Do the Republicans really think "arrogant snit" is a viable political position?

Picture from the R blog Sonoran Alliance


A new group advocating for the interests of Arizona's taxpayers has formed, and damn, are the Republicans pissed.

Sonoran Alliance has a press release up from the Arizona chapter of the industry front group Americans for Prosperity in which AFP announces a press conference on Friday and decries the new group as "fake" and "so-called"...

ICArizona (aka the Goldwater Institute's press release webpage) has the same piece up also touting the press conference on Friday.  And calling the new group "fake" and "so-called"...

Greg at Espresso Pundit was more original, but also went completely over the top - he equated the new group to the faux-Green candidates that the Rs recruited for a number of close races to fool voters who might otherwise vote Democrats.

This must be a pretty dastardly group to rouse the ire of such steadfast and proper defenders of corporate profit margins *decent Americans.*  Who could be behind such a devious group?

Democrats.

Seriously, their biggest complaint is that the group Arizona Taxpayers Association is headed by Democrats.

Apparently, they are deeply offended by the mere idea that anyone other than them could dare to speak for Arizona taxpayers.

Even though Patterson, Sonoran Alliance, the Goldwater Institute, and Americans for Prosperity don't actually care about Arizona's taxpayers, their families, their communities or the state as a whole.

BTW - the only way that the "fake" finger-pointing or the analogy to the faux-Green candidates would work is if the people behind the Arizona Taxpayers Association do not now and have never paid any taxes.

Patterson et. al. have presented no evidence to that effect, nor do I expect them to ever present independently verifiable evidence to that effect.

Manny Cruz calls for Joe Hart to resign for fraud

Manuel Cruz, candidate for Arizona State Mine Inspector, announced this morning that he had filed a complaint with Attorney General Terry Goddard against incumbent state mine inspector Joe Hart for illegally assuming office in 2006.

Cruz presented evidence that Joe Hart did not have the required four years of underground mining experience when he signed a sworn affidavit attesting to his qualification for the office in 2006. “I am calling upon Joe Hart to resign from office immediately and suspend his reelection campaign,” said Cruz.


In 2006, the requirements for the job of mine inspector included a provision that candidates for/holders of the office have at least four years of underground mining experience, something that Hart never even claimed to have.  The mining experience that Hart took an oath swearing that he had was all with a surface mining company.

This year, Hart's former colleagues in the Arizona legislature passed an industry-lobbyist-written bill to lower the qualifications threshold for the office, slipping the new language into an "omnibus" mining bill, HB2617.  In that bill, they removed the requirement that the mine inspector have any experience in underground mining.

Besides being a tool for the mining industry in a job that was created specifically to ensure the safety of miners, Hart didn't even meet the basic qualifications for the position when he first ran for it.  No one noticed in 2006, when the only people running for the job were Republicans. 

It's no coincidence that the people who were most supportive of the lower qualifications threshold were the mining industry lobbyists who have benefited the most from Hart's apparently fraudulent hold on the office (the videos of the committee meetings on the bill can be found at the bottom of this page).


More information about Manuel Cruz, his background, and his candidacy can be found on his website.

AZ Republic endorsements

The Republic has started issuing its general election endorsements.

...The contest for the five open seats on the board of the directors of the Central Arizona Project, aka Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) on the ballot, covered in an article published Tuesday.

From the article (links added by me) -

From an airplane, you can easily see what voters might not realize on the ground: The contest for five seats on the Central Arizona Water Conservation District board of directors will have an enormous impact on our future.

The 15-member board oversees our supply of water from the Colorado River, delivered through the Central Arizona Project canal that so vividly cuts through the desert to reach the Phoenix and Tucson areas.

But a slate of candidates with narrow, short-term goals is threatening the long-term stability of our water supplies. They aim to shrink the water conservation district's role so drastically that it will be unable to do vital analysis and long-range planning. What a disaster for a desert state.

{snip}

Current board member Tim Bray, a Scottsdale water consultant, is thoroughly versed in the wide range of issues, from finding supplies to assisting rural areas (in the long-term self-interest of cities), that must be addressed.

Former Phoenix City Manager Frank Fairbanks offers the perspective of municipal water users, along with a track record of working cooperatively on complex problems.

Jim Holway of Phoenix has extensive experience in water management, including nine years as assistant director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. His involvement in land and conservation issues would add depth to the board.

Engineer Arif Kazmi of Chandler would bring welcome technical knowledge of water delivery.

As former general manager of CAP, Sid Wilson knows its complete inner workings and the practical implications of policy decisions.

I definitely agree with the endorsements of Kazmi and Holway - they've got the kind of "real-world" experience in handling water resources that the board sorely needs.  As for the others, I don't have any serious issues with their candidacies, but haven't done a lot of research on the rest of the candidates as yet.

Another thing in the article that I definitely agree with is the sentiment that concluded the article (emphasis mine) -

The stakes are higher than ever. A shortsighted, rigid, ideological approach is truly dangerous to our long-term water supplies. Voters should put candidates with vision on CAP's board of directors.

Voters should apply that sentiment when voting for all offices, not just CAWCD.  Arizona's future is depending on it.


As more major endorsements roll in, I'll discuss them here.

Later...

Hypocrisy, thy name is Brewer

Yes, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of examples to choose from to support the headline.  I'm going to go with the most recent example...

From the Arizona Republic (emphasis mine) -

Gov. Jan Brewer and the director of Science Foundation Arizona this morning told assembled scientists from around the world that Arizona will become a center for research and production for algae fuels.

In announcing $4 million in grants and matching funds from government and industry, Brewer said the investment could produce billions of dollars for the state and millions of gallons of fuel.

{snip}

Brewer said the state will commit $2 million in discretionary federal stimulus to the research center, which will be matched by a like amount in industry investment marshalled by Arizona State University and the Science Foundation.

This is nothing new for Brewer - she has steadily opposed even the existence of any federal effort to stimulate the economy, but has repeatedly (and gleefully) claimed credit for doling out stimulus money that she has denounced.

Denounced everywhere except in her campaign's press releases.

More background on Brewer's two-faced approached to federal stimulus money here.

Edit to add:

Turns out great minds think alike, and greater minds do some deeper research.

From a press release from the Arizona Democratic Party, a list of examples of Brewer's crowing about doling out stimulus money that she opposes, from just since the beginning of August -

Last 6 weeks of Brewer press releases taking credit for job creation from stimulus funding:


Aug. 11 “Governor Jan Brewer and City of Surprise Welcome Rioglass Solar to Arizona” ($10.6 million)

Aug. 16 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Energy Innovation Grants” ($3.4 million)

Aug. 17 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Success in Obtaining College Access Challenge Grant to Aid Low-Income Students” ($2.9 million)

Aug. 17 “Governor Jan Brewer Hails Success in Securing Funding for Arizona Forest Restoration Initiative”  ($2 million)

Aug. 26 "Governor Jan Brewer Announces $2.7 Million in Grants for Renewable Energy Manufacturers" ($2.7 million)

Aug. 27 "Governor Jan Brewer Adds Funding Support for Public Safety" ($10 million)

Sept. 3 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Energy Awards for Rural Communities” ($2.7 million)

Sept. 8 “Governor Jan Brewer Establishes Rural Business Council Focused on Job Growth in Rural Areas”  ($2 million)

Sept. 13 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Economic Aid for Rural Counties” ($2.5 million)

Sept. 14 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Broadband Award” ($39.2 million)

Sept. 16 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Funding for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics”

($0.1 million)

Sept. 28 “Governor Jan Brewer Dedicates Funding to Advance Algae Technologies and Innovations” ($2 million)

Total: $80.1 million

End edit...

Oh, and assuming that the Rs retain control of the Arizona legislature after November's election, expect them to look for a way seize "sweep" Science Foundation Arizona's funds in a "budget-balancing" move.  They've attacked SFAz before and will do so again until they are successful in finding a way to destroy it.

No matter how foolish their actions, pushing an ideology trumps serving the public for these folks, from Brewer on down.

Apathy: Arizona's real third party

...and unfortunately for Arizona, it may have more adherents than any of the more formally organized political parties.  In a reality where most people by necessity have to focus on day-to-day "trivialities" like keeping a roof over their heads and finding adequate health care for their families, most don't have the available time and energy for public service.


