Wednesday, June 30, 2010

All Aboard The Nativist Railroad!!

Looks like the few Republican candidates who weren't already riding the anti-immigrant train are looking to follow the lead of Jan "all undocumented immigrants are drug mules" Brewer and are buying tickets.

The latest is Barry Wong, a candidate for Arizona Corporation Commission. 

He has proposed requiring utilities to check the immigration status of customers before turning on power/water/etc., and denying the same to those who are unable to prove their presence in the country is legal.

It's somewhat surprising that Wong would come up with something as punitive as this.  Prior to this, he was considered intelligent, thoughtful, and hard-working.

From an AZ Republic editorial on Wong's proposal -
We don't think Wong thought this through. But in his willingness to jump on the bandwagon, he has joined the campaign to demonize illegal immigrants: If your electric bill is high, it's all their fault. It is disturbing that someone like Wong, who has had a reputation as reasoned and thoughtful, would end up playing into the current hysteria.
Even a partisan hack like me (writing two years ago during the last race for ACC) thought Wong was very conservative but that he "occasionally show[s] an understanding of issues that went beyond the usual Republican knee-jerk talking points."

Lobbyist Glenn Hamer, President and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, writing an open letter to Wong in the Arizona Capitol Times, took Wong to task for his proposal -
To say that I was shocked and dismayed to read in Wednesday’s Arizona Republic of your proposal to deny utility services to illegal immigrants would be an understatement. Your cynical attempt to ratchet up the rhetoric over immigration to score cheap political points in a bid for office marks a new low in our state’s immigration debate.
It's a rare day indeed when I agree with one of the leaders of the Chamber of Commerce wing of the AZGOP (literally, in Hamer's case! :) ), but in this instance, he is spot on.

Later...

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Pam Gorman: the latest R candidate to bring ridicule upon Arizona

Former state senator Pam Gorman is one of the gaggle* of Republicans candidates to replace the soon-to-be retired John Shadegg in AZCD3.

*"gaggle" = 10 ballot-qualified candidates, including a couple that nobody but their mothers have heard of before

Apparently, she is worried about getting lost in the clutter of the CD3 campaign (early ballots come out in less than a month!).  So worried, in fact, that she has put up an ad that is sure to garner some attention for her candidacy.

And if "garnering attention" was her primary goal for the spot, it has been successful.

The pundits on MSNBC have been mocking it all day today.



Normally, I am loathe to publicize an R candidate's ads, *any* R candidate's, but in this case, I'll happily make an exception.

AZ Republic coverage here; Feathered Bastard coverage in the Phoenix New Times here; coverage from AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona here.

BTW - in other "Republicans inviting ridicule" news, the AZRep's Political Insider has the scoop on a new website that shines a light on some of the more perceptive utterances of one of Arizona's most erudite legislators, State Senator Sylvia Allen.

The site Earth to Sylvia Allen has debuted, reminding visitors of gems like
"The Earth's been here 6,000 years, long before anybody had environmental laws, and it hasn't been done away with."
 
“Our little creeks and watersheds were full because the forest was not filled with all these trees… And so the trees are taking our water.” 6/15/09 Senate Natural Resources, Infrastructures and Public Debt

“The wealthy have done a lot for us. But what are we doing for the wealthy? We need to be giving back, too.” 7/30/10 Senate Appropriations – Special Session
That last quote is from 2009, not 2010, but I actually saw her spout that one.

Luckily, I have a beard, otherwise, but jaw would have been severely scraped because it hit the floor so hard.  :)

Monday, June 28, 2010

The "Pot meet Kettle" moment of the Kagan confirmation hearings (so far):

Long-time Senator Jon Kyl, son of a congressman, a lawyer and former lobbyist, Republican Whip in the U.S. Senate, and rumored R candidate for VP in 2012, derided Kagan as too "establishment" to be a good Supreme Court Justice.

From Kyl's opening statement today, courtesy MainJustice.com -
Not only is Ms. Kagan’s background unusual for a Supreme Court nominee, it is not clear how it demonstrates that she has, in the President’s words, ‘a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.’ One recent article noted that ‘[Ms.] Kagan’s experience draws from a world whose signposts are distant from most Americans: Manhattan’s upper West side, Princeton University, Harvard Law School and the upper reaches of the Democratic legal establishment.’
If Kyl's political blood was any bluer, he'd be getting ready to star in the sequel to Avatar.  There is no doubt that he is a highly intelligent and hard-working Senator (though it would be nice if he used that intelligence and work ethic to benefit all Arizonans, not just his biggest campaign contributors, but I digress :) ), but he inherited a lot of his wealth and political contacts.  He's used that initial advantage to great effect, but he still had a big leg up on most of his peers.

On the other hand, Kagan, who is at least as intelligent and hard-working as Kyl, had to earn every single one of her achievements.  "Manhattan's upper West side" isn't exactly a hovel in Appalachia, but her path to an eminent career in public service wasn't as gilded as Kyl's.  One doesn't become the first female U.S. Solicitor General and the first female dean of the Harvard Law School by inheriting the jobs.  She earned them the old-fashioned way, with hard work and intellectual merit.  Her start was less "leg up" and more "leg work."

I truly expect Kagan to be confirmed, but also expect that the hearing, with both Kyl's derision and the other R's attacking Kagan because of her ties to judicial icon Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, is serving as a preview of this fall's campaign rhetoric - class warfare and race-baiting.

Hope I'm wrong about that last.

More folks noticing Jan Brewer's penchant for fabrication

Now even Arizona's journalists, not exactly a breed known for challenging the power structure in Arizona, are calling out Jan Brewer on her rather casual relationship with the facts regarding undocumented immigrants and immigration in general.



Brewer likes to refer to herself as a "truthteller", but she has a very flexible definition of the word "truth."

Of course, that may be the recipe for winning an R primary this year.

Rep. John Kavanagh thinks that ethnic profiling is something to joke about

More than three years ago, I wrote about how LD8 State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) was little more than a polished version of Russell Pearce, only with a "New Yawk" accent.  During a 2007 community meeting, he dropped a gem of a bigoted stereotype -
After citing a (unverified) statistic that 1/5 of the residents of Arizona are illegal immigrants, he looked around the room and said "everybody in this room looks OK."
Apparently, he hasn't changed.

From the blog of journalist Terry Greene Sterling -
On June 25, in Phoenix, I was honored to participate in a panel sponsored by the Arizona Latino Media Association. The other panelists included Nancy-Jo Merritt, a longtime Phoenix immigration attorney; Antonio Bustamante, an activist and attorney who grew up on the border, and John Kavanaugh, the legislator who sponsored the House version of SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law. The panel was moderated by New Times journalist Monica Alonzo.

{snip}

At one point, Nancy-Jo Merritt noted that many of her undocumented clients are Canadians.
A spirited discussion ensued.
Rep. Kavanaugh announced that “illegals” who were Canadians could “stay” in Arizona because they have money and buy real estate.
Then he said, several times, that he was just kidding.
 Umm, yeah

To Rep. Kavanagh -

Either keep your day job or take some comedy classes.

Actually, just take the comedy classes.  The rest of us will work to make sure that John Kriekard unseats you in November.

Thanks to a friend for pointing this out.  It was a great catch.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

This week's Clean Elections debate schedule

Info courtesy the Clean Elections website...

Videos of previously held debates, both statewide and legislative, can be found here.

Statewide candidate debates are being held in the studios of KAET(channel 8) and will be broadcast on Horizon.

Up this week: the candidates for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

The Republican candidates are scheduled for Tuesday, June 29 at 7 p.m.

