Edit to update: Turns out that Bob Lord's (D-CD3) financial report is up; I just missed it. I've updated the appropriate section of the post. Thanks to Drew for the comment...
End edit.
It's that time again - time for a quick summary of fundraising results for the various Congressional campaigns in AZ.
Key - Total raised, $ from individual donors, $ from PACs and committees, Cash on hand, and (where applicable) debts or loans.
I'll comment between CDs.
CD1
Kirkpatrick (D) $186108.71, 166108.71, 24000, 292867.66, 20000 loan
Renzi (R) $0, 0, 0, 1786.60, 456058.23 debt
Hay (R) $41822.32, 23935.92, 17886.40, 155727.77, 20000 loan
Shanker (D) $17517.18, 17517.18, 0, 4069.89
No info as yet from Mary Kim Titla (D) or a Democratic candidate that I've never heard of but who has filed organization paperwork, Jeffrey Brown. He's serious enough to have a real, though under construction, website, so I'll mention him here.
It's early still, but pending the still only rumored entries of other Republicans into the contest, right now the race is shaping up to be between industry lobbyist Hay for the Rs and DCCC-annointed Kirkpatrick for the Ds. Their early money and organizations will be tough to beat.
CD2
Franks (R) $72691, 42191, 30500, 86274.1
Thrasher (D) $8543, 8543, 0, 10693.56
Nothing too surprising here; while Franks is beatable, Thrasher needs support to do it. Surf to his website to volunteer or contribute.
CD3
Shadegg (R) $494544.92, 362794.92, 131750, 863636.22
Loyd (I) $14226.55, 0, 14226.55. 8884.33
Lord (D) $211071.23, 187821.23, 18250.00, 503182.54
Something tells me that Shadegg didn't raise half-a-million dollars in what is traditionally the slowest fundraising quarter of the year in response to Annie Loyd's $14K. While Shadegg has, and is expected to maintain, a fundraising advantage (incumbents usually do), he's in the race of his political life. Perhaps his efforts on behalf of John McCain's presidential campaign have an ulterior motive - he realizes that he benefits with McCain at the top of the ballot in November. McCain's presence, while it may not help Rep candidates nationwide, should fuel increased Rep voter turnout here in AZ.
Shadegg should keep something in mind as the campaign unfolds - by sacrificing his constituents and constituent services to campaign for McCain, he could cost himself more votes than he gains with McCain at the top of the ballot.
CD4
Pastor (D) $80125.63, 38120, 42005.63. 1222975.39
$1.2 million CoH and no opponent (as yet, anyway)? Pastor should expect lots of pressure to help out other Democratic candidates this summer.
CD5
Hayworth (R) $-2200, 0, 0, 15310.3
Mitchell (D) $210680, 137255, 71800, 868883.55
Ogsbury (R) $34880, 33380, 1500, 349191.47
Schweikert (R) $505,993, 246393.51, 9600, 412030.69, 250000 loan
Hatch-Miller (R) Just filed organizational paperwork; don't expect financial numbers until April.
Anderson (R) Just filed organizational paperwork; don't expect financial numbers until April.
Knaperek (R) $19948.54, 19948.54, 0, 27356.99
Even without the quarter million dollar loan, Schweikert is the one to beat (money-wise, anyway) in the Rep primary here, though Knaperek and Anderson are veteran campaigners and will know how to use their more limited funds to good effect.
Note: Telecom/cable industry lobbyist Susan Bitter Smith has said that she will make her run/don't run decision sometime after Super Tuesday. As of tonight, no paperwork for her, organizational or financial reporting, has been posted by the FEC.
CD6
Flake $305414.48, 258613.52, 46800.96, 999110.50
Richard Grayson is running a (self-admittedly) quixotic challenge to Flake, but that million dollars CoH of Flake's isn't aimed at him, it was aimed straight as erstwhile primary challenger Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance).
Pearce has recently set his sights somewhat lower - convincing LD18 State Senator Karen Johnson (R-UFO) to step aside and not run for reelection.
Pearce will face Democrat Judah Nativio for the seat.
CD7
Grijalva (D) $40475, 7975, 32500, 99351.11
The Reps are sure to run someone against Congressman Grijalva (they always do), but unless I miss my guess, Grijalva's organization will expend more effort on rounding up votes for presidential candidate Barack Obama than they'll have to expend on rounding up votes for Raul.
CD8
Bee (R) $151074.24, 141324.24, 9750, 161246.04
Giffords (D) $272253.88, 161209.45, 111044.43, 1317357.30
Unless Tim Bee can pull of a miracle dealing with the state's budget deficit, he may come to regret not resigning his seat in the Arizona State Senate. Giffords has an almost 9-to-1 CoH advantage, and Bee is stuck in Phoenix most of the week.
If he leaves the Senate now, he'll get roundly criticized for abandoning his constituents (something that a candidate for another office doesn't want to deal with); if he doesn't leave, his campaign can't get up to full speed until June or July, by which time, Giffords could have a 20:1 money advantage.
PolitickerAZ has a report on the numbers as well, and they have most of the duelling press releases that accompany the releases of fundraising numbers on the main site.
Later!
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Edwards and Obama
On Wednesday, John Edwards ended his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president on Wednesday. Senator Edwards and his influence on the contest will be be sorely missed.
Because with both sides down to two main candidates each (Gravel was always a non-factor on the Democratic side, Giuliani is out on the Rep side, and Huckabee is fading fast), the final four candidates are a rich, elderly white guy (McCain), an even richer middle-aged white guy (Romney), a rich middle-aged white woman (Clinton), and a rich, fast-approaching middle-aged black guy (Obama).
Poor people and poverty in the U.S. will be a non-issue in the campaign by the end of February, if not by the end of Super Tuesday.
Michael Bryan wrote a post, lamenting the fact that he had voted early for Edwards, and now his vote is lost. While I completely understand the sentiment, I have to respectfully disagree with his point.
Like him, I voted early, and like him, I voted for Edwards.
However, I firmly believe that any vote that is cast for the best candidate is never wasted, and John Edwards was the best candidate, Democrat or Republican, in the race when I filled out and returned my ballot.
He was the only major candidate who talked at length about issues of poverty and class in America, issues that none of the other candidates really wanted to pay more than lip service to.
Having said that, my support, if not my vote, goes now to Senator Barack Obama.
While he perhaps is a little too 'Wall Street' for my taste, he truly represents our country's best chance for changing the status quo in D.C.
I expect most of Edwards' supporters to similarly switch to Obama also - Obama's candidacy is the closest to Edwards' in terms of theme and hope for a change.
Later!
Because with both sides down to two main candidates each (Gravel was always a non-factor on the Democratic side, Giuliani is out on the Rep side, and Huckabee is fading fast), the final four candidates are a rich, elderly white guy (McCain), an even richer middle-aged white guy (Romney), a rich middle-aged white woman (Clinton), and a rich, fast-approaching middle-aged black guy (Obama).
Poor people and poverty in the U.S. will be a non-issue in the campaign by the end of February, if not by the end of Super Tuesday.
Michael Bryan wrote a post, lamenting the fact that he had voted early for Edwards, and now his vote is lost. While I completely understand the sentiment, I have to respectfully disagree with his point.
Like him, I voted early, and like him, I voted for Edwards.
However, I firmly believe that any vote that is cast for the best candidate is never wasted, and John Edwards was the best candidate, Democrat or Republican, in the race when I filled out and returned my ballot.
He was the only major candidate who talked at length about issues of poverty and class in America, issues that none of the other candidates really wanted to pay more than lip service to.
Having said that, my support, if not my vote, goes now to Senator Barack Obama.
While he perhaps is a little too 'Wall Street' for my taste, he truly represents our country's best chance for changing the status quo in D.C.
I expect most of Edwards' supporters to similarly switch to Obama also - Obama's candidacy is the closest to Edwards' in terms of theme and hope for a change.
Later!
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Bill Clinton in Tempe on Thursday
Following up on his wife's AZ visit last week, and perhaps hoping to counteract the effects of Senator Obama's visit later today, former President Bill Clinton is visiting Tempe on Thursday, January 31.
From an email from the Maricopa County Democratic Party -
Later!
From an email from the Maricopa County Democratic Party -
Former President Bill Clinton to visit Phoenix Thursday 31 January 2008
Former U.S. President William Clinton will speak on behalf of his wife Hillary's campaign at ASU's Grady Gammage Auditorium on the main ASU Campus in Tempe this Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 8:30PM. The auditorium seats only 3,000 people, so anyone wishing to attend should arrive -early- to get in line. Doors will open approximately at 6:30PM.