A week-and-a-half ago, I wrote a post detailing how a number of fire district boards in Maricopa County had their elections cancelled due to a lack of competition or a lack of candidates.  Out of 17 boards on the ballot this year, 11 saw their elections cancelled.  Two districts had no candidates at all, while five of the others had a few candidates, but an insufficient number to fill out the board.  Those seats will be declared vacant and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will appoint people to fill them (I think)

In addition, the elections for two seats on the Maricopa County Special Health Care District (aka - board of directors of the Maricopa Medical Center and the county health clinics) were cancelled because there is only one candidate for each seat.

Now, the Arizona Republic has published a story highlighting how more than half of all school board races in the county have been cancelled for the same reason.

From the article -

School-board elections were canceled in 32 of the 57 Maricopa County school districts because dozens of races had no candidates or competition for open seats.

For districts, the move means about $547,000 in savings at a time when schools are counting every penny. But the lack of interest in board service reflects a trend across the state.

Once again, most school-board candidates in the Valley have been appointed, rather than elected in November.

According to the Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools' website, as a result of the lack of interest, 54 school board candidates will skip the election and be appointed to the positions they seek, while 12 other seats will be declared vacant and be appointed by the Superintendent at a later date.

Note: a complete list of school board candidates is here.

I actually understand the dearth of candidates for some of the fire boards.  Many of them cover the odd parcels of land within Maricopa County that are surrounded by cities but aren't actually incorporated into any of them.  They generally don't have many people in them,  much less people who are interested in a very low-profile elected office.

School boards, however, affect everyone.

Right now, there is a lot of focus on Arizona's malfunctioning education system and a lot of interest in blaming teachers and adminstrators and students and parents for the problems.  Personally, I blame a majority caucus in the state legislature that is more interested in siphoning public money into corporate coffers than in doing their real jobs, but I digress...

What there isn't enough of is people interested in actually working to fix the problems.

School board members put in a lot of time and effort and take a lot of criticism from people because regardless of what they do, they tick off a significant number of people.

It's the kind of job that receives no pay and little thanks, and thanks to the legislature, insufficient resources to do the job well or even adequately.

And when people grow ever more frustrated with what seems to be an unwinnable fight (improving schools in their neighborhoods and state), more will just throw up their hands in frustration and stop caring.

Look for a growing number of cancelled school board elections in each successive election cycle.

Glassman-McCain debate -

OK, the debate included the Libertarian candidate (David Nolan) and the Green candidate (Jerry Joslyn), but the featured players were Democrat Rodney Glassman and Republican John McCain.

I'll do a full recap when the video archive is posted (either on Glassman's campaign website or on KTVK's), but I can give a summary now -

Glassman did well, but I don't think he landed a knockout blow.

Republicans will still vote for McCain and Democrats will still vote for Glassman.  Glassman may have moved a few independent voters, but he's going to need more than a "few" to pull off the upset of the year in politics.

Best line of the night:

"If we want to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we need to reduce the number of our senators dependend on fossil fuel contributions." - Rodney Glassman

Most awkward moment of the night:

When asked to describe his legislative legacy when compared to great Arizona senators of yore like Carl Hayden (Central Arizona Project) and Ernest McFarland (original GI Bill).

McCain's response -

His "reputation."


That answer may be one of the most completely honest things that McCain said during the entire debate.

He has no actual accomplishments anymore.  He had a few things that he could point to, but in his quest to move far enough right to win the GOP presidential nomination in 2008 and to turn back the challenge of JD Hayworth this year, he has turned his back on everything good he has ever done in D.C. (McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, DREAM Act sponsorship, etc.)

He can't point to work on bringing projects to Arizona - that would be out of character for his "anti-earmark" persona.  Hell, Rick Renzi (Rick freakin' Renzi!) did a better job of that (projects on the Navajo reservation were the main reason he could win re-election in a D-leaning district.)

He can't point to his success fighting earmarks and out-of-control federal spending - earmarks are still around (full disclosure: I don't think that all earmarks are bad, but they should be for public works projects and should be completely transparent) and the U.S. has waged two fantastically expensive off-the-books wars with his enthusiastic support.  Hell, Jeff Flake has been more effective on earmarks than the far more senior McCain, and Flake has had almost no success on the issue.

He can't even point to work on veterans' issues - other than occasionally employing a few for campaign ads, he has done nothing for veterans, despite being one himself (a fact that he always points out, while blithely ignoring his lack of effort on behalf of his fellow vets).  Hell, Harry Mitchell has done more for America's (and Arizona's) veterans in four years than McCain has done in nearly three decades in D.C.

Still, Glassman didn't do as well as he could have, or will need to, in order to defeat McCain.

Still2, McCain didn't put away Glassman.  After the primary debate, Hayworth was toast.  However, Glassman held his own Sunday night.  The next five or so weeks should be very interesting.


My friend Eric summed it up best when he wrote on Facebook that Glassman needs to run as McCain2K against McCain2K10.


John McCain circa 2000 was somebody people could respect and even vote for while disagreeing with him on specific issues.

John McCain circa 2010 looks more like a tired reactionary hack than the energetic maverick that he was just 10 years ago.


OK.  That really was more a recap than the short comment that I had started writing.  It took so long that KTVK has already posted its story on the debate, complete with links to the video.

It took so long that Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion has already posted twice on the debate, here and here.

Later...

Candidate Debates for the week ending October 3, 2010

Most of the following info is from the Clean Elections website...

No CE-sponsored debates for statewide candidates this week.


Legislative debates -

LD4
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
6:00 PM
Windmill Suites at Sun City West
12545 W Bell Road
Surprise, AZ 85374

LD29
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
6:00 PM
Pima Community College District Office
Community Room
4905 E Broadway
Tucson, AZ



LD24

Wednesday, September 29, 2010
6:00 PM
Hampton Inn & Suites
600 E 16th Street
Yuma, AZ 85365

LD30
September 30, 2010
6:00 PM
Pima Community College
East Campus Community Room
8181 E Irvington
Tucson, AZ



LD12

Thursday, September 30, 2010
6:00 PM
Hampton Inn and Suite
2000 N Litchfield Road
Goodyear, AZ 85395


Scottsdale City Council candidate debate:

Arizona Republic City Council Debates
Monday, September 27, 2010
6:00 p.m.

City Hall Kiva Forum
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd.

And the big one of the week, even though it will take place on Sunday, September 26 (before the "week" in this post begins):

U.S. Senate debate. featuring Rodney Glassman, Democratic nominee, and John McCain, Republican incumbent

6 p.m.
Broadcast on KTVK (Phoenix channel 3) and KTTU (Tucson channel 18), carried on cable in Yuma, and livestreamed on AZFamily.com

Should be fun, though probably not quite as popcorn-worthy as the debate between McCain and Hayworth in the R primary.

Later...

Warning: If you have a child on AZ's KidsCare, don't apply for AHCCCS

I don't often agree with Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic, but her columns are usually thought -provoking, and once in a while, she hits one out of the park.

From her latest piece - 

Life hasn't been easy the last few years for Dianne and Patrick McKeen. Like many couples, they're struggling in this economy but they're managing.


They've learned to live without life's little luxuries, things like health insurance. Still, they count themselves fortunate. They, at least, were able to buy their daughter health-care coverage through KidsCare.

Then Dianne got sick this summer and along came the state of Arizona with nine of the most terrifying words in the English language: We're from the government and we're here to help.

Now 7-year-old Sierra McKeen is about to be kicked to the health-care curb.

{snip}

On the day of her release from the hospital, Dianne got a letter saying she'd been approved for AHCCCS, under a “spend-down” program that takes into account your medical bills.


What no one told her -- until it was too late, that is -- was that her stint on AHCCCS would be temporary … and that once she was on AHCCCS, her family would also be put on AHCCCS … and that once Sierra was on AHCCCS, she'd be taken off of KidsCare … and that once their AHCCCS expired, Sierra would have to go onto a waiting list to get back onto KidsCare.

They also didn't mention that the term ‘waiting list' is a tad misleading because it's a wait that never ends. By decree of the Arizona Legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer, KidsCare is frozen.

Just to back up what Roberts wrote, from the main page of KidsCare's website -

KidsCare Program Changes


The KidsCare Office is unable to approve any new applications. Enrollment in the KidsCare Program has been frozen since January 1, 2010 due to lack of funding for the program, however, you can still apply. DES will review your application first, to determine if your family may be eligible for AHCCCS Health Insurance. If your children are not eligible for AHCCCS Health Insurance, but it appears they may be eligible for KidsCare, and you are willing to pay a premium, DES will send their information to the KidsCare Office to add them to the KidsCare waiting list. The waiting list will be prioritized based on the date of the application. The oldest application date will be on the top of the list. If funding becomes available, the KidsCare Office will contact you.

