2nd debate: A clear win for Obama

After watching last night's debate between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, I was sure that Obama won the debate handily - he was engaged, on point, and on his game, while Romney was often flustered, usually vague, and always arrogant.

However, I am also sure that I have a "bit" of a partisan bias; OK, I'm a partisan hack. :)

But I'm an honest and (I like to think a) fair one, so I decided to sleep on it before writing about my impressions of the debate in Hempstead.

Summary:  no change.  Obama won, going away.

The bottom line is that while Obama wasn't perfect, he did a very good job in Hempstead.  On the other hand, Romney in the second debate looked like the San Diego Chargers in the second half of Monday night's NFL game - even when he did something right, he followed it up with something so wrong that it more than counterbalanced the thing he did right (on Monday night, the Chargers steamrolled their way to a 24 - 0 halftime lead over the Denver Broncos, only to see that lead disappear in a litany of turnovers and penalties as the Broncos went on to win the game 35 - 24.  The word "epic" is overused these days, but it was definitely a collapse of epic proportions).

I'm not the only one who thinks that the president won the debate - even some Fox News commentators think so too -

Neil Cavuto: “The President put in a better performance tonight.”

Charles Krauthammer:  “I think on points, if you’re scoring it on points, Obama wins on points

Juan Williams:  “I think Obama won the debate.”

To be fair, the Fox News commentators did try to minimize the scale of Obama's victory, but even they couldn't deny the fact of the victory (OK, many of them weren't that honest; the spin this morning is dizzying as Fox's morning show talking heads proclaim the debate to be a resounding victory for Romney).

Two takeaways from last night's debate:

- "Binders full of women" is the second debate's "Big Bird" moment. 

During the first debate, Romney pledged to balance the federal budget by cutting the federal subsidy to PBS, which broadcasts the beloved Sesame Street with Big Bird, among many other educational programs.

During the days after the debate, Romney was hammered with that comment

During the second debate, Romney responded to a question about his position on the issue of women not receiving equal pay for equal work by telling a story about how he had "binders full of women" available to him while he was filling cabinet positions as governor of Massachusetts.  He managed to sound evasive and condescending at the same time.

And has been getting hammered with that comment.

- The other takeaway has been a little lost in the rhetorical hubbub surrounding the "binders" comment and the other moments of interest during the debate (like Romney blaming gun violence in America on single mothers), but "please proceed, Governor" stands a chance of becoming a catchphrase meaning "you are doing such a good job of hanging yourself that I don't need to help you.  Much.  Here, have a little more rope."

During the exchange over the killing of the American ambassador to Libya and three other Americans during an attack on the embassy in Benghazi, Romney claim that Obama didn't call the attack an "act of terror" for two weeks.  The President responded that he did so the next day.  Romney thought he had the president on this point and honed in on it, reiterating his position and demanding that the president affirm or change his.  The president responding wth "Please proceed, Governor."

Romney did so, and was immediately fact-checked by debate moderator Candy Crowley, who pointed out that the president did, in fact, call the attack an act of terror the very next day.

It's probably doesn't help the credibility of a candidate to accuse another candidate of lying and then to turn around be caught lying himself.  Jus' sayin'...

If you didn't see the debate, the full debate video is available here, courtesy Huffington Post.  It's a little over 90 minutes long and well worth a look for those who wish to form their own opinions, something we should all do.

Maricopa County Recorder's Office engaging in voter suppression activity?

From ABC15.com, written by Tim Vetscher (emphasis mine) -

The Maricopa County Elections Department mistakenly listed the wrong date of the upcoming general election on an official government document.

The error appears on a document containing a voter ID card.

In addition to the ID card, the piece of paper it comes in lists other information such as important election dates.

In the corner of the document, it says November 6th in English but in Spanish it reads 8 de Noviembre, the 8th of November.

 

Election day is November 6th, not November 8th.

Folks, there is a reason that Arizona has been, is, and will remain, a "preclearance" state under the Voting Rights Act.

OK, there are *many* reasons, and this is only the latest and most blatant.

Folks2, it's official - we've reached the "cheat like hell" portion of the Republicans' plan to win the elections this year.

Bill Clinton coming to Tempe for Richard Carmona

Former President Bill Clinton is coming to ASU in Tempe as part of a rally for Richard Carmona, the Democratic nominee for US Senate who has been surging in recent polls.  RSVP here.

Basic info:

Date: Wednesday, October 10
Place: ASU Tempe, Sun Devil Performance Lawn, 650 South Athletes Place, Tempe, Arizona 85287
Time: Open at 8 p.m; rally starts at 9 p.m. 

 



Takeaway from the debate: Mitt took round one on style points

...and rounds two and three can, and I expect will, have different outcomes.

Romney pluses:  Stated clearly and (for now) kept to his positions confidently, even aggressively.  Frequently interrupted and/or ignored the debate moderator, Jim Lehrer, making it appear that Romney was in control of the debate.

Romney minuses: In spite of that, he didn't land a body blow, or even seriously sting President Obama, and he needed to do so tonight.

Obama pluses:  He had facts on his side, and he stayed calm and composed in the face of Romney's incessant lies and attacks.

Obama minuses:  He didn't call out Romney on the lies, letting a huge TV audience walk away from the event with the impression that Obama may not have the spine to stand up to Romney.


While the debate was a "win" for Romney, barely, the talking heads on the cable news networks think that this was a major "game changing" victory for Romney, and a brutal loss for Obama.

The problem with the talking heads is that they think like Washington insiders and expect that everyone else thinks the same way.

For them, the nuances of Simpson-Bowles, tax policy, and the deficit are the most vital topics of the day (and they certainly are important).

However, most parents with hearts will have a far more visceral reaction when their 3-year old cries -

"Mommy/Daddy!  Please don't vote for the man who wants to kill Big Bird!"

I can't take credit for the following pics from my Facebook friends, but they may illustrate the real takeaway from the debate for most people -

"Obama went after bin Laden; Romney is going after Big Bird".

 

 

 

 

 

Running and hiding from open debate? That's so 2010...

Everybody remembers the "brain freeze heard 'round the world" when Governor Jan Brewer blanked for more than 13 seconds during her first televised debate with Democratic nominee Terry Goddard.

After her embarrassing performance, she and her handlers decided that the "first" debate would be the "only" debate.

Many other Republican candidates, looking at the poll numbers that indicated that 2010 was going to be a wave year for the Republicans, followed suit.  There was no reason to risk a debate gaffe derailing an all-but-certain victory.