The Democratic candidates are scheduled for Wednesday, June 30, also at 7 p.m.


Legislative candidate debates are being held in venues in the various districts throughout the state.

Up this week:

Tuesday, June 29

Republican candidates for the House in LD5
6 p.m. - 8 p.m.
Best Western Payson Inn
801 N. Beeline Highway 87
Payson


Wednesday, June 30

Republican candidates for the House in LD8
6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
Kerr Cultural Center
8110 N. Scottsdale Rd.
Scottsdale

I will attempt to attend the LD8 debate, schedule permitting. Hope to see you there!

Saturday, June 26, 2010

So.....exactly who is running for office here?

And what office is he running for?

aka - "More fun with signs..."


















The particulars -

The main part of the sign (the red part with Montgomery's name) is 2 ft. by 8 ft. (16 sq. ft. area)

The "add-on" banner at the top (the yellow part with Arpaio's name) is 1 ft. by 8 ft. (8 sq. ft. area)

Total - 24 sq. ft. of signage.

In other words, a full third of Montgomery's sign is devoted to another officeholder.

The font of the word "Sheriff" in the top part of the sign is roughly three times larger than that of "Maricopa County Attorney" in the bottom part, yet that is the office that Montgomery is supposed to be running for.

In fact, given that the sign is located on a busy street (Baseline near Priest, in Tempe) and will be seen mostly by drivers moving by at 35 - 45 mph, about the only readable parts of the sign are "Endorsed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio" and "Bill Montgomery."

If only for truth's sake, perhaps he would be better off declaring himself a candidate for the office of "Joe's best buddy."

Because based on this sign, the office of Maricopa County Attorney is far down Bill Montgomery's priority list.

BTW - a request/suggestion for the Montgomery campaign -

In 2006, you folks had the brilliant idea of hiring undocumented immigrants to appear in an anti-undocumented immigrants TV spot. It didn't work out so well for you (Terry Goddard won reelection as Attorney General), but you shouldn't give up trying.

This time, how about a TV spot that is anti- "sane legislators who can actually balance a budget without resorting to debt that we aren't supposed to call "debt", accounting tricks, and prayers that the economy will turn around before they are forced to enact responsible fiscal policies"?

It seems that your first ad only encouraged undocumented immigrants to stay; maybe the second will have the same effect on sane legislators.

Just sayin'...

Friday, June 25, 2010

Congressman Harry Mitchell on the DISCLOSE Act

The DISCLOSE Act is the latest increment in campaign finance reform.

Mitchell's statement on the passage of the bill, and an explanation of his vote -

U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell today released the following statement on H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. Despite Mitchell's objection, the bill passed 219-206.

"In January, I was disappointed, and disagreed with, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to roll back campaign finance provisions that have been set in law for over half a century - provisions which have sought to limit the role of large corporate, union and special interest money since the time of Teddy Roosevelt. Not only were these provisions supported overwhelmingly by bipartisan majorities in Congress and by Republican and Democratic Presidents, they had the support of a majority of the American people.

While I support campaign finance reform and its broader goals, I cannot support the DISCLOSE Act as it was written and amended. Ironically, as it wound its way through the House, the bill became an example of the same ugly special interest influence and backroom dealing it seeks to prevent. The House gave into special interests in order to garner enough votes for passage, and as a result, the legislation will not limit the role of all special interests equally. Instead, it creates carve-outs and exemptions for powerful, politically-favored organizations and political
advocacy groups, who account for some of the largest expenditures in modern-day political campaigns. If Congress is going to pass meaningful campaign finance reform legislation, it needs to improve the integrity of federal campaigns in a more comprehensive and equitable way. Unfortunately, this does not.

I support real campaign finance reform. As a former government teacher, I believe that we need to reduce the influence of corporations, unions and special interests in elections, and make sure that the American people have a voice, remain engaged and hold candidates and elected officials accountable. American elections should be decided by Americans, and for this to happen, there needs to be transparency and accountability in all campaign spending."
It should be noted that while I wholeheartedly agree with the reasons that he gave for voting against the bill, I think he should have voted for it anyway.

The bill may not be perfect, but it's a start. (Roll call vote here.)

Later...

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Jan Brewer's new motto: "Damn the facts, full distort ahead!"

Of course, her disregard of the facts could torpedo her run at a full term as governor...

EJ Montini of the Arizona Republic published an interesting column in Thursday's paper about Jan Brewer's tendency to spout bigoted but baseless (my term, not his) stereotypes and fabricated statistics (also my term - he used "exaggerated") when discussing immigration.

The example he cited involved her saying, during a debate between the R candidates for governor that the majority of undocumented immigrants were engaged in narcotics trafficking and extortion and that they are responsible for a massive crime wave in Arizona.

As this Think Progress piece from writer Andrea Nill points out, during a period in Arizona's history that has seen an increase in undocumented immigration, there has been an actual decrease in crime in AZ.

Oops, Jan.

This falsehood was pointed out by dark horse R Matthew Jette, but to no avail.

Jan stuck by her misfiring mouth, and continued to spout the same stuff.

In Montini's piece, he began by predicting that Brewer will win the November election because of SB1070.

I'm not so sure (I know, it's not exactly shocking that a Goddard supporter would disagree with Montini's point. :) ).

While the bill was fronted in AZ by nativist demagogue Russell Pearce, she has made it hers, and by doing so, has locked up the support of a significant part of Arizona's electorate, the nativists.

*That* has all but guaranteed her the R nomination, especially since the other contenders are falling fast (Dean Martin has almost no money and won't be getting any any time soon, Buz Mills can't even get the endorsement of the NRA, and he sits on the Board of Directors of it) or never were a factor in the first place (Jette would be a legit dark horse in most other states; in AZ, however, his reasoned yet honest approach will net him less than 5% of the primary vote - Rs will consider his calling out the numbers and stereotypes spouted on the immigration issue as the equivalent of shouting "the emperor has no clothes!" and will close their ears).

However, for SB1070 to guarantee Brewer's win in November's general election, the lege should have passed it and she should have signed it in early October.

Not late April.

As it is, people will have had the time to actually understand the effect of SB1070 on *everybody*, not just those "durn Mexicans."

By the time early ballots go out in October, the law may have (and should be) blocked by a federal court because of its unconstitution overreaching.

At which point, Terry Goddard's approach of going after the cartels and hitting them where it hurts - in the wallet - a less showy but far more effective - and legal! - tactic will look good to the vast array of independent voters in Arizona.

Especially when Brewer's side of the issue is marked by neo-Nazis going on Mexican hunts armed anti-immigrant "patrols" in the desert.

Later...

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Mitchell working for the next Greatest Generation

It was a long day at work today, and tomorrow will be just as long, so only a little copy and pasting tonight...

From an email from Congressman Harry Mitchell -

Yesterday marked the 66th anniversary of President Franklin D. Roosevelt signing the historic GI Bill into law. The original GI Bill was one of the greatest achievements of the 20th Century in America, giving our returning veterans a strong foothold in the economy and serving as the foundation for what became known as The Greatest Generation.

As the representative of 65,000 veterans, the Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and as a former teacher, I was honored to help renew the commitment to our veterans in 2008, by introducing a new GI Bill for the 21st Century, which was signed into law the same year.

The Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act extends the education benefits to all members of the military who have served on active duty since September 11, 2001, including activated reservists and National Guard.

