"That one."????

First, the evaluation of Tuesday's debate - Obama won the debate because he didn't lose it. He came across as intelligent and presidential. McCain didn't do badly at all, but as my sister Patti observed, "there was no game changer."

His campaign has been stumbling since the economy imploded and the "Town Hall" format of Tuesday's debate (supposed to be a McCain strength) gave him the best opportunity to turn around or at least slow the decline of his campaign. While he did reasonably well with some of his foreign policy answers, he didn't do well at all with his answers on the economy and other domestic issues.

In short, the end result of the debate looks to be status quo (pending the results of the inevitable polls certain to be all the rage on the cable news channels on Wednesday).

A transcript of the debate from CNN here.


Where McCain bombed completely was his demeanor toward Obama (again!!).

From the transcript (emphasis mine) -

"By the way, my friends, I know you grow a little weary with this back-and-forth. It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney.

You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me. "

Whether it's his refusal during the first debate to acknowledge or even look at Obama or the using the disdainful "that one" to refer to Senator Obama during the second debate, McCain's open contempt for his opponent is becoming as much of a story as the rest of the debate.

I don't know if the whole "don't acknowledge Obama" schtick is something from McCain directly or he's just following some consultant's advice. Either way, though, he needs to show a little respect for Obama.

Candidates facing off for the same office don't have to like each other (and it's pretty clear that these two don't like each other), but they have to show each other a little courtesy and respect.

Let's be clear - it's ok to criticize your opponent's words, positions, and votes. "This is why my opponent is worse than me" is the flip side of the same campaign coin that "This is why I I'm the best candidate." It's a legitimate part of campaigning.

However, people in this country are sick and tired of the politics of derision, and right now, John McCain is a leading practitioner of it.

BTW - In the quoted section of the debate, John McCain talked about a bill that was supposedly sponsored Bush and Cheney.

Ummm....they may have *pushed* such a bill, but they couldn't have *sponsored* one under Congressional rules. Only a member of the House or Senate can do so. (Yes, I'm a geek. :)) )

Later!

The LD18 Republicans are starting to get scared

On Tuesday, the chair of the LD18 Republicans, Matt Tolman, took a swipe at Democratic candidates Tammie Pursley and Judah Nativio. He claimed that the likes of Republicans Russell Pearce, Cecil Ash, and Steve Court are the "fiscally responsible" candidates in the race.

Apparently, Tolman thinks that things like Pearce's attempt to destroy public school funding (and with it, finish off the already ailing public education system in AZ) is "fiscally responsible."

The entire text is available at Mesa Issues.

Judah Nativio's campaign has released the following response -

"There he goes again," Judah said, "Matt Tollman is out telling more half truths and protecting his friend, Russell Pearce, who is chairman of the approproations committee and is one we can point fingers at for allowing this budget crisis to spiral out of control,"

Judah continues, "They did it to his primary opponent and now to his general opponent, they must be scared that their bad fiscal policy has finally caught up with them. Character bashing instead of solution providing, politics as usual.

Matt's remark's did not mention that I am in favor of lowering the sales tax and the corporate tax. The TIME initiative or Mr. Pearce's 1/2 cent increase would have provided much needed infrastructure, jobs and would have helped attract more business to Arizona. It is time we wake up and realize what direction we want to head in and stop voting purely on party affiliation. Do not fall for their tactics."

I'm sure the press releases and campaign tactics will get nastier as more and more East Valley Republicans realize that they're going to lose their stranglehold on EV elected offices, whether in the state legislature or on the county board of supervisors (and the attacks on County Supervisor candidate Ed Hermes are already pretty rancid).

Stay tuned.

Hermes responds to a desperate Fulton's anonymous attacks

Over the past few weeks, a number of Republican blogs in AZ have anonymously posted some allegations about Democrat Ed Hermes. He is challenging entrenched incumbent Fulton Brock for the District 1 seat on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

Some of the allegations have not-so-anonymously made it into some of Fulton's mailers.

Each of the litany of allegations - he lives with his parents, he has received speeding tickets, he has ignored court appearances for the citations, he's appeared on MTV, he supports the DREAM Act, etc. - falls into one of three categories:

1. Untrue. Ed doesn't live with his parents. The truth is that particular allegation is designed to highlight Ed's relative youth. What Brock's disparagement of Hermes' age ignores is his experience as a member of the Board of Regents, as Director of External Affairs for the Arizona Department of Agriculture, and as a member of Governor Napolitano's Smart Growth Cabinet.

2. Twisted. Yes, he did receive a couple of speeding tickets, but they were photo radar tickets that were sent to an incorrect address. All of Hermes' tickets have been paid or dismissed, and he is in good standing with the court.

3. True but irrelevant. Yup, Ed supported the DREAM Act. So? What does the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors have to do with that? Nothing, unless you are a scared incumbent Republican who has decided to campaign on base bigotry.

As for the MTV appearance, yes, he appeared on an episode of "Room Raiders," but Fulton has ignored the fact that instead of engaging in the wretched excesses that MTV's reality shows are known for (and that Brock presumably hopes that voters remember), Hermes was ridiculed on the show for studying.

Wow! A college student studying! What'll they accuse Hermes of next? Attending some classes? What a rebel!

