Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on March 19, 2013, 08:56:09 AM
-
Perez nomination undercuts GOP outreach efforts
By Steve Benen
Tue Mar 19, 2013
(http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=steve-benen95A60FFA-106D-B4A1-1373-E67FD35BE240.jpg&width=380)
Almost immediately after President Obama introduced Thomas Perez as his choice for Secretary of Labor, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) vowed to block the nomination in the Senate. The far-right senator issued a press release condemning "his spotty work related to the New Black Panther case," which Vitter claimed Perez was "closely involved in."
Even for Vitter, it was an odd argument. Perez didn't even work at the Justice Department when it dropped the absurd New Black Panther case, and though Perez later answered the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' questions about the matter, the panel's report "concluded that Perez did not intentionally mislead the commission."
But by even relying on the ridiculous controversy to go on the attack, Vitter helped illustrate why Republicans' outreach to Latino communities will be more challenging than the RNC may care to admit. As Greg Sargent explained:
It is now clear that some Republicans will do all they can to block Obama's first Latino pick for his second-term cabinet -- and the right is gearing up for a campaign against him that will make the effort to block Chuck Hagel look like a knitting seminar. Given Thomas Perez's background as the son of Dominican immigrants, plus his role running the Justice Department's civil rights division, this isn't going to make the RNC's "outreach" to Latinos any easier. [...]
Other Republican senators [in addition to Vitter] plan to paint Perez as a "radical legal activist" who has "tried to help illegal immigrants avoid detection," as the New York Times puts it.[/color][/i]
This is not to suggest Republican critics of the administration can't complain about a nominee they don't like, just because he's Latino, or that criticism of Perez is necessarily evidence of bigotry.
The nature of the criticism matters, however, and at this point, the racial angle to the right's anti-Perez rhetoric is hard to miss.
As Simon Maloy noted:
Reacting to the news, Rush Limbaugh drew a straight line between Perez and the "grand kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan" and also compared him to Hugo Chavez. It's not difficult to see how that bumps up against the recommendations in Preibus' report: "If we want ethnic minority voters to support Republicans, we have to engage them, and show our sincerity."
Fox News and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) were far more circumspect in their criticism of Perez, but both relied on racially-charged lines of attack -- Megyn Kelly focused on the New Black Panther case Perez didn't oversee and Sessions complained about Perez's work as an immigrants' right advocate. Michele Malkin echoed a related sentiment, blasting Perez as "Obama's nominee for secretary of (illegal alien) labor."
Roll Call added that Republican leaders realize that if they launch a major offensive against the Labor nominee, "they risk undercutting the Republican National Committee's brand-new diversity push and getting mired in fights over voting rights and immigration," but they may do it anyway, out of fear of "blowback from their [racist] base."
Ron Bonjean, a former GOP leadership aide, told Roll Call his party can oppose Perez if it does it carefully and focuses "on his ability to promote jobs and the economy." If Senate Republicans "start wading into the issues of immigration, that can be a political minefield for Republicans. Keep the focus on whether he can do the job," Bonjean advised.
So far, I'd say the GOP's efforts to thread that needle are off to a poor start.
-
secretary nominee accused of cutting 'secret deal,' costing taxpayers up to $200M
Published April 15, 2013
FoxNews.com
President Barack Obama talks with his nominee for Labor Secretary, Thomas E. Perez, during a announcement, Monday, March 18, 2013, in the East Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
Labor secretary nominee Thomas Perez cut a "secret deal behind closed doors" with leaders of a Minnesota city, persuading them to drop a contentious lawsuit in exchange for the Justice Department staying out of whistleblower cases brought against the city, according to a congressional Republican report.
The "quid pro quo," according to the report, potentially cost taxpayers as much as $200 million.
The allegations are highly unusual, though are already being disputed by congressional Democrats. Perez is not a favorite of congressional Republicans, and the charges could impact his pending confirmation hearing -- scheduled for this Thursday.
The report, obtained in advance by Fox News, claimed Perez in February 2012 "manipulated" federal law as assistant attorney general and "pushed the limits of justice to make this deal happen."
Both cases involved the city of St. Paul. The 67-page report states that the Justice Department's decision to opt out of the whistleblower cases potentially cost taxpayers as much as $200 million -- the amount the government could have won had it pursued damages in the case.
But, according to the report, the Justice Department stayed away from that case in order to get the city to drop an appeal to the Supreme Court on another matter. The department was allegedly concerned that the high court, in the course of reviewing that case, would strike down a major element of civil rights enforcement.
"Perez simply could not allow the Court to rule," the report said. "Perez sought leverage to stop the city from pressing its appeal."
The case the Justice Department was allegedly concerned about was St. Paul's appeal to the Supreme Court, on a case in which property owners said the city made extraordinary efforts, through strict code enforcement, to condemn their properties.
The owners said reducing the amount of affordable housing for minorities violated the federal Fair Housing Act -- by what is known as "disparate impact."
Perez appeared to think the Supreme Court overturning the case would have been a severe blow to civil rights enforcement, the report concluded.
The "disparate impact" provision, which the report described as legally questionable, prohibits housing policies that end up discriminating against certain groups even if those policies are not blatantly discriminatory.
"Perez sought, facilitated, and consummated this deal because he feared that the Court would find disparate impact unsupported by the text of the Fair Housing Act," the report said.
The other end of the alleged deal was for the Justice Department not to get involved in cases against the city of St. Paul that alleged the city received millions in Department of Housing and Urban Development funds -- including stimulus money -- but failed to file the requisite paperwork regarding the hiring of low-income workers.
In that case, which also involved the city of Minneapolis, plaintiff Thomas Newell got neither the backing of the agency nor the Justice Department and lost the case, which if won would likely have resulted in the cities repaying tens of millions in damages.
The Obama administration has acknowledged that senior Justice Department attorneys recommended intervening in the case and characterized the False Claims Act infractions reported by Newell as "particularly egregious."
However, they thought the case would be "quite weak and never should have been a serious candidate for intervention," according to the report.
The Justice Department claims everything was above board -- and that the department held three staff briefings, heard 24 hours of additional testimony and reviewed 1,400 pages of documents before deciding not to intervene.
"The litigation decisions made by the Department were in the best interests of the United States and were consistent with the Department's legal, ethical, and professional responsibility obligations," the department said in a statement.
Former Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler also questioned the use of the term "quid pro quo" to describe what happened.
"It's such a loaded term," she said. "I think in fact you have almost everybody agreeing nothing inappropriate happened."
The report -- subtitled "How Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez manipulated Justice and Ignored Rule of Law" -- was a joint effort by minority leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Republican-led House's Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform committees.
"The facts surrounding this quid pro quo show that Perez may have exceeded the scope of the ethics and professional-responsibility opinions he received from the Department and thereby violated his duties of loyalty and confidentiality to the United States. Perez also misled senior Justice Department officials about the quid pro quo," the report states.
But congressional Democrats put out a statement and memo of their own late Sunday refuting the details.
The statement said the "overwhelming evidence" indicates Perez and others "acted professionally to advance the interests of civil rights and effectively combat the scourge of discrimination in housing." They said the decision not to intervene in the suit against St. Paul was based on expert recommendations.
"Instead of identifying inappropriate conduct by Mr. Perez, it appears that the accusations against him are part of a broader political campaign to undermine the legal safeguards against discrimination that Mr. Perez was protecting," they said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/15/labor-secretary-nominee-accused-quid-pro-quo-deal/#ixzz2QXtkIMOw