Apparently, AZGOPers play favorites when it comes to the Bill of Rights

While the Founding Fathers may have placed the First Amendment to the US Constitution first, it's one of the Rs least favorites, at least based on their behavior Monday.

- In the House Ways and Means Committee meeting, committee chair Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) refused to allow a representative from the Maricopa Integrated Health System (MIHS) to speak on a bill that would micromanage MIHS' procurement procedures.

From Mary Jo Pitzl, writing for the Arizona Republic -

In a public hearing, not all are equal . . . or heard ... at least not in Rep. Jack Harper's Ways and Means Committee.
Harper refused to let a lobbyist for the Maricopa Integrated Health System speak Monday on House Bill 2207. The bill would require MIHS to use "competitive procurement rules" or adopt those used by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors when it comes to buying equipment and certain services.

It was the third time the bill has been before the committee, but a strike-everything amendment changed its direction from an earlier version. MIHS lobbyist John McDonald asked to testify, but Harper refused, saying nothing was served by "having a lobbyist here to speak against the taxpayer week in and week out."

- And across the Capitol quad in the Senate building, Sen. Ron Gould was running the Senate Judiciary meeting with a tool that was less "gavel" and more "sledge hammer."

He gavelled down applause, barked at a photographer for disrupting "his" (Gould's) meeting and interrupted and challenged any speaker who said something he didn't agree with.  In fact, the only public speakers that I saw him act courteously toward were John Eastman (speaking on the anti-14th Amendment bills) and John Wentling (speaking in favor of the "firearms omnibus" bill).

Both were there to support Gould's position on the bills.  Probably not a coincidence, that.

The video archives of the meetings (2/7/2011) can be found here.  Note: the audio quality of the Ways and Means hearing is poor constantly, fading in and out.

In case you missed it...

...Rep. Bob Robson (R-Chandler) has announced the end of his political career.  Not in so many words of course, but it's over.

From Brahm Resnik of 12News, on AZCentral.com -

A Republican legislator is warning that the governor's proposed budget cuts would drive the state's jobless rate up to 11 percent, and says his party needs to consider tax increases to fix the budget.

State Rep. Bob Robson of Chandler tells me on "Sunday Square Off" this weekend that Gov. Jan Brewer and lawmakers need to consider the broader impact of their cuts. Robson says communities like Flagstaff would be hit especially hard by cuts to the Medicaid system. He is the only Republican on record questioning the extent of Brewer's proposed cuts.

That kind of apostasy guarantees any Republican a primary challenge in his next election, if not outright threats of violence.  Robson is from LD20, the same area that recently saw a mass resignation of officers of the local Republican Party because of threats from other Rs who thought the officers weren't *conservative* enough. 

The former chair, Anthony Miller, had the audacity to support fellow Republican John McCain for U.S. Senate last year.


...Still continuing in Tucson is the trial of Shawna Forde, a famous and violent member of the Minutemen.  She is facing murder charges is the killing of 9-year-old Brisenia Flores and her father Raul.  Forde and her accomplices allegedly broke into the Flores' home and proceeded to execute them and shoot Brisenia's mother, Gina Gonzalez.  After she was shot, Gonzalez pretended to be dead to avoid another bullet.

Forde and her accomplices were seeking money and drugs to steal to fund their anti-immigrant activities.  They didn't find any in the Flores/Gonzalez home.

If convicted, Forde could face the death penalty.  Her accomplices will be tried in March and June.

This story has been all but ignored by the mainstream media in Arizona, with a little coverage in Tucson, the home of the trial.  However, even there, the main daily there, the Arizona Daily Star, has done only minimal coverage and has mostly buried what little they have done.

One of the joys of the internet is that people are no longer entirely dependent on the MSM for information about stories that the corporate masters running MSM organizations would prefer didn't exist.


...ABC News recently aired a "Candid Camera"-style segment filmed in Tucson where producers staged a situation where an actor playing a security guard harassed Hispanic-looking patrons (who were also actors).  The object of the piece was to study the responses of bystanders to situations of ethnic profiling.  Video here on Youtube.

Not so predictably, but heartening, was the reaction of many of the unknowing bystanders who stood up to the fake "security guard."

However, the unfortunately predictable has been the Republican response, who have uniformly denounced the piece as "false," "a hoax," and more, even though the entire story was openly presented as staged.

The best (in an ironic sort of way) of the denunciations was in a press release from Kirk Adams, the Republican Speaker of the Arizona House.

Over the course of the press release, he demands an apology and a retraction and he hits all the right wing rhetorical high points (i.e. - "East Coast media elite media") but the best part is when he referred people to a video of the piece, not at ABC News or even Youtube (where ABC News has uploaded the video), but instead to *Breibart.tv.*

The same "Breitbart" who was caught in 2009 manufacturing an actual hoax.

Denouncing as a hoaz something that was never presented as fact by referring people to someone who has been proven to present lies as fact? 

Not exactly helping the credibility there, Mr. Speaker.


...Astronaut Mark Kelly, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' husband, today announced that he is resuming training to command the next flight of the space shuttle, its last.  It is scheduled to launch in two months (April 19), and Kelly and the rest of us are hopeful that the recuperating Congresswoman will be able to attend the launch.


...The State Bar of Arizona has filed an 82-page complaint against former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and former assistant county attorneys Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander.

There's nothing really new in it for anyone who has been following the mess that longtime observers (not so) affectionately refer to as "business as usual" in Maricopa County, but it's nice to see Thomas et. al. move one step closer to disbarment.

Later...

David Schweikert's vote to repeal health care reform: Impacts on his "constituents"

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2, a bill to repeal last year's health care reform legislation, by a vote of 245 - 189.  All Republicans, including AZCD5's David Schweikert, voted in favor of the bill.