ASU Grady Gammage Auditorium
1200 S Forest Ave [Click for Map]
Tempe, AZ 85281
The ASU event is free and open to the public subject to available seating. There will also be a private fundraising reception that evening. For more information on that event, please contact Senator Hillary Clinton's local campaign office by calling (602) 279-8030, or stop by their office at 2845 N. Central Ave. (southeast corner of Thomas and Central Ave.).
Later!
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
And the winner is...
Jack Harper, 2nd Runner Up for the 2008 Legislative Loon Award, made a late push today for a recount, with his promise/threat to inflict his brand of lunacy on the entire state, not just LD4.
From the AZ Republic's Political Insider -
He gets points for a valiant effort, but this isn't Florida circa 2000 or Ohio circa 2004 - all votes count, and they only count once. He's still 2nd Runner Up.
Nope, the decision the judges have reached is final...
Your 2008 Legislative Loon is...
State Representative Russell Pearce!!
OK, so that's not really a surprise; he's always a prime contender for this award. In last year's competition, he fell short because "[h]is brand of lunacy seems to be singularly focused."
He seems to have taken that observation to heart.
Not only does he have his usual slew of immigrant-bashing bills (11 and counting), he's expanded his focus, spitting his venom on the state budget, public safety, public universities, schools, municipalities and the state's voters themselves.
Some of the highlights -
Sponsored HB2220, a permanent repeal of the state equalization property tax. That's a quarter billion dollar hit to school funding annually (legislative fiscal note here)...
...Sponsored HB2339, a bill to create a voluntary tax fund to balance the state's budget...
...Cosponsored HB2603, a bill to bar the use of photo-enforcement generated speeding tickets as a basis for MVD suspending a driver's license or as a basis for an insurance company to raise premiums or withdraw coverage from a driver...
...Sponsored HB2637, a bill to bar municipalities from imposing a sales tax (or something similar) on a laundry list of business activities and services while cosponsoring HB2641, a bill that would redirect some state-shared revenues from municipalities to property owners who live in unincorporated areas. So, one one hand he is reducing the amount of money that cities and towns receive from the state while on the other hand he wants to restrict their ability to make up the difference.
Note: this bill refers to A.R.S section 43-1072.02, but I couldn't find that particular section. There is a section 43-1072.01, but not a section .02. I'm not sure if it's a mistake in drafting the bill or a failure in my research abilities.
...Sponsored HB2678, a bill to require drug testing of all welfare recipients and applicants for welfare...
...Sponsored HCR2019, an amendment to the state constitution to bar legislators from holding a position on a local school board. The most interesting part about this one is that a brief search of legislative bios showed that one of the people that would be affected by this is Rep. Rich Crandall (R-LD19), one of Pearce's fellow Mesa Republicans.
...Sponsored HCR2044, an amendment to the state constitution to allow the lege to ignore voter-approved limitations on legislative appropriations, if the lege certifies in writing that it needs to do so in order to avoid a budget deficit.
...Sponsored HCR2049, an amendment to the state constitution to create a crime victims restitution fund (sounds good, right? Hang on...) by diverting monies awarded as punitive damages awarded for death or injury.
The victim to whom the punitive damages were initially awarded would then receive not the amount awarded, but only the amount his/her attorney spent on punitive damages research, plus 10 percent.
...Cosponsored SCM1002, a Senate Memorial (aka - letter to the U.S. Congress) supporting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution ending the direct election of U.S. Senators by the voters of the various states and reinstituting the election of U.S. Senators by the legislatures of the various states.
And then, of course, there is his crowning achievement in legislative lunacy -
SB1214, the now-infamous bill to allow concealed weapons on school campuses.
Overall, he has sponsored or cosponsored at least 8 measures that would limit or reduce state revenues during a legislative session where he'll be helping to deal with a billion dollar budget deficit.
...So why is he the chair of the House Appropriations Committee?
Besides his legislative proposals, he still spouts off on a regular basis, and not he doesn't limit he pronouncements to only the subject of immigrants. He's spread his rhetorical wings.
For example, at the same January 23 meeting of the Joint Appropriations committee cited in Harper/2nd Runner Up post, Pearce advocated that, instead of funding institutions of higher education, the state should just give out vouchers that students could use wherever they chose to. (Check at approximately the 1:57:00 mark of the longer January 23 Joint Appropriations meeting on this page.)
So, for leaving his single-minded obsession behind, for expanding his bile-spreading efforts to include poor people, voters, students, fellow Republicans, higher education in general, municipalities' financial stability, and more, State Representative Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) is the Arizona Legislature's
2008 Legislative Loon.
Addendum: There were a couple of Pearce's bill that looked like they might be bad news, but I'm not sure what they really do. He sponsored SB1139, a bill to change some of the rules for the state treasurer, including one that allows him to charge higher administrative fees in the various investment pools overseen by the state treasurer. Also, he sponsored HB2600, a bill that requires the state to purchase performance management software that meets very specific criteria. I don't know if this is a good bill or something that is geared to direct a lucrative state contract to a particular software vendor.
Have a good night...
From the AZ Republic's Political Insider -
Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, was working on pumping up a crowd of loyal Mike Huckabee supporters (like maybe 20) in the state capitol courtyard this afternoon. And, you know, when Mr. Harper has a mic in his hand...you've just got to pause to listen.
{snip}
"I will run for a statewide seat in 2010," Harper announced, adding later that he believes "there is no personal sacrifice too big to stand for your beliefs."
Harper can't officially announce his campaign for an office unless he is prepared to resign from the senate. But he told Insider after his announcement that the positions would either relate to his concerns about election integrity (Translation: running for Secretary of State) or how he's not a big fan of Sen. McCain (Translation: running for U.S. Senate.)
He gets points for a valiant effort, but this isn't Florida circa 2000 or Ohio circa 2004 - all votes count, and they only count once. He's still 2nd Runner Up.
Nope, the decision the judges have reached is final...
Your 2008 Legislative Loon is...
State Representative Russell Pearce!!
OK, so that's not really a surprise; he's always a prime contender for this award. In last year's competition, he fell short because "[h]is brand of lunacy seems to be singularly focused."
He seems to have taken that observation to heart.
Not only does he have his usual slew of immigrant-bashing bills (11 and counting), he's expanded his focus, spitting his venom on the state budget, public safety, public universities, schools, municipalities and the state's voters themselves.
Some of the highlights -
Sponsored HB2220, a permanent repeal of the state equalization property tax. That's a quarter billion dollar hit to school funding annually (legislative fiscal note here)...
...Sponsored HB2339, a bill to create a voluntary tax fund to balance the state's budget...
...Cosponsored HB2603, a bill to bar the use of photo-enforcement generated speeding tickets as a basis for MVD suspending a driver's license or as a basis for an insurance company to raise premiums or withdraw coverage from a driver...
...Sponsored HB2637, a bill to bar municipalities from imposing a sales tax (or something similar) on a laundry list of business activities and services while cosponsoring HB2641, a bill that would redirect some state-shared revenues from municipalities to property owners who live in unincorporated areas. So, one one hand he is reducing the amount of money that cities and towns receive from the state while on the other hand he wants to restrict their ability to make up the difference.
Note: this bill refers to A.R.S section 43-1072.02, but I couldn't find that particular section. There is a section 43-1072.01, but not a section .02. I'm not sure if it's a mistake in drafting the bill or a failure in my research abilities.
...Sponsored HB2678, a bill to require drug testing of all welfare recipients and applicants for welfare...
...Sponsored HCR2019, an amendment to the state constitution to bar legislators from holding a position on a local school board. The most interesting part about this one is that a brief search of legislative bios showed that one of the people that would be affected by this is Rep. Rich Crandall (R-LD19), one of Pearce's fellow Mesa Republicans.
...Sponsored HCR2044, an amendment to the state constitution to allow the lege to ignore voter-approved limitations on legislative appropriations, if the lege certifies in writing that it needs to do so in order to avoid a budget deficit.
...Sponsored HCR2049, an amendment to the state constitution to create a crime victims restitution fund (sounds good, right? Hang on...) by diverting monies awarded as punitive damages awarded for death or injury.
The victim to whom the punitive damages were initially awarded would then receive not the amount awarded, but only the amount his/her attorney spent on punitive damages research, plus 10 percent.
...Cosponsored SCM1002, a Senate Memorial (aka - letter to the U.S. Congress) supporting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution ending the direct election of U.S. Senators by the voters of the various states and reinstituting the election of U.S. Senators by the legislatures of the various states.
And then, of course, there is his crowning achievement in legislative lunacy -
SB1214, the now-infamous bill to allow concealed weapons on school campuses.
Overall, he has sponsored or cosponsored at least 8 measures that would limit or reduce state revenues during a legislative session where he'll be helping to deal with a billion dollar budget deficit.
...So why is he the chair of the House Appropriations Committee?
Besides his legislative proposals, he still spouts off on a regular basis, and not he doesn't limit he pronouncements to only the subject of immigrants. He's spread his rhetorical wings.
