How do you split 30 pieces of silver 105 ways?

On Friday, the House passed an update of FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by a vote of 293 -129. The bill includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that aided the Bush Administration in their efforts to spy on Americans.

In addition to the immunity provision (Title II of the bill) it allows the government to "initiate a wiretap without court permission if "important intelligence" would otherwise be lost." (AP)

AZ delegation votes: Renzi, Shadegg, Franks, Mitchell, Giffords, Flake - yea; Pastor, Grijalva - nay.

I suppose I could expound at length on why this was a horrible move, but it's late, I'm tired, and work starts early tomorrow, so let me sum up -

To Congressman Harry Mitchell, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and the 103 other Democrats who joined the entire Republican caucus (excepting Rep. Tim Johnson of Illinois, who, for some unknown reason, voted against the measure) in supporting the bill that George Bush wanted:

1. One of the rationalizations given to support this bill was that it was "necessary" in order to ensure the safety of Americans. The only problem with that story is that it is put forth by the President and his lackeys, who, as evidenced by the testimony on Friday by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, lie the way that normal people breathe, and have been doing so for nearly eight years.

2. Some of you might say that it was necessary to compromise to get the FISA update passed. Perhaps it was, but when the President gets everything that he wanted, it isn't "compromise," it's "surrender."

3. Each and every one of you should remember that you were elected to work for your constituents' best interests, not the President's. In no way does retroactive immunity for telecoms or decreased judicial oversight of Administration activities benefit your constituents.

'Nuff said.

For those who wonder why the Republicans seem to be getting a free pass on this one, they're just receiving the benefit of *really* low expectations here - expecting them to start showing concern for their constituents or respect for the Bill of Rights at this point would be the height of foolishness and an utter waste of time.


Daniel Patterson at Daniel's News & Views offers his far more succinct take on the situation here.

ACLU press release here.

Good night.

Whew - got scared there for a minute

Here I was, all prepared to write a post criticizing the Democrats in Congress for passing H.R. 6074, the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008. The bill passed by a 324 - 84 margin (Giffords, Mitchell, Pastor, Grijalva - yea; Franks, Flake, Renzi, Shadegg - nay).

The reason for my intended criticism was not based on the language in the bill, but on some of the press coverage, which calls the bill a move to allow the U.S. to sue OPEC over high gas prices.

AP coverage here; TimesOnline coverage here; AFR coverage here.

The coverage gives the impression that in an era of record-breaking oil prices, and equally record-breaking oil company profits, that Congress has determined that the best solution is to take foreign nations to court.

Assuming that those nations would even bother to face the U.S. in court, given the low regard for international law that is typically exhibited by the U.S. government.

The U.S. government only participates in that process when it suits them - why should any other country behave any differently when it is the U.S. initiating the proceedings?

Based on the MSM coverage, I thought that the bill was pointless and insipid, and reeked of a little election year pandering, and that's always worthy of criticism.

I was sitting at my keyboard, profoundly disappointed in my fellow Democrats, and when the White House threatened a veto of the legislation, I was worried that my agreement with that position might indicate that I'd hit my head, come down with some sort of mental illness, or just plain had my soul sucked out of me.

Then I read the actual language of the bill, and was greatly relieved to find the real teeth of the measure.

SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY ANTITRUST TASK FORCE.

The section goes on to delineate some of the areas of interest of the Task Force, including looking for price gouging, market manipulation, anti-competitive behavior, collusive behavior and more.

And it isn't restricted to international cartels and the like. Specifically included are petroleum refiners and wholesalers of gasoline and petroleum products.

In short, the oil companies themselves are in the crosshairs of this bill.

Which thoroughly explains why the White House and the four Republican members of Arizona's delegation so thoroughly oppose the bill.

The "I'm not totally naive" caveats -

It *is* an election year, and I'm fully aware that many of the Democratic supporters of this bill did so to take advantage of the anti-OPEC nature (aka - the "anti-foreigner" nature) of the bill. It's always easier to blame an amorphous "them" for our problems than to tell voters that they might bear some of the responsibility for the creation of and the ultimate solution for the current mess.

In addition, I'm fully aware of the fact that many of the Republicans who supported the bill did so with the full knowledge that it will never become law, either because of a veto they won't vote to override, or because it will die in the Senate.

While this move has some merit (holding Big Oil's feet to the fire is always a good thing), how about an effort to not just wean the U.S. off of *foreign* oil (which is just Republican-speak for "let's destroy ANWR"), but to wean us off of petroleum in general.

Supporting efforts to create something other than the internal combustion engine to power our transportation infrastructure would be a good start, no matter how much Big Oil and Big Auto scream about it.

House Republicans abdicate their professional responsibilities

Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives failed to pass part of H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2008. The part that they failed to pass was the part provided supplemental funding for Bush's occupation of Iraq.

I call today's move a "failure" not because I support continuing to pay for Bush's war, but because the bill wasn't defeated (though much of the MSM coverage will paint it as such), but because the Republicans basically didn't show up.

The final vote - 141 in favor, 149 opposed, 132 present.

All 132 members of the House refusing to take a stand on one of the biggest issues facing our nation today by voting present were Republicans.

As evidenced by the split in the Democratic caucus (85 yeas, 147 nays), this is an issue that deeply divides the country; the Republicans' refusal to take a stand, any stand (even one I disagree with!) nearly constitutes en masse job abandonment.

And 'job abandonment' is grounds for termination of employment.

See you in November.

By the way - the part of the measure that they failed to take a stand on is the part of the bill that would have ensured that there is money to continue paying the troops after June 15.

Can't wait to see how they spin that into "support for the troops."

Other details of today's votes -

The vote split among the Democratic members of Arizona's Congressional delegation reflected the split among the whole caucus - Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8) and Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5) voted yea; Ed Pastor (D-AZ4) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7) voted nay,

Among the Republicans from Arizona, only Rick Renzi (R-AZ1) took a stand, voting yea. John Shadegg (R-AZ3), Trent Franks (R-AZ2), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ6) all sat on their hands.

A second part of the bill that establishes a timeline for withdrawal passed 227 - 196, with Arizona's delegation splitting along party line - Democrats in favor, Republicans opposed.

The third and final section of the bill, containing some domestic spending such as the new G.I. Bill and unemployment relief, passed 256 - 166, with Democrats Grijalva, Giffords, Mitchell and Pastor, and Republican Renzi supporting, and Republicans Flake, Franks, and Shadegg opposing.

