Courtesy the Maricopa County Recorder's Office -
October 4, 2010 - Deadline to register to vote for the November election. Already passed.
October 7, 2010 - Early voting begins. Early voting locations and hours listed here. Depending on the location, the deadline to drop ballots off at one of those locations is either the Thursday (10/28) or Friday (10/29) before the election. Already filled out and mailed back my ballot.
October 22, 2010 - Deadline to request an early ballot.
November 2, 2010 - Election Day. All early ballots must be turned into County Elections or a polling place by 7 p.m.
November 3, 2010 - The 2012 campaign season kicks off. (OK, this last one is my personal addition to the list. It'll start slow, but really kick into high gear when redistricting is complete in 2011. :) )
Later...
Monday, October 11, 2010
Schweikert: nothing else is working, so it's time to lie
In his never-ending quest to gain a seat in Congress, Republican David Schweikert has gotten desperate -
He's loaned his campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money (much of it from his neighborhood-destroying vulture investing) to his own campaign...
He's gone juvenile, spending money on "counter" signs to be posted next to Harry Mitchell's signs, and then crying foul when the Mitchell signs are moved after he put up the insults.
All of this has put him close to or ahead of Mitchell in various polls (some of questionable provenance, but even the credible polls put him close to Mitchell), but none of his games or the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of outside group (RNCC or corporate) spending has put him over the top.
So now he is resorting to outright lies.
In the video, Schweikert claims that Mitchell has voted for Obama-era budget bills repealing the Bush-era tax cuts on capital gains that Schweikert supports.
Yet, Mitchell hasn't. In fact, he is cited in this Chicago Tribune article from March 2009 as one of the Ds standing in the way of the Obama budget, standing in the way because of the rollback of specific tax cuts.
Mitchell has also voted against Obama-era (2009 or later) budget and appropriation bills here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
When he's voted against budget/appropriations bills, he has consistently cited concerns over D.C. spending, and just as consistently, he has voted against tax increases, even ones that were just a rollback of Bush-era tax cuts targeted at the wealthy.
That's just the truth, something that David Schweikert has little use for, apparently.
Thanks to Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion for the heads-up on this, and the history lesson.
He's loaned his campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money (much of it from his neighborhood-destroying vulture investing) to his own campaign...
He's gone juvenile, spending money on "counter" signs to be posted next to Harry Mitchell's signs, and then crying foul when the Mitchell signs are moved after he put up the insults.
All of this has put him close to or ahead of Mitchell in various polls (some of questionable provenance, but even the credible polls put him close to Mitchell), but none of his games or the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of outside group (RNCC or corporate) spending has put him over the top.
So now he is resorting to outright lies.
In the video, Schweikert claims that Mitchell has voted for Obama-era budget bills repealing the Bush-era tax cuts on capital gains that Schweikert supports.
Yet, Mitchell hasn't. In fact, he is cited in this Chicago Tribune article from March 2009 as one of the Ds standing in the way of the Obama budget, standing in the way because of the rollback of specific tax cuts.
Mitchell has also voted against Obama-era (2009 or later) budget and appropriation bills here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
When he's voted against budget/appropriations bills, he has consistently cited concerns over D.C. spending, and just as consistently, he has voted against tax increases, even ones that were just a rollback of Bush-era tax cuts targeted at the wealthy.
That's just the truth, something that David Schweikert has little use for, apparently.
Thanks to Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion for the heads-up on this, and the history lesson.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Sen. Sylvia Allen: Block Buster
*Writer's* Block Buster, that is...
Sylvia Allen (R-Snowflake) has moved into that pantheon of Republican greats - the ones like Russell Pearce, JD Hayworth, and Jack Harper.
The ones any snarky writer can turn to in times of an empty creative jar.
The ones who can be counted on to provide ample subject material, no matter how dry a spell one is going through.
The ones who can be counted on to open mouth and insert foot, and if they realize what they've done, ask for some mustard to zest things up.
From the Payson Roundup (h/t to a couple of Facebook friends for the link; the Roundup is *not* in the regular rotation of personal reading):
Ahhhhh....Sylvia, Sylvia, Sylvia - Thank You!
Let's see. She's...
...brought national ridicule on to Arizona by pronouncing (during a televised senate committee hearing!) that the Earth is 6000 years old and is doing fine, so we should strip mine us some uranium, environmental concerns be damned.
...determined that trees are the reason that Arizona doesn't have enough water (6/15/09 Senate Natural Resources, Infrastructures and Public Debt)
...exhorted her colleagues during a meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee (7/30/2009) "We have to think 'What are *we* doing for the wealthy?' "
Now she's added a two-fer to her resume of "strange but real" quotes for writers all over the state to ridicule.
Regarding the notion that manufacturing in China is growing because of fewer regulations - China is a Communist country, and is one of the most heavily regulated economies in the world. They deliberately stifle competition there. What they don't have much of is environmental regulations, which is why they have one of the most polluted environments in the world to go along with the heavily regulated economy.
And then for a person who claims to support the ideal of "less government" to praise a hated symbol of a tyrannical regime because of its "success at keeping people where the government wanted them"? [quoting the article's paraphrase of Allen]
Good God.
What's next? Praise for Saudi Arabia for imposition of Sharia law and its emphasis on "traditional" roles for women?
Elaine Bohlmeyer, the Democratic candidate for Senate in LD5, has a campaign slogan of "Bringing Logic To Arizona Government."
I wonder if Allen views that slogan as a direct rebuke?
Sylvia Allen (R-Snowflake) has moved into that pantheon of Republican greats - the ones like Russell Pearce, JD Hayworth, and Jack Harper.
The ones any snarky writer can turn to in times of an empty creative jar.
The ones who can be counted on to provide ample subject material, no matter how dry a spell one is going through.
The ones who can be counted on to open mouth and insert foot, and if they realize what they've done, ask for some mustard to zest things up.
From the Payson Roundup (h/t to a couple of Facebook friends for the link; the Roundup is *not* in the regular rotation of personal reading):
State senate candidates Elaine Bohlmeyer and incumbent Sen. Sylvia Allen faced off during Tuesday’s Clean Elections debate, expressing opposing views on everything from reinvigorating the economy to the state’s role in the immigration and health care debates.
{snip}
Allen, however, twice referenced communist Germany and China as having possible solutions to some of Arizona’s most daunting problems.
{snip}
To increase jobs, Allen said the nation should increase manufacturing. “America is in a lot of trouble,” she said. “The government grew this decade faster than the private sector.” Allen said jobs could grow by decreasing government regulation.
She gave the example of China, which she said has a $2 trillion surplus, compared to America, which has a debt of $13.5 trillion, and attributed the difference to less government regulation in China.
{snip}
When asked about immigration reform, Allen praised the Berlin Wall — although she quickly said, “I hated it,” — for its success at keeping people where the government wanted them.
Ahhhhh....Sylvia, Sylvia, Sylvia - Thank You!
Let's see. She's...
...brought national ridicule on to Arizona by pronouncing (during a televised senate committee hearing!) that the Earth is 6000 years old and is doing fine, so we should strip mine us some uranium, environmental concerns be damned.
...determined that trees are the reason that Arizona doesn't have enough water (6/15/09 Senate Natural Resources, Infrastructures and Public Debt)
...exhorted her colleagues during a meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee (7/30/2009) "We have to think 'What are *we* doing for the wealthy?' "
Now she's added a two-fer to her resume of "strange but real" quotes for writers all over the state to ridicule.
Regarding the notion that manufacturing in China is growing because of fewer regulations - China is a Communist country, and is one of the most heavily regulated economies in the world. They deliberately stifle competition there. What they don't have much of is environmental regulations, which is why they have one of the most polluted environments in the world to go along with the heavily regulated economy.
