...Of course, he probably has an even lower opinion of wiseass bloggers. :)
From YouTube -
I was going to title this post "Whatthehell was he thinking?", but I understand that Schweikert was on a radio talk show of the "preaching to the choir" variety. Still, he is smart enough to know that *nothing* that is recorded (video or audio) ever really goes away.
Should make for an interesting conversation when he and Congressman Harry Mitchell sit down with the Rep's editorial board...
Showing posts with label CD5. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CD5. Show all posts
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Many of the faux-Green candidates dropping
From the Arizona Capitol Times -
Even though the three mentioned in the Cap Times article have withdrawn from the race, the damage could be already done. From later in the above-linked article -
Since I live in an area affected by the deception (LD17/CD5), I'll find out definitively in a few weeks when early ballots go out.
Either way it goes, I'll update at that time...
Less than a day after a federal judge said they had the right to stay on the ballot, three alleged “sham” Green Party candidates withdrew from their races.Three other faux-Greens had previously withdrawn (name and office [allegedly] sought):
Christopher Campbell, a Senate candidate in Legislative District 10, Clint Clement, a House candidate in Legislative District 17, and Ryan Blackman, a candidate in the 5th Congressional District, officially withdrew from their races the morning of Sept. 10, according to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office.
- Matthew Shusta, LD23 State Senate
- Drew Blischak, LD20 State Representative
- Michelle Lochmann, Arizona Secretary of State
Even though the three mentioned in the Cap Times article have withdrawn from the race, the damage could be already done. From later in the above-linked article -
Ironically, all three could still end up on the ballot. Maricopa County began printing ballots at 7 a.m., before the candidates withdrew. Depending on which district’s ballots were printed first, one or all of them could still be on the ballot, though votes for them in the November general election would not count, said Assistant Secretary of State Jim Drake.Pardon my cynicism, but given the track record of Ken Bennett, I won't be surprised if the ballots of the affected districts were earmarked to be printed first, just in case one or some of the faux-Greens got cold feet.
“I can’t guarantee that they won’t be on the ballot,” Drake said.
Since I live in an area affected by the deception (LD17/CD5), I'll find out definitively in a few weeks when early ballots go out.
Either way it goes, I'll update at that time...
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Fun with campaign signs - lessons not learned edition
A mere few weeks after the end of the primary season, one that saw a one of the far right's fair-haired sons (J.D. Hayworth) fall far short in his challenge to one of the far right's pet targets, John McCain.
The biggest reasons for Hayworth's failure were his glaring character defects and unsavory associations (such as with the Abramoff corruption scandal, "free government money" hucksterism, etc.).
...OK, and the fact that McCain could spend $20 million telling people about Hayworth's failings. But I digress... :)
You'd think that other candidates, especially Republicans, would have learned the lesson.
For instance, David Schweikert, the R nominee in CD5, probably shouldn't be calling attention to his unsavory, even predatory, financial dealings by associating with other predatory financial players.
But he is...
Pic taken at a car title loan operation on the east side of Scottsdale Road, between Curry/Washington and Loop 202. (note: while the link above is to an article on the predatory nature of auto title loans, it isn't meant to state or even imply that this particular business at this particular location is a bad actor. It may, in fact, be such, but I don't know that. What I do know is that the industry *is* predatory, and this is part of a chain that has been involved in some shady activities.)
Just in case someone claims that the above photo is an optical illusion or something - the sign is clearly on the business' property.
I truly don't know if the sign was put up by a business owner/manager who wanted to enthusiastically express his support for Schweikert, or if one of the Schweikert campaign's hired hands thought this would be a good place for a sign.
Either way, though, it illustrates the tin ear shown by Schweikert toward the economically stricken district and state. As bad as the economy has become, as slow as it has been to recover, as much as families are hurting, Schweikert would rather support and be supported by the same sort of people who helped to crash the economy.
And who profit from the agony that they've caused.
The biggest reasons for Hayworth's failure were his glaring character defects and unsavory associations (such as with the Abramoff corruption scandal, "free government money" hucksterism, etc.).
...OK, and the fact that McCain could spend $20 million telling people about Hayworth's failings. But I digress... :)
You'd think that other candidates, especially Republicans, would have learned the lesson.
For instance, David Schweikert, the R nominee in CD5, probably shouldn't be calling attention to his unsavory, even predatory, financial dealings by associating with other predatory financial players.
But he is...
Pic taken at a car title loan operation on the east side of Scottsdale Road, between Curry/Washington and Loop 202. (note: while the link above is to an article on the predatory nature of auto title loans, it isn't meant to state or even imply that this particular business at this particular location is a bad actor. It may, in fact, be such, but I don't know that. What I do know is that the industry *is* predatory, and this is part of a chain that has been involved in some shady activities.)
Just in case someone claims that the above photo is an optical illusion or something - the sign is clearly on the business' property.
I truly don't know if the sign was put up by a business owner/manager who wanted to enthusiastically express his support for Schweikert, or if one of the Schweikert campaign's hired hands thought this would be a good place for a sign.
Either way, though, it illustrates the tin ear shown by Schweikert toward the economically stricken district and state. As bad as the economy has become, as slow as it has been to recover, as much as families are hurting, Schweikert would rather support and be supported by the same sort of people who helped to crash the economy.
And who profit from the agony that they've caused.
Sunday, September 05, 2010
When is age a factor in a candidate's viability? If you ask Republicans, only when the candidate is a Democrat
Has Greg Patterson of Espresso Pundit started working directly for the Schweikert campaign (if he has, it's not obvious from the campaign's most recent filings with the FEC)? Or has he chosen to turn his blog into a Schweikert campaign press release outlet?
I, and most Democratic bloggers, for that matter, happily republish campaign press releases, but when I do so, I always clearly identify them as such.
Patterson never publishes such a disclaimer.
Earlier this week, he published a post declaring the race over in CD5 based on the results of what was essentially a third party-funded internal poll. This suspect poll declared Schweikert ahead in the race by 5 percentage points. Patterson focused only on the percentages, not the questionable methodology of the company that conducted the poll.
He also rather blithely ignored the fact that in late October 2006, a SurveyUSA poll showed then-Congressman JD Hayworth ahead of Mitchell by three percentage points.
Mitchell ended up winning the race by slighly more than 8000 votes.
He backed that one up with a post published on Sunday. Perhaps he was simply regurgitating Schweikert campaign's wishful thinking, or perhaps he is doing his part to add a little reality to some of the lies that the Rs spewed about health care reform last year, but he took the initiative to become a self-designated "death panel."
He placed a "Do Not Resuscitate" directive on Harry Mitchell and his political career.
His primary concern was Harry's age, 70.
Perhaps Patterson *is* correct in his insinuation, and Mitchell is too old for public service, but then that would then bring up another point -
Harry Mitchell, date of birth: July 18, 1940
John McCain, date of birth: August 29, 1936
Guess which one is running for a six-year term, and which one is running for a two-year term?
I, and most Democratic bloggers, for that matter, happily republish campaign press releases, but when I do so, I always clearly identify them as such.
Patterson never publishes such a disclaimer.
Earlier this week, he published a post declaring the race over in CD5 based on the results of what was essentially a third party-funded internal poll. This suspect poll declared Schweikert ahead in the race by 5 percentage points. Patterson focused only on the percentages, not the questionable methodology of the company that conducted the poll.
He also rather blithely ignored the fact that in late October 2006, a SurveyUSA poll showed then-Congressman JD Hayworth ahead of Mitchell by three percentage points.
Mitchell ended up winning the race by slighly more than 8000 votes.
He backed that one up with a post published on Sunday. Perhaps he was simply regurgitating Schweikert campaign's wishful thinking, or perhaps he is doing his part to add a little reality to some of the lies that the Rs spewed about health care reform last year, but he took the initiative to become a self-designated "death panel."
He placed a "Do Not Resuscitate" directive on Harry Mitchell and his political career.
His primary concern was Harry's age, 70.
Perhaps Patterson *is* correct in his insinuation, and Mitchell is too old for public service, but then that would then bring up another point -
Harry Mitchell, date of birth: July 18, 1940
John McCain, date of birth: August 29, 1936
Guess which one is running for a six-year term, and which one is running for a two-year term?
Saturday, September 04, 2010
About the recent CD5 poll numbers (and CD1 and CD8)
Serving to fill in the deafening silence from the RW blogs (zero posts and counting so far) regarding Jan Brewer's performance has been the recently released poll numbers purporting to show that the R candidates in CDs 1, 5, and 8 are head of or tied with the Democratic incumbents in those districts.
What the R blogs haven't mentioned in their crowing about the poll are the partisan biases of the groups behind the poll.
The poll was commissioned by a 501c(4) group called the American Action Network (AAN). It's part of an organization of different groups created to serve as a Republican advocacy effort "independent" of the Republican Party in its quest to regain control of the federal government.
Among those involved with AAN -
Rob Collins, president of AAN, and former chief of staff to Eric Cantor, Minority Whip in the U.S. House of Representatives
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of American Action Forum (one of the related groups mentioned above) was a senior adviser to John McCain during his unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign
Norm Coleman, CEO of AAN, a Republican former U.S. Senator (lost to Al Franken. YES!)
Fred Malek, an AAN board member, was a Nixon administration operative who has become a big fundraiser for the Republican party (and John McCain)
Haley Barbour, an AAN board member, is the Republican Governor of Mississippi and head of the Republican Governors Association
The polling was conducted by the firm Ayers McHenry, a company that openly, even proudly, proclaims that it is partisan and supportive of Republican candidates and causes. Not that reading their website's list of clients isn't a dead giveaway.
The polling data has been released through AAN's affiliate group, American Action Forum (AAF).
I'm not qualified to discuss the technical aspects of the way that the poll was conducted, but there seem to be issues with the methodology of the poll - a small sample size, a universe that seems to be skewed toward self-identified conservatives out of proportion to their presence in the population as a whole, and questions, that if not quite of "push poll" quality, definitely look to be designed to elicit certain desired responses.
