50 years ago this week, part 1: The Warren Commission report

50 years ago this week, on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, TX.

While many outlets, blog and MSM alike, are putting forth retrospectives of the days and events leading up to that fateful day in Dallas, here I'll be switching things up a little and starting with the aftermath.

Tonight:  The Warren Commission report into the assassination.

The report was, and in many respects remains, controversial.  The thousands of hours of testimony and pages of documents were summed up into a single conclusion:  Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone when he killed President Kennedy.

Many people, including some who were insiders themselves, called the report a cover-up.

Many books have been written about the report (in many ways, the report was almost as historically significant as the assassination itself), so I'm not going to rehash the controversy in its entirety (I'd still be writing when the 100th anniversary rolls around :) ).

If you want to read about the controversy, use Google (the search terms "warren commission cover up" generate 1.8 million results); links to the actual report are below.

The Government Printing Office has released a digitized version of the report; it can be downloaded here.

That .pdf file is more than 900 pages long; if you prefer your reading in more digestible bites, the National Archives offers a web-based version here.

The list of the members of the commission included the names of some of the major players in American politics of the mid- to late 20th century.  While some of the names have faded in prominence over the many years since, some of the people are major parts of American history.

Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court and chair of the commission.

Gerald Ford, then a member of the US House of Representatives from Michigan, later to become Vice President when scandal-plagued Spiro Agnew resigned, after that became President when Watergate-plagued Richard Nixon resigned.

Hale Boggs, a member of the US House from Louisiana for more than a quarter-century, and House Majority Whip at the time.

Richard Russell, a member of the US Senate from Georgia for nearly four decades; most famous as a leader of the anti-civil rights forces in the Senate.

John Cooper, a member of the US Senate from Kentucky.

John McCloy, a lawyer and former president of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development after World War II.

Allen Dulles, a lawyer and director of the CIA early in the Kennedy administration.

J. Lee Rankin, general counsel to the commission, a former Solicitor General of the United States.


In short, a list of insiders' insiders.

Picture courtesy PBS.  (L-R) Ford, Boggs, Russell, Warren, Cooper, McCloy, Dulles, Rankin

If at first you don't succeed, give up...at least, if we are talking about healthcare reform

There have been glitches in the rollout of Obamacare, so the Republicans in Congress, aided and abetted by 39 Democrats, have moved to completely gut healthcare reform.

Because, ya know, any problem with something new means that we should end that something new.

If the Congress in 1895 had the same mentality that it has now, America would have the best horse-and-buggy-based transportation system in the world.

From Ohio History Central -

World's First Automobile Accident

The world's first automobile accident occurred in Ohio City, Ohio in 1891.

Throughout most of the twentieth century, the city of Detroit, Michigan, was synonymous with American automobile manufacturing. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, that was not the case. Instead, Ohio innovators in Cleveland and elsewhere were at the forefront of this new form of transportation technology.

 As most people are aware, that accident didn't stop the development of the automotive industry.

Per the US Department of Transportation, as of 2011 (a mere 120 years later), there were more than 253 million motor vehicles on US roads.


...Of course, if buggy makers had a PAC in 1895...

Candidate and committees update

First, the toughest news to this point of the election cycle, the toughest news at any point of any election cycle -

...Manny Cruz, Democratic candidate for state mine inspector, and a former candidate for that office (2010) and mayor of Glendale (2012), has ended his candidacy in order to devote his time to dealing with lung cancer and being with his family.

Whatever your preference for situations like this - prayers, good thoughts, best wishes, etc. - send them in the direction of Manny and his family.  Please.  They have a tough fight on their hands and can use all of the help that they get.


On to more mundane developments...

...Doug Little, Republican, has filed for a run at a seat on the Arizona Corporation Commission.  He's the chair of the LD23 Republicans.

...Randy Pullen, Republican, has filed for a run at the state treasurer's job.  He's a former chair of the AZGOP and treasurer of the national GOP (aka - insider's insider).  His interest in the job has been public knowledge for months; this is just making things official.

...Linda Gray, Republican, has filed for a run for a House seat from LD1 (Prescott).  She's a former legislator, previously representing Glendale.


Otherwise, things have been fairly quiet on the local (meaning Tempe and Scottsdale) and federal fronts (meaning that any new candidates are "minor" ones until, and if, they gain some electoral traction)...

Santa's gonna need body armor when he visits the homes of Valley Republicans this year...

