at least here in Maricopa County.
Just as a reminder -
My post on the Democratic ballot for the presidential preference election is here and the AZ Secretary of State's listing of all of the Democratic candidates is here;
Sonoran Alliance's post on the Republican ballot here and the AZ SOS's listing of the entire Republican ballot is here.
Early ballots in Maricopa County can be requested from the county recorder's office here; early ballots must be requested by January 25th and returned by 7:00 p.m. on February 5th (that's not "postmarked by" either - the ballots must be turned into the county recorder's office or at a polling place by the time polls close at 7.)
Pima County requests here; Pinal County here; Coconino County here; Yavapai County here; La Paz County - mail or phone request only; Yuma County - mail requests; Gila County here; Mohave County here; Apache County - phone request; Navajo County here; Greenlee County - mail-in request form here; Cochise County - no info regarding early ballots on the county recorder's website; Santa Cruz County - also no info available; Graham County here.
Contact your county recorder's office for specific questions and deadlines (all of the deadlines should be same statewide though.)
In all Arizona counties, to receive an early ballot for the presidential preference election, a person must be a registered voter in that county and be registered in the party of the ballot they are requesting.
Later!
P.S. - With Governor Bill Richardson's withdrawal from the race, I'm voting for former Senator John Edwards - even if he wasn't on the right side on most issues, especially economic issues, pieces like this Reuters article illustrate why he stands out from the rest of both parties.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
IT's official - the American justice system is a wholly-owned subsidiary of mega-corps
....the only thing that has changed is that they aren't even trying to hide it any longer...
Average Americans buy their houses on an installment plan, one monthly mortgage payment at a time. That way, the near-term financial pain is lessened while they invest for their long-term financial security.
Large corporations have learned the lesson - they buy judges one dividend payout or stock split at a time. That way, almost nobody notices the ongoing (and ever-growing) mortgaging of the justice system as they invest for *their* long-term financial security.
From AP via Yahoo! News (emphasis mine) -
According to the article, because the case is a state-level one, with no federal issues to be resolved, there is no higher court available for the Mr. Berkley and the other Lockheed Martin workers to appeal to.
I'd argue that the utter corruption of a state's supreme court *must* be a federal issue, but what is the likelihood of finding a federal court that won't cite the same "conflict of interest" to deny the workers a fair hearing?
To be fair to the judges involved, because of the method used, it's possible that they noticed the purchase of their loyalty by the oil companies as much as a house would notice the purchase of its shelter by the average American.
A question for readers: I've been having trouble finding out exactly what chemical solvents the Lockheed Martin workers were suing over, and if they were the same as (or similar to) the chemicals that contaminate the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site.
Anybody have any ideas in this regard? Thanks in advance...
Later!
Average Americans buy their houses on an installment plan, one monthly mortgage payment at a time. That way, the near-term financial pain is lessened while they invest for their long-term financial security.
Large corporations have learned the lesson - they buy judges one dividend payout or stock split at a time. That way, almost nobody notices the ongoing (and ever-growing) mortgaging of the justice system as they invest for *their* long-term financial security.
From AP via Yahoo! News (emphasis mine) -
Conflict of interest tanks worker's case
By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer Mon Jan 14, 6:15 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO - For years, Braxton Berkley was exposed to chemicals while helping build top-secret military planes at Lockheed Martin's storied Skunk Works plant. He says those chemicals made him ill — but his case reached a dead end at the state's highest court.
The California Supreme Court has refused to hear his appeal not on legal merits, but because four of the seven justices cited a conflict of interest because they controlled stock in oil companies that provided some of the solvents at issue in the case.
According to the article, because the case is a state-level one, with no federal issues to be resolved, there is no higher court available for the Mr. Berkley and the other Lockheed Martin workers to appeal to.
I'd argue that the utter corruption of a state's supreme court *must* be a federal issue, but what is the likelihood of finding a federal court that won't cite the same "conflict of interest" to deny the workers a fair hearing?
To be fair to the judges involved, because of the method used, it's possible that they noticed the purchase of their loyalty by the oil companies as much as a house would notice the purchase of its shelter by the average American.
A question for readers: I've been having trouble finding out exactly what chemical solvents the Lockheed Martin workers were suing over, and if they were the same as (or similar to) the chemicals that contaminate the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site.
Anybody have any ideas in this regard? Thanks in advance...
Later!
Monday, January 14, 2008
Events calendar
Thursday, January 17 - Neighborhood Day at the Arizona State Legislature. From 11:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. the cities of Avondale, Buckeye, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Queen Creek, Scottsdale, Surprise, Tempe and Tucson, and the League of Arizona Cities and Towns host this annual event where attendees tour the Arizona House of Representatives and the Arizona Senate, learn about the legislative process, speak to their legislators and more. Contact your city's neighborhood services department for more info.
Thursday, January 17 - The District 17 Democrats, the ASU Young Democrats and The Big Picture Film Series present the film "The Future of Food." This insightful documentary offers an "in-depth look into the controversy over genetically modified foods." 7:30 p.m. in Room 170 in ASU's Coor Building. Admission is free.
Thursday, January 17 - The District 8 Democrats are holding their monthly community program meeting. This month's program is a Presidential candidate forum with representatives of each campaign speaking on behalf of their candidates. For those who were silly enough to miss D17's forum last week ( :) ), this is a great opportunity to hear about the candidates before Arizona's presidential preference election (aka - the primary) on February 5th. The reception starts at 6:30 p.m., the forum starts at 7 in the Mustang Library, 10101 N. 90th St. in Scottsdale.
Note: There is room, and need, for good legislative candidates for the 2008 elections in LD8. This meeting is a good opportunity for interested Democrats to meet LD8's activists. LD8 is roughly Fountain Hills and Scottsdale north of Thomas Road.
Sunday, January 20 - The Maricopa County Democratic Party is holding its First Annual Diversity Awards Dinner, honoring Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox (SD-5), Senator Leah Landrum-Taylor (LD-14), Representative Steve Gallardo (LD-13), Representative Robert Meza (LD-14) and Precinct Committeeperson Cheryl Hunter Schmidt (LD-15). The event starts at 6:00 p.m. at the China Chili restaurant, 302 E. Flower St. (Off 3rd St. two blocks south of Osborn), Phoenix. For more info or tickets call 602.298.0503.
Tuesday, January 22 - The Arizona Chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council (AZNJDC) will be holding its monthly meeting at the Country Inn and Suites in Scottsdale. The address is 10801 E. 89th Pl.; the meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. On the agenda - a presidential candidate forum with representatives from each major campaign,
Thursday, January 24 - The "Help Is Here" bus from the Partnership for Prescription Assistance (a pharmaceutical industry alliance to help provide prescription medicines to needy patients) will be at two LD17 locations.
At 10:00 a.m., it will be at the Escalante Center, 2150 East Orange Street in Tempe;
At 1:00 p.m., it will move to the Paiute Neighborhood Center, 6535 E. Osborn in Scottsdale.
The bus will have on-site applications, mobile phones, and computer terminals, as well as assistants, to help people find out if they are eligible for help in getting the medicines they need.
Saturday, January 26 - The Winter Meeting of the State Committee of the Arizona Democratic Party will take place at the Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church, 1401 E Jefferson St, Phoenix, from 9:00 a.m. until finish (the general session starts at 1:00 p.m.)
Later!
Thursday, January 17 - The District 17 Democrats, the ASU Young Democrats and The Big Picture Film Series present the film "The Future of Food." This insightful documentary offers an "in-depth look into the controversy over genetically modified foods." 7:30 p.m. in Room 170 in ASU's Coor Building. Admission is free.
Thursday, January 17 - The District 8 Democrats are holding their monthly community program meeting. This month's program is a Presidential candidate forum with representatives of each campaign speaking on behalf of their candidates. For those who were silly enough to miss D17's forum last week ( :) ), this is a great opportunity to hear about the candidates before Arizona's presidential preference election (aka - the primary) on February 5th. The reception starts at 6:30 p.m., the forum starts at 7 in the Mustang Library, 10101 N. 90th St. in Scottsdale.
Note: There is room, and need, for good legislative candidates for the 2008 elections in LD8. This meeting is a good opportunity for interested Democrats to meet LD8's activists. LD8 is roughly Fountain Hills and Scottsdale north of Thomas Road.
