Do the Republicans really think "arrogant snit" is a viable political position?

Picture from the R blog Sonoran Alliance


A new group advocating for the interests of Arizona's taxpayers has formed, and damn, are the Republicans pissed.

Sonoran Alliance has a press release up from the Arizona chapter of the industry front group Americans for Prosperity in which AFP announces a press conference on Friday and decries the new group as "fake" and "so-called"...

ICArizona (aka the Goldwater Institute's press release webpage) has the same piece up also touting the press conference on Friday.  And calling the new group "fake" and "so-called"...

Greg at Espresso Pundit was more original, but also went completely over the top - he equated the new group to the faux-Green candidates that the Rs recruited for a number of close races to fool voters who might otherwise vote Democrats.

This must be a pretty dastardly group to rouse the ire of such steadfast and proper defenders of corporate profit margins *decent Americans.*  Who could be behind such a devious group?

Democrats.

Seriously, their biggest complaint is that the group Arizona Taxpayers Association is headed by Democrats.

Apparently, they are deeply offended by the mere idea that anyone other than them could dare to speak for Arizona taxpayers.

Even though Patterson, Sonoran Alliance, the Goldwater Institute, and Americans for Prosperity don't actually care about Arizona's taxpayers, their families, their communities or the state as a whole.

BTW - the only way that the "fake" finger-pointing or the analogy to the faux-Green candidates would work is if the people behind the Arizona Taxpayers Association do not now and have never paid any taxes.

Patterson et. al. have presented no evidence to that effect, nor do I expect them to ever present independently verifiable evidence to that effect.

Manny Cruz calls for Joe Hart to resign for fraud

Manuel Cruz, candidate for Arizona State Mine Inspector, announced this morning that he had filed a complaint with Attorney General Terry Goddard against incumbent state mine inspector Joe Hart for illegally assuming office in 2006.

Cruz presented evidence that Joe Hart did not have the required four years of underground mining experience when he signed a sworn affidavit attesting to his qualification for the office in 2006. “I am calling upon Joe Hart to resign from office immediately and suspend his reelection campaign,” said Cruz.


In 2006, the requirements for the job of mine inspector included a provision that candidates for/holders of the office have at least four years of underground mining experience, something that Hart never even claimed to have.  The mining experience that Hart took an oath swearing that he had was all with a surface mining company.

This year, Hart's former colleagues in the Arizona legislature passed an industry-lobbyist-written bill to lower the qualifications threshold for the office, slipping the new language into an "omnibus" mining bill, HB2617.  In that bill, they removed the requirement that the mine inspector have any experience in underground mining.

Besides being a tool for the mining industry in a job that was created specifically to ensure the safety of miners, Hart didn't even meet the basic qualifications for the position when he first ran for it.  No one noticed in 2006, when the only people running for the job were Republicans. 

It's no coincidence that the people who were most supportive of the lower qualifications threshold were the mining industry lobbyists who have benefited the most from Hart's apparently fraudulent hold on the office (the videos of the committee meetings on the bill can be found at the bottom of this page).


More information about Manuel Cruz, his background, and his candidacy can be found on his website.

AZ Republic endorsements

The Republic has started issuing its general election endorsements.

...The contest for the five open seats on the board of the directors of the Central Arizona Project, aka Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) on the ballot, covered in an article published Tuesday.

From the article (links added by me) -

From an airplane, you can easily see what voters might not realize on the ground: The contest for five seats on the Central Arizona Water Conservation District board of directors will have an enormous impact on our future.

The 15-member board oversees our supply of water from the Colorado River, delivered through the Central Arizona Project canal that so vividly cuts through the desert to reach the Phoenix and Tucson areas.

But a slate of candidates with narrow, short-term goals is threatening the long-term stability of our water supplies. They aim to shrink the water conservation district's role so drastically that it will be unable to do vital analysis and long-range planning. What a disaster for a desert state.

{snip}

Current board member Tim Bray, a Scottsdale water consultant, is thoroughly versed in the wide range of issues, from finding supplies to assisting rural areas (in the long-term self-interest of cities), that must be addressed.

Former Phoenix City Manager Frank Fairbanks offers the perspective of municipal water users, along with a track record of working cooperatively on complex problems.

Jim Holway of Phoenix has extensive experience in water management, including nine years as assistant director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. His involvement in land and conservation issues would add depth to the board.

Engineer Arif Kazmi of Chandler would bring welcome technical knowledge of water delivery.

As former general manager of CAP, Sid Wilson knows its complete inner workings and the practical implications of policy decisions.

I definitely agree with the endorsements of Kazmi and Holway - they've got the kind of "real-world" experience in handling water resources that the board sorely needs.  As for the others, I don't have any serious issues with their candidacies, but haven't done a lot of research on the rest of the candidates as yet.

Another thing in the article that I definitely agree with is the sentiment that concluded the article (emphasis mine) -

The stakes are higher than ever. A shortsighted, rigid, ideological approach is truly dangerous to our long-term water supplies. Voters should put candidates with vision on CAP's board of directors.

Voters should apply that sentiment when voting for all offices, not just CAWCD.  Arizona's future is depending on it.


As more major endorsements roll in, I'll discuss them here.

Later...

Hypocrisy, thy name is Brewer

Yes, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of examples to choose from to support the headline.  I'm going to go with the most recent example...

From the Arizona Republic (emphasis mine) -

Gov. Jan Brewer and the director of Science Foundation Arizona this morning told assembled scientists from around the world that Arizona will become a center for research and production for algae fuels.

In announcing $4 million in grants and matching funds from government and industry, Brewer said the investment could produce billions of dollars for the state and millions of gallons of fuel.

{snip}

Brewer said the state will commit $2 million in discretionary federal stimulus to the research center, which will be matched by a like amount in industry investment marshalled by Arizona State University and the Science Foundation.

This is nothing new for Brewer - she has steadily opposed even the existence of any federal effort to stimulate the economy, but has repeatedly (and gleefully) claimed credit for doling out stimulus money that she has denounced.

Denounced everywhere except in her campaign's press releases.

More background on Brewer's two-faced approached to federal stimulus money here.