The bill, the debate, and the vote were a triumph of ideology over reality, because if health care reform is repealed, it will increase the federal deficit and harm people all over the country, including thousands here in CD5.

From the Minority Staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce -

This analysis describes the impact of repeal of the Affordable Care Act in the 5th Congressional District of Arizona, which is represented by Rep. David Schweikert. It finds that repeal of the health reform law would have significant consequences in the district by:


Allowing insurance companies to deny coverage to 122,000 to 320,000 individuals, including 8,000 to 36,000 children, with pre-existing conditions.

Rescinding consumer protections for 469,000 individuals who have health insurance through their employer or the market for private insurance.

Eliminating health care tax credits for up to 15,700 small businesses and 143,000 families.

Increasing prescription drug costs for 10,100 seniors who hit the Part D drug “donut hole” and denying new preventive care benefits to 84,000 seniors.

Increasing the costs of early retiree coverage for up to 11,600 early retirees.

Eliminating new health care coverage options for 4,000 uninsured young adults.

Increasing the number of people without health insurance by 43,000 individuals.

Increasing the costs to hospitals of providing uncompensated care by $50 million annually.

Repeal of Protections Against Insurance Company Abuses

Repeal would eliminate the ban on discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions. Under the health reform law, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions and will be banned from discriminating against adults with pre-existing conditions in 2014. There are 122,000 to 320,000 residents in Rep. Schweikert’s district with pre-existing conditions like diabetes, heart disease, or cancer, including 8,000 to 36,000 children. Repeal would allow insurance companies to refuse to insure these individuals if they seek coverage in the individual or small-group markets. The consequences would be particularly acute for the 18,000 to 48,000 individuals in the district who currently lack insurance coverage and who would be unable to purchase individual policies if the law is repealed.

Repeal would eliminate the ban on annual and lifetime limits. The health reform law prohibits insurance companies from imposing annual and lifetime limits on health insurance coverage. This provision protects the rights of everyone who receives coverage from their employer or through the market for private insurance. If this protection is repealed, insurers would be able to impose coverage limits on 469,000 individuals in the district with employer or private coverage.

Repeal would eliminate the ban on rescissions. The health reform law prohibits insurers from rescinding coverage for individuals who become ill. Repeal would allow insurance companies to resume the practice of rescinding coverage for the 48,000 district residents who purchase individual health insurance.

Repeal would eliminate other consumer protections. The health reform law protects individuals from soaring insurance costs by requiring reviews of proposed rate increases and limiting the amount insurance companies can spend on administrative expenses, profits, and other overhead. Repeal would deny these new protections to tens of thousands of district residents who either buy their own insurance or receive coverage through employers who do not self-insure.

Repeal of Benefits for Individuals and Families

Repeal would eliminate the requirement that insurance companies provide free preventive care. The health reform law promotes wellness by requiring insurance companies to offer free preventive care as part of any new or revised policies they issue after September 23, 2010. Repeal would allow insurance companies to charge for these essential benefits, which would increase out-of-pocket costs for 98,000 district residents.

Repeal would eliminate health insurance options for young adults. The health reform law allows young adults to remain on their parents’ insurance policies up to age 26. In Rep. Schweikert’s district, 4,000 young adults have or are expected to take advantage of this benefit. Repeal would force these young adults to find other coverage or return to the ranks of the uninsured.

Repeal would eliminate tax credits for buying health insurance. Starting in 2014, the health reform law gives middle class families the largest tax cut for health care in history, providing tax credits to buy coverage for families with incomes up to $88,000 for a family of four. Repeal would deny these credits to 143,000 families in the district.

Repeal would increase the number of uninsured. When fully implemented, the health reform law will extend coverage to 94% of all Americans. If this level of coverage is reached in the district, 43,000 residents who currently do not have health insurance will receive coverage. Repeal would mean these residents would lose their health insurance.

Repeal of Benefits for Seniors

Repeal would increase drug costs for seniors. Beginning in 2011, the health reform law provides a 50% discount for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries who enter the Medicare Part D “donut hole” and lose coverage for their drug expenses. The law then increases the discount to Medicare beneficiaries each year until 2020, when the donut hole is finally eliminated. There are 10,100 Medicare beneficiaries in Rep. Schweikert’s district who are expected to benefit from these provisions. Repeal would increase the average cost of prescription drugs for these Medicare beneficiaries by over $500 in 2011 and by over $3,000 in 2020.

Repeal would deny seniors new preventive care and other benefits. The health reform law improves Medicare by providing free preventive and wellness care, improving primary and coordinated care, and enhancing nursing home care. The law also strengthens the Medicare trust fund, extending its solvency from 2017 to 2029. Repeal would eliminate these benefits for 84,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district and cause the Medicare trust fund to become insolvent in just six years.

Repeal of Benefits for Small and Large Businesses and Health Care Providers

Repeal would eliminate tax credits for small businesses. The health reform law provides tax credits to small businesses worth up to 35% of the cost of providing health insurance. There are up to 15,700 small businesses in Rep. Schweikert’s district that are eligible for this tax credit. Repeal would force these small businesses to drop coverage or bear the full costs of coverage themselves.

Repeal would increase retiree health care costs for employers. The health reform law provides funding to encourage employers to continue to provide health insurance for their retirees. As many as 11,600 district residents who have retired but are not yet eligible for Medicare could ultimately benefit from this early retiree assistance. Repeal would increase costs for employers and jeopardize the coverage their retirees are receiving.

Repeal would increase the cost of uncompensated care born by hospitals. The health reform law benefits hospitals by covering more Americans and thereby reducing the cost of providing care to the uninsured. Repeal would undo this benefit, increasing the cost of uncompensated care by $50 million annually for hospitals in the district.