Specifically, under the legislation,

•Service members returning from Iraq or Afghanistan receive up to four academic years of educational benefits, including stipends for housing and books.
•Veterans have up to 15 years after they leave active duty to use their education benefits.
•Veterans can use the Yellow Ribbon GI Education Enhancement Program, in which the federal government will match, dollar for dollar, any voluntary additional contributions to veterans from institutions whose tuition is more expensive than the maximum educational assistance provided under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

This updated GI Bill is critical to strengthening the nation’s military. Not only will it helps attract high quality recruits who are interested in earning a higher education, but it will open doors for our veterans, strengthen our economy, and help military recruitment. Recently, the House Committee on Veterans Affairs reported that 233,424 veteran beneficiaries have taken advantage of the new GI Bill and have been paid to date.

I believe that we have a responsibility to serve those who bravely served us. We promised a higher education to our service members when they joined, and it is our duty to see they get it when they become veterans. The care of our veterans, servicemen and servicewomen are not just Democratic concerns or Republican concerns. They are American concerns.

To stay updated, please visit my website to learn more what I’m doing to honor those who have served us.

Sincerely,

Harry


Later...

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

In 2004, Matt Stone and Trey Parker (the creators of South Park), released a movie called "Team America: World Police."

It was an incredibly funny and profoundly filthy movie (there were a couple of scenes that if they had been shot with human actors would have caused this film to receive an "X" rating). It satirized both the supporters and opponents of the "War on Terror."

Parker and Stone took no political positions, skewering everyone from Sean Penn, Hollywood liberal (far left), to Kim Jong Il, Korean dictator (far right).

Parker and Stone, as is the case with their work on South Park, were equal opportunity offenders.

So it was with a bit of surprise yesterday when I read that the "Team America PAC" had endorsed Sam Crump in the R primary in CD3.

I wasn't aware that Parker and Stone had gotten into the PAC business and were endorsing candidates, so I was very interested to see what kind of platform they were espousing.

Turns out that "Team America PAC' has nothing to do with "Team America: World Police."

Nope, the PAC is the brainchild of nativist former Congressman Tom Tancredo. It is dedicated to supporting candidates who push for Tancredo's version of "immigration reform" (something just this side of "deport or kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.") The organization is also a haven for people who think like Tancredo, such as Bay Buchanan and this guy.

Not a whole lot of "equal opportunity offending" there - they support candidates like Crump, Jesse Kelly (AZ8) and JD Hayworth (AZ-Sen) while decrying people like John McCain (John McCain!!) as being too liberal.

Not a lot of humor there either, I expect.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

It's time to start talking about ballot questions

Lost in the excitement over the races for various offices on this fall's ballot have been the large number of important questions being placed before the voters in November.

The Arizona Legislature's Legislative Council (basically a group of lawyers who take legislative bill proposals and write them into "legalese) will be holding a public meeting on Wednesday at 10 a.m. in House Hearing Room 4 (HHR4) to consider, possibly amend, and adopt some draft analyses of the various questions scheduled to go before the voters, including two active initiatives that haven't turned in their petitions yet.

The short version of my take on the questions:

Other than the Medical Marijuana question, they're all crap. Pretty much everything proposed by the legislature is aimed at destroying any parts of Arizona's social safety net that have previously been approved by the voters. The other two, which may not make it on the ballot, are part of the same extremist, anti-government/anti-society, ideology.

However, this post isn't about my visceral reaction, it's about the Lege Council's analyses of the questions. Analyses that appear to be, and are supposed to be, impartial.

The Secretary of State's list of current ballot questions is here.

Note: all analyses linked to are drafts and are subject to change.

In the order of the SOS' list, not the Lege Council's list of analyses, because that is the order that the questions will appear on the ballot -

Question 106 (full text here) - an anti-health care reform amendment to the Arizona Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Proposed in 2009, even before HCR passed. Referred to the ballot by the House and Senate on party-line votes.

Question 107 (full text here) - an anti-affirmative action amendment to the AZ Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Referred by the House and Senate on party-line votes.

Question 108 (full text here) - an anti-"card check"/anti-labor amendment to the Arizona Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Referred by the Senate and House on party-line votes.

These three questions are more about the Republican legislative majority's staunch pro-business/anti-minority and working class ideology than about good government.

Question 109 (full text here) - the first "pro" question of this year's ballot, this one would make the "right" to hunt, fish, or otherwise "harvest wildlife" a right protected under the AZ Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Ensuring that Arizona continues as the punchline to political jokes nationwide. Referred by the House and Senate with all Rs and a few rural Ds supporting.

Question 110 (full text here) - an amendment to the Arizona Constitution relating to the sale of state trust lands. Lege Council analysis here. This measure includes a provision allowing for the sale or lease of state trust lands without "advertising or auction." In a ballot chock full o' stinkiness, this one may quietly be the most rancid proposal of all. It will be worthy of a full post of its own as the summer drags on and the November election looms ever closer. Referred by the House and Senate unanimously. Something tells me that a lot of the D members of the lege were snookered by the "protect military installations from development" language in the measure.

Question 111 (full text here) - an amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would change the job title of the Arizona Secretary of State to "Lieutenant Governor." Lege Council analysis here. Nothing about the measure changes the functions of the job, so the current job title is more descriptive of the job function than the proposed title. Referred by the Senate unanimously and by the House with a few Rs opposing.

Question 112 (full text here) - an amendment to the AZ Constitution to change the deadline for submitting initiative petitions to allow more time to verify the petitions. Lege Council analysis here. Possibly the least bad measure up for consideration, but since the source is the legislature... Referred by the House and Senate with a few Rs (and one D) opposing.

Question 203 (full text here) - the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. Lege Council analysis here. This is a good measure, so not surprisingly, this one is a citizen-based initiative, not a legislative-based one.

Question 301 (full text here) - zeroing out the Land Conservation Fund. Lege Council analysis here. Why conserve land when there are corporate tax cuts to pay for? Referred by the House and Senate on party-line votes.

Question 302 (full text here) - repealing the Early Childhood Development and Health Fund and sweeping the money in the Fund. Lege Council analysis here. Why work to ensure that Arizona's child get a healthy start to life when there are corporate tax cuts to pay for? Referred by the House and Senate with all Ds and a couple of Rs opposing.

Not on the ballot as yet, and may not qualify for the ballot, but ones that the Lege Council has draft analyses for are -

- the End Photo Radar Initiative, full text here, Lege Council analysis here. What it sounds like.

- Prop 13 Arizona, full text here, Lege Council analysis here. Would institute strict limits on property taxes, hikes to property taxes, and increases to valuations of property.

Later...

Friday, June 18, 2010

Candidate challenges update: Shaw out, Cheuvront out; Huppenthal in

Only a couple of challenges remain unresolved, but most of the "big" ones have been adjudicated -

- Augustus Shaw, Republican House candidate in LD17, is OFF the ballot for a minor technicality - he lives in LD20. OK, so that's not so minor. :)

- John Huppenthal, Republican candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction is ON the ballot after a judge found that even though the applicable law states that a candidate must form a campaign committee before collecting nomination signatures, the fact that Huppenthal collected sigs under only an "exploratory" committee is not a violation.

- Democrat Ken Cheuvront, a term-limited state senator (LD15) and candidate for Justice of the Peace in the Encanto justice precinct in Phoenix, is OFF of the ballot for using non-partisan petitions to gain the ballot in a partisan primary. His removal from the ballot leaves only incumbent Encanto JP C. Steven McMurry on the ballot.

There are a couple of challenges remaining; once those are heard next week, the final list of ballot-qualified candidates will be available.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

BP's Brown Water bringing out GOP's Brown Nosers

Ummm...BP pollutes thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico and devastates the economies of states from Texas to Florida, and Republican Congressman Joe Barton, of *TEXAS*, apologizes to BP?

