Rep. Martha McSally (R-Raytheon) epitomizes what President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned this nation against in his farewell address in 1961:
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Eisenhower’s orignal draft of the speech referred to the military-industrial-congressional complex.
In a series of negative campaign ads attacking her opponent, McSally presents a hyper-militarism. She always portrays herself in uniform for the persona of a “woman warrior” to contrast with an old photo of Kyrsten Sinema in a pink tutu, as a girlie-girl “lefty-looney.”
The primary focus of McSally’s negative attack ads is to assert that Kyrsten Sinema “denigrated the service” of those in the military in protesting the Iraq war. Politifact rates this claim false, unsupported by any evidence. Did Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema protest troops in a pink tutu and denigrated their service?”
Posted in Arizona Congressional Races, AZBlueMeanie, Campaigns, Congress, Constitution, Election Integrity, Elections, Ethics, History, International, Kyrsten Sinema, Martha McSally, Military, Party Politics, Protest, Scandals, Senate, Veterans, War
Tagged Fact Check, First Amendment, Iraq War, military industrial complex
The U.S. Supreme Court began the day with 19 argued cases yet to be decided. This included two of the most highly anticipated cases of this term involving political gerrymandering, Gil v. Whitford (Wisconsin) and Benisek v. Lamone (Maryland).
Today the U.S. Supreme Court disappointed everyone by punting on these two cases. It was an anticlimactic end to these gerrymandering cases, which are likely to return in the future with additional cases moving through the appellate courts pipeline.
In Gil v. Whitford (.pdf) Chief Justice Roberts held that “The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate Article III standing.”
The right to vote is “individual and personal in nature,” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 561, and “voters who allege facts showing disad- vantage to themselves as individuals have standing to sue” to remedy that disadvantage, Baker, 369 U. S., at 206. The plaintiffs here al- leged that they suffered such injury from partisan gerrymandering, which works through the “cracking” and “packing” of voters. To the extent that the plaintiffs’ alleged harm is the dilution of their votes, that injury is district specific. An individual voter in Wisconsin is placed in a single district. He votes for a single representative. The boundaries of the district, and the composition of its voters, deter- mine whether and to what extent a particular voter is packed or cracked. A plaintiff who complains of gerrymandering, but who does not live in a gerrymandered district, “assert[s] only a generalized grievance against governmental conduct of which he or she does not approve.” United States v. Hays, 515 U. S. 737, 745.
Posted in AZBlueMeanie, Congress, Constitution, Courts, Election Integrity, Elections, Ethics, Party Politics, Redistricting
Tagged discrimination, First Amendment, gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, voting rights