I know I get a little worked up sometimes, questioning the motives, integrity, and even the humanity of many of the players in AZ's political circles. Usually, however, I can step back, take a deep breath, and regain my perspective and civility.
However, Jan Brewer has utterly beaten me.
She's soulless. Purely. Simply. Unequivocally.
Soulless.
ABC News has the story (KNXV-TV, the local affiliate of the network, has a written story here) of how our unelected governor has refused to release a man who was unanimously granted clemency by the board *she* appointed.
William Macumber, age 75, inmate number 033867, has been in prison for over 35 years for a murder that someone else has confessed to committing.
The Arizona Executive Board of Clemency took a look at the facts of the case last year, and citing the case as a "miscarriage of justice," recommended that Macumber be released.
Jan Brewer denied the recommendation for clemency, without explanation.
Since then, the victim's son, Ronald Kempfer, has sought both his father's release and a clear explanation for Brewer's intransigence.
The closest thing to an explanation that he has received was something about how his father's release would endanger public safety and that she has made her decision and "it's final."
Now I would like an explanation of something.
Governor Brewer, I realize that you don't read blogs, but people on your staff do, so maybe one of them will bring this question to you.
Pray tell, how does an arthritic 75-year-old man with heart problems who *didn't* commit a crime constitute a threat to public safety?
Hell, with that description ("an arthritic 75-year-old man with heart problems") all they'd have to do is give him a golf cart and a place to live in Sun City. He'd blend in perfectly. (I'd make a crack about the dangers of the denizens of Sun City driving golf carts, but that's a fight I don't want to get in right now. :) )
As more than a few of the stories suggested, Brewer's concerns with the clemency may be rooted in election year politics - she doesn't want to appear to be soft on crime (the fact that he didn't actually commit the crime is irrelevent to Brewer's reasoning.)
Only in Arizona would keeping an innocent man in jail be considered a good political move.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Well, that took long enough - National media finally notices the SB1070/private prison lobbyists connection
...and in case that title makes me sound like a jerk, let me say this up front: NPR did a great and thorough job with this.
NPR has released the results of its investigation into the behind-the-scenes machinations during the crafting and passage of Arizona's infamous SB1070. And the relationship between Jan Brewer's staff, many of whom are lobbyists for private prison companies
From the report -
To sum up: the seed of Pearce's SB1070 may have been planted by his unrelenting hatred for people with brown skin, but it was germinated in the hothouse of corporate ideology known as ALEC.
Still, the scheme needed to be nurtured before it could bloom.
As in J. Charles "Chuck" Coughlin, Jan Brewer's campaign manager and "former" policy adviser.
Consider it nurtured and bloomed.
Also on Brewer's staff and CCA's payroll? Communications Director Paul Senseman. He "used" to lobby for CCA; now, his wife is the Senseman household's "official" CCA lobbyist.
For his part, Russell Pearce has denied that ALEC or CCA played any part in the development of SB1070, claiming that he has proposed the bill many times before the ALEC conference late last year.
Granted, that *could* be interpreted to mean that he hatched his scheme free of undue or improper outside influence.
It could also very reasonably be interpreted to mean that he has been in the pockets of the private prison industry for many years, or just that he is a shameless opportunist, using the corruption indicated by industry lobbyists running the governor's office as a catalyst for turning the darkest of his private hatred into the vilest of public policy.
It may take a federal investigation, indictment, and trial, and a few years, but something tells me that in a generation, Arizonans will snicker at the words "Jan Brewer" the same way they do when the hear the words "Ev Mecham."
NPR has released the results of its investigation into the behind-the-scenes machinations during the crafting and passage of Arizona's infamous SB1070. And the relationship between Jan Brewer's staff, many of whom are lobbyists for private prison companies
From the report -
Prison Economics Help Drive Ariz. Immigration Law
{snip}
NPR spent the past several months analyzing hundreds of pages of campaign finance reports, lobbying documents and corporate records. What they show is a quiet, behind-the-scenes effort to help draft and pass Arizona Senate Bill 1070 by an industry that stands to benefit from it: the private prison industry.