Let me be clear here -

I think that most of the rank-and-file workers at the State of Arizona are people trying to serve the public the best that they can under extremely dire circumstances.  They should be lauded, and thanked, for their service to the people of Arizona...no matter how much the likes of Jan Brewer, Russell Pearce, and the rest of the R contingent at the Capitol like to demonize them.

However, temporarily enrolling a desperately ill woman into AHCCCS and using that as leverage to permanently remove a child from KidsCare is inexcusably shameless.

Period.

The tone-deafness of the Schweikert campaign continues: Palin supports Schweikert

And while some may take the following post as an argument that Schweikert shouldn't accept Palin's support, let me be clear - I think that they're a matched set.

Just not in a good way.  :)

From the Phoenix Business Journal -

Palin steps up campaign against Giffords, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell

Sarah Palin is picking up her online and fundraising efforts on behalf of three Republicans looking to unseat incumbent Arizona Democrats in November.

Palin is urging her supporters to get behind David Schweikert, Paul Gosar and Jesse Kelly in their bids against U.S. Reps. Harry Mitchell of Tempe, Ann Kirkpatrick of Flagstaff and Gabrielle Giffords of Tucson.

Palin has targeted 20 races nationwide where she wants to help Republican challengers.

Sarah Palin may actually be one of the national Republican/tea party figures best-suited to help Schweikert's campaign -

- She quit partway through her only term as governor of Alaska in order to pursue a more lucrative career as a public speaker and would-be Republican king- (or queen-)maker; Schweikert quit partway through his only term as Maricopa County Treasurer in order to pursue a more lucrative career as a Club for Growth-financed candidate for Congress.

- Her partial term as governor was one beset by scandals and ethics complaints; Schweikert's partial term as treasurer was characterized by professionalism and ethics issues, too.

- Her investments include (or perhaps "included", some sources indicate that she divested from them - after people noticed and started asking her about them) making money off of the misery in the Sudan; Schweikert makes money off of the misery of Valley homeowners who are underwater with their mortgages.


To sum up: 

Palin and Schweikert are more focused on their personal careers and enrichment than on public service.

Palin and Schweikert go through life relatively free of the burdens of professionalism and integrity.

And Palin and Schweikert are ruthless in their acquisition of personal wealth.


Yup.  They're perfect for each other.

Vote for Harry Mitchell for Congress.

Later...

Schweikert campaign dusting off old tricks and gimmicks

Perhaps feeling the heat from the success of the recent video released by Harry Mitchell's campaign showing a number of Republicans from CD5 publicly expressing support for the Democratic incumbent, the Schweikert campaign has released its own video showing bipartisan supporters for their candidate.

...Well, make that bipartisan "supporter" (singular) because there is only one person in the video.

Anyway, when Mitchell first ran for Congress in 2006, a similar group of Republicans stepped forward to support the Tempe icon, and then-Congressman JD Hayworth responded with a single Democratic supporter, Craig Columbus, the 2002 D nominee in CD5.  Columbus ran a high $ and ugly primary campaign while virtually rolling over in the general election.  He has been characterized by one long-time Democrat in the district (not me - his candidacy was before my time as an active Democrat) as a "Republican in everything but name."

The "Democrat" recruited by the Schweikert campaign is similarly suspect.  His name is Charlie Harrison, a noted gay rights activist and a self-proclaimed "very liberal" Democrat.

After that, however, his political activities and associations become a little murky.

In the 1990s, he was indicted for perjury as a result of his involvement in the infamous AZScam scandal (Phoenix New Times article here).  Maybe not the best person for Schweikert, with questions surrounding his own ethics, to associate with.

He has contributed money to various political candidates and causes over the last decade.  Some of the recipients of his largesse included long-time Latino activist Alfredo Gutierrez during his 2002 run for the D nomination for governor and a 2006 campaign against an anti-LGBT ballot question.  He's also contributed to Republicans Trent Franks, Roberta Voss, and Sue Gerard.  Voss and Gerard I can sort of understand - they're relatively moderate by the standards of the AZGOP.  But Franks?  Trent freakin' Franks???

More recently, he has been involved in a tiff with the U.S. Forest Service over some "recreational residences" in the Tonto National Forest near Carefree (AZ Republic background here; Phoenix New Times coverage here).  Some of his anger with Mitchell may stem from Harrison's inability to persuade any of AZ's delegation to influence the Forest Service to ignore federal law and its own rules regarding the cabins.  Harrison has also lobbied Franks and Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain to no avail on his pet issue.

However, he has targeted his public anger to the sole Democrat that he has contacted, Harry Mitchell, and has uttered nary a peep about the Republicans.

His association with Schweikert is curious, too. 

Schweikert is running as a generic Republican/tea party candidate espousing a platform that is anti-choice, anti-education, anti-social safety net and worse, yet Harrison supports Schweikert while refering to himself as a "liberal."

And he calls on other "liberals" to vote against "liberal" Harry Mitchell.


Umm...yeah.


Two points here -

1.  I am a liberal Democrat and proud of it.  Anybody who has read this blog knows that.  I am also a fan of Harry Mitchell and proud of it.  Anybody who has read this blog also knows that.  But I have to say, Harry Mitchell is no liberal. 

He's a career public servant.  Throughout his career, from his decades of teaching high school in Tempe to his terms in Congress representing CD5, he has focused on representing the best interests of the people he has served.  I may not have always agreed with some of his votes and positions, but have always had absolutely no doubt that he tries to do the right thing.

He isn't a liberal, but he is a decent man.  Instead of attacking Mitchell for that, Republicans (and liberal-on-one-issue folks like Harrison) should support him as an example of something that ALL elected officials should aspire to.

2. David Schweikert may be a decent man at heart (the jury is still out on that.  Vulture investing will do that), but he's no liberal, or even a moderate who would be acceptable because he is a decent public servant (using public office to give a no-bid contract to a friend will do that).


Harrison may proclaim himself to be a "very liberal Democrat" but the inconsistencies in his campaign contributions (Trent freakin' Franks???) and his support for a candidate who will actively work against him and the causes that he supports over a single personal grievance only speak to Harrison's naivete (a description of him from the New Times' piece on his involvement with AZScam).

Personally, I think he is being petty, but since I haven't met Harrison, I'll stick with the description of people who have met him.

Later...

CD5 a dead heat in the latest polling

From The Hill -

There's new evidence to support Democrats' claims that Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) is running a strong reelection campaign.


A new poll shows the two-term incumbent leading former Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert (R) — albeit by a single point.

Mitchell had 45 percent support to 44 percent for Schweikert, with 6 percent for Libertarian Nick Coons and 5 percent undecided, in an internal poll obtained by the Ballot Box.

With the usual caveats about internal polls, these latest numbers appear to be in line with what I've seen and heard anecdotally while walking, knocking, and talking in the district.

Compared to earlier polling (covered in the linked article), Schweikert's support (44% now vs. 46% then) has stagnated while Mitchell's has risen (45% now vs. 38% then).

At least some of this may be a bit of "blowback" in response to the Schweikert campaign's 60 Plus Association's carpetbombing of District TV screens with their anti-Mitchell TV spot. (I can't remember the last time I could watch an entire hour without seeing the spot at least twice).

People are just sick of the shameless attacks on Mitchell without Schweikert saying how he would be better for the district than Mitchell.

Oh, and more than a few have noticed that the guy who gives his pay raises to charity (Mitchell) is being criticized by the guy who has made a mint off of vulturing foreclosed homes, undercutting neighborhood standards, and serving eviction notices to a 12-year-old.

Schweikert is running as a generic Republican in a district as geographically compact and as familiar with Mitchell as AZ-CD5 and Schweikert has also developed a credibility problem.  It's still early, and he's got time to steer his campaign away from the shoals of electoral irrelevance, but early ballots drop in approximately two weeks. 

He's got that long to get it together, but that would mean deviating from the script handed to him from on high (GOP pooh-bahs like John "Tan Man" Boehner).  He's got some serious problems.

...It's 10:24 and there's that ad again (Channel 15).  Gotta love industries with cash to burn - local TV stations need the revenue.