For example, at the same January 23 meeting of the Joint Appropriations committee cited in Harper/2nd Runner Up post, Pearce advocated that, instead of funding institutions of higher education, the state should just give out vouchers that students could use wherever they chose to. (Check at approximately the 1:57:00 mark of the longer January 23 Joint Appropriations meeting on this page.)
So, for leaving his single-minded obsession behind, for expanding his bile-spreading efforts to include poor people, voters, students, fellow Republicans, higher education in general, municipalities' financial stability, and more, State Representative Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) is the Arizona Legislature's
2008 Legislative Loon.
Addendum: There were a couple of Pearce's bill that looked like they might be bad news, but I'm not sure what they really do. He sponsored SB1139, a bill to change some of the rules for the state treasurer, including one that allows him to charge higher administrative fees in the various investment pools overseen by the state treasurer. Also, he sponsored HB2600, a bill that requires the state to purchase performance management software that meets very specific criteria. I don't know if this is a good bill or something that is geared to direct a lucrative state contract to a particular software vendor.
Have a good night...
Monday, January 28, 2008
Tempe City Council forum
Edit on 1/31 to add update at the end of the original post...
I was going to try to write a complete summary of the forum, but there were too many candidates and too many questions for me to keep up.
However, on many issues, the candidates' answers were similar, so let me sum those up -
School district unification? Some supported, some opposed, some were neutral - all said it was an issue to be decided by the voters, not the the City Council.
Taxes? Hate 'em.
Neighborhoods? Love 'em.
Businesses? Need more and buy local, too.
Quality of life? Yup, that's important, too.
And so on... :)
For more detailed info on a candidate's positions, visit their website -
Mark Mitchell
Hut Hutson
Darryl Jacobson-Barnes,
Corey Woods
Rhett Wilson
Joel Navarro
Julie Jakubek
...While I couldn't do justice to all of the answers given by the candidates, I can give some impressions/evaluations of the candidates' performances.
Note to the candidates and their supporters: While some of these evaluations contain criticisms, none of the criticisms are personal, or even are content-based. All of the candidates seem as if they are civic-spirited Tempeans who genuinely want to serve their community.
There were no bad candidates there last night, though a couple of them should work on their performances.
Anyway, on to the good stuff -
Corey Woods was easily the most polished and comfortable candidate on the dais. He spoke directly and firmly and his answers were direct, pertinent, and well-thought-out. There were a couple of minor mistakes, but they were more in the "picking nits" category than the "major gaffe" category. Combine tonight's performance with a solid ground game (*lots* of walking and knocking), and he has a good chance in March.
Hut Hutson was very solid. His positions and answers mostly hammered home the successes of the current council (he's an incumbent). There was one question, asking what the candidate considered to be the most pressing environmental issue facing Tempe. He hit that one out of the park. He answered with 'water' and proceeded to show that he had an understanding of the nuances and 'beyond Tempe' facets of the issue. Overall, he'll be tough to beat.
Mark Mitchell, also an incumbent, did a good job with the content of his answers, but his presentation of those answers left a lot to be desired. For example, he tended to shift his gaze over the audience while he gave his answers. However, the event was also televised on Tempe's Channel 11 and what works well with a live audience will look like hell on television. He didn't have to look at the camera, but he should have focused his answers on one of his tablemates and let the camera find him. His style works better in small group and one-on-one interactions and in forums that are more "live audience" oriented.
Julie Jakubek, a neighborhood activist and small business owner, did OK for a relative novice, but she told the audience about how she and her husband won an award for their home improvement project, and she told us four or five times. She did an excellent job at projecting her energy but should be careful not to become a single-issue candidate (neighborhoods). "Signature issue" = good; "sole issue" = not good.
Daryl Jacobson-Barnes, also a neighborhood activist and small business owner, spoke clearly but too many of her answers were of the "I need to say *something*; hope nobody notices that I don't have a lot of specifics" variety. However, she did a better job than
Joel Navarro, a Phoenix firefighter and Tempe community activist. While it was obvious that he cares deeply for Tempe, most of his answers were rambling generalities. He came across as passionate but unprepared, and that isn't a good combination with the campaign season peaking.
Rhett Wilson, former town councilor in Kearny, AZ and currently working on economic development issues for ASU, did a solid job. His answers demonstrated his knowledge of the issues (he had a few 'non-answer' answers, but not so many that he could be called 'unprepared.') His delivery was occasionally a little dry, but also occasionally showed great passion. In addition, he was the only candidate to directly challenge another candidate. He called out Hut Hutson. Hutson cited his record as a tax-cutter during some of his answers, and Wilson brought up a council vote from 2005 (I think it was 2005, anyway) that belied Hutson's claims. Not being familiar with the nuances of Tempe's recent political history, I have no idea if the barb hit the mark.
...Having said all that, everyone, even the candidates that I've criticized or complimented here, should remember that municipal elections are won on the ground. Walking neighborhoods, talking to residents, and speaking to community groups get the job done in local elections. There were less than 100 people in the live audience and an unknown (but probably very small) number watching at home. Tuesday's forum didn't lock up a win for or lock out anyone's candidacy.
There are seven candidates for the three openings that are on the ballot in March, so four of these candidates will be disappointed. However, they are all fairly young (with the exception of Hut Hutson, who's been in Tempe longer than I've been alive :) ), and I expect that, win or lose in March, most of these candidates will be staying involved in elective politics, whether in Tempe or in more regional campaigns (lege?). It will be interesting to watch their growth as campaigners.
Lastly, all of the candidates should be complimented. They're taking time out of their lives and risking public criticism and ridicule to win a job where, no matter what they do, they'll tick off someone.
At home, they'll get late night phone calls, emails, and letters. At work in the council chambers, they'll face a steady stream of people stepping up to the podium to rail against everything they do.
They know all this, and yet they're still stepping up to serve.
Thank you.
Edit to add:
In the aftermath of the forum, the Tempe Chamber of Commerce (one of the sponsors of the forum), announced their endorsements in the Tempe City Council race.
From the Arizona Republic -
The Tempe Chamber of Commerce is endorsing City Council candidates Joel Navarro, Corey Woods and incumbent Mark Mitchell.
Congrats to all three...
End edit...
I was going to try to write a complete summary of the forum, but there were too many candidates and too many questions for me to keep up.
However, on many issues, the candidates' answers were similar, so let me sum those up -
School district unification? Some supported, some opposed, some were neutral - all said it was an issue to be decided by the voters, not the the City Council.
Taxes? Hate 'em.
Neighborhoods? Love 'em.
Businesses? Need more and buy local, too.
Quality of life? Yup, that's important, too.
And so on... :)
For more detailed info on a candidate's positions, visit their website -
Mark Mitchell
Hut Hutson
Darryl Jacobson-Barnes,
Corey Woods
Rhett Wilson
Joel Navarro
Julie Jakubek
...While I couldn't do justice to all of the answers given by the candidates, I can give some impressions/evaluations of the candidates' performances.
Note to the candidates and their supporters: While some of these evaluations contain criticisms, none of the criticisms are personal, or even are content-based. All of the candidates seem as if they are civic-spirited Tempeans who genuinely want to serve their community.
There were no bad candidates there last night, though a couple of them should work on their performances.
Anyway, on to the good stuff -
Corey Woods was easily the most polished and comfortable candidate on the dais. He spoke directly and firmly and his answers were direct, pertinent, and well-thought-out. There were a couple of minor mistakes, but they were more in the "picking nits" category than the "major gaffe" category. Combine tonight's performance with a solid ground game (*lots* of walking and knocking), and he has a good chance in March.
Hut Hutson was very solid. His positions and answers mostly hammered home the successes of the current council (he's an incumbent). There was one question, asking what the candidate considered to be the most pressing environmental issue facing Tempe. He hit that one out of the park. He answered with 'water' and proceeded to show that he had an understanding of the nuances and 'beyond Tempe' facets of the issue. Overall, he'll be tough to beat.
Mark Mitchell, also an incumbent, did a good job with the content of his answers, but his presentation of those answers left a lot to be desired. For example, he tended to shift his gaze over the audience while he gave his answers. However, the event was also televised on Tempe's Channel 11 and what works well with a live audience will look like hell on television. He didn't have to look at the camera, but he should have focused his answers on one of his tablemates and let the camera find him. His style works better in small group and one-on-one interactions and in forums that are more "live audience" oriented.
Julie Jakubek, a neighborhood activist and small business owner, did OK for a relative novice, but she told the audience about how she and her husband won an award for their home improvement project, and she told us four or five times. She did an excellent job at projecting her energy but should be careful not to become a single-issue candidate (neighborhoods). "Signature issue" = good; "sole issue" = not good.