All of which serve to undermine the credibility of the results, making it seem likely that the "poll" is less "scientific research" and more "messaging research" or even "wishful thinking."
At best, this should be considered to be a third party-funded "internal poll." As the Parraz campaign (and I) learned in the just-completed primary cycle, internal polls have a tendency to match the spin that is placed on them and not to reflect real sentiment.
To be sure, the Democrats in question - Ann Kirkpatrick (CD1), Gabrielle Giffords (CD8), and Harry Mitchell (CD5) - have tough races ahead of them.
Giffords and Mitchell both face significant Republican registration advantages in their districts (~18K in CD8, ~ 40K in CD5). Kirkpatrick has a Democratic advantage (~ 20K) to work with in CD1, but her district is heavily rural and as recently as 2006 elected a [corrupt] Republican (Rick Renzi). It's a district that has been able to elect conservative Democrat Jack Brown and (relatively) moderate Republican Bill Konopnicki to the Arizona House of Representatives (LD5, each).
In short, all three knew early on, even before their first races for the seats in Congress that they now occupy, that they would *never* have easy paths to reelection, and have been running intelligent, energetic campaigns ever since.
Caveat: I have volunteered for the Mitchell campaign in the recent past, and will again in the near future.
When more reputable and independent polling organizations, such as Gallup or Behavior Research Center (aka - Rocky Mountain Polls), weigh in on AZ's congressional races, those results will have much more credibility than a glorified internal poll.
What the R blogs haven't mentioned in their crowing about the poll are the partisan biases of the groups behind the poll.
The poll was commissioned by a 501c(4) group called the American Action Network (AAN). It's part of an organization of different groups created to serve as a Republican advocacy effort "independent" of the Republican Party in its quest to regain control of the federal government.
Among those involved with AAN -
Rob Collins, president of AAN, and former chief of staff to Eric Cantor, Minority Whip in the U.S. House of Representatives
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of American Action Forum (one of the related groups mentioned above) was a senior adviser to John McCain during his unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign
Norm Coleman, CEO of AAN, a Republican former U.S. Senator (lost to Al Franken. YES!)
Fred Malek, an AAN board member, was a Nixon administration operative who has become a big fundraiser for the Republican party (and John McCain)
Haley Barbour, an AAN board member, is the Republican Governor of Mississippi and head of the Republican Governors Association
The polling was conducted by the firm Ayers McHenry, a company that openly, even proudly, proclaims that it is partisan and supportive of Republican candidates and causes. Not that reading their website's list of clients isn't a dead giveaway.
The polling data has been released through AAN's affiliate group, American Action Forum (AAF).
I'm not qualified to discuss the technical aspects of the way that the poll was conducted, but there seem to be issues with the methodology of the poll - a small sample size, a universe that seems to be skewed toward self-identified conservatives out of proportion to their presence in the population as a whole, and questions, that if not quite of "push poll" quality, definitely look to be designed to elicit certain desired responses.
All of which serve to undermine the credibility of the results, making it seem likely that the "poll" is less "scientific research" and more "messaging research" or even "wishful thinking."
At best, this should be considered to be a third party-funded "internal poll." As the Parraz campaign (and I) learned in the just-completed primary cycle, internal polls have a tendency to match the spin that is placed on them and not to reflect real sentiment.
To be sure, the Democrats in question - Ann Kirkpatrick (CD1), Gabrielle Giffords (CD8), and Harry Mitchell (CD5) - have tough races ahead of them.
Giffords and Mitchell both face significant Republican registration advantages in their districts (~18K in CD8, ~ 40K in CD5). Kirkpatrick has a Democratic advantage (~ 20K) to work with in CD1, but her district is heavily rural and as recently as 2006 elected a [corrupt] Republican (Rick Renzi). It's a district that has been able to elect conservative Democrat Jack Brown and (relatively) moderate Republican Bill Konopnicki to the Arizona House of Representatives (LD5, each).
In short, all three knew early on, even before their first races for the seats in Congress that they now occupy, that they would *never* have easy paths to reelection, and have been running intelligent, energetic campaigns ever since.
Caveat: I have volunteered for the Mitchell campaign in the recent past, and will again in the near future.
When more reputable and independent polling organizations, such as Gallup or Behavior Research Center (aka - Rocky Mountain Polls), weigh in on AZ's congressional races, those results will have much more credibility than a glorified internal poll.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Fun with campaign signs
It hasn't even been a week, and the Schweikert campaign dirty tricks have already started...
Sighted on the northeast corner of 48th St. and Chandler Boulevard today -
And in case anyone questions the source of the signs...
There were others, calling Mitchell "union owned" and more. The ones I saw were also located in the 48th St. corridor.
This technique, putting up "counter" or "insult" signs next to an opposition candidate's signs, is hardly a new one, but it had fallen into some disfavor over the last few election cycles. It cropped up a little during the primary season, and with this, it's evident that certain campaigns are digging deep into the bag of dirty tricks (more on that tomorrow).
It's generally a waste of money because the primary audience for them has already made their choice. In other words, it's "preaching to the choir" time. In addition, in the case of the above sign, most undecided voters won't know who "Pelosi" is, or why being associated with "Pelosi" is supposed to be a bad thing (though I happen to think it is a good thing, but I'm just a wiseass liberal blogger :) ).
It's rather telling that Schweikert has started his general election campaign with dirty tricks with signscoordinated "coincidentally timed"** with Americans for Prosperity television attacks on Harry Mitchell. Most campaigns try to start off on a positive note, trying to educate voters on why they should vote *for* their candidate, not why they should vote *against* their opposition.
However, the Schweikert platform mainly consists of "tax cuts for the wealthy and no regulations for corporations," which aren't exactly strong planks in an area as economically distressed as Arizona. As such, he has no recourse but to go negative early in the general election cycle.
Look for more stunts like this one or last cycle's mailer where Schweikert claimed to have the endorsement of the Arizona Republic. He *had* received such an endorsement.
For another race.
Years before.
Anyway, I suppose I have to give the Schweikert campaign some credit -"Pelosi's Lap Dog" may not be the truth, but it is probably more beneficial to his campaign than the actual truth -
"CD5's Champion."
** = The AFP spots are "independent expenditures" and cannot be coordinated with a candidate committee. Given the lead time on both creating signs and TV spots, the timing of both the signs and the TV spots could reasonably inspire some raised eyebrows. However, suspicions aren't direct knowledge that AFP and the Schweikert campaign coordinated the roll out of both.
KNXV-TV (Phoenix channel 15) coverage here.
Sighted on the northeast corner of 48th St. and Chandler Boulevard today -
And in case anyone questions the source of the signs...
There were others, calling Mitchell "union owned" and more. The ones I saw were also located in the 48th St. corridor.
This technique, putting up "counter" or "insult" signs next to an opposition candidate's signs, is hardly a new one, but it had fallen into some disfavor over the last few election cycles. It cropped up a little during the primary season, and with this, it's evident that certain campaigns are digging deep into the bag of dirty tricks (more on that tomorrow).
It's generally a waste of money because the primary audience for them has already made their choice. In other words, it's "preaching to the choir" time. In addition, in the case of the above sign, most undecided voters won't know who "Pelosi" is, or why being associated with "Pelosi" is supposed to be a bad thing (though I happen to think it is a good thing, but I'm just a wiseass liberal blogger :) ).
It's rather telling that Schweikert has started his general election campaign with dirty tricks with signs
However, the Schweikert platform mainly consists of "tax cuts for the wealthy and no regulations for corporations," which aren't exactly strong planks in an area as economically distressed as Arizona. As such, he has no recourse but to go negative early in the general election cycle.
Look for more stunts like this one or last cycle's mailer where Schweikert claimed to have the endorsement of the Arizona Republic. He *had* received such an endorsement.
For another race.
Years before.
Anyway, I suppose I have to give the Schweikert campaign some credit -"Pelosi's Lap Dog" may not be the truth, but it is probably more beneficial to his campaign than the actual truth -
"CD5's Champion."
** = The AFP spots are "independent expenditures" and cannot be coordinated with a candidate committee. Given the lead time on both creating signs and TV spots, the timing of both the signs and the TV spots could reasonably inspire some raised eyebrows. However, suspicions aren't direct knowledge that AFP and the Schweikert campaign coordinated the roll out of both.
KNXV-TV (Phoenix channel 15) coverage here.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Billionaire wingers from New York trying to buy elections in Arizona
Since Tuesday's primary results came in, showing David Schweikert to be the Republican nominee in CD5, television viewers have been inundated with ads deriding Democrats in general and Representatives Harry Mitchell and Ann Kirkpatrick in particular.
The spots are the product of a Republican front organization named "Americans for Prosperity." (AFP)(The spot specifically targeting Mitchell and Kirkpatrick is here. I won't embed it here, but will be referring to it later. :) )
AFP is dedicated to protecting the short-term financial interests of large corporations and the ultra-wealthy, organizing and funding campaigns against health care reform, efforts to address climate change, tobacco regulations, balanced state budgets, and anything resembling a social safety net (like Social Security). It has also played a big part in funnelling money and direction to the tea party movement within the Republican Party.
As this article from The New Yorker documents, AFP is the brainchild of David Koch who, with his brother Charles, owns almost all of Koch Industries, one of the country's biggest polluters (hence their opposition to industry/environmental regulations). Aside from AFP, the Koch brothers are literally two of the biggest contributors to Republican/corporate causes, donating approximately $100 million over the years.
That's all just background to the latest attack ads that they are bombing Arizonans with.
The spot that targets Harry Mitchell and Ann Kirkpatrick specifically has, shall we say, a rather "weak" relationship with the truth (focusing on the Mitchell-related stuff) -
Lie: The spot refers to Mitchell as a "Washington liberal."
