Quelland on his way out

From AZCentral.com -

For the second time this year, a state authority has determined that Rep. Doug Quelland must forfeit his office over campaign-finance violations.

On Monday, a state administrative law judge upheld the May finding of the Citizens
Clean Elections Commission that Quelland violated a number of campaign-finance laws, including using private funding while running under the state's public campaign-finance scheme, and failing to report a $15,000 contract with political consultant Larry Davis.

The penalty for these violations is removal from office and $30,500 in fines, judge Thomas Shedden concluded.

Quelland was out of town when the decision was handed down, but his attorney promised to appeal the decision. Of course.

The judge's decision, also courtesy AZCentral.com, is here.

He'll fight it, but like David Burnell Smith before him, he'll lose this one.

Soon-to-be-former Rep. Quelland may have been unavailable for comment today, but Don Bivens, chair of the Arizona Democratic Party was -

"Rep. Quelland pledged to follow the rules when he agreed to run as a Clean Elections candidate. When public officials violate the law, they also violate the trust of Arizona voters. The residents of District 10 deserve better during these difficult times."

Quelland may be in office during the still-only-a-rumor special session on tap for next week, but unless the courts completely shut down due to lack of funds or something (not entirely out of the realm of possibility with this travesty of a legislature), he should be out of office by the time the 2nd session of the 49th Arizona Legislature begins in January.

Best wishes on a speedy recovery to State Sen. Al Melvin

Like everybody I know (and I expect most of the readers of this posting), I've had family members get cancer. The fight against it, successful or not, is usually painful, always stressful, and invariably expensive, both financially and emotionally.

Some things are far more important than mere partisan politics, and this is one of them...

The Arizona Capitol Times has the story -

Sen. Al Melvin, a Tucson Republican, disclosed Nov. 9 that he has been undergoing treatment for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Melvin said the disease is not interfering with his work and he expects a full recovery. Melvin, in fact, has been holding hearings on energy and water during the past several weeks. He said he was lucky it was detected early.

Information about Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) can be found here, courtesy the National Cancer Institutes.

In short, it's a cancer of the white blood cells. It can be fatal, however it is also treatable, depending on the type of NHL and how soon it is detected. And the earlier, the better.

I wish Sen. Melvin (and his loved ones) all the best in his fight against this disease. While the partisan in me wants to see him out of office, I want it to see it happen when Cheryl Cage defeats him, not this.

Later...

The coming week...

As usual, all info gathered from the websites of the relevent political bodies/agencies (except where noted), and subject to change without notice...

...After the rare Saturday hubbub in the U. S. House (over health care reform), the House will be in recess for a week. Which probably explains the need to hold a Saturday session...

...The U. S. Senate is also expected to recess for a week, though their committee schedule will continue...


...Here in Arizona, the budget is still out of balance and the legislature is still out of session.
There are rumors that a special session is in the works, but a special session hasn't actually been called yet.

The intersession makework schedule continues, however -

- On Monday, the House Health and Human Services and Senate Healthcare and Medical Liability Reform Committee of Reference will meet in SHR1 at noon for sunset reviews of the Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Board of Psychologist Examiners, Advisory Council on Aging, Board of Homeopathic and Integrated Medicine Examiners, Department of Health Services, Maricopa Integrated Health System, and Arizona Athletic Trainers Association.

Note: Some of the Auditor General's sunset review audits can be found on their website.

- On Tuesday, the House Judiciary and Senate Judiciary Committee of Reference will meet at 10 a.m. in HHR5 to consider the sunset review of the Arizona Department of Gaming.

- On Tuesday. the Joint Committee on Capital Review will meet at 2 p.m. in SHR109. The agenda includes an executive session on a prison concession agreement.

- On Thursday, the House Military Affairs and Public Safety and Senate Public Safety and Human Services Committee of Reference will meet at 10 a.m. in HHR5 for the sunset review of the Department of Juvenile Corrections.

- On Thursday, the Bipartisan Task Force on the Private School Tuition Tax Credits program will meet at 1 p.m. in HHR2. This meeting will include a presentation from the Attorney General's office on the status of their investigation in the abuses by STOs, as well as a call to the public for their input on the matter.

Not to say that the Republican leadership of the lege is showing their pettiness, but this committee is chaired by a Democrat (D17's own Rep. David Schapira) and it is *not* included on the schedules of activities at the lege. The committee hearings chaired by their members are, and yesterday's Nazi rally at the Capitol was (as is a teabagger rally coming up on Wednesday), but not this.

Hmmm...


...The Arizona Corporation Commission doesn't have any meetings of the full Commission scheduled, but their hearing schedule is here. It's a light one, with a holiday on Wednesday and an off day on Friday.


...The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has a few things on tap this week.

- On Monday, they are holding a special meeting, with both executive session and open session components. This one involves continuing an agreement with the MCSO over computer use and operation. This one should be simple, but given the rancor between MCBOS and MCSO, this could blow up at any moment.

