Sunday, September 09, 2012

Part two: Arizona Politics 101 - "Peanuts! Crackerjack! Scorecards! Ya can't tell the players without a scorecard!"

Note: The first part of this post is here.  That one was mostly about abbreviations; this one will have some of that, but it is more about the specifics of Arizona politics, particularly regarding the state capitol.

Again, let me be clear - neither this post nor its predecessor is meant to be considered definitive or complete.  They're just primers.

Some of the players and forces at play at the Capitol:

- Arizona's governor (currently Jan Brewer) is handicapped by the fact that Arizona, like most western states, utilizes a "weak executive" model of government. The governor's two biggest political tools are the veto pen and the job title, and the public soapbox that goes with it. Otherwise, the governor can't do much that isn't specifically approved by the legislature.

The current governor isn't known as the brightest light in the nighttime sky, but she's bright enough to have held office (of one sort or another) since the early 1980s. Not sure if that is evidence that she is underrated intellectually, or that the intellectual requirements necessary to get into elected office in Arizona are overrated.

Brewer ascended to the governor's office, which is physically located on the ninth floor of the Executive Tower at the AZ Capitol (hence, the occasional use of "the Ninth Floor" to describe the administration/governor's office in general) when her predecessor, Janet Napolitano, accepted the job of US Secretary of Homeland Security in 2009.

Brewer won election to her own term in 2010 after she signed SB1070, the infamous anti-immigrant law that has basically been eviscerated by the courts. However, the bill was a strong enough sop to the nativist wing of the AZGOP to clear what had been a crowded primary field, and to propel her to a general election victory over Democratic nominee Terry Goddard.

She has basically been a rubber stamp for the Republican caucus in the lege, wielding her veto pen  only on certain extreme measures where the legislative support for a measure was weak enough that her veto wouldn't be overridden.

She is term-limited and will not be able to run for re-election in 2014.

The main "power behind the throne" is well-connected lobbyist Chuck Coughlin. Reputed to be the brains of the Brewer political operation, Couglin was/is employed as a lobbyist by the Corrections Corporation of America, which just received a contract from the state for private prison cells that the state doesn't need.

- Arizona's state legislature is the seat of the most political authority, and the most political mischief, in the state. It may be shortened as "the lege".

Where to start, where to start....?

How about with...

...term limits have created a climate where experience is rare and ignorance is king.  State level term limits allow for officeholders to hold a particular office for a maximum of eight years (four two-year terms for legislators, two four-year terms for people in statewide offices such as governor or attorney general).  Some legislators get around the term limits by switching chambers periodically, but most don't stay around long enough to get good at the job.  The term limits aren't permanent - the officeholder only has to take one term off from an office to reset the term limits clock.  However, as the law is written, even one day sworn into an office counts as a full term.  As such, both Governor Jan Brewer and AZSOS Ken Bennett are term-limited and will not be eligible to run for reelection to their current offices in 2014.  Both first gained their current offices when Janet Napolitano resigned from the governor's office in 2009 to take a promotion to the Obama Administration and D. C.  Brewer succeeded to the governor's office from her previous position as AZSOS, and Bennett was appointed to fill that office.  In 2010, both won election to full terms. (Yes, this part is more than a little repetitive, but it merits coverage in both the sections about the governor and about term limits.)

...the Arizona Constitution (and school civics textbooks all over the state) says that the legislature is a bicameral body consisting of the House of Representatives and the State Senate; the practical reality is that the two chambers of the lege are the Center for Arizona Policy (social engineering agenda) and the Goldwater Institute (big business lobbying). Those organizations don't write *every* bill that is passed by the lege, but if either one opposes a measure outright, said measure dies. Quickly. Painfully. Publicly.

- - Note: in addition to the abbreviation "CAP", the Center for Arizona Policy will also be referred to as the "Center for Arizona Theocracy Policy" because most of the measures supported by CAP are all about imposing the strictures of their preferred religion upon the rest of society.

- - Note2: "The Goldwater Institute" will be used in most references, though the abbreviation "GI" may be used on occasion. GI professes to be a "non-partisan think tank", though they never seem to support the ideas of Democrats, and the "analyses" they provide always support policies that enhance corporate profit margins.

Players in the lege include Republicans Sen. Steve Pierce and Rep. Andy Tobin, the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House, respectively. Both are from the Prescott area and will be returning to their respective chambers in January as they are unchallenged in the general election. Democratic Rep. Chad Campbell, the House Democratic leader, is likely to return to the House as his is a Democratic-leaning district. Campbell is rumored to be eyeing a run for the Ninth Floor in 2014. Over in the Senate, the Democratic leadership is in flux. Current Democratic leader David Schapira ran for Congress and will not be returning to the Senate. In addition, there will be a number of new senators, so I cannot predict who will emerge as the leader.

Other names to watch include Rep. John Kavanagh (R), chair of the House Appropriations committee; Sen Michelle Reagan (R), a likely 2014 statewide or Congressional candidate; Sen. Rich Crandall (R), Rep. Steve Farley (D), Rep. Katie Hobbs (candidate for Senate, who, though facing a Republican in the general election, resides in the same Democratic-leaning district as Campbell, above).

There are others, but until all of the elections sort themselves out and we see who ends up where and what the breakdown in each chamber is, the names will wait.

