Matt Salmon announces his retirement from Congress: Let the political battle royal begin

On Thursday, Congressman Matt Salmon announced that he will not be seeking reelection to Congress in 2016.

This wasn't a sudden move - senior Salmon staffers have been looking for, and finding, soft landing spots for  weeks now, and his announcement was followed quickly by an endorsement of Andy Biggs, president of the Arizona State Senate, to be his replacement.

While the Biggs endorsement was (presumably) an attempt to preempt a primary battle for the safe R seat, there are a number of Rs looking at the race, or at least being speculated about for the race.

From AZCentral.com, written by Rebekah L. Sanders -

The open seat left by retiring U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., is going to be tempting bait to a school of East Valley Republicans.

When a safely Republican district without an incumbent  came open in Arizona in 2010, that race attracted 10 GOP candidates.

{snip}

The first name on most insiders' lips for Salmon's seat is his former rival, Kirk Adams, who now serves as Gov. Doug Ducey's right-hand man. Adams lost to Salmon in the 5th District primary in 2012 and formerly was leader of the Arizona House.

{snip}


Republicans who say they'll have to think about entering the race include:

• State Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, who said he could scrap a bid for state House Speaker.
• State Rep. Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa: "I am seriously considering it. ... I'm going to really have to pray."
• Maricopa County Supervisor Steve Chucri: "Have I been getting calls? Yes. ... I'll have to look at it and talk to my family."
• Aviation businessman and former congressional candidate Travis Grantham: "I'm eyeing that very closely. And also the state House."
• Former GoDaddy executive Christine Jones, who ran for governor in 2014: Salmon's retirement "was the talk of the town (at Scottsdale Mayor Jim Lane's state of the city luncheon) today. ... I hadn't had this on my radar at all."
• Mesa Councilman Alex Finter: "My phone's been ringing off the hook. At this point I'm not ruling anything out."

A number of others could run, but they didn't respond to calls from The Arizona Republic. They include:

• Former Mesa Mayor Scott Smith, a 2014 gubernatorial candidate
• Maricopa County Supervisor Denny Barney
• Outgoing Gilbert Mayor John Lewis 
• State Sen. Bob Worsley, R-Mesa
• Former Senate President Russell Pearce

Other names being bandied about (some from Sanders' Twitter feed, some from other Twitter feeds, some from people I've spoken to), and my quick takes on them:

Chandler Mayor Jay Tibshraeny - very conservative, but suffers from occasional bouts of sanity, which will disqualify him in any R primary

Former member of Congress Ben Quayle - Hey, he bought his way past low expectations in 2010, it could work again

Perennial candidate Vernon Parker - like Christine Jones, above, he hasn't won anything yet, but he has enough connections, money, and ambition that his name will always be bandied about

Businessman Stephen Viramontes - because in the R worldview, "has money" = "qualified for public office"

Former candidate for governor Gary Tupper (2006) - every large field of candidates needs at least one "Who's that?" candidate

Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema - nominally a Democrat but widely viewed as an aspiring R.  And has been known to at least consider district shopping

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio - because, you know, he throws his name into the discussion for every race



Note: as of this writing, the FEC's website doesn't show CD5 filings by any of the people listed above.

Note2: Travis Grantham, mentioned in the article above, has opened an exploratory committee for a run for the AZ House from LD12 (committee ID - 201600462).  With Biggs running for Congress, LD12 House member Warren Petersen will be running for Biggs' Senate seat, opening up a House slot.

Schweikert votes to protect oil companies

Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.J. Res 44, a resolution continuing government operations for another two weeks, by a vote of 335 - 91.  As one can see from those totals, support for the measure was bipartisan, even if a lot of that support was of the "I'll hold my nose and vote for this anyway" variety.

Less bipartisan was the vote on a proposal by Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA) to add a clause to the measure "prohibiting the use of funds to be used for tax benefit or relief for any major integrated oil company."

What is possibly the single most profitable industry in the world is also one of the most highly subsidized.

Arizona's David Schweikert (R-CD5), a self-professed fiscal hawk, someone who never fails to grab an opportunity to rail about the federal deficit, had an opportunity to vote to cut the federal deficit by BILLIONS of dollars.

So what did he do?

Voted with every other Republican in the House of Representatives to continue the budget-busting (but oh-so-campaign-contribution-friendly) corporate subsidies.

The proposal to end oil company subsidies for as long as the federal government is operating under a continuing resolution (as opposed to an actual budget) went down 176 - 249.

Of course.

David Schweikert's vote to repeal health care reform: Impacts on his "constituents"

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2, a bill to repeal last year's health care reform legislation, by a vote of 245 - 189.  All Republicans, including AZCD5's David Schweikert, voted in favor of the bill.

The bill, the debate, and the vote were a triumph of ideology over reality, because if health care reform is repealed, it will increase the federal deficit and harm people all over the country, including thousands here in CD5.

From the Minority Staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce -

This analysis describes the impact of repeal of the Affordable Care Act in the 5th Congressional District of Arizona, which is represented by Rep. David Schweikert. It finds that repeal of the health reform law would have significant consequences in the district by:


Allowing insurance companies to deny coverage to 122,000 to 320,000 individuals, including 8,000 to 36,000 children, with pre-existing conditions.