- On Tuesday, the Board is holding another special session, though this one will be less contentious - it's ceremony to honor Veterans' Day on Wednesday.


...The Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project does not have a regular meeting scheduled for this week, but it still has the "eye-opener" of the week, at least as far as this list of events is concerned.

- On Thursday, the CAWCD Insurance Company, Inc. (insuring the Central Arizona Project) is holding its annual membership meeting and its annual directors meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii.

A little pre-Thanksgiving junket to Hawaii? Nice work if you can get it...

There's a good reason for it, though (really!! :)) ) - this corporation, which exists solely to insure CAP, a quasi-governmental entity in Arizona, is incorporated in Hawaii. Not in Arizona.

Hmmm2...


...The Scottsdale City Council isn't meeting this week, but their Community Meetings notice is here.

...The Tempe City Council also is not scheduled to meet this week; their Council Calendar is here.


Also not scheduled to meet this week: Arizona Board of Regents, Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System, Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District.

The Number 1 Reason Bob Burns And The Republicans Are Unqualified For Office

Quote of the week, from AZCentral.com -

"You've got to have a healthy host for the parasite." - Senate President Bob Burns, saying Arizona needs a healthy economy to provide the tax revenue that feeds the government.

Ummm, yeah.

With an attitude like that, something tells me that Burns and his merry band have never stopped to consider the fact that while they consider government to be a "parasite", they've controlled government in AZ for generations.

And don't even start with the number of Democratic governors that AZ has had - most western states use a "weak executive" model of government, and Arizona is no exception to that rule. Governors here can't do much without at least a little cooperation from the lege.

If government here is "parasitic", it's been shaped that way by successive generations of Republican Kool-Aid drinkers.


To use a sports analogy, electing Republicans to offices that run government is like hiring me to run the New York Yankees.

We might go through the motions for a little while, but eventually... :)

BTW - I don't know why, but I'm feeling tactful tonight. I thought about using a "hiring Republicans to run government is like hiring Jack Kevorkian as your elderly mother's doctor" metaphor, but I didn't go there.

I don't know what came over me. Must be the cold meds or something. :)


Now, I really, REALLY, have to go to bed...

Harry Mitchell's reply to my letter from yesterday

On Friday, I wrote a letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell (and the Blue Dogs). It must have been an incredibly eloquent and persuasive letter, given the success of tonight's vote (my supply of endearingly undue modesty is apparently running low :) ).

Here is his reply, just received via email -

Dear [Craig],

Thank you for contacting me regarding The Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962. This is an incredibly important and complex issue, and I appreciate hearing from you.

As I meet with people throughout the district, it seems that everyone has a passionate opinion on this deeply personal issue. Many people who have insurance have been denied the care their doctors prescribe by their insurance companies. Some have been dropped altogether when they get sick and some can never get coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Others who have insurance and are happy with their coverage and their doctors want to make sure they will be able to keep what they have, and be able to afford it going forward. Small businesses owners are finding it harder to cover their employees and remain competitive due to rising premium costs and seniors want to make sure that Medicare is strengthened and protected.

One point on which almost everyone agrees is that something needs to be done. Doing nothing is not an option. Yet, most folks in Washington are more concerned with scoring political points for an election than delivering the reform we need. Doing nothing is always the politically safe thing to do. But playing it safe, which I could do, is why big problems - like healthcare and immigration reform - have yet to be tackled by Congress.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962 is far from perfect, but I believe we need to continue the legislative process and work with the Senate to bring about desperately needed health insurance reform. That is why I voted for H.R. 3962 on November 7, 2009, when it passed the House by a vote of 220 to 215.

I do believe further improvements need to be made and the House needs to work with the Senate to get it done. I believe this bill can be better in order to improve our health insurance system. I also agree with the recent remarks of Republican Senator Olympia Snowe when she said that when history calls, history calls and that there should be no mistake about it: my first vote on H.R. 3962 is my first vote to advance reform. And it in no way forecasts my vote for a final bill in the future if improvements are not made. But we can only make improvements if we move the ball forward.

Right now, the rising cost of health care is severely hurting families in Arizona and around the country - especially those with insurance. According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study, the average family policy now exceeds $13,000 a year, and absent some kind of reform, it is likely to increase to $24,000 a year over the next decade.

Even worse, these families are being forced to pay for those without insurance, who show up at emergency rooms and get treated despite their inability to pay. It is estimated that the average American family is already paying an extra $1,100 a year in premiums to pay for costs associated with treating the uninsured, a cost that will continue to grow as well.

Small businesses, which make up 73 percent of Arizona's businesses, are facing a full-blown crisis. Since 2000, health-insurance premiums for small businesses have risen 130 percent, and insurers are warning that they will go up another 15 percent next year. In other words, a premium that cost $4,500 per employee in 2008 - and $4,800 this year - will cost $5,500 in 2010.

