Next up in Breaking News: Water is wet

On Thursday, Pro Tem Justice of the Peace Daniel Washburn acquitted State Sen. John Huppenthal (R-Anger Management Issues) on misdemeanor theft and political sign tampering charges.

Washburn is a Republican activist and candidate in Pinal County. Huppenthal is a state senator and likely candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction next year.

This was not a really shocking verdict (the sign tampering statute's language refers to the signs for a candidate, and the sign in question was not "for" a candidate) but the fact that Washburn took so long to find something to hang an acquittal on the theft charge was a little surprising.

While the ruling cannot be appealed by the prosecution, the grounds for the acquittal on the theft charge seems weak.

The Judge found that the state hadn't proven that the sign in question belonged to the Arizona Democratic Party, and that was enough to acquit.

My understanding of the law (which isn't great; if a real lawyer wants to chime in with some insights, that would be fine) is that theft occurs when someone takes property that doesn't belong to him, not when that someone takes property that belongs to a specific owner.

Another weakness of the verdict is that it was based in part on the property manager giving Huppenthal permission to take the sign down.

Well, while Huppenthal testified that he was given permission, the property manager testified that she said "I don't care."

Only in Arizona could "I don't care" be synonymous with "I give you permission."

I guess we can file all of this under "IOKIYAR" - It's OK If You're A Republican.

OK, so maybe putting your name to something doesn't add to your credibility

...not if that something is utter crap.

Note: Tedski was on top of this earlier today, but the topic deserves more attention.

Chuck Coughlin, a Republican consultant, long-time Republican activist, and adviser to Governor Jan Brewer (in short, he's a career political hack) penned a piece for the AZ Republic's opinion page. The piece metes out blame for the mess surrounding the state's budget.

This may be a surprise to some (OK, not really), but he feels that the majority Republicans in the lege are almost totally blameless, and their Governor (his client) is *totally* blameless.

He blames the legislative gridlock surrounding the budget on the Voting Rights Act, term limits, Clean Elections and, of course, Democrats.

Apparently, the state's fiscal issues are the fault of minorities exercising their right to vote, a dearth of easily influenced "highly experienced" career pols in the lege, citizen-funded candidates instead of corporate-funded candidates, and, of course, those pesky Dems with their opposition of the Republican "backhoe to paradise".

Change those things, and the state will become a fiscal Nirvana.

It couldn't be the responsibility of the majority Republicans and the Governor and their preference for serving the likes of realtors, developers, and mining interests (perhaps not coincidentally, Couglin's consulting business has clients from all of those industries) over serving the interests of their constituents, could it?

Nah...'course not.

:))

...Coughlin's piece does bring to mind one question. Is this piece, however bad, a product of Coughlin alone, or is it a signal from Brewer to both the Democrats and the Republicans in the lege that she isn't really interested in doing any kind of real negotiating with the Democrats?

Later...

Congressman Mitchell's telephone town hall

Earlier this evening, Congressman Harry Mitchell held a Telephone Town Hall on Health Care Reform.

For an hour, approximately 14,000 CD5 residents listened as the Congressman fielded a couple of dozen questions regarding the current health care reform proposals before Congress.

The callers came from all over the district, and their question were all over the place, too.

This being Arizona, a couple of the callers wanted to make sure that undocumented immigrants wouldn't be eligible for benefits under any plan (they won't be). One of the callers even blamed them for the high cost of health care in the U.S. and stated that they should be barred from even using emergency rooms (regardless of the pesky law from 1986 that bars ERs from refusing to take care of anyone who needs their services.)

Some callers supported a single-payer system, some supported a public option, and others totally opposed any government involvement in health care. A couple were obvious insurance industry/Shadegg plants harping on tort reform and letting insurance companies sell their products across state lines without regard to state laws and regulations.

