From the website of Phoenix channel 15
Showing posts with label 2010 campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010 campaign. Show all posts
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Got some good news, got some bad news
OK, for some it's "bad news, good news"...
...Good news for the Schweikert campaign - this is his third campaign for Congress, and Jackass 3D was #1 at the box office this weekend. Sequels had some strength this weekend.
...Bad news for the Schweikert campaign - the election wasn't this weekend.
...Bad news for the Ken Bennett campaign - setting up an office in the basement of a lobbyist's office doesn't look good for a candidate for an office that is supposed to be all about integrity.
...Good news for Bennett - He's already set up his desk for his post-election job.
...Bad news for Ben "Tater Tot" Quayle in CD3 - a new poll shows him *behind* Democrat Jon Hulburd in the Republican-leaning district.
...Good news for Quayle - if he goes on to lose the race (and since his "unfavorables" are above 50%, that's a strong possibility), he should remember that the son of another famous politician lost his first campaign, a campaign for Congress. When George H.W. Bush tried to buy a seat in Congress for his son George W., the future "worst president ever" failed miserably to win what should have been a "safe" seat for any credible R candidate.
...Of course, that good news for Quayle isn't good news for the rest of us.
...Good news for the Brewer campaign - she's found a way to move attention away from concerns about her health and her ability to serve a full term in the Governor's office..
...Bad news for the Brewer campaign - that way involves irritating voters by hiding from them, decreasing the chance that after the election, she will have the opportunity to serve a full term.
Pic courtesy the Terry Goddard for Governor Facebook page...
At least she was consistent all day - she blew off senior voters during the day, and educators and students during the evening.
...Good news for the Schweikert campaign - this is his third campaign for Congress, and Jackass 3D was #1 at the box office this weekend. Sequels had some strength this weekend.
...Bad news for the Schweikert campaign - the election wasn't this weekend.
...Bad news for the Ken Bennett campaign - setting up an office in the basement of a lobbyist's office doesn't look good for a candidate for an office that is supposed to be all about integrity.
...Good news for Bennett - He's already set up his desk for his post-election job.
...Bad news for Ben "Tater Tot" Quayle in CD3 - a new poll shows him *behind* Democrat Jon Hulburd in the Republican-leaning district.
...Good news for Quayle - if he goes on to lose the race (and since his "unfavorables" are above 50%, that's a strong possibility), he should remember that the son of another famous politician lost his first campaign, a campaign for Congress. When George H.W. Bush tried to buy a seat in Congress for his son George W., the future "worst president ever" failed miserably to win what should have been a "safe" seat for any credible R candidate.
...Of course, that good news for Quayle isn't good news for the rest of us.
...Good news for the Brewer campaign - she's found a way to move attention away from concerns about her health and her ability to serve a full term in the Governor's office..
...Bad news for the Brewer campaign - that way involves irritating voters by hiding from them, decreasing the chance that after the election, she will have the opportunity to serve a full term.
Pic courtesy the Terry Goddard for Governor Facebook page...
At least she was consistent all day - she blew off senior voters during the day, and educators and students during the evening.
Letter to the editor regarding Harry Mitchell
Recently, but more than a week ago, I submitted a letter to the editor to the Arizona Republic. It was considered for publication, but apparently was passed over.
No problem. There are other outlets for my insightful (yet humble) observations. :)
The letter as submitted -
No problem. There are other outlets for my insightful (yet humble) observations. :)
The letter as submitted -
Dear Editor,Volunteer to help Harry keep helping us.
I urge everyone in the 5th Congressional District to support one of Arizona's longtime public servants, Congressman Harry Mitchell.
People, including me, may not agree with every single vote that he casts in Congress, but I've never disagreed with the motivation behind those votes - looking out for the best interests of his constituents.
Whether it is fighting for America's (and Arizona's) veterans, striving for fiscal responsibility in Washington, or working to strengthen our schools, Mitchell has always put his constituents first, and deserves our renewed support.
While his detractors like to ridicule him for "having his heart in the right place," they should consider the idea that in an ideal world, every elected official should have their hearts in the right place..
Voters can send a message by voting to reelect Harry Mitchell.
CD5 is one of the places that still values public service instead of vilifying it.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Felecia Rotellini on KNXV-TV
Could the Republican reliance on secret third party contributions undercut the 2010 "wave"?
Two step recipe for screwing up what should have been a walkover election season for the Republicans:
One - nominate a number of unelectable candidates (like this one).
Two - get caught being arrogantly, overwhelmingly, sleazy. Sleazy to the point of being anti-American.
One of the expected effects of the Citizens United v. FEC ruling earlier this year was the infusion of massive amounts of corporate money into this (and future) election cycles.
That expectation has come to fruition, in spades, with nearly $200 million spent by "outside" groups on U.S. Senate and House races just since September 1.
And while Democrats are leading in traditional, candidate-focused, fundraising and spending, they are being outspent by 9:1 or 10:1 depending on who is doing the scorekeeping. All observers agree however, that Republican-leaning groups are totally swamping their Democratic-leaning counterparts.
Into that mix, add the $75 million that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending to buy Republican control of Congress, money raised anonymously from questionable, possibly foreign, sources.
Now stir and simmer for a bit, and then do a little polling on the subject.
Two polls came out in the last couple of days that independently reinforce each other.
One, commissioned by Allegheny College and conducted by Zogby International, shows that nearly 2/3 of Americans across all partisan, age, and economic demographics, oppose the idea of groups spending heavily in districts in which they aren't located.
The other, commissioned by MoveOn.org and conducted by SurveyUSA, shows that 84% of all voters believe that they have a right to know who is funding political advertisements and most will be less likely to trust candidates supported by anonymous backers.
Looking at the data (and I've done an admittedly superficial overview here), the conclusion seems to be that Americans of all strips are saying -
1. Outside groups butt out!
2. If you're going to ignore that, tell us who you are and who is paying for your message, otherwise we may not vote for your candidate.
It remains to be seen if the average voter is going to look at the overwhelming support that anonymously-funded outside groups have provided for GOP candidates (almost all of whom are pushing regressive economic policies that will benefit large and foreign corporations) before casting their ballots.
Guess we'll just have to wait for the November 3rd and beyond election post-mortems to figure that out.
One - nominate a number of unelectable candidates (like this one).
Two - get caught being arrogantly, overwhelmingly, sleazy. Sleazy to the point of being anti-American.
One of the expected effects of the Citizens United v. FEC ruling earlier this year was the infusion of massive amounts of corporate money into this (and future) election cycles.
That expectation has come to fruition, in spades, with nearly $200 million spent by "outside" groups on U.S. Senate and House races just since September 1.