The law could send hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to prison in a way never done before. And it could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to private prison companies responsible for housing them.
Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce says the bill was his idea. He says it's not about prisons. It's about what's best for the country.
{snip}
It was last December at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C. Inside, there was a meeting of a secretive group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. Insiders call it ALEC.
It's a membership organization of state legislators and powerful corporations and associations, such as the tobacco company Reynolds American Inc., ExxonMobil and the National Rifle Association. Another member is the billion-dollar Corrections Corporation of America — the largest private prison company in the country.
It was there that Pearce's idea took shape.
"I did a presentation," Pearce said. "I went through the facts. I went through the impacts and they said, 'Yeah.'"
The 50 or so people in the room included officials of the Corrections Corporation of America, according to two sources who were there.
Pearce and the Corrections Corporation of America have been coming to these meetings for years. Both have seats on one of several of ALEC's boards.
To sum up: the seed of Pearce's SB1070 may have been planted by his unrelenting hatred for people with brown skin, but it was germinated in the hothouse of corporate ideology known as ALEC.
Still, the scheme needed to be nurtured before it could bloom.
As soon as Pearce's bill hit the Arizona statehouse floor in January, there were signs of ALEC's influence. Thirty-six co-sponsors jumped on, a number almost unheard of in the capitol. According to records obtained by NPR, two-thirds of them either went to that December meeting or are ALEC members.The "powerful new lobbyist" hired by CCA in early January? Highground Inc., operated by one J. Charles Coughlin.
That same week, the Corrections Corporation of America hired a powerful new lobbyist to work the capitol.
The prison company declined requests for an interview. In a statement, a spokesman said the Corrections Corporation of America, "unequivocally has not at any time lobbied — nor have we had any outside consultants lobby – on immigration law."
At the state Capitol, campaign donations started to appear.
Thirty of the 36 co-sponsors received donations over the next six months, from prison lobbyists or prison companies — Corrections Corporation of America, Management and Training Corporation and The Geo Group.
By April, the bill was on Gov. Jan Brewer's desk.
As in J. Charles "Chuck" Coughlin, Jan Brewer's campaign manager and "former" policy adviser.
Consider it nurtured and bloomed.
Also on Brewer's staff and CCA's payroll? Communications Director Paul Senseman. He "used" to lobby for CCA; now, his wife is the Senseman household's "official" CCA lobbyist.
For his part, Russell Pearce has denied that ALEC or CCA played any part in the development of SB1070, claiming that he has proposed the bill many times before the ALEC conference late last year.
Granted, that *could* be interpreted to mean that he hatched his scheme free of undue or improper outside influence.
It could also very reasonably be interpreted to mean that he has been in the pockets of the private prison industry for many years, or just that he is a shameless opportunist, using the corruption indicated by industry lobbyists running the governor's office as a catalyst for turning the darkest of his private hatred into the vilest of public policy.
It may take a federal investigation, indictment, and trial, and a few years, but something tells me that in a generation, Arizonans will snicker at the words "Jan Brewer" the same way they do when the hear the words "Ev Mecham."
Spin, Half-truths and Lies: Schweikert campaign running on empty
...but that's all they have left...and "half-truths" may be giving them too much credit...
Early yesterday, the Schweikert campaign breathlessly sent out an email press release, touting a police report in Tempe concerning a Tempe resident who "pushed down" two anti-Mitchell signs.
The one piece of truth? Such an incident did, in fact, occur, at least according to this police report (courtesy the Arizona Capitol Times).
After that, the press release gets more than a little light on facts.
The press release starts by conflating this incident with a 2000 incident where Mitchell was accused of stealing some signs.
The press release pontificates on that one with "[t]here was no question that Congressman Mitchell broke the law then."
The problem with that?
The charges were dismissed, and that dismissal was upheld on appeal. No matter how often Rs like to bring up the incident from 2000, they always seem to forget to mention that a judge ruled that no crime occurred.
Call this one the "half-truth, barely" part.
The press release then goes on to include a picture of some signs with "the kind of damage that has been occurring."
The problem with that?