Short Attention Span Musing: The "That's Just Republicans Being Republicans" Edition

...Terry Goddard (D), Jan Brewer (R) and Barry Hess (L) sat down with the Arizona Republic's editorial board to talk about their visions for Arizona.  Brewer's vision: cut education, health services, the Department of Economic Security, and anything else that benefits the working and middle classes while protecting tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy.

...Ken Bennett, the appointed Arizona Secretary of State, had pledged to not endorse (at the 14:25 mark in the video) any candidates in a race overseen by his office.  However, that pledge has gone by the wayside, as the man who will run the state's elections has endorsed fellow Republicans like Brenda Burns (Corporation Commission), Scott Bundgaard (LD4 State Senate) and Steve Pierce (LD1 State Senate).

FYI - Democratic nominee for Secretary of State Chris Deschene has pledged not to endorse candidates in elections that he would oversee as SOS, and has stuck by that pledge.

...Democratic nominee for Attorney General Felecia Rotellini has demanded an apology from Republican Tom Horne and his campaign for falsely claiming that Rotellini "has never tried a case in her entire life."  The Arizona Republic article linked to "demanded" indicates that Horne is now aware that Rotellini *has* tried cases before a jury, but hasn't backed down from his statement or issued an apology.  Why should he, when the lie serves his purposes better than the truth.

...Republican candidates all over the state have kept to the master plan of running and hiding from voters whenever possible.  The latest examples of this:  Russell Pearce blowing off the Clean Elections debate in LD18 on Monday and Kirk Adams and Justin Olson doing the same last week in LD19.  In both cases, the Republicans aren't running as Clean candidates and therefore don't have to participate in CE debates, but they aren't participating in other events that put them in the same places as their Democratic opponents and voters.

...Jan Brewer's "Arizona Commission on Privatization and Efficiency" has issued its first set of recommendations on which state services and operations can be given over to private vendors, and other "efficiency" measures, in order to save the state money.

The suggestions include:

Privatizing the state's email system
Selling state parks
Hiring private companies to manage highway rest areas (if the feds approve, not likely, but anything is possible)
Purchasing software that would allow State computers to be shut down remotely

The Commission includes a number of Republican Party/anti-government stalwarts.

Mark Brnovich, chair, current the Director of the Arizona Department of Gaming, and a former executive with a private prison company (Brewer just *loves* those guys, doesn't she?)

Chad Kirkpatrick, Director of the Government Information Technology Agency, and chair of the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers, the Arizona incarnation/affiliate of Americans for Prosperity, a corporate lobbying group

John Halikowski, Director of the Arizona Department of Transportation, a former legislative researcher working for the Republican caucus of the AZ lege.  He was instrumental in crafting legislation mandating privatization.  His bio indicates that he spent six years working in executive positions for MVD, and I'm not sure of this, but the math looks right for him to have worked there during Russell Pearce's corruption-laden administration of that agency. Will check into that...

Glenn Hamer, President and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, a former Executive Director of the Arizona Republican Party, and a man who has never seen a public service that shouldn't be privatized in a way that maximizes some corporation's profits (whether that corporation can deliver the service as well is irrelevant)

Leonard Gilroy, a senior staffer at something called "The Reason Foundation," an organization that claims to be an independent think tank dedicated to "free market" principles, but their dedication to "free" markets isn't free.  According to Sourcewatch, much of their funding comes from industry sources and extremists like the infamous Koch Brothers.

Stan Levine, a retired chemical company CEO and a senior member of Joe Arpaio's "posse"

There were a few more, but none who were there to represent the public interest.

With an assemblage like that, is it any wonder that they want to give state parks, which are supposed to be managed for the benefit of the people of Arizona, to private corporations to be managed for the benefit of those corporations?

It all looks like it's part of the GOP's game plan of running government into the ground (by refusing to actually govern responsibly by say, balancing the freakin' budget), and when government inevitably fails on their watch, use the failure that they've induced as an excuse to further sell off public assets to private groups.


Later...

Maybe the Cardinals should invest in QB or defensive secondary depth

...because after Sunday's blowout loss to Atlanta, it seems obvious that their weaknesses aren't because of people filling prescriptions for medical marijuana.

From The Phoenix Business Journal -

The Arizona Cardinals are opposing Proposition 203 which could make medical marijuana legal in the state and let chronically ill or severe pain patients buy small amounts of pot from state licensed clinics with a doctor’s approval.

The Cardinals gave $10,000 to Keep AZ Drug Free today, according to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office.

The "today" referenced in the quote is last Wednesday, September 15.

It's kind of hard to expect the Cards' players to be focused on doing the best possible job on the field when team ownership and management aren't focused on putting the best possible team on the field.

Firedoglake coverage here.

Prop. 111 appears to be the "least bad" of the lege-initiated ballot questions, but appearances can be deceiving

Wow.  The Arizona Legislature has found a way to turn what should have been the least problematical ballot question, the one that, if passed, would rename the office of the Secretary of State to the office of Lieutenant Governor, into the one most likely to get Arizona slapped around in federal court.

Yet again.

And that's an accomplishment, considering that the other measures foisted off on us by the legislature include an anti-affirmative action question (Prop. 107), an anti-health care reform question (Prop. 106), and an anti-union question (Prop. 113). 

However, dedicated ideologues that they are, they pulled it off.

The rationale for the measure is rooted in the fact that it's been nearly a quarter-century since Arizona had a governor who both entered and exited office as the result of an election.  Because of an impeachment (Evan Mecham), some felony convictions (Da Fifester) and a resignation to accept a promotion to D.C. (Janet Napolitano), three of Arizona's Secretarys of State have ascended to the Governor's office - Rose Mofford, Jane Hull, and Jan Brewer.

The supporters of the measure want to highlight to the public that the SOS is second in line for the ninth floor and want to accomplish that by changing the vote for SOS to a vote for Lt. Governor.  The actual day-to-day duties of the job wouldn't change.

They also wish to make sure that the Lt. Governor and the Governor are from the same party in order to avoid situations where the SOS was a member of a different party than that of the governor she replaced (Mofford was a D, she replaced R Mecham; Brewer is an R who replaced a D in Napolitano).

To be sure, there was some contention over the SOS/Lt. Governor measure, contention that crosses partisan lines - the limited opposition in the lege came from Rs, yet personally, I (a Democrat) don't support it. 

Regardless of the name of the office, the duties will still be that of a secretary of state, not a 'governor-in-waiting" and people should know what they are voting for.  It would have been better to create an actual office of lieutenant governor (not exactly a radical concept - most states have one) or to simply remind voters that AZ doesn't have a Lt. Governor and the line of succession should be one of the factors they consider when choosing an SOS.

There are other problems with the measure.  Robert Robb, a conservative columnist for the Arizona Republic, has pointed out that the language of Prop. 111 would effectively bar independent voters, those not affiliated with a specific recognized political party, from holding either office.

From Prop. 111 -

C. DURING THE PRIMARY ELECTION, CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR SHALL RUN FOR THAT OFFICE SEPARATELY FROM ANY CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. ON COMPLETION OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION, EACH NOMINEE FOR THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR SHALL RUN ON A TICKET AS A JOINT CANDIDATE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION WITH THE NOMINEE FOR THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR FROM THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY AS THE NOMINEE FOR GOVERNOR. AT THE GENERAL ELECTION, A SINGLE VOTE FOR A NOMINEE FOR GOVERNOR SHALL CONSTITUTE A VOTE FOR THAT NOMINEE'S TICKET, INCLUDING THE NOMINEE FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. FOR ANY WINNING CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR AT THE GENERAL ELECTION, THAT WINNING CANDIDATE'S JOINT CANDIDATE FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IS THE WINNING CANDIDATE FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.

Please note the repeated use of the word "shall."  The proposed language would make partisan affiliation for seekers of those two offices mandatory.

As Robb points out in his column, in the era of "disenchantment" with partisan politics, it's probably not the brightest idea to been seen as actively disenfranchising non-affiliated office seekers.

Something else hasn't been pointed out, at least not anywhere that I've yet seen - Arizona is one of the states still subject to the "preclearance" provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 in regard to anything that affects election practices or procedures.

Before any changes to such practices and procedures can go into effect, the changes have to be examined and approved by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

And as something that restricts the pool of candidates eligible to hold the office that oversees the conduct of elections, this definitely seems to qualify for DOJ examination under the Voting Rights Act.

