Breaking news1: Jan Brewer isn't going to seek a third term as governor; Breaking news2: Water is wet.

From the Arizona Republic, written by Yvonne Wingett Sanchez -

Gov. Jan Brewer announced Wednesday she will not seek another term in office, an effort that would have required a long-shot court challenge to the state’s term limits.

“There does come a time to pass the torch of leadership,” Arizona’s Republican governor said. “After completing this year in office, I will do just that.”

This has made national news, with even a friend of mine from New England commenting in a phone call that this seems like a big deal.

So I read the relevant clause in the Arizona Constitution to her.

From Article 5, Section 1 of that document -

No member of the executive department shall hold that office for more than two consecutive terms. This limitation on the number of terms of consecutive service shall apply to terms of office beginning on or after January 1, 1993. No member of the executive department after serving the maximum number of terms, which shall include any part of a term served, may serve in the same office until out of office for no less than one full term.

My friend's response -


"Oh."


I can honestly state that the announcement was no surprise - since she started making noises about running for another term, I've said it was about retaining some leverage with the legislature, not actually running again.

She was looking to stave off "lame duck" status as long as possible.

Her "official" announcement was today, but her practical announcement was her veto of the discrimination protection bill, SB1062.

The rationale she gave for the veto was all about the input of the "business community" and the harm that the bill would have caused to Arizona.

However, in 2010, she signed the nativist bill, SB1070, over similar objections from the same people.

The difference between then and now?

In 2010, she was a candidate in a crowded R field, and SB1070 cleared the field for her.

In 2014, she's term-limited and has no self-interest to enhance by signing a bad bill.


AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona offers his perspective on today's announcement here.

Arizona Stories Of The Year: 2013, Politics Edition

Many media outlets, pundits (and wanna-be pundits), and other observers of current events compile "Year End" or "Best Of" lists.

Since this blog focuses on Arizona politics, the list compiled here will focus on...wait for it...


Arizona politics.


I know this is really, truly, deeply, genuinely, shocking.

:)

Anyway, on to the reason that we are all here - the list, counting down from the fifth-most significant/interesting story related to Arizona politics to number one.

Interesting but unplanned-for common characteristic:  I expect all of the following to have an impact in years beyond 2013.


5.  Coming in at number five, the ongoing travails of Tom Horne, Arizona's scandal-plagued attorney general.

He avoided serious repercussions stemming from a hit-and-run accident that he committed in 2012 while leaving his girlfriend's home after a (alleged) nooner.  Paid a small fine for a citation issue in the incident, avoided sanctions from the state bar association over his behavior, and even got his girlfriend to leave her taxpayer-funded job (something that would have looked bad for an AG candidate, much less one running for re-election).

However, he still has that pesky campaign finance violation case hanging over him.

This one will have an impact in 2014, as Horne faces a primary challenge from a GOP establishment insider.  Apparently, even they have a limit to their tolerance for embarrassingly wayward GOP elected officials.

Not that they have a problem with the "wayward" part, but the "embarrassing" part could impact them in the general election, holding down the rest of the ticket.


4.  Joe Arpaio faced the first serious pushback of his political career.

In May, US District Court Judge Murray Snow ruled that the Maricopa County Sheriff (and the office he leads) engaged in racial profiling in his anti-immigrant witch hunts "operations".

In October, the same judge imposed a number of requirements on Arpaio and the the MCSO to ensure their compliance with his ruling.

While he is still appealing the order, his office has become, if not more "professional", more circumspect and less ostentatious about the way they conduct their operations.

3.  Late in the year, news broke that Arizona's Child Protective Service simply ignored more than 6500 reports of child abuse.

Once the news broke, the finger-pointing began, with absolutely no one taking responsibility.  There is an ongoing "investigation", conducted by appointees of the governor.

So far the director of the agency still has not lost his job, the governor still has not faced up to her lack of oversight of the office, and the legislature still hasn't accepted responsibility for its chronic and deliberate underfunding of CPS.

If this scandal had broken earlier in the year, it might have been higher on this list, but most of the fallout, politically speaking, will occur in 2014.

What remains to be seen is how deep that fallout will be -

At what point will the director of CPS lose his job?  Best guess: when he starts to have more value to Governor Jan Brewer as a sacrificial lamb than as a distraction (his real current role in her administration).

At what point will Brewer step up and take responsibility for her administration's failure to do its job properly?  Best guess: Never.  That's what underlings are for.

At what point will the legislature start doing its job by providing the resources that CPS needs in order to do its job properly?  Best guess: Never.  That would require the legislature to have concern for children after they are born.


2.  In June, the state and the country were horrified when 19 "hotshot" firefighters were killed while fighting the Yarnell Hill wildfire.

Of the 19 fallen hotshots, 13 were "seasonal", or part-time employees.  Their families aren't eligible for most of the death benefits received by the survivors of the six hotshots who were full-time employees.  Lawsuits have ensued.

In and of itself, not a political story.  However, the aftermath has become political.

In the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, many elected officials, even those that had previously been openly contemptuous of public servants, lavished heaps of posthumous praise on the fallen hotshots.

Now, after a few months have passed and other events have occurred, distracting people who weren't directly affected by the Yarnell Hill tragedy, not so much.

From a press release sent out in early July over the names of Andy Tobin and Andy Biggs, the Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and the President of the Arizona State Senate, respectively (for context, the full story from AZFamily.com here) -

"Arizona is in a deep state of mourning over the loss of 19 of the finest young men ever to serve as emergency first responders."

From an Arizona Republic story published in late December on excuses and rationalizations on why legislative efforts to address the disparity in the treatment of the hotshots' survivors - 

Tobin said there are just too many questions right now.

“The members want fairness. But the lawsuits just create an awful lot more questions,” he said. “Do we have to wait for the lawsuits to go through? If we pass a law now, does that mean we have to negotiate with the families?”

Nice touch there - Tobin, an erstwhile candidate for Congress in 2014, passing the blame for the lege's inaction to the families of the fallen.


...Drum roll please...