Repeal of Benefits for Taxpayers

Repeal would increase the long-term debt by over $1 trillion. The health reform law reduces the nation’s debt by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in the health care system, reducing the growth of health care costs, and preventing excessive profit-taking by private insurers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will reduce the deficit by over $200 billion over the next ten years and by over a trillion dollars in the decade after that. Repeal would eliminate these cost-cutting measures, adding more than $3,000 to the national debt for each American, including the 680,000 residents of the district.

Of course, while Schweikert has enthusiastically worked to reduce his constituents and their families' access to health care, he has no problem accepting taxpayer-funded healthcare coverage for himself and his family, nor does he have a problem with shielding from public scrutiny the members of his own caucus who have done the same.
 
 

David Schweikert: Health care hypocrite

To be fair to our Foreclosure Dave though, it's not like he was alone.

On Wednesday, the new Republican majority in the U.S. House passed all sorts of new rules for the 112th Congress.  Some of them are really interesting, but we'll save those for another day.

The highlight of the rules package was one that *didn't* make it into the package.

Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) proposed a rule that would have required members of Congress to disclose whether or not they take advantage of the taxpayer-funded and government-run health care offered to members.

The proposal was defeated on a party-line vote, 191 - 238.

Huffington Post has a full report here.

Now, I could criticize all 238 Republicans who voted to defeat transparency, but they aren't the elected representatives of Arizona's 5th Congressional District.

David Schweikert is.

David Schweikert is the one, who on his website, stated "the liberal politicians in Washington continue to support government run healthcare that will effectively dismantle our healthcare system."

He's pledged to work for the repeal of health care reform and coverage for the average American...

Yet on the same day that he voted to conceal his and other members' acceptance of taxpayer-funded health insurance, he also voted to pass H. Res. 26, providing for next week's consideration of H.R. 2, the Republican scheme to repeal the health care reform and coverage for the average American.

So Schweikert is a *conservative* politician in Washington who supports "government run healthcare" for people who will "dismantle" healthcare for average Americans.

Something tells me that this won't be the last example of shameless hypocrisy coming from Schweikert.

Republicans looking to change the nomination process for the Redistricting Commission

From the Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) -

Republican legislative leaders aren't happy with their choices for the Independent Redistricting Commission and are asking that a nominating commission reconvene and reconsider.

Kirk Adams, the Republican Speaker of the Arizona House, and Russell Pearce the Tea Party Republican President of the Arizona Senate, profess reservations about the eligibility of three members of the pool - two, Republicans Mark Schnepf and Stephen Sossaman. are members of water district boards, and one, independent Paul Bender, has held offices in a couple of tribal courts.  Redistricting commission members cannot have held public office within the last three years.  However, the tribal courts are part of sovereign nations, not Arizona.
Whatever the letter to Chief Justice Berch says, however, the Republicans seem to have two real main objections to the list of candidates that they have to choose from.

1.  Nine of the ten R candidates are from Maricopa County.  Under the law, only two of the four members can be from the same county.  As both Kirk Adams and Chad Campbell (the House Democratic leader) are expected to pick Maricopa County residents, that would leave one eligible person for Russell Pearce to pick, Benny White of Tucson.

2. OK, they reallllllly don't want Bender in the pool of applicants.  Apparently, his personal politics make most Democrats look like the second coming of Barry Goldwater. 

The word from sources is that Pearce and Adams don't have much of a shot with this, but since we are in Arizona, the place where the principle of the rule of law has been replaced by the principle of IOKIYAR, anything could still happen.

Stay tuned...

Redistricting Commission Interviews On Wednesday

The Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments will interview the 40 remaining candidates for the next Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.  They'll winnow the field down to 25 (10 Ds, 10 Rs, 5 Independents).  From those 25, the two highest-ranking Republicans and the two highest-ranking Democrats in the legislature (in order of selection:  Rep. Kirk Adams (R), Rep. Chad Campbell (D), Sen. Russell Pearce (R), and Sen. David Schapira (D) ) will each select one member of the Redistricting Commission, and then those four selectees will choose an Independent member who will chair the Commission.

The complete official notice of the meeting is here but here's the summary:

Date - Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Time - 8 a.m - ? (while there will be a few breaks, this one should go a while)
Place - Room 345, Arizona State Courts Building, 1501 W. Washington, Phoenix

Full agenda here, but here's the summary of *that*:

8 a.m. - Meeting opens, public comment accepted.
9:15 a.m. - Interviews with Democratic applicants
10:30 a.m. - Discussion and selection of Democratic applicants (may be partially conducted in exec session)
11 a.m. - Interviews with Independent applicants
11:50 a.m.- Discussion and selection of Independent applicants (again, may possibly include an exec session)
12:15 - Lunch
1 p.m. - Interviews with Republican applicants, followed by discussion (exec session possible again) and selection, culminating with adjournment.

Note: some of the interviews may be conducted telephonically.

Assuming they are able to stick to the timetable on the agenda (which might be an optimistic assumption), I project the meeting to adjourn around 3 p.m.


Stuff to keep an eye on:

While I don't know any of the Appellate Court Appointments Commission members personally, I can guess the names of at least two of the applicants who will make the cut with them -

Louis DeLeon and Mark Schnepf.

The Appellate Court Appointments Commission bent over backwards, violating its own rules for applications, to see that both would stay in the pool of applicants.

All of the applicants had to complete the same application package, and that package includes the following instruction:

“ATTACH A STATEMENT OF INTEREST EXPLAINING WHY YOU ARE INTERESTED IN SERVING ON THE INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION.  Applications that do not include a statement of interest will be considered incomplete and will NOT be considered for nomination.”

The applications as originally completed by DeLeon and Schnepf didn't include such a statement and so should have been immediately excluded from further consideration.

However, the Commission bent its own rules to allow Schnepf and DeLeon submit their statements of interest later in the process.  (They did so, with Schepf's here and DeLeon's here).