Edit to add:

Turns out great minds think alike, and greater minds do some deeper research.

From a press release from the Arizona Democratic Party, a list of examples of Brewer's crowing about doling out stimulus money that she opposes, from just since the beginning of August -

Last 6 weeks of Brewer press releases taking credit for job creation from stimulus funding:


Aug. 11 “Governor Jan Brewer and City of Surprise Welcome Rioglass Solar to Arizona” ($10.6 million)

Aug. 16 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Energy Innovation Grants” ($3.4 million)

Aug. 17 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Success in Obtaining College Access Challenge Grant to Aid Low-Income Students” ($2.9 million)

Aug. 17 “Governor Jan Brewer Hails Success in Securing Funding for Arizona Forest Restoration Initiative”  ($2 million)

Aug. 26 "Governor Jan Brewer Announces $2.7 Million in Grants for Renewable Energy Manufacturers" ($2.7 million)

Aug. 27 "Governor Jan Brewer Adds Funding Support for Public Safety" ($10 million)

Sept. 3 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Energy Awards for Rural Communities” ($2.7 million)

Sept. 8 “Governor Jan Brewer Establishes Rural Business Council Focused on Job Growth in Rural Areas”  ($2 million)

Sept. 13 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Economic Aid for Rural Counties” ($2.5 million)

Sept. 14 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Broadband Award” ($39.2 million)

Sept. 16 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Funding for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics”

($0.1 million)

Sept. 28 “Governor Jan Brewer Dedicates Funding to Advance Algae Technologies and Innovations” ($2 million)

Total: $80.1 million

End edit...

Oh, and assuming that the Rs retain control of the Arizona legislature after November's election, expect them to look for a way seize "sweep" Science Foundation Arizona's funds in a "budget-balancing" move.  They've attacked SFAz before and will do so again until they are successful in finding a way to destroy it.

No matter how foolish their actions, pushing an ideology trumps serving the public for these folks, from Brewer on down.

Apathy: Arizona's real third party

...and unfortunately for Arizona, it may have more adherents than any of the more formally organized political parties.  In a reality where most people by necessity have to focus on day-to-day "trivialities" like keeping a roof over their heads and finding adequate health care for their families, most don't have the available time and energy for public service.


A week-and-a-half ago, I wrote a post detailing how a number of fire district boards in Maricopa County had their elections cancelled due to a lack of competition or a lack of candidates.  Out of 17 boards on the ballot this year, 11 saw their elections cancelled.  Two districts had no candidates at all, while five of the others had a few candidates, but an insufficient number to fill out the board.  Those seats will be declared vacant and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will appoint people to fill them (I think)

In addition, the elections for two seats on the Maricopa County Special Health Care District (aka - board of directors of the Maricopa Medical Center and the county health clinics) were cancelled because there is only one candidate for each seat.

Now, the Arizona Republic has published a story highlighting how more than half of all school board races in the county have been cancelled for the same reason.

From the article -

School-board elections were canceled in 32 of the 57 Maricopa County school districts because dozens of races had no candidates or competition for open seats.

For districts, the move means about $547,000 in savings at a time when schools are counting every penny. But the lack of interest in board service reflects a trend across the state.

Once again, most school-board candidates in the Valley have been appointed, rather than elected in November.

According to the Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools' website, as a result of the lack of interest, 54 school board candidates will skip the election and be appointed to the positions they seek, while 12 other seats will be declared vacant and be appointed by the Superintendent at a later date.

Note: a complete list of school board candidates is here.

I actually understand the dearth of candidates for some of the fire boards.  Many of them cover the odd parcels of land within Maricopa County that are surrounded by cities but aren't actually incorporated into any of them.  They generally don't have many people in them,  much less people who are interested in a very low-profile elected office.

School boards, however, affect everyone.

Right now, there is a lot of focus on Arizona's malfunctioning education system and a lot of interest in blaming teachers and adminstrators and students and parents for the problems.  Personally, I blame a majority caucus in the state legislature that is more interested in siphoning public money into corporate coffers than in doing their real jobs, but I digress...

What there isn't enough of is people interested in actually working to fix the problems.

School board members put in a lot of time and effort and take a lot of criticism from people because regardless of what they do, they tick off a significant number of people.

It's the kind of job that receives no pay and little thanks, and thanks to the legislature, insufficient resources to do the job well or even adequately.

And when people grow ever more frustrated with what seems to be an unwinnable fight (improving schools in their neighborhoods and state), more will just throw up their hands in frustration and stop caring.

Look for a growing number of cancelled school board elections in each successive election cycle.

Glassman-McCain debate -

OK, the debate included the Libertarian candidate (David Nolan) and the Green candidate (Jerry Joslyn), but the featured players were Democrat Rodney Glassman and Republican John McCain.

I'll do a full recap when the video archive is posted (either on Glassman's campaign website or on KTVK's), but I can give a summary now -

Glassman did well, but I don't think he landed a knockout blow.

Republicans will still vote for McCain and Democrats will still vote for Glassman.  Glassman may have moved a few independent voters, but he's going to need more than a "few" to pull off the upset of the year in politics.

Best line of the night:

"If we want to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we need to reduce the number of our senators dependend on fossil fuel contributions." - Rodney Glassman

Most awkward moment of the night:

When asked to describe his legislative legacy when compared to great Arizona senators of yore like Carl Hayden (Central Arizona Project) and Ernest McFarland (original GI Bill).

McCain's response -

His "reputation."


That answer may be one of the most completely honest things that McCain said during the entire debate.

He has no actual accomplishments anymore.  He had a few things that he could point to, but in his quest to move far enough right to win the GOP presidential nomination in 2008 and to turn back the challenge of JD Hayworth this year, he has turned his back on everything good he has ever done in D.C. (McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, DREAM Act sponsorship, etc.)

He can't point to work on bringing projects to Arizona - that would be out of character for his "anti-earmark" persona.  Hell, Rick Renzi (Rick freakin' Renzi!) did a better job of that (projects on the Navajo reservation were the main reason he could win re-election in a D-leaning district.)

