupt than most. Using Iraq as part of his campaign strategy is questionable at best (for a variety of reasons), but sneaking in for a quick campaign photo-op on your way to a fundraiser is beyond the pale. Imagine the media reaction if this were [insert democratic senator running for president here] doing the same thing. I know; IOKIYAR. Regardless of the media image McCain truly is St.Sleazy.

Family Values

The story of my corrupt congress crtitter Rick Renzi just keeps getting better:

Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., allegedly defrauded dozens of pro-life organizations for hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund his first congressional bid, according to an analysis of the recent indictment against him, a state insurance claim and an interview with an insurance lawyer involved in the case.

When federal prosecutors indicted Renzi, 49, on 35 felony counts two weeks ago, many reports focused on alleged crimes stemming from a complicated series of land swaps the congressman facilitated.

But the indictment also accuses Renzi, who ran an insurance firm before coming to Capitol Hill, of misappropriating hundreds of thousands of dollars in insurance premiums and using the money to fund his congressional campaign.

Organizations such as Arizona Right-to-Life, the Hope Crisis Pregnancy Center and the Wickenburg Pregnancy Resource Center paid insurance premiums to Renzi's insurance firm, Renzi & Company, but received notices their insurance coverage was going to be cancelled for nonpayment, according to a 2003 complaint filed with the State of Arizona. The complaint was first reported by the Phoenix New Times.

According to the indictment, Renzi funneled those payments -- totaling more than $400,000 -- through various accounts and finally to his campaign.

Nothing says "family values" quite like stealing from your "pro-life" supporters. This should enhance his role in the campaign of "straight shooter" McCain:

For Clinton detractors, Norman Hsu is a huge deal. For Obama detractors, Tony Rezko is incredibly important. But where does Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.), a member of Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) National Leadership Team and a co-chair of his Arizona Leadership Team, fit into the mix?

Renzi was, of course, recently indicted on felony counts of extortion, wire fraud, and money laundering, among other transgressions. Despite the charges, McCain hasn’t distanced himself from Renzi at all, saying he doesn’t know the “details” of the indictment, so he won’t criticize his political ally. McCain wouldn’t even comment on whether Renzi would remain a part of his campaign leadership, saying the issue “doesn’t matter.”

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14824.html#more-14824

Rick, your ongoing crimes have earned you another pig:

Renzi Wont Go

Oh joy, our corrupt congress critter, Rick Renzi, says he wont resign in the face of his corruption indictments:

Representative Rick Renzi, the Arizona Republican who was indicted last week by a federal grand jury on 35 corruption charges, issued a statement on Monday saying that he would not resign despite signals from Republican leaders in Congress that they would welcome his swift departure.

“I will not resign and take on the cloak of guilt because I am innocent,” Mr. Renzi declared in the statement. “My legal team of Reid Weingarten and Kelly Kramer will handle these legal issues whileI continue to serve my constituents.”

A grand jury last week indicted Mr. Renzi on a raft of corruption charges, including fraud, money laundering and extortion. Prosecutors charged that Mr. Renzi pressured constituents to purchase land from his business partner in exchange for his support for legislation that the constituents needed. At least $733,000 in proceeds from the land sale were funneled back to Mr. Renzi, according to the indictment.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/renzi-says-he-wont-resign/

Actually, I'm kind of glad he's not resigning. If he resigns prior to May 4th, there will be a special election to fill the remainder of his term, which could help a Republican candidate gain recognition. By staying, he remains a great symbol of the Republican "culture of corruption" which should help Democrats.

The next question should be about Renzi's role as co-chairmen of John McCain's Arizona campaign. It sounds like he'll be quietly leaving:

Mr. Renzi had been serving as a Arizona state co-chairman of Senator John McCain’s campaign for president. But Mr. McCain has indicated that Mr. Renzi would be resigning that post.

Tying McCain's questionable ethics to Renzi's criminal indictment seems to be a good strategy going forward.

Renzi Indicted

As Sweaterman noted, our dear corrupt congress critter, Rick Renzi, has finally been indicted. Time for a tattoo'd pig:

PHOENIX -- Northern Arizona Congressman Rick Renzi was indicted today on charges of extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other matters in a scam involving an Arizona land swap.

The 26-page indictment says the scam allegedly helped Renzi collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in payoffs.

The indictment accuses Renzi and a former business partner of extortion and conspiring to promote the sale of land that buyers could swap for property owned by the federal government.

The indictment says that as part of the alleged scam, Renzi and James Sandlin concealed at least $733,000 that the congressman took for helping seal the land deals.