Rescinding consumer protections for 469,000 individuals who have health insurance through their employer or the market for private insurance.

Eliminating health care tax credits for up to 15,700 small businesses and 143,000 families.

Increasing prescription drug costs for 10,100 seniors who hit the Part D drug “donut hole” and denying new preventive care benefits to 84,000 seniors.

Increasing the costs of early retiree coverage for up to 11,600 early retirees.

Eliminating new health care coverage options for 4,000 uninsured young adults.

Increasing the number of people without health insurance by 43,000 individuals.

Increasing the costs to hospitals of providing uncompensated care by $50 million annually.

Repeal of Protections Against Insurance Company Abuses

Repeal would eliminate the ban on discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions. Under the health reform law, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions and will be banned from discriminating against adults with pre-existing conditions in 2014. There are 122,000 to 320,000 residents in Rep. Schweikert’s district with pre-existing conditions like diabetes, heart disease, or cancer, including 8,000 to 36,000 children. Repeal would allow insurance companies to refuse to insure these individuals if they seek coverage in the individual or small-group markets. The consequences would be particularly acute for the 18,000 to 48,000 individuals in the district who currently lack insurance coverage and who would be unable to purchase individual policies if the law is repealed.

Repeal would eliminate the ban on annual and lifetime limits. The health reform law prohibits insurance companies from imposing annual and lifetime limits on health insurance coverage. This provision protects the rights of everyone who receives coverage from their employer or through the market for private insurance. If this protection is repealed, insurers would be able to impose coverage limits on 469,000 individuals in the district with employer or private coverage.

Repeal would eliminate the ban on rescissions. The health reform law prohibits insurers from rescinding coverage for individuals who become ill. Repeal would allow insurance companies to resume the practice of rescinding coverage for the 48,000 district residents who purchase individual health insurance.

Repeal would eliminate other consumer protections. The health reform law protects individuals from soaring insurance costs by requiring reviews of proposed rate increases and limiting the amount insurance companies can spend on administrative expenses, profits, and other overhead. Repeal would deny these new protections to tens of thousands of district residents who either buy their own insurance or receive coverage through employers who do not self-insure.

Repeal of Benefits for Individuals and Families

Repeal would eliminate the requirement that insurance companies provide free preventive care. The health reform law promotes wellness by requiring insurance companies to offer free preventive care as part of any new or revised policies they issue after September 23, 2010. Repeal would allow insurance companies to charge for these essential benefits, which would increase out-of-pocket costs for 98,000 district residents.

Repeal would eliminate health insurance options for young adults. The health reform law allows young adults to remain on their parents’ insurance policies up to age 26. In Rep. Schweikert’s district, 4,000 young adults have or are expected to take advantage of this benefit. Repeal would force these young adults to find other coverage or return to the ranks of the uninsured.

Repeal would eliminate tax credits for buying health insurance. Starting in 2014, the health reform law gives middle class families the largest tax cut for health care in history, providing tax credits to buy coverage for families with incomes up to $88,000 for a family of four. Repeal would deny these credits to 143,000 families in the district.

Repeal would increase the number of uninsured. When fully implemented, the health reform law will extend coverage to 94% of all Americans. If this level of coverage is reached in the district, 43,000 residents who currently do not have health insurance will receive coverage. Repeal would mean these residents would lose their health insurance.

Repeal of Benefits for Seniors

Repeal would increase drug costs for seniors. Beginning in 2011, the health reform law provides a 50% discount for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries who enter the Medicare Part D “donut hole” and lose coverage for their drug expenses. The law then increases the discount to Medicare beneficiaries each year until 2020, when the donut hole is finally eliminated. There are 10,100 Medicare beneficiaries in Rep. Schweikert’s district who are expected to benefit from these provisions. Repeal would increase the average cost of prescription drugs for these Medicare beneficiaries by over $500 in 2011 and by over $3,000 in 2020.

Repeal would deny seniors new preventive care and other benefits. The health reform law improves Medicare by providing free preventive and wellness care, improving primary and coordinated care, and enhancing nursing home care. The law also strengthens the Medicare trust fund, extending its solvency from 2017 to 2029. Repeal would eliminate these benefits for 84,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district and cause the Medicare trust fund to become insolvent in just six years.

Repeal of Benefits for Small and Large Businesses and Health Care Providers

Repeal would eliminate tax credits for small businesses. The health reform law provides tax credits to small businesses worth up to 35% of the cost of providing health insurance. There are up to 15,700 small businesses in Rep. Schweikert’s district that are eligible for this tax credit. Repeal would force these small businesses to drop coverage or bear the full costs of coverage themselves.

Repeal would increase retiree health care costs for employers. The health reform law provides funding to encourage employers to continue to provide health insurance for their retirees. As many as 11,600 district residents who have retired but are not yet eligible for Medicare could ultimately benefit from this early retiree assistance. Repeal would increase costs for employers and jeopardize the coverage their retirees are receiving.

