Looks like it's the week for really dry and numbers-heavy posts...
...The AZ Republic and PolitickerAZ each have stories up on the latest voter registration figures from the Arizona Secretary of State's Office. The stories discuss some of the statewide numbers and the gains that the Arizona Democratic Party has made since the 2006 election.
The SOS's voter reg figures repository is here.
A more local look at the numbers ('local' meaning CD5 and LDs 8, 17, and 18) -
In CD5, Democratic registrations have increased by more than 10000 since October of 2006 while Republican registrations are down slightly (379). Overall registrations are up a little more than 14000. The most encouraging aspect of this is that more than 71% of the increase in registered voters in CD5 since October 2006 has been Democratic.
In the shorter term, since March of this year (after the bump in registrations brought on by the Presidential primaries), Democratic registrations increased by more than 4200, Republican registrations by more than 2200 and overall registrations by 9600.
In LD8, the Democrats there continue to make headway against the daunting Rep registration advantage.
Since October 2006, Democratic registrations in LD8 have increased by over 3000; Republican registrations are up by 370, and overall registrations are up 5200.
Yes, the Democrats have more than 8 times the new registrations as the Reps since 2006.
Since March (post-primary bump), the Dems are up nearly 1000, the Reps just under 900, and overall registrations up 2600.
In LD17, Democratic registrations are up more than 2400 since October 2006, Rep registrations down more than 200, and overall registrations up 2750.
Yes, more than 88% of the overall increase since the last election is due to Democratic registrations.
Since March, Dem registrations are up 1300, Rep registrations are up 400, and overall registrations are up by more than 2600.
Yes, even post-bump, the LD17 Democrats have been adding to their 2006 momentum.
Some of the most encouraging registration numbers are in LD18, where Democratic registrations have increased by more than 1700 since October 2006 while Rep registrations have decreased by more than 700 over the same period. Overall registrations have increased by more than 1800.
Since March, Democratic registrations have increased by just under 1000, Reps by just under 600 and overall registrations by more than 2200.
The Reps still have a registration advantage in LD18, but it's now a manageable one. Tammie Pursley (House) and Judah Nativio (Senate) are running in LD18; look for one or both to pull off a major surprise come November.
Raw figures (and apologies for the formatting, or lack thereof :) ) -
Key - Party, June 2008 figures, March 2008, October 2006
CD5 -
Democratic, 96842, 92595, 86743
Republican, 138678. 136430, 139057
Overall, 329264, 319622, 315185
LD8 -
Democratic, 26536, 25555, 23500
Republican, 53525, 52654, 53155
Overall, 110687, 108085, 105458
LD17 -
Democratic, 26571,25249, 24131
Republican, 24880, 24478, 25101
Overall, 72909, 70245, 70159
LD18 -
Democratic, 15839, 14852, 14109
Republican, 25009, 24437, 25745
Overall, 55979, 53705, 54123
...The latest KAET/ASU poll asked respondents the following question - "If Arizona state government shuts down because the governor and the state legislature cannot agree on the budget, who do you think is most responsible for the impasse – the governor or the state legislature? "
52% of respondents hold the legislature most responsible for the budget impasse.
Seems like that in spite of the Republicans' best efforts to destroy public education in Arizona, some intelligence and perceptiveness still remains. :)
Later!
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Whitest Of White Guys Accuses Obama Of Not Being Black Enough
I'm not normally someone who writes about race-related issues (something about not being black and not caring if someone else is or isn't), but sometimes something happens that just cries out for a response...
I suppose we should thank Ralph Nader for his attempt to make sure that he doesn't pull enough Democratic votes away from Senator Obama to cause a repeat of 2000's debacle in Florida, but something tells me that Nader's interview with the Rocky Mountain News wasn't intended as a selfless attempt to end his viability as a third party candidate who could garner protest votes from Dems who believe that Barack Obama isn't progressive enough.
Nope, it really seems more to be the attention-getting stunt of an inveterate egomaniac.
Much of that interview (partial transcript here) consisted of Nader opining that Obama isn't progressive, or is too corporate, etc. However, that sort of talk doesn't get the level of attention that Nader needs and craves.
So he resorted to rhetorical bomb-throwing, by talking about Obama appealing to "white guilt" and "talking white." He also accused Obama of neglecting the inner-city poor in his quest for the White House.
It's bad enough that in this "modern" day and age, the GOP is still going after a candidate because of his skin color (the infamous pins sold at the Texas GOP's state convention, for example), but as with the FISA bill last week, the Republican Party is benefitting from low expectations.
They're expected to be bigots, and, rather consistently, they live down to those expectations.
Everybody, including the Obama campaign, knows what to expect from them and can prepare for it.
Nader, on the other hand, had built up an impressive resume of consumer and environmental activism. He was one of the "good" guys, until he decided to piss away his legacy.
BTW - my favorite part of Nader's comments was when he criticized Obama for not going after payday loan operations. That's a local issue mostly, or perhaps a state-level issue (licensing, etc.).
What's next? Griping that Obama hasn't done enough on zoning enforcement in Dubuque or Pocatello?
Somebody who Mr. Nader respects should sit him down and advise him to stick with consumer issues - he's good at them.
He's not so good at electoral politics.
Later!
I suppose we should thank Ralph Nader for his attempt to make sure that he doesn't pull enough Democratic votes away from Senator Obama to cause a repeat of 2000's debacle in Florida, but something tells me that Nader's interview with the Rocky Mountain News wasn't intended as a selfless attempt to end his viability as a third party candidate who could garner protest votes from Dems who believe that Barack Obama isn't progressive enough.
Nope, it really seems more to be the attention-getting stunt of an inveterate egomaniac.
Much of that interview (partial transcript here) consisted of Nader opining that Obama isn't progressive, or is too corporate, etc. However, that sort of talk doesn't get the level of attention that Nader needs and craves.
So he resorted to rhetorical bomb-throwing, by talking about Obama appealing to "white guilt" and "talking white." He also accused Obama of neglecting the inner-city poor in his quest for the White House.
It's bad enough that in this "modern" day and age, the GOP is still going after a candidate because of his skin color (the infamous pins sold at the Texas GOP's state convention, for example), but as with the FISA bill last week, the Republican Party is benefitting from low expectations.
They're expected to be bigots, and, rather consistently, they live down to those expectations.
Everybody, including the Obama campaign, knows what to expect from them and can prepare for it.
Nader, on the other hand, had built up an impressive resume of consumer and environmental activism. He was one of the "good" guys, until he decided to piss away his legacy.
BTW - my favorite part of Nader's comments was when he criticized Obama for not going after payday loan operations. That's a local issue mostly, or perhaps a state-level issue (licensing, etc.).
What's next? Griping that Obama hasn't done enough on zoning enforcement in Dubuque or Pocatello?
Somebody who Mr. Nader respects should sit him down and advise him to stick with consumer issues - he's good at them.
He's not so good at electoral politics.
Later!
Shadegg: Voting For Ideology and Big Business Before Constituents. Again.
On Tuesday, the House passed H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 by a vote of 355 - 59. All 59 opposing votes were from Republicans.
Among other things, the Act would stop a reduction in Medicare reimbursements to doctors, lowers payments to Medicare Advantage Plans (private Medicare plans), and require that any health care providers who are delinquent in their federal income taxes have the back taxes deducted from their Medicare reimbursement payments. (KGMB-TV in Hawaii)
Unsurprisingly, John Shadegg (CD3) was one of those opposed to the bill.
At first blush, his opposition to what is essentially a "cleanup" bill seems counterintuitive - the bill sounds good (improving Medicare? That's something everyone wants, isn't it?) and Shadegg is in the toughest election fight since he entered Congress (thank you Bob Lord!) - he needs all the "good" votes that he can get. In addition, the bill is relatively inexpensive (reducing federal expenditures by $100 million over the next 5 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.)
So why did Shadegg oppose efforts to improve Medicare for patients and health care providers?
He just doesn't *like* Medicare or any program that allows elderly or poor patients to bypass profiteering corporate gatekeepers to health care.
He shows this by combining efforts to make Medicare unworkable (like with this vote) and sponsoring bills like H.R. 4460, a bill to push private insurers' plans by allowing them to bypass state regulations and consumer safeguards.
Lastly, he has a supreme [lack of] understanding of and empathy for the uninsured folks in the country and his district.