The picture included in the press release wasn't of the signs that were part of the incident detailed in the police report. It was of some of the unsightly "insult" signs that Schweikert has carpetbombed CD5 with. The pic looks to have been staged in a parking lot, perhaps outside of Schweikert's campaign headquarters (I don't actually know where it was staged, just that it definitely looks staged).
Call this one the "spun into an outright lie" part, but at least it gave them an excuse to push their lies about Harry Mitchell one more time.
The Arizona Capitol Times has a story up that refutes the Schweikert campaign's spin and press release.
In it, the writer points out that neither the alleged "damager" nor the complainer involved in the incident are directly involved in either the Mitchell or the Schweikert campaigns other than in expressing support for the respective candidates. Speaking personally, I've been a frequent visitor to the Mitchell campaign office in Tempe, and I've never heard of the man accused of damaging the signs.
The Schweikert supporter, however, is a somewhat different story.
I've never heard of him by name, but he is quoted in the police report saying that he "has a company called Jet Media."
The Cap Times' story quotes Jim Torgeson, the owner of Jet Media, as claiming that the signs weren't commissioned by the Schweikert campaign.
From the story -
The press release claims very specifically that the signs involved in the Tempe incident *are* the property of the Schweikert campaign.
From the press release -
It also means that someone is violating campaign finance laws.
Either the complainer owns them and is engaging in political advocacy without filing campaign finance paperwork with the AZ Secretary of State (which he hasn't), or Schweikert owns them and needs to put the appropriate "paid for by" on the signs (which he hasn't, apparently, because there isn't one on the signs.)
Other issues -
Mr. Torgeson is a Republican operative of long standing, using his sign company to harass Democratic candidates in Tempe for years now.
Mr. Torgeson's company, Jet Media, received over $7400 worth of sign business from the Schweikert campaign just between late August and late September, according to Schweikert's FEC filings. I don't know if the signs that the Schweikert campaign purchased from Torgeson were the ones involved in the above incident, but that's a lot of money going to a small sign company relatively late in the cycle.
Mr. Torgeson is listed with the Arizona Corporation Commission as President of Jet Media Promotions, Inc. That corporation was administratively dissolved by the ACC earlier this year because of its failure to file an annual report. Not sure how/if that impacts the legal operation of the sign business, but it's definitely sloppy on Mr. Torgeson's part.
Still, given that we are now less than five days from Election Day, this is just a meaningless distraction. Any proceedings stemming from the above incident will take weeks or even months to run to completion; any possible campaign finance violations could take *years* to resolve.
Time to do a little canvassing.
Later...
Early yesterday, the Schweikert campaign breathlessly sent out an email press release, touting a police report in Tempe concerning a Tempe resident who "pushed down" two anti-Mitchell signs.
The one piece of truth? Such an incident did, in fact, occur, at least according to this police report (courtesy the Arizona Capitol Times).
After that, the press release gets more than a little light on facts.
The press release starts by conflating this incident with a 2000 incident where Mitchell was accused of stealing some signs.
The press release pontificates on that one with "[t]here was no question that Congressman Mitchell broke the law then."
The problem with that?
The charges were dismissed, and that dismissal was upheld on appeal. No matter how often Rs like to bring up the incident from 2000, they always seem to forget to mention that a judge ruled that no crime occurred.
Call this one the "half-truth, barely" part.
The press release then goes on to include a picture of some signs with "the kind of damage that has been occurring."
The problem with that?
The picture included in the press release wasn't of the signs that were part of the incident detailed in the police report. It was of some of the unsightly "insult" signs that Schweikert has carpetbombed CD5 with. The pic looks to have been staged in a parking lot, perhaps outside of Schweikert's campaign headquarters (I don't actually know where it was staged, just that it definitely looks staged).
Call this one the "spun into an outright lie" part, but at least it gave them an excuse to push their lies about Harry Mitchell one more time.
The Arizona Capitol Times has a story up that refutes the Schweikert campaign's spin and press release.
In it, the writer points out that neither the alleged "damager" nor the complainer involved in the incident are directly involved in either the Mitchell or the Schweikert campaigns other than in expressing support for the respective candidates. Speaking personally, I've been a frequent visitor to the Mitchell campaign office in Tempe, and I've never heard of the man accused of damaging the signs.