In a press release, Hermes' campaign manager Devin Mauney said, "Fulton Brock continues to try to tear down his opponent's character with misleading attacks and faulty sources rather than focusing on the issues facing the county."

"Continue" is the key work there, because smear and fear isn't a new tactic for Brock. He had to settle a defamation lawsuit (CV1996-092729) brought by his 1996 opponent, Bob Edens.

Of course, this could just be a case of Fulton Brock following John McCain's lead - when you are losing on the issues (McCain is getting beat on the economy, Brock on job performance), attack your opponent with innuendo and insinuation and hope the voters ignore the utter lack of substance in your attacks and your campaign platform.

Brock's open contempt for honesty, truth, and even common courtesy only add to the reasons that a change is needed in the District 1 seat of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

Vote for Ed Hermes on November 4.

Mail Call - Early Ballot Time

The early ballot for November's election arrived in Saturday's mail.

Most readers of the blog are already aware of how I feel about most of the races. If not, just check out the 'Candidates for 2008' section in the right column.

Congressman Harry Mitchell, State Senator Meg Burton Cahill, and State Representatives David Schapira and Ed Ableser all deserve reelection, and candidates Tim Nelson (Maricopa County Attorney), Dan Saban (County Sheriff), Ed Hermes (County Supervisor, SD1), and Sandra Kennedy, Sam George, and Paul Newman (Arizona Corporation Commission) each merit support in their quests.

There are a few races that I haven't addressed earlier, mostly because no Democrat is running for the office. All of those races are for Maricopa County offices.

In those races - County Assessor, County Recorder, and County School Superintendent - I'll be voting for the Libertarian candidates. Not because I think that they have a snowball's chance in Phoenix of winning, or are even particularly well-qualified for the jobs (most of them *aren't* qualified), but because a strong showing by the Libertarians this year could encourage qualified Democrats to pursue the offices in four years.

Note: Some of these folks are so unqualified that if they had a chance of winning, I'd vote for a Republican first. However, that's not an issue this year.

I don't think that it's any coincidence that a longtime Tempe (and Arizona!) icon, Democrat Harry Mitchell, ran against entrenched (and embarrassing!) Republican Congressman JD Hayworth in 2006 *after* the 2004 showing of virtual unknown Elizabeth Rogers.

She garnered 38% of the CD5 vote on a $5000 budget, presaging Mitchell's upset of Hayworth two years later. A similar performance (>25%) by the Libertarian candidates will illustrate the changing electoral demographics in Maricopa County and possibly enourage other, more serious, candidates to throw their hats in the ring next time around.

As such, I will be voting for Rachel Kielsky for County Assessor, Ernest Hancock for County Recorder, and David Hodges for County School Superintendent. In the race for County Treasurer, I won't be casting a vote as no one, not even a Libertarian, is running against the embattled Charles Hoskins. Potential Democratic candidates will have to be encouraged by the undervotes in the race.

- For the non-partisan Maricopa County Special Health Care District District 1, I'll be voting for incumbent William 'Bil' Bruno. He's a loyal Republican, but so is his opponent, Rex Altree. Altree's qualifications see to be that he is a lobbyist (AZ Auto Glass Association) and that the Maricopa County GOP thinks that he is more conservative than Bruno.

A vote for Bruno is a vote for the "least bad" candidate, but that will have to do here.

- For the non-partisan Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 race, there are four candidates for three seats. Incumbents Jennifer Petersen and Eric Meyer (also a candidate for an LD11 House seat) are running for reelection; ballot newcomers Bonnie Sneed and Paige Frenkel fill out the list of candidates (That isn't meant to imply that they are newcomers to SUSD. Both have been very much involved in the community and in the school district.)

As I am totally unfamiliar with SUSD and its schools, I have no recommendations here.

- In the City of Scottsdale run-off election, incumbent Mary Manross and challenger Jim Lane are facing off for mayor, and Lisa Borowsky, Betty Drake, Tom Giller, Suzanne Klapp, Ron McCullagh, and Nan Nesvig are squaring off for three seats. Drake and McCullagh are incumbents.

As with the election in September, while I will be voting, I'm not satisfied enough with any of the candidates to actually endorse them. These are 'pick your poison' races.

- On the judge retention section of the ballot...no comment. I have no direct knowledge of any of the judges, which is a good thing because it means that I've successfully avoided court. However, that leaves me singularly unqualified to weigh in on this part of the ballot other than to say that this is a really lousy way to hold judges responsible to the voters of the county and state.

And before some wiseass brings it up, this method ("retain - yes or no") is still better than direct election. That would lead to judicial decisions based less on legal merit and more on political calculation.

The Judicial Performance Review is available from the AZ Secretary of State's office here.

- As for the propositions, I'll be voting...

Prop 100 - No. Banning a real estate transfer/sales tax. I don't like the idea of raising taxes, but part of the state's budget crisis is rooted in Republican efforts to strangle public services by cutting off revenue. Plus, I don't like the fact that the proposal is retroactive to December 31, 2007.

Prop 101 - No. Called a 'medical choice' act. It would have the effect of shutting down AHCCCS and other public health plans. It would require Arizonans to send their health care dollars to private (and frequently, out-of-state) health insurance companies, instead of spending their money where it is needed, on the care of their families and themselves.