Through it all, Congressman Mitchell emphasized that he does not support a single-payer plan or any proposal that would lead to a complete government takeover of health insurance. He does support proposals to create health insurance pools (the "co-ops" that have been bandied about as an alternative to a public option). He stated that one of his problems with a single-payer plan is that all current proposals for one have them structured to pay healthcare providers based on Medicare reimbursement rates, which are too low.

Mitchell also emphasized that he will only support a plan that supports increased competition among insurers.

Anyway, I've got to go because of work early in morning. I'll cover more tomorrow.

Gotta love that anonymity thing...

...doesn't help with the whole credibility thing, though.

I was perusing the website of the AZ Secretary of State, checking to see which candidates have started committees for next year (LD9's Republicans are going to have cattle call primaries for its legislative seats to deal with next year, and Barry Wong, a 2008 Rep nominee for Corporation Commission, is running for ACC again) when I came across a couple of interesting committees.

They're found under the "all other" category.

Filer ID 201000188, Citizens for Dean Martin for Governor, a $500 threshold committee.

Filer ID 201000186, Citizens Advocating Pragmatism, a $500 threshold committee.

Filer ID 201000193, Recall Garielle [sic] Giffords, a $500 threshold committee.


What does each of those committees have in common?

No listing of Chair or Treasurer.


However, their anonymity isn't complete - the Dean Martin committee lists a contact email of rbutterfield@cox.net and the Pragmatism committee lists gregory.m.wagner@gmail.com.

The Recall Giffords committee, while they are rather poor spellers, do a better job at anonymity - their email addy is recgiffords@hotmail.com.

Let's be clear - no listing of chair and treasurer on the SOS's website isn't necessarily illegal, as some of the other committees are similarly shown on the website.

It is interesting, however, since two of the committees were formed to directly support or oppose specific candidates.

Part of politics is standing up and being heard.

Anonymity *is* legal (even protected, under the First Amendment to the Constitution), but it isn't something that enhances the anonymous one's credibility.


Anyway, time to join Harry Mitchell's telephone town hall...

Ted Kennedy's speech on the run-up to the war in Iraq

While health care reform will go down as Ted Kennedy's signature issue and perhaps his lasting legacy, health care for all was hardly his only issue.

In 2002, Sen. Kennedy gave a speech to the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

Courtesy CommonDreams.org -

Thank you, Dr. Fukuyama for that generous introduction.

I'm honored to be here at the School of Advanced International Studies. Many of the most talented individuals in foreign policy have benefited immensely from your outstanding graduate program, and I welcome the opportunity to meet with you today.

I have come here today to express my view that America should not go to war against Iraq unless and until other reasonable alternatives are exhausted. But I begin with the strongest possible affirmation that good and decent people on all sides of this debate, who may in the end stand on opposing sides of this decision, are equally committed to our national security.

The life and death issue of war and peace is too important to be left to politics. And I disagree with those who suggest that this fateful issue cannot or should not be contested vigorously, publicly, and all across America. When it is the people's sons and daughters who will risk and even lose their lives, then the people should hear and be heard, speak and be listened to.

But there is a difference between honest public dialogue and partisan appeals. There is a difference between questioning policy and questioning motives. There are Republicans and Democrats who support the immediate use of force – and Republicans and Democrats who have raised doubts and dissented.

In this serious time for America and many American families, no one should poison the public square by attacking the patriotism of opponents, or by assailing proponents as more interested in the cause of politics than in the merits of their cause. I reject this, as should we all.

Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us. And let me say with the same plainness: Those who agree with that course have an equal obligation – to resist any temptation to convert patriotism into politics. It is possible to love America while concluding that is not now wise to go to war. The standard that should guide us is especially clear when lives are on the line: We must ask what is right for country and not party.

That is the true spirit of September 11th — not unthinking unanimity, but a clear-minded unity in our determination to defeat terrorism — to defend our values and the value of life itself.

Just a year ago, the American people and the Congress rallied behind the President and our Armed Forces as we went to war in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda and the Taliban protectors who gave them sanctuary in Afghanistan posed a clear, present and continuing danger. The need to destroy Al Qaeda was urgent and undeniable.