And the number one story in Arizona politics in 2013 was

1. The restoration of AHCCCS (AZ's Medicaid program) eligibility to the levels previously approved by the voters.

During the waning days of the legislative session, things got a little testy when a coalition of Democrats and Jan Brewer-led Republicans put language restoring AHCCCS eligibility to previous level into a budget bill and then pushed it through over the objections of the Republican leadership in the lege and the TP-est of the tea party types in the rank and file of the R caucuses.

After the measure passed, there was an effort to overturn it by referring it to the ballot in November 2014.  The effort was led by two wingnut former legislators, Frank Antenori and Ron Gould.

The effort failed miserably.

During, and after, the session, there were promises of payback directed at the R apostates.  Whether that happens remains to be seen, but primary season should be interesting.  Many of the Rs who supported Medicaid restoration are from districts that are competitive or are close enough that a primary challenge that results in a "bay at the moon" type becoming the GOP standard-bearer could result in a D pickup. 

As far as payback during the upcoming session, so far most of what I've heard of is restricted to certain committee chairs promising that they will not hear, much less vote for, any bills proposed by the apostates.

There have also been rumors of committee membership shuffling, removing apostates from their favorite assignments, but I don't expect things to be over-the-top nasty -

It's an even-numbered year, and all will be focused on the election, whether they are running reelection to the lege or for another office.  Putting too much effort into intra-caucus knife fights will distract them from their highest purpose -

Staying on the elected official gravy train.


Preview of this post's 2014 edition:  Whatever it may turn out to be, the outcome of the referendum on the voter suppression proposal from the lege will affect elections in Arizona for years, maybe decades, to come.  More so than any of the individual races.


Up next:  a preview of 2014.  Considerably more tongue-in-cheek than this post. :)

Jan Brewer: Metaphors are not her friend.

Pretty near everyone in AZ remembers Governor Jan Brewer's major "brain freeze" during the 2010 election where she just totally lost her train of thought during a televised gubernatorial debate.

She became a national punchline, bringing another heaping helping of ridicule down upon the state.

She avoided a repeat of that embarrassment by making that debate the *only* debate of the cycle, following the advice of Abraham Lincoln**.

** - From BrainyQuote.com -

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin109276.html#4cc4ecQjVM4KhIMP.9

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin109276.html#4cc4ecQjVM4KhIMP.99

 

Sounds weird, but it worked - she won that election.

However, she seems to have forgotten that advice.


She held a press conference on Monday regarding the ongoing scandal at Child Protective Services.

From KNAU.org, written by Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services (emphasis added) -

The governor said she does not believe the problem originated with Clarence Carter, director of the state Department of Economic Security, parent agency of CPS. But she clearly wants to know where the policy did begin.

“I think that we need a complete, full investigation,” said Brewer. “We need to know where all the bodies are buried, if you will, no pun intended. But we’re not going to start attacking people until we know that we’ve got a basis to do that.”

Given that the scandal is that more than 6500 reports of child abuse were ignored by the agency, her choice of metaphor is unfortunate, to put it mildly.

I just hope that it doesn't prove prophetic as well.

Arizona legislature: Medicaid restoration/expansion hearing on Wednesday

Thanks to Brahm Resnick of Channel 12 for spotting this and pointing it out...

A few years ago, the Republicans in the Arizona legislature "balanced" the state's budget on the backs of Arizona's most vulnerable residents by radically cutting access to health care for Arizona's poor.  The "balance the budget" subterfuge was used as an excuse for similar ends in other states.

With the advent of federal health care reform, known as Obamacare, many states, including AZ, must now expand or restore health care coverage for the poor to reap the full fiscal benefits of the federal law.

This past Tuesday, Governor Jan Brewer, to great fanfare, released her proposed legislation to restore eligibility for AHCCCS, Arizona's Medicaid program, to include those families who have an annual income level up to 133% of the federal property level.

This coming Wednesday, March 20, at 2 p.m,, the House Appropriations Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on the proposal, including a presentation from the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) and taking public testimony from the public.

While I expect that the witness list will be heavy with Goldwater Institute corporate shills, opposing Medicaid for their clients' fun and profit (the committee is chaired by Rep. John Kavanagh, after all), a healthy turnout of supporters is needed to demonstrate that there is strong support in Arizona for the restoration of Medicaid coverage to previous levels.

Details -

Where:  HHR1, House of Representatives building, Arizona State Capitol, 1700 West Washington, Phoenix.

Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Time: 2 p.m. (seating is limited, so plan to arrive early)

Do NFL contracts have morality clauses?

...because the heretofore widely-respected Larry Fitzgerald, star wide receiver for the Arizona Cardinals, spent the weekend associating with a rather unsavory character -

From AZFamily.com (the website of KTVK-TV, Channel 3 in Phoenix), written by Dennis Welch (emphasis mine) -

While most Arizonans watched the Super Bowl at home Sunday, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was hanging out in New Orleans with some big stars and the so-called “Party King of Scottsdale.”

Brewer was in the Big Easy with her son, Michael Brewer, Arizona Cardinal Larry Fitzgerald, actor Edward James Olmos and Scottsdale business man Jason Hope.

Budget time: "Let's get ready to rummmbbbbblllllle!"

Turns out that it was even colder here in AZ this week than even our thermometers could measure.

Musta been, 'cuz hell froze over this week.

My evidence supporting this conclusion?  Sane people, in the persons of the Democratic leadership at the legislature, actually found some good things to say about the budget proposal released by Governor Brewer on Friday.

In her budget proposal, Brewer advocates restoring a bit of the huge amount of funding cut over the last few years from the education, CPS (Child Protective Services), and health care.

From the Democratic leader in the state senate, Senator Leah Landrum Taylor -

“The governor is doing the right thing by proposing we expand Medicaid. It’s a smart business decision that’s good for our state’s economy and good for the people of Arizona .

From the Democratic leader in the state house of representatives, Representative Chad Campbell -

“The governor’s budget is a good starting point. We appear to have a foundation for a plan that could bring legislators from both parties together to finally enact a common-sense budget for Arizona . I applaud the governor for her proposal to secure Arizona ’s fair share of federal dollars through Medicaid expansion.

On the other hand, the Republican leadership has been almost silent on the proposal. 