Bigger employers are hurting as well. Unable to keep up with the rising cost of health insurance, employers are increasingly shifting the costs to their workers and their families. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that "in 2010, nearly two-thirds of employers plan to shift more of the cost of care to workers and their families through higher premium contributions, deductibles, and copayments." The report went on to say that one in five companies plan to eliminate higher-costs plans and instead select plans for their employees with reduced benefits.

But perhaps worst of all, many who want insurance and are willing to pay for it, are unable to do so because insurers refuse to cover them if they have a pre-existing condition - even if the condition is as benign as acne. An increasing number of Arizonans are finding themselves one medical emergency away from raiding their 401k, going into foreclosure, or declaring bankruptcy.

When employees are afraid to change jobs because they're afraid they'll lose health insurance, and employers are afraid to hire because they can't afford to provide coverage, that's not just bad for our health, that's also bad for our economy.

These are the problems we face. All of us. Republicans, Democrats and Independents. They will continue to get worse, not better, and that means doing nothing is not an option.

Some on the left have suggested that we eliminate private insurance, and replace it with an all government-run system. Some on the right have suggested that we eliminate our employer-based system, and build a new one based on tax credits.

I do not believe we need to get rid of our entire health insurance system and create a new one. I continue to oppose a government takeover of our national health insurance system. I believe we need to keep what works and fix what doesn't. I also believe that, despite the long and heated debate, there is common ground upon which we can build.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962 is not perfect, but I believe it can be improved, and I believe Congress should continue working to bring about reform.
Many people have told me they already have insurance, and they ask what this reform would do to help them. The Affordable Health Care for America Act would spur greater competition between health insurers and bring greater choice to consumers. Among others, it has been endorsed by the American Medical Association (AMA), the nation's largest physician organization, as well as the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), a leading voice for seniors.

To increase competition, the bill would establish an insurance exchange through which businesses and individuals could comparison shop for policies that best meet their needs. While more complex, the exchange would function, in a sense, like the system we currently use to purchase airline tickets online. Just as the airlines bid for your travel business, health insurers would bid for your insurance business. To participate in the exchange, insurers would have to meet certain minimum standards. Most notably, insurers would no longer be allowed to refuse to cover someone because of a pre-existing condition, or place a cap on annual or lifetime coverage. Members of Congress and federal employees have long had access to a system like this, and it has worked well. So well, in fact, that Congress is frequently, and I believe correctly, criticized for giving itself better quality and more affordable health care than countless Americans.

For the 469,000 residents of Arizona's Fifth District who currently receive health care coverage from an employer, reform would enable you to keep it, and prevent your insurer from dropping you if you get sick. It would eliminate annual and lifetime caps on benefits, and in many cases limit the amount of out-of-pocket expenses. It will also require insurers to allow young adults, up to 27 years of age, to remain on their parents' health care plans.

Reform would also greatly help seniors. So much so, the bill has been endorsed by the AARP. Among other things, the bill would fill the "donut-hole" in Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit, helping the 10,100 seniors in Arizona's Fifth District who are forced to pay full drug costs because they fall into it. The bill would further improve Medicare by eliminating out-of-pocket expenses for preventative services in Medicare. The bill does not, as some have alleged, weaken Medicare. As someone who is over 65 and depends on Medicare myself, I would not vote for it if it did.

Reform would also help small businesses, like the more than 17,800 in the Fifth District, who have been among the hardest hit by the present health insurance system. Currently, without a large number of employees, businesses cannot negotiate bulk competitive rates with insurance companies. Reform would enable small businesses to combine or "pool" their purchasing power, and then comparison-shop for competitive rates via an insurance exchange. Approximately 15,700 small businesses in Arizona's Fifth District would qualify for tax credits for up to 50 percent of the cost of insurance coverage.

Finally, reform would make it easier for those who lack insurance to be able to purchase it. Over time, this would ease the burden on our local emergency rooms, which currently treat the uninsured, and then charge more to those of us with insurance to make up for it.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill would reduce federal budget deficits by $109 billion from 2010 - 2019, with further reductions in federal budget deficits over the next decade. CBO's analysis is available online at: www.cbo.gov.

Reform would not, as some have alleged, provide federal benefits for illegal immigrants, or allow federal funding for abortions. The Affordable Health Care for America Act specifically prohibits any federal money from paying for health care for illegal immigrants, and specifically prohibits any federal money from paying for abortions.

H.R. 3962 would create a public alternative to private insurance, a provision which has generated a good deal of confusion and misinformation by both supporters and opponents. Under the legislation, the public option would be a separate, non-profit insurance plan, funded by premiums - not tax dollars - that would be allowed to compete with private insurers in the insurance exchange. No one would be required to use the public option. If you prefer private insurance, nothing in this bill would prohibit or otherwise limit your ability to buy it.

