Civil Rights Forum tonight!

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona, headed by Dennis Burke, "will hold the first of a series of Civil Rights Forums focusing on federal civil rights laws such as official misconduct, new federal statutes on hate crimes and the investigation and prosecution of violations" tonight.

Time: 6 p.m. (doors open at 5:30 p.m.)

Place: South Mountain High School, 5401 S. 7th St., Phoenix

Flyer here.

Light posting will continue for the next couple of days

Due to time constraints - helping out a campaign, helping to set up a voter registration booth at the Tempe fireworks show on Sunday - posting has been sparse for the last five days, and will continue to be sparse for the next couple of days.

My apologies to visitors in need of a fix of perceptive sarcasm, but by Wednesday evening, posting should be back to normal.

Hang in there.  :)

Later!

Happy 234th America!

You don't look a day over 157...

Pic courtesy the Washington Post.

All Aboard The Nativist Railroad!!

Looks like the few Republican candidates who weren't already riding the anti-immigrant train are looking to follow the lead of Jan "all undocumented immigrants are drug mules" Brewer and are buying tickets.

The latest is Barry Wong, a candidate for Arizona Corporation Commission. 

He has proposed requiring utilities to check the immigration status of customers before turning on power/water/etc., and denying the same to those who are unable to prove their presence in the country is legal.

It's somewhat surprising that Wong would come up with something as punitive as this.  Prior to this, he was considered intelligent, thoughtful, and hard-working.

From an AZ Republic editorial on Wong's proposal -

We don't think Wong thought this through. But in his willingness to jump on the bandwagon, he has joined the campaign to demonize illegal immigrants: If your electric bill is high, it's all their fault. It is disturbing that someone like Wong, who has had a reputation as reasoned and thoughtful, would end up playing into the current hysteria.

Even a partisan hack like me (writing two years ago during the last race for ACC) thought Wong was very conservative but that he "occasionally show[s] an understanding of issues that went beyond the usual Republican knee-jerk talking points."

Lobbyist Glenn Hamer, President and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, writing an open letter to Wong in the Arizona Capitol Times, took Wong to task for his proposal -

To say that I was shocked and dismayed to read in Wednesday’s Arizona Republic of your proposal to deny utility services to illegal immigrants would be an understatement. Your cynical attempt to ratchet up the rhetoric over immigration to score cheap political points in a bid for office marks a new low in our state’s immigration debate.

It's a rare day indeed when I agree with one of the leaders of the Chamber of Commerce wing of the AZGOP (literally, in Hamer's case! :) ), but in this instance, he is spot on.

Later...

Pam Gorman: the latest R candidate to bring ridicule upon Arizona

Former state senator Pam Gorman is one of the gaggle* of Republicans candidates to replace the soon-to-be retired John Shadegg in AZCD3.

*"gaggle" = 10 ballot-qualified candidates, including a couple that nobody but their mothers have heard of before

Apparently, she is worried about getting lost in the clutter of the CD3 campaign (early ballots come out in less than a month!).  So worried, in fact, that she has put up an ad that is sure to garner some attention for her candidacy.

And if "garnering attention" was her primary goal for the spot, it has been successful.

The pundits on MSNBC have been mocking it all day today.



Normally, I am loathe to publicize an R candidate's ads, *any* R candidate's, but in this case, I'll happily make an exception.

AZ Republic coverage here; Feathered Bastard coverage in the Phoenix New Times here; coverage from AZBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizona here.

BTW - in other "Republicans inviting ridicule" news, the AZRep's Political Insider has the scoop on a new website that shines a light on some of the more perceptive utterances of one of Arizona's most erudite legislators, State Senator Sylvia Allen.

The site Earth to Sylvia Allen has debuted, reminding visitors of gems like

"The Earth's been here 6,000 years, long before anybody had environmental laws, and it hasn't been done away with."

 

“Our little creeks and watersheds were full because the forest was not filled with all these trees… And so the trees are taking our water.” 6/15/09 Senate Natural Resources, Infrastructures and Public Debt

“The wealthy have done a lot for us. But what are we doing for the wealthy? We need to be giving back, too.” 7/30/10 Senate Appropriations – Special Session

That last quote is from 2009, not 2010, but I actually saw her spout that one.

Luckily, I have a beard, otherwise, but jaw would have been severely scraped because it hit the floor so hard.  :)

The "Pot meet Kettle" moment of the Kagan confirmation hearings (so far):

Long-time Senator Jon Kyl, son of a congressman, a lawyer and former lobbyist, Republican Whip in the U.S. Senate, and rumored R candidate for VP in 2012, derided Kagan as too "establishment" to be a good Supreme Court Justice.