Note: there is an expectation that the Senate will restore the funding portion of the bill and return it to the House for another vote.

Note2: Bush has threatened to veto any supplemental bill that includes any restrictions or timelines (he's not too fond of education benefits for veterans, either.)


The Hill's coverage here.

AP coverage here.

Later!

New Candidates - Congressional Races

Update on 5/6 to add another CD6 candidate. Thanks to Richard Grayson for the heads-up in his comment...

CD6 news -

Jeff "Mikey" Flake (R-CD6) has a real opponent in CD6. Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) looked, but found that while he thought that Flake was vulnerable to an attack from the right, he was one of the few who thought that way. He's now running for the state senate seat from LD18.

Against Jeff Flake's brother-in-law, Kevin Gibbons. :))

Richard Grayson has been running a semi-quixotic 'write-in' campaign, chronicling Flake's penchant for placing his devotion to an extreme ideology before the interests of his constituents in this blog.

Now, Rebecca Schneider, a librarian and community activist, has filed organizational paperwork with the FEC for a run at the CD6 seat (campaign website here)

She seems to be running a campaign that is somewhat more serious than Grayson's - she has a campaign treasurer *not* named 'Rebecca Schneider.' (That's not a shot at Grayson; he's made it clear that his campaign is rooted in the fact that no other Democrat had stepped up to oppose Flake.)

Based on her website, she seems to be an intelligent, educated (hey, she's a *supervisory* librarian - that implies a familiarity with books that goes far beyond knowing how to reshelve them :)) ), and a progressive, grassroots sort of Democrat.

I wish good luck to Schneider (and Grayson!). She'll need it - Jeff Flake still has well over $900K cash on hand.

Edit to add:

Also running in CD6 is Chris Gramazio of Queen Creek. Based on his website's "about" blurb, he's an intelligent and thoughtful blue-collar Democrat.

Good luck to Gramazio; I hope that after the primary, the runner-up can lend their support to the winner. Whoever faces Flake in November will need the support of the other candidate's base to have any chance of unseating the incumbent.

End edit...


CD5 news -

In a long-rumored development, PolitickerAZ is reporting that Susan Bitter Smith will enter the race for the Republican nomination to oppose Congressman Harry Mitchell in CD5. According to news reports, her official announcement will take place on Friday, May 9, giving her just a few short weeks to gather signatures on nominating petitions and to gather financial support.

Given that she's a long-time industry lobbyist (cable and telecom), the money part shouldn't be much of a problem.

Note: I'm going to have to get some Windex for the ol' crystal ball - I've predicted that she wasn't going to enter due to the late date.

Later!

Harry Mitchell's Veterans Bill Creating Some Strangeness In D.C. And Arizona

Congressman Harry Mitchell's H.R. 5740, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, while garnering widespread support among his colleagues (250 cosponsors and counting), but it's creating an interesting dichotomy among the Republican members of AZ's Congressional delegation.

[Note: Congressman Mitchell's blog entry about the bill, in The Hill, is here.]

On the one hand, we have John Shadegg (R-AZ3). He is refusing to support the bill, not because he thinks it is a bad bill, but because he hasn't been asked to support it.

On the other hand, Jeff Flake (R-AZ6), who, like Mikey of Life Cereal fame, 'hates everything' related to government spending, may sign on in support of the bill (which, by the way, would be this year's "Phoenix freezes over" moment if that comes to pass :) ).

So, let me get this straight - John Shadegg, the hand-shaking, baby-kissing, industry PAC money-taking, savvy politician (his retire/unretire two-step earlier this year notwithstanding) is telling the 56,000 veterans in his district to get stuffed, while Jeff Flake, the putative anti-government crusader, who is almost physically incapable of supporting anything that has even a hint of a whiff of help for the average American, veteran or otherwise, is considering throwing his support behind Mitchell's bill?

Shadegg shouldn't be surprised when his challenger, Bob Lord, says "thank you" to him.

That's because he understands that many (most??) of CD3's veterans will also have a couple of words to say to Shadegg when Election Day rolls around, and while the second word will be "you" also, the first one won't be "thank."

Nope, not even close.

BTW - am I the only one who thinks that "I can't support it because I haven't been asked to" is the epitome of pissy?

BTW2 - During his 2006 campaign against JD Hayworth, more than once I used a 'workhorse vs. showhorse' analogy when comparing Mitchell to Hayworth. Bills like H.R. 5740 show why this is still accurate - the bill isn't showy, it's just solidly professional and effective legislation and governance.

Compare those qualities to most of the Republicans in Congress or running to replace Democrats there.

'Nuff said.


Bob Lord's campaign website here.

Lord press release on the topic, courtesy PolitickerAZ, here; more Lord press releases on this subject here and here.

Richard Grayson's chronicle of Jeff Flake's extremist ideology and ineffective representation of his district here (Grayson is mounting a campaign for the CD6 seat.)

Quarterly FEC Reports Are Pouring In...

They're not all into the FEC yet, so I'll update over the next few days.

The quarterly numbers so far -

CD1 (open seat)

Shanker (D) (challenger) - Total raised $33,688.73; $31,354.75 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $34,320.21 cash on hand. Note: Shanker's committee has $9,367.88 in outstanding debt (credit card statement).

Hay (R) (challenger) - Total raised $98,618.19; $88,118.19 from individuals; $10,500.00 from PACs; $222,334.01 cash on hand. Note: Hay's committee has $70K in outstanding debt (loans by the candidate).

Kirkpatrick (D) (challenger) - Total raised $257,400.17; $194,650.17 from individuals; $62,250.00 from PACs; $465,464.68 cash on hand. Note: Kirkpatrick's committee has $20K in outstanding debt (loan).

Riley (D) (challenger) - Total raised $15,825.00; $15,825.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $216,165.31 cash on hand. Note: Riley's committee has $205K in outstanding debt (candidate loan). Note2: According to PolitickerAZ, Riley has dropped out of the race.

Titla (D) (challenger) - Total raised $39,114.05; $39,114.05 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $48,321.07 cash on hand.

Korn (R) (challenger) - Total raised $14,567.00; $12,266.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $10,494.16 cash on hand. Note: Korn's committee has $3,185.36 in outstanding debt (candidate loan and credit card).

Renzi (R) (outgoing incumbent) - $0 raised; $3966.46 cash on hand; $456,073.37 in outstanding debt (legal fees, candidate loans).

CD1 note: According to Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion, rumored Republican candidate Ken Bennett has chosen (again!) to pass on the CD1 race.