And for the most part, the plan worked (or at least, it didn't *not* work) - the 2010 wave swamped the US House, state legislatures, and governor's mansions coast-to-coast.  After the 2010 elections, Republicans controlled the US House, became a large enough minority caucus in the US Senate so that they have been able to block pretty near every remotely positive measure, controlled all or part of 35 state legislatures, and controlled 29 governor's offices.

Fast-forward to 2012 and while it is shaping up to be a far more balanced year, yet many Republicans are campaigning like it's 2010 all over again.

In Arizona, both Republican Senate nominee Jeff Flake and CD9 nominee Vernon Parker are playing the "run and hide" card for all it's worth.

Flake has declined to publicly debate Richard Carmona, the Democratic nominee (though to be fair, per the linked article, he has agreed to a debate with Carmona, in a TV studio with no live audience, for 30 minutes only).

Parker is just ignoring Kyrsten Sinema, the Democratic nominee, and the voters in the new Ninth Congressional District.  He simply has not responded to debate inquiries.

In 2012, Flake and Parker, and certain other Republicans, are still running from their 2010 playbook, which had a primary theme of "Keep your head down and your mouth closed.  If you don't screw up, you'll win."

In 2010, that scheme worked in nearly all but the most heavily Democratic districts.

In 2012, the situations and districts here are much more competitive and the "bunker" mentality and approach isn't going to work for any candidate.

Having said all that, there are candidates who legally *cannot* avoid at least some interaction with voters and the other candidates.

Clean Elections candidates must participate in a CE-sponsored debate as a condition of receiving funds from the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. 

This looks to be the busiest week of the general election season in terms of Clean Elections debates.

- Monday, September 24, LD11 Senate and House, 6 p.m. at Pima Community College - Northwest Campus, 7600 N. Shannon Road in Tucson

- Tuesday, September 25, LD20 Senate and House, 6:30 p.m. at ASU West - La Sala Ballroom, 4701 W. Thunderbird Road in Glendale

- Tuesday, September 25, LD24 Senate and House, 5:30 p.m. at A.E. England Building (ASU Downtown campus), 424 N. Central Avenue in Phoenix

- Wednesday, September 26, LD14 Senate and House, 6 p.m. at Benson City Council Chambers, 120 W. 6th Street in Benson

- Thursday, September 27, LD16 Senate and House, 6:30 p.m. at ASU-Poly Cooley Ballroom B, 7001 E. Williams Field Road, Mesa

- Thursday, September 27, LD27 Senate and House, ASU-Mercado, Room C145, 502 E. Monroe Street in Phoenix

Arizona Ballot Propositions 2012

At last count (and subject to change, depending on court rulings), Arizona voters will be considering nine ballot questions in November.  While I've pretty much decided how I'm going to vote ("no" on all questions except for Proposition 204), a look at each question is merited.  I'll be taking a position on each measure and stating why I hold that position.  However, I urge all readers to read and study the propositions for themselves and cast their votes based on what they think is best for the state.

First, some resources -

The League of Women Voters of Arizona ballot proposition guide is here - English/Spanish.
The Arizona Secretary of State's webpage for its proposition publicity pamphlet is here.
Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona offers a thorough and well-written guide here. 

The first two are neutral (though cynic that I am, if I was only discussing the AZSOS' guide, the word "ostensibly" would be used to modify "neutral"); Mike Bryan openly takes positions on the measures.  I disagree with a couple of those positions, but on those questions, there isn't a "good" position, just a "less bad" one.

On to the questions -

Proposition 114 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature on a mostly party-line vote (one D in the House voted for it).  Ostensibly about "protecting" the victims of crimes from being sued by criminals, but this is an all but nonexistent problem.  Really about undermining the protections in the AZ Constitution that bar the lege from doing anything to reduce the right of Arizonans to recover damages for death or injury.  Undermining those protections is something that big business and other wealthy interests have been working on for years.  They want the state's court system to be more like the state's political system - mostly available to the highest bidder.  Like Mike Bryan, I am voting "No".

Proposition 115 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature on a mostly party-line vote (eight Ds in the House voted for it).  Makes changes to the selection process for judges.  The process is currently one with safeguards that work to protect the independence of the judiciary.  This measure seeks to whittle away at that independence.  It also seeks to indirectly undermine the independence of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission by turning the Commission on Appellate Court Appointment, which screens candidates for the AIRC, into a partisan star chamber.  Like Mike Bryan, I am voting "No".

Proposition 116 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature.  While the Rs in the lege marketed this as a tax cut for small businesses (effectively marketed, I should say, since every D who voted on this in the lege supported this one.  They should have read the fine print before casting their votes), it's actually a huge gift to big business that will serve to undermine the fiscal stability of the state and every county in the state.  I'm voting "No".

Proposition 117 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature.  For purposes of property tax valuations, would cap increases in valuations of property to 5% over the previous year's valuation.  Sounds OK, even pretty good, to anyone who lived through the massive real estate bubble of the last decade where house prices, and values, rose dramatically, often resulting in seriously higher property taxes for homeowners who didn't even participate in the 'flipping for fun and (paper) profit" scams.  Well, sounds OK until you realize that this is a sop to the anti-government and anti-society whackjobs who want to impose a harsh property tax cap on Arizona.  The bursting of the real estate bubble has solved this "problem" already.  I'm voting "No".

Proposition 118 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature.  This measure seeks to change the way that distributions of revenue from the Permanent State Land Endowment Fund are handled.  When AZ became a state, a large portion of the state's land area was placed in trust and revenues from sales of that land go into the Fund and are dedicated to certain beneficiaries (like schools, hospitals, and prisons).  This measure is intended to provide short term increases in revenue for those beneficiaries so that the lege can justify providing long-term tax cuts to their wealthy friends.  I'm voting "No".

Proposition 119 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature.  This is another attempt to modify the state constitution to facilitate the exchange of state trust lands with other parcels in order to protect military facilities from encroaching development.  This one has been around before and has been defeated each time because most people (including me) don't trust the legislature.  Past efforts were vague and rife with opportunity for mischief.  Supposedly this has been improved and is supported by a number of environmental and business groups, as well as many Democrats.  I still don't trust the lege and am going to vote "No".

Proposition 120 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature.  This one is a sop to the batshit crazy crowd.  It declares that Arizona has absolute sovereignty over all land, water, and air in AZ, except under certain specific and limited circumstances.  It's a way of saying that Arizona doesn't have to follow federal laws and regulations.  This has been tried before.  It resulted in the Civil War.  I'm voting "No".