One person that we won't have to watch at the Capitol is Russell Pearce, nativist icon and the former Senate president who lost a recall election in 2011.  He lost a 2012 primary in his attempt to return to the senate.  Look for him to move into a bigger role in the AZGOP while biding his time, waiting for another opportunity to run for elected office.

One group that should be a bigger player, but isn't, is the office of the Legisislative Council (Lege Council). The lawyers on staff there turn bill proposals into legalese (aka - take the ideas of legislators and the ideas of lobbyists that legislators put their names to and turn them into actionable legislative proposals). They also analyze and report on the legal viability of those proposals. Those analyses tend to be direct, accurate, and thoroughly ignored by the lege if the analyses aren't in abject agreement with Republican ideology.

Hence, the pattern of Arizona being sued over various laws, and usually losing, all at taxpayer expense.

Another organization at the Capitol, one with much greater sway than the Lege Council, is the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC). It serves as the Arizona Legislature's version of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It is basically a number-crunching operation, both collecting and analyzing Arizona-centered economic data, and performing fiscal analyses of bill proposals under consideration by the lege.

- Arizona's Judicial Branch, which includes Justice Courts (overseen by JPs), municipal courts, county court systems, the AZ Court of Appeals, and the AZ Supreme Court, is pretty widely respected for its fairness and professionalism. At least, it is respected outside of Arizona. Here in AZ, because the courts say "no" to the lege too often, the ideologues in the lege are constantly trying to reduce the independence of the courts.  The Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court is Rebecca White Berch.  She is a Republican, but she is one of my favorite public officials in the state.  She's smart, fair, and starts her meetings on schedule.  Trust me when I say this, that is very unusual at the Capitol.  If a meeting that she's running has an agenda stating that its start time is 9 a.m., it starts at 9 a.m.  Across the Wesley Bolin Plaza at the lege, if a committee agenda states that the start time is 9 a.m., that meeting starts betweeen 9 a.m. and dusk.  And come budget time, the "dusk" part is negotiable.

- Arizona's lobbyists, including the aforementioned Coughlin, CATP, and Goldwater Institute, are very influential here.  There are far to many to list them all, though Civil Arizona offers a list of the 20 most powerful ones here (while I disagree with the ranking order of the list, it pretty effectively covers the top 20); the Arizona Capitol Times has a complete list of lobbyists here; the AZSOS offers a search function for its database of registered lobbyists here.  Because of term limits and normal turnover, the lobbyists (and a few members of the staff at the Capitol) have become the lege's institutional memory.

- The core media group at the Capitol includes the Arizona Capitol Times, the Arizona Republic, and Howie Fischer of Capitol Media Services.

...The Cap Times may be about the goings-on in state government, but their target audience isn't the people of Arizona, it's the lawyers, lobbyists, and other insiders who profit from the Capitol.  While not known for hardcore investigative reporting, they will publish pieces about legislators and other electeds that are more than puff pieces...so long as the pieces don't reflect poorly on the lobbyists who actually pay for their subscriptions (legislators get their copies gratis).  Receives a large chunk of their revenue from legal notices (corporate filings, notices of bank auctions, etc.), so once a year, some legislator runs a bill to end the requirement that such things have to be published in a newspaper.

And once per year, the publisher of the Cap Times trots over to the lege, says "hi" to old friends and acquaintances, and beats back the measure.

...The Arizona Republic is the state's primary newspaper.  They do have a couple of reporters who are basically assigned to the Capitol beat, and those reporters are pretty good, but their editors and publisher won't let them off the leash to do pieces that involve serious research and investigation.  Usually, all that they are allowed to do is to take dictation.  As a whole, many people consider the AZRep to be a conservative newspaper, and while there is a lot of truth to that, I think that they are more a "corporate profit" newspaper that looks to protect the status quo, even if that status quo is of dubious long-term benefit and viability.  Yes, they've endorsed "moderate" Republicans over extreme Republican in primaries, but they will almost always endorse Republicans over Democrats in general election races.  It's all about who they think will best secure the short-term profitability of Arizona's real estate industrial complex and other corporate interests.

...Along with the lobbyists at the lege, Howie Fischer is the Capitol's version of institutional memory.  He's been down there forever...well, since before the last time Arizona had a governor who both entered and exited office because of the results of an election (the mid-1980s).  He is the reporter for a news organization named "Capitol Media Services"  He's also the photographer, editor, publisher, salesman, chief cook, and bottlewasher for Capitol Media Services.  In other words, he *is* Capitol Media Services.  Basically, he is the capitol correspondent for all non-TV news outlets except for the Cap Times and AZRep.  He does some good work, but his business model is such that he needs access to legislators (and staffers) as sources.  Hence, he can't afford to tick them off by actually investigating and writing about things like corruption at the Capitol.  He's also a Republican (I think), but does a decent job of not letting that shade his reporting from the Capitol. 

Well, not too often, anyway.

...On television, the Maricopa County-based political talk shows are Horizon (KAET, a PBS affiliate, hosted by Ted Simons), Sunday Square Off (KPNX, an NBC affiliate, hosted by Brahm Resnick), Politics Unplugged (KTVK, an independent station, hosted by Carey Pena and Dennis Welch), and Newsmaker Sunday (KSAZ, a Fox affiliate, hosted by John Hook).  The first three are good and seem to be pretty evenhanded.  I can't comment on the Fox station's program because it is on at 7:30 on Sunday freakin' morning!, so I've never seen more than the last few minutes of it.