And then for a person who claims to support the ideal of "less government" to praise a hated symbol of a tyrannical regime because of its "success at keeping people where the government wanted them"? [quoting the article's paraphrase of Allen]
Good God.
What's next? Praise for Saudi Arabia for imposition of Sharia law and its emphasis on "traditional" roles for women?
Elaine Bohlmeyer, the Democratic candidate for Senate in LD5, has a campaign slogan of "Bringing Logic To Arizona Government."
I wonder if Allen views that slogan as a direct rebuke?
Time to open the mailbag...
I don't often get *fan* mail sent to me directly on stuff that I've written, or on this blog generally, but it happens once in a while. Today was just such a "once in a while."
Here is the email, with the name of the writer edited out so that he doesn't think that I'm mocking him -
Later...
Here is the email, with the name of the writer edited out so that he doesn't think that I'm mocking him -
Craig,My response -
My name is XYZ,
I have lived here for over 50 years and prefer a Conservative form of government. You say that want more MA people to move out here to change the Lege to Dem.
I say to you, as I say to the Illegals that come to America and want to change our form of government--- Go back home and enjoy
Your form of government that you had there, and leave us to our form of government that works quite well.
Respectfully
XYZ
XYZ,I took it easy too, to avoid looking like I was mocking him - I could have pointed out that not only can't we see the light at the end of the tunnel, but that the "conservative" government that he reveres so ardently has probably sold off the tunnel the same way that it sold off state properties like the buildings of the legislature.
Arizona has one of the worst education systems in the country.
Arizona has a crumbling infrastructure.
Arizona has one of the weakest economies in the country.
Arizona has the highest (or nearly the highest) per capita budget deficit in the country.
There is no light at the end of the tunnel for Arizona.
With all due respect, what is working "so well" with Arizona's conservative government?
Regards,
Craig McDermott
Later...
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Dana Saar for Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board
The District 2 (most of Mesa, Scottsdale, and Fountain Hills) seat on the MCCCD Governing Board currently held by Jerry Walker (R-embarrassment) in on this year's ballot. It's not my district (I live in SD-1), so I haven't commented on it much before now.
There is a challenger for the job, Dana Saar. He is a long-time school board member in Fountain Hills and has been a teacher and technical trainer. He has the intelligence, education, and temperment to be an outstanding member of the MCCCD Governing Board. Given the recent tribulations of the Board, he may be exactly what it (and the faculty, staff, and over 100K students of the District) need.
Of course, even if Saar was a moss-covered tree stump, he would be an improvement over the current officeholder, Walker.
Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic has a great summary of some of Mr. Walker's more "colorful" activities here.
From the column -
Roberts describes Walker's behavior as that of a "boob." While the rest of her column was dead on (it was actually a discussion of how supporting the First Amendment and free speech can be inconvenient sometimes, when folks like Walker misuse that right so egregiously), she used the wrong body part to describe Walker and his behavior.
He's an ass.
And it is time to kick the resident ass of the MCCCD Governing Board to the electoral curb.
Vote for Dana Saar.
There is a challenger for the job, Dana Saar. He is a long-time school board member in Fountain Hills and has been a teacher and technical trainer. He has the intelligence, education, and temperment to be an outstanding member of the MCCCD Governing Board. Given the recent tribulations of the Board, he may be exactly what it (and the faculty, staff, and over 100K students of the District) need.
Of course, even if Saar was a moss-covered tree stump, he would be an improvement over the current officeholder, Walker.
Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic has a great summary of some of Mr. Walker's more "colorful" activities here.
From the column -
While Walker may not have violated any policies, the investigations paint a picture of a public official who demonstrates an astonishing lack of restraint in the things he says and a willingness – maybe even an eagerness -- to throw his weight around, all while standing on the broad shoulders of the First Amendment.Note: An AZRep article on the "investigation" mentioned by Roberts is here. Saar's endorsement by the Arizona Republic (predating both the investigation article and the Roberts column) here.
A few examples:
In 2006, he forwarded an e-mail to an aide, mocking the accent and intelligence of Mexicans. When Chancellor Rufus Glasper mentioned that the aide worried she might be targeted for dismissal because she complained, Walker's reported response was to say that she should feel that her job is threatened, as should Glasper, for bringing it up. He then told staffers that Glasper was going to be fired.
In 2009, he was expounding on his views about Democrats to a contract security guard when a second guard asked him to stop, calling his remarks offensive. Walker then turned on that 21-year-old guard, saying she was just like other Democrats, “ignorant and dumb.” The next day, he asked that she be fired.
That same year, he accompanied students to Washington, where they lobbied Congress on education issues. As one student spoke about the DREAM Act, Walker repeatedly interrupted her and later berated her as she walked down a hallway. “He saw fit to belittle and demean the student in a most public, inappropriate and embarrassing manner,” the investigator wrote.
Walker contends he did nothing wrong.
Roberts describes Walker's behavior as that of a "boob." While the rest of her column was dead on (it was actually a discussion of how supporting the First Amendment and free speech can be inconvenient sometimes, when folks like Walker misuse that right so egregiously), she used the wrong body part to describe Walker and his behavior.
He's an ass.
And it is time to kick the resident ass of the MCCCD Governing Board to the electoral curb.
Vote for Dana Saar.
Maybe it's a *little* too early to pronounce "apathy" as the winner in the elections
A week and a half ago, I wrote a post bemoaning the fact that apathy seems to be the ascendant political ideology among Arizona's electorate, based on the fact that a large number of school board races were cancelled to due a lack of competition or even candidates in some cases.
Well, on Friday and Saturday, I found evidence that some people *do* care.
Site traffic on this blog has spiked with the arrival of early ballots in mailboxes across the county, today rising 800% over last Saturday's traffic (which was already elevated slightly due to normal election-year activity). The vast majority of the traffic was from internet searches looking for information regarding the race for the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD).
That race may be one of the lowest profile races on Maricopa County ballots this year, but it is heartening to see that some people care enough to research it before casting their ballots.
Apathy may be ascendant right now, but it isn't victorious yet.
A previous post regarding the Arizona Republic's endorsements in the race is here; a more general post on all of the candidates is here. Note: one candidate, Joe Hobbs, has withdrawn from the race.
Well, on Friday and Saturday, I found evidence that some people *do* care.
Site traffic on this blog has spiked with the arrival of early ballots in mailboxes across the county, today rising 800% over last Saturday's traffic (which was already elevated slightly due to normal election-year activity). The vast majority of the traffic was from internet searches looking for information regarding the race for the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD).
That race may be one of the lowest profile races on Maricopa County ballots this year, but it is heartening to see that some people care enough to research it before casting their ballots.
Apathy may be ascendant right now, but it isn't victorious yet.
A previous post regarding the Arizona Republic's endorsements in the race is here; a more general post on all of the candidates is here. Note: one candidate, Joe Hobbs, has withdrawn from the race.
Friday, October 08, 2010
Early Ballot Time - 2010 General Election
All over Arizona, early ballots are reaching mail boxes (the ballot for my area is here). Here are my picks (and there isn't anything here that will surprise any regular readers :) ):
U.S. Senate - Rodney Glassman. He's got the energy and focus on the needs of Arizonans (and Arizona) that John McCain hasn't had for decades (if ever).
U.S. Representative in Congress (District 5) - Harry Mitchell. He's got the energy and focus on the needs of his constituents, and has had it for nearly 40 years. If the Rs in CD5 had any appreciation for public service and public servants, they'd have nominated him, too. (Not an unheard-of happenstance. In Massachusetts in 1982, Republican Silvio Conte won both the Democratic and Republican nominations for Congress in MA-CD1. He went on to win the general. Back in a time when public service was valued instead of vilified. [page 18 of the linked .pdf] :) )
Governor - Terry Goddard. He's got the intelligence, experience, and wisdom to move Arizona out of the economic abyss that it's in. And he's got the quiet fire necessary for dealing with the R extremists in the legislature who are less interested in serving Arizona than in adhering to a nihilist ideology.