Sunday, January 20 - The Maricopa County Democratic Party is holding its First Annual Diversity Awards Dinner, honoring Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox (SD-5), Senator Leah Landrum-Taylor (LD-14), Representative Steve Gallardo (LD-13), Representative Robert Meza (LD-14) and Precinct Committeeperson Cheryl Hunter Schmidt (LD-15). The event starts at 6:00 p.m. at the China Chili restaurant, 302 E. Flower St. (Off 3rd St. two blocks south of Osborn), Phoenix. For more info or tickets call 602.298.0503.
Tuesday, January 22 - The Arizona Chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council (AZNJDC) will be holding its monthly meeting at the Country Inn and Suites in Scottsdale. The address is 10801 E. 89th Pl.; the meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. On the agenda - a presidential candidate forum with representatives from each major campaign,
Thursday, January 24 - The "Help Is Here" bus from the Partnership for Prescription Assistance (a pharmaceutical industry alliance to help provide prescription medicines to needy patients) will be at two LD17 locations.
At 10:00 a.m., it will be at the Escalante Center, 2150 East Orange Street in Tempe;
At 1:00 p.m., it will move to the Paiute Neighborhood Center, 6535 E. Osborn in Scottsdale.
The bus will have on-site applications, mobile phones, and computer terminals, as well as assistants, to help people find out if they are eligible for help in getting the medicines they need.
Saturday, January 26 - The Winter Meeting of the State Committee of the Arizona Democratic Party will take place at the Pilgrim Rest Baptist Church, 1401 E Jefferson St, Phoenix, from 9:00 a.m. until finish (the general session starts at 1:00 p.m.)
Later!
Quick update on Pearce's email
In my most recent post, I wrote of Rep. Russell Pearce's latest email misadventure. Paul Stiles, the author of the economics/stock market-focused blog, The Novice Bear. Mr. Stiles had taken issue with some of Pearce's assertions regarding the free markets and the economic effects of strict enforcement of immigration laws and mass deportation of illegal immigrants.
I asked Mr. Stiles to forward Pearce's email to me, and he graciously did so.
Mr. Stiles wrote a brief note - 173 words, including salutation and closing - to Pearce at Pearce's AZ House email address. While his note was certainly critical of Pearce, it was civil and succinct.
Pearce replied with a somewhat longer note - 1865! words, not including the salutation and closing because Pearce didn't bother with either one. Notwithstanding the lack of normal courtesy (no salutation or closing), Pearce's response wasn't uncivil per se, but it certainly wasn't succinct. His response was more than 10 times longer than Stiles' initial note.
Yet, buried within all of Pearce's assertions, nativist rhetoric, unsupported statistics, and more than a few self-congratulatory pats on his own back, was a complete absence of a response to Stiles' original criticisms.
Mr. Stiles wrote things like "[i]llegal immigrants are the epitome of free markets", "[y]our legislation is an artificial restriction on free markets and your state's economy will suffer for it", and "I cannot for the life of me why a legislator would deliberately shrink his or her own economy, especially one with such a rapidly ageing population."
Besides the material quoted in my previous post, Rep. Pearce responded with phrases like "[u]ntil the day I die, I will insist that 'illegal' is 'illegal' ", "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: Amnesty: Winning the Jackpot for Breaking the Law! Enforcement not Reform", and a laundry list of the various anti-immigrant legislation and referendum questions that he has authored or co-authored.
Other sections of Pearce's letter include a "myths and facts about HB2779 [Employer Sanctions Law]" piece, credited to Pearce, but reading like a press release (to be fair, though, I could easily see him writing such a press release.)
In my previous post, I wrote that Rep. Pearce's writing was "unprofessional." That may have been a mistake.
His writing is also lazy.
His reply to Mr. Stiles' correspondence not only was unresponsive to Stiles' criticisms, it actually read more like a 'copy and paste' mash-up of different nativist screeds and Pearce's campaign bio, only a small amount of which may have actually been written by Pearce himself.
I won't post the entire email here for two reasons -
1. At nearly 1900 words, it really is too long. In addition, it's loaded with the kind of grammatical errors that I make only when I'm writing at 2 in the morning after a long day (12 hours) at work.
2. It's utter crap. Not that I've never posted crap here before, but it's *my* crap. Not somebody else's.
Having said all that, if there is any significant demand for it, I'll post larger sections of the letter (though you can probably find most of his stuff on various white supremacist websites.)
Maybe Rep. Pearce could find the time to take a writing course to help improve his writing, perhaps at one of the community colleges that he wants to cut so desperately. He should do *something* to improve his writing, especially that which goes out under the auspices of his seat in the legislature.
I don't care if he embarrasses himself, but he's embarrassing the entire state with his written (and other) rantings.
I asked Mr. Stiles to forward Pearce's email to me, and he graciously did so.
Mr. Stiles wrote a brief note - 173 words, including salutation and closing - to Pearce at Pearce's AZ House email address. While his note was certainly critical of Pearce, it was civil and succinct.
Pearce replied with a somewhat longer note - 1865! words, not including the salutation and closing because Pearce didn't bother with either one. Notwithstanding the lack of normal courtesy (no salutation or closing), Pearce's response wasn't uncivil per se, but it certainly wasn't succinct. His response was more than 10 times longer than Stiles' initial note.
Yet, buried within all of Pearce's assertions, nativist rhetoric, unsupported statistics, and more than a few self-congratulatory pats on his own back, was a complete absence of a response to Stiles' original criticisms.
Mr. Stiles wrote things like "[i]llegal immigrants are the epitome of free markets", "[y]our legislation is an artificial restriction on free markets and your state's economy will suffer for it", and "I cannot for the life of me why a legislator would deliberately shrink his or her own economy, especially one with such a rapidly ageing population."
Besides the material quoted in my previous post, Rep. Pearce responded with phrases like "[u]ntil the day I die, I will insist that 'illegal' is 'illegal' ", "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: Amnesty: Winning the Jackpot for Breaking the Law! Enforcement not Reform", and a laundry list of the various anti-immigrant legislation and referendum questions that he has authored or co-authored.
Other sections of Pearce's letter include a "myths and facts about HB2779 [Employer Sanctions Law]" piece, credited to Pearce, but reading like a press release (to be fair, though, I could easily see him writing such a press release.)
In my previous post, I wrote that Rep. Pearce's writing was "unprofessional." That may have been a mistake.
His writing is also lazy.
His reply to Mr. Stiles' correspondence not only was unresponsive to Stiles' criticisms, it actually read more like a 'copy and paste' mash-up of different nativist screeds and Pearce's campaign bio, only a small amount of which may have actually been written by Pearce himself.
I won't post the entire email here for two reasons -
1. At nearly 1900 words, it really is too long. In addition, it's loaded with the kind of grammatical errors that I make only when I'm writing at 2 in the morning after a long day (12 hours) at work.
2. It's utter crap. Not that I've never posted crap here before, but it's *my* crap. Not somebody else's.
Having said all that, if there is any significant demand for it, I'll post larger sections of the letter (though you can probably find most of his stuff on various white supremacist websites.)
Maybe Rep. Pearce could find the time to take a writing course to help improve his writing, perhaps at one of the community colleges that he wants to cut so desperately. He should do *something* to improve his writing, especially that which goes out under the auspices of his seat in the legislature.
I don't care if he embarrasses himself, but he's embarrassing the entire state with his written (and other) rantings.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
To Russell Pearce's friends: Take his email privileges away. Immediately.
...Because he apparently hasn't learned the lesson contained in the whole "National Alliance" debacle from 2006...
As part of my research for blogging, I've created "Google Alerts" for news and blog posts concerning a number of AZ political types, including State Rep. Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance).
The last Pearce update brought to my attention a post from "The Novice Bear," written by Paul Stiles, someone who focuses almost exclusively on economics and the stock market.
In December, he wrote a post criticizing Pearce's opinion of the economic effects of deporting illegal immigrants.
Well, Pearce actually responded to that particular post (color me jealous - he never responds to my posts about him :)) ) in an email to the author.
Apparently, the email is long and rather rambling, but the upshot of it was that Rep. Pearce blames all of AZ's economic woes on undocumented immigrants (ignoring little details like skyrocketing oil and gas prices, and plummeting home values).