Normally, I'm not one to give free publicity to a GOP fundraising effort, but this one is way too juicy to accord a free pass...

As the calendar closes in on the end of the year, many groups are looking to do one last major fundraising effort before the election season fully ramps up.  While there is always pressure to raise funds felt by political groups, the ideal is to have most of the money needed to pay for outreach/campaigns raised early, because as election day gets closer, campaigns prefer to focus on spending, not raising, money.

Occasionally, that leads to some "colorful" fundraising efforts.

Like this one, from the Legislative District 26 Republican Party, based in Tempe and Mesa here in Arizona -

We are approaching Christmas (December 25), a time supposedly about sharing peace and love, and the one-year anniversary of the mass murder of 26 students and teachers in Newtown, CT (December 14), and the LD26 Rs want to make money off "sharing" a weapon similar to the one used by the killer in Newtown.

Take note of the delicious bit of insanity in the way that they are conducting background checks on potential recipients of the assault rifle that they are raffling off.

Hint: it's the kind of "background check" that even someone like Jared Loughner could pass.

I know that I'm a Democrat and we are talking about Republicans here and we don't agree on much of anything, but at what level of raging misanthropic insanity is this appropriate?

Maybe they're trying to appeal to the "let's stock up on reindeer meat so we can save our money to buy more meth" crowd?

To be fair to the LD26 Rs, this may not be a holiday fundraiser for them.  There's no date listed for the drawing, which may mean that this is a "forever" raffle where they are going to keep this going until they stop making money from it.

Something that would be worthy of a post of its own...and possibly a fraud indictment.

PS - If Santa decides to brave the skies over AZ, perhaps he should see if State Rep. Bob Thorpe can hook him up with some state-of-the-art gear.  Thorpe "knows" some people...


Picking nits part of the program:

Whoever runs/maintains their website needs to learn to spell, or at least how to use spell check -

More than one Reagan facing a primary in 2014

It's early yet, so things could change, but for some reason, one non-statewide race is already shaping up to have the most active primary, of the non-statewide races anyway.

In Maricopa County, some of the safest seats are among the lowest-profile seats - Justice of the Peace.

There are 26 of them, each with their own district (justice precincts), and other than one or two, all are "safe" districts, in partisan terms.

In many of the districts, the only real races are in the primaries, and often even those don't happen unless the seat up for election is vacant or the incumbent is an embarrassment (and given that the Arizona judiciary is actually pretty good at policing itself, the embarrassments are usually weeded out before their next election).

Which brings us to the McDowell Mountain Justice Precinct.  The JP there is Michael Reagan, the father of State Senator Michele Reagan (R-LD23), a 2014 candidate for Arizona Secretary of State.

He has filed to run for reelection, so the seat isn't "open", and while his politics are objectionable (hey, I'm a D :) ), his conduct in office has not been embarrassing, so far as I know, anyway.

Yet three (count 'em!) people have already signed up for a primary run at him -

Christina Weisman ($500 Threshold Committee)

Gayle Lee

Kathryn Shearer


On this one, I am genuinely curious. 

What's going on up there (north Scottsdale)?  Have some folks gotten the idea that Reagan isn't running for reelection, something that Reagan himself doesn't know about, since he has filed for reelection?  Is there something embarrassing about his conduct in office, something that apparently isn't widely known?  Is there just something in the water there?

US political economy: less "capitalism", more "capitalized tragedy of the commons"

This started out as a vent, then started developing into something long-winded, dry, and pretentious (think: intellectually speaking, a very low end master's thesis).  Time to return to its roots as a vent.  My spleen needs some venting. :)


Though if someone wants to draw intellectual inspiration from this, they're free to do so.  Just don't pull a Rand Paul and copy some of this verbatim and without attribution. :)

The "official" definition of "tragedy of the commons", courtesy Princeton University -

The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.

Many societies, including ours, have collectively decided that certain costs should be shared by society as a whole because they are "public goods", available to be consumed by all.  A prime example of this is national defense.

As our society has grown ever closer to the limits of its available resources, a certain, politically influential segment of society (for brevity's sake, let's refer to that segment as "the 1%") has worked to alter public policy in ways that serve to turn public goods, which benefit all, into private goods, for the benefit of a select few.  Short-term profits must be maximized, even if their policies bring long-term harm to society,

We see this phenomenon manifesting itself in many ways, but it usually occurs when accompanied by the battle cry of "privatize!", of declaring that "government" is the root of all of America's economic woes and that all would magically get better if only "government" would get out of the way of private entities' quest for ever more profit.