Reality: Mitchell was born and raised in Tempe. He married his high school sweetheart there and has lived in the same house in Tempe for almost 50 years. He taught at Tempe High for 28 years. He served Tempe (and Scottsdale and the rest of CD5) as a member of the City Council, Mayor, State Senator, and Congressman for almost 40 years.
Reality: Harry Mitchell is hardly a "liberal" (a fact that occasionally infuriates actual liberals in CD5, like yours truly :) ). Don't take my word for it - the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action graded Mitchell's voting record as 60% liberal, with the average Democratic grade as 85% and fellow AZers Pastor and Grijalva at 100%. Mitchell is one of an ever-shrinking group in Congress - the moderates.
Lie: When Harry Mitchell voted in support of the health care reform, he voted for something that will cost a trillion dollars,balloon the federal deficit, limit medical choices, and gut Medicare.
Reality: HCR will reduce the federal deficit by $143 million, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Reality: According to WebMD, HCR doesn't limit choice any more than the current system does.
Reality: According to the AARP (hardly a partisan organization), HCR actually strengthens Medicare by, among other things, reducing prescription costs for seniors.
Reality: David Schweikert, the AFP-supported Republican candidate in CD5, is actually the candidate in the race who supports Republican Representative Paul Ryan's plan for privatizing Social Security and ending Medicare.
Lie (or fib, at least): Arizonans "overwhelmingly" oppose HCR.
Reality: They are citing a poll from Rasmussen Reports. Rasmussen is known for being somewhat biased and partisan, favoring Republican positions in their polling results. (OK, if the RNC decided to say that Magellan and centuries of scientific observations are wrong and the world is actually flat, Rasmussen would come out with a poll that says that 70% of Americans agree...but I digress :) ).
Reality: More objective polling organizations, such as Gallup, show that the country is sharply divided on the issue.
Lie: The spot claims that Mitchell votes for the positions and interests of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic leadership, ahead of the interests of Arizonans.
Reality: As this Washington Post study shows, Mitchell is the sixth-most independent member of Congress, voting with his party's leadership less than 80% of the time. He's easily the most independent member of the AZ delegation, Republican or Democrat.
...OK, that's just the wonky, facts-centered stuff.
The juicy, gossipy stuff from analyzing the ad is this -
One of the actors in the spot (pic from the spot below), Greg from Scottsdale (I think)
is "sort of" well known within local tea party circles -
The spots are the product of a Republican front organization named "Americans for Prosperity." (AFP)(The spot specifically targeting Mitchell and Kirkpatrick is here. I won't embed it here, but will be referring to it later. :) )
AFP is dedicated to protecting the short-term financial interests of large corporations and the ultra-wealthy, organizing and funding campaigns against health care reform, efforts to address climate change, tobacco regulations, balanced state budgets, and anything resembling a social safety net (like Social Security). It has also played a big part in funnelling money and direction to the tea party movement within the Republican Party.
As this article from The New Yorker documents, AFP is the brainchild of David Koch who, with his brother Charles, owns almost all of Koch Industries, one of the country's biggest polluters (hence their opposition to industry/environmental regulations). Aside from AFP, the Koch brothers are literally two of the biggest contributors to Republican/corporate causes, donating approximately $100 million over the years.
That's all just background to the latest attack ads that they are bombing Arizonans with.
The spot that targets Harry Mitchell and Ann Kirkpatrick specifically has, shall we say, a rather "weak" relationship with the truth (focusing on the Mitchell-related stuff) -
Lie: The spot refers to Mitchell as a "Washington liberal."
Reality: Mitchell was born and raised in Tempe. He married his high school sweetheart there and has lived in the same house in Tempe for almost 50 years. He taught at Tempe High for 28 years. He served Tempe (and Scottsdale and the rest of CD5) as a member of the City Council, Mayor, State Senator, and Congressman for almost 40 years.
Reality: Harry Mitchell is hardly a "liberal" (a fact that occasionally infuriates actual liberals in CD5, like yours truly :) ). Don't take my word for it - the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action graded Mitchell's voting record as 60% liberal, with the average Democratic grade as 85% and fellow AZers Pastor and Grijalva at 100%. Mitchell is one of an ever-shrinking group in Congress - the moderates.
Lie: When Harry Mitchell voted in support of the health care reform, he voted for something that will cost a trillion dollars,balloon the federal deficit, limit medical choices, and gut Medicare.
Reality: HCR will reduce the federal deficit by $143 million, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Reality: According to WebMD, HCR doesn't limit choice any more than the current system does.
Reality: According to the AARP (hardly a partisan organization), HCR actually strengthens Medicare by, among other things, reducing prescription costs for seniors.
Reality: David Schweikert, the AFP-supported Republican candidate in CD5, is actually the candidate in the race who supports Republican Representative Paul Ryan's plan for privatizing Social Security and ending Medicare.
Lie (or fib, at least): Arizonans "overwhelmingly" oppose HCR.
Reality: They are citing a poll from Rasmussen Reports. Rasmussen is known for being somewhat biased and partisan, favoring Republican positions in their polling results. (OK, if the RNC decided to say that Magellan and centuries of scientific observations are wrong and the world is actually flat, Rasmussen would come out with a poll that says that 70% of Americans agree...but I digress :) ).
Reality: More objective polling organizations, such as Gallup, show that the country is sharply divided on the issue.
Lie: The spot claims that Mitchell votes for the positions and interests of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic leadership, ahead of the interests of Arizonans.
Reality: As this Washington Post study shows, Mitchell is the sixth-most independent member of Congress, voting with his party's leadership less than 80% of the time. He's easily the most independent member of the AZ delegation, Republican or Democrat.
...OK, that's just the wonky, facts-centered stuff.
The juicy, gossipy stuff from analyzing the ad is this -
One of the actors in the spot (pic from the spot below), Greg from Scottsdale (I think)
is "sort of" well known within local tea party circles -
Not just a paid demonstrator/actor he.
He's a true believer and has a website where he offers to "coach" interested folks on living his philosophy...over the phone...at $45 per hour.
Gotta pay for the photoshopped photos of President Obama in white-face somehow...
AFP and the Koch brothers may think this guy and David Schweikert are typical CD5ers, but they lens through which they view Arizona is a rather long one (Oklahoma, D.C., and NYC) and rather scratched.
Of course, with Schweikert's penchant for vulture investing, picking the bones of desperate Arizona homeowners, Schweikert is probably what they *hope* the typical CD5er is like.
Harry Mitchell, with his lifetime in and dedication to Arizona, is far more representative of CD5.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Friday Night Videos
When I was younger (a year or two ago :) ), one of the coolest shows on broadcast TV was NBC's Friday Night Videos.
OK, it was "cool" for people who didn't have cable and access to MTV back when they took the "M" in "MTV" seriously and still played music...but I digress... :))
So it is with that as background, I announce the start of a new series of posts.
Once per week, on Friday nights, I'll feature the best in new political videos (What? You were expecting Lady Gaga or Katy Perry? ...not that a Katy Perry vid would be a bad thing...something to think about for after the election cycle is over... :) )
For the premiere video in this series (drumroll, please)...
Vulture, featuring David Schweikert.
More info at Your loss, his gain.
OK, it was "cool" for people who didn't have cable and access to MTV back when they took the "M" in "MTV" seriously and still played music...but I digress... :))
So it is with that as background, I announce the start of a new series of posts.
Once per week, on Friday nights, I'll feature the best in new political videos (What? You were expecting Lady Gaga or Katy Perry? ...not that a Katy Perry vid would be a bad thing...something to think about for after the election cycle is over... :) )
For the premiere video in this series (drumroll, please)...
Vulture, featuring David Schweikert.
More info at Your loss, his gain.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
More coming out about Schweikert's predatory dealings
During the primary season in CD5, one of the Republican candidates for the nomination sent out a hit piece targeting Schweikert's vulture investment fund that targeted "distressed homeowners" facing fiscal difficulty in Arizona's depressed economy.
Greg Patterson of Espresso Pundit led the chorus of support for Schweikert, criticizing Salvino for criticizing a fellow Republican for doing something that they all consider to be acceptable.
The matter quickly faded in the tumult of a heavily contested primary. There were always dozens of other things clamoring for the attention of voters.
Well, it turns out that Patterson and the other R voters in CD5 should have paid closer attention.
Much closer.
As this website, sponsored by the Arizona Democratic Party, documents, Schweikert's vulture fund entered already devastated neighborhoods (full list of properties here) and driven them further downhill (long list of citations from the City of Phoenix here).
Part of Schweikert's campaign platform is that he is running to stand "up for Arizona values."
OK, I'll accept that from him. All he has to do is show me where the initiating and profiting from the predatory destruction of Arizona's neighborhoods for fun and profit is an "Arizona value."
More on this later.
"Your Loss, His Gain." Worth a visit.
Greg Patterson of Espresso Pundit led the chorus of support for Schweikert, criticizing Salvino for criticizing a fellow Republican for doing something that they all consider to be acceptable.
The matter quickly faded in the tumult of a heavily contested primary. There were always dozens of other things clamoring for the attention of voters.
Well, it turns out that Patterson and the other R voters in CD5 should have paid closer attention.
Much closer.
As this website, sponsored by the Arizona Democratic Party, documents, Schweikert's vulture fund entered already devastated neighborhoods (full list of properties here) and driven them further downhill (long list of citations from the City of Phoenix here).
Part of Schweikert's campaign platform is that he is running to stand "up for Arizona values."
OK, I'll accept that from him. All he has to do is show me where the initiating and profiting from the predatory destruction of Arizona's neighborhoods for fun and profit is an "Arizona value."
"Your Loss, His Gain." Worth a visit.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Primary Day is here: prediction time
Greg at Espresso Pundit went all in with his predictions, and Donna at Democratic Diva steadfastly and with dignity declined to make any predictions to avoid undermining/offending the ultimate winners in the Democratic primaries.
