No Kay Blog

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison stumped in Virginia yesterday (9/29) for her friend Sen. George Allen (R-VA). Yes, that George Allen - the noose-hanging, Confederate flag-waving, macaca-calling, "n-word"-using one.

Earlier in the day, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) appeared at an event with Allen at which she accused Democrats of trying to smear Allen with charges he used racial epithets during and shortly after college.

Via Radnofsky campaign emails*, we already have information on where she stands on Bush's pro-torture, pro-tyranny legislation that Sen. Hutchison rubber stamped this week. And it's good news.

On coerced confessions, torture, and perjury:

“The Senate majority and my opponent wrongly and massively changed American history by permitting coerced confessions, torture, and convictions based on such testimony. My opponent’s embrace of perjury as a ‘technicality’ was a predictor that she would vote to further damage the stature and reputation of the United States of America.”

“We must protect our troops who could become POWs, subject to torture tactics embraced by my opponent. She has rubberstamped dangerous administration policies 95.6% of the time. Her statements and her vote yesterday threaten every Texan, every American, and our values.”

“Ordinary men and women, like my father and the fellow soldiers who saved his life as a POW, also saved the world for democracy in World War II. Massive wrongdoing and human experimentation and torture were exposed, and the world condemned and rejected the wrongdoing. Everyone who values the lives of our service men and women and the democracy in which we live should reject perjury, coerced confessions, and torture.”

On Habeas Corpus:

"The Supreme Court will rule on the September 28th unconstitutional attack by my opponent and the Senate majority, denying the right of habeas corpus to military detainees. In the meantime, the United States' reputation and the lives of our service personnel and our everyday rights remain threatened. We must protect Americans, including those abroad who could be kidnapped, wrongly accused, imprisoned, held forever and denied the right to know the charges against them. We would not tolerate those kinds of abuses by any foreign hand. We cannot tolerate the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus by the United States."

* The Radnofsky campaign emails weren't on the campaign's news page as of this writing, but should be there tomorrow.

In an excellent essay, Beltway Democrats are seriously flawed, but the election is still critically important, Glenn Greenwald very clearly argues the importance of this election, despite the shortcomings of incumbent Democrats. Our own Kay Bailey Hutchison is among those of whom he said it "was like watching mindless zombies obediently marching wherever they were told to march," as they voted yesterday.

We are a country ruled by a President who has seized the power to break the law in multiple ways while virtually nothing is done about it. Yesterday, we formally vested the power in the President to abduct people and put them in prisons for life without so much as charging them with any crime and by expressly proclaiming that they have no right to access any court or tribunal to prove their innocence. We have started one war against a country that did not attack us and, in doing so, created havoc and danger -- both to ourselves and the world -- that is truly difficult to quantify. And we are almost certainly going to start one more war just like it (at least), that is far more dangerous still, if the President's Congressional servants maintain their control.

Now is the time. Do something. Donate your time, your bumper, your yardsign space and some much-needed cash to Barbara Ann Radnofsky. Write letters to the editor about this. Texans don't support torture or the suspension of Constitutional protections any more than any other Americans do. Make sure they know Kay's and Barbara Ann's opposite positions on these crucial issues. Do something!

The main point of the Statesman article I linked to about the Hutchison-Radnofsky debate - in fact, the headline itself - is that Kay says this term, if she wins, will be her last term.

Hutchison says this will be her last term

In an interview with the American-Statesman, Hutchison said she decided to run for one more term because of her seniority on the Appropriations Committee and within the Republican Party ranks.

"I've been able to do many things for Texas that would be hard to accomplish as a junior member," Hutchison said. "But this is certainly going to be my last term."

Despite the "political analysts" who weren't "surprised" by this, I don't see why anybody should believe it for a second. I'm sure she sounded just as sincere when she lied this same lie twelve years ago.

Aside from this sour-grapes-sounding quote from her opponent:

But Radnofsky said Hutchison's decision goes against a promise she made to voters when campaigning, and that she repeated in 2004, that she would serve as U.S. senator for only two terms,

the paper lets Hutchison completely off the hook.

Please, read the whole Kay Bailey term limits story. Her "two terms only" pledge was not an idle, throwaway comment. She repeated it again and again. It was part of her platform. She cosponsored legislation to amend the U.S. Constitution with term limits. But then, when her time was up, guess what? Here she is, running again anyway.

This time, they say, it was because she couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't run against Gov. Goodhair. Well, what happens if there's some barrier to whatever her next political ambition is? (Not the Vice Presidential ticket in 2008, she assures us. No, certainly not that.)