From Kyl's opening statement today, courtesy MainJustice.com -

Not only is Ms. Kagan’s background unusual for a Supreme Court nominee, it is not clear how it demonstrates that she has, in the President’s words, ‘a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.’ One recent article noted that ‘[Ms.] Kagan’s experience draws from a world whose signposts are distant from most Americans: Manhattan’s upper West side, Princeton University, Harvard Law School and the upper reaches of the Democratic legal establishment.’

If Kyl's political blood was any bluer, he'd be getting ready to star in the sequel to Avatar.  There is no doubt that he is a highly intelligent and hard-working Senator (though it would be nice if he used that intelligence and work ethic to benefit all Arizonans, not just his biggest campaign contributors, but I digress :) ), but he inherited a lot of his wealth and political contacts.  He's used that initial advantage to great effect, but he still had a big leg up on most of his peers.

On the other hand, Kagan, who is at least as intelligent and hard-working as Kyl, had to earn every single one of her achievements.  "Manhattan's upper West side" isn't exactly a hovel in Appalachia, but her path to an eminent career in public service wasn't as gilded as Kyl's.  One doesn't become the first female U.S. Solicitor General and the first female dean of the Harvard Law School by inheriting the jobs.  She earned them the old-fashioned way, with hard work and intellectual merit.  Her start was less "leg up" and more "leg work."

I truly expect Kagan to be confirmed, but also expect that the hearing, with both Kyl's derision and the other R's attacking Kagan because of her ties to judicial icon Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, is serving as a preview of this fall's campaign rhetoric - class warfare and race-baiting.

Hope I'm wrong about that last.

More folks noticing Jan Brewer's penchant for fabrication

Now even Arizona's journalists, not exactly a breed known for challenging the power structure in Arizona, are calling out Jan Brewer on her rather casual relationship with the facts regarding undocumented immigrants and immigration in general.



Brewer likes to refer to herself as a "truthteller", but she has a very flexible definition of the word "truth."

Of course, that may be the recipe for winning an R primary this year.

Rep. John Kavanagh thinks that ethnic profiling is something to joke about

More than three years ago, I wrote about how LD8 State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) was little more than a polished version of Russell Pearce, only with a "New Yawk" accent.  During a 2007 community meeting, he dropped a gem of a bigoted stereotype -

After citing a (unverified) statistic that 1/5 of the residents of Arizona are illegal immigrants, he looked around the room and said "everybody in this room looks OK."

Apparently, he hasn't changed.

From the blog of journalist Terry Greene Sterling -

On June 25, in Phoenix, I was honored to participate in a panel sponsored by the Arizona Latino Media Association. The other panelists included Nancy-Jo Merritt, a longtime Phoenix immigration attorney; Antonio Bustamante, an activist and attorney who grew up on the border, and John Kavanaugh, the legislator who sponsored the House version of SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law. The panel was moderated by New Times journalist Monica Alonzo.

{snip}

At one point, Nancy-Jo Merritt noted that many of her undocumented clients are Canadians.
A spirited discussion ensued.
Rep. Kavanaugh announced that “illegals” who were Canadians could “stay” in Arizona because they have money and buy real estate.
Then he said, several times, that he was just kidding.

 Umm, yeah. 

To Rep. Kavanagh -

Either keep your day job or take some comedy classes.

Actually, just take the comedy classes.  The rest of us will work to make sure that John Kriekard unseats you in November.

Thanks to a friend for pointing this out.  It was a great catch.

This week's Clean Elections debate schedule

Info courtesy the Clean Elections website...

Videos of previously held debates, both statewide and legislative, can be found here.

Statewide candidate debates are being held in the studios of KAET(channel 8) and will be broadcast on Horizon.

Up this week: the candidates for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

The Republican candidates are scheduled for Tuesday, June 29 at 7 p.m.

The Democratic candidates are scheduled for Wednesday, June 30, also at 7 p.m.


Legislative candidate debates are being held in venues in the various districts throughout the state.

Up this week:

Tuesday, June 29

Republican candidates for the House in LD5
6 p.m. - 8 p.m.
Best Western Payson Inn
801 N. Beeline Highway 87
Payson


Wednesday, June 30

Republican candidates for the House in LD8
6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
Kerr Cultural Center
8110 N. Scottsdale Rd.
Scottsdale

I will attempt to attend the LD8 debate, schedule permitting. Hope to see you there!