Prop 102 - No. The anti-same sex marriage amendment to the AZ Constitution. This exercise in right-wing bullying was beaten back two years ago, and deserves to be soundly trounced this time.

Prop 105 - No. Called "Majority Rules", it would require that ballot measures that impose any taxes or fees to gain the votes of a majority of registered voters, not just a majority of votes cast. In short, not casting a vote for a proposition would be the equivalent of voting no. This one may be worse than Prop 102 as it seeks to disenfranchise all voters, not just one particular demographic group. The measure is funded by folks who oppose ballot initiatives that mandate things like children's health care and Clean Elections. It's irresponsible governing, and should be defeated.

Prop 200 - No. Billed as a "Payday Loan Reform" measure when in fact it is funded by the payday loan industry. Instead of reforming the business, it would permanently authorize its existence (set to expire in 2010) and institutionalize some of the nastier aspects of the operations (i.e - 391% APR).

Prop 201 - Yes. Homeowners' Bill of Rights. Would give homeowners prospective buyers the right to sue under certain circumstances, as well as other rights mostly related to warranties. Given the Phoenix-area trend of shoddy workmanship performed by fly-by-night or out of state developers, this is direly needed.

Prop 202 - a hesitant Yes. Called the "Stop Illegal Hiring" initiative, it makes changes to Arizona's employer sanctions law. While that is a good thing, this initiative focuses only on helping businesses, not individuals. Not surprisingly, it is supported most strongly by the AZ Growers Association and other groups that profit from cheap immigrant labor. Also not surprisingly, it is opposed by Russell Pearce and the rest of the state's nativists.

Can we vote in a way such that both sides lose?? :)

To be workable and truly effective, any measures that really address immigration and border issues should be written by real people, not hate-focused nativists or money-focused profiteers.

Prop 300 - Yes. This measure would raise legislative salaries from $24,000 per year to $30,000. It's long overdue - it's been a decade since the last legislative raise. The rationale for the low legislative pay has always been "it's a part time job." I don't know how part time - it's a 60 - 70 hour per week job during the typical six month session, and maybe 25 - 30 hours per week during the off season, with even that cycling up in November and December as the next session of the lege looms on the horizon. Over a full year, it works out to being a full-time, 40-hour per week job, and $30K isn't too much to pay.

Later!

Damn the facts! Full smear ahead!

The last question from Thursday's debate (transcript courtesy CNN) -

IFILL: Final question tonight, before your closing statements, starting with you, Sen. Biden. Can you think of a single issue -- and this is to cast light for people who are just trying to get to know you in your final debate, your only debate of this year -- can you think of a single issue, policy issue, in which you were forced to change a long-held view in order to accommodate changed circumstances?

BIDEN: Yes, I can. When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view and had been trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was -- had been a good student.

And it didn't take me long -- it was hard to change, but it didn't take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference.

That's why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don't like and the American people wouldn't like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties.

And so that -- that -- that was one of the intellectual changes that took place in my career as I got a close look at it. And that's why I was the first chairman of the Judiciary Committee to forthrightly state that it matters what your judicial philosophy is. The American people have a right to understand it and to know it.

But I did change on that, and -- and I'm glad I did.

IFILL: Governor?

PALIN: There have been times where, as mayor and governor, we have passed budgets that I did not veto and that I think could be considered as something that I quasi-caved in, if you will, but knowing that it was the right thing to do in order to progress the agenda for that year and to work with the legislative body, that body that actually holds the purse strings.

So there were times when I wanted to zero-base budget, and to cut taxes even more, and I didn't have enough support in order to accomplish that.

But on the major principle things, no, there hasn't been something that I've had to compromise on, because we've always seemed to find a way to work together. Up there in Alaska, what we have done is, with bipartisan efforts, is work together and, again, not caring who gets the credit for what, as we accomplish things up there.

And that's been just a part of the operation that I wanted to participate in. And that's what we're going to do in Washington, D.C., also, bringing both sides together. John McCain is known for doing that, also, in order to get the work done for the American people.

Let's see...

...She talks about "working together" but she's never had to "compromise."

...She talks about she's "quasi-caved in" but how it was the legislature's fault, not hers.

...She talks on Thursday about "bringing both sides together" while on Saturday she accuses Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists." (AP via the AZ Republic)

Can you say "Damn the facts! Full smear ahead!"??

Most of her answers on Thursday were crap (being a Republican will do that :) ), she did OK in "didn't step on her tongue" sort of way.

However, that last answer is reason #1 why Sarah Palin is the scariest major party candidate for a national office...EVER. Like George W. Bush before her, she is pathologically incapable of ever admitting to making a mistake but masks that fact with a sort of smarmy folksiness that even Bush at his worst couldn't achieve.

I know the old truism, that no one votes for the Vice President, but undecided voters need to stop and consider whether Palin is tempermentally and intellectually suited to live life 'one heartbeat away' from the highest office in the land.

Endorsements and canvasses

Ahhh....Autumn in an even-numbered year...

...Leaves turning, filling our vision with a palette of colors (OK, in non-AZ parts of the country :) )...