Why would he do something that jaw-droppingly dumb?

Best guess: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

BTW - Barton has received over $16K in direct contributions from BP's PAC since 1997, and that number doesn't include money laundered donated to various GOP campaign committees (RNCC, RNC, etc.)

Barton's very public genuflection to the paymasters at BP should be worth a hefty payoff contribution this cycle.

Later...

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Shaw campaign (D17) in more trouble

As if the challenge to his candidacy based on residency wasn't bad enough (hearing scheduled for downtown Phoenix on Thursday), the Augustus Shaw is facing the possiblity of thousands of dollars in fines arising from campaign finance law violations stemming from his failure to file campaign finance reports for his 2004 run for the Tempe City Council.

From the Phoenix New Times -
Augustus Shaw, a Republican running for State Legislature, failed to close out a political action committee he started when he ran for Tempe City Council in 2004, officials say.

Because of state campaign-finance laws, Shaw should have either terminated the PAC or filed finance reports each a year.

Because he's done neither since 2005, Tempe officials tell New Times, Shaw is on the hook for thousands of dollars in penalties.
Oops.

Stay tuned for results from tomorrow's hearing...

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

And Scottsdale wept...

Forbes.com has an article up, one discussing the movement of the wealthy around the country.

From the article -
Surprise: America's wealthy like warm weather and low taxes. That's the takeaway from IRS data, analyzed by Forbes, on moves between counties. We looked for counties that the rich are moving to in big numbers.

Topping the list: Collier County, Fla., which includes the city of Naples. Tax returns accounting for 15,150 people showed moves to Collier County from other parts of the country in 2008, the latest year for which IRS data is available. Their average reported income: $76,161 per person--equivalent to $304,644 for a family of four.
A slide show of the top 35 counties for the inflow of wealth is here.

Upshot of it all:

Even with some of the lowest taxes and nicest weather in the country, Scottsdale and Maricopa County don't make the cut.

And given that the economic development "plan" here is "find people who have made a bundle elsewhere, entice them to move here, and then to spend as much of their bundle here before they kick", something isn't working.

Something's working in Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Texas, Montana, and Idaho, but not here.

Something is working all over the eastern seaboard, but not here.

It's even working in parts of California (now that's something that runs counter to the AZGOP's no taxes/no regulation orthodoxy), but not here.

Perhaps it's time to consider Plan B. Plan A isn't working.

Tony Nelssen's widow Marg appointed to finish out his term

...I can't say "the fix was in" (at this point in time, I don't have any evidence that tonight's events were other than above-board and honest) but her public comment before the selection process even took place sounded a lot like a victory speech.

Plus, when her name was not drawn out of the hat by City Clerk Carolyn Jagger (eliminating the candidate whose name was drawn), absolutely no one looked surprised.

It was clear from the outset that the favored candidate among the various residents of who turned out for the meeting was Marg Nelssen - ten people, including Nelssen herself, spoke in support of appointing Nelssen to the Council; none spoke in support of another candidate.

The main argument in favor of Nelssen's appointment seemed to be (I'm paraphrasing here) "Marg is Tony's wife, so she deserves it. Anything else would be disrespectful to the people who voted him into office in the first place."

Certain speakers spent some of their time and rhetoric excoriating three members of the Council (Ecton, Klapp, and McCullagh) for "playing politics." One speaker accused them of "selling their souls."

Of course, all of the speakers ignored the fact that the whole "appoint Marg" theme was a shameless political ploy by the Lane clique to regain a fourth vote, and a majority, on the Council.

In addition to that, Mayor Jim Lane not only expressed his support for Nelssen (something that he has a right to do), he ran the meeting in a way to encourage public pressure on the three Council members who opposed his moved to shoehorn Marg Nelssen onto the Council last week. The normal practice is to ask visitors to not applaud and to gavel it down whenever applause erupts. Tonight, applause was allowed to go on unchecked.

During the meaty part of the proceedings, four people were nominated to fill the vacancy -

Councilwoman Lisa Borowsky nominated Jay Petkunas, a member of the Planning Commission in Scottsdale

Councilwoman Suzanne Klapp nominated Jim Bruner, a former member of the Council and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

Councilman Wayne Ecton also nominated Bruner

Councilman Bob Littlefield nominated Marg Nelssen

Councilman Ron McCullagh passed, with most observers figuring that he was on board with the Bruner nomination. He was, as votes later in the meeting proved.

Mayor Jim Lane expressed his support for the nomination of Nelssen. However, to maintain the illusion (an illusion that no one in the audience bought into, by the way) that the nomination process wasn't going to end in a 3 - 3 tie with the names of the finalist put into a hat, he nominated one Richard Acton (possible incorrect name and/or spelling there).

After a brief round of votes, the choices came down to Nelssen and Bruner, who each received three votes. Littlefield, Lane, and Borowsky supported Nelssen; Klapp, Ecton, and McCullagh supported Bruner.

However, four votes were needed to win the seat.

As such, the two remaining names were placed in a hat, with the name drawn from the hat being the candidate eliminated from consideration. When that name was announced as Jim Bruner's, the most of those assembled burst out in raucous cheers.

Nelssen will be sworn into office next week.


Nelssen may ultimately turn out to be a fine member of the Council, but I have to ask one question to the "give it to Marg! Tony's wife *should* take his place!" crowd" -

If Bill Clinton had died in office, how many of you would have argued "give it to Hillary! Bill's wife *should* take his place!"?


Later...

Candidate challenges: updates

Update to the update at the end of the post...

There were a number of challenges to state-level candidates filed last week, and they are starting to be heard in court.

The complete list of challenges, from the Secretary of State's office, here.

Going down the list -

Tom Gordon, GOP candidate for Governor - withdrawn

Joe Penalosa, GOP candidate in CD4, challenged by another GOP candidate - challenge overruled. He will appear on the primary ballot. Coverage from the Phoenix New Times here.

Anna Maria Brennan, GOP candidate for state senate in LD11 - withdrawn.

John Kowalski, GOP House candidate in LD6 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.

William Wallace, Democratic House candidate in LD26 - hearing scheduled for today, then rescheduled for tomorrow. A call to the number on his website brought forth a statement that he is withdrawing from the race.

Augustus Shaw, GOP House candidate in LD17. Hearing scheduled for Thursday. Said he was thinking of withdrawing before vowing to fight the good fight. Grab some popcorn for this one.

Bob Thomas, GOP Senate candidate in LD15 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.

Anthony Goshorn, Green House candidate in LD17 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.

W. John Williamson, Democratic House candidate in LD8 - hearing scheduled for Friday.

Sharon Spane, Democratic House candidate in LD21 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.

John Huppenthal, GOP candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction - hearing scheduled for Friday. He will probably stretch this out to the very end, but his credibility as a candidate for the state's top educator is cratering. More popcorn for this one. Lots more.

Scott Bergren, GOP House candidate in LD21 - withdrawn.

Joseph Sweeney, GOP Congressional candidate in CD7 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.

Larry Gist, Green candidate for Governor - hearing scheduled for Wednesday.

Manuel Cruz, Democratic candidate for State Mine Inspector - hearing scheduled for next Monday.

Dave Ewoldt, Independent State Senate candidate in LD28. This one is in Pima County Superior Court, and I couldn't find any info online.

Complete list of withdrawn/removed candidates, courtesy the AZSOS' website, here; write-in candidates here.

More updates as they become available...