In the months that followed September 11, the Bush Administration marshalled an international coalition. Today, 90 countries are enlisted in the effort, from providing troops to providing law enforcement, intelligence, and other critical support.

But I am concerned that using force against Iraq before other means are tried will sorely test both the integrity and effectiveness of the coalition. Just one year into the campaign against Al Qaeda, the Administration is shifting focus, resources, and energy to Iraq. The change in priority is coming before we have fully eliminated the threat from Al Qaeda, before we know whether Osama Bin Laden is dead or alive, and before we can be assured that the fragile post-Taliban government in Afghanistan will consolidate its authority.

No one disputes that America has lasting and important interests in the Persian Gulf, or that Iraq poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.

How can we best achieve this objective in a way that minimizes the risks to our country? How can we ignore the danger to our young men and women in uniform, to our ally Israel, to regional stability, the international community, and victory against terrorism?

There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary.

Nor has the Administration laid out the cost in blood and treasure of this operation. With all the talk of war, the Administration has not explicitly acknowledged, let alone explained to the American people, the immense post-war commitment that will be required to create a stable Iraq.

The President's challenge to the United Nations requires a renewed effort to enforce the will of the international community to disarm Saddam. Resorting to war is not America's only or best course at this juncture. There are realistic alternatives between doing nothing and declaring unilateral or immediate war. War should be a last resort, not the first response. Let us follow that course, and the world will be with us – even if, in the end, we have to move to the ultimate sanction of armed conflict.

The Bush Administration says America can fight a war in Iraq without undermining our most pressing national security priority -- the war against Al Qaeda. But I believe it is inevitable that a war in Iraq without serious international support will weaken our effort to ensure that Al Qaeda terrorists can never, never, never threaten American lives again.

Unfortunately, the threat from Al Qaeda is still imminent. The nation's armed forces and law enforcement are on constant high alert. America may have broken up the Al Qaeda network in Afghanistan and scattered its operatives across many lands. But we have not broken its will to kill Americans.

As I said earlier, we still don't know the fate, the location, or the operational capacity of Osama bin Laden himself. But we do know that Al Qaeda is still there, and still here in America – and will do all it can to strike at America's heart and heartland again. But we don't know when, where, or how this may happen.

On March 12, CIA Director Tenet testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Al Qaeda remains "the most immediate and serious threat" to our country, "despite the progress we have made in Afghanistan and in disrupting the network elsewhere."

Even with the Taliban out of power, Afghanistan remains fragile. Security remains tenuous. Warlords still dominate many regions. Our reconstruction effort, which is vital to long-term stability and security, is halting and inadequate. Some Al Qaeda operatives – no one knows how many – have faded into the general population. Terrorist attacks are on the rise. President Karzai, who has already survived one assassination attempt, is still struggling to solidify his hold on power. And although neighboring Pakistan has been our ally, its stability is far from certain.

We know all this – and we also know that it is an open secret in Washington that the nation's uniformed military leadership is skeptical about the wisdom of war with Iraq. They share the concern that it may adversely affect the ongoing war against Al Qaeda and the continuing effort in Afghanistan by draining resources and armed forces already stretched so thin that many Reservists have been called for a second year of duty, and record numbers of service members have been kept on active duty beyond their obligated service.

To succeed in our global war against Al Qaeda and terrorism, the United States depends on military, law enforcement, and intelligence support from many other nations. We depend on Russia and countries in the former Soviet Union that border Afghanistan for military cooperation. We depend on countries from Portugal to Pakistan to the Philippines for information about Al Qaeda's plans and intentions. Because of these relationships, terrorist plots are being foiled and Al Qaeda operatives are being arrested. It is far from clear that these essential relationships will be able to survive the strain of a war with Iraq that comes before the alternatives are tried – or without the support of an international coalition.