State Senator (District 17) - David Schapira. Focused on Tempe and Arizona's education system. He has an established track record. Will work "across the aisle" when doing so will help the district or Arizona's students. Will fight like hell when doing so will help the district or Arizona's students.
State Representative (District 17) - Ed Ableser and P. Ben Arredondo. Both have been teachers and community activists in Tempe/South Scottsdale, Ed for most of a decade and Ben for *many* decades. Ed is the more liberal of the two (Ben being areformed former Republican), but both are totally focused on their constituents (Yes, there is definitely a pattern in my picks, and it isn't just the partisan affiliation.)
Secretary of State - Chris Deschene. Will fight for the rights of all voters, not just his party's. That fact alone puts him head and shoulders above his opponent, but he also brings an educational background that includes mechanical engineering and a law degree.
Attorney General - Felecia Rotellini. She's got the smarts, the integrity, and the tenacity to protect Arizonans from predators of all stripes, whether they are smuggling cartels or Wall Street fraudsters.
State Treasurer - Andrei Cherny. A former assistant AG and an economics policy wonk extraordinaire, he is eminently qualified for the job of safeguarding Arizona's public monies. The fact that, unlike his opponent, he isn't an indictment for financial fraud waiting to happen is just gravy.
Superintendent of Public Instruction - Penny Kotterman. Career teacher, teacher trainer, school administrator, education policy advocate, for over 30 years. Her opponent has spent most of the last two decades trying to destroy public education in Arizona. 'Nuff said.
Mine Inspector - Manuel Cruz. He has the educational and professional background in mine safety that a job that is supposed to ensure the safety of miners *should* have. Not in the pocket of industry lobbyists, unlike his opponent.
Corporation Commissioner - David Bradley and Jorge Luis Garcia. Two former legislators with long and distinguished track records of fighting for their constituents. Their opponents have long and not-so-distinguished track records of fighting for Big Business, no matter what state it is based in. The Arizona Corporation Commission is meant to protect the interests of Arizonans by regulating and overseeing utilities, railroads, and securities in the state. Bradley and Garcia are easy choices here.
Maricopa County Attorney - Michael Kielsky. He's a Libertarian, someone I would normally never vote for, but I always vote for the better candidate. There's no Democrat on the ballot for this brief term (2 years instead of the normal 4) and the Republican on the ballot is openly allied with Joe Arpaio. I've been told by some people who are more familiar than I am with Bill Montgomery (the Republican in question) that they think he will probably at least try to appear as neutral, but Arpaio spent hundreds of thousands on ads in the primary race, and incurred thousands more in fines for violating campaign finance laws for doing so. Can you say "quid pro quo"?
I don't think Kielsky will win, but a strong showing could send a message to the Democrats who have all but given Montgomery a free pass.
Maricopa County Clerk of Courts - Sherry Williams. Smart and energetic, with a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Information Systems. She will bring the background and integrity that the clerk of *any* court should have, and that Maricopa County so desperately needs (a Maricopa County official elected countywide with some integrity? Be still my beating heart...)
University Lakes Justice of the Peace - Meg Burton Cahill (no website available). The retiring state senator has a master's degree in Public Administration and a strong background in the law from her time on the Senate's Judiciary Committee. She will make a fine addition to the Maricopa County bench, where her wisdom and experience will stand her in good stead against the pressures that can/will be brought to bear on folks in that position. Ask the current holder of the office - he was Joe Arpaio's "go-to guy" when he needed some sketchy warrants signed for his jihad against the county supes.
University Lakes Constable - No race, so no vote. Joe Arredondo (R) will win.
Central Arizona Water Conservation District (aka - the Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project) - Arif Kazmi and Jim Holway. Both have strong academic, professional and personal backgrounds in water resources management. Both were among the five candidates endorsed by the Arizona Republic, and while the other endorsees of the AZRep are strong, these two are stronger and should be "double-shotted" in order to maximize their chances of election. There is a slate of "Tea Party" candidates running to try to put the management of a major part of Arizona's water delivery system on an ideological basis, not a professional basis. They should be completely shunned. In a desert like central Arizona, water literally is life.
School Governing Board member, Scottsdale Unified #48 - I have absolutely no clue. Decision by elimination time (and I may be doing the eliminated candidate a disservice, but this is the best I've got in this race): Denny Brown (newby) and Dieter Schaefer (incumbent). There is limited info available on the candidates that I could find in a quick search, but while I have some reservations (i.e. - Schaefer was the only candidate who responded to a questionnaire from the extreme RW organization The Center for Arizona Policy), but the third candidate, Pam Kirby. touts a resume that looks good (lots of PTO involvement) but seems to be more purely ideological than the others. Plus the endorsement of Scottsdale City Council member Bob Littlefield didn't help.
Bond question, Scottsdale Unified #48 - Yes. Over the short-term, the legislature cannot be counted on the fund the state's education system, whether for classroom needs or infrastructure needs. Long-term, there could be legal ramifications because while relatively affluent districts like SUSD can use bonding to fund an adequate education system for their students, many poorer districts cannot.
City of Scottsdale Council Member - Ned O'Hearn, Linda Milhaven, and Wayne Ecton. All three care deeply about Scottsdale and its future, and aren't tied to any particular ideology beyond that. Dennis Robbins would have received my fourth vote if a fourth seat was up for election this time around, but he wasn't quite strong enough a candidate to make it into the top three. Bob Littlefield...I like Bob personally, but I'd never vote for him. He definitely is tied to that certain nihilist ideology that permeates the AZGOP, he just covers it with a "good ol' boy" facade. Guy Philips is definitely not ready for prime time. He doesn't hide his obeisance to ideological orthodoxy, but he doesn't even have the redeeming value of knowing that ideology well. If he were elected to the Council, he'd need a staffer with cue cards set up in the back of the City Hall Kiva to tell him how to vote on issues.
The next set of issues concern City of Scottsdale ballot questions, info here.
City of Scottsdale Bond Questions 1 and 2 - Yes. They're for infrastructure, and I'm a big fan of infrastructure.
Proposition 411 - NO. A charter amendment further restricting the City's ability to use condemnation to acquire property. Looks harmless on the surface (must adhere to state law, which is already required), but includes vague language like "all reasonable options have been exhausted." A recipe for frivolous lawsuits.
Proposition 412 - NO. A charter amendment intended to prevent the City from ever paying to participate in organizations like the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce. Part of Mayor Jim Lane's ongoing tiff with the CofC, possibly related to the fact that they didn't endorse him in 2008. The charter is a document to define the structure of the City's government, not a tool for petty political retribution.
Proposition 413 - Close, but NO. Currently, the City's charter allows citizens to petition the Council and requires the Council to consider any matters brought to its attention within 30 days, which can be difficult considering the timing (right before summer break) or complexity of some of the issues. This charter amendment would remove the thirty day limit entirely. My problem is with that. Make it 45 or 60 days, but don't remove the obligation to hear matters in a timely manner.
Proposition 414 - Probable YES. This charter amendment would clarify the duties of and separate the offices of the various City Charter Officers. This one stems from the tendency in recent years to combine the offices of the City Manager and City Treasurer. God help me for agreeing with the Lane/Littlefield clique on *anything*, but they're right on this one - the treasurer of any organization should be an independent officer, one whose oversight is as far up the org chart as is practicable.
It's not perfect, and it's a powerplay by the Lane/Littlefield clique, but when Lane installs a campaign contributor into the office of treasurer (and he will!), there will be a movement to put specific experience requirements into the charter for that particular job.