I'm not sure what DeLeon's special connections are (though he spent a chunk of his career with Anheuser-Busch, and John McCain's wife is one of A-B's largest U.S. distributors...or maybe it's just me being a little cynical :) ), but Schnepf's are clear and rather voluminous -

Former Mayor of Queen Creek
Former Member and Officer (multiple offices) of the League of Arizona Cities & Towns
Member, Arizona Farm Bureau
Member, National Federation of Independent Business
Member and former member of a number of county- and state-level boards, commissions, and councils
Member and former member of a number of East Valley and Arizona civic and business community boards

Oh, and he's married to a Biggs (State Sen.-elect Andy Biggs will be chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee starting in January).

And all of that is just from his application.

One other thing, aside from the initial lack of a statement of interest in Schnepf's application packet, that the Appellate Court Appointments Commission has apparently overlooked is the requirement that candidates cannot have been appointed to or elected to public office for at least the previous three years.

In this context public office means (from the published list of requirements for candidates) -

DEFINITION OF ‘PUBLIC OFFICE’



Members of the IRC may not have been appointed to, elected to or a candidate for any other public office, including precinct committeeman or committeewoman but not including school board member or officer, within the last three years. In making nominations for the IRC, the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments will consider the following factors in determining whether an applicant will be disqualified as having held or run for a public office:


1. Is the position created by the Arizona Constitution or a statute?


2. If so, is the position authorized to independently perform duties that involve exercise of the government’s authority? 

These factors will be considered on a case-by-case basis because it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of all positions that would be considered ‘public office.’ However, it is clear that people who have held or run for the following offices within the last three years are ineligible for nomination and appointment to the IRC:

{snip}

Water or Fire District

In 2008, Schnepf was elected to the New Magma Irrigation and Drainage District (NMIDD).  It's name doesn't say "Water" in it, but according to this U.S. Bureau of Reclamation document, it *is* a water district in all practical terms (emphasis added) -

The New Magma Irrigation and Drainage District (NMIDD) was formed in 1965 upon the dissolution of the New Magma Irrigation District. The new district was formed for the purpose of receiving CAP water.

Yup, it seems that there's some serious contortions going on to make sure that Schnepf makes it on to the Redistricting Commission.  The only question seems to be if he will be appointed by Kirk Adams or Russell Pearce, who are both East Valley residents.

BTW - DeLeon's application has at least one answer, that if not an automatic disqualifier, should at least be targeted for clarification during the interview.

Question #2 asks "Will your employement and/or personal circumstances permit you to attend meetings of the Independent Redistricting Commission in their entirety?"

DeLeon answered "No."

Interesting answer.  Someone who essentially applying for a job (unpaid though it may be) by saying that he can't attend to it.

Oh - the partisan makeup of the 15-member Appellate Court Appointments Commission?


3 Independents

4 Democrats

8 Republicans


Can you say "IOKIYAR rules" kiddies?. 

The "Party of No" is morphing into the "Party of Shameless Hypocrisy" before our eyes...

They aren't even in office, but are already enthusiastically becoming "D.C.-ified."

From TalkingPointsMemo -

Maryland physician Andy Harris (R) just soundly defeated Frank Kratovil, one of the most endangered Democrats on Capitol Hill going into the November election. And he did it in large part by railing against 'Obamacare' and pledging to repeal Health Care Reform. But when he showed on Capitol Hill today for an orientation for incoming members of Congress and their staffs, he had a different question: Where's my government health care?


According to Glenn Thrush of Politico, Harris created a stir at the orientation meeting by demanding to know why he had to wait a month after he was sworn in in January for his government-subsidized health care to kick in. After responding in a huff, he even asked if there was some way he could buy into the government care in advance, seemingly thinking there might be a government program similar to the so-called 'public option' championed by progressive Democrats in 2009.

From Harris' campaign website (before he cleanses it) -

"...the answer to the ever-rising cost of insurance is not the expansion of government-run or government-mandated insurance but, instead, common-sense market based solutions..."

I've got a "common-sense market based" solution for Mr. Harris, a practicing physician - take some of the profits from his lucrative medical practice and buy an insurance policy from a private company.

Or when he has a complaint about his health, go buy a mirror and treat himself.

Keith Olbermann's suspension lifted; scheduled to return Tuesday

As most politically-active people have no doubt heard, MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann was suspended by a network executive late last week for making legal contributions to Democratic candidates this year.

Even though other MSNBC commentators like Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan have made similar contributions to Republicans in the past without penalty.

After the news of the suspension broke last week, there was a nationwide uproar and MSNBC came in for some withering criticism, from all across the political spectrum.

Today, after listening to the words of support for Olbermann (and doing the math - Olbermann's show is easily the highest rated on the network, and what he did wasn't something that was professionally unethical or illegal, or otherwise embarrassing to the network.  The powerplay just isn't worth the lost viewers and ad revenues.), the network executive who imposed the suspension has lifted it.

From NBC's press release on the matter -

From Phil Griffin, President of MSNBC:

After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night's program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night.

Olbermann's tweeted response -

Greetings From Exile! A quick, overwhelmed, stunned THANK YOU for support that feels like a global hug & obviously left me tweetless XO

Thanks to NPR for the heads-up on both the press release and the Twitter link.

Later...

What is it with Arizona and its treasurers?

It seems that a certain segment of Arizona's politicians don't seem to understand that there is a difference between "representing" Arizonans, and "preying" on Arizonans...

Exhibit A:  Former State Treasurer David Petersen.  A former state legislator who resigned in disgrace from the state treasurer's job after an investigation into his improper use of public monies to fund his private business activities (ironically, the business was as a "character education" provider).