Repeal would increase the cost of uncompensated care born by hospitals. The health reform law benefits hospitals by covering more Americans and thereby reducing the cost of providing care to the uninsured. Repeal would undo this benefit, increasing the cost of uncompensated care by $50 million annually for hospitals in the district.

Repeal of Benefits for Taxpayers

Repeal would increase the long-term debt by over $1 trillion. The health reform law reduces the nation’s debt by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in the health care system, reducing the growth of health care costs, and preventing excessive profit-taking by private insurers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will reduce the deficit by over $200 billion over the next ten years and by over a trillion dollars in the decade after that. Repeal would eliminate these cost-cutting measures, adding more than $3,000 to the national debt for each American, including the 680,000 residents of the district.

Of course, while Schweikert has enthusiastically worked to reduce his constituents and their families' access to health care, he has no problem accepting taxpayer-funded healthcare coverage for himself and his family, nor does he have a problem with shielding from public scrutiny the members of his own caucus who have done the same.
 
 

David Schweikert: Health care hypocrite

To be fair to our Foreclosure Dave though, it's not like he was alone.

On Wednesday, the new Republican majority in the U.S. House passed all sorts of new rules for the 112th Congress.  Some of them are really interesting, but we'll save those for another day.

The highlight of the rules package was one that *didn't* make it into the package.

Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) proposed a rule that would have required members of Congress to disclose whether or not they take advantage of the taxpayer-funded and government-run health care offered to members.

The proposal was defeated on a party-line vote, 191 - 238.

Huffington Post has a full report here.

Now, I could criticize all 238 Republicans who voted to defeat transparency, but they aren't the elected representatives of Arizona's 5th Congressional District.

David Schweikert is.

David Schweikert is the one, who on his website, stated "the liberal politicians in Washington continue to support government run healthcare that will effectively dismantle our healthcare system."

He's pledged to work for the repeal of health care reform and coverage for the average American...

Yet on the same day that he voted to conceal his and other members' acceptance of taxpayer-funded health insurance, he also voted to pass H. Res. 26, providing for next week's consideration of H.R. 2, the Republican scheme to repeal the health care reform and coverage for the average American.

So Schweikert is a *conservative* politician in Washington who supports "government run healthcare" for people who will "dismantle" healthcare for average Americans.

Something tells me that this won't be the last example of shameless hypocrisy coming from Schweikert.

David Schweikert, a Constitutional expansionist?

From the Phoenix Business Journal (quoted in its entirety because it is only two sentences) -

New U.S. Rep. David Schweikert, R-Scottsdale/Tempe, was on CNN Monday night talking about health care.

Schweikert toppled Democratic incumbent Harry Mitchell in November. Schweikert will be part of the GOP efforts to dismantle President Barack Obama's health plans. Schweikert made the argument on CNN against the individual mandate in the Obama plans saying Americans have the 'right to be dumb' and not have insurance even if they can afford it.

Check out this CNN video for more.

I don't see anything in the U.S. Constitution specifying that right (and wasn't one of the R arguments against health care reform something about it not being in the Constitution?), but Schweikert seems to be well on his way to proving that 110,374 voters have already taken advantage of that Schweikert-granted "right".

Congressman Harry Mitchell's farewell to Congress

From page H8247 of the Congressional Record -

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, Mo Udall once said that those elected to positions of leadership have a moral obligation to exercise leadership. Since coming to Congress, and throughout my whole career, I have always done what I believed was in the best interests for this district, for our State, and for our country. This is what I was elected to do, to make tough decisions, knowing that some were not always as popular as others; and I would not have changed one thing, not one vote, not one decision.


When I think about what we have accomplished together in Congress over the last 4 years, I know that there are many reasons to be proud. We were able to make college more affordable for millions of young Americans. We were able to invest in clean energy technology that will clean our environment and set our Nation on a path to energy independence.

We raised the minimum wage for working families across this country. We were able to ensure equal pay for an equal day's work for women. We passed historic health care reform that will benefit millions of Americans, making health care insurance more accessible and affordable for thousands of individuals, families, and small businesses.

But I am most proud of the work we've done to take care of our Nation's veterans. Together, we made it possible for our veterans, active duty, National Guard, and reserve to empower themselves by furthering their education. I was honored to be part of an effort to pass the 21st century GI Bill into law.

We also know that many of our returning veterans and those who served in past generations bear wounds that can't be seen. Too many continue to struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder and are at risk for suicide. Together, we've pushed the VA to provide more mental health assistance to those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan because our veterans deserve the highest attention and respect they have earned when they come home, and we have work to do to bring them all home.

But as much as we've accomplished, there is still more to do. I have always said that you can't be successful unless a lot of other people want you to be. And I have been blessed to have so many people who have been supportive of me. For the better part of close to 40 years, I've held the titles of teacher, councilman, mayor, senator, and Congressman.

And there are a lot of people I want to thank for being with me every step of the way. A special thanks goes to my family: My wife, Marianne; my son, Mark; my daughter, Amy; and my five grandchildren. I also want to thank my staff. They were the most hardworking, talented, and loyal bunch that you would ever find, and I am very grateful for them. Lastly, I want to thank the people of Arizona's Fifth Congressional District for allowing me to represent them in the United States Congress for the past 4 years. It's been an overwhelming honor to have had the opportunity to serve my district.