A couple of conversations with people who are a lot more familiar with this area than me seems to bear this out, but the DOJ cannot and will not step in until and unless Prop. 111 is passed by the voters (until then, officially, they have nothing to consider).

Supporters of the measure acknowledge that there are problems, but feel that they can be corrected with bills passed by the legislature.

Perhaps some of the issues could be so corrected, but the actual language of a voter-approved amendment to the AZ Constitution cannot be touched by the legislature.  Period.

The state's Republicans like to gripe about Arizona's inclusion on the list of states subject to "preclearance," but moves like this only serve to ensure that Arizona will remain on the list for the foreseeable future.

Updates as more info becomes available...

Brewer campaign script: Plan A - Lie; Plan B - Run and Hide. Plan C: When Plan B stops working, return to Plan A.

Early this year, Jan Brewer and her quest for an elected term as governor were in trouble.

Deep-pocketed Republican challengers were swamping her in her primary race, and early polling had Terry Goddard defeating her in the general election.

Then Russell Pearce's SB1070 came along, and Brewer's campaign righted itself with Plan A. 

She focused on selling that nativist measure to the Republican base, using stereotypes, extremist rhetoric, and outright lies.

The bill, and her success inciting "energizing" her base forced most of the other R gubernatorial candidates to withdraw from the race.

In addition, polls taken shortly after the primary showed her with a comfortable (~20%) lead over the Democratic nominee for governor, Terry Goddard.

Then came The Debate.

After the brain freeze that will never go away, the grammatical gaffes ("we has did"), and the frantic retreat from the media after the debate, her handlers refused to allow her anywhere near a situation that isn't totally in their control.

That marked the beginning of Plan B.

Run and hide Brewer and her weaknesses until November, and everybody would keep their jobs (and the revenue streams for their real "former" employers).

Then came word on Monday of new polling that shows Goddard has seriously closed on Brewer.

It's become obvious, even to those who have their heads buried in the sand at the bottom of the deepest underground bunker in the state (which has been made to look a *lot* like the 9th floor of the Executive Tower), that running and hiding is no longer a viable plan.

Instead of adapting to the changed circumstances (something that might just involve cranio-rectal dislodgement surgery), they've chosen to go back to Plan A.

Stereotypes, extremist rhetoric, and lies.

From an interview with Jorge Ramos of Univision, via Huffington Post -

RAMOS: But you understand people were upset that you said that the majority of undocumented immigrants were drug mules when in reality they are not. The majority are not.


BREWER: Well, if you know; if you are coming across with the drug cartels, and you're hauling drugs, then you are. And they're probably not doing it willingly; they are probably not doing it willingly.

RAMOS: Do you still believe the majority are drug mules? The majority of undocumented immigrants are bringing drugs to this country?

BREWER: I think that it has increased. I think that it has increased.

If The Debate was Brewer's "Brain Fart" moment, this could well be her "doubling down on a pair of 8s when Goddard is showing a 10" moment.

We'll know in November if her ploy is effective.

Later...

Fact Checking the Arizona Republic

Wherein I have the opportunity to correct one (or more) career journalists on the facts...

One of the advantages of doing this is that I've learned a *lot* about the technical aspects of Arizona politics.  Probably not as much as if I had been a student in one of Harry Mitchell's civics classes at Tempe High, but I've learned enough to actually help out Capitol tour guides on at least one occasion at the legislature.

So my eyebrows raised a little on Sunday when I read this passage from the Arizona Republic's Political Insider column -

Brewer may not have a second in command, but Secretary of State Ken Bennett seems to think he is capable of filling the job.

The "No. 2 spot," as Bennett described his office this week, would get a more powerful title if voters pass Proposition 111. The Nov. 2 ballot measure would essentially eliminate the office of secretary of state, transferring its duties to a newly created lieutenant-governor position.

Bennett said he won't take a stance on propositions that are under his watch as Arizona's current secretary of state, but he supports any "concept" that would make it clear that a vote for secretary of state could be a de facto vote for governor.

During an interview on Wednesday with The Arizona Republic's Editorial Board, Bennett said voters need a reminder that the position he holds is first in line to take over if Arizona's governor dies, resigns or, say, is recruited by the president to be the head of U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

When Brewer, Arizona's former secretary of state, took over for Janet Napolitano, Brewer appointed Bennett to her old job. Now, he is asking voters to elect him as secretary of state over challenger Chris Deschene, D-Window Rock. If he wins, and Prop. 111 passes, voters will be calling him Lt. Gov. Bennett.

Ummm...not-so-minor problem with that last paragraph - if Bennett wins in November, it's highly unlikely that anyone will *ever* refer to him as "Lt. Gov. Bennett."

Even if Prop. 111 passes (far from guaranteed) and survives some inevitable legal challenges (not likely, but more on that tomorrow or Tuesday after I make some phone calls), it won't go into effect until the 2014 cycle.

At that point, if Bennett wins this year, he'll be termed-out as Secretary of State and will be barred from running for the newly-renamed office. 

There *are* a couple of scenarios where Bennett could run for a possible Lt. Governorship.

1. He could lose this year (I like this one - vote Deschene!) and choose to run for it in 2014.

2. He could win this year, serve out the term, take a full term off to reset the term limits clock, and then run for the office again in 2018.

These two scenarios seem highly unlikely.  Regardless of this year's results in the SOS race, if Bennett runs for a statewide office in 2014, it will probably be for Governor.

- If Terry Goddard wins the November election for Governor, look for Bennett, Dean Martin, and one or two other R "big names" to look at challenging him in 2014.

- If Jan Brewer wins in November, she'll be termed-out in 2014 and the race will be for an open seat, and again, Bennett would be in the mix of Rs looking at the seat.

Adding to that is the fact that Bennett is both young enough (~50) and far enough up in Arizona's political food chain that he is still on the "up or out" political trajectory.  Taking a term off and then running for an office he has already held would be seen as the end of the "ascendancy" portion of his career and serve to reduce his credibility as a candidate overall.

Put it all together and neither Bennett nor Deschene (whichever one wins in November) will be referred to as "Lieutenant Governor" after the election, and Bennett will likely never run for that particular office in the event Prop. 111 passes the voters.


More on Prop. 111 later this week...

Arizona's descent in "Third World" social and economic status continues

Let's see, after generations of Republican control of the legislature...

- Arizona has one of the most overcrowded and underfunded education systems in the country (more here and here)...

- Arizona has a literacy rate below the U.S. national average...which is already below that of places like Samoa, Mongolia, and Uzbekistan...

- Arizona now has the 2nd highest percentage of its population living in poverty in the United States...but hey, at least we're ahead of Mississippi!...

- Arizona has the third-highest teen pregnancy rate in the U.S...

On top of all this (and more.  I could have done this for hours) comes the latest news of the state's epic failure of leadership.

From an Arizona Republic article -

Worries about Arizona's economic future led a financial-services company this month to downgrade the state's debt rating, which could make it more expensive for the government to borrow money.

Moody's Investors Service lowered the state's debt rating from Aa2 to Aa3, citing the state's economic weakness, budget deficit and reliance on non-recurring revenue sources such as selling off and leasing back state buildings.

Hmmm... the state's "economic weakness, budget deficit" and the accounting sleight-of-hand used to "balance" the budget have led to skeptical views of the state's ability to meet its financial obligations?


No wonder Jan Brewer is running only on her "demonize Mexicans" campaign plank and Republicans all over the state are running away from direct debates with any ballot opponents.


BTW - While Arizona *is* ahead of Mississippi in terms of poverty rate, Mississippi is ahead of AZ in terms of credit rating.

Jan Brewer and failed leadership: This week's lession

Jan Brewer has staked out "border security" and immigration as her signature issue during her campaign for a full term as governor of Arizona, hence her now-infamous signing of SB1070.

She hasn't anything substantial on the matter (even SB1070 turns out to have been somewhat unconstitutional), but her speeches on the subject have been paragons of bluster and bloviating, which was likely the real purpose of the whole "sign SB1070"/"embrace the nativists" two-step.

And when she has the chance to engage is something a little more substantial than speeches as local Republican organizations, well, she doesn't.

From the Arizona Republic -

Brewer not at U.S, Mexico governors meeting

SANTA FE, N.M. - U.S. and Mexican border governors are gathering in Santa Fe to focus on border security, economic development and energy.

Gov. Bill Richardson and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are co-hosting the event scheduled to begin Sunday.