Daryl Jacobson-Barnes, also a neighborhood activist and small business owner, spoke clearly but too many of her answers were of the "I need to say *something*; hope nobody notices that I don't have a lot of specifics" variety. However, she did a better job than
Joel Navarro, a Phoenix firefighter and Tempe community activist. While it was obvious that he cares deeply for Tempe, most of his answers were rambling generalities. He came across as passionate but unprepared, and that isn't a good combination with the campaign season peaking.
Rhett Wilson, former town councilor in Kearny, AZ and currently working on economic development issues for ASU, did a solid job. His answers demonstrated his knowledge of the issues (he had a few 'non-answer' answers, but not so many that he could be called 'unprepared.') His delivery was occasionally a little dry, but also occasionally showed great passion. In addition, he was the only candidate to directly challenge another candidate. He called out Hut Hutson. Hutson cited his record as a tax-cutter during some of his answers, and Wilson brought up a council vote from 2005 (I think it was 2005, anyway) that belied Hutson's claims. Not being familiar with the nuances of Tempe's recent political history, I have no idea if the barb hit the mark.
...Having said all that, everyone, even the candidates that I've criticized or complimented here, should remember that municipal elections are won on the ground. Walking neighborhoods, talking to residents, and speaking to community groups get the job done in local elections. There were less than 100 people in the live audience and an unknown (but probably very small) number watching at home. Tuesday's forum didn't lock up a win for or lock out anyone's candidacy.
There are seven candidates for the three openings that are on the ballot in March, so four of these candidates will be disappointed. However, they are all fairly young (with the exception of Hut Hutson, who's been in Tempe longer than I've been alive :) ), and I expect that, win or lose in March, most of these candidates will be staying involved in elective politics, whether in Tempe or in more regional campaigns (lege?). It will be interesting to watch their growth as campaigners.
Lastly, all of the candidates should be complimented. They're taking time out of their lives and risking public criticism and ridicule to win a job where, no matter what they do, they'll tick off someone.
At home, they'll get late night phone calls, emails, and letters. At work in the council chambers, they'll face a steady stream of people stepping up to the podium to rail against everything they do.
They know all this, and yet they're still stepping up to serve.
Thank you.
Edit to add:
In the aftermath of the forum, the Tempe Chamber of Commerce (one of the sponsors of the forum), announced their endorsements in the Tempe City Council race.
From the Arizona Republic -
The Tempe Chamber of Commerce is endorsing City Council candidates Joel Navarro, Corey Woods and incumbent Mark Mitchell.
Congrats to all three...
End edit...
Barack Obama visiting Phoenix on Wednesday
Courtesy an email from the campaign -
This will be Obama's third major public appearance in the Phoenix area in the last year and a half.
Later!
Please join Barack Obama at a 'Stand for Change' Rally in Phoenix where he'll talk about his vision for bringing America together and bringing about the kind of change we can believe in.
'Stand for Change' Rally with Barack Obama and special guests Gov. Janet Napolitano and Caroline Kennedy
Arizona Veterans Memorial Coliseum
at the Arizona State Fair Grounds
1826 W. McDowell Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85007
Wednesday, January 30
Doors open: 3:30 p.m.
The event is free and open to the public, but an RSVP is strongly recommended:
http://arizona.barackobama.com/phoenix
For security reasons, do not bring bags. Please limit personal items. No signs or banners are permitted.
This will be Obama's third major public appearance in the Phoenix area in the last year and a half.
Later!
Tempe City Council candidate forum tonight
Apologies for the short notice. This race is sort of slipping under the radar in the tumult of a presidential election year.
From the AZ Republic -
Note: The D17 Democrats have invited the candidates to speak at its February 12th meeting; scheduling is still being worked out, but it will be an informative evening.
From the AZ Republic -
The seven candidates vying for three seats on the Tempe City Council will face off at Monday's candidate forum.If you live in Tempe, this is a great chance to hear from your candidates for City Council.
Voters will have a chance to hear incumbents Mark Mitchell and Hut Hutson defend their record and ideas, and challengers Darryl Jacobson-Barnes, Corey Woods, Rhett Wilson, Joel Navarro and Julie Jakubek highlight what the could do for Tempe.
The forum, sponsored by The Tempe Republic and the Tempe Chamber of Commerce, is at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 31 E. Fifth St. It is open to the public and time will be provided for audience questions.
Note: The D17 Democrats have invited the candidates to speak at its February 12th meeting; scheduling is still being worked out, but it will be an informative evening.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
2008 Legislative Loon - 1st Runner Up
In a slight change from the previously announced format, instead of four posts announcing the three finalists for the 2008 Legislative Loon Award and the winner, there will be three posts listing the final results.
State Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!), the subject of my previous post on this topic (and last year's winner), is 2nd Runner Up.
Tonight's subject, State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-LD8), is 1st Runner Up.
He's a real 'up-and-comer' - as an incoming freshman legislator a year ago, he was an almost totally unknown quantity and was unranked.
What we did know a year ago was that he came from a district (north Scottsdale) that is known for sending socially moderate, pro-business Republicans to the lege (i.e. -Sen. Carolyn Allen and Rep. Michele Reagan.) In addition, it was known that he was a retired police officer and current college program head (Scottsdale Community College.)
A year ago, expectations...hopes, anyway...were that while he was a loyal Republican, his careers as a public servant and educator would give him an understanding of the damage that blind ideology can wreak upon public service and infrastructure, and that he might pass that understanding on to a couple of his caucus-mates.
What a difference a year makes.
Let's look at his 'rabid ideologue' credentials -
He hates immigrants with the passion of a Pearce or Tancredo -
He is the sponsor or cosponsor of seven anti-immigrant bills (and counting), operates an anti-immigrant website called ProtectAZBorder.com (Google it if you want to look at it; I'm not going to link to it), and he has an anti-immigrant radio show on KFHX 1620 AM airing Fridays at 8 a.m. (I think it's a low power station based in Fountain Hills, but it streams its audio. Google it if interested.)
Coverage of some of his public expressions against immigrants here.
He's anti-public education -
He's sponsored or cosponsored seven bills that undermine public education, from a bill that makes permanent the corporate tax credit for donations school tuition organizations (STOs) for private and charter schools (HB2098) to barring the assessment of development fees to pay for school construction or maintenance (SB1138).
...He's not unusual in this regard - most of the Republican caucus in the lege works against public ed; however, very few actually work in public ed at the same time. Isn't it interesting that someone who works for a publicly-funded school (SCC) is dedicated to undermining the viability of public education?
He's a fiscally irresponsible (but oh-so-fervent) anti-tax crusader -
He has sponsored or cosponsored five bills that would decrease the state's revenues when it's already laboring under a budget deficit that exceeds a billion dollars. Perhaps he believes that the state can balance its budget with a voluntary tax (HB2339).
31 other Republicans have signed on to HB2339; apparently, they hope that the average citizen will step in to pick up the revenue slack while not noticing that the state's revenue problems were exacerbated by those same Republicans when they forced through yet another huge tax cut for corporations.
Highlights of some of his recent utterings and press coverage -
He wants to balance the state's budget on the backs of needy students.
From the Sierra Vista Herald (January 10, 2008) -
And if you don't already see his plan as a carefully planned attack on financially-needy poor students (in the name of the state's own financial needs, of course), his proposal would exempt students on academic or athletic scholarships.
Or how about this gem, from the AZ Republic's Political Insider (aka - Plugged In) (the entry is quoted in its entirety because the entire entry *is* a quote) -
In case this isn't clear (somebody should take his thesaurus away, right now! :) ), let me clarify - he wants to use the state's budget problems to disenfranchise those who aren't Web users.
Why doesn't he just say what he really means? "Elderly folks who haven't adapted to an online world yet - you don't need to know about the ballot. You've already voted enough in your lifetimes. On election day, you just get in the way of busier, more useful people anyway. Poor people who can't afford web access - Just get to work and quit wasting time on civic niceties like informed voting."
What elevates Kavanagh about the rest of the Republican caucus (and above 2nd Runner Up Jack Harper) in the race for 2008 Legislative Loon isn't that he's a raving ideologue and frothing-at-the-mouth bigot (most of them are both).
It's the fact that he *is* well-spoken, well-educated, and highly intelligent, and quite capable of crafting and pushing well-thought out and responsible bills. He can even "work across the aisle" on some good bills (i.e. - HB2396, Steve Farley's ban on texting while driving, HB2557, a bill that specifies that schools cannot reduce or eliminate PE, music, or art instruction to meet academic standards in required subjects).
He's the 1st Runner Up because he's capable of being better. He could be a dedicated and hard-working legislator who could be disagreed with on policy issues (he *is* a Republican after all :) ), yet could be respected for at least trying to bring an air of intelligence and professionalism to his job.