CD2

Franks (R) (incumbent) - $88,386.00 total raised; $53,261.00 from individuals; $35,625.00 from PACs; 129,774.83 cash on hand. Note: Franks' committee owes $304,100 in outstanding debt (candidate loan).

Thrasher (D) (challenger) - Total raised $3,023.50; $3,023.50 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $12,512.49 cash on hand.


CD3

Lord (D) (challenger) - Total raised $220,166.47; $163,116.47 from individuals; $51,550.00 from PACs; $632,485.41 cash on hand.

Shadegg (R) (incumbent) - Total raised $150,716.41; $163,516.41 from individuals; $47,000.00 from PACs; $937,672.59 cash on hand. Note: The reason that the total raised is less than the combined totals of individual and PAC contributions is that Shadegg's committee refunded nearly $60K in contributions.

Annie Loyd (I) (challenger) - Quarterly report not posted yet.

Shadegg's flirtation with retirement may have cost him some contributions - Shadegg outraised the incumbent, even when ignoring the refunds (which included a refund of $10K in illegal contributions from his own PAC.)

From a Lord press release -

“We could not have come this far or raised this much without the support of the over 1,000 Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who have contributed to my campaign,” Lord said. “I’d like to thank everyone for their continued support. We will change Washington – together.”

CD4

Pastor (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $260,827.71; $164,020.98 from individuals; $96,306.73 from PACs; $1,266,599.90 cash on hand.


CD5

Mitchell (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $321,160.18; $209,028.59 from individuals; $112,110.00 from PACs; $1,121,680.84 cash on hand.

Schweikert (R) (challenger) - Total raised $175,210.23; $171,941.95 from individuals; $2,500.00 from PACs; $514,092.21 cash on hand. Note: Schweikert's committee has $250K in outstanding debt (candidate loan).

Ogsbury (R) (challenger) - Total raised 40,421.17; $37,921.17 from individuals; $2,500.00 from PACs; $353,094.41 cash on hand. Note: Ogsbury's committee has $250K in outstanding debt (candidate loan).

Hatch-Miller (R) (committee terminated) - Owes $17K; cash on hand $245.20.

Knaperek (R) (challenger) - $49,618.00 total raised; $49,518.00 from individuals; $100 from PACs; $44,471.84 cash on hand.

Anderson (R) (challenger) - $55,115.00 total raised; $55,115.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $69,985.52 cash on hand.

CD5 Notes: Susan Bitter Smith (R) is still 'exploring', but given the facts that the signature deadline is fast approaching (early June) and that her name is dirt with many of Scottsdale's grassroots Republicans (see: Hanover Project, The), my guess is that she isn't going to jump into the race.

Oh yeah - that Schweikert guy has the money race locked up, if not the balloting race. I don't know what the polling numbers among CD5 Republicans looks like, but Schweikert looks like the frontrunner based on contributions from individuals.

Oh yeah2 - Mitchell has more cash on hand that all of his Republican challengers combined. Mitchell still faces a Republican registration advantage in his district, but he is well-positioned to face whichever Rep makes it out of the primary.


CD6

Flake (R) (incumbent) - Total raised $58,342.00; $52,742.00 from individuals; $6,000.00 from PACs; $974,536.74 cash on hand.


CD7

Grijalva (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $91,312.93; $54,296 from individuals; $37,010.00 from PACs; $139,670.64 cash on hand.


CD8

Giffords (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $466,786.20; $333,616.20 from individuals; $138,070.00 from PACs; $1,672,821.88 cash on hand.

Bee (R) (challenger) - Total raised $466,092.60; $406,992.60 from individuals; $40,000 from PACs; $525,439.88 cash on hand.

Short Attention Span Musing - Congressional Edition

...In the "big" news this week, Arizona Corporation Commissioner Kris Mayes announced that she would not run for the Republican nomination in CD1 (PolitickerAZ).

This may actually help not the other Republicans running, but instead it may aid the Democrats' chances of taking Renzi's seat. While Mayes may be too moderate and too conscientious a public servant to suit the power structure of the Arizona Republican Party, it's precisely those qualities that would have made her a formidable candidate in a general election.

As for the other major Rep candidates, Sydney "my soul is owned by the mining industry" Hay (already in the race) and Ken "broomstick" Bennett (rumored to be entering the race)?? Not so much.

Follow the links - each one has major weaknesses as a candidate, weaknesses that the eventual Democratic nominee will be certain to bring to the attention of CD1's voters.


...Over in CD5, while the Republican challengers to Harry Mitchell were making nice with each other, in an "aww shucks, isn't that cute" sort of way (and taking shots at Democrats in general and Mitchell in particular) on Monday, Mitchell was sponsoring a 21st century version of the GI Bill (H.R. 5740).

No AZ Republicans in Congress signed on as cosponsors of the bill to support post-9/11 veterans.
No Republican challenger in CD5 has issued a statement that they support H.R. 5740 either, and a quick perusal of their campaign websites finds far more support for the war in Iraq than for the servicemen and women fighting and dying in the war.


...In CD3, Republican John Shadegg had a mixed week -

First, he found out that the U.S. Chamber of Congress loves him (no word though on what Paradise Valley thinks of him or if he understands that PV is part of his district, and the US CofC isn't) and he loved them right back - attacking Congressional Democrats for delaying a vote on the Colombia Free Trade deal.

Later in the week, however, his constituents found out that alleged "taxpayer watchdog" Shadegg (as well as CD6's Jeff Flake) has no problem with taking international trips at taxpayer expense.

Then there was the whole "Shadegg was recorded by the FBI on a Renzi wiretap" news, too. :)

Oh, and challenger Bob Lord raised more than $220K during the first quarter and has more than $630K on hand.

All in all, *not* a good week for Congressman Shadegg.


...Of course, while Shadegg's week fell into the "not good" category, the week of Tim Bee, Republican challenger to Gabrielle Giffords in CD8 had an "absolutely lousy" week.

Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion broke the story of a taxpayer-funded campaign...errr...'thank-you' ad for Bee. In his update on the original post, Tedski found that the source of the funding for the TV spot was a bunch of school districts and that the ad aired not in his legislative district, but in CD8. Hmmm...

Now that the DCCC has filed a complaint over the spot, Bee may learn the hard way that he's trying to step up to the big leagues.

Part of that lesson will be understanding that the FEC is going to hammer him for stuff that AZ's Secretary of State Jan Brewer would turn a blind eye to (at least for fellow Republicans, anyway.)


Later!

Thank you Harry...