A largely unilateral American war that is widely perceived in the Muslim world as untimely or unjust could worsen not lessen the threat of terrorism. War with Iraq before a genuine attempt at inspection and disarmament, or without genuine international support -- could swell the ranks of Al Qaeda sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts. As General Clark told the Senate Armed Services Committee, it would "super-charge recruiting for Al Qaeda."

General Hoar advised the Committee on September 23 that America's first and primary effort should be to defeat Al Qaeda. In a September 10th article, General Clark wrote: "Unilateral U.S. action today would disrupt the war against Al Qaeda." We ignore such wisdom and advice from many of the best of our military at our own peril.

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction.

In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein — and I quote — "is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War." That is unacceptable, but it is also possible that it could be stopped short of war.

In recent weeks, in briefings and in hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have seen no persuasive evidence that Saddam would not be deterred from attacking U.S. interests by America's overwhelming military superiority.

I have heard no persuasive evidence that Saddam is on the threshold of acquiring the nuclear weapons he has sought for more than 20 years.

And the Administration has offered no persuasive evidence that Saddam would transfer chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. As General Joseph Hoar, the former Commander of Central Command told the members of the Armed Services Committee, a case has not been made to connect Al Qaeda and Iraq.

To the contrary, there is no clear and convincing pattern of Iraqi relations with either Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, testified before the Armed Services Committee on September 23 that Iran has had closer ties to terrorism than Iraq. Iran has a nuclear weapons development program, and it already has a missile that can reach Israel.

Moreover, in August, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft wrote that there is "scant evidence" linking Saddam Hussein to terrorist organizations, and "even less to the September 11 attacks." He concluded that Saddam would not regard it as in his interest to risk his country or his investment in weapons of mass destruction by transferring them to terrorists who would use them and "leave Baghdad as the return address."

At the present time, we do face a pressing risk of proliferation -- from Russia's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. America spends only $1 billion a year to safeguard those weapons. Yet the Administration is preparing to spend between one and two hundred billion dollars on a war with Iraq.

I do not accept the idea that trying other alternatives is either futile or perilous – that the risks of waiting are greater than the risks of war. Indeed, in launching a war against Iraq now, the United States may precipitate the very threat that we are intent on preventing -- weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered: He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists.

Some who advocate military action against Iraq, however, assert that air strikes will do the job quickly and decisively, and that the operation will be complete in 72 hours. But there is again no persuasive evidence that air strikes alone over the course of several days will incapacitate Saddam and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Experts have informed us that we do not have sufficient intelligence about military targets in Iraq. Saddam may well hide his most lethal weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals. If our forces attempt to strike such targets, untold numbers of Iraqi civilians could be killed.

In the Gulf War, many of Saddam's soldiers quickly retreated because they did not believe the invasion of Kuwait was justified. But when Iraq's survival is at stake, it is more likely that they will fight to the end. Saddam and his military may well abandon the desert, retreat to Baghdad, and engage in urban, guerilla warfare.

In our September 23 hearing, General Clark told the Committee that we would need a large military force and a plan for urban warfare. General Hoar said that our military would have to be prepared to fight block by block in Baghdad, and that we could lose a battalion of soldiers a day in casualties. Urban fighting would, he said, look like the last brutal 15 minutes of the movie "Saving Private Ryan."

Before the Gulf War in 1991, Secretary of State James Baker met with the Iraqis and threatened Hussein with "catastrophe" if he employed weapons of mass destruction. In that war, although Saddam launched 39 Scud missiles at Israel, he did not use the chemical or biological weapons he had.

If Saddam's regime and survival are threatened, he will have nothing to lose, and may use everything at his disposal. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has announced that instead of its forbearance in the 1991 Gulf War, this time Israel will respond if attacked. If weapons of mass destruction land on Israeli soil, killing innocent civilians, the experts I have consulted believe Israel will retaliate, and possibly with nuclear weapons.

This escalation, spiraling out of control, could draw the Arab world into a regional war in which our Arab allies side with Iraq, against the United States and against Israel. And that would represent a fundamental threat to Israel, to the region, to the world economy and international order.