While I am not the "pundit" that Patterson is, neither am I as dignified as Donna (hey, I'm a Red Sox fan, and *you* try shouting "Yankees Suck!!" while maintaining proper decorum :) ). As such, I'm going to make my own predictions.
Disclaimer: My predictions are not an indication of a preference in Democratic primary races; in fact, I'll be predicting a winner who is other than the candidate I voted for in a couple of the races. In addition, my predictions in Republican races are based on very distant observations, not on any knowledge of how R primary voters think.
In other words, no wagering allowed on any of this. :)
On to the fearless predictions...
R Senate - McCain over Hayworth easily. It may not be the blowout that it should be, but it won't be that close.
D Senate - This one is tough. I'll go with Parraz over Glassman in a very close race. The info about Glassman's campaign, however, may have come out too late to affect the outcome since early ballots were sent out, and returned, weeks before the info came to light.
R CD5 - Schweikert. Far from a perfect candidate but he's run a solid primary campaign. I think the big question is if Ward will hold on to second. Look for Bitter Smith or Salvino to possibly sneak into the silver medal position.
R Maricopa County Attorney - Should be Romley in a cakewalk, but if Patterson is correct about this being a low turnout election (and I think he is), Montgomery could make it interesting.
R CD3 - Got no clue, other than it won't be Quayle. Even R primary voters want more substance in a candidate.
R AG - Horne in a close one. Thomas is just too damaged by his professional and ethical missteps.
D AG - Just a "feeling", but Rotellini seems to have the support of most of the Ds that I know. Having said that, any of the three Ds running (Rotellini, Lujan, Rabago) would make a better AG than either Horne or Thomas. (Of course, so would I, and my legal experience consists of serving as a juror in a Scottsdale shoplifting case...but I digress. :) )
R Superintendent of Public Instruction - Huppenthal. In any other state he'd have been relegated to the political scrap heap years ago, but in AZ, he's a Republican hero. With the name recognition to go with it among R primary voters.
D Superintendent of Public Instruction - No clue, not even a "feeling". Both Kotterman and Williams are dedicated educators and well-qualified for the position. I just have no idea who is going to win the D nod.
D Secretary of State - Wercinski, though with Deschene's outside-of-Maricopa County contacts, he could make this one a barn burner.
R CD1, CD8, Treasurer - Don't know, don't care. Kirkpatrick, Giffords, and Cherny will be the best choices in November, no matter who the Rs nominate in August.
R Governor (just for kicks) - Brewer. Includimg me, there are maybe 10 people in AZ who realize that Jette is an intelligent, thoughtful candidate. Everybody else's loss. I wouldn't vote for him, but AZ needs more candidates like him who are less chained to an absolutist ideology and more concerned with finding real-world solutions to real-world problems.
CQPolitics has coverage here; FiveThirtyEight.com coverage here.
While I am not the "pundit" that Patterson is, neither am I as dignified as Donna (hey, I'm a Red Sox fan, and *you* try shouting "Yankees Suck!!" while maintaining proper decorum :) ). As such, I'm going to make my own predictions.
Disclaimer: My predictions are not an indication of a preference in Democratic primary races; in fact, I'll be predicting a winner who is other than the candidate I voted for in a couple of the races. In addition, my predictions in Republican races are based on very distant observations, not on any knowledge of how R primary voters think.
In other words, no wagering allowed on any of this. :)
On to the fearless predictions...
R Senate - McCain over Hayworth easily. It may not be the blowout that it should be, but it won't be that close.
D Senate - This one is tough. I'll go with Parraz over Glassman in a very close race. The info about Glassman's campaign, however, may have come out too late to affect the outcome since early ballots were sent out, and returned, weeks before the info came to light.
R CD5 - Schweikert. Far from a perfect candidate but he's run a solid primary campaign. I think the big question is if Ward will hold on to second. Look for Bitter Smith or Salvino to possibly sneak into the silver medal position.
R Maricopa County Attorney - Should be Romley in a cakewalk, but if Patterson is correct about this being a low turnout election (and I think he is), Montgomery could make it interesting.
R CD3 - Got no clue, other than it won't be Quayle. Even R primary voters want more substance in a candidate.
R AG - Horne in a close one. Thomas is just too damaged by his professional and ethical missteps.
D AG - Just a "feeling", but Rotellini seems to have the support of most of the Ds that I know. Having said that, any of the three Ds running (Rotellini, Lujan, Rabago) would make a better AG than either Horne or Thomas. (Of course, so would I, and my legal experience consists of serving as a juror in a Scottsdale shoplifting case...but I digress. :) )
R Superintendent of Public Instruction - Huppenthal. In any other state he'd have been relegated to the political scrap heap years ago, but in AZ, he's a Republican hero. With the name recognition to go with it among R primary voters.
D Superintendent of Public Instruction - No clue, not even a "feeling". Both Kotterman and Williams are dedicated educators and well-qualified for the position. I just have no idea who is going to win the D nod.
D Secretary of State - Wercinski, though with Deschene's outside-of-Maricopa County contacts, he could make this one a barn burner.
R CD1, CD8, Treasurer - Don't know, don't care. Kirkpatrick, Giffords, and Cherny will be the best choices in November, no matter who the Rs nominate in August.
R Governor (just for kicks) - Brewer. Includimg me, there are maybe 10 people in AZ who realize that Jette is an intelligent, thoughtful candidate. Everybody else's loss. I wouldn't vote for him, but AZ needs more candidates like him who are less chained to an absolutist ideology and more concerned with finding real-world solutions to real-world problems.
CQPolitics has coverage here; FiveThirtyEight.com coverage here.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Congressman Harry Mitchell - Renewing Arizona's Economy
From an email from Congressman Harry Mitchell -
Dear [cpmaz]Later...
Since coming to Congress, I have been working to improve our nation’s energy policy by making investments in clean, green American-made energy, such as solar and wind power. These investments will not only help meet our energy needs, but also be a major and sustainable boost to Arizona’s economy.
In 2008, I successfully fought to extend the 30-percent solar investment tax credit to help our state’s solar industry grow and create jobs. With the help of solar tax credits and grants, Arizona Public Service and Abengoa Solar are developing the world's largest solar energy plant outside Gila Bend. The Solana solar generating station will create an estimated 1,500 jobs and provide clean, emission-free energy for 70,000 homes. Solana is expected to stimulate an estimated $1 billion in local economic development.
I believe that energy policies must shift our focus away from foreign petroleum imports and dirty fuels like coal, towards clean, domestically abundant alternative energies. That’s why last year, I opposed the “cap and trade” bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, because instead of investing in carbon-neutral energies like solar, the measure would have doubled down America’s reliance on coal. I believe this was a step backward at a time when it is so vitally important for us to move forward. I was also concerned about a provision that would give the federal government power to overrule Arizona’s decisions about where we choose to place our power lines.
Nevertheless, I believe that we still need to work to find clean, alternative domestic sources of energy. I supported the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act because, in part, it makes significant investments in our nation's alternative energy infrastructure through both tax incentives and competitive grants. This investment will create more than a half a million green jobs dedicated toward moving America forward. Since coming to Congress, I have been working to improve our nation’s energy policy, by making investments in clean, green American-made energy, such as solar and wind power. These investments will not only help meet our energy needs, but also be an economic boon to our Arizona economy.
I have also supported increased energy efficiency. In 2007, I backed the first increase in fuel efficiency standards in more than a generation, raising federal standards to 35 mpg. I also supported extending personal tax credits to individuals for solar panels on their homes as well as expanded tax credits for people who buy hybrid cars.
As always, I look forward to being able to provide you with regular updates and continue our dialogue in support of clean, renewable energy in the future.
Sincerely,
Harry
Monday, August 16, 2010
FEC Reports - Congressional primary races
Some of these are eye-opening...
All info courtesy the website of the Federal Election Commission, reporting period 7/1/2010 thru 8/4/2010 (three weeks before the primary)...
In order of interest to me (call it "blogger's privilege" or something :) ) -
CD5
Schweikert: $225529.45 cash on hand, raised slightly less than $36K during the period, spent over $244K. Debt of $500K (to himself).
Ward: $172944.21 on hand, raised $28657, spent $264K, $315548.83 in debt.
Bitter Smith: $48454.60 on hand, raised less than $20K, spent slightly less than $83K, $81329.02 debt.
Salvino: $27.6K on hand, raised less than $10K, spent more than $91K, debt of $210958.04.
Spinks: $41.82 cash on hand (not "41.82K" but forty-one dollars and eighty-two cents), raised $170, spent $557, no debt.
Gentry: I couldn't find a report for the most recent reporting period.
Analysis*: It isn't over per se, but Salvino, Spinks and Gentry are toast, and Bitter Smith is on life support. Ward has a shot, but Schweikert seems to think he has it wrapped up, and is coasting a little, ticking off supporters of some of the other candidates.
These folks seem to be Republican B-teamers - perennial wannabes looking for one last shot at glory or carpetbaggers looking for a district where they can buy a nomination. Not talking smack here, one of these folks could move up to A-team status (Bitter Smith and Schweikert have held offices before, and Ward has access to cash), but they've got it to prove.
CD3
Crump: Less than $7300 on hand, raised $11456, spent slightly over $17K. No debt.
Gorman: Less than $26K on hand, raised $14K, spent $5371. No debt.
Morris: Slightly more than $40K on hand, raised $16K, spent $74K, $50K debt.
Moak: $121K on hand, raised a little more than $15K, spent more than $577K. Debt of more than $592K ($300K in this period alone).
Parker: $63K on hand, raised $36K, spent $123K, debt of $26431.60.
Quayle: $429K on hand, raised $218K, spent $473K, $1223 debt.
Waring: $29.5K on hand, raised $17K, spent $81K, debt of $41K.
Winkler: $24.5K on hand, raised $5225, spent $8253, no debt.
I cannot find reports for the other candidates (Branch, Hull).