Proposition 121 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was placed on the ballot by initiative petition.  Would change the state's elections to a "top two" primary system where all candidates for an office would face off in the primary, and the top two vote-getters in the primary would advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.  This one is opposed by the major political parties, the minor political parties, and many advocacy groups.  It is supported by a number of big business lobbying groups, as well as "moderate" (read: "pro big business") Republicans.  The supporters claim that this will result in more moderate candidates running for, and winning, office, even though there is no evidence to that effect from the states that have already tried this (LA, WA, and now CA).  The opponents are worried that this could lead to situations where in a district that leans heavily partisan in one direction or another that there could be a number of candidates of that party who split the vote in the primary, leading to a district being represented by someone who isn't supported by a majority, or even true plurality, of the voters in that district.  I'm not sure that this one will past muster with the US Department of Justice, which under the Voting Rights Act, must "pre-clear" all changes to laws regarding AZ's elections.

If adopted, this measure would effectively disenfranchise all minor party and independent candidates and voters, because none of them have the resources necessary to compete in this sort of "jungle primary."

The Republicans tried hard to keep this one away from the voters and off of the ballot, ultimately to no avail.  I think that it should be on the ballot for the voters to consider.  And to defeat.  I'm voting "No".

Proposition 204 - A proposed statute that was placed on the ballot by initiative petition.  It would permanently extend the 1% increase in the state sales tax that the voters passed in 2010, intended to buttress funding for education.  I despise sales taxes as they are truly the most regressive of all taxes, and Arizona already relies too heavily on sales taxes for revenue.  However, I view voting for this as the "less bad" of the available options.

One of the reasons cited by AZ Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal (R) in opposition to the measure is that it includes a large chunk of education-related statutes in the measure, meaning that said sections of law become covered under the Voter Protection Act, which in turn means that the lege is all but completely barred from changing said statutes.

He, other Republicans, and to be fair, some Democrats, think that it is unwise to handcuff the legislature like that; personally, I think that it is high time that we begin micromanaging the lege.

As regular readers know, voter apathy is one of my pet peeves.

Until more people actually pay attention to the conduct of their elected officials, we will continue to have a legislature with a majority of members who feel nothing but contempt for the majority of Arizonans.

Right now, I don't know a way to reduce the kind of pervasive apathy that is contributing to Arizona's decline into "national punchline" status.

I do know that we can, however, do things to minimize the damage that the legislature can wreak upon the state.

Voting for Proposition 204 is one step toward doing that.

Project Civil Discourse: A Statewide Conversation on

Project Civil Discourse is an initiative of the Arizona Humanities Council, dedicated to fostering an environment that facilitates, rather than impedes, constructive discussion of political issues in Arizona.

Next week, they'll be conducting a statewide forum on some of the questions that will be on the ballot in November.  The announcement -

Mapping Arizona's Future

Click Here to Register

Thursday, September 27, 2012
6:00 to 9:00pm

Free & Open to the Public

A Statewide Conversation on
Arizona's Key Ballot Propositions

Michael Grant, former host of KAET-TV's Horizon and prominent valley attorney, will moderate a panel of experts (Justice Ruth McGregor, former Chief Justice for the Arizona Supreme Court, Ken Strobeck, Executive Director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, and Howie Fischer, Chief Correspondent at Capitol Media Services) and participant roundtable discussions on three key ballot propositions.

• Prop 115: Judicial Selection
• Prop 204: Quality Education and Jobs
• Prop 121: Open Government

A Simulcast Discussion Around Arizona

Forum Locations:
Apache Junction - Central Arizona College - Superstition Mountain Campus

Winkelman/SE Pinal County - Central Arizona College - Aravaipa Campus

Coolidge - Central Arizona College - Signal Peak Campus

Flagstaff - Coconino Community College - Lone Tree Campus

Scottsdale - Scottsdale Community College

Sedona - Yavapai College - Sedona Center for Arts & Technology

Tucson - Pima County Community College - West Campus

Yuma - Arizona Western College

Space is Limited, Pre-registration is Required

Click Here to Register

For more information, please contact Jamie Martin at 602-257-0335 x26 or jmartin@azhumanities.org

I'll be attending the forum at the Scottsdale Community College location, the location nearest to me; if one of the locations is close to you, sign up and reserve your spot.

Republican candidate ordered off of the ballot in LD13

From AZCentral.com, written by Amber McMurray and Haley Madden -

Legislative candidate Darin Mitchell's name should be removed from the Nov. 6 ballot, a judge ruled Monday.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Oberbilling ordered that Mitchell be removed from the ballot after hearing testimony from neighbors and other witnesses who said the GOP House candidate did not reside in district where he was elected.

{snip}

 

But the process for his replacement is a matter of timing, according to Matt Roberts, Secretary of State's Office spokesman.

 

According to the office interpretation of state statute, the Republican party can appoint a candidate to replace Mitchell if they can do it before the ballots are printed Tuesday night.

 

If the party cannot meet that deadline - or if Mitchell appeals and the Arizona Court of Appeals does not rule by that deadline - then no name will go on the ballot. Any candidate, however, can file to run as a write-in.

There are procedural requirements/laws that would seem to make it unlikely that the Rs can appoint someone to fill the ballot slot, given that the deadline is 5 p.m. on Tuesday.  From ARS 16-343 (emphasis mine) -

2. In the case of a vacancy for the office of United States representative or the legislature, the party precinct committeemen of that congressional or legislative district shall nominate a candidate of the party's choice and shall file a nomination paper and affidavit complying with the requirements of section 16-311.

 

{snip}

 

C. Any meetings for the purpose of filing a nomination paper and affidavit provided for in this section shall be called by the chairman of such committee or legislative district, except that in the case of multicounty legislative or congressional districts the party county chairman of the county having the largest geographic area within such district shall call such meeting. The chairman or in his absence the vice-chairman calling such meeting shall preside. The call to such meeting shall be mailed or given in person to each person entitled to participate therein no later than one day prior to such meeting. A majority of those present and voting shall be required to fill a vacancy pursuant to this section.

D. A vacancy that is due to voluntary or involuntary withdrawal of the candidate and that occurs following the printing of official ballots shall not be filled in accordance with this section, however, prospective candidates shall comply with section 16-312. A candidate running as a write-in candidate under this subsection shall file the nomination paper no later than 5:00 p.m. on the fifth day before the election.

The other interesting part of section C above (as in "other than the highlighted portion") is the bit about the chair of the district having the largest *geographic area* being the one to call the meeting necessary to appoint someone to fill the ballot slot.  While the AZSOS shows that there are more registered voters in the Maricopa County portion of LD13 than in the Yuma County portion (59K to 35K), geographically speaking, LD13 is more a Yuma County district than a Maricopa County district.