He can't point to his success fighting earmarks and out-of-control federal spending - earmarks are still around (full disclosure: I don't think that all earmarks are bad, but they should be for public works projects and should be completely transparent) and the U.S. has waged two fantastically expensive off-the-books wars with his enthusiastic support.  Hell, Jeff Flake has been more effective on earmarks than the far more senior McCain, and Flake has had almost no success on the issue.

He can't even point to work on veterans' issues - other than occasionally employing a few for campaign ads, he has done nothing for veterans, despite being one himself (a fact that he always points out, while blithely ignoring his lack of effort on behalf of his fellow vets).  Hell, Harry Mitchell has done more for America's (and Arizona's) veterans in four years than McCain has done in nearly three decades in D.C.

Still, Glassman didn't do as well as he could have, or will need to, in order to defeat McCain.

Still2, McCain didn't put away Glassman.  After the primary debate, Hayworth was toast.  However, Glassman held his own Sunday night.  The next five or so weeks should be very interesting.


My friend Eric summed it up best when he wrote on Facebook that Glassman needs to run as McCain2K against McCain2K10.


John McCain circa 2000 was somebody people could respect and even vote for while disagreeing with him on specific issues.

John McCain circa 2010 looks more like a tired reactionary hack than the energetic maverick that he was just 10 years ago.


OK.  That really was more a recap than the short comment that I had started writing.  It took so long that KTVK has already posted its story on the debate, complete with links to the video.

It took so long that Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion has already posted twice on the debate, here and here.

Later...

Candidate Debates for the week ending October 3, 2010

Most of the following info is from the Clean Elections website...

No CE-sponsored debates for statewide candidates this week.


Legislative debates -

LD4
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
6:00 PM
Windmill Suites at Sun City West
12545 W Bell Road
Surprise, AZ 85374

LD29
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
6:00 PM
Pima Community College District Office
Community Room
4905 E Broadway
Tucson, AZ



LD24

Wednesday, September 29, 2010
6:00 PM
Hampton Inn & Suites
600 E 16th Street
Yuma, AZ 85365

LD30
September 30, 2010
6:00 PM
Pima Community College
East Campus Community Room
8181 E Irvington
Tucson, AZ



LD12

Thursday, September 30, 2010
6:00 PM
Hampton Inn and Suite
2000 N Litchfield Road
Goodyear, AZ 85395


Scottsdale City Council candidate debate:

Arizona Republic City Council Debates
Monday, September 27, 2010
6:00 p.m.

City Hall Kiva Forum
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd.

And the big one of the week, even though it will take place on Sunday, September 26 (before the "week" in this post begins):

U.S. Senate debate. featuring Rodney Glassman, Democratic nominee, and John McCain, Republican incumbent

6 p.m.
Broadcast on KTVK (Phoenix channel 3) and KTTU (Tucson channel 18), carried on cable in Yuma, and livestreamed on AZFamily.com

Should be fun, though probably not quite as popcorn-worthy as the debate between McCain and Hayworth in the R primary.

Later...

The tone-deafness of the Schweikert campaign continues: Palin supports Schweikert

And while some may take the following post as an argument that Schweikert shouldn't accept Palin's support, let me be clear - I think that they're a matched set.

Just not in a good way.  :)

From the Phoenix Business Journal -

Palin steps up campaign against Giffords, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell

Sarah Palin is picking up her online and fundraising efforts on behalf of three Republicans looking to unseat incumbent Arizona Democrats in November.

Palin is urging her supporters to get behind David Schweikert, Paul Gosar and Jesse Kelly in their bids against U.S. Reps. Harry Mitchell of Tempe, Ann Kirkpatrick of Flagstaff and Gabrielle Giffords of Tucson.

Palin has targeted 20 races nationwide where she wants to help Republican challengers.

Sarah Palin may actually be one of the national Republican/tea party figures best-suited to help Schweikert's campaign -

- She quit partway through her only term as governor of Alaska in order to pursue a more lucrative career as a public speaker and would-be Republican king- (or queen-)maker; Schweikert quit partway through his only term as Maricopa County Treasurer in order to pursue a more lucrative career as a Club for Growth-financed candidate for Congress.

- Her partial term as governor was one beset by scandals and ethics complaints; Schweikert's partial term as treasurer was characterized by professionalism and ethics issues, too.

- Her investments include (or perhaps "included", some sources indicate that she divested from them - after people noticed and started asking her about them) making money off of the misery in the Sudan; Schweikert makes money off of the misery of Valley homeowners who are underwater with their mortgages.


To sum up: 

Palin and Schweikert are more focused on their personal careers and enrichment than on public service.

Palin and Schweikert go through life relatively free of the burdens of professionalism and integrity.

And Palin and Schweikert are ruthless in their acquisition of personal wealth.


Yup.  They're perfect for each other.

Vote for Harry Mitchell for Congress.

Later...

Schweikert campaign dusting off old tricks and gimmicks

Perhaps feeling the heat from the success of the recent video released by Harry Mitchell's campaign showing a number of Republicans from CD5 publicly expressing support for the Democratic incumbent, the Schweikert campaign has released its own video showing bipartisan supporters for their candidate.

...Well, make that bipartisan "supporter" (singular) because there is only one person in the video.

Anyway, when Mitchell first ran for Congress in 2006, a similar group of Republicans stepped forward to support the Tempe icon, and then-Congressman JD Hayworth responded with a single Democratic supporter, Craig Columbus, the 2002 D nominee in CD5.  Columbus ran a high $ and ugly primary campaign while virtually rolling over in the general election.  He has been characterized by one long-time Democrat in the district (not me - his candidacy was before my time as an active Democrat) as a "Republican in everything but name."

The "Democrat" recruited by the Schweikert campaign is similarly suspect.  His name is Charlie Harrison, a noted gay rights activist and a self-proclaimed "very liberal" Democrat.

After that, however, his political activities and associations become a little murky.

In the 1990s, he was indicted for perjury as a result of his involvement in the infamous AZScam scandal (Phoenix New Times article here).  Maybe not the best person for Schweikert, with questions surrounding his own ethics, to associate with.