Nor can we rule out the possibility that Saddam would assault American forces with chemical or biological weapons. Despite advances in protecting our troops, we do not yet have the capability to safeguard all of them.

Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are serving their country with great distinction. Just under 70,000 Reservists and National Guardsmen have been mobilized for the war against terrorism. If we embark upon a premature or unilateral military campaign against Iraq, or a campaign only with Britain, our forces will have to serve in even greater numbers, for longer periods, and with graver risks. Our force strength will be stretched even thinner. And war is the last resort. If in the end we have to take that course, the burden should be shared with allies – and that is less likely if war becomes an immediate response.

Even with the major technological gains demonstrated in Afghanistan, the logistics of such a war would be extraordinarily challenging if we could not marshal a real coalition of regional and international allies.

President Bush made the right decision on September 12 when he expressed America's willingness to work with the United Nations to prevent Iraq from using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. The President's address to the General Assembly challenging the United Nations to enforce its long list of Security Council Resolutions on Iraq was powerful -- and for me, it was persuasive.

But to maintain the credibility he built when he went to the U.N., the President must follow the logic of his own argument.

Before we go to war, we should give the international community the chance to meet the President's challenge – to renew its resolve to disarm Saddam Hussein completely and effectively. This makes the resumption of inspections more imperative and perhaps more likely than at any time since they ended in 1998.

So this should be the first aim of our policy – to get U.N. inspectors back into Iraq without conditions. I hope the Security Council will approve a new resolution requiring the Government of Iraq to accept unlimited and unconditional inspections and the destruction of any weapons of mass destruction.

The resolution should set a short timetable for the resumption of inspections. I would hope that inspections could resume, at the latest, by the end of October.

The resolution should also require the head of the UN inspection team to report to the Security Council every two weeks. No delaying tactics should be tolerated – and if they occur, Saddam should know that he will lose his last chance to avoid war.

The Security Council Resolution should authorize the use of force, if the inspection process in unsatisfactory. And there should be no doubt in Baghdad that the United States Congress would then be prepared to authorize force as well.

The return of inspectors with unfettered access and the ability to destroy what they find not only could remove any weapons of mass destruction from Saddam's arsenal. They could also be more effective than an immediate or unilateral war in ensuring that these deadly weapons would not fall into terrorist hands.

The seven years of inspections that took place until 1998 succeeded in virtually eliminating Saddam's ability to develop a nuclear weapon in Iraq during that period. Even with Iraq's obstructions, those inspections resulted in the demolition of large quantities of chemical and biological weapons. By the time the inspectors were forced out of the country in 1998, they had accomplished far more disarmament than the Gulf War itself. And before going to war again, we should seek to resume the inspections now – and set a non-negotiable demand of no obstruction, no delay, no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

What can be gained here is success – and in the event of failure, greater credibility for an armed response, greater international support, and the prospect of victory with less loss of American life.

So what is to be lost by pursuing this policy before Congress authorizes sending young Americans into another and in this case perhaps unnecessary war?

Even the case against Saddam is, in important respects, a case against immediate or unilateral war. If Prime Minister Blair is correct in saying that Iraq can launch chemical or biological warheads in 45 minutes, what kind of sense does it make to put our soldiers in the path of that danger without exhausting every reasonable means to disarm Iraq through the United Nations?

Clearly we must halt Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction. Yes, we may reach the point where our only choice is conflict – with like-minded allies at our side, if not in a multilateral action authorized by the Security Council. But we are not there yet.

The evidence does not take us there; events do not compel us there – and both the war against terrorism and our wider interests in the region and the world summon us to a course that is sensible, graduated, and genuinely strong – not because it moves swiftly to battle, but because it moves resolutely to the objective of disarming Iraq – peacefully if possible, and militarily if necessary.

