Time for the second of this year's "mail call" posts, and this one is a big one - the primary ballot is here.
While exciting for political geeks, the ballot itself is actually a bit of a disappointment - the Democratic ballot in the LD17 section of Scottsdale contains as many "no candidate races" as it does actual primary contests.
There are four contests - Corporation Commission, Maricopa County Attorney, Mayor of Scottsdale, and Scottsdale City Council (those last two are non-partisan races - they're on all ballots in Scottsdale.)
Uncontested by Democratic candidates are the offices of Maricopa County Recorder, Assessor, School Superintendent, and Treasurer.
Those seats haven't been contested by Democrats since before 2000, the earliest I could find results for on the Maricopa County Recorder's website.
Now, these offices aren't exactly the highest profile offices. I can only name the holder of one of them - Helen Purcell, the County Recorder.
And that's only because, political geek that I am :) , I spend so much time on her office's website.
As for the rest of them, they're notable mostly when they do something that they shouldn't.
Having said that, in spite of the relative anonymity of the jobs, it's still disappointing that no challengers could be found (hey! To anyone who is considering a run for office, you might want to consider this - state legislators earn $24K per year; the four county officer positions mentioned in this post earn over $67K per year. Just something to think about...)
Anyway, I'll mull over the choices on the primary ballot (the County Attorney and Scottsdale City Council races are especially tough) and fill out and return my ballot in the next week or so.
This post does provide a good excuse to list the contact info for the various Democratic candidates on ballots in Scottsdale, Tempe, and west Mesa (all info courtesy the candidates' websites or their AZ Rep questionnaires) -
Congressman Harry Mitchell (CD5)
http://www.harry2008.com/
123 East Baseline Road (SE corner of Mill and Baseline)
Suite D-102
Tempe
480-755-3343
info@harry2008.com
Representative David Schapira (LD17)
480-626-8100
http://www.davidforaz.com/ds/index.htm
info@davidforaz.com
Representative Ed Ableser (LD17)
http://www.edableser.com/
1-877-868-3392
info@edableser.com
Ed Hermes, candidate for SD1 County Supervisor
http://www.edhermes.com/Home.html
7305 W. Boston
Chandler
480-626-8100
Joel Sinclaire, candidate for SD2 County Supervisor
25249 North Ranch Gate Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
(602) 821-3800
Joel@ElectSinclaire.com
ElectSinclaire.com
Stephanie Rimmer, candidate for State Representative (LD8)
http://www.stephanierimmer.com/
stephanie@stephanierimmer.com
602.432.2486
Judah Nativio, candidate for State Senator (LD18)
http://www.electnativio.com/
3440 East Southern Ave. #1109
Mesa AZ 85204 480-861-2160
judah@electnativio.com
Tammie Pursley, candidate for State Representative (LD18)
http://www.pursleyforchange.com/08/
(602) 373-1707
1544 N. 1st Place
Mesa, AZ 85201
Dan Saban, candidate for County Sheriff
602-390-3136
http://www.sabanforsheriff.com/2008
info@sabanforsheriff.com
Gerald Richard, candidate for County Attorney
4003 E. Agave Rd.
Phoenix, Arizona 85044
602-513-2743
http://richardforcountyattorney.com/
info@richardforcountyattorney.com
Tim Nelson, candidate for County Attorney
4340 East Indian School Road
Suite 21-119
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 672-2938
http://www.timnelson2008.com/
info@richardforcountyattorney.com
For more information on candidates for statewide office or in other LDs, visit the AZ Dems' website.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Friday, August 01, 2008
John Shadegg - Master Of The Misapplied Metaphor
Ahhh...the greatest joy of even-numbered years - the ill-thought out campaign press release just begging to be shredded by wiseass bloggers like me (even though in this case, it's an 'official' press release)...
As mentioned in the post immediately prior to this one, John Shadegg (R - Calgon Take Me Away) and many of his cronies in the Republican caucus took to the floor of the House to protest the House's adjournment for its summer district work period (oh, and you may have heard of the two shindigs taking place in Denver and Minneapolis :) ) before voting to allow offshore oil drilling near the American coastline. (Washington Post coverage here)
Two of the main doubts that Democrats (and most people in the country) have related to offshore drilling is the great risks that it poses for the fragile ecosystems along America. The damage resulting from the inevitable leaks and spills could be devastating, and in spite of industry claims about the safety of modern drilling equipment, even existing offshore drilling efforts result in thousands of gallons of oil spills every yearl
And that doesn't even count the water and air pollution that results from the 'normal' operations of offshore drilling rigs. (Sierra Club)
After that bit of background, on to the "misapplied metaphor" part of the post...
Shadegg's press release on the events on the House floor is titled "Shadegg’s Boston Tea Party for American-Made Energy" and contains the following quote -
Perhaps one of Congressman Shadegg's friends or advisors could remind him of a little of the relevant history of The Boston Tea Party - in 1773, a group of 50 or so activists (Sons of Liberty) dressed up as Mohawk Indians, strolled down to Boston Harbor, and dumped tons of British tea into Boston Harbor.
Given that one of the biggest concerns with oil drilling is the likely contamination of coastal waters and beaches, perhaps the use of a historical analogy where the substance at issue was dumped into coastal waters may have been ill-advised.
To add more context to the misapplication - the Boston Tea Party was organized to protest the higher prices for tea charged by the East India Tea Company. Those prices had nearly as great an impact on American life then as do the high prices of oil charged by petroleum companies today, the same petroleum companies that Shadegg and his friends have been working to protect.
Oh, and to complete the Shadegg's metaphorical misapplication - oil is nicknamed "Texas Tea."
Nope, definitely *not* the best analogy there, John.
BTW - many bloggers have written about Friday's events (mostly conservatives crowing about it all), but Airbare8 at rochesterturning.com in NY had the most apt description of Shadegg and his cronies to be found anywhere -
He called them "The Floundering Fathers."
God, I wish I'd thought of that one. :))
Later!
As mentioned in the post immediately prior to this one, John Shadegg (R - Calgon Take Me Away) and many of his cronies in the Republican caucus took to the floor of the House to protest the House's adjournment for its summer district work period (oh, and you may have heard of the two shindigs taking place in Denver and Minneapolis :) ) before voting to allow offshore oil drilling near the American coastline. (Washington Post coverage here)
Two of the main doubts that Democrats (and most people in the country) have related to offshore drilling is the great risks that it poses for the fragile ecosystems along America. The damage resulting from the inevitable leaks and spills could be devastating, and in spite of industry claims about the safety of modern drilling equipment, even existing offshore drilling efforts result in thousands of gallons of oil spills every yearl
And that doesn't even count the water and air pollution that results from the 'normal' operations of offshore drilling rigs. (Sierra Club)
After that bit of background, on to the "misapplied metaphor" part of the post...
Shadegg's press release on the events on the House floor is titled "Shadegg’s Boston Tea Party for American-Made Energy" and contains the following quote -
“Ladies and gentleman, all of you who are here in the House Chamber today, listening to us speak without the TV cameras on, and without the microphones on, are watching history. How many of you remember the Boston Tea Party? This is the Boston Tea Party!"
Perhaps one of Congressman Shadegg's friends or advisors could remind him of a little of the relevant history of The Boston Tea Party - in 1773, a group of 50 or so activists (Sons of Liberty) dressed up as Mohawk Indians, strolled down to Boston Harbor, and dumped tons of British tea into Boston Harbor.
Given that one of the biggest concerns with oil drilling is the likely contamination of coastal waters and beaches, perhaps the use of a historical analogy where the substance at issue was dumped into coastal waters may have been ill-advised.
To add more context to the misapplication - the Boston Tea Party was organized to protest the higher prices for tea charged by the East India Tea Company. Those prices had nearly as great an impact on American life then as do the high prices of oil charged by petroleum companies today, the same petroleum companies that Shadegg and his friends have been working to protect.
Oh, and to complete the Shadegg's metaphorical misapplication - oil is nicknamed "Texas Tea."
Nope, definitely *not* the best analogy there, John.
BTW - many bloggers have written about Friday's events (mostly conservatives crowing about it all), but Airbare8 at rochesterturning.com in NY had the most apt description of Shadegg and his cronies to be found anywhere -
He called them "The Floundering Fathers."
God, I wish I'd thought of that one. :))
Later!
Congressional Republicans are working for Big Oil
...at least they aren't hiding it anymore. That's a good thing, right?
After the House adjourned for its summer work period (reconvening on September 8 after both Presidential conventions), a number of House Republicans took to the House floor to protest the fact that the Democrats hadn't passed any measures allowing oil drilling offshore or in ANWR, moves that aren't guaranteed to reduce energy prices for Americans, but would be certain to enhance the already record-level profits of Big Oil.
CBSNews.com has coverage here, and in a moment of moral weakness (referred to as "honesty" by normal folks), they posted a banner above the story of the Republicans' faux indignation. That banner told the real story of the day's events.
It read simply - "Presented by ExxonMobil". See pic below.
After the House adjourned for its summer work period (reconvening on September 8 after both Presidential conventions), a number of House Republicans took to the House floor to protest the fact that the Democrats hadn't passed any measures allowing oil drilling offshore or in ANWR, moves that aren't guaranteed to reduce energy prices for Americans, but would be certain to enhance the already record-level profits of Big Oil.