He has contributed money to various political candidates and causes over the last decade.  Some of the recipients of his largesse included long-time Latino activist Alfredo Gutierrez during his 2002 run for the D nomination for governor and a 2006 campaign against an anti-LGBT ballot question.  He's also contributed to Republicans Trent Franks, Roberta Voss, and Sue Gerard.  Voss and Gerard I can sort of understand - they're relatively moderate by the standards of the AZGOP.  But Franks?  Trent freakin' Franks???

More recently, he has been involved in a tiff with the U.S. Forest Service over some "recreational residences" in the Tonto National Forest near Carefree (AZ Republic background here; Phoenix New Times coverage here).  Some of his anger with Mitchell may stem from Harrison's inability to persuade any of AZ's delegation to influence the Forest Service to ignore federal law and its own rules regarding the cabins.  Harrison has also lobbied Franks and Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain to no avail on his pet issue.

However, he has targeted his public anger to the sole Democrat that he has contacted, Harry Mitchell, and has uttered nary a peep about the Republicans.

His association with Schweikert is curious, too. 

Schweikert is running as a generic Republican/tea party candidate espousing a platform that is anti-choice, anti-education, anti-social safety net and worse, yet Harrison supports Schweikert while refering to himself as a "liberal."

And he calls on other "liberals" to vote against "liberal" Harry Mitchell.


Umm...yeah.


Two points here -

1.  I am a liberal Democrat and proud of it.  Anybody who has read this blog knows that.  I am also a fan of Harry Mitchell and proud of it.  Anybody who has read this blog also knows that.  But I have to say, Harry Mitchell is no liberal. 

He's a career public servant.  Throughout his career, from his decades of teaching high school in Tempe to his terms in Congress representing CD5, he has focused on representing the best interests of the people he has served.  I may not have always agreed with some of his votes and positions, but have always had absolutely no doubt that he tries to do the right thing.

He isn't a liberal, but he is a decent man.  Instead of attacking Mitchell for that, Republicans (and liberal-on-one-issue folks like Harrison) should support him as an example of something that ALL elected officials should aspire to.

2. David Schweikert may be a decent man at heart (the jury is still out on that.  Vulture investing will do that), but he's no liberal, or even a moderate who would be acceptable because he is a decent public servant (using public office to give a no-bid contract to a friend will do that).


Harrison may proclaim himself to be a "very liberal Democrat" but the inconsistencies in his campaign contributions (Trent freakin' Franks???) and his support for a candidate who will actively work against him and the causes that he supports over a single personal grievance only speak to Harrison's naivete (a description of him from the New Times' piece on his involvement with AZScam).

Personally, I think he is being petty, but since I haven't met Harrison, I'll stick with the description of people who have met him.

Later...

CD5 a dead heat in the latest polling

From The Hill -

There's new evidence to support Democrats' claims that Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) is running a strong reelection campaign.


A new poll shows the two-term incumbent leading former Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert (R) — albeit by a single point.

Mitchell had 45 percent support to 44 percent for Schweikert, with 6 percent for Libertarian Nick Coons and 5 percent undecided, in an internal poll obtained by the Ballot Box.

With the usual caveats about internal polls, these latest numbers appear to be in line with what I've seen and heard anecdotally while walking, knocking, and talking in the district.

Compared to earlier polling (covered in the linked article), Schweikert's support (44% now vs. 46% then) has stagnated while Mitchell's has risen (45% now vs. 38% then).

At least some of this may be a bit of "blowback" in response to the Schweikert campaign's 60 Plus Association's carpetbombing of District TV screens with their anti-Mitchell TV spot. (I can't remember the last time I could watch an entire hour without seeing the spot at least twice).

People are just sick of the shameless attacks on Mitchell without Schweikert saying how he would be better for the district than Mitchell.

Oh, and more than a few have noticed that the guy who gives his pay raises to charity (Mitchell) is being criticized by the guy who has made a mint off of vulturing foreclosed homes, undercutting neighborhood standards, and serving eviction notices to a 12-year-old.

Schweikert is running as a generic Republican in a district as geographically compact and as familiar with Mitchell as AZ-CD5 and Schweikert has also developed a credibility problem.  It's still early, and he's got time to steer his campaign away from the shoals of electoral irrelevance, but early ballots drop in approximately two weeks. 

He's got that long to get it together, but that would mean deviating from the script handed to him from on high (GOP pooh-bahs like John "Tan Man" Boehner).  He's got some serious problems.

...It's 10:24 and there's that ad again (Channel 15).  Gotta love industries with cash to burn - local TV stations need the revenue.

Prop. 111 appears to be the "least bad" of the lege-initiated ballot questions, but appearances can be deceiving

Wow.  The Arizona Legislature has found a way to turn what should have been the least problematical ballot question, the one that, if passed, would rename the office of the Secretary of State to the office of Lieutenant Governor, into the one most likely to get Arizona slapped around in federal court.

Yet again.

And that's an accomplishment, considering that the other measures foisted off on us by the legislature include an anti-affirmative action question (Prop. 107), an anti-health care reform question (Prop. 106), and an anti-union question (Prop. 113). 

However, dedicated ideologues that they are, they pulled it off.

The rationale for the measure is rooted in the fact that it's been nearly a quarter-century since Arizona had a governor who both entered and exited office as the result of an election.  Because of an impeachment (Evan Mecham), some felony convictions (Da Fifester) and a resignation to accept a promotion to D.C. (Janet Napolitano), three of Arizona's Secretarys of State have ascended to the Governor's office - Rose Mofford, Jane Hull, and Jan Brewer.

The supporters of the measure want to highlight to the public that the SOS is second in line for the ninth floor and want to accomplish that by changing the vote for SOS to a vote for Lt. Governor.  The actual day-to-day duties of the job wouldn't change.

They also wish to make sure that the Lt. Governor and the Governor are from the same party in order to avoid situations where the SOS was a member of a different party than that of the governor she replaced (Mofford was a D, she replaced R Mecham; Brewer is an R who replaced a D in Napolitano).

To be sure, there was some contention over the SOS/Lt. Governor measure, contention that crosses partisan lines - the limited opposition in the lege came from Rs, yet personally, I (a Democrat) don't support it. 