As you may know, I opposed to the public option as drafted in H.R. 3200, the House bill that circulated over the summer. In that bill, the public option's reimbursement rates for hospitals and providers would have been based on the reimbursement rates for Medicare. This was troubling because basing reimbursement rates on Medicare represents an unfair competitive advantage that could ultimate limit patient choice. In addition, basing reimbursement rates on Medicare rates could weaken the financial stability of local hospitals and doctors.

In my view, any public option alternative must be on a level playing field with private insurers. The public option in the Affordable Health Care for America Act would be based on negotiated rates, which is how private insurance companies operate.

This is one of several key improvements that was made to the legislation since the summer due, in no small part, to feedback from constituents. In addition, this new bill includes many bipartisan changes including allowing insurance to be sold across state lines and providing incentives for states to enact tort reforms. A recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that litigation costs and malpractice insurance accounts for 1 - 1.5 percent of total medical costs. While tort laws have traditionally been decided by state legislatures, I believe we need to examine all appropriate ways to deal with rising health care costs.

I continue to have concerns about the Affordable Health Care for America Act that I hope will be addressed as the Senate finalizes its health reform bill and the House and Senate conference to complete a final bill. Most notably, I remain deeply concerned by the overall cost of the House legislation. While I am pleased that the bill is deficit neutral, I believe we can achieve much of what this bill seeks to accomplish in a more fiscally responsible way. In addition, as the bill progresses, I hope that members will focus reducing the overall growth of health care spending.

I also hope that we continue to work to improve the public option. I believe we should continue to consider concepts such as allowing states to opt out, co-ops, or a trigger, which would go into effect if private insurance plans fail to expand affordable coverage sufficiently. This approach has worked successfully in the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit plan.

No bill, no matter how carefully drafted, can solve all of these problems. As the cost of health care increases, premiums will continue to rise, even with reform. Over time, however, reform can slow the growth of premiums, increase competition between insurers, bring more choice to consumers, and stop insurers from dropping or denying you coverage because you get sick.

Once again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue. If you have additional questions or concerns on this or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future. In the mean time, if you would like more information about the Affordable Health Care for America Act, or you would like to receive email updates about how I am working on behalf of Arizona's 5th Congressional District, I invite you to visit my web site at http://www.mitchell.house.gov.

Sincerely,

Harry E. Mitchell
Member of Congress


Now it *really* is "good night" to all...

H.R. 3962 passes - YESSSSSS!

After more than 12 hours of debate on a Saturday, and nearly 100 years of delay, dallying, and outright obstruction, the House passed a significant health care reform measure.

With a tally of 220 in favor, 215 against, and none voting present or not voting, H.R. 3962 passed the House of Representatives. 39 Democrats crossed over and voted with the Republicans, while 1 Republican, Joseph Cao of Louisiana, voted with the majority Democrats.

All of AZ's Democrats voted in favor of health care reform; all of AZ's Republican opposed health care reform.

Harry Mitchell's statement of support (pre-vote) is here.
Gabrielle Giffords statement of support (pre-vote) here.
Ann Kirkpatrick's statement on her vote is here.
Jeff Flake's statement about his vote here.
Trent Franks' statement on the vote here.

The others, Pastor, Grijalva, and Shadegg, didn't have relevent statements up on their House websites as of the writing of this post.

Biggest disappointment: By a vote of 240 to 194, with 1 voting present (AZ's John Shadegg...more on that in a moment), the House amended H.R. 3962 with language proposed by Bart Stupak (D-MI) to ban payments for abortions under the public option.

Shadegg's plan behind the "present" vote was that by voting that way, he could help defeat the amendment without actually voting against it. He thought that would be a good tactic to defeat the underlying bill. He thought that the anti-choice amendment made the bill palatable for some reluctant Dems.

As for AZ's delegation, the five Democrats voted against the Stupak amendment while Republicans Franks and Flake voted in support. [Thanks to commenter Eli Blake for spotting the typo here. This is the corrected version.]

As was noted by most of the speakers who opposed the amendment, funding for abortions was already pretty much banned anyway (Section 222, or page 110 of this .pdf, courtesy of the House Rules Committee). Stupak's amendment was actually a ploy to whittle away at private access to a legal medical procedure.

One ray of hope here: The amendment could still be stripped out in conference committee, which will be needed because the Senate's version of health care reform is *somewhat* different than the House's.


There's a lot more to say on this, but my cold is kicking my butt, so let me close with this:

Thank you, Congresswomen Giffords, Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, Congressman Pastor, Congressman Grijalva, and especially (because he is my representative) Congressman Mitchell.

Your votes today to support the interests of your constituents ahead of the interests of big insurance companies illustrates why your constituents elected you in the first place.

And why they'll continue to elect you for as long as want to serve as their representatives.


Later...