Let me close by recalling the events of an autumn of danger four decades ago. When missiles were discovered in Cuba – missiles more threatening to us than anything Saddam has today – some in the highest councils of government urged an immediate and unilateral strike. Instead the United States took its case to the United Nations, won the endorsement of the Organization of American States, and brought along even our most skeptical allies. We imposed a blockade, demanded inspection, and insisted on the removal of the missiles.

When an earlier President outlined that choice to the American people and the world, he spoke of it in realistic terms – not with a sense that the first step would necessarily be the final step, but with a resolve that it must be tried.

As he said then, "Action is required…and these actions [now] may only be the beginning. We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of…war – but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced."

In 2002, we too can and must be both resolute and measured. In that way, the United States prevailed without war in the greatest confrontation of the Cold War. Now, on Iraq, let us build international support, try the United Nations, and pursue disarmament before we turn to armed conflict.

Congressman Harry Mitchell's statement on the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy

From Congressman Mitchell's House website -

U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell today issued the following statement on the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy:

"I am deeply saddened this morning by the news of Senator Edward Kennedy's passing. Senator Kennedy embodied public service - devoting his entire life not just to his home state of Massachusetts, but to the nation as a whole. In a Senate career spanning four decades, Senator Kennedy became one of the most influential and productive legislators in Congress. He was a staunch advocate, who argued passionately, but also knew how to reach across the aisle to get things done. As a lifelong student of government, I recognize the indelible mark that his work has made on our country. With his passing, America has lost a statesman. I join the rest of the country in mourning this monumental loss. My thoughts today are with the entire Kennedy family."

Note: I'm citing the words of others regarding the loss of Ted Kennedy because while I grew up in Massachusetts and even voted for him, Ted Kennedy was a U.S. Senator even before I was alive.

In many ways, the average person in MA regarded Ted Kennedy the way that the average person in AZ regards sunshine - an indelible part of the firmament.

Something that brightens and sustains all it touches.

Something that is always there.

Something that is only truly appreciated when it isn't there any longer.

President Obama's remarks on the career and life of Senator Ted Kennedy

From WhiteHouse.gov -

The President spoke at 9:57 this morning at Blue Heron Farm in Chilmark, Massachusetts:

THE PRESIDENT: I wanted to say a few words this morning about the passing of an extraordinary leader, Senator Edward Kennedy.

Over the past several years, I've had the honor to call Teddy a colleague, a counselor, and a friend. And even though we have known this day was coming for some time now, we awaited it with no small amount of dread.

Since Teddy's diagnosis last year, we've seen the courage with which he battled his illness. And while these months have no doubt been difficult for him, they've also let him hear from people in every corner of our nation and from around the world just how much he meant to all of us. His fight has given us the opportunity we were denied when his brothers John and Robert were taken from us: the blessing of time to say thank you -- and goodbye.

The outpouring of love, gratitude, and fond memories to which we've all borne witness is a testament to the way this singular figure in American history touched so many lives. His ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives -- in seniors who know new dignity, in families that know new opportunity, in children who know education's promise, and in all who can pursue their dream in an America that is more equal and more just -- including myself.

The Kennedy name is synonymous with the Democratic Party. And at times, Ted was the target of partisan campaign attacks. But in the United States Senate, I can think of no one who engendered greater respect or affection from members of both sides of the aisle. His seriousness of purpose was perpetually matched by humility, warmth, and good cheer. He could passionately battle others and do so peerlessly on the Senate floor for the causes that he held dear, and yet still maintain warm friendships across party lines.

And that's one reason he became not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy.

His extraordinary life on this earth has come to an end. And the extraordinary good that he did lives on. For his family, he was a guardian. For America, he was the defender of a dream.

I spoke earlier this morning to Senator Kennedy's beloved wife, Vicki, who was to the end such a wonderful source of encouragement and strength. Our thoughts and prayers are with her, his children Kara, Edward, and Patrick; his stepchildren Curran and Caroline; the entire Kennedy family; decades' worth of his staff; the people of Massachusetts; and all Americans who, like us, loved Ted Kennedy.