Regardless of the name of the office, the duties will still be that of a secretary of state, not a 'governor-in-waiting" and people should know what they are voting for.  It would have been better to create an actual office of lieutenant governor (not exactly a radical concept - most states have one) or to simply remind voters that AZ doesn't have a Lt. Governor and the line of succession should be one of the factors they consider when choosing an SOS.

There are other problems with the measure.  Robert Robb, a conservative columnist for the Arizona Republic, has pointed out that the language of Prop. 111 would effectively bar independent voters, those not affiliated with a specific recognized political party, from holding either office.

From Prop. 111 -

C. DURING THE PRIMARY ELECTION, CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR SHALL RUN FOR THAT OFFICE SEPARATELY FROM ANY CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. ON COMPLETION OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION, EACH NOMINEE FOR THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR SHALL RUN ON A TICKET AS A JOINT CANDIDATE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION WITH THE NOMINEE FOR THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR FROM THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY AS THE NOMINEE FOR GOVERNOR. AT THE GENERAL ELECTION, A SINGLE VOTE FOR A NOMINEE FOR GOVERNOR SHALL CONSTITUTE A VOTE FOR THAT NOMINEE'S TICKET, INCLUDING THE NOMINEE FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. FOR ANY WINNING CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR AT THE GENERAL ELECTION, THAT WINNING CANDIDATE'S JOINT CANDIDATE FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IS THE WINNING CANDIDATE FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.

Please note the repeated use of the word "shall."  The proposed language would make partisan affiliation for seekers of those two offices mandatory.

As Robb points out in his column, in the era of "disenchantment" with partisan politics, it's probably not the brightest idea to been seen as actively disenfranchising non-affiliated office seekers.

Something else hasn't been pointed out, at least not anywhere that I've yet seen - Arizona is one of the states still subject to the "preclearance" provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 in regard to anything that affects election practices or procedures.

Before any changes to such practices and procedures can go into effect, the changes have to be examined and approved by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

And as something that restricts the pool of candidates eligible to hold the office that oversees the conduct of elections, this definitely seems to qualify for DOJ examination under the Voting Rights Act.

A couple of conversations with people who are a lot more familiar with this area than me seems to bear this out, but the DOJ cannot and will not step in until and unless Prop. 111 is passed by the voters (until then, officially, they have nothing to consider).

Supporters of the measure acknowledge that there are problems, but feel that they can be corrected with bills passed by the legislature.

Perhaps some of the issues could be so corrected, but the actual language of a voter-approved amendment to the AZ Constitution cannot be touched by the legislature.  Period.

The state's Republicans like to gripe about Arizona's inclusion on the list of states subject to "preclearance," but moves like this only serve to ensure that Arizona will remain on the list for the foreseeable future.

Updates as more info becomes available...

Brewer campaign script: Plan A - Lie; Plan B - Run and Hide. Plan C: When Plan B stops working, return to Plan A.

Early this year, Jan Brewer and her quest for an elected term as governor were in trouble.

Deep-pocketed Republican challengers were swamping her in her primary race, and early polling had Terry Goddard defeating her in the general election.

Then Russell Pearce's SB1070 came along, and Brewer's campaign righted itself with Plan A. 

She focused on selling that nativist measure to the Republican base, using stereotypes, extremist rhetoric, and outright lies.

The bill, and her success inciting "energizing" her base forced most of the other R gubernatorial candidates to withdraw from the race.

In addition, polls taken shortly after the primary showed her with a comfortable (~20%) lead over the Democratic nominee for governor, Terry Goddard.

Then came The Debate.

After the brain freeze that will never go away, the grammatical gaffes ("we has did"), and the frantic retreat from the media after the debate, her handlers refused to allow her anywhere near a situation that isn't totally in their control.

That marked the beginning of Plan B.

Run and hide Brewer and her weaknesses until November, and everybody would keep their jobs (and the revenue streams for their real "former" employers).

Then came word on Monday of new polling that shows Goddard has seriously closed on Brewer.

It's become obvious, even to those who have their heads buried in the sand at the bottom of the deepest underground bunker in the state (which has been made to look a *lot* like the 9th floor of the Executive Tower), that running and hiding is no longer a viable plan.

Instead of adapting to the changed circumstances (something that might just involve cranio-rectal dislodgement surgery), they've chosen to go back to Plan A.

Stereotypes, extremist rhetoric, and lies.

From an interview with Jorge Ramos of Univision, via Huffington Post -

RAMOS: But you understand people were upset that you said that the majority of undocumented immigrants were drug mules when in reality they are not. The majority are not.


BREWER: Well, if you know; if you are coming across with the drug cartels, and you're hauling drugs, then you are. And they're probably not doing it willingly; they are probably not doing it willingly.

RAMOS: Do you still believe the majority are drug mules? The majority of undocumented immigrants are bringing drugs to this country?

BREWER: I think that it has increased. I think that it has increased.

If The Debate was Brewer's "Brain Fart" moment, this could well be her "doubling down on a pair of 8s when Goddard is showing a 10" moment.

We'll know in November if her ploy is effective.

Later...

Fact Checking the Arizona Republic

Wherein I have the opportunity to correct one (or more) career journalists on the facts...

One of the advantages of doing this is that I've learned a *lot* about the technical aspects of Arizona politics.  Probably not as much as if I had been a student in one of Harry Mitchell's civics classes at Tempe High, but I've learned enough to actually help out Capitol tour guides on at least one occasion at the legislature.

So my eyebrows raised a little on Sunday when I read this passage from the Arizona Republic's Political Insider column -

Brewer may not have a second in command, but Secretary of State Ken Bennett seems to think he is capable of filling the job.

The "No. 2 spot," as Bennett described his office this week, would get a more powerful title if voters pass Proposition 111. The Nov. 2 ballot measure would essentially eliminate the office of secretary of state, transferring its duties to a newly created lieutenant-governor position.

Bennett said he won't take a stance on propositions that are under his watch as Arizona's current secretary of state, but he supports any "concept" that would make it clear that a vote for secretary of state could be a de facto vote for governor.