Exhibit B: Current and soon-to-be former State Treasurer Dean Martin.  A former state legislator who should (but won't) resign in disgrace from the state treasurer's job after proudly proclaiming on a national radio program his status as a vulture investor who is profiting from the scandal-plagued foreclosure crisis that is wracking families across Arizona and the country.

Exhibit C:  Former Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert.  A former state legislator who has been outed as a predatory vulture foreclosure investor, like Martin above.  He's been at it longer than Martin, and so is more accomplished at it - there have been illegal evictions (one served on a 12-year-old child, according to a court filing) and citations and fines for letting the properties he has acquired fall into disrepair, scarring the surrounding neighborhoods.

So let's see - they've got legislative experience in common, they've all been publicly-elected treasurers, and they aren't overly encumbered by ethics in their financial dealings. 

What else could PeteRsen, MaRtin, and SchweikeRt have in common?  I wondeRRRRR...

Anyway, while he has never been a legislator, Doug Ducey, R candidate for Arizona State Treasurer, is arguably already more accomplished at predatory and corrupt financial dealings than any of the others. 

May he never get the chance to add "publicly-elected treasurer" to the list of things that he has in common with Schweikert, Martin, and Petersen, and may Schweikert not get the chance to take his brand of vulturism to D.C.

We need more public servants in public office, not more predators using public office for their private gain.

Vote for Andrei Cherny and Harry Mitchell.

AZGOP not even trying to hide the hypocrisy any longer

Since I'm not on Randy Pullen's email distribution list (shocking that!), I'm going to reference a blog on AZCentral.com published by columnist Linda Valdez.

From the post -

Arizona GOP party chair Randy Pullen says in an e-mail missive:

“Two years ago, Americans gave Democrats complete control of the federal government with the promise of change.”

The gist of his message is that voters need to break that one-party hold on Washington because one-party government is bad, bad, bad.

Hmm.

Two years ago, Arizona got a state government that is in the complete control of conservative Republicans.

So basically, Pullen rails in opposition to one-party rule, except when his party is the "one party" in charge.

I second Valdez' sentiment -

Hmm.

Later...

Hypocrisy, thy name is Brewer

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

From the Arizona Republic (emphasis mine) -

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

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

{snip}

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

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

Denounced everywhere except in her campaign's press releases.

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

Edit to add:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

($0.1 million)

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

Total: $80.1 million

End edit...

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

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

AZGOP using AZ Green Party as patsies

...by doing something that they did in 2008 in a few select districts.  It worked then (costing then-Rep. Jackie Thrasher her seat), so they've expanded it.

From the AZ Republic -

The state Democratic Party is alleging possible voter fraud in what it called a scheme to undermine its candidates by recruiting "sham" Green Party hopefuls.

In a complaint filed late Monday, the party seeks an investigation by federal, state and county law-enforcement officials.

The complaint names Rep. Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix; Steve May, a Republican candidate for the Legislature; and a House Republican staffer as complicit in an effort to register at least a half-dozen people as Green Party members so they could run as write-in candidates in last week's primary election.

Note: Weiers is a candidate in the same district as Thrasher.

The Republicans are denying any wrongdoing, but their disdain for the standards of behavior (aka - "laws") that govern elections seem to have led them to be less than subtle when they went about their machinations.

The Arizona Green Party itself caught on to the scam, as evidenced by this press release listing which candidates that they actually endorse, and which ones that they consider to be "carpetbaggers" -

Claudia Ellquist, AZGP state co-chair, stated, "There are several Green Party candidates that are actively opposed. We strongly advise all registered Arizona voters to not waste their votes on these individuals during the August 24th Primary Election or the November 2nd General Election (assuming they advance)." The offices include: Governor, Secretary of State (write-in), Treasurer (write-in), Corporation Commission (2 write-in candidates), U.S. Congress (CD 5, write-in), State Senate (LD 10, 2 write-in candidates), State Representative (LD 17, write-in), State Senate (LD 17, write-in), State Representative (LD 20, write-in), State Representative (LD 22, write-in), and State Senate (LD 23, write-in).

Some interesting patterns emerged from a little research from a few weeks ago (so it is possible that some of this has changed, though that doesn't seem likely) into the candidacies cited above -

- Ryan Blackman, the faux-Green running as a write-in for CD5, gave the same address as the faux-Green running for LD17 as a write-in, Clint Clement.  Which isn't illegal.  What is interesting, however, when one finds out that Blackman isn't registered to vote anywhere in the state, much less at his listed address.  Clement *is* registered to vote.  He has never done so, however.  In addition, while he filed as a Green Party write-in on July 13, he modified his party enrollment on July 19.

- Thomas Meadows, the faux-Green running as a write-in for State Treasurer, filed on July 15, giving a Tempe P.O. box as his campaign's mailing address and 420 S. Mill Ave. in Tempe as his committee address.  He registered to vote on July 16.

- Theodore Gomez and Benjamin Pearcy, the two faux-Greens running as write-ins for the Arizona Corporation Commission, gave the same combo of mailing/committee addresses as Meadows.  Both registered their candidacies on July 15.  I couldn't find any evidence that Gomez is registered to vote at all (caveat: that's a common sort of name and he could have registered under a nickname like "TJ" or something similar); Pearcy was registered to vote prior to getting involved in this scheme and just updated his partisan affiliation on July 14.

BTW - for those readers who aren't familiar with Tempe, "420 S. Mill Ave." is the location of Starbucks store #11573.  Umm...Starbucks' locations aren't known for either their office or residential components.  Just sayin'...

Bonus BTW - "4/20" is a popular verbal shorthand is some videos linked later in this post.  It refers to the unofficial "National Pot Smokers Day" of April 20.  "Two birds, one stone" and all that - they can refer to a favorite place and a favorite activity at the same time. 