However, that's just trivia, because at this point, while there still could be some rule-bending by the Rs to name someone to fill the vacant ballot spot, it looks as if it's going to come down to a write-in campaign.

While under the provisions of the above section of law, candidates have until five days before the election to file as write-in candidates, realistically, any interested parties should file as soon as it becomes definite that there will be a vacant spot on the ballot.  A successful write-in campaign will need to be up and running ASAP.

Which won't be fun for any of the candidates, but should make for great subject material for wiseasses with blogs. :)

The Rs' LD13 primary mess: Unleash the lawyers!

On Tuesday, the Arizona Capitol Times broke the story that Darin Mitchell, one of the winners of the LD13 Republican primary for a seat in the Arizona House of Representatives, apparently doesn't live in that district.

Note: the link is to my post about the story; the Cap Times' story is now behind a subscriber paywall.

The incumbent legislator that Mitchell ousted, Russ Jones, took a few days to mull his options, ultimately deciding to file a lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court (link courtesy KPNX-TV).

In the lawsuit, Jones asks the court to enjoin (aka - forbid) the AZ Secretary of State and the county recorders in Maricopa and Yuma counties (LD19 spans parts of both counties) from placing Mitchell's name on the general election ballot.

He also asks for court costs and attorney fees, but does *not* specifically ask the court to place his name on the ballot in Mitchell's stead.

I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a big grain of salt (meaning that I could be way off here), but I don't think this is going to go far.

1.  There is a 10-day period after the deadline for filing candidate petitions in June when candidates (and non-candidates) can challenge the ballot eligibility of other candidates.  Fisher availed himself of that time to challenge the petitions of another candidate, successfully forcing that candidate out of the race; Jones did not challenge Mitchell's residency at that time.  I'm guessing that the Court will be loathe to give Jones a second opportunity at this late date, particularly in order to overturn the results of an election.

2.  There are a couple of typos in the legal filing.  It refers to Mitchell as "Shaw" a couple of times -



From page 4 of the linked .pdf
 

There was another instance of this on page 5 of the filing.

The typos alone might not be enough for the Court to dismiss the filing (I think "intent" is obvious here, and I think that the filers clearly intended to name "Mitchell", not some mysterious "Shaw", but I really don't know), but if the Court is looking for a way to not get involved in this mess, the typos could give it a technical, rather than substantive (and hence, easily reversible), excuse to dismiss.

3.  Neither I, nor anyone I talked to about this, is aware of any Arizona case law that is on point about this (to be fair, neither I nor the people I spoke to are attorneys, so there may be an obscure case that we missed), so if the Court does take any position on this, they'll be setting precedent.


Depending on the latitude that the Court has (and this was something I really would have preferred to ask an attorney about), they could split hairs, saying that it is too late to knock Fisher off of the ballot, but because of the residency issue it could determine that Fisher is ineligible to serve in the lege until he meets the residency requirement.

In addition, if Fisher is actually kicked off of the general election ballot, it creates a real mess because that would only leave one ballot candidate for the two House seats that are up for election - incumbent Steve Montenegro (R).  No Democrats, Independents, or other party candidates are on the general election ballot.  That means that the 2nd seat would go to whichever candidate runs the best write-in campaign.

If that happens, and a credible Democrat in LD13 wants to step up, call me.  I'll volunteer for your campaign.  I'm pretty sure that the MCDP has my number, or you can email me or reach out on Facebook.


Having said all that, I love this stuff, and not just in a "better them than us" sort of way (though I freely admit that I'm glad this is happening with the Rs and not the Ds).

This stuff is fascinating, in a "nuts and bolts" of politics way.

Yes, I'm a political geek, and yes, I'm proud of it.

The Republicans like to chirp about "voter fraud". What's their stance on "candidate fraud"?

Republicans all over the country have been crying wolf voter fraud to rationalize their efforts to suppress the voting rights of minorities.  The fact that the number of cases is actually miniscule is irrelevent.  They aren't trying to address the alleged problem that they are citing.

They're trying to make voting more difficult for eligible voters from groups that tend to support Democratic candidates, namely the poor and minorities.

One thing that they haven't been crying about is candidate fraud.

To whit, from the Arizona Capitol Times, written by Hank Stephenson -

Political newcomer Darin Mitchell defeated an incumbent legislator in the Aug. 28 primary election, but it appears he never should have been on the ballot because he lives in a home outside Legislative District 13.

 

Mitchell claimed in a sworn affidavit that he lives in a 3,600-square-foot home on a golf course in Litchfield Park. In reality, the home is vacant, with mattresses covering the front windows, a construction dumpster in the driveway and construction permits taped to the window. Neighbors say the house has been empty for at least a year, and a contractor working on the home confirmed nobody lives there.

Oopsie.

In 2010, a Republican attempted a similar stunt, trying to run for a legislative seat in District 17 (central and north Tempe and south Scottsdale) while living in District 20 (south Tempe, Ahwatukee, and a bit of Chandler).  One of the then-vice chairs of the AZGOP, Augustus Shaw, lived in south Tempe with his wife and family, but claimed that he actually resided in the home of his in-laws in central Tempe.

When called on it, he claimed that he did it for his autistic son.

Yeah, I know what you are thinking, and the judge didn't buy it either.  Shaw was thrown off of the ballot.

On the bright side, however, at least Shaw actually picked an address where people lived; apparently, Darin Mitchell has couldn't be bothered to put in that much research time, and picked a nearly uninhabitable structure for his address.

One would think that they would have learned the lesson from 2010, but apparently, one would think wrong.

It remains to be seen how this will play out, but whatever else happens, don't expect Mitchell to face criminal charges - the Arizona Attorney General and Arizona Secretary of State, people who might be expected to weigh on criminal proceedings in matters like this, are Republicans who are known for placing a higher value on partisan affiliation than on the law.

Short Attention Span Musing

...Just a few things to think about on this, Labor Day 2012...

...Thank you unions for all the hard work, sweat, and sacrifice needed to get things like bans on child labor, overtime, sick time, vacations, holidays, safe working conditions, and more made a standard part of American culture.

While I've summed up their contributions in a single sentence, that's because there just aren't enough words in the English language to pay proper homage to those that truly deserve the title of "hero".


...During the Republican primary, Mitt Romney famously declared that he "likes firing people". 

Well, my guess is that he is going to particularly enjoy firing the political consultants who stage-managed last week's Republican convention in Tampa, whoever they might be.