Analysis*: Based on the money numbers, the race is between Quayle (tapping Daddy's friends for cash) and Moak (placing a big bet on his own candidacy), but Parker, Waring, Gorman, and Morris still have a heartbeat. In a free-for-all like this one, money for mailers and ad buys may not mean as much as an effective street-level GOTV machine. Crump, Winkler, Branch, and Hull are done. Quayle should be just as done after his recent gaffes, but Daddy's money and name may purchase some short memories among GOP primary voters.
Probably the strongest set of candidates that the GOP has fielded this year (3 former legislators, 2 former mayors, 1 son of a former USVP, a well-funded businessman, and Morris, who is moderate, female, intelligent, articulate, attractive, Jewish, and Cuban. In Florida, they'd have already cancelled the election and administered the oath of office to her, but in AZ she'll be lucky to break out of single digits), but they are slicing each other to ribbons and whittling down the funds that donors will have available in the general election. Look for lots of independent expenditures from GOP-friendly groups as they try to retain this seat in the general.
CD8
Paton: almost $187K on hand, raised $46K, spent $146K, debt of slightly less than $13K.
Kelly: almost $79K on hand, raised $78K, spent $159K, no debt.
The other candidates have dropped out or haven't filed reports that I can find.
Analysis*: This race could be the one to watch - Paton is the candidate of the GOP "establishment" and may be the better general election candidate, but Kelly has enough Tea Party support to pull the upset, and enough cash to make a last minute push.
CD7
McClung: $15K on hand, raised slightly less than $11K, spent slightly less than $18K, debt of $2300.
Myers: more than $23K on hand, raised $1820, spent $56K, debt of more than $95K.
I couldn't find reports for the other candidates.
Analysis*: The top GOP candidates to unseat Raul Grijalva raised less than $13K between them. Candidates who are toast in other districts were able to raise more. Any other questions?
CD1
Bowers: A little more than $10K on hand, raised $11K, spent a little less than $15K, no debt.
Gosar: Nearly $41K on hand, raised slightly less than $40K, spent $130K, no debt.
Hay: More than $116K on hand, raised $32K, spent $60K, debt of $100K.
Jensen: Reporting $1195 cash on hand on the summary page, but also reports $1595 raised and $1595 spent. Hand-written reports, wife or other relative as treasurer. 'Nuff said.
Mehta: Less than $2600 on hand, raised $7300, spent $25K, debt of slight less than $11K.
I could not locate reports for the other candidates.
Analysis*: Hay's got the cash, Gosar seems to have the momentum. Hay may be holding on to the cash to pay down her debt after the primary. If the CD5 Rs are B-teamers, these folks are C- and D- teamers.
CD4
Contreras: $2500 on hand, raised $6800, spent $4300, $25K in debt.
Penalosa hasn't filed a report that I could find, but his July report showed numbers in line with Contreras'.
Analysis*: Either one could win the R nomination, though considering that incumbent Ed Pastor has $1.5 million on hand, I'm not sure that qualifies as a good thing for whichever one wins the nod.
CD2
Black reports $69 (not $69000 or even $6900, but *$69.00* cash on hand in his quest to unseat fellow Republican Franks (cash on hand of $69K).
CD6
Smith reports cash on hand of $5593 in his quest to unseat fellow Republican Flake (almost $800K on hand).
Analysis*: Both Franks and Flake face primary challenges from the right, of all places, but other than the hardcore Tea Party types, no one can say (with a straight face, anyway) that Franks and Flake are "too liberal" to be "good" Republicans. The lack of financial support for the upstarts indicates that both are safe from serious intra-GOP challenges.
Key: "Analysis*" equals "opportunity to let loose a little snark."
Note: The candidates who didn't file reports that I could locate are all long shots anyway, so I'm not worrying about them. If one of them pulls out a primary victory, I'll eat my computer**.
** = Not really. I will admit to making a mistake, however. Call it "eating crow instead of a computer."
Note2: I didn't really cover the Democratic races because there aren't any primary races for Congressional seats.
All info courtesy the website of the Federal Election Commission, reporting period 7/1/2010 thru 8/4/2010 (three weeks before the primary)...
In order of interest to me (call it "blogger's privilege" or something :) ) -
CD5
Schweikert: $225529.45 cash on hand, raised slightly less than $36K during the period, spent over $244K. Debt of $500K (to himself).
Ward: $172944.21 on hand, raised $28657, spent $264K, $315548.83 in debt.
Bitter Smith: $48454.60 on hand, raised less than $20K, spent slightly less than $83K, $81329.02 debt.
Salvino: $27.6K on hand, raised less than $10K, spent more than $91K, debt of $210958.04.
Spinks: $41.82 cash on hand (not "41.82K" but forty-one dollars and eighty-two cents), raised $170, spent $557, no debt.
Gentry: I couldn't find a report for the most recent reporting period.
Analysis*: It isn't over per se, but Salvino, Spinks and Gentry are toast, and Bitter Smith is on life support. Ward has a shot, but Schweikert seems to think he has it wrapped up, and is coasting a little, ticking off supporters of some of the other candidates.
These folks seem to be Republican B-teamers - perennial wannabes looking for one last shot at glory or carpetbaggers looking for a district where they can buy a nomination. Not talking smack here, one of these folks could move up to A-team status (Bitter Smith and Schweikert have held offices before, and Ward has access to cash), but they've got it to prove.
CD3
Crump: Less than $7300 on hand, raised $11456, spent slightly over $17K. No debt.
Gorman: Less than $26K on hand, raised $14K, spent $5371. No debt.
Morris: Slightly more than $40K on hand, raised $16K, spent $74K, $50K debt.
Moak: $121K on hand, raised a little more than $15K, spent more than $577K. Debt of more than $592K ($300K in this period alone).
Parker: $63K on hand, raised $36K, spent $123K, debt of $26431.60.
Quayle: $429K on hand, raised $218K, spent $473K, $1223 debt.
Waring: $29.5K on hand, raised $17K, spent $81K, debt of $41K.
Winkler: $24.5K on hand, raised $5225, spent $8253, no debt.
I cannot find reports for the other candidates (Branch, Hull).
Analysis*: Based on the money numbers, the race is between Quayle (tapping Daddy's friends for cash) and Moak (placing a big bet on his own candidacy), but Parker, Waring, Gorman, and Morris still have a heartbeat. In a free-for-all like this one, money for mailers and ad buys may not mean as much as an effective street-level GOTV machine. Crump, Winkler, Branch, and Hull are done. Quayle should be just as done after his recent gaffes, but Daddy's money and name may purchase some short memories among GOP primary voters.
Probably the strongest set of candidates that the GOP has fielded this year (3 former legislators, 2 former mayors, 1 son of a former USVP, a well-funded businessman, and Morris, who is moderate, female, intelligent, articulate, attractive, Jewish, and Cuban. In Florida, they'd have already cancelled the election and administered the oath of office to her, but in AZ she'll be lucky to break out of single digits), but they are slicing each other to ribbons and whittling down the funds that donors will have available in the general election. Look for lots of independent expenditures from GOP-friendly groups as they try to retain this seat in the general.
CD8
Paton: almost $187K on hand, raised $46K, spent $146K, debt of slightly less than $13K.
Kelly: almost $79K on hand, raised $78K, spent $159K, no debt.
The other candidates have dropped out or haven't filed reports that I can find.
Analysis*: This race could be the one to watch - Paton is the candidate of the GOP "establishment" and may be the better general election candidate, but Kelly has enough Tea Party support to pull the upset, and enough cash to make a last minute push.
CD7
McClung: $15K on hand, raised slightly less than $11K, spent slightly less than $18K, debt of $2300.
Myers: more than $23K on hand, raised $1820, spent $56K, debt of more than $95K.
I couldn't find reports for the other candidates.
Analysis*: The top GOP candidates to unseat Raul Grijalva raised less than $13K between them. Candidates who are toast in other districts were able to raise more. Any other questions?
CD1
Bowers: A little more than $10K on hand, raised $11K, spent a little less than $15K, no debt.
Gosar: Nearly $41K on hand, raised slightly less than $40K, spent $130K, no debt.
Hay: More than $116K on hand, raised $32K, spent $60K, debt of $100K.
Jensen: Reporting $1195 cash on hand on the summary page, but also reports $1595 raised and $1595 spent. Hand-written reports, wife or other relative as treasurer. 'Nuff said.
Mehta: Less than $2600 on hand, raised $7300, spent $25K, debt of slight less than $11K.
I could not locate reports for the other candidates.
Analysis*: Hay's got the cash, Gosar seems to have the momentum. Hay may be holding on to the cash to pay down her debt after the primary. If the CD5 Rs are B-teamers, these folks are C- and D- teamers.
CD4
Contreras: $2500 on hand, raised $6800, spent $4300, $25K in debt.
Penalosa hasn't filed a report that I could find, but his July report showed numbers in line with Contreras'.
Analysis*: Either one could win the R nomination, though considering that incumbent Ed Pastor has $1.5 million on hand, I'm not sure that qualifies as a good thing for whichever one wins the nod.
CD2
Black reports $69 (not $69000 or even $6900, but *$69.00* cash on hand in his quest to unseat fellow Republican Franks (cash on hand of $69K).
CD6
Smith reports cash on hand of $5593 in his quest to unseat fellow Republican Flake (almost $800K on hand).
Analysis*: Both Franks and Flake face primary challenges from the right, of all places, but other than the hardcore Tea Party types, no one can say (with a straight face, anyway) that Franks and Flake are "too liberal" to be "good" Republicans. The lack of financial support for the upstarts indicates that both are safe from serious intra-GOP challenges.
Key: "Analysis*" equals "opportunity to let loose a little snark."
Note: The candidates who didn't file reports that I could locate are all long shots anyway, so I'm not worrying about them. If one of them pulls out a primary victory, I'll eat my computer**.
** = Not really. I will admit to making a mistake, however. Call it "eating crow instead of a computer."
Note2: I didn't really cover the Democratic races because there aren't any primary races for Congressional seats.