Congressman Harry Mitchell - "History Calls"

From an email from the Congressman (bolding theirs, but links are adjusted from their email to direct links) -

Dear Friend,

I want you to be among the first to know that when the House of Representatives votes on a health insurance reform proposal, I will be voting “yes” in order to move reform forward.

As you know, I’ve been preparing for a vote to reform our healthcare system since I was sworn into office in 2007. I’ve worked with my healthcare advisory committee for over two years and I’ve heard from doctors, patients, health care professionals, seniors, students, small business owners, and thousands more concerned Arizona families over the past few months who were both for and against health care reform.

One thing is clear: almost everyone believes that our current health care system is broken and doing nothing is not an option.

I firmly believe that we must act now to take serious steps to lower health care costs for working families, end the practice of denying patients health care because of pre-existing conditions and make quality health care affordable for every American.

Later today, the House of Representatives will be considering the choice between moving health care reform forward for further improvement or voting against advancing reform all together. This will be one of the most important votes that I take in over 35 years in elected office and I have arrived at my decision after careful consideration.

I still have concerns with the bill, but I believe that doing nothing is not an option. This bill is not perfect. In Congress, no bill ever is. Yet, I do think it contains significant improvements from the earlier bill circulated this past summer. I believe improvements need to be made and can be made, but in order to do so, we have to move the process forward.

Republican Olympia Snowe recently said, “So is this bill all that I want? Far from it… but when history calls, history calls. And I believe the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of allowing for every opportunity to demonstrate capacity to solve this monumental issue.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Our opponents remain immersed in partisan rhetoric and are concerned more with scoring political points for the 2010 election than with delivering solutions to solve big problems. Knowing the headwind facing us, I could do the political thing and
vote to do nothing. However, playing it safe will fail to take on the big problems we face like healthcare and immigration reform. And you didn’t send me to Congress to do nothing.

Make no mistake about it: Republicans in Washington and opponents of reform are going to do everything they can to use this vote against us. They have already spent millions to run misleading television ads, including here in Arizona , and you can bet the house that they’ll re-double their efforts to defeat me.

I’m ready for the fight – but I’m going to need your help – and this is how you can help right now:

1. Show your support through Facebook, Twitter and email your friends and family! Your support is “virally” important!

2. Contribute $25, $50 or $100 to help raise the resources to fight back!

3. Email a Letter to the Editor supporting moving reform forward! Give your name and address @ opinions@arizonarepublic.com; or @ letters.editor@asu.edu; or @ eastvalleytribune; or your local community paper.

4. Sign up for a “Take Action Early: Day of Action” to volunteer to go door-to-door or staff a phone bank.

You will play a critical role in fighting back the lies that will come. Thanks for your ongoing support – I’ll need it more than ever!

Harry

Later...

Watching the House debate on health care reform

Just one thing that I wanted to note...

They're currently considering an amendment to bar abortion funding under the public option in the proposed bill.

It's interesting to observe that the vast majority of the Congressfolk opposing the amendment are women yet most of those supporting it are men.

And one of the women who is supporting the amendment is Michele Bachmann (R - MN), and her attire for this day of what is perhaps the most significant Congressional debate in decades, well, it includes a Hawaiian lei. Not really adding to the credibility of her side there.

For sale: One Mucuous Factory

Has an established record of efficient handling of periods of high productivity and then idling or producing minimal output for weeks or even months at a time. It is currently running at full capacity 24 hours per day.

The output housing of this facility was handsomely designed in the Mediterranean tradition of architecture and epitomizes one of the hallmarks of that tradition - distinguished utility. It operates smoothly while lookin' gooood. :)

Buy for now, because this is the perfect season for this facility. Now is the right time to acquire and have a robust mucous production operation at the ready during a period of peak demand across the state and across the country.

Buy for later, because even after this season passes, there will be the next season. Save yourself hassles and have this turnkey operation at the ready to meet spot demand when pollen or particulate matter counts rise or to meet sustained demand when flu and cold season returns.

All reasonable offers considered; serious inquiries only.


In normal years, I would be seriously whining right about now, but a mere head cold beats the flu, no matter how miserable that cold may make me.

Later...

More 2010 campaign committees...

Wherein I narrow the focus of these posts to LD17, LD8, Scottsdale, and Tempe...and anything else that catches my attention. :)

Some of these I've covered before, but for some of these races, a complete picture is appropriate.

In the race for Governor, two of the big guns formed committees this week. Jan Brewer, the sitting governor, made official her intent to run for a full term with her formation of a candidate committee, filer ID 201000308. Her campaign chair is a former Arizona Attorney General.

Terry Goddard, the current AZ AG, formed an exploratory committee, filer ID 201000311. His committee chair is former Governor, Rose Mofford.



The LD8 Republican State Rep primary looks to be turning into a dogfight - there are seven active committees, and none of the incumbents have yet to file.