Earlier today, in spite of Republican tactics that reeked of hysteria, grandstanding, and attempts to baldly intimidate them, Congressman Harry Mitchell (D-AZ5) and 212 other Democrats approved the House version of H.R. 3773, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

The House version did not include the main clause that the President and the other Republicans in D.C. wanted, the one that retroactively granted immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping in the past.

The final vote was 213 - 197, 1 voting 'present.' The voting in the Arizona delegation fell along party lines - Democrats Giffords, Grijalva, Pastor, and Mitchell voting 'yea'; Republicans Flake, Franks, Renzi, and Shadegg voting 'nay.'

Last August, I criticized Harry Mitchell and the Blue Dogs for voting for a very bad bill, one that didn't require judicial oversight of electronic surveillance; it's only fair that I compliment him and them (mostly, anyway - 12 Dems crossed over today) now.


They've earned it.


Washington Post coverage of today's vote here.

WaPo coverage of President Bush's remarks on the topic yesterday here (summary: he says that he will veto any bill without immunity.)

White House statement on today's vote here.

ACLU statement on today's vote here.

Later!

Legislative candidate update

After reading this post at SeeingRedAZ about how Congressman Jeff Flake's brother-in-law has filed to challenge Russell Pearce in the LD18 Senate primary, I realized that it's high time to check for active candidate committees. All info courtesy the Arizona Secretary of State's website. I cross-checked the names at the Clean Elections website, but there were no names on the CCEC list of candidates that weren't also on the AZSOS's site.

(* = incumbent)


LD17 Senator (Tempe, South Scottsdale) -

Democrats - Meg Burton-Cahill*

Republicans - None yet


LD17 Representative -

Democrats - David Schapira*, Ed Ableser*

Republicans - Wesley Waddle, Mark Thompson (exploratory)

...This district is almost certain to have the hardest-fought general election. While the voter reg trends in the district favor Democrats (whoooo hoooo!), it's still almost evenly split in this district. I have heard of a couple of other possible Rep contenders, but they haven't announced yet, and since I'm not a Rep, I don't exactly have stellar sources among them in order to confirm/refute the rumors. :)



LD18 Representative (West Mesa) -

Democrats - Tammie Pursley

Republicans - Cecil Ash, Joe Dobbins, Steve Court, Kanani Henderson, Ron Middlebrook


LD18 Senator -

Democrats - Judah Nativio

Republicans - Russell Pearce, Kevin Gibbons

...Hmmmm....Both of LD18's Republican primaries look to be dogfights - 5 candidates running for two spots in the race for state rep, and Jeff Flake's brother-in-law running against Russell Pearce in an apparent bit of payback for Pearce's abortive primary challenge of Flake for the CD6 seat. There are no incumbents running in LD18 because Russell Pearce is term-limited out of the House, Karen Johnson has stepped aside to allow Pearce to run for the Senate seat that she currently holds, and current state representative Mark Anderson is running for the Republican nomination to challenge Harry Mitchell in CD5.



LD8 Senate (North Scottsdale, Fountain Hills) -

Republicans - Carolyn Allen*

Democrats - None yet


LD8 Representative -

Republicans - Michelle Reagan*, John Kavanagh*

Democrats - None yet


...Expect Democratic candidates to step forward in LD8; I know of a couple of folks who are mulling over a run, but have yet to announce. Anybody who is interested in running should contact the LD8 Dems at (480) 596-8350.


Later!

Arizona earns another low rating when it comes to protecting children

This time, it's the state's Congressional delegation that has let children down.

The Children's Defense Fund Action Council has released its 2007 Congressional scorecard. The scoring was based on 10 key votes each in the House and Senate (the list of votes was slightly different for each chamber.)

Arizona's delegation ended up tied for 44th with Louisiana's.

Hey - at least we beat Nebraska, South Carolina, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.

On the other hand, Georgia, Texas and Mississippi beat us, and that's not exactly something to brag about.

By comparison, my old home state of Massachusetts ranked 3rd, with an average score of 97%; the only negative marks were due to absences, not bad votes.


As could be expected, the Arizona delegation split along party lines -

In the House, Democrats Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva each scored 100%, Gabrielle Giffords 80%, and Harry Mitchell 60%.

On the Republican side, Rick Renzi scored 60%, Trent Franks and John Shadegg scored 10%, and the ever-reliable Jeff Flake earned a big ol' goose egg (he's like Mikey from the Life cereal commercial - he hates *everything.*)

It seems that John Shadegg's 'expertise' on health care doesn't extend to healthy children, only healthy corporate bottom lines. As for Trent Franks, apparently his concern for children stops once they are born.

As for Renzi's 60%, well, you knew that there had to be a real reason that a Republican U.S. Attorney pursued an indictment of a Republican Congressman - I mean, there was no way a Bush appointee would go after a Republican for simple extortion and fraud, right?

:))

And as for Harry Mitchell's 60%, I supposed he can take heart in the high-wattage company he's keeping - Nancy Pelosi was also at 60%, Joe Biden was at 50%, Barack Obama 60%, Hillary Clinton 70%.

Over in the Senate, Jon Kyl scored at 30% and John McCain earned a 10%.

Of course, given that McCain missed 8 of the 10 key votes, maybe his grade should be 'Incomplete.' However, according to the 2006 Scorecard, he made all of the 10 key votes that year, and scored a resounding

10%.

Come November, that's something that parents all over the state might want to think about before they cast a 'favorite son' vote in the general election.

Later!

The Priorities Of House Republicans -

1. Retroactive telecom immunity.

2. Failing that, heavily armed communities.

Not a priority -

1. Public housing.


Today, the House debated H.R. 3521, the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007. According to a summary from the Congressional Research Service, the bill concerns a number of rules regulating public housing authority (PHA) management and PHA asset management.

The fun part was when Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) moved to recommit the bill to the Financial Services Committee with instructions to amend the bill by substituting to become S. 2248, the FISA amendments bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecom companies that participated in George Bush's warrantless wiretapping of Americans program.

That motion was determined to be out of order because the proposed amendment wasn't relevant to the underlying bill. Rep. Smith moved to appeal the chair's ruling to the whole House; the whole House voted to table the appeal by a vote of 218 - 195, with the Reps voting mostly along party lines. (AZ delegation: Pastor, Mitchell, Grijalva - Yea; Renzi, Shadegg, Franks, Flake, and Giffords - Nay)

After that, under the rules of the House, the Republicans could still make a motion to recommit, and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) did so.