From the Arizona Republic, written by Mary Jo Pitzl and Alia Rau -

Senate President Andy Biggs and House Speaker Andy Tobin, both Republicans, released a joint statement responding to the budget proposal. It offers no opinion of her specific proposals but hints strongly that some of her budget hikes may find some opposition at the Republican-led Legislature.

 

“The balanced budgets of the last two years have provided a wise and responsible framework designed to enhance our state’s economic growth," the statement said. "Our hope is that the final enacted budget will replicate the success we have implemented thus far. There is clear evidence that the conservative approach to state funding is the proper way to bring our state back to full economic recovery.”

Obviously, it is still early, so any predictions should be taken with a big grain of salt, but this year is shaping up to be a lot like 2009 on West Washington.

The governor's budget that year was devastating to the above areas, but it wasn't the "worst case scenario".  The Republicans in the lege held out for that worst case, leading to a budget that passed the lege after the new fiscal year had started (every fiscal year starts on July 1, and in 2009, the lege passed the FY2010 budget in the wee hours after midnight on July 1st.  They pretended that they passed the budget on time by shutting off the clocks in the chambers.  Seriously)

The locus of this conflict in 2009 was the state senate.  It takes 16 votes to pass a measure there and the Republicans held an 18 - 12 majority that year.  The GOP shouldn't have had a problem passing anything, but there were three flies in the ointment that year -

Senator Carolyn Allen (R-Scottsdale) - the last true "moderate" Republican in the lege, she refused to vote for the draconian budget pushed by the leadership of the lege because it was too harsh.  Last seen: enjoying her retirement as much as possible.

Senator Pam Gorman (R-Phoenix) and Senator Ron Gould (R-Lake Havasu City) - not exactly moderates; they refused to vote for the budget because they didn't think it was draconian enough.  Last seen: lobbying for Big Tobacco and burning a hole in the ozone layer over LHC, respectively.

The atmosphere, at least that between the governor and the members of her caucus in the lege, was less openly hostile over the next three sessions of the lege - 2010 was an election year, and each side needed the other, so they made nice, and in 2011 and 2012, the Rs held a supermajority of the seats in each chamber, meaning that not only didn't Democratic members have a say in the process, Republican members who wanted to "free-lance" had no leverage. 

Turn the calendar to 2013, and the Republicans still control both chambers of the lege, but with significantly smaller majorities.  In the Senate this year, it will only take two Republicans digging in their heels to cause gridlock.

Add in the fact that Brewer is a lame duck whose influence at the Capitol is on the decline, and my guess is that a lot more than two members of the R caucus will be playing the "more conservative than thou" card over the next few months, with the lives of Arizona's most vulnerable and the futures of Arizona's children on the table as the stakes.


Historical budget-related information from the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) here and here.

It's pretty much official: Jan Brewer has accepted her lame duck status...with the emphasis on "lame"

The governor of Arizona has relatively few things that she can do without approval of the lege.  One of those things is to officially accept the canvass (results) of an election.

The ceremony involved in the acceptance of the canvas also gives her the opportunity to bond with the people who benefitted the most from the election, the new leadership in the lege.

Also known as the people she needs to be chummy with if she wants to have any influence at the lege during her lame duckness (her term expires in 2014 and she can't run again).

So when the canvass was officially accepted on Monday, where was Brewer?

Not there.  Not sure exactly where she was, but it wasn't in Arizona doing her job.

From the Arizona Republic, written by Mary Jo Pitzl -

Brewer out of state; aide won’t provide details

 

Gov. Jan Brewer is out and about this week, but don’t look for her in Arizona.

 

The GOP governor left the state Sunday and doesn’t plan to return until Saturday, according to the notice she is required to file with the Arizona Secretary of State. But beyond that, mum’s the word from her office, other than to note that she is on official state business.

I don't know where she is, but apparently, the definition of "official state business" has been expanded.

Greatly.

From Politico, written by Kenneth Vogel (emphasis mine) -

 

A week after Election Day, three Republican governors mentioned as 2016 presidential candidates — Bobby Jindal, John Kasich and Bob McDonnell — each stopped by the Venetian Resort Hotel Casino to meet privately with its owner Sheldon Adelson, a man who could single-handedly underwrite their White House ambitions.

 

{snip}

 

So, too, did a pair of governors not considered presidential aspirants — Rick Scott of Florida, who is up for reelection in 2014, and Jan Brewer of Arizona, who will be term-limited out of office.

Hitting up big donors for funds for a presidential campaign is "official state business"?  Since when?

As I am writing this, news is breaking that Brewer will be visiting Afghanistan later this week.  My question is this trip something that will benefit Arizona and Arizonans, or is it just a taxpayer-funded pre-presidential campaign photo-op?

Update snipped from Facebook at 8:24 p.m.

Now, I think the thought of a Brewer presidential candidacy is laughable, but we should all remember that Brewer is probably no dumber than George W. Bush, and he ended up buying, blustering, and BS'ing his way into two terms in the White House.

Brewer engages in constitutional quackery in an attempt to stave off imminent lame duck status

From the Arizona Republic, written by Yvonne Wingett Sanchez -

Still suffering postelection hangovers and with votes still being tallied, political junkies in Arizona already have turned toward the 2014 gubernatorial race. For the first time in more than a decade, the seat could be wide open.

{snip}

But the woman who currently occupies the governor’s office on the ninth floor of the Executive Tower may complicate the race, at least for the Republican slate. Gov. Jan Brewer, who completed the final year of former Gov. Janet Napolitano’s term and then successfully ran for a four-year term in 2010, continues to talk publicly about running for a third term.

It would require a legal challenge to the state Constitution. Arizona law permits statewide-elected officials to serve only two consecutive terms. Article 5, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution states, “No member of the executive department after serving the maximum number of terms, which shall include any part of a term served, may serve in the same office until out of office for no less than one full term.”

Brewer has said there is “ambiguity” in the Constitution, saying she does not read it as barring her from serving 2 1/4 terms.

Joe Kanefield, former general counsel to Brewer who is now in private practice, said the legal question centers on the definition of “term.” He has said drafters were referring to a governor who was elected to a term and not to a governor who inherited the office by succession.

“I haven’t ruled it out, and I’ve been encouraged by people — legal scholars and other people — that it’s probably something that I ought to pursue,” Brewer told The Arizona Republic.