Thank you Harry, for your work for the people of CD5 and for America's veterans.  And thank you for reminding us why we voted for you in the first place and why you were the best representative that any Congressional district could ask for.

I'd say something along the lines of "you will be missed" but I don't believe your lifetime of service is over.  You aren't ready to ride off into the Arizona sunset and we aren't ready to let you.

Thank you.

Ugh.

Chalk one up for the politics of demonization.  A big one...

Last night was definitely ugly.

Many good people, and at least one great one, lost their jobs last night.

The results page on the AZ Secretary of State's website is here.

First, the genuinely ugly - Harry Mitchell, the icon of public service, lost the CD5 race to real estate vulture David Schweikert.  Apparently, the majority of voters in CD5 have decided that they don't want a public servant to represent them in Congress, instead giving their nod to a public predator (geez, can ya tell I'm still pissed over this one? ).

The entire Schweikert campaign platform can be summed up thusly:  Obamacare!

Seriously, that was it. 

I was on sign detail for one of the down ballot candidates here, and every polling place had at least 5 - 8 little signs that had one word on them - "Obamacare."  Sometimes they were placed at random, sometimes they were placed next to Mitchell signs, and at least once, place *in* a Mitchell sign.

More on this race in the next few days, after I decompress.

...There was lots of bad (some really bad) on Tuesday.

- The Rs swept the statewide races.  Some of the D losses were expected, but to elect two people who have long records of being crooks to positions of great public trust like Attorney General and Treasurer?

As noted above, last night was a triumph of the politics of demonization, but "willful ignorance" also ran wild in Arizona on Tuesday.

- The Rs also increased their majority in the legislature, mostly by knocking off a number of Democratic women.

Former State Representative Jackie Thrasher (LD10) lost her bid to return to the House, down by almost 3000 votes.

State Representative Rae Waters (LD20) is down 1400 votes in her reelection bid.

State Senator Rebecca Rios (LD23)  is down almost 5000 votes her race.

State Representative Barbara McGuire (LD23) is down almost 7000 votes.

State Senator Amanda Aguirre (LD24) is down more than 3000 votes in her race.

State Representative Pat Fleming (LD25) is down more than 3000 votes.

State Representative Nancy Young Wright (LD26) is down slightly less than 900 votes in her race.

In keeping with the Rs' anti-woman theme, Dirty Scottsdale writer and "chip off the ol' potatoe" Ben Quayle won the CD3 seat being vacated by John Shadegg.  His opponent ran as a Republican dressed up in a Democrat's clothing.  Turns out that didn't inspire the D base to turn out.  Who knew?

The politics of demonization was effective on a number of ballot propositions, too.

Prop 106 (anti-healthcare reform), Prop 107 (anti-affirmative action), and Prop 113 (anti-union) were all approved by the voters.

...There were a few nuggets of good in yesterday's carnage.  OK, less "good" than "not horrificly bad" -

 - Prop 301 (ending and sweeping the monies from the Land Conservation Fund) and Prop 302 (ending First Things First, the early childhood education program that was created by the voters in a previous election) have been turned away by the voters.  The Rs in the lege will use this as a rationalization to further gut education and social infrastructure programs in the name of "balancing the budget," but they were going to that anyway.  They just would have found a different excuse if the Props had passed.

- In out-of-state results that may have a direct impact on Arizona, Kris Kobach, the nativist lawyer who wrote SB1070 for fellow traveller Russell Pearce, won his election as Secretary of State in Kansas.  He'll be overseeing elections there.  He ran on a anti-immigrant platform, and has pledged to work to minimize the number of immigrants voting there.  God help Kansas.  On the plus side, we can always hope that his duties/schemes in KS serve to distract him from Arizona.

- Also turned away were R challenges to U.S. Reps. Gabrielle Giffords (CD8) and Raul Grijalva (CD7) (however, CD8 remains close, so there is a chance that one will change, though Giffords is ahead by approximately 2000 votes as of this writing.)

- In my home LD, District 17, State Rep. David Schapira has fended off what had appeared to be a strong challenger for the LD17 Senate seat.  Wendy Rogers was touted as the kind of conservative who could win in a Democratic-leaning swing district.  Turns out she was actually just a polished version of her ticketmate, Don Hawker.  House candidate Hawker was the epitome of the "single issue" candidate, literally blaming all that ails Arizona (and the country) on abortion.

Both were wrong for the community, wrong for the district, and wrong for the state, and voters in D17 saw that.  One of the advantages of living in a district with a lot of university professors and students in it.

- In some of the down ballot races, there was some good news -

Retiring State Senator Meg Burton Cahill defeated a retired barber for the Justice of the Peace spot in the University Lakes Justice Precinct.  Some ugly robocalls funded by the Arizona Multihousing Association failed to defeat the popular Tempean.

Dana Saar of Fountain Hills defeated embarrassment Jerry Walker of Mesa for Walker's seat on the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District.  Walker has shamed his constituents and the District a number of times with his thuggish behavior.  Saar taking the seat will help restore the credibility of this embattled board.