...The Cardinals finding ever-more painful ways to lose football games, filling our living rooms and sports bars with cries of anguish and derision...


...People walking and knocking, filling our hearing with words of this candidate or that ballot question...


...Newspapers and mailers covering our fingers with ink. crowing about endorsements...



Either temps are dropping, or early ballots are hitting mailboxes this week.

Whatever the cause, the lists of both endorsements and scheduled canvasses this week are getting longer by the minute.


The AZ Republic released its endorsements in LDs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 (aka - the East Valley). That list looks less like they seriously considered the merits of each candidate and more like they wanted only to hedge their bets.


In all of the districts except for LD19, they split their support, selecting one member of one party and two of the other party.


Now, personally, I think that if the Rep actually cared about the interests of the districts and the state, they should have endorsed all Democrats...but I'm a self-admitted partisan hack. :)


In other words, I may not agree with all of their endorsements, but they have the right to endorse any candidate they choose, and for any reason.


However, partisan hack or not, I have to take exception to two of their snubs - Tammie Pursley in LD18 and Ed Ableser in LD17.


Apparently, they preferred Cecil Ash over Pursley because of his moderate (by LD18 standards, anyway), pro-business position on illegal immigration. Apparently, they ignored the fact that is the only issue on which Ash is remotely 'moderate.' He is active with United Families International, a far-right AZ-based organization that works to "support traditional families" by things like opposing radical UN initiatives such as the UN Conventions on Women's Rights and Children's Rights (the conventions oppose hallmarks of the traditional family structure like forced marriage of children and gender-selective infanticide.)


Tammie Pursley may be focused on education, but she has the intelligence and the work ethic to learn, contribute and lead on other issues as AZ moves into into the 21st century.


Ash will just serve as a chain dragging Arizona back to the 19th century.


As for Ed Ableser, the Rep's editors criticized him for being too partisan in supporting efforts to assist Corona del Sol High School with its air quality issues.


Huh??


In a session that saw some of the most underhanded tactics from the Republican caucus in the lege *against* ideas and people they don't like, (such as Sen. Jack Harper's work to kill a texting-while-driving ban and to railroad the anti-same sex marriage constitutional amendment on to November's ballot) they're criticizing a Democrat for fighting *for* his constituents?

Bit of a credibility gap there.

In other endorsement news,

...Congressman Harry Mitchell has endorsed Bob Lord, the candidate whose challenge in CD3 has incumbent Republican John Shadegg running scared (witness his vote in favor of the bailout bill)

...The AZ Rep has endorsed Democrat Tim Nelson for Maricopa County Attorney. Supporters of Andrew Thomas will undoubtedly point out the fact that Thomas didn't seek the Rep's endorsement. They will also undoubtedly ignore the fact that even Thomas knew better than to even bother after his abortive attempt to intimidate critics in the press into silence. The editors of the Rep don't seem to have forgotten the harassment, investigation and arrests of journalists from the Phoenix New Times.

...The endorsements issued by the Maricopa County GOP in the nonpartisan race for the Maricopa Integrated Health System board seems to have upset some of the snubbed candidates, most of whom are long-time Republicans. It seems that most of them didn't even *know* that endorsements were even being considered.

Should make for a fun time at the MCGOP's next organizing meeting after the election (probably sometime in January.)


As for canvasses this weekend...

...Governor Janet Napolitano will be in the East Valley on Saturday, walking and knocking with dozens (hundreds?? hint, hint :)) ) of enthusiastic volunteers.

First, at 8:30 a.m. join the Governor and State Senator Meg Burton-Cahill, State Representative Ed Ableser, and State Representative David Schapira at the Tempe coordinated campaign headquarters at 123 E. Baseline in Tempe. The office phone number is 480-820-2298.

After that at 9:30 a.m., the Governor will be making a stop in LD21 in Chandler to help Phil Hettmansperger. Meet up at Pima Park, 625 N. McQueen Dr. Chandler (East side of McQueen Rd, between Ray Rd. and Chandler Blvd.) Contact Darcy at the Tempe office at 480-820-2298.

...Ed Hermes, candidate for County Supervisor in District 1, will be holding a canvass in LD20 with Tim Nelson, Ted Maish (candidate for State Senate), and Rae Waters (State House) on Sunday, October 5. The walk is scheduled to begin at 4:30 p.m. Contact the campaign at ed[at]edhermes.com or 480-234-1753.

...In LD18, Judah Nativio and Tammie Pursley will be busy this weekend. Contact them at http://www.electnativio.com/homepage.php or http://www.pursleyforchange.com/08/.

...In LD8 and LD7, contact the Scottsdale coordinated campaign office located at 7950 E Acoma Dr. at 480-607-4435. Candidates Stephanie Rimmer (LD8), Jeanne Lunn (LD7), Joel Sinclaire (County Supervisor SD2) and Marilyn Fox (SD3) as well as Congressman Harry Mitchell all need your help.

Later!

Congressman Mitchell's response to the letter on the bailout

A few days ago, I wrote a letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell concerning the Wall Street bailout proposal floated by the Bush Administration.

Congressman Mitchell voted against the original proposal (which failed) and voted in favor of the revised bill.

The Congressman's response, via email -

Dear [cpmaz]:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1424, the economic recovery package.