And while Democrats are leading in traditional, candidate-focused, fundraising and spending, they are being outspent by 9:1 or 10:1 depending on who is doing the scorekeeping. All observers agree however, that Republican-leaning groups are totally swamping their Democratic-leaning counterparts.
Into that mix, add the $75 million that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending to buy Republican control of Congress, money raised anonymously from questionable, possibly foreign, sources.
Now stir and simmer for a bit, and then do a little polling on the subject.
Two polls came out in the last couple of days that independently reinforce each other.
One, commissioned by Allegheny College and conducted by Zogby International, shows that nearly 2/3 of Americans across all partisan, age, and economic demographics, oppose the idea of groups spending heavily in districts in which they aren't located.
The other, commissioned by MoveOn.org and conducted by SurveyUSA, shows that 84% of all voters believe that they have a right to know who is funding political advertisements and most will be less likely to trust candidates supported by anonymous backers.
Looking at the data (and I've done an admittedly superficial overview here), the conclusion seems to be that Americans of all strips are saying -
1. Outside groups butt out!
2. If you're going to ignore that, tell us who you are and who is paying for your message, otherwise we may not vote for your candidate.
It remains to be seen if the average voter is going to look at the overwhelming support that anonymously-funded outside groups have provided for GOP candidates (almost all of whom are pushing regressive economic policies that will benefit large and foreign corporations) before casting their ballots.
Guess we'll just have to wait for the November 3rd and beyond election post-mortems to figure that out.
Jon Hulburd on KNXV-TV
Hulburd is the Democratic nominee in the Third Congression District, squaring off against Ben "Brock Landers" Quayle in the contest to replace the retiring John Shadegg.
Later...
Later...
Penny Kotterman on KNXV-TV (Phoenix channel 15)
KNXV-TV has offered candidates up to 5 minutes of airtime to speak to voters.
Here is the spot of Penny Kotterman, Democratic nominee for Superintendent of Public Instruction.
More later...
Here is the spot of Penny Kotterman, Democratic nominee for Superintendent of Public Instruction.
More later...
New Favorite Website - Iamacrook.com
An ode to Doug Ducey, Republican candidate for state treasurer and renowned former CEO of Cold Stone Creamery...renowned for screwing over Cold Stone's franchisees.
From the fine folks (and sharp wits) at the Arizona Democratic Party, Iamacrook.com.
It covers things like...
A Ducey-led Stone Cold Creamery accepted federal bailout money and won't pay it back...
Ducey regularly didn't pay his taxes, paying the arrears on his Paradise Valley mansion and compound after he opened his campaign for state treasurer...
Ducey's opposition to solar tax credits and other efforts to create jobs in Arizona...
Ducey's opposition to Arizona's employer sanctions law, the law that targets those who encourage illegal immigration by hiring undocumented immigrants...
Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times has more on Ducey here.
The Democratic nominee is for state treasurer is Andrei Cherny. His campaign's TV spot on Ducey's record at Cold Stone -
Later...
From the fine folks (and sharp wits) at the Arizona Democratic Party, Iamacrook.com.
It covers things like...
A Ducey-led Stone Cold Creamery accepted federal bailout money and won't pay it back...
Ducey regularly didn't pay his taxes, paying the arrears on his Paradise Valley mansion and compound after he opened his campaign for state treasurer...
Ducey's opposition to solar tax credits and other efforts to create jobs in Arizona...
Ducey's opposition to Arizona's employer sanctions law, the law that targets those who encourage illegal immigration by hiring undocumented immigrants...
Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times has more on Ducey here.
The Democratic nominee is for state treasurer is Andrei Cherny. His campaign's TV spot on Ducey's record at Cold Stone -
Later...
The gloves coming off in Scottsdale...again
Things in Scottsdale got ugly in 2008, and it looks to be getting the same way in 2010.
In case anyone is thinking the nastiness of the state's and country's political discourse this year hasn't trickled down to local races, think again.
From the Arizona Republic -
Mason is a Scottsdale-based real estate agent and a contributor to Mayor Jim Lane's campaign committee.
Fernandez is a long-time activist in Scottsdale politics, acting as chair or treasurer of a number of committees that are "against" something or other. He has also contributed to the coarsening of Scottsdale's political discourse, utilizing the City Council agenda's "public comment" section to launch personal attacks against certain members of the council and their families, including current target Wayne Ecton.
In the ad in question, they criticize each of three candidates, Linda Milhaven, Ned O'Hearn, and (of course) Wayne Ecton for different votes (Ecton is a current member of the City Council and O'Hearn is a former member of the Council) or activities (Milhaven is a former chair of the Scottsdale Cultural Council).
The best (in a "they really should do their homework" sort of way) was the criticism of Ecton's vote for a retirement-incentive program that encouraged senior City employees to retire early.
The program came in for criticism from some who thought the program was too generous to exiting City employees (one week's pay for each year of service). The program was used to rationalize firing John Little, the former Scottsdale City Manager.
The ENTIRE council voted for the program, not just Ecton.
Yet, Mason, Fernandez, et. al. have targeted their criticisms for only one of the current members running for reelection. Bob Littlefield, one of the clique favored by Lane, Fernandez, Mason, Lamar Whitmer, et. al., is getting a free pass. Late council member Tony Nelssen would have been up for reelection, but his untimely passing ended his campaign. As he was part of the same bloc as Littlefield, I have no doubt he would have received the same free pass.
It will be interesting to see what the Mason/Fernandez group discloses in its campaign filings. I expect their list of contributors to be a short one.
Later...
In case anyone is thinking the nastiness of the state's and country's political discourse this year hasn't trickled down to local races, think again.
From the Arizona Republic -
Two candidates running for Scottsdale City Council have fired back against a recent political advertisement that accused them of raising taxes and increasing spending.The group, Keep Scottsdale's Future Bright, is chaired by Tom Mason and its treasurer is Mike Fernandez.
The ad in Thursday's Scottsdale Republic targets candidates Ned O'Hearn, Linda Milhaven and Councilman Wayne Ecton. Ecton did not immediately respond. Paid for by the Keep Scottsdale's Future Bright committee, it is plastered with the headline "Warning!" and discourages readers from voting for the three, which the ad describes as "the tax and spend trio."
Mason is a Scottsdale-based real estate agent and a contributor to Mayor Jim Lane's campaign committee.
Fernandez is a long-time activist in Scottsdale politics, acting as chair or treasurer of a number of committees that are "against" something or other. He has also contributed to the coarsening of Scottsdale's political discourse, utilizing the City Council agenda's "public comment" section to launch personal attacks against certain members of the council and their families, including current target Wayne Ecton.