According to The Yellowsheet Reports, a newsletter published by the Arizona Capitol Times, on Monday, he spoke at a cocktail party for The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI). (Yellowsheet is subscription-only, so no link, but here is Kos' take on the same topic, with a quote.)
CMPI is something of a misnomer - the "public" interest isn't really their interest - it's actually just a Big Pharma and Big Health Care industry front group. (Source Watch)
The organization opposes any government involvement in health care, including enacting and enforcing such trivial things as safety regulations for pharmaceuticals.
Anyway, during the party, Shadegg dropped this gem (courtesy the Yellowsheet Report via Kos) -
Apparently, Shadegg doesn't understand the difference between "health" care and "acute" care. Furthermore, he doesn't understand the impact that forgoing an actual long-term health care regimen can have on quality of life, especially in growing children and the elderly.
Somebody needs to sit Congressman Shadegg and tell him to keep his mouth closed until they can figure out if Congress' taxpayer-funded health insurance covers foot-ectomies (removal of the foot from the mouth).
Later!
Among other things, the Act would stop a reduction in Medicare reimbursements to doctors, lowers payments to Medicare Advantage Plans (private Medicare plans), and require that any health care providers who are delinquent in their federal income taxes have the back taxes deducted from their Medicare reimbursement payments. (KGMB-TV in Hawaii)
Unsurprisingly, John Shadegg (CD3) was one of those opposed to the bill.
At first blush, his opposition to what is essentially a "cleanup" bill seems counterintuitive - the bill sounds good (improving Medicare? That's something everyone wants, isn't it?) and Shadegg is in the toughest election fight since he entered Congress (thank you Bob Lord!) - he needs all the "good" votes that he can get. In addition, the bill is relatively inexpensive (reducing federal expenditures by $100 million over the next 5 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.)
So why did Shadegg oppose efforts to improve Medicare for patients and health care providers?
He just doesn't *like* Medicare or any program that allows elderly or poor patients to bypass profiteering corporate gatekeepers to health care.
He shows this by combining efforts to make Medicare unworkable (like with this vote) and sponsoring bills like H.R. 4460, a bill to push private insurers' plans by allowing them to bypass state regulations and consumer safeguards.
Lastly, he has a supreme [lack of] understanding of and empathy for the uninsured folks in the country and his district.
According to The Yellowsheet Reports, a newsletter published by the Arizona Capitol Times, on Monday, he spoke at a cocktail party for The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI). (Yellowsheet is subscription-only, so no link, but here is Kos' take on the same topic, with a quote.)
CMPI is something of a misnomer - the "public" interest isn't really their interest - it's actually just a Big Pharma and Big Health Care industry front group. (Source Watch)
The organization opposes any government involvement in health care, including enacting and enforcing such trivial things as safety regulations for pharmaceuticals.
Anyway, during the party, Shadegg dropped this gem (courtesy the Yellowsheet Report via Kos) -
Shadegg said, that contrary to what many believe, no one in this country goes without health care. "We're covering them in the emergency rooms and paying a very, very high price to have them walk into the emergency room with a cold or flu."
Apparently, Shadegg doesn't understand the difference between "health" care and "acute" care. Furthermore, he doesn't understand the impact that forgoing an actual long-term health care regimen can have on quality of life, especially in growing children and the elderly.
Somebody needs to sit Congressman Shadegg and tell him to keep his mouth closed until they can figure out if Congress' taxpayer-funded health insurance covers foot-ectomies (removal of the foot from the mouth).
Later!
I hate that when it happens...
...the staff cuts/exodus at the AZ Republic are really impacting the professional quality at the paper, and that impact isn't a positive one.
Earlier today, I wrote a post stemming from an AZ Republic article about the effects of polling place locations on voter behavior. The Rep article was itself rooted in the publication of the study in another publication (The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).
It was an interesting, if dry, insight into some of the more mundane operational aspects of elections themselves, as opposed to the campaign and candidate aspects that most folks (including activists!) think of when they think of elections.
Too bad the Rep didn't at least note that they had published another article on the same study, written by Robbie Sherwood, former reporter and current District Director for Congressman Harry Mitchell. .
In 2006.
There's no reason to criticize Anne Ryman, the reporter who wrote Tuesday's article. Presumably, she was just fulfilling an assignment from an editor.
The editor who gave her that assignment should be given a refresher course in "how to research your own archives to make sure you don't repeat yourselves."
Or at least a course on using Google. :))
One good result was that I contacted two of the authors of the study, Marc Niederehe Meredith of Stanford and Dr. Jonah Berger of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Turns out that Meredith is working on another project that is looking into some of the effects of vote-by-mail upon campaigns and elections. A rough draft of the report should be available later this summer, and it should be very interesting.
Later!
Earlier today, I wrote a post stemming from an AZ Republic article about the effects of polling place locations on voter behavior. The Rep article was itself rooted in the publication of the study in another publication (The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).
It was an interesting, if dry, insight into some of the more mundane operational aspects of elections themselves, as opposed to the campaign and candidate aspects that most folks (including activists!) think of when they think of elections.
Too bad the Rep didn't at least note that they had published another article on the same study, written by Robbie Sherwood, former reporter and current District Director for Congressman Harry Mitchell. .
In 2006.
There's no reason to criticize Anne Ryman, the reporter who wrote Tuesday's article. Presumably, she was just fulfilling an assignment from an editor.
The editor who gave her that assignment should be given a refresher course in "how to research your own archives to make sure you don't repeat yourselves."
Or at least a course on using Google. :))
One good result was that I contacted two of the authors of the study, Marc Niederehe Meredith of Stanford and Dr. Jonah Berger of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Turns out that Meredith is working on another project that is looking into some of the effects of vote-by-mail upon campaigns and elections. A rough draft of the report should be available later this summer, and it should be very interesting.
Later!
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Nice but irrelevant study: The effect of polling locations on election results.
...while the following post is incredibly dry, it does have the redeeming feature of being non-partisan.
That may be its *only* redeeming feature. :)
The Arizona Republic has an article on a study conducted in Arizona on the impact of polling location on the likelihood that a voter will support an education funding initiative that's on the ballot.
The upshot of the study was that 56% of voters casting their ballots in school supported education measures, while only 54% of those voting in other public buildings did so.
Ignoring for the moment the statistical similarity (56% to 54%? 2% is within the margin of errors of most statistical analyses of election trends, but I digress :) ), what the Rep article notes, but fails to note the significance of, is the fact that the study analyzed data from Arizona's 2000 elections.
In short, while the study may end up serving as a good snapshot of voting trends at the time (or, given the 2% difference, a good hint of a suggestion of a snapshot), changes in voting activity is just 8 short years render the study nearly useless.
In 2000, a negligible number of voters cast their ballots early; so neglibile, in fact, that the Maricopa County Recorder doesn't show the number in the results listed on its website (no direct link; use the drop down menus on this page.)
In 2006, more than 49% off all votes cast in Maricopa County were cast early or by mail.
In 2008, the trend has continued. During the various municipal elections held so far, early voting has accounted for approximately 80% of ballots cast (i.e. - Tempe's early voting percentage for the general election last month was over 82%).
While the early voting numbers for this November's election probably won't be quite so high, given the trend and the parties' efforts to persuade voters to use vote-by-mail, the percentage of early votes should be well over 60% or even 70%.
In short, the effect of location of polling place, while minimal to begin with (2%!) has been rendered all but moot -
There are an average of 1370 voters per precinct in Maricopa County (a smidge more than 1.5 million voters total). In 2006, voter turnout was approximately 60%; assuming a similar percentage turnout this year, that would mean an average of 822 voters casting ballots in each precinct, and assuming 60% EV, that would leave 329 voters physically casting their ballots at each polling place.
2% of 329 is less than 7 (6.579).
Even assuming that all 1142 precincts in the county cast their ballots in a school (they don't), that means the impact of voting in a school is approximately 7500 votes county-wide.
Most school districts (hence, most school-related ballot questions) don't have nearly that many precincts (Scottsdale Unified #48 has 97).
In other words, while the effect of polling place location does exist, it was small to begin with (2%), is minimized by the fact that most education-related ballot questions cover relatively small areas, and is already shrinking due to the growth of 'vote-by-mail' behavior.
Perhaps the scientists who performed this study, Jonah Berger, Marc Meredith, and S. Christian Wheeler, should do a follow up, studying the effects of vote-by-mail (aka "Vote-in-the-comfort-of-home) on voting patterns.
An abstract of the study is here; the article is here, courtesy the website of Dr. Jonah Berger, one of the authors.