Proposition 415 - Probable YES. A charter amendment to clarify that the Mayor and Council shall not have direct control of a City employee's hiring/firing, except for those who work directly for the Mayor and Council.
Proposition 416 - Probable YES. A charter amendment that looks like a "housekeeping" measure clarifying how the Council may act/enact under specific circumstances.
Proposition 417 - Probable YES. A charter amendment that looks to be a "housekeeping" measure related to the appointment and terms of judges on the City Court.
Judges for the Arizona Supreme Court, Court of Appeals - Division One, and Maricopa County Superior Court - I haven't heard of any of them, which is a characteristic that I want in judges. Court judges are like baseball umpires - if you've heard of them, then they probably messed up big-time. I won't be voting to retain/not retain any of them.
Statewide ballot propositions - Previously covered here. Summary: NO on all measures proposed by the legislature, and YES on the one (Prop. 203, Medical Marijuana) sent to the ballot by the citizens.
Whew!
Later...
U.S. Senate - Rodney Glassman. He's got the energy and focus on the needs of Arizonans (and Arizona) that John McCain hasn't had for decades (if ever).
U.S. Representative in Congress (District 5) - Harry Mitchell. He's got the energy and focus on the needs of his constituents, and has had it for nearly 40 years. If the Rs in CD5 had any appreciation for public service and public servants, they'd have nominated him, too. (Not an unheard-of happenstance. In Massachusetts in 1982, Republican Silvio Conte won both the Democratic and Republican nominations for Congress in MA-CD1. He went on to win the general. Back in a time when public service was valued instead of vilified. [page 18 of the linked .pdf] :) )
Governor - Terry Goddard. He's got the intelligence, experience, and wisdom to move Arizona out of the economic abyss that it's in. And he's got the quiet fire necessary for dealing with the R extremists in the legislature who are less interested in serving Arizona than in adhering to a nihilist ideology.
State Senator (District 17) - David Schapira. Focused on Tempe and Arizona's education system. He has an established track record. Will work "across the aisle" when doing so will help the district or Arizona's students. Will fight like hell when doing so will help the district or Arizona's students.
State Representative (District 17) - Ed Ableser and P. Ben Arredondo. Both have been teachers and community activists in Tempe/South Scottsdale, Ed for most of a decade and Ben for *many* decades. Ed is the more liberal of the two (Ben being a
Secretary of State - Chris Deschene. Will fight for the rights of all voters, not just his party's. That fact alone puts him head and shoulders above his opponent, but he also brings an educational background that includes mechanical engineering and a law degree.
Attorney General - Felecia Rotellini. She's got the smarts, the integrity, and the tenacity to protect Arizonans from predators of all stripes, whether they are smuggling cartels or Wall Street fraudsters.
State Treasurer - Andrei Cherny. A former assistant AG and an economics policy wonk extraordinaire, he is eminently qualified for the job of safeguarding Arizona's public monies. The fact that, unlike his opponent, he isn't an indictment for financial fraud waiting to happen is just gravy.
Superintendent of Public Instruction - Penny Kotterman. Career teacher, teacher trainer, school administrator, education policy advocate, for over 30 years. Her opponent has spent most of the last two decades trying to destroy public education in Arizona. 'Nuff said.
Mine Inspector - Manuel Cruz. He has the educational and professional background in mine safety that a job that is supposed to ensure the safety of miners *should* have. Not in the pocket of industry lobbyists, unlike his opponent.
Corporation Commissioner - David Bradley and Jorge Luis Garcia. Two former legislators with long and distinguished track records of fighting for their constituents. Their opponents have long and not-so-distinguished track records of fighting for Big Business, no matter what state it is based in. The Arizona Corporation Commission is meant to protect the interests of Arizonans by regulating and overseeing utilities, railroads, and securities in the state. Bradley and Garcia are easy choices here.
Maricopa County Attorney - Michael Kielsky. He's a Libertarian, someone I would normally never vote for, but I always vote for the better candidate. There's no Democrat on the ballot for this brief term (2 years instead of the normal 4) and the Republican on the ballot is openly allied with Joe Arpaio. I've been told by some people who are more familiar than I am with Bill Montgomery (the Republican in question) that they think he will probably at least try to appear as neutral, but Arpaio spent hundreds of thousands on ads in the primary race, and incurred thousands more in fines for violating campaign finance laws for doing so. Can you say "quid pro quo"?
I don't think Kielsky will win, but a strong showing could send a message to the Democrats who have all but given Montgomery a free pass.
Maricopa County Clerk of Courts - Sherry Williams. Smart and energetic, with a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Information Systems. She will bring the background and integrity that the clerk of *any* court should have, and that Maricopa County so desperately needs (a Maricopa County official elected countywide with some integrity? Be still my beating heart...)
University Lakes Justice of the Peace - Meg Burton Cahill (no website available). The retiring state senator has a master's degree in Public Administration and a strong background in the law from her time on the Senate's Judiciary Committee. She will make a fine addition to the Maricopa County bench, where her wisdom and experience will stand her in good stead against the pressures that can/will be brought to bear on folks in that position. Ask the current holder of the office - he was Joe Arpaio's "go-to guy" when he needed some sketchy warrants signed for his jihad against the county supes.
University Lakes Constable - No race, so no vote. Joe Arredondo (R) will win.
Central Arizona Water Conservation District (aka - the Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project) - Arif Kazmi and Jim Holway. Both have strong academic, professional and personal backgrounds in water resources management. Both were among the five candidates endorsed by the Arizona Republic, and while the other endorsees of the AZRep are strong, these two are stronger and should be "double-shotted" in order to maximize their chances of election. There is a slate of "Tea Party" candidates running to try to put the management of a major part of Arizona's water delivery system on an ideological basis, not a professional basis. They should be completely shunned. In a desert like central Arizona, water literally is life.
School Governing Board member, Scottsdale Unified #48 - I have absolutely no clue. Decision by elimination time (and I may be doing the eliminated candidate a disservice, but this is the best I've got in this race): Denny Brown (newby) and Dieter Schaefer (incumbent). There is limited info available on the candidates that I could find in a quick search, but while I have some reservations (i.e. - Schaefer was the only candidate who responded to a questionnaire from the extreme RW organization The Center for Arizona Policy), but the third candidate, Pam Kirby. touts a resume that looks good (lots of PTO involvement) but seems to be more purely ideological than the others. Plus the endorsement of Scottsdale City Council member Bob Littlefield didn't help.
Bond question, Scottsdale Unified #48 - Yes. Over the short-term, the legislature cannot be counted on the fund the state's education system, whether for classroom needs or infrastructure needs. Long-term, there could be legal ramifications because while relatively affluent districts like SUSD can use bonding to fund an adequate education system for their students, many poorer districts cannot.
City of Scottsdale Council Member - Ned O'Hearn, Linda Milhaven, and Wayne Ecton. All three care deeply about Scottsdale and its future, and aren't tied to any particular ideology beyond that. Dennis Robbins would have received my fourth vote if a fourth seat was up for election this time around, but he wasn't quite strong enough a candidate to make it into the top three. Bob Littlefield...I like Bob personally, but I'd never vote for him. He definitely is tied to that certain nihilist ideology that permeates the AZGOP, he just covers it with a "good ol' boy" facade. Guy Philips is definitely not ready for prime time. He doesn't hide his obeisance to ideological orthodoxy, but he doesn't even have the redeeming value of knowing that ideology well. If he were elected to the Council, he'd need a staffer with cue cards set up in the back of the City Hall Kiva to tell him how to vote on issues.
The next set of issues concern City of Scottsdale ballot questions, info here.
City of Scottsdale Bond Questions 1 and 2 - Yes. They're for infrastructure, and I'm a big fan of infrastructure.