During an interview on Wednesday with The Arizona Republic's Editorial Board, Bennett said voters need a reminder that the position he holds is first in line to take over if Arizona's governor dies, resigns or, say, is recruited by the president to be the head of U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

When Brewer, Arizona's former secretary of state, took over for Janet Napolitano, Brewer appointed Bennett to her old job. Now, he is asking voters to elect him as secretary of state over challenger Chris Deschene, D-Window Rock. If he wins, and Prop. 111 passes, voters will be calling him Lt. Gov. Bennett.

Ummm...not-so-minor problem with that last paragraph - if Bennett wins in November, it's highly unlikely that anyone will *ever* refer to him as "Lt. Gov. Bennett."

Even if Prop. 111 passes (far from guaranteed) and survives some inevitable legal challenges (not likely, but more on that tomorrow or Tuesday after I make some phone calls), it won't go into effect until the 2014 cycle.

At that point, if Bennett wins this year, he'll be termed-out as Secretary of State and will be barred from running for the newly-renamed office. 

There *are* a couple of scenarios where Bennett could run for a possible Lt. Governorship.

1. He could lose this year (I like this one - vote Deschene!) and choose to run for it in 2014.

2. He could win this year, serve out the term, take a full term off to reset the term limits clock, and then run for the office again in 2018.

These two scenarios seem highly unlikely.  Regardless of this year's results in the SOS race, if Bennett runs for a statewide office in 2014, it will probably be for Governor.

- If Terry Goddard wins the November election for Governor, look for Bennett, Dean Martin, and one or two other R "big names" to look at challenging him in 2014.

- If Jan Brewer wins in November, she'll be termed-out in 2014 and the race will be for an open seat, and again, Bennett would be in the mix of Rs looking at the seat.

Adding to that is the fact that Bennett is both young enough (~50) and far enough up in Arizona's political food chain that he is still on the "up or out" political trajectory.  Taking a term off and then running for an office he has already held would be seen as the end of the "ascendancy" portion of his career and serve to reduce his credibility as a candidate overall.

Put it all together and neither Bennett nor Deschene (whichever one wins in November) will be referred to as "Lieutenant Governor" after the election, and Bennett will likely never run for that particular office in the event Prop. 111 passes the voters.


More on Prop. 111 later this week...

Ballot updates: Arizona and Maricopa County

Statewide and legislative:

Withdrawals -

Nothing significant that hasn't already been covered, but it's still nice to visit the Secretary of State's page listing withdrawn candidates and see the name of Republican Steve May and seven of the faux-Greens that he helped to scam their way onto the ballot.

The SOS' page listing all official write-in candidates for statewide and legislative candidates is here.

Running unopposed in the general election:

Democrat Jack Jackson Jr., State Senate, LD2
Democrat Steve Gallardo, State Senate, LD13
Democrat Robert Meza, State Senate, LD14
Democrat Leah Landrum, State Senate, LD16
Republican John McComish, State Senate, LD20
Republican Steve Yarbrough, State Senate, LD21
Republican Andy Biggs, State Senate, LD22
Democrat Olivia Cajero Bedford, State Senate, LD27 (2 "write-ins" have declared for the race)
Democrat Linda Lopez, State Senate, LD29

Republicans Doris Goodale and Nancy McLain, State House, LD3
Democrats Richard Miranda and Anna Tovar, State House, LD13
Democrats Chad Campbell and Debbie McCune-Davis, State House, LD14
Republicans Eddie Farnsworth and Steve Urie, State House, LD22

In addition to those candidates who are completely unopposed on November's ballot, a few others face only opponents from "minor" party candidates (i.e. - Libertarians and Greens):

Republican Rich Crandall, State Senate, LD19 - sole opposition is a Libertarian
Democrats Tom Chabin and Albert Hale, State House, LD2 - one Libertarian is on the ballot
Republicans Tom Forese and J.D. Mesnard, State House, LD21 - one Green is on the ballot


Maricopa County:

Non-partisan general election candidate listing here.

Withdrawn from the race for the Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project (CAWCD) -

Joseph Hobbs


Considered elected due to lack of opposition -

Susan Gerard and Elbert Bicknell, Districts 3 and 4 of the Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System

Ruth Coleman, Jeff Gerber, and Edward Hurley of the Chandler County Island Fire District

Joseph Cantelme, Randy Hancock, and Brian Moore of the Daisy Mountain Fire District

Frank Haas and Dwight Music of the Harquahala Valley Fire District

Fern Ward of the Laveen Fire District

Clarence Hein and Burdena Pasenelli of the Rio Verde Fire District

David Calverley, Wayne Morrow, and Peter Reiss of the Scottsdale County Island Fire District

William Hamel and Jack Meyer of the Sun City West Fire District

Diane Price and Michael Sellers of the Sun Lakes Fire District

Victor Zaharchenko of the Tempe County Island Fire District

No candidates for: Aguila and Wickenburg Volunteer Fire Districts.

In addition, many of the above-listed districts didn't have a sufficient number of candidates to fill out their boards, so there may be write-ins or after-election appointments to fill out the district boards.


In partisan races -

Facing token opposition:

Republican Bill Montgomery faces only a Libertarian in his race to serve out the last two years of failed AG candidate Andrew Thomas' unexpired term as Maricopa County Attorney

Republican Mark Anderson faces only a Libertarian in his race for West Mesa Justice of the Peace

Republican Dan Ryan faces an independent write-in candidate in his race for McDowell Mountain Constable


Unopposed:

Democrat Joe Guzman, Justice of the Peace, Agua Fria
Republican Phillip Woolbright, Justice of the Peace, Arrowhead
Democrat Armando Gandarilla, Justice of the Peace, Downtown
Republican Mark Chiles, Justice of the Peace, East Mesa
Democrat C. Steven McMurry, Justice of the Peace, Encanto
Republican Chris Mueller, Justice of the Peace, Hassayampa
Democrat J.B. Getzwiller, Justice of the Peace, Ironwood
Republican Gary Handley, Justice of the Peace, Manistee
Republican Michael Reagan, Justice of the Peace, McDowell Mountain
Republican Gerald Williams, Justice of the Peace, North Valley
Democrat Rachel Torres Carrillo, Justice of the Peace, West McDowell

Democrat Alfredo Gamez, Constable, Agua Fria
Republican Ron Myers, Constable, Arrowhead
Republican William Taylor, Constable, East Mesa
Democrat Maria Ligocki-Russell, Constable, Encanto
Republican Miles Keegan, Constable, Hassayampa
Republican Billy Spurlock, Constable, Ironwood
Republican Lennie McCloskey, Constable, Manistee
Republican Philip Hazlett, Constable, North Valley
Republican James Kevin Jones, Constable, San Marcos
Democrat Ben Miranda, Constable, South Mountain
Republican Joe Arredondo, Constable, University Lakes
Democrat Rudy Santa Cruz, Constable, West McDowell
Republican Fred Arnett, Constable, West Mesa


Updates on the actual races as the general election grows nearer...