Note: I attempted to link to the actual case info where possible from the Maricopa County Superior Court's website, but apparently their website isn't designed with static addresses for their online documents. Apologies.

Edit to update the update: W. John Williamson, Democrat in LD8, has withdrawn; the cases against Larry Gist, Green candidate for Governor, and Manuel Cruz, Democratic candidate for Mine Inspector, have been dismissed and those candidates will be on the ballot.

Monday, June 14, 2010

McCain moving farther right as the campaign wears on


To follow up on his joining JD Hayworth on the nativist train, now McCain is partying with noted anti-Semites.
Pics courtesy Blue Virginia -
The highlight here is the name of one of the "hosts," Fred Malek.
Many years ago, Malek was an operative in the Nixon-era White House. One of his more eye-opening raisons d'etre while there was to count (and purge?) Jewish employees of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The appearance with Malek isn't much of a surprise - Malek was a big part of McCain's unsuccessful bid for the Presidency. Still, this move, drinking for dollars with noted anti-Semites like Malek (as well as Governor Bob "slavery wasn't part of the Confederacy" McDonnell), only serves to remind voters that McCain has far more in common with J.D. "worship Nazi Henry Ford" Hayworth than he has to separate himself from Hayworth.
Washington Post coverage of the fundraiser (taking place in just a few hours) here.
Later...

Candidate debates start this week

The Citizens Clean Elections Commission will begin holding debates for candidates who have chosen to accept campaign funding from the CCEC. Participation in the debates is a condition of accepting the funding.

"Traditional" candidates are invited to the debates, though they are under no obligation to attend. Most choose to do so, especially in races where the traditionally-financed candidate(s) aren't the favorite, such as in the race for the Republican nomination for Governor.

Note: A phone call to Buz Mills' campaign HQ confirmed that he is planning to participate in the debate, as is Matt Jette, the dark horse candidate on the R side of the ballot.

It appears this year that the CCEC debates for statewide candidates won't be open to the public as they will be televised on KAET's Horizon.

The R Governor's candidate debate will air on June 15 (tomorrow) at 7 p.m.

Up next week: the Attorney General debates, with the Republican debate airing June 22 (next Tuesday) and the Democratic debate airing the following evening (both at 7 p.m.)

The complete schedule for statewide candidates can be found here; legislative candidate debate schedule here. Many do *not* have a primary period debate because there is no contest in the primary.

Up this week in legislative debates:

LD11:

June 14, 2010 (tonight!!)

Republican Candidates Senate and House of Representatives
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Embassy Suite Paradise Valley
4415 E Paradise Village Parkway South
Phoenix, AZ 85032

LD19:

June 15, 2010

Republican Candidates House of Representatives
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Country Inn and Suites
6650 E Superstition Springs Blvd
Mesa, AZ 85206

LD23:

June 16, 2010

Republican Senate Candidates
Democrat Candidates House of Representatives
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Holiday Inn Casa Grande
777 N Pinal Ave
Casa Grande, AZ 85122

LD13:

June 17, 2010

Democrat Candidates House of Representatives
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Hilton Garden Inn
11460 W Hilton Way
Avondale, AZ 85323

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Residency issues threaten candidacy of Republican in LD17

From the Arizona Capitol Times -
Sixteen challenges were filed in Maricopa County Superior Court against candidates’ nominating petitions, including allegations that Sen. John Huppenthal collected thousands of invalid signatures and that House candidate Augustus Shaw lives in wrong legislative district.

{snip}

The challenge against Shaw, a Republican seeking a District 17 House seat, claims he is ineligble for office in that district because he actually lives in District 20. A private investigator hired by the law firm Perkins, Coie, Brown & Bain, which is closely associated with the Arizona Democratic Party, reported that during three days of surveillance he witnessed Shaw at his home in District 20, but never at the District 17 home where he lists as his address.

District 20 takes in Ahwatukee, west Chandler and southwest Tempe, while District 17 is comprised of north Tempe and south Scottsdale.
In the Cap Times article, Shaw went on to rationalize the "move" as done to help his autistic son. He claimed that the "move" has been in the works for nearly a year and that he has already moved in with his in-laws (the LD17 address listed on his paperwork).

In spite of Shaw's protestations, it appears that his "move" was a paperwork-only one, done to establish his residency in LD17.

According to the Arizona Guardian article on this topic, Shaw was observed walking his dog and going to stores in the neighborhood of his LD20 home, but was never at the LD17 address listed on his campaign paperwork.

Oops.

This isn't exactly the first time that Shaw has been accused of being a little lax in his ability to follow the basic rules of professionalism or even simple honesty.

In 2006, he was reprimanded by a judge for overstepping the bounds of decorum (and fact!) in his communications with a homeowner/member in an HOA that he represented. More on Shaw's activities here, courtesy the Phoenix New Times.

In 2004, he ran for Tempe City Council. He gained access to the ballot then by persuading local Democratic activists to circulate his nominating petitions. After his petitions were completed, he changed his partisan registration to Republican.

Not exactly the sort of thing that endears a candidate to voters of any political persuasion - Shaw eventually lost to long-time Republican Hut Hutson in the (officially, anyway) non-partisan race.

By 2008 however, he had convinced the AZGOP of his R bonafides, winning election to the AZGOP's 1st Vice Chairman position.

Which brings us to something else that further strains the credibility of Mr. Shaw.

The bylaws of the AZGOP are a closely-held document (at least, they aren't available on the AZGOP's website or anywhere else that I could find online, while the Arizona Democratic Party's bylaws are available on the ADP's website), and could vary significantly from the ADP's, but it seems likely that there will be similarities between the bylaws of the organizations, at least in basic structure.

In the ADP, one must be a precinct committeeman (PC) before becoming a member of the State Committee, and be a member of the State Committee before becoming an officer of the State Committee.

If a PC moves from his/her precinct, they lose their PC slot, and if a state committee member moves from the district he/she was elected from, they lose their position on the state committee.

Augustus Shaw has claimed to do both, move from his original precinct (Tempe 60) and his legislative district (LD20).

Yet apparently, the AZGOP is convinced that he remains in good standing as a Republican PC from LD20, because he is still listed as the AZGOP's 1st Vice Chairman.

BTW - It's the practice in the ADP for a party officer to resign their position if they choose to run for public office, partly out of concern that the necessarily focused self-interest of a candidate could conflict with the broad duties of a party officer.

Apparently2, the AZGOP doesn't take issue with such potential conflicts of interest.

Anyway, the challenge to Shaw's candidacy is scheduled to be heard on Thursday in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Caveat to the above: The GOP's bylaws could be more flexible than the ADP's in this regard. If anyone has a .pdf copy of the most recent AZGOP bylaws, feel free to forward them to me. Thank you.

Later...

Saturday, June 12, 2010

The melodrama continues in Scottsdale politics

When Councilman Tony Nelssen succumbed to cancer, he left a vacancy on the Scottsdale City Council.

The City Charter clearly states that the remaining members of the Council shall appoint a replacement, but no procedure for doing so is specified. As such, things can get a little creative on those occasions when an appointment is necessary.

This was seen at last Tuesday's meeting, which took place on the same day as Nelssen's memorial service. There, Mayor Jim Lane tried to use the emotions of the day to guilt the Council into immediately appointing Nelssen's widow, Marg, to fill the vacancy on the Council.

The move failed on a 3 - 3 tie vote. Lane, Bob Littlefield, and Lisa Borowsky were in favor; Suzanne Klapp, Ron McCullagh, and Wayne Ecton were opposed. That's the normal breakdown when controversial issues go before the Council, and before his death, Nelssen was the fourth vote in the Lane clique.