That's it for now, but I'll update when developments call for it.

Saturday, September 08, 2012

Part one: Arizona Politics 101 - "Peanuts! Crackerjack! Scorecards! Ya can't tell the players without a scorecard!"

After writing this blog for 6+ years, I've noticed that I tend to write in a sort of shorthand, using abbreviations more often than I should and writing as if all readers know the backstory of the elected officials, candidates, players (lobbyists, mostly) and situations here in AZ (See? An abbreviation!  "AZ" is short for "Arizona").

Originally, this post was going to include the works - abbreviations, players, backstory (stuff that I tend to assume everyone already knows, so I tend to just reference it, but not necessarily explain it) - but the post was getting to be incredibly, and unreadably, long, and still wasn't close to being complete.

Time to break it into parts.

As such, the first post will be a list of abbreviations and nicknames.  It won't be comprehensive, not hardly, but it should be a good start.

Also, while there will be a few mentions of matters of a partisan nature, neither this nor the next post aren't ideological hit pieces.  I'll just be discussing some of the practical applications of power in Arizona.

If I leave out something that you believe should be included, let me know in a comment or an email.

Abbreviations -

- Any state's postal code abbreviation (AZ, CA, TX, etc.) can and will be used in place of its whole name, though I try to use the full name at least once before using the abbreviation.

- "SOS" refers to "Secretary of State".  You'll see it used often here because the SOS is the chief elections officer in most states, and this is a political blog.  In instances where "SOS" is used alone, it will almost always refer to the Arizona Secretary of State, though "AZSOS" may also be used.  For references to the secretary of state in other states, the name of the state will be spelled out or the state's postal code abbreviation will be appended to "SOS".  For instance, the California Secretary of State will either be referred to by that name or "CASOS".

- The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors = "MCBOS"; on second use in a piece, they may be referred to as "the supes"..  In instances where the board of supervisors in another county is being referenced, the name will be spelled out (i.e. - "Pima County Board of Supervisors", though on second use, a shorter phrase may be used (i.e. - "Pinal BOS" or "Navajo supes").

It should be noted that while I don't often do so, folks who write about the judicial system a lot tend to use the phrase "the supes" when discussing the supreme court, whether in their state or in the US.

- The Arizona Democratic Party and Maricopa County Democratic Party are "ADP" and "MCDP", respectively.

- The Arizona Republican Party is abbreviated as "AZGOP".  Republicans will also be referred to as "GOPers".

- "CCEC" refers to the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Arizona's voter-enacted mechanism for providing public funding to candidates.  It isn't mandatory for candidates, nor is it a panacea for all that ails Arizona politically (obviously), but it provides a path for candidates to raise money without selling their integrity (and souls) to those with deep pockets and anti-social agendas.

- "ADOT" = Arizona Department of Transportation and "MVD" refers to the Motor Vehicle Division of ADOT (MVD handles the sort of stuff that most average residents of Arizona need - drivers' licenses, vehicle registrations, etc.)

- "JP" is short for Justice of the Peace.  It's a relatively low-profile elected office, but it pays very well.  Maricopa County Justices of the Peace earn approximately $105K per year, making them the second-highest paid publicly-elected officials in the state, behind only the governor.  It comes up here because a couple of friends of mine are JPs, and many electeds go for a term as a JP in order to increase their pensions (see:  Cheuvront, Ken).  Note:  the president of the governing board of the Salt River Project (SRP) makes approximately $180K per year at last check, but that person is elected by the members of the board, and they are elected by the landowners in the SRP service area.

- The Arizona Corporation Commission is abbreviated "ACC".  The ACC is ostensibly the body that oversees and regulates securities and utilities in Arizona.  I say "ostensibly" because the ACC is controlled by a Republican majority who look to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council.  ALEC is an organization that is dedicated to putting legislators together with industry lobbyists.

- "CAP" is short for both the Center for Arizona Policy (more on them in the next post) and Central Arizona Project.  Generally, the context of the piece will indicate which is being referenced.  That will usually be the Center for Arizona Policy because they are far more influential and active at the state capitol than the Central Arizona Project.

- "The lege" is short for "the legislature".  Used alone, it refers to the Arizona State Legislature; if another state's legislature is being referenced, that state will be specified, as in "Texas lege".

- The Arizona Capitol Times is the capitol newspaper (like the name doesn't make that clear :) ).  Usually, I just spell out the name, but on occasion, mostly to avoid being repetitive, that is shortened to "Cap Times."

- The Arizona Republic is the state's general interest newspaper (for now anyway.  They've been in decline for years, and their new "subscription fee for everything" business model may just drive readers to other sources).  It will either be referenced by its full name or by "AZRep".

- The other newspaper that is regularly referenced here is the Phoenix New Times.  It will either be referenced by its full name or "the New Times".

For other abbreviations, on the first reference in a piece, the full name will be cited first, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses.  For example - "...Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO)..."


More to come...

The Rs' LD13 primary mess: Unleash the lawyers!

On Tuesday, the Arizona Capitol Times broke the story that Darin Mitchell, one of the winners of the LD13 Republican primary for a seat in the Arizona House of Representatives, apparently doesn't live in that district.