The Schweikert supporter, however, is a somewhat different story.
I've never heard of him by name, but he is quoted in the police report saying that he "has a company called Jet Media."
The Cap Times' story quotes Jim Torgeson, the owner of Jet Media, as claiming that the signs weren't commissioned by the Schweikert campaign.
From the story -
"But Jet Media owner Jim Torgeson said that Sanders’ signs were not commissioned by the Schweikert campaign, and that they personally belonged to Sanders, not the company."That opens up a big can of worms for the Schweikert campaign.
The press release claims very specifically that the signs involved in the Tempe incident *are* the property of the Schweikert campaign.
From the press release -
"The signs in question are the property of David Schweikert’s campaign."That's pretty unequivocal.
It also means that someone is violating campaign finance laws.
Either the complainer owns them and is engaging in political advocacy without filing campaign finance paperwork with the AZ Secretary of State (which he hasn't), or Schweikert owns them and needs to put the appropriate "paid for by" on the signs (which he hasn't, apparently, because there isn't one on the signs.)
Other issues -
Mr. Torgeson is a Republican operative of long standing, using his sign company to harass Democratic candidates in Tempe for years now.
Mr. Torgeson's company, Jet Media, received over $7400 worth of sign business from the Schweikert campaign just between late August and late September, according to Schweikert's FEC filings. I don't know if the signs that the Schweikert campaign purchased from Torgeson were the ones involved in the above incident, but that's a lot of money going to a small sign company relatively late in the cycle.
Mr. Torgeson is listed with the Arizona Corporation Commission as President of Jet Media Promotions, Inc. That corporation was administratively dissolved by the ACC earlier this year because of its failure to file an annual report. Not sure how/if that impacts the legal operation of the sign business, but it's definitely sloppy on Mr. Torgeson's part.
Still, given that we are now less than five days from Election Day, this is just a meaningless distraction. Any proceedings stemming from the above incident will take weeks or even months to run to completion; any possible campaign finance violations could take *years* to resolve.
Time to do a little canvassing.
Later...
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The most fortunate man in America: One violent teabagger
A video of a violent assault of a MoveOn.org member at a Rand Paul event has been going viral on the internet and cable news.
That video -
Turns out that the three most important factors in politically-motivated violence are the same as in the real estate business - location, location, location.
The perp is fortunate tonight - in Kentucky, he faces only misdemeanor charges.
In Massachusetts (where I was born and grew up), a shod foot (what the Paul supporter used on the head of the woman as she lay pinned to the ground) is considered a "dangerous" weapon under the law, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (ABDW) is a felony that could earn the perp upwards of a decade in state prison.
Of course, that may be a better option for the attacker and his ilk than in Arizona - we've got some of the weakest-ass laws in existence regarding the application of deadly force in self-defense of the defense of another, thanks to Russell Pearce.
One of the attacker's fellow tea party types. God I love the irony there...
Basically, under Arizona law, you can shoot your neighbor for sneezing. (Yeah, that's a bit of hyperbole. But only a bit. Read the statutes.)
And to top it off, the perp, a (now-former) county coordinator for the Rand Paul campaign named Tim Profitt, is now demanding an apology from the woman he assaulted.
For what, daring to soil the bottom of his shoe with her scalp?
That video -
Turns out that the three most important factors in politically-motivated violence are the same as in the real estate business - location, location, location.
The perp is fortunate tonight - in Kentucky, he faces only misdemeanor charges.
In Massachusetts (where I was born and grew up), a shod foot (what the Paul supporter used on the head of the woman as she lay pinned to the ground) is considered a "dangerous" weapon under the law, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (ABDW) is a felony that could earn the perp upwards of a decade in state prison.
Of course, that may be a better option for the attacker and his ilk than in Arizona - we've got some of the weakest-ass laws in existence regarding the application of deadly force in self-defense of the defense of another, thanks to Russell Pearce.
One of the attacker's fellow tea party types. God I love the irony there...
Basically, under Arizona law, you can shoot your neighbor for sneezing. (Yeah, that's a bit of hyperbole. But only a bit. Read the statutes.)