The current economic crisis extends far beyond Wall Street or Washington. It affects us all. If the credit market freezes, then it is going to become dramatically more difficult for anyone to borrow money to purchase a home or a car, or to send their kids to college. Businesses, large and small, will be cut off from the credit they need to stock their shelves and make payroll.

Throughout consideration of this rescue package, I believed that both parties needed to come together to forge a compromise that would protect taxpayers and promote investor confidence. For this reason, I opposed the blank check proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson. And, with less than 24 hours for deliberation and public comment, I voted against H.R. 3997, a modified proposal that House Leaders rushed to the floor on September 29, 2008, and failed by a vote of 205 to 228.

After the House of Representatives rejected these hasty proposals, members of both parties worked together to make significant improvements to this legislation.

H.R. 1424 authorizes the U.S. Department of Treasury to begin an aggressive program to restore liquidity to our nation's credit market. Specifically, it authorizes the Department Treasury to begin buying and re-selling certain mortgage backed securities that are currently preventing lenders from issuing credit. Unlike the lump sum $700 billion pay out in the Paulson plan, the legislation provides the Secretary with an initial $250 billion, followed by another $100 billion upon a Treasury Department report to Congress. The Secretary could then request up to an additional $350 billion, however, Congress will be given 15 days to vote to stop this from happening if it does not approve of how the Secretary is managing the rescue plan, or does not want to commit additional taxpayer funds to it.

I am not happy with everything in the new bill, especially the earmarks that the Senate snuck into the bill at the last-minute. This is precisely the kind of legislating that makes the public so distrustful of Congress and so suspicious when they are asked to support an important economic rescue package. This is disappointing on many fronts, particularly because I spent nearly three decades teaching government at Tempe High School, and I am certain that this is not how our political process was intended to function.

However, inaction would cripple our economy.

To its credit, the new package includes improvements to protect taxpayers and promote investor confidence.

It increases Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") and National Credit Union Administration ("NCUA") insurance limits to $250,000. This is not only important protection to individual depositors, but also to small businesses that keep payrolls in banks and credit unions and need to know these funds are secure. This provision was not included in the Paulson plan or the first bill brought to the House on September 29.

In addition, unlike the Paulson plan, H.R. 1424 puts a stop to so-called "golden parachutes" - extravagant exit bonuses to executives who leave companies that may have had a hand in creating the current crisis.

Also, unlike the Paulson plan, H.R. 1424 will protect taxpayers by making sure that the recovery program is subject to oversight and judicial review. Four separate entities will provide constant oversight to ensure efficiency and fairness in the Troubled Assets Relief Program ("TARP"). This program will buy and re-sell assets from distressed companies, and new provisions for recoupment ensure that costs from the program are not passed on to taxpayers.

The new package will also help many homeowners in danger of foreclosure by allowing the government to work with loan servicers to re-structure mortgages.

Significantly, the new package includes a recoupment provision, which requires the President to submit legislation to Congress in five years to begin recouping any losses incurred by the federal government as a result of TARP from the financial industry in order to make taxpayers whole.

Finally, the new package will extend key tax credits to encourage investments in alternative energies like solar. Right here in Arizona, APS and Abengoa are planning to build the world's largest solar power plant - big enough to power 70,000 homes. Without these tax credits, it will not happen. These investments will be taken overseas. Now, the investments spawned by these tax breaks will help drive our economy forward by creating thousands of jobs and producing more than $4 billion worth of energy over the next 30 years.

I am disappointed that the final package did not extend important cuts to capital gains and estate taxes. These cuts are set to expire and I think the last thing we want to do is have investors worried about a tax increase. Last year, Representative Christopher Shays and I introduced H.R. 3170, Capital Gains and Estate Tax Relief Act, to make these cuts permanent, and I believe that the inclusion of this legislation would have encouraged investment and provided important certainty to our tax code.

However, with an economic disaster looming, I believe we had a responsibility to act. The final package was approved by the U.S. Senate on October 1, 2008 by a 74-25 vote. I voted for, and the House passed the economic package two days later by a bipartisan vote of 263 to 171. The President signed the legislation into law the same day.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write to me about our economy and the government's economic recovery package. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if you have additional comments or concerns.

If you would like to receive e-mail updates about how I am working on behalf of Arizona's 5th Congressional District, I invite you to sign up for my newsletter at www.mitchell.house.gov.

Sincerely,

Harry E. Mitchell
Member of Congress

HEM/jw

I haven't actually looked at the revised bailout package, but while it sounds to be a much better package than the original one, I'm still hesitant about anything with a price tag in excess of $700 billion dollars.

Especially when the primary beneficiaries (though not the *only* beneficiaries) are Wall Street CEOs/inveterate gamblers with other people's money.

...As for the rest of the AZ delegation in addition to Harry Mitchell, Democrats Gabrielle Giffords and Ed Pastor, and Republican John Shadegg voted in favor; Democrat Raul Grijalva and Republicans Jeff Flake and Trent Franks voted against.

Later!

There's at least one government worker who needs a class on clear writing...

...The writing standards at our municipal governments is getting remarkably poor...poor enough that a humble (or not-so-humble!) blogger has a gripe...