- Anthony "Grandpa" Goshorn, the faux-Green running for LD17 State Senate, lists the same mailing address, but has a committee address in Scottsdale.  He changed his partisan affiliation on May 17.  That is the earliest change date for those in on this scheme, but he was also one of the first involved.

Originally, he was going to run as a ballot-qualified Green candidate for LD17 State Representative, but his petitions were challenged and he withdrew from the race on June 16.

- The faux-Greens running for LD10 State Senate, Christopher Campbell and Gail Ginger, modified their partisan affiliations on July 15.  According to the AZRep article linked above, Ginger has dropped out the race in favor of Campbell.

- Drew Blischak, the faux-Green running for LD20 State Representative, modified his registration on July 13.

- Michelle Lochmann, the candidate for State Treasurer, modified hers on July 15.

I wasn't able to do similar research on the suspect candidates from outside of Maricopa County, though they exhibited the same pattern in regards to their filing dates, filing their candidacies on July 14 and 15, the last two days that someone could declare a write in candidacy for the August primary election.


In addition to the write-ins, the ballot-qualified Green candidate for Governor, Larry Gist, also looks to be part of the scheme.  While his campaign has almost no cash on hand, it has loads of debt, mostly to ethically-challenged R operative Derrick Lee (info here and here).

Many, but not all, of the suspect candidates, are acquaintances of Republican former legislator Steve May.  For example, his video talk with ACC candidate Pearcy can be found here (but view it soon, before May takes it down).

May's ties to Goshorn are illustrated on this screenshot of his Facebook page -

May has displayed his contempt for the laws of this state and those who enforce them, as shown in this video, where he encourages someone to damage public property (@1:50 in the video) and has given the same person a t-shirt (@ 2:39) that May has designed and sells that says "Welcome to Mill Ave.  Our Cops Suck".

Note: All of May's uploaded videos can be found here on YouTube.  Catch 'em while you can...

It seems that the AZGOP is running on empty this year.  Their positions of "no taxes for the wealthy", "no regulations for large corporations", and "bupkus for everybody else" are unsupportable in Arizona's cratered economy, so they have settled on a campaign plan of demonization (SB1070), distraction (lies and name-calling), and sleaze (this scheme).

They are hoping that the state's voters won't notice that they have nothing positve to offer to Arizona.

More to come...

Everybody's Gotta Have Priorities, And The AZGOP Has Got 'Em

...Unfortunately for the people of Arizona, the GOP's priorities are (more than) slightly skewed in favor of Big Business and in opposition to the interests of the people of AZ...

There are many reasons that the Republican leadership of the Arizona Legislature might get the Governor to call a special session of the legislature.

They could do it to address the woefully inadequate funding of the state's K-12 education system.  But they won't...

They could do it to address the state's crumbling and hazardous infrastructure.  But they won't...

They could do it to address the lax oversight of privately-operated prisons in Arizona.  But they won't...

They could do it to address the removal of an anti-union amendment to the AZ Constitution from November's ballot.  But they...hold on!  While failing schools, bursting dams, and escaped murderers roaming Arizona aren't worthy of their attention, the union-busting efforts of their corporate masters may just be the inspiration for them to gather in downtown Phoenix in early August.

From the article (linked to "gather" above):

Republican legislative leaders are planning a special session beginning Monday in a last-ditch bid to put an anti-union measure on the November ballot.


House Majority Leader John McComish said Wednesday there appear to be enough GOP lawmakers both available and willing to support the measure for a three-day session beginning Monday. The goal would be to fix the wording of Proposition 108 to correct flaws that the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday make it illegal to put to voters.

Of course, even if they pull off the special session starting Monday, it will take three days to legally pass anything, and the deadline for final ballot language is Tuesday, so no worries, right?

Not so fast.  They have a rather "flexible with the rules" kind of Secretary of State operating at their beck-and-call.

From later in the story -

Secretary of State Ken Bennett said the deadline for putting something on the ballot is actually Tuesday.


The Arizona Constitution requires that all measures be read on three separate days, making Wednesday the earliest day for final action for a session set to begin Monday after lawmakers return from a conference in San Diego.

Those rules can be waived with a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate. But with every Democrat opposed to the plan — and Republicans not controlling that many seats — they have to take the full three days.

Bennett said, though, he can reserve space if it’s clear on Tuesday that there are the votes for final approval next Wednesday.

Something tells me that if it was the Medical Marijuana question that was thrown off of the ballot, the Rs wouldn't be so enthusiastic about a special session...

Republican Primary Mudslinging: New 2nd Favorite Website

As a Democrat, I'm proud that most, if not all, of the D primary races have been run clean and on the issues.  The personal and ad hominem attacks have been all but nonexistent.

As a writer, I'm bored by the Democratic races.  Civility and professionalism are great qualities in elected officials and candidates; they're lousy topics for more than the occasional post.

Fortunately, the Republicans have stepped into the gap.  Enthusiastically.  :)

Two and a half weeks ago, I wrote about my newest favorite website, Crazy Jack Harper.  That site highlights some of Harper's embarrassing behavior...at least, it's behavior that would be embarrassing to any public official who takes their responsibilities seriously.  The site reads like a Republican site, if only because it doesn't criticize Harper for his political positions, only for silly,unprofessional, and (possibly) unethical acts while in office.  As yet, however, no one has officially taken credit for the site.

In a sign that the Republican primary season is heating up, another anti-Republican candidate website has popped up, and they aren't trying to be subtle with this one - another R campaign is taking credit for it in the "Paid for by..." boilerplate at the bottom of the page.

The pic below was emailed to me from a regular reader.  It's of a sign erected at Hardy and Southern in Tempe.

The website listed at the bottom of the sign, stoptom.com, redirects a surfer to "thetomhornetruth.com."