Note: the link is to my post about the story; the Cap Times' story is now behind a subscriber paywall.

The incumbent legislator that Mitchell ousted, Russ Jones, took a few days to mull his options, ultimately deciding to file a lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court (link courtesy KPNX-TV).

In the lawsuit, Jones asks the court to enjoin (aka - forbid) the AZ Secretary of State and the county recorders in Maricopa and Yuma counties (LD19 spans parts of both counties) from placing Mitchell's name on the general election ballot.

He also asks for court costs and attorney fees, but does *not* specifically ask the court to place his name on the ballot in Mitchell's stead.

I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a big grain of salt (meaning that I could be way off here), but I don't think this is going to go far.

1.  There is a 10-day period after the deadline for filing candidate petitions in June when candidates (and non-candidates) can challenge the ballot eligibility of other candidates.  Fisher availed himself of that time to challenge the petitions of another candidate, successfully forcing that candidate out of the race; Jones did not challenge Mitchell's residency at that time.  I'm guessing that the Court will be loathe to give Jones a second opportunity at this late date, particularly in order to overturn the results of an election.

2.  There are a couple of typos in the legal filing.  It refers to Mitchell as "Shaw" a couple of times -


From page 4 of the linked .pdf
 
There was another instance of this on page 5 of the filing.

The typos alone might not be enough for the Court to dismiss the filing (I think "intent" is obvious here, and I think that the filers clearly intended to name "Mitchell", not some mysterious "Shaw", but I really don't know), but if the Court is looking for a way to not get involved in this mess, the typos could give it a technical, rather than substantive (and hence, easily reversible), excuse to dismiss.

3.  Neither I, nor anyone I talked to about this, is aware of any Arizona case law that is on point about this (to be fair, neither I nor the people I spoke to are attorneys, so there may be an obscure case that we missed), so if the Court does take any position on this, they'll be setting precedent.


Depending on the latitude that the Court has (and this was something I really would have preferred to ask an attorney about), they could split hairs, saying that it is too late to knock Fisher off of the ballot, but because of the residency issue it could determine that Fisher is ineligible to serve in the lege until he meets the residency requirement.

In addition, if Fisher is actually kicked off of the general election ballot, it creates a real mess because that would only leave one ballot candidate for the two House seats that are up for election - incumbent Steve Montenegro (R).  No Democrats, Independents, or other party candidates are on the general election ballot.  That means that the 2nd seat would go to whichever candidate runs the best write-in campaign.

If that happens, and a credible Democrat in LD13 wants to step up, call me.  I'll volunteer for your campaign.  I'm pretty sure that the MCDP has my number, or you can email me or reach out on Facebook.


Having said all that, I love this stuff, and not just in a "better them than us" sort of way (though I freely admit that I'm glad this is happening with the Rs and not the Ds).

This stuff is fascinating, in a "nuts and bolts" of politics way.

Yes, I'm a political geek, and yes, I'm proud of it.

Friday, September 07, 2012

Prop 204: Damn, what Tedski said

In November, Arizona's voters will vote on extending a 1% increase in the state's sales tax that the voters passed a couple of years ago to provide additional revenue for Arizona's education system.

I'm a little torn on this - I despise sales and other regressive taxes, but I totally understand why we need to support and improve schools in Arizona.

I've decided to vote for it, and I could go on about the various reasons for that decision, but Tedski, Ted Prezelski, at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion has summed up the best reasons to vote for Prop 204, and done so far more succinctly than I ever could (emphasis mine) -
 
Earlier this week, the report that no state cut more money for schools than Arizona did got a lot of play. I guess I should have written about it, but, unfortunately, the news that the folks that run our state don’t give a rat’s ass about our state’s future doesn’t shock me enough to make me angry anymore.
 
Phil Hubbard, who served in the legislature in the eighties and nineties, used tell a story about a Republican from Sun City who had a seat near him on the floor. Another legislator was giving a speech about preparing for the future. The legislator from Sun City leaned over to Hubbard and said, “The future? In Sun City we don’t even buy green bananas.”
 
These days, we’ve got a veto-proof majority and a governor serving on behalf of people who don’t buy green bananas.
 
Vote yes on 204…sales taxes suck and are regressive, but hoping our legislators will give a darn is a fool’s errand.


Other than using more words (that's just how I roll :) ), I would change only one thing in Ted's post -

I'd have used the word "damn" instead of "darn".




Thursday, September 06, 2012

AHCCCS to hold public meetings on possible changes to Arizona Medicaid

On very short notice, and scheduled at times of the day when most people won't be able to even think about participating, Governor Jan Brewer and the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) will be holding meetings to put out some information and to solicit public input on possible changes to Arizona's Medicaid program (aka - AHCCCS). 

The first meeting was yesterday (Wednesday, September 5) in Flagstaff (hence the quip about "short notice).

The rest -


Monday, September 10, 2012
2p.m. - 4p.m.
The Disability Empowerment Center
5025 E. Washington St., 200

Phoenix


Friday, September 14, 2012
11a.m.- 1p.m.

Yuma County Public Library
2951 S. 21
Dr.
Yuma 
Tuesday September 18, 2012
1p.m. - 3p.m.

United Way Community Resource Campus
330 N. Commerce Park Loop
Tucson 


In July, the US Supreme upheld the Affordable Care Act, but allowed states to opt out of provisions that would expand Medicaid.