On Monday, the Papago Park Executive Committee held a meeting in Scottsdale. The committee is a joint effort made up of elected and municipal officials from Tempe, Scottsdale and that tiny suburb to the west, Phoenix. It oversees the operation and planning for Papago Park, located in Tempe and Phoenix and bordering on Scottsdale. Among the current attractions in the park are the Phoenix Zoo and Desert Botanical Garden. And *lots* of hiking. :) It's the only significant open public land in its part of the Valley.

Anyway, to make a long story short, there have been a number of proposals floated to "improve" the park, including giving the land to developers for commercial and residential projects (floated by attorney Grady Gammage, a favorite of developers.)

When I came across the agenda for the meeting, my interest was piqued by this entry -

Olsson and Associates presentation on Great American Parks

"Great American Parks" rung a bell. There are a number of amusement parks with "Great America" in their names, as well as an amusement/theme park company named "Great American Family Parks."

It looked like the committee was considering a plan to turn over pristine and near-pristine desert to rollercoasters and other vomit-inducing thrill rides.

However, having never heard even a whisper of such a scheme, I thought it would be a good idea to attend the meeting before trumpeting the alarm.

Damn, I'm glad that I did so.

Turns out that the "Great American Parks" referenced in the meeting agenda relating to a future Papago were Central Park in NYC, Balboa Park in San Diego, Griffith Park in L.A., Fair Park in Dallas, Golden Gate Park in SF, and Grant Park.

Oops. While those parks do have attractions, some of which include rides, mostly the attractions are of the museum-theme park-zoo variety, with a state fair (Dallas) thrown in for good measure.

While the words "private partners" were bandied about with altogether too much enthusiasm (hey, Mayor Hugh Hallman of Tempe *is* a member of the committee :) ), but it doesn't seem likely that "Six Flags - Papago" or something similar is in our immediate future. There is something in the works for AZ's centennial celebration in 2012, though. Stay tuned on more info on that subject.

That's an hour-and-a-half of my life that I'll never get back, all because some municipal employee capitalized the words "Great American Parks" like it was a proper name.

:((


A decent summary page about the park, its history, and proposals for its future can be found here.

Later!

Wow! The AZ Congressional delegation can agree on something besides postal facility namings...

Of course, even on those rare occasions when AZ's federal legislators are on the same page, it's for very different reasons...

As has been reported in many places, the U.S. House of Representatives rejected the $700 billion bailout bill for Wall Street investment firms, and the entire Arizona delegation voted against it.

Note: more info on the bailout is available from the House Financial Services Committee here.

Their reasons were varied - from the Dems hating it because it didn't contain enough protections for taxpayers to the Reps hating it because it contained some protections.

A number of MSM pundits and writers have opined that the measure was defeated by members of the House who are facing tough reelection battles (AP via TriValleyCentral.com). There may be an element of truth in that idea, but an examination of even just the AZ delegation's situations belies that the notion is universally accurate -

Ed Pastor (D-CD4), Raul Grijalva (D-CD7), and Jeff Flake (R-CD6) are totally safe in their races.

Trent Franks (R-CD2) is close to safe in his, too.

Gabrielle Giffords (D-CD8) is facing a solid challenger in Tim Bee, but she is solidly positioned herself, and should retain her seat.

Harry Mitchell (D-CD5) is facing a tough fight because of his district's demographics (40K more registered Republicans) and John Shadegg (R-CD3) is facing the fight of his political career (a super-strong challenger in Bob Lord and his retire/unretire two-step earlier this year).

Rick Renzi (R-CD1) isn't even running (something about a federal indictment and upcoming trial).

So only two of the eight AZ Congresscritters who voted against the bailout are facing serious election threats (apologies to supporters of Tim Bee and John Thrasher, but that's the way I see it), yet all eight voted against it.

Simply put, the Bush Administration's bailout proposal was just a bad idea, even for people who believe that a government response to the turmoil in the markets is appropriate.

After all of the finger-pointing dies down (publicly, anyway), look for some sort of bailout proposal to come out of the House, probably with a price tag that's much lower than the Administration's desired $700 billion blank check, and also with some serious safeguards for the taxpayers' money.

At this point though, any changes will probably appeal more to Democrats looking to protect taxpayers' interests than appeal to Republicans looking to use this crisis as an excuse to further deregulate the financial markets.

Don't expect the AZ delegation to be in so much agreement next time.


On the Democratic side, the AZ Star on the reasons that Reps. Grijlava and Giffords voted against the bill here; the Ahwatukee Foothills News on Rep. Harry Mitchell's objections here. Bob Lord's (D challenger in CD3) press release here.

On the Republican side, Rep. Shadegg's op-ed in USA Today is here; a Rep. Flake quote is here (Phoenix Business Journal).

Note2: I'd have linked to the websites of Reps. Giffords and Pastor, but the House website is still experiencing problems related to its heavy site traffic on Monday, and couldn't access those pages.

Note3: ever-loyal (and perceptive!) reader and frequent commenter Elizabeth noted in an email that after the failure of the bailout on Monday, followed by the stock market's precipitous drop, the Washington Post ran this story on the front page of their website.

It chronicles what is truly the greatest crisis facing American society today - the decline in home run totals in Major League Baseball.