CBSNews.com has coverage here, and in a moment of moral weakness (referred to as "honesty" by normal folks), they posted a banner above the story of the Republicans' faux indignation. That banner told the real story of the day's events.
It read simply - "Presented by ExxonMobil". See pic below.
The honesty epidemic spread all the way down to individual Congresscritters, such as AZ's own John Shadegg (R - Calgon take me away). Shadegg was quoted in the article -
"I love this," Shadegg told reporters up in the press gallery afterward. "Congress can be so boring. ... This is a kick."In essence, Shadegg finally admitted openly that sitting in a darkened room with only other extremist Republicans to talk to is more interesting to him than doing the job he was hired for - representing the residents of Arizona's Third Congressional District in Congress.
If Shadegg decides to get serious about retaining his seat (more likely, if one of his "financial supporters" tugs on the leash to get his attention), he's going to spend the next five weeks trying to take back the gifts that he's been handing to the Bob Lord campaign.
Later...
Those Republicans, working to protect America from those darn lawyers*
*well, except for the lawyers who are working for the Republicans as they try to undermine the Constitution...
On Thursday, the House passed H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill passed on a nearly-party line vote of 247 - 178. Every Democrat present supported the bill, as did 14 Republicans.
It should be noted that all four Democratic members of AZ's delegation - Gabrielle Giffords, Harry Mitchell, Raul Grijalva, and Ed Pastor - were present and voted in favor of he bill, and all four Republican members of AZ's delegation - Rick Renzi, John Shadegg, Trent Franks, and Jeff Flake - were present and voted in opposition to the bill.
As predicted last week, the Republicans, led by Buck McKeon (R - CA), trotted out the straw man of "oil drilling" and the boogeyman of "trial lawyers" as their rationalizations for opposing the bill.
"Trial lawyers" was the big club during the floor debate, though when the bill went through the House Rules Committee on Wednesday, the Reps proposed seven amendments related to energy (most were to open protected federal lands to oil drilling), however, none of those were made in order by the Committee (that darn 'relevancy' requirement! :) ).
On the floor, however, they kept stressing the point that while of course they opposed pay discrimination against women in the workforce, they had to oppose this bill because it "lines the pockets of the trial lawyers".
Funny, but while they objected to the enforcement provisions in the bill (i.e. - lawsuits), they couldn't be bothered to propose an alternative enforcement scheme; they just wanted to kill the bill (that darn 'protect big business at all costs' plank of the Republican Party platform! :) ).
Their anti-trial lawyer screeds might have had more credibility if they had proposed added gender-based pay discrimination to the list of predicate acts under Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 96 of the U.S. Code.
For those of you who aren't Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona, that section of federal law contains the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Just ignore the sound of popping blood vessels coming from the corporate types and their myriad lobbyists and water carriers on Capitol Hill (that darn 'forfeiture of assets' provision :)) ).
OK, OK, so I know that would never happen, even though it would certainly be appropriate in some of the more egregious cases. However, the point is a simple one, and it is a valid one.
The Republicans, who proclaimed very piously their support for equal pay for equal work and for laws guaranteeing such, gave lie to their protestations by working to ensure that current equal pay laws border on unenforceable.
It seems that the "law and order" Republicans only favor enforcing the laws of the land only against poor people and immigrants, not against corporate bigwigs.
Anyway, a press release on this subject from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi can be found here; a release from Republican leader John Boehner is here. President George Bush has threatened to veto the bill, though anything can happen during an election year.
The best news for an Arizona Republican, related to this bill, is that Jeff Flake finally had one of his "anti-earmark" amendments pass (by voice vote, of all things).
The addition of that provision didn't stop him from voting against the underlying bill though.
Anyway, have a good night...
On Thursday, the House passed H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill passed on a nearly-party line vote of 247 - 178. Every Democrat present supported the bill, as did 14 Republicans.
It should be noted that all four Democratic members of AZ's delegation - Gabrielle Giffords, Harry Mitchell, Raul Grijalva, and Ed Pastor - were present and voted in favor of he bill, and all four Republican members of AZ's delegation - Rick Renzi, John Shadegg, Trent Franks, and Jeff Flake - were present and voted in opposition to the bill.
As predicted last week, the Republicans, led by Buck McKeon (R - CA), trotted out the straw man of "oil drilling" and the boogeyman of "trial lawyers" as their rationalizations for opposing the bill.
"Trial lawyers" was the big club during the floor debate, though when the bill went through the House Rules Committee on Wednesday, the Reps proposed seven amendments related to energy (most were to open protected federal lands to oil drilling), however, none of those were made in order by the Committee (that darn 'relevancy' requirement! :) ).
On the floor, however, they kept stressing the point that while of course they opposed pay discrimination against women in the workforce, they had to oppose this bill because it "lines the pockets of the trial lawyers".
Funny, but while they objected to the enforcement provisions in the bill (i.e. - lawsuits), they couldn't be bothered to propose an alternative enforcement scheme; they just wanted to kill the bill (that darn 'protect big business at all costs' plank of the Republican Party platform! :) ).
Their anti-trial lawyer screeds might have had more credibility if they had proposed added gender-based pay discrimination to the list of predicate acts under Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 96 of the U.S. Code.
For those of you who aren't Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona, that section of federal law contains the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Just ignore the sound of popping blood vessels coming from the corporate types and their myriad lobbyists and water carriers on Capitol Hill (that darn 'forfeiture of assets' provision :)) ).
OK, OK, so I know that would never happen, even though it would certainly be appropriate in some of the more egregious cases. However, the point is a simple one, and it is a valid one.
The Republicans, who proclaimed very piously their support for equal pay for equal work and for laws guaranteeing such, gave lie to their protestations by working to ensure that current equal pay laws border on unenforceable.
It seems that the "law and order" Republicans only favor enforcing the laws of the land only against poor people and immigrants, not against corporate bigwigs.
Anyway, a press release on this subject from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi can be found here; a release from Republican leader John Boehner is here. President George Bush has threatened to veto the bill, though anything can happen during an election year.
The best news for an Arizona Republican, related to this bill, is that Jeff Flake finally had one of his "anti-earmark" amendments pass (by voice vote, of all things).
The addition of that provision didn't stop him from voting against the underlying bill though.
Anyway, have a good night...
Thursday, July 31, 2008
John Washington, candidate for mayor of Scottsdale, withdraws from race
Community activist John Washington has announced that he is ending his write-in candidacy for the office of Mayor of Scottsdale.
From his press release -
I'll concede that this isn't much of a surprise as he didn't have a snowball's chance of winning, but as an observer/writer, I'm going to miss his presence in the race. He changed the dynamic of the race and could have forced it to go to a November run-off election.
With his withdrawal, the two remaining candidates, incumbent Mayor Mary Manross and Councilman Jim Lane, will only have to plan their campaign expenditures for a sprint to September 2 rather than a possible marathon to November.
BTW - that sprint starts tomorrow when mail ballots for the September election go out.
BTW2 - It's interesting, but also not much of a surprise, that Mr. Washington didn't endorse either of the other two candidates. He entered the race in the first place because he isn't particularly impressed with either one.
Look for him to stay active in Scottsdale community goings-on, with an eye toward a run for Council in two years (no inside info there, just a guess on my part. :) )
From his press release -
It is with great respect and appreciation for my supporters and our citizens of Scottsdale that I hereby withdraw from the September 2, 2008 General Election race for Mayor.
My goal in running for mayor was to drive a higher level of conversation about the issues that are important to the citizens of Scottsdale. I am pleased the other candidates have embraced these issues, among them:
· Openness and honesty in creating public policy.
· Respect for, and value of citizen input.
· Financial responsibility, and good stewardship of taxpayers’ money.
· Traffic, growth, building height, population density.
· Value of Scottsdale’s history, identity, and community character.
· The importance of Scottsdale’s character to tourism and to our quality of life.
These issues have also become central themes during Council candidate forums and discussions. Our citizens have applauded these discussions with renewed interest in their government. I am proud to have accomplished this important goal. I also realize, though, that important work lies ahead during the last weeks before the election.
Our citizens better understand the issues facing the next Council. However, there are many Council candidates, and few opportunities for one-on-one conversation with them. Therefore, I want to focus my energy on expanding dialogue between the candidates and our citizens, encouraging our citizens to vote, and encouraging them to vote based on candidates’ track records rather than on campaign promises.
I am pleased to endorse Tom Giller (www.TomGiller.com) and Nan Nesvig(www.NanNesvig.com) for Scottsdale City Council. Tom and Nan have stood alongside our citizens, defending our neighborhoods and our quality of life. Through their efforts and personal sacrifice they have demonstrated their passion for, and their commitment to Scottsdale and her residents. I look forward to working with Tom and Nan during the next four years.
I encourage you to get to know Tom and Nan, and to give them your support and your vote on September 2. As I have learned, it is a lot of work for a candidate to get his or her message out to our citizens to help them make informed decisions. Please help Tom and Nan get on Council so they can look after our interests.
Your questions are welcome, and I will maintain www.ScottsdaleCitizen.com as a portal for information on the election.