In the ad in question, they criticize each of three candidates, Linda Milhaven, Ned O'Hearn, and (of course) Wayne Ecton for different votes (Ecton is a current member of the City Council and O'Hearn is a former member of the Council) or activities (Milhaven is a former chair of the Scottsdale Cultural Council).
The best (in a "they really should do their homework" sort of way) was the criticism of Ecton's vote for a retirement-incentive program that encouraged senior City employees to retire early.
The program came in for criticism from some who thought the program was too generous to exiting City employees (one week's pay for each year of service). The program was used to rationalize firing John Little, the former Scottsdale City Manager.
The ENTIRE council voted for the program, not just Ecton.
Yet, Mason, Fernandez, et. al. have targeted their criticisms for only one of the current members running for reelection. Bob Littlefield, one of the clique favored by Lane, Fernandez, Mason, Lamar Whitmer, et. al., is getting a free pass. Late council member Tony Nelssen would have been up for reelection, but his untimely passing ended his campaign. As he was part of the same bloc as Littlefield, I have no doubt he would have received the same free pass.
It will be interesting to see what the Mason/Fernandez group discloses in its campaign filings. I expect their list of contributors to be a short one.
Later...
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Is Brewer too ill too serve a full term?
I wasn't going to cover this, because it is just a rumor (at this point), and also because I figure her health is her business.
However, her campaign as gone beyond the pale and trotted out a quarter-century-old rumor about Terry Goddard being gay (and only Republicans would counter questions about their candidate's fitness for the job with a rumor about their opponent's sexual orientation).
From John Dougherty, via Blog for Arizona -
Anything that could motivate some "likely voters" to stay home or motivate some of those who had previously planned to sit this one out to jump in would spell disaster for Brewer (and the lobbyists advising her whose clients benefit from her policies).
While the rumors about her health are just that at this point, rumors, a candidate's ability to serve in the job that they are running for is a legitimate concern. By responding to that concern with a slur (I'm pretty sure they didn't mean "Terry Goddard is gay" as a compliment), they run the risk of alienating "swing" or Independent voters, and also of pushing some of the Obama voters from 2008 who were staying home this year into the fray.
The worst part (for the Brewer camp, anyway) is that particular slur will only appeal to voters who weren't going to vote for Goddard anyway.
So to all that I say...
Thank you, Chuck Coughlin.
BTW - Wouldn't Coughlin's time have been better spent figuring out how to spin Arizona's status as the third-worst run state in the country into something positive for his boss? Just sayin'...
However, her campaign as gone beyond the pale and trotted out a quarter-century-old rumor about Terry Goddard being gay (and only Republicans would counter questions about their candidate's fitness for the job with a rumor about their opponent's sexual orientation).
From John Dougherty, via Blog for Arizona -
There are persistent reports from reliable sources that Gov. Jan Brewer is seriously ill and may not be capable of finishing a four-year term. The public has a right to know about her physical fitness now, not after Nov. 2.I realize that some may chalk all this up to "just politics" but it illustrates the desperation of the Brewer camp - the election can't come soon enough for them. They've realized that she has maxed out her support among the electorate and can only go down. The latest poll shows that while she has a solid lead among likely voters, she and Goddard are in a statistical tie among all voters.
Anything that could motivate some "likely voters" to stay home or motivate some of those who had previously planned to sit this one out to jump in would spell disaster for Brewer (and the lobbyists advising her whose clients benefit from her policies).
While the rumors about her health are just that at this point, rumors, a candidate's ability to serve in the job that they are running for is a legitimate concern. By responding to that concern with a slur (I'm pretty sure they didn't mean "Terry Goddard is gay" as a compliment), they run the risk of alienating "swing" or Independent voters, and also of pushing some of the Obama voters from 2008 who were staying home this year into the fray.
The worst part (for the Brewer camp, anyway) is that particular slur will only appeal to voters who weren't going to vote for Goddard anyway.
So to all that I say...
Thank you, Chuck Coughlin.
BTW - Wouldn't Coughlin's time have been better spent figuring out how to spin Arizona's status as the third-worst run state in the country into something positive for his boss? Just sayin'...
Monday, October 11, 2010
Mitchell lead widening in CD5
From the DCCC (link added) -
Volunteer to help Arizona. Volunteer to help elect Democrats.
Mitchell Leads Schweikert by 7 in New AZ-05 Poll
A new Benenson Strategy Group poll shows Representative Harry Mitchell leading Republican challenger David Schweikert by 7 percent. Mitchell leads Schweikert 46 percent to 39 percent. Conducted October 5-7, the poll surveyed 400 likely voters and has a 4.9 percent margin of error.This news, on top of the news that Terry Goddard has closed to within 3 percentage points (among all voters) of Jan Brewer in a recent poll, drives home the point that while Democrats in AZ have made strides, getting out the vote will be vital for the next 3 weeks.
Volunteer to help Arizona. Volunteer to help elect Democrats.
Just a reminder - important dates during this election season
Courtesy the Maricopa County Recorder's Office -
October 4, 2010 - Deadline to register to vote for the November election. Already passed.
October 7, 2010 - Early voting begins. Early voting locations and hours listed here. Depending on the location, the deadline to drop ballots off at one of those locations is either the Thursday (10/28) or Friday (10/29) before the election. Already filled out and mailed back my ballot.
October 22, 2010 - Deadline to request an early ballot.
November 2, 2010 - Election Day. All early ballots must be turned into County Elections or a polling place by 7 p.m.
November 3, 2010 - The 2012 campaign season kicks off. (OK, this last one is my personal addition to the list. It'll start slow, but really kick into high gear when redistricting is complete in 2011. :) )
Later...
October 4, 2010 - Deadline to register to vote for the November election. Already passed.
October 7, 2010 - Early voting begins. Early voting locations and hours listed here. Depending on the location, the deadline to drop ballots off at one of those locations is either the Thursday (10/28) or Friday (10/29) before the election. Already filled out and mailed back my ballot.
October 22, 2010 - Deadline to request an early ballot.
November 2, 2010 - Election Day. All early ballots must be turned into County Elections or a polling place by 7 p.m.
November 3, 2010 - The 2012 campaign season kicks off. (OK, this last one is my personal addition to the list. It'll start slow, but really kick into high gear when redistricting is complete in 2011. :) )
Later...
Schweikert: nothing else is working, so it's time to lie
In his never-ending quest to gain a seat in Congress, Republican David Schweikert has gotten desperate -
He's loaned his campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money (much of it from his neighborhood-destroying vulture investing) to his own campaign...
He's gone juvenile, spending money on "counter" signs to be posted next to Harry Mitchell's signs, and then crying foul when the Mitchell signs are moved after he put up the insults.