Later...

With friends like these...

With friends like these endorsing candidates, it's easy to figure out who not to vote for...

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post about one of the more colorful candidates for office this cycle, former state legislator Colette Rosati. She's running for the District 3 seat on the board of the Maricopa County Special Healthcare District.

At the time, I promised to do a more in-depth post, one with possible recommendations. I haven't really had the time to do the research required for an in-depth post, but thankfully, the Pachyderm Coalition, a group of very conservative Republicans, has done so for us, and issued a list of endorsements.

All we have to do is vote for candidates other than the ones they recommend. :)

The list is available at Seeing Red AZ -

"The endorsed candidates are Rex Altree (Dist 1), Dr. Harlan Stratton (Dist. 2), Colette Rosati, RN (Dist. 3), Elton Bicknell (Dist. 4), and Todd Hansen, J.D. (Dist 5)"

The District 1 candidates (aka - my district's candidates) are auto glass guy and uber-conservative Altree and incumbent Bil Bruno. I couldn't find much info about Bruno other than that he's an insurance broker who seems to be a Republican (based on campaign contributions to the likes of Jan Brewer) who isn't conservative enough for the Pachyderm Coalition.

That may not be enough to earn an outright endorsement here (especially since his wife Patti has given to the likes of Laura Knaperek and Lori Daniels), but he will definitely be getting my vote this time around.


The District 2 candidates are Robert Carey, Greg Patterson, and the aforementioned Harlan Stratton.

Carey is a lawyer who used to be a staffer for John McCain and authored legislation for Bob Dole and Jon Kyl.

Patterson is a Republican former state legislator, CPA, and conservative blogger.

Stratton is a hardcore conservative (actually, if the Pachys picked him over the other two, he is beyond 'hardcore').

Ummm...if I lived and voted in District 2, I'd vote for "none of the above."


In District 3, the candidates are the previously mentioned Rosati and Sue Gerard. For the reasons listed in my earlier post and more, I have no problem endorsing Gerard, the Republican former legislator and State Health Director.

She may not be perfect, but compared to her opponent... :)


In District 4, the candidates are the aforementioned Bicknell and current chair of the board Gerald Cuendet, PhD. Cuendet is a Republican and a retired school administrator. As with District 1, the race comes down to a Rep hard-liner and someone who isn't quite conservative enough to suit other hard-liners. Pick your poison here.


District 5 has the most wide-open race, with five candidates running - the GOP-endorsed Hansen, Alice Lara, Joan Kelchner, James Marovich, and Jonathan Weisbuch.

Alice Lara is a Republican and a lobbyist who works for Copperstate Consulting, a Phoenix lobbying firm run by AZ Republican operator Stan Barnes. According to this post from Sonoran Alliance, she has been endorsed by Joe Arpaio and Andrew Thomas. If you think that's a good thing, you're probably reading the wrong blog.

Republican Todd Hansen lists his occupation as "investment advisor" for Edward Jones. The fact that his presence in the race means that Rep insider Lara (and anyone associated with Stan Barnes is *way* inside :) ) isn't conservative enough for the GOP hard-liners should tell you all that you need to know about him as a candidate.

Joan Kelchner is a doctor and a (I think!) former member of the Phoenix Planning Commission (Business Journal of Phoenix). She's a Democrat who seems to have been endorsed by Congressman Ed Pastor, at least based on the flier linked to the word "doctor."

Marovich is a lawyer with his own firm. He's a Democrat and has experience as a senior hospital administrator.

Weisbuch is a doctor and former Maricopa County Health Officer. He's well educated (besides his MD from NYU, he's earned an engineering degree from MIT) and highly experienced (roughly 40 years experience in public health and in academic work.)

No endorsements here because I can't make up my mind between Weisbuch and Kelchner. And since I don't live in the district, I don't have to.


The pattern that I've noted before holds true here - the Republicans tend to field candidates who are strong on ideology, the Democrats field candidates who are strong on resume. Stratton and Rosati may offer resume of a sort, but the Republicans' support of their candidacies is based on hard-line anti-public service ideology, not on any medical experience the candidates may bring.

I just wish that the Dems had found qualified candidates in districts other than the overwhelmingly Democratic #5 (the same district as county supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, and one that is similar to Congressman Ed Pastor's CD4).

Later!

The voter registration deadline is fast approaching for November's election

No snarkiness, just a PSA...

The Obama campaign sent out an email today, reminding Arizonans that the deadline to register to vote in the November election is next Monday, October 6th. Register to vote here.

Other important dates related to this election -

Thursday, October 2 - Early voting begins. Maricopa County voters can request a ballot here; voters in other counties should contact their county's County Recorder's Office for early ballot info.

Friday, October 24 - Early voting request submittal deadline.

Tuesday, November 4 - Election Day.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - Our long national nightmare ends. Unless Florida still hasn't learned how to count. (OK, so I couldn't resist a *little* snarkiness. :)) )

Later!

The John Sydney McCain Memorial Crappie Award - Debate Edition

OK, OK - I admit that I named this award after McCain because he was always a contender for it and his constant presence in the race for the award interfered with the ability of other contenders to earn their moments in spotlight.