Thank you for your support!
John Washington
480.229.1831
john[at]ReactionResearch.com
I'll concede that this isn't much of a surprise as he didn't have a snowball's chance of winning, but as an observer/writer, I'm going to miss his presence in the race. He changed the dynamic of the race and could have forced it to go to a November run-off election.
With his withdrawal, the two remaining candidates, incumbent Mayor Mary Manross and Councilman Jim Lane, will only have to plan their campaign expenditures for a sprint to September 2 rather than a possible marathon to November.
BTW - that sprint starts tomorrow when mail ballots for the September election go out.
BTW2 - It's interesting, but also not much of a surprise, that Mr. Washington didn't endorse either of the other two candidates. He entered the race in the first place because he isn't particularly impressed with either one.
Look for him to stay active in Scottsdale community goings-on, with an eye toward a run for Council in two years (no inside info there, just a guess on my part. :) )
John Shadegg - apparently already checked out
As if his retire/unretire two-step in February didn't make it clear to the voters of CD3 that he's no longer interested in working for them, John Shadegg took the opportunity in a Wednesday interview with PolitickerAZ to reinforce the point.
From the interview -
Shadegg has spent most of the year mailing it in, even when he has been in D.C. *working* for his constituents (some examples here, here, here, and here).
More evidence of this? During the current session of Congress, the 110th, records show that he has spoken on the floor of the House or has submitted statements for the record 58 times - 50 times in 2007, and only eight since his flirtation with retirement in February. By contrast, Harry Mitchell, an icon in Arizona but only another freshman in D.C. is on the record 104 times since January 2007, 51 of which happened this year. For the most part, first-termers from both parties are expected to be seen and not heard, so that total number (104) isn't particularly high or low.
For those of you who are among the math-challenged, that means that 53 of the entries took place last year. :)
All of which shows that by that measure, Mitchell and Shadegg were approximately equally active last year; however, since Shadegg moved to hang it up, he's less than 1/6 as active as Mitchell.
In other words, when Shadegg tried to walk away, he should have kept going - it would have been better for his constituents in CD3 (not that he cares about them) and it would have looked better for him when he starts running for another office (which probably *is* something that he cares about.)
Ya know, maybe he should just withdraw now to give the Republicans in CD3 a chance to run a write-in candidate. Otherwise, he's just ceding the district to his Democratic challenger, Bob Lord.
From the interview -
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. John Shadegg (R-Phoenix) is making no bones about it: He has his eye on John McCain’s U.S. Senate seat.
“I see my friends in the Senate deeply engaged in fights where even in the minority you matter,” said Shadegg, who won a seat in Congress in the GOP’s 1994 rout but has since seen his party lose its majority. “Yeah, I could find that very interesting, very appealing.”
Asked point-blank if he would take McCain’s current position if given the opportunity, Shadegg responded: “Yes.”
Shadegg has spent most of the year mailing it in, even when he has been in D.C. *working* for his constituents (some examples here, here, here, and here).
More evidence of this? During the current session of Congress, the 110th, records show that he has spoken on the floor of the House or has submitted statements for the record 58 times - 50 times in 2007, and only eight since his flirtation with retirement in February. By contrast, Harry Mitchell, an icon in Arizona but only another freshman in D.C. is on the record 104 times since January 2007, 51 of which happened this year. For the most part, first-termers from both parties are expected to be seen and not heard, so that total number (104) isn't particularly high or low.
For those of you who are among the math-challenged, that means that 53 of the entries took place last year. :)
All of which shows that by that measure, Mitchell and Shadegg were approximately equally active last year; however, since Shadegg moved to hang it up, he's less than 1/6 as active as Mitchell.
In other words, when Shadegg tried to walk away, he should have kept going - it would have been better for his constituents in CD3 (not that he cares about them) and it would have looked better for him when he starts running for another office (which probably *is* something that he cares about.)
Ya know, maybe he should just withdraw now to give the Republicans in CD3 a chance to run a write-in candidate. Otherwise, he's just ceding the district to his Democratic challenger, Bob Lord.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Mail Call
The first "mail call" post of the 2008 election season will be a brief one.
Official candidate publicity pamplets are starting to reach voters across the state.
...The first to hit mailboxes in Scottsdale was the City of Scottsdale's candidate information pamphlet (.pdf available here). That one showed up late last week, and it's pretty straightforward.
...Reaching town today was the Clean Elections Commission's "2008 Statewide & Legislative Candidate Statements - Primary Election" brochure (.pdf available here).
That one was a little more interesting. Where the Scottsdale candidates used their statements as a platform for a "why you should vote for me" message, Mark Thompson, one of the Republican challengers, spent most of his statement attacking the Democratic incumbents, David Schapira and Ed Ableser. He criticized them for being young (no children or grandchildren), for being teachers (not business owners) and for, of all the crazy things for a Republican to criticize someone over, for being too fiscally responsible.
From his statement -
Of course, Thompson may only be worried about Democratic measures to balance a budget, something that George Bush and his fellow Republicans obviously don't worry about. Thompson gives Republicans a free pass for creating the deficits both state and federal in the first place, with their tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
Another curious aspect of the statements of Thompson and Wes Waddle, the other Republican running in the district, is that neither one mentions Tempe, Scottsdale, or LD17 in the statement.
You know, the place that they allegedly want to represent.
Both Schapira and Ableser, as well as the incumbent State Senator Meg Burton Cahill (D), did write about their efforts in representing the district down at the state lege.
Her challenger, Republican Jesse Hernandez, didn't make the same omission in his statement.
Of course, that's only because he didn't submit any statement at all.
Later!
Official candidate publicity pamplets are starting to reach voters across the state.
...The first to hit mailboxes in Scottsdale was the City of Scottsdale's candidate information pamphlet (.pdf available here). That one showed up late last week, and it's pretty straightforward.
...Reaching town today was the Clean Elections Commission's "2008 Statewide & Legislative Candidate Statements - Primary Election" brochure (.pdf available here).
That one was a little more interesting. Where the Scottsdale candidates used their statements as a platform for a "why you should vote for me" message, Mark Thompson, one of the Republican challengers, spent most of his statement attacking the Democratic incumbents, David Schapira and Ed Ableser. He criticized them for being young (no children or grandchildren), for being teachers (not business owners) and for, of all the crazy things for a Republican to criticize someone over, for being too fiscally responsible.
From his statement -
"Government should not be allowed to indebt future generations to avoid being responsible and accountable today."
Of course, Thompson may only be worried about Democratic measures to balance a budget, something that George Bush and his fellow Republicans obviously don't worry about. Thompson gives Republicans a free pass for creating the deficits both state and federal in the first place, with their tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
Another curious aspect of the statements of Thompson and Wes Waddle, the other Republican running in the district, is that neither one mentions Tempe, Scottsdale, or LD17 in the statement.
You know, the place that they allegedly want to represent.
Both Schapira and Ableser, as well as the incumbent State Senator Meg Burton Cahill (D), did write about their efforts in representing the district down at the state lege.
Her challenger, Republican Jesse Hernandez, didn't make the same omission in his statement.
Of course, that's only because he didn't submit any statement at all.
Later!
Mark Anderson - short on campaign $ or victim of dirty trick?
I wish I'd had a camera with me, but didn't, so I can't post a pic (but hope that someone else does), but today I passed a couple of yard sign-sized signs for Mark Anderson. I'm not sure if they were old signs, but all they had on them was his name ("Mark Anderson" of course), his party ("Republican") and his website ("markandersonaz.com".)
Nothing else, like one important detail - the office that he's running for (U.S. Congress, for those of you reading this from some place not named Arizona.)
BTW - "markandersonaz.com"?? That comes back as a dead website.
I didn't recognize that site; I thought Anderson's campaign site was "letsmakecongressbetter.com" or something like that.
Well, that didn't take long to check, and it turns out that his current campaign site *is* www.letsmakecongressbetter.com.
It didn't take long to check out the website on the sign, either. Turns out that "markandersonaz.com" is his old campaign site from the 2001 - 2006 era.
Hmmmm....either someone found some of Anderson's old signs and decided to "help" him out by putting them up with a bad website on them, or the Anderson campaign is short on cash and it trying to stretch its available resources.
Given that his most recent campaign finance report showed that his cash on hand was at less than $70K (PDF of the report at the link), I'm leaning toward "stretching resources".
Even if he makes it through the Republican primary (which admittedly doesn't look very likely at this point), he may not have the resources for the general election campaign against Harry Mitchell.
Later...
Nothing else, like one important detail - the office that he's running for (U.S. Congress, for those of you reading this from some place not named Arizona.)
BTW - "markandersonaz.com"?? That comes back as a dead website.
I didn't recognize that site; I thought Anderson's campaign site was "letsmakecongressbetter.com" or something like that.
Well, that didn't take long to check, and it turns out that his current campaign site *is* www.letsmakecongressbetter.com.
It didn't take long to check out the website on the sign, either. Turns out that "markandersonaz.com" is his old campaign site from the 2001 - 2006 era.
Hmmmm....either someone found some of Anderson's old signs and decided to "help" him out by putting them up with a bad website on them, or the Anderson campaign is short on cash and it trying to stretch its available resources.