Proposition 411 - NO. A charter amendment further restricting the City's ability to use condemnation to acquire property. Looks harmless on the surface (must adhere to state law, which is already required), but includes vague language like "all reasonable options have been exhausted." A recipe for frivolous lawsuits.
Proposition 412 - NO. A charter amendment intended to prevent the City from ever paying to participate in organizations like the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce. Part of Mayor Jim Lane's ongoing tiff with the CofC, possibly related to the fact that they didn't endorse him in 2008. The charter is a document to define the structure of the City's government, not a tool for petty political retribution.
Proposition 413 - Close, but NO. Currently, the City's charter allows citizens to petition the Council and requires the Council to consider any matters brought to its attention within 30 days, which can be difficult considering the timing (right before summer break) or complexity of some of the issues. This charter amendment would remove the thirty day limit entirely. My problem is with that. Make it 45 or 60 days, but don't remove the obligation to hear matters in a timely manner.
Proposition 414 - Probable YES. This charter amendment would clarify the duties of and separate the offices of the various City Charter Officers. This one stems from the tendency in recent years to combine the offices of the City Manager and City Treasurer. God help me for agreeing with the Lane/Littlefield clique on *anything*, but they're right on this one - the treasurer of any organization should be an independent officer, one whose oversight is as far up the org chart as is practicable.
It's not perfect, and it's a powerplay by the Lane/Littlefield clique, but when Lane installs a campaign contributor into the office of treasurer (and he will!), there will be a movement to put specific experience requirements into the charter for that particular job.
Proposition 415 - Probable YES. A charter amendment to clarify that the Mayor and Council shall not have direct control of a City employee's hiring/firing, except for those who work directly for the Mayor and Council.
Proposition 416 - Probable YES. A charter amendment that looks like a "housekeeping" measure clarifying how the Council may act/enact under specific circumstances.
Proposition 417 - Probable YES. A charter amendment that looks to be a "housekeeping" measure related to the appointment and terms of judges on the City Court.
Judges for the Arizona Supreme Court, Court of Appeals - Division One, and Maricopa County Superior Court - I haven't heard of any of them, which is a characteristic that I want in judges. Court judges are like baseball umpires - if you've heard of them, then they probably messed up big-time. I won't be voting to retain/not retain any of them.
Statewide ballot propositions - Previously covered here. Summary: NO on all measures proposed by the legislature, and YES on the one (Prop. 203, Medical Marijuana) sent to the ballot by the citizens.
Whew!
Later...
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Jan Brewer's new campaign slogan?
From the Arizona Republic (emphasis mine) -
Expect a slew of press releases from Jan Brewer, Governor and Jan Brewer, Candidate for Governor touting this news in a "See?!? Arizona isn't in as bad a condition as we thought it would be! Vote for meeeeeee!!!!!" sort of way.
And expect all of those press releases to conveniently leave out the bit about federal stimulus money contributing to the stabilization of AZ's economy. Or that Brewer and the Rs in the AZ Congressional delegation strongly opposed the federal stimulus package.
Help put Arizona back on the path of sanity and competence - Vote for Terry Goddard.
Yeah, yeah - I know that "sanity and competence" isn't the most electrifying phrase in politics these days, but it's the truth.
Arizona job-loss estimate not as bad as expected
Thanks to federal stimulus money and better-than-expected hiring in some sectors, Arizona is now predicted to lose only about 1 percent of its jobs this year, the state Department of Commerce said Thursday.
Expect a slew of press releases from Jan Brewer, Governor and Jan Brewer, Candidate for Governor touting this news in a "See?!? Arizona isn't in as bad a condition as we thought it would be! Vote for meeeeeee!!!!!" sort of way.
And expect all of those press releases to conveniently leave out the bit about federal stimulus money contributing to the stabilization of AZ's economy. Or that Brewer and the Rs in the AZ Congressional delegation strongly opposed the federal stimulus package.
Help put Arizona back on the path of sanity and competence - Vote for Terry Goddard.
Yeah, yeah - I know that "sanity and competence" isn't the most electrifying phrase in politics these days, but it's the truth.
Something to keep in mind as early ballots start hitting Arizona's mailboxes
Video courtesy the Arizona Democratic Party...
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Light blogging for a few days...
Due to an ankle issue (hopefully not more than a bad sprain), the next few days will be focused on medical care. Will resume regular blogging ASAP...
4 p.m. update: It is a bad sprain, which is actually good news since I was worried about my Achilles tendon. Still sucks. Just not as bad as it could have. See you in a couple of days...
4 p.m. update: It is a bad sprain, which is actually good news since I was worried about my Achilles tendon. Still sucks. Just not as bad as it could have. See you in a couple of days...
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
The smoke is clearing, and the mirrors are cracking
The Jan Brewer and the Republican caucus of the legislature "balanced" the state's budget this year with a LOT of smoke and mirrors (possibly illegal fund sweeps, or counting on revenue from the voters overturning previously-approved measures, or not funding things that they are legally obligated to fund, and so on).
Their scheme to *not* do their jobs properly is starting to fall apart.
From the Arizona Republic -
Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services has coverage here (courtesy the East Valley Tribune)
Just in case anyone reading this is unfamiliar with the specific sections of Arizona's constitution that requires that all proceeds from the sale of state trust lands go to education, Article 11, Section 8 of the AZ constitution reads:
The ruling is a small victory for education in Arizona, and for the rule of law.
It's a good start, but we need more of these, in courts across the state and at the ballot box on November 2.
Their scheme to *not* do their jobs properly is starting to fall apart.
From the Arizona Republic -
In a decision that could put a $10 million hole in the current state budget, a judge has ruled it's unconstitutional for Arizona to use money from proceeds of trust-land sales to help pay for running the Land Department instead of having it flow to schools and public institutions.The judge's ruling is here.
Land Commissioner Maria Baier said Monday the state plans to appeal the ruling, which Judge Gary Donahoe of Maricopa County Superior Court issued Friday in a lawsuit filed on behalf of taxpayers and a Phoenix school district, Cartwright Elementary.
A 2009 law approved by legislators struggling to close big budget shortfalls authorized creation of a management fund consisting of up to 10 percent of the annual proceeds of trust-land-sale proceeds.
Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services has coverage here (courtesy the East Valley Tribune)
Just in case anyone reading this is unfamiliar with the specific sections of Arizona's constitution that requires that all proceeds from the sale of state trust lands go to education, Article 11, Section 8 of the AZ constitution reads:
Section 8. A. A permanent state school fund for the use of the common schools shall be derived from the sale of public school lands or other public lands specified in the enabling act approved June 20, 1910; from all estates or distributive shares of estates that may escheat to the state; from all unclaimed shares and dividends of any corporation incorporated under the laws of Arizona; and from all gifts, devises, or bequests made to the state for general educational purposes.From Article 10, Section 7 of the Arizona constitution (this one is cited in the judge's ruling) -
B. The rental derived from school lands, with such other funds as may be provided by law shall be apportioned only for common and high school education in Arizona, and in such manner as may be prescribed by law.
Section 7. A. A separate permanent fund shall be established for each of the several objects for which the said grants are made and confirmed by the enabling act to the state, and whenever any monies shall be in any manner derived from any of said lands, the same shall be deposited by the state treasurer in the permanent fund corresponding to the grant under which the particular land producing such monies was, by the enabling act, conveyed or confirmed.The case info can found on the website of the Maricopa County Superior Court. Use the "find a case" function, and search the civil court docket for case number CV2010-012871.
B. No monies shall ever be taken from one permanent fund for deposit in any other, or for any object other than that for which the land producing the same was granted or confirmed.
The ruling is a small victory for education in Arizona, and for the rule of law.