So.....exactly who is running for office here?

And what office is he running for?

aka - "More fun with signs..."


















The particulars -

The main part of the sign (the red part with Montgomery's name) is 2 ft. by 8 ft. (16 sq. ft. area)

The "add-on" banner at the top (the yellow part with Arpaio's name) is 1 ft. by 8 ft. (8 sq. ft. area)

Total - 24 sq. ft. of signage.

In other words, a full third of Montgomery's sign is devoted to another officeholder.

The font of the word "Sheriff" in the top part of the sign is roughly three times larger than that of "Maricopa County Attorney" in the bottom part, yet that is the office that Montgomery is supposed to be running for.

In fact, given that the sign is located on a busy street (Baseline near Priest, in Tempe) and will be seen mostly by drivers moving by at 35 - 45 mph, about the only readable parts of the sign are "Endorsed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio" and "Bill Montgomery."

If only for truth's sake, perhaps he would be better off declaring himself a candidate for the office of "Joe's best buddy."

Because based on this sign, the office of Maricopa County Attorney is far down Bill Montgomery's priority list.

BTW - a request/suggestion for the Montgomery campaign -

In 2006, you folks had the brilliant idea of hiring undocumented immigrants to appear in an anti-undocumented immigrants TV spot. It didn't work out so well for you (Terry Goddard won reelection as Attorney General), but you shouldn't give up trying.

This time, how about a TV spot that is anti- "sane legislators who can actually balance a budget without resorting to debt that we aren't supposed to call "debt", accounting tricks, and prayers that the economy will turn around before they are forced to enact responsible fiscal policies"?

It seems that your first ad only encouraged undocumented immigrants to stay; maybe the second will have the same effect on sane legislators.

Just sayin'...

Congressman Harry Mitchell on the DISCLOSE Act

The DISCLOSE Act is the latest increment in campaign finance reform.

Mitchell's statement on the passage of the bill, and an explanation of his vote -

U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell today released the following statement on H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. Despite Mitchell's objection, the bill passed 219-206.

"In January, I was disappointed, and disagreed with, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to roll back campaign finance provisions that have been set in law for over half a century - provisions which have sought to limit the role of large corporate, union and special interest money since the time of Teddy Roosevelt. Not only were these provisions supported overwhelmingly by bipartisan majorities in Congress and by Republican and Democratic Presidents, they had the support of a majority of the American people.

While I support campaign finance reform and its broader goals, I cannot support the DISCLOSE Act as it was written and amended. Ironically, as it wound its way through the House, the bill became an example of the same ugly special interest influence and backroom dealing it seeks to prevent. The House gave into special interests in order to garner enough votes for passage, and as a result, the legislation will not limit the role of all special interests equally. Instead, it creates carve-outs and exemptions for powerful, politically-favored organizations and political
advocacy groups, who account for some of the largest expenditures in modern-day political campaigns. If Congress is going to pass meaningful campaign finance reform legislation, it needs to improve the integrity of federal campaigns in a more comprehensive and equitable way. Unfortunately, this does not.

I support real campaign finance reform. As a former government teacher, I believe that we need to reduce the influence of corporations, unions and special interests in elections, and make sure that the American people have a voice, remain engaged and hold candidates and elected officials accountable. American elections should be decided by Americans, and for this to happen, there needs to be transparency and accountability in all campaign spending."

It should be noted that while I wholeheartedly agree with the reasons that he gave for voting against the bill, I think he should have voted for it anyway.

The bill may not be perfect, but it's a start. (Roll call vote here.)

Later...

Jan Brewer's new motto: "Damn the facts, full distort ahead!"

Of course, her disregard of the facts could torpedo her run at a full term as governor...

EJ Montini of the Arizona Republic published an interesting column in Thursday's paper about Jan Brewer's tendency to spout bigoted but baseless (my term, not his) stereotypes and fabricated statistics (also my term - he used "exaggerated") when discussing immigration.

The example he cited involved her saying, during a debate between the R candidates for governor that the majority of undocumented immigrants were engaged in narcotics trafficking and extortion and that they are responsible for a massive crime wave in Arizona.

As this Think Progress piece from writer Andrea Nill points out, during a period in Arizona's history that has seen an increase in undocumented immigration, there has been an actual decrease in crime in AZ.

Oops, Jan.

This falsehood was pointed out by dark horse R Matthew Jette, but to no avail.

Jan stuck by her misfiring mouth, and continued to spout the same stuff.