What can I say - I'm a numbers geek. Boring is part of the package. :))
Addendum - I emailed Dr. Berger the question that I asked, regarding whether he and his colleagues planned a follow-up regarding the effects of VBM. His reply was surprisingly prompt (I emailed him at his school email addy, after 7 p.m. local time, during the summer. I wasn't sure that he would reply within a month, much less an hour. :)) ). As of right now, they don't have any plans to do a follow-up on VBM effects.
That may be its *only* redeeming feature. :)
The Arizona Republic has an article on a study conducted in Arizona on the impact of polling location on the likelihood that a voter will support an education funding initiative that's on the ballot.
The upshot of the study was that 56% of voters casting their ballots in school supported education measures, while only 54% of those voting in other public buildings did so.
Ignoring for the moment the statistical similarity (56% to 54%? 2% is within the margin of errors of most statistical analyses of election trends, but I digress :) ), what the Rep article notes, but fails to note the significance of, is the fact that the study analyzed data from Arizona's 2000 elections.
In short, while the study may end up serving as a good snapshot of voting trends at the time (or, given the 2% difference, a good hint of a suggestion of a snapshot), changes in voting activity is just 8 short years render the study nearly useless.
In 2000, a negligible number of voters cast their ballots early; so neglibile, in fact, that the Maricopa County Recorder doesn't show the number in the results listed on its website (no direct link; use the drop down menus on this page.)
In 2006, more than 49% off all votes cast in Maricopa County were cast early or by mail.
In 2008, the trend has continued. During the various municipal elections held so far, early voting has accounted for approximately 80% of ballots cast (i.e. - Tempe's early voting percentage for the general election last month was over 82%).
While the early voting numbers for this November's election probably won't be quite so high, given the trend and the parties' efforts to persuade voters to use vote-by-mail, the percentage of early votes should be well over 60% or even 70%.
In short, the effect of location of polling place, while minimal to begin with (2%!) has been rendered all but moot -
There are an average of 1370 voters per precinct in Maricopa County (a smidge more than 1.5 million voters total). In 2006, voter turnout was approximately 60%; assuming a similar percentage turnout this year, that would mean an average of 822 voters casting ballots in each precinct, and assuming 60% EV, that would leave 329 voters physically casting their ballots at each polling place.
2% of 329 is less than 7 (6.579).
Even assuming that all 1142 precincts in the county cast their ballots in a school (they don't), that means the impact of voting in a school is approximately 7500 votes county-wide.
Most school districts (hence, most school-related ballot questions) don't have nearly that many precincts (Scottsdale Unified #48 has 97).
In other words, while the effect of polling place location does exist, it was small to begin with (2%), is minimized by the fact that most education-related ballot questions cover relatively small areas, and is already shrinking due to the growth of 'vote-by-mail' behavior.
Perhaps the scientists who performed this study, Jonah Berger, Marc Meredith, and S. Christian Wheeler, should do a follow up, studying the effects of vote-by-mail (aka "Vote-in-the-comfort-of-home) on voting patterns.
An abstract of the study is here; the article is here, courtesy the website of Dr. Jonah Berger, one of the authors.
What can I say - I'm a numbers geek. Boring is part of the package. :))
Addendum - I emailed Dr. Berger the question that I asked, regarding whether he and his colleagues planned a follow-up regarding the effects of VBM. His reply was surprisingly prompt (I emailed him at his school email addy, after 7 p.m. local time, during the summer. I wasn't sure that he would reply within a month, much less an hour. :)) ). As of right now, they don't have any plans to do a follow-up on VBM effects.
George Carlin passes away at age 71
SHIT.
I was first exposed to his brand of humor by his album "Class Clown." The fearlessly savage yet totally personal brilliance of that album was eye- and ear-opening, to say the least. Prior to that release, he had mostly been a mainstream (for that era) "Vegas-style" comedian, aka - safe enough to take your grandmother to one of his shows.
PISS.
That album marked a professional change in Carlin. Gone were the slyly rebellious but ultimately bland personas (Al Sleet, Hippy Dippy Weatherman) It their place was a counterculture icon, showcasing his irreverent takes on his own childhood and Catholic school years (the title track, "Special Dispensation," among others) and life in general. The comedic riffs were both riotous and poignant in their truth - most people in that certain place and time could identify with Carlin's stories.
FUCK.
However, the routine for which he is still most well-known for, "Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television" stole the album.
CUNT.
That routine was so controversial that it led to a Supreme Court in 1978 that upheld the government's authority to censor what is broadcast over the airwaves. That case didn't slow Carlin down one bit, though - during his career, he released more than 20 albums, wrote three best-selling books, appeared in movies and TV shows, and made a number of cable specials for HBO.
He made a career out of needling self-inflated authority figures, dissecting cultural taboos, and just plain shredding "conventional wisdom."
COCKSUCKER.
Even today, 35 years later, he still offends the tender sensibilities of the country's self-appointed guardians of propriety, as illustrated in this post at Seeing Red AZ.
MOTHERFUCKER.
While that Supreme Court decision still stands, and all over-the-air broadcasts are subject to federal censorship (hence the infamous "Nipplegate" incident at the SuperBowl a few years ago, the rest of society has moved on where the government, via its proxies at the FCC, has not.
These days, each of the infamous seven words can be heard on basic cable, with special thanks in this regard going out to Turner Classic Movies, aka TCM. They aired an unedited version of "Apocalypse Now" during their Academy Award commemorative programming.
That very quickly took care of any of the seven that hadn't already been uttered on "The Shield" or late-night programming on Comedy Central.
TITS.
To anyone who was offended by some of the language in this post: You're too old, too young, or just too full of shit.
Note: above photo of the Class Clown album cover courtesy Amazon.com.
Monday, June 23, 2008
The John Sydney McCain Memorial Crappie Award
This week's award doesn't go to just one person - the organization known as the Arizona Republican Party, on behalf of some of its candidates in CD5, a radio talk show ranter, and some of its bloggers, earns this week's award.
Late last week, news broke that an employee of the Arizona Democratic Party (ADP) had attended a fundraiser for Republican CD5 candidate Laura Knaperek. (PolitickerAZ)
The ADP employee was spotted taking pictures of people attending the fundraiser and of the license plates of their vehicles.
Knaperek's campaign manager, Lauren Barnett, went on JD Hayworth's radio show to decry the move as "undemocratic" and "reprehensible".
[Not so coincidentally, this was the same JD Hayworth who lost in 2006 to the man Knaperek wants to face in November, Harry Mitchell. Oh, and also not so coincidentally, Laura Knaperek has lost twice to Harry Mitchell, and her obsession with beating him by any means necessary almost makes me embarrassed for her. Almost, except for the fact that it can be soooo entertaining. :) ]
Emily Derose, spokeswoman for the ADP contended that the move was a standard campaign 'due diligence' practice of both parties, something that was immediately denied by Sean McCaffrey, spokesman for the Arizona Republican Party.
From the PolitickerAZ story -
Perhaps someone should send Mr. McCaffrey (and perhaps to good ol' JD himself) a copy of this pic -
For those you who don't recognize the scene or the man with the crossed arms walking around the edges of the crowd, the scene is the Harry Mitchell's Congressional campaign kickoff rally in April of 2006, and the man surveying the crowd is Todd Sommers, then a legislative assistant for future ex-Congressman Hayworth. (My post on the matter here. Please note that my original source was Tedski at R-Cubed. His original post is here.)
While one party sending an employee to the public events of another party may be tacky, especially when they're caught at it :) , it's not unethical.
The same cannot be said for sending a paid Congressional staffer to a challenger's event.
Et tu, Sean.
And JD.
And Laura.
And every Rep blogger who has been cloaking himself in faux self-righteous indignation. (Sonoran Alliance here, for example)
And for the shameless, "do as we say, not as we do" brand of hypocritical flip-floppery, they all earn this week's John Sydney McCain Memorial Crappie Award.
Don't forget to check out Desert Beacon's latest "Sunday Morning Deck Bass."
BTW - When I first heard the story, the movie geek in me flashed on an early scene in the film "The Godfather" where FBI agents are spotted at the wedding of Don Corleone's daughter, taking pictures and writing down the license numbers of various mobsters attending the wedding.
In many ways, the movie scene summed up my feelings on this - while the observations were a distasteful but legitimate and necessary endeavor, it became a tacky one when it was discovered.
