Missouri Legislature to Puppies: Drop Dead

The Republican Party in microcosm, via Balloon Juice — last November the voters of Missouri passed (with 52 percent of the vote) a referendum called the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, which established humane standards for dog breeding operations. The state had become known as the “puppy mill capital” because its lax and ambiguous laws allowed breeders to get away with horrendously substandard care.

The act requires that adult dogs be given a reasonable amount of space and shelter; it outlaws stacked cages with wire floors; it requires that dogs be fed at least once a day and have access to water at all times; it requires that each dog be seen by a vet at least once a year; it limits litters per dog to 2 within 18 months; it requires that euthanasia be performed by a vet. It also limits the number of adult breeding dogs that any person can possess to 50.

Unfortunately, voters also elected a pack of wingnut teabaggers to serve in the state legislature. And guess what? They’re tripping all over themselves in a mad rush to overturn the puppy mill regulations. Because, you know, Missouri doesn’t have any other problems that need attention.

People opposed to the “puppy mill” regulations called it big government run wild and even a step toward communism. Apparently the Daily Show featured one of the anti-regulation activists last year —

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Big Red Dogs
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

Yes, the anti-regulation teabagger interviewed here really did explain that she is opposed to breeder regulations because “They’re expecting all the breeders to sit there and pay for exorbitant amounts of care that are not needed, like adequate food, adequate water, adequate space.”

A revised bill that already came out of committee eliminates the 50-dog limit and the provisions for providing space adequate for dogs to move — turn around, stretch, etc. — plus access to daily exercise. This is “unreasonable government regulation” to these people.

And if we want to talk about “big government,” why is it not “big government” for the legislature to ignore the referendum vote? See “Voters as Nuisances” at St. Louis Today

Missouri’s state representatives and senators, after all, slog away for four long months a year (part-time, with a 10-day spring break), making the tough decisions about which bills written by which lobbyists they should pass.

But every now and then, some nervy Missourians get it into their heads to read the part of the state constitution about how to make laws without the Legislature. When they succeed, legislators then have to hole up with more lobbyists to figure out the best way to nullify the laws that the people passed without them.

As I understand it, state law does allow the legislature to repeal or amend voter initiated statutes. But it seems that the Missouri legislature has been doing this a lot, and not just to the puppy mill law. The state might save itself some money by abolishing the legislature altogether and just letting the lobbyists run things, which is pretty much how it works anyway. Legislators are just the middlemen.

With the coveted title of Puppy Mill Capital of America at stake, a House committee this week has been considering ways to cancel the election results. One proposal simply would repeal the law. Another would exempt existing breeders. A third course, warmly received by many committee members on Tuesday, would eliminate such pesky provisions of the law as prohibiting dangerous overcrowding in cages, protecting dogs from bad weather and providing them veterinary care when needed.

Opponents of the law insist that city folk don’t understand the livestock business and voted for the bill in ignorance. Some legislators regard the law as part of a plot masterminded by the Humane Society of the United States, a national group that provided $2 million for the Proposition B campaign. “The purpose of these groups is to keep us from eating any meat,” said Rep. Ed Schieffer, D-Troy.

It’s our understanding that Missouri breeders are raising dogs to be sold as pets, not food.

Given the depravity of some dog breeders, I wouldn’t be too sure.

Egypt Meltdown

Matters in Egypt seem to be coming to a head. My impression is that within the next few hours Mubarak will either have to crack down hard with martial law or leave the country. According to Salon, the White House has signaled it would prefer the latter. But there are new reports that the army is siding with Mubarak. At the moment, it doesn’t seem that Mubarak is leaving.

A writer for Forbes says that what a majority of Egyptians want is not a western-style democracy, the tender hopes of the NRO staff notwithstanding, but some form of Islamic theocracy.

Egyptian values, in other words, are far from liberal—even if some of the protesters currently out in the streets might be. This, of course, runs counter to the idea that has taken hold in many quarters: that the end of the Mubarak era will inexorably lead to democracy in the heart of the Arab world. But numbers don’t lie; Egyptian society as a whole is both religious and deeply conservative.