And to top it off, the perp, a (now-former) county coordinator for the Rand Paul campaign named Tim Profitt, is now demanding an apology from the woman he assaulted.
For what, daring to soil the bottom of his shoe with her scalp?
Blast from the past time: Tom Delay's trial finally starting
Tom Delay, the scandal-plagued former Congressman from Texas who ran amok in Washington and across the country (and the world) with Jack Abramoff the last time the Rs controlled the House is finally going on trial. He faces money laundering charges in Texas stemming from campaign finance violations.
From CNN -
Thanks for the heads-up on this go to Jobsanger in Texas...
Later...
From CNN -
Jury selection is scheduled to begin Tuesday in the trial of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who is charged with illegally funneling corporate money to help elect GOP candidates to the Texas legislature.Corporate money? Legislative elections? Delay was a man ahead of his time. Too bad for him that he was a criminal in his time.
The Republican was indicted in 2005 on charges he illegally sent $190,000 in corporate money through the Republican National Committee to help elect GOP Texas legislative candidates in 2002.
Thanks for the heads-up on this go to Jobsanger in Texas...
Later...
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Turns out that Russell Pearce is far more well-rounded than I gave him credit for...
...I thought he was just a thoroughgoing bigot, but according to someone who knows him better than I do, he is also petty, vindictive, and prone to violence.
Earlier, I put up a post that covered State Sen. Russell Pearce's (R-National Alliance) attempts to interject himself into a legal conflict between the Tohono O'odham nation and the City of Glendale over a proposed tribal casino on the edge of Glendale.
At that time, I speculated that Pearce's interest in the situation stemmed from a basic dislike of Native Americans (they may be "Natives," but they aren't "natives," ya know what I mean?), but thanks to Greg Patterson at Espresso Pundit, I humbly stand corrected.
From Patterson's post on (roughly) the same topic (he started off talking about an anti-Prop 302 mailer) -
Something tells me that real-life mobsters will be insulted by the comparison...
Apparently, free speech protections only apply to people who agree with Pearce and the other small "n" nativists. All others should just take the abuse, shut up, and like it.
So, in one brief passage, he details how Pearce (and his colleagues in the R caucus of the lege) is going after the Tohono O'odham because they've dared to oppose his move to defund and destroy early childhood education in Arizona in order to pay for corporate tax cuts. And he compares his fellow Rs to mobsters.
Nice.
Earlier, I put up a post that covered State Sen. Russell Pearce's (R-National Alliance) attempts to interject himself into a legal conflict between the Tohono O'odham nation and the City of Glendale over a proposed tribal casino on the edge of Glendale.
At that time, I speculated that Pearce's interest in the situation stemmed from a basic dislike of Native Americans (they may be "Natives," but they aren't "natives," ya know what I mean?), but thanks to Greg Patterson at Espresso Pundit, I humbly stand corrected.
From Patterson's post on (roughly) the same topic (he started off talking about an anti-Prop 302 mailer) -
...But that's only one reason why Legislators like Pearce are ticked off. Look who else sponsored the mailer...that's right, the tribes. If you are new to the legislative process, you may ask yourself what the Tohono O'odam's opposition to Prop 302 has to do with the Tohono O'odam casino in Glendale? The answer is that it has everything to do with it. Everything in the Legisature is connected. That means that if the Legislature creates Prop 302 in order to avoid steep cuts in services and the Tohono O'odam use Indian Gaming money to kill that Proposition, then the Legislature is likely to go after the Tohono O'dam's casino.
Seriously, did you not even watch one episode of the Sopranos?
Prop 302 is likely to fail. So the legislature is going to have a $400 million hole in its budget. Naturally, they will use the cover that Eddie and Nadine Basha have provided and cut as much as they can out of the budget.
But they will still need revenue...and they sure as heck aren't going to raise taxes. So they are out of borrowing capacity, and they can't have the First Things First money because their first proposal was shot down by the Tribes. So what's left?
Well, Indian Gaming is left. Of course they can't take the money from the tribes...but they can COMPETE with the tribes.
Something tells me that real-life mobsters will be insulted by the comparison...