It's a good start, but we need more of these, in courts across the state and at the ballot box on November 2.
Monday, October 04, 2010
AZGOP not even trying to hide the hypocrisy any longer
Since I'm not on Randy Pullen's email distribution list (shocking that!), I'm going to reference a blog on AZCentral.com published by columnist Linda Valdez.
From the post -
I second Valdez' sentiment -
Hmm.
Later...
From the post -
Arizona GOP party chair Randy Pullen says in an e-mail missive:So basically, Pullen rails in opposition to one-party rule, except when his party is the "one party" in charge.
“Two years ago, Americans gave Democrats complete control of the federal government with the promise of change.”The gist of his message is that voters need to break that one-party hold on Washington because one-party government is bad, bad, bad.
Hmm.
Two years ago, Arizona got a state government that is in the complete control of conservative Republicans.
I second Valdez' sentiment -
Hmm.
Later...
Foreshadowing: even more massive cuts to education coming next year
On Wednesday, September 29, the Finance Advisory Committee (FAC) of the lege's Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) met to discuss the economic and the state budget situation in Arizona.
Their briefing materials are here. Much of it is just a gathering in one place of economic and revenue info in one place, and all of it is incredibly dry, but it's worth downloading the .pdf and studying it in depth. The video of the meeting is here.
There was *far* too much data presented for me to do an adquate job of covering it here, but here is a brief summary of some of the discussion:
- They generally think that the recession in AZ is over (in a "cautiously optimistic" way, as state treasurer Dean Martin phrased it)
- However, while we have reached bottom, a recovery hasn't started - consumers, the fundamental driver of AZ's (and America's) economy, are still screwed. They're either looking for a job or are worried about the security of the jobs that they have, and aren't spending money that they don't absolutely have to spend
- However2, corporate profits are near or at their pre-recession peak, but they're holding on to the profits instead of investing them and creating jobs
- Real estate prices, both residential and commercial, will stay depressed for the foreseeable future. Vulture investors actually moderated the price declines by snapping up distressed properties, but now they are keeping the market values down when they put their investment properties on sale in an already glutted market
- The state's revenues are better than they were last year, but still weak, and less than projected when the latest budget was crafted. The budget shortfall for the remainder of the current fiscal year is up to $825 million, if the two ballot questions sweeping voter-approved funds aren't passed by the voters in November. (The legislative Rs present in the room Wednesday wanted to stress that point for some reason)
- Current projections show an estimated budget shortfall next year of $1.4 billion
- Those figures don't include currently suspended formula funding ($1.4 billion more next year if the formula funding is reinstated)
- The R legislators' eyes widened when they heard that the "maintenance of effort" requirements that were part of accepting the federal money used to balance the last couple of budgets expire at the end of the current fiscal year in June. Currently, the lege can't cut education funding below 2006 levels. In the fiscal year starting July 1, 2011, they'll be able to cut education as much as they want
- This is especially significant in light of the fact that federal law limits a state's ability to change eligibility standards for Medicaid (AHCCCS in Arizona), regardless of the fiscal year
- Anecdotal good news: the FAC representative from the Salt River Project (SRP) reported that large industrial concerns are now buying more power. The hope is that ramped-up production will lead to a ramped-up jobs picture
- More anecdotal good news (OK, it's more of a lack of bad news, but in the economy, it's "good" news when there isn't bad news to report): Construction sector employment figures are stagnant. Which is an improvement after months of job losses in that sector.
- Highlight of the meeting: State Senator Jack Harper accidently rolled his chair off of the dais, waking everybody up (including himself). Why is it that some of the most important stuff is also the most boring?
Anyway, the meeting illustrated why we need to elect Terry Goddard as governor. More major budget cuts are coming. Deal with it. The money just isn't there and won't be for at least the near future.
Education will bear the brunt of the cuts. Deal with that, too. It's easily the largest segment of the state's budget. In down budgetary times, it will face the most cuts.
The Republicans in the legislature are sharpening their meat cleavers and oiling their chain saws in gleeful anticipation of inflicting mortal wounds upon public education in Arizona during the next budget cycle.
However, the presence of Terry Goddard in the governor's office will serve to mitigate the carnage.
He and his veto pen will be there to force the anti-society extremists in the legislature to the negotiating table and force them to minimize the long-term damage.
Of course, electing Terry Goddard only sets up a strong, but not impenetrable, defense to the worst of the lege's machinations.
Right now, the Rs in lege have a majority in both the House and the Senate. That gives them the ability to bypass the governor and place measures directly on the ballot. Their access to virtually unlimited funds from lobbyists and corporations gives them a strong advantage there.
Electing more Democrats to the legislature, maybe even enough to tie or take control of one of the chambers, would go a LONG way toward stopping the R-led slaughter of Arizona's physical and societal infrastructures.
Other coverage:
Mary Jo Pitzl of the Republic has a point here about the timing of the meeting. Many people, including the Goddard campaign, found the timing of the meeting to be suspect. They believe that the meeting was called in order to influence voting on the ballot questions. Pitzl pointed out that the FAC always meets once in the fall, usually in September or October. Her point is valid. However, it should also be pointed out that the two most recent fall FAC meetings took place in October (2009 and 2008) and that most of the previous years' meetings took place in early September, not the week before early ballots dropped.
Arizona Republic coverage of the meeting here.
AP coverage, via Googlenews, here.
East Valley Tribune coverage here (in which Senate President Bob Burns is quoted as saying that Arizona may ignore the "maintenance of effort" requirements that are going to expire soon anyway.)
Later...
Their briefing materials are here. Much of it is just a gathering in one place of economic and revenue info in one place, and all of it is incredibly dry, but it's worth downloading the .pdf and studying it in depth. The video of the meeting is here.
There was *far* too much data presented for me to do an adquate job of covering it here, but here is a brief summary of some of the discussion:
- They generally think that the recession in AZ is over (in a "cautiously optimistic" way, as state treasurer Dean Martin phrased it)
- However, while we have reached bottom, a recovery hasn't started - consumers, the fundamental driver of AZ's (and America's) economy, are still screwed. They're either looking for a job or are worried about the security of the jobs that they have, and aren't spending money that they don't absolutely have to spend
- However2, corporate profits are near or at their pre-recession peak, but they're holding on to the profits instead of investing them and creating jobs
- Real estate prices, both residential and commercial, will stay depressed for the foreseeable future. Vulture investors actually moderated the price declines by snapping up distressed properties, but now they are keeping the market values down when they put their investment properties on sale in an already glutted market
- The state's revenues are better than they were last year, but still weak, and less than projected when the latest budget was crafted. The budget shortfall for the remainder of the current fiscal year is up to $825 million, if the two ballot questions sweeping voter-approved funds aren't passed by the voters in November. (The legislative Rs present in the room Wednesday wanted to stress that point for some reason)
- Current projections show an estimated budget shortfall next year of $1.4 billion
- Those figures don't include currently suspended formula funding ($1.4 billion more next year if the formula funding is reinstated)
- The R legislators' eyes widened when they heard that the "maintenance of effort" requirements that were part of accepting the federal money used to balance the last couple of budgets expire at the end of the current fiscal year in June. Currently, the lege can't cut education funding below 2006 levels. In the fiscal year starting July 1, 2011, they'll be able to cut education as much as they want
- This is especially significant in light of the fact that federal law limits a state's ability to change eligibility standards for Medicaid (AHCCCS in Arizona), regardless of the fiscal year
- Anecdotal good news: the FAC representative from the Salt River Project (SRP) reported that large industrial concerns are now buying more power. The hope is that ramped-up production will lead to a ramped-up jobs picture
- More anecdotal good news (OK, it's more of a lack of bad news, but in the economy, it's "good" news when there isn't bad news to report): Construction sector employment figures are stagnant. Which is an improvement after months of job losses in that sector.