That means that Arizona will not expand AHCCCS in any way, because while the feds will pick up most of the costs, the AZ legislature must first approve it, and those are the same folks who danced on the graves of poor people who needed organ transplants while giving yet another tax cut to corporations.  Hell, these are the people that refused to change state law to allow many Arizonans who had exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits to collect them for a few more weeks, and that would not have cost Arizona a single dime.

Don't hold your breath waiting for them to do the right thing.

President Obama's acceptance speech at the 2012 Democratic convention

President Obama's speech to the 2012 Democratic Convention, as prepared for delivery (when the video archive is available, I'll post it here.  Turns out that the written word is a lot drier than the President's delivery of the words. :) ) -

President Obama speaking  at the DNC.  Pic courtesy KPHO-TV.


Michelle, I love you. The other night, I think the entire country saw just how lucky I am. Malia and Sasha, you make me so proud…but don’t get any ideas, you’re still going to class tomorrow. And Joe Biden, thank you for being the best Vice President I could ever hope for.
Madam Chairwoman, delegates, I accept your nomination for President of the United States.
The first time I addressed this convention in 2004, I was a younger man; a Senate candidate from Illinois who spoke about hope – not blind optimism or wishful thinking, but hope in the face of difficulty; hope in the face of uncertainty; that dogged faith in the future which has pushed this nation forward, even when the odds are great; even when the road is long.
Eight years later, that hope has been tested – by the cost of war; by one of the worst economic crises in history; and by political gridlock that’s left us wondering whether it’s still possible to tackle the challenges of our time.
I know that campaigns can seem small, and even silly. Trivial things become big distractions. Serious issues become sound bites. And the truth gets buried under an avalanche of money and advertising. If you’re sick of hearing me approve this message, believe me – so am I.
But when all is said and done – when you pick up that ballot to vote – you will face the clearest choice of any time in a generation. Over the next few years, big decisions will be made in Washington, on jobs and the economy; taxes and deficits; energy and education; war and peace – decisions that will have a huge impact on our lives and our children’s lives for decades to come.
On every issue, the choice you face won’t be just between two candidates or two parties.
It will be a choice between two different paths for America.
 
A choice between two fundamentally different visions for the future.
Ours is a fight to restore the values that built the largest middle class and the strongest economy the world has ever known; the values my grandfather defended as a soldier in Patton’s Army; the values that drove my grandmother to work on a bomber assembly line while he was gone.
They knew they were part of something larger – a nation that triumphed over fascism and depression; a nation where the most innovative businesses turned out the world’s best products, and everyone shared in the pride and success – from the corner office to the factory floor. My grandparents were given the chance to go to college, buy their first home, and fulfill the basic bargain at the heart of America’s story: the promise that hard work will pay off; that responsibility will be rewarded; that everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules – from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, DC.
I ran for President because I saw that basic bargain slipping away. I began my career helping people in the shadow of a shuttered steel mill, at a time when too many good jobs were starting to move overseas. And by 2008, we had seen nearly a decade in which families struggled with costs that kept rising but paychecks that didn’t; racking up more and more debt just to make the mortgage or pay tuition; to put gas in the car or food on the table. And when the house of cards collapsed in the Great Recession, millions of innocent Americans lost their jobs, their homes, and their life savings – a tragedy from which we are still fighting to recover.
Now, our friends at the Republican convention were more than happy to talk about everything they think is wrong with America, but they didn’t have much to say about how they’d make it right. They want your vote, but they don’t want you to know their plan. And that’s because all they have to offer is the same prescription they’ve had for the last thirty years:
“Have a surplus? Try a tax cut.”
“Deficit too high? Try another.”
“Feel a cold coming on? Take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations, and call us in the morning!”
 
Now, I’ve cut taxes for those who need it – middle-class families and small businesses. But I don’t believe that another round of tax breaks for millionaires will bring good jobs to our shores, or pay down our deficit. I don’t believe that firing teachers or kicking students off financial aid will grow the economy, or help us compete with the scientists and engineers coming out of China. After all that we’ve been through, I don’t believe that rolling back regulations on Wall Street will help the small businesswoman expand, or the laid-off construction worker keep his home. We’ve been there, we’ve tried that, and we’re not going back. We’re moving forward.
I won’t pretend the path I’m offering is quick or easy. I never have. You didn’t elect me to tell you what you wanted to hear. You elected me to tell you the truth. And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades. It will require common effort, shared responsibility, and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one. And by the way – those of us who carry on his party’s legacy should remember that not every problem can be remedied with another government program or dictate from Washington.
But know this, America: Our problems can be solved. Our challenges can be met. The path we offer may be harder, but it leads to a better place. And I’m asking you to choose that future. I’m asking you to rally around a set of goals for your country – goals in manufacturing, energy, education, national security, and the deficit; a real, achievable plan that will lead to new jobs, more opportunity, and rebuild this economy on a stronger foundation. That’s what we can do in the next four years, and that’s why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States.
We can choose a future where we export more products and outsource fewer jobs. After a decade that was defined by what we bought and borrowed, we’re getting back to basics, and doing what America has always done best:
We’re making things again.
I’ve met workers in Detroit and Toledo who feared they’d never build another American car. Today, they can’t build them fast enough, because we reinvented a dying auto industry that’s back on top of the world.
I’ve worked with business leaders who are bringing jobs back to America – not because our workers make less pay, but because we make better products. Because we work harder and smarter than anyone else.
I’ve signed trade agreements that are helping our companies sell more goods to millions of new customers – goods that are stamped with three proud words: Made in America.
 