Given that his most recent campaign finance report showed that his cash on hand was at less than $70K (PDF of the report at the link), I'm leaning toward "stretching resources".
Even if he makes it through the Republican primary (which admittedly doesn't look very likely at this point), he may not have the resources for the general election campaign against Harry Mitchell.
Later...
House Republicans -showing their true colors...yet again.
Here I was, preparing to do a post on the indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens (R - the 'Internet is tubes' guy) for failing to disclose services he received from a company that benefitted from legislation that he championed. It wasn't going to be much, just a little wiseass-ery to tide us over until tonight's debate between Gerald Richard and Tim Nelson, the Democratic candidates for Maricopa County Attorney.
Note: that debate will be held at Central High School, 4525 N. Central Ave, Phoenix at 7 p.m.
Then I happened to surf by C-SPAN, which was airing the House's debate on H. Res. 194, a measure "apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans".
The resolution is sponsored by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) and was brought to the floor by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).
The Republicans didn't openly oppose the measure (they wouldn't dare during an election year), but they expressed their contempt for it and for slaves and their descendants by sending one of their favorite nativist pit bulls, Steve King of Iowa, to lead their "support" of it.
He spoke at length on the resolution, but rarely talking about the abominable part of America's history that was slavery. However, he did use his time to bring up many topics that were tangentially related (or at least could be made to seem related, perhaps by using a rhetorical shoe horn, hammer, and can of WD-40). He likened post-civil war tribunals targeting KKK members (King even referred to them as "terrorists") to military tribunals for terrorist 'suspects' held by the Bush Administration. He went on to complain that 4th Amendment considerations (aka - habeas corpus) destroyed the effectiveness of the post-Civil War tribunals and that such considerations will do the same to modern military tribunals.
King also used his time -
- to express support for the anti-affirmative action referendums pushed by Ward Connerly and supported wholeheartedly by John McCain;
- to object to the use of the term "African Americans" in the bill because that term might apply to modern immigrants from Africa who never had an ancestor who was a slave in the United States;
- to talk about the Bible carried by his 5-times great uncle who fought during the Civil War (no indication as to which side he fought for);
- to tell a perhaps apocryphal story about Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation that highlight his (King's) support for a President that goes his own way without regard to the opinions of others (or, by extension, the rules or laws that even apply to others). King even admitted on the floor that the story might be an "urban legend";
- to generally blather on about many topics that weren't slavery in America.
One thing he didn't do? He didn't bother, as is traditionally done in the House, to ask his colleagues to vote for the bill, even though he spoke in "support" of the resolution.
Passage of the bill will be considered by a roll call vote later this evening.
Edit1 - The House passed H.Res. 194 by voice vote at 6:40 p.m. EDT.
Rep. King didn't limit his racial dismissiveness to just this one measure - he had plenty dismissiveness left when the House debated H. Res. 1357, commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Civil Liberties Act that apologized for the blanket internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
His prime quotes in 'support' of the commemoration (and the original act)?
He said that when FDR ordered the internments, he "had the best interests of America in mind" and that he was "worried about lost intelligence," harkening, perhaps, to a certain current President and his habit of ordering the detentions of "terrorism suspects" and "intelligence sources."
That resolution will also be voted on later today.
I've written about King before (here, too), and nothing has changed - he's still a stone bigot who represents an extreme faction of his party at the expense of his constuents, state, and country.
The best part of it all? King (and his local Republican analogues, Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) and Jack Harper (R-"Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules") is a *typical* Republican.
You know, my first instinct was to title this post "Steve King (R-IA): Always a reliable source for subject material." He *is* a reliable source for material, but I decided that didn't really express the actual issue here - the average Republican elected official's disdain for anybody who isn't rich, white, and a fundamentalist Christian.
When the Congressional Record posts today's debate, I'll update this post with a link to it.
Edit on 7/31 - the link to the Congressional Record's documentation of the debate is here.
End edit...
Anyway, hope to see you at tonight's debate...
Note: that debate will be held at Central High School, 4525 N. Central Ave, Phoenix at 7 p.m.
Then I happened to surf by C-SPAN, which was airing the House's debate on H. Res. 194, a measure "apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans".
The resolution is sponsored by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) and was brought to the floor by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).
The Republicans didn't openly oppose the measure (they wouldn't dare during an election year), but they expressed their contempt for it and for slaves and their descendants by sending one of their favorite nativist pit bulls, Steve King of Iowa, to lead their "support" of it.
He spoke at length on the resolution, but rarely talking about the abominable part of America's history that was slavery. However, he did use his time to bring up many topics that were tangentially related (or at least could be made to seem related, perhaps by using a rhetorical shoe horn, hammer, and can of WD-40). He likened post-civil war tribunals targeting KKK members (King even referred to them as "terrorists") to military tribunals for terrorist 'suspects' held by the Bush Administration. He went on to complain that 4th Amendment considerations (aka - habeas corpus) destroyed the effectiveness of the post-Civil War tribunals and that such considerations will do the same to modern military tribunals.
King also used his time -
- to express support for the anti-affirmative action referendums pushed by Ward Connerly and supported wholeheartedly by John McCain;
- to object to the use of the term "African Americans" in the bill because that term might apply to modern immigrants from Africa who never had an ancestor who was a slave in the United States;
- to talk about the Bible carried by his 5-times great uncle who fought during the Civil War (no indication as to which side he fought for);
- to tell a perhaps apocryphal story about Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation that highlight his (King's) support for a President that goes his own way without regard to the opinions of others (or, by extension, the rules or laws that even apply to others). King even admitted on the floor that the story might be an "urban legend";
- to generally blather on about many topics that weren't slavery in America.
One thing he didn't do? He didn't bother, as is traditionally done in the House, to ask his colleagues to vote for the bill, even though he spoke in "support" of the resolution.
Passage of the bill will be considered by a roll call vote later this evening.
Edit1 - The House passed H.Res. 194 by voice vote at 6:40 p.m. EDT.
Rep. King didn't limit his racial dismissiveness to just this one measure - he had plenty dismissiveness left when the House debated H. Res. 1357, commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Civil Liberties Act that apologized for the blanket internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
His prime quotes in 'support' of the commemoration (and the original act)?
He said that when FDR ordered the internments, he "had the best interests of America in mind" and that he was "worried about lost intelligence," harkening, perhaps, to a certain current President and his habit of ordering the detentions of "terrorism suspects" and "intelligence sources."
That resolution will also be voted on later today.
I've written about King before (here, too), and nothing has changed - he's still a stone bigot who represents an extreme faction of his party at the expense of his constuents, state, and country.
The best part of it all? King (and his local Republican analogues, Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) and Jack Harper (R-"Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules") is a *typical* Republican.
You know, my first instinct was to title this post "Steve King (R-IA): Always a reliable source for subject material." He *is* a reliable source for material, but I decided that didn't really express the actual issue here - the average Republican elected official's disdain for anybody who isn't rich, white, and a fundamentalist Christian.
When the Congressional Record posts today's debate, I'll update this post with a link to it.
Edit on 7/31 - the link to the Congressional Record's documentation of the debate is here.
End edit...
Anyway, hope to see you at tonight's debate...
Monday, July 28, 2008
Time for some counter-posting
I don't normally do this, but the denizens of AZ's Republican blogosphere went a little goofy on the AZ Republic yesterday, mostly keying on the Sunday edition's Political Insider column.
And for once, most of the criticism was unfair to the Republic.
...Over at Seeing Red AZ, they complained that the Insider column falsely described former state GOP communications director Tony Reinhard as currently "leading the Maricopa County GOP."
They complained that the writers of the Insider column had "waged an ink-driven coup, removing Maricopa County Chairman Tom Husband from his leadership position."
In their righteous indignation, they forgot one minor detail - Reinhard became *executive director* of the Maricopa County Republican Party in early June.
An "ED" job title sounds like "leader" to most people, folks.
...Over at Sonoran Alliance, they called the column a "cheap shot" at State Sen. Jack Harper (R - Surprise!) and gave Harper a forum to respond. In that response, Harper asserted that he was misquoted in the column where the authors wrote "Why don't you come visit me?" Harper crooned any time he saw a member of The Republic's Capitol Bureau. "Do I have to do something crazy again?" "
What Harper claims that have said to Amanda Crawford, allegedly for the sole purpose of making polite conversation, was that he and the other Senators [his EMPHASIS] "missed her in the Senate and she only seems to come over when “SOMETHING crazy” happens."
Ummm...ignoring for the moment Harper's wanton violations of Senate rules and decorum to railroad through a same-sex marriage ban referendum that earned him the ethics complaint that further earned him the mention in this week's Insider column, there are still these factors to consider -
- Harper's involvement in a scheme to shield Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas from professional sanctions for any of his unethical actions in office;
- Harper's use in May of high-handed tactics to suppress debate on the Senate floor to kill a certain-to-pass anti-texting-while-driving bill from State Rep. Steve Farley (tactics similar to those used during the consideration of the same-sex marriage ban; guess he was just warming up for the main event a month later :) );
...His bill to open up Arizona's presidential primaries to...Republicans. Under his failed plan, Republicans could have voted in any primary they chose; members of other parties could have only voted in their own primaries;
...His "guns in restaurants" bill;
...His refusal to hold a confirmation hearing to confirm Gen. David Rataczak as commander of the Arizona National Guard because he was miffed that Governor Janet Napolitano hadn't deployed more troops to the state's border with Mexico;
...His continuing efforts to blame U.S. Congressman Harry Mitchell for the substandard conditions at the *AZ* veterans' home (here and here);
...His proposal to limit citizen-based ballot initiatives to those first considered by the legislature;
...I could go on all night posting dozens more citations like this, but I have to work in the morning, so here's the point -
Harper's response has no credibility because he is one of the major sources of crazy at the legislature in general and in the Senate in particular.