I don't normally quote this much from a linked article, but Sanchez cited the exact section of the AZ Constitution that I was going to, and given the number of times that I've criticized the Republic for shoddy work, it's only fair to give credit where it is due.

Governor Brewer and her hired mouthpiece can protest that there is "ambiguity" in the section, but it's pretty clear.  What is also pretty clear is that the Governor and her advisors/handlers are also fully aware that she has to do something to remain relevant at the Capitol.

As a lame duck governor, she is rapidly losing influence because she is viewed as not having a significant say in the choice of her successor.  As such, various legislators and other "players" will be focused on positioning themselves for a run at the office on the 9th Floor of the Executive Tower, or in crafting an alliance with the person they think stands the best chance of winning.

Oh, and a couple of asides -

1. Brewer is quoted as saying that the AZ Constitution does not bar her from serving 2 1/4 terms.  Without getting into the validity of that claim (OK - it's crap), "2 1/4"?  Try closer to "2 1/2" terms, and then only if she is able to overturn the will of the voters as expressed when we enacted term limits on Arizona's state-level elected officials. 

She ascended to the governor's office on January 21, 2009; that means she was in the office three weeks less than two years before she started the term she was elected into.  That's a lot closer to half of an elected term than it is to a quarter.  Of course, the difference is really no difference at all - the way that the law is written, even one day sworn into an office starts the term limits clock.

During the Spring 2013 semester her alma mater, Glendale Community College, is offering three sections of POS221, Arizona Constitution.  There are in-person and online sections available, but I suggest an in-person class for her (and perhaps, her "legal scholars and other people") -

At an in-person class, she can ask the instructor to clearly explain "...which shall include any part of a term served...".

2. In this specific situation, it's likely that even if she mounts a successful legal challenge to the Arizona Constitution, the voters may just turn her "success" into a resounding failure.  None of us - left, right, Democratic, Republican, independent, Libertarian, Green, engaged, apathetic, whatever - none of us approve of politicians who show blatant contempt for our expressed wishes.

Dear Jan Brewer, You need a geography lesson...

...some suggestions on decorum and on giving relevent answers, and a whole lot of reality checks...

This weekend, New York Times Magazine will include an interview with Arizona's own Governor Jan Brewer.

Stifle your laughter, the writer, Andrew Goldman, attempted to do a serious interview.  It's not his fault that the subject of the interview is best known for vapid answers to direct questions.

The whole piece is worth a read, if only as comic relief in preparation for next week's Republican convention in Tampa (look for full coverage on The Weather Channel :) ). 

However, here are a few of the juicy bits, in the form of an open letter to Brewer (with my snarky insightful commentary) (emphasis mine) -

Dear Governor Brewer,

You recently did an interview with the New York Times.  I'm not sure why - perhaps you thought you could school those high-falutin' Easterners with your down-home brilliance, or perhaps you were just bored (being the chief executive in a state that utilizes a weak executive model of government has its downsides.  The title is nice, but that's about it.)  Either way, some of your answers could have been a little better.  To whit -
 

When you signed Arizona’s immigration law in 2010, you cited concerns about growing border violence. But according to the F.B.I., violent crime dropped in Arizona almost 14 percent the previous year.

As the saying goes, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Fifty thousand people in Mexico have been murdered. Puerto Peñasco, 60 miles south of our border, just had five people and a police officer killed. That is like part of Arizona, and it is spilling over into our state. 

 
No Jan, Puerto Peñasco, also known as Rocky Point, is NOT a part of Arizona, nor is it "like" a part of Arizona.  Perhaps if AZ had some oceanfront property...
 

The photograph of you confronting the president has become quite famous. If you could do it over again, would you avoid wagging your finger?

He’s the one that chose to make a brief encounter about something petty that showed his thin skin. I agree it was unfortunate, but it happened, and I moved on.

 
Jan, you wrote smack about him in "your" book (it was ghost-written, but you put your name on it, so it is yours), and you created a photo op on the runway to pump sales of that book, and now you're offended that he didn't publicly kiss up to you?  Maybe one of you is being petty and thin-skinned, but it isn't President Obama...
 

Critics have called it the “Breathing While Brown” law.

I don’t think Americans would tolerate profiling. That’s just a red herring.

 
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!  Who knew you were such a kidder?
 

You signed a law that entitles people to carry concealed guns in bars as long as they don’t drink. I wouldn’t trust myself in a bar with access to a gun.

I think a bartender knows who’s drinking and who isn’t. 

 
What's that got to do with anything?  And are you going to personally pay for the funerals of any bartenders/waitstaff who decline to serve an armed customer?

Oh, and remember when you dismissed FBI crime rate statistics because they didn't suit you rhetorical position ("...lies, damned lies, and statistics...")?  You undercut your own credibility with -
       

But a bartender wouldn’t know who’s carrying a concealed weapon.

Ninety-nine point nine percent of the people that are gun owners are very responsible.

"Ninety-nine point nine percent..."?  Either you made up a number or you are citing a study that no one else as seen or reviewed.  That's fine.  Just pick one.  Your critics can work with either, which sounds like a choice you shouldn't make, but if you don't, we'll use both.

Speaking as one of your critics, please don't choose.  I like having options.

Thank you for your time.  If you find any of these observations helpful, let me know, and I'll be happy to critique some of your other statements.  OK, I'm probably going to do that anyway. :)

Enjoy your trip to Tampa next week.  Bring your umbrella.  Maybe a row boat, too.  Trust me.

A "just trying to be helpful" kind of guy,

Me.

With a move calculated to stave off imminent lame-duck status, Jan Brewer only gets lamer

The Obama Administration is rolling out a "deferred action" policy, affecting undocumented immigrants.  Under the policy, eligible undocumented immigrants can apply for a deferral of removal proceedings (aka - deportation) for a renewable two-year period.

Approval for the program will not confer "legal" status upon the affected immigrants, though they may receive authorization to legally work in the US during the deferral period.

Naturally, the nativists have wigged out.

Arizona's highest-ranking nativist, Governor Jan Brewer (in comparison to Arizona's rankest nativist, Russell Pearce) weighed in with her two cents' worth, issuing an executive order to make sure that undocument immigrants can't get any public benefits, something which they *aren't* granted by the President's new policy.