Apparently, free speech protections only apply to people who agree with Pearce and the other small "n" nativists. All others should just take the abuse, shut up, and like it.
So, in one brief passage, he details how Pearce (and his colleagues in the R caucus of the lege) is going after the Tohono O'odham because they've dared to oppose his move to defund and destroy early childhood education in Arizona in order to pay for corporate tax cuts. And he compares his fellow Rs to mobsters.
Nice.
Three nominated to fill Jorge Luis Garcia's seat in the AZ Senate
From an email from that Arizona Democratic Party -
As the press release notes, Maria De La Luz Garcia is Senator Garcia's wife. Both Bob Gilby and Sami Hamed are long-time Democratic activists in LD27 (and for the County and State parties). In fact, both were House candidates this year.
Without personally knowing any of the principals involved (I've briefly met them all at one ADP function or another, but that isn't the same as "getting to know" them), I feel comfortable predicting that Maria De La Luz Garcia will receive the appointment of the Pima supes.
Traditionally, in such situations, where the appointment won't have much or any real world impact, it frequently goes to the late officeholder's spouse as both a way to honor and respect the family *and* to avoid the appearance of playing favorites close to an election (though both neither Hamed nor Gilby made it through the primary).
Given that the appointment will for approximately two months...
3 nominees announced for consideration to fill seat of late Sen. Jorge Luis Garcia
TUCSON -- On Monday night, 39 precinct committeepersons of the Arizona Democratic Party convened for a Legislative District 27 meeting in Tucson for the purposes of nominating replacements to fill the seat left vacant by the untimely death of state Sen. Jorge Luis Garcia.
Three nominees were affirmed by acclimation (uncontested). They are as follows:
--Maria De La Luz Garcia (Sen. Garcia's wife) of Tucson
--Robert Gilby of Tucson
--Sami Hamed of Tucson
The names of these nominees were submitted today to the Pima County Board of Supervisors by Don Bivens, Arizona Democratic Party chair. The Board of Supervisors will choose the replacement from among the three names submitted. That appointee will be sworn into office and serve the remainder of the term until January.
As the press release notes, Maria De La Luz Garcia is Senator Garcia's wife. Both Bob Gilby and Sami Hamed are long-time Democratic activists in LD27 (and for the County and State parties). In fact, both were House candidates this year.
Without personally knowing any of the principals involved (I've briefly met them all at one ADP function or another, but that isn't the same as "getting to know" them), I feel comfortable predicting that Maria De La Luz Garcia will receive the appointment of the Pima supes.
Traditionally, in such situations, where the appointment won't have much or any real world impact, it frequently goes to the late officeholder's spouse as both a way to honor and respect the family *and* to avoid the appearance of playing favorites close to an election (though both neither Hamed nor Gilby made it through the primary).
Given that the appointment will for approximately two months...
The steam must be pouring out of Russell Pearce's ears right about now...
From KOLD -
From Linda Brown, executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network, a plaintiff in the lawsuit at the base of today's decision (via email) -
Expect some coverage of the "sky is falling!" variety from the R blogosphere over this one, and soon.
A U.S. appeals court has ruled that Arizona's law requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote violates federal law.The full court opinion is here.
The Ninth Circuit of Appeals opinion issued Tuesday found that the Arizona documentation requirement runs afoul of the National Voter Registration Act that states must use and accept the federal voter registration form without additional documentation requirements.
The Arizona requirement is part of Proposition 200 which voters was passed in 2004.
From Linda Brown, executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network, a plaintiff in the lawsuit at the base of today's decision (via email) -
"The penalties against non-citizens registering to vote are very serious and have served Arizonans -- and all Americans -- well for decades. The real crime is that this law disenfranchised tens of thousands of citizens who wanted to vote but lacked the documentation to register."Howard Fischer coverage, via the East Valley Tribune, here.
Expect some coverage of the "sky is falling!" variety from the R blogosphere over this one, and soon.
KVOA getting ready for next week's elections...
They've put up some "test" returns for Arizona House races on their website, and didn't pull down the test before I noticed it.