The author quoted the email (it was too long to post). Here the quotes, from both the post and a comment on the post -
{snip}
The quoted sections of the email show Rep. Pearce to be not only a "one trick pony" in that nearly every fiber of his being is consumed by his obsession with immigrants, but that he is also a singularly unprofessional writer (hey, I'm not exactly the reincarnation of H.L. Mencken, but at least I don't overuse my CAPS LOCK button.)
To be fair, the quotes may be taken out of context, so I've asked Mr. Stiles to forward the email so as to post it in its entirety.
Somehow, though, I don't expect that will change anything. :)
Years ago, there was an anti-drunk driving ad campaign with the tagline "Friends Don't Let Friends Drive Drunk."
Pearce's friends should amend that to "Friends Don't Let Russell Email. Period."
As part of my research for blogging, I've created "Google Alerts" for news and blog posts concerning a number of AZ political types, including State Rep. Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance).
The last Pearce update brought to my attention a post from "The Novice Bear," written by Paul Stiles, someone who focuses almost exclusively on economics and the stock market.
In December, he wrote a post criticizing Pearce's opinion of the economic effects of deporting illegal immigrants.
Well, Pearce actually responded to that particular post (color me jealous - he never responds to my posts about him :)) ) in an email to the author.
Apparently, the email is long and rather rambling, but the upshot of it was that Rep. Pearce blames all of AZ's economic woes on undocumented immigrants (ignoring little details like skyrocketing oil and gas prices, and plummeting home values).
The author quoted the email (it was too long to post). Here the quotes, from both the post and a comment on the post -
You should understand our "Sovereign" rights as a nation. The Rule of Law. The damage to America and Americans.26 AMERICANS DIE DAILY AT THE HANDS OF THESE "ILLEGALS" EVERY YEAR. 25 EVERYDAY, 12 BY STABBINGS AND SHOOTINGS AND 13 BY DUI AND OTHER RELATED CRIMES. APPARENTLY YOU AND OTHERS COULD CARE LESS ABOUT....AND OUR GOVERNMENT WILL SHED NOT ONE TEAR OVER THIS..THIS IS FROM A CONGRESSIONAL REPORT. (AZ Officers murdered, Officer Atkins, Officer Erfle, Officer Martin, Officer Eggle, and the list goes on!!!!$2 billion annually in Arizona to educate illegal alien children in K - 12.
{snip}
"I want you to know how I reverence the Constitution; this sacred document given to us by God through the Founders that sought inspiration as they forged this inspired document."Mr. Stiles goes on to shred Pearce's basic contention about the effect of illegal immigration on violent crime, specifically murder rates (check out his graphs; they're eye-opening.)
The quoted sections of the email show Rep. Pearce to be not only a "one trick pony" in that nearly every fiber of his being is consumed by his obsession with immigrants, but that he is also a singularly unprofessional writer (hey, I'm not exactly the reincarnation of H.L. Mencken, but at least I don't overuse my CAPS LOCK button.)
To be fair, the quotes may be taken out of context, so I've asked Mr. Stiles to forward the email so as to post it in its entirety.
Somehow, though, I don't expect that will change anything. :)
Years ago, there was an anti-drunk driving ad campaign with the tagline "Friends Don't Let Friends Drive Drunk."
Pearce's friends should amend that to "Friends Don't Let Russell Email. Period."
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Now that the primaries have started, the gloves are coming off...
...not that they were ever really on...
The lies and smears against have been floating around for a while, but now that primary season has started, the intensity and frequency of the attacks are increasing.
Today alone I received two emails forwarded by someone who is a coworker and friend.
The first perpetuated the lie that Senator Obama is a Muslim bent on destroying the U.S. from within; the second conceded that he is a Christian, but says that he is a 'bad' Christian.
Turns out that I'm not the only one on the receiving end of those emails.
Columnist/blogger David Sirota got one himself and wrote about it today, referring his readers to a Nation article from October regarding the right-wing smear machine in general (not just the attacks on Obama) and a TPMCafe piece concerning the Obama smear specifically.
I've sent my friend links to the two articles mentioned in the previous paragraph, and I'll be talking to her this weekend about the emails, so let me cite with the closing to Sirota's post, two sentences that perfectly sum up my feelings on the subject -
In the coming weeks, most of us will be voting; may we all base our choices on facts and the candidates' actual records and positions, not on lies, bigotry, and fear-mongering.
The lies and smears against have been floating around for a while, but now that primary season has started, the intensity and frequency of the attacks are increasing.
Today alone I received two emails forwarded by someone who is a coworker and friend.
The first perpetuated the lie that Senator Obama is a Muslim bent on destroying the U.S. from within; the second conceded that he is a Christian, but says that he is a 'bad' Christian.
Turns out that I'm not the only one on the receiving end of those emails.
Columnist/blogger David Sirota got one himself and wrote about it today, referring his readers to a Nation article from October regarding the right-wing smear machine in general (not just the attacks on Obama) and a TPMCafe piece concerning the Obama smear specifically.
I've sent my friend links to the two articles mentioned in the previous paragraph, and I'll be talking to her this weekend about the emails, so let me cite with the closing to Sirota's post, two sentences that perfectly sum up my feelings on the subject -
Look, I have my reservations about Obama's policy platform and ability to bring real change - but my reservations have nothing to do with his faith. The effort to smear him for his heritage and his faith are absolutely disgusting.
In the coming weeks, most of us will be voting; may we all base our choices on facts and the candidates' actual records and positions, not on lies, bigotry, and fear-mongering.
Ahh, yes - if civil liberties are taking a back seat to profits, it must be a day ending in 'y'...
...This is the best argument for *not* granting retroactive immunity to telecoms for helping the Bush Admin with its illegal surveillance of America - their motivation to help was always mercenary in nature...
...From AP via Yahoo! News -
So what's worse here - the continued lack of fiscal responsibility on the part of the Bush Administration, or the fact that telecoms are directly profiting from Bush's contempt for the Constitution?
At least the telecoms can no longer claim to be motivated by patriotism when they sell out our civil liberties...
...From AP via Yahoo! News -
WASHINGTON - Telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the bureau's repeated failures to pay phone bills on time.
A Justice Department audit released Thursday blamed the lost connections on the FBI's lax oversight of money used in undercover investigations. Poor supervision of the program also allowed one agent to steal $25,000, the audit said.
So what's worse here - the continued lack of fiscal responsibility on the part of the Bush Administration, or the fact that telecoms are directly profiting from Bush's contempt for the Constitution?
At least the telecoms can no longer claim to be motivated by patriotism when they sell out our civil liberties...
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Short Attention Span Musing - campaigns edition
...Well, in a shock to the MSM, but not to anyone else, both parties' races for the Presidential nomination are wide open right now. Pundits are trying to spin Tuesday's results from New Hampshire as a "major" Clinton victory and a serious blow to Obama's White House aspirations.
Of course, a few days before the NH primary, those same pundits had pronounced the Clinton candidacy DOA and were writing Obama's inaugural speech.
Things aren't much clearer on the Republican side, with McCain newly-reannointed as the frontrunner after winning in New Hampshire.
Of course, he won in NH in 2000.
In other words - it's not over.
...As in Iowa, the most disappointed candidate coming out of the New Hampshire primary has to be Mitt Romney. In addition to the vast amounts of money that he spent here and the hundred-something campaign events, he had home-field advantage - not only was he the governor right across the border, he even has a vacation home there.
He was practically a resident, and still couldn't win there.
His candidacy is definitely in trouble; on the other hand, he hasn't exactly been trounced in Iowa or New Hampshire, and he still has oodles of money.
Next week's primary in Michigan is his last stand. He has to win in his home state (his father was governor there for a while), otherwise his candidacy will lose whatever momentum and support it has left.
...The phrase "It's not over" may not apply to Fred Thompson. At 1% in New Hampshire, he has rapidly gone from "Republican savior" to "Are his SAG dues up to date?" He may try to stay in through South Carolina, but he's done.
...Michigan could cause a big headache for the Democratc Party leadership. It was stripped of its delegates as a penalty for holding its primary before February 5. Hence, most Democratic candidates aren't on the ballot there.