Instead, he's just Loon in professional attire, nothing more than a polished Kool-Aid drinker.
...Next up - the Winner!
Of course, most regular readers can guess who that's going to be... :))
Hint: Even without the rest of his resume, the whole 'guns in schools' proposal (SB1214) put him over the top.
Not that he hasn't always been "over the top..."
Later!
State Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!), the subject of my previous post on this topic (and last year's winner), is 2nd Runner Up.
Tonight's subject, State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-LD8), is 1st Runner Up.
He's a real 'up-and-comer' - as an incoming freshman legislator a year ago, he was an almost totally unknown quantity and was unranked.
What we did know a year ago was that he came from a district (north Scottsdale) that is known for sending socially moderate, pro-business Republicans to the lege (i.e. -Sen. Carolyn Allen and Rep. Michele Reagan.) In addition, it was known that he was a retired police officer and current college program head (Scottsdale Community College.)
A year ago, expectations...hopes, anyway...were that while he was a loyal Republican, his careers as a public servant and educator would give him an understanding of the damage that blind ideology can wreak upon public service and infrastructure, and that he might pass that understanding on to a couple of his caucus-mates.
What a difference a year makes.
Let's look at his 'rabid ideologue' credentials -
He hates immigrants with the passion of a Pearce or Tancredo -
He is the sponsor or cosponsor of seven anti-immigrant bills (and counting), operates an anti-immigrant website called ProtectAZBorder.com (Google it if you want to look at it; I'm not going to link to it), and he has an anti-immigrant radio show on KFHX 1620 AM airing Fridays at 8 a.m. (I think it's a low power station based in Fountain Hills, but it streams its audio. Google it if interested.)
Coverage of some of his public expressions against immigrants here.
He's anti-public education -
He's sponsored or cosponsored seven bills that undermine public education, from a bill that makes permanent the corporate tax credit for donations school tuition organizations (STOs) for private and charter schools (HB2098) to barring the assessment of development fees to pay for school construction or maintenance (SB1138).
...He's not unusual in this regard - most of the Republican caucus in the lege works against public ed; however, very few actually work in public ed at the same time. Isn't it interesting that someone who works for a publicly-funded school (SCC) is dedicated to undermining the viability of public education?
He's a fiscally irresponsible (but oh-so-fervent) anti-tax crusader -
He has sponsored or cosponsored five bills that would decrease the state's revenues when it's already laboring under a budget deficit that exceeds a billion dollars. Perhaps he believes that the state can balance its budget with a voluntary tax (HB2339).
31 other Republicans have signed on to HB2339; apparently, they hope that the average citizen will step in to pick up the revenue slack while not noticing that the state's revenue problems were exacerbated by those same Republicans when they forced through yet another huge tax cut for corporations.
Highlights of some of his recent utterings and press coverage -
He wants to balance the state's budget on the backs of needy students.
From the Sierra Vista Herald (January 10, 2008) -
The proposal Wednesday by Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, would require universities to charge students at least 40 percent of what it costs to attend the schools. Now, some students can get fullride scholarships, including room and board, while others get a major percentage of their tab picked up. Kavanagh said the current policy essentially amounts to those without a college degree subsidizing the education of those who will get one.
And if you don't already see his plan as a carefully planned attack on financially-needy poor students (in the name of the state's own financial needs, of course), his proposal would exempt students on academic or athletic scholarships.
Or how about this gem, from the AZ Republic's Political Insider (aka - Plugged In) (the entry is quoted in its entirety because the entire entry *is* a quote) -
"Can we do that to prevent the decimation of our forests, the herniation of our postal workers and the pillaging of our budget?" - Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, asking Secretary of State Jan Brewer if her office could save money by sending ballot information electronically, instead of through the U.S. mail.
In case this isn't clear (somebody should take his thesaurus away, right now! :) ), let me clarify - he wants to use the state's budget problems to disenfranchise those who aren't Web users.
Why doesn't he just say what he really means? "Elderly folks who haven't adapted to an online world yet - you don't need to know about the ballot. You've already voted enough in your lifetimes. On election day, you just get in the way of busier, more useful people anyway. Poor people who can't afford web access - Just get to work and quit wasting time on civic niceties like informed voting."
What elevates Kavanagh about the rest of the Republican caucus (and above 2nd Runner Up Jack Harper) in the race for 2008 Legislative Loon isn't that he's a raving ideologue and frothing-at-the-mouth bigot (most of them are both).
It's the fact that he *is* well-spoken, well-educated, and highly intelligent, and quite capable of crafting and pushing well-thought out and responsible bills. He can even "work across the aisle" on some good bills (i.e. - HB2396, Steve Farley's ban on texting while driving, HB2557, a bill that specifies that schools cannot reduce or eliminate PE, music, or art instruction to meet academic standards in required subjects).
He's the 1st Runner Up because he's capable of being better. He could be a dedicated and hard-working legislator who could be disagreed with on policy issues (he *is* a Republican after all :) ), yet could be respected for at least trying to bring an air of intelligence and professionalism to his job.
Instead, he's just Loon in professional attire, nothing more than a polished Kool-Aid drinker.
...Next up - the Winner!
Of course, most regular readers can guess who that's going to be... :))
Hint: Even without the rest of his resume, the whole 'guns in schools' proposal (SB1214) put him over the top.
Not that he hasn't always been "over the top..."
Later!
Memo to John McCain: You should have stuck with Brimley - even oatmeal is hotter than Rambo these days
McCain catches Huckabee in that all-important category -
"Meaningless endorsement from a washed-up Hollywood action star."
From The Swamp in the Baltimore Sun -
Oh, the possible jokes...
"...After this message from Liberty Medical, the 2008 Republican Debate asks: 'Rambo' and 'Missing in Action' - cynically xenophobic gorefests or cathartic cultural statements?"
"...Quaker Oats, Grecian Formula or Human Growth Hormone - which helps a campaign more?"
"...Breaking news: Dr. Phil has suspended operations at his syndicated television show in order to film his newest reality series 'Psychological Babysitter To Celebrity Train Wrecks.' This week, watch Dr. Phil counsel Steven Seagal, who has threatened to cut off his pony tail unless one of the presidential campaigns calls him."
Anybody have one of their own they want to add to the list?
Later!
"Meaningless endorsement from a washed-up Hollywood action star."
From The Swamp in the Baltimore Sun -
For a while, it seemed like Mike Huckabee had a lock on the campy tough guy vote as he toted Walker Texas Ranger star Chuck Norris around Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Then John McCain got Wilford Brimley, the gruff and tough actor turned oatmeal pitchman.
Today comes the tie break.
Sylvester Stallone of Rocky fame has come out for McCain.
Oh, the possible jokes...
"...After this message from Liberty Medical, the 2008 Republican Debate asks: 'Rambo' and 'Missing in Action' - cynically xenophobic gorefests or cathartic cultural statements?"
"...Quaker Oats, Grecian Formula or Human Growth Hormone - which helps a campaign more?"
"...Breaking news: Dr. Phil has suspended operations at his syndicated television show in order to film his newest reality series 'Psychological Babysitter To Celebrity Train Wrecks.' This week, watch Dr. Phil counsel Steven Seagal, who has threatened to cut off his pony tail unless one of the presidential campaigns calls him."
Anybody have one of their own they want to add to the list?
Later!
Friday, January 25, 2008
Sometimes hardball is the wrong game to play...
Whatthehell are they thinking?
In a move that I sort of predicted a couple of weeks ago, the Clinton campaign has requested that the DNC change the nomination rules.
From Reuters via Yahoo! News:
Is the Clinton campaign deliberately trying to alienate the grassroots of the party? Do they really believe they can win the general election (presuming that she wins the nomination, a possibility that stunts like this could jeopardize) without the votes of the supporters of the other primary candidates? Do they even care about the damage such a move could do to the party's (and the eventual nominee's) image?
Are they supremely arrogant, or just supremely foolish?
For the sake of the party, Governor Dean and the DNC should respond to the request with a firm and final
"No."
More coverage -
Rolling Stone (critical)
New York Times (critical)
Palm Beach Post (not so critical)
Detroit News (not so critical)
Later!
In a move that I sort of predicted a couple of weeks ago, the Clinton campaign has requested that the DNC change the nomination rules.
From Reuters via Yahoo! News:
Sen. Hillary Clinton, in an about-face, said on Friday she wants the Democratic Party delegates in two states that were barred by the national party to be reinstated and counted in the race to determine the party's U.S. presidential nominee.
In those states, Michigan and Florida, Clinton could stake claim to nearly all the delegates to the nominating convention in question -- more than 350.
Is the Clinton campaign deliberately trying to alienate the grassroots of the party? Do they really believe they can win the general election (presuming that she wins the nomination, a possibility that stunts like this could jeopardize) without the votes of the supporters of the other primary candidates? Do they even care about the damage such a move could do to the party's (and the eventual nominee's) image?