Then we'd be hearing the same damn thing in six more years: "This one is really, really going to be my last term. Really."

According to a Radnofsky campaign email, and mentioned in the Austin American-Statesman, the debate is finally on. From the email:

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, has accepted the invitation of the League of Women Voters of Texas Education Fund to participate in a debate among the candidates for the office of U.S. Senator. The San Antonio debate will be at the television studios of KLRN on October 19th, and broadcast at 9:00 p.m.

Maybe someone will ask her about her pro-torture, anti-liberty votes of late...

It has passed the Senate now, the pro-torture, pro-tyranny bill. And as expected, it passed easily, much to our enduring national shame. Much has been and is being written about the failure of the Democrats to even try to stop this thing, and for good reason. But here, I'm concerned with Sen. Hutchison's vote. Which was a Yea, of course, as it was for all Republicans but one (Chafee, R-RI).

Glenn Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory is a good source to read now, and in the coming days, about this dark day for American democracy.

Opponents of this bill have focused most of their attention -- understandably and appropriately -- on the way in which it authorizes the use of interrogation techniques which, as this excellent NYT Editorial put it, "normal people consider torture," along with the power it vests in the President to detain indefinitely, and with no need to bring charges, all foreign nationals and even legal resident aliens within the U.S. But as Law Professors Marty Lederman and Bruce Ackerman each point out, many of the extraordinary powers vested in the President by this bill also apply to U.S. citizens, on U.S. soil.

As Ackerman put it: "The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights." Similarly, Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

This last point means that even if there were a habeas corpus right inserted back into the legislation (which is unlikely at this point anyway [and which didn't happen - CG]), it wouldn't matter much, if at all, because the law would authorize your detention simply based on the DoD's decree that you are an enemy combatant, regardless of whether it was accurate. This is basically the legalization of the Jose Padilla treatment -- empowering the President to throw people into black holes with little or no recourse, based solely on his say-so.

There really is no other way to put it. Issues of torture to the side (a grotesque qualification, I know), we are legalizing tyranny in the United States.

According to TPMmuckraker, the Senate just Killed Habeas Amendment on Torture Bill:

The Senate just killed an amendment to ensure federal courts could review the legitimacy of individual' imprisonment on suspicion of involvement in terrorism. [See Wikipedia definition of habeas corpus.] The amendment had been proposed by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It is a fundamental protection woven into the fabric of our Nation," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who supported the measure. It was defeated 48-51, largely along party lines.

As the voting record shows, once again our own Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is rubber-stamping the Bush administration's unconstitutional power grabs.

This is dire. As Josh Marshall says,

this law allows the president to detain any US citizen in the United States and hold him or her without trial forever.

All the president needs to do is find that you are an 'enemy combatant'. And it's entirely his call.

...In essence, it means that the entire criminal justice system in this country becomes discretionary in the hands of the president.

If you've been listening closely for news of Kay Bailey Hutchison accepting Radnofsky's debate challenge, that's all you've heard: crickets. The silence is almost deafening.

As the Chronicle's Blue Bayou blog notes:

Hutchison's tactic has been refusing to debate during the period before her trip home, and now that she's safely back in DC, being dodgy about the schedule. Obviously she wants this to happen as late as possible in the campaign and, I suspect, at three in the morning so no one will see it. It all smells of fear.

Maybe if she could get Dick Cheney or Karl Rove (not Bush himself, of course; she'd need someone with a brain) to come argue "her" side, to which she could nod, and agree, that would better match her style of governing.

Seriously folks - this debate issue is a big one for Kay opponents. She said she would debate, so if she continues to avoid it, that's a blatant and undemocractic falsehood. And if she finally gives in and shows up, well, I only hope I can see it myself, because I believe Radnofsky will roast her.

So get out those pens and keyboards, and start writing some letters to the editor of your paper. This one from the Galveston Daily News is a good example (copied here in full):

At the recent funeral service for Gov. Ann Richards, many of the speakers talked about how she wanted more women and minorities to run for public office.

So what about the upcoming U.S. Senate race?

There has been lots of media attention to the four candidates for Texas governor but almost none to the U.S. Senate race.

The fact that it is a race between two women is in itself historic.

We need to learn more about the two candidates — Kay Bailey Hutchison and Barbara Radnofsky — in public debates and in newspapers like The Daily News.

You've probably heard of or seen President Clinton take Chris Wallace to the woodshed on Fox News Sunday. It's a performance that non-Republicans can stand up and cheer about; I highly recommend it.

In it, Clinton mentions several times how the same neo-cons who are trying to pin bin Laden's ascendancy on his administration wanted him to pull out of Somalia the day after the "Black Hawk Down" incident.