Ben Quayle's Grueling Daily Campaign Schedule

I don't normally publish press releases verbatim, and Tedski at Rum, Romanism, Rebellion already has this one up, but it made me laugh. 

And that makes it worth a post of its own. 

From an ADP press release, Ben Quayle's daily schedule -

Ben Quayle - Daily Campaign Schedule


10:00 – 10:30 AM: Wake-up, get ready
Notes: Out of Frosted Flakes, order the maid to go buy more -- this time with a prize!

10:30 – 11:00 AM: Web surfing time
Notes: Use new password Nik gave me to get around Dad’s cybersecurity filters

11:00 – 11:15 AM: Fundraising meeting with Dad
Reminder: Don’t ask questions. Dad gets upset.

11:15 -11:30 AM: Check schedule to see if I have time to debate
Notes: I’m really very busy

11:30 AM – 12:30 PM: Gym
Reminder: Upper body, focus on abs

12:30 – 1:00 PM: Shower
Reminder: Wear the power suit that has the shoulder pads. Gotta look grown-up.

1:00 – 2:00 PM: Lunch – Stingray Sushi
Notes: Trainer says soy paper has fewer carbs

2:00 – 2:05 PM: Check schedule to see if I have time to debate
Notes: It still feels like I’m way busy

2:05 – 2:30 PM: Private tutoring session (Arizona 101)
Reminder: Ask tutor about those cities north and west of Scottsdale.

2:30 – 2:45 PM: Tynwald Capital
Reminder: Make sure Dad’s deposit into company went through so I can collect paycheck

3:00 – 4:00 PM: Play with Louie the Dog. My favorite campaign expenditure!

4:00 – 4:30 PM: Private tutoring session (Congress 101)
Reminder: Ask tutor about D.C. club scene. It better not be lame!

4:30 -5:00 PM: Check in with Dad on fundraising
Reminder: Don’t tell Dad I plan to go out tonight

5:00 – 5:02 PM: Check schedule to see if I have time to debate
Notes: Dude, where does the time go?

5:15 – 6:15 PM: Nap

6:30 – 8:00 PM: Invite bros over to party (keep it cool. no cops)
Notes: Show them new drinking game I invented. Cross between Flip Cup and Beer Pong – Super Beer Flip Cup Pong!

8:00 – 9:30 PM: Dinner at Barcelona

10:00 – 11:30 PM: Pre-club partying
Notes: Don't post any photos to Facebook this time!

11:30 PM – 2:00 AM: Hit the Scottsdale clubs
Notes: Dad’s folks following me, can’t let them catch me out like last time. Call for black Town Car to drive me home.

2:30 AM: Maid tucks me in
Notes: Tomorrow, I’ll think some more about debating. LOL!!!

There's nothing I can add.  I'm a wiseass, but this one is out-of-my-class funny.  Probably because it's closer to the truth than the Quayle camp would care to admit...

David Schweikert has a remarkably low opinion of AZRep reporters

...Of course, he probably has an even lower opinion of wiseass bloggers. :)

From YouTube -




I was going to title this post "Whatthehell was he thinking?", but I understand that Schweikert was on a radio talk show of the "preaching to the choir" variety.  Still, he is smart enough to know that *nothing* that is recorded (video or audio) ever really goes away.

Should make for an interesting conversation when he and Congressman Harry Mitchell sit down with the Rep's editorial board...

The Three Amigos vote against American workers...yet again

They may be poor representatives of the people of their districts, their state, and their country, but dammit, *nobody* can claim that they are inconsistent about it.  They almost always vote against the best interests of their constituents.

On Wednesday, Arizona's Three Amigos, better known as Congressmen Trent Franks, Jeff Flake, and John Shadegg (Rs - Whichever Corporation Is Ponying Up The Campaign Cash That Week) voted as a bloc against H.R.2039, the Congressional Made in America Promise Act of 2009.

The bill simply amends the original Buy American Act by extending its provisions "to articles, materials, and supplies acquired for the use of any legislative branch office, including the House of Representatives and the Senate..."

The Buy American Act requires that when purchasing materials for its use, the government give preference to American-made items.

Extending the provisions of that act to cover materials purchased by and for the chambers of Congress may not have a huge direct economic benefit for American workers (Congress may spend a lot of money on its operations, but it's less than a drop in the bucket of the entire economy), but the move is significant as a symbol of Congress' efforts to address the plight of American workers.

Hence the united opposition of Franks, Flake, and Shadegg.

Shadegg isn't running for reelection (but look for his name to pop up in two years if Jon Kyl doesn't run for another term in the Senate), but the other two are, and are facing strong Democratic opponents.

John Thrasher, the career teacher challenging Franks in CD2, has already sent out a press release highlighting the anti-American worker vote.

Rebecca Schneider, challenging Flake in CD6, has a page on her website highlighting Flake's unwavering "no" votes against anything that would help his district, state, or country.

They can use your help in defeating these stalwarts of the Party of NO - please contribute to John Thrasher's campaign here and to Rebecca Schneider's campaign here.

Later!

Brewer: "crime's up"; FBI: Only if by "up" you mean "down"

Jan Brewer spent most of the spring and summer bolstering her (now-successful) bid for the AZGOP's nomination for governor by playing into the GOP base's fear of the "other," particularly immigrants.  She has spent the last few months spouting off about a growing crime wave that is wracking Arizona, particularly immigrant-caused crimes.