Not because his acceptance speech hasn't been well-received, nor has he received the traditional post-convention "bounce" in public opinion polls.

Nope.  The managers of the show called the Republican National Convention (and yes, the Democratic Convention will be just as tightly-plotted and controlled) allowed their boss to be upstaged by an old guy talking to a chair.

On national television.

On the biggest night of his political life.

Probably not the sort of epic failure that any political operative wants on his/her resume.


...One of the big media memes today was the question "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" 

First made famous more than three decades ago by Republican Ronald Reagan while he was campaigning for president against Democrat Jimmy Carter, the Republicans have started trotting it out against President Obama.  Mostly in hopes that the American people have forgotten who actually presided over the cratering of America's economy.  They haven't.

The Republicans reacted with glee, however, when MD Governor Martin O'Malley and a couple of other Obama surrogates fumbled when faced with that question.

Well, let me be unequivocal -

I, and we, are better off today than four years ago.

While the economy is far from perfect, four years ago, the reality was poor and the outlook worse, with no end (recovery) in sight.  An Arizona-focused report on the economy, courtesy the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) is here. 

Today, the recovery is ongoing, even if stunted somewhat by Republican obstructionism in DC and elsewhere. 

The best chart in support of that is this one, courtesy The Maddow Blog -

...Maybe America's unemployed and underemployed should follow the lead of one of the Republican Party's standard-bearers and just "massage" their resumes. 

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer -

Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan has been described as dazzling, but several fact checkers say his words aren’t exactly that.

 

After his convention speech Thursday, a Fox News writer described it as deceiving and distracting. A Mitt Romney pollster, Neil Newhouse, told buzzfeed.com “we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.”

 

{snip}

 

In a radio interview last week with conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, Ryan said his personal best time for 26.2 miles was “Under three [hours], high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something.”

 

{snip]

 

Turns out Ryan didn’t come anywhere close to the 3-hour mark in his only marathon, according to Runner’s World, who looked into his bogus claim.

Based on Ryan's habitual lying and his continued veneration by the R establishment, I should be able to claim that I was there taking pictures when the late Neil Armstong walked on the moon in 1969, and be able to do so without repercussion, right?

I mean, I was all of three years old when Armstrong made his historic walk, but that just means that I was a prodigy, right?*

Armstrong on the moon.  Pic courtesy NASA.

* In case you couldn't tell, I did NOT take pictures on the moon, in 1969 or any other year.  Us writer-types have an arrow in our literary quiver called "hyperbole."  I used it here.

Not registered to vote yet? This will help...

The Obama campaign has release an application that will help people from all over the country register to vote.  It contains code that can be embedded in a web page, and has been added at the bottom of this blog's main page. 

It looks like this -




I can't speak for other states, but here in Arizona, the deadline to register to vote in the November 2012 election is October 9, 2012.

David Schapira, the clear choice in CD9

In case you haven't heard (LOL), tomorrow is primary election day in Arizona.

There are contests on both sides of the ballot, but few are higher profile than the race for the Democratic nomination in the Ninth Congressional District.  The Ninth District takes in parts of Phoenix, Scottsdale, Mesa, Chandler and all of Tempe. 

There are three Democrats on the ballot -

Kyrsten Sinema, a former state legislator

Andrei Cherny, formerly chair of the Arizona Democratic Party

David Schapira, currently a state senator and Democratic leader in the Arizona Senate

All three are young, intelligent, and hard working, and regardless of the outcome Tuesday, the two runners-up will be at the head of the list of potential statewide candidates in 2014.

All three have won the support of some dedicated activists and volunteers, many of whom I like and respect, and even call "friend".

However, only one candidate can win this race, and I believe that the candidate who best merits our votes is David Schapira.

On the "big issues" David and the other candidates have very similar positions, but Schapira's honesty, directness and passion for his constituents, his employers, earns him the nod.

He has run a positive campaign, running *for* the privilege of representing the district, not *against* the other candidates.

He has a documented history of working for his constituents, but he also has a history of standing up for principle, even when it may not be politically advantageous.

Such as when he supported and worked for the effort to recall Russell Pearce.  Before he was recalled, Pearce was president of the Arizona State Senate, and if he had survived the recall, would have made Schapira's life at the Capitol a living hell.

Like most people who run for office, Schapira is relaxed and comfortable in front of, or in, a crowd. 

Schapira in front of a crowd



Schapira in a crowd

But he also genuinely likes talking with individual people, even after the crowds have thinned out -

David has been a life-long Arizonan, student, teacher, and small businessman.

David has been a strong advocate for the people of his district in the Arizona legislature, husband, and father (not in order of importance).



From Schapira's website

With your help, David will be Arizona's next great Congressman.

Vote for David Schapira tomorrow.

The primary election is Tuesday: races to watch when the results come in

As most Arizonans know by now, or at least the ones who have watched TV, opened their mailbox or answered the door over the last month, Arizona's primary election is Tuesday.

In many regards, this election will be more important than the general election in November because many of the races will be decided in the primary (safe districts, uncontested general election races, etc.).

As such, some of the most interesting races will be decided Tuesday.

A sampling, with brief commentary about a few -

Federal races first -

R US Senate - The big names are Jeff Flake (current US Congressman) and Wil Cardon (deep-pocketed businessman).  It looks as if Flake will win this one by a comfortable margin, as the Cardon camp tried to run against Flake from the right...only to find out that there just isn't much room to work with there.

D CD1 - Candidates Ann Kirkpatrick (former member of Congress) and Wenona Benally Baldenegro (attorney and community activist) have been running a classic big money (Kirkpatrick) vs. grassroots (Baldenegro) campaign.  Expectations seem to be that Kirkpatrick will win.  Either way, the winner here will go on to face the winner of...

R CD1 - Where the candidates include Jonathan "Payday" Paton (former AZ legislator), Gaither Martin (a contractor for the Defense Department, rodeo guy, interned with former Congressman JD Hayworth), and Patrick Gatti (retired businessman).  There was a fourth candidate, Douglas Wade, but he ran out of money and withdrew from the race, endorsing Martin on his way out the door.  Paton has the highest name recognition in the race, but he is also the carpetbagger in the race (he actually lives near Tucson).  If he wins the primary race, he's going to have an uphill battle against either Kirkpatrick or Baldenegro.