Arizona Democratic Party statement on the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy

From an email -

ADP Chairman Don Bivens today issued the following statement on the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy:

"We are truly saddened at the news of Senator Edward Kennedy's death. The country has lost not only a leader but a genuine statesman and public servant. He loved his country deeply, devoting his nearly 47 years in the Senate to the people of Massachusetts and people in need everywhere. He championed the plight of the overlooked, creating a body of legislative work - from the Americans with Disabilities Act to the Family and Medical Leave Act - that has touched the lives of millions. Despite today's sad news, it is comforting to know that Senator Kennedy's legacy will be felt for generations. Our thoughts are with his family and loved ones."

Ted Kennedy 1932 - 2009

Ted Kennedy, one of the last remaining lions of the Senate, has succumbed to brain cancer at the age of 77.

Pic of Senator Kennedy throwing out the first pitch for the Boston Red Sox this past April found at DemocraticUnderground.com.

My condolences go out to Senator Kennedy's friends and family and to all who looked up to him and his long record of public service.

CNN coverage here.

For those Republicans in the lege who support texting while driving

This video is currently a big hit on YouTube.

It should be required viewing for any legislator who opposes Rep. Steve Farley's next attempt to ban texting while driving.

Warning - the video is graphic and not for those with tender sensibilities or weak stomachs.

Huppenthal case continued until Thursday

Expectations were that the verdict in the misdemeanor theft and political sign tampering case against state Sen. John Huppenthal was going to be announced on Tuesday.

However, a quick glance at the online record of the case shows that a "status conference" on the case has been scheduled for Thursday, August 27 at 4 p.m.

I'm not sure what is causing the delay.

Stay tuned a little longer...

McCain gets promoted during his health care forum

During John McCain's forum opposing the health care reform proposed by President Obama, Shirley McAllister of Sun City asked a pointed question (emphasis mine) -

"Why are so many people opposed to a government-provided health care option? I believe you, Senator Kennedy...[crowd laughs]...I just promoted you...[more laughter]...Senator McCain, I'm sorry...I believe you have had access to government-provided health care for most of your life, and I would imagine that most of us here are on Medicare, and there may be some who would like to give up their Medicare. [shouts of "NO" from the crowd] No, none of us do, so what is so wrong with government-provided health care?"

Legislative Update - Sine Die planned for today

OK, so there is a reason that I'm glad that I blew off a trip to West Washington.

They're not going to do anything significant today.


Right now, the plan is to adjourn the third special session of the lege "sine die" in order to give the Governor 10 more days to deal with the package of budget bills that the lege sent to her last week (think: the classic prank of leaving a flaming bag of dog poop in front of somebody's door, ringing the door bell, and running away.)

After her sign/veto decisions, they plan to enter a *fourth* special session to "fix" the budget some more.

Ummm...this whole mess brings to mind one question.

Would it be possible to amend the state constitution to require the lege to pass a balanced budget by the start of the fiscal year, and in the event that they don't do so, build a holding cell for 91 (got to have space for the Governor) to hold them until they do so? Think Arpaio's Tent City without the creature comforts.

I'm pretty sure that after a week of finding out which one of their colleagues snores the loudest while trying to ignore the pervasive "eau de bank of porta-potties" wafting through the tents all day and night, most of Arizona's legislators will start thinking (and saying) "[bleep] Grover, I just want to go home," a balanced budget will get passed.

More later...

Scottsdale water update for NIBW residents

For those of you who don't know - NIBW is the acronym for the "North Indian Bend Wash" Superfund site. Info at the link.

The following is an email from Vicki Rosen, the EPA's Community Involvement Coordinator for NIBW -

Dear NIBW CIG,

This note is to let you all know about an external water leak that occurred last Thursday, August 20, at the Scottsdale Central Groundwater Treatment Facility (CGTF). As you know, the facility uses a "pump and treat" system to treat groundwater contaminated primarily with trichloroethylene (TCE) from the NIBW site. The CGTF is operated by the City of Scottsdale, including its four extraction wells.