{snip}

The governors of Arizona and Texas have said they will not attend.

Contrary to the rumor circulating around the internet (a rumor that I may be starting right now :) ), she didn't pass on the conference because New Mexico has border checkpoints* to keep the riff raff out.   She didn't want to be embarrassed when she failed the literacy test by failing to correctly spell "Albuquerque."

Nope.  This conference was originally scheduled to take place in Arizona.  Some of the Mexican governors who were scheduled to be in Arizona expressed objections to SB1070 and were going to boycott the conference.  Brewer objected to their objections and cancelled the conference.

And now that they are holding it anyway, she refuses to attend, even to discuss economic issues, something that the [alleged] leader of the 2nd-poorest state in the nation should pay attention to.

Or would, if she had any "leader" in her personality.

Debates for the week of September 20, 2010

Most info from the website of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.

Statewide candidates:

Secretary of State
September 22, 2010

7:00 PM - 7:30 PM
Televised on KAET
Horizon Channel 8


Legislative candidates:

LD18
Monday, September 20, 2010

6:00 PM
Phoenix Mesa Marriott Hotel
200 N Centennial Way
Mesa, AZ 85201


LD3
Tuesday, September 21, 2010

6:00 PM
Bullhead Area Chamber of Commerce Conference Center
1251 Highway 95
Bullhead City, AZ 86429

LD8
September 21, 2010

6:30 PM
Kerr Cultural Center
6110 N Scottsdale Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85253

 
LD2
Wednesday, September 22, 2010

6:00 PM
Woodlands Radisson Hotel
1175 W Route 66
Flagstaff, AZ 86001


LD7
Thursday, September 23, 2010

6:00 PM
Appaloosa Library
City of Scottsdale
7377 E Silverstone Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85255


Scottsdale City Council candidate forum (complete community meeting notice here):

Brown Avenue Merchants City Council Debates
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:00 p.m.

City Hall Kiva Forum
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd.



Later...

Ballot updates: Arizona and Maricopa County

Statewide and legislative:

Withdrawals -

Nothing significant that hasn't already been covered, but it's still nice to visit the Secretary of State's page listing withdrawn candidates and see the name of Republican Steve May and seven of the faux-Greens that he helped to scam their way onto the ballot.

The SOS' page listing all official write-in candidates for statewide and legislative candidates is here.

Running unopposed in the general election:

Democrat Jack Jackson Jr., State Senate, LD2
Democrat Steve Gallardo, State Senate, LD13
Democrat Robert Meza, State Senate, LD14
Democrat Leah Landrum, State Senate, LD16
Republican John McComish, State Senate, LD20
Republican Steve Yarbrough, State Senate, LD21
Republican Andy Biggs, State Senate, LD22
Democrat Olivia Cajero Bedford, State Senate, LD27 (2 "write-ins" have declared for the race)
Democrat Linda Lopez, State Senate, LD29

Republicans Doris Goodale and Nancy McLain, State House, LD3
Democrats Richard Miranda and Anna Tovar, State House, LD13
Democrats Chad Campbell and Debbie McCune-Davis, State House, LD14
Republicans Eddie Farnsworth and Steve Urie, State House, LD22

In addition to those candidates who are completely unopposed on November's ballot, a few others face only opponents from "minor" party candidates (i.e. - Libertarians and Greens):

Republican Rich Crandall, State Senate, LD19 - sole opposition is a Libertarian
Democrats Tom Chabin and Albert Hale, State House, LD2 - one Libertarian is on the ballot
Republicans Tom Forese and J.D. Mesnard, State House, LD21 - one Green is on the ballot


Maricopa County:

Non-partisan general election candidate listing here.

Withdrawn from the race for the Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project (CAWCD) -

Joseph Hobbs


Considered elected due to lack of opposition -

Susan Gerard and Elbert Bicknell, Districts 3 and 4 of the Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System

Ruth Coleman, Jeff Gerber, and Edward Hurley of the Chandler County Island Fire District

Joseph Cantelme, Randy Hancock, and Brian Moore of the Daisy Mountain Fire District

Frank Haas and Dwight Music of the Harquahala Valley Fire District

Fern Ward of the Laveen Fire District

Clarence Hein and Burdena Pasenelli of the Rio Verde Fire District

David Calverley, Wayne Morrow, and Peter Reiss of the Scottsdale County Island Fire District

William Hamel and Jack Meyer of the Sun City West Fire District

Diane Price and Michael Sellers of the Sun Lakes Fire District

Victor Zaharchenko of the Tempe County Island Fire District

No candidates for: Aguila and Wickenburg Volunteer Fire Districts.

In addition, many of the above-listed districts didn't have a sufficient number of candidates to fill out their boards, so there may be write-ins or after-election appointments to fill out the district boards.


In partisan races -

Facing token opposition:

Republican Bill Montgomery faces only a Libertarian in his race to serve out the last two years of failed AG candidate Andrew Thomas' unexpired term as Maricopa County Attorney

Republican Mark Anderson faces only a Libertarian in his race for West Mesa Justice of the Peace

Republican Dan Ryan faces an independent write-in candidate in his race for McDowell Mountain Constable


Unopposed:

Democrat Joe Guzman, Justice of the Peace, Agua Fria
Republican Phillip Woolbright, Justice of the Peace, Arrowhead
Democrat Armando Gandarilla, Justice of the Peace, Downtown
Republican Mark Chiles, Justice of the Peace, East Mesa
Democrat C. Steven McMurry, Justice of the Peace, Encanto
Republican Chris Mueller, Justice of the Peace, Hassayampa
Democrat J.B. Getzwiller, Justice of the Peace, Ironwood
Republican Gary Handley, Justice of the Peace, Manistee
Republican Michael Reagan, Justice of the Peace, McDowell Mountain
Republican Gerald Williams, Justice of the Peace, North Valley
Democrat Rachel Torres Carrillo, Justice of the Peace, West McDowell

Democrat Alfredo Gamez, Constable, Agua Fria
Republican Ron Myers, Constable, Arrowhead
Republican William Taylor, Constable, East Mesa
Democrat Maria Ligocki-Russell, Constable, Encanto
Republican Miles Keegan, Constable, Hassayampa
Republican Billy Spurlock, Constable, Ironwood
Republican Lennie McCloskey, Constable, Manistee
Republican Philip Hazlett, Constable, North Valley
Republican James Kevin Jones, Constable, San Marcos
Democrat Ben Miranda, Constable, South Mountain
Republican Joe Arredondo, Constable, University Lakes
Democrat Rudy Santa Cruz, Constable, West McDowell
Republican Fred Arnett, Constable, West Mesa


Updates on the actual races as the general election grows nearer...

Latest poll: Arizonans dissatisfied with the legislature's handling of the state's finances

ASU's Morrison Institute of Public Policy has released the results of a poll showing that a solid majority, one that crosses all partisan lines, is dissatisfied with the legislature's handling of the state's budget.

In the poll, 61% of Republicans, 76% of Democrats, 67% of Independents and 68% overall disapproved or strongly disapproved of the job that the Arizona legislature has done with the state's budget.


Other highlights included:

66% (63% R, 71% D, and 62% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I believe the state Legislature has the wrong priorities."

52% (73% R, 29% D, and 49% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I believe the governor has provided good leadership in formulating state public policy."

74% (61% R,  83% D and 75% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "There is too much partisan conflict at the Arizona State Capitol."

67% (59% R, 71% D, and 70% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I would like to see more moderate candidates elected to public office."

Generally speaking, the results cited above (and not cited, due to space constraints here) favor Democrats in Arizona (though Terry Goddard is going to have to do better than split independents down the middle to have a chance to win the race for governor.)

There was one result that best illustrates the possible problem that faces Republicans this fall -

Only 36% (45% R, 20% D, and 38% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I am generally statisfied with the way things are going in Arizona state government."

I expected the low Democratic number on that one, but less than 1/2 of Republican respondents approved of the job that the incumbent majority has done on down on West Washington????

Maybe R candidates and officials should expand their sphere of constituent contact beyond local LD meetings and country club restaurants and golf courses (that's probably good advice in general, including for Democrats.)

No guarantees here, but numbers like those presented in the poll, if more than remotely accurate, speak to the possibility of Arizona running counter to the national trend of 2010 being a down year for Democrats.


There was also one seriously disappointing surprise in the poll -

45% (42% R, 50% D, and 44% I) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "In times of budget crisis, the Legislature should be able to use funds protected by voter ballots."