He doesn't add to his credibility by responding to a perceived slight, and Sonoran Alliance didn't do him any favors by giving him an outlet for his whining about Amanda Crawford and the Republic.
Later!
And for once, most of the criticism was unfair to the Republic.
...Over at Seeing Red AZ, they complained that the Insider column falsely described former state GOP communications director Tony Reinhard as currently "leading the Maricopa County GOP."
They complained that the writers of the Insider column had "waged an ink-driven coup, removing Maricopa County Chairman Tom Husband from his leadership position."
In their righteous indignation, they forgot one minor detail - Reinhard became *executive director* of the Maricopa County Republican Party in early June.
An "ED" job title sounds like "leader" to most people, folks.
...Over at Sonoran Alliance, they called the column a "cheap shot" at State Sen. Jack Harper (R - Surprise!) and gave Harper a forum to respond. In that response, Harper asserted that he was misquoted in the column where the authors wrote "Why don't you come visit me?" Harper crooned any time he saw a member of The Republic's Capitol Bureau. "Do I have to do something crazy again?" "
What Harper claims that have said to Amanda Crawford, allegedly for the sole purpose of making polite conversation, was that he and the other Senators [his EMPHASIS] "missed her in the Senate and she only seems to come over when “SOMETHING crazy” happens."
Ummm...ignoring for the moment Harper's wanton violations of Senate rules and decorum to railroad through a same-sex marriage ban referendum that earned him the ethics complaint that further earned him the mention in this week's Insider column, there are still these factors to consider -
- Harper's involvement in a scheme to shield Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas from professional sanctions for any of his unethical actions in office;
- Harper's use in May of high-handed tactics to suppress debate on the Senate floor to kill a certain-to-pass anti-texting-while-driving bill from State Rep. Steve Farley (tactics similar to those used during the consideration of the same-sex marriage ban; guess he was just warming up for the main event a month later :) );
...His bill to open up Arizona's presidential primaries to...Republicans. Under his failed plan, Republicans could have voted in any primary they chose; members of other parties could have only voted in their own primaries;
...His "guns in restaurants" bill;
...His refusal to hold a confirmation hearing to confirm Gen. David Rataczak as commander of the Arizona National Guard because he was miffed that Governor Janet Napolitano hadn't deployed more troops to the state's border with Mexico;
...His continuing efforts to blame U.S. Congressman Harry Mitchell for the substandard conditions at the *AZ* veterans' home (here and here);
...His proposal to limit citizen-based ballot initiatives to those first considered by the legislature;
...I could go on all night posting dozens more citations like this, but I have to work in the morning, so here's the point -
Harper's response has no credibility because he is one of the major sources of crazy at the legislature in general and in the Senate in particular.
He doesn't add to his credibility by responding to a perceived slight, and Sonoran Alliance didn't do him any favors by giving him an outlet for his whining about Amanda Crawford and the Republic.
Later!
Friday, July 25, 2008
Headlines...
Still have the whole "short attention span" thing going on...
Today, though, it seems to be combined with a fascination with betting... :)
...From AZCentral.com -
Anyone want to start a pool on how long it takes a Republican legislator to use Thursday's incident at SMCC as justification to propose another "guns in schools" bill?
...From AP -
Assuming that the defendants and their families seek donations to pay for their legal fees, anyone want to start a pool on how much money they receive from the Pearce/Ready/Childress crowd here in AZ?
From AP -
Anybody want in on a pool based on the number of Lynwood cops signing up for their new "Ruler Patrol"? I've got dibs on "0"... :)
From Politicker.com -
Note: the full video is at the Politicker link.
...And in the "certain to generate headlines" department, according to next week's House schedule (courtesy The Weekly Leader from Steny Hoyer's office), the House will be considering H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill would accord women faced with gender discrimination some of the same legal remedies available to victims of racial discrimination (think: lawsuits for both compensatory and punitive damages). The bill passed the House Education and Labor Committee this week on a party-line vote after Republicans trotted out "trial lawyers" and "gas prices" as among the reasons that they opposed the bill. (Workforce Management)
Anybody want to bet against more of the same when the bill reaches the House floor on Thursday or Friday?
Didn't think so. Hell, they'll probably add "ANWR," "offshore drilling," and "terrorism" to the list just to spice things up. :))
Democratic press release on the bill here.
Republican press release on the bill here.
Note: all four Democratic members of AZ's Congressional delegation - Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords, Raul Grijalva, and Ed Pastor - are among the 230 cosponsors of the bill.
...Finally, in a 'non-headline' item, the AZ Republic has posted the responses to its candidate questionnaires online here. The list of respondents is incomplete. In some cases, it's obvious by the presence of one or another opponent in a given race that some candidates were asked but simply didn't respond. In other cases, there is only one unchallenged contender so they may not have even been asked to complete a questionnaire.
Later!
Today, though, it seems to be combined with a fascination with betting... :)
...From AZCentral.com -
Gunman suspected of shooting 3 apologizes to 'innocent' victims
The 22-year-old Phoenix man suspected of shooting three people at South Mountain Community College confessed and apologized to victims Friday during his initial court appearance.
Anyone want to start a pool on how long it takes a Republican legislator to use Thursday's incident at SMCC as justification to propose another "guns in schools" bill?
...From AP -
Pa. teens charged in fatal beating of immigrant
PORT CARBON, Pa. (AP) — Three white teens were charged Friday in what officials said was an epithet-filled fatal beating of an illegal Mexican immigrant in a small northeast Pennsylvania coal town. Brandon J. Piekarsky, 16, and Colin J. Walsh, 17, were charged as adults with homicide and ethnic intimidation in the July 12 attack on Luis Ramirez.
Assuming that the defendants and their families seek donations to pay for their legal fees, anyone want to start a pool on how much money they receive from the Pearce/Ready/Childress crowd here in AZ?
From AP -
It's the law: No sagging pants in Chicago suburb
LYNWOOD, Ill. (AP) — Be careful if you have saggy pants in the south Chicago suburb of Lynwood. Village leaders have passed an ordinance that would levy $25 fines against anyone showing three inches or more of their underwear in public.
Anybody want in on a pool based on the number of Lynwood cops signing up for their new "Ruler Patrol"? I've got dibs on "0"... :)
From Politicker.com -
Arizona Dems use Heller's statement in ad knocking Republican incumbentAnyone want in on a pool on how loudly Shadegg tells Heller to "shut the Heller up! Bob Lord doesn't need your help!"? (Sorry - couldn't resist that one. :)) )
The Arizona Democratic Party has released an Internet video ripping U.S. Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), and the ad's main message comes from Republican Congressman Dean Heller (R-Carson City).
The video features a photo of Heller with remarks he made earlier this month to the Las Vegas Review Journal, saying the 1994 GOP Congressional freshman — famous for seizing the U.S. House from Democrats for the first time in decades — had been changed by the culture in Washington.
Note: the full video is at the Politicker link.
...And in the "certain to generate headlines" department, according to next week's House schedule (courtesy The Weekly Leader from Steny Hoyer's office), the House will be considering H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill would accord women faced with gender discrimination some of the same legal remedies available to victims of racial discrimination (think: lawsuits for both compensatory and punitive damages). The bill passed the House Education and Labor Committee this week on a party-line vote after Republicans trotted out "trial lawyers" and "gas prices" as among the reasons that they opposed the bill. (Workforce Management)
Anybody want to bet against more of the same when the bill reaches the House floor on Thursday or Friday?
Didn't think so. Hell, they'll probably add "ANWR," "offshore drilling," and "terrorism" to the list just to spice things up. :))
Democratic press release on the bill here.
Republican press release on the bill here.
Note: all four Democratic members of AZ's Congressional delegation - Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords, Raul Grijalva, and Ed Pastor - are among the 230 cosponsors of the bill.
...Finally, in a 'non-headline' item, the AZ Republic has posted the responses to its candidate questionnaires online here. The list of respondents is incomplete. In some cases, it's obvious by the presence of one or another opponent in a given race that some candidates were asked but simply didn't respond. In other cases, there is only one unchallenged contender so they may not have even been asked to complete a questionnaire.
Later!
More odds and ends (like some canvasses this weekend)...
...This being the last full weekend before ballots start getting sent out to voters who are voting early/by mail, there are a number of canvasses planned for Saturday. All start at 8:30 a.m.
In Tempe, volunteers should meet at the Tempe Coordinated Campaign office, 123 W. Baseline (SE corner of Mill and Baseline). For more information, contact Devon Canode, 336-287-9923.