In fact, there are only four candidates, and one of them, Sen. Christopher Dodd, has already dropped out. In fact, the only major candidate on the ballot there is Hillary Clinton, and there lies the problem.
There have been strong rumors that Michigan would have some or all of it 156 delegates restored, rumors that weren't discounted by a highly connected former DNC member at last night's D17 meeting.
If that comes to pass, and the race is close enough for Michigan's delegates to make a difference in the nomination, expect some justified howls of outrage from the non-Clinton campaigns (and from Democrats everywhere) at changing the nomination rules after the fact.
It would look like 'insiders' protecting one of their own, which brings up another point.
Another possibility that the 'powers-that-be' of the national party would have to consider is that even the appearance of inappropriate activity regarding the nomination could give the Republicans the kind of issue that they could use to pry Independent voters away from the Democrats.
I honestly don't think that they really *want* to restore Michigan's delegates, but the longer the race for the nomination stays a race, the more pressureto do so will be brought to bear by certain elements within the Party.
Best scenario for the Democratic leadership: the eventual nominee pulls away before any decision is made regarding Michigan, so that a restoration of its delegates doesn't make any difference.
...In disappointing news, for me, anyway, Governor Bill Richardson is apparently dropping out of the race. While he is far and away the best-qualified and best-suited candidate for the job, he doesn't have the 'rock star' qualities of Obama or Clinton (or even Edwards.) Therefore, he hasn't gained much traction with voters.
Our loss.
Note to the eventual nominee: consider Richardson for the VP slot on the ticket or for the Secretary of State job in your administration. It'll be the best appointment you could make.
...Matt Benson of the AZ Rep's Plugged In has a report that Governor Napolitano "may" endorse a candidate prior to the Presidential primary.
She shouldn't - either she'll have to work with the eventual nominee as Governor, or she'll work for the eventual nominee in his/her cabinet.
Doing anything more than helping the eventual nominee in the general election campaign does nothing for her or for Arizona.
CD5 race news -
...According to PolitickerAZ.com (a relatively new site, so I can't vouch for its accuracy yet. It seems to be pretty decent, though.), Susan Bitter Smith, a possible candidate for the Rep nomination to challenge Harry Mitchell, is waiting until February 5th to decide whether or not to enter the race.
Her stated reason for waiting?
Well, at least she's consistent; once a corporate tool, always a corporate tool. Her public disdain of Huckabee, the least corporate of the Republican candidates, clearly indicates where her true loyalties lie.
Bottom line - she's not running to represent the residents of CD5.
...In other news from PolitickerAZ, Jeff Hatch-Miller, member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, will be entering the CD5 race, joining Jim Ogsbury, Laura Knaperek, Mark Anderson, and David Schweikert (and possibly the aforementioned Bitter Smith) in the race for the Rep nomination.
He's termed out at the ACC, and as no statewide offices are up this year, it's a run for Congress or two years of toiling in the private sector for him. The field is crowded, but his connections should generate enough in contributions to make him viable in the primary.
Later!
Of course, a few days before the NH primary, those same pundits had pronounced the Clinton candidacy DOA and were writing Obama's inaugural speech.
Things aren't much clearer on the Republican side, with McCain newly-reannointed as the frontrunner after winning in New Hampshire.
Of course, he won in NH in 2000.
In other words - it's not over.
...As in Iowa, the most disappointed candidate coming out of the New Hampshire primary has to be Mitt Romney. In addition to the vast amounts of money that he spent here and the hundred-something campaign events, he had home-field advantage - not only was he the governor right across the border, he even has a vacation home there.
He was practically a resident, and still couldn't win there.
His candidacy is definitely in trouble; on the other hand, he hasn't exactly been trounced in Iowa or New Hampshire, and he still has oodles of money.
Next week's primary in Michigan is his last stand. He has to win in his home state (his father was governor there for a while), otherwise his candidacy will lose whatever momentum and support it has left.
...The phrase "It's not over" may not apply to Fred Thompson. At 1% in New Hampshire, he has rapidly gone from "Republican savior" to "Are his SAG dues up to date?" He may try to stay in through South Carolina, but he's done.
...Michigan could cause a big headache for the Democratc Party leadership. It was stripped of its delegates as a penalty for holding its primary before February 5. Hence, most Democratic candidates aren't on the ballot there.
In fact, there are only four candidates, and one of them, Sen. Christopher Dodd, has already dropped out. In fact, the only major candidate on the ballot there is Hillary Clinton, and there lies the problem.
There have been strong rumors that Michigan would have some or all of it 156 delegates restored, rumors that weren't discounted by a highly connected former DNC member at last night's D17 meeting.
If that comes to pass, and the race is close enough for Michigan's delegates to make a difference in the nomination, expect some justified howls of outrage from the non-Clinton campaigns (and from Democrats everywhere) at changing the nomination rules after the fact.
It would look like 'insiders' protecting one of their own, which brings up another point.
Another possibility that the 'powers-that-be' of the national party would have to consider is that even the appearance of inappropriate activity regarding the nomination could give the Republicans the kind of issue that they could use to pry Independent voters away from the Democrats.
I honestly don't think that they really *want* to restore Michigan's delegates, but the longer the race for the nomination stays a race, the more pressureto do so will be brought to bear by certain elements within the Party.
Best scenario for the Democratic leadership: the eventual nominee pulls away before any decision is made regarding Michigan, so that a restoration of its delegates doesn't make any difference.
...In disappointing news, for me, anyway, Governor Bill Richardson is apparently dropping out of the race. While he is far and away the best-qualified and best-suited candidate for the job, he doesn't have the 'rock star' qualities of Obama or Clinton (or even Edwards.) Therefore, he hasn't gained much traction with voters.
Our loss.
Note to the eventual nominee: consider Richardson for the VP slot on the ticket or for the Secretary of State job in your administration. It'll be the best appointment you could make.
...Matt Benson of the AZ Rep's Plugged In has a report that Governor Napolitano "may" endorse a candidate prior to the Presidential primary.
She shouldn't - either she'll have to work with the eventual nominee as Governor, or she'll work for the eventual nominee in his/her cabinet.
Doing anything more than helping the eventual nominee in the general election campaign does nothing for her or for Arizona.
CD5 race news -
...According to PolitickerAZ.com (a relatively new site, so I can't vouch for its accuracy yet. It seems to be pretty decent, though.), Susan Bitter Smith, a possible candidate for the Rep nomination to challenge Harry Mitchell, is waiting until February 5th to decide whether or not to enter the race.
Her stated reason for waiting?
Bitter Smith, the Executive Director of the Arizona Cable Television Communications Association, says that her decision depends on what happens on February 5 – the day Arizonans go to the polls to participate in the state’s presidential primary. She said that a strong Republican turnout would be encouraging.Not really news that; rumors about a possible run have been swirling for months. What is interesting is the rest of the quote from the article -
Bitter Smith also said she was looking for a “strong Republican” to head up the Party ticket in November.
When asked which candidate she preferred, she laughed. “McCain, Rudy (Giuliani), Romney,” she said.
Well, at least she's consistent; once a corporate tool, always a corporate tool. Her public disdain of Huckabee, the least corporate of the Republican candidates, clearly indicates where her true loyalties lie.
Bottom line - she's not running to represent the residents of CD5.
...In other news from PolitickerAZ, Jeff Hatch-Miller, member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, will be entering the CD5 race, joining Jim Ogsbury, Laura Knaperek, Mark Anderson, and David Schweikert (and possibly the aforementioned Bitter Smith) in the race for the Rep nomination.
He's termed out at the ACC, and as no statewide offices are up this year, it's a run for Congress or two years of toiling in the private sector for him. The field is crowded, but his connections should generate enough in contributions to make him viable in the primary.
Later!
Monday, January 07, 2008
To Jack Harper I say this: Thank You.
One of the biggest complaints that I hear from independent voters concerns the divisively rancorous of partisan politics these days, and how they place the blame for that on both parties equally.
Then someone comes along to show everyone precisely where that blame belongs...
State Rep. Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) has been making a strong early push in the race for the 2008 Legislative Loon award, what with his efforts to 'de-citizenfy' babies because he doesn't approve of their parents and his now-abandoned run at Rep. Jeff Flake's seat in the CD6 Republican primary (from the *right* of all places!).
However, the winner of the 2007 Legislative Loon award, state Sen. Jack Harper, isn't giving up his title without a fierce fight.