Republicans with active committees -

Ray Mahoubi, filer ID 201000059
Eric Ulis, filer ID 201000082
Dennis Robbins, filer ID 201000229
Jim Rich, filer ID 201000265
David Paddison, filer ID 201000282
Michael Blaire, filer ID 201000295
Paul LoBianco, filer ID 201000307


Terminated committee:


Ted King, filer ID 201000097




Active committees for the LD8 Democratic primary for State Representative -


W. John Williamson, filer ID 201000239
John Kriekard, filer ID 201000293




There aren't any active committees for the LD8 Senate seat, though current State Rep. Michele Reagan (R) does have an open exploratory committee, filer ID 201000002, and the presumption is that she will be running for the seat. Carolyn Allen, the current LD8 State Senator, is termed out after next year.




There have been no significant changes in the LD17 races as yet. Two Republicans have formed committees and the Democratic incumbents, while they haven't filed yet, are expected to run for re-election.




In a somewhat curious PAC committee development, Advance America Cash Advance Centers, Inc. has formed a Political Action Committee in Arizona, filer ID 201000296. The interesting part is that it was formed as a $500 Threshold Committee.


Huh???


I'm not sure if that is a mistake (on the part of the SOS or the corporation) or if the committee is just a placeholder until they form a real PAC - $500 just doesn't buy a lot of politicians political actions these days. Inflation, ya know.




In the race for Scottsdale City Council, two more candidates have joined the incumbents (Tony Nelssen, Wayne Ecton, Bob Littlefield) in the field.


Bill Crawford, a Republican and a business owner in Scottsdale, and Ned O'Hearn, a former member of the Council, both formed committees this week.

A letter to the editor of the AZRepublic regarding the firing of Scottsdale City Manager John Little is here. O'Hearn is currently in real estate and is on the Board of Trustees of the Scottsdale-based Museum of the West.

That's it for now...

Breaking news: Mitchell to vote in favor of H.R. 3962

Apparently, the "power of bloggers" has swayed a member of Congress.

Either that, or he looked at the same factors as I did, and has decided to vote in the best interests of his constituents.

And while my ego would *love* to take credit for this, the news of his decision broke in two separate emails that hit my inbox while I was writing my earlier post urging him (and the Blue Dogs) to support it. I just didn't check my email until after I had written the next post.

So thank you, Congressman Mitchell.


To all readers: Please join me in showing our gratitude by making a contribution to his re-election campaign.

Also, tell your friends, in person, by telephone, by email, or via social networking sites like Facebook.

Beyond that, write letters to the editor (EV Tribune here, AZ Republic at opinions@arizonarepublic.com, ASU State Press at letters.editor@asu.edu).

After that, contact your District Democratic chairs for information your neighborhood's "Day of Action," walking with Congressman Mitchell and other Democratic candidates as they meet, greet, and sign up Democratic voters.


Later...

Betrayed.

There's no other word for it. Civilized Americans have been betrayed by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Earlier today, the House, by a 386 -17 vote, will 11 voting "present", passed H. Res. 893, congratulating....God, it hurts so much to put this in writing...the Evil Empire New York Yankees on their winning the 2009 World Series over the Philadelphia Phillies.

And the worst part of it all? The entire Arizona delegation voted for the resolution, with Democrats Ed Pastor (CD4) and Raul Grijalva (CD7) going so far as to sign on as cosponsors of the resolution.

It was no shock that Flake, Franks, and Shadegg supported the bill - they're Republicans. "Supporting Evil Empires" is a standard GOP campaign plank. Witness their "no" votes on H.R. 3639, the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009. That one sets an earlier effective date for some consumer protections regarding credit cards.

However, the fact that Kirkpatrick, Pastor, Mitchell, Grijalva, and Gifford, people who are supposed to be "good guys" (even those who aren't, ya know, *guys*) supported this abomination of a resolution is a complete betrayal of all that is good and right in Arizona, and America.

[Hangs head in shame.]

:)

One note: Pitchers and catchers report in a little over three months. Hope, and hope for redemption, springs eternal.

An open letter to Congressman Harry Mitchell (and the Blue Dogs)

Normally, these “open letters” are something that I’ve written and submitted to a particular public official. As I am living in CD5 that usually means Harry Mitchell. They are written with a formal, respectful tone.

This one is written more as a blog post, with a less formal tone and links, though it also is respectful. It will also be submitted to Congressman Mitchell.

Dear Congressman Mitchell,

Tomorrow (or perhaps later today as you read this), you and your colleagues will be asked to vote on H.R 3962, the Affordable Healthcare for America Act. I am writing to you to urge you and them to support the bill, and to work to ensure that there is a viable and robust public option in it.

The CBO's analysis of the bill, with the proposed manager's amendment is here; the CBO's analysis of the Republicans' proposed substitute is here. The text of the actual manager's amendment is here, courtesy the House Rules Committee.