...In her statement regarding her approval of SB1070...

...In the Clean Elections debate for the Republican candidates for governor...

...During an interview with Fox News...

...And in numerous other speeches, interviews, and press releases.

She spends most of her time talking up her stance against immigrants, but ignoring the issues that matter most to Arizonans - the state's failing education system (for their children's future) and the state's cratered economy (for their own present and future).  She has nothing to address those concerns.

Well, it turns out that she has little more than nothing on crime - her alleged "crime wave" that Arizonans from which Arizonans need protection is nothing but a lie.

From the FBI's 2009 crime statistics for Arizona, released on Monday -


Violent crimes: down 13.9% (compared to a national drop of 5.3%)

Violent crime rate (per 100K population): down 15.1% (nationally, decreased 6.1%)


Property crimes: down 11.7% (down 4.6% nationally)

Property crime rate: down 13% (down 5.5% nationally)


Across the board, crime in Arizona has declined at a greater rate than the decline nationally.


I'm guessing that at some point, Brewer's handlers told her to keep driving home the "crime is up" talking point, probably both to bolster support for her among the fearful GOP faithful and to subtly undermine the credibility of the Democratic nominee, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard.

However, lying so brazenly only serves to further undermine her credibility as a candidate best qualified to lead Arizona into the next decade.

And after her dreadful performance during the televised debate with Goddard, she needs to shore up her credibility, not undermine it.

Jim Holway, candidate for CAWCD

In Arizona and across the country, the two most important issues on voters' minds this fall are the kitchen table issues of education and jobs.  They want to have a sense of security about their presents and futures (and those of their children) and will cast their votes for candidates that they think will work to enhance education and fix the economy.

However, this being Arizona, a third item should be added to that list.

Water.

Without it, there won't be many people here to benefit from the education system.  Of course, since there won't be any people here to sustain the economy because people follow jobs as much as or more than jobs follow people, there won't be any need to strengthen Arizona's education system.

Because of that, the need for a sustainable supply of clean water, the most important office that almost no one has ever heard of is the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD).  The members of CAWCD serve as the board of directors of the Central Arizona Project (CAP).  CAP oversees and handles the delivery of Colorado River water to central Arizona (aka - metro Phoenix) and Tucson.

CAWCD, while a low-visibility office, is one that is vital to the long-term viability of Arizona economically and socially, and it is an office where we need elect the most qualified and knowledgeable candidates.

This is the first in a series of posts about some of the candidates in this year's race.

First up:  Jim Holway, a retired water resources manager and educator, and a long-time community activist and leader. 

From an email -

Candidate


Jim Holway

Elect Experienced & Responsible Leadership

Over 20 Years of Water Management Experience:

Arizona Department of Water Resources, Assistant Director

ASU Professor, Water Policy and Sustainability

ASU Coordinator, Arizona Water Institute

Director, Western Lands and Communities Program, Sonoran Institute


Community Leadership:

Phoenix Parks Board, 9 years; Chair for 2 years

Papago Park Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, Chairperson, 3 years

Arizona Town Hall Research Committee, 2 years

Trust for Public Land, Arizona Advisory Council, 4 years

Arizona Heritage Alliance, Board of Directors, 3 years

Governor’s Growing Smarter Oversight Council, 4 years


Education:

PhD Regional Planning, University of North Carolina

BA Political Science, Cornell University


Jim’s experience and leadership skills will help Arizonans to plan and invest for an affordable and sustainable water future.

What is CAWCD?

The Central Arizona Water Conservation District operates the Central Arizona Project, bringing Colorado River water 336 miles across the desert from Lake Havasu through Phoenix to south of Tucson. CAWCD operates the canal system, pumping plants, and the Navajo generating station. The power required to deliver CAP water makes CAWCD the single largest user of electricity in the State of Arizona.

The CAWCD Board is comprised of 15 members from Maricopa, Pinal and Pima counties, each serving a 6 year term. Maricopa County voters will elect 5 board members on November 2, 2010.

Key issues facing the CAWCD Board include:

Promoting efficient operations and wise water use

Securing the next “bucket” of water to supply Central Arizona

Preparing for drought and the potential for more severe future droughts

Maintaining healthy ecosystems and water quality in the Colorado River Basin

Representing Arizona in multi-state and international negotiations

Paid for by Holway for CAWCD

http://www.jimholway.com/  HolwayforCAWCD@gmail.com

Please Vote November 2, 2010

Later...

May out of LD17 race

One of the masterminds of the rash of faux-Green candidacies in close races, Steve May, has withdrawn from the race for a House seat from LD17 (Tempe and south Scottsdale).

From the Arizona Capitol Times -

Former lawmaker Steve May announced Sept. 13 he is terminating his campaign for the House in Legislative District 17.

{snip}

May issued a written statement Sept. 13 about the termination of his campaign. It doesn’t give specific reasons for withdrawing, but says his pursuit of public office as a write-in helped him come to the conclusion that he is personally not ready to hold office again.


“This unique experiment in democracy has also raised my own awareness, and helped me see clearly that personal and political timing must align for a campaign to truly be successful,” May wrote. “I spoke about the need for honest leadership, and I have determined the necessary personal alignment does not exist to continue the campaign.”

Let me translate that quote into simple English.


He's saying he needs to get his s**t together before running for office again.


May's withdrawal from the race comes as a surprise, but perhaps it shouldn't - he was blasted in an Arizona Republic editorial on the faux-Green controversy that was published this weekend and looked *really* bad in an Arizona Capitol Times piece where he admitted to a reporter that he operated his Segway while under the influence, boasted about writing the section of Arizona law that exempted Segways from DUI statutes, and flipped off Tempe police officers who stopped him for operating his Segway while intoxicated.

He's got a lot of s**t to get together.

May is listed as "withdrawn late" so his name may still be on the November ballot.  A call to the Secretary of State's office to clarify that matter went unanswered (actually, I reached an operator, asked for someone who could answer a media inquiry, was transferred to hold, and was eventually disconnected without talking to another person or even having a chance to leave a message.

More later...