All of this has put him close to or ahead of Mitchell in various polls (some of questionable provenance, but even the credible polls put him close to Mitchell), but none of his games or the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of outside group (RNCC or corporate) spending has put him over the top.
So now he is resorting to outright lies.
In the video, Schweikert claims that Mitchell has voted for Obama-era budget bills repealing the Bush-era tax cuts on capital gains that Schweikert supports.
Yet, Mitchell hasn't. In fact, he is cited in this Chicago Tribune article from March 2009 as one of the Ds standing in the way of the Obama budget, standing in the way because of the rollback of specific tax cuts.
Mitchell has also voted against Obama-era (2009 or later) budget and appropriation bills here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
When he's voted against budget/appropriations bills, he has consistently cited concerns over D.C. spending, and just as consistently, he has voted against tax increases, even ones that were just a rollback of Bush-era tax cuts targeted at the wealthy.
That's just the truth, something that David Schweikert has little use for, apparently.
Thanks to Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion for the heads-up on this, and the history lesson.
He's loaned his campaign hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money (much of it from his neighborhood-destroying vulture investing) to his own campaign...
He's gone juvenile, spending money on "counter" signs to be posted next to Harry Mitchell's signs, and then crying foul when the Mitchell signs are moved after he put up the insults.
All of this has put him close to or ahead of Mitchell in various polls (some of questionable provenance, but even the credible polls put him close to Mitchell), but none of his games or the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of outside group (RNCC or corporate) spending has put him over the top.
So now he is resorting to outright lies.
In the video, Schweikert claims that Mitchell has voted for Obama-era budget bills repealing the Bush-era tax cuts on capital gains that Schweikert supports.
Yet, Mitchell hasn't. In fact, he is cited in this Chicago Tribune article from March 2009 as one of the Ds standing in the way of the Obama budget, standing in the way because of the rollback of specific tax cuts.
Mitchell has also voted against Obama-era (2009 or later) budget and appropriation bills here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
When he's voted against budget/appropriations bills, he has consistently cited concerns over D.C. spending, and just as consistently, he has voted against tax increases, even ones that were just a rollback of Bush-era tax cuts targeted at the wealthy.
That's just the truth, something that David Schweikert has little use for, apparently.
Thanks to Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion for the heads-up on this, and the history lesson.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Sen. Sylvia Allen: Block Buster
*Writer's* Block Buster, that is...
Sylvia Allen (R-Snowflake) has moved into that pantheon of Republican greats - the ones like Russell Pearce, JD Hayworth, and Jack Harper.
The ones any snarky writer can turn to in times of an empty creative jar.
The ones who can be counted on to provide ample subject material, no matter how dry a spell one is going through.
The ones who can be counted on to open mouth and insert foot, and if they realize what they've done, ask for some mustard to zest things up.
From the Payson Roundup (h/t to a couple of Facebook friends for the link; the Roundup is *not* in the regular rotation of personal reading):
Ahhhhh....Sylvia, Sylvia, Sylvia - Thank You!
Let's see. She's...
...brought national ridicule on to Arizona by pronouncing (during a televised senate committee hearing!) that the Earth is 6000 years old and is doing fine, so we should strip mine us some uranium, environmental concerns be damned.
...determined that trees are the reason that Arizona doesn't have enough water (6/15/09 Senate Natural Resources, Infrastructures and Public Debt)
...exhorted her colleagues during a meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee (7/30/2009) "We have to think 'What are *we* doing for the wealthy?' "
Now she's added a two-fer to her resume of "strange but real" quotes for writers all over the state to ridicule.
Regarding the notion that manufacturing in China is growing because of fewer regulations - China is a Communist country, and is one of the most heavily regulated economies in the world. They deliberately stifle competition there. What they don't have much of is environmental regulations, which is why they have one of the most polluted environments in the world to go along with the heavily regulated economy.
And then for a person who claims to support the ideal of "less government" to praise a hated symbol of a tyrannical regime because of its "success at keeping people where the government wanted them"? [quoting the article's paraphrase of Allen]
Good God.
What's next? Praise for Saudi Arabia for imposition of Sharia law and its emphasis on "traditional" roles for women?
Elaine Bohlmeyer, the Democratic candidate for Senate in LD5, has a campaign slogan of "Bringing Logic To Arizona Government."
I wonder if Allen views that slogan as a direct rebuke?
Sylvia Allen (R-Snowflake) has moved into that pantheon of Republican greats - the ones like Russell Pearce, JD Hayworth, and Jack Harper.
The ones any snarky writer can turn to in times of an empty creative jar.
The ones who can be counted on to provide ample subject material, no matter how dry a spell one is going through.
The ones who can be counted on to open mouth and insert foot, and if they realize what they've done, ask for some mustard to zest things up.
From the Payson Roundup (h/t to a couple of Facebook friends for the link; the Roundup is *not* in the regular rotation of personal reading):
State senate candidates Elaine Bohlmeyer and incumbent Sen. Sylvia Allen faced off during Tuesday’s Clean Elections debate, expressing opposing views on everything from reinvigorating the economy to the state’s role in the immigration and health care debates.
{snip}
Allen, however, twice referenced communist Germany and China as having possible solutions to some of Arizona’s most daunting problems.
{snip}
To increase jobs, Allen said the nation should increase manufacturing. “America is in a lot of trouble,” she said. “The government grew this decade faster than the private sector.” Allen said jobs could grow by decreasing government regulation.
She gave the example of China, which she said has a $2 trillion surplus, compared to America, which has a debt of $13.5 trillion, and attributed the difference to less government regulation in China.
{snip}
When asked about immigration reform, Allen praised the Berlin Wall — although she quickly said, “I hated it,” — for its success at keeping people where the government wanted them.
Ahhhhh....Sylvia, Sylvia, Sylvia - Thank You!
Let's see. She's...
...brought national ridicule on to Arizona by pronouncing (during a televised senate committee hearing!) that the Earth is 6000 years old and is doing fine, so we should strip mine us some uranium, environmental concerns be damned.
...determined that trees are the reason that Arizona doesn't have enough water (6/15/09 Senate Natural Resources, Infrastructures and Public Debt)
...exhorted her colleagues during a meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee (7/30/2009) "We have to think 'What are *we* doing for the wealthy?' "
Now she's added a two-fer to her resume of "strange but real" quotes for writers all over the state to ridicule.
Regarding the notion that manufacturing in China is growing because of fewer regulations - China is a Communist country, and is one of the most heavily regulated economies in the world. They deliberately stifle competition there. What they don't have much of is environmental regulations, which is why they have one of the most polluted environments in the world to go along with the heavily regulated economy.