...The one spark of hope, in Arizona and across the nation, that I can find from yesterday's results (and I had to dig deep to find this one) -

In 1994, that national R wave occurred two years *after* redistricting took place.  

In 2010, the wave took place two years *before* redistricting.  The Rs, especially the tea baggers, won't have time to entrench themselves before having to run in radically different districts in 2012.

More later, on CD5 and some of the local races and ballot questions...

Spin, Half-truths and Lies: Schweikert campaign running on empty

...but that's all they have left...and "half-truths" may be giving them too much credit...

Early yesterday, the Schweikert campaign breathlessly sent out an email press release, touting a police report in Tempe concerning a Tempe resident who "pushed down" two anti-Mitchell signs.

The one piece of truth?  Such an incident did, in fact, occur, at least according to this police report (courtesy the Arizona Capitol Times).

After that, the press release gets more than a little light on facts.

The press release starts by conflating this incident with a 2000 incident where Mitchell was accused of stealing some signs.

The press release pontificates on that one with "[t]here was no question that Congressman Mitchell broke the law then."

The problem with that? 

The charges were dismissed, and that dismissal was upheld on appeal.  No matter how often Rs like to bring up the incident from 2000, they always seem to forget to mention that a judge ruled that no crime occurred.

Call this one the "half-truth, barely" part.

The press release then goes on to include a picture of some signs with "the kind of damage that has been occurring."

The problem with that?

The picture included in the press release wasn't of the signs that were part of the incident detailed in the police report.  It was of some of the unsightly "insult" signs that Schweikert has carpetbombed CD5 with.  The pic looks to have been staged in a parking lot, perhaps outside of Schweikert's campaign headquarters (I don't actually know where it was staged, just that it definitely looks staged).

Call this one the "spun into an outright lie" part, but at least it gave them an excuse to push their lies about Harry Mitchell one more time.

The Arizona Capitol Times has a story up that refutes the Schweikert campaign's spin and press release. 

In it, the writer points out that neither the alleged "damager" nor the complainer involved in the incident are directly involved in either the Mitchell or the Schweikert campaigns other than in expressing support for the respective candidates.  Speaking personally, I've been a frequent visitor to the Mitchell campaign office in Tempe, and I've never heard of the man accused of damaging the signs.

The Schweikert supporter, however, is a somewhat different story.

I've never heard of him by name, but he is quoted in the police report saying that he "has a company called Jet Media."

The Cap Times' story quotes Jim Torgeson, the owner of Jet Media, as claiming that the signs weren't commissioned by the Schweikert campaign.

From the story -

"But Jet Media owner Jim Torgeson said that Sanders’ signs were not commissioned by the Schweikert campaign, and that they personally belonged to Sanders, not the company."

That opens up a big can of worms for the Schweikert campaign.

The press release claims very specifically that the signs involved in the Tempe incident *are* the property of the Schweikert campaign.

From the press release -

"The signs in question are the property of David Schweikert’s campaign."

That's pretty unequivocal.

It also means that someone is violating campaign finance laws.

Either the complainer owns them and is engaging in political advocacy without filing campaign finance paperwork with the AZ Secretary of State (which he hasn't), or Schweikert owns them and needs to put the appropriate "paid for by" on the signs (which he hasn't, apparently, because there isn't one on the signs.)

Other issues -

Mr. Torgeson is a Republican operative of long standing, using his sign company to harass Democratic candidates in Tempe for years now.

Mr. Torgeson's company, Jet Media, received over $7400 worth of sign business from the Schweikert campaign just between late August and late September, according to Schweikert's FEC filings.  I don't know if the signs that the Schweikert campaign purchased from Torgeson were the ones involved in the above incident, but that's a lot of money going to a small sign company relatively late in the cycle.

Mr. Torgeson is listed with the Arizona Corporation Commission as President of Jet Media Promotions, Inc.  That corporation was administratively dissolved by the ACC earlier this year because of its failure to file an annual report.  Not sure how/if that impacts the legal operation of the sign business, but it's definitely sloppy on Mr. Torgeson's part.


Still, given that we are now less than five days from Election Day, this is just a meaningless distraction.  Any proceedings stemming from the above incident will take weeks or even months to run to completion; any possible campaign finance violations could take *years* to resolve.

Time to do a little canvassing.

Later...

CD5: All Politics Isn't Just Local, It's People

Nearly two decades ago, former House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill published a followup to his best-selling autobiography (Man of the House) titled "All Politics Is Local."

That's a truism that all successful elected officials, before and since, have taken to heart.  Taking care of the district that elected them and understanding its needs is paramount for any elected looking to be a "re-elected."

Even more important than that, though, is people.

Specific artificially-created land areas on a map like political districts don't have needs, the people who live in those districts do.

Districts don't vote for candidates, people do.

And most importantly for the point of this post, districts don't form the backbones of political campaigns, people do.

The ground game of any campaign, particularly in a close race like CD5, is what makes the difference on Election Day.

An effective ground game that connects with voters can turn back a high-powered and heavily-funded aerial attack.

All of the TV ads and mailers funded by secretive corporate front groups and bungee campaign appearances by national figures employed by Fox News mean nothing next to volunteers talking to their neighbors.