I'm actually glad that I couldn't find a screen cap of that scene because I would have gone with that before I remembered Mr. Sommers' visit to Tempe two years ago.
While that image would have been *almost* perfectly appropriate for this subject, the Sommers pic *is* perfect for this.
Later!
P.S. - I do want to thank this week's Crappie Award recipients for giving me the opportunity to legitimately liken Republican campaign contributors to mobsters.
Yup, that was sweet.
:))
P.P.S. - for those of you who are wondering how I can harshly criticize Congressman Mitchell in the post immediately prior to this one, yet so strongly support him (and the ADP) in this one, there's no disconnect here. His vote on the FISA bill with retroactive telecom immunity was a dreadful mistake, one that I wholeheartedly disagree with, but he's done some great work for veterans, students, and his district, and he is head and shoulders (and torso, hips, thighs, and knees, too!) above his challengers in terms of his qualifications for the office.
Late last week, news broke that an employee of the Arizona Democratic Party (ADP) had attended a fundraiser for Republican CD5 candidate Laura Knaperek. (PolitickerAZ)
The ADP employee was spotted taking pictures of people attending the fundraiser and of the license plates of their vehicles.
Knaperek's campaign manager, Lauren Barnett, went on JD Hayworth's radio show to decry the move as "undemocratic" and "reprehensible".
[Not so coincidentally, this was the same JD Hayworth who lost in 2006 to the man Knaperek wants to face in November, Harry Mitchell. Oh, and also not so coincidentally, Laura Knaperek has lost twice to Harry Mitchell, and her obsession with beating him by any means necessary almost makes me embarrassed for her. Almost, except for the fact that it can be soooo entertaining. :) ]
Emily Derose, spokeswoman for the ADP contended that the move was a standard campaign 'due diligence' practice of both parties, something that was immediately denied by Sean McCaffrey, spokesman for the Arizona Republican Party.
From the PolitickerAZ story -
"We don't do that, we think it's ridiculous and it contributes to people's low opinion of the political process," said McCaffrey.
Perhaps someone should send Mr. McCaffrey (and perhaps to good ol' JD himself) a copy of this pic -
For those you who don't recognize the scene or the man with the crossed arms walking around the edges of the crowd, the scene is the Harry Mitchell's Congressional campaign kickoff rally in April of 2006, and the man surveying the crowd is Todd Sommers, then a legislative assistant for future ex-Congressman Hayworth. (My post on the matter here. Please note that my original source was Tedski at R-Cubed. His original post is here.)
While one party sending an employee to the public events of another party may be tacky, especially when they're caught at it :) , it's not unethical.
The same cannot be said for sending a paid Congressional staffer to a challenger's event.
Et tu, Sean.
And JD.
And Laura.
And every Rep blogger who has been cloaking himself in faux self-righteous indignation. (Sonoran Alliance here, for example)
And for the shameless, "do as we say, not as we do" brand of hypocritical flip-floppery, they all earn this week's John Sydney McCain Memorial Crappie Award.
Don't forget to check out Desert Beacon's latest "Sunday Morning Deck Bass."
BTW - When I first heard the story, the movie geek in me flashed on an early scene in the film "The Godfather" where FBI agents are spotted at the wedding of Don Corleone's daughter, taking pictures and writing down the license numbers of various mobsters attending the wedding.
In many ways, the movie scene summed up my feelings on this - while the observations were a distasteful but legitimate and necessary endeavor, it became a tacky one when it was discovered.
I'm actually glad that I couldn't find a screen cap of that scene because I would have gone with that before I remembered Mr. Sommers' visit to Tempe two years ago.
While that image would have been *almost* perfectly appropriate for this subject, the Sommers pic *is* perfect for this.
Later!
P.S. - I do want to thank this week's Crappie Award recipients for giving me the opportunity to legitimately liken Republican campaign contributors to mobsters.
Yup, that was sweet.
:))
P.P.S. - for those of you who are wondering how I can harshly criticize Congressman Mitchell in the post immediately prior to this one, yet so strongly support him (and the ADP) in this one, there's no disconnect here. His vote on the FISA bill with retroactive telecom immunity was a dreadful mistake, one that I wholeheartedly disagree with, but he's done some great work for veterans, students, and his district, and he is head and shoulders (and torso, hips, thighs, and knees, too!) above his challengers in terms of his qualifications for the office.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
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 -
'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.
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.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Snippets....
And the whole "Short Attention Span" motif continues... :)
...Perhaps the bloodiest races in the state this year won't be a legislative or congressional race, or even one of the Corporation Commission races - they're going to be in the races for Republican PC in LD11. There will be competitive races in 45 of the 83 precincts in the district. In most LDs, folks at both major parties are happy if they just have PCs in that high a percentage of precincts; there usually aren't more than a few precincts that have candidates competing for the slots. To illustrate this phenomenon just look at the same list from the Maricopa County Recorder's Office - in the overwhelmingly Democratic LD16, there are only 4 precincts (out of 45) where there are competitive races for Democratic Party PC slots.
Of course, LD11 is the center of the anti-McCain Republican universe; most of the precinct races there can be broken down into an anti-McCain ticket and a pro-McCain ticket.
Is it possible for both tickets to lose?? :))
Anyway, should be fun to watch...if you're a Democrat.
...Bob Lord, the Democratic challenger to John Shadegg in CD3, has been getting beaucoup love nationally.
First, DailyKos added him to their "Orange to Blue" fundraising program.
Then, he was added to the DCCC's "Red to Blue" program, a program that raised an average of $400K per candidate in 2006.
Finally, the non-partisan Cook Political Report changed it rating of the CD3 race, upgrading Lord's chances of election. The race had been rated "Solid Republican"; it's now rated as "Likely Republican."
That may not sound significant, but in 2006, CD5 was rated as "Likely Republican" until late in the race.
Like when the results came in, and Harry Mitchell had sent JD Hayworth to the electoral showers.
...Went to the monthly meeting of the Community Council of Scottsdale on Thursday night. They had two candidates for City Council speaking to them, Tom Giller and Oren Davis. I'd seen Mr. Giller at different neighborhood/community meetings and at a couple of City Council meetings but it was my first opportunity to hear Mr. Davis.
He actually did well; he's a political rookie (and it showed with his speaking style) but he also showed an honesty and directness that is fairly rare in politics these days - he actually spoke to a hostile crowd and didn't try to pander. He probably didn't win any votes at the meeting, not even mine (I'm never sold on a candidate the first time I see him/her in action.) However, he didn't talk himself into the "No way in hell could I ever vote for him" category, either.
...Congratulations!! to ManEegee on receiving a scholarship to Netroots Nation (formerly YearlyKos) in Austin in July. Looks like Tedski (he of the Democratic convention media credentials) isn't the only AZ blogger gettin' some respect beyond the land of cactus needles and dust storms.
...In the "interesting visitors" department, at 3:58.47 p.m. on Thursday, this blog received an unexpected hit from the AZ Republican Party (IP address - 68.14.244.235). The fact that a GOPer was checking out my blog wasn't a surprise (that's just monitoring what is being said in the blogosphere, and that's just standard practice these days). What was surprising was how they found my blog.
They Googled "voter reg trends", and found this post.
Ummm...I'm not exactly a party insider, and I'm definitely not a Republican Party insider (yeah, so I'm a master at stating the obvious :) ), but I know that voter reg trends are pored over, parsed, and dissected by some of the best minds at both major parties, and in far more depth than can be done by one man with a spreadsheet program.
So why use Google to find someone else's analysis?
...And in the "am I a raging cynic or what?" category, George Bush has promised immediate aid for flood-stricken residents of Iowa and other midwestern states.
Sooooo...am I the only one who's noticed that Iowa's population tends to be paler and more likely to vote Republican in November than the population of the Katrina-afflicted New Orleans and the Gulf Coast?
Timely disaster relief should never be based on electoral or racial considerations.
Any other question?
Later!
...Perhaps the bloodiest races in the state this year won't be a legislative or congressional race, or even one of the Corporation Commission races - they're going to be in the races for Republican PC in LD11. There will be competitive races in 45 of the 83 precincts in the district. In most LDs, folks at both major parties are happy if they just have PCs in that high a percentage of precincts; there usually aren't more than a few precincts that have candidates competing for the slots. To illustrate this phenomenon just look at the same list from the Maricopa County Recorder's Office - in the overwhelmingly Democratic LD16, there are only 4 precincts (out of 45) where there are competitive races for Democratic Party PC slots.