In the linked AZ Republic article, Lane is quoted as calling the votes of McCullagh, Klapp, and Ecton an "affront." Many of the commenters on the article agreed with that, calling McCullagh, Klapp, and Ecton "boorish," "grasping," "wankers," and more.

I know certain readers are going to disagree with me on this, but NO, not even close.

If anyone involved was "boorish" it was Lane for trying to take advantage of the genuine grief that many in the city feel over the loss of Tony Nelssen in a shameless attempt to reload the Council with a lockstep majority in his favor.

If Lane had simply waited a week, he would have appeared to be a compassionate and wise (almost statesman-like) public servant instead of a cynical political operative.

As it is, the appointment of a replacement will happen this week (Tuesday, 4 p.m., City Hall Kiva), and it will take place without the public viewing the proceedings through grief-tinged lenses.

Right now, it looks as if each remaining member of the Council will nominate someone to fill the open seat, and a series of votes will be taken. Sources expect (as do I) that when the listof candidates is winnowed down to two candidates, the Council will reach an impasse (aka - another 3 - 3 split) and the names of the two finalists will be placed in a hat with the seat going to whichever name is drawn from the hat.

Also expected (though not guaranteed): Marg Nelssen will be one of the finalists. She has expressed in interest in being one of the candidates, and after last week's very public moon shot by Lane, he is too wedded to the idea of appointing her for him to move his support to someone else.

Tuesday's meeting should be the most openly contentious one of the year, and should provide *lots* of writing material. :)

See you there...

"Defending Arizona" - Congressman Harry Mitchell on border and immigration issues

From an email to the Congressman's constituents -
Our state continues to pay a heavy and unfair price for the federal government’s failure to secure our borders and fix our broken immigration system. The federal government has a responsibility to act – it simply hasn't done so – and Arizona continues to shoulder the burden.

As you know, illegal immigration affects Arizona more than it does any other state – more than half of all illegal crossings over the U.S.-Mexico border happen here in Arizona. Specifically, here in the Valley, this has enabled smugglers and Mexican drug cartels to set up vast networks of drop houses, which operate as gateway stations for their illegal activities. The crime and violence associated with these drop houses is tragic and completely unacceptable. Upon being elected to Congress, I asked for a Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation into federal efforts to identify and remove criminal aliens and combat drop houses. This has been a multi-year investigation, of which we expect the results to be presented this summer.

This is also why last month I introduced a bill with Republican Rep. Dana Rohrbacher of California to help secure our border. H.R. 5357, The Deploy National Guard Troops to the Border Act, would immediately deploy a minimum of an additional 3,000 National Guard troops to Arizona's border.

The National Guard has successfully assisted with border security in the past. Operation Jump Start, which concluded its mission in 2008 proved remarkably effective. Border-wide, the National Guard helped seize more than 1,080 vehicles used to transport drugs and/or illegal immigrants, more than 300,600 pounds of marijuana, and 5,060 pounds of cocaine.

I thought the National Guard was drawn down too quickly in 2008 and urged President Bush to extend the deployment of National Guard troops – to no avail. At the time, I offered legislation at the time to stop the draw down from happening, but it was defeated. I’ve also urged President Obama on multiple occasions to send additional National Guard troops to the border and teamed up with Republican Rep. Brian Bilbray of California last year to secure millions of dollars in additional funding for security improvements at the border.

While I welcome the President’s recent announcement that he will be sending an additional 1,200 National Guard troops to the border, I believe we need much more. That is why I hope Congress will take the next step by passing our bill while working on a more comprehensive, permanent fix.

Arizonans should have their voices heard in this debate and recent action taken by the state reflects Arizonans’ ongoing frustration with the federal government’s failure to enact tough, realistic immigration reform. The situation cannot wait simply because this is an election year, while folks in Washington choose to play politics rather than provide solutions. This is an urgent threat to our national security, and I believe the federal government must act.

A broken and ineffectual immigration system is a burden Arizonans should not have to continue to bear alone.

Sincerely,

Harry

Mitchell's statement on the introduction of H.R. 5357 can be found here in the Congressional Record.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Huppenthal petitions challenged: I *love* being able to say "I told you so"

Yes, I'm a bad man, but I really enjoy it when something I more or less predicted (more than a year ago!) starts looking like it will come to pass.

From my post a from a year ago -
Hi. Your snarky (but oh-so-friendly and helpful) neighborhood liberal blogger and Democratic activist here. I don't normally write for you folks, but this one is for you.

Some of you have signed nominating petitions for one John Huppenthal for next year's race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

{snip}

Under the laws of Arizona and the rules from the Arizona Secretary of State, a candidate must form a committee (file paperwork with the state formally declaring the candidate's interest in a particular office).

From the Secretary of State's candidate handbook (page 29 of the .pdf) (emphasis mine) -

4. Statement of Organization OR $500 Threshold Exemption Statement.
A Statement of Organization registering the candidate’s campaign committee OR a $500 Threshold Exemption Statement must be filed before making any expenditures, accepting any contributions, distributing any campaign literature or circulating any petitions. If the candidate has an exploratory committee open at the time of filing, then the candidate, chairman and treasurer must file an amended Statement of Organization to change the committee to a candidate’s campaign committee.

So far, Huppenthal has only formed an "exploratory" committee - filer ID 201000065, formed and last amended on March 16, 2009. As such, any signatures he has collected to date are invalid.
So check out this AZ Republic story today -
John Huppenthal, a Republican state senator vying for his party's nomination as state superintendent of public instruction, is being challenged by the state Democratic Party on the basis that many of his 11,000 petition signatures were gathered before he had formally entered the race.

His case is scheduled for a June 18 hearing in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Yessss!

Now, there is no guarantee that the challenge will be successful - we *are* in Maricopa County, Arizona, where somedays it seems as if the principle of "the rule of law" has been replaced by the principle of "IOKIYAR*".

However, the law seems clear - he had to change his exploratory committee to a candidate campaign committee *before* collecting sigs. He amended his campaign paperwork on January 14; he submitted his petitions on January 20.

I'm guessing that he didn't collect 11K sigs in 6 days.

Anyway, the complete list of challenges received by the Secretary of State's office is here; the current list of withdrawn candidates is here.

*IOKIYAR = "It's OK If You're A Republican

Later...

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

Candidates dropping already

Tomorrow (June 10) is the last day to file challenges to try to remove candidates from the August ballot, but candidates are already being knocked off or simply withdrawing to avoid the embarrassment of being removed.

In Maricopa County -

- Democrat Israel Correa has withdrawn from the race for Justice of the Peace in the Downtown Justice Precinct, leaving Democrats Jeff Farias and Armando Gandarilla (incumbent) as the only two candidates.

- Democrat Bruce McDougall has withdrawn from the Manistee JP race, leaving incumbent Republican Gary Handley as the sole candidate on either side of the ballot.

- Democrat Jeffrey Brown has been removed from the ballot due to a challenge in the race for Encanto Constable, leaving Democrat Maria Ligocki-Russell as the only candidate on the ballot.

In state-level offices -

- Republican candidate for governor John Munger (he of the low single digit support in recent polling) withdrew a week ago because he said that he felt that he couldn't outspend Clean Elections candidates who would receive matching funds. Funny, but he didn't jump back in after the Roberts Supreme Court stopped payment of matching funds for this cycle.

- Democrat Martha Garcia withdrew as a candidate for the LD13 State Senate seat because her petitions weren't going to stand up to a challenge. That leaves former State Rep. Steve Gallardo as the only candidate.