In this, Harry Mitchell's lifetime of service to Tempe, Scottsdale, and Arizona is standing him in good stead. 

People are turning out in droves to help defend the man who has worked for them for decades, from teaching their children in school to advocating for them in the halls of Congress.

His ground game, hundreds of volunteers dialing or knocking and talking, is thumping the Schweikert campaign's. 

Over Columbus Day weekend, the Schweikert campaign bragged about making 5000 calls to voters.

By comparison, the Mitchell campaign made over 50,000 calls that same weekend.

It's not just on the holiday weekends that the respect and affection for Mitchell is showing through.

Anecdotally, this past weekend, I was at the Mitchell campaign office to make some calls.  I put down my stuff to go get some water before getting on the phones.  By the time I returned to that particular phone just a couple of minutes later, somebody else had already moved in to that seat and was making calls.  I had to wait a little while (~15 minutes) before another station opened up.

More than the volunteers in the office and out walking in neighborhoods, thousands of voters across the district have turned out for dozens of house parties for Mitchell.

By contrast, the Schweikert campaign's ground game seems to be floundering.

Just this past weekend, they sent out a "desperate" call for volunteers (their word, not mine) to do the things that the Mitchell campaign's volunteers have been doing for months - walk and talk to their neighbors.

Early last week, they sent out an equally desperate email, calling for "volunteers" to make their campaign office look busy during a visit from a reporter from the national political news site, Politico.

From the email from the Schweikert campaign's volunteer director, forwarded to me (misspellings theirs, not mine) -

I am in urgent need of your help. I need a ton of phone callers in the office tomorrow from 1:30pm until 3:30pm.. Here is why-- We have reporters coming in from one of the biggest political sites in the nation. We need to look like the best run, well staffed campaign in the natin..

I've never seen such an email from the Mitchell campaign, even though they also received a visit from a Politico reporter.
There's no need for it - -the only times when I haven't seen the office busy is when most volunteers were out walking neighborhoods.


The sad thing is, in a close race in a Republican-leaning swing district, money can make a difference, and David Schweikert has access to a LOT of out-of-state corporate cash.  Just during the writing of this post, I've seen at least three Schweikert spots on TV, none actually paid for by Schweikert. (My favorite:  the perfectly-timed for Halloween spot paid for by John McCain with McCain and Jon Kyl touting Schweikert while wearing dark suits in front of a black background.  They look like disembodied heads floating in the air from a cheesy grade-Z horror movie from the 1950s.  Seriously spooky.)

He may not be *earning* the seat, but we are in danger of he and his allies *buying* the seat.

There are eight days left before the election, and Harry Mitchell needs our support, votes, and time more than ever.  Keeping the phones staffed and neighborhoods covered is what will put Harry over the top.

Sign up here to volunteer to walk or call voters between now and Election Day.

Harry Mitchell on KNXV-TV

Harry Mitchell's website is here.

From Phoenix's channel 15.

Funny, but painfully true, video parody of David Schweikert and the Tea Party platform

A new video is up on YouTube.  It's definitely worth a chuckle, especially if you're watching the CD5 race.

Or have to deal with another tea party candidate ("Obama, Obama, Obama! Pelosi, Pelosi, Pelosi!" - priceless!  :) )

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 -

Dear Editor,

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.

Volunteer to help Harry keep helping us.

More fun with campaign signs...

An indicator of the status of the Schweikert campaign, this sign has been in upside down for weeks.  In fact, it was the sign that I was going to snap a pic of when I sprained my ankle over a week ago.

The best part is that the Schweikert campaign had the time to put up one of their juvenile insult signs (damaged by last week's storms), next to a Mitchell sign at the same location but they didn't have the time to correct one of their own while they were there..

Mitchell lead widening in CD5

From the DCCC (link added) -

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.

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.

Early Ballot Time - 2010 General Election

All over Arizona, early ballots are reaching mail boxes (the ballot for my area is here).  Here are my picks (and there isn't anything here that will surprise any regular readers :) ):

U.S. Senate - Rodney Glassman.  He's got the energy and focus on the needs of Arizonans (and Arizona) that John McCain hasn't had for decades (if ever).

U.S. Representative in Congress (District 5) - Harry Mitchell.  He's got the energy and focus on the needs of his constituents, and has had it for nearly 40 years.  If the Rs in CD5 had any appreciation for public service and public servants, they'd have nominated him, too.  (Not an unheard-of happenstance.  In Massachusetts in 1982, Republican Silvio Conte won both the Democratic and Republican nominations for Congress in MA-CD1.  He went on to win the general. Back in a time when public service was valued instead of vilified. [page 18 of the linked .pdf] :) )

Governor - Terry Goddard.  He's got the intelligence, experience, and wisdom to move Arizona out of the economic abyss that it's in.  And he's got the quiet fire necessary for dealing with the R extremists in the legislature who are less interested in serving Arizona than in adhering to a nihilist ideology.

State Senator (District 17) - David Schapira.  Focused on Tempe and Arizona's education system.  He has an established track record.  Will work "across the aisle" when doing so will help the district or Arizona's students.  Will fight like hell when doing so will help the district or Arizona's students.