After a decade of decline, this country created over half a million manufacturing jobs in the last two and a half years. And now you have a choice: we can give more tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, or we can start rewarding companies that open new plants and train new workers and create new jobs here, in the United States of America. We can help big factories and small businesses double their exports, and if we choose this path, we can create a million new manufacturing jobs in the next four years. You can make that happen. You can choose that future.
You can choose the path where we control more of our own energy. After thirty years of inaction, we raised fuel standards so that by the middle of the next decade, cars and trucks will go twice as far on a gallon of gas. We’ve doubled our use of renewable energy, and thousands of Americans have jobs today building wind turbines and long-lasting batteries. In the last year alone, we cut oil imports by one million barrels a day – more than any administration in recent history. And today, the United States of America is less dependent on foreign oil than at any time in nearly two decades.
Now you have a choice – between a strategy that reverses this progress, or one that builds on it. We’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration in the last three years, and we’ll open more. But unlike my opponent, I will not let oil companies write this country’s energy plan, or endanger our coastlines, or collect another $4 billion in corporate welfare from our taxpayers.
We’re offering a better path – a future where we keep investing in wind and solar and clean coal; where farmers and scientists harness new biofuels to power our cars and trucks; where construction workers build homes and factories that waste less energy; where we develop a hundred year supply of natural gas that’s right beneath our feet. If you choose this path, we can cut our oil imports in half by 2020 and support more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone.
And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They’re a threat to our children’s future. And in this election, you can do something about it.
You can choose a future where more Americans have the chance to gain the skills they need to compete, no matter how old they are or how much money they have. Education was the gateway to opportunity for me. It was the gateway for Michelle. And now more than ever, it is the gateway to a middle-class life.
 
For the first time in a generation, nearly every state has answered our call to raise their standards for teaching and learning. Some of the worst schools in the country have made real gains in math and reading. Millions of students are paying less for college today because we finally took on a system that wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on banks and lenders.
And now you have a choice – we can gut education, or we can decide that in the United States of America, no child should have her dreams deferred because of a crowded classroom or a crumbling school. No family should have to set aside a college acceptance letter because they don’t have the money. No company should have to look for workers in China because they couldn’t find any with the right skills here at home.
Government has a role in this. But teachers must inspire; principals must lead; parents must instill a thirst for learning, and students, you’ve got to do the work. And together, I promise you – we can out-educate and out-compete any country on Earth. Help me recruit 100,000 math and science teachers in the next ten years, and improve early childhood education. Help give two million workers the chance to learn skills at their community college that will lead directly to a job. Help us work with colleges and universities to cut in half the growth of tuition costs over the next ten years. We can meet that goal together. You can choose that future for America.
In a world of new threats and new challenges, you can choose leadership that has been tested and proven. Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq. We did. I promised to refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11. We have. We’ve blunted the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and in 2014, our longest war will be over. A new tower rises above the New York skyline, al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead.
Tonight, we pay tribute to the Americans who still serve in harm’s way. We are forever in debt to a generation whose sacrifice has made this country safer and more respected. We will never forget you. And so long as I’m Commander-in-Chief, we will sustain the strongest military the world has ever known. When you take off the uniform, we will serve you as well as you’ve served us – because no one who fights for this country should have to fight for a job, or a roof over their head, or the care that they need when they come home.
Around the world, we’ve strengthened old alliances and forged new coalitions to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. We’ve reasserted our power across the Pacific and stood up to China on behalf of our workers. From Burma to Libya to South Sudan, we have advanced the rights and dignity of all human beings – men and women; Christians and Muslims and Jews.
But for all the progress we’ve made, challenges remain. Terrorist plots must be disrupted. Europe’s crisis must be contained. Our commitment to Israel’s security must not waver, and neither must our pursuit of peace. The Iranian government must face a world that stays united against its nuclear ambitions. The historic change sweeping across the Arab World must be defined not by the iron fist of a dictator or the hate of extremists, but by the hopes and aspirations of ordinary people who are reaching for the same rights that we celebrate today.
 
So now we face a choice. My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy, but from all that we’ve seen and heard, they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so dearly.
After all, you don’t call Russia our number one enemy – and not al Qaeda – unless you’re still stuck in a Cold War time warp. You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can’t visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally. My opponent said it was “tragic” to end the war in Iraq, and he won’t tell us how he’ll end the war in Afghanistan. I have, and I will. And while my opponent would spend more money on military hardware that our Joint Chiefs don’t even want, I’ll use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work – rebuilding roads and bridges; schools and runways. After two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some nation-building right here at home.
You can choose a future where we reduce our deficit without wrecking our middle class. Independent analysis shows that my plan would cut our deficits by $4 trillion. Last summer, I worked with Republicans in Congress to cut $1 trillion in spending – because those of us who believe government can be a force for good should work harder than anyone to reform it, so that it’s leaner, more efficient, and more responsive to the American people.
I want to reform the tax code so that it’s simple, fair, and asks the wealthiest households to pay higher taxes on incomes over $250,000 –the same rate we had when Bill Clinton was president; the same rate we had when our economy created nearly 23 million new jobs, the biggest surplus in history, and a lot of millionaires to boot.
Now, I’m still eager to reach an agreement based on the principles of my bipartisan debt commission. No party has a monopoly on wisdom. No democracy works without compromise. But when Governor Romney and his allies in Congress tell us we can somehow lower our deficit by spending trillions more on new tax breaks for the wealthy – well, you do the math. I refuse to go along with that. And as long as I’m President, I never will.
I refuse to ask middle class families to give up their deductions for owning a home or raising their kids just to pay for another millionaire’s tax cut. I refuse to ask students to pay more for college; or kick children out of Head Start programs, or eliminate health insurance for millions of Americans who are poor, elderly, or disabled – all so those with the most can pay less.
 