R CD4 - Candidates Ron Gould (current state senator), Rick Murphy (businessman from Lake Havasu City) and Paul Gosar (current member of Congress, in another district), are on the ballot, but the real race is between Gould and Gosar.  It's been a battle of PACs as well as candidates, as the dentists' PAC has been spending thousands of dollars on behalf of one of its own (Gosar) as the Club for Growth has spent thousands on behalf of Gould.

R CD5 - The race is between former Congressman Matt Salmon and former state representative (and speaker of the Arizona House) Kirk Adams.  Salmon started off very strong in both fundraising and endorsements, and while he hasn't exactly dropped off of the table, he didn't put away Adams early.  Adams has pulled, if not even, into the same ballpark as Salmon in terms of fundraising, and he has racked up same big-name endorsements.  The biggest of those is Jeff Flake, whose current Congressional district 6 covers much the same territory as the new district 5.  In addition, Adams has some kind of event scheduled for Monday afternoon with former VP candidate and current media personality Sarah Palin.  It may turn out to be a desperate, last gasp kind of effort, but it also indicates that the Adams campaign (and Palin) think that they are close enough for such an effort to make a difference.

R CD6 - Freshman Congressmen David Schweikert and Ben Quayle are slicing each other to ribbons for the same district (it's a rather safe one for Rs).  The candidates alone have spent close to $3 million on just the primary, and PACs and IE (Independent Expenditure) expenditures add hundreds of thousand more to that total.  This one has been bloody and it may not let up even after the polls close on Tuesday.

D CD9 - Another rough one.  Not as rough as the Rs in CDs 6 or 4, but still plenty of bruised friendships.  Candidates David Schapira (current Democratic leader in the AZ state senate), Kyrsten Sinema (former legislator) and Andrei Cherny (former chair of the AZ Democratic Party) have been fighting it out for the nomination in this district, probably the most competitive in Arizona.  Things have gotten very negative, with pro-Sinema and pro-Cherny PACs weighing in with a seemingly never-ending stream of attack mail pieces and robocalls.  The attacks are usually misrepresentations or outright lies.  Right now it looks like it is going to come down to Schapira and Sinema, with Cherny a close but definite third.  However, all three campaigns have their GOTV efforts fully up to speed this weekend.  Whoever wins the primary will be nicked up, but will immediately be the favorite in the general election.

R CD9 - Not as rough as the Ds in CD9, but that's as much about money (or the lack thereof) as it is about temperment.  There are seven candidates - Vernon Parker, Travis Grantham, Lisa Borowsky, Wendy Rogers, Leah Campos Schandlbauer, Martin Sepulveda, and Jeff Thompson.  Parker has the highest name ID (currently on the town council in Paradise Valley and a former candidate for Congress in the old CD3), Borowsky has the best signs (four color, full bleed, etc.), Travis Grantham has a lot of outside support (for some reason, an out-of-state PAC that is supporting Schweikert in CD6 is supporting Grantham, who never held or even run for office as far as I can tell), and Sepulveda may have the best story (veteran, seventh-generation Arizonan, former Chandler City Council member, etc.; in most states he'd be a virtual lock.  However, in AZ he is Latino and running in an R primary.  If there is a way for him to come in eighth in a seven-way primary, the Russell Pearce wing of his party will find a way to make it happen).  This race is so low profile and so low money, it's hard to get a read on it.  However, CD9 is truly competitive, so whichever candidate gets through the primary will have a real chance against the bloodied D nominee.


State legislative races -

R LD16 Senate - A fight between two members of the lege.  Current State Sen. Rich Crandall moved into this district to avoid a primary fight with Russell Pearce.  By doing so, however, he set up a primary fight with State Rep. John Fillmore, a Pearce ally who has turned into a bit of a Pearce proxy.  This one has turned into an intramural spitting match between two of the wings of the Republican party, with the business and establishment types favoring Crandall and the tea party/nativist types favoring Fillmore.

R LD25 Senate - The R primary in LD16 is the undercard to this one, the main event.  The aforementioned Pearce, recalled last year, is looking for a return to the Senate this year.  He is facing businessman and political newcomer Bob Worsley.  It's the LD16 race on steroids, and according to the analyses/guesses of the pundits on KAET's Horizon on Friday, it may be the last gasp of the Pearce machine.  We'll see Tuesday, but I hope they're right.

D LD24 Senate - Katie Hobbs (current state rep.) and Ken Cheuvront (former state senator) are facing off in this one.  While this one has gotten personal, the candidates trading barbs are Cheuvront and Chad Campbell, the Democratic leader in the AZ House, who is running for...a return to the House.  ???  Anyway, Cheuvront has a little more money than Hobbs, but his campaign has all but ignored the active Democrats in the district, and given that we are talking about a *Democratic* primary....

D LD30 Senate - Candidates Robert Meza (current state senator) and Raquel Teran (community activist) are facing off here.  This one has also gotten a little rough - Teran may be a newcomer to being a candidate, but Meza is not well-thought-of in the district.  There have been charges and counter-charges flying here.

R LD1 House - The candidates are Andy Tobin (currently Speaker of the AZ House), Karen Fann (current House member), and Lori Klein (current Senate member).  This is a race brought about by redistricting.  The new LD is centered around Prescott in Yavapai County (home turf of Fann and Tobin) but extends down to Anthem in Maricopa County (home of Klein).  With the new district maps, Klein and Senate President Steve Pierce ended up in the same district, and not wanting to face an electoral buzzsaw, Klein chose to take a chance on a move to the House.  Even though two of the three will move on, Klein has decided to go after Tobin hard, even to the point of bringing in failed presidential candidate Herman Cain on her side.  Don't know much about Fann, but Tobin is a nasty piece of work.  For instance, he was a big part of the R effort to hijack/intimidate the redistricting commission last year.

Which still makes him better than Klein, who is just plain bat-shit crazy.  She's packed heat to a state of the state address, on the floor of the House, read a hate- and nativist stereotype-filled letter on the floor of the Senate, pointed a loaded pistol at a reporter (she didn' mean no harm; she just wanted to show off the purrty li'l pink pistol with the purrty li'l laser sight), and for good measure, tried to get a bill passed that would have barred her HOA from telling her that she has to keep her dog leashed.

All in a single term in the Senate.

I'd say the home field advantage favors Tobin and Fann, but enough money could push Klein into contention.

R LD23 House - Another three-way race for two seats, much like LD1.  However, instead of a race between two ultra-conservative candidates and one crazy candidate, this one involves two crazy conservative ones and one that is conservative but not-so crazy.  The two incumbents, John Kavanagh and Michelle Ugenti are favorites of the tea party-types and other nativists.  The third candidate is Jennifer Petersen.  She has been a member of the Scottsdale school board for a long time and is known as "pragmatic", which has been the kiss of death in R primaries over the last few election cycles.