From Amanda Crawford at the AZ Republic's Plugged In -
Harper's bill, SB1064, would allow someone (emphasis mine) "who is registered as independent, as no party preference, as a member of a political party that is not entitled to continued representation on the ballot pursuant to section 16-804 or as a member of a political party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot pursuant to section 16-804 and that has the highest number of registered voters as of the last day on which a person may register to be eligible to vote in the presidential preference primary..." to cast a ballot in any party's presidential preference primary.
As of October 1, 2007 (the date of the most recent voter registration count on the AZ Secretary of State's website), the Republican Party has a voter reg advantage of just over 141,000 voters.
Even the cosponsor of the bill, Sen. Jim Waring, was surprised by anti-Democratic (and anti-democratic) language (apparently he didn't read the bill before signing on as a cosponsor - how foolish is that?), stating that he won't vote for the bill unless it is changed to a fair one.
...For proposing a bill that is so beyond the pale that even one of his fellow conservative Republicans has publicly stated his opposition to it...
...For finding a reservoir of shamelessness within himself that is deep enough to both propose a bill that is so completely contemptuous of democratic principles *and* to avoid publicly standing behind it...
...For giving the Arizona Republican Party a public face that truly represents the party's core values...during an election year...
...For helping to illustrate in stark contrast the differences between the two major parties...
...For all that and more (check out his SCR1007, another attempt to create a state-funded vigilante force), I say this to Jack Harper -
Thank you.
The funny thing is, if he had just proposed a clean bill, one that allowed independent or non-affiliated voters to vote in any presidential preference primary that they wanted to, he would have been hailed by independents and maybe even earned a little respect from Democrats (yes, even me :) ).
Guess he's more interested in winning the Legislative Loon award again than in winning respect.
Then someone comes along to show everyone precisely where that blame belongs...
State Rep. Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) has been making a strong early push in the race for the 2008 Legislative Loon award, what with his efforts to 'de-citizenfy' babies because he doesn't approve of their parents and his now-abandoned run at Rep. Jeff Flake's seat in the CD6 Republican primary (from the *right* of all places!).
However, the winner of the 2007 Legislative Loon award, state Sen. Jack Harper, isn't giving up his title without a fierce fight.
From Amanda Crawford at the AZ Republic's Plugged In -
Sen. Jack Harper is responding to the outcries of constituents, he says, in a bill that will allow independents to vote in presidential primaries while sticking it to the Dems at the same time.When asked by a reporter, Harper declined to defend his proposal to grant Republican voters more freedom than Democratic voters. The only thing that he stated, over and over, was "that the independents are no longer disenfranchised."
The bill, which Harper filed today, would allow unaffiliated voters, Repubicans and members of minority parties to choose which primary they vote in, Democrat or Republican. Registered Democrats, however, would only be able to vote in the Democratic primary.
Harper's bill, SB1064, would allow someone (emphasis mine) "who is registered as independent, as no party preference, as a member of a political party that is not entitled to continued representation on the ballot pursuant to section 16-804 or as a member of a political party that is entitled to continued representation on the ballot pursuant to section 16-804 and that has the highest number of registered voters as of the last day on which a person may register to be eligible to vote in the presidential preference primary..." to cast a ballot in any party's presidential preference primary.
As of October 1, 2007 (the date of the most recent voter registration count on the AZ Secretary of State's website), the Republican Party has a voter reg advantage of just over 141,000 voters.
Even the cosponsor of the bill, Sen. Jim Waring, was surprised by anti-Democratic (and anti-democratic) language (apparently he didn't read the bill before signing on as a cosponsor - how foolish is that?), stating that he won't vote for the bill unless it is changed to a fair one.
...For proposing a bill that is so beyond the pale that even one of his fellow conservative Republicans has publicly stated his opposition to it...
...For finding a reservoir of shamelessness within himself that is deep enough to both propose a bill that is so completely contemptuous of democratic principles *and* to avoid publicly standing behind it...
...For giving the Arizona Republican Party a public face that truly represents the party's core values...during an election year...
...For helping to illustrate in stark contrast the differences between the two major parties...
...For all that and more (check out his SCR1007, another attempt to create a state-funded vigilante force), I say this to Jack Harper -
Thank you.
The funny thing is, if he had just proposed a clean bill, one that allowed independent or non-affiliated voters to vote in any presidential preference primary that they wanted to, he would have been hailed by independents and maybe even earned a little respect from Democrats (yes, even me :) ).
Guess he's more interested in winning the Legislative Loon award again than in winning respect.
Update on contaminated drinking water in Scottsdale
Edit on 1/17/2008 to add: For those readers looking for info on the January 2008 incident affecting drinking water in parts of Scottsdale and Paradise Valley, my post on that is here. That post includes links to news reports, the City of Scottsdale's press release on the subject (with a link to a map of the affected area, and a link to Arizona American Water's press release.
End edit...
In the wake of the surprise announcement in November that "incompletely remediated" (aka - insufficiently treated) groundwater entered the drinking water supply in Scottsdale, there was a lot of activity to address the biggest concerns arising from the announcement - the contaminated drinking water itself, and the fact that after the test sample was taken, it took nearly a month to notify the residents of the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site.
Earlier today, Vicki Rosen, Community Involvement Coordinator at the EPA, sent out the following email update of the situation -
The EPA's response, via Regional Administrator Nastri, can be summed up thusly - "the public wasn't in any danger, we're looking into it, and promise it won't happen again." If you want a copy of the letter, contact me at cpmaz[at]yahoo.com and I'll be happy to forward the email to you, with the attachments, or let Vicki know at vicki.rosen[at]epa.gov and she'll add you to the NIBW mailing list.
The NIBW Communication Plan at the link.
Previous posts here and here.
Later!
End edit...
In the wake of the surprise announcement in November that "incompletely remediated" (aka - insufficiently treated) groundwater entered the drinking water supply in Scottsdale, there was a lot of activity to address the biggest concerns arising from the announcement - the contaminated drinking water itself, and the fact that after the test sample was taken, it took nearly a month to notify the residents of the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site.
Earlier today, Vicki Rosen, Community Involvement Coordinator at the EPA, sent out the following email update of the situation -
Hello NIBW CIG,The text of Harry Mitchell's letter to the administrator of the EPA is here.
Happy New Year to you all.
As those of you who attended the November meeting will undoubtedly remember, the relaying of information about the recent short-term problem at the Miller Road Treatment Facility (MRTF) drew much concern.
We realize, of course, that it wasn't just that some water did not get the treatment it should have, but also that the process of reporting the situation and then communicating as such with our interested citizens could have been better.
Currently, our NIBW team is reviewing the policy of how all this should work and seeing how to make the communication better. We are also reviewing what additional safeguards might be needed at the plant to lessen the chance such an occurrance will happen in the future. Attached are two letters on the MRTF issue: the first from Congressman Harry Mitchell to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, and the second a response from EPA Regional Administrator Wayne Nastri.
Also attached is a copy of the final Communication Plan developed by the Participating Companies and approved by EPA. A draft of this plan was presented to the CIG and discussed at a CIG meeting in 2003. The final plan incorporates the community input received at the time. The actual approval date of July 11, 2007 is later because this document was part of a larger submittal requirement for the Remedial Design / RemedialAction Work Plan. That is why this final Communication Plan was not forwarded to the CIG before now. But as I've stated, the CIG saw theearlier version several years ago. The final plan is now on our NIBW website.
Jamey and I will be getting back to you regarding any changes to the processes of sampling, analysis, reporting, etc., and we'll arrange for another CIG meeting to discuss this in detail. We want you to know that we take any breakdown in the NIBW cleanup systems seriously and we are committed to sharing information in a timely manner and discussing the what, why and wherefore with our interested community members.
Thank you for your understanding and patience and also for caring about your community's environment.
Vicki
The EPA's response, via Regional Administrator Nastri, can be summed up thusly - "the public wasn't in any danger, we're looking into it, and promise it won't happen again." If you want a copy of the letter, contact me at cpmaz[at]yahoo.com and I'll be happy to forward the email to you, with the attachments, or let Vicki know at vicki.rosen[at]epa.gov and she'll add you to the NIBW mailing list.
The NIBW Communication Plan at the link.