Her motion included instructions "inserting provisions that state that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall not accept as reasonable any fees for enforcing any provision of a dwelling lease agreement or other similar agreement that requires the registration of or prohibits the possession of any firearm that is possessed by an individual for his or her personal protection or for sport the possession of which is not prohibited, or the registration of which is not required, by existing law."

Further proceedings on that motion, as well as the underlying bill, were postponed (not sure why yet.)

Nice to see that even with a week off to think about the error of their ways, the House Republicans still place corporate interests and ideological purity above human interest.

Wonder who they're going to blame when they have their butts handed to them in November? Undocumented immigrants?

...Oh wait - undocumented immigrants don't vote.

It should be noted that after regular legislative business was completed that Trent Franks (R-AZ2) took to the floor of the House to talk about the significant issue of the day.

Which, given that it was Trent Franks speaking, of course that issue was abortion.

Later!

The Three Amigos Ride Again...

Yesterday, the House of Representatives considered overriding the President's veto of H.R. 3963, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. The Act would have renewed and expanded SCHIP, the program that provides health insurance coverage for poor children.

The attempt to override the veto failed by a 260 - 152 vote, 2/3 required to override the veto.

Naturally, being loyal Republicans all, Jeff Flake (R-AZ6), John Shadegg (R-AZ3), and Trent Franks (R-AZ2) voted to sustain the President's veto; according to the tenets of their ideology, the profits of private insurers are more important than poor children.

While none of the three could be bothered to speak on the House floor in support of children, or even to defend their support of the President's veto, the ever-consistent Trent Franks did have time to stroll to the floor of the House and insert a statement into the record bemoaning...

...the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. (p. E71 of the Congressional Record).

Nice to see that he still stops worrying about the welfare of children once they're born.


..Update - few days ago, I wrote a post noting John Shadegg's conspicuous absence while his constituents in Paradise Valley dealt with TCE-contaminated tap water.

Later, DownWithTyranny in California found him campaigning for John McCain in South Carolina. (Thanks for the update DWT!)

So, let's see where Shadegg's priorities lie -

1. Defend his conduct in circumventing campaign finance laws.

2. Traipse around South Carolina in winter.

3. Vote to screw over poor children and protect insurance company profits.

4. Join a court motion to stop a lawsuit over the 'under God' reference in the Pledge of Allegiance.

- Work for his constituents.

There's no number for that last because there's no evidence that he *ever* works for his constituents; hence, there's no way to quantify where that falls on his list of priorities.


...x4mr has a post on the SCHIP override vote here; Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona has one here.

Later!

The Three Amigos vote against HOPE

Coming soon to an upscale multiplex near you (no poor people allowed, other than those working there for minimum wage)...Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, and John Shadegg in "Three Amigos." Watch as these three soon-to-be out of work actors pretending to be public servants fight against public works projects that help the poor and middle classes...


Today, the U.S. House of Representatives considered and passed H.R. 3524, the HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2008. The Act authorizes grants to housing agencies to "revitalize severely distressed public housing developments." (CBO analysis)

Well, the House, except for Jeff Flake (R-AZ6), Trent Franks (R-AZ2), John Shadegg (R-AZ3), and 127 other Republicans.

Note - the final vote for passage was 271 - 130. All of the Democratic members of the AZ delegation and Rick Renzi voted in favor; the aforementioned Flake, Shadegg, and Franks voted against.

Before voting against HOPE, the three amigos supported four failed amendments that would have gutted or at least weakened the impact of the underlying bill. They voted for -

...the Neugebauer Amendment, which would have change the requirement that housing units demolished under a HOPE grant be replaced on a one for one basis to requiring the one-for-one match only if the units were occupied immediately prior to demolition. This is important in places like New Orleans where there are efforts to condemn public housing facilities and replace them with fewer, but larger, for-profit units. With a single stroke, this plan both inhibits the return to N.O. of poor black residents and generates greater profits for developer. (failed 181 - 227)

...the Sessions Amendment, which would have maintained HUD's authority to issue "demolition only" grants. Hmm..."demolition only"...that's an interesting concept for a bill that is supposed to be about renewing and revitalizing public housing. (Failed 186 - 221)

...the King Amendment, which would have barred using HOPE funds to pay for wages mandated by the Davis-Bacon Act (aka - prevailing wage.) I suppose this could be something of an improvement for Rep. King (R-IA). Normally, he spends his time railing about foreign immigrants. It seems that he is setting his sights a little higher now - the American skilled worker. (Failed 136 - 268)

Did I mention that King called the prevailing wage law "racist"?? What a schmuck.

...and the Capito Amendment, which would have removed the mandatory 'green' building standards and made them optional. (Failed 169 - 240)


It's obvious that these three have given up any pretense that they represent the interests of their constituents.

People don't matter to them as much as ideology does.

...OK, OK - Shadegg represents Paradise Valley, which doesn't need HOPE as much as it does clean drinking water. :)

Final note: to those of you who object to the appellation "Three Amigos" for Flake, Franks, and Shadegg, that perhaps that's a little to harshly partisan, keep this in mind -

I could very easily have nicknamed them the "Three Stooges."

Later!

Harry Mitchell's response to last night's drinking water contamination announcement

Quick update on last night's post concerning the announcement that one of the groundwater treatment stations in Scottsdale failed to do its job for eight days last month -

As expected, Ari Cohn of the EV Tribune did write a story about the meeting; the link is here.

A follow-up story, detailing the City of Scottsdale's assurances that the contaminated water was limited to a private water supply and never entered the city's water supply, is here.

Congressman Harry Mitchell and his office responded quickly, sending a letter to the administrator of the EPA expressing the Congressman's concerns and requesting a meeting to discuss the incident, its handling by the EPA, and what it says about the EPA's priorities.

The letter to the EPA administrator -

November 16, 2007

The Honorable Stephen L. Johnson
Administrator
Environment Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Johnson:

I am deeply concerned about last night's disclosure by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that water from a Scottsdale Superfund site with nearly double the maximum legal limit of trichloroethylene (TCE), a suspected-cancer causing chemical, may have entered the city's drinking water supply for a period of eight days last month.

The disclosure raises serious questions, not only about the emission, but about why the public was not informed about it until weeks after the event. Notice after exposure is inadequate and unacceptable. When the safety of drinking water is put at risk, the public has a right to know.

At last evening's Community Involvement Group of the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund Site meeting, where the contamination levels were revealed, the information was delivered as a postscript, after several decidedly less important matters had been discussed. I hope this does not reflect the priority EPA assigns to potential exposure to TCE.