And then for a person who claims to support the ideal of "less government" to praise a hated symbol of a tyrannical regime because of its "success at keeping people where the government wanted them"? [quoting the article's paraphrase of Allen]
Good God.
What's next? Praise for Saudi Arabia for imposition of Sharia law and its emphasis on "traditional" roles for women?
Elaine Bohlmeyer, the Democratic candidate for Senate in LD5, has a campaign slogan of "Bringing Logic To Arizona Government."
I wonder if Allen views that slogan as a direct rebuke?
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Dana Saar for Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board
The District 2 (most of Mesa, Scottsdale, and Fountain Hills) seat on the MCCCD Governing Board currently held by Jerry Walker (R-embarrassment) in on this year's ballot. It's not my district (I live in SD-1), so I haven't commented on it much before now.
There is a challenger for the job, Dana Saar. He is a long-time school board member in Fountain Hills and has been a teacher and technical trainer. He has the intelligence, education, and temperment to be an outstanding member of the MCCCD Governing Board. Given the recent tribulations of the Board, he may be exactly what it (and the faculty, staff, and over 100K students of the District) need.
Of course, even if Saar was a moss-covered tree stump, he would be an improvement over the current officeholder, Walker.
Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic has a great summary of some of Mr. Walker's more "colorful" activities here.
From the column -
Roberts describes Walker's behavior as that of a "boob." While the rest of her column was dead on (it was actually a discussion of how supporting the First Amendment and free speech can be inconvenient sometimes, when folks like Walker misuse that right so egregiously), she used the wrong body part to describe Walker and his behavior.
He's an ass.
And it is time to kick the resident ass of the MCCCD Governing Board to the electoral curb.
Vote for Dana Saar.
There is a challenger for the job, Dana Saar. He is a long-time school board member in Fountain Hills and has been a teacher and technical trainer. He has the intelligence, education, and temperment to be an outstanding member of the MCCCD Governing Board. Given the recent tribulations of the Board, he may be exactly what it (and the faculty, staff, and over 100K students of the District) need.
Of course, even if Saar was a moss-covered tree stump, he would be an improvement over the current officeholder, Walker.
Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic has a great summary of some of Mr. Walker's more "colorful" activities here.
From the column -
While Walker may not have violated any policies, the investigations paint a picture of a public official who demonstrates an astonishing lack of restraint in the things he says and a willingness – maybe even an eagerness -- to throw his weight around, all while standing on the broad shoulders of the First Amendment.Note: An AZRep article on the "investigation" mentioned by Roberts is here. Saar's endorsement by the Arizona Republic (predating both the investigation article and the Roberts column) here.
A few examples:
In 2006, he forwarded an e-mail to an aide, mocking the accent and intelligence of Mexicans. When Chancellor Rufus Glasper mentioned that the aide worried she might be targeted for dismissal because she complained, Walker's reported response was to say that she should feel that her job is threatened, as should Glasper, for bringing it up. He then told staffers that Glasper was going to be fired.
In 2009, he was expounding on his views about Democrats to a contract security guard when a second guard asked him to stop, calling his remarks offensive. Walker then turned on that 21-year-old guard, saying she was just like other Democrats, “ignorant and dumb.” The next day, he asked that she be fired.
That same year, he accompanied students to Washington, where they lobbied Congress on education issues. As one student spoke about the DREAM Act, Walker repeatedly interrupted her and later berated her as she walked down a hallway. “He saw fit to belittle and demean the student in a most public, inappropriate and embarrassing manner,” the investigator wrote.
Walker contends he did nothing wrong.
Roberts describes Walker's behavior as that of a "boob." While the rest of her column was dead on (it was actually a discussion of how supporting the First Amendment and free speech can be inconvenient sometimes, when folks like Walker misuse that right so egregiously), she used the wrong body part to describe Walker and his behavior.
He's an ass.
And it is time to kick the resident ass of the MCCCD Governing Board to the electoral curb.
Vote for Dana Saar.
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Arizona Republic editorial board to its readers: Arizona may be in lousy shape, but you should vote for the status quo
Liberals like to claim that the Arizona Republic is a "conservative" paper, but it's not. (Though to be fair, many of them remember the not-so-distant days when the Rep was officially named the "Arizona Republican" or less officially served as the press release outlet for the Arizona Republican Party.)
Conservatives like to claim that the Rep is a "liberal" paper, but it isn't. (It just isn't a mouthpiece for the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" wing of the AZGOP.)
Instead, the Arizona Republic is a "corporate" paper, dedicated to defending corporate profit margins. Since most corporations operate in such a way as to derive the maximum profit from the political status quo, the Republic has become a staunch defender of that status quo.
Their latest list of election endorsements clearly illustrate this tendency.
- They passed over Terry Goddard in giving their endorsement in the race for governor to Jan Brewer. They called Goddard an "articulate, dedicated servant of the people of this state" yet gave the nod to Brewer, citing her ability to "handle the legislature" (apparently, the Rep's editorial board slept through all of 2009) and her disbanding of the state's Department of Commerce in favor of a meaningless (and authority-less) "Commerce Authority." What they also liked was her support for "enhancing prospects for job creation" - better known as blanket tax cuts directed to corporations.
- They ignored Rodney Glassman (literally! He wasn't even mentioned in the article!) in giving their endorsement for U.S. Senate to John McCain. In the opinion piece, they cited "McCain's role in all those great national and world debates," such as the debates over the war in Iraq and campaign finance reform. What they didn't cite were McCain's accomplishments for Arizona. They couldn't cite those accomplishments, because there aren't any. This particular endorsement also isn't a surprise, even aside from its "status quo" characteristics - the Rep's editorial board has been in the McCain family pocket for decades (is Dan Nowicki the Republic's reporter who is embedded with McCain's staff, or is he the McCain staffer embedded with the Republic? Either way, the effect, and the final product, is the same...)
- The Rep's endorsement of Ann Kirkpatrick in the CD1 race also serves to illustrate the Rep's "status quo" bias - she's an incumbent, and while a Democrat, she's a conservative one who thoroughly supports Big Business. Note: While I too support and recommend voting for her, it's because she is the better candidate, not a great candidate.
- The logic the Rep's editorial board used when passing over Penny Kotterman when endorsing John Huppenthal for State Superintendent of Public Instruction astounds me, even when allowing for their "status quo" bias. They cite his 18 years of legislative experience focusing on education issues and then follow it up with this quote -
Their endorsement is as sensible as a doctor sitting down with a patient who has been diagnosed with lung cancer after decades of smoking and suggesting that the patient could cure the cancer by smoking more cigarettes.