- Highlight of the meeting: State Senator Jack Harper accidently rolled his chair off of the dais, waking everybody up (including himself). Why is it that some of the most important stuff is also the most boring?
Anyway, the meeting illustrated why we need to elect Terry Goddard as governor. More major budget cuts are coming. Deal with it. The money just isn't there and won't be for at least the near future.
Education will bear the brunt of the cuts. Deal with that, too. It's easily the largest segment of the state's budget. In down budgetary times, it will face the most cuts.
The Republicans in the legislature are sharpening their meat cleavers and oiling their chain saws in gleeful anticipation of inflicting mortal wounds upon public education in Arizona during the next budget cycle.
However, the presence of Terry Goddard in the governor's office will serve to mitigate the carnage.
He and his veto pen will be there to force the anti-society extremists in the legislature to the negotiating table and force them to minimize the long-term damage.
Of course, electing Terry Goddard only sets up a strong, but not impenetrable, defense to the worst of the lege's machinations.
Right now, the Rs in lege have a majority in both the House and the Senate. That gives them the ability to bypass the governor and place measures directly on the ballot. Their access to virtually unlimited funds from lobbyists and corporations gives them a strong advantage there.
Electing more Democrats to the legislature, maybe even enough to tie or take control of one of the chambers, would go a LONG way toward stopping the R-led slaughter of Arizona's physical and societal infrastructures.
Other coverage:
Mary Jo Pitzl of the Republic has a point here about the timing of the meeting. Many people, including the Goddard campaign, found the timing of the meeting to be suspect. They believe that the meeting was called in order to influence voting on the ballot questions. Pitzl pointed out that the FAC always meets once in the fall, usually in September or October. Her point is valid. However, it should also be pointed out that the two most recent fall FAC meetings took place in October (2009 and 2008) and that most of the previous years' meetings took place in early September, not the week before early ballots dropped.
Arizona Republic coverage of the meeting here.
AP coverage, via Googlenews, here.
East Valley Tribune coverage here (in which Senate President Bob Burns is quoted as saying that Arizona may ignore the "maintenance of effort" requirements that are going to expire soon anyway.)
Later...
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Arizona Republic editorial board to its readers: Arizona may be in lousy shape, but you should vote for the status quo
Liberals like to claim that the Arizona Republic is a "conservative" paper, but it's not. (Though to be fair, many of them remember the not-so-distant days when the Rep was officially named the "Arizona Republican" or less officially served as the press release outlet for the Arizona Republican Party.)
Conservatives like to claim that the Rep is a "liberal" paper, but it isn't. (It just isn't a mouthpiece for the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" wing of the AZGOP.)
Instead, the Arizona Republic is a "corporate" paper, dedicated to defending corporate profit margins. Since most corporations operate in such a way as to derive the maximum profit from the political status quo, the Republic has become a staunch defender of that status quo.
Their latest list of election endorsements clearly illustrate this tendency.
- They passed over Terry Goddard in giving their endorsement in the race for governor to Jan Brewer. They called Goddard an "articulate, dedicated servant of the people of this state" yet gave the nod to Brewer, citing her ability to "handle the legislature" (apparently, the Rep's editorial board slept through all of 2009) and her disbanding of the state's Department of Commerce in favor of a meaningless (and authority-less) "Commerce Authority." What they also liked was her support for "enhancing prospects for job creation" - better known as blanket tax cuts directed to corporations.
- They ignored Rodney Glassman (literally! He wasn't even mentioned in the article!) in giving their endorsement for U.S. Senate to John McCain. In the opinion piece, they cited "McCain's role in all those great national and world debates," such as the debates over the war in Iraq and campaign finance reform. What they didn't cite were McCain's accomplishments for Arizona. They couldn't cite those accomplishments, because there aren't any. This particular endorsement also isn't a surprise, even aside from its "status quo" characteristics - the Rep's editorial board has been in the McCain family pocket for decades (is Dan Nowicki the Republic's reporter who is embedded with McCain's staff, or is he the McCain staffer embedded with the Republic? Either way, the effect, and the final product, is the same...)
- The Rep's endorsement of Ann Kirkpatrick in the CD1 race also serves to illustrate the Rep's "status quo" bias - she's an incumbent, and while a Democrat, she's a conservative one who thoroughly supports Big Business. Note: While I too support and recommend voting for her, it's because she is the better candidate, not a great candidate.
- The logic the Rep's editorial board used when passing over Penny Kotterman when endorsing John Huppenthal for State Superintendent of Public Instruction astounds me, even when allowing for their "status quo" bias. They cite his 18 years of legislative experience focusing on education issues and then follow it up with this quote -
Their endorsement is as sensible as a doctor sitting down with a patient who has been diagnosed with lung cancer after decades of smoking and suggesting that the patient could cure the cancer by smoking more cigarettes.
- In a bit of a surprise, the Rep's editorial board endorsed Felecia Rotellini over Tom Horne for Attorney General. They complimented her as "smart and unflappable," which is very true, but Tom Horne is a current office holder and an establishment Republican. This would seem to disprove my "status quo bias" position, until one remembers that, like Rotellini, Terry Goddard, the current Attorney General, is smart, unflappable, and a Democrat.
- However, the Rep did spring one big surprise on voters, and not in a good way. They twisted themselves like a pretzel to find a way to ignore Jon Hulburd and give their CD3 endorsement to Ben Quayle.
First, they opened up their piece with -
Could the Quayle family's previous ownership of the Republic have influenced the endorsement? Nahhhh, couldn't be...
The headline for the Rep's endorsement was "Ben Quayle offers candor, conviction."
Given that Quayle's previous "candor" indicated a deep disrespect for women and could lead to convictions of the criminal variety if he becomes part of the free-for-all social environment in D.C.'s political subculture, instead of being a surprise, perhaps the Rep's endorsement of his [possible] ascension to Congress would be in perfect keeping with their desire to maintain the status quo.
Less than a week ago, the Republic actually brought themselves some credit with their list of endorsements for the Central Arizona Water Conservation District - the candidates they endorsed were intelligent, educated, experienced, and highly-qualified for the job.
Apparently, however, those qualities are desirable only in candidates for lower-profile (though extremely important) offices.
I may agree with some of the Rep's coming endorsements, but where I will support the candidates who are better for Arizona, they'll be supporting the candidates who they see as most protective of their preferred status quo.
Conservatives like to claim that the Rep is a "liberal" paper, but it isn't. (It just isn't a mouthpiece for the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" wing of the AZGOP.)
Instead, the Arizona Republic is a "corporate" paper, dedicated to defending corporate profit margins. Since most corporations operate in such a way as to derive the maximum profit from the political status quo, the Republic has become a staunch defender of that status quo.
Their latest list of election endorsements clearly illustrate this tendency.
- They passed over Terry Goddard in giving their endorsement in the race for governor to Jan Brewer. They called Goddard an "articulate, dedicated servant of the people of this state" yet gave the nod to Brewer, citing her ability to "handle the legislature" (apparently, the Rep's editorial board slept through all of 2009) and her disbanding of the state's Department of Commerce in favor of a meaningless (and authority-less) "Commerce Authority." What they also liked was her support for "enhancing prospects for job creation" - better known as blanket tax cuts directed to corporations.
- They ignored Rodney Glassman (literally! He wasn't even mentioned in the article!) in giving their endorsement for U.S. Senate to John McCain. In the opinion piece, they cited "McCain's role in all those great national and world debates," such as the debates over the war in Iraq and campaign finance reform. What they didn't cite were McCain's accomplishments for Arizona. They couldn't cite those accomplishments, because there aren't any. This particular endorsement also isn't a surprise, even aside from its "status quo" characteristics - the Rep's editorial board has been in the McCain family pocket for decades (is Dan Nowicki the Republic's reporter who is embedded with McCain's staff, or is he the McCain staffer embedded with the Republic? Either way, the effect, and the final product, is the same...)