That's right, the very same gung-ho warmongers who claim it's treasonous to "cut and run" from the quagmire in Iraq wanted to do exactly that in Somalia. And thanks to details dug up by the excellent Glenn Greenwald, we have these words from our very own Kay Bailey Hutchison on Oct. 6, 1993 (emphasis Greenwald's):

I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option.

So we see the same obvious double standard Sen. Hutchison displayed in the perjury double standard incident She has one clear set of standards for Democratic Presidents and wars, and a completely different set for Republican Presidents and wars. For matters of such importance to the country, it'd be nice to have a Senator who can rise above these kinds of politics every now and then.

Via Burnt Orange Report, news that Sen. Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriots Fund is running Pick A Progressive Patriot:

Cast a vote for your favorite Senate challanger - which ever candidate recieves the most votes will be featued in a fundraising email from Senator Feingold.

Our own Barbara Ann Radnofsky is one of the contenders - be sure to cast your vote!

According to the AP, Kay supports Bush's pro-torture policies:

Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, both Republicans, had backed an original proposal by Bush that would have allowed classified evidence to be withheld from defendants in terror trials and protect U.S. interrogators from using methods that violate the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Conventions have got to be the most fundamental, basic element of international law and foreign policy. Elementary, and unquestionable, as they have been for decades. And the Bush Administration is trying to get an exemption! In addition to being absolutely abhorrent on its face, such steps would have grave consequences for U.S. soldiers. When one country - especially the only remaining superpower - stops abiding by those rules, then it won't be long before everybody does.

Our own U.S. Supreme Court "ruled in June that the system set up by the Bush administration to prosecute terrorism suspects violated the Geneva Convention."

This latest Bush ass-cover/power grab is as patently un-American as one can imagine. Americans do not torture prisoners. Good lord, before Bush, nobody ever even had to state such things - it would have been unimaginable. Yet, here we are.

And, here's our Republican Senator. As she has all along, and as she apparently will no matter how disgusting the means get, Kay's solidly supporting our pro-torture President:

"I think it is important for us to be able to question detainees who have given us information, who have kept us from having attacks on our nation, the information has been very valuable," Hutchison said. "But we want to be able to work it so we have the tools we need and every country knows that we will keep the honor that we always have in our standards" for interrogations.

"Keeping the honor that we always have in our standards" is very, very simple. Any middle- or high-schooler could help you with that, Senator: abide by the longstandinging and universally agreed-upon Geneva Conventions. There is a common and also universally agreed-upon name for any other "tools" that fall outside of those standards: "torture".

From the Texas State University University Star: Democrats criticize Bush administration for ‘soaring’ tuition costs.

A study released Tuesday assessing the “affordability crisis” of college has Democratic policymakers talking. The study reports that soaring higher education costs coupled with declining household incomes means more students are in debt or unable to attend college.

...Campaign for America’s Future, a progressive group, conducted the study “Higher Education: Soaring Out of Reach for Families.” It reports the cost of tuition for a four-year college increased $2,786 from 2000 to 2005, while the median household income fell by 2 percent in the same period.

...“College assistance has not kept up. The president never fulfilled his promise to raise Pell Grants,” Borosage said. “Now, financial barriers will literally prevent millions of students from attending college all over the next decade.”

Some of this same pattern is detailed on the No Kay education page, so if you've read that, you won't be surprised by this (emphasis added):

The House vote cutting the $12 billion from the Higher Education fund was split on partisan lines, with House Democrats voting against the cut and House Republicans voting for the cut, except Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas and Sen. John Cornyn, D-Texas [sic] also voted for the cut.

From a Radnofsky campaign email newsletter, news of another debate challenge:

Houston's Jewish Community Center has extended a debate invitation to all three senatorial candidates for October 17. Barbara Ann has accepted, while her opponent's promise of a "series" of one debate goes unfulfilled.

Well, Congress will be out by then, so Kay can't use the "I'm too busy legislating" excuse. And this race is supposedly so one-sided, she can't possibly be too busy campaigning. So, unless she's just afraid to face tough questions on her highly questionable record, Sen. Hutchison should be there for sure.

Here's an interesting bit of political song and dance: a verbatim copy of a letter to constituents from Sen. Hutchison about embryonic stem cell research. In it we learn, well, I'm not sure what we learn, honestly. Stem cells are good, stem cells are bad; some things you do with them are okay, other things are not; some ways of getting them are fine, other ways are not fine; Kay is pro-science, Kay is pro-life. Any question you have, the answer is, "yes!" (Unless you wanted the answer to be "no," in which case, it's, "no.")