- In a bit of a surprise, the Rep's editorial board endorsed Felecia Rotellini over Tom Horne for Attorney General. They complimented her as "smart and unflappable," which is very true, but Tom Horne is a current office holder and an establishment Republican. This would seem to disprove my "status quo bias" position, until one remembers that, like Rotellini, Terry Goddard, the current Attorney General, is smart, unflappable, and a Democrat.
- However, the Rep did spring one big surprise on voters, and not in a good way. They twisted themselves like a pretzel to find a way to ignore Jon Hulburd and give their CD3 endorsement to Ben Quayle.
First, they opened up their piece with -
Could the Quayle family's previous ownership of the Republic have influenced the endorsement? Nahhhh, couldn't be...
The headline for the Rep's endorsement was "Ben Quayle offers candor, conviction."
Given that Quayle's previous "candor" indicated a deep disrespect for women and could lead to convictions of the criminal variety if he becomes part of the free-for-all social environment in D.C.'s political subculture, instead of being a surprise, perhaps the Rep's endorsement of his [possible] ascension to Congress would be in perfect keeping with their desire to maintain the status quo.
Less than a week ago, the Republic actually brought themselves some credit with their list of endorsements for the Central Arizona Water Conservation District - the candidates they endorsed were intelligent, educated, experienced, and highly-qualified for the job.
Apparently, however, those qualities are desirable only in candidates for lower-profile (though extremely important) offices.
I may agree with some of the Rep's coming endorsements, but where I will support the candidates who are better for Arizona, they'll be supporting the candidates who they see as most protective of their preferred status quo.
Conservatives like to claim that the Rep is a "liberal" paper, but it isn't. (It just isn't a mouthpiece for the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" wing of the AZGOP.)
Instead, the Arizona Republic is a "corporate" paper, dedicated to defending corporate profit margins. Since most corporations operate in such a way as to derive the maximum profit from the political status quo, the Republic has become a staunch defender of that status quo.
Their latest list of election endorsements clearly illustrate this tendency.
- They passed over Terry Goddard in giving their endorsement in the race for governor to Jan Brewer. They called Goddard an "articulate, dedicated servant of the people of this state" yet gave the nod to Brewer, citing her ability to "handle the legislature" (apparently, the Rep's editorial board slept through all of 2009) and her disbanding of the state's Department of Commerce in favor of a meaningless (and authority-less) "Commerce Authority." What they also liked was her support for "enhancing prospects for job creation" - better known as blanket tax cuts directed to corporations.
- They ignored Rodney Glassman (literally! He wasn't even mentioned in the article!) in giving their endorsement for U.S. Senate to John McCain. In the opinion piece, they cited "McCain's role in all those great national and world debates," such as the debates over the war in Iraq and campaign finance reform. What they didn't cite were McCain's accomplishments for Arizona. They couldn't cite those accomplishments, because there aren't any. This particular endorsement also isn't a surprise, even aside from its "status quo" characteristics - the Rep's editorial board has been in the McCain family pocket for decades (is Dan Nowicki the Republic's reporter who is embedded with McCain's staff, or is he the McCain staffer embedded with the Republic? Either way, the effect, and the final product, is the same...)
- The Rep's endorsement of Ann Kirkpatrick in the CD1 race also serves to illustrate the Rep's "status quo" bias - she's an incumbent, and while a Democrat, she's a conservative one who thoroughly supports Big Business. Note: While I too support and recommend voting for her, it's because she is the better candidate, not a great candidate.
- The logic the Rep's editorial board used when passing over Penny Kotterman when endorsing John Huppenthal for State Superintendent of Public Instruction astounds me, even when allowing for their "status quo" bias. They cite his 18 years of legislative experience focusing on education issues and then follow it up with this quote -
We believe the sort of reform advocated by John Huppenthal is best for improving Arizona's often dismal comparative standing on the crucial questions of how best to improve schools.Ummm...do they understand that Huppenthal and the "reforms" pimped by him are some of the major reasons for Arizona's "dismal comparative standing" on most education-related metrics? And that his experience in the lege has included years of trying to slowly destroy public education in Arizona?
Their endorsement is as sensible as a doctor sitting down with a patient who has been diagnosed with lung cancer after decades of smoking and suggesting that the patient could cure the cancer by smoking more cigarettes.
- In a bit of a surprise, the Rep's editorial board endorsed Felecia Rotellini over Tom Horne for Attorney General. They complimented her as "smart and unflappable," which is very true, but Tom Horne is a current office holder and an establishment Republican. This would seem to disprove my "status quo bias" position, until one remembers that, like Rotellini, Terry Goddard, the current Attorney General, is smart, unflappable, and a Democrat.
- However, the Rep did spring one big surprise on voters, and not in a good way. They twisted themselves like a pretzel to find a way to ignore Jon Hulburd and give their CD3 endorsement to Ben Quayle.
First, they opened up their piece with -
Ben Quayle, a Republican, may be the best-known congressional candidate in the country who isn't a member of the "tea party." That shouldn't matter to voters in District 3, which stretches from north-central Phoenix to New River. They don't need a celebrity. They need the best representative they can elect.In the next paragraph, they follow that up with -
If this were a job interview, Democrat Jon Hulburd would have the large advantage. He rose to become a partner at Fennemore Craig, one of Phoenix's top law firms. He left to start an import business. He has career and community accomplishments that Quayle can't match.So naturally, after pointing out Quayle's celebrity status and saying that CD3 doesn't need a celebrity in Congress, and Hulburd's vastly superior resume and qualifications, they gave their endorsement to Quayle -
But elections aren't just about resumes. They're about ideas. And on that score, Quayle is the better candidate to succeed John Shadegg. Quayle is well-versed in the issues. He speaks with passion and conviction.So, the Rep soft-pedals Quayle's lack of qualifications for any elected office, much less a seat in Congress, and completely ignores his pre-candidacy career as a writer for the website Dirty Scottsdale, under the porn-riffic nom de plume "Brock Landers."
Could the Quayle family's previous ownership of the Republic have influenced the endorsement? Nahhhh, couldn't be...
The headline for the Rep's endorsement was "Ben Quayle offers candor, conviction."
Given that Quayle's previous "candor" indicated a deep disrespect for women and could lead to convictions of the criminal variety if he becomes part of the free-for-all social environment in D.C.'s political subculture, instead of being a surprise, perhaps the Rep's endorsement of his [possible] ascension to Congress would be in perfect keeping with their desire to maintain the status quo.
Less than a week ago, the Republic actually brought themselves some credit with their list of endorsements for the Central Arizona Water Conservation District - the candidates they endorsed were intelligent, educated, experienced, and highly-qualified for the job.