- The Rep's endorsement of Ann Kirkpatrick in the CD1 race also serves to illustrate the Rep's "status quo" bias - she's an incumbent, and while a Democrat, she's a conservative one who thoroughly supports Big Business. Note: While I too support and recommend voting for her, it's because she is the better candidate, not a great candidate.
- The logic the Rep's editorial board used when passing over Penny Kotterman when endorsing John Huppenthal for State Superintendent of Public Instruction astounds me, even when allowing for their "status quo" bias. They cite his 18 years of legislative experience focusing on education issues and then follow it up with this quote -
We believe the sort of reform advocated by John Huppenthal is best for improving Arizona's often dismal comparative standing on the crucial questions of how best to improve schools.Ummm...do they understand that Huppenthal and the "reforms" pimped by him are some of the major reasons for Arizona's "dismal comparative standing" on most education-related metrics? And that his experience in the lege has included years of trying to slowly destroy public education in Arizona?
Their endorsement is as sensible as a doctor sitting down with a patient who has been diagnosed with lung cancer after decades of smoking and suggesting that the patient could cure the cancer by smoking more cigarettes.
- In a bit of a surprise, the Rep's editorial board endorsed Felecia Rotellini over Tom Horne for Attorney General. They complimented her as "smart and unflappable," which is very true, but Tom Horne is a current office holder and an establishment Republican. This would seem to disprove my "status quo bias" position, until one remembers that, like Rotellini, Terry Goddard, the current Attorney General, is smart, unflappable, and a Democrat.
- However, the Rep did spring one big surprise on voters, and not in a good way. They twisted themselves like a pretzel to find a way to ignore Jon Hulburd and give their CD3 endorsement to Ben Quayle.
First, they opened up their piece with -
Ben Quayle, a Republican, may be the best-known congressional candidate in the country who isn't a member of the "tea party." That shouldn't matter to voters in District 3, which stretches from north-central Phoenix to New River. They don't need a celebrity. They need the best representative they can elect.In the next paragraph, they follow that up with -
If this were a job interview, Democrat Jon Hulburd would have the large advantage. He rose to become a partner at Fennemore Craig, one of Phoenix's top law firms. He left to start an import business. He has career and community accomplishments that Quayle can't match.So naturally, after pointing out Quayle's celebrity status and saying that CD3 doesn't need a celebrity in Congress, and Hulburd's vastly superior resume and qualifications, they gave their endorsement to Quayle -
But elections aren't just about resumes. They're about ideas. And on that score, Quayle is the better candidate to succeed John Shadegg. Quayle is well-versed in the issues. He speaks with passion and conviction.So, the Rep soft-pedals Quayle's lack of qualifications for any elected office, much less a seat in Congress, and completely ignores his pre-candidacy career as a writer for the website Dirty Scottsdale, under the porn-riffic nom de plume "Brock Landers."
Could the Quayle family's previous ownership of the Republic have influenced the endorsement? Nahhhh, couldn't be...
The headline for the Rep's endorsement was "Ben Quayle offers candor, conviction."
Given that Quayle's previous "candor" indicated a deep disrespect for women and could lead to convictions of the criminal variety if he becomes part of the free-for-all social environment in D.C.'s political subculture, instead of being a surprise, perhaps the Rep's endorsement of his [possible] ascension to Congress would be in perfect keeping with their desire to maintain the status quo.
Less than a week ago, the Republic actually brought themselves some credit with their list of endorsements for the Central Arizona Water Conservation District - the candidates they endorsed were intelligent, educated, experienced, and highly-qualified for the job.
Apparently, however, those qualities are desirable only in candidates for lower-profile (though extremely important) offices.
I may agree with some of the Rep's coming endorsements, but where I will support the candidates who are better for Arizona, they'll be supporting the candidates who they see as most protective of their preferred status quo.
Friday, October 01, 2010
Stephen J. Cannell (1941 - 2010)
From the LA Times, via the Kansas City Star -
Picture from his website, cannell.com.
While in recent years, most of his fame came from his work as a best-selling novelist, most people know him best as the mind behind some of the most popular TV shows of the last 40 years.
Most of his shows weren't critical darlings, but most of the shows were something that most critics are not -
Likeable.
His shows combined strong (but human) characters with solid writing to tell entertaining stories, and telling stories is what good TV (or good books, or good movies, or good plays) is all about. While most of his creations weren't comedies (with one notable comic-bookish exception where thousands of rounds were fired in almost every episode but it seemed that no one ever was actually hit), most of the shows exhibited a light touch, humanizing the characters.
Of the many shows that he created, my favorite (and one of my favorite TV shows all-time) was The Rockford Files. The title character, an ex-con/ private investigator Jim Rockford, was played to laconic perfection by James Garner. It's the first show that I can remember where if the lead character was hit or shot, he was actually injured and not magically healed by the next scene.
Wiseguy, a late 80s creation from Cannell, was the first show where I sat up and thought to myself "I wish I had written that!" It was one of his darker shows, yet it also illustrated and emphasized the bonds between friends and families and how they can balance and fortify us in the most trying times.
Cannell's greatest impact on pop culture probably came from his shows The A-Team and 21 Jump Street, shows that gave the world Mr. T and Johnny Depp.
Over his career, the shows he created and the stories he told were never "appointment television," but were the sort of entertainment that viewers could rely on to be entertaining without being intellectually taxing or insulting.*
In this age of "reality" television, his deftness with characters and scripts is sorely missed.
My condolences go out to his family, friends, and thousands of fans.
*OK, I still don't understand the appeal of The A-Team. I just know that it worked at the time, for me and millions of other viewers.
Stephen J. Cannell, the prolific television writer and producer who co-created "The Rockford Files" and "The A-Team" and later became a best-selling novelist, has died. He was 69.
Cannell died Thursday evening of complications associated with melanoma at his home in Pasadena, said his family.
Picture from his website, cannell.com.
While in recent years, most of his fame came from his work as a best-selling novelist, most people know him best as the mind behind some of the most popular TV shows of the last 40 years.
Most of his shows weren't critical darlings, but most of the shows were something that most critics are not -
Likeable.
His shows combined strong (but human) characters with solid writing to tell entertaining stories, and telling stories is what good TV (or good books, or good movies, or good plays) is all about. While most of his creations weren't comedies (with one notable comic-bookish exception where thousands of rounds were fired in almost every episode but it seemed that no one ever was actually hit), most of the shows exhibited a light touch, humanizing the characters.
Of the many shows that he created, my favorite (and one of my favorite TV shows all-time) was The Rockford Files. The title character, an ex-con/ private investigator Jim Rockford, was played to laconic perfection by James Garner. It's the first show that I can remember where if the lead character was hit or shot, he was actually injured and not magically healed by the next scene.
Wiseguy, a late 80s creation from Cannell, was the first show where I sat up and thought to myself "I wish I had written that!" It was one of his darker shows, yet it also illustrated and emphasized the bonds between friends and families and how they can balance and fortify us in the most trying times.
Cannell's greatest impact on pop culture probably came from his shows The A-Team and 21 Jump Street, shows that gave the world Mr. T and Johnny Depp.
Over his career, the shows he created and the stories he told were never "appointment television," but were the sort of entertainment that viewers could rely on to be entertaining without being intellectually taxing or insulting.*
In this age of "reality" television, his deftness with characters and scripts is sorely missed.
My condolences go out to his family, friends, and thousands of fans.
*OK, I still don't understand the appeal of The A-Team. I just know that it worked at the time, for me and millions of other viewers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)