Are they supremely arrogant, or just supremely foolish?
For the sake of the party, Governor Dean and the DNC should respond to the request with a firm and final
"No."
More coverage -
Rolling Stone (critical)
New York Times (critical)
Palm Beach Post (not so critical)
Detroit News (not so critical)
Later!
Thursday, January 24, 2008
The nominations are in...
With the WGA still on strike, this awards season has been something of a bust, but that all changes tonight... :)
It's a new year, and a new session of the legislature, and it's time to announce the finalists in the 2008 Legislative Loon award.
This year's competition has a number of contenders for the top spot, but the finalists came down to three names familiar to readers of this blog.
This is the first of a series of four posts - one for each finalist, detailing their qualifications for this year's award, followed by a fourth naming the winner. The winner will be announced next week.
On to the finalists...
State Senator Jack Harper(R-LD4), the defending champion, made a strong case to retain his title, sponsoring or cosponsoring at least 10 anti-immigrant bills, three anti-abortion measures, and a offering a number of bills and utterings of the 'unrepentant wing nut' variety.
Some of the highlights of his entries in the category -
...the previously discussed SB1064, a proposal to open up Arizona's presidential primaries - for everyone except Democrats...
...a slightly watered-down version of the infamous "guns in bars" bill. His SB1132 would allow gun owners to carry their weapons in a restaurant as long as the proprietor of the establishment specifically posted that such was allowed. (note: Believe it or not, I could actually support this bill except for the fact that the posting required under the language of this bill doesn't actually clearly state that guns are permitted. Yes, that means that patrons that aren't part of the gun culture wouldn't know that they were around people who were mixing booze and guns. An article on the bill by Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services, via the Sierra Vista Herald is here.)
...his refusal to hold re-confirmation hearings for the commander of the Arizona National Guard, Gen. David Rataczak, because he doesn't like the fact that Governor Napolitano hasn't mobilized the National Guard to patrol the border with Mexico. (EV Trib editorial here)
...his sponsorship of seven bills designed to reduce state or local revenues (i.e. - SB1002, end equalization tax for education; SB1138, bar local development fees to pay for schools in newly'built areas) or increase fiscal irresponsibility (HCR2004, creative use of federal money that isn't subject to specific encumberances).
[And all you CD8 types should remember that Tim Bee is the one who put Harper on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Just something to think about when Bee tries to portray himself as a "moderate Republican" during his campaign to unseat Gabrielle Giffords in November.]
...the reintroduction of a bill to create a state-sponsored and funded anti-immigrant vigilante force...errr..."homeland security force" (SCR1007).
...during a meeting of the Joint Appropriations Committee on January 23rd, he grilled ASU Michael Crow over university courses that "challenge the social norms." He objects to courses that discuss subjects, such as sexuality, that are "deviant from from the majority" and wants "assurance that courses that challenge the social norms will be eliminated in light of budget issues." (The lege's video archive page is here; select the longer January 23, 2008 meeting. Harper's part starts at around the 1:21:00 mark.)
Yes, in a period when the state is facing a budget shortfall in the vicinity a billion dollars, and he's concerned with a couple of individual class offerings that have a single class section. He's actually interested in turning the state universities into higher-ed versions of vocational high schools, not institutions of higher learning -
He wants his "tax money going to train someone for a career not going to push someone's social agenda."
No UFO sightings here, but Sen. Harper offers a well-rounded resume. He's petty, unprofessional, reactionary, and bigoted.
He's made a very strong statement in his campaign to retain the title.
Next up: State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-LD8).
Later!
It's a new year, and a new session of the legislature, and it's time to announce the finalists in the 2008 Legislative Loon award.
This year's competition has a number of contenders for the top spot, but the finalists came down to three names familiar to readers of this blog.
This is the first of a series of four posts - one for each finalist, detailing their qualifications for this year's award, followed by a fourth naming the winner. The winner will be announced next week.
On to the finalists...
State Senator Jack Harper(R-LD4), the defending champion, made a strong case to retain his title, sponsoring or cosponsoring at least 10 anti-immigrant bills, three anti-abortion measures, and a offering a number of bills and utterings of the 'unrepentant wing nut' variety.
Some of the highlights of his entries in the category -
...the previously discussed SB1064, a proposal to open up Arizona's presidential primaries - for everyone except Democrats...
...a slightly watered-down version of the infamous "guns in bars" bill. His SB1132 would allow gun owners to carry their weapons in a restaurant as long as the proprietor of the establishment specifically posted that such was allowed. (note: Believe it or not, I could actually support this bill except for the fact that the posting required under the language of this bill doesn't actually clearly state that guns are permitted. Yes, that means that patrons that aren't part of the gun culture wouldn't know that they were around people who were mixing booze and guns. An article on the bill by Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services, via the Sierra Vista Herald is here.)
...his refusal to hold re-confirmation hearings for the commander of the Arizona National Guard, Gen. David Rataczak, because he doesn't like the fact that Governor Napolitano hasn't mobilized the National Guard to patrol the border with Mexico. (EV Trib editorial here)
...his sponsorship of seven bills designed to reduce state or local revenues (i.e. - SB1002, end equalization tax for education; SB1138, bar local development fees to pay for schools in newly'built areas) or increase fiscal irresponsibility (HCR2004, creative use of federal money that isn't subject to specific encumberances).
[And all you CD8 types should remember that Tim Bee is the one who put Harper on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Just something to think about when Bee tries to portray himself as a "moderate Republican" during his campaign to unseat Gabrielle Giffords in November.]
...the reintroduction of a bill to create a state-sponsored and funded anti-immigrant vigilante force...errr..."homeland security force" (SCR1007).
...during a meeting of the Joint Appropriations Committee on January 23rd, he grilled ASU Michael Crow over university courses that "challenge the social norms." He objects to courses that discuss subjects, such as sexuality, that are "deviant from from the majority" and wants "assurance that courses that challenge the social norms will be eliminated in light of budget issues." (The lege's video archive page is here; select the longer January 23, 2008 meeting. Harper's part starts at around the 1:21:00 mark.)
Yes, in a period when the state is facing a budget shortfall in the vicinity a billion dollars, and he's concerned with a couple of individual class offerings that have a single class section. He's actually interested in turning the state universities into higher-ed versions of vocational high schools, not institutions of higher learning -
He wants his "tax money going to train someone for a career not going to push someone's social agenda."
No UFO sightings here, but Sen. Harper offers a well-rounded resume. He's petty, unprofessional, reactionary, and bigoted.
He's made a very strong statement in his campaign to retain the title.
Next up: State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-LD8).
Later!
The Three Amigos Ride Again...
Yesterday, the House of Representatives considered overriding the President's veto of H.R. 3963, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. The Act would have renewed and expanded SCHIP, the program that provides health insurance coverage for poor children.
The attempt to override the veto failed by a 260 - 152 vote, 2/3 required to override the veto.
Naturally, being loyal Republicans all, Jeff Flake (R-AZ6), John Shadegg (R-AZ3), and Trent Franks (R-AZ2) voted to sustain the President's veto; according to the tenets of their ideology, the profits of private insurers are more important than poor children.
While none of the three could be bothered to speak on the House floor in support of children, or even to defend their support of the President's veto, the ever-consistent Trent Franks did have time to stroll to the floor of the House and insert a statement into the record bemoaning...
...the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. (p. E71 of the Congressional Record).
Nice to see that he still stops worrying about the welfare of children once they're born.
..Update - few days ago, I wrote a post noting John Shadegg's conspicuous absence while his constituents in Paradise Valley dealt with TCE-contaminated tap water.
Later, DownWithTyranny in California found him campaigning for John McCain in South Carolina. (Thanks for the update DWT!)
So, let's see where Shadegg's priorities lie -
1. Defend his conduct in circumventing campaign finance laws.
2. Traipse around South Carolina in winter.
3. Vote to screw over poor children and protect insurance company profits.
4. Join a court motion to stop a lawsuit over the 'under God' reference in the Pledge of Allegiance.
- Work for his constituents.
There's no number for that last because there's no evidence that he *ever* works for his constituents; hence, there's no way to quantify where that falls on his list of priorities.
...x4mr has a post on the SCHIP override vote here; Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona has one here.
Later!
The attempt to override the veto failed by a 260 - 152 vote, 2/3 required to override the veto.
Naturally, being loyal Republicans all, Jeff Flake (R-AZ6), John Shadegg (R-AZ3), and Trent Franks (R-AZ2) voted to sustain the President's veto; according to the tenets of their ideology, the profits of private insurers are more important than poor children.