In Mesa, volunteers should meet at the GEMDEMS office, 7141 E. Main St. Join House candidate Tammie Pursley and Senate candidate Judah Nativio, among others, as they work to turn LD18 Blue. For more information, contact Ben[at]electjudah.com or kweatherford[at]azdem.org.
In Phoenix, volunteers have a couple of different options - meet at the campaign office of CD3 candidate Bob Lord (4736 N 44th St.) or at the AZ Dems' HQ (2910 N Central Ave.). For more info, contact the AZ Dems at (602) 298-4200.
On Sunday, Ed Hermes, candidate for County Supervisor, will be joining forces with Phil Hettmansberger, candidate for LD21 State Representative, to walk and knock in LD21. For more info, contact Bob and Kirsten, Ed's volunteer coordinators at 616.283.9362.
There are other canvassing opportunities in other parts of the valley and the state; contact the ADP or your county party for more details.
...In Democratic primary news, Gerald Richard and Tim Nelson, candidates for Maricopa County Attorney will meet twice next week in candidate debates/forums.
- On Tuesday, July 29, the League of Women Voters will hold a debate at Central High School in Phoenix (4525 N Central Ave). The event starts at 7:00 p.m. For more info, contact the MCDP at 602-298-0503.
- On Thursday, July 31, the Foothills Democrats will be holding a candidate forum in Scottsdale at the Legend Trail Community Center, 34575 N Legend Trail Pkwy. The event starts at 7:00 p.m. For more info, contact the Foothills Democrats at 602-234-6590.
...Another dispatch from the "all politics is local" field office -
Mike McClellan of Mesa regularly writes for the AZ Republic. On Thursday, a piece he wrote on Republican State Rep. Andy Biggs went up on the Rep's website.
Turns out that Biggs, one of the most ardently conservative members of the lege, screwed over his own constituents in Gilbert during a recent controversy over fire protection services for unincorporated county islands. (Read the whole piece at the link above for details.)
Wouldn't it be ironic if Biggs was bounced out of his seat in the lege not because of partisan considerations (though Democrat Glenn Ray will be waiting for him if Biggs makes it through the four-way primary for two seats), but because he forgot one of the basic rules of retaining elected office - don't get caught stabbing your constituents in the back when you need to run for election again.
It'll be interesting to see if one or more of Biggs' challengers in the Rep primary use the fire district issue against him.
Stay tuned...
...Is the political tide beginning to turn on nativists? At least, one of the wings of the Republican Party is turning on them...
In LD18, an independent expenditure political action committee, Judgment Matters, has been formed with the stated intent to oppose Russell Pearce's (R - National Alliance). (PolitickerAZ) candidacy for state senate.
The group is seeking donations to mount an advertising campaign against Pearce's candidacy. According to the group's filings with the AZ Secretary of State, it is headed up by business attorney J. Mark Ogden and apparently has political consultant Farrell Quinlan as its spokesman. Quinlan is the former vice president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The fun part is that none of the people involved seem to be Democrats - Ogden represents businesses in conflicts with labor, and Quinlan is a long-time Republican. Just read his blog, Willet Creek Dam.
OK, so now it's official - the 2-way LD18 State Senate Republican primary is more contentious than the 6-way fight in the CD5 Republican primary. (Though this Knaperek-supporting blog is doing its best to change that.)
Anybody got some popcorn?? :))
...As I type this, C-SPAN is broadcasting a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee hearing on executive power and the Bush Administration.
Watching this has made something very clear -
Bush and/or Cheney are not going to be impeached, no matter how much it's justified. While the House could pass articles of impeachment by a simple majority (50% + 1), it takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict; that will never happen.
As is clear from the Republicans on the committee, led by Mike Pence of Indiana, this president could walk out on the Capitol Mall at high noon, put a match to the Constitution, and dance around it while it burns in front of the throng of tourists, and all they would do about it is to hand Bush a bag of marshmallows and a stick.
Later!
In Tempe, volunteers should meet at the Tempe Coordinated Campaign office, 123 W. Baseline (SE corner of Mill and Baseline). For more information, contact Devon Canode, 336-287-9923.
In Mesa, volunteers should meet at the GEMDEMS office, 7141 E. Main St. Join House candidate Tammie Pursley and Senate candidate Judah Nativio, among others, as they work to turn LD18 Blue. For more information, contact Ben[at]electjudah.com or kweatherford[at]azdem.org.
In Phoenix, volunteers have a couple of different options - meet at the campaign office of CD3 candidate Bob Lord (4736 N 44th St.) or at the AZ Dems' HQ (2910 N Central Ave.). For more info, contact the AZ Dems at (602) 298-4200.
On Sunday, Ed Hermes, candidate for County Supervisor, will be joining forces with Phil Hettmansberger, candidate for LD21 State Representative, to walk and knock in LD21. For more info, contact Bob and Kirsten, Ed's volunteer coordinators at 616.283.9362.
There are other canvassing opportunities in other parts of the valley and the state; contact the ADP or your county party for more details.
...In Democratic primary news, Gerald Richard and Tim Nelson, candidates for Maricopa County Attorney will meet twice next week in candidate debates/forums.
- On Tuesday, July 29, the League of Women Voters will hold a debate at Central High School in Phoenix (4525 N Central Ave). The event starts at 7:00 p.m. For more info, contact the MCDP at 602-298-0503.
- On Thursday, July 31, the Foothills Democrats will be holding a candidate forum in Scottsdale at the Legend Trail Community Center, 34575 N Legend Trail Pkwy. The event starts at 7:00 p.m. For more info, contact the Foothills Democrats at 602-234-6590.
...Another dispatch from the "all politics is local" field office -
Mike McClellan of Mesa regularly writes for the AZ Republic. On Thursday, a piece he wrote on Republican State Rep. Andy Biggs went up on the Rep's website.
Turns out that Biggs, one of the most ardently conservative members of the lege, screwed over his own constituents in Gilbert during a recent controversy over fire protection services for unincorporated county islands. (Read the whole piece at the link above for details.)
Wouldn't it be ironic if Biggs was bounced out of his seat in the lege not because of partisan considerations (though Democrat Glenn Ray will be waiting for him if Biggs makes it through the four-way primary for two seats), but because he forgot one of the basic rules of retaining elected office - don't get caught stabbing your constituents in the back when you need to run for election again.
It'll be interesting to see if one or more of Biggs' challengers in the Rep primary use the fire district issue against him.
Stay tuned...
...Is the political tide beginning to turn on nativists? At least, one of the wings of the Republican Party is turning on them...
In LD18, an independent expenditure political action committee, Judgment Matters, has been formed with the stated intent to oppose Russell Pearce's (R - National Alliance). (PolitickerAZ) candidacy for state senate.
The group is seeking donations to mount an advertising campaign against Pearce's candidacy. According to the group's filings with the AZ Secretary of State, it is headed up by business attorney J. Mark Ogden and apparently has political consultant Farrell Quinlan as its spokesman. Quinlan is the former vice president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The fun part is that none of the people involved seem to be Democrats - Ogden represents businesses in conflicts with labor, and Quinlan is a long-time Republican. Just read his blog, Willet Creek Dam.
OK, so now it's official - the 2-way LD18 State Senate Republican primary is more contentious than the 6-way fight in the CD5 Republican primary. (Though this Knaperek-supporting blog is doing its best to change that.)
Anybody got some popcorn?? :))
...As I type this, C-SPAN is broadcasting a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee hearing on executive power and the Bush Administration.
Watching this has made something very clear -
Bush and/or Cheney are not going to be impeached, no matter how much it's justified. While the House could pass articles of impeachment by a simple majority (50% + 1), it takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict; that will never happen.
As is clear from the Republicans on the committee, led by Mike Pence of Indiana, this president could walk out on the Capitol Mall at high noon, put a match to the Constitution, and dance around it while it burns in front of the throng of tourists, and all they would do about it is to hand Bush a bag of marshmallows and a stick.
Later!
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Odd and Ends
...Courtesy an email from MCDP...
Two new candidates have stepped forward to run for office in the West Valley.
- Out in Sun City, Leigh Strickman, a small business owner and PC, has filed to run for the District 4 County Supervisor seat currently occupied by Max Wilson. She is running as a write-in candidate and will need 600 people to vote for her in September to make it on to the ballot in November. If you want to volunteer, you can reach her campaign at strickman08@gmail.com or call 623-698-8004.
- And in Litchfield Park (also District 4), educator Randolph Lumm is running for the Maricopa County Community College Governing Board. He needs to collect 2500 sigs to qualify for the ballot, so anyone interested in helping him should contact the West Dems office at (623) 249-7407 to volunteer.
...In a sign that perhaps certain Republicans don't really get the whole "politics is about people" thing, as in "real people with real concerns", CD5 candidate David Schweikert is following up his June fundraiser at the Scottsdale Gun Club with a fundraiser in a gated community in north Scottsdale at the end of this month.
By contrast, Harry Mitchell (D-CD5) spent much of the same period either working for or honoring people for whom weapons and protective walls are more than a conspicuous assertion of social status.