HALF of Democrats trust the lege to appropriately handle funds from things like First Things First in times of "budget crisis"??  A larger percentage than even the Republicans?

I'll take this to mean that at least half of all Democrats don't read this blog, or Blog for Arizona, or Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion, or Democratic Diva, or Dry Heat Democrat, or....


Anyway, more poll info can be found here and here.

A Cronkite News Service story on the poll, via the Arizona Capitol Times, is here.

Congressman Harry Mitchell - "Advancing Research"

I know that in the last post, I mentioned that I don't normally post press releases verbatim, before doing so.  I'm doing it again, but letters from Congressman Harry Mitchell are something that I've always made an exception for.

From an email -

Degenerative diseases are devastating. We all have someone in our lives who suffers from a chronic and potentially life-threatening disease like Alzheimer’s, Lou Gehrig’s, Huntington’s, Parkinson’s, cancer or even diabetes. These relationships in my own life have pushed me to strongly support cutting-edge medical research so that we can discover treatments for the millions of Americans who suffer from a wide array of diseases and conditions.


One of the first things I did after taking office in 2007 was take to the floor of the House and urge my colleagues to overturn the stem cell research ban. Congress rarely gets an opportunity to offer hope to the millions of Americans who suffer from these diseases; however, last year we were given the opportunity to invest in science and ethical research. On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued an Executive Order to allow federal funding of human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research. I thought this was a great step in the right direction because many scientists believe embryonic stem cells hold greater promise than adult stem cells for further scientific breakthroughs which will advance research on many devastating diseases.

Recently, the issue of stem cell research has been reintroduced to the national discussion as a result of a temporary injunction that was placed on federal stem cell research by a federal court in August.

Although the injunction has since been lifted by a higher federal court, I have joined on as a cosponsor to the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act of 2009, H.R. 4808. This bill would expand the lot of available stem cells for research by codifying that federal research projects may use stem cells regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived. I am proud to be a supporter of this bill, and will continue to strongly support stem cell research to help discover treatments for a wide array of diseases and conditions.

As always, I look forward to being able to provide you with regular updates and continue our dialogue in support of advancing important medical research.

Sincerely,

Harry

Later...

Ben Quayle's Grueling Daily Campaign Schedule

I don't normally publish press releases verbatim, and Tedski at Rum, Romanism, Rebellion already has this one up, but it made me laugh. 

And that makes it worth a post of its own. 

From an ADP press release, Ben Quayle's daily schedule -

Ben Quayle - Daily Campaign Schedule


10:00 – 10:30 AM: Wake-up, get ready
Notes: Out of Frosted Flakes, order the maid to go buy more -- this time with a prize!

10:30 – 11:00 AM: Web surfing time
Notes: Use new password Nik gave me to get around Dad’s cybersecurity filters

11:00 – 11:15 AM: Fundraising meeting with Dad
Reminder: Don’t ask questions. Dad gets upset.

11:15 -11:30 AM: Check schedule to see if I have time to debate
Notes: I’m really very busy

11:30 AM – 12:30 PM: Gym
Reminder: Upper body, focus on abs

12:30 – 1:00 PM: Shower
Reminder: Wear the power suit that has the shoulder pads. Gotta look grown-up.

1:00 – 2:00 PM: Lunch – Stingray Sushi
Notes: Trainer says soy paper has fewer carbs

2:00 – 2:05 PM: Check schedule to see if I have time to debate
Notes: It still feels like I’m way busy

2:05 – 2:30 PM: Private tutoring session (Arizona 101)
Reminder: Ask tutor about those cities north and west of Scottsdale.

2:30 – 2:45 PM: Tynwald Capital
Reminder: Make sure Dad’s deposit into company went through so I can collect paycheck

3:00 – 4:00 PM: Play with Louie the Dog. My favorite campaign expenditure!

4:00 – 4:30 PM: Private tutoring session (Congress 101)
Reminder: Ask tutor about D.C. club scene. It better not be lame!

4:30 -5:00 PM: Check in with Dad on fundraising
Reminder: Don’t tell Dad I plan to go out tonight

5:00 – 5:02 PM: Check schedule to see if I have time to debate
Notes: Dude, where does the time go?

5:15 – 6:15 PM: Nap

6:30 – 8:00 PM: Invite bros over to party (keep it cool. no cops)
Notes: Show them new drinking game I invented. Cross between Flip Cup and Beer Pong – Super Beer Flip Cup Pong!

8:00 – 9:30 PM: Dinner at Barcelona

10:00 – 11:30 PM: Pre-club partying
Notes: Don't post any photos to Facebook this time!

11:30 PM – 2:00 AM: Hit the Scottsdale clubs
Notes: Dad’s folks following me, can’t let them catch me out like last time. Call for black Town Car to drive me home.

2:30 AM: Maid tucks me in
Notes: Tomorrow, I’ll think some more about debating. LOL!!!

There's nothing I can add.  I'm a wiseass, but this one is out-of-my-class funny.  Probably because it's closer to the truth than the Quayle camp would care to admit...

David Schweikert has a remarkably low opinion of AZRep reporters

...Of course, he probably has an even lower opinion of wiseass bloggers. :)

From YouTube -




I was going to title this post "Whatthehell was he thinking?", but I understand that Schweikert was on a radio talk show of the "preaching to the choir" variety.  Still, he is smart enough to know that *nothing* that is recorded (video or audio) ever really goes away.

Should make for an interesting conversation when he and Congressman Harry Mitchell sit down with the Rep's editorial board...

The Three Amigos vote against American workers...yet again

They may be poor representatives of the people of their districts, their state, and their country, but dammit, *nobody* can claim that they are inconsistent about it.  They almost always vote against the best interests of their constituents.

On Wednesday, Arizona's Three Amigos, better known as Congressmen Trent Franks, Jeff Flake, and John Shadegg (Rs - Whichever Corporation Is Ponying Up The Campaign Cash That Week) voted as a bloc against H.R.2039, the Congressional Made in America Promise Act of 2009.

The bill simply amends the original Buy American Act by extending its provisions "to articles, materials, and supplies acquired for the use of any legislative branch office, including the House of Representatives and the Senate..."

The Buy American Act requires that when purchasing materials for its use, the government give preference to American-made items.

Extending the provisions of that act to cover materials purchased by and for the chambers of Congress may not have a huge direct economic benefit for American workers (Congress may spend a lot of money on its operations, but it's less than a drop in the bucket of the entire economy), but the move is significant as a symbol of Congress' efforts to address the plight of American workers.

Hence the united opposition of Franks, Flake, and Shadegg.

Shadegg isn't running for reelection (but look for his name to pop up in two years if Jon Kyl doesn't run for another term in the Senate), but the other two are, and are facing strong Democratic opponents.

John Thrasher, the career teacher challenging Franks in CD2, has already sent out a press release highlighting the anti-American worker vote.

Rebecca Schneider, challenging Flake in CD6, has a page on her website highlighting Flake's unwavering "no" votes against anything that would help his district, state, or country.

They can use your help in defeating these stalwarts of the Party of NO - please contribute to John Thrasher's campaign here and to Rebecca Schneider's campaign here.

Later!

New investigation into MCSO "misconduct and mismanagement"

Something tells me that perhaps someone feels that the feds are getting close...

In what is probably the first in a string of public occurrences of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio throwing someone under the PR bus, a memo written by one of his senior aides accusing another senior aide of "misconduct and mismanagement" was made public yesterday.

From the Arizona Republic -

A top aide to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has requested an investigation of the sheriff's second-in-command, Chief Deputy David Hendershott, and two of his allies, signaling growing concern among the sheriff's top hierarchy about the agency's management.

A memo written by Deputy Chief Frank Munnell and recently delivered to Arpaio alleges years of misconduct and mismanagement by Hendershott, who has directed day-to-day operations of the Sheriff's Office since 2008 and has been in the department's top echelon since the mid-1990s.

[snip}

Munnell asked Arpaio to place Hendershott and two of his close allies, Deputy Chief Larry Black and Capt. Joel Fox, on administrative leave pending an independent investigation by the Arizona Department of Public Safety.

Instead, Arpaio confirmed Wednesday, the sheriff sent the investigation to Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, a close political ally.

"I decide who to send investigations to if it's necessary," Arpaio said, declining to comment further on the allegations. "This has been given by me to another agency. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to discuss it."