I would appreciate an opportunity to meet with you or a member of your regional staff at the earliest possible convenience.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Harry E. Mitchell
Member of Congress

OK, I'm going to sound like a partisan hack here (perhaps only because I am one :)) ), but does anyone think that if a corporatist like John Shadegg or Jeff Flake was the Congressman for south Scottsdale, that there would have been a response anywhere near this quick or constituent-centered?

With a couple of minor changes during the last redistricting cycle, Scottsdale would be inundated with press releases bemoaning how EPA regulations suppress profit, not expressing concern for the health hazards faced by the residents of the district.

Side note to the coverage of the meeting -

Read the Trib's coverage of the meeting at the links above, then read the AZ Republic's here.

The AZ Rep article at the link, credited to Diana Balazs, is actually a slight improvement over its original coverage, credited to "staff and wire reports."

"Staff and wire reports" was a euphemism for "we re-edited the Trib's story."

They've pulled that one off of their website, but the article left up is written in a "damn, were we caught with our pants down or what?" style - the Rep didn't have anyone at the meeting and their article consists of a quote from a press release from Arizona American Water and a rehash of the history of the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site.

The once-mighty Arizona Republic scooped by the lowly Tribune? LOL.

Later!

Short Attention Span Musing

...Spent yesterday morning with State Rep. Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance), and no, I haven't gone over to the Dark Side.

He held his Legislative Workshop at the Arizona House of Representatives in front of approximately 85 attendees.

A pretty good turnout for a Tuesday morning...until you remember that 270 signed up for it. :)

It went better than expected, but Pearce and his fellow travelers may be benefitting from pretty low expectations there.

They used a video to explain the technical process whereby a piece of legislation moves from idea to bill to law; of course, that video was a 10-year old Horizon episode (aka - PBS), not something useful produced by the lege.

Other than Pearce himself, other speakers included Reps. Rick Murphy and Andy Biggs, House Speaker Jim Weiers, Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor, and KFYI talk-jock Bruce Jacobs.

With that particular cast of characters, is it any wonder that this allegedly 'non-partisan' workshop regularly took potshots at Democrats and liberals?

From Bruce Jacobs' call for everyone to "get involved"...except for liberals, who should "stay home and not participate" to Andy Biggs' criticism of Governor Napolitano's refusal to call the lege into special session over the looming budget deficit, it was open season on non-conservative, non-Republicans.

Of course, that shouldn't have been a surprise after Pearce's warm early (8:15 a.m. or so) welcome of uber-bigot Rusty Childress.

In regard to Pearce's erstwhile primary challenge to Jeff Flake in CD6, he never came out and said that he was running (bringing AZ's resign-to-run law into play), but he certainly sounded like someone who was campaigning for the Republican nomination - dropping Ronald Reagan's name at every possible opportunity, railing against activist judges, and calling himself a "lobbyist for the taxpayer."

Last note on this (for now, anyway) - I won't say that Pearce had home-field advantage, but of the 80 or so attendees, the only Democrats that I noticed were me and Sue Dolphin, a House candidate in LD4. There may have been a couple of others, but the crowd was dominated by Pearce supporters.

The session has aired on AZ Capitol Television and should be available on the lege's website shortly.


...From the "I *really* want to hear their rationalizations for this one" department...

Yesterday, six members of Congress, Reps, Broun (GA), Campbell (CA), King (IA), Marchant, Mica, and Westmoreland voted against HR3315, "To provide that the great hall of the Capitol Visitor Center shall be known as Emancipation Hall."

The only thing that I could find in the record of the debate on the bill was a statement by John Mica expressing a concern that the "monumental spaces" in the Capitol should be named after function, not historical events (like the emancipation of slaves).

Seems pretty lame, doesn't it?

I don't want to assume their opposition was rooted in base bigotry, but when you look at the list of Reps involved and the states that they represent (GA, CA, IA, TX, FL, GA again), one has to wonder.


...When Bush vetoed the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act yesterday, he sent a letter to Congress citing as a reason $3.2 billion appropriated for programs he wanted to kill and another $1 billion for earmarks. He said that overall, the bill had $9.8 billion more in discretionary spending than he wanted.

Now, a billion dollars is a lot of money to the likes of me, and probably to each of the readers of this blog.

And $9.8 billion is 9.8 times "a lot". :)

However, the total of the bill in question was over $600 billion; $9.8 billion is 1.6 percent of that.

Bush thinks that this $9.8 billion over one year will prevent a balanced budget and vetos the bill while pushing a $1.6 trillion war that is funded off of the budget cycle? A war that costs the U.S. $12 billion monthly?

He's a hypocrite when he calls out Congressional Democrats as "fiscally irresponsible."

'Nuff said.


...The House is scheduled to take up HR4156, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act, 2008. It funds continued operations in Iraq to the tune of $50 billion; the only concession to the 2/3 of America that believes Bush is doing a poor job with the war in Iraq is a strongly-worded but non-binding suggestion that a troop withdrawal start now and be completed by the end of next year.


My suggestion for Christmas presents for the Democratic leadership in Congress?

A year's supply of wet noodles to replace the ones that they've whipped Bush into shape with this year.

Later!

It's just one of those days...

...one of those days when the hundreds of thousands of people who put in millions of volunteer hours last year working to get Democrats elected to Congress and other offices have to sit back and wonder -

Was all of the effort - the calls, the walking, the talking, the contributions, the organizing, and more - worth it?

Did it made a real difference, or was the only real effect to change the names of the head porters on the gravy train running from K Street to Capitol Hill?

As of this writing, the House is considering approval of HR3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. While the final vote won't come until tomorrow morning, it will pass. The resolution that established the rules for debating HR3688 passed by a margin of 349 - 55.

Note: The only member of the AZ delegation to vote against that particular resolution was Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ7). Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ8) did not vote on the rule.

Earlier in the day, Congress *did* pass HR3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 by a vote of 235 - 184.

AZ delegation: Mitchell, Grijalva, Pastor - aye; Shadegg, Flake, Renzi, Franks - nay; Giffords not voting.

That Act means that gay American workers can't lose their jobs because they are gay.

Of course, the Peru Trade Act means that gay American workers can lose their jobs because they are American.

Not exactly an improvement.


Progressive columnist David Sirota's take on the Agreement is here.

A Teamsters Union press release on the Agreement here.