Aside from the less-than-crystal-clear "position" here, I have to also point out a couple of real gems in this letter. First, she says that her support for stem cell research (when she does support it; when it's okay) is "consistent with [her] conservative, pro-family philosophy." Pro-family? Really?! Sure, as long as the family doesn't have kids in public school, doesn't need clean air or clean water, doesn't have to try to get by on the minimum wage, etc.

You know, rich families.

And lastly, the closing paragraph begins:

I do not support creating life to destroy life. We must always respect the sanctity of life, even as science explores new frontiers.

Right on! I absolutely could not agree more. It's just too bad that "conservatives" like Sen. Hutchison limit such sentiments to abortion (in all the forms they can dream up). How about respecting the sanctity of life in Iraq, both of Iraqi civilians and of our own soldiers? How about respecting the sanctity of life for senior citizens who can't figure out how to get their medicine thanks to the mess of Medicare Part D? How about respecting the sanctity of the lives of kids who need foster care?

Why is it that pro-lifers stop being pro-life after the life really gets going, and could use a little "pro"?

According to the Star-Telegram.com, last week's real estate agents' convention was the biggest ever. And our own Kay Bailey Hutchison was the keynote speaker:

The buzz at this year's convention was expected to focus on legislative action to keep a lid on appraisals, the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor, mortgage fraud issues and the upcoming election, Lawson said.

In the keynote address Friday morning, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison reaffirmed her support of middle-class tax cuts to spur the economy and reforming the tax code, and her disapproval of efforts to eliminate the mortgage tax deduction.

But where she drew a lot of applause was when the issue of healthcare for associations came up. She said she would like to see professional organizations able to offer members health insurance.

I guess giving keynote speeches to Realtors eager for legislative action is part of the package, when you've received more than $4 million in campaign cash from the Finance/Insurance/Real Estate sector. And the applause for those speeches is just about guaranteed.

As detailed on the Supporting Bush page, Kay Bailey Hutchison has voted with the Bush White House more than 96% of the time since Dubya came into office. I've added a new shirt to the merchandise page to commemorate this ignoble achievement: introducing the Like Dubya Shirt (front & back):





As with the other items, it's available for purchase from CafePress.com, or for free download to print yourself.

Via Daily Kos, news of this Zogby poll in the Wall Street Journal:

Democratic challenger Barbara Ann Radnofsky -- boosted by strength among independent voters, according to Zogby -- narrowed her defecit to about nine percentage points, from about 18 percentage points in mid-August.

This poll puts Kay Bailey Hutchison at 47.8%, and Radnofsky at 39%. Let's keep things moving in this direction for the next two months!

I'm proud to introduce the first two items available from No Kay Merchandising. As detailed on that page, this is not the kind of merchandise that makes me rich, but rather the kind (hopefully) that gets the No Kay word out. In fact, I'm not only selling bumper stickers and t-shirts, I'm giving away high-resolution images, so you can print your own.

I have more designs and items in mind, but for now there are two, both based on Kay's broken term-limit pledge:

The Two Terms Bumper Sticker:

And the Two Terms T-shirt (front & back):

According to this Austin American-Statesman editorial, Barbara Ann Radnofsky is being left high and dry by the national level Democratic party:

U.S. Senate candidate Barbara Radnofsky said she has received nothing from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, headed by U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York. She has raised more than $1 million on her own in her campaign to unseat popular incumbent U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

I understand having to prioritize, and I sure don't like what an uphill battle we have against Sen. Hutchison. But man - can't the DSCC throw Radnofsky a bone? A token? Send some big names down to fundraise with? Something?

Well, if they won't, then that's all the more we need to. Whether it's via Radnofsky's site (click the "Contribute" tab) or my ActBlue page; give early and give often.

You may have figured that Kay was a faithful supporter of her old pal George W. Bush since he moved to Washington. But do you know how faithful? Check out the newest issue page on NoKay.org, Supporting Bush. You'll find that during the Bush reign so far, she has toed the party line a whopping 96% of the time. Even in this latest session (2005 to present), she's shown little interest in denying George anything he wants.

And just in case you think this support is ancient history - like the pre-Bush-Presidency quotes I dug up yesterday - and that she's wising up lately, there's this quote from yesterday's Houston Chronicle, on continued support for Bush, Rumsfeld, et al:

Texas' senators emphatically backed the administration.