And I will never turn Medicare into a voucher. No American should ever have to spend their golden years at the mercy of insurance companies. They should retire with the care and dignity they have earned. Yes, we will reform and strengthen Medicare for the long haul, but we’ll do it by reducing the cost of health care – not by asking seniors to pay thousands of dollars more. And we will keep the promise of Social Security by taking the responsible steps to strengthen it – not by turning it over to Wall Street.
This is the choice we now face. This is what the election comes down to. Over and over, we have been told by our opponents that bigger tax cuts and fewer regulations are the only way; that since government can’t do everything, it should do almost nothing. If you can’t afford health insurance, hope that you don’t get sick. If a company releases toxic pollution into the air your children breathe, well, that’s just the price of progress. If you can’t afford to start a business or go to college, take my opponent’s advice and “borrow money from your parents.”
You know what? That’s not who we are. That’s not what this country’s about. As Americans, we believe we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights – rights that no man or government can take away. We insist on personal responsibility and we celebrate individual initiative. We’re not entitled to success. We have to earn it. We honor the strivers, the dreamers, the risk-takers who have always been the driving force behind our free enterprise system – the greatest engine of growth and prosperity the world has ever known.
But we also believe in something called citizenship – a word at the very heart of our founding, at the very essence of our democracy; the idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another, and to future generations.
We believe that when a CEO pays his autoworkers enough to buy the cars that they build, the whole company does better.
We believe that when a family can no longer be tricked into signing a mortgage they can’t afford, that family is protected, but so is the value of other people’s homes, and so is the entire economy.
We believe that a little girl who’s offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college could become the founder of the next Google, or the scientist who cures cancer, or the President of the United States – and it’s in our power to give her that chance.
We know that churches and charities can often make more of a difference than a poverty program alone.  We don’t want handouts for people who refuse to help themselves, and we don’t want bailouts for banks that break the rules. We don’t think government can solve all our problems. But we don’t think that government is the source of all our problems – any more than are welfare recipients, or corporations, or unions, or immigrants, or gays, or any other group we’re told to blame for our troubles.
Because we understand that this democracy is ours.
 
We, the People, recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which only asks what’s in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense.
As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government.
So you see, the election four years ago wasn’t about me. It was about you. My fellow citizens – you were the change.
You’re the reason there’s a little girl with a heart disorder in Phoenix who’ll get the surgery she needs because an insurance company can’t limit her coverage. You did that.
You’re the reason a young man in Colorado who never thought he’d be able to afford his dream of earning a medical degree is about to get that chance. You made that possible.
You’re the reason a young immigrant who grew up here and went to school here and pledged allegiance to our flag will no longer be deported from the only country she’s ever called home; why selfless soldiers won’t be kicked out of the military because of who they are or who they love; why thousands of families have finally been able to say to the loved ones who served us so bravely: “Welcome home.”
If you turn away now – if you buy into the cynicism that the change we fought for isn’t possible…well, change will not happen. If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void: lobbyists and special interests; the people with the $10 million checks who are trying to buy this election and those who are making it harder for you to vote; Washington politicians who want to decide who you can marry, or control health care choices that women should make for themselves.
Only you can make sure that doesn’t happen. Only you have the power to move us forward.
I recognize that times have changed since I first spoke to this convention. The times have changed – and so have I.
 
I’m no longer just a candidate. I’m the President. I know what it means to send young Americans into battle, for I have held in my arms the mothers and fathers of those who didn’t return. I’ve shared the pain of families who’ve lost their homes, and the frustration of workers who’ve lost their jobs. If the critics are right that I’ve made all my decisions based on polls, then I must not be very good at reading them. And while I’m proud of what we’ve achieved together, I’m far more mindful of my own failings, knowing exactly what Lincoln meant when he said, “I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go.”
But as I stand here tonight, I have never been more hopeful about America. Not because I think I have all the answers. Not because I’m naïve about the magnitude of our challenges.
I’m hopeful because of you.
The young woman I met at a science fair who won national recognition for her biology research while living with her family at a homeless shelter – she gives me hope.
The auto worker who won the lottery after his plant almost closed, but kept coming to work every day, and bought flags for his whole town and one of the cars that he built to surprise his wife – he gives me hope.
The family business in Warroad, Minnesota that didn’t lay off a single one of their four thousand employees during this recession, even when their competitors shut down dozens of plants, even when it meant the owners gave up some perks and pay – because they understood their biggest asset was the community and the workers who helped build that business – they give me hope.
And I think about the young sailor I met at Walter Reed hospital, still recovering from a grenade attack that would cause him to have his leg amputated above the knee. Six months ago, I would watch him walk into a White House dinner honoring those who served in Iraq, tall and twenty pounds heavier, dashing in his uniform, with a big grin on his face; sturdy on his new leg. And I remember how a few months after that I would watch him on a bicycle, racing with his fellow wounded warriors on a sparkling spring day, inspiring other heroes who had just begun the hard path he had traveled.
He gives me hope.
I don’t know what party these men and women belong to. I don’t know if they’ll vote for me. But I know that their spirit defines us. They remind me, in the words of Scripture, that ours is a “future filled with hope.” 
 
