I actually think that's fine. If LA is so committed to this break off all contracts with AZ thing, they should at least be consistent. Unless it isn't a matter of principle at all. It goes both ways. LA makes and effort to hurt AZ in protest, why shouldn't AZ make an effort to do the same to LA to protest their protest? Why is one OK but the other isn't?

He has a point, if LA wants to boycott, only doing the more symbolic stuff is kind of a pussy way out.

Apparently LA is not actually boycotting Arizona, they're just getting rid of some of the fluff.

But if they go ahead and cut off the power (they won't) it would make for a great new PR angle for the AZ immigration law. They could then call it an energy reform law. By trimming LA's electricity use by 25% they'll have done more for the environment than the Audobon Society.

This may have been spin, but from what I understood there wasn't much more that the council had the legal authority to do.

That may be, but then the appropriate response (it seems to me) would now be "we'd like to thank the kind gentleman from Arizona for helping us out of a commitment we didn't have the actual authority to end. Now, about the water..."

I've read over the details of the Sestak thing a half dozen times and I can't for the life of me parse out what's supposed to be so wrong about what was offered.

Not even a job. An unpaid position on an advisory panel. It was, "Hey, we think the party would be better served with you in this position over here rather than in the Senate. Take it or leave it." Big effing deal.

There's nothing on LoT about the House voting to repeal DADT?

Gay thread.

Keep in mind, even if this makes it all the way through, it still doesn't actually repeal anything. It remains in limbo until the President and military say they're ready.