On Sunday, July 13, he participated in the unveiling of a "permanent display" that serves as "a visual reminder of the sacrifices members of the military and their families are making." (EV Tribune). He followed that up on Tuesday, July 15 by chairing a hearing of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Veterans Affairs Committee into the Department of Veterans Affairs' outreach efforts for veterans who are at risk for PTSD and/or suicide. (AP via SF Chronicle coverage here.)
A quick perusal of Schweikert's campaign website finds rhetoric that is heavy on Club for Growth/Republican neo-con talking points and light on any concerns for CD5 or the people who live here. In fact, other than pro-forma mentions of Barry Goldwater and "Arizona values," this website would serve for any GOP candidate from Maine to California, and serve with very few changes (mostly on the contact information pages.)
And he's the presumptive Republican front-runner here. The other candidates are worse.
...Over in California, Der Governator is proving that he's a true, dyed-in-the-wool Republican - he's ticked off at the California legislature for its failure to pass a budget (as well he should be!), so does he vent his anger at the legislators who are failing to do their jobs? Of course not - that's not the Republican way.
Nope, instead he is trying to cut the pay of every state employee to the federal minimum wage of $6.55 per hour. (SF Chronicle)
Given that most of the affected employees are covered by contracts (union or personal), don't expect this one to go far. On the other hand, picking on working people, especially people who work for the government, will surely endear Schwarzenegger to the radical corporatist wing of his party.
...On Tuesday, the 11 candidates for municipal office in Scottsdale met in two separate forums sponsored by the East Valley Tribune. Trib coverage of the Mayoral forum here; coverage of the Council forum here.
The forums will be replayed on Scottsdale's City Cable 11 on the next two Sundays from 2:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
I'm not going to do a full write up of the event (a bit of dozing off during the mayoral portion of the program and a format with a lightning round combine to make that an overly ambitious idea), but I do have a couple of quick observations -
- Lisa Borowsky did better Tuesday than she did at last week's COPP-sponsored forum. She wasn't spectacular by any means, but her voice didn't get drowned out this week, either.
- Joel Bramoweth needs to learn the meaning of the word "succinct." After watching his performance, one sharp-tongued observer opined that if Bramoweth is elected to the Council, the rules that dictate a three-minute time limit for public comments may need to be expanded to Council members, too.
Yes, I was that observer. :))
- Ron McCullagh is running a campaign straight out of the Republican playbook. Right now, he's reading from the page labeled "When in doubt, scare 'em." However, this being Scottsdale, instead of citing the usually boogeymen of illegal immigrants and terrorists to engender fear among the audience members, he went with "payday loan businesses" and "massage parlors."
Hey, it *is* Scottsdale after all. :))
- The biggest disappointment, and this applies to the entire cast of council candidates, was their lack of original ideas on addressing Scottsdale's traffic crunch. When asked about when they thought was the best solution available, they all paid obeisance at the "light rail is dead" altar before advocating for more buses and existing transit options.
While their answers varied a bit in length and vocabulary, they could all be summed up thusly -
Note: I called CityCable11's Dennis Grzelak (the manager). According to him, at this point in time, there are no plans to make the video of the forums available online; if you want to view them, catch one of the Sunday rebroadcasts.
...Sometimes bloggers can make an impact... (thanks to Jobsanger in Texas for the heads-up on this) -
It seems that blogger TxSharon of Bluedaze has been keeping track of the environmental damage caused by energy giant Chesapeake Energy and similar companies. with nice, full-color pictures of some of their pollution.
Chesapeake Energy has responded to her diligence by referring to her as a "radical" and stating that "free speech" is all fine and dandy, but it shouldn't apply to people not directly affected by a given issue. (TxSharon doesn't live in the area of Ft. Worth most directly affected by Chesapeake's actions.)
In other words, they apparently believe that witnesses to a crime shouldn't say anything about it, only direct victims should.
Yeah, right.
Anyway, as near as I can tell, Chesapeake doesn't have much, if any, presence in AZ, but this situation still calls for attention.
It's ok to go viral with this. (hint, hint :) )
Later!
Two new candidates have stepped forward to run for office in the West Valley.
- Out in Sun City, Leigh Strickman, a small business owner and PC, has filed to run for the District 4 County Supervisor seat currently occupied by Max Wilson. She is running as a write-in candidate and will need 600 people to vote for her in September to make it on to the ballot in November. If you want to volunteer, you can reach her campaign at strickman08@gmail.com or call 623-698-8004.
- And in Litchfield Park (also District 4), educator Randolph Lumm is running for the Maricopa County Community College Governing Board. He needs to collect 2500 sigs to qualify for the ballot, so anyone interested in helping him should contact the West Dems office at (623) 249-7407 to volunteer.
...In a sign that perhaps certain Republicans don't really get the whole "politics is about people" thing, as in "real people with real concerns", CD5 candidate David Schweikert is following up his June fundraiser at the Scottsdale Gun Club with a fundraiser in a gated community in north Scottsdale at the end of this month.
By contrast, Harry Mitchell (D-CD5) spent much of the same period either working for or honoring people for whom weapons and protective walls are more than a conspicuous assertion of social status.
On Sunday, July 13, he participated in the unveiling of a "permanent display" that serves as "a visual reminder of the sacrifices members of the military and their families are making." (EV Tribune). He followed that up on Tuesday, July 15 by chairing a hearing of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Veterans Affairs Committee into the Department of Veterans Affairs' outreach efforts for veterans who are at risk for PTSD and/or suicide. (AP via SF Chronicle coverage here.)
A quick perusal of Schweikert's campaign website finds rhetoric that is heavy on Club for Growth/Republican neo-con talking points and light on any concerns for CD5 or the people who live here. In fact, other than pro-forma mentions of Barry Goldwater and "Arizona values," this website would serve for any GOP candidate from Maine to California, and serve with very few changes (mostly on the contact information pages.)
And he's the presumptive Republican front-runner here. The other candidates are worse.
...Over in California, Der Governator is proving that he's a true, dyed-in-the-wool Republican - he's ticked off at the California legislature for its failure to pass a budget (as well he should be!), so does he vent his anger at the legislators who are failing to do their jobs? Of course not - that's not the Republican way.
Nope, instead he is trying to cut the pay of every state employee to the federal minimum wage of $6.55 per hour. (SF Chronicle)
Given that most of the affected employees are covered by contracts (union or personal), don't expect this one to go far. On the other hand, picking on working people, especially people who work for the government, will surely endear Schwarzenegger to the radical corporatist wing of his party.
...On Tuesday, the 11 candidates for municipal office in Scottsdale met in two separate forums sponsored by the East Valley Tribune. Trib coverage of the Mayoral forum here; coverage of the Council forum here.
The forums will be replayed on Scottsdale's City Cable 11 on the next two Sundays from 2:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
I'm not going to do a full write up of the event (a bit of dozing off during the mayoral portion of the program and a format with a lightning round combine to make that an overly ambitious idea), but I do have a couple of quick observations -
- Lisa Borowsky did better Tuesday than she did at last week's COPP-sponsored forum. She wasn't spectacular by any means, but her voice didn't get drowned out this week, either.
- Joel Bramoweth needs to learn the meaning of the word "succinct." After watching his performance, one sharp-tongued observer opined that if Bramoweth is elected to the Council, the rules that dictate a three-minute time limit for public comments may need to be expanded to Council members, too.
Yes, I was that observer. :))
- Ron McCullagh is running a campaign straight out of the Republican playbook. Right now, he's reading from the page labeled "When in doubt, scare 'em." However, this being Scottsdale, instead of citing the usually boogeymen of illegal immigrants and terrorists to engender fear among the audience members, he went with "payday loan businesses" and "massage parlors."
Hey, it *is* Scottsdale after all. :))
- The biggest disappointment, and this applies to the entire cast of council candidates, was their lack of original ideas on addressing Scottsdale's traffic crunch. When asked about when they thought was the best solution available, they all paid obeisance at the "light rail is dead" altar before advocating for more buses and existing transit options.
While their answers varied a bit in length and vocabulary, they could all be summed up thusly -
"Let's close our eyes and click our heels together three times while saying 'let's do more of the same things that aren't working now and hope that the problem will go away before we have to do something substantial.' "Given that early ballots go out at the end of next week, time is getting short for any epiphanies on the part of the candidates; don't expect any improvement between now and the election.
Note: I called CityCable11's Dennis Grzelak (the manager). According to him, at this point in time, there are no plans to make the video of the forums available online; if you want to view them, catch one of the Sunday rebroadcasts.
...Sometimes bloggers can make an impact... (thanks to Jobsanger in Texas for the heads-up on this) -
It seems that blogger TxSharon of Bluedaze has been keeping track of the environmental damage caused by energy giant Chesapeake Energy and similar companies. with nice, full-color pictures of some of their pollution.
Chesapeake Energy has responded to her diligence by referring to her as a "radical" and stating that "free speech" is all fine and dandy, but it shouldn't apply to people not directly affected by a given issue. (TxSharon doesn't live in the area of Ft. Worth most directly affected by Chesapeake's actions.)
In other words, they apparently believe that witnesses to a crime shouldn't say anything about it, only direct victims should.
Yeah, right.
Anyway, as near as I can tell, Chesapeake doesn't have much, if any, presence in AZ, but this situation still calls for attention.
It's ok to go viral with this. (hint, hint :) )
Later!