Previous posts here and here.
Later!
I know that Ron Paul is a "non-traditional" candidate...
...but his supporters have to learn that sometimes things become "traditional" because they work...
On Saturday afternoon, I joined over 100 people at the open house at the Arizona HQ of the Clinton for President campaign. Don't worry - I still think that Governor Bill Richardson is the best choice for the Democratic nomination. However, I needed to speak to someone from the campaign concerning Tuesday night's LD17 forum, and one of my coworkers is a Clinton supporter and wanted to go. Everything worked out, so we carpooled.
The event itself went as expected - lots of people, lots of rousing speeches, lots of opportunities to volunteer.
But this post isn't actually about the Clinton office opening.
It's about the 20 or so Ron Paul supporters that showed up and stood on each corner of Central an Thomas holding signs and shouting out their support for Paul.
They were polite, but to be blunt, they were also clueless.
I presume that the demonstration was intended to woo voters over to their candidate, so I have to ask - why show up at a *Democratic* event? Congressman Paul is running as a Republican; he's not on the ballot that the event attendees will be filling out in less than a month.
If they want their efforts to have a chance to bear fruit, they should have been at offices of Mitt Romney or John McCain. At least most of the people at those locations *could* vote for Paul.
Of course, a better way for 20 organized supporters to help out would have been a phone bank or neighborhood walk (there's a couple of precincts in north Scottsdale that have thousands of voters and are 80% Republican).
Traditionally, when trying to persuade folks to a particular political position, speaking to them is a more effective method than just holding a sign up in their faces.
And if the purpose of Saturday's was to persuade folks just driving by that intersection (and that the location next to Clinton's office was just a 'coincidence'), then they should remember this -
After a mile or more of navigating the potholes, barrels, detours and other hazards association with light rail construction along Central Avenue, most drivers are frustrated and more than a little angry.
In other words, that's not the best time to put the name "Ron Paul" into someone's head. They may just end up associating Paul with their frustration.
Just something to think about...
On Saturday afternoon, I joined over 100 people at the open house at the Arizona HQ of the Clinton for President campaign. Don't worry - I still think that Governor Bill Richardson is the best choice for the Democratic nomination. However, I needed to speak to someone from the campaign concerning Tuesday night's LD17 forum, and one of my coworkers is a Clinton supporter and wanted to go. Everything worked out, so we carpooled.
The event itself went as expected - lots of people, lots of rousing speeches, lots of opportunities to volunteer.
But this post isn't actually about the Clinton office opening.
It's about the 20 or so Ron Paul supporters that showed up and stood on each corner of Central an Thomas holding signs and shouting out their support for Paul.
They were polite, but to be blunt, they were also clueless.
I presume that the demonstration was intended to woo voters over to their candidate, so I have to ask - why show up at a *Democratic* event? Congressman Paul is running as a Republican; he's not on the ballot that the event attendees will be filling out in less than a month.
If they want their efforts to have a chance to bear fruit, they should have been at offices of Mitt Romney or John McCain. At least most of the people at those locations *could* vote for Paul.
Of course, a better way for 20 organized supporters to help out would have been a phone bank or neighborhood walk (there's a couple of precincts in north Scottsdale that have thousands of voters and are 80% Republican).
Traditionally, when trying to persuade folks to a particular political position, speaking to them is a more effective method than just holding a sign up in their faces.
And if the purpose of Saturday's was to persuade folks just driving by that intersection (and that the location next to Clinton's office was just a 'coincidence'), then they should remember this -
After a mile or more of navigating the potholes, barrels, detours and other hazards association with light rail construction along Central Avenue, most drivers are frustrated and more than a little angry.
In other words, that's not the best time to put the name "Ron Paul" into someone's head. They may just end up associating Paul with their frustration.
Just something to think about...
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Where do they go from here?
My quick take on the Iowa caucus results -
Democratic side...
Obama - Upside? His victory shows that his candidacy has legs - Iowa is one of the whitest states in the Union. If he can win here, he can win pretty near anywhere. Downside? On the other hand, this was basically a home field for him (Iowa and his home state of Illinois are neighbors) - he should have done well here. 38% was just a bit better than expected, however.
Edwards - Upside? His strong 2nd shows that he won't be outshined by the rock star Dems, Obama and Clinton. Downside? Now he has to prove that he can hang with them in a bigger arena (like the rest of the country.)
Clinton - Downside? She went from inevitable to 3rd place. Upside? 29% is a strong third, and she's got the smarts and the staff to learn from what went wrong. New Hampshire might be too soon for any changes to take effect, but February 5th looms as the bigger prize.
Richardson - Downside? 2%. 'Nuff said. Upside? He was totally overshadowed by the big 3, who went all out in Iowa. Now the campaigns have to expand their focus. He'll have a chance to shine through if he hangs on until February 5th.
Kucinich - Downside? Didn't even get enough votes to make most results pages. Upside? He could still garner enough delegates in his home state of Ohio to make the convention interesting.
If none of the big 3 pulls away from the pack.
Biden and Dodd - Downside? They're done. Upside? They get to focus on their duties in the Senate, possibly burnishing their VP credentials.
Gravel - Downside? Makes Kucinich look like a front-runner. Upside? Winter campaigning in New Hampshire isn't going to be much fun, but it beats sitting at home in Alaska.
Republican side...
Huckabee - Upside? Hey - he won, and by a comfortable margin. Downside? Now he has to find out if his combination of economic populism and hardcore theocratic social conservatism can win over chamber of commerce Republicans in places like California, New York, and Florida.
Romney - Downside? The biggest loser in the Iowa caucuses. He spent millions on TV ads alone, and didn't even make it close. If he, the former governor of Massachusetts, doesn't win New Hampshire, his candidacy is toast. Upside? He should win NH, and it doesn't have to be an overwhelming victory now that expectations have been lowered.
And despite the amount of money he spent in Iowa, he's got more.
Lots more.
Thompson - Upside? He came in third, without trying very hard. Downside? He polled better as a potential candidate than he has as an actual candidate. If he doesn't show signs of life in NH or Michigan (January 15), he may not last until February 5th.
McCain - Upside? He didn't try very hard either. Downside? He came in fourth. He has to do well in NH, or he could lose the 'resurgent' momentum that he has been gaining, and considering Romney's home field advantage there, that's very possible. Either McCain or Romney could be done by Tuesday night.
Ron Paul - Upside? 10% for a relatively 'fringe' candidate is nothing to sneeze at. Downside? He still came in behind two candidates who didn't try hard (McCain and Thompson) and just ahead of one who didn't try at all (Giuliani). 10% may be his peak outside of his Congressional district in Texas.
Giuliani - Downside? Low single digits in IA. Upside? Spent the day in Florida anyway. He's going to poll better as the campaigns move eastward; the big question is will 'better' be good enough to win?
Hunter - Downside? He and Mike Gravel could go into pro wrestling as a tag team named "The Utterly Irrelevants." Upside? Pro wrestling is hard work, but pro wrestlers get more respect and better pay than Congress. Oh, and he can say that he outlasted Tancredo.
Later!
Democratic side...
Obama - Upside? His victory shows that his candidacy has legs - Iowa is one of the whitest states in the Union. If he can win here, he can win pretty near anywhere. Downside? On the other hand, this was basically a home field for him (Iowa and his home state of Illinois are neighbors) - he should have done well here. 38% was just a bit better than expected, however.
Edwards - Upside? His strong 2nd shows that he won't be outshined by the rock star Dems, Obama and Clinton. Downside? Now he has to prove that he can hang with them in a bigger arena (like the rest of the country.)
Clinton - Downside? She went from inevitable to 3rd place. Upside? 29% is a strong third, and she's got the smarts and the staff to learn from what went wrong. New Hampshire might be too soon for any changes to take effect, but February 5th looms as the bigger prize.
Richardson - Downside? 2%. 'Nuff said. Upside? He was totally overshadowed by the big 3, who went all out in Iowa. Now the campaigns have to expand their focus. He'll have a chance to shine through if he hangs on until February 5th.
Kucinich - Downside? Didn't even get enough votes to make most results pages. Upside? He could still garner enough delegates in his home state of Ohio to make the convention interesting.
If none of the big 3 pulls away from the pack.