State Representative (District 17) - Ed Ableser and P. Ben Arredondo.  Both have been teachers and community activists in Tempe/South Scottsdale, Ed for most of a decade and Ben for *many* decades.  Ed is the more liberal of the two (Ben being a reformed former Republican), but both are totally focused on their constituents (Yes, there is definitely a pattern in my picks, and it isn't just the partisan affiliation.)

Secretary of State - Chris Deschene.  Will fight for the rights of all voters, not just his party's.  That fact alone puts him head and shoulders above his opponent, but he also brings an educational background that includes mechanical engineering and a law degree. 

Attorney General - Felecia Rotellini.  She's got the smarts, the integrity, and the tenacity to protect Arizonans from predators of all stripes, whether they are smuggling cartels or Wall Street fraudsters.

State Treasurer - Andrei Cherny.  A former assistant AG and an economics policy wonk extraordinaire, he is eminently qualified for the job of safeguarding Arizona's public monies.  The fact that, unlike his opponent, he isn't an indictment for financial fraud waiting to happen is just gravy.

Superintendent of Public Instruction - Penny Kotterman.  Career teacher, teacher trainer, school administrator, education policy advocate, for over 30 years.  Her opponent has spent most of the last two decades trying to destroy public education in Arizona.  'Nuff said.

Mine Inspector - Manuel Cruz.  He has the educational and professional background in mine safety that a job that is supposed to ensure the safety of miners *should* have.  Not in the pocket of industry lobbyists, unlike his opponent.

Corporation Commissioner - David Bradley and Jorge Luis Garcia.  Two former legislators with long and distinguished track records of fighting for their constituents.  Their opponents have long and not-so-distinguished track records of fighting for Big Business, no matter what state it is based in.  The Arizona Corporation Commission is meant to protect the interests of Arizonans by regulating and overseeing utilities, railroads, and securities in the state.  Bradley and Garcia are easy choices here.

Maricopa County Attorney - Michael Kielsky. He's a Libertarian, someone I would normally never vote for, but I always vote for the better candidate.  There's no Democrat on the ballot for this brief term (2 years instead of the normal 4) and the Republican on the ballot is openly allied with Joe Arpaio.  I've been told by some people who are more familiar than I am with Bill Montgomery (the Republican in question) that they think he will probably at least try to appear as neutral, but Arpaio spent hundreds of thousands on ads in the primary race, and incurred thousands more in fines for violating campaign finance laws for doing so.  Can you say "quid pro quo"?

I don't think Kielsky will win, but a strong showing could send a message to the Democrats who have all but given Montgomery a free pass.

Maricopa County Clerk of Courts - Sherry Williams.  Smart and energetic, with a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Information Systems.  She will bring the background and integrity that the clerk of *any* court should have, and that Maricopa County so desperately needs (a Maricopa County official elected countywide with some integrity?  Be still my beating heart...)

University Lakes Justice of the Peace - Meg Burton Cahill (no website available).  The retiring state senator has a master's degree in Public Administration and a strong background in the law from her time on the Senate's Judiciary Committee.  She will make a fine addition to the Maricopa County bench, where her wisdom and experience will stand her in good stead against the pressures that can/will be brought to bear on folks in that position.  Ask the current holder of the office - he was Joe Arpaio's "go-to guy" when he needed some sketchy warrants signed for his jihad against the county supes.

University Lakes Constable - No race, so no vote.  Joe Arredondo (R) will win.

Central Arizona Water Conservation District (aka - the Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project) - Arif Kazmi and Jim Holway.  Both have strong academic, professional and personal backgrounds in water resources management.  Both were among the five candidates endorsed by the Arizona Republic, and while the other endorsees of the AZRep are strong, these two are stronger and should be "double-shotted" in order to maximize their chances of election.  There is a slate of "Tea Party" candidates running to try to put the management of a major part of Arizona's water delivery system on an ideological basis, not a professional basis.  They should be completely shunned.  In a desert like central Arizona, water literally is life.

School Governing Board member, Scottsdale Unified #48 - I have absolutely no clue.  Decision by elimination time (and I may be doing the eliminated candidate a disservice, but this is the best I've got in this race):  Denny Brown (newby) and Dieter Schaefer (incumbent).  There is limited info available on the candidates that I could find in a quick search, but while I have some reservations (i.e. - Schaefer was the only candidate who responded to a questionnaire from the extreme RW organization The Center for Arizona Policy), but the third candidate, Pam Kirby. touts a resume that looks good (lots of PTO involvement) but seems to be more purely ideological than the others.  Plus the endorsement of Scottsdale City Council member Bob Littlefield didn't help.

Bond question, Scottsdale Unified #48 - Yes.  Over the short-term, the legislature cannot be counted on the fund the state's education system, whether for classroom needs or infrastructure needs.  Long-term, there could be legal ramifications because while relatively affluent districts like SUSD can use bonding to fund an adequate education system for their students, many poorer districts cannot.