And if you share that faith with me – if you share that hope with me – I ask you tonight for your vote.
If you reject the notion that this nation’s promise is reserved for the few, your voice must be heard in this election.
If you reject the notion that our government is forever beholden to the highest bidder, you need to stand up in this election.
If you believe that new plants and factories can dot our landscape; that new energy can power our future; that new schools can provide ladders of opportunity to this nation of dreamers; if you believe in a country where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules, then I need you to vote this November.
America, I never said this journey would be easy, and I won’t promise that now. Yes, our path is harder – but it leads to a better place. Yes our road is longer – but we travel it together. We don’t turn back. We leave no one behind. We pull each other up. We draw strength from our victories, and we learn from our mistakes, but we keep our eyes fixed on that distant horizon, knowing that Providence is with us, and that we are surely blessed to be citizens of the greatest nation on Earth.
Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless these United States.
 
 
 

Electric

Just in time for the third night of the DNC, Jerry Gettinger's dispatch about the second -



It’s continuing!


The atmosphere, the attitude, the clean, modern look of “uptown” remains intact just as it was the first full day of the convention. I was talking with a fellow delegate this A.M.  He pointed out that the three days instead of four or five days that the convention scheduled in the past has compressed the entire agenda. The result is not one gap in the schedule.  Also, all the ”rock star” speakers keep the festivities going and building up to a fever pitch.  
 
I don’t have to say that president Clinton was nothing short of magnificent yesterday.   I have heard him speak several times.  In the baseball lingo, the pres always gets on base with his talent for speaking. Singles and doubles.  This one was over the fence with the bases loaded.   The electricity of the crowd was captured by Clinton and used to completely mesmerize the audience.   Yet, at the same time, he conveyed the feeling that he was speaking directly to each of us.  I have spoken to other attendees and each had the same reaction. I am aware he was televised, but you had to be there to understand that this wasn’t just a speech, it was an experience that bordered on an out of body encounter.   All the while he clearly made the case for we Democrats. I’m glad he is on our side.


I heard some discussion concerning the “man hugs” that took place at the end of the speech.   One ‘pundit’ thought it was staged.  I can say with certainty that it was not.  I watched closely as Barack came over to Bill.  He first extended his hand for a hand shake.  But then, instead of Clinton acknowledging the gesture, he grabbed Obama in a bear hug which Barack quickly returned.   No way that could be staged.  It was totally and completely spontaneous with emotion that that was tangible.  The feeling between the two was genuine, a combination of respect and friendship.  That can’t be staged.


The place went crazy.  Noise, applause and electricity that could have powered a city.  What an experience!!   TV cannot do the night justice.   I looked around at the signs being waved, applause with everyone cheering, the two men on the stage and thought “this is one of those experiences that I will remember from now on.”   We all have those moments.  I was lucky that I was there.


Tonight, Barack, and before, a meeting.  Later, I will talk about the private meetings.


More to come.
 
 
Later...

Fmr Rep. Gabrielle Giffords leads Pledge of Allegiance at 2012 Democrati...



If this doesn't bring tears to your eyes, go to the nearest hospital and have them test to see if your heart is still beating.

Wednesday, September 05, 2012

Have a problem with something the Rs have done or will do? Well..."Don't boo, vote!"

These days, political conventions have become a steady stream of speakers standing up and say why their side is "good" and the other side is "bad".  The speeches are just different ways of repeating standard talking points (this is one of the few areas that the "both sides do it" folks are right about).

However, once in a while, even in the canned speeches, something strikes home as a profound truth.  That happened tonight in the speech by Cristina Saralegui, a Latina journalist, talk show host, and actress (emphasis mine) -

On immigration, Governor Romney's views could not be more extreme. He says we should make life so unbearable for eleven million people that they simply "self-deport." He said that Arizona's immigration law should be a "model" for our country. He even made the architect of that terrible law an immigration advisor for his campaign. No protesten—voten!

"No protesten--voten!"  In English, "don't boo--vote!"

It's that simple folks.  Regardless of which single issue is most important to you - the Republican war on women, attacks on immigrants, oppression of minorities, all of the above, or even more, the first and best step to changing things for the better is to VOTE.

People who choose to sit out the election because they don't think either side is perfect (and to be clear, neither side is perfect.  Though the Rs are more imperfect than the Ds. :) ) are free to make that choice.  However, by doing so, well, as far as I'm concerned, when things don't improve, they won't be in a position to point fingers.

Except at the person in the mirror.

Note:  On this day when a federal judge declined to strike down the "DWB" ("Driving While Brown") provision of AZ's infamous immigration law known as SB1070, Ms. Saralegui's comments are particularly on point.