In Montini's piece, he began by predicting that Brewer will win the November election because of SB1070.

I'm not so sure (I know, it's not exactly shocking that a Goddard supporter would disagree with Montini's point. :) ).

While the bill was fronted in AZ by nativist demagogue Russell Pearce, she has made it hers, and by doing so, has locked up the support of a significant part of Arizona's electorate, the nativists.

*That* has all but guaranteed her the R nomination, especially since the other contenders are falling fast (Dean Martin has almost no money and won't be getting any any time soon, Buz Mills can't even get the endorsement of the NRA, and he sits on the Board of Directors of it) or never were a factor in the first place (Jette would be a legit dark horse in most other states; in AZ, however, his reasoned yet honest approach will net him less than 5% of the primary vote - Rs will consider his calling out the numbers and stereotypes spouted on the immigration issue as the equivalent of shouting "the emperor has no clothes!" and will close their ears).

However, for SB1070 to guarantee Brewer's win in November's general election, the lege should have passed it and she should have signed it in early October.

Not late April.

As it is, people will have had the time to actually understand the effect of SB1070 on *everybody*, not just those "durn Mexicans."

By the time early ballots go out in October, the law may have (and should be) blocked by a federal court because of its unconstitution overreaching.

At which point, Terry Goddard's approach of going after the cartels and hitting them where it hurts - in the wallet - a less showy but far more effective - and legal! - tactic will look good to the vast array of independent voters in Arizona.

Especially when Brewer's side of the issue is marked by neo-Nazis going on Mexican hunts armed anti-immigrant "patrols" in the desert.

Later...

Mitchell working for the next Greatest Generation

It was a long day at work today, and tomorrow will be just as long, so only a little copy and pasting tonight...

From an email from Congressman Harry Mitchell -

Yesterday marked the 66th anniversary of President Franklin D. Roosevelt signing the historic GI Bill into law. The original GI Bill was one of the greatest achievements of the 20th Century in America, giving our returning veterans a strong foothold in the economy and serving as the foundation for what became known as The Greatest Generation.

As the representative of 65,000 veterans, the Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and as a former teacher, I was honored to help renew the commitment to our veterans in 2008, by introducing a new GI Bill for the 21st Century, which was signed into law the same year.

The Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act extends the education benefits to all members of the military who have served on active duty since September 11, 2001, including activated reservists and National Guard.

Specifically, under the legislation,

•Service members returning from Iraq or Afghanistan receive up to four academic years of educational benefits, including stipends for housing and books.
•Veterans have up to 15 years after they leave active duty to use their education benefits.
•Veterans can use the Yellow Ribbon GI Education Enhancement Program, in which the federal government will match, dollar for dollar, any voluntary additional contributions to veterans from institutions whose tuition is more expensive than the maximum educational assistance provided under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

This updated GI Bill is critical to strengthening the nation’s military. Not only will it helps attract high quality recruits who are interested in earning a higher education, but it will open doors for our veterans, strengthen our economy, and help military recruitment. Recently, the House Committee on Veterans Affairs reported that 233,424 veteran beneficiaries have taken advantage of the new GI Bill and have been paid to date.

I believe that we have a responsibility to serve those who bravely served us. We promised a higher education to our service members when they joined, and it is our duty to see they get it when they become veterans. The care of our veterans, servicemen and servicewomen are not just Democratic concerns or Republican concerns. They are American concerns.

To stay updated, please visit my website to learn more what I’m doing to honor those who have served us.

Sincerely,

Harry

Later...

In 2004, Matt Stone and Trey Parker (the creators of South Park), released a movie called "Team America: World Police."

It was an incredibly funny and profoundly filthy movie (there were a couple of scenes that if they had been shot with human actors would have caused this film to receive an "X" rating). It satirized both the supporters and opponents of the "War on Terror."

Parker and Stone took no political positions, skewering everyone from Sean Penn, Hollywood liberal (far left), to Kim Jong Il, Korean dictator (far right).

Parker and Stone, as is the case with their work on South Park, were equal opportunity offenders.

So it was with a bit of surprise yesterday when I read that the "Team America PAC" had endorsed Sam Crump in the R primary in CD3.

I wasn't aware that Parker and Stone had gotten into the PAC business and were endorsing candidates, so I was very interested to see what kind of platform they were espousing.

Turns out that "Team America PAC' has nothing to do with "Team America: World Police."