Here's what happened according to a phone call we received from the City of Scottsdale:

First, and most importantly, the City reported that the leak was not associated with the drinking water system.

At approximately 7:00 am on August 20, an employee at the Coronado Golf Course noticed a water leak and advised the City. When City employees arrived at 8:00 am, they found that it was coming from an air release valve on a water line connected to one of the extraction wells (S71). City staff immediately shut down valves upstream from the leak to stop the flow of water in addition to the associated well. The leak originated at a coupling between the water line and the air release valve. The water flowed into an irrigation ditch which feeds into a lake on the golf course.

Here's what the City reported was done to address the leak:

- The City followed the EPA-approved Contingency and Emergency Response Plan

- The coupling between the air release valve and the water line was repaired and back in operation by 10:00 am the same day

- The City inspected all air release valves on all the pipelines as a preventative measure and repaired any that were of concern

- Water samples were collected at several locations including the point where the leak originated, a ditch that received the runoff and two locations at the lake on the golf course (where water enters the lake and where it exits)

- A soil sample was taken at the location of the leak

Here's what else the City reported to us:

- It's estimated that 200,000 gallons of groundwater leaked onto the ground

- Initial sampling results show TCE at 65 parts per billion at the point of the leak and non-detect at the ditch and the lake

- The City initially cordoned off the area of the spill to discourage public access until there was no concern

What happens next?

The City is in the process of preparing a report detailing the incident and corrective actions. I will share this report with all of you after we receive it.

Again, please note this leak occurred on the delivery side of the system conveying untreated water to the treatment facility and had no impact on the drinking water system.

I've attached a flyer from the City that is going to residents adjacent to the golf course where the leak occurred.

On another note, I know we haven't met in quite a while.

There are several reasons for this, one being that we've been waiting for the most current information on site activities that would be of interest to the community. Due to a very full schedule I have for the next few weeks, we may not be able to get together before November but we'll do the best we can. Our dear project manager, Jamey Watt, is on a detail in Honolulu (poor guy). Taking over for him at the NIBW site is Rachel Loftin, a very experienced remedial project manager. We're looking forward to getting together with all of you.

Best,

Vicki

I've got to head downtown for the legislative session, so I won't be able to look into this until later today or sometime tomorrow.

BTW - Arizona American Water, the company that has had so many problems with the facility that they operate to treat a portion of the contaminated groundwater before selling it to users in parts of Scottsdale and Paradise Valley, is under investigation by ADEQ for the way that it has handled drinking water supplies in western AZ.

Later...

Arizonans: Here's how to get the Republicans in the legislature to listen to us

This is awesome in its simplicity and directness...

The likes of Jack Harper, Ron Gould, Pam Gorman and most of the rest of the GOPers in the lege have made it clear that the voices they hear clearest are not those of their constituents or of Arizonans in general, so we have to do something drastic to get them to listen to us.

Tonight, like a bolt of lightning during an Arizona monsoon that reaches out to strike a tree, inspiration reached out to me.

...wait for it...


We should all just change our names to "Grover Norquist."


Legal name change forms for Arizona can be found here.


Other legislative news:

...The Huppenthal verdict is scheduled to be handed down on Tuesday, probably at 4 p.m (or thereabouts).

...AZCentral.com's Political Insider is reporting that the Governor and the leaders of the two caucuses in the Senate met Monday evening to attempt to work out some kind of a budget deal that would end with a referral of a sales tax increase to the voters.

...From the Joint Legislative Budget Committee - a summary of the budget bills (BRBs) that were transmitted to the Governor, and a summary of the numbers of that budget. The Governor has yet to sign most of it yet.

...The lege floor sessions are scheduled for Tuesday at 1 p.m., but that is subject to change if they can actually work out some kind of a deal.

No word on whether the Senate will recess Tuesday's session of the Senate to allow Huppenthal the time to attend to his court case.