Other races to watch -

R Maricopa County Supervisor District 2 - The candidates are Lester Pearce (former Justice of the Peace, and brother of Russell Pearce) and Steve Chucri (businessman) and, paired with the R LD25 Senate primary, is shaping up as the potential end of the Pearce political machine.  Watch the numbers on this one.  If Pearce wins, it will be close, but a Chucri win could be a blowout.

R Navajo County Supervisor District 3 - The candidates are Tom Poscharsky and Sylvia Allen.  Allen is a current state senator and strong Pearce ally.  Not sure of anything about this race but it is worth keeping an eye on come Tuesday night.

R Pinal County Sheriff - The candidates are Paul Babeu (incumbent sheriff), Tom Bearup, Derek Arnson, and Jack McClaren.  Don't know much about the other candidates, but Babeu stepped in it earlier this year when allegations broke that he threatened to use his influence to have an ex-boyfriend deported.  There were also reports of improper professional conduct in the Pinal County Sheriff's Office.

However, those reports have no bearing on the large number of candidates entered in the primary against a sitting incumbent - politically, Babeu is a younger version of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

However, that "boyfriend" thing is a serious problem in R circles.  It derailed Babeu's bid for Congress and led to a number of other Rs to mull challenging him for the sheriff's spot.  However, the number of candidates may actually help Babeu by splitting the anti-Babeu vote, allowing him to gain a plurality.


On Tuesday night, get your popcorn ready early and often - it's going to be a long night.

David Schapira - the positive candidate in CD9

Two negatives don't make a positive...but two overwhelmingly negative candidates may help propel the positive candidate in a race to a win.

The CD9 Democratic primary has become very negative.  Not as negative as the Rs in CD6 (Schweikert v. Quayle) where they are gay-baiting, or as the negative as the Rs in CD4 (Gosar v. Gould v. Murphy) where during their debate on KAET's Horizon one was left with the impression that if Gosar and Gould had knives, there would have been blood on the floor.

Still, in CD9, the half-truths and outright lies have been flying about with increasing frequency.

Kyrsten Sinema put out a mailer that attacks both of her opponents, Andrei Cherny and David Schapira, claiming that both Schapira and Cherny support public education-destroying school vouchers.  I can't speak for Cherny (don't know him that well), but in the six years that David Schapira has been representing me in the Arizona Legislature, he has always been a staunch defender of public education.

There is also a PAC/independent expenditure group named "Restoring Arizona's Integrity" that has spent more than $50K attacking Cherny.  That group has ties to the Sinema camp - the organizers of the committee are long-time lobbyists in AZ and the head of the lobbying firm has contributed to Sinema's campaign.

Another group, "Progressive Independent Committee" has begun weighing in with "hit pieces" (aka - negative mailers) against Sinema, against Sinema and Schapira, and robocalls (against Sinema, I think; not sure because I didn't get one of those).  The combo hit piece compared Schapira and Sinema to Republicans Russell Pearce, Jan Brewer and Joe Arpaio. 

Like many Democrats in the district, I have formed opinions of all three Ds in the CD9 race.  While most of us now support one candidate over the other two, that doesn't mean we believe that the other two are stupid and/or evil.  This particular mailer isn't just nasty, it may border on libel (and that's tough to pull off when talking about politicians).

That group is more shadowy.  Its organizer, Matthew D. Langley, is a political operative based in Tennessee.  His firm, MD Langley & Associates, has been administratively dissolved by the Tennessee Secretary of State for failure to file annual reports -

The filing problems continue with Langley, as he has been lax in filing Independent Expenditure reports for the committee, filing only one report (for the initial anti-Sinema mailers) but not doing so for his/the committee's other activity (the mailer that railed against both Sinema and Schapira and the robocalls).

Anyway, this committee seems to be the Cherny committee.  If the targets of its vitriol don't make that clear enough, how about this -

Langley used to work for a firm called Patton Technologies as Director of Compliance, and early in his campaign for Arizona Treasurer, Andrei Cherny hired, you guessed it, Patton Technologies.

Note to Mr. Langley if he bothers to read this: A "Director of Compliance" shouldn't have filing issues on his resume.  Just sayin'...


The negative blasts from from the Cherny and Sinema camps seem to be working against them and boosting Schapira, who has been running an unfailingly positive campaign - a recent poll (published in the Yellow Sheet, so I cannot link to it) shows Schapira with a small lead in the race, and a reception with former Congressman Harry Mitchell on Saturday night was just packed.

Next Wednesday,  the Arizona Democratic Party will hold the 2012 Forward Together unity rally in Phoenix. 

I have no doubt that regardless of the outcome of Tuesday's primary, David Schapira will be there to support all Democratic candidates.  I can't say I believe the same about the others.

And that fact, combined with his relentlessly positive campaign and the fact that he is the candidate most concerned with the people of the Ninth Congressional District, is why David Schapira is the best candidate in the race.

The Ryan pick: It ain't over 'til it's over

By now, pretty much everybody who follows American politics has heard the news:  Mitt Romney has selected Congressman Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential candidate.

And *Democrats* are overjoyed. 

Ryan is the architect of the infamous Ryan Budget Plan that would, if enacted, basically end Medicare for America's seniors (among many other programs) and massively increase spending on defense (aka - funnel even more taxpayer to defense contractors).

Democrats view Ryan as "low-hanging fruit", somebody who will be easy to campaign against as an Ayn Rand-worshipping would-be Galtian superman who wants to dismantle all parts of government and society that don't directly support the wealthy.

While most observers expect Romney to receive a post-announcement "bump" in public opinion polls (that are currently favoring President Obama by a solid margin), continuing through the Republican convention in Tampa, they expect the numbers to return to "normal" once the Democratic convention in Charlotte begins.

Which is all well and good, but just a reminder - Jimmy Carter, Mike Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, and even John McCain all had leads, sometimes significant ones, in their presidential races, but still lost.

At this point, it's all about follow-through, about entering the final few months of the campaign with as much focus and energy as the last few months and finishing strong.

This one is a long way from over.


Having said all that, I've got a few thoughts on the Ryan pick -

1.   Ryan could be this year's version of Sarah Palin.  No, not in the "crash and burn on the campaign trail as preparation for a reality TV gig" sort of way, but in the "like McCain before him, instead of trying to reach for the middle to gain new votes, Romney chose a VP candidate meant to solidify his support among the far-right of his own party, aka people who were never going to vote for Obama anyway" sort of way.  Maybe that will work out for Romney; history says not.