That website lists a litany of Horne's alleged sins against Arizona Republican orthodoxy - he's had his securities trading license suspended by the SEC (I thought support for financial fraudsters *was* a primary plank on the GOP platform), he voted for sales tax increases while in the lege in the 1990s (he's hardly the only one - the only tax the Rs actually like is the ever-regressive sales tax), and so on - including one that his anti-immigrant bonafides aren't strong enough.

Most of the points raised on the website either fall into the category of "light on substance" (the SEC stuff is *40* years old) or irrelevent to the AG's race (umm,,,"sales tax"?  "Abortion"?  Pray tell, how is either matter germane to the AG's office?).

However, relevance and substance don't seem to matter to the authors of the website.  It's all about winning the R primary.

The bottom line of the page:

PAID FOR BY THE THOMAS FOR AG COMMITTEE

Hypocrisy alert:  Part of the Thomas campaign's diatribe against Horne is running down a list of Horne's speeding tickets.

From the site:

On Friday, August 21, 2009, the Arizona Republic broke a story reporting that Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne received six photo radar tickets in 18 months, including one for speeding in a school zone.

Sounds damning, doesn't it?  An attorney, and a candidate for state attorney general, regularly flouting the law?

It would be damning, except for the fact that Andrew Thomas proudly and loudly refused to prosecute photo radar citations.

He also seems to have screwed up in knowledge of the law.

From the site:

Officer Mataele issued a criminal citation to Horne, charging him with violating A.R.S. 28-701.02 A2. This is a CRIMINAL charge (not civil) that subjected Horne to a maximum possible sentence of six (6) months in jail, three (3) years probation and a $2,500 fine.

According to A.R.S. 28-701.02 B, a violation of A2 is a class 3 misdemeanor.

OK, that doesn't prove Thomas' lack of knowledge of Arizona law...except that A.R.S. 13-707 sets the jail time for a class three misdemeanor at 30 days, and A.R.S. 13-802 sets the maximum fine for a class three misdemeanor at $500.

Oopsie. 

A lawyer who flouts the law (like Horne, apparently) is bad; a lawyer who doesn't know the law (like Thomas, apparently) isn't exactly better.

It's an election year, and it looks like Jan Brewer isn't the only R whose campaign motto is "Damn the facts!  Full distort ahead!"


The next four weeks are going to be fun....

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

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

From my post a from a year ago -

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

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

{snip}

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

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

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

So far, Huppenthal has only formed an "exploratory" committee - filer ID 201000065, formed and last amended on March 16, 2009. As such, any signatures he has collected to date are invalid.

So check out this AZ Republic story today -

John Huppenthal, a Republican state senator vying for his party's nomination as state superintendent of public instruction, is being challenged by the state Democratic Party on the basis that many of his 11,000 petition signatures were gathered before he had formally entered the race.

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

Yessss!

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

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

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

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

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

Later...

Arpaio refuses to show his documents

And the "delicious irony" series continues...

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is one of the most ardent supporters of the Fourth Amendment-overriding SB1070, the new law in Arizona that requires folks to produce documents proving citizenship/legal presence in the U.S. whenever a law enforcement officer demands that they do so.

Turns out he isn't so enthusiastic about the production of documents when he's the one expected to produce them.

From the Arizona Republic -

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office on Friday refused to turn over financial documents the Board of Supervisors requested in a subpoena, saying officials were abusing their power.

The supervisors served the subpoena last month seeking documents dating from Jan. 1, 2005, including credit-card transactions, work assignments, a list of all detainees or defendants extradited by the office, expenditures from various funds and a complete list of all bank accounts.

BTW - "delicious irony" is a euphemism for "raging hypocrisy."

Just in case you didn't figure that one out on your own... :)

AZGOP, the voter vault, and delicious irony

The "voter vault" is the AZGOP's database of voter info (contact info, demographic info, etc.) that is used by Republican candidates use during their campaigns.

The Arizona Republic ran a story detailing how the AZGOP has refused Republican Rick Romley access to the database because of his "past actions."

From the story -

How Republican is Republican enough?

Apparently, it requires toeing the most-conservative end of the party line, as Interim Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley recently discovered when he kicked off his campaign for a permanent job in the county administration building.

{snip}

Mecum questioned Romley's consulting work for Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat, and Romley's support of Democratic candidates who ran unsuccessfully against Sheriff Joe Arpaio, former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Gov. Jan Brewer, all Republicans.

Romley did not return calls for comment Wednesday.

But he was not the only Republican iced out of the database.

DeeDee Blase, who heads a conservative Hispanic Republican organization called Somos Republicans, has tried to access the database since October. Blase intended to contact Hispanics identified as independents to "bring them into the tent." She also hoped to nominate Hispanics to fill empty precinct-committeeman positions.

Her quest: "Where are the Hispanic areas so I can target them and educate them?"

Mecum replied to Blase with a similar e-mail, saying access to the voter information was a privilege, not a right. "Concerns revolving around endorsements and public statements you have made in recent months that make me very wary of granting you access to Voter Vault," he wrote.

The money quote was in the middle of the article.

"Voter Vault access is a privilege and not an express right for Republican candidates," Arizona Republican Party Executive Director Brett Mecum wrote in an April 21 e-mail to Romley.

Ummm...the AZGOP really may want to consider selecting another one of its functionaries to speak publicly regarding its Voter Vault. Or at least get a longer memory. In addition, either way, Mecum is probably not the most suitable gatekeeper for Voter Vault access.

From the Phoenix New Times, less than five months ago (emphasis mine) -

Arizona Republican Party Executive Director Brett Mecum is "creepy around women," according to a complaint filed with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

A criminal complaint, dredged up by the Yellow Sheet, was filed against Mecum last month, and it claims he used voter registration records to find a woman's address and crash a party at her house.

Check out the affidavit here.

{snip}

The woman says she never gave Mecum her address, nor did she think he even knew where she lived.