Yes, this means that Brewer issued a meaningless executive order to counter President Obama's meaningful one.

Now, it could be that Chuck Coughlin (aka - the person who really controls the Ninth Floor) may have taken a day off, and this is completely the product of Brewer's intellect, but it seems likely that this order is really intended to remind legislative Republicans that she is still the governor. 

A reminder that she hopes finds its mark, because she is rapidly approaching political irrelevance.

Once the new legislature is seated, she will be viewed mostly as a bystander by the Rs in the lege, as they jockey for position for the 2014 race for the office she currently holds.  Each and every one of them will be focused on throwing elbows as they position themselves for a run at the office or to ally themselves with the person they consider to be the strongest candidate.  Since she's term-limited, she cannot be that person, hence she is totally meaningless in their world (this part isn't a dig at Brewer, it just *is*.  She's not the first officeholder this could be said about, and she won't be the last).

So, Jan Brewer thinks that her path to continued relevance is to issue an irrelevant order?


Personally, I actually hope that Coughlin was out of town or getting a root canal or something, anything, that left a Nurse Ratched wanna-be in charge of the asylum for a day.

And only a day.

Arizona is in bad enough shape with Brewer as the titular head of Arizona's government; if she actually runs things (say...if Coughlin moves on to the next puppet "client" before the 2014 election), there may not be much of an Arizona left for the winner of the 2014 election to govern.

OK, this last part *is* a dig at Brewer.  As if you couldn't tell. :)

NY Times coverage of the deferral program here.
CBS News coverage of Brewer here.

Bad Day In Arizona...

...Four people, including a 2 year-old toddler, were killed by infamous Arizona neo-Nazi/white supremacist JT Ready.

From the Arizona Republic, written by Jim Walsh and Lindsey Collom -

A border militia leader on Wednesday shot and killed four people at a Gilbert home, including a toddler, before committing suicide, sources said.

Sources identified the shooter as Jason "J.T." Ready, a reputed neo-Nazi who made headlines when he launched a militia movement to patrol the Arizona desert to hunt for illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.

At least one person survived the shooting, and was being treated at Maricopa Medical Center.

Authorities have not identified the other victims, but reached by phone Wednesday afternoon, Hugo Maderos said the victims were his ex-wife, Lisa; their daughter, Amber; Amber's boyfriend, whose name The Republic is withholding until his next of kin could be notified, and Amber's 18-month-old baby, Lilly.

First and foremost, my deepest condolences and prayers go out to the family and friends of Ready's victims.

While today's events aren't really surprising to anyone who has followed Ready's activities over the years (one of my FB friends referred to him as a "ticking time bomb"), they are no less horrifying for the lack of surprise.

...Other events today would normally fall into the category of "horrific", but compared to Ready's mass murder...

Note: In addition to condolences and prayers, my apologies go out to the friends and family of Ready's victims.  I planned to write about the following items before the news of Ready's mass murder broke.  In no way do I intend to state or imply that the following items are as horrible as the killings in Gilbert.

- In an effort led by his allies in the legislature, Russell Pearce, former senate president and a friend and ally of Ready) is in line to receive more than $260K of taxpayer money to reimburse him for expenses related to the successful recall of him in November.  A conference committee made of two Democrats and four Pearce supporters amended SB1449 to include a path to payment for Pearce.

Three are in this picture, from election night in November as the Pearce camp realized that the voters of LD18 hadn't fallen for the usual smoke and BS-storm -

Pearce is at the mic, Rep. Eddie Farnsworth is to his right (left in the pic as we are looking at it), Sen. Steve Smith is directly behind Pearce, Rep. Steve Montenegro is to Pearce's left (right, when viewing the pic).  Also on the committee, but not in the pic: Sen. Andy Biggs.  I'm not sure, but I think he was there that night, but just isn't in this particular pic.  In this pic, however, are Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (pic right, gazing at Pearce), Rep. Carl Seel (behind Arpaio), and Rep. John Kavanagh (barely inside the pic on the right, sort of behind Arpaio).


So far, Steve Pierce and Andy Tobin, the current Senate President and House Speaker, respectively, haven't said much about the scheme to give Russell Pearce a s---load of taxpayer money, but since they select the members of the conference committees, my guess is that they are completely on board.


- The House gave final approval to HB2503, a measure that exempts companies from punitive damages relating to defective or inadequate products or services if those products or services meet government regulatory standards.

Left unsaid in the bill:  The fact that industry lobbyists already write most regulations, watering them down to the point of being ineffective or even counter-productive.

- The Senate passed HB2571, Governor Brewer's plan to turn the state's merit employment system into a political patronage/spoils system designed to enrich her and her associates/handlers.  It returns to the House for a rubber-stamp vote on a minor amendment passed by the Senate.

- Republican legislators are working to join lawsuits seeking to overturn the recently-precleared legislative district maps, saying that the maps don't do enough to protect minority voting power.

This in spite of the fact that minority legislators are saying "the maps are fine, and since when do you folks look out for minorities, other than looking to demonize them for fun, profit, and votes whenever you can?" (OK, they didn't use those specific words, but it's a good summary.  :) )

...All in all, a bad day made tragic by events in Gilbert, which are still unfolding at this hour.  Federal agencies are on the scene handling a hazmat situation.  Apparently, Ready had a stockpile of chemicals and munitions at the house.

Ready (left) and Pearce, in happier days

Ready getting, well, *ready* for one of his immigrant hunts "patrols"

Ready in all of his glory











The above three pics courtesy the Phoenix New Times; the press conference pic courtesy a FB friend.

Really Short Attention Span Musing

...The big "news" today was Jan Brewer's announcement on NBC's Meet The Press that she is endorsing Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination for president.

Umm, if the endorsement was supposed to matter to R voters, wouldn't she have issued the thing a few days before early ballots went out, rather than a few days before the close of voting?

I couldn't find the statewide numbers for the 2008 GOP presidential primary, but in Maricopa County in 2008, approximately 63% of all GOP primary votes were cast early, and as of 2/16 (approximately 1 1/2 weeks ago), more than 163K mail ballots had been returned in Maricopa County.