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Lord Sparring With Shadegg On Education...
The problem, for Shadegg anyway, is that it's a one-sided fight.
Let's start with the basics - while Shadegg's campaign site touts the fact that he is married to a public teacher which helps him to "understand" the importance of education and teaching-related issues, that "understanding" hasn't been transformed into real-world support for students or teachers.
A quick comparison -
On math and science instruction:
Lord (courtesy his education plan/position paper unless otherwise noted) - "Every grade level should have a robust science and math curriculum, and the recruitment of math and science graduates into the teaching profession should be a priority."
Shadegg - voted against the 21st Century Competitiveness Act, which strengthened math and science instruction.
On early childhood education:
Lord - "We must make an increased investment in early childhood education, like early Head Start and Head Start, and help states enact universal pre-school programs and all-day Kindergarten."
Shadegg - voted against passage of the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act (H.R. 1429), an act to update and extend the Head Start Program.
On access to higher education:
Lord - "Any child who works hard, does well in school, and wants to attend college should have the opportunity to do so. Affordable student loans with low interest rates give children the chance to go after their dreams. Increased Pell Grants also will expand college access to thousands of students."
Shadegg - voted against the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 (H.R. 2669), an act that included language that lowered student loan interest rates, increased the maximum amount for Pell Grant awards, and increased support for those students who choose to become teachers. (You know - the career that his own wife chose, a choice that he believes grants to him an insight into the educational needs of the country.)
On health care for young students:
Lord (from a press release on Bush's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) expansion) - "Vetoing this bill puts tens of thousands of Arizona's most vulnerable children at risk of losing their health insurance," said Bob Lord. "It is not just President Bush who is to blame. John Shadegg has stood against this program since its creation and he continues to stand against offering basic health insurance to our poorest children."
Shadegg - Rationalized his opposition to SCHIP by calling the program a "fraud". (Page H10873 of the Congressional Record)
Perhaps the best summary of the relative positions on education of Lord and Shadegg comes from the National Education Association (NEA) -
Shadegg earns an "F" or its equivalent from the NEA, year after year - 2007 - F, 2006 - F. 2005 - C (must've backslid that year :) ), 2003-2004 - 15%, 2001-2002 - 0%.
Lord earns the NEA's endorsement.
If there are any other questions -
On Friday, Bob Lord will be meeting with Arizona educators for a "Back to School Education Roundtable Discussion" at the Phoenix Public Library Mesquite Branch, 4525 Paradise Village Parkway North, Phoenix from 9:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. The public is invited.
Next week, John Shadegg will be hobnobbing in D.C. with lobbyists and other ultra-conservatives to raise money for conservative candidates for Senate.
OK, so there probably aren't any other questions. I just wanted to throw that out there. :))
Later!
Let's start with the basics - while Shadegg's campaign site touts the fact that he is married to a public teacher which helps him to "understand" the importance of education and teaching-related issues, that "understanding" hasn't been transformed into real-world support for students or teachers.
A quick comparison -
On math and science instruction:
Lord (courtesy his education plan/position paper unless otherwise noted) - "Every grade level should have a robust science and math curriculum, and the recruitment of math and science graduates into the teaching profession should be a priority."
Shadegg - voted against the 21st Century Competitiveness Act, which strengthened math and science instruction.
On early childhood education:
Lord - "We must make an increased investment in early childhood education, like early Head Start and Head Start, and help states enact universal pre-school programs and all-day Kindergarten."
Shadegg - voted against passage of the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act (H.R. 1429), an act to update and extend the Head Start Program.
On access to higher education:
Lord - "Any child who works hard, does well in school, and wants to attend college should have the opportunity to do so. Affordable student loans with low interest rates give children the chance to go after their dreams. Increased Pell Grants also will expand college access to thousands of students."
Shadegg - voted against the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 (H.R. 2669), an act that included language that lowered student loan interest rates, increased the maximum amount for Pell Grant awards, and increased support for those students who choose to become teachers. (You know - the career that his own wife chose, a choice that he believes grants to him an insight into the educational needs of the country.)
On health care for young students:
Lord (from a press release on Bush's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) expansion) - "Vetoing this bill puts tens of thousands of Arizona's most vulnerable children at risk of losing their health insurance," said Bob Lord. "It is not just President Bush who is to blame. John Shadegg has stood against this program since its creation and he continues to stand against offering basic health insurance to our poorest children."
Shadegg - Rationalized his opposition to SCHIP by calling the program a "fraud". (Page H10873 of the Congressional Record)
Perhaps the best summary of the relative positions on education of Lord and Shadegg comes from the National Education Association (NEA) -
Shadegg earns an "F" or its equivalent from the NEA, year after year - 2007 - F, 2006 - F. 2005 - C (must've backslid that year :) ), 2003-2004 - 15%, 2001-2002 - 0%.
Lord earns the NEA's endorsement.
If there are any other questions -
On Friday, Bob Lord will be meeting with Arizona educators for a "Back to School Education Roundtable Discussion" at the Phoenix Public Library Mesquite Branch, 4525 Paradise Village Parkway North, Phoenix from 9:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. The public is invited.
Next week, John Shadegg will be hobnobbing in D.C. with lobbyists and other ultra-conservatives to raise money for conservative candidates for Senate.
OK, so there probably aren't any other questions. I just wanted to throw that out there. :))
Later!
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Jack Harper - brazenly hypocritical or cluelessly ironic?
You know, I was going to write a couple of quips (succinct but witty ones, of course :) ) about the Phoenix New Times' piece on Russell Pearce's history of domestic violence. Turns out that in 1980, his wife filed for divorce, citing among other reasons, that Pearce has "...a violent temper and has from time to time hit and shoved his wife..." (courtesy the New Times' upload of the court documents).
I'm certain a crack that pondered the possibility that Pearce has sublimated his documented anger toward women into a hatred of Mexicans (more socially acceptable in LD18, that) was imminent, but it turns out that Jack Harper (helped along by Democratic senator Ken Cheuvront) is around to save Russell Pearce from some biting sarcasm (for now anyway :)) ).
Turns out that while the legislative session is over, it isn't *over.*
From the Arizona Republic -
Harper, a previous winner of (and permanent contender for) the annual Legislative Loon Award, bemoaned the complaint as "partisan," while ignoring the fact that it was his own partisan maneuvers on the last day of the Senate's session that precipitated the complaint.
I'd say that his pronouncement on his latest troubles, whether rooted in hypocrisy or simple cluelessness, gives him a leg up on another Legislative Loon award, but there's no guarantee that he will return to the next session of the lege - he's facing a strong opponent in the person of Robert Boehlke.
Anyway, the complaint will be ruled on by Sen. Jay Tibshraeny, who admonished some of his senate colleagues for their "loss of decorum" during the final moments of the legislative session.
It should be noted, however, that Tibshraeny's concern over his colleagues' antics wasn't so strong that he couldn't vote for the anti-same sex marriage measure that Harper was so intent on railroading through that late night/early morning.
In short, while there might be a faux reprimand discussed for appearances' sake, nothing significant will come of this. Even if Tibshraeny finds merit to the complaint, it would take a majority vote of the senate to issue a reprimand, and the senate isn't scheduled to meet until the new lege is seated in January.
Later!
I'm certain a crack that pondered the possibility that Pearce has sublimated his documented anger toward women into a hatred of Mexicans (more socially acceptable in LD18, that) was imminent, but it turns out that Jack Harper (helped along by Democratic senator Ken Cheuvront) is around to save Russell Pearce from some biting sarcasm (for now anyway :)) ).
Turns out that while the legislative session is over, it isn't *over.*
From the Arizona Republic -
An end-of-session maneuver that cut short a Democratic filibuster and paved the way for lawmakers to refer the same-sex marriage ban to the fall ballot is now the subject of a rare formal ethics complaint.
Democratic Sen. Ken Cheuvront of Phoenix has asked the Senate ethics committee to issue a formal reprimand against Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise. Cheuvront accuses Harper of conspiring with other Republican leaders to intentionally break the rules of the Senate by turning off microphones and allowing the Republican majority leader to make a motion in the middle of a debate between Democratic senators.
Harper, a previous winner of (and permanent contender for) the annual Legislative Loon Award, bemoaned the complaint as "partisan," while ignoring the fact that it was his own partisan maneuvers on the last day of the Senate's session that precipitated the complaint.
I'd say that his pronouncement on his latest troubles, whether rooted in hypocrisy or simple cluelessness, gives him a leg up on another Legislative Loon award, but there's no guarantee that he will return to the next session of the lege - he's facing a strong opponent in the person of Robert Boehlke.
Anyway, the complaint will be ruled on by Sen. Jay Tibshraeny, who admonished some of his senate colleagues for their "loss of decorum" during the final moments of the legislative session.
It should be noted, however, that Tibshraeny's concern over his colleagues' antics wasn't so strong that he couldn't vote for the anti-same sex marriage measure that Harper was so intent on railroading through that late night/early morning.
In short, while there might be a faux reprimand discussed for appearances' sake, nothing significant will come of this. Even if Tibshraeny finds merit to the complaint, it would take a majority vote of the senate to issue a reprimand, and the senate isn't scheduled to meet until the new lege is seated in January.
Later!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)