Of course, LD11 is the center of the anti-McCain Republican universe; most of the precinct races there can be broken down into an anti-McCain ticket and a pro-McCain ticket.
Is it possible for both tickets to lose?? :))
Anyway, should be fun to watch...if you're a Democrat.
...Bob Lord, the Democratic challenger to John Shadegg in CD3, has been getting beaucoup love nationally.
First, DailyKos added him to their "Orange to Blue" fundraising program.
Then, he was added to the DCCC's "Red to Blue" program, a program that raised an average of $400K per candidate in 2006.
Finally, the non-partisan Cook Political Report changed it rating of the CD3 race, upgrading Lord's chances of election. The race had been rated "Solid Republican"; it's now rated as "Likely Republican."
That may not sound significant, but in 2006, CD5 was rated as "Likely Republican" until late in the race.
Like when the results came in, and Harry Mitchell had sent JD Hayworth to the electoral showers.
...Went to the monthly meeting of the Community Council of Scottsdale on Thursday night. They had two candidates for City Council speaking to them, Tom Giller and Oren Davis. I'd seen Mr. Giller at different neighborhood/community meetings and at a couple of City Council meetings but it was my first opportunity to hear Mr. Davis.
He actually did well; he's a political rookie (and it showed with his speaking style) but he also showed an honesty and directness that is fairly rare in politics these days - he actually spoke to a hostile crowd and didn't try to pander. He probably didn't win any votes at the meeting, not even mine (I'm never sold on a candidate the first time I see him/her in action.) However, he didn't talk himself into the "No way in hell could I ever vote for him" category, either.
...Congratulations!! to ManEegee on receiving a scholarship to Netroots Nation (formerly YearlyKos) in Austin in July. Looks like Tedski (he of the Democratic convention media credentials) isn't the only AZ blogger gettin' some respect beyond the land of cactus needles and dust storms.
...In the "interesting visitors" department, at 3:58.47 p.m. on Thursday, this blog received an unexpected hit from the AZ Republican Party (IP address - 68.14.244.235). The fact that a GOPer was checking out my blog wasn't a surprise (that's just monitoring what is being said in the blogosphere, and that's just standard practice these days). What was surprising was how they found my blog.
They Googled "voter reg trends", and found this post.
Ummm...I'm not exactly a party insider, and I'm definitely not a Republican Party insider (yeah, so I'm a master at stating the obvious :) ), but I know that voter reg trends are pored over, parsed, and dissected by some of the best minds at both major parties, and in far more depth than can be done by one man with a spreadsheet program.
So why use Google to find someone else's analysis?
...And in the "am I a raging cynic or what?" category, George Bush has promised immediate aid for flood-stricken residents of Iowa and other midwestern states.
Sooooo...am I the only one who's noticed that Iowa's population tends to be paler and more likely to vote Republican in November than the population of the Katrina-afflicted New Orleans and the Gulf Coast?
Timely disaster relief should never be based on electoral or racial considerations.
Any other question?
Later!
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Short Attention Span Musing -candidates edition (Redux)
I know that I just did one of these, but the campaigns have provided a wealth of material to work with in the last few days that another one is warranted...
...Maybe she should look a little closer to home for the source of the trouble...
From PolitickerAZ:
Her campaign has been asked by PolitickerAZ to produce a recipient of one of these calls, but they have not done so as yet. Assuming that this alleged push poll is real, one should remember that Ms. Bitter Smith is in a six-way primary fight.
That's six people with more incentive than Harry Mitchell to do this (yes, that includes the inimitable Ms. Bitter Smith herself).
Self-promotion time - less than a week ago, I predicted that this race (CD5 Rep primary) would get dirty.
I'd gloat more, but even I have to admit making that prediction was as difficult, and risky, as predicting a sunny day in Arizona.
...Guess Shadegg hasn't figured out that elections can only be lost in D.C., not won there.
Veterans in his district (and all over the country!) are receiving inadequate medical care, a chunk of his district is scared of the water coming out of their taps, and skyrocketing energy costs are destroying the budgets of working- and middle-class families all over the country, so how does he respond to the needs of his constituents?
By introducing H.R. 6274, a bill to provide legal cover for the Bush Administration and its kangaroo courts (aka military tribunals) and its permanent detention without trial or even evidence in the face of last week's Supreme Court decision granting habeas corpus rights to detainees at Guantanamo.
Shadegg press release here.
Just speculating here, but I have to wonder if he is starting to write off the November election and is planning/hoping/praying for a job in a McCain administration.
...Maybe the McCainiacs should see if the rights to "Running On Empty" are available...
From MSNBC.com:
It was 'fitting' until the song's co-writer, and current progressive Democratic Congressman from New York, John Hall, spoke up, objecting to its use.
You know, while the songwriter of "Running On Empty", Jackson Browne, is known for being fairly liberal himself, he might approve the use of his song by the McCain campaign.
It's totally appropriate - they've got nothing left in the tank.
Later!
...Maybe she should look a little closer to home for the source of the trouble...
From PolitickerAZ:
Bitter Smith accuses Mitchell campaign of push polling
AZ-5 Republican primary candidate and Arizona cable industry lobbyist Susan Bitter Smith is charging that the campaign of U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Tempe) has been "push polling" in the 5th Congressional District - a charge the Mitchell campaign denies.
"Reports have surfaced that the Mitchell campaign has initiated a push pull [sic] in the District specifically targeting Susan," read a press release put out by the Bitter Smith campaign.
Her campaign has been asked by PolitickerAZ to produce a recipient of one of these calls, but they have not done so as yet. Assuming that this alleged push poll is real, one should remember that Ms. Bitter Smith is in a six-way primary fight.
That's six people with more incentive than Harry Mitchell to do this (yes, that includes the inimitable Ms. Bitter Smith herself).
Self-promotion time - less than a week ago, I predicted that this race (CD5 Rep primary) would get dirty.
I'd gloat more, but even I have to admit making that prediction was as difficult, and risky, as predicting a sunny day in Arizona.
...Guess Shadegg hasn't figured out that elections can only be lost in D.C., not won there.
Veterans in his district (and all over the country!) are receiving inadequate medical care, a chunk of his district is scared of the water coming out of their taps, and skyrocketing energy costs are destroying the budgets of working- and middle-class families all over the country, so how does he respond to the needs of his constituents?
By introducing H.R. 6274, a bill to provide legal cover for the Bush Administration and its kangaroo courts (aka military tribunals) and its permanent detention without trial or even evidence in the face of last week's Supreme Court decision granting habeas corpus rights to detainees at Guantanamo.
Shadegg press release here.
Just speculating here, but I have to wonder if he is starting to write off the November election and is planning/hoping/praying for a job in a McCain administration.
...Maybe the McCainiacs should see if the rights to "Running On Empty" are available...
From MSNBC.com:
REP. TO MCCAIN: STOP USING MY SONG!
New Hampshire picked up McCain in the 2000 Republican primary and stayed true to him in 2008. It was fitting, then, that McCain concluded a Nashua event yesterday with the 1976 Orleans' hit celebration of monogamy, "Still the One."
It was 'fitting' until the song's co-writer, and current progressive Democratic Congressman from New York, John Hall, spoke up, objecting to its use.
You know, while the songwriter of "Running On Empty", Jackson Browne, is known for being fairly liberal himself, he might approve the use of his song by the McCain campaign.
It's totally appropriate - they've got nothing left in the tank.
Later!
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Short Attention Span Musing - candidates edition
...I wish it wasn't so, but it's starting early on the Democratic side, too...
According to an email from the Kelty for Corporation Commission campaign, her supporters have been receiving phone calls from someone claiming to be from the 'Signature Verification Department" and asking all sorts of strange questions.
Needless to say, the calls are fraudulent. If you receive one of these calls, try to do the following:
1. Record the call if you can.
2. If you can, make a note of any caller ID number that shows up.
3. Ask the caller for their name and make a note of it.
4. Calmly ask the caller who they work for. If they refuse to answer ask that they have a supervisor call you and refuse to answer any of their questions.
5. Email the campaign at michelle@karakelty.com with the time and date of the call and name of the person who called you.
...That wild and crazy kid Susie! Always has to be the "special" one...
From The Politico via CBS News -
Specifically, she set up meetings between executives of Cox Communications and Arizona Congressmen Ed Pastor and Harry Mitchell.
Yes, the same Harry Mitchell whose job she is after.