"America needs to be united in the global war on terror," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

In researching for the next issue page on NoKay.org, I came across this old NewsHour transcript from Aug. 1, 2000. In it, we find Kay's thoughts on candidate George W. Bush's foreign policy platform. And boy, are there some gems in there (emphasis added in all):

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, (R) Texas: Well, I think Al Gore has not separated himself from the Clinton/Gore administration. And you have seen an unpredictability and the willingness to spread our troops around the world without any real strategy, no exit plan and not even coming to Congress and talking.

Yes, thank God we didn't get stuck with that warmongering loose cannon Al Gore. Who knows what kind of overextended quagmire we might be caught in by now - with no exit strategy in sight - with that lunatic.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. But let's get even more specific. You have been very skeptical of our involvement in the Balkans, both in Bosnia and Kosovo. What would you expect from a President Bush immediately on taking office on that score? Would you expect him to take steps to start pulling out?

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: No. I don't think anyone would say start pulling out. But I think he would come in, he would call all the parties together, he would assess what it's going to take to really make a difference. We cannot stay in the Balkans for 50 years without progress, without an idea of what it's going to take to really bring lasting peace. And then once the parties come together and we have a game plan, then I think he will bring a coalition of people around the world, allies who want to play a role, plus Russia, which could play a very productive role here, and try to work things out there. What many of us have disagreed with the Clinton/Gore administration about is that there is no progress. There is no strategy. And I don't think Governor Bush as President would put our troops in harm's way ad infinitum and certainly with no exit strategy.

Damn that Clinton Administration! Remember when they overcommitted our entire military, without no coalition backing? Remember when they placed all those held-over National Guard units in harm's way, with no exit strategy? Remember the upswing in terrorist recruitment from the Balkans it caused? Remember how that whole region was destabilized for no good reason for generations?

What's that? You don't remember any of that? Me neither. Sounds familiar, though, don't it?

That last sentence is so great, it deserves to be engraved somewhere: "I don't think Governor Bush as President would put our troops in harm's way ad infinitum and certainly with no exit strategy." Maybe it would look good on Kay's lobbyist or pundit resume, after we send her home from the Senate.

Okay, one more:

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: I think [Bush] has good instincts, but I think he has strengthened a future Bush administration with his choice of Vice President. He went to a person who has foreign policy experience and Washington experience. He's surrounding himself with Colin Powell, who has the military experience, as he pointed out, which adds another very important layer. And then you have Condoliza Rice [sic] and many of his advisers like Bob Zoellick and others who have wonderful experience in this area.

Yep, that turned out to be a real crack team he wound up with. If only we'd known that "foreign policy experience" meant "neo-conservative fantasies", and that "military experience" meant "knows how to destroy a country and destabilize the region it's in but not much else".

Reading these statements that turned out to be so far off the mark would be hilarious, if it weren't for the thousands of U.S. troops and the tens of thousands of civilians dead so far.

Via Atrios, a quote by retired General Wesley Clark that very succinctly sums up the disaster - fully and enthusiastically supported by Sen. Hutchison - known as the "Iraq War":

The attack on 9/11 occurred on the President's watch. He took us into a war with Iraq we didn't have to fight. It's been used to incentivize recruiting in Al Qaeda. The number of people who are affiliated with Al Qaeda worldwide has more than doubled since 2001. Our armed forces are bogged down in Iraq. We haven't been able to effectively engage with North Korea. We're hearing the tom-toms beating for war with Iran. I think the American people can judge. This administration's policy has been a mistake and he's not made us safer. He's left us more vulnerable.

In the Galveston Daily News, an excellent letter to the editor: Senate Debate Is Needed (free registration or BugMeNot required). This call for a debate is from way back in May, but since we're still not sure even today whether Kay will agree to a debate, it's still valid. Here's the whole thing (emphasis added):

Tom Raum’s chilling summary of the Bush administration’s abuses of power (The Daily News, May 14) should serve as a wake-up call for Americans.

Time after time, this administration has trampled on our civil liberties, effectively abrogating the Bill of Rights and dangerously upsetting the checks and balances that were wisely put in place by the founding fathers.

The administration’s abuses of power could not have happened, of course, if the Congress had done its job and exercised real oversight of the executive branch.

Congress must be held accountable for its failures; one way for this to occur is by debates between incumbents and their challengers, so that voters can hear incumbents’ defense of their records and challengers’ ideas for doing things better.

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, is ready to debate incumbent Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on a variety of issues, but Hutchison has yet to agree to this.

Radnofsky is an energetic, enthusiastic senatorial candidate with fresh ideas, and the voters of Texas deserve the opportunity to hear debates between the two candidates so they may make an informed decision about which candidate is the best person to represent Texas in the U.S. Senate.

Bill Cowan Galveston