Witness President Ronald Reagan's first inaugural address in 1981, wherein he declared that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

Or witness Grover Norquist, conservative icon and head of the lobbying group Americans for Tax Reform, with his stated goal to "to cut government in half in twenty-five years to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

Or witness the unceasing attacks on public education, public employees, and public service in general.

Whether it is efforts to privatize prisons, public education, national parks, Social Security, roads, and pretty near anything else that somebody (who usually makes campaign contributions to the relevant electeds) thinks that they can make a profit from.

Of course, once they are given the opportunity to profit from what were previously public goods (and services are "goods" for the purpose of this post), they immediately seek to maximize and guarantee those increased privatized profits by increasing the price they charge to the public for the goods (that were previously the public's), decreasing the quantity or quality of the goods provided, or to demand a public subsidy to continue providing that previously public good to the public (i.e. - private prison contracts with guaranteed occupancy rates).

In short, every time someone argues that that some part of society's functions should be "privatized" to enhance "efficiency", the only thing that they want to see become more efficient is the transfer of public resources into private pockets.

Many of the electeds who support these privatization and other related moves cite aiding the creation and maintenance of a "healthy business environment", even if the moves that they support work to degrade the long term economic vitality of our society (i.e. - protecting tax breaks for companies that move jobs and operations overseas).

They ignore the fact that a healthy business environment seems to be a byproduct of a healthy society, not the other way around.

And when they do things like let Wall Street lobbyists write bills to weaken the already weak regulations applied to Wall Street and other financial industry firms, it kind of makes it look like that they are *willfully* ignoring the impact of their moves upon society at large.

I don't pretend to know how to change the ingrained economic predatoriness and arrogance of the 1%'s subculture but we can do something to ameliorate the impact of the attitude, and the behavior that goes along with it.

We can elect public officials who take public service seriously, and un-elect those who sell out their constituents to the highest bidders.


Bob Lord at Blog for Arizona has written a series of posts on economic inequality in America.  While the subject isn't an exact match to this one, it is closely related.  Even more importantly, he's a good writer and his posts are worth of a read.  They can be found here.

Public forum on "stand your ground" laws

Posted by request, and without comment, other than "this could be interesting"...

From a flyer sent by State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills):

Blocked.

...Almost certainly not intended to be a compliment, but certainly taken as one...

Sometimes while doing this, I wonder if anyone reads this blog, if anyone even notices it.

Sometimes, I find evidence proving that yes, someone notices it.

Oh yeah - Jack Harper is back. 

And he's supporting "Atomic" Al Melvin in the race for the 2014 Republican nomination for governor.

Melvin and Harper working together?

It looks like 2014 is going to be scads of fun to write about. :)

Rick Renzi: From the US House to the Big House

...It was a long and winding road, but the destination is in sight now...

From the Phoenix New Times, written by Ray Stern -

Former Arizona U.S. Congressman Rick Renzi was sentenced today to three years in prison following his June conviction on fraud and corruption charges.

The sentence was a long time coming in this classic case of congressional corruption, but Renzi, a Republican, will finally be doing some hard time. New Times was the first to expose Renzi's disgusting dealings in a 2006 article that preceded his 2008 indictment.

Arizona U.S. District Judge David C. Bury sentenced Renzi in a Tucson courtroom Monday, October 28. Renzi's buddy, real-estate investor James Sandlin, also found out today he'll be serving 18 months in the Big House himself.

While there may be a few political luminaries in Arizona who are as deserving of prison as Renzi, I can't think of any who are *more* deserving.

Anyway, in a just world, he would do his time in the federal correctional institution in Safford, AZ - so far as I can tell, it's the only federal corrections facility located in Renzi's former Congressional district.

In 2008, in preparation for this day, I published a post with the contact information for FCI-Safford; the information still seems to be current.

Now, maybe I'm being a little cynical here, but I don't truly expect him to serve his time in AZ, especially since his current residence is in Fairfax County, VA, just outside of D.C.

However, there's actually a dearth of federal correctional facilities in the D.C. area (Bureau of Prisons map here).

The closest facilities seem to be more than 120 miles away (SW VA, metro Richmond, VA, Cumberland, MD).

So that means the USBOP will probably get a little flexibility on where they house Renzi.