Heh heh heh heh, time for a little fun (and it is just fun - they've got Ds winning in districts that are R locks, and Rs winning in D districts. In other words, these are just numbers serving as space fillers, not reality or even predictions of reality)...
Highlights -
Heh heh heh heh, time for a little fun (and it is just fun - they've got Ds winning in districts that are R locks, and Rs winning in D districts. In other words, these are just numbers serving as space fillers, not reality or even predictions of reality)...
Highlights -
District 4No more Jack Harper? Fingers (and toes) crossed for the future of LD4 and the state...
103 of 103 precincts - 100 percent
x-Judy Burges, GOP (i) 36,972 - 45 percent
x-Karina Guerrero, Dem 32,864 - 40 percent
Jack Harper, GOP 12,324 - 15 percent
2 to be elected.
District 11If there is any justice in the world, this one, with Eric Meyer winning, will become reality in a week. It would annoy the hell out of some industry groups, too, as they've dropped a lot of cash on McGee.
83 of 83 precincts - 100 percent
x-Eric Meyer, Dem (i) 23,522 - 45 percent
x-Eric West, GOP 20,908 - 40 percent
Kate Brophy McGee, GOP 7,840 - 15 percent
District 17This is my home district, and this result would definitely work for me...
69 of 69 precincts - 100 percent
x-Ed Ableser, Dem (i) 17,611 - 43 percent
x-Ben Arredondo, Dem 16,201 - 40 percent
Donald Hawker, GOP 1,823 - 5 percent
Cristian Dumitrescu, Lib 1,709 - 4 percent
Damian Trabel, Lib 1,603 - 4 percent
Gregor Knauer, Grn 1,555 - 4 percent
District 19Won't happen, but this would be nice. It would be nicer still if Adams was the R who came in third.
65 of 65 precincts - 100 percent
x-Kirk Adams, GOP (i) 24,674 - 45 percent
x-Kit Filbey, Dem 21,933 - 40 percent
Justin Olson, GOP 8,224 - 15 percent
2 to be elected.
District 20As with Meyer above, in a truly just world Waters would win this one in a walk.
59 of 59 precincts - 100 percent
x-Rae Waters, Dem (i) 22,657 - 45 percent
x-Bob Robson, GOP 20,138 - 40 percent
Jeff Dial, GOP 7,552 - 15 percent
2 to be elected.
Russell Pearce: the man who wants to be shadow governor also wants to be shadow dictator of every city in the state
Russell Pearce may deride the U.S. government, saying that "states' rights" supercede any central authority, but he doesn't hold the same for Arizona's cities and towns in their dealings with the central authority of the Arizona state government.
First, his SB1070 would have shanghaied municipal police officers into his anti-immigrant purging force, no matter what the elected leaders of those municipalities thought their employees should be doing (you know, like preventing or investigating crimes in their jurisdictions). It may still do so, but the law is winding its way through the courts.
Then, perhaps feeling that the City of Glendale is lax in fighting against the encroachment of Native Americans upon the Valley (yes, that's sarcasm. Native Americans of one tribe or another were here long before the first settler with European roots. Pearce is a small "n" nativist, not a capital "N" one.), Pearce has tried to interject himself into Glendale's legal conflict with the Tohono O'odham over a proposed tribal casino next to that city.
Pearce doesn't represent any part of Glendale (of course, that's a minor detail, considering that he doesn't actually work to represent his "official" constituents in West Mesa), nor is the legislature or the state government involved in the fight, but he still wants to meddle in the affairs of Glendale and the Tohono O'odham.
Finally, this past spring, he pushed through a bill, SB1108, that allows people to carry concealed firearms without a permit or even training. Beside that, it included a provision requiring that legitimately confiscated weapons be sold to gun dealers, unless such action would violate "FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAW."
He thought he had ensured a steady supply of low-cost product for local gun dealers.
Until a number of municipalities started passing ordinances requiring that confiscated weapons be destroyed (the "local law" segment of the above provision).
Now, he decries the "loophole" in the law (a law that he wrote and was the sole sponsor of) that allows cities and towns to determine their own procedures and governance, and has promised to "fix" the law so that cities and towns have no option but to put forfeited weapons back into public circulation.