Friday, August 06, 2010
Harry Mitchell vs. GOPer challengers: Public Service vs. Mudslinging and Politics As Usual
Keeping up with the compare and contrast theme of yesterday's post on the call for a special session of the legislature...
First up, an email from Congressman Harry Mitchell on the boring, but near and dear to the lives of CD5 residents, subject of home foreclosures -
- Perennial candidate David Schweikert is the subject of yet another FEC complaint, this one over a hit piece that was mailed to CD5 R voters. It doesn't have enough of a color contrast between the background and the "paid for by" disclaimer for that disclaimer to be readable.
- Tea Party-type Chris Salvino has sent out a similar hit piece, this one targeting Schweikert. While the "paid for by" clause is pretty clear, it has other problems, as Greg Patterson at the Republican blog Espresso Pundit points out in this post.
From Patterson's post -
- Ward himself is also sending out hit pieces, as Patterson pointed out in this post from July (Hey, I'm a registered Democrat. I don't get the good stuff because I'm not on their mailing lists... :) ). His piece was an attack on Schweikert in the "let's throw lots of stuff against the wall and see what sticks" school.
- Susan Bitter Smith, an industry lobbyist when she isn't moonlighting as a candidate for Congress, is the owner of a "consulting" firm that is working to override the concerns of Scottsdale residents regarding the height and density of buildings in downtown Scottsdale. Either she has given up on winning the R nomination (a possibility) and doesn't mind alienating voters during an election year, or she figures that the campaign contributions she can wheedle out of developers will outweigh any lost votes.
During last month's Republican Congressional candidate forum sponsored by the Arizona Republic, something struck me as odd at the time, but I couldn't put specific words to it at the time, so I didn't write about it then. (The archived broadcast can be found on this page.)
Watching the mudslinging and disregard for the needs and opinions of the residents of CD5 emanating from the R candidates brought it into focus.
The few times that the candidates spoke about Mitchell directly or about what they had heard voters say about him, they said something in a pitying tone, along the lines of "his heart is in the right place" but he isn't conservative enough.
The idea of a public official being a public servant seemed antithetical to their visions for themselves if they actually went on to win in November.
They've got no time or respect for people who view public service as an end in itself, not as a means to pursue an ideological agenda and personal aggrandizement.
Compare and contrast that with Mitchell's long career in public service, from nearly three decades as a high school teacher, through his terms on the Tempe City Council and as Mayor of Tempe, on to his four terms of service as the State Senator for Tempe and South Scottsdale, cuminating with his election to Congress in 2006.
Any questions on who I think people should vote for in November?
First up, an email from Congressman Harry Mitchell on the boring, but near and dear to the lives of CD5 residents, subject of home foreclosures -
Dear [cpmaz],Contrast Congressman Mitchell's efforts on behalf of his constituents with the antics of the various GOP "contenders" for a spot on November's ballot -
Our housing crisis is real; it is widespread; and it has reached deep into our economy, affecting us all. Inaction is not a responsible option.
Last weekend, I hosted my second Home Foreclosure Assistance Workshop in Ahwatukee. Arizona continues to have one of the worst foreclosure rates in the nation. One out of every 189 housing units in Arizona received a foreclosure notice during the month of June. That means that over 14,000 homes in Maricopa County alone went into foreclosure last month and gives us the third-highest foreclosure rate in the country.
Arizona Republic: Homeowners facing mortgage woes seek help at seminar.
I have heard far too many stories from people who are experiencing financial trouble, and their mortgage servicers will not take their calls until they are at least three-months behind on their payments. They feel like they are getting the run around and they want someone to help answer their questions. They feel like there is no one on their side.
That’s why I’ve been working hard with my colleagues in Congress to address foreclosures head-on. At the center of most home foreclosures is a house that has lost a lot of value, so I’ve proposed new tax incentives for homebuyers to help stimulate the housing market here in Arizona and across the country. I’ve also backed legislation that would make it easier for folks to get loan modifications when they are upside-down on their mortgage, or to refinance even if they have little-to-no equity in their home.
Foreclosure Prevention & Survival Resource Center: Online center providing links to housing, financial and consumer protection agencies.
But there’s more to be done. I believe we need more extensive tax cuts to help spur home sales and a plan that will avoid rewarding bad actors.
I will continue to fight, tackling foreclosures and decreasing home values head on. I welcome you to call my office with any questions, concerns and to see if our caseworkers can help. As always, please feel free to contact my office by clicking here or by calling (480) 946-2411.
Sincerely,
Harry
- Perennial candidate David Schweikert is the subject of yet another FEC complaint, this one over a hit piece that was mailed to CD5 R voters. It doesn't have enough of a color contrast between the background and the "paid for by" disclaimer for that disclaimer to be readable.
- Tea Party-type Chris Salvino has sent out a similar hit piece, this one targeting Schweikert. While the "paid for by" clause is pretty clear, it has other problems, as Greg Patterson at the Republican blog Espresso Pundit points out in this post.
From Patterson's post -
The piece is simple; it contains one fact that leads to one conclusion. Schweikert runs a vulture fund that preys on people, so he's wrong for Arizona. That's it.Court record regarding Salvino's bankruptcy/fraud issues here, and like the link to the hit piece above, courtesy Espresso Pundit.
There are only two problems with the piece and--unfortunately for Salvino--they are pretty big problems. First, the one fact on the piece is wrong. Schweikert operates a fund that buys properties--from BANKS. Hmm, that's not nearly as ominous. In fact, it ruins the entire point of hit piece. Dude, if you build a hit piece around ONE fact. That fact had better be true.
But that's not the real problem with this piece. The real problem is that Dr. Chris Salivino has no business mentioning investors or housing. That's because he opens the door for Schweikert to point out Salvino's disastrous financial history...bankruptcy, fraud, eviction notices and tax liens.
- Ward himself is also sending out hit pieces, as Patterson pointed out in this post from July (Hey, I'm a registered Democrat. I don't get the good stuff because I'm not on their mailing lists... :) ). His piece was an attack on Schweikert in the "let's throw lots of stuff against the wall and see what sticks" school.
- Susan Bitter Smith, an industry lobbyist when she isn't moonlighting as a candidate for Congress, is the owner of a "consulting" firm that is working to override the concerns of Scottsdale residents regarding the height and density of buildings in downtown Scottsdale. Either she has given up on winning the R nomination (a possibility) and doesn't mind alienating voters during an election year, or she figures that the campaign contributions she can wheedle out of developers will outweigh any lost votes.
During last month's Republican Congressional candidate forum sponsored by the Arizona Republic, something struck me as odd at the time, but I couldn't put specific words to it at the time, so I didn't write about it then. (The archived broadcast can be found on this page.)
Watching the mudslinging and disregard for the needs and opinions of the residents of CD5 emanating from the R candidates brought it into focus.
The few times that the candidates spoke about Mitchell directly or about what they had heard voters say about him, they said something in a pitying tone, along the lines of "his heart is in the right place" but he isn't conservative enough.
The idea of a public official being a public servant seemed antithetical to their visions for themselves if they actually went on to win in November.
They've got no time or respect for people who view public service as an end in itself, not as a means to pursue an ideological agenda and personal aggrandizement.
Compare and contrast that with Mitchell's long career in public service, from nearly three decades as a high school teacher, through his terms on the Tempe City Council and as Mayor of Tempe, on to his four terms of service as the State Senator for Tempe and South Scottsdale, cuminating with his election to Congress in 2006.
Any questions on who I think people should vote for in November?
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Early ballot time - 2010 primary
Early voting has started, and those voters who have signed up for the Pernanent Early Voting List or have specifically requested a mail ballot for this election should have received their ballot already (or will receive it within the next few days.)
If you are not on the PEVL list or haven't requested a ballot for this specific election, you can download the sign up form for the PEVL here or request a ballot for a single election here. The latest date to request an early ballot for the August primary is August 13.
My ballot is a Democratic one, specific to CD5/LD17/Maricopa County/University Lakes Justice Precinct, and can be found here. (Just for giggles, the Republican ballot for the same area is here; the Libertarian ballot is here; and the Green ballot is here.)
While I have determined who to vote for in the races where there are contests, I won't list those choices here. All of the Democratic candidates are excellent choices (one of the advantages to being a Democrat in a state that is so dominated by Republicans is that anyone running as a D is someone who takes public service seriously) and I'll proudly support the eventual winners in the general election.
The candidates on my ballot, and their campaign websites, are (in the order listed on the ballot, not my personal preference.):
US Senate (vote for one)
Randy Parraz
John Dougherty
Cathy Eden
Rodney Glassman
U.S. Representative (CD5)
Harry Mitchell
Governor of Arizona
Terry Goddard
State Senator (LD17)
David Schapira
State Representative (LD17) (vote for two)
Ed Ableser
Ben Arredondo
Arizona Secretary of State (vote for one)
Sam Wercinski
Chris Deschene
Arizona Attorney General (vote for one)
Felecia Rotellini
David Lujan
Vince Rabago
Arizona State Treasurer
Andrei Cherny
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction (vote for one)
Jason Williams
Penny Kotterman
Arizona Mine Inspector
Manuel Cruz
Arizona Corporation Commission (vote for two)
Renz Jennings
David Bradley
Jorge Luis Garcia
Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court
Sherry Williams
Justice of the Peace, University Lakes Justice Precinct (vote for one)
Meg Burton Cahill (no campaign webpage that I could find, but her state senate page is here)
Kathy Hayden
One of the more interesting races is one that isn't on my ballot - the race between Republicans Rick Romley and Bill Montgomery to serve out the remaining 2+ years of Andrew Thomas' term as Maricopa County Attorney. No D is running for the spot, preferring to save up their campaigning energies for 2012.
The race there has boiled down to Romley's professionalism versus Montgomery's Arpaio-ism. In a general election contest, Romley would win in a walkover, but since the race will be decided by the R primary voters, anything could happen.