As Jennifer Duffy, senior editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, who was quoted in the article, said "she has never heard of a candidate actively lobbying 'who wasn’t a local elected official who was lobbying as part of their job...' "
Maybe she thinks it's a good way to stand out in the crowded Republican field in CD5, but something tells me that the Republican grassroots don't have much more use for industry lobbyist than the Democratic grassroots.
...Maybe he's trying to get the vote of Karen Johnson or Russell Pearce - too bad they don't live in CD5.
From the EV Tribune -
Song *least* likely to be on the Club's sound system during the event - Bachman Turner Overdrive's "Gimme Your Money Please."
From the lyrics -
[Hah! Top that for an obscure but totally appropriate 70's musical reference! LOL]
Anyway, all event attendees should be aware that while Scottsdale Healthcare just opened a new hospital not too far from the Gun Club on Thompson Peak Parkway (5.7 miles), the Shea campus of Scottsdale Healthcare is more than 2 miles closer (3.3 miles away).
Even better news is that the Club is less than two miles away from the EMTs of the Scottsdale Fire Department's Station 609.
Just in case backslapping and glad-handing don't mix with automatic weapons...
Later!
According to an email from the Kelty for Corporation Commission campaign, her supporters have been receiving phone calls from someone claiming to be from the 'Signature Verification Department" and asking all sorts of strange questions.
Needless to say, the calls are fraudulent. If you receive one of these calls, try to do the following:
1. Record the call if you can.
2. If you can, make a note of any caller ID number that shows up.
3. Ask the caller for their name and make a note of it.
4. Calmly ask the caller who they work for. If they refuse to answer ask that they have a supervisor call you and refuse to answer any of their questions.
5. Email the campaign at michelle@karakelty.com with the time and date of the call and name of the person who called you.
...That wild and crazy kid Susie! Always has to be the "special" one...
From The Politico via CBS News -
In an election cycle that has most everyone running away from lobbyists, Arizona Republican Susan Bitter Smith is something of a novelty: She’s running for Congress while also lobbying it.
Specifically, she set up meetings between executives of Cox Communications and Arizona Congressmen Ed Pastor and Harry Mitchell.
Yes, the same Harry Mitchell whose job she is after.
As Jennifer Duffy, senior editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, who was quoted in the article, said "she has never heard of a candidate actively lobbying 'who wasn’t a local elected official who was lobbying as part of their job...' "
Maybe she thinks it's a good way to stand out in the crowded Republican field in CD5, but something tells me that the Republican grassroots don't have much more use for industry lobbyist than the Democratic grassroots.
...Maybe he's trying to get the vote of Karen Johnson or Russell Pearce - too bad they don't live in CD5.
From the EV Tribune -
Former Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert is putting on a campaign fundraiser Thursday at the Scottsdale Gun Club, which will include time on the facility's tactical range.
Firearm rentals and ammunition are included in the $150 reception fee.
For an extra $600, supporters get to shoot automatic weapons during a special reception featuring National Rifle Association past president Sandra Froman.
Song *least* likely to be on the Club's sound system during the event - Bachman Turner Overdrive's "Gimme Your Money Please."
From the lyrics -
And a dirty mean man with a shotgun in his hand
He said, "Gimme your money please."
He said, "Gimme your money please."
[Hah! Top that for an obscure but totally appropriate 70's musical reference! LOL]
Anyway, all event attendees should be aware that while Scottsdale Healthcare just opened a new hospital not too far from the Gun Club on Thompson Peak Parkway (5.7 miles), the Shea campus of Scottsdale Healthcare is more than 2 miles closer (3.3 miles away).
Even better news is that the Club is less than two miles away from the EMTs of the Scottsdale Fire Department's Station 609.
Just in case backslapping and glad-handing don't mix with automatic weapons...
Later!
Sunday, June 15, 2008
The John Sydney McCain Memorial Crappie Award
This week, George W. Bush made a serious run at another award.
In May, the Bush Administration, through the Interior Department, declared that the polar bear is an endangered species, worthy of protection. It was, perhaps, the most decent act of the Administration in its nearly 8 years of existence.
However, lest you worry that the Administration was mellowing in its dotage (a smidgen more than 7 months to go!), that same Bush Administration Interior Department issued rules that allow oil companies to "accidently" annoy or harm polar bears and Pacific walruses during their pursuit of sources of oil and natural gas.
Yup, the Bushies are saying what you think they are saying - it's ok to kill endangered species if you are an energy company looking for more profits.
I don't think that I've ever used the word "craven" to describe a Crappie Award winner, but it fits here. Yet amazingly enough, Bush didn't win this week's award.
He didn't win because of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who, in a "poetic justice" moment, wins the award for a shamelessly hypocritical reverse inward twisting bellyflop of a flip-flop during a fishing expedition.
To be completely honest, however, the fishing expedition was of the "political vendetta" variety, not the "beers and bait on a boat" variety.
Earlier this spring, Arpaio's office submitted a public records request for months worth of City of Phoenix emails, including those of Mayor Phil Gordon and Chief of Police Jack Harris. The justification given at the time of the request was that the records were necessary to an investigation into whether some of Arpaio's deputies have engaged in racial profiling.
The records were made available to some of Arpaio's deputies this week. The deputies, per City of Phoenix policy, were able to scan the documents at the City's Public Records counter, and were able to do so at no cost (unlike their own office, bastion of government transparency that it is, which charges 50 cents per page.
(On those rare occasions when they fulfill a public records request.)
Anyway, the tiff between Mayor Gordon and Sheriff Arpaio being newsworthy around these parts, the deputies' activities at the City attracted a contingent of media, including a representative of The Phoenix New Times.
Things started going south from there.
This was the same Phoenix New Times that had two of its publishers/journalists arrested by Arpaio for daring to criticize him in print.
And, in keeping with what is apparently a standing MCSO policy, the deputies soon were threatening to arrest the New Times' reporter, Ray Stern.
His alleged crime?
Trying to do the same thing that they were doing, examine public records.
The situation rapidly degenerated with a rep from the Phoenix City Attorney's office and multiple Phoenix PD officials stepping in and advising the deputies that public records are just that, *public*, and can be viewed by any member of the public.
Even those that work for the New Times.
For this breathtakingly twisted flip-flop (keeping his own public records away from the public as much as possible, while using public records laws to harass his political adversary) that created a situation that endangered a law-abiding member of the media, countless City of Phoenix employees who were just trying to do their jobs while attempting to defuse a volatile situation, and the members of the public who were also attempting to do business with the City of Phoenix that day, Joe Arpaio is awarded a particularly pungent JS McCain Crappie Award.
I do have one question, legal scholar that I'm not -
If Arpaio's office needed the records for a real investigation, why didn't they just get a search warrant? Then they would have had to deal with the inconvenience of having to conduct their examinations in public or of having the press looking over their shoulders while doing so.
Just askin'... :)
Also, be sure to visit Desert Beacon to find out the winner of the least-coveted award in the West, her Sunday Morning Deck Bass Award!
She calls it the least desired in "Northern Nevada", but she's underestimating her influence - receipt of her award is dreaded by two-faced politicos not just in her backyard, but all over the Mountain West and stretching all the way to D.C.
More background -
The New Times has a copy of an internal MCSO memo on the incident. It can best be described as, ummm..."artful." If the MCSO officials involved in the incident were painted any more heroically, the memo would be the script for a Chuck Norris TV show or movie.
AZ Republic coverage of the incident here; it's a blog entry, not a news story.
In May, the Bush Administration, through the Interior Department, declared that the polar bear is an endangered species, worthy of protection. It was, perhaps, the most decent act of the Administration in its nearly 8 years of existence.
However, lest you worry that the Administration was mellowing in its dotage (a smidgen more than 7 months to go!), that same Bush Administration Interior Department issued rules that allow oil companies to "accidently" annoy or harm polar bears and Pacific walruses during their pursuit of sources of oil and natural gas.
Yup, the Bushies are saying what you think they are saying - it's ok to kill endangered species if you are an energy company looking for more profits.
I don't think that I've ever used the word "craven" to describe a Crappie Award winner, but it fits here. Yet amazingly enough, Bush didn't win this week's award.
He didn't win because of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who, in a "poetic justice" moment, wins the award for a shamelessly hypocritical reverse inward twisting bellyflop of a flip-flop during a fishing expedition.
To be completely honest, however, the fishing expedition was of the "political vendetta" variety, not the "beers and bait on a boat" variety.