Does Jack Harper's wife know that he left the house needing glasses?

Some elected officials should be barred from using social media...but I'm glad they're not.  Wiseasses like me have more to write about. :)

From the Arizona Republic,

Tweet of the week:
"Heard the Governor read a proclaimation (sic) and she looked young! Does her husband know she left the house looking great?" -- Rep. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, tweeting under the handle @HarperForAZ, during the state's centennial celebration

The tweet in question -

Jan Brewer at an Arizona Centennial celebration, courtesy the Governor's webpage -

"Young"?  Your call...

Short Attention Span Musing...

...Jan Brewer may yet be inducted into the Arizona Governor's Hall of Fame.  Unfortunately for her, it's looking more and more likely it will be in the Mecham/Symington wing.

From the Phoenix New Times, written by James King -

Federal authorities spent more than a year investigating Governor Jan Brewer's role in collecting Social Security benefits intended for her mentally ill son, Ronald, who currently is in a state hospital after being found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1990 on kidnapping and sexual assault charges.

The federal government, according to the Arizona Republic, which broke the story, was trying to determine whether $75,000 in benefits were improperly paid to the governor on behalf of her son.

Yes, Brewer is the same governor who earlier this year cut healthcare benefits for an estimated 135,000 poor Arizonans.

As of right now, the feds have chosen not to file charges.  However, given this, her close ties to industry lobbyists (i.e. longtime advisor/friend Chuck Coughlin, et. al.) and her predilection for pronouncing that she is above the laws and constitution of Arizona (i.e. the her effort to hijack the independent redistricting process), nobody will be shocked if she finds herself indicted before the end of her term.

...Do Brewer et. al.'s lawyers get paid extra every time they receive a slap-down from a judge?

I as that question because the best explanation for the continuing efforts to use the legal system to overthrow the AIRC is bill padding.  On the heels of a separate decision by the AZ Supreme Court overturning the Rs' removal of the AIRC's independent chair, a judge at the Maricopa County Superior Court derailed another of the R efforts to take over the redistricting process when he ruled against their move to say that the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) violated the Open Meeting laws. 

...The constant stream of losses isn't dissuading the Rs from continuing their attacks on the independence of the commission.  The Arizona Capitol Times has a story about a number of changes the Rs in the legislature want to foist off on the commission and the process.  However, they all seem to be ignoring one basic fact - the voters wanted an independent redistricting commission, so we set one up.  If we wanted to set up an elected officials job security commission, we'd have done that, instead.

...Yeah, education is her number one priority, but doesn't say if *supporting* it or *eviscerating* it is what she most wants to do.

From the Yuma Sun, written by Chris McDaniel -

“We have to get our population educated,” said Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer during a ribbon-cutting ceremony Tuesday at the University of Phoenix Yuma Learning Center.

The ceremony marked the grand reopening of the Student Resource Center. It was recently upgraded to include 23 high-speed computers, two interview rooms, a faculty room, and printing and copy services.

{snip}

Education is my No. 1 priority."

To be fair to Brewer, I think that Brewer's actual target is *public* education.  As documented by the article ("University of Phoenix Yuma Learning Center"), she's been pretty consistent in her support of "for-profit" education companies (private and charter K-12, and private post-secondary), while cutting hundreds of million of dollars from public education.

...Joe Arpaio spent Saturday going after people with brown skin.  Perhaps he'd have left them alone if they were dressed up as rapists and child molesters...

...From the "deja vu" department:  State Rep. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) has reintroduced one of his regular bills, a proposal to repeal the restriction on former legislators that makes them wait a year after leaving the legislature before they can return to lobby the legislature.  This time around it is HB 2022.

Look for the measure to NOT pass, for at least two reasons:

1.  It's an election year, and even AZ's Republicans don't want to be seen as that blatantly self-serving, especially because...

2.  Most former legislators find ways around that particular restriction anyway, often by simply not registering as lobbyists.

Later...

Brewer's latest move to seize control of the redistricting process rebuffed by AZ Supreme Court

...aka - the Hail Mary pass fell harmlessly to the ground...

Late this afternoon, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an order regarding the "motion to reconsider" its decision to reinstate Independent Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).

To sum up - motion to stay the reinstatement of Mathis is denied, motion to reconsider the entire previous order is denied, and the Court clarified that in her letter removing Mathis from the AIRC, Governor Jan Brewer didn't document any acts or behavior that rises to the level of being constitutionally sufficient to justify Mathis' removal.

In other words, they said "What part of "NO!" did you not understand?"only they did it in a judge-y way.  Very proper, very dignified, and lots of big words.  :))

The order:

IT IS ORDERED granting Respondents’ Joint Motion for Expedited Consideration.


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Respondents’ Joint Motion to Stay Order Reinstating Petitioner-Intervenor Mathis Pending Reconsideration.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Motion to Intervene of Andrew M. Tobin, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and Joinder in the Governor and Senate’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Court will treat the Motion as an amicus brief.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Respondents’ Joint Motion to Reconsider Order of November 17, 2011, except insofar as the motion seeks clarification of the Order. As the Order notes, the Court accepted jurisdiction of the petition for special action, having concluded that it has jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(1) of the Arizona Constitution. The Court further concluded that the issues presented are not political questions committed by the Constitution to the unreviewable discretion of the other branches of government.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED clarifying the Court’s November 17, 2011 Order as it concerns the letter of November 1, 2011, from the Acting Governor to Colleen Mathis. The Order states that the November 1, 2011 letter does not demonstrate “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office” as required under Article 4, Part 2, Section 1(10) of the Arizona Constitution. Respondents seek clarification whether the Court’s conclusion was based on the format of the November 1, 2011 letter, which stated that the Governor had determined that Mathis had “failed to conduct the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission’s business in meetings open to the public, and failed to adjust the grid map as necessary to accommodate all of the goals set forth in Arizona Constitution Art. 4, Pt. 2, § 1(14).”

The Governor’s November 1, 2011 letter constitutes her findings of grounds for the removal of Mathis. The Court’s conclusion that the letter does not demonstrate “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office” is based on the letter’s substance, not its format. The letter does not, as a matter of law, identify conduct that provides a constitutional basis for removal.