Updates on this and the other races as they become available.
If you are not on the PEVL list or haven't requested a ballot for this specific election, you can download the sign up form for the PEVL here or request a ballot for a single election here. The latest date to request an early ballot for the August primary is August 13.
My ballot is a Democratic one, specific to CD5/LD17/Maricopa County/University Lakes Justice Precinct, and can be found here. (Just for giggles, the Republican ballot for the same area is here; the Libertarian ballot is here; and the Green ballot is here.)
While I have determined who to vote for in the races where there are contests, I won't list those choices here. All of the Democratic candidates are excellent choices (one of the advantages to being a Democrat in a state that is so dominated by Republicans is that anyone running as a D is someone who takes public service seriously) and I'll proudly support the eventual winners in the general election.
The candidates on my ballot, and their campaign websites, are (in the order listed on the ballot, not my personal preference.):
US Senate (vote for one)
Randy Parraz
John Dougherty
Cathy Eden
Rodney Glassman
U.S. Representative (CD5)
Harry Mitchell
Governor of Arizona
Terry Goddard
State Senator (LD17)
David Schapira
State Representative (LD17) (vote for two)
Ed Ableser
Ben Arredondo
Arizona Secretary of State (vote for one)
Sam Wercinski
Chris Deschene
Arizona Attorney General (vote for one)
Felecia Rotellini
David Lujan
Vince Rabago
Arizona State Treasurer
Andrei Cherny
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction (vote for one)
Jason Williams
Penny Kotterman
Arizona Mine Inspector
Manuel Cruz
Arizona Corporation Commission (vote for two)
Renz Jennings
David Bradley
Jorge Luis Garcia
Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court
Sherry Williams
Justice of the Peace, University Lakes Justice Precinct (vote for one)
Meg Burton Cahill (no campaign webpage that I could find, but her state senate page is here)
Kathy Hayden
One of the more interesting races is one that isn't on my ballot - the race between Republicans Rick Romley and Bill Montgomery to serve out the remaining 2+ years of Andrew Thomas' term as Maricopa County Attorney. No D is running for the spot, preferring to save up their campaigning energies for 2012.
The race there has boiled down to Romley's professionalism versus Montgomery's Arpaio-ism. In a general election contest, Romley would win in a walkover, but since the race will be decided by the R primary voters, anything could happen.
Updates on this and the other races as they become available.
Monday, July 26, 2010
More fun with signs...
Keeping up with the theme of the last post...
It seems as if the Republicans really have their claws out for each other this year.
It seems as if the Republicans really have their claws out for each other this year.
This sign was spotted at the intersection of Rio Salado Parkway and Priest Drive in Tempe, in the heart of CD5.
Note the add-on banner in the upper left portion of the sign.
"CO-SPONSORED AND VOTED FOR SB1070"
Which would be fine in a "I'm not going to vote for him anyway, so even that doesn't lower my opinion of him" sort of way, except for one thing -
Ward has never held elected office, much less a seat in the Arizona legislature. He never had the opportunity to co-sponsor and vote for SB1070.
To be fair to Mr. Ward, I don't actually believe his campaign added the false statement to his sign. Yes, every R in the state is trying to jump on the nativist bandwagon, but even they hesitate at such a blatant lie...
...OK, they don't hesitate to lie so much as they hesitate to be *caught* lying, and that one is very easily debunked.
On the other hand, they don't hesitate to be caught lying, when they can make it look like someone else is doing the lying.
And the Schweikert campaign is also using the add-on banner gimmick on their signs, with the same white lettering on a red background.
Hmmm....
BTW - As of this afternoon anyway, the banner on the sign pictured above has been changed to "Endorsed by Congressman John Shadegg.".
BTW2 - The campaign claws are out and boy are they sharp this cycle. There are a huge number of pro-Schweikert trolls (or one pasty-complexioned one with absolutely no life) posting praise for Schweikert and criticism of Ward on all of the R blogs and many of the AZRep articles covering the CD5 primary. Given the amount of personal wealth that Schweikert, Ward, and a couple of the others have invested in the race to challenge Democratic incumbent Harry Mitchell, look for things to get even nastier than sign games and troll droppings.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The CD5 R forum
It wasn't as interesting as the R Senate debates this week because there were fewer direct attacks on other candidates.
Other than that, however, there wasn't any significant difference between the two forums - all of the R candidates are running against brown people and for big business.
"Highlights" in no particular order:
David Schweikert blamed his 2008 loss to Congressman Harry Mitchell on the "toxic" environment for conservative Republicans engendered by the passage of TARP and the financial sector bailouts (on the plus side, even though he probably didn't realize it at the time, the makes Schweikert one of the few Rs to admit that the blame for the economic meltdown falls upon the Republicans' failed economic ideology and upon the Rs' keepers on Wall St.)
Lee Gentry, also a 2008 candidate, attributed his somewhat lackluster showing (706 votes, fewer than his number of signatures on his nominating petitions) to "building momentum" and equated himself to Michael Jordan when he was cut from his high school hoops team but went on to greatness anyway. I kid you not...
Chris Salvino wants to address issues along the U.S./Mexico border by building a high wall topped with razor wire and closely spaced blockhouses all along the border. Sort of a 21st Century Maginot Line, something that didn't work so well for the French in 1940, but...
Susan Bitter Smith blamed Arizona's economic woes on undocumented immigrants, saying that getting rid of them will cure all.
All of them hate Health Care Reform, wanting to repeal the bill passed earlier this year and replace it with tort reform and "the free market." Most of them mentioned tort reform even before they spoke about patients.
Misspeak of the night - Gentry with "we are a nation of native Americans and legal immigrants" and everybody else should take a number. I'm pretty sure Native American groups, some of which are in CD5 (Salt River Pima/Maricopa Indian Community), might have something to say about that one...
In a series of yes/no questions, all of them opposed extending Unemployment Insurance benefits for the long-term unemployed, earmarks, the DREAM Act, tax credits/incentives for solar and renewable energy efforts (unless existing energy sources, and corporations, are protected) and favor a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage (except for Gentry, who pledged to fight for LGBT issues if elected. It was the only serious break with Republican orthodoxy in the hour.) One candidate, I'm not sure which, opposed a Constitution amendment, but only because he thought it would devalue Constitutional amendments, not because he supported the rights of freely consenting adults to enter the relationships that they choose.
In short, the hour was spent with each candidate swearing loyalty and obeisance to the main tenets of Republican thought, and swearing that they were more loyal and obedient that the others - brown people bad, President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Democrats in general bad, and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy good.
Normally, I can watch one of these things find a candidate who, if not exactly "good", is less bad than the others, but not here. Other than Gentry's support of LGBT issues (and Gentry doesn't have a snowball's chance in Phoenix of making it through the primary), this bunch is reading from the same pages of the "more conservative than thou" playbook, a playbook that doesn't allow for candidates who will do anything for the districts that they are campaigning to "represent."
One interesting thing about the forum was something that *didn't* come up, something that could have afforded the assembled candidates the ability to separate themselves - abortion rights.
I don't know about the others, but Susan Bitter Smith has a pro-choice record.
It's the sort of thing that doesn't play well in Republican primaries. Given that the Scottsdale Republic was the sponsor of the forum, that omission may be a clue as to which candidate they plan on endorsing.
They probably don't want to undercut their preferred choice, before she even has a chance to become the nominee.
Not that I'm a cynic or anything... :)
Other than that, however, there wasn't any significant difference between the two forums - all of the R candidates are running against brown people and for big business.
"Highlights" in no particular order:
David Schweikert blamed his 2008 loss to Congressman Harry Mitchell on the "toxic" environment for conservative Republicans engendered by the passage of TARP and the financial sector bailouts (on the plus side, even though he probably didn't realize it at the time, the makes Schweikert one of the few Rs to admit that the blame for the economic meltdown falls upon the Republicans' failed economic ideology and upon the Rs' keepers on Wall St.)
Lee Gentry, also a 2008 candidate, attributed his somewhat lackluster showing (706 votes, fewer than his number of signatures on his nominating petitions) to "building momentum" and equated himself to Michael Jordan when he was cut from his high school hoops team but went on to greatness anyway. I kid you not...
Chris Salvino wants to address issues along the U.S./Mexico border by building a high wall topped with razor wire and closely spaced blockhouses all along the border. Sort of a 21st Century Maginot Line, something that didn't work so well for the French in 1940, but...
Susan Bitter Smith blamed Arizona's economic woes on undocumented immigrants, saying that getting rid of them will cure all.
All of them hate Health Care Reform, wanting to repeal the bill passed earlier this year and replace it with tort reform and "the free market." Most of them mentioned tort reform even before they spoke about patients.
Misspeak of the night - Gentry with "we are a nation of native Americans and legal immigrants" and everybody else should take a number. I'm pretty sure Native American groups, some of which are in CD5 (Salt River Pima/Maricopa Indian Community), might have something to say about that one...
In a series of yes/no questions, all of them opposed extending Unemployment Insurance benefits for the long-term unemployed, earmarks, the DREAM Act, tax credits/incentives for solar and renewable energy efforts (unless existing energy sources, and corporations, are protected) and favor a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage (except for Gentry, who pledged to fight for LGBT issues if elected. It was the only serious break with Republican orthodoxy in the hour.) One candidate, I'm not sure which, opposed a Constitution amendment, but only because he thought it would devalue Constitutional amendments, not because he supported the rights of freely consenting adults to enter the relationships that they choose.
In short, the hour was spent with each candidate swearing loyalty and obeisance to the main tenets of Republican thought, and swearing that they were more loyal and obedient that the others - brown people bad, President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Democrats in general bad, and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy good.
Normally, I can watch one of these things find a candidate who, if not exactly "good", is less bad than the others, but not here. Other than Gentry's support of LGBT issues (and Gentry doesn't have a snowball's chance in Phoenix of making it through the primary), this bunch is reading from the same pages of the "more conservative than thou" playbook, a playbook that doesn't allow for candidates who will do anything for the districts that they are campaigning to "represent."