When describing the relationship between Arpaio and Babeu, "close political ally" is an understatement.  In many ways, Babeu could be best described as an "Arpaio in training."  I expect that his involvement with the case may actually be less to protect Black and Fox than to make sure any "investigation" doesn't go beyond those two.

All this comes on this week's $154K fine for Arpaio's illegal "in kind" contribution to the recent County Attorney campaign of another political ally, Bill Montgomery.  Arpaio funded a "hit piece" against Rick Romley, a long-time adversary and the other candidate for Maricopa County Attorney.

Note: some long-time or Arizona-based readers may recognize the name "Joel Fox."  Fox was the front man/fall guy in the one of the most brazen and tawdry illegal campaign finance schemes ever associated with Arizona politics.

Later...

Response to John Kavanagh's comment

Earlier today I wrote a post about the recently-released 2009 crime statistics and how they serve to undermine Jan Brewer's campaign plank of "Fear The Dastardly Brown-Skinned People."

That post elicited a comment from LD8 State Representative John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills), a comment that deserves a post of its own in response.

First, his comment -

It is all but impossible to use statewide crime statistics to measure the impact of a "shadow group," such as illegal immigrants, on crime. Of course if you were so inclined, the decrease in crime between 2008 and 2009 is consistent with illegals causing more crime because that is when the jobs and illegal immigrants both began to leave Arizona. But again, it is stretching the data to arrive at any conclusion.

A better indicator, although once again not a complete one, is to compare the number of known criminal illegal aliens with their portion of the population. Using the often cited Pew estimate of 500,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, we can conclude that they comprise about 7.7% of the population. However, they make up about 14% of persons “booked” into Maricopa County jails and constitute about 14.7% of Arizona’s prison population. Thus, known data supports the view that illegal immigrants commit more crime, beyond being here illegally, than legal residents.

State Rep. John Kavanagh

My response:

Let the spin begin.

OK, that's too snarky.

First, I want to thank Rep. Kavanagh for his comment. 

I may disagree with him on pretty much everything that Ds and Rs can disagree on, but his comment was a serious one and deserves the courtesy of a serious response.

His first paragraph was actually correct, as far as it goes - the data gathered and published by the FBI doesn't specify the demographic origin of the people who committed the criminal acts that make up the statistics.  The criminals behind the acts could be undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants, citizens (native born or naturalized), or little green men from Mars*. 

Nor does the data explain the reduction in criminal activity, only that there *was* a reduction.

However, he should have left it at that.  While Kavanagh feels, perhaps with some justification, that the crime data released by the FBI is incomplete, he tried to buttress his anti-immigrant rhetoric with statistics of questionable provenance.

He cited statistics generated by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) to prove his point that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a rate out of proportion with their numbers in society as a whole.

Specifically, he trots out the percentage of undocumented immigrants booked into county jail as proof of his position.

The problem with that?  MCSO targets undocumented immigrants (and documented immigrants, and citizens who happen look like they have ancestors with some familiarity with the Spanish language) for harassment and arrest out of proportion to their numbers in Maricopa County as a whole, to the point that MCSO has sacrificed service of felony and misdemeanor warrants, a prime function of sheriff's offices all over the country, in order to divert resources and personnel to headline- and camera-grabbing anti-immigrant sweeps.

The stats coming out of the MCSO may be accurate in terms of what the MCSO does, but that doesn't mean that those stats accurately reflect Arizona or even Maricopa County as a whole.

In other words, while undocumented immigrants may make up 14% (or more) of those arrested by MCSO, they aren't necessarily responsible for 14% (or more) of the crimes committed in Maricopa County.


* - If little green men from Mars are involved, the Men In Black want to know. :)

Brewer: "crime's up"; FBI: Only if by "up" you mean "down"

Jan Brewer spent most of the spring and summer bolstering her (now-successful) bid for the AZGOP's nomination for governor by playing into the GOP base's fear of the "other," particularly immigrants.  She has spent the last few months spouting off about a growing crime wave that is wracking Arizona, particularly immigrant-caused crimes.

...In her statement regarding her approval of SB1070...

...In the Clean Elections debate for the Republican candidates for governor...

...During an interview with Fox News...

...And in numerous other speeches, interviews, and press releases.

She spends most of her time talking up her stance against immigrants, but ignoring the issues that matter most to Arizonans - the state's failing education system (for their children's future) and the state's cratered economy (for their own present and future).  She has nothing to address those concerns.

Well, it turns out that she has little more than nothing on crime - her alleged "crime wave" that Arizonans from which Arizonans need protection is nothing but a lie.

From the FBI's 2009 crime statistics for Arizona, released on Monday -


Violent crimes: down 13.9% (compared to a national drop of 5.3%)

Violent crime rate (per 100K population): down 15.1% (nationally, decreased 6.1%)


Property crimes: down 11.7% (down 4.6% nationally)

Property crime rate: down 13% (down 5.5% nationally)


Across the board, crime in Arizona has declined at a greater rate than the decline nationally.


I'm guessing that at some point, Brewer's handlers told her to keep driving home the "crime is up" talking point, probably both to bolster support for her among the fearful GOP faithful and to subtly undermine the credibility of the Democratic nominee, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard.

However, lying so brazenly only serves to further undermine her credibility as a candidate best qualified to lead Arizona into the next decade.

And after her dreadful performance during the televised debate with Goddard, she needs to shore up her credibility, not undermine it.

Jim Holway, candidate for CAWCD

In Arizona and across the country, the two most important issues on voters' minds this fall are the kitchen table issues of education and jobs.  They want to have a sense of security about their presents and futures (and those of their children) and will cast their votes for candidates that they think will work to enhance education and fix the economy.

However, this being Arizona, a third item should be added to that list.

Water.

Without it, there won't be many people here to benefit from the education system.  Of course, since there won't be any people here to sustain the economy because people follow jobs as much as or more than jobs follow people, there won't be any need to strengthen Arizona's education system.

Because of that, the need for a sustainable supply of clean water, the most important office that almost no one has ever heard of is the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD).  The members of CAWCD serve as the board of directors of the Central Arizona Project (CAP).  CAP oversees and handles the delivery of Colorado River water to central Arizona (aka - metro Phoenix) and Tucson.

CAWCD, while a low-visibility office, is one that is vital to the long-term viability of Arizona economically and socially, and it is an office where we need elect the most qualified and knowledgeable candidates.

This is the first in a series of posts about some of the candidates in this year's race.

First up:  Jim Holway, a retired water resources manager and educator, and a long-time community activist and leader. 

From an email -

Candidate


Jim Holway

Elect Experienced & Responsible Leadership

Over 20 Years of Water Management Experience:

Arizona Department of Water Resources, Assistant Director

ASU Professor, Water Policy and Sustainability

ASU Coordinator, Arizona Water Institute

Director, Western Lands and Communities Program, Sonoran Institute


Community Leadership:

Phoenix Parks Board, 9 years; Chair for 2 years

Papago Park Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, Chairperson, 3 years

Arizona Town Hall Research Committee, 2 years

Trust for Public Land, Arizona Advisory Council, 4 years

Arizona Heritage Alliance, Board of Directors, 3 years

Governor’s Growing Smarter Oversight Council, 4 years


Education:

PhD Regional Planning, University of North Carolina

BA Political Science, Cornell University


Jim’s experience and leadership skills will help Arizonans to plan and invest for an affordable and sustainable water future.

What is CAWCD?

The Central Arizona Water Conservation District operates the Central Arizona Project, bringing Colorado River water 336 miles across the desert from Lake Havasu through Phoenix to south of Tucson. CAWCD operates the canal system, pumping plants, and the Navajo generating station. The power required to deliver CAP water makes CAWCD the single largest user of electricity in the State of Arizona.

The CAWCD Board is comprised of 15 members from Maricopa, Pinal and Pima counties, each serving a 6 year term. Maricopa County voters will elect 5 board members on November 2, 2010.

Key issues facing the CAWCD Board include:

Promoting efficient operations and wise water use

Securing the next “bucket” of water to supply Central Arizona

Preparing for drought and the potential for more severe future droughts

Maintaining healthy ecosystems and water quality in the Colorado River Basin

Representing Arizona in multi-state and international negotiations

Paid for by Holway for CAWCD

http://www.jimholway.com/  HolwayforCAWCD@gmail.com

Please Vote November 2, 2010

Later...