One ground identified in the Governor’s letter is a failure to conduct the commission’s business in meetings open to the public.

The Constitution directs that “[w]here a quorum is present, the independent redistricting commission shall conduct business in meetings open to the public, with 48 or more hours public notice provided.” Ariz. Const., Art. IV, Pt. 2, § 1(12). The statutory Open Meeting Law defines “meeting” in terms of a gathering of a quorum, A.R.S. § 38-431(4), and it directs that all meetings of public bodies shall be public meetings and that legal action of Supreme Court Case No. CV-11-0313-SA public bodies shall occur in public meetings. Id. § 38-431.01(A). A failure to conduct the business of the commission in meetings open to the public must at least involve violations of these laws for it to constitute “substantial neglect of duty” or “gross misconduct.” (We do not decide whether the constitutional provision preempts any statutory Open Meeting Law requirements, an issue that is being litigated in another forum.) There is, however, no allegation of any non-public meeting of a quorum of the commission in the Governor’s October 26, 2011 letter or in the responses thereto. Nor does the Governor’s November 1, 2011 letter find that a non-public meeting of a quorum of the commission occurred.

With regard to preparing maps, the commissioners perform legislative tasks in which they must “balance competing concerns” and “exercise discretion in choosing among potential adjustments to the grid map,” Ariz. Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 220 Ariz. 587, 597 ¶ 28, 208 P.3d 676, 686 (2009), and the commission’s adoption of final maps is subject to judicial review for compliance with the Constitution’s procedural and substantive requirements. Id. at 596 ¶ 24, 208 P.3d at 685. The Governor’s disagreement with commissioners over whether they have properly considered constitutional criteria for adjusting the grid map before they have completed final maps is not, as a matter of law, a constitutional basis for removal.

 Even before I received the order in my inbox, the reaction from House Speaker Andy Tobin was there.  Needless to say (but I'm going to say it anyway :) ), he's ratcheting up the rhetoric -

“With the Supreme Court having clearly overstepped its bounds, I continue to believe that the reinstatement of Colleen Mathis as chairwoman of the Independent Redistricting Commission represents a dangerous threat to the independent process Arizona voters want and deserve. I fully support any and all efforts by the Governor to immediately remove Chairwoman Mathis and call the Legislature into special session to refer a measure to the ballot allowing voters the opportunity to repeal this commission, which has shown total disregard for the Arizona Constitution. We must act immediately to ensure that this broken and biased process does not continue to unfold.”

Look for an attempt to put a repeal of Prop 106 (the ballot question in 2000 that created the independent redistricting process) before the voters of the Republican primary in February.

After that, look for federal intervention by the US Department of Justice.

And after that, or even if federal intervention doesn't happen, look for AZ's Republicans to have their asses handed to them next November. 

Willfully and maliciously overriding the will of the voters for reasons that range from purely partisan to purely personal tends to tick off voters, even those who normally don't pay much attention between elections.


On a related note:  the AIRC has scheduled three business meetings next week in Tempe, at the Fiesta Inn at the SW corner of Priest and Broadway.

On Tuesday, they will meet at 1:30 p.m. (agenda); Wednesday at 4 p.m. (agenda); Thursday at 1 p.m. (agenda).

"Motion to reconsider": Brewer-speak for "Hail Mary"

During football games, often at the end of a half or the end of a game, one team that is desperate to score lines up its receivers on one side of the field and sends them down the field to the end zone while the quarterback heaves a pass into the crowd of players

While occasionally it works, the vast majority of the time the ball is tipped once or twice and falls to the ground incomplete. 

However, teams still use the tactic because they have nothing to lose by it.

Which brings us to Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer and her paid attack dog/mouthpiece, attorney Lisa Hauser.

Steve at Arizona Eagletarian has posted links to various new filings in the case, including a motion to reconsider from Brewer and Hauser.  In it they petition the Arizona Supreme Court to "reconsider" (aka - change its mind about) its order last week reinstating Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).

Their motion is basically a re-presentation of their original argument, that Brewer can remove Mathis or any member from the AIRC for any reason she wants, including a bad haircut.  All Brewer has to do is call it "gross misconduct."

The argument didn't work last week and it almost certainly won't work this week.  Maybe it could, if instead of just disagreeing with the court's decision, they pointed out some procedural error or presented some heretofore unknown facts, but they didn't.

I don't expect the motion to work - Brewer isn't Doug Flutie, Hauser isn't Gerard Phelan and the AZ Supes aren't the University of Miami football team of the mid-1980s (not enough felony convictions) - but like every other Hail Mary pass ever thrown, the rationale behind it is "hey, if it doesn't work, we're no worse off than we were before."

They have nothing to lose if it doesn't work and a lot to gain if it does.  In addition, as Steve points out in his post, it may actually just be a PR move to help rationalize a special session of the lege to refer a ballot question in an attempt to overturn the proposition that originally set up the independent redistricting process.

I don't think that'll work either, but they've got a better chance that way than in court, especially if they go with the scheme proposed by many Republican legislators - put the issue to a vote during the Republican presidential primary.

Note to readers:  I almost named this post " " "Motion to reconsider":  Brewer-speak for "Ave Maria" " but decided the BC football reference was enough.  Didn't need to go the full Catholic on everybody. :)

The Mathis ruling...

Essentially, the court said that no matter how much the governor, her handlers, and their mouthpieces insist otherwise, the removal of Colleen Mathis is something that is subject to judicial review.  Like almost every act committed by legislative and executive branches of every level of government since Marbury v. Madison.

It also said that no matter how much those same folks insist otherwise,  Mathis has done nothing to meet the threshold set in the Arizona Constitution to justify her removal from office.

My way of putting it:  Actually being the independent on the *independent* redistricting commission and conducting yourself in an independent manner is NOT grounds for kicking being kicked out of office.

No matter how much Jan and her clan click their heels together while say "we wish we still controlled district lines, we wish we still controlled district lines."