- Republican Wyatt Brooks has withdrawn as a candidate for LD3 House. I couldn't find a reason listed anywhere, but it could be related to the fact that while his campaign organized with a Kingman address (in LD3), the SOS' website now has shows an address of a P.O. box in Hualapai (in LD2, or maybe LD1, but almost definitely not LD3). His withdrawal leaves three candidates in the race, all Republicans - Ray Cullison II, Doris Goodale, and Nancy McLain. Goodale and McLain are incumbents.

In "getting into the race, sort of" news, a few folks have declared their write-in candidacies (primary here, general election here) -

- William Koller of Tucson filed for the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate

- Richard Grayson of Apache Junction has filed as a Green for the Congressional seat currently held by Republican Jeff Flake in CD6. As no other Green candidates have yet filed for the seat, Grayson needs 221 votes in August's primary to qualify for the general election ballot (221 is the number of sigs he would have needed to appear on the primary ballot)

- Sydney Dudikoff of Tucson has filed as a general election candidate for U.S. Senate

As of this writing, the only non-legislative originated ballot question to qualify is the Medical Marijuana Act. Other citizen-originated questions have until July 1 to submit their petitions, so that list may grow (though that seems unlikely at this point.)

Later...

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Republican candidate for Governor proposes concentration camps for undocumented immigrants

No word if he wants to put "Work will set you free" above the entrance to his proposed facilities...

From AZCentral.com -
State treasurer and gubernatorial candidate Dean Martin is calling for the immediate deployment of National Guard troops to the border at Arizona's expense.

He's also calling for a statewide "tent city" jail modeled after Sheriff Joe Arpaio's jail in Maricopa County to house arrested illegal immigrants at low cost.
Martin has been an also-ran in the attention department during his campaign, getting lost in the shadows of Jan Brewer's "incumbent Governor" pulpit and "Buz" Mills' TV ads funded by his own deep pockets, so Martin has been looking for some way to gain attention.

This proposal is guaranteed to get him some, though he may not like the kind of attention he receives.

Ignorance and apathy: not just for Arizona any more

...though there *is* hope for Arizona, dim though it may be...

And this is *not* a diatribe on SB1070, though with that title, it certainly could be...

From the Los Angeles Times -

Quick, don't Google, just answer: Who represents you in state government?

This is the question I roamed about asking at a party in my diverse and politically progressive neighborhood of Venice. The room was filled with people who worry openly about the water they drink, the fuel in their cars, the contents of their compost. Some of them had canvassed for Barack Obama or written checks to his campaign. Others were busy trying to overturn Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that banned gay marriage in California. They were unanimously baffled by what's happening in Arizona, where Gov. Jan Brewer recently signed a bill requiring "suspicious" people to prove their citizenship if stopped by police.

The author, an environmental author and activist, was shocked to find that no one in her group of activists could answer that question.

The author's mistake was surveying people who were only interested in "big" issues, not the nitty-gritty of local races.

As someone who is an activist and has had many discussions with friends and neighbors, I can state unequivocally that most people have no clue about state politics, their legislative representatives (both state and federal), and candidates for the job. Most can name the president and maybe the governor, but the farther down the political org chart the elected official is, the less likely that the typical resident is going to know who the elected official is, or what he or she does.

Nor is that phenomenon limited to the progressive community mentioned in the LA Times piece.

Two years ago, while attending a community meeting, I struck up a conversation with a local couple, a pair of long-time elected precinct committeepersons for the Republican Party, people who had done much the same thing (walking, talking, calling friends and neighbors) as I have (only for the wrong party :) ).

In short, they were the epitome of the "local activist".

Yet even they couldn't name the six ballot-qualified candidates for the R nomination in the CD5 race.

*I* could (Schweikert, Bitter Smith, Ogsbury, Anderson, Gentry, and Knaperek, and I still can recite that list from memory), but I'm a blogger - I write about this stuff.

Of course, even I'm not perfect in this regard. Until Ed Hermes, a friend of mine, ran for Maricopa County Supervisor in 2008, I couldn't name my representative on the Board of Supes (Fulton Brock. Hiss, Boo. :) ).

The supes rarely address issues that I care about, so I didn't pay attention to them.

Historically, this tendency toward not knowing or caring about elected officials or candidates has favored Republicans in Arizona. With a decided advantage in voter registration totals, and a tendency for self-identified Republicans to blindly vote for any candidate listed as a Republican, ignorance and apathy has led to the election of some supremely unqualified candidates.

This year, that may change (at least, I hope it does).

People are angry over the incredibly poor job that the current crop of state-level elected officials have done at managing the state. The SB1070/immigration issue may have distracted a lot of folks for the time being, but the fundamental dissatisfaction with the performance of Arizona's legislature and statewide officials remains both deep and profound.

On top of that, the number of independent voters in Arizona has risen compared to the percentage of voters who identify a party preference (less than 25% in 2004 compared to more than 30% as of last month). These are folks who, for the most part, don't care about a candidate's partisan affiliation.

The utter incompetence and complete unprofessionalism of the legislature and Jan Brewer has broken through the normal apathy - people care about the job their elected officials are doing.

Now the task is to break through the normal ignorance, to let people know who their elected officials are and the part that each of them played in steering Arizona's ship of state into the rocky shoals of fiscal insolvency and societal ridicule.

...Later...

Sunday, June 06, 2010

The "SB1070 supporters = Nazis" analogy is a strong one, but not an overdone one

Not by a long shot...

Many of the more vocal opponents of Russell Pearce's SB1070 (the "show me your papers" law) have likened him, Governor Jan Brewer, and the other supporters of the law to the Nazis.

Brewer finds this analogy so offensive that it caused her to stick her foot in her mouth, inflating her father's record of service during WW2 in order to bask in some reflected Nazi-fighting glow.
The analogy is such a powerful one that even Pearce himself has taken to "disavowing" any connections to white supremacists or Neo-Nazis. Of course, given his history of anti-immigrant rhetoric (Operation Wetback, anyone?), nativist legislation (SB1070 and many, many, more), and "curious" campaign activities (like emails touting a white separatist website), Pearce's protestations seem more pro forma than substantive.

Even Jewish commentators have objected to the analogy, mostly expressing the idea that the "Nazi" analogy and related rhetoric is overheated in this case and only serves to minimize the evil of the Nazis and the Holocaust.

While I understand the commentators' reluctance to give credence to the analogy (and also why Pearce and Brewer don't want to be equated to the greatest evil of the 20th, and perhaps any other, Century), it fits.

The Nazis started slowly, and legislatively, enacting a series of laws meant to demonize and isolate Jews and other "non-Aryans" from German society, economically, legally, and socially.

To whip up public support for the ever-stronger anti-semitic laws, the Nazis ratcheted up their rhetoric, blaming Jews for all that ailed Germany in the post-WWI era, economically, socially, and intellectually.

There were laws to remove Jews from Germany's civil service, restrict the number of "non-Aryans" in schools (both as students and as professors), forbid Jewish physicians from treating non-Jewish patients, and more, culminating in laws revoking the citizenship of Jews.

And that was just the start, when the Nazis were still attempting to put a civil face (of sorts) on their pogrom.

Here in 21st Century Arizona, the state's nativists, led by Russell Pearce and Jan Brewer (and Joe Arpaio and Tom Horne and Colette Rosati and Ron Gould and so many others), have trod a similar path, starting with laws restricting, underfunding, or even defunding English Language Learner classes in AZ's public schools, blocking the poor from taking advantage of public services and benefits unless they prove their U.S. citizenship first, banning ethnic studies courses, removing teachers with accents from classes, and the now-infamous SB1070 "show me your papers" law.