One interesting thing about the forum was something that *didn't* come up, something that could have afforded the assembled candidates the ability to separate themselves - abortion rights.
I don't know about the others, but Susan Bitter Smith has a pro-choice record.
It's the sort of thing that doesn't play well in Republican primaries. Given that the Scottsdale Republic was the sponsor of the forum, that omission may be a clue as to which candidate they plan on endorsing.
They probably don't want to undercut their preferred choice, before she even has a chance to become the nominee.
Not that I'm a cynic or anything... :)
Sunday, July 18, 2010
This week's events...
Edit on 7/20 to correct a mistake on the date of one of the events...
Most of this week's politically-focused events are candidate forums, as should be expected as we approach the day when early ballots drop for August's primary.
...The final Clean Elections primary debates will be held this week (statewide list here; legislative races here).
- Tuesday, the Republican candidates for Corporation Commission (Brenda Burns, Barry Wong, and Gary Pierce) will face off on KAET's Horizon at 7 p.m.
-Tuesday, the Republican candidates for the House in LD22 will face off from 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM at ASU Polytechnic Campus, Cooley Ballroom, 7001 E Williams Field Rd., Mesa, AZ 85212
- Wednesday, the Democratic candidates for the Corporation Commission (Renz Jennings, Jorge Luis Garcia, and David Bradley) will have their debate, also at 7 p.m. on KAET's Horizon.
- Wednesday, the Republican candidates for the House in LD30 will face off from 6:00 PM - 7:30 PM at Pima Community College East Campus, 8181 E Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ.
Edit to correct the date of the event below...
- On Thursday, July 29, as previously noted, the candidates (both R and D) will participate in a forum on arts education. The forum will take place from 5:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. at the Musical Instrument Museum, 4725 E. Mayo Blvd. , Phoenix, AZ 85050. Open to the public, registration requested.
The highlight of the week, for me anyway, will be Monday's debate between the Republican candidates in CD5. It will take place at 2 p.m. in the studio of Scottsdale's CityCable11. It isn't open to the public (no room for an audience) but it will be broadcast live with a replay at 9 p.m. In addition, it will also be replayed on July 25 at 2 p.m., 6 p.m., and 9 p.m. Note: I couldn't find any indication that the forum will be broadcast on Tempe's version of CityCable11, though it wouldn't be a surprise if it eventually makes its way to that outlet.
This forum probably won't be as popcorn-riffic as Friday's Republican Senate debate (or, apparently, Saturday's), but look for front-runners (and perennial candidates) Susan Bitter Smith and David Schweikert to spend their time cutting each other down, while the other candidates spend theirs trying to elevate themselves into the top tier by clawing into the top two.
Later...
Most of this week's politically-focused events are candidate forums, as should be expected as we approach the day when early ballots drop for August's primary.
...The final Clean Elections primary debates will be held this week (statewide list here; legislative races here).
- Tuesday, the Republican candidates for Corporation Commission (Brenda Burns, Barry Wong, and Gary Pierce) will face off on KAET's Horizon at 7 p.m.
-Tuesday, the Republican candidates for the House in LD22 will face off from 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM at ASU Polytechnic Campus, Cooley Ballroom, 7001 E Williams Field Rd., Mesa, AZ 85212
- Wednesday, the Democratic candidates for the Corporation Commission (Renz Jennings, Jorge Luis Garcia, and David Bradley) will have their debate, also at 7 p.m. on KAET's Horizon.
- Wednesday, the Republican candidates for the House in LD30 will face off from 6:00 PM - 7:30 PM at Pima Community College East Campus, 8181 E Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ.
Edit to correct the date of the event below...
- On Thursday, July 29, as previously noted, the candidates (both R and D) will participate in a forum on arts education. The forum will take place from 5:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. at the Musical Instrument Museum, 4725 E. Mayo Blvd. , Phoenix, AZ 85050. Open to the public, registration requested.
The highlight of the week, for me anyway, will be Monday's debate between the Republican candidates in CD5. It will take place at 2 p.m. in the studio of Scottsdale's CityCable11. It isn't open to the public (no room for an audience) but it will be broadcast live with a replay at 9 p.m. In addition, it will also be replayed on July 25 at 2 p.m., 6 p.m., and 9 p.m. Note: I couldn't find any indication that the forum will be broadcast on Tempe's version of CityCable11, though it wouldn't be a surprise if it eventually makes its way to that outlet.
This forum probably won't be as popcorn-riffic as Friday's Republican Senate debate (or, apparently, Saturday's), but look for front-runners (and perennial candidates) Susan Bitter Smith and David Schweikert to spend their time cutting each other down, while the other candidates spend theirs trying to elevate themselves into the top tier by clawing into the top two.
Later...
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Mitchell donates books to help a homeless shelter in Mesa
There are days when Congressman Harry Mitchell drives me nuts with some of his votes (FISA renewal from 2007 and 2008 still steams me) and positions (the feds shouldn't sue AZ over SB1070) but then there are the days when I am reminded that he is inarguably the best human being to represent Tempe and Scottsdale in Congress in, like, ever.
From ABC15.com -
I have to ask, however -
When did working to improve the lives of one's constituents become an ideological position, and when did being a decent human being become an unacceptable trait in elected officials?
Note: financial contributions to A New Leaf can be made here.
From ABC15.com -
U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell donated 130 books he obtained from the Library of Congress to a homeless shelter in Mesa Wednesday.
A New Leaf's La Mesita Family Homeless Shelter, a non-profit organization, accepted the donation at the morning event.I'm sure that his would-be challengers in the Republican primary in CD5 will decry this as a sign that Mitchell is "too liberal."
"As a former teacher, I know how important it is to make sure our youth and families have the resources and supplies necessary for learning," said Mitchell. "A quality education is a priority in our local communities, and reading helps not only improve literacy, but also build fundamental skills for the future."
I have to ask, however -
When did working to improve the lives of one's constituents become an ideological position, and when did being a decent human being become an unacceptable trait in elected officials?
Note: financial contributions to A New Leaf can be made here.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Congressman Harry Mitchell on the DISCLOSE Act
The DISCLOSE Act is the latest increment in campaign finance reform.
Mitchell's statement on the passage of the bill, and an explanation of his vote -
The bill may not be perfect, but it's a start. (Roll call vote here.)
Later...
Mitchell's statement on the passage of the bill, and an explanation of his vote -
U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell today released the following statement on H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act. Despite Mitchell's objection, the bill passed 219-206.It should be noted that while I wholeheartedly agree with the reasons that he gave for voting against the bill, I think he should have voted for it anyway.
"In January, I was disappointed, and disagreed with, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to roll back campaign finance provisions that have been set in law for over half a century - provisions which have sought to limit the role of large corporate, union and special interest money since the time of Teddy Roosevelt. Not only were these provisions supported overwhelmingly by bipartisan majorities in Congress and by Republican and Democratic Presidents, they had the support of a majority of the American people.
While I support campaign finance reform and its broader goals, I cannot support the DISCLOSE Act as it was written and amended. Ironically, as it wound its way through the House, the bill became an example of the same ugly special interest influence and backroom dealing it seeks to prevent. The House gave into special interests in order to garner enough votes for passage, and as a result, the legislation will not limit the role of all special interests equally. Instead, it creates carve-outs and exemptions for powerful, politically-favored organizations and political
advocacy groups, who account for some of the largest expenditures in modern-day political campaigns. If Congress is going to pass meaningful campaign finance reform legislation, it needs to improve the integrity of federal campaigns in a more comprehensive and equitable way. Unfortunately, this does not.
I support real campaign finance reform. As a former government teacher, I believe that we need to reduce the influence of corporations, unions and special interests in elections, and make sure that the American people have a voice, remain engaged and hold candidates and elected officials accountable. American elections should be decided by Americans, and for this to happen, there needs to be transparency and accountability in all campaign spending."
The bill may not be perfect, but it's a start. (Roll call vote here.)
Later...
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Mitchell working for the next Greatest Generation
It was a long day at work today, and tomorrow will be just as long, so only a little copy and pasting tonight...
From an email from Congressman Harry Mitchell -
Later...
From an email from Congressman Harry Mitchell -
Yesterday marked the 66th anniversary of President Franklin D. Roosevelt signing the historic GI Bill into law. The original GI Bill was one of the greatest achievements of the 20th Century in America, giving our returning veterans a strong foothold in the economy and serving as the foundation for what became known as The Greatest Generation.
As the representative of 65,000 veterans, the Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and as a former teacher, I was honored to help renew the commitment to our veterans in 2008, by introducing a new GI Bill for the 21st Century, which was signed into law the same year.
The Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act extends the education benefits to all members of the military who have served on active duty since September 11, 2001, including activated reservists and National Guard.
Specifically, under the legislation,
•Service members returning from Iraq or Afghanistan receive up to four academic years of educational benefits, including stipends for housing and books.
•Veterans have up to 15 years after they leave active duty to use their education benefits.
•Veterans can use the Yellow Ribbon GI Education Enhancement Program, in which the federal government will match, dollar for dollar, any voluntary additional contributions to veterans from institutions whose tuition is more expensive than the maximum educational assistance provided under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.This updated GI Bill is critical to strengthening the nation’s military. Not only will it helps attract high quality recruits who are interested in earning a higher education, but it will open doors for our veterans, strengthen our economy, and help military recruitment. Recently, the House Committee on Veterans Affairs reported that 233,424 veteran beneficiaries have taken advantage of the new GI Bill and have been paid to date.
I believe that we have a responsibility to serve those who bravely served us. We promised a higher education to our service members when they joined, and it is our duty to see they get it when they become veterans. The care of our veterans, servicemen and servicewomen are not just Democratic concerns or Republican concerns. They are American concerns.
To stay updated, please visit my website to learn more what I’m doing to honor those who have served us.
Sincerely,
Harry
Later...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)