Earlier this spring, Arpaio's office submitted a public records request for months worth of City of Phoenix emails, including those of Mayor Phil Gordon and Chief of Police Jack Harris. The justification given at the time of the request was that the records were necessary to an investigation into whether some of Arpaio's deputies have engaged in racial profiling.
The records were made available to some of Arpaio's deputies this week. The deputies, per City of Phoenix policy, were able to scan the documents at the City's Public Records counter, and were able to do so at no cost (unlike their own office, bastion of government transparency that it is, which charges 50 cents per page.
(On those rare occasions when they fulfill a public records request.)
Anyway, the tiff between Mayor Gordon and Sheriff Arpaio being newsworthy around these parts, the deputies' activities at the City attracted a contingent of media, including a representative of The Phoenix New Times.
Things started going south from there.
This was the same Phoenix New Times that had two of its publishers/journalists arrested by Arpaio for daring to criticize him in print.
And, in keeping with what is apparently a standing MCSO policy, the deputies soon were threatening to arrest the New Times' reporter, Ray Stern.
His alleged crime?
Trying to do the same thing that they were doing, examine public records.
The situation rapidly degenerated with a rep from the Phoenix City Attorney's office and multiple Phoenix PD officials stepping in and advising the deputies that public records are just that, *public*, and can be viewed by any member of the public.
Even those that work for the New Times.
For this breathtakingly twisted flip-flop (keeping his own public records away from the public as much as possible, while using public records laws to harass his political adversary) that created a situation that endangered a law-abiding member of the media, countless City of Phoenix employees who were just trying to do their jobs while attempting to defuse a volatile situation, and the members of the public who were also attempting to do business with the City of Phoenix that day, Joe Arpaio is awarded a particularly pungent JS McCain Crappie Award.
I do have one question, legal scholar that I'm not -
If Arpaio's office needed the records for a real investigation, why didn't they just get a search warrant? Then they would have had to deal with the inconvenience of having to conduct their examinations in public or of having the press looking over their shoulders while doing so.
Just askin'... :)
Also, be sure to visit Desert Beacon to find out the winner of the least-coveted award in the West, her Sunday Morning Deck Bass Award!
She calls it the least desired in "Northern Nevada", but she's underestimating her influence - receipt of her award is dreaded by two-faced politicos not just in her backyard, but all over the Mountain West and stretching all the way to D.C.
More background -
The New Times has a copy of an internal MCSO memo on the incident. It can best be described as, ummm..."artful." If the MCSO officials involved in the incident were painted any more heroically, the memo would be the script for a Chuck Norris TV show or movie.
AZ Republic coverage of the incident here; it's a blog entry, not a news story.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Tim Russert 1950 - 2008
Picture courtesy Alex Wong -- Getty Images For "Meet The Press" via Washington Post
Like most of us, I didn't know Tim Russert personally, but he brought an intelligence, insight, honesty and fairness to his profession that will be sorely missed by viewers and newsmakers from across the political spectrum.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Events Calendar
Putting the Republican-bashing on hold for a little while (don't fret, there's more to come - it seems that they're always up to some mischief, doesn't it? LOL)...
Saturday, June 14 - The 2008 Grand Opening of Harry Mitchell's Campaign Headquarters!!
Time - 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Place - 123 E. Baseline Rd. in Tempe (the same complex that the 2006 HQ was in, but in a different office. Follow the balloons and signs. :) )
Join Harry, Marianne, and all of their friends for hot dogs, hamburgers, and refreshments (OK, and probably an invitation to volunteer for the campaign, too :) ).
Contact the campaign at 480.755.3343 for more info (or to volunteer :) ).
Non-campaign note - According to PolitickerAZ, Congressman Mitchell has welcomed Joni McGlothlin to his Congressional staff as Communications Director. Join me in welcoming Ms. McGlothlin to AZ and CD5.
Hope she doesn't melt - the temp is going to hit 110 by Monday. :))
Monday, June 16 - Sustainability Town Hall with Congressman Harry Mitchell
Time: 1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.
Place: ASU's SkySong facility, 1475 N. Scottsdale Rd., Scottsdale (SE corner of Scottsdale and McDowell Rds.
From the AZ Rep article linked above -
Thursday, June 19 - Monthly meeting of the Community Council of South Scottsdale
Just updating the previously annouced guest speaker. According to an email from Sonnie Kirtley, Chair of the Coalition of Greater Scottsdale, Joe Arpaio's appearance has been rescheduled to September. Two candidates for City Council will appear instead.
Sunday, June 22 - The LD8 Democrats and the Arizona Chapter of the NJDC present a candidate open house. Candidates scheduled to attend include Dan Saban, Joel Sinclaire, Gerald Richard, Tim Nelson, Stephanie Rimmer, Betty Drake, Mary Manross, Paige Frenkel (candidate for the SUSD board) and David Schapira.
Time: 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Place: Home of Jerry & Joan Rose, 12572 E. Paradise Dr., Scottsdale.
Contact: call Joan at 480-314-0426, Jerry Gettinger at 480-510-1320 or Ken Lakind at 623-572-9120
Sunday, June 22 - Juneteenth Celebration
Time: 5:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Place: Café Eden, 1401 E. Jefferson (Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church Property), Phoenix, AZ 85043
What: Join hosts Councilman Michael Johnson, Councilman Corey Woods, Councilwoman Marquesha Griffin, and County Attorney Candidate Gerald Richard to celebrate the freedom, education and achievement of African Americans in Arizona with members of the Maricopa County Democratic Party.
Contact: Ruben Gallego at rubenx02@yahoo.com
Later!
Saturday, June 14 - The 2008 Grand Opening of Harry Mitchell's Campaign Headquarters!!
Time - 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Place - 123 E. Baseline Rd. in Tempe (the same complex that the 2006 HQ was in, but in a different office. Follow the balloons and signs. :) )
Join Harry, Marianne, and all of their friends for hot dogs, hamburgers, and refreshments (OK, and probably an invitation to volunteer for the campaign, too :) ).
Contact the campaign at 480.755.3343 for more info (or to volunteer :) ).
Non-campaign note - According to PolitickerAZ, Congressman Mitchell has welcomed Joni McGlothlin to his Congressional staff as Communications Director. Join me in welcoming Ms. McGlothlin to AZ and CD5.
Hope she doesn't melt - the temp is going to hit 110 by Monday. :))
Monday, June 16 - Sustainability Town Hall with Congressman Harry Mitchell
Time: 1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.
Place: ASU's SkySong facility, 1475 N. Scottsdale Rd., Scottsdale (SE corner of Scottsdale and McDowell Rds.
From the AZ Rep article linked above -
Panel members include Sean Seitz, president and co-owner of American Solar Electric, Inc.; Barbara Lockwood, renewable energy manager for Arizona Public Service; Richard Hayslip, manager for environmental, land & risk management for Salt River Project; Barry Broome, president and CEO of Greater Phoenix Economic Council; Jonathan Fink, Julie Ann Wrigley director of ASU's Global Institute of Sustainability.
Thursday, June 19 - Monthly meeting of the Community Council of South Scottsdale
Just updating the previously annouced guest speaker. According to an email from Sonnie Kirtley, Chair of the Coalition of Greater Scottsdale, Joe Arpaio's appearance has been rescheduled to September. Two candidates for City Council will appear instead.
Sunday, June 22 - The LD8 Democrats and the Arizona Chapter of the NJDC present a candidate open house. Candidates scheduled to attend include Dan Saban, Joel Sinclaire, Gerald Richard, Tim Nelson, Stephanie Rimmer, Betty Drake, Mary Manross, Paige Frenkel (candidate for the SUSD board) and David Schapira.
Time: 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Place: Home of Jerry & Joan Rose, 12572 E. Paradise Dr., Scottsdale.
Contact: call Joan at 480-314-0426, Jerry Gettinger at 480-510-1320 or Ken Lakind at 623-572-9120
Sunday, June 22 - Juneteenth Celebration
Time: 5:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Place: Café Eden, 1401 E. Jefferson (Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church Property), Phoenix, AZ 85043
What: Join hosts Councilman Michael Johnson, Councilman Corey Woods, Councilwoman Marquesha Griffin, and County Attorney Candidate Gerald Richard to celebrate the freedom, education and achievement of African Americans in Arizona with members of the Maricopa County Democratic Party.
Contact: Ruben Gallego at rubenx02@yahoo.com
Later!