Edit on 11/8 to update:

As predicted, the Peru trade act passed easily by a 285 - 132 margin. The AZ delegation also voted as expected - Mitchell, Shadegg, Renzi, Franks, and Flake: aye; Pastor and Grijalva: nay; Giffords: not voting.

End edit.

Later!

Press Release of the Day

Courtesy PRNewswire.com -

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today released its preliminary analysis of H.R.3222, the Fiscal 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

The release went on to list 17 or so earmarks that the group considers to be the most "egregious" before closing with a bit of standard boilerplate (emphasis mine) -

Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, non-profit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse in government.

The only problem with the group's assertion that it's "nonpartisan"?

14 of the 17 were sponsored solely or in part by Democrats.

Adding to its credibility problems?

It's a right-wing front group that, among other things, has been used by Jack Abramoff to launder payoffs to Congressmen (Washington Post), served as an industry lobbyist (TampaBay.com), and taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the tobacco industry to lobby against tobacco regulations (TampaBay.com).

Oh, and Congress.org reports that all of the campaign contributions made by CCAGW's PAC during the 2005-2006 election cycle went to Republicans, including AZ's own Jeff Flake, John Shadegg, and Jon Kyl.

And here I was thinking that Jeff Flake was untouched by even a whiff of the Abramoff scandal.

Guess you learn something new every day. :)

Note: CAGW is the 501c3 charity wing of the non-charity 501c4 Council of the Citizens Against Government Waste (the 'CCAGW' above)

SourceWatch.org has a more complete write-up on CAGW and CCAGW.

Later!

Short Attention Span Musing

Just a Republicans being Republikkkans kind of day...



...Dick Cheney went hunting today.


The good news (by Republican standards, anyway :) ) - no lawyers were shot.



The bad news (by the standards of normal folks, anyway) - the hunting trip was to a private club that displays (get this!) a Confederate flag.



From the New York Daily News -

Nobody got shot, but Vice President Cheney still fired up controversy Monday when he went hunting at a private club that hangs the Confederate flag.

A Daily News photographer captured the 3-by-5 foot Dixie flag affixed to a door in the garage of the Clove Valley Gun and Rod Club in upstate Union Vale, N.Y.

...Want positive proof that the 'family values' Arizona Republicans make a mob family look like the Waltons?

Now the Maricopa County Republicans are promoting a "gala reception" for Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) as he "explores" a run against Congressman Jeff Flake (CD6), one of their very own.

What does Flake have to do to get a little love from his own party? I can understand Democrats disliking him - on social issues, he makes Barry Goldwater look like a bleeding heart and his "crusade" against earmarks always seems to focus more on community-based projects than on real waste like no-bid contracts and the like - but why do other Republicans hate him so much?

In addition to all of the reasons that Democrats can't stand him, he's intelligent, hard-working, untainted by scandal, and while he is *definitely* wrong on nearly every important issue, he isn't an embarrassment to his district or his state.

Hmmm..."not an embarrassment"...hmmm....

Maybe, in a perverse sort of way, that's the real problem here.

Consider the scheduled headline endorsers at Pearce's soiree -

Joe Arpaio and Andrew Thomas of "let's arrest journalists for writing uncomplimentary articles about us" fame.

Those two are perfect for Pearce - nobody can say they don't embarrass the state.


...The Bush State Department has given the Blackwater security guards responsible for killing 17 Iraqi civilians immunity from prosecution.

No wiseass-ery here. This is just too disgusting.


Later!

Short Attention Span Musing...

edited to add a link below...

Edit2 on 10/26 to add to the "Trent Franks" part of the post below...

...and reminders of a couple of events...

...Tonight, Thursday October 25, the Arizona Chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council will meet at 6991 E. Camelback in Scottsdale at 7:00 p.m. Congressional candidate Bob Lord (CD3) is scheduled to speak. For more info, contact Jerry at njdc[at]cox.net.

...Saturday, October 27 - Presidential candidate Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) is visiting Tucson and Phoenix.

Phoenix event info: Fajita Fundraiser and Launch of Inaugural Phoenix Chapter of Mi Familia con Bill Richardson, IBEW Building, 5808 North 7th Street, Phoenix, AZ. Time: 2:00 p.m.


Now on to the snarkiness (aka the 'short attention span' part of the post :) )

...The Tancredo campaign seems to be getting desperate, or perhaps he's just getting back to his Catholic roots. In an effort to eliminate one of the frontrunners for the Republican nomination, he's throwing the political equivalent of a "Hail Mary" pass.

From boston.com -

Romney passes on high-stakes baseball bet

{snip}

Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo wants to put something important on the line -- his candidacy. His campaign called ABC News to issue this challenge: The Colorado congressman will drop out of the race if the Rockies lose the World Series -- if rival Mitt Romney agrees to pack it in if the Red Sox lose.

As you can see from the headline to the piece, the Romney campaign declined to accept the bet.

Tom, face facts - the Rockies have a far better chance of winning the World Series than you ever did of winning the Presidency. Hell, my nephew's little league team has a better chance of winning the WS than you do of winning the Presidency, but I digress. :)

...In other Romney news, the latest Rolling Stone has an in-depth article on him. However, he may not like the national publicity.

The title -

Mitt Romney: The Huckster

He May Have Made $250 Million as a Venture Capitalist, but the Republican Candidate Is Trying to Sell a Party that's Gone Bankrupt

...continuing with the whole "Mitt" theme, today, he showed that he has the same attitude toward, and knowledge of, the use of military force as does Bush.

From AP via Yahoo! News -

Republican Mitt Romney said Thursday he would be willing to use a military blockade or "bombardment of some kind" to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.

"Bombardment of some kind"??

Nice incisive military analysis there, Mitt.


...Bush is showing in southern California that perhaps he (or more likely, his handlers) has learned some lessons from the Katrina debacle.

From AP via Yahoo! News -

Bush visits California wildfire victims

{snip}

In San Diego's hard-hit community of Rancho Bernardo, Bush stepped through rubble on a street of Mediterranean-style homes, where houses that remained unscathed were interspersed with what amounted to mere shells of the American dream. He stood with Jay and Kendra Jeffcoat near where a single spiral staircase rested amid rubble that used to be their home and where their burnt-out car had melted into the scorched earth.

"Those of us who are here in government, our hearts are right here with the Jeffcoats," the president said, his arm draped around Mrs. Jeffcoat. Holding her small brown dog on a leash, she fought back tears and Bush kissed her on the head.

Yup, Bush has learned some lessons.

Either that, or the victims of the wildfires in southern Cal tend to be somewhat paler and wealthier than the victims of Katrina in New Orleans and the Gulf Region were.