While Renzi has a bit of violence in his history, his history, and the charges he was convicted of, probably don't merit incarceration in places like Leavenworth (KS), Marion (IL), Atlanta (GA) or the Supermax facility in Florence (CO), places that house the most hardened prisoners in the federal prison system.

So what would be the most appropriate place to keep Renzi, someone who is used to being in the middle of luxury, in the middle of "the action", in the middle of *everything*?

Well, while there are some isolated outposts in the federal corrections system, I'd like to nominate FCI-Berlin (NH).

Berlin, NH, is a town located along the Androscoggin River in the White Mountains.

It is a beautiful area.

It is a storied area.

It is an "ass end of nowhere" area.


In other words, a perfect choice for the people looking for a place for Renzi to roost for three years.

State appeals court blocks higher campaign contribution limits

...At least until the inevitable appeal by the Republican political leadership...

In a curiously-worded ruling, the Arizona Court of Appeals blocked the hugely increased campaign contribution limits passed by the legislature in HB2593.

At least, they're blocked for state-level candidates.

Under the provisions of HB2593, limits on individual contributions to a political candidate were raised from $450 (local and county races), $440 (legislative races), and $912 (statewide races) to $5000, and aggregate limits, the total that an individual may give to candidates and political committees that give to candidates went from $6390 to no limit.

The ruling from the Court is more than 30 pages long, but the "money" line (so to speak :) ) is the last one -

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the superior court’s order denying preliminary injunctive relief in its entirety, remand to the superior court for it to reconsider Petitioners’ request for declaratory and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and, pending its decision on remand, direct the superior court to maintain the preliminary injunction currently in effect enjoining the Secretary from enforcing or implementing the provisions of House Bill 2593 applicable to non-participating candidates for statewide and legislative office. 

I'm not a lawyer, so obtain the counsel of an actual attorney before accepting or giving campaign contributions, but that phrasing seems to set the campaign finance limits for state-level candidates to the previously-established lower numbers ($440 and $912 for legislative and statewide candidates, respectively) while leaving in place the looser limits, and non-limits, for local- and county-level candidates.

The Arizona Secretary of State's website already reflects this development -

This isn't over - an appeal by AZSOS Ken Bennett, AZ Senate President Andy Biggs, and AZ House Speaker Andy Tobin, the Rs fronting the higher limits, is likely.  Assuming they go for it, the next stop is the Arizona Supreme Court.

Stay tuned...

Mary Jo Pitzl of the Arizona Republic has coverage here.

Candidates and Committees Update...

Not much to report this time out. 

Candidates for most of the "major" offices (statewide, Congressional) have already announced or strongly hinted at their intentions, even if they haven't officially submitted paperwork.  New names may still jump into the various frays, but that becomes less likely with each passing day.

For example, state representative Adam Kwasman just announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for the CD1 Congressional seat currently held by Ann Kirkpatrick.

However, that's not news; it's been widely known for months that he would be pursuing that office.

As for the "minor" offices (legislative, county, municipal), most serious candidates who haven't already filed for a particular office will probably do so by the end of January.

Note:  "Major" and "minor" are in quotes because the while the higher-profile statewide and federal offices may get the lions' share of media attention, the lower-level offices have far more direct impact on people's lives.  They aren't truly "minor", IMO.

In the little actual news for this post...

...Sandra Kennedy, a former member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, has opened a committee for a run at return to the commission.

...Doug Quelland, a former Republican member of the legislature has opened a committee for a run as an Independent for the LD20 State Senate seat currently held by Republican Kimberly Yee.

...Mario Diaz, a well-known political and public affairs consultant, has opened a committee for a run at an "at-large" seat on the governing board of the Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD).

...That's it for now, anyway.

Christine Jones: choosing the wrong role models?

Say what you want about Arizona politics (and try not to guffaw...or weep...or both...when speaking about AZ politics), this state doesn't seem to have a problem with electing women.

For example, four out of our last five governors have been women - Rose Mofford, Jane Hull, Janet Napolitano, and Jan Brewer.

Another example - two out of our nine members of Congress (and two out of our five Democratic representatives) are women - Ann Kirkpatrick and Kyrsten Sinema.

Women who are running for office here have some great role models to follow, if they choose to take their inspiration from other women who have been candidates or office holders.

Some of the female officeholders/candidates in this state have been outstanding examples for anyone to follow, regardless of partisan identification or gender -

Before she was the victim of an attempted assassination by a shooter who went on to kill six and wound 12 other people, former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was highly-respected, well-liked, and expected to move on to bigger and better things.

In addition, word was that whenever she met with the Republican leadership of the Arizona legislature, former governor Janet Napolitano was usually the smartest person in the room.  And when she wasn't, anybody in the room that was smarter than her was there working for her.

Both were and are known for their intelligence, professionalism, work ethic, and desire to actually achieve solutions to problems and not for just grandstanding.

In short, they have been among the best public servants in America, not just Arizona.

Unfortunately, the willingness of the Arizona electorate to elect female candidates has also supplied evidence that there are women who are as unfit for office as some of the men who win elections here -

Governor Jan "Brain Freeze" Brewer ("Headless Bodies" would have worked here, too), former state senator Lori "Quickdraw" Klein (would have gone with "Thinks Bigoted And Ignorant Stereotypes Should Serve As The Foundation Of Public Discourse And Policy", but that is too long to serve as a nickname :) ), and State Representative Brenda "Foot in Mouth" Barton are no better than Maricopa County Sheriff Joe "Federal court ruling? Who cares?!?" Arpaio, former state senate president Russell "Never Met A Brown Person He Didn't Want To Deport" Pearce, and former state senator Frank "Don't Make Me Mad" Antenori.

They all have brought, or are still bringing, great amounts of ridicule upon Arizona.

Now, 2014 Republican gubernatorial candidate Christine Jones has staked out her campaign path, and it appears that she is patterning herself after the crowd that merits ridicule, not respect.

She recently appeared at a fundraiser for the aforementioned Arpaio (video courtesy KTVK) -



Once you get past her pseudo-standup comedy part of her time on stage, she gets into the "ignorant" part.

Starting at the 3:35 point in the video, she starts talking about some of the good things that Arpaio does that no one really knows about.

Like leaving water for immigrants crossing the Rio Grande to come into Arizona.

Like having Hispanic people as half of his MCSO staff.

Umm...

A. The Rio Grande River forms part of the border between *Texas* and Mexico, not Arizona and Mexico*.

B. The MCSO itself states that 23% of its employees are Hispanic.  Not even close to 50%.


* - Courtesy U of A, a map of rivers in AZ (note the lack of a river along the border with Mexico, much less one named "Rio Grande") -

And then, she serenades Arpaio (starting at approximately the 5:10 point in the video, ending at approximately the 8:48 mark).

In terms of quality, it wasn't "bad".  It went on way too long, but otherwise, well, it wasn't Mitt Romney singing "America The Beautiful".  In other words, it wasn't painful to watch.

However, in terms of "image", it doesn't exactly say "serious candidate here" either.

On the other hand, at least she didn't try to do an impression of Marilyn Monroe serenading JFK for his birthday in 1962.

Which was fine for the time period and subtext (the JFK/Monroe relationship) in 1962 (I suppose; it was kind of before my time), but would have brought a whole new level of "creepy" to the Arpaio event.

A few thoughts on the tea party types' shutdown of the federal government...

Now that the shutdown is all but over (as I write this, the US House just passed a clean CR to re-open the government), it's time to put into writing some observations, thoughts, and predictions.

Not in any particular order -

...Prediction: 2014 went from being a year where Democratic candidates, especially federal-level candidates, were expected to face a headwind to one where Republicans will be the ones facing some hard questions.

Traditionally (meaning "more often than not"), the party that controls the White House loses Congressional seats during the mid-term elections of a president's second term.  This mess may have changed the likelihood of that happening in 2014.

Note: this may be a truism, though it's not an absolute truth.  As this chart shows, the midterm elections during a president's first term tend to be rougher on that president's party.

It's a year out from the 2014 elections, so the picture could change dramatically, but that would take a certain faction of the Republican Party pulling their heads out of their asses.  I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

Betcha they are, though. :)

...Prediction:  John Boehner's (R-OH) speakership is toast.  He may keep his job for the remainder of the term, but regardless of the outcome of the 2014 elections, he will not be Speaker of the House in the next session of Congress. 

Either the Democrats will retake the House (possible, but not likely, IMO) and choose Nancy Pelosi (or some other D) to be Speaker, or the Rs will hold on to a (probably) smaller majority and choose someone who isn't as weak as Boehner.

Bottom line: sometimes a leader has to give those he leads a little free rein; sometimes a leader has to "lead".  Boehner let the bat-shit crazy tail of his caucus wag the entire caucus and endanger the nation's, and maybe the world's, economy.

That's more than "free rein"; *far* more, and far worse.


...Observation:  One difference between the Democrats and Republicans (OK, one of the many :) ) that was highlighted by this mess is the fact that most Democrats in office want to govern; most Republicans in office want to rule.

Hence the R apoplexy over hearing the word "no" when the Democrats didn't give in to their ransom demands.


...Thought:  The CR funds the government until January 15 and suspends the debt limit until February 7.  That sets up the possibility of going through this mess again in a few months.  However, most of the people involved in this mess will be running for reelection by them.  While many of them will still be looking for a little payback over losing this fight, many others will be more concerned with making their voters happy.  While another big fight could take place after the holidays, my guess is that there won't be another serious blowup until after the midterms.

Note:  This one is more a "wish" than a "thought" or even "prediction".  When Republicans like Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) seem like voices of reason within their caucuses, the Congress and the country as a whole are in trouble.


...Prediction:  It probably won't happen during this term, but look for earmarks to return.  They were both the carrot and stick of party discipline in Congress.  Without them, the leadership on both sides of the aisle have few tools at their disposal to corral and control votes.


...Observation:  Many less overtly political people are calling for the creation of a third party, as the Republicans and Democrats have been in control for too long.  I understand the sentiment, but believe that it is a lazy and superficial one.

One of the reasons that the Democrats and Republicans have maintained their political prominence for so long is that, historically, they've adapted to society's changes.

The problem today is that one of the major parties is controlled by a small but vocal group that thinks society should adapt to them, not the other way around.


...Prediction:  In a few months, or even weeks, the more thoughtful of the Republicans responsible for this mess will sit up, look in a mirror, and wonder "Whatthehell were we thinking?"

Not because they think the possibility of crashing the world economy and destroying the US' credibility is a bad thing (they obviously don't think that), but because a few short weeks ago, the President was on the defensive over things like an impending war with Syria and the NSA surveillance of Americans and others.

His base was fractured (or at least showing a few cracks) and the tea party types had an effective rhetorical cudgel to swing at the President. 

Now?  The President's base and independents have unified behind him, and even people who heretofore had supported the tea party are now distancing themselves from it.


...More to come...

Fred Duval is "boring"? The AZGOP should consider becoming less "interesting".

The Arizona Capitol Times ran a story today about Democratic gubernatorial candidate Fred Duval's clear path to the nomination in 2014. (subscription required)

The money quote was from Robert Graham, chair of the AZGOP.

"DuVal is a plain vanilla candidate. He has no texture to him and he has a party that’s not working for him at this particular point."

Now, granted, Fred Duval isn't Barack Obama or Bill Clinton on the stump.  But to be fair, no one is, including (especially?) those vying for the Republican nomination next year. 

On the other hand, he hasn't suffered the brain freeze heard 'round the world, either. 

Fred has been a successful businessman and dedicated public servant.  

More to the point, he is smart and accomplished and has a positive vision for Arizona.

Unlike, say, some of the candidates that Graham considers to be "exciting" -

- One was a senior executive of a company that markets its product by objectifying women, and not very subtly, either.

- Another brought ridicule to and wasted taxpayer resources of Arizona in the pursuit of a radical fantasy.

- Yet another was accused of defrauding franchisees and the government.

- One more proposed turning the state into a nuclear waste dump. 

- And the capper?  One was disbarred.


There is an old saw, a curse, about living in interesting times.

Mr. Graham may find that supporting "interesting" candidates is just as much a curse.


People who want to volunteer to help Fred's campaign sign up here;  people who want to make a financial contribution can do so here.

Protest by tea party types in DC: Playing the dog whistle like it's a tuba

From Huffington Post, written by Ashley Alman -

At a veteran-led rally that hit the World War II Memorial, the National Mall and the White House on Sunday, one tea party rallier had choice words for President Barack Obama, blaming him for the government shutdown and calling on him to step down.

Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, a conservative political advocacy group, said the country is "ruled by a president who bows down to Allah," and "is not a president of 'we the people.'"

The video of Klayman, courtesy HuffPo (I think that they got it from CNN, but I got it from HuffPo) -




In case the name "Klayman" doesn't ring a bell, it should - he was Joe Arpaio's go-to guy when Arpaio faced a recall effort, and the notorious Klayman has been preaching treason for a while now.