City of Scottsdale Council Member - Ned O'Hearn, Linda Milhaven, and Wayne Ecton.  All three care deeply about Scottsdale and its future, and aren't tied to any particular ideology beyond that.  Dennis Robbins would have received my fourth vote if a fourth seat was up for election this time around, but he wasn't quite strong enough a candidate to make it into the top three.  Bob Littlefield...I like Bob personally, but I'd never vote for him.  He definitely is tied to that certain nihilist ideology that permeates the AZGOP, he just covers it with a "good ol' boy" facade.  Guy Philips is definitely not ready for prime time.  He doesn't hide his obeisance to ideological orthodoxy, but he doesn't even have the redeeming value of knowing that ideology well.  If he were elected to the Council, he'd need a staffer with cue cards set up in the back of the City Hall Kiva to tell him how to vote on issues.

The next set of issues concern City of Scottsdale ballot questions, info here.

City of Scottsdale Bond Questions 1 and 2 - Yes.  They're for infrastructure, and I'm a big fan of infrastructure.

Proposition 411 - NO.  A charter amendment further restricting the City's ability to use condemnation to acquire property.  Looks harmless on the surface (must adhere to state law, which is already required), but includes vague language like "all reasonable options have been exhausted."  A recipe for frivolous lawsuits.

Proposition 412 - NO.  A charter amendment intended to prevent the City from ever paying to participate in organizations like the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce.  Part of Mayor Jim Lane's ongoing tiff with the CofC, possibly related to the fact that they didn't endorse him in 2008.  The charter is a document to define the structure of the City's government, not a tool for petty political retribution.

Proposition 413 - Close, but NO.  Currently, the City's charter allows citizens to petition the Council and requires the Council to consider any matters brought to its attention within 30 days, which can be difficult considering the timing (right before summer break) or complexity of some of the issues.  This charter amendment would remove the thirty day limit entirely.  My problem is with that.  Make it 45 or 60 days, but don't remove the obligation to hear matters in a timely manner.

Proposition 414 - Probable YES.  This charter amendment would clarify the duties of and separate the offices of the various City Charter Officers.  This one stems from the tendency in recent years to combine the offices of the City Manager and City Treasurer.  God help me for agreeing with the Lane/Littlefield clique on *anything*, but they're right on this one - the treasurer of any organization should be an independent officer, one whose oversight is as far up the org chart as is practicable.

It's not perfect, and it's a powerplay by the Lane/Littlefield clique, but when Lane installs a campaign contributor into the office of treasurer (and he will!), there will be a movement to put specific experience requirements into the charter for that particular job.

Proposition 415 - Probable YES.  A charter amendment to clarify that the Mayor and Council shall not have direct control of a City employee's hiring/firing, except for those who work directly for the Mayor and Council.

Proposition 416 - Probable YES.  A charter amendment that looks like a "housekeeping" measure clarifying how the Council may act/enact under specific circumstances.

Proposition 417 - Probable YES.  A charter amendment that looks to be a "housekeeping" measure related to the appointment and terms of judges on the City Court.

Judges for the Arizona Supreme Court, Court of Appeals - Division One, and Maricopa County Superior Court - I haven't heard of any of them, which is a characteristic that I want in judges.  Court judges are like baseball umpires - if you've heard of them, then they probably messed up big-time.  I won't be voting to retain/not retain any of them.

Statewide ballot propositions - Previously covered here.  Summary: NO on all measures proposed by the legislature, and YES on the one (Prop. 203, Medical Marijuana) sent to the ballot by the citizens.

Whew!

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.

Congressman Harry Mitchell - "Advancing Research"

I know that in the last post, I mentioned that I don't normally post press releases verbatim, before doing so.  I'm doing it again, but letters from Congressman Harry Mitchell are something that I've always made an exception for.

From an email -

Degenerative diseases are devastating. We all have someone in our lives who suffers from a chronic and potentially life-threatening disease like Alzheimer’s, Lou Gehrig’s, Huntington’s, Parkinson’s, cancer or even diabetes. These relationships in my own life have pushed me to strongly support cutting-edge medical research so that we can discover treatments for the millions of Americans who suffer from a wide array of diseases and conditions.


One of the first things I did after taking office in 2007 was take to the floor of the House and urge my colleagues to overturn the stem cell research ban. Congress rarely gets an opportunity to offer hope to the millions of Americans who suffer from these diseases; however, last year we were given the opportunity to invest in science and ethical research. On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued an Executive Order to allow federal funding of human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research. I thought this was a great step in the right direction because many scientists believe embryonic stem cells hold greater promise than adult stem cells for further scientific breakthroughs which will advance research on many devastating diseases.

Recently, the issue of stem cell research has been reintroduced to the national discussion as a result of a temporary injunction that was placed on federal stem cell research by a federal court in August.

Although the injunction has since been lifted by a higher federal court, I have joined on as a cosponsor to the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act of 2009, H.R. 4808. This bill would expand the lot of available stem cells for research by codifying that federal research projects may use stem cells regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived. I am proud to be a supporter of this bill, and will continue to strongly support stem cell research to help discover treatments for a wide array of diseases and conditions.

As always, I look forward to being able to provide you with regular updates and continue our dialogue in support of advancing important medical research.

Sincerely,

Harry

Later...