Apparently, however, those qualities are desirable only in candidates for lower-profile (though extremely important) offices.
I may agree with some of the Rep's coming endorsements, but where I will support the candidates who are better for Arizona, they'll be supporting the candidates who they see as most protective of their preferred status quo.
Friday, October 01, 2010
The 2010 ballot questions...
Early ballots drop next week, and the deadline for registering to vote in November's election is on Monday, so it is time to start discussing specific positions on the ballot questions (and the timing is also good because it ties in with yesterday's post)...
There are 10 statewide ballot questions this November. The legislature placed nine of them on the ballot, usually but not always on party-line votes.
While I have provided a very brief summary of the propositions (with my intended votes), with links to the actual text, other groups have put together far more comprehensive summaries -
The Arizona Secretary of State has released a Ballot Measures Publicity Pamphlet. It can be found at http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/contents.htm. It contains the language of the propositions, a summary of each proposition from the Legislative Council, and “for” and “against” arguments.
When they have completed it, the Arizona Advocacy Network will have its own summary of the ballot propositions at http://www.azadvocacy.org/resources/ballotguides.html.
The Arizona chapter of the League of Women Voters has a guide to the propositions out, too - http://www.lwvaz.org/azvoterservice/LWV%202010%20Voter%20Guide.pdf
The first seven questions are proposed amendments to Arizona’s constitution, and all were placed on the ballot by the legislature.
Note: where the name of a national organization is indicated as opposing or supporting a specific measure, unless otherwise noted, I'm referring to the Arizona chapter of that national organization.
Proposition 106 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202014.pdf
Prop. 106 is an anti-health care reform supported by the insurance industry. It would bar the creation of a single-payer health insurance system or a viable “public option.” Based on arguments submitted for the publicity pamphlet, the measure is supported by the insurance industry, Republican Party, and the tea party wing of the Republican Party. It is opposed by the Green Party, NOW, Arizona Association of Retired Persons, Arizona Education Association, and the League of Women Voters. The medical community seems split, but most of the MDs/RNs who submitted “for” arguments had them paid for by one or another insurance industry front group.
NO.
Proposition 107 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202019.pdf
Prop. 107 would bar affirmative action measures and rules. It is supported by Republicans like Russell Pearce, Tom Horne, and Rachel Alexander (a lawyer who worked for Andrew Thomas as a communications person). It is opposed by the Arizona Education Association, League of Women Voters, NOW, Greater Phoenix Urban League, and Ann Wallack, chair of the Maricopa County Democratic Party.
Hell NO.
Proposition 109 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202008.pdf
Prop. 109 is an amendment to Arizona’s constitution that would give the right to hunt and fish in Arizona the same status as the rights of free speech and habeas corpus. It is supported by various Republicans, including Jan Brewer, and hunting and fishing advocacy groups. Opposed by the Humane Society and the Sierra Club.
NO.
Proposition 110 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/SCR%201047.pdf
Prop. 110 would change the rules regarding state trust lands to allow the exchange of lands in order to protect Arizona’s military bases. Supported by a wide variety of groups; no “against” arguments were submitted for the publicity pamphlet. While this measure has a lot of support, I’m hesitant about one clause.
Section D.4. (emphasis mine) -
Yeah...that language would allow the lege and a state government dominated by hacks to get rid lands meant to benefit Arizona and its education system and to do so without public notice.
There are specific conditions under which such transfers would be allowed, but without public oversight, who would know if those conditions were being met?
Pardon my cynicism, but NO.
Proposition 111 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/SCR%201013.pdf
Prop. 111 is an amendment to Arizona’s constitution that would change the title of Secretary of State to Lieutenant Governor and require a party’s nominees for Governor and Lt. Governor to run as a single ticket in the general election. This one has a major problem that may not survive a legal challenge – the language of the proposition passed by the legislature effectively bars independent candidates from ever running for either position.
I understand and empathize the rationale behind the desire for creating a Lieutenant Governor in Arizona, but this isn't the way to accomplish that goal.
NO.
Proposition 112 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202018.pdf
Prop. 112 would change the deadline for submitting signatures for initiative petitions to six month before a general election. Current law requires petition signatures to be submitted four months before a general election. Many arguments in favor; none were submitted against the proposition.
There are 10 questions on the ballot. The legislature has submitted nine of them, and the citizens of Arizona only one. Yet the lege sees fit to make it more difficult for *citizens* to propose ballot questions?
NO.
Proposition 113 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/SCR%201001.pdf
Prop. 113 is an anti-“card check” measure that would require a secret ballot in any election, including union organizing efforts. Supported by various industry groups; opposed by unions and the Arizona Advocacy Network.
NO.
Proposition 203 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/I-04-2010.pdf
Prop. 203 would legalize the use of small amounts of marijuana for medically prescribed purposes. This is the only proposition placed on the ballot via the initiative petition process. Supported by patients; opposed by anti-drug use groups and law enforcement officials.
Probable YES.
Proposition 301 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202002.pdf
Prop. 301 would overturn a measure previously approved by the voters and sweep all funds from the Land Conservation Fund. Supported by the anti-tax group Arizona Tax Research Association; opposed by the Arizona Education Association, Sierra Club, League of Women Voters, Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, The Sonoran Institute, and the McDowell Sonoran Conservancy.
Proposition 302 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202001.pdf
Prop. 302 would overturn a measure previously approved by the voters and terminate the First Things First early childhood education program and sweep all of its funds into the state’s General Fund. Supported by the Arizona Farm Bureau, Arizona Tax Research Association, and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry; opposed by the Arizona Education Association, Valley of the Sun United Way, League of Women Voters, Pima County Pediatric Society, United Way of Yuma County, Arizona Public Health Association, Stand for Children Arizona, United Way of Northern Arizona, NOW, Arizona Dental Association, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Arizona Child Care Association, Protecting Arizona's Family Coalition (PAFCO), Arizona School Boards Association, First Things First, Children's Action Alliance, Eddie and Nadine Basha, ASU president Michael Crow, former governor Rose Mofford, and former governor Raul Castro.
Hell NO on both of these. They're shortsighted and soulless attempts to use the state's structural deficit, something created by Republicans with their never-ending drive to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy, as a wedge to attack programs mandated by the voters.
The Republicans in the legislature simply want to siphon money intended for purposes that provide a long-term to benefit society into corporate coffers to pump up short-term profit margins via even more directed tax cuts and credits.
Arizona has a strong tendency of voting against ballot measures that seem to be even the least bit hinky; this year, that would be a good attitude for all voters to take with them when they vote. Most of the measures have serious issues in regard to who they really benefit (hint: not average Arizonans!) or in how poorly they were drafted.