Not that I'm a cynic or anything... :))

...Edit to add: Blogger and activist Eli Blake at Deep Thought makes the same observation in this post, and does a far better job of it. He is perhap the best pure writer in the AZ political blogosphere, right or left, and his blog is worthy of bookmarking.

End edit...

Note: LA Times coverage of Bush's California visit here.


...The House passed HR3963, the revised SCHIP bill by a vote of 265 - 142. From the Arizona delegation: Pastor, Giffords, Grijalva, Mitchell, and Renzi voted 'aye'; Franks, Flake, and Shadegg voted 'nay.'

I didn't get to see the entire debate, but in a 'one-minute speech' after regular legislative business, Trent Franks (R-AZ2) surprisingly *didn't* cite a concern for insurance company profits, the Republicans' usual reason for voting against health care for poor children.

Nope, in an exhibition of Bush-like reasoning skills, he concocted a hobo's stew of reasons, stirring in "Hillary-care", abortion, and "attacks on the family" among others as the reasons that he opposed SCHIP.

John Thrasher 2008. 'Nuff said.

Edit to add: Apparently, I wasn't the only person to watch and comment on Congressman Franks' diatribe.

From Melissa McEwan at the blog Shakespearessister, who puts it far more *colorfully* than I did :)) -

Brain-Numbing Dipshittery During the SCHIP Debate

...here is video of Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) on the House floor earlier today, explaining why he must cast a vote against SCHIP, with a giant picture of a fetus behind him. It's like someone bet this douchebag money that he couldn't hit every square on an anti-choice Bingo card, and he said, "Oh yeah? Watch me."

As indicated in the quote, she posted a video of Franks' floor speech. Follow the link - it's worth watching.

End edit.

Later!

Quarterly FEC reports - updated

Updated on 10/16 with every incumbent now reporting; many of those who are just 'exploring' haven't filed yet. Many of those, because of the timing of their organization, won't *have* to report until after the first of the year.


Key: Candidate name, affiliation ( * signifies incumbents) - total contributions, PAC and other committee $, individual contributions, cash on hand

CD1

Rick Renzi, Republican* - $1,200; $1,000; $200; $2,085.59
Note: Renzi still owes over $100K in legal fees from earlier in the year.

Ann Kirkpatrick, Democrat - $217,050.00; $1,000; $216,050.00; $173,227.81

Sydney Hay, Republican - $57,933.81; $0; $57,933.81; $106,267.60
Note: $50,000 of Ms. Hay's fundraising came in the form of a loan to the campaign by the candidate.

Howard Shanker, Democrat - $18,160.24; $0; $18,160.24; $9,367.88
Note: $2,586.34 of his total came from the candidate and the campaign owes $9,300 on a credit card.

Ellen Simon, Democrat - $1,550.00; $0; $1,550.00; $4.41
Note: All $1,550 of Ms. Simon's funds came from the candidate herself.

CD1 note: To borrow a phrase from the film "Bull Durham" - Ms. Kirkpatrick has "announced [her] presence with authority." Her strong quarter sends a loud message both to potential Democratic primary opponents and potential Republican opposition in the general. Her candidacy is for real, and anyone thinking of jumping into the race (either side of the aisle) better be prepared for the long haul.


CD2

Trent Franks, Republican* - $49563.00, $23,500, $26,063.00, $72,153.87

John Thrasher, Democrat - $2,218.51; $0; $2,215.00; $3,619.87

CD3

Bob Lord, Democrat - $142,133.52; $5,000.00; $137,133.52; $332,189.52

John Shadegg, Republican* - $192,653.00; $36,400.00; $156,253.00; $450,930.26

Annie Loyd, Independent - $12,139.24; 0; $12,139.24; $5,001.16

Bob Stump, Republican - $0; $0; $0; $13,484.68

CD3 notes: You know that Independent Loyd has an uphill fight when the numbers show that her active campaign has less cash on hand than the inactive (for many years) campaign of Republican Stump. Also, the Lord campaign seems to have legs; while the incumbent Shadegg has outraised him and leads in COH, the differences are fairly insignificant, especially when the majority of the fundraising difference is rooted in Shadegg's advantage in PAC money.

This one is going to be a real race and one to keep an eye on.

Note on the note - Mr. Lord will be speaking at the next meeting of the Arizona chapter of the National Jewish Democratic on next Thursday. More on that in my "events calendar" post later this week.

CD4

Ed Pastor, Democrat* - $53,935.94; $39,190.94; $14,745.00; $1,229,812.71

CD5

Harry Mitchell, Democrat* - $354,638.52; $140,470.52; $214,168.00

Laura Knaperek, Republican - $30,700.00; $0; $30,700.00; $28,846.25

JD Hayworth, Republican - $0; $0; $0, $20,279.70

Larry King, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $0

CD5 Note: Laura Knaperek's max contributors ($4600) include Ken Kendrick, owner of the Diamondbacks, and Randy Kendrick, lawyer. Other contributors include Nathan Sproul (Arizona's version of Karl Rove) and his wife Tiffani, who gave $2300 each.

CD6

Jeff Flake, Republican - $225,765.78; $22,500.00; $203,265.78; $749,738.38

CD7

Raul Grijalva, Democrat* - $63,122.02; $0; $63,122.02; $94,425.00

CD8

Eva Bacal, Democrat - $0; $0; $0; $2,957.80

Tim Bee, Republican - $134,620.00; $0; $134,620.00; $119,316.25

Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat* - $257,800.05; $96,548.41; $161,251.64; $1,126,838.82
Note: Giffords' info has been corrected by an update; a previous "October" report that was filed in September is NOT the October quarterly report. Oops - I should've caught that in my original post. :(

CD8 note: With a cash on hand total that is slightly more than 10% of Gabrielle Giffords', the fundraising effort of sitting State Senate President Bee can only be termed as "disappointing" for the Republicans.

Of course, I'm a Democrat. :)))))


Yet another note: Some other blogs have reported numbers for other candidates (Sonoran Alliance post on the Ogsbury campaign in CD5 here) but until the FEC posts them, I won't list them. I'm not saying that SA has it wrong (their source is an email from the campaign, which is good enough for me) but I want to be consistent. The numbers that candidates tout to their supporters can be different than the ones they report to the FEC.

The FEC numbers count more. :))

A Sonoran Alliance post on the significance of the numbers in CD5 and CD8 here.

A Sustainablity, Equity, Development post on CD8 is here.

Later!