2.  As happy as Democrats are over this pick, that's got to be nothing compared to the ecstasy that John Boehner, the R Speaker of the US House, is feeling right now.  One of the biggest threats to Boehner's position as leader (and a strong ally of the biggest threat, Eric Cantor) of the Republican caucus in Congress is either a) going to be out of Congress (if Romney pulls out a win) or b) going to be saddled with a hefty chunk of the blame for the Rs' failure to take the White House (if Romney loses).  Either way, a W for Boehner.

3.  Of course, the selection of Ryan as the VP candidate also anoints him as the "next big thing" and presumptive R nominee in 2016 (if Romney loses) or 2020 (if Romney wins).  Former VPs and VP candidates haven't fared too well in their runs for the top spot, but being a former VP/VP candidate beats *not* being a former VP/VP candidate.

4.  However the national election turns out, the Ryan pick may be beneficial to downballot Democrats in Arizona, and maybe even increase the chances of President Obama to carry Arizona.  While the presence of Romney on the ballot will elevate the turnout of the Mormon community looking to support one of their own in his run for the White House, the presence of Ryan on the ballot will elevate the turnout of the retiree community looking to protect Medicare and Social Security.


I'm sure that there will be more to come on this subject...

Campaign and committees update

...Damn!  Stop paying attention to committee formations after the deadline for filing for August's primary election and you can miss some developments involving familiar names.  I know I did.


Perused the Maricopa County Recorder's list of candidates for offices that go directly to the November ballot, and a few names ring a bell.  Loudly.

- Terry Goddard, former AZ Attorney General and the Democratic nominee for governor in 2010, is running for a spot on the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), better known as the governing board of the Central Arizona Project (CAP).  They oversee the delivery of Arizona's share of water from the Colorado River to central and southern Arizona.

- Also running for CAWCD:  Brett Mecum.  The scandal-plagued former executive director of the AZGOP (speeding tickets, stalking women, etc.) was last seen "helping" southern AZ's favorite bully, State Sen. Frank Antenori, run for Congress.  Apparently, that campaign crashed and burned didn't work out as well as Antenori hoped (OK, he got his butt kicked).

- Jean McGrath.  She is currently on the board, but she is waging a primary challenge against Max Wilson for the District 4 seat on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.  Given that she has roughly 1/10 of the money for her campaign that Wilson has, maybe she's read the writing on the wall and set her sights a little lower.

- Because of the late date of the removal of Phillip Woolbright from the office of Arrowhead Justice of the Peace, the candidates to replace him have to run as write-ins.  There are currently six registered candidates - Debra Boehlke, Melanie Deforest, David Hickman, Francisco Meneses, Patrick Montgomery, and George Mothershed.

Don't know much about any of them, but there was a "Francisco Meneses Jr." who was a candidate for JP in the Maryvale Precinct who withdrew from that race after submitting his nominating petitions  Hmmm...

...Sasha Glassman, wife of 2010 Democratic nominee for US Senate Rodney Glassman, is running for a seat on the Madison Elementary SD.  OK - four candidates for four seats - she's going to win.

...Don Hawker, perhaps the one person in Arizona who can make the folks at the Center for Arizona Theocracy Policy seem reasonable on the right of women to control their own bodies (he blames everything that he considers "bad" in America, and that is a very long list, on his God's displeasure with the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision) is running for a seat on the board of the Tempe Union High School District.  He ran for the lege from Tempe in 2010, and got thumped in a Republican wave year.  Three seats, five candidates; he may find a way to come in sixth.

- In a quick update to a post I wrote on the lack of school board candidates, by Wednesday's filing deadline, 207 people had filed for 170 seats up for election.  However, that number means that many of the seats will be uncontested, or at least under-contested (i.e. - fewer than two candidates for each of the seats on the ballot).

For example...

...only two candidates filed for the three seats on the ballot for the Agua Fria SD board.

...only four candidates filed for the three seats on the ballot for the Mesa Unified board.  Meaning that there is a 3/4 chance that winger Jerry Walker will be given access to the futures of Mesa's schoolchildren.

Later...

Democrats: Beware Republican front groups bearing endorsements

This being a year in which Democrats are expected to make some serious gains (yes, even in Arizona), many groups noted for their slavish, even monomaniacal, support of all things and candidates Republican are wading into the Democratic side of the ballot.  They've been issuing endorsements and spending money in D primaries.

Generally speaking, there are just to "primary" reasons to do so (yes, pun intended :) ) -

1.  They're trying to give a boost to a candidate they consider to be weaker in a general election.  The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) tends to go this route (note: their "Endorsements" page is blank for some reason, but they have issued endorsements in the past and in the current election cycle).

2.  They think that the candidate in question will be receptive to their entreaties if/when the candidate wins the election.

AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona has noticed such activity in a race in southern AZ, and now there is evidence of it here in Maricopa County.

A assemblage of "independent" expenditure groups has paid for and released a mail piece supporting Ken Cheuvront in the LD24 race for state senate against current State Representative Katie Hobbs.

A quick look at some of the listed sponsors of the piece:

The Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce?  Headed by Todd Sanders?  Endorsed Jan Brewer for Governor in 2010.  And Sanders worked for the Republican caucus in the AZ House until a few years ago.

The Arizona Cattlemen's Association?  Headed by Bas Aja?  The last time I looked, there wasn't any ranch land in LD24, which covers a swath stretching across south Scottsdale and central and eastern Phoenix.  And Aja?  He's a Republican PC in Buckeye.


A mailer from Cheuvront's campaign touts another "special" endorsement -

The Arizona Multi Housing Association (AZ MHA)?  This one may actually be about the *next* election.  One of the most persistent rumors in AZ's political circles is that Cheuvront is going to run for Justice of the Peace in two years because a term as JP will quadruple his elected official pension.

The Multi Housing Association's members tend to be involved in evictions.  Lots of evictions.

And JPs?  They adjudicate evictions.  Lots of evictions.

Think the AZ MHA would like a JP who's inclined to turn a blind eye when they cut a few corners in the eviction actions?

Bonus endorsement quibble:  The endorsement that's implied, but not directly claimed.  Mostly because the endorser actually supports another candidate.

Check out the quote from former Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon.

It makes it seem as if he has endorsed Cheuvront, yet doesn't directly state that as fact.

Which is good for Cheuvront, because Gordon actually endorsed Katie Hobbs.

Oopsie.


Note:  In the interests of full disclosure, not that I've tried to hide it, I support and have already voted for Hobbs.