Because the order is short, here it is in its entirety -

Having considered the filings in this matter by the petitioner, the intervenor, the respondents, and the amici curiae, and the arguments of counsel,

1. The Court accepts jurisdiction of the petition for special action, having concluded that it has jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(1) of the Arizona Constitution;

2. The Court concludes that the issues presented in this matter are not political questions and are therefore justiciable. See Brewer v. Burns, 222 Ariz. 234, 238-39 ¶¶ 16-22, 213 P.3d671, 675-76 (2009);

3. The Court concludes that the letter of November 1, 2011, from the Acting Governor to the intervenor Colleen Mathis does not demonstrate “substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office” by the intervenor Mathis, as required under Article 4, Part 2, Section 1(10) of the Arizona Constitution;

Therefore, the Court grants the relief requested by the intervenor Mathis and orders that she be reinstated as chair of the Independent Redistricting Commission.

The Court in due course will issue an opinion more fully detailing its reasoning in this matter. 

Might I suggest a title for the sequel to Jan Brewer's book?

Crow For Breakfast

From a Facebook posting from the AIRC -

The Arizona Supreme Court has reinstated Colleen Coyle Mathis as chairwoman of Arizona's Independent Redistricting Commission.


The justices issued their ruling late this afternoon, a couple hours after hearing oral arguments on the issue.

Once the executive director has contacted the five commissioners and determined how they want to move forward, the staff will make the appropriate arrangements.

Arizona Capitol Times coverage here (subscription required)

Arizona Republic coverage here

Short Attention Span Musing...

...Some people just didn't get the message from Tuesday's recall vote in LD18.

- Recalled state senator Russell Pearce wrote a rather delusional op-ed published by the Arizona Capitol Times.  Aside from the expected self-pitying and self-righteous blathering (the recall was all about his anti-immigrant positions and he did nothing wrong.  His opponenets made up his misuse and abuse of office and his meanness and arrogance toward the people of his district), he dropped some whoppers that weren't directly related to the recall election.  My favorite:

...we lead the nation in many areas, such as economic recovery, safer neighborhoods, job creation, quality education...

Either Pearce is completely clueless about the realities of life in Arizona, or he's trying out for a spot on Faux News.

Or both.

- State Senator Sylvia Allen, not recalled but a close friend of Pearce's, issued a press release that blamed everyone but Pearce for the recall.  Like Pearce above, she hasn't heard the message, or she has and is lying about it.

“Recalls have never and were never meant to be used against lawmakers whose sole fault was they disagreed with you on the issues. They’re designed to target people who may have committed crimes or were guilty of gross misconduct in office,” says Senator Sylvia Allen, President Pro Tem of the Senate.

So, is Allen saying that things like her friend's ordering the unlawful arrests of people who dissent from his extreme positions, protectiing a domestic abuser like Sen. Scott Bundgaard from answering for his crimes, and accepting "gifts" from the Fiesta Bowl and having the arrogance to say that he didn't have to report them or pay them back (before he quietly did so) aren't gross misconduct?

Or is she saying that violating free speech protections, ignoring domestic violence laws, and ignoring the ethical standards for elected officials are just "issues" where Pearce (and Allen) simply finds himself in disagreement with civil society?


...In other news, Governor Jan Brewer and her handlers are looking to strike while the iron is hot (read: before the AZ Supreme Court rules on her partisan interference with the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission).  Steve at Arizona Eagletarian has posted the text of a letter she sent to the rest of the AIRC.

She's demanding that they scrap the draft maps completely and come up with districts that are more to her (and that of Marilyn Quayle).  Without using the specific words, it's evident that she wants the AIRC to protect one "community of interest" above all others -

Arizona's community of Republican elected officials.

Even if the voters don't want incumbents interests served at the expense of Arizona's interests.

...The Republican members of the state senate have selected Senator Steve Pierce to be the president of the state senate.  Like his predecessor (Pearce) and his colleague (Allen), he doesn't have a clue about what happened Tuesday.

From the Arizona Republic article linked above -

"We're going to continue the good things that Russell started," Pierce said. "He did a wonderful job. He did not deserve what happened to him."

Russell Pearce was drunk with power and contemptuous of his constituents and Arizonans as a whole (unless they lined his pockets with "gift" and "campaign contributions"), and he lost an election as a result.

That's what is *supposed* to happen, and he deserved every bit of it.

...From the "has even less of a clue than Pearce, Pierce, and Allen" department - Sen. Scott "Fists of Fury" Bundgaard has formed a reelection committee for the 2012 cycle.  I won't predict that he can't make it through an R primary (made that mistake with Ben Quayle last year.  Never again will make the mistake of overestimating the standards of R primary voters.  However, his presence on a general election ballot could turn a safe R district into a D upset.


...In a long-rumored development, Richard Carmona, a former US Surgeon General, has entered the race for the Democratic nomination for the US Senate seat currently held by Jon Kyl.  He joins Don Bivens, an attorney and former chair of the Arizona Democratic Party, in the race.

Obviously, it is still early, and other candidates may yet enter the race, but I have to say this -

I hope there *is* a primary.  As long as it is clean, a primary is a good thing.  Especially since neither of the announced candidates has ever run for office before (so far as I can find). 

Arizona Democrats have a history of "clearing the field" for well-meaning but inexperienced candidates for high office, only to watch them get buried at the polls.  A robust primary will not only remedy the "inexperience" problem, it will generate media and public attention for the Democratic candidates, something that has been sorely lacking during the last few election cycles.

In addition, like their predecessors, both are bound to have highly-paid professional "consultants" on their campaign staffs who will tell each to run as "Republican-lite" candidates.

This highly-unpaid amateur is telling each candidate (and any others who may also jump into the race) -

Run as "sincere" candidates who focus more on the needs and concerns of Arizonans (even if that ticks off a few of the loud and proud screamers in the electorate) than on "triangulating" positions that are calculated to completely alienate the smallest number of voters (but leave a vague bad taste in the mouths of *all* voters).

Pandering to the fringe Rs even though you will never get their votes may not cost you the votes of the Democratic base (it's not like they'll vote for Jeff Flake), but it will cost you something almost as valuable - their energy.  A successful candidate doesn't just need votes, but also needs feet on the ground.

What those professional consultants won't tell you, in fact are afraid to tell you because they are worried about their next paying gig, is that most successful campaigns are more about the energy of the volunteers than they are about perfectly crafted and completely meaningless positions on issues.

Remember that.