When she asked him how he found her address, she claims Mecum told her he had a staffer look it up on Voter Vault, a state voter-registration list.

Based on the evidence, it seems that the AZGOP is OK with people who stalk women accessing its voter information, while people who criticize Joe Arpaio and Andy Thomas are completely unfit for access to the Voter Vault.

Welcome to the 21st Century GOP.

Note: I generally don't discuss the internal operations of the AZGOP. It's their party (and they'll cry if they want to :) ) and within the bounds of law (SCA, anyone?) and good taste (SCA again), they can do whatever they want to do to themselves.

But they served this one up like a rookie pitcher trying to blow a BP fastball by Albert Pujols.

Throwing stones at Glassman while living in a glass house

Greg Patterson, the former state legislator who writes the Republican blog Espresso Pundit, is widely considered the dean of R bloggers in Arizona, and also one of the best. While he almost always is wrong (he *is* a Republican, ya know), he usually makes his points intelligently and civilly.

Well, apparently he has abandoned intelligence so that he can jump on the IOKIYAR bandwagon.

From his post criticizing one of the supporters of the Glassman for Senate campaign -

I thought the small print in his announcement was interesting...

Co-Chairs: Flagstaff Mayor Sara Presler, Phoenix Councilman Michael Nowakowski, Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez

Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez? She's in charge of elections in Pima County. What is the elections director doing endorsing a candidate? Is she going to recuse herself from this election cycle?

I can understand Patterson's wariness when an official who oversees elections seems to endorse a candidate in an election he/she oversees. Even the appearance of impropriety can undermine Arizonans' faith in their political system.

As happened in 2004, when then-Secretary of State Jan Brewer, the state's senior election official, was one of the AZ co-chairs of Bush/Cheney 2004.

Yet there was nary a mention of Brewer doing the same thing that he has criticized Rodriguez for in his post.

Normally, I don't directly call out another blogger on his postings. However, Patterson moves in higher circles than most bloggers, including me, because of the respect he has earned through his years in the blogosphere. That higher level of respect comes hand-in-hand with higher expectations.

If the anonymous writers at Seeing Red AZ or even the mostly anonymous ones at Sonoran Alliance want to engage in a little "do as we say, not as we do" hypocrisy, nobody much says anything because they really aren't expected to be better than that.

There are only a couple of bloggers in AZ who *are* expected to be better than that**, and Patterson is one of them.


** = Tedski at R-Cubed, before he suspended his blogging to concentrate on his campaign for the lege, is the other.

Later...

Legislative invocations are non-political and non-denominational, right?

Gawd, I hate being scooped by Tedski on matters that my own D17 legislators are involved in, but he got to this one before I did. :(

On the other hand, the Republican hypocrisy involved is too juicy to *not* cover it here. :))

One of the traditions at the AZLege is to open each floor session with a brief prayer offered by a member or an invited guest. Such prayers are usually (but not always*) non-political and relatively non-denominational.

*OK, so it isn't exactly unheard of for an R member or invitee to thank God for small government, low taxes or to pray for fewer immigrants...but I digress... :)

While most of those folks offering prayers before the lege are Republicans or present at the behest of a Republican member, on many days, Democrats offer their fair share of invocations.

Tuesday was one such day.

From Tedski's post at Rum, Romanism, Rebellion -

Ed Ableser invited a guest onto the floor to give a the opening prayer at the House today: Rabbi Andrew Straus who presides at Temple Emanuel, a five hundred member Reform Jewish congregation in Tempe. Straus’s prayer dealt with social justice, and at the end of it it so angered Andrew Tobin that he confronted the Rabbi, questioning its appropriateness. It caused quite a stir among some of the other Republican members as well, who felt it was overly political.

Rep. Ableser is a representative from Tempe in D17, and Temple Emanuel is a congregation in Tempe (as noted by Tedski).

Apparently, prayers offered for the benefit of R and their benefactors like corporations are OK, but prayers offered for the benefit of society are inflammatory rhetoric or something similar.

IOKIYAR is still the rule of the day in Arizona politics. Look for another long year at the lege. The only factor that might make the session shorter will be the desire of members to start campaigning for reelection as soon as possible (it's an election year, in case anyone has forgotten :) ).


Note: the video of Tuesday's House session isn't posted yet, but once it is, it will be available here.

Later...

GOP Senator sacrifices America's safety (and GOP credibility) on the altar of his anti-worker ideology

Lost in the cacophony of the Republican echo chamber's clamor for Janet Napolitano's resignation (over something she didn't have any control of) is their total silence regarding one of their own (over something he has absolute control of - his own actions).

From the Washington Post -

Republican senator DeMint holds up nomination for TSA chief

An alleged attempt to blow up a transatlantic flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas would be all-consuming for the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration -- if there were one.

Instead, the post remains vacant because Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has held up President Obama's nominee in an effort to prevent TSA workers from joining a labor union.

DeMint, in a statement, said Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's alleged attempted attack in Detroit "is a perfect example of why the Obama administration should not unionize the TSA."

So...it's OK to criticize the Secretary of Homeland Security for failures that took place outside of her control in a system that was set up by Republicans, all because she is a Democrat and a woman, but a "good ol' boy" Republican gets a free pass on something that he specifically chose to do that creates a disruption in the aforementioned system and endangers Americans?

It's obvious that even though they are in the minority, the principle of IOKIYAR remains one of the GOP's guiding lights.

I wonder if any conservative pundits have checked with the people of South Carolina to find out if they sent DeMint to D.C. to make sure America isn't safe from foreign terrorists but is safe from unionized American workers?

If the GOP wants to show that they have America's safety at heart, they'll call for Jim DeMint's resignation as loudly as they call for Secretary Napolitano's.

They won't though - DeMint is hardly the only good ol' boy in the GOP.