So the man who doesn't help Mesa, even though he has been elected to represent part of it, wants to interfere in the local affairs of *other* cities?
It's time for the voters of LD18 to make a change and elect somebody who will actually represent them.
Vote for Andrew Sherwood for State Senate.
First, his SB1070 would have shanghaied municipal police officers into his anti-immigrant purging force, no matter what the elected leaders of those municipalities thought their employees should be doing (you know, like preventing or investigating crimes in their jurisdictions). It may still do so, but the law is winding its way through the courts.
Then, perhaps feeling that the City of Glendale is lax in fighting against the encroachment of Native Americans upon the Valley (yes, that's sarcasm. Native Americans of one tribe or another were here long before the first settler with European roots. Pearce is a small "n" nativist, not a capital "N" one.), Pearce has tried to interject himself into Glendale's legal conflict with the Tohono O'odham over a proposed tribal casino next to that city.
Pearce doesn't represent any part of Glendale (of course, that's a minor detail, considering that he doesn't actually work to represent his "official" constituents in West Mesa), nor is the legislature or the state government involved in the fight, but he still wants to meddle in the affairs of Glendale and the Tohono O'odham.
Finally, this past spring, he pushed through a bill, SB1108, that allows people to carry concealed firearms without a permit or even training. Beside that, it included a provision requiring that legitimately confiscated weapons be sold to gun dealers, unless such action would violate "FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAW."
He thought he had ensured a steady supply of low-cost product for local gun dealers.
Until a number of municipalities started passing ordinances requiring that confiscated weapons be destroyed (the "local law" segment of the above provision).
Now, he decries the "loophole" in the law (a law that he wrote and was the sole sponsor of) that allows cities and towns to determine their own procedures and governance, and has promised to "fix" the law so that cities and towns have no option but to put forfeited weapons back into public circulation.
So the man who doesn't help Mesa, even though he has been elected to represent part of it, wants to interfere in the local affairs of *other* cities?
It's time for the voters of LD18 to make a change and elect somebody who will actually represent them.
Vote for Andrew Sherwood for State Senate.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Lies, more lies, and the truth...
My friend and fellow blogger, Texan Jobsanger, has been citing and complimenting some of my posts recently. It's time to return the favor.
His post, "8 Lies Republicans Want Us To Believe" is worth of a look, so worthy in fact that it rises to the level of being worthy ofstealing reposting. :)
Here it is:
Later...
His post, "8 Lies Republicans Want Us To Believe" is worth of a look, so worthy in fact that it rises to the level of being worthy of
Here it is:
During this election campaign the American public has been inundated with lies from the Republican Party. Some of these lies have been told and repeated for so long that they have assumed the proportions of myth, and are accepted by a great many Americans. But they are still just Republican lies.
I have been trying to attack these lies one at a time, and have written several posts about them. But Dave Johnson over at Campaign for America's Future has combined them into one very good post. He cuts through all the BS and exposes these mythic lies, and then tells the truth about them. Here are those 8 lies:
1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion.
2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.
3) President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.
4) The stimulus didn't work.
Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.
5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.
6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.
7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc.
Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.
8) Government spending takes money out of the economy.
Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget.
Don't believe the lies being told by Republicans. They just want to return to power, and they'll say anything to do that. If the American people fall for this nonsense and return them to power, the recession will continue unabated and the country will be damaged for many more years. Remember when you go to the polls this November, it was the Republican policies that put the American economy in the mess it is in right now and those policies have not changed.
Later...
Latest adventures of Schweikert and the voter
This is a parody of David Schweikert and the tea party platform (Obama/Pelosi BAD! Corporate tax cuts GOOD!)
New Brewer video...
...and it's definitely scary enough for pre-Halloween viewing...
Hat tip to Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times for the heads-up on this...
Phoenix videographer Dennis Gilman has put together a video compilation of some of Jan Brewer's creepiest utterances as a sort of independent Get Out The Vote effort.
Hat tip to Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times for the heads-up on this...
Phoenix videographer Dennis Gilman has put together a video compilation of some of Jan Brewer's creepiest utterances as a sort of independent Get Out The Vote effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)