While none of the three could be bothered to speak on the House floor in support of children, or even to defend their support of the President's veto, the ever-consistent Trent Franks did have time to stroll to the floor of the House and insert a statement into the record bemoaning...
...the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. (p. E71 of the Congressional Record).
Nice to see that he still stops worrying about the welfare of children once they're born.
..Update - few days ago, I wrote a post noting John Shadegg's conspicuous absence while his constituents in Paradise Valley dealt with TCE-contaminated tap water.
Later, DownWithTyranny in California found him campaigning for John McCain in South Carolina. (Thanks for the update DWT!)
So, let's see where Shadegg's priorities lie -
1. Defend his conduct in circumventing campaign finance laws.
2. Traipse around South Carolina in winter.
3. Vote to screw over poor children and protect insurance company profits.
4. Join a court motion to stop a lawsuit over the 'under God' reference in the Pledge of Allegiance.
- Work for his constituents.
There's no number for that last because there's no evidence that he *ever* works for his constituents; hence, there's no way to quantify where that falls on his list of priorities.
...x4mr has a post on the SCHIP override vote here; Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona has one here.
Later!
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Scottsdale City Council and water contamination
There was a theme to Tuesday night's meeting, and that theme was "It's an election year."...
At last night's meeting of the Scottsdale City Council, the council considered an item placed on the agenda by Councilman Ron McCullagh to direct City staff to research and report back on the ramifications and impacts of a possible City "acquisition of the portion of the Arizona American Water Company that serves Scottsdale customers."
There was a few minutes of discussion, where each member of the council, especially those up for election this year, chimed in on the subject. Most took the opportunity to affirm their vigilant concern for the welfare of Scottsdale's residents.
In the end, Councilman McCullagh expressed the strongest condemnation of Arizona American Water, calling it a "poor corporate citizen" with "poor customer service."
Did I mention that Councilman McCullagh is a customer of Arizona American Water? :))
The council finally did pass a motion directing City staff to research adding Arizona American's Scottsdale customers to the City of Scottsdale water system.
I don't think this will actually go anywhere; it seemed to be more an exercise in "showing the voters that we're on top of things" than anything else. The council members seemed to hope that the staff's report will say that the problem has been dealt with and no one needs to worry any more.
Of course, the election-year posturing during the AzAmWater discussion was nothing compared to the sniping and backbiting that engulfed the Council (or at least 3 member of it) during the consideration of the item that preceded it, a request by Councilman (and more importantly, mayoral candidate) Jim Lane for an update on the progress of the protracted (and often adversarial) negotiations between the City and Barrett-Jackson for B-J's continued use of WestWorld for its annual collector car auction.
Last year, in an effort to break the logjam, Mayor Manross stepped it and took personal control of those negotiations.
The logjam remains, and many in the city have used that to criticize the Mayor (I haven't followed this particular topic all that closely, so I don't know whether or not those criticisms are justified.)
Two of the loudest critics, Lane and Tony Nelssen, sit on the City Council.
So does a third critic, Bob Littlefield, but he was remarkably silent during this discussion. Not sure why. (He is said to be mulling a run for Mayor, but he would have to resign his position on the Council to make such a run. He may decide that too many candidates could split the anti-Manross vote and just support Lane.)
Anyway, the three of them (Manross, Lane, and Nelssen) spent a big chunk of the meeting interrupting, talking over and just plain pointing the finger of blame at each other.
Lane tried to undercut Manross by proposing the formation of a blue-ribbon citizens' commission to handle the negotiations. His motion died for lack of a second, but his message was sent - he doesn't think that Manross can handle the job.
And when Lane wasn't criticizing Manross, Nelssen was.
Nelssen brought up the point that a couple of months ago, he suggested that Craig Jackson and his staff be invited to meet with the Council. Manross stated that she didn't want to turn this into "a political circus."
Nelssen responded to Manross by saying "You run these meetings. It's *your* responsibility to keep them from being a political circus."
Manross just stared at Nelssen for a "if looks could kill" moment.
More than a few of us in the gallery chuckled and whispered "yep - it's an election year."
Video of the meeting (the 'regular' meeting, dated January 22, 2008) is available on this page; the Barrett-Jackson part of the meeting starts at around the 17:00 minute mark and lasts 30 minutes or so; the AzAmWater part starts at around the 50 minute mark.
Later!
At last night's meeting of the Scottsdale City Council, the council considered an item placed on the agenda by Councilman Ron McCullagh to direct City staff to research and report back on the ramifications and impacts of a possible City "acquisition of the portion of the Arizona American Water Company that serves Scottsdale customers."
There was a few minutes of discussion, where each member of the council, especially those up for election this year, chimed in on the subject. Most took the opportunity to affirm their vigilant concern for the welfare of Scottsdale's residents.
In the end, Councilman McCullagh expressed the strongest condemnation of Arizona American Water, calling it a "poor corporate citizen" with "poor customer service."
Did I mention that Councilman McCullagh is a customer of Arizona American Water? :))
The council finally did pass a motion directing City staff to research adding Arizona American's Scottsdale customers to the City of Scottsdale water system.
I don't think this will actually go anywhere; it seemed to be more an exercise in "showing the voters that we're on top of things" than anything else. The council members seemed to hope that the staff's report will say that the problem has been dealt with and no one needs to worry any more.
Of course, the election-year posturing during the AzAmWater discussion was nothing compared to the sniping and backbiting that engulfed the Council (or at least 3 member of it) during the consideration of the item that preceded it, a request by Councilman (and more importantly, mayoral candidate) Jim Lane for an update on the progress of the protracted (and often adversarial) negotiations between the City and Barrett-Jackson for B-J's continued use of WestWorld for its annual collector car auction.
Last year, in an effort to break the logjam, Mayor Manross stepped it and took personal control of those negotiations.
The logjam remains, and many in the city have used that to criticize the Mayor (I haven't followed this particular topic all that closely, so I don't know whether or not those criticisms are justified.)
Two of the loudest critics, Lane and Tony Nelssen, sit on the City Council.
So does a third critic, Bob Littlefield, but he was remarkably silent during this discussion. Not sure why. (He is said to be mulling a run for Mayor, but he would have to resign his position on the Council to make such a run. He may decide that too many candidates could split the anti-Manross vote and just support Lane.)
Anyway, the three of them (Manross, Lane, and Nelssen) spent a big chunk of the meeting interrupting, talking over and just plain pointing the finger of blame at each other.
Lane tried to undercut Manross by proposing the formation of a blue-ribbon citizens' commission to handle the negotiations. His motion died for lack of a second, but his message was sent - he doesn't think that Manross can handle the job.
And when Lane wasn't criticizing Manross, Nelssen was.
Nelssen brought up the point that a couple of months ago, he suggested that Craig Jackson and his staff be invited to meet with the Council. Manross stated that she didn't want to turn this into "a political circus."
Nelssen responded to Manross by saying "You run these meetings. It's *your* responsibility to keep them from being a political circus."
Manross just stared at Nelssen for a "if looks could kill" moment.
More than a few of us in the gallery chuckled and whispered "yep - it's an election year."
Video of the meeting (the 'regular' meeting, dated January 22, 2008) is available on this page; the Barrett-Jackson part of the meeting starts at around the 17:00 minute mark and lasts 30 minutes or so; the AzAmWater part starts at around the 50 minute mark.
Later!
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Positive voter registration trends for Democrats in CD5
The AZ Star (Tucson) ran an AP article on the Arizona Secretary of State's voter registration numbers for the presidential preference election on February 5, 2008. It inspired me to look at a more local breakdown of registration trends.
Those numbers, when compared to the registration numbers for 2006, show some very favorable trends for AZ Democrats.
Statewide, overall registration has increased 5.6%, with Democratic registrations increasing at more than twice the pace of Republican registrations. Democratic registrations are up 5.9%; Republican registrations are up 2.7%.
Of course, both major parties should take heed of the fact that Independent/non-affiliated registrations are up 9.7%.
In CD5, the numbers are even more eye-opening. (Apologies for the formatting - I haven't figured out how to set up a neat table in Blogger. :( )
Key -
Party, Jan 2008 #s, Oct 2006, Raw change, % change
To sum up - In CD5, the trends indicated by the statewide numbers are even more pronounced. Independent registrations increased at more than twice the pace of the increase in overall registrations. In addition, Democratic registrations increase at a greater pace than the overall pace.
As for the Republicans? They virtually maintained status quo, while everyone else moved up.
The short-term trends are even more encouraging.
Since October 2007, the date of the voter reg report immediately prior to the current one, in CD5, Republican registrations have decreased .19%, Independent registrations have decreased 2.53%, and overall registrations have decreased by .47%.
As for Democratic registrations? They increased by 1.48%.