Biden and Dodd - Downside? They're done. Upside? They get to focus on their duties in the Senate, possibly burnishing their VP credentials.
Gravel - Downside? Makes Kucinich look like a front-runner. Upside? Winter campaigning in New Hampshire isn't going to be much fun, but it beats sitting at home in Alaska.
Republican side...
Huckabee - Upside? Hey - he won, and by a comfortable margin. Downside? Now he has to find out if his combination of economic populism and hardcore theocratic social conservatism can win over chamber of commerce Republicans in places like California, New York, and Florida.
Romney - Downside? The biggest loser in the Iowa caucuses. He spent millions on TV ads alone, and didn't even make it close. If he, the former governor of Massachusetts, doesn't win New Hampshire, his candidacy is toast. Upside? He should win NH, and it doesn't have to be an overwhelming victory now that expectations have been lowered.
And despite the amount of money he spent in Iowa, he's got more.
Lots more.
Thompson - Upside? He came in third, without trying very hard. Downside? He polled better as a potential candidate than he has as an actual candidate. If he doesn't show signs of life in NH or Michigan (January 15), he may not last until February 5th.
McCain - Upside? He didn't try very hard either. Downside? He came in fourth. He has to do well in NH, or he could lose the 'resurgent' momentum that he has been gaining, and considering Romney's home field advantage there, that's very possible. Either McCain or Romney could be done by Tuesday night.
Ron Paul - Upside? 10% for a relatively 'fringe' candidate is nothing to sneeze at. Downside? He still came in behind two candidates who didn't try hard (McCain and Thompson) and just ahead of one who didn't try at all (Giuliani). 10% may be his peak outside of his Congressional district in Texas.
Giuliani - Downside? Low single digits in IA. Upside? Spent the day in Florida anyway. He's going to poll better as the campaigns move eastward; the big question is will 'better' be good enough to win?
Hunter - Downside? He and Mike Gravel could go into pro wrestling as a tag team named "The Utterly Irrelevants." Upside? Pro wrestling is hard work, but pro wrestlers get more respect and better pay than Congress. Oh, and he can say that he outlasted Tancredo.
Later!
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Events calendar
edit on 1/5 to add COGS event...
Saturday, January 5 - The Clinton for President campaign is holding a grand opening/open house at its Arizona office from noon until 2:00 p.m.
Location: 2845 North Central Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85004 (Thomas and Central)
Info page here.
Starting Monday, January 7 - The Appropriations Committee of the Arizona House of Representatives will begin holding meetings to come up with budget cuts to close the $970 million state budget deficit. The meetings are scheduled to start at 9:30 a.m. Contact the House at (602) 926-4221 or 1-800-352-8404 for more information. AZ Republic coverage here.
Tuesday, January 8 - The District 17 Democrats will feature a presidential candidate forum at its January meeting. Representatives from the campaigns of each Democratic candidate have been invited to talk about their candidates and, time permitting, answer a few questions from the audience.
The meeting will start at 7:00 p.m. in the Pyle Center in Tempe (Southern and Rural)
The meeting is open to the public. If you need any information, contact me via this blog or at cpmaz[at]yahoo.com.
Tuesday, January 8 - The Scottsdale City Council holds its first meeting of 2008. On the agenda: discussion and possible action concerning the Transportation Master Plan, a possible referendum question regarding fixed rail and fixed route transit along Scottsdale Road, and discussion of exempting "food for home consumption" from the City's 1% General Fund privilege sales tax.
Meeting starts at 5:00 p.m., City Hall Kiva, 3939 North Drinkwater Boulevard, Scottsdale.
Should be an interesting meeting, but go to the D17 meeting - it will be more interesting, and Scottsdale City Council meetings are recorded anyway. Video archive page here. :)
Thursday, January 10 - The Coalition of Greater Scottsdale (COGS) will hold its January meeting at the Granite Reef Senior Center from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. The Senior Center is located at 1700 N. Granite Reef (northwest corner of Granite Reef and McDowell)
Thursday, January 17 - The D8 Democrats will feature speakers from the various Democratic campaigns at their monthly meeting.
7:00 p.m. at the Mustang Library, 10101 N 90th St, Scottsdale (90th St., south of Shea)
Tuesday, January 22 - A forum/overview of current First Amendment issues with
Bill Straus and David Bodney of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) at the Mustang Library in Scottdale at 6:30 p.m.
Tuesday, January 22 - The Arizona Chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council NJDC) is holding its monthly meeting at 7:00 p.m., location TBA. Info at njdcphx[at]cox.net.
Later!
Saturday, January 5 - The Clinton for President campaign is holding a grand opening/open house at its Arizona office from noon until 2:00 p.m.
Location: 2845 North Central Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85004 (Thomas and Central)
Info page here.
Starting Monday, January 7 - The Appropriations Committee of the Arizona House of Representatives will begin holding meetings to come up with budget cuts to close the $970 million state budget deficit. The meetings are scheduled to start at 9:30 a.m. Contact the House at (602) 926-4221 or 1-800-352-8404 for more information. AZ Republic coverage here.
Tuesday, January 8 - The District 17 Democrats will feature a presidential candidate forum at its January meeting. Representatives from the campaigns of each Democratic candidate have been invited to talk about their candidates and, time permitting, answer a few questions from the audience.
The meeting will start at 7:00 p.m. in the Pyle Center in Tempe (Southern and Rural)
The meeting is open to the public. If you need any information, contact me via this blog or at cpmaz[at]yahoo.com.
Tuesday, January 8 - The Scottsdale City Council holds its first meeting of 2008. On the agenda: discussion and possible action concerning the Transportation Master Plan, a possible referendum question regarding fixed rail and fixed route transit along Scottsdale Road, and discussion of exempting "food for home consumption" from the City's 1% General Fund privilege sales tax.
Meeting starts at 5:00 p.m., City Hall Kiva, 3939 North Drinkwater Boulevard, Scottsdale.
Should be an interesting meeting, but go to the D17 meeting - it will be more interesting, and Scottsdale City Council meetings are recorded anyway. Video archive page here. :)
Thursday, January 10 - The Coalition of Greater Scottsdale (COGS) will hold its January meeting at the Granite Reef Senior Center from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. The Senior Center is located at 1700 N. Granite Reef (northwest corner of Granite Reef and McDowell)
Thursday, January 17 - The D8 Democrats will feature speakers from the various Democratic campaigns at their monthly meeting.
7:00 p.m. at the Mustang Library, 10101 N 90th St, Scottsdale (90th St., south of Shea)
Tuesday, January 22 - A forum/overview of current First Amendment issues with
Bill Straus and David Bodney of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) at the Mustang Library in Scottdale at 6:30 p.m.
Tuesday, January 22 - The Arizona Chapter of the National Jewish Democratic Council NJDC) is holding its monthly meeting at 7:00 p.m., location TBA. Info at njdcphx[at]cox.net.
Later!
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
What do Iowa and New Hampshire mean?
edit on 1/5 to correct some incorrect info...thanks to TimWilsonAZ for the heads-up...
...Not as much as some might think...
Within the next week, Iowa and New Hampshire will choose the major party nominees for president.
OK, not really, but with the way the campaigns have focused so much energy on wooing caucus-goers and voters in those states, as well as the way the MSM has focused on every belch and blink, someone unfamiliar with the American political process might think that.
At the risk of uttering heresy, why are the candidates putting so much into the early states? They command attention far out of proportion to their actual impact on the nominations.
To whit -
- In the 9 Democratic campaigns since Iowa became the first presidential nominating event in 1972, the winner of the caucuses became the eventual nominee only 5 times (2 of those were incumbents) and actually went on to win the Presidency only once (Bill Clinton's re-election in 1996.)
- In the 8 Republican campaigns since 1976, only 5 of the caucus winners went on to receive the nomination, and only 3 of those won the Presidency (Reagan's re-election in 1984, baby Bush in 2000 and his reelection in 2004.
- New Hampshire hasn't been a much better predictor, with 6 out of 9 Democratic winners going on to win the nomination and only 2 to win the Presidency (Carter in 1976 and Clinton's re-election in 1996). On the Republican side, 6 out of 8 have gone on to win the nomination, 3 the Presidency (Reagan in 1980 and 2 re-elections.)