Now Pearce wants to follow up his recent successes with moves to deny citizenship to babies born to undocumented immigrant parents and to force the children of non-citizen parents to pay tuition to attend Arizona's public schools.

Combine that with an escalating anti-immigrant (mostly anti-Hispanic immigrant) rhetoric (like blaming undocumented immigrants for crime in Arizona, even though actual statistics show that those claims are false), such as that which resulted in demands that the faces in a mural at a school in Prescott Valley be lightened because they weren't white enough.

Update: During the writing of this piece, news started hitting the internet that the decision to force the artist to lighten the faces has been reversed. Apparently, being the epicenter of worldwide outrage over a blatantly bigoted decision was too much for the powers-that-be in Prescott. (Further background from Prescott eNews here)

The laws, proposed and enacted, and the rhetoric both demonize and isolate Arizona's immigrant community, just as the Nazis' Nuremburg and eugenics laws did more than seven decades ago.

I understand the reluctance of many observers to accept the Nazi/SB1070 analogy - no one wants to believe that their friends and neighbors (or even themselves) are capable of great evil.

And to be sure, Arizona's nativists haven't racked up the body count the way that Germany's Nazis did.

Yet.

One should remember that the Nazis were in power for more than a decade before their "Final Solution" of assembly-line efficient genocide was fully up to speed; Jan Brewer ascended to the Governor's office less than a year-and-a-half ago.

And one should not confuse "lack of time" with "lack of desire."

Saturday, June 05, 2010

Services set for Councilman Tony Nelssen

From the City of Scottsdale -

Memorial services to be held for Councilman Tony Nelssen

Memorial services for Councilman Tony Nelssen will begin at 9 a.m. Tuesday, June 8, at WestWorld’s Equidome, 16601 N. Pima Road.

Councilman Nelssen passed away May 26 at his home after battling cancer.

For safety purposes, those attending are being asked to dress appropriately. Temperatures are expected to exceed 110 degrees on Tuesday, and the Equidome is a shaded, outdoor, dirt-floored structure that will be cooled by swamp. If comfortable, those attending can honor Councilman Nelssen’s memory by dressing in Western attire.

Access WestWorld by either Bell or Pima roads. Follow the signs to the Equidome. Parking, including handicapped, will be available in the “H” lot. Attendees may then enter the Equidome’s west side for the services.

The program will include the reading of a poem written by Bob Frost, a former city employee and Parks and Recreation Commissioner. Eulogies will be given by Mayor
W.J. “Jim” Lane, Councilman Bob Littlefield, family friends Amy Ganley and John Washington, and Nelssen’s children, Hannah and Ian.
On Tuesday, the Scottsdale City Council will consider possible processes for filling the open seat on the Council, including the possibility of simply appointing Mayor Jim Lane's nominee Marg Nelssen, Tony Nelssen's wife. AZ Republic coverage here. Full Council agenda here.

Friday, June 04, 2010

Cliche time: Politics makes strange bedfellows

Earlier today, John McCain brought his Senate reelection campaign, and his newest best buddy Mitt Romney, to Mesa.

Romney was effusive in his praise for McCain today, which may have surprise long-time (and not-so-long-time) observers who remember the 2008 presidential campaign.

Some of those observers are at the DNC, and they put this together -

Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Apparently, being a Republican hasn't immunized Jan Brewer from "foot-in-mouth" disease

From the AZ Republic -
Gov. Jan Brewer, who has been the subject of some unflattering criticism since signing Senate Bill 1070 into law on April 23, appears to have misspoken about the death of her father and his war service in a recent interview with The Arizona Republic.

Her comments have led some media outlets and political opponents to speculate that she lied about her father's service in World War II, or deliberately inflated it — an allegation her office is denying.

In The Republic interview, Brewer talks about how hurt she has been by remarks that have likened her to a Nazi, and comments that her action on the state's tough new immigration law makes her akin to “Hitler's daughter.”

In the interview, she says the criticism has been especially painful because her father, Wilford Drinkwine died trying to fight the Nazis.

"The Nazi comments...they are awful," she told The Republic. "Knowing that my father died fighting the Nazi regime in Germany, that I lost him when I was 11 because of that...It hurts. It's ugliness beyond anything I've ever experienced."

There's just a couple of problems with those last two sentences, as the Rep piece goes on to point out - Brewer's father didn't actually serve in Europe, he worked in a defense plant in Nevada, nor did he die in that service. To be fair, her father died because of lung disease that could have had its roots in the working conditions in that plant. Still, that isn't dying while "fighting the Nazi regime in Germany."

Still waiting for the R echo chamber to excoriate Brewer the same way they did the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Connecticut when he overstated his service record...

BTW - Nothing in this post is meant to minimize the contributions that Mr. Drinkwine and millions of others made to the effort to defeat the Nazis. In their own way, they were just as vital to the war effort as were the soldiers, sailors, and marines who did the actual fighting.

Without the munitions, equipment, and supplies that Drinkwine and all of those others made (including my grandfather, who worked in the Navy yard in Boston during WW2), the servicemen on the line wouldn't have had anything to fight with.

However vital though, "working in a defense plant" is not the same as "serving in Europe."

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

Munger out: and the weeding out begins

From the Tucson Citizen -
(PHOENIX, AZ) June 1, 2010 – Republican Gubernatorial candidate John Munger released the following statement today:

“The Supreme Court’s decision to leave in place the “matching funds” provision of Arizona’s so-called Clean Elections law presents an insurmountable obstacle to my
campaign for Governor. As I have previously stated publicly and in legal
filings, these dollar-for-dollar taxpayer matching funds create an unequal playing field by discouraging financial contributions to traditionally-funded candidates.
Now, the reccnt court ruling upholding the matching funds provision of Clean Elections *may* have played a part in Munger's withdrawal, but that may just be a convenient excuse that will be swallowed whole by the average Republican.

More likely, he realized that he isn't making any headway among Republican primary voters, and isn't in a position to do so - Jan Brewer may be an unelected incumbent, but she is still the incumbent with an incumbent's stage and as much money as Munger has, it's nothing compared to what Buz Mills has spent and is willing to spend.

Look for few, if any, other significant withdrawals at this point. For most of the candidates, the heavy lifting part of the primary campaign, getting organized enough to gather the sigs to get on the ballot, is over. Perhaps in the U.S. Senate races, where Deakin (R) is getting lost among the clutter of the McCain/Hayworth tiff, and one of the four Ds may fall off after a few weeks of trying to make headway (or maybe not, I'm not sure).

Encouraging the use of fireworks in Arizona: Another chapter in Republican legislative brilliance

Earlier this year, the Arizona legislature passed and Jan Brewer signed HB2246, a measure that deregulated "consumer fireworks" (legislative fact sheet on the bill, including a list of consumer fireworks, here). Under limited circumstances, individual municipalities and counties can create some regulations within their jurisdictions.

However, at this point in time, none have done so.

That may change after events on Monday.

From the Arizona Republic -
Two homes were damaged Monday by a brush fire sparked by firecrackers. There were no injuries, but a dog died in the incident, said Deputy Chief Fire Marshall Jim Ford, of the Scottsdale Fire Department.
Anybody want to start a pool predicting how high the body count/acres burned totals will get before the lege takes another reexamines the wisdom of deregulating fireworks in a state so totally prone to wildfires?

My predictions: body count between 20 and 25, and acres burned between 10,000 and 20,000.