Nope, the PAC is the brainchild of nativist former Congressman Tom Tancredo. It is dedicated to supporting candidates who push for Tancredo's version of "immigration reform" (something just this side of "deport or kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.") The organization is also a haven for people who think like Tancredo, such as Bay Buchanan and this guy.

Not a whole lot of "equal opportunity offending" there - they support candidates like Crump, Jesse Kelly (AZ8) and JD Hayworth (AZ-Sen) while decrying people like John McCain (John McCain!!) as being too liberal.

Not a lot of humor there either, I expect.

It's time to start talking about ballot questions

Lost in the excitement over the races for various offices on this fall's ballot have been the large number of important questions being placed before the voters in November.

The Arizona Legislature's Legislative Council (basically a group of lawyers who take legislative bill proposals and write them into "legalese) will be holding a public meeting on Wednesday at 10 a.m. in House Hearing Room 4 (HHR4) to consider, possibly amend, and adopt some draft analyses of the various questions scheduled to go before the voters, including two active initiatives that haven't turned in their petitions yet.

The short version of my take on the questions:

Other than the Medical Marijuana question, they're all crap. Pretty much everything proposed by the legislature is aimed at destroying any parts of Arizona's social safety net that have previously been approved by the voters. The other two, which may not make it on the ballot, are part of the same extremist, anti-government/anti-society, ideology.

However, this post isn't about my visceral reaction, it's about the Lege Council's analyses of the questions. Analyses that appear to be, and are supposed to be, impartial.

The Secretary of State's list of current ballot questions is here.

Note: all analyses linked to are drafts and are subject to change.

In the order of the SOS' list, not the Lege Council's list of analyses, because that is the order that the questions will appear on the ballot -

Question 106 (full text here) - an anti-health care reform amendment to the Arizona Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Proposed in 2009, even before HCR passed. Referred to the ballot by the House and Senate on party-line votes.

Question 107 (full text here) - an anti-affirmative action amendment to the AZ Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Referred by the House and Senate on party-line votes.

Question 108 (full text here) - an anti-"card check"/anti-labor amendment to the Arizona Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Referred by the Senate and House on party-line votes.

These three questions are more about the Republican legislative majority's staunch pro-business/anti-minority and working class ideology than about good government.

Question 109 (full text here) - the first "pro" question of this year's ballot, this one would make the "right" to hunt, fish, or otherwise "harvest wildlife" a right protected under the AZ Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Ensuring that Arizona continues as the punchline to political jokes nationwide. Referred by the House and Senate with all Rs and a few rural Ds supporting.

Question 110 (full text here) - an amendment to the Arizona Constitution relating to the sale of state trust lands. Lege Council analysis here. This measure includes a provision allowing for the sale or lease of state trust lands without "advertising or auction." In a ballot chock full o' stinkiness, this one may quietly be the most rancid proposal of all. It will be worthy of a full post of its own as the summer drags on and the November election looms ever closer. Referred by the House and Senate unanimously. Something tells me that a lot of the D members of the lege were snookered by the "protect military installations from development" language in the measure.

Question 111 (full text here) - an amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would change the job title of the Arizona Secretary of State to "Lieutenant Governor." Lege Council analysis here. Nothing about the measure changes the functions of the job, so the current job title is more descriptive of the job function than the proposed title. Referred by the Senate unanimously and by the House with a few Rs opposing.

Question 112 (full text here) - an amendment to the AZ Constitution to change the deadline for submitting initiative petitions to allow more time to verify the petitions. Lege Council analysis here. Possibly the least bad measure up for consideration, but since the source is the legislature... Referred by the House and Senate with a few Rs (and one D) opposing.

Question 203 (full text here) - the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. Lege Council analysis here. This is a good measure, so not surprisingly, this one is a citizen-based initiative, not a legislative-based one.

Question 301 (full text here) - zeroing out the Land Conservation Fund. Lege Council analysis here. Why conserve land when there are corporate tax cuts to pay for? Referred by the House and Senate on party-line votes.

Question 302 (full text here) - repealing the Early Childhood Development and Health Fund and sweeping the money in the Fund. Lege Council analysis here. Why work to ensure that Arizona's child get a healthy start to life when there are corporate tax cuts to pay for? Referred by the House and Senate with all Ds and a couple of Rs opposing.

Not on the ballot as yet, and may not qualify for the ballot, but ones that the Lege Council has draft analyses for are -

- the End Photo Radar Initiative, full text here, Lege Council analysis here. What it sounds like.

- Prop 13 Arizona, full text here, Lege Council analysis here. Would institute strict limits on property taxes, hikes to property taxes, and increases to valuations of property.

Later...