All of you are certain to hear from many of your constituents today on this issue, expressing their support or opposition to health care reform. (I tried calling your district office for more than 40 minutes, but the line was always busy. So, I called your D.C. office. The woman who answered was very pleasant and courteous while I voiced my opinion in support of health care reform.)

You and many of the Blue Dogs represent districts that are evenly split in terms of partisan voter registration, or like you, represent districts that are Republican-majority districts.

Congressman Mitchell, you are known as somebody who has "steered a middle course" during your more than four decades of public service. You have been a friend, mentor, teacher, mayor, state senator, and now, United States Congressman, for generations of Tempeans and now for residents of Scottsdale, Ahwatukee, Mesa, Fountain Hills, and Chandler.

Because of that middle course and your own reasoned, friendly, and warm approach to public discourse, you have been elected and re-elected to offices where the "conventional wisdom" said that no Democrat could win.

And on many issues, such an approach is not only a workable way of addressing issues, but it is the best way.

However, on the subject of health care reform, the debate is so polarized that tacking to the middle is only the best way if one wants to get pummeled from all sides.

Many of your Blue Dog colleagues have expressed concerns that if they vote for a health care reform package with a public option, they will have difficulty gaining re-election next year. They fear that many of the Republicans and Independent voters in their districts won't support them as they have in the past.

I think it is more likely that a "yes" vote on health care reform will cost them votes that they weren't ever going to get anyway. The health care vote will just be the latest excuse.

On the other hand, a "no" vote will cost them votes, contributions, and, perhaps most importantly, the enthusiasm of their most energetic supporters. After the defeat of health care reform in 1994, the Democrats who lost that year were those who were vulnerable anyway, regardless of their vote on the issue. Many of those who previously supported them closed their wallets and/or stayed home during the campaign season instead of volunteering.

To be sure, tomorrow's vote won't be the last word, or vote, on the subject. There will be many more as the House and Senate work to reconcile their versions of health care reform.

Many folks in Congress, possibly including you and the other Blue Dogs, will view that fact as an opportunity to "have it both ways."

None of you should fall into that trap.

People will remember, and voting for health care reform before voting against it, or vice versa, only serves to alienate both sides.

Additionally, many of you will be tempted to find an imperfection in the bill, and use it as an excuse to say to your constituents "Hey, I support health care reform, but I can't vote for..." XYZ, no matter how trivial "XYZ" is.

Don't fall for that trap, either.

No bill is ever perfect, and if you and your colleagues waited for perfection, no bill would ever pass, to the point of no post offices ever being named or college sports teams being congratulated on winning a championship.

Polls show that an overwhelming number of Americans support reform of the America's health care delivery system. There is, of course, disagreement over what that form those changes should take. One thing is clear though, the only real failure possible here is to simply do *nothing.*

*Nothing* is what was delivered to America in 1994, and the aftereffects of that failure devastated the country for 12 years until 2006, when the Republicans were stripped of their majority status in Congress.

To sum up, you and your colleagues are fated to be criticized harshly after your votes, regardless of whether those votes are "yea" or "nay."

It's unavoidable.

So be it.

While I do believe that you and your colleagues should support health care reform (and stated so earlier in this letter), each of you, whether you end up supporting or opposing health care reform, should do one thing.

Consider the best interests of your constituents, and vote your consciences.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards,

[Craig]

Later...

Brewer is running

From AZCentral.com -

Republican Gov. Jan Brewer on Thursday will formally announce her intent to seek a full, four-year term in 2010, multiple sources close to the Governor's Office tell The Arizona Republic.

Brewer, a Republican who automatically assumed the state's top office in January with the resignation of then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, is expected to file formal campaign paperwork in the morning. Later Thursday evening, she'll appear with West Valley business and community leaders at a Westmarc ceremony in Glendale, Brewer's hometown.

Ummm...I'm not given to talking smack (really! I'm not! O:) ), so I'll leave it to Don Bivens, chair of the Arizona Democratic Party to sum up my feelings on this development -

"Her resume is filled with job losses, education cuts and Capitol gridlock -- is this the record she'll run on?"

If nothing else, her confirmed presence in the race will stabilize the rest of the races - State Treasurer Dean Martin and Secretary of State Ken Bennett had been rumored to be eyeing a run at the 9th Floor, but are almost certainly setting their sights on retaining their current offices now. And people like Thayer Verschoor and Jack Harper, who had been rumored to be eyeing *those* seats will now, in turn, lower their sights.

Expect a slew of filings for the Corporation Commission race, which heretofore had been relatively quiet (2 Reps and 1 Dem so far, versus 8 and 4, respectively, last cycle).

Caveat: The GOP is fractured, and fractious, right now, so one of big-name GOPers could try to assume the "more conservative than th0u" mantle and run at her from the right. I don't think it will happen, but it is well within the realm of possibility.

Later...