Naming the award after him was a way of giving McCain the 'flip-flop' notice the he always seems to merit without ever giving him the award.

However, after his performance at the debate on Friday night, McCain win the latest edition of the Crappie-st award in politics.

First, during the debate question on the Russian invasion of Georgia, he said things like -

"...Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia..."

{snip}

"...But we also have every right to expect the Russians to behave in a fashion and keeping with a -- with a -- with a country who respects international boundaries and the norms of international behavior."

Funny, he wasn't so concerned with the behavior of the U.S. when it ignored "international boundaries" and "the norms of international behavior" and agressively invaded Iraq without anything resembling just cause (lies about WMDs don't count as 'just cause'.)

But that was a relatively small flip flop compared to another Iraq War-related flip-flop (OK, it was more an example of shameless hypocrisy, but that works for this series of posts).

"Honor"

Six times during the debate, McCain used the word "honor" (or a variant of it) in relation to the war in Iraq. The first instance was in reference to coming "home with victory and with honor."

Ummm, some may consider this rude and even impertinent, but where was McCain's concern for honor *before* he supported Bush's invasion of a country that hadn't done anything to us, or was even a threat to do so?

The troops involved, other than a few notable exceptions (i.e. - Abu Ghraib), have been honorable in their service. However, the leaders like Bush and McCain who directed them to serve, kill, and die in Iraq should be hanging their heads in shame.

And that hypocritical cloaking of himself in "honor" when he should instead working to cleanse himself of the shame of the worst American political shame in generations (the campaign to exterminate Native Americans was worse), *that* is why John McCain has won the latest edition of his own award, The John Sydney McCain Memorial Crappie Award.


A transcript of the debate, courtesy the L.A. Times, here.

Damn! I *so* wanted to be on that jury...

First, I read this story (from AP via KYPost.com) -

SOUTH CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) -- Call it a case of assault with a smelly weapon. Police in West Virginia accuse Jose Cruz of passing gas -- then fanning it toward an officer.

Mr. Cruz was later charged with battery on an officer and drunken driving (What? You were shocked that a guy who farted and directed it toward a cop was drunk at the time. :)) )

I saw this story earlier today and seriously considered moving to West Virginia so that I'd have a chance to sit on the jury when a police officer stood up in court to explain that he was injured by a fart. I had all sorts of witticisms planned like "Cruz potentially faces other, more serious, charges like 'disturbing the peace - tooting' and 'ADW - flatulence'.

Now that I'm home, however, I'm glad I didn't do anything rash (and I'm pretty sure that living in WV would have eventually involved a rash :) ).

This story was hitting the wires by the time I made it home (courtesy AP) -

A West Virginia man accused of passing gas and fanning it toward a police officer no longer faces a battery charge. The Kanawha County prosecutor's office requested that the charge be dropped against 34-year-old Jose Cruz.

The story didn't give a reason for the prosecutor's move to drop the charge, though I expect the desire not to be subject to national ridicule may have played a part in the decision.

Later!

McCain campaign: Plan A isn't working, so it's time for Plan B

Based on today's news, traipsing around the country letting voters get to know him isn't working for McCain, so the Senator with the worst attendance record is heading back to work, hoping that *not* letting voters see him will help his candidacy.

The McCain campaign, which for the last couple of weeks has all but ignored the crisis in the financial services sector (hereafter referred to as "Wall Street"), other than to say that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong."

Today, though, a new Washington Post/ABC News poll of Americans (hereafter referred to as "Main Street") shows Barack Obama is widening his lead over McCain in their quests for the presidency.

The McCain response? To "suspend" his campaign and request (beg!) that the Obama campaign cooperates with his Hail Mary pass attempt and do the same. (BTW - I'm not the first to use the "Hail Mary" allusion - Rep. Barney Frank called McCain's ploy "the longest Hail Mary pass in the history of either footballs or Marys.")

Breaking: Obama has declined to suspend the campaign or to postpone Friday's first presidential debate, scheduled to take place in Oxford, Mississippi.


I do have one question (of the semi-rhetorical variety) - Has anyone with the McCain campaign researched the success rate of Hail Mary passes in the NFL?

I don't know the actual stats on that, but in all the games that I've watched, out of dozens of attempts, I can't recall more than three or four that worked.

Bottom line: while the election is less than a month and a half away, it's still too early to go to "gadget" plays born of desperation (as much as it disappoints me as a Democrat and an Obama supporter, he's just the stronger candidate right now. He's *not* walking away with the election. Yet. :) )

Later!

A rare* public appearance by Joe Arpaio

On Thursday, Joe Arpaio will be speaking at the September meeting of the Community Council of Scottsdale.

The meeting will be at 7:00 p.m. at the Granite Reef Senior Center in Scottsdale.

For most of us, this might be the only chance to see Joe Arpaio during this election cycle, unless you go to one of his many fundraisers or press conferences (or one of his many anti-Mexican immigrant sweeps). He's refused to debate Dan Saban, the retired police chief who is challenging Arpaio in November's election.

Apparently Arpaio believes that if he just ignores Saban long enough, he and the thousands of Maricopa County voters who are fed up with Arpaio's self-serving bullying and nativism will just go away.

To Joe and his supporters: Don't count on it.

* rare = no TV cameras expected.