Israel probably has good reason to be worried. And there’s no question that if Mubarak goes, the extremist teabagger Right in the U.S. will howl that Obama “lost Egypt.” But if there’s one thing I wish people would learn, it is that the U.S. can’t control what goes on in another country. And propping up pro-western dictators because the alternative seems worse always seems to backfire in the long run.

Foreign Policy Is Hard

The majority of potential 2012 presidential GOP candidates continue to avoid making statements on the uprising in Egypt.

When surveyed by POLITICO Tuesday to ask how each would handle the situation, whether Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak should step down now and if the U.S. should cut off foreign aid to his government, representatives of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal did not respond to requests for comment.

Of course, as I wrote a couple of days ago, Palin did comment that she hoped the news media wouldn’t blame her for whatever is going on in Egypt, and Mitch Daniels told Laura Ingraham that he was just a li’l ol’ country guvner and couldn’t be expected to know nothin’ ’bout no Egypt.

Politico also tells us that Newt Gingrich continues to speak out against whatever Barack Obama is doing, although it’s still not clear to me what Newt would do if he were president (shudder). Gingrich does say that he would study what Ronald Reagan did, because Reagan was right and Jimmy Carter was wrong.

I wish someone would tie Newt down and say, pretend YOU were elected in 2010. Barack Obama is in the Senate. There is no one else to blame. WHAT WOULD YOU DO? Hosni Mubarak is on the phone. WHAT WOULD YOU TELL HIM? I would bet money that Newt couldn’t give a straight answer and would just fall back on bashing President Obama.

Ron Paul wants to cut off foreign aid to Egypt. Paul wants to cut off foreign aid to the whole Middle East, in fact. And yeah, that’s Ron, not Rand.

Rick Santorum complained that the Obama Administration is “not up to speed” on Egypt, but that he has superior military and national security experience (yeah, I hear you giggling out there) and would handle it better, because he “knows the players.” But nothing else he said indicates that he would do anything radically different from what the Obama Administration is doing.

As already reported here, Tim Pawlenty thinks Mubarak should go, and Mike Huckabee thinks Mubarak should stay. Haley Barbour will be traveling to Israel soon, but still hasn’t made a statement on Egypt that I can find.

Elsewhere — Jeffrey Goldberg notes what I’ve been saying for a couple of days — the neocons and Israel are on opposite sides of the Egyptian situation. Heh.

The Egyptian Uprising Continues, and So Does the Obama Bashing

The neocons at National Review Online have been bashing Obama for siding with Mubarak against the protesters, and now Israel is bashing Obama for siding with the protesters against Mubarak. (NRO also has been bashing Obama for not taking sides at all; but one good bash is as good as another.)

However, the consensus on the Right seems to be forming around the Pam Geller view that the Muslim Brotherhood is behind the protests and will end up in control of Egypt. Fox News originally muted its coverage of the uprising, but more recently it has swung into full Islamophobe mode.

This has left NRO out on a limb, since the neocons there originally viewed the uprising as the natural and glorious consequence of George W. Bush’s resolute leadership and Condi Rice’s calls for freedom. So now Rich Lowry is calling the uprising “ambiguous.” It may not turn out well, Lowry admits. But you can tell his heart is still with the uprising. Toward the end, he even calls the uprising an “Arab spring.”

But for once, Lowry may be in the ball park of actuality, or at least in the parking lot. It’s a very ambiguous situation. It’s anyone’s guess how this will shake out.

Update to one of yesterday’s posts: Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty have now spoken out on Egypt, and have firmly taken sides against the Obama Administration. They faulted the Obama Administration for not clearly standing either with Mubarak or the uprising.

However, it’s not clear where Newt stands, except that he doesn’t like the Muslim Brotherhood. Bold stand, that. Pawlenty was a little more firm, saying that Mubarak should step down.

And Mitt has spoken out against Mubarak, which probably won’t help him with the teabagger base. (h/t Airedale Lady)