Tuesday's elections - some lessons

Yesterday, there were a few relatively high profile elections on the East Coast.

Call them the undercard to next year's mid-terms.

If they were on the same even-year schedule as most other elections, we probably wouldn't be talking about them, but since they are the only solid thing for political commentators to, ya know, "commentate" on, at least until next year, they've grabbed a lot of attention.

Today, pundits all over cable news are making their pronouncements on "what it all means" on the heels of the results.

Most of them consider the fact that Republican candidates won the governorships in Virginia and New Jersey to be a repudiation of President Obama.

And, as expected, every Republican who can find a microphone is absolutely crowing about it.
Most of them, pundit and Rep operative alike, are ignoring what should be one of the real lessons to be taken from yesterday's results.

Tip O'Neill wrote it more than a generation ago -

All Politics Is Local.

Not "All Politics Is Partisan."

In each of the governor's races, as well as the special election to fill a vacant Congressional seat in New York's 23rd District, there were local factors that strongly influenced the outcome of the balloting in those races.

One gubernatorial race featured a weakened incumbent while the other featured a candidate who was just plain weak. And in both races, worries about the economy played a big role in the results, too.

...At the start of his reelection campaign, incumbent, and now outgoing, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine was saddled with some of the highest property taxes in the country, one of the highest unemployment rates in the northeastern U.S. (9.8%), a pre-politics resume that included a lucrative stint as CEO of Goldman Sachs (not the jewel that it was pre-economic meltdown and bailout), and a level of personal unpopularity that sapped the enthusiasm of many New Jersey Democrats. That alone would have made his race something of an uphill battle, even for someone with his "self-funding" ability.

Mix in tawdry personal attacks on his opponent and a low turnout, and you have a recipe for an upset.

...In Virginia, the Democratic candidate could best be described as a "not ready for prime time" candidate. Creigh Deeds was an inarticulate and unenergetic "Blue Dog" wanna-be who was outfought for the political center by his opponent and the eventual winner, Bob McDonnell. McDonnell glossed over his extremely conservative social agenda in favor of a strong message on the economy.

Oh, and McDonnell had already defeated Deeds once before in a statewide race, the 2005 contest for VA AG.


In both races, while there were strong warning signs for President Obama, the Democrats, and incumbents of all political stripes ("it's the economy, stupid", low turnout among 2008 Obama voters), it seems to have come down local candidates and local conditions.

Of greater political portent may be the race to fill the vacant Congressional seat in NY-23.

After a race marked by a near-civil war within the GOP, with big-name "true" conservatives from all over the country flying in to support "their" candidate, a carpetbagger named Doug Hoffman, who was running as the Conservative Party candidate. They were so pugnacious in their criticisms of the GOP's own candidate, Dede Scozzafava, that she withdrew from the race this past weekend and endorsed the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens.

Those "true" conservatives rejoiced when Scozzafava exited from the race, figuring the way was now clear for Hoffman in a district that hasn't elected a Democrat in, like, *ever.*

Literally.

So naturally, Owens won.

What the "true" conservatives ignored is that fact that their candidate, Hoffman, wasn't actually from the district, nor did he know anything about it. When asked about the needs and priorities of the district, he standard response was "I'll get back to you on that."

Have no doubt about it - the GOP will reclaim the seat in next year's election, holding it for two years. At which point, the district will be probably be redistricted out of existence because of population shifts leading to NY losing one or two seats in Congress after next year's census.

But for now, the Democratic majority in the House has grown.

After the hubbub dies down, the "big minds" will have time to actually think about the results beyond their immediate gut reactions.

Once that happens, expect three things -

1. Democrats will work at motivating last year's Obama voters to turn out for next year's elections, while the Republicans will work at redoubling their voter suppression efforts.

2. Both major parties will look for candidates who are strong on local issues and ties, not just on having lots of funding readily available. In addition to the moneyed Corzine's defeat in NJ, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg nearly lost his reelection bid yesterday, even after spending over $100 million of his own money on the campaign.

It's still possible to buy an office, but it's not cheap, nor is it guaranteed.

3. The internal conflict within the national GOP will grow; the battle for the AZGOP is long over, with the wingnuts gaining victory over a decade ago, but the circular firing squad is just forming up nationally. NY-23 was just the hors d'eouvres. The GOP should be able to gain some Congressional seats next year (that the standard pattern in midterms, with the non-Presidential party gaining), but they are already working to blunt that effect.

Even here in AZ, where the wingers are well-entrenched and should have a well-established cadre of candidates on the bench, they are trotting out self-funded "more conservative than thou" carpetbaggers to challenge Democratic incumbents in CD1 and CD5, and seriously talking up a "conservative" challenge to long-time Republican Senator John McCain. He is borderline unbeatable in a general election, but the likes of JD Hayworth, Chris Simcox, and Russell Pearce consider him to be a "RINO."

Senator Glassman, anyone?

Later...