Republicans try to hold unemployment benefits hostage...
...hostage to increased oil company profits...
In one of the Republicans' most shameless displays of contempt for the average American in recent memory (well, in nearly two years, anyway), House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) actually argued on the House floor that opening up ANWR to oil drilling is more important than helping unemployed Americans. (I'll update with a quote after the Congressional Record of today's debate is posted tomorrow.)
Edit on 9/13 to add the aforementioned quote...
Boehner, from page H5356 of the Congressional Record -
The bill under consideration, H.R. 5749, the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008, would extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks. The bill was heard on Wednesday under suspension of the rules, but failed to garner the 2/3 majority needed for passage. It was brought back today under a rule that would allow it to pass with a simple majority.
Additionally, one of the Reps' biggest objections to the bill is that its benefits are not limited to states with the highest levels of unemployment. The example they cited most frequently was Oklahoma, whose rate stands at 3.2%.
Guess they think that someone who is unemployed in OK is less out of a job than someone who is unemployed in Michigan (6.9%).
Boehner and the Reps frequently cited their desire to help workers in Michigan while decrying the "election year politics" that they said are behind the measure.
Wonder who's playing "election year politics" here - in the race for the presidency, Michigan is considered a battleground state with 17 electoral votes, Oklahoma is safe Republican and only has 7 electoral votes.
In the end, H.R. 5749 passed 274 - 137, with the votes of the Arizona delegation breaking along party lines - Democrats Mitchell, Giffords, Grijalva, and Pastor in favor, Republicans Shadegg, Franks, and Renzi opposed, and Flake absent (bereavement).
Note: The Arizona breakdown for yesterday's vote on the bill was the same - Democrats in favor of extending unemployment benefits, Reps opposed, Flake absent.
Regarding local "election year" political considerations, I can understand why Rick Renzi didn't vote for the bill. He's not running again, so he has no real motive to work for his constituents. I can even understand why Trent Franks didn't vote for it - while he is facing a challenge from respected teacher John Thrasher, he still looks fairly safe in his district, which has a Rep registration advantage of over 60,000.
But why is John Shadegg voting against a bill that even his fellow Republicans think won't get passed in the Senate, much less signed into law by the President? I realize that his ideology is very to him, but a vote for this bill would have given Shadegg a little protections from criticisms that he doesn't care for (or work for) working families, including active and veteran military families, that have been disproportionately impacted by the downturn in the economy.
Of course, with Shadegg safe in his corporate-funded D.C. sinecure, he has no personal economic worries anyway (an illustration of his carefree attitude is available for download; it's an interview for last year's Conservative Leadership Conference (tip o' the hat to The Irregular Times for heads-up on the interview).
As it is, he's given Democratic challenger Bob Lord another opening.
From an email press release -
Bob Lord is a *lot* more tactful than I am - Shadegg is taking his working- and middle-class constituents and throwing them under the proverbial bus.
CNN coverage of the unemployment legislation and vote here.
Other House campaign news -
...Humorous site of the day - AZ5 Primary Watch. This isn't a satire site, though it's so over the top that it sometimes reads like one. Instead, it's an attack "blog" anonymously authored by Laura Knaperek, one of her family members, or one of her supporters.
How do I know it's a Knaperek blog? Well, the only Rep candidates in CD5 that it *hasn't* attacked are Mark Anderson and Laura Knaperek.
I've met them both, and this doesn't really seem like his style.
On the other hand, I've heard her speak in person regarding liberals using the same terminology and rhetorical style that this blog uses toward liberals.
My early prediction: The CD5 Republican primary will be the dirtiest race in the state this year.
Unless Knaperek wins the primary, in which case the CD5 general election will win that dubious award.
Later!
In one of the Republicans' most shameless displays of contempt for the average American in recent memory (well, in nearly two years, anyway), House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) actually argued on the House floor that opening up ANWR to oil drilling is more important than helping unemployed Americans. (I'll update with a quote after the Congressional Record of today's debate is posted tomorrow.)
Edit on 9/13 to add the aforementioned quote...
Boehner, from page H5356 of the Congressional Record -
Why aren't they thinking about the hardworking men and women in America, who go to work every day, they pay taxes, they do tough jobs, they have to give part of their money to us so that we can spend it on behalf of the American people to provide services? We should always remember that it's the hardworking people in America that provide the taxpayer funds that we spend. And our job is to spend those funds in a responsible way, and this is not, in my view, a responsible bill.
{snip}
I think the American people want us to achieve energy independence, and the only way we're going to get there is to do what I call, "all of the above.'' We need to conserve more in America. We need biofuels; we need alternative fuels; we need to get serious about nuclear energy; and we need to produce more oil and gas here in the United States instead of depending on some 70 percent of it coming from foreign sources.
Helping unemployed Americans is "irresponsible" while guaranteeing drilling into (and destroying!) ANWR isn't?
Oh, and how does more oil drilling fit into a discussion of unemployment benefits?
End edit...
Boehner's press release on the legislation is here; his press release on oil drilling (as well as blaming Nancy Pelosi for rising prices at the pump) is here.The bill under consideration, H.R. 5749, the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008, would extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks. The bill was heard on Wednesday under suspension of the rules, but failed to garner the 2/3 majority needed for passage. It was brought back today under a rule that would allow it to pass with a simple majority.
Additionally, one of the Reps' biggest objections to the bill is that its benefits are not limited to states with the highest levels of unemployment. The example they cited most frequently was Oklahoma, whose rate stands at 3.2%.
Guess they think that someone who is unemployed in OK is less out of a job than someone who is unemployed in Michigan (6.9%).
Boehner and the Reps frequently cited their desire to help workers in Michigan while decrying the "election year politics" that they said are behind the measure.
Wonder who's playing "election year politics" here - in the race for the presidency, Michigan is considered a battleground state with 17 electoral votes, Oklahoma is safe Republican and only has 7 electoral votes.
In the end, H.R. 5749 passed 274 - 137, with the votes of the Arizona delegation breaking along party lines - Democrats Mitchell, Giffords, Grijalva, and Pastor in favor, Republicans Shadegg, Franks, and Renzi opposed, and Flake absent (bereavement).
Note: The Arizona breakdown for yesterday's vote on the bill was the same - Democrats in favor of extending unemployment benefits, Reps opposed, Flake absent.
Regarding local "election year" political considerations, I can understand why Rick Renzi didn't vote for the bill. He's not running again, so he has no real motive to work for his constituents. I can even understand why Trent Franks didn't vote for it - while he is facing a challenge from respected teacher John Thrasher, he still looks fairly safe in his district, which has a Rep registration advantage of over 60,000.
But why is John Shadegg voting against a bill that even his fellow Republicans think won't get passed in the Senate, much less signed into law by the President? I realize that his ideology is very to him, but a vote for this bill would have given Shadegg a little protections from criticisms that he doesn't care for (or work for) working families, including active and veteran military families, that have been disproportionately impacted by the downturn in the economy.
Of course, with Shadegg safe in his corporate-funded D.C. sinecure, he has no personal economic worries anyway (an illustration of his carefree attitude is available for download; it's an interview for last year's Conservative Leadership Conference (tip o' the hat to The Irregular Times for heads-up on the interview).
As it is, he's given Democratic challenger Bob Lord another opening.
From an email press release -
"After months of hundreds of thousands of job losses for American workers, it’s unfathomable why my opponent would vote against such important relief legislation for Arizona’s middle class families in such a difficult time for our nation,” Lord said.
Bob Lord is a *lot* more tactful than I am - Shadegg is taking his working- and middle-class constituents and throwing them under the proverbial bus.
CNN coverage of the unemployment legislation and vote here.
Other House campaign news -
...Humorous site of the day - AZ5 Primary Watch. This isn't a satire site, though it's so over the top that it sometimes reads like one. Instead, it's an attack "blog" anonymously authored by Laura Knaperek, one of her family members, or one of her supporters.
How do I know it's a Knaperek blog? Well, the only Rep candidates in CD5 that it *hasn't* attacked are Mark Anderson and Laura Knaperek.
I've met them both, and this doesn't really seem like his style.
On the other hand, I've heard her speak in person regarding liberals using the same terminology and rhetorical style that this blog uses toward liberals.
My early prediction: The CD5 Republican primary will be the dirtiest race in the state this year.
Unless Knaperek wins the primary, in which case the CD5 general election will win that dubious award.
Later!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)