Renzi and another business partner, Andrew Beardall, are accused of embezzling more than $400,000 in insurance premiums to fund Renz's first congressional campaign.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/stories/phoenix_local_news_022208_rick-renzi-indicted.19657e99.html

Long overdue, probably obstructed by the Gonzalez justice department, Renzi's going to face charges. He's been a "congressman for sale" from the beginning, and we'll be glad to be rid of him. In a way it bothers me that it's taken so long to charge him, as his crimes were obvious and well known. Renzi is a classic example of Republican values, soliciting bribes to support his 12 children. I really hope he ends up doing time.

Say "Bye-Bye"

Looks like my state will lose another corrupt Republican congress critter. John Shadegg is going to "retire":

Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) will announce this evening that he will retire from the House upon the conclusion of his current term, according to a well-placed Republican source.

http://rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/22046-1.html

And his "retirement" has nothing to do with this:

The Arizona Democratic Party is accusing Republican U.S. Rep. John Shadegg of using his political-action committee to skirt laws that limit the amount of money donors can give a candidate.

Democrats say they have drafted a complaint to the Federal Election Commission, but Shadegg maintains nothing was done improperly and doubts whether the FEC will take action.

At issue is money that elections records show was transferred from Shadegg's
political-action committee into his election campaign.

Two Valley businessmen who made the maximum allowable individual donations to Shadegg's campaign in 2007 also wrote additional $5,000 checks to Shadegg's PAC, Leadership for America's Future. Eleven days later, on June 26, the PAC wrote two identical $5,000 checks to Shadegg.

Normally, such a transfer would not be noticed among thousands of dollars in contributions. But in the same reporting period, Shadegg's PAC received no other contributions and paid out only the $10,000.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0121shadegg0121.html

At this rate, my state may even get a few honest congress critters. But we're still stuck with McCain and Kyl in the senate. Stupid state.

Stop Scaring Me

Tonight, shrub will be doing the one thing that he's done in compliance with the constitution; that is to deliver the SOTU address. But this from the front page of the WaPo makes me nervous:

That is the problem Bush faces as he prepares to deliver his seventh and probably final State of the Union address tonight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/01/27/ST2008012702356.html?hpid=topnews

I've generally been dismissive of conspiracy theories that shrub might somehow remain in power beyond his two terms by creating some sort of "state of emergency." I think shrub would like to get out of the pressure and leave the mess for his successor to deal with. That, and there should be open revolt if the shrub/cheney tried to pull a coup.
But now I have to indulge in some paranoia: do the Washington insiders know something that I don't?
Added: OK, there is another explanation:

Here's the skinny:

Finally, President George W. Bush is set to deliver his next State of the Union Address on January 28, 2008. It is widely believed that this will be his last address before leaving office on January 20, 2009, but assuming this is incorrect. Bush has the right to deliver either a written or oral State of the Union in the days immediately before leaving office in 2009. Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Ford, and Carter chose to do this. Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, chose not to.

Another Corrupt Congress-Critter

Ah, I do enjoy it when one of the corrupt congress-critters gets caught. Today, it's John Shadegg:

The Arizona Democratic Party is accusing Republican U.S. Rep. John Shadegg of using his political-action committee to skirt laws that limit the amount of money donors can give a candidate.

Democrats say they have drafted a complaint to the Federal Election Commission, but Shadegg maintains nothing was done improperly and doubts whether the FEC will take action.

At issue is money that elections records show was transferred from Shadegg's
political-action committee into his election campaign.

Two Valley businessmen who made the maximum allowable individual donations to Shadegg's campaign in 2007 also wrote additional $5,000 checks to Shadegg's PAC, Leadership for America's Future. Eleven days later, on June 26, the PAC wrote two identical $5,000 checks to Shadegg.

Normally, such a transfer would not be noticed among thousands of dollars in contributions. But in the same reporting period, Shadegg's PAC received no other contributions and paid out only the $10,000.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0121shadegg0121.html

Have a pig, John. If you're unsure what it means, ask your colleague Rick Renzi. He's earned 4 tattooed pig awards.

Top 10 Scandals

It's that time of the year, when everybody has their top 10 lists. Here's CREW's Top 10 ethics scandals of 2007.

No new enforcement mechanisms for congressional ethics;

Ted Stevens still sitting on Senate Appropriations;

Senate Ethics Committee looking into Sen. Craig, but not Sen. Vitter;

Millions of missing White House emails still unaccounted for;

Rep. Murtha’s abuse of the earmarking process remains unchecked;

Lurita Doan remains chief of GSA despite illegal conduct;

White House covering up its role in the firings of the U.S. Attorneys;

No Child Left Behind funds directed to Bush fundraisers who provide inadequate reading materials for kids;

Court decision regarding search of Jefferson’s office limits ability of DOJ to investigate other corrupt lawmakers; and

FEMA knowingly let Katrina victims live in hazardous trailers

I'm not sure that I agree with all of the list, but it's a good start.

Giuliani

The man has always been a corrupt sleazeball, so none of the latest news surprises me. He's the poster boy of modern republicanism, and I'm thinking that he would be their perfect nominee.