:))
The indication of decreased Independent registrations is attributable to Arizona's closed primary system for the presidential preference primary election. Many independent voters registered with a party in order to vote in that party's primary. Most, but not all, will change back after February 5th,
The fact that Democratic registrations increased while the overall registration numbers decreased suggest that most of the independents registered as Democrats.
This idea is supported by the national trend of record Democratic turnout in the caucuses and primaries in New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada.
Simply put, average voters are far more excited by the slate of Democratic contenders for the presidency than they are by the slate of Republican contenders.
Add to that the continued voter dissatisfaction with the status quo (war without end, economy stalling, health care that doesn't care, economy tanking, immigration rhetoric founded on blind hate not substance, economy in recession) associated mostly with the Republicans, and you have a trend that should continue to favor the Democratic Party, both nationally and here in AZ.
The trends in LD8 and LD17 are similarly positive for Democrats -
In LD17, Democratic registrations are up 5.8% since October of 2006 (down .54% since October 2007), Republican registrations are up only 1.1% since 10?06 (down 1.4% since 10/07). Overall registrations are up 5.1% since 10/06 and down .5% since 10/07.
Of course, even in the slightly negative news for Democrats (down a little since October 2007), one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that they still did better than the Republicans in LD17.
Oh, and for the first time in recent memory, there are more registered Democrats in LD17, 25,530, than Republicans, 25,383!
An advantage of 147!
In October of 2006, the Republican registration advantage was 970, for a net change of 1117 more Democratic registrations than Republicans.
In LD8, the trend is even better (though the Reps still have a huge registration advantage there).
LD8 Democratic registrations are up almost 8% since October 2006, Republican registrations are up almost 1% and overall registrations are up 5.1%.
Those are pretty encouraging numbers, but the short-term numbers are even better -
Since October 2007, Republican registrations are down .5% while Democratic registrations are up 2.11%! (Overall registrations in LD8 are down almost .5.)
These numbers, both locally and statewide, won't make any difference on February 5th - that election is 'party-only.'
Come November, however, these trends could spell trouble for Republican candidates up and down the ballot.
Those numbers, when compared to the registration numbers for 2006, show some very favorable trends for AZ Democrats.
Statewide, overall registration has increased 5.6%, with Democratic registrations increasing at more than twice the pace of Republican registrations. Democratic registrations are up 5.9%; Republican registrations are up 2.7%.
Of course, both major parties should take heed of the fact that Independent/non-affiliated registrations are up 9.7%.
In CD5, the numbers are even more eye-opening. (Apologies for the formatting - I haven't figured out how to set up a neat table in Blogger. :( )
Key -
Party, Jan 2008 #s, Oct 2006, Raw change, % change
Democratic Party, 92201, 86743, 5458, 6.3%
Republican Party, 139265, 139057, 208, 0.15%
Independent, 94457, 87060, 7397, 8.5%
Overall, 328145, 315185, 12960, 4.1%
To sum up - In CD5, the trends indicated by the statewide numbers are even more pronounced. Independent registrations increased at more than twice the pace of the increase in overall registrations. In addition, Democratic registrations increase at a greater pace than the overall pace.
As for the Republicans? They virtually maintained status quo, while everyone else moved up.
The short-term trends are even more encouraging.
Since October 2007, the date of the voter reg report immediately prior to the current one, in CD5, Republican registrations have decreased .19%, Independent registrations have decreased 2.53%, and overall registrations have decreased by .47%.
As for Democratic registrations? They increased by 1.48%.
:))
The indication of decreased Independent registrations is attributable to Arizona's closed primary system for the presidential preference primary election. Many independent voters registered with a party in order to vote in that party's primary. Most, but not all, will change back after February 5th,
The fact that Democratic registrations increased while the overall registration numbers decreased suggest that most of the independents registered as Democrats.
This idea is supported by the national trend of record Democratic turnout in the caucuses and primaries in New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada.
Simply put, average voters are far more excited by the slate of Democratic contenders for the presidency than they are by the slate of Republican contenders.
Add to that the continued voter dissatisfaction with the status quo (war without end, economy stalling, health care that doesn't care, economy tanking, immigration rhetoric founded on blind hate not substance, economy in recession) associated mostly with the Republicans, and you have a trend that should continue to favor the Democratic Party, both nationally and here in AZ.
The trends in LD8 and LD17 are similarly positive for Democrats -
In LD17, Democratic registrations are up 5.8% since October of 2006 (down .54% since October 2007), Republican registrations are up only 1.1% since 10?06 (down 1.4% since 10/07). Overall registrations are up 5.1% since 10/06 and down .5% since 10/07.
Of course, even in the slightly negative news for Democrats (down a little since October 2007), one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that they still did better than the Republicans in LD17.
Oh, and for the first time in recent memory, there are more registered Democrats in LD17, 25,530, than Republicans, 25,383!
An advantage of 147!
In October of 2006, the Republican registration advantage was 970, for a net change of 1117 more Democratic registrations than Republicans.
In LD8, the trend is even better (though the Reps still have a huge registration advantage there).
LD8 Democratic registrations are up almost 8% since October 2006, Republican registrations are up almost 1% and overall registrations are up 5.1%.
Those are pretty encouraging numbers, but the short-term numbers are even better -
Since October 2007, Republican registrations are down .5% while Democratic registrations are up 2.11%! (Overall registrations in LD8 are down almost .5.)
These numbers, both locally and statewide, won't make any difference on February 5th - that election is 'party-only.'
Come November, however, these trends could spell trouble for Republican candidates up and down the ballot.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Water company on the agenda of the Scottsdale City Council
In light of the events of the past week, it should come as no surprise that the Scottsdale City Council has changed its agenda for Tuesday's meeting to include a discussion of the Arizona American Water Company.
What is a little surprise is the wording of the agenda item itself -
"Acquisition"??
That should make for an interesting discussion.
More on the water contamination situation:
As reported on Saturday, the tap water ban for AZ American Water's customers has been lifted, the facility is completely shut down and the investigation into the incident is continuing.
According to Todd Walker, spokesman for Arizona American Water, the Miller Road Treatment Facility won't be brought back online until the issue and process have been reviewed and resolved.
The EPA was closed Monday due to the MLK holiday, but I'll contact Vicki Rosen at the EPA before I head out to the City Council meeting on Tuesday.
During my talk with Walker, I asked for a comment on the Scottsdale City Council agenda item, but he demurred, saying that he didn't know enough about it to have a comment.
I should have more info tomorrow night.
An observation about the whole thing -
I've got to give credit where it is due - at the November meeting of the NIBW Community Involvement Group (post on that here) where people found out about an "incomplete remediation" incident at the MRTF, almost a month after it occurred, was marked by community anger at the lack of communication.
That failure was certainly corrected with this incident with the emails, reverse 9-1-1 calls, and media notifications, all made the day that the blower malfuntion was discovered.
Many people have complained that they didn't receive the notifications, and their anger and frustration is understandable, but under the communication plan agreed to by the EPA and all of the participants, they only had to send out a letter within 30 days.
Perhaps their communications missed some customers, but they did go above and beyond and deserve credit for that.
Save the criticisms for the apparently chronic problems at the MRTF. :)
What is a little surprise is the wording of the agenda item itself -
***16B. Acquisition of Arizona American Water Company
Request: At the request of Councilman Ron McCullagh, discussion and direction to staff to investigate and analyze the legal and financial impacts of acquisition of the portion of the ArizonaAmerican Water Company that serves Scottsdale customers.
"Acquisition"??
That should make for an interesting discussion.
More on the water contamination situation:
As reported on Saturday, the tap water ban for AZ American Water's customers has been lifted, the facility is completely shut down and the investigation into the incident is continuing.
According to Todd Walker, spokesman for Arizona American Water, the Miller Road Treatment Facility won't be brought back online until the issue and process have been reviewed and resolved.
The EPA was closed Monday due to the MLK holiday, but I'll contact Vicki Rosen at the EPA before I head out to the City Council meeting on Tuesday.
During my talk with Walker, I asked for a comment on the Scottsdale City Council agenda item, but he demurred, saying that he didn't know enough about it to have a comment.
I should have more info tomorrow night.
An observation about the whole thing -
I've got to give credit where it is due - at the November meeting of the NIBW Community Involvement Group (post on that here) where people found out about an "incomplete remediation" incident at the MRTF, almost a month after it occurred, was marked by community anger at the lack of communication.
That failure was certainly corrected with this incident with the emails, reverse 9-1-1 calls, and media notifications, all made the day that the blower malfuntion was discovered.
Many people have complained that they didn't receive the notifications, and their anger and frustration is understandable, but under the communication plan agreed to by the EPA and all of the participants, they only had to send out a letter within 30 days.
Perhaps their communications missed some customers, but they did go above and beyond and deserve credit for that.
Save the criticisms for the apparently chronic problems at the MRTF. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)