There are 10 statewide ballot questions this November. The legislature placed nine of them on the ballot, usually but not always on party-line votes.
While I have provided a very brief summary of the propositions (with my intended votes), with links to the actual text, other groups have put together far more comprehensive summaries -
The Arizona Secretary of State has released a Ballot Measures Publicity Pamphlet. It can be found at http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/contents.htm. It contains the language of the propositions, a summary of each proposition from the Legislative Council, and “for” and “against” arguments.
When they have completed it, the Arizona Advocacy Network will have its own summary of the ballot propositions at http://www.azadvocacy.org/resources/ballotguides.html.
The Arizona chapter of the League of Women Voters has a guide to the propositions out, too - http://www.lwvaz.org/azvoterservice/LWV%202010%20Voter%20Guide.pdf
The first seven questions are proposed amendments to Arizona’s constitution, and all were placed on the ballot by the legislature.
Note: where the name of a national organization is indicated as opposing or supporting a specific measure, unless otherwise noted, I'm referring to the Arizona chapter of that national organization.
Proposition 106 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202014.pdf
Prop. 106 is an anti-health care reform supported by the insurance industry. It would bar the creation of a single-payer health insurance system or a viable “public option.” Based on arguments submitted for the publicity pamphlet, the measure is supported by the insurance industry, Republican Party, and the tea party wing of the Republican Party. It is opposed by the Green Party, NOW, Arizona Association of Retired Persons, Arizona Education Association, and the League of Women Voters. The medical community seems split, but most of the MDs/RNs who submitted “for” arguments had them paid for by one or another insurance industry front group.
NO.
Proposition 107 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202019.pdf
Prop. 107 would bar affirmative action measures and rules. It is supported by Republicans like Russell Pearce, Tom Horne, and Rachel Alexander (a lawyer who worked for Andrew Thomas as a communications person). It is opposed by the Arizona Education Association, League of Women Voters, NOW, Greater Phoenix Urban League, and Ann Wallack, chair of the Maricopa County Democratic Party.
Hell NO.
Proposition 109 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202008.pdf
Prop. 109 is an amendment to Arizona’s constitution that would give the right to hunt and fish in Arizona the same status as the rights of free speech and habeas corpus. It is supported by various Republicans, including Jan Brewer, and hunting and fishing advocacy groups. Opposed by the Humane Society and the Sierra Club.
NO.
Proposition 110 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/SCR%201047.pdf
Prop. 110 would change the rules regarding state trust lands to allow the exchange of lands in order to protect Arizona’s military bases. Supported by a wide variety of groups; no “against” arguments were submitted for the publicity pamphlet. While this measure has a lot of support, I’m hesitant about one clause.
Section D.4. (emphasis mine) -
D. NothinghereinIN THIS SECTION, or elsewhere in THIS articleX contained, shall prevent:
4. THE DISPOSITION OF LANDS OR INTERESTS IN LANDS, OR THE RESTRICTION OF INTERESTS OR RIGHTS IN LANDS, HELD IN TRUST UNDER THIS ARTICLE, WITHOUT ADVERTISEMENT OR AUCTION...
Yeah...that language would allow the lege and a state government dominated by hacks to get rid lands meant to benefit Arizona and its education system and to do so without public notice.
There are specific conditions under which such transfers would be allowed, but without public oversight, who would know if those conditions were being met?
Pardon my cynicism, but NO.
Proposition 111 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/SCR%201013.pdf
Prop. 111 is an amendment to Arizona’s constitution that would change the title of Secretary of State to Lieutenant Governor and require a party’s nominees for Governor and Lt. Governor to run as a single ticket in the general election. This one has a major problem that may not survive a legal challenge – the language of the proposition passed by the legislature effectively bars independent candidates from ever running for either position.
I understand and empathize the rationale behind the desire for creating a Lieutenant Governor in Arizona, but this isn't the way to accomplish that goal.
NO.
Proposition 112 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202018.pdf
Prop. 112 would change the deadline for submitting signatures for initiative petitions to six month before a general election. Current law requires petition signatures to be submitted four months before a general election. Many arguments in favor; none were submitted against the proposition.
There are 10 questions on the ballot. The legislature has submitted nine of them, and the citizens of Arizona only one. Yet the lege sees fit to make it more difficult for *citizens* to propose ballot questions?
NO.
Proposition 113 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/SCR%201001.pdf
Prop. 113 is an anti-“card check” measure that would require a secret ballot in any election, including union organizing efforts. Supported by various industry groups; opposed by unions and the Arizona Advocacy Network.
NO.
Proposition 203 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/I-04-2010.pdf
Prop. 203 would legalize the use of small amounts of marijuana for medically prescribed purposes. This is the only proposition placed on the ballot via the initiative petition process. Supported by patients; opposed by anti-drug use groups and law enforcement officials.
Probable YES.
Proposition 301 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202002.pdf
Prop. 301 would overturn a measure previously approved by the voters and sweep all funds from the Land Conservation Fund. Supported by the anti-tax group Arizona Tax Research Association; opposed by the Arizona Education Association, Sierra Club, League of Women Voters, Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, The Sonoran Institute, and the McDowell Sonoran Conservancy.
Proposition 302 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202001.pdf
Prop. 302 would overturn a measure previously approved by the voters and terminate the First Things First early childhood education program and sweep all of its funds into the state’s General Fund. Supported by the Arizona Farm Bureau, Arizona Tax Research Association, and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry; opposed by the Arizona Education Association, Valley of the Sun United Way, League of Women Voters, Pima County Pediatric Society, United Way of Yuma County, Arizona Public Health Association, Stand for Children Arizona, United Way of Northern Arizona, NOW, Arizona Dental Association, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Arizona Child Care Association, Protecting Arizona's Family Coalition (PAFCO), Arizona School Boards Association, First Things First, Children's Action Alliance, Eddie and Nadine Basha, ASU president Michael Crow, former governor Rose Mofford, and former governor Raul Castro.
Hell NO on both of these. They're shortsighted and soulless attempts to use the state's structural deficit, something created by Republicans with their never-ending drive to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy, as a wedge to attack programs mandated by the voters.
The Republicans in the legislature simply want to siphon money intended for purposes that provide a long-term to benefit society into corporate coffers to pump up short-term profit margins via even more directed tax cuts and credits.
Arizona has a strong tendency of voting against ballot measures that seem to be even the least bit hinky; this year, that would be a good attitude for all voters to take with them when they vote. Most of the measures have serious issues in regard to who they really benefit (hint: not average Arizonans!) or in how poorly they were drafted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)