Even winning in both Iowa and New Hampshire hasn't meant much. Four times a Democrat has won in both states, and five times a Republican has won in both.
Of those 8 sweeps, only no non-incumbent has gone on to with the Presidency.
Some might count papa Bush in 1988 as a non-incumbent, but he was a sitting VP at the time. More importantly, many of the votes cast for him, both in the primaries and the general, were more for a third Reagan term than a first Bush term. He was a de facto incumbent.
And if Iowa and New Hampshire's low value as predictors weren't enough, consider their lack of practical value to a potential nominee.
On the Republican side, Iowa and New Hampshire award 40 and 24* delegates respectively (out of 2516*.
* = pre-penalty totals
On the Democratic side, Iowa and New Hampshire award 57 and 30 respectively, out of 4051*.
* = delegate numbers and totals subject to minor changes, but these numbers are close enough to suffice here.
In other words, Iowa's caucus and New Hampshire primary combined award less than 3% of their respective party's delegates, and Iowa isn't even 'winner-take-all.'
Hell, neither one even has as many delegates as Arizona.
From both campaigns and from the media, those two states garner attention far out of proportion to their actual value.
The New York Times has summed up the biggest fear of both the candidates and the MSM with this headline -
New Hampshire and Iowa do serve as a good way for the campaigns to get warmed up (despite the typical weather as NH and IA may be this time of year). They can test and refine their messages and organize their ground games within a couple of (relatively) focused environments.
It's also probably the last time that any of the serious candidates are forced to interact with real people; in the bigger states, and in the general, the only people that the candidates interact with are campaign officials, consultants and big money donors.
Having said all of this, on Thursday and Tuesday may the best Democrat (some guy from New Mexico :) ) and the Republican who is the least electable in a general election win and use their wins to catapult their ways to their respective parties' nominations.
:)
...Not as much as some might think...
Within the next week, Iowa and New Hampshire will choose the major party nominees for president.
OK, not really, but with the way the campaigns have focused so much energy on wooing caucus-goers and voters in those states, as well as the way the MSM has focused on every belch and blink, someone unfamiliar with the American political process might think that.
At the risk of uttering heresy, why are the candidates putting so much into the early states? They command attention far out of proportion to their actual impact on the nominations.
To whit -
- In the 9 Democratic campaigns since Iowa became the first presidential nominating event in 1972, the winner of the caucuses became the eventual nominee only 5 times (2 of those were incumbents) and actually went on to win the Presidency only once (Bill Clinton's re-election in 1996.)
- In the 8 Republican campaigns since 1976, only 5 of the caucus winners went on to receive the nomination, and only 3 of those won the Presidency (Reagan's re-election in 1984, baby Bush in 2000 and his reelection in 2004.
- New Hampshire hasn't been a much better predictor, with 6 out of 9 Democratic winners going on to win the nomination and only 2 to win the Presidency (Carter in 1976 and Clinton's re-election in 1996). On the Republican side, 6 out of 8 have gone on to win the nomination, 3 the Presidency (Reagan in 1980 and 2 re-elections.)
Even winning in both Iowa and New Hampshire hasn't meant much. Four times a Democrat has won in both states, and five times a Republican has won in both.
Of those 8 sweeps, only no non-incumbent has gone on to with the Presidency.
Some might count papa Bush in 1988 as a non-incumbent, but he was a sitting VP at the time. More importantly, many of the votes cast for him, both in the primaries and the general, were more for a third Reagan term than a first Bush term. He was a de facto incumbent.
And if Iowa and New Hampshire's low value as predictors weren't enough, consider their lack of practical value to a potential nominee.
On the Republican side, Iowa and New Hampshire award 40 and 24* delegates respectively (out of 2516*.
* = pre-penalty totals
On the Democratic side, Iowa and New Hampshire award 57 and 30 respectively, out of 4051*.
* = delegate numbers and totals subject to minor changes, but these numbers are close enough to suffice here.
In other words, Iowa's caucus and New Hampshire primary combined award less than 3% of their respective party's delegates, and Iowa isn't even 'winner-take-all.'
Hell, neither one even has as many delegates as Arizona.
From both campaigns and from the media, those two states garner attention far out of proportion to their actual value.
The New York Times has summed up the biggest fear of both the candidates and the MSM with this headline -
What if Iowa Settles Nothing for Democrats?Perhaps a tie or near-tie would be nightmarish for the campaign and media pros, but it might be the best thing for the rest of the country because it would force the campaigns to treat the other states to a little more attention.
New Hampshire and Iowa do serve as a good way for the campaigns to get warmed up (despite the typical weather as NH and IA may be this time of year). They can test and refine their messages and organize their ground games within a couple of (relatively) focused environments.
It's also probably the last time that any of the serious candidates are forced to interact with real people; in the bigger states, and in the general, the only people that the candidates interact with are campaign officials, consultants and big money donors.
Having said all of this, on Thursday and Tuesday may the best Democrat (some guy from New Mexico :) ) and the Republican who is the least electable in a general election win and use their wins to catapult their ways to their respective parties' nominations.
:)
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Why requiring that people buy health insurance is the wrong approach
Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney offer similar plans to address health care in America. Both plans mandate that people purchase health insurance.
Reasons #1 through 1,824 why Clinton and Romney have the wrong ideas for health care in America...
From AP via Businessweek -
To sum up what is so wrong about this scheme, first proposed by Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts, it only guarantees revenue for insurance companies, but does nothing to guarantee decent health care for patients.
Both plans expect the American public to continue to confuse "health insurance" with "actual "health care."
Hillary Clinton's health plan here.
Romney's here. (No 'compassionate' conservative he, with him referring to Americans without health insurance as "free riders.")
Other candidates:
Edwards' plan
Giuliani's plan
Richardson's plan
McCain's plan
Obama's plan
Huckabee's plan
Kucinich's plan (probably the best of the bunch; at least he seems to understand the difference between insurance and care)
Hunter's "plan" (scroll a little more than halfway down the page)
Biden's plan
Most of the plans have some kind of tax credit proposal to help poor families pay for health insurance.
Great idea, except that it presumes that those poor families can afford the price of health insurance up front before later taking it off their tax bills at the end of the year.
One last observation: the "mandated health insurance" scheme is very similar to the way auto insurance is required for all drivers, regardless of ability to pay. How has that impacted low-income drivers?
They either can't drive (legally anyway) or they have patronize 'low-cost' insurers, insurers who frequently take their customers' money while providing inadequate or even non-existent coverage.
If the Clinton/Romney/whoever plan is implemented, how long will it take before it becomes illegal to receive medical care without insurance?
Reasons #1 through 1,824 why Clinton and Romney have the wrong ideas for health care in America...
From AP via Businessweek -
No health care? Higher fines in Mass.
BOSTON
The cost of not having health insurance in Massachusetts is going up.
When the new year begins Tuesday, most residents who remain uninsured will face monthly fines that could total as much as $912 for individuals and $1,824 for couples by the end of 2008, according to penalty guidelines unveiled by the Department of Revenue on Monday.
To sum up what is so wrong about this scheme, first proposed by Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts, it only guarantees revenue for insurance companies, but does nothing to guarantee decent health care for patients.
Both plans expect the American public to continue to confuse "health insurance" with "actual "health care."
Hillary Clinton's health plan here.
Romney's here. (No 'compassionate' conservative he, with him referring to Americans without health insurance as "free riders.")
Other candidates:
Edwards' plan
Giuliani's plan
Richardson's plan
McCain's plan
Obama's plan
Huckabee's plan
Kucinich's plan (probably the best of the bunch; at least he seems to understand the difference between insurance and care)
Hunter's "plan" (scroll a little more than halfway down the page)
Biden's plan
Most of the plans have some kind of tax credit proposal to help poor families pay for health insurance.
Great idea, except that it presumes that those poor families can afford the price of health insurance up front before later taking it off their tax bills at the end of the year.
One last observation: the "mandated health insurance" scheme is very similar to the way auto insurance is required for all drivers, regardless of ability to pay. How has that impacted low-income drivers?
They either can't drive (legally anyway) or they have patronize 'low-cost' insurers, insurers who frequently take their customers' money while providing inadequate or even non-existent coverage.
If the Clinton/Romney/whoever plan is implemented, how